North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application October 17, 2020

Prepared by:

Manchester, NH

Prepared for: City of Concord, Concord, New Hampshire Town of Pembroke, Pembroke, New Hampshire

North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

This page is intentionally left blank.

ii | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Contents

NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Wetlands Permit Application Form Wetlands Permit Application – Attachment A Supplemental Narrative 1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Site Description and Existing Conditions ...... 2 2.1 North Pembroke Road Bridge No. 183/156 ...... 2 2.2 North Pembroke Road ...... 3 3 Proposed Project Description ...... 3 4 Impact Analysis, Mitigation and Best Management Practices ...... 5 4.1 Proposed Impacts ...... 5 4.2 Mitigation and Best Management Practices ...... 6 5 Natural Resource Descriptions ...... 6 5.1 Soils ...... 7 5.2 Wetlands and Surface Waters ...... 7 5.2.1 Soucook River and Hydraulics Assessment ...... 8 5.2.2 Wetlands and Vernal Pools ...... 9 5.3 Floodplains and Floodways ...... 9 5.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ...... 10 5.4.1 State-Listed Species ...... 10 5.4.2 Federally-Listed Species ...... 11 5.5 Wildlife Action Plan ...... 13 5.6 Invasive Species ...... 13 5.7 Historical and Archaeological Resources ...... 13 6 Stream Crossings (Env-Wt 900) ...... 14 7 Literature Cited ...... 20

Figures

Figure 1 ...... USGS Location Map Figure 2 ...... NHF&G Wildlife Action Plan Ranked Habitat

Appendices

Appendix A Wetland Permitting Plans Appendix B Representative Site Photos Appendix C Wetland Description and Functions and Values Assessment Appendix D Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River Appendix E NHDES Stream Crossing Worksheet Appendix F Endangered Species Review Appendix G Brookfloater Mussel Study Report Appendix H Section 106 Cultural Resources Memorandum of Effect

October 17, 2020 | iii North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Appendix I Tax Maps and Abutter Information Appendix J Appendix B New Hampshire General Permits (GPs) Required Information and Corps Secondary Impacts Checklist and Supplemental Narrative Appendix K NHB and NHF&G Correspondence Appendix L Construction Sequence Narrative

iv | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

List of Acronyms

BMP Best Management Practice BOE Bureau of Environment ESA Endangered Species Act ESI Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration GP General Permit gpm gallons per minute HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation NHB New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation NHF&G New Hampshire Fish and Game Department NHI Northstar Hydro, Inc. NLEB northern long-eared bat NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetland Inventory MSL mean-sea-level USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RPR Request for Project Review RSA Revised Statutes Annotated SAV submerged aquatic vegetation SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TES TES Environmental Consultants, LLC WAP Wildlife Action Plan

October 17, 2020 | v North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

This page is intentionally left blank.

vi | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Wetlands Permit Application Form

October 17, 2020 | 1

NHDES‐W‐06‐012

STANDARD DREDGE AND FILL WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION Water Division/Land Resources Management Wetlands Bureau Check the Status of your Application

RSA/Rule: RSA 482‐A/Env‐Wt 100‐900 APPLICANT’S NAME: City of Concord TOWN NAME: Concord & Pembroke

File No.:

Administrative Administrative Administrative Check No.: Use Use Use Only Only Only Amount:

Initials:

A person may request a waiver of the requirements in Rules Env‐Wt 100‐900 to accommodate situations where strict adherence to the requirements would not be in the best interest of the public or the environment but is still in compliance with RSA 482‐A. A person may also request a waiver of the standards for existing dwellings over water pursuant to RSA 482‐A:26, III(b). For more information, please consult the Waiver Request Form. SECTION 1 ‐ REQUIRED PLANNING FOR ALL PROJECTS (Env‐Wt 306.05; RSA 482‐A:3, I(d)(2)) Please use the Wetland Permit Planning Tool (WPPT), the Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) DataCheck Tool, the Aquatic Restoration Mapper, or other sources to assist in identifying key features such as: priority resource areas (PRAs), protected species or habitats, coastal areas, designated rivers, or designated prime wetlands. Has the required planning been completed? Yes No Does the property contain a PRA? If yes, provide the following information: Yes No  Does the project qualify for an Impact Classification Adjustment (e.g. NH Fish and Game Department (NHF&G) and NHB agreement for a classification downgrade) or a Project‐Type Yes No Exception (e.g. Maintenance or Statutory Permit‐by‐Notification (SPN) project)? See Env‐Wt 407.02 and Env‐Wt 407.04.  Protected species or habitat? o If yes, species or habitat name(s): Brook Floater; Wild Lupine Yes No o NHB Project ID #: NHB20‐1607  Bog? Yes No

 Floodplain wetland contiguous to a tier 3 or higher watercourse? Yes No

 Designated prime wetland or duly‐established 100‐foot buffer? Yes No

 Sand dune, tidal wetland, tidal water, or undeveloped tidal buffer zone? Yes No

Is the property within a Designated River corridor? If yes, provide the following information: Yes No  Name of Local River Management Advisory Committee (LAC):  A copy of the application was sent to the LAC on Month: Day: Year: [email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2020‐05 Page 1 of 7 NHDES‐W‐06‐012

For dredging projects, is the subject property contaminated? Yes No  If yes, list contaminant:

Is there potential to impact impaired waters, class A waters, or outstanding resource waters? Yes No

For stream crossing projects, provide watershed size (see WPPT or Stream Stats): 82.7 square miles SECTION 2 ‐ PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Env‐Wt 311.04(i)) Provide a brief description of the project and the purpose of the project, outlining the scope of work to be performed and whether impacts are temporary or permanent. DO NOT reply “See attached"; please use the space provided below. The City of Concord and the Town of Pembroke are proposing to replace the North Pembroke Road Bridge that crosses over the Soucook River in Concord and Pembroke, NH. The project includes a complete bridge replacement on the existing roadway alignment under a full bridge closure. The replacement structure is a single span prestressed concrete box beam bridge on the existing bridge alignment utilizing a traffic detour. Steeper side slopes will be utilized to match existing grade within the right of way to the south and without impacting wetlands to the north. Only 26 sq. ft. of permanent bed impacts are required to complete the bridge replacement project. Please refer to the attached Supplemental Narrative and Appendices for more information.

SECTION 3 ‐ PROJECT LOCATION Separate wetland permit applications must be submitted for each municipality within which wetland impacts occur. ADDRESS: North Pembroke Road Bridge TOWN/CITY: Concord & Pembroke TAX MAP/BLOCK/LOT/UNIT: N/A US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) TOPO MAP WATERBODY NAME: Soucook River N/A (Optional) LATITUDE/LONGITUDE in decimal degrees (to five decimal places): 43.21333° North 71.48027° West

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2020‐05 Page 2 of 7 NHDES‐W‐06‐012

SECTION 4 ‐ APPLICANT (DESIRED PERMIT HOLDER) INFORMATION (Env‐Wt 311.04(a)) If the applicant is a trust or a company, then complete with the trust or company information. NAME: David Cedarholm, City Engineer MAILING ADDRESS: Eng. Services Division, City Hall, 41 Green Street TOWN/CITY: Concord STATE: NH ZIP CODE: 03301 EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] FAX: PHONE: (603) 230‐3614

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION: By initialing here: DC, I hereby authorize NHDES to communicate all matters relative to this application electronically. SECTION 5 ‐ AUTHORIZED AGENT INFORMATION (Env‐Wt 311.04(c)) N/A LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, M.I.: French, Thomas A COMPANY NAME: HDR Enginerring, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 250 Commercial St., Suite 3007 TOWN/CITY: Manchester STATE: NH ZIP CODE: 03101 EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] FAX: PHONE: 603‐391‐0856

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION: By initialing here TAF, I hereby authorize NHDES to communicate all matters relative to this application electronically. SECTION 6 ‐ PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT) (Env‐Wt 311.04(b)) If the owner is a trust or a company, then complete with the trust or company information. Same as applicant

NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TOWN/CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: EMAIL ADDRESS: FAX: PHONE:

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 2020‐05 Page 3 of 7 NHDES‐W‐06‐012

SECTION 7 ‐ RESOURCE‐SPECIFIC CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN Env‐Wt 400, Env‐Wt 500, Env‐Wt 600, Env‐Wt 700, OR Env‐Wt 900 HAVE BEEN MET (Env‐Wt 313.01(a)(3)) Describe how the resource‐specific criteria have been met for each chapter listed above (please attach information about stream crossings, coastal resources, prime wetlands, or non‐tidal wetlands and surface waters): The bridge repair work will be limited to the existing legal crossing and is not for a temporary tier 3 stream crossing. The replacement activities will meet the general criteria specified in Env‐Wt 904.01, will slighty increase the existing hydraulic capacity of the crossing, will maintain aquatic organism passage, and will not cause or contribute to an increase in the frequncy of flooding or overtopping of the banks either upstream or downstream of the crossing. The project has minimal impact on the jurisdictional areas at the site. Erosion controls will be installed (as appropriate) before construction and maintained until the area has been stabilized. The project has been designed to have minimal impacts to the bed and banks of the Soucook River. The project plans include exisiting and proposed topography and show the location of adjacent property owners. The site was investigated for jurisdictional wetland resources on October 14, 2017 by TES Environmental Consultants, LLC and resources identifed as part of that investigation are shown on the project plans. A hydrologic, hydraulic and scour analysis was also prepared for the site in accordance with the NHDOT Bridge Design Manual, the NH Stream Crossing Rules, and the NHDES Stream Crossing Guidelines. See attached Narrative and Appendices for additional information.

SECTION 8 ‐ AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION Impacts within wetland jurisdiction must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable (Env‐Wt 313.03(a)).* Any project with unavoidable jurisdictional impacts must then be minimized as described in the Wetlands Best Management Practice Techniques For Avoidance and Minimization and the Wetlands Permitting: Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Fact Sheet. For minor or major projects, a functional assessment of all wetlands on the project site is required (Env‐Wt 311.03(b)(10)).* Please refer to the application checklist to ensure you have attached all documents related to avoidance and minimization, as well as functional assessment (where applicable). Use the Avoidance and Minimization Checklist, the Avoidance and Minimization Narrative, or your own avoidance and minimization narrative. *See Env‐Wt 311.03(b)(6) and Env‐Wt 311.03(b)(10) for shoreline structure exemptions.

SECTION 9 ‐ MITIGATION REQUIREMENT (Env‐Wt 311.02) If unavoidable jurisdictional impacts require mitigation, a mitigation pre‐application meeting must occur at least 30 days but not more than 90 days prior to submitting this Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application. Mitigation Pre‐Application Meeting Date: Month: Day: Year: ( N/A ‐ Mitigation is not required) SECTION 10 ‐ THE PROJECT MEETS COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (Env‐Wt 313.01(a)(1)c) Confirm that you have submitted a compensatory mitigation proposal that meets the requirements of Env‐Wt 800 for all permanent unavoidable impacts that will remain after avoidance and minimization techniques have been exercised to the maximum extent practicable: I confirm submittal. ( N/A – Compensatory mitigation is not required)

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2020‐05 Page 4 of 7 NHDES‐W‐06‐012

SECTION 11 ‐ IMPACT AREA (Env‐Wt 311.04(g)) For each jurisdictional area that will be/has been impacted, provide square feet (SF) and, if applicable, linear feet (LF) of impact, and note whether the impact is after‐the‐fact (ATF; i.e., work was started or completed without a permit). For intermittent and ephemeral streams, the linear footage of impact is measured along the thread of the channel. Please note, installation of a stream crossing in an ephemeral stream may be undertaken without a permit per Rule Env‐Wt 309.02(d), however other dredge or fill impacts should be included below. For perennial streams/rivers, the linear footage of impact is calculated by summing the lengths of disturbances to the channel and banks. Permanent impacts are impacts that will remain after the project is complete (e.g., changes in grade or surface materials). Temporary impacts are impacts not intended to remain (and will be restored to pre‐construction conditions) after the project is completed. PERMANENT TEMPORARY JURISDICTIONAL AREA SF LF ATF SF LF ATF Forested Wetland Scrub‐shrub Wetland

Emergent Wetland Wet Meadow

Wetlands Vernal Pool Designated Prime Wetland Duly‐established 100‐foot Prime Wetland Buffer

Intermittent / Ephemeral Stream Perennial Stream or River 26 9 1320 130 Water Lake / Pond Docking ‐ Lake / Pond

Surface Docking ‐ River

Bank ‐ Intermittent Stream 80 10 Bank ‐ Perennial Stream / River

Banks Bank / Shoreline ‐ Lake / Pond Tidal Waters Tidal Marsh Sand Dune

Tidal Undeveloped Tidal Buffer Zone (TBZ) Previously‐developed TBZ Docking ‐ Tidal Water TOTAL 26 9 1400 140 SECTION 12 ‐ APPLICATION FEE (RSA 482‐A:3, I) MINIMUM IMPACT FEE: Flat fee of $400. NON‐ENFORCEMENT RELATED, PUBLICLY‐FUNDED AND SUPERVISED RESTORATION PROJECTS, REGARDLESS OF IMPACT CLASSIFICATION: Flat fee of $400 (refer to RSA 482‐A:3, 1(c) for restrictions). MINOR OR MAJOR IMPACT FEE: Calculate using the table below: $ Permanent and temporary (non‐docking): 1426 SF × $0.40 = 570.40 Seasonal docking structure: SF × $2.00 = $ Permanent docking structure: SF × $4.00 = $ Projects proposing shoreline structures (including docks) add $400 = $ $ Total = 570.40 [email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2020‐05 Page 5 of 7 NHDES‐W‐06‐012

$ The application fee for minor or major impact is the above calculated total or $400, whichever is greater = 570.40 SECTION 13 ‐ PROJECT CLASSIFICATION (Env‐Wt 306.05) Indicate the project classification.

Minimum Impact Project Minor Project Major Project

SECTION 14 ‐ REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS (Env‐Wt 311.11) Initial each box below to certify: Initials:

To the best of the signer’s knowledge and belief, all required notifications have been provided. TAF

Initials: The information submitted on or with the application is true, complete, and not misleading to the best of the TAF signer’s knowledge and belief.

The signer understands that:  The submission of false, incomplete, or misleading information constitutes grounds for NHDES to: 1. Deny the application. 2. Revoke any approval that is granted based on the information. Initials: 3. If the signer is a certified wetland scientist, licensed surveyor, or professional engineer licensed to practice in New Hampshire, refer the matter to the joint board of licensure and certification established by RSA 310‐A:1. TAF  The signer is subject to the penalties specified in New Hampshire law for falsification in official matters, currently RSA 641.  The signature shall constitute authorization for the municipal conservation commission and the Department to inspect the site of the proposed project, except for minimum impact forestry SPN projects and minimum impact trail projects, where the signature shall authorize only the Department to inspect the site pursuant to RSA 482‐A:6, II. Initials: If the applicant is not the owner of the property, each property owner signature shall constitute certification by TAF the signer that he or she is aware of the application being filed and does not object to the filing.

SECTION 15 ‐ REQUIRED SIGNATURES (Env‐Wt 311.04(d); Env‐Wt 311.11) SIGNATURE (OWNER): PRINT NAME LEGIBLY: DATE: ______SIGNATURE (APPLICANT, IF DIFFERENT FROM OWNER): PRINT NAME LEGIBLY: DATE: ______SIGNATURE (AGENT, IF APPLICABLE): PRINT NAME LEGIBLY: DATE: ______Thomas A. French, PE 3/1/2021 SECTION 16 ‐ TOWN / CITY CLERK SIGNATURE (Env‐Wt 311.04(f)) As required by RSA 482‐A:3, I(a)(1), 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: ______

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2020‐05 Page 6 of 7 NHDES‐W‐06‐012

TOWN/CITY: DATE:

DIRECTIONS FOR TOWN/CITY CLERK: Per RSA 482‐A:3, I(a)(1) 1. IMMEDIATELY sign the original application form and four copies in the signature space provided above. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Retain one copy of the application form and one complete set of attachments and make them reasonably accessible for public review.

DIRECTIONS FOR APPLICANT: Submit the 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 at the address at the bottom of this page. Make check or money order payable to “Treasurer – State of NH”.

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2020‐05 Page 7 of 7

North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Wetlands Permit Application – Attachment A

October 17, 2020 | 1

NHDES‐W‐06‐013

STANDARD DREDGE AND FILL WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHMENT A: MINOR AND MAJOR PROJECTS Water Division/Land Resources Management Wetlands Bureau Check the Status of your Application

RSA/ Rule: RSA 482‐A/ Env‐Wt 311.10; Env‐Wt 313.01(a)(1); Env‐Wt 313.03 APPLICANT LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, M.I.: Cedarholm, David Attachment A can be used to satisfy some of the additional requirements for minor and major projects regarding avoidance and minimization, as well as functional assessment. PART I: AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION In accordance with Env‐Wt 313.03(a), the Department shall not approve any alteration of any jurisdictional area unless the applicant demonstrates that the potential impacts to jurisdictional areas have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable and that any unavoidable impacts have been minimized, as described in the Wetlands Best Management Practice Techniques For Avoidance and Minimization.

SECTION I.I ‐ ALTERNATIVES (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(1)) Describe how there is no practicable alternative that would have a less adverse impact on the area and environments under the Department’s jurisdiction.

THE GOAL OF THE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR THE PROJECT WAS TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVES THAT RETURN THE CROSSING TO A SERVICEABLE AND FUNCTIONAL CONDITION WITH AN ACCEPTABLE LIVE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY. THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPACTS TO PROVIDE A STRUCTURE WITH A REASONABLY LOW MAINTENANCE AND A 75‐100 YEAR SERVICE LIFE. THE ALTERNATIVE SELECTED FOR THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A NEW PRESTRESSED BOX BEAM BRIDGE, WITH TRAFFIC DETOURED AROUND THE WORK SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE CONTAINED THE LEAST IMPACTS TO WETLANDS AND SLOPES ADJACENT TO THE SOUCOOK RIVER. ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR THE PROJECT INCLUDED SOME FORM OF WATER DIVERSION AND WORK WITHIN THE SOUCOOK RIVER. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD HAVE LESS IMPACT TO SURFACE WATERS AND WETLANDS WOULD BE THE NO‐BUILD ALTERNATIVE, WHICH WOULD NOT ADDRESS THE DETERIORATING CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE AND WOULD LEAD TO THE EVENTUAL CLOSURE OF THE BRIDGE. FULL REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGE WAS PRESENTED AS THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IN THE ENGINEERING STUDY PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF CONCORD IN 2018.

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2019‐12‐11 Page 1 of 6 NHDES‐W‐06‐013

SECTION I.II ‐ MARSHES (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(2)) Describe how the project avoids and minimizes impacts to tidal marshes and non‐tidal marshes where documented to provide sources of nutrients for finfish, crustacea, shellfish and wildlife of significant value.

The selected alternative proposes to construct the replacement bridge online with the existing road, and detours traffic approximately 6 miles around the site. This option keeps construction mainly on the existing roadway and allows construction activities to progress uninterrupted, thus shortening the construction schedule. No impacts to non‐tidal marshes are proposed by the project as wetlands located in the vicinity of the project are dominated by Palustrine, Forested, Broad‐leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded (PFO1C) wetlands. As proposed, the project will not impede sources of nutrients for finfish, crustacea, shellfish, or significant wildlife species.

SECTION I.III – HYDROLOGIC CONNECTION (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(3)) Describe how the project maintains hydrologic connections between adjacent wetland or stream systems.

Watercourse connectivity will be improved by removal of the existing bridge piers. The proposed project will maintain hydrologic connections between adjacent wetlands and the Soucook River. Wetlands (i.e. submerged aquatic vegetation and the streambed of the Soucook River) in the vicinity of the bridge will be minimally impacted during the construction of the online bridge alternative. All temporary wetland impacts will be returned to their original condition using local materials. In general, the proposed project to replace the North Pembroke Road bridge would not be expected to cause any degradation of the functions and values associated with the river and adjacent wetlands. Continued unrestricted passage of flows, sediments, and movement of fish and wildlife through the area will continue as under the present conditions and will likely be enhanced as a result of the proposed project.

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2019‐12‐11 Page 2 of 6 NHDES‐W‐06‐013

SECTION I.IV ‐ JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(4)) Describe how the project avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands and other areas of jurisdiction under RSA 482‐A, especially those in which there are exemplary natural communities, vernal pools, protected species and habitat, documented fisheries, and habitat and reproduction areas for species of concern, or any combination thereof.

A search for the occurrence of rare plant, animal, or natural communities within the vicinity of the proposed project was completed using the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau’s (NHB) online Datacheck tool. A project report provided by the NHB, dated June 15, 2020, indicated that there are five recorded occurrences for sensitive species within or in the vicinity to the project area. These five species include the brook floater mussel, wild lupine, eastern hognose snake, northern black racer, and the wood turtle. According to the NHB project report (File No. NHB20‐1607), the mapped occurrences of rare plant or animal species nearest to the project area include wild lupine located on the western side of the North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River in the vicinity of the project area as well as mapped brook floater mussel habitat within the project area. No work is proposed in the area associated with wild lupine and no laydown or other potential to impact the threatened plant species present in this area will be allowed. Refer to Appendix F, Endangered Species Review, for the NHB report. Additionally, the NHB project report provided a mapped occurrence of the brook floater mussel as occurring within the project area. Accordingly, a brook floater mussel survey was conducted in the project area in accordance with the approved study plan by New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G). The study methods and results are described in detail in the Brook Floater Mussel Study Report (SWCA 2020) which was provided to NHF&G on October 2, 2020 as Appendix G. 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 USFWS’ Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System. Results dated June 3, 2020 indicated northern long‐eared bat, karner blue butterfly, and small whorled pogonia may occur within the vicinity of the project (refer to Appendix F).

SECTION I.V ‐ PUBLIC COMMERCE, NAVIGATION, OR RECREATION (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(5)) Describe how the project avoids and minimizes impacts that eliminate, depreciate or obstruct public commerce, navigation, or recreation.

The proposed bridge replacement project will improve the safety of vehicles traveling over the North Pembroke Road Bridge. During replacement of the bridge it is expected to be closed for approximately four months. Traffic will use a six mile detour for the duration of the bridge replacement project. 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. The detour has the potential to impact businesses on the Pembroke approach, including a gravel pit and a greenhouse. These businesses would be most impacted by a road closure during the summer months. To mitigate this impact, the road closure is expected to occur during winter months. This portion of the Soucook River is not known as a significant recreational area for kayaking or canoeing, therefore no recreational impacts to these forms of recreation are expected during project construction. The area under the bridge on the east bank is known to be used for fishing on ocassion, however, considering the other fishing opportunities in the general project area, it is expected that impacts to recreational fisherman using this area would be considered minor and for a relatively short duration.

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2019‐12‐11 Page 3 of 6 NHDES‐W‐06‐013

SECTION I.VI ‐ FLOODPLAIN WETLANDS (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(6)) Describe how the project avoids and minimizes impacts to floodplain wetlands that provide flood storage.

The project does not impact floodplain wetlands and will not negatively impact flood storage. The replacement bridge has been designed to pass the 100‐year frequency flood. The replacement bridge will increase the hydraulic opening and remove the existing piers from the waterway, which will improve flow characteristics. Flood storage will not be impacted by the project.

SECTION I.VII ‐ RIVERINE FORESTED WETLAND SYSTEMS AND SCRUB‐SHRUB –MARSH COMPLEXES (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(7)) Describe how the project avoids and minimizes impacts to natural riverine forested wetland systems and scrub‐shrub – marsh complexes of high ecological integrity.

The project does not impact natural riverine forested wetland systems and scrub‐shrub marsh complexes of high ecological integrity.

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2019‐12‐11 Page 4 of 6 NHDES‐W‐06‐013

SECTION I.VIII ‐ DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND GROUNDWATER AQUIFER LEVELS (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(8)) Describe how the project avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands that would be detrimental to adjacent drinking water supply and groundwater aquifer levels.

The project does not impact any wetlands that would be detrimental to adjacent drinking water supply and groundwater aquifer levels. No changes in overland sheet flow will occur as a result of the bridge replacement project. Temporary water quality best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to protect water quality during construction. A hydraulic study (Appendix D ‐ Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River) was undertaken that demonstrates that the bridge will not result in any increase in Base Flood Elevations.

SECTION I.IX ‐ STREAM CHANNELS (Env‐Wt 313.03(b)(9)) Describe how the project avoids and minimizes adverse impacts to stream channels and the ability of such channels to handle runoff of waters.

The project has been designed to minimize adverse impacts to stream channels to the greatest extent as possible. Sandbag or equivalent cofferdams will be used along the western and eastern bridge abutments to control river inflow during removal of the existing bridge piers. Dewatering is not anticipated for construction of the abutments. Dewatering will be accomplished so that no heavy silt‐laden water flows into the Soucook River. Water will be pumped into a filter bag(s) and/or settling basin in the upland areas next to the bridge. This will confine suspended particulates and decrease potential for turbidity releases in the river. Conveyance through the Soucook River will be maintained throughout construction. Permanent and temporary impacts to the bed of the Soucook River will result from cofferdam impacts, pier removal, installation of required riprap for bank stabilization, and grading activities. Additionally, no changes in overland sheet flow will occur as a result of the bridge replacement project. A hydraulic study (Appendix D ‐ Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River) was undertaken that demonstrates that the bridge will not result in any increase in Base Flood Elevations and the project would not change the ability of the Soucook River to handle runoff waters.

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2019‐12‐11 Page 5 of 6 NHDES‐W‐06‐013

PART II: FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

REQUIREMENTS Ensure that project meets requirements of Env‐Wt 311.10 regarding functional assessment (Env‐Wt 311.04(j); Env‐Wt 311.10). FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT METHOD USED: A wetland functional assessment prepared by a certified wetland scientist was performed for the site in accordance with the USACE New England District Highway Method Workbook Supplement and is included as Appendix C.

NAME OF CERTIFIED WETLAND SCIENTIST (FOR NON‐TIDAL PROJECTS) OR QUALIFIED COASTAL PROFESSIONAL (FOR TIDAL PROJECTS) WHO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT: THOMAS SOKOLOSKI, CERTIFIED WETLANDS SCIENTIST #127 OF TES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC DATE OF ASSESSMENT: OCTOBER 14, 2017

Check this box to confirm that the application includes a NARRATIVE ON FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT: For minor or major projects requiring a standard permit without mitigation, the applicant shall submit a wetland evaluation report that includes completed checklists and information demonstrating the RELATIVE FUNCTIONS AND VALUES OF EACH WETLAND EVALUATED. Check this box to confirm that the application includes this information, if applicable:

Note: The Wetlands Functional Assessment worksheet can be used to compile the information needed to meet functional assessment requirements.

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov 2019‐12‐11 Page 6 of 6 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Supplemental Narrative

October 17, 2020 | 1 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

1 Introduction

On behalf of the City of Concord and Town of Pembroke, New Hampshire, this Standard Dredge and Fill Wetlands Permit Application was prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) pursuant to the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) Chapter 482- A, Fill and Dredge in Wetlands, and Wetland Bureau Code of Administrative Rules, Chapters Env-Wt 100 through Env-Wt 900. Since this project involves the replacement of a Tier 3 stream crossing, this project is being submitted as a Major Project according to Env-Wt 903.01(g)(3).

2 Site Description and Existing Conditions 2.1 North Pembroke Road Bridge No. 183/156

North Pembroke Road Bridge is located approximately 0.2 mile east of the Route 106 (Sheep Davis Road) and Pembroke Road intersection in Concord, New Hampshire along Pembroke Road (see Figure 1, USGS Location Map). The North Pembroke Road Bridge (Bridge No. 183/156: North Pembroke Road over Soucook River) was originally constructed in 1959. The bridge is a three-span, 112’ long steel stringer bridge with non- composite concrete deck on pile-supported piers and abutments. The substructure components are skewed 8° off of square with respect to the roadway. The bridge is jointly owned by the City of Concord and the Town of Pembroke. Refer to Appendix A, Wetland Permitting Plans and Appendix B, Representative Site Photos, for additional information about the site.

The structure has both functional and structural inadequacies including:

 “E-2” Load Posting, which restricts traffic over the bridge to legal loads only;

 20’-0” roadway width with no shoulders;

 Substandard bridge rail, transition rail, approach rail, and terminal units;

 Deteriorated steel components including beam ends, bearings, and bridge rail;

 Spalling and cracking of concrete deck;

 Failing bridge joint;

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Bridge Inventory status of “Functionally Obsolete”; and

 FHWA Sufficiency rating of 56.1%.

2 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

2.2 North Pembroke Road

North Pembroke Road is a major collector road running primarily east-west. It begins at the intersection of NH Route 106 and Pembroke Road, in Concord, in the west and runs approximately 5.9 miles to the intersection with NH Route 28, in Pembroke, in the east. The road crosses into Epsom for nearly 1 mile close to its eastern terminus. Bridge 183/156 is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection with NH Route 106, on the town line between Concord and Pembroke.

In the vicinity of the project site, North Pembroke Road begins at a signalized intersection with NH Route 106. The road runs southeasterly tangent for approximately 200’ as it leaves the intersection, then turns east towards the bridge down a 10% grade. The road is tangent and relatively flat across the bridge, then turns northeast away from the bridge while rising at a 7% grade.

Within the proposed project limits, North Pembroke Road has a pavement width that varies from 24’ (2 - 11’ lanes with 2 - 1’ paved shoulders) on the Concord approach to 20’ (2 - 10’ lanes) across the bridge to 22’ (2 – 11’ lanes with no paved shoulder) on the Pembroke approach. Substandard steel beam guardrail can be found on both sides of the roadway and on both approaches. Dilapidated steel cable guardrail can be found on both sides of the Pembroke approach.

3 Proposed Project Description

The City of Concord and the Town of Pembroke jointly propose to replace Bridge No. 183/156 which carries North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River. The replacement structure is expected to improve the sufficiency rating and to resolve both functional and structural inadequacies found at the existing bridge.

Overall, the proposed project includes the following:

 Construct the replacement bridge on-alignment with a single-span pre-stressed butted box beam bridge with a 120’-0” span and 33’-0” out-to-out width, on-line under a full bridge closure. This keeps construction mainly on the existing roadway and allows construction activities to progress uninterrupted, thus shortening the construction schedule.

 Removal of the existing bridge piers from within the Soucook River. Following removal, the areas of the bridge piers will be filled with in-kind streambed material and will be graded to match existing conditions.

 The abutments are supported on a single row of vertical and battered H-piles. Straight-extension wingwalls cantilever from the abutment seat to retain the approach roadway.

October 17, 2020 | 3 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

 The existing bridge will be removed to a depth of two feet below proposed ground. The existing steel piles will be cut off and the remainder will be left in place.

 Required grading in the Soucook River will be restored to approximate the existing channel shape and elevations. Scour protection for the proposed bridge was designed in accordance with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) criteria and FHWA Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23 (HEC 23), and consists of a two-foot thickness of Class III Riprap.

 North Pembroke Road will be closed to remove the existing bridge and construct the proposed bridge. Construction access will be from either end of the bridge site, with most access anticipated from the west approach from NH Route 106.

 It is anticipated that the pre-stressed concrete box beams will be delivered to the west roadway approach. Working area is limited at the site and it is unlikely a single crane will be used to place the beams. Two cranes are expected, one behind each abutment. A solution for narrow working areas such as this is to use temporary steel beams to span over the waterway and slide the box beams along the top of the temporary beams until each end of the beam is within the working limits of the cranes. After the beams are set, the temporary steel girders will be removed, with no permanent impacts.

 Rock-lined 1.5:1 slopes (2-feet Class B) are proposed on both approaches to minimize slope impacts and clearing limits on adjacent properties.

 On the western approach, existing superelevated cross slopes will transition to a maximum bank of approximately 6.6% and then transition back to normal crown just prior to the bridge. On the eastern approach, a normal crown is proposed across the structure and will transition back to existing cross slopes prior to a driveway/intersection.

 It is expected that all permanent work including any required utility relocations will be completed within the public right-of-way or on Town-Owned lands (with the exception of a guardrail easement on the western approach to construct guardrail terminals at the driveway).

All work to replace the bridge is to be done in the dry. Contract Provisions will require the contractor to provide a demolition plan for the deck removal. The plan will require the contractor to contain and dispose of concrete slurry and spoils off-site. No concrete slurry (if required) or spoils will be permitted to enter jurisdictional areas.

In order to facilitate the removal of the existing bridge piers the contractor will construct temporary sandbag cofferdams or equivalent. Dewatering of the area within the cofferdams will be necessary. Dewatering will be accomplished so that no heavy silt- laden water flows into the Soucook River. Water will be pumped into a filter bag(s) and/or settling basin in the upland areas next to the bridge.

4 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Prior to any on-site construction work, the contractor will be required to prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must follow NHDOT Specifications.

After all work is complete all disturbed areas will be reestablished in kind.

The proposed work for the bridge replacement is depicted on the Wetland Permitting Plans as Appendix A.

4 Impact Analysis, Mitigation and Best Management Practices

Below is a description of the proposed impacts for the replacement activities associated with the North Pembroke Road Bridge located along North Pembroke Road, followed by a description of proposed mitigation for the replacement activities. 4.1 Proposed Impacts

Only 26 sq. ft./9 linear feet of permanent bed impacts are required to complete the project, consisting of the installation of riprap for bank stabilization along the west bank of the Soucook River (see Appendix A). Additionally, approximately 120 sq. ft./60 linear ft. of temporary bed impacts associated with the removal of the bridge piers, approximately 1,200 sq. ft./70 linear feet of temporary bed impacts associated with cofferdam enclosed access areas, approximately 80 sq. ft./10 linear feet of temporary bank impacts associated with clearing activities, and approximately 130 sq. ft. of temporary impact to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are proposed to occur in order to conduct the bridge replacement activities. Sandbag or equivalent cofferdams will be used along the western and eastern bridge abutments to control river inflow to allow removal of the existing bridge piers (see Appendix A). Temporary impacts to areas of SAV located in the vicinity of the existing bridge piers may result from removal of the piers. It is anticipated that the cofferdams will extend to the ordinary high water elevation on each bank and will be no more than five-feet high. Conveyance through the Soucook River will be maintained throughout construction. Temporary impacts to the bed of the Soucook River will result from the construction of the cofferdams, removal of the existing bridge piers, and grading activities.

The water quality of the Soucook River will be maintained throughout the duration of the proposed project. Erosion control measures will be installed as shown on the Wetland Permitting Plans included in Appendix A and as defined in the approved SWPPP. The contractor will be directed to contain concrete fragments and uncured concrete from impacting the river while the replacement structure activities are being completed. Dewatering of the area within the cofferdams will be necessary. Dewatering will be accomplished so that no heavy silt-laden water flows into the Soucook River. Water will be pumped into a filter bag(s) and/or settling basin in the upland areas next to the bridge. This will confine suspended particulates and decrease potential for turbidity releases in the river. The captured sediment and filter bag(s) will be removed following dewatering

October 17, 2020 | 5 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

operations. Dewatering is anticipated to be accomplished by the use of submersible pumps placed in between the existing abutments and the cofferdams. It is anticipated that the pumps will require a capacity of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) or less and include a backflow preventer valve. The contractor will relocate any stranded fish and other species from the cofferdam-dewatered areas back into the Soucook River.

Ground disturbance will also occur along the western and eastern banks in the vicinity of the abutments, as well as along North Pembroke Road within the project limits. Perimeter controls, such as hay bale barriers or equivalent will be installed as applicable and will be maintained between work areas and jurisdictional boundaries until the disturbed area is stabilized. Riprap will be replaced along the western and eastern abutments to stabilize these areas back to pre-construction conditions. Riprap is also proposed on both approaches to minimize slope impacts and clearing limits on adjacent properties (see Appendix A).

Refer to the Wetland Permitting Plans included in Appendix A for a break-out of temporary and permanent bed, temporary bank, and temporary wetland (SAV) impacts. 4.2 Mitigation and Best Management Practices

No compensatory mitigation is proposed for the project since only 26 sq. ft. of permanent bed impacts are proposed. Since some impacts are unavoidable, minimization of impacts are proposed by limiting the work area to the greatest extent possible. BMPs as described above will be utilized as necessary. These include the installation/application of general erosion and sediment control BMPs, debris containment, and dewatering. Refer to the Wetland Permitting Plans included in Appendix A for further information.

The storage of any fuels and/or lubricants, if required, will be located as far away as possible from the Soucook River and are the responsibility of the construction contractor. All refueling and equipment maintenance activities shall be performed as far away as possible from the Soucook River. No refueling or storage of construction equipment will be allowed within the Soucook River. Any necessary on-site fueling of equipment and vehicles will likely be performed using a portable fuel tank. Any fueling operations will be continuously observed and spill kits will be readily available on-site. Any spillage or overfill will be removed immediately. All major vehicle and equipment maintenance will be performed off-site. Drip pans will be utilized for routine maintenance and/or repairs required to be performed onsite.

5 Natural Resource Descriptions

The following is a description of the existing site conditions, wetlands and surface waters, floodplains and floodways, and rare, threatened, and endangered species that occur within the vicinity of proposed project area. In addition to the temporary and permanent impacts within the bed of the Soucook River, and the temporary bank impacts to the Soucook River, temporary impacts are also proposed within areas of SAV located on the northern and southern sides of the Bridge No. 183/156.

6 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

5.1 Soils

Based on review of soils information for the project area (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]/Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2019), virtually all of the soils in the project area are mapped as 2A (Suncook loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded). These soils are typically found on floodplains with parent material dominated by sandy and/or coarse-loamy alluvium derived from granite, gneiss or schist. The soils are excessively drained, have a depth to a restrictive layer of more than 80 inches, are in hydrologic soil group A, and are not rated as hydric (USDA/NRCS 2019).

In the western portion of the project area along North Pembroke Road, the soils mapped adjacent to the road consist of 26E (Windsor loamy sand, 15 to 60 percent slopes). These soils are typically found on deltas, dunes, outwash plains, and outwash terraces with parent material dominated by loose sandy glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite and/or loose sandy glaciofluvial deposits derived from schist and/or loose sandy glaciofluvial deposits derived from gneiss. The soils are excessively drained, have a depth to a restrictive layer of more than 80 inches, are in hydrologic soil group A, and are not rated as hydric (USDA/NRCS 2019).

The Soil Survey of Merrimack County does not depict wetland soils in the vicinity of the North Pembroke Road Bridge. Field observation of the soils within the wetlands at the site (discussed below) conducted by TES Environmental Consultants, LLC (TES) indicates that they are poorly drained mineral soils similar to the Rippowam soil series (TES 2017) (see Appendix C). 5.2 Wetlands and Surface Waters

The 29.2-mile-long Soucook River begins at the outlet of Rocky Pond on the border between the towns of Canterbury and Loudon. The river flows south through gently rolling terrain, soon entering Loudon village, crosses a small dam, and continues south along a rapidly developing suburban corridor on the outskirts of Concord, New Hampshire. The river forms the boundary between Concord and Pembroke and ends at the Merrimack River downstream from Garvins Falls (Five Rivers Conservation Trust undated). The Soucook River is not a designated river under the New Hampshire River Management and Protection Act (RSA 483).

An on-site investigation was performed by TES on October 14, 2017 to delineate the boundaries of wetlands in the vicinity of the North Pembroke Road Bridge and to observe the characteristics of the wetlands and the upland portion of the surroundings. The wetland delineation was performed according to the standards of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region, Version 2.0 (January 2012). The observations made during this field effort, along with other published information, formed the basis for the wetland functional assessment conducted for the project. The limit of wetland boundaries were marked in the field using alphanumerically coded flagging tape affixed to vegetation. The jurisdictional top-of-bank of the Soucook River was also marked in the field using alpha-numerically coded flagging tape affixed to vegetation.

October 17, 2020 | 7 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

5.2.1 Soucook River and Hydraulics Assessment

North Pembroke Road Bridge Crossing (Bridge No. 183/156)

The classification of the Soucook River, in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979), is Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand, Permanently Flooded, R2UB2H) (TES 2017). The Soucook River at the bridge crossing was approximately three feet deep along the western side of the river and approximately six inches deep near the eastern side of the river during a site assessment conducted by HDR in 2018. The banks along the Soucook River in the project area are relatively steep and consist of riprap, with varying amounts of vegetation consisting of shrubs and herbaceous species such as red maple (Acer rubrum), broadleaf meadowsweet (Spiraea alba), various grasses, and sedge species (Carex spp.). The eastern bank of the existing crossing currently provides a wildlife shelf of suitable substrate to allow for wildlife passage at normal flows (see Appendix B). There are no wetlands above the top of the banks, and very little vegetated wetland along the banks' lower slopes in the project vicinity (TES 2017) (see Appendix A).

Portions of the bottom of the Soucook River in the project area have sparse to moderately dense SAV, consisting primarily of twoheaded water-starwort (Callitriche heterophylla), American bur-reed (Sparganium americanum), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), and ribbon-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton epihydrus). Substrates in the project area range from soft sand to mixes of sand, gravel, and cobble. There are also a few scattered boulders upstream of the bridge crossing outside of the project area (SWCA Environmental Consultants [SWCA] 2020) (see Appendix G).

Several small (2-6") fish were observed within the Soucook River as part of the wetland delineation conducted at the site, and were observed rising to surface insects to the east of the North Pembroke Road Bridge. Perennial streams of this size would have the potential to provide habitat for modest coldwater (i.e., trout) and warmwater fish populations (i.e., smallmouth bass) (TES 2017).

Hydraulics Assessment

A Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River (Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses) was prepared in accordance with the NHDOT Bridge Design Manual, the NH Stream Crossing Rules, and the NHDES Stream Crossing Guidelines. The bridge over the Soucook River is a Tier 3 stream crossing based on a watershed of 82.7 square miles.

The Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses includes a discussion on design flood elevations, bank full width, and an investigation of potential scour concerns. A preliminary bridge layout was used to determine design criteria at both the existing and proposed conditions. A summary of the design data is provided in Table 5-1. Please see Appendix D for the full Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses and Appendix E for a completed NHDES Stream Crossing Worksheet.

8 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Table 5-1. Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses Design Values Design Criteria Existing Proposed Q25 Elevation 268.1 267.5 Q50 Elevation 269.0 268.2 Q100 Elevation 269.9 268.9 Bank Full Width 79 ft.

5.2.2 Wetlands and Vernal Pools

Wetlands

On October 14, 2017 a TES wetland scientist delineated and flagged the boundaries of wetlands within the project survey area with numbered pink and black striped flags for location by ground survey and depiction on site plans (Appendix A). The principal jurisdictional wetland feature within the survey area consists of the Soucook River flowing generally from north to south through the area. A small gully on the northwest side of the North Pembroke Road Bridge, formed by stormwater runoff from North Pembroke Road, contains a wetland extending to the river bank. A forested floodplain wetland also exists off the south side of North Pembroke Road approximately 150 feet east from the bridge, just south of the road fill slope. The gully wetland is essentially unvegetated with bare soil, while the floodplain wetland east of the bridge has forest vegetation with red maple trees, meadowsweet shrubs (Spiraea alba), and sedges (Carex spp.) being the prevalent vegetation. One stormwater outfall culvert exists on the north side of North Pembroke Road, west of the North Pembroke Road Bridge, but the scoured channel downgradient from the culvert does not qualify as an intermittent stream (Env-Wt 101.51) or watercourse (Env-Wt 101.107) under NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) definitions (less than 75 feet in scoured channel length), and it does not have hydric soils or hydrophytic vegetation required for recognition of a vegetated wetland (TES 2017).

Vernal Pools

No vernal pools were observed within the vicinity of the North Pembroke Road Bridge, applying the following definition and methodologies: NHDES definition of vernal pool at Env-Wt 101.106; delineation methods at Env-Wt 301.01 (f); and guidelines for identifying and describing vernal pools given in "Identification and Documentation of Vernal Pools in New Hampshire" published by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (TES 2017). 5.3 Floodplains and Floodways

The project area is located in Zone AE of the Soucook River as shown on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map; Panel No. 33013C0553E, dated April 19, 2010 (see Appendix D). The project area was studied in detail by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1979 and remapped by FEMA in 2010. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the site were not redone, but flood zones were remapped using LIDAR data. FEMA flood flows and elevations are detailed in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses

October 17, 2020 | 9 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

in Section 3.0, Hydrology (see Appendix D). FEMA mapped the 100-year flood elevation at this site in 1979 at elevation 270 just upstream of the North Pembroke Road Bridge and 271 to 272 upstream of the “Trailer Park Bridge” which was previously located on the northwestern side of the bridge which has since been removed.

At the project location, the Soucook River drains 82.7 square miles including 5.58 percent wetlands and the average stream slope is 26.7 feet per mile. A figure of the drainage basin is shown in Figure 13 of Appendix D (Northstar Hydro, Inc. [NHI] 2018).

As a benefit of the project, there will be a small increase in the size of the hydraulic opening of the bridge as a result of removal of the existing bridge piers and increasing the span of the bridge (increase of approximately 217 square feet). Since the proposed project involves replacement of the bridge with a single span structure and removal of the existing bridge piers very minimal permanent impacts will result. The temporary cofferdams are not expected to create flood issues in the Soucook River. These cofferdams may be installed and removed at separate times. During construction, clean water conveyance of the Soucook River through the work zone will be provided for at all times (refer to the Wetland Permitting Plans in Appendix A). 5.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

5.4.1 State-Listed Species

A search for the occurrence of rare plant, animal, or natural communities within the vicinity of the proposed project was completed using the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau’s (NHB) online Datacheck tool. A project report provided by the NHB, dated June 15, 2020, indicated that there are five recorded occurrences for sensitive species within or in the vicinity to the project area. These five species include the brook floater mussel (Alasmidonta varicosa) (state endangered), wild lupine (Lupinus perennis ssp. perennis) (state threatened), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos) (state endangered), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor) (state threatened), and the wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) (species of Special Concern). According to the NHB project report (File No. NHB20-1607), the mapped occurrences of rare plant or animal species nearest to the project area include wild lupine located on the western side of the North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River in the vicinity of the project area as well as mapped brook floater mussel habitat within the project area. No work is proposed in the area associated with wild lupine and no laydown or other potential to impact the threatened plant species present in this area will be allowed. Refer to Appendix F, Endangered Species Review, for the NHB report. Additionally, the NHB project report provided a mapped occurrence of the brook floater mussel as occurring within the project area. Accordingly, a brook floater mussel survey was conducted in the project area in accordance with the approved study plan by New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) to document freshwater mussels, suitable freshwater mussel habitat, and areas of SAV within the study area. The study methods and results are described in detail in the Brook Floater Mussel Study Report (SWCA 2020) which was provided to NHF&G on October 2, 2020 as Appendix G.

10 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Brook Floater Mussel Study

Two species of mussel were observed: eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) and triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata). Neither of these species are state protected in New Hampshire. SWCA estimated a population size of approximately 1,000 eastern elliptio within the survey area. All individual elliptio appeared healthy, and SWCA observed a wide range of sizes indicating successful recruitment. Only a single triangle floater was observed near the upstream end of the survey area. The shell of this individual was extremely worn, indicating it was an older individual near the end of its life expectancy. Elliptio densities were moderate to high throughout most of the survey area, with an averaged catch per unit effort (CPUE) of 32.5 mussels per surveyor per hour. In contrast, the CPUE for triangle floater was only 0.03 mussels per surveyor per hour (SWCA 2020).

5.4.2 Federally-Listed Species

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 USFWS’ Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System. Results dated June 3, 2020 indicated northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB), karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), and small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) may occur within the vicinity of the project (refer to Appendix F).

The NLEB was listed as a federally threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on May 4, 2015. The range for the NLEB covers 37 states, including New Hampshire, as well as several Canadian provinces. NLEB emerge at dusk and use upland and lowland forested habitats and tree-lined corridors to forage, feeding on insects, which they catch while in flight using echolocation. NLEB also feed by gleaning insects from vegetation and water surfaces (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2014). In the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices in both live trees and in snags. Non-reproductive females and males sometimes also roost in cooler places, like caves or mines. NLEB roost in a variety of habitats. In summer, natural roosts are under loose tree bark and in other tree cracks, crevices, and cavities (Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. [ESI] 2002). The species also sometimes uses man-made structures such as abandoned buildings, dilapidated barns, park pavilions, sheds, window shutters, utility poles, and bat houses (80 Federal Register 17984; J. Timpone, personal communication, April 29, 2015). NLEB spend the winter hibernating in hibernacula, which generally include caves or mines of varying sizes, with constant temperatures, high humidity, and no air current. Pregnant females roost in small colonies (generally 30 to 60 females and young) and give birth in the summer (USFWS 2015). The proposed project will require the removal of some underbrush (no tree clearing) that is growing on or within close proximity to the bridge approaches in order to construct the new bridge, remove the old bridge, and to place riprap to stabilize steep side slopes along the bridge approaches.

October 17, 2020 | 11 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

project will not require tree clearing. This aerial insectivore may forage adjacent to the project area in forested habitats in the summer, but is not expected to be adversely affected as a result of project construction. Hibernacula was not observed on the site. This bat species roosts in upland areas (live or snag trees, caves, etc.), and the wooded areas in the vicinity of the project likely provide a more preferable habitat with older tree stands that would be more adequate for summer roosting habitat. Therefore, it is our opinion that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat.

The karner blue butterfly, a federally-listed endangered species, is a small butterfly that lives in oak savannas and pine barren ecosystems from eastern Minnesota and eastward to the Atlantic seaboard. Historically, it was found in a continuous band throughout its range but today is found in portions of New Hampshire, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and Minnesota. The wild blue lupine (Lupinus perennis) is the only food plant known for the Karner caterpillar, however, the range of karner blue butterflys and wild blue lupine do not completely overlap. Instead, karner blue butterflys are found along the northern band of lupine range (USFWS 2020a). Adult karner blue butterflys feed on the nectar of flowering plants, which severely restricts where they can survive. Habitat throughout the range of the karner blue butterfly has been lost as a result of land development and lack of natural disturbance, such as wildfire and grazing by large mammals. Such disturbance helps maintain the butterfly's habitat by setting back encroaching forests, encouraging lupine and flowering plant growth (USFWS 2020b).

The proposed project will require some clearing of brush and grading activities adjacent to Pembroke Road, however no known karner blue butterfly habitat is located within the project area and it is unlikely that suitable habitat for karner blue butterfly would be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to affect karner blue butterfly or its habitat.

The small whorled pogonia, a federally-threatened species, is a member of the orchid family. It usually has a single grayish-green stem that grows about 10 inches tall when in flower and about 14 inches when bearing fruit. The plant is named for the whorl of five or six leaves near the top of the stem and beneath the flower. The leaves are grayish- green, somewhat oblong, and 1 to 3.5 inches long. The single or paired greenish-yellow flowers are about 0.5 to 1 inch long and appear in May or June. The fruit, an upright ellipsoid capsule, appears later in the year (USFWS 2019). Although widely distributed, the small whorled pogonia is rare. It is found in 18 eastern states and Ontario, Canada. Populations are typically small with less than 20 plants. It has been extirpated from Missouri, Vermont, and Maryland. This orchid grows in older hardwood stands of beech, birch, maple, oak, and hickory that have an open understory. Sometimes it grows in stands of softwoods such as hemlock. It prefers acidic soils with a thick layer of dead leaves, often on slopes near small streams. The primary threat to the small whorled pogonia is the past and continuing loss of populations when their habitat is developed for urban expansion. Some forestry practices eliminate habitat. Also, habitat may be degraded or individual plants lost because of recreational activities and trampling (USFWS 2019).

12 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

The New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) developed the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) document that identifies habitat types across the state as well as ranked habitat tiers. Habitat tiers were created by NHF&G using biological data, landscape data, and human influence information. Habitat tiers are separated into three rankings, which are 1) Highest Ranked Habitat in New Hampshire, 2) Highest Habitat in Biological Region, and 3) Supporting Landscape. Portions of the proposed project area have been mapped as Highest Ranked Habitat in New Hampshire (refer to Figure 2). 5.6 Invasive Species

The lands within and adjacent to the proposed project area were investigated by TES during wetland delineation activities on the site on October 14, 2017 for the potential presence of invasive plants identified in the NHDOT Best Management Practices for Roadside Invasive Plants. Three invasive plant species were observed in the vicinity of the project area: Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), and glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). Oriental bittersweet is very common throughout the upland forested areas and along the tops of the river banks. Japanese knotweed was restricted to one upland area north of North Pembroke Road, outside of the road right-of-way along the east side of a woods road extending north from North Pembroke Road on the west side of the Soucook River. Glossy buckthorn was also scattered widely in the upland forested areas bordering the project area. For these reasons: the extensive nature of the bittersweet infestation, the location of the knotweed on private property, and the widely scattered occurrence of glossy buckthorn, no attempts to control these invasive species are advised (TES 2017). 5.7 Historical and Archaeological Resources

HDR completed and submitted a Request for Project Review (RPR) Form with accompanying documentation for the proposed project work. The project was reviewed by cultural resources staff at NHDOT Bureau of Environment (BOE) and the Division of Historic Resources staff at the State Historic Preservation Office.

The area of potential effect encompasses areas of both visual disturbance and ground disturbance. It was determined that areas of potential ground disturbance will be completely within the limits of previously disturbed fills from the 1959 bridge construction. HDR received an executed Section 106 Cultural Resources Memorandum of Effect from the NHDOT BOE on January 10, 2018, concurring that the proposed project will have no effect on historic or archeological resources.

October 17, 2020 | 13 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

The executed Memorandum of Effect can be found in Appendix H.

6 Stream Crossings (Env-Wt 900)

The replacement of the North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River 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 904.05(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 904.05 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, unless:

a. The crossing would be a tier 1 stream based on contributing watershed size; or

b. The structure does not create a direct surface water connection to the designated river as depicted on the national hydrography dataset as found on GRANIT;

(3) Within a 100-year flood plain;

(4) In a jurisdictional area having any protected species or habitat; or

(5) In a prime wetlands or within a duly-established 100-foot buffer, unless a waiver has been granted pursuant to RSA 482-A:11, IV(b) and Env-Wt 706.

The watershed of the Soucook River in the location of the North Pembroke Road Bridge is greater than 640 acres (totaling approximately 82.7 square miles), therefore the Soucook River is a Tier 3 stream (refer to Appendix D).

(b) The applicant for a project in which a stream crossing is categorized as tier 3 based solely on being in a 100-year floodplain may request that the crossing be categorized as a tier 1 or tier 2 stream crossing, as applicable based on watershed size, if the impacts to the floodplain are specifically mitigated in accordance with Env-Wt 800.

14 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Not applicable.

(c) The applicant for a project in which a stream crossing is categorized as tier 3 based solely on being in a jurisdictional area having any protected species or habitat may request that the crossing be categorized as tier 1 or tier 2 based on watershed size, provided:

(1) The applicant consults with NHB to determine whether any protected plant species or habitat would be impacted;

(2) The applicant consults with NHF&G to determine whether any protected species or habitat is impacted; and

(3) The NHB, NHF&G, or both, as applicable, recommend(s) such a downgrade to the department in writing.

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 proposed replacement bridge over the Soucook River spans the Soucook River at the North Pembroke Road crossing, allowing the natural river channel to flow under the bridge without obstruction.

(e) The applicant may propose an alternative design by submitting a request as specified in Env-Wt 904.10.

Not applicable.

(f) Compensatory mitigation shall not be required for:

(1) Any new tier 3 stream crossing that:

a. Meets the general design criteria in Env-Wt 904.01 and the tier- specific criteria of Env-Wt 904.07;

b. Is self-mitigating; and

c. Improves aquatic organism passage, connectivity, and hydraulics; 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 904.09.

The proposed bridge replacement project only involves 26 sq. ft. of permanent impacts to wetland resources for riprap required for bank stabilization, therefore no mitigation is required as stated in Env-Wt 313.04. Only temporary wetland impacts are proposed in order to install cofferdams and remove the existing bridge piers.

October 17, 2020 | 15 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

(g) Plans for a tier 3 stream crossing shall be dated and bear the signature and seal of the professional engineer who prepared or had responsibility for and approved them, as required by RSA 310-A:18.

See Appendix A for a copy of the project plans which have been stamped by a New Hampshire professional licensed engineer.

Env-Wt 904.07 Design Criteria for Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 Stream Crossings.

(a) Unless otherwise specified, all design criteria in this section shall apply to new and replacement tier 2, tier 3, and tier 4 stream crossings.

(b) Tier 2 and tier 3 stream crossings shall be designed in accordance with the NH stream crossing guidelines, available as noted in Appendix B;

The North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River was constructed in 1959 prior to the development of the New Hampshire Stream Crossing Guidelines (May 2009) (referred to herein as “Guidelines”). The proposed North Pembroke Road Bridge is in compliance with the Guidelines. 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 79 feet (see Appendix D). Therefore, according to the Guidelines the recommended span width of a new bridge structure would be approximately 96.8 feet. The proposed replacement bridge has a span width of 120 feet, 23.2 feet wider than the recommended span width according to the Guidelines, which will enhance the natural geomorphic characteristics of the Soucook River. The replacement bridge will ensure the balance of sediment erosion and deposition as well as aquatic organism passage. Additionally, the proposed span of the replacement bridge will increase passage of aquatic organisms during normal to high flow conditions as a result of removal of the existing bridge piers.

(1) To meet the general design considerations specified in Env-Wt 904.01;

Env-Wt 904.01 General Design Considerations.

(a) All stream crossings, whether over tidal or non-tidal waters, shall be designed and constructed so as to:

(1) Not be a barrier to sediment transport;

The proposed replacement bridge will not create a barrier to sediment transport. The natural transportation of sediment within the Soucook River will be maintained during and after the proposed replacement work is completed. Water diversion structures and erosion control barriers will be installed, as necessary, during replacement of the bridge around areas of proposed structural repair work to minimize the potential of additional sediment entering the Soucook River during bridge replacement activities.

16 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

(2) Not restrict high flows and maintain existing low flows;

The proposed bridge will allow high flows, as demonstrated in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses undertaken for the project. The replacement bridge will include restoration of the channel bed to pre-construction conditions which does allow for low flows. The replacement bridge has been designed to pass the 100-year frequency flood. The replacement bridge will not restrict high flows and will maintain low flows.

(3) Not obstruct or otherwise substantially disrupt the movement of aquatic organisms indigenous to the waterbody beyond the actual duration of construction;

The replacement bridge will have a hydraulic opening slightly larger than the existing bridge, will not have bridge piers, and will have flow characteristics essentially matching the existing bridge and will continue to provide passage for aquatic life as it currently does.

(4) Not cause an increase in the frequency of flooding or overtopping of banks;

The Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses undertaken for the project demonstrated that the proposed bridge will provide a net increase in capacity (approximately 46 sq. ft. at Q100) and no overtopping of banks.

(5) Maintain or enhance geomorphic compatibility by:

a. Minimizing the potential for inlet obstruction by sediment, wood, or debris; and

The proposed replacement bridge will not cause inlet obstruction by sediment, wood, or debris. Since the hydraulic opening will be larger than what currently exists at the bridge and the existing bridge piers are proposed for removal, the channel velocities at the bridge will only be minimally decreased, thereby maintaining the sediment transport mechanisms and channel forms that already exist (see Appendix D). No further constrictions will occur that could contribute toward entrapping sediment, wood, or debris.

b. Preserving the natural alignment of the stream channel;

The existing flow of the Soucook River will be maintained after the proposed replacement work is completed. No changes from the current conditions of the channel, flow regime, or floodplain of the Soucook River will result from the proposed project. The existing North Pembroke Road Bridge is generally perpendicular to the flow of the Soucook River. The proposed project involves replacement of the existing bridge with a larger hydraulic opening, removal of the existing bridge piers, and will not change any other structural qualities of the bridge that could affect the flow of the Soucook River through the work area.

(6) Preserve watercourse connectivity where it currently exists;

October 17, 2020 | 17 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Watercourse connectivity will be maintained/unaffected as a result of the proposed project.

(7) Restore watercourse connectivity where:

a. Connectivity previously was disrupted as a result of human activity(ies); and

b. Restoration of connectivity will benefit aquatic organisms upstream or downstream of the crossing, or both;

Watercourse connectivity currently exists. No remedial activities are proposed. As mentioned above, the proposed replacement bridge spans the Soucook River and its banks in Concord and Pembroke, New Hampshire and includes removal of the existing bridge piers, therefore the proposed project will benefit aquatic organisms upstream and downstream of the crossing.

(8) Not cause erosion, aggradation, or scouring upstream or downstream of the crossing; and

The potential for scouring at the crossing has been mitigated by the increase in the hydraulic opening. Scour protection will be installed/replaced along the bridge abutments. Erosion, aggradation or scouring upstream or downstream of the crossing are not anticipated from the proposed work. Work within the channel of the Soucook River is limited to the placement of temporary water diversion structures around areas where proposed structural repair work to the bridge is proposed and for the removal of the existing bridge piers, as well as minimal permanent impacts associated with riprap for bank stabilization on the western bank (see Appendix A).

(9) Not cause water quality degradation.

The water quality of the Soucook River will be maintained throughout the duration of the proposed project. Water diversion structures and erosion control barriers will be installed during replacement activities around areas of proposed work to minimize the potential of additional sediment entering the river during bridge replacement. Dewatering of the area within the cofferdams will be necessary. Dewatering will be accomplished so that no heavy silt-laden water flows into the Soucook River. Water will be pumped into a filter bag(s) and/or settling basin in the upland area(s) next to the bridge. This will confine suspended particulates and decrease potential for turbidity releases in the river. The captured sediment and filter bag will be removed following dewatering operations. Dewatering is anticipated to be accomplished by the use of a submersible pump(s) placed in between the existing abutments and the cofferdams. It is anticipated that the pump(s) will have a capacity of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) or less and include a backflow preventer valve. The contractor will relocate any stranded fish and other species from the cofferdam-dewatered areas back into the Soucook River.

Ground disturbance will also occur along the west and east banks in the vicinity of the abutments. Perimeter controls, such as hay bale barriers or equivalent will be installed as applicable and will be maintained between work areas and jurisdictional boundaries until

18 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

the disturbed area is stabilized. Riprap will be placed/replaced along the west and east abutments to stabilize these areas back to pre-construction conditions.

(b) For stream crossings over tidal waters, the stream crossing shall be designed to:

(1) Match the velocity, depth, cross-sectional area, and substrate of the natural stream; and

(2) Be of sufficient size to not restrict bi-directional tidal flow over the natural tide range above, below, and through the crossing.

The crossing is not located over tidal waters, therefore this section is not applicable.

(2) Of sufficient size to accommodate the greater of:

a. The 100-year 24-hour design storm;

The replacement bridge has been designed to pass the 100-year 24-hour frequency flood. The replacement bridge will not restrict high flows and will maintain low flows.

b. Flows sufficient to:

1. Prevent an increase in flooding on upstream and downstream properties; and

2. Not affect flows and sediment transport characteristics in a way that could adversely affect channel stability; or

Since the hydraulic opening will be larger than what currently exists at the bridge and the existing bridge piers are proposed for removal, the channel velocities will be minimally decreased by the project, thereby maintaining the sediment transport mechanisms and channel forms that already exist. Additionally, as previously described, following removal of the bridge piers, the areas of the bridge piers will be filled with in-kind streambed material and will be graded to match existing conditions restoring the sediment characteristics in those areas which is a project enhancement over existing conditions.

(3) 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;

See the information above for a partial response on how the proposed crossing meets this requirement. The proposed bridge structure allows the water depths and flows of the river to pass underneath the bridge at a variety of flows. The proposed replacement crossing will provide a larger area of natural stream bed as compared with the existing crossing (removal of existing bridge piers filled in with natural streambed material) and a larger hydraulic opening than the existing crossing.

October 17, 2020 | 19 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

(4) To provide a vegetated bank on both sides of the watercourse or to provide a wildlife shelf of suitable substrate and access to allow for wildlife passage;

The existing crossing currently provides a wildlife shelf of suitable substrate to allow for wildlife passage at normal flows along its eastern bank and this area will be minimally disturbed during construction of the project (see Appendix B, Photo 5). The replacement project will also result in increasing the height of the bridge superstructure by approximately two feet; therefore enhancing wildlife passage for larger animals (e.g., deer) compared to existing conditions. Additionally, on the western side of the crossing, vegetated riprap is proposed. The riprap will be partially filled with soil and seeded to provide suitable substrate to allow enhanced potential for wildlife passage, natural cover, and protect the area from erosion.

(5) 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 the Soucook River will be maintained after the proposed replacement work is completed. No changes from the current conditions of the channel, flow regime, or floodplain of the Soucook River will result from the proposed project. The existing North Pembroke Road Bridge is generally perpendicular to the flow of the Soucook River. The proposed project involves replacement of the existing bridge with a larger hydraulic opening, removal of the existing bridge piers and filling the areas remaining with in-kind streambed material, and will not change any other structural qualities of the bridge that could affect the flow of the Soucook River through the work area.

(6) To simulate a natural stream channel;

The existing river channel will be maintained during and after the proposed bridge replacement project is completed. The proposed replacement crossing will provide a larger area of natural stream bed as compared with the existing crossing (removal of existing bridge piers and filling the areas remaining with in-kind streambed material) and an larger hydraulic opening than the existing crossing.

7 Literature Cited

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31. Washington, D.C.

Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. (ESI). 2002. A Habitat Survey for the Endangered Indiana Bat on Thirteen Reservoirs in Clay, Macon, Cherokee, Swain, and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 47 pp. + Appendices.

Five Rivers Conservation Trust. Undated. Soucook River. [Online] URL: https://5rct.org/soucook- river/ (Accessed June 4, 2020).

20 | October 17, 2020 North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application

Northstar Hydro, Inc. (NHI). 2018. Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis, North Pembroke Road over Soucook River, Concord and Pembroke, New Hampshire. Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc. Northstar Hydro, Inc., Hartland, Vermont.

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2020. Soucook River Brook Floater Survey / Concord, New Hampshire / SWCA Project No.: 62389. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Amherst, Massachusetts.

TES Environmental Consultants, LLC. 2017. Wetland Description and Functions and Values Assessment for Replacement of North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River, North Pembroke Road, Concord, New Hampshire. Prepared for Doucet Survey, Inc. TES Environmental Consultants, LLC, Bow, New Hampshire.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2014. Biological Assessment for Activities Affecting Northern Long-Eared Bats on Southern Region Forests. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 38 pp + Appendices.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/kbb/index.html (Accessed June 15, 2020).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020b. Karner Blue Butterfly Fact Sheet. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/kbb/kbb_fact.html (Accessed June 15, 2020).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Fact Sheet. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/kbb/kbb_fact.html (Accessed June 15, 2020).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Northern Long-Eared Bat. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html (Accessed June 15, 2020).

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. [Online] URL: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (Accessed June 5, 2020).

October 17, 2020 | 21

Figures Figure 1 USGS Location Map Figure 2 NHF&G Wildlife Action Plan Ranked Habitat

PATH: N:\GIS2\PROJECTS\CITY_OF_CONCORD_NH\10212355_CONCORD_NPEMBROKE_BRDGE_REPLCE\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\FINAL\MAP_8_5X11P_20200604_USGS_LOCUS_MAP.MXD - USER: DSOUCIE - DATE: 6/4/2020 L M O A V L P C S L P E O R S A O R R C A O T C M C O C O A J A O A J H T E R N T E N U I C

O H A I C T M S O T A D N T E A N

M A

N T P P T ^ E S S W H C

I I T R Y E

O F M

C A O I N N E C O R D ,

N H P S R O N O C U o O C J p R y O E r i T g O C h H K 0 I B M t T S :

N E © A

S P R L O

L A T E 2

I E

R I N D 0 A O M V F E V 1 T G O A

E 3 F H B C R I E O

L R

N M A R P R A N a A B

E I O T R T t L D T P i M I S E o O E K

R n I A B N P O a C P U

E R W O U l C B

L F O A

2 G N U O L J R S S , E I R A K 0 e C E

A C E O o

0 E G S C C C O T g 0 O

A Y M R E r U S T

a A P D O R M p

N I

L C L A h

D L E E E B O i

D D c C S O N

R . O , F C S

R M N C T o I C A O O P D O c

M L

T P i W U G N e E

T I A t T R C O y H S E E R , E O O N

4 R N

J i

- E , A O U R M 0 c J S N N u 0 D S V E T E b 0 . A Y ,

2 e C

N 0 d P R 2 T H 0

North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project

Legend

State County City/Town Conservation and Public Lands WAP 2020: Highest Ranked Wildlife Habitat 1 Highest Ranked Habitat in NH 2 Highest Ranked Habitat in Region 3 Supporting Landscape

NHF&G Wildlife Action Plan Project Location Ranked Habitat

Map Scale 6,4941:

Notes 9,028

Appendices A through L Appendix A Wetland Permitting Plans

Appendix B Representative Site Photos

Appendix C Wetland Description and Functions and Values Assessment

Appendix D Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River

Appendix E NHDES Stream Crossing Worksheet

Appendix F Endangered Species Review

Appendix G Brookfloater Mussel Study Report

Appendix H Section 106 Cultural Resources Memorandum of Effect

Appendix I Tax Maps and Abutter Information

Appendix J Appendix B New Hampshire General Permits (GPs) Required Information and Corps Secondary Impacts Checklist and Supplemental Narrative

Appendix K NHB and NHF&G Correspondence

Appendix L Construction Sequence Narrative

Appendix A Wetland Permitting Plans

DESIGN DATA

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20 18 5200

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 20 40 7700

PERCENT OF TRUCKS 4% DESIGN SPEED 30 MPH LENGTH OF PROJECT 600 FT

CITY OF CONCORD

ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION

41 Green Street

3rd Floor

Concord, NH 03301 LIST OF SHEETS:

1 TITLE SHEET

2-3 STANDARD SYMBOLS

4-5 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANS Wetland Plans for 6 WETLAND IMPACTS PLAN North Pembroke Road 7 EROSION CONTROL STRATEGIES 8 EROSION CONTROL PLAN Bridge Replacement 9 RTE NOTES 10 SITE PLAN AND PROFILE

11 TYPICAL SECTIONS Project No. BR. NO. E-1CBRDG0478-0060 183/156

NHDOT 14841A

Concord, New Hampshire August 2020

3/1/2021

LOCATION MAP

1 • 0 1 2 mi.

GRAPHIC SCALE WETLAND PLANS Plans Prepared By: 8/27/2020 HDR 250 Commercial St, Suite 3007 Manchester, NH 03101

By:______GENERAL SHORELAND - WETLAND

PROPOSED existing (pavement removed ORIGINAL GROUND WETLAND DESIGNATION AND TYPE 2 ROADWAY roadway outside slope lines) PUB2E EDGE OF PAVEMENT (TYPICALS) DELINEATED WETLAND TRAVELED WAY ORDINARY HIGH WATER

TOP OF BANK

ROCK OUTCROP TOP OF BANK & ORDINARY HIGH WATER

NORMAL HIGH WATER

WIDTH AT BANK FULL

PRIME WETLAND DRIVEWAYS (label surface type) ROCK LINE PRIME WETLAND 100' BUFFER (TYPICALS & SECTIONS ONLY) NON-JURISDICTIONAL DRAINAGE AREA

COWARDIN DISTINCTION LINE existing PROPOSED TIDAL BUFFER ZONE bgr GUARDRAIL (label type) DEVELOPED TIDAL BUFFER ZONE

cgr HIGHEST OBSERVABLE TIDE LINE

(building to MEAN HIGH WATER be removed) JERSEY BARRIER MEAN LOW WATER BUILDINGS VERNAL POOL

SPECIAL AQUATIC SITE (label house or type of building) CURB (LABEL TYPE) REFERENCE LINE

WATER FRONT BUFFER

NATURAL WOODLAND BUFFER

STONE WALL PROTECTED SHORELAND I.S. I.S. (label type) INVASIVE SPECIES LABEL FOUNDATION I II

(points toward INVASIVE SPECIES RETAINING WALL (LABEL TYPE) retained ground)

FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY FENCE (LABEL TYPE) leach LEACH FIELD field 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY (single post)

SIGNS 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY (double post) FLOODWAY

BRIDGE CROSSINGS GAS PUMP gp ENGINEERING

FUEL TANK (ABOVE GROUND) CONSTRUCTION BASELINE ft (label size & type) STREAM OVERPASS 30 31 32

PC, PT, POT (ON CONST BASELINE) STORAGE TANK FILLER CAP fc

(label type) STEPS AND WALK PI (IN CONSTRUCTION BASELINES) SEPTIC TANK s

INTERSECTION OR EQUATION OF

TWO LINES GRAVE INTERMITTENT WATER COURSE gr ORIGINAL GROUND LINE

(PROFILES AND CROSS-SECTIONS) MAILBOX (label name of mb water body) PROFILE GRADE LINE SHORE LINE pond river/stream (PROFILES AND CROSS-SECTIONS) VENT PIPE vp SLOPE LINE CLEARING LINE

CLEARING LINE POTENTIAL WET AREA SYMBOL SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA da SLOPE LINE

BRUSH OR WOODS LINE PHONE ph SLOPE LINE (FILL)

(deciduous)(coniferous) (stump) SLOPE LINE (CUT) TREES (PLANS) GROUND LIGHT/LAMP POST gl lp 4 5 (show station, circumference in feet & type) PROFILES AND CROSS SECTIONS: 1 . . 2 TREE OR STUMP (CROSS-SECTIONS) BORING LOCATION ORIGINAL GROUND ELEVATION (LEFT) 9 7 B 7 FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION (RIGHT)

HEDGE (label type) TEST PIT TP mon SHEET 1 OF 2 MONITORING WELL w 293 INTERSTATE NUMBERED HIGHWAY CITY OF CONCORD

WELL w ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAY 3

FLAG POLE fp STATE NUMBERED HIGHWAY 102 STANDARD SYMBOLS

DGN STATE PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS

14841A_Env_stdsymb1 14841A 2 11

DRAINAGE UTILITIES TRAFFIC SIGNALS / ITS

existing PROPOSED existing PROPOSED

TELEPHONE POLE MANHOLE d m h MAST ARM (existing) POWER POLE ' MA CATCH BASIN (existing) (PROPOSED) 30 cb (NOTE ANGLE FROM Å)

(plot point at face OPTICOM RECEIVER JOINT OCCUPANCY DROP INLET di not center of symbol) OPTICOM STROBE MISCELLANEOUS/UNKNOWN POLE DRAINAGE PIPE (existing) (label size & type) TRAFFIC SIGNAL

DRAINAGE PIPE (PROPOSED) GUY POLE OR PUSH BRACE PEDESTAL WITH PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEADS AND PUSH BUTTON UNIT UNDERDRAIN (existing) LIGHT POLE W/ FLUSHING BASIN (label size show & type) SIGNAL CONDUIT direction fb UNDERDRAIN (PROPOSED) of flow LIGHT ON POWER POLE W/ FLUSHING BASIN CONTROLLER CABINET cc CC

(with stone outlet LIGHT ON JOINT POLE HEADER (existing & PROPOSED) protection) METER PEDESTAL mp MP

METAL or PLASTIC PULL BOX pb PB R L P+04 T+04 POLE STATUS: END SECTION (existing & PROPOSED) 25.0' 25.0' LOOP DETECTOR (QUADRUPOLE) RCP REMOVE, LEAVE, PROPOSED, OR TEMPORARY

AS APPLICABLE e.g.: (label size)

LOOP DETECTOR (RECTANGULAR) OPEN DITCH (PROPOSED) RAILROAD (label size)

(label ownership) CAMERA POLE (CCTV)

N G I S

S ' N A T EROSION CONTROL/ STONE RAILROAD SIGN S SLOPE PROTECTION FIBER OPTIC DELINEATOR fod FOD

RAILROAD SIGNAL FIBER OPTIC SPLICE VAULT f s v S V F BOUNDARIES / RIGHT-OF-WAY ITS EQUIPMENT CABINET UTILITY JUNCTION BOX jb JB its ITS

RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (label type) VARIABLE SPEED LIMIT SIGN

OVERHEAD WIRE RR RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (label type) DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN

PROPERTY LINE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ROAD AND WEATHER INFO SYSTEM (on existing lines WATER PROPERTY LINE (COMMON OWNER) label size, type and note if abandoned) CONSTRUCTION NOTES BOW TOWN LINE CONCORD SEWER CURB MARK NUMBER - BITUMINOUS B-1 COOS COUNTY LINE GRAFTON TELEPHONE MAINE CURB MARK NUMBER - GRANITE G-1 STATE LINE NEW HAMPSHIRE

ELECTRIC NATIONAL FOREST CLEARING AND GRUBBING AREA A

CONSERVATION LAND GAS DRAINAGE NOTE 1

BENCH MARK / SURVEY DISK LIGHTING EROSION CONTROL NOTE A

BOUND (PROPOSED) bnd INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FENCING NOTE A

STATE LINE/ TOWN LINE MONUMENT S/L T/L GUARDRAIL NOTE 1 FIBER OPTIC

so SO w W NHDOT PROJECT MARKER WATER SHUT OFF ITS NOTE 1

so SO g G IRON PIPE OR PIN GAS SHUT OFF ip LIGHTING NOTE A

DRILL HOLE IN ROCK HYDRANT h y d H Y D dh MANHOLES TRAFFIC SIGNAL NOTE 1

s 156 SEWER TAX MAP AND LOT NUMBER m h 14 M H S SHEET 2 OF 2 t 1642/341 TELEPHONE m h M H T 6.80 Ac.± CITY OF CONCORD e ELECTRICAL m h ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION PROPERTY PARCEL NUMBER 12 M H E g GAS m h M H G STANDARD SYMBOLS HISTORIC PROPERTY u UNKNOWN m h

DGN STATE PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS

14841A_Env_stdsymb2 14841A 3 11

E S D

K O R

2 5 2

O U O

R C C

B N O

M O O

E C K

1 F R 3 8 F

5 O I 100 YR FLOOD PLANE 2

8 O 5 V 2

N R2UB2H Y E BANK N

T R

W I

O TOWN OF C

T PEMBROKE

62 PROP. Z-6 3 F 254 CONSTRUCTION À BRG ABUT. A (EXP.) ITY OF CONCORD C BANK ACCESS

6 559 6 2 STA 109+40.00 11 PROP. STONE FILL APRON SEE NOTE 3 TOWN OF 2

6 2

6 6

6 5

8 OKE PROP. 12" RCP 0 PEMBR 5 6 RING LIMITS (TYP) 2 PROP. CLEA 2

2 0 0 4 6 2

6 6 CLEARING LIMITS 2 2 PROP. DROP INLET 262 À BRG ABUT. B (FIXED) AP . STONE SLOPE LIMITS (TYP) (TYP) PRO PROP STA 110+60.00 X 26 6 I 2 7 MA 2 TE 6 RI 26 GHT -OF PROP. STONE SLOPE LIMITS -WA 8 Y 68 5 2 26 2 8

266

270 (TYP) 270 4 7 2 270 2 72 270

8 26 270 274

272 270270 70 270 APPROX. COFFERDAM 2 2 2 80 76

0 272

278 7

LOCATIONS 8

2 2

280

274

4 8

6 6 6 2 2 6

274

0 7 2

8 8 1 2 07 6 + 7 00 2 2 7

TO CONCORD 6 A D

8 2

2 À CONSTRUCTION

2 8 2 113+00 NORTH PEMBROKE RD

8 8 2 7 2 2 7 108+00 109+00 6 110+00 111+00 112+00

B E TO PEMBROKE

2 2

2 2 2 2 6 2 7 2 0 0 274 282

278

2 272 74 280 276 280 4 6

276 2 2 0 2 6 6 8 6

0 6 6

2 AP 278 270 P 274 4

7 R 6 2

O 270 7

X 270 2 IM 270 8 27 A 276 6 2

TE 2

2 7 0 272 RI 2

268 G 6

HT 274 - 2 OF 0 -W 7 AY 2 270 266

272

268

264

0 2 27 5 PROP. RIPRAP LIMITS (TYP) 270 8 559 C 274

268 14 EXIST. RIPRAP LIMITS (TYP) NEW ENGLAND

266

2 2 6 5 2 PERMANENT GUARDRAIL EXIST.8 PIERS FLOWER FARMS, LLC F-WAY ATE RIGHT-O EASEMENT APPROXIM PFO1C 111 TO BE REMOVED

2 64 SEE 2NOTE 13 2-9 272 111 1 PF01C

4 REALTY, LLC 2-13 6 GABRIELE 2

6 2 R2UB2H

6 WENDY L. & 2 SEE NOTE 2

ERNEST J. HARDY

270

6 IMPACTS PLAN

SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

268

WETLAND IMPACT SUMMARY LEGEND WETLAND CLASSIFICATION CODES

AREA IMPACTS

WETLAND WETLAND DESIGNATION NUMBER TYPE OF SHADING/ WETLAND PERMANENT CLASSIFICATION WETLAND DESCRIPTION # DESCRIPTION WETLAND CODE WETLAND IMPACT HATCHING CLASS- LOCATION N.H.W.B. & DESIGNATION N.H.W.B. TEMPORARY IFICATION A.C.O.E. (NON-WETLAND) NEW HAMPSHIRE WETLANDS BUREAU & (WETLAND) RIVERINE, LOWER PERENNIAL, UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM SAND, WETLAND IMPACT LOCATION R2UB2H ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS # PERMANENTLY FLOODED SF LF SF LF SF LF (PERMANENT WETLAND) 1 R2UB2H (BED) A 60 30 CONCORD - PIER REMOVAL NEW HAMPSHIRE WETLANDS BUREAU & 1 R2UB2H (BED) B 710 35 CONCORD - COFFERDAM ENCLOSED ACCESS PFO1C PALUSTRIAN, FORESTED, BROAD-LEAVED ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1 R2UB2H (BED) C 26 9 CONCORD - RIPRAP FOR BANK STABILIZATION DECIDUOUS, SEASONALLY FLOODED (TEMPORARY WETLAND) 1 R2UB2H (BED) D 60 30 PEMBROKE - PIER REMOVAL

1 R2UB2H (BED) E 490 35 PEMBROKE - COFFERDAM ENCLOSED ACCESS NEW HAMPSHIRE WETLANDS BUREAU 3 BANK F 80 10 CONCORD - CLEARING BANK RIVERINE BANK (TEMPORARY NON-WETLAND)

TOTAL 26 9 1400 140

NOTES

1. THE ROSGEN CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SOUCOOK RIVER IS C5.

2. THE SOUTHERN SAS IS SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION (SAV) CONSISTING OF A MIX OF

POTAMOGETON EPIHYDRUS, CALLITRICHE HETEROPHYLLA, SPARGANIUM AMERICANUM, AND

NASTURTIUM OFFICINALE, WITH AN APPROXIMATE COVERAGE OF 65%. APPROXIMATELY 50 SF (8

LF) OF THE SAV IS WITHIN WETLAND IMPACT AREA B, 40 SF (8 LF) WITHIN WETLAND IMPACT

AREA B, AND 24 SF (5 LF) WITHIN WETLAND IMPACT AREA E. THE TOTAL IMPACT TO SAV IS 114 SF. CITY OF CONCORD 3. THE NORTHERN SAS IS SAV CONSISTING OF A MIX OF CALLITRICHE HETEROPHYLLA, ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION SPARGANIUM AMERICANUM, AND NASTURTIUM OFFICINALE, WITH AN APPROXIMATE COVERAGE OF TOWN CONCORD BRIDGE NO. 183/156 STATE PROJECT 14841A 65%. APPROXIMATELY 15 SF (2 LF) OF THE SAV IS WITHIN WETLAND IMPACT AREA E. LOCATION NORTH PEMBROKE ROAD OVER SOUCOOK RIVER

BRIDGE SHEET WETLAND IMPACT PLAN OF REVISIONS AFTER PROPOSAL BY DATE BY DATE -- --

DESIGNED PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- FILE NUMBER DRAWN PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- 3-7-1-9 QUANTITIES --- --/-- CHECKED --- --/--

FEDERAL PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS SUBDIRECTORY .DGN LOCATOR SHEET SCALE ISSUE DATE

ENV 14841A_WetlandImpactsPlan AS NOTED REV. DATE -- 6 11 EROSION CONTROL STRATEGIES

1. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS: 11. ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL GENERAL PRACTICES: 1.1. THESE GUIDELINES DO NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CONTRACT PROVISIONS, OR APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 11.1. USE TEMPORARY MULCHING, PERMANENT MULCHING, TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER, AND PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR DUST CONTROL. REGULATIONS. USE MECHANICAL SWEEPERS ON PAVED SURFACES WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT DUST BUILDUP. APPLY WATER, OR OTHER DUST INHIBITING AGENTS OR 1.2. THIS PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE US EPA'S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) STORM WATER CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT TACKIFIERS, AS APPROVED BY THE NHDES. AS ADMINISTERED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE MOST RECENT CONSTRUCTION 11.2. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE CONTAINED WITH TEMPORARY PERIMETER CONTROLS. INACTIVE SOIL STOCKPILES SHOULD BE PROTECTED WITH SOIL STABILIZATION GENERAL PERMIT (CGP). MEASURES (TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX AND MULCH, SOIL BINDER) OR COVERED WITH ANCHORED TARPS. 1.3. THE CONTRACTOR'S ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE NHDES WETLAND PERMIT, THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT, WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND 11.3. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 645 OF NHDOT SPECIFICATIONS, WEEKLY AND WITHIN 24 HOURS THE SPECIAL ATTENTION ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. AFTER ANY STORM EVENT GREATER THAN 0.25 IN. OF RAIN PER 24-HOUR PERIOD. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WILL ALSO BE INSPECTED IN 1.4. ALL STORM WATER, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STORMWATER ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDANCE MEMO FROM THE NHDES CONTAINED WITHIN THE CONTRACT PROPOSAL AND THE EPA CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. MANUAL, VOLUME 3, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS DURING CONSTRUCTION (DECEMBER 2008) (BMP MANUAL) AVAILABLE FROM THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT 11.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD UTILIZE STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM PRIOR TO THE PERMANENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (NHDES). STABILIZATION OF THE CONTRIBUTING DISTURBED AREA. 1.5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485-A:17, AND ALL, PUBLISHED NHDES ALTERATION OF TERRAIN ENV-WQ 1500 REQUIREMENTS 11.5. PERMANENT STABILIZATION MEASURES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO STABILIZE AREAS. (HTTP://DES.NH.GOV/ORGANIZATION/COMMISSIONER/LEGAL/RULES/INDEX.HTM) VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED PERMANENTLY STABILIZED UNTIL VEGETATIVE GROWTH COVERS AT LEAST 85% OF THE DISTURBED AREA. 1.6. THE CONTRACTOR IS DIRECTED TO REVIEW AND COMPLY WITH SECTION 107.1 OF THE CONTRACT AS IT REFERS TO SPILLAGE, AND ALSO WITH REGARDS TO THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR ONE YEAR AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION. EROSION, POLLUTION, AND TURBIDITY PRECAUTIONS. 11.6. CATCH BASINS: CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENTS DO NOT ENTER ANY EXISTING CATCH BASINS DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE TEMPORARY STONE INLET PROTECTION OVER INLETS IN AREAS OF SOIL DISTURBANCE THAT ARE SUBJECT TO SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION. 2. STANDARD EROSION CONTROL SEQUENCING APPLICABLE TO ALL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS: 11.7. TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT DITCHES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, STABILIZED AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE SCOUR. TEMPORARY AND 2.1. PERIMETER CONTROLS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. PERIMETER CONTROLS AND STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITS SHALL BE PERMANENT DITCHES SHALL BE DIRECTED TO DRAIN TO SEDIMENT BASINS OR STORM WATER COLLECTION AREAS. INSTALLED AS SHOWN IN THE BMP MANUAL AND AS DIRECTED BY THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PREPARER. 11.8. WINTER EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES NEED TO BE LIMITED IN EXTENT AND DURATION, TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IMPACTS. 2.2. EROSION, SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES AND INFILTRATION BASINS SHALL BE CLEANED, REPLACED AND AUGMENTED AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE AREA OF EXPOSED SOIL SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE ACRE, OR THAT WHICH CAN BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH DAY UNLESS A WINTER CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENTATION BEYOND PROJECT LIMITS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT DURATION. PLAN, DEVELOPED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR A CPESC SPECIALIST, IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 2.3. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT AND SECTION 645 OF THE NHDOT 11.9. CHANNEL PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH PERIMETER CONTROL MEASURES WHEN THE DITCH LINES OCCUR AT THE BOTTOM OF LONG FILL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGES CONSTRUCTION. SLOPES. THE PERIMETER CONTROLS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE FILL SLOPE TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR FILL SLOPE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS IN THE DITCH 2.4. AN AREA SHALL BE CONSIDERED STABLE IF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING HAS OCCURRED: LINE. (A) BASE COURSE GRAVELS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN AREAS TO BE PAVED; (B) A MINIMUM OF 85% VEGETATED GROWTH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED; BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) BASED ON AMOUNT OF OPEN CONSTRUCTION AREA (C) A MINIMUM OF 3" OF NON-EROSIVE MATERIAL SUCH AS STONE OR RIP-RAP HAS BEEN INSTALLED; (D) TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILIZATION CONFORMING TO TABLE 1 HAS BEEN PROPERLY INSTALLED 12. STRATEGIES SPECIFIC TO OPEN AREAS LESS THAN 5 ACRES: 2.5. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE CONTAINED WITH A PERIMETER CONTROL. IF THE STOCKPILE IS TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS, MULCHING WILL 12.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485:A:17 AND ENV-WQ 1500; ALTERATION OF TERRAIN FOR CONSTRUCTION AND USE ALL CONVENTIONAL BMP BE REQUIRED. STRATEGIES. 2.6. A WATER TRUCK SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO CONTROL EXCESSIVE DUST AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR. 12.2. SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT WITH MATTING. 2.7. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL REMAIN UNTIL THE AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. TH ST 12.3. SLOPES 3:1 OR FLATTER WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT ALONE. 2.8. CONSTRUCTION PERFORMED ANY TIME BETWEEN NOVEMBER 30 AND MAY 1 OF ANY YEAR SHALL BE CONSIDERED WINTER CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE 12.4. AREAS WHERE HAUL ROADS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND STORMWATER CANNOT BE TREATED THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONSIDER INFILTRATION. FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. TH 12.5. FOR HAUL ROADS ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS OR STEEPER THAN 5%, THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONSIDER USING EROSION STONE, CRUSHED (A) ALL PROPOSED VEGETATED AREAS WHICH DO NOT EXHIBIT A MINIMUM OF 85% VEGETATIVE GROWTH BY OCTOBER 15 , OR WHICH ARE DISTURBED AFTER OCTOBER TH GRAVEL, OR CRUSHED STONE BASE TO HELP MINIMIZE EROSION ISSUES. 15 , SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1. TH TH 12.6. ALL AREAS THAT CAN BE STABILIZED SHALL BE STABILIZED PRIOR TO OPENING UP NEW TERRITORY. (B) ALL DITCHES OR SWALES WHICH DO NOT EXHIBIT A MINIMUM OF 85% VEGETATIVE GROWTH BY OCTOBER 15 , OR WHICH ARE DISTURBED AFTER OCTOBER 15 , 12.7. DETENTION BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE A 2 YEAR STORM EVENT. SHALL BE STABILIZED TEMPORARILY WITH STONE OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1.

TH (C) AFTER NOVEMBER 30 INCOMPLETE ROAD SURFACES, WHERE WORK HAS STOPPED FOR THE SEASON, SHALL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1. 13. STRATEGIES SPECIFIC TO OPEN AREAS BETWEEN 5 AND 10 ACRES: (D) WINTER EXCAVATION AND EARTHWORK SHALL BE DONE SUCH THAT NO MORE THAN 1 ACRE OF THE PROJECT IS WITHOUT STABILIZATION AT ONE TIME, UNLESS A 13.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485:A:17 AND ENV-WQ 1500 ALTERATION OF TERRAIN AND SHALL USE CONVENTIONAL BMP STRATEGIES AND ALL WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY NHDOT THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF ENV-WQ 1505.02 AND ENV-WQ 1505.05. TREATMENT OPTIONS USED FOR UNDER 5 ACRES WILL BE UTILIZED. (E) A SWPPP AMENDMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT, FOR APPROVAL, ADDRESSING COLD WEATHER STABILIZATION (ENV-WQ 1505.05) AND INCLUDING

TH 13.2. DETENTION BASINS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM EVENT AND CONTROL A 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM EVENT. THE REQUIREMENTS OF NO LESS THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK SCHEDULED AFTER NOVEMBER 30 . 13.3. SLOPES STEEPER THAN A 3:1 WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT WITH MATTING OR OTHER TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES DETAILED IN TABLE 1. THE CONTRACTOR MAY ALSO CONSIDER A SOIL BINDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NHDES APPROVALS OR REGULATIONS. OTHER ALTERNATIVE MEASURES, SUCH AS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND SELECTION OF STRATEGIES TO CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT ON HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS BONDED FIBER MATRIXES (BFMS) OR FLEXIBLE GROWTH MEDIUMS (FGMS) MAY BE UTILIZED, IF MEETING THE NHDES APPROVALS AND REGULATIONS.

3. PLAN ACTIVITIES TO ACCOUNT FOR SENSITIVE SITE CONDITIONS: 13.4. SLOPES 3:1 OR FLATTER WILL RECEIVE TURF ESTABLISHMENT OR OTHER TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES DETAILED IN TABLE 1. THE CONTRACTOR MAY 3.1. CLEARLY FLAG AREAS TO BE PROTECTED IN THE FIELD AND PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION BARRIERS TO PREVENT TRAFFICKING OUTSIDE OF WORK AREAS. ALSO CONSIDER A SOIL BINDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NHDES APPROVALS OR REGULATIONS. 3.2. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SEQUENCED TO LIMIT THE DURATION AND AREA OF EXPOSED SOILS. 3.3. PROTECT AND MAXIMIZE EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION AND NATURAL FOREST BUFFERS BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND SENSITIVE AREAS. 14. STRATEGIES SPECIFIC TO OPEN AREAS OVER 10 ACRES: 3.4. WHEN WORK IS PERFORMED IN AND NEAR WATER COURSES, STREAM FLOW DIVERSION METHODS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION OR FILLING. 14.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH RSA 485:A:17 AND ENV-WQ 1500 ALTERATION OF TERRAIN AND SHALL USE CONVENTIONAL BMP STRATEGIES AND ALL 3.5. WHEN WORK IS PERFORMED WITHIN 50 FEET OF SURFACE WATERS (WETLAND, OPEN WATER OR FLOWING WATER), PERIMETER CONTROL SHALL BE ENHANCED TREATMENT OPTIONS USED FOR UNDER 5 ACRES AND BETWEEN 5 AND 10 ACRES WILL BE UTILIZED. CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 2.1.2.1. OF THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. 14.2. THE DEPARTMENT ANTICIPATES THAT SOIL BINDERS WILL BE NEEDED ON ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT IN THE STORMWATER TREATMENT BASINS. 4. MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF EXPOSED SOIL: 14.3. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN APPROVED DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENV-WQ 1506.12 FOR AN ACTIVE FLOCCULANT TREATMENT SYSTEM TO 4.1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SEQUENCED TO LIMIT THE DURATION AND AREA OF EXPOSED SOILS. MINIMIZE THE AREA OF EXPOSED SOIL AT ANY ONE TIME. PHASING TREAT AND RELEASE WATER CAPTURED IN STORM WATER BASINS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT WHO HAS SHALL BE USED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF SOIL EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS AND VEHICLE TRACKING. DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE IN THE DESIGN OF FLOCCULANT TREATMENT SYSTEMS. THE CONSULTANT WILL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION AND 4.2. UTILIZE TEMPORARY MULCHING OR PROVIDE ALTERNATE TEMPORARY STABILIZATION ON EXPOSED SOILS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 1. MONITORING OF THE SYSTEM.

ST TH 4.3. THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DISTURBED EARTH SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL OF 5 ACRES FROM MAY 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30 , OR EXCEED ONE ACRE DURING WINTER MONTHS, UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATES TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ADDITIONAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE CONTRACTORS TABLE 1 CRITICAL PATH METHOD SCHEDULE (CPM), AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS ADEQUATE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ENSURE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS WILL BE MET. GUIDANCE ON SELECTING TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES

5. CONTROL STORMWATER FLOWING ONTO AND THROUGH THE PROJECT: 2 3 5.1. DIVERT OFF SITE RUNOFF OR CLEAN WATER AWAY FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO REDUCE THE VOLUME THAT NEEDS TO BE TREATED ON SITE. APPLICATION AREAS DRY MULCH METHODS HYDRAULICALLY APPLIED MULCHES ROLLED EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS 5.2. DIVERT STORM RUNOFF FROM UPSLOPE DRAINAGE AREAS AWAY FROM DISTURBED AREAS, SLOPES, AND AROUND ACTIVE WORK AREAS AND TO A STABILIZED OUTLET HMT WC SG CB HM SMM BFM FRM SNSB DNSB DNSCB DNCB LOCATION. 1 5.3. CONSTRUCT IMPERMEABLE BARRIERS AS NECESSARY TO COLLECT OR DIVERT CONCENTRATED FLOWS FROM WORK OR DISTURBED AREAS. SLOPES 5.4. STABILIZE, TO APPROPRIATE ANTICIPATED VELOCITIES, CONVEYANCE CHANNELS OR PUMPING SYSTEMS NEEDED TO CONVEY CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER TO BASINS STEEPER THAN 2:1 NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO YES AND DISCHARGE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO USE.

1 1 5.5. DIVERT OFF-SITE WATER THROUGH THE PROJECT IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER SO NOT TO DISTURB THE UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM SOILS, VEGETATION OR 2:1 SLOPE YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES NO YES YES YES HYDROLOGY BEYOND THE PERMITTED AREA. 3:1 SLOPE YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES NO

6. PROTECT SLOPES: 4:1 SLOPE YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO 6.1. INTERCEPT AND DIVERT STORM RUNOFF FROM UPSLOPE DRAINAGE AREAS AWAY FROM UNPROTECTED AND NEWLY ESTABLISHED AREAS AND SLOPES TO A STABILIZED OUTLET OR CONVEYANCE. WINTER STABILIZATION 4T/AC YES YES YES NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES

6.2. CONSIDER HOW GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ON CUT SLOPES MAY IMPACT SLOPE STABILITY AND INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EROSION. CHANNELS 6.3. CONVEY STORMWATER DOWN THE SLOPE IN A STABILIZED CHANNEL OR SLOPE DRAIN. 6.4. THE OUTER FACE OF THE FILL SLOPE SHOULD BE IN A LOOSE RUFFLED CONDITION PRIOR TO TURF ESTABLISHMENT. TOPSOIL OR HUMUS LAYERS SHALL BE TRACKED LOW FLOW CHANNELS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES

UP AND DOWN THE SLOPE, DISKED, HARROWED, DRAGGED WITH A CHAIN OR MAT, MACHINE-RAKED, OR HAND-WORKED TO PRODUCE A RUFFLED SURFACE. HIGH FLOW CHANNELS NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES

7. ESTABLISH STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITS: 7.1. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION EXITS, ANYWHERE TRAFFIC LEAVES A CONSTRUCTION SITE ONTO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. 7.2. SWEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION RELATED DEBRIS AND SOIL FROM THE ADJACENT PAVED ROADWAYS AS NECESSARY. ABBREV. STABILIZATION MEASURE ABBREV. STABILIZATION MEASURE ABBREV. STABILIZATION MEASURE

8. PROTECT STORM DRAIN INLETS: HMT HAY MULCH & TACK HM HYDRAULIC MULCH SNSB SINGLE NET STRAW BLANKET

8.1. DIVERT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER AWAY FROM INLET STRUCTURES TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. WC WOOD CHIPS SMM STABILIZED MULCH MATRIX DNSB DOUBLE NET STRAW BLANKET 8.2. INSTALL SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND SEDIMENT TRAPS AT INLETS TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 8.3. CLEAN CATCH BASINS, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND CULVERTS IF SIGNIFICANT SEDIMENT IS DEPOSITED. SG STUMP GRINDINGS BFM BONDED FIBER MATRIX DNSCB 2 NET STRAW-COCONUT BLANKET 8.4. DROP INLET SEDIMENT BARRIERS SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS THE PRIMARY MEANS OF SEDIMENT CONTROL AND SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL CB COMPOST BLANKET FRM FIBER REINFORCED MEDIUM DNCB 2 NET COCONUT BLANKET LEVEL OF PROTECTION TO STRUCTURES AND DOWN-GRADIENT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.

9. SOIL STABILIZATION: NOTES: 1. ALL SLOPE STABILIZATION OPTIONS ASSUME A SLOPE LENGTH \10 TIMES THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE COMPONENT OF THE SLOPE, IN FEET. 9.1. WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE LAST ACTIVITY IN AN AREA, ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS, WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE COMPLETE, SHALL BE STABILIZED. 9.2. IN ALL AREAS, TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 2.2) OF THE 2. PRODUCTS CONTAINING POLYACRYLAMIDE (PAM) SHALL NOT BE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO OR WITHIN 100 FEET OF ANY SURFACE CGP. (SEE TABLE 1 FOR GUIDANCE ON THE SELECTION OF TEMPORARY SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES.) WATER WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE NH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. 9.3. EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX SHALL BE SOWN IN ALL INACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE PERMANENTLY SEEDED WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF DISTURBANCE 3. ALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS SHALL BE MADE WITH WILDLIFE FRIENDLY BIODEGRADABLE NETTING. AND PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15, OF ANY GIVEN YEAR, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE VEGETATIVE STABILIZATION PRIOR TO THE END OF THE GROWING SEASON. 9.4. SOIL TACKIFIERS MAY BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND REAPPLIED AS NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE SOIL AND MULCH CITY OF CONCORD LOSS UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION

10. RETAIN SEDIMENT ON-SITE AND CONTROL DEWATERING PRACTICES: TOWN CONCORD BRIDGE NO. 183/156 STATE PROJECT 14841A 10.1. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS (CGP-SECTION 2.1.3.2) OR SEDIMENT TRAPS (ENV-WQ 1506.10) SHALL BE SIZED TO RETAIN, ON SITE, THE VOLUME OF A 2-YEAR LOCATION NORTH PEMBROKE ROAD OVER SOUCOOK RIVER 24-HOUR STORM EVENT FOR ANY AREA OF DISTURBANCE OR 3,600 CUBIC FEET OF STORMWATER RUNOFF PER ACRE OF DISTURBANCE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. BRIDGE SHEET TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS USED TO TREAT STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM AREAS GREATER THAN 5-ACRES OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE SIZED TO ALSO CONTROL EROSION CONTROL STRATEGIES STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM A 10-YEAR 24 HOUR STORM EVENT. ON-SITE RETENTION OF THE 10-YEAR 24-HOUR EVENT IS NOT REQUIRED. OF REVISIONS AFTER PROPOSAL BY DATE BY DATE -- --

10.2. CONSTRUCT AND STABILIZE DEWATERING INFILTRATION BASINS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION THAT MAY REQUIRE DEWATERING. DESIGNED PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- FILE NUMBER 10.3. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS SHALL BE PLACED AND STABILIZED AT LOCATIONS WHERE CONCENTRATED FLOW (CHANNELS AND PIPES) DISCHARGE TO THE DRAWN PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT FROM AREAS OF UNSTABILIZED EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. 3-7-1-9 QUANTITIES --- --/-- CHECKED --- --/--

FEDERAL PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS SUBDIRECTORY .DGN LOCATOR SHEET SCALE ISSUE DATE

ENV 14841A_erosstrat AS NOTED REV. DATE -- 7 11 6

2 5

2 S

R O

E U V

8 I 5

2 C

5 R

5 O

N O

K K

O TOWN OF R

C I

U PEMBROKE V

O E 62 S R PROP.

Z-6 E

254 CONSTRUCTION

CONCORD R ITY OF O

C ACCESS

O R

6 559

N 11 M

C N OF P TOW 2

6 2

6 6

5 2

CLEARING LIMITS 8 OKE 0 PEMBR

F 2

2 4 F

0 0 O 4 6

(TYP) 6 6

SILT FENCE 2 2

262 À BRG ABUT. B (FIXED) Y

N APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF (TYP) T

AP À BRG ABUT. A (EXP.) W

PRO STA 110+60.00

X 26 I

6 I O 2 7 M 2

ATE DEWATERING FILTER BAG OR C 66

RI STA 109+40.00 T 2 GHT -OF -WA SEDIMENTATION BASIN (TYP) 8 Y 68 5 2 26 2 8

266

270 270 4 7 2 270 2 72 270

8 APPROX. COFFERDAM 26 270 274

272 270270 70 270 LOCATIONS 2 2 2 80 76

0 272

278

2 2

280

274

4 8

6 6 6 2 2 6

274

0 7 2

8 8 1 2 07 6 + 7 00 2 2 7

TO CONCORD 6

8 2

2 À CONSTRUCTION

2 8 2 113+00 NORTH PEMBROKE RD

8 8 2 7 2 2 7

108+00 109+00 6 110+00 111+00 TO PEMBROKE 112+00

2 2

2 2 2 2 6 2 7 2 0 0 274 282

278

2 272 74 280 276 280 4 6

276 2 2 0 2 6 6 8 6

0 6 6

2 AP 278 270 P 274 4

7 R 6 2

O 270 7

X 270 2 IM EXIST. PIERS 270 8 27 A 276 6 2

TE 2

2 7 0 272 RI 2

268 G 6

HT 274 - 2 TO BE REMOVED OF 0 -W 7 AY 2 270 266

272

268

264

2 270 5 270 8 559

274 268 DEWATERING PUMP 14 PERMANENT GUARDRAIL (TYP) NEW ENGLAND 266 EASEMENT

2 2 6 5 2 PERMANENT GUARDRAIL 8 FLOWER FARMS, LLC F-WAY ATE RIGHT-O EASEMENT APPROXIM PFO1C 111 111

2 64 SEE NOTE 13 2-9 272 2-13

GABRIELE REALTY, LLC WENDY L. &

ERNEST J. HARDY

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN EROSION CONTROL PLAN LEGEND SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"

PERIMETER CONTROL

SILT FENCE EROSION CONTROL MIX BERM EROSION CONTROL MIX SOX TURBIDITY CURTAIN SHEET PILE COFFER DAM

NATURAL BUFFER/PERIMETER CONTROL

SILT FENCE EROSION CONTROL MIX BERM EROSION CONTROL MIX SOX TURBIDITY CURTAIN SHEET PILE COFFER DAM

CHANNEL PROTECTION

STONE CHECK DAMS STRAW WATTLES CHANNEL MATTING CLASS D EROSION STONE CLASS C STONE

CLEAN WATER BYPASS

PUMP THROUGH PIPE DRAIN THROUGH PIPE OR CHANNEL

CITY OF CONCORD ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION

TOWN CONCORD BRIDGE NO. 183/156 STATE PROJECT 14841A

LOCATION NORTH PEMBROKE ROAD OVER SOUCOOK RIVER

BRIDGE SHEET EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN OF REVISIONS AFTER PROPOSAL BY DATE BY DATE -- --

DESIGNED PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- FILE NUMBER DRAWN PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- 3-7-1-9 QUANTITIES --- --/-- CHECKED --- --/--

FEDERAL PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS SUBDIRECTORY .DGN LOCATOR SHEET SCALE ISSUE DATE

ENV 14841A_EroCntrlPlan AS NOTED REV. DATE -- 8 11 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED (RTE) SPECIES NOTES

1. GENERAL

1.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPLAY A FULL SIZE COLOR COPY OF THIS SHEET IN A CLEARLY VISIBLE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT SITE.

1.2. RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ARE PLANTS AND/OR ANIMALS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL, STATE, AND/OR LOCAL LAW. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF RTE SPECIES ON THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE FISH & GAME DEPARTMENT (NHFG) (ANIMALS) OR TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE NATURAL HERITAGE BUREAU (NHB) (PLANTS) AT (603) 271-2214 AND (603) 271-2461, RESPECTIVELY.

2. RTE ANIMALS

2.1 WOOD TURTLE. CONSTRUCTION PERSONNEL SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL TO ENCOUNTER WOOD TURTLES, ESPECIALLY DURING THE TURTLE NESTING SEASON, WHICH EXTENDS FROM LATE MAY THROUGH THE BEGINNING OF JULY. IF WOOD TURTLES ARE FOUND LAYING EGGS IN THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AREA, PLEASE CONTACT MELISSA DOPERALSKI (603-479-1129 CELL) OR JOSH MEGYESY (CELL 978-578-0802 OR 271-1125 OFFICE) FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. WOOD TURTLE (SPECIAL CONCERN) - SCULPTED, PYRAMIDAL BROWNISH SHELL - ORANGE AROUND NECK AND LIMBS - RIVER/STREAM TURTLE SPENDING MANY MONTHS ON LAND

2.2 EASTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE. ALL OBSERVATIONS OF EASTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE NHFG DEPARTMENT (MELISSA DOPERALSKI 603-479-1129 CELL OR BRENDAN CLIFFORD 603-944-0885 CELL). PLEASE ATTEMPT TO PHOTOGRAPH THIS SPECIES TO SEND TO NHFG FOR VERIFICATION. EASTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE (STATE ENDANGERED) - HOGNOSE SNAKES MAY HISS, SPREAD THEIR NECKS, AND/OR PLAY DEAD BUT THEY RARELY BITE. COLORATION CAN VARY WIDELY. - BLACK, GRAY OR PATTERNED APPEARANCE - UPTURNED SNOUT, 2-3 FT. LONG

2.3 NORTHERN BLACK RACER SNAKE. ALL OBSERVATIONS OF NORTHERN BLACK RACER SNAKES ENCOUNTERED FROM THE END OF SEPTEMBER THROUGH THE MONTH OF APRIL MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE NHFG DEPARTMENT (MELISSA DOPERALSKI 603-479-1129 (CELL) OR BRENDAN CLIFFORD 603-271-0463) AS THIS INDICATES A POTENTIAL HIBERNACULUM IN THE AREA. PLEASE ATTEMPT TO PHOTOGRAPH THIS SPECIES IF POSSIBLE. NORTHERN BLACK RACER (STATE THREATENED) - SOLID BLACK WITH A WHITE THROAT AND CHIN - SLENDER WITH GLOSSY SCALES, 3-6 FT. LONG - HATCHLINGS ARE VERY SMALL AND PATTERNED

3. RTE PLANTS.

3.1 WILD LUPINE. WILD LUPINE HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROJECT SITE. KNOWN WILD LUPINE POPULATIONS SHALL BE FENCED OFF WITH ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE AREA WITHIN THE FENCING SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED.

WILD LUPINE WOOD TURTLE EASTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE NORTHERN BLACK RACER SNAKE

CITY OF CONCORD ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION

TOWN CONCORD BRIDGE NO. 183/156 STATE PROJECT 14841A

LOCATION NORTH PEMBROKE ROAD OVER SOUCOOK RIVER

BRIDGE SHEET RTE NOTES OF REVISIONS AFTER PROPOSAL BY DATE BY DATE -- --

DESIGNED PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- FILE NUMBER DRAWN PJL 06/20 CHECKED --- --/-- 3-7-1-9 QUANTITIES --- --/-- CHECKED --- --/--

FEDERAL PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS SUBDIRECTORY .DGN LOCATOR SHEET SCALE ISSUE DATE

ENV 14841A_RTENotes AS NOTED REV. DATE -- 9 11 4

T CONSTRUCTION ACCESS

C 262 O

I À BRG ABUT. A (EXP.) W SEE ROADWAY PLANS À BRG ABUT. B (FIXED) T N CLEARING LIMITS

Y STA 109+40.00 STA 110+60.00

N O SEE ROADWAY PLANS

O F 26 OHW (TYP) EL. 275.71 6 EL. 277.05 F (TYP)

C E

O M

N B

C MATCH EXISTING R

5 O 2 O

R K (TYP) 266

D 08°07'45" E APPROX. ROW APPROACH SLOPE LIMITS

EXISTING RIPRAP SEE ROADWAY PLANS

8 ITEM 503.201 TO REMAIN (TYP) 26 (TYP)

COFFERDAMS 1 :

1 0 270 27 ITEM 503.202 5

: ITEM 585.3401 VA . 5 R COFFERDAMS IES 1 . SIMULATED

1 0 272

7 8

STREAMBED 5 2 2 ES RI

VA MATERIAL (TYP)

4 8

6 6 6 2 2 6

274

0 7 2

TO CONCORD 2 À CONSTRUCTION & PGL 7 6 GZ-2 N. PEMBROKE ROAD GZ-1

54°30'38.83"

109+00 110+00 111+00

2 7 6

TO PEMBROKE

2 2

2 2 2 2 6 2 7 2 0 0 274

VARIES S 272 276 4 E

2 I 2 2 R 6 6 8 1 6 A 0 6 V 2

: 1

: 270 4 7 2 . 5 270 1

8 . 6

2 1 2 7 8" HDPE GAS IN 2 S 268 O 12" HDPE SLEEVE U

APPROX. ROW C

K LEVEL (TYP) R

PORTIONS OF EXISTING V

2 5 E 8

PIERS AND ABUTMENTS R ITEM 583.3 274 TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) CLEARING LIMITS RIPRAP, CLASS III

SEE ROADWAY PLANS (TYP)

(TYP)

2 5 8 SITE PLAN

SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"

À BRG ABUT. A À BRG ABUT. B

VC = 132 (FIXED)

(EXP.) K = 28

. 120'-0" 2

7 1 + 3 9 . PROFILE GRADE LINE 7 0 7 1 NORTH PEMBROKE ROAD

2 . A =

T S .

V APPROACH SLAB APPROXIMATE EXISTING GROUND E T L V (TYP) P E

-1.125%

270 Q100 EL. 268.9 LOW CHORD

BOTTOM OF FOOTING EL. 271.33

ELEV. = 266.0 BOTTOM OF FOOTING OHW EL. 263.0 ELEV. = 264.0

260 PROPOSED CONCRETE ABUTMENT

(TYP) 5

EXISTING PIER 8 2 . .

(TYP) EXISTING RIPRAP 4 5 7 7

TO REMAIN (TYP) 2 2 250 ITEM 585.3401 H-PILES SIMULATED STREAMBED 111+00 MATCH EXISTING ITEM 583.3 (TYP) MATERIAL (TYP) (TYP) RIPRAP, CLASS III

8" APPROXIMATE EXISTING (TYP) HDPE G AS IN 1 2" HDPE SLEEVE BOTTOM OF CHANNEL 240 (A PPROX.) 3 4 8 1 4 5 1 9 4 3 4 8 ...... 6 7 7 6 8 6 2 5 7 7 6 7 5 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

CITY OF CONCORD 230

109+00 +50 110+00 +50 ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION

TOWN CONCORD BRIDGE NO. 183/156 STATE PROJECT 14841A

LOCATION NORTH PEMBROKE ROAD OVER SOUCOOK RIVER

BRIDGE SHEET SITE PLAN AND PROFILE OF REVISIONS AFTER PROPOSAL BY DATE BY DATE 8 9 PROFILE DESIGNED PJL 05/20 CHECKED APS 05/20 FILE NUMBER DRAWN SAM 05/20 CHECKED JGS 05/20 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 3-7-1-9 QUANTITIES SAM 05/20 CHECKED JGS 05/20

FEDERAL PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS PLOT DATE .DGN LOCATOR SHEET SCALE ISSUE DATE

8/27/2020 14841A_Env_BrSiteplan AS NOTED REV. DATE -- 10 11 PROPOSED B L & PROPOSED B L PROFILE GRADE LINE & PROFILE GRADE LINE 26'-0"

ITEM 403.11 HOT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,MACHINE METHOD 30'-0" 1.5" WEARING COURSE, 0.085 TONS/SY ITEM 403.11 HOT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, MACHINE METHOD VARIABLE DEPTH SHIM COURSE (AS NEEDED) 1.5" WEARING COURSE, 0.085 TONS/SY 417. COLD PLANE BIT. SURFACES 2.5" BINDER COURSE, 0.142 TONS/SY 1'-0" 1'-0" (VARIABLE DEPTH) 417. COLD PLANE BIT. SURFACES (VARIABLE DEPTH) TO TO 1'-0" 1'-0" 2'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" TO TO SHOULDER TRAVEL WAY TRAVEL WAY SHOULDER 4'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 4'-0" 1'-0" (TYP) 1'-0" (TYP) ITEM 606.18001 - 31" W-BEAM GUARDRAIL TRAVEL WAY TRAVEL WAY SHOULDER ITEM 609.811 - BITUMINOUS . WITH 8" OFFSET BLOCK (STEEL POST) . CURB, TYPE B (4" REVEAL) p p . ITEM 606.18001 - 31" W-BEAM GUARDRAIL . e

e ITEM 628.2 - SAWED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT WITH 8" OFFSET BLOCK (STEEL POST) (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) . . p p

VARIES . . VARIES e e 5.00% (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) 5.00% 1'-0" VARIES VARIES 1 . (TYP) COLD PLANE 5 OLD GROUND (TYP) 5.00% 5.00% : *(2)SHIM COURSE 1 1 OLD GROUND (TYP) COLD PLANE . 1 5 : : SHIM COURSE 5 1 . 8" OF ITEM 304.3 - CRUSHED GRAVEL (WHEN PROPOSED TOP LINE IS GREATER THAN 1 1.5" ABOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT) 1'-0" 8" OF ITEM 304.2 - GRAVEL

(TYP) 8" OF ITEM 304.1 - SAND MILL AND OVERLAY (AS ORDERED BY ENGINEER) SUPERELEVATED (STATION 107+00 TO 108+00) NOT TO SCALE STEP BOX WIDENING CHANNEL DETAIL @ EXIST. PIERNORMAL CROWN PROPOSED B L (STATION 111+00 TO 112+50) & PROFILE GRADE LINE NOT TO SCALE

ITEM 585.2 - STONE FILL CLASS B 2 26'-0" ' - 1 ITEM 403.11 HOT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, MACHINE METHOD 0 : 5 " . 1.5" WEARING COURSE, 0.085 TONS/SY 1 2.5" BINDER COURSE, 0.142 TONS/SY

2'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" OLD GROUND (TYP) SHOULDER TRAVEL WAY TRAVEL WAY SHOULDER

1'-0" (TYP) ITEM 593.411 - GEOTEXTILE; PERM CONTROL CL.1, NON-WOVEN ITEM 609.811 - BITUMINOUS 1 ITEM 606.18001 31" W-BEAM GUARDRAIL : CURB, TYPE B (4" REVEAL) 1 1 . . WITH 8" OFFSET BLOCK (STEEL POST) : 2'-6" p p 1 . .

e e 3'-0"

6.60% MAX 6.60% MAX 5.00% (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) *(1)5.00% ARMORED SLOPE DETAIL 1 . OLD GROUND (TYP) 1 REMOVAL OF EXISTING PAVEMENT 5 : : STATION 108+50 TO 111+50 (LEFT) 5 1 . 1 8" OF ITEM 304.3 - CRUSHED GRAVEL FACE OF STATION 107+50 TO 112+00 (RIGHT) 1'-0" PROPOSED ABUTMENT PAY LIMITS PAY LIMITS 8" OF ITEM 304.2 - GRAVEL OR WINGWALL NOT TO SCALE (TYP) ITEM 646.51 ITEM 585.3401 8" OF ITEM 304.1 - SAND

(AS ORDERED BY ENGINEER)

PARTIAL FULL DEPTH & STEP BOX WIDENING ELEV 264.0 EXISTING PIER PAY LIMITS, ITEM 502 LIMITS OF EXISTING REMOVAL OF EXISTING SUPERELEVATED EXISTING AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED RIPRAP APPROX. PROPOSED PROPOSED RIPRAP CHANNEL (STATION 108+00 TO 109+37) MATCH EXISTING NOT TO SCALE ITEM 646.51 MATCH EXISTING TURF ESTABLISHMENT WITH APPROX. EXISTING MULCH, TACKIFIERS AND LOAM CHANNEL PROPOSED B L & 2'-0" PROFILE GRADE LINE ITEM 585.3401, SIMULATED STREAMBED MATERIAL 30'-0" KEYED INTO PROPOSED RIPRAP ONLY ITEM 585.3401, SIMULATED PAY LIMITS, ITEM 207.3 ITEM 403.11 HOT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT, MACHINE METHOD STREAMBED MATERIAL 1.5" WEARING COURSE, 0.085 TONS/SY UNCLASSIFIED CHANNEL 2'-0" 2'-0" 2.5" BINDER COURSE, 0.142 TONS/SY EXCAVATION TO TO 2'-0" 4'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 4'-0" 1'-0" (TYP) VEGETATED RIPRAP DETAIL (TYP) TRAVEL WAY TRAVEL WAY SHOULDER SCALE: NOT TO SCALE ITEM 606.18001 31" W-BEAM GUARDRAIL

WITH 8" OFFSET BLOCK (STEEL POST)

. . CHANNEL DETAIL @ EXIST. PIER p p . .

e e SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

VARIES VARIES (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) 5.00% 5.00% PROPOSED ABUTMENT 1 . OLD GROUND (TYP) 1 5 : REMOVAL OF EXISTING PAVEMENT : 5 1 . PAY LIMITS ITEM 207.3 1 VARIALBLE DEPTH SHIM UNCLASSIFIED CHANNEL EXCAVATION 1'-0" ITEM 304.3 - CRUSHED GRAVEL NOTE: (TYP) 8" OF ITEM 304.2 - GRAVEL 1'-0" *(1)GUARDRAIL PLATFORM SHALL MATCH TRAVEL WAY 8" OF ITEM 304.1 - SAND EL = 270.0 (ABUT A)

(AS ORDERED BY ENGINEER) EL = 268.0 (ABUT B) APPROX. PROPOSED CROSS SLOPE WHEN CROSS SLOPE IS GREATER THAN 5.0% CHANNEL VARIES *(2)VARIABLE SHIM REQUIRED WHEN PROPOSED TOP LINE MATCH EXISTING PARTIAL FULL DEPTH 1 IS GREATER THAN 1.5" ABOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT EL= 260.0 (MIN) NORMAL CROWN CITY OF CONCORD (STATION 110+63 TO 111+00) ITEM 593.411, GEOTEXTILE:

NOT TO SCALE PERM CONTROL CL.1, NON-WOVEN ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION

ITEM 583.3, RIPRAP, CLASS III

(2'-0" THICK) ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTIONS CHANNEL DETAIL

DGN STATE PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 14841A_Env_typical 14841A 11 11

Appendix B Representative Site Photos

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Client Name: Project Name/Site Location: Project No. North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project City of Concord/Town of NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application N/A Pembroke, New Hampshire Concord and Pembroke, New Hampshire Photo No. Date: 1 5/8/2018 Direction Photo Taken: Northeasterly

Description:

View of easterly side of North Pembroke Road Bridge. Notice existing riprap located along both banks.

Photo No. Date: 2 5/8/2018 Direction Photo Taken: Northeasterly

Description:

View of western side of North Pembroke Road Bridge.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Description:

View of Soucook River facing upstream.

Photo No. Date: 4 5/8/2018 Direction Photo Taken: Westerly

Description:

View of western bridge pier and riprapped bank under bridge.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

View of Soucook River eastern bank, existing wildlife shelf, easterly bridge pier, and exposed gravel/rubble substrate.

Photo No. Date: 6 5/8/2018 Direction Photo Taken: Northeast

Description:

View of northeast bridge abutment and existing riprap under the bridge and lack of wetland vegetation.

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Description:

View of western bridge abutment and large riprap under bridge.

Photo No. Date: 8 5/8/2018 Direction Photo Taken: Northwest

Description:

View of Soucook River facing upstream. Note areas of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) growing near bridge piers.

SAV

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Description:

Upstream view of Soucook River showing majority of proposed work area.

Photo No. Date: 10 5/8/2018 Direction Photo Taken: Westerly

Description:

View of SAV growing on southeastern side of North Pembroke Road Bridge.

Appendix C Wetland Description and Functions and Values Assessment

TES Environmental Consultants, LLC November 11, 2017

Ref: TES JN 17-0074

Michael Carter, LLS Doucet Survey, Inc. 2 Commerce Drive Bedford, NH 03110

Re: Environmental Services (Wetland Description and Functions and Values Assessment) Replacement of North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River North Pembroke Road, Concord, New Hampshire

Dear Mr. Carter:

TES Environmental Consultants, L.L.C. (TES) has prepared this report to document the physical and biological characteristics of the wetlands and surrounding lands in the vicinity of the proposed replacement of the North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River in Concord, and to evaluate the functions and values associated with those wetlands. These observations are provided in support of the Survey Scope of Services related to the proposed project.

An on-site investigation was performed by TES on October 14, 2017 to delineate the boundaries of wetlands in the vicinity of the bridge (Figure 1) and to observe the characteristics of the wetlands and the upland portion of the surroundings. The wetland delineation was performed according to the standards of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region, Version 2.0, January 2012, US Army Corps of Engineers. The observations made during this field effort, along the following published information, form the basis for this wetland functional assessment:

• USGS Suncook, NH Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series topographic map • Aerial photographs from Google Earth and other sources • USDA-NRCS Soil Survey of Merrimack County, New Hampshire (via Web Soil Survey) • National Wetlands Inventory map • NH Natural Heritage Program Datacheck Program • US Army Corps of Engineers The Highway Methodology Workbook - Supplement

Site Characterization

Uplands. The upland areas in the vicinity of this survey area are in a mixture ofresidential and commercial use, with undeveloped forested land to the north and south of the bridge within the Soucook River Valley. The upland forest (Figure 2) in the vicinity of the bridge is primarily evergreen, with white pine (Pinus strobus) the dominant canopy species, and red oak (Quercus rubra) and red pine (Pinus resinosa) locally common, and red maple (Acer rubrum) dominant in the wetlands and on the river floodplain. Shrub cover in the upland forest is moderately dense and consists primarily of saplings of the overstory species. Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), an invasive vine, is common throughout the uplands in the vicinity of the bridge and along the river banks. Upland soils in the

1494 Route 3A, Unit 1, Bow, New Hampshire 03304 Phone: 603-856-8925 E-Mail: [email protected] 11/11/2017 TES Environmental Consultants , LLC vicinity of the survey area are shown in the Soil Survey of Merrimack County as being Suncook loamy fine sand (2A), an excessively drained soil formed in loose, sandy alluvial sediments. Windsor loamy sand (26A, 26C and 26E), an excessively drained soil formed in loose, sandy glacial outwash deposits, occurs on the steep slopes of the river valley and beyond.

Wetlands. On October 14, 2017 a TES wetland scientist delineated and flagged the boundaries of wetlands within the project survey area with numbered pink and black striped flags for location by ground survey and depiction on site plans. The principal jurisdictional wetland feature within the survey area consists of the Soucook River (Figures 1, 3 and 4) flowing generally from north to south through the area. A small gully on the northwest side of the bridge, formed by stormwater runoff from North Pembroke Road, contains a wetland extending to the river bank. A forested floodplain wetland also exists off the south side of North Pembroke Road approximately 150 feet east from the bridge, just south of the road fill slope. The gully wetland is essentially unvegetated (Figure 5) with bare soil, while the floodplain wetland east of the bridge has forest vegetation with red maple trees, meadowsweet shrubs (Spiraea alba), and sedges (Carex spp.) being the prevalent vegetation (Figure 6). One stormwater outfall culvert (Figure 7) exists on the north side of North Pembroke Road, west of the Bridge, but the scoured channel downgradient from the culvert does not qualify as an intermittent stream (Env-Wt 101.51) or watercourse (Env-Wt 101.107) under NH DES definitions (less than 75 feet in scoured channel length), and it does not have hydric soils or hydrophytic vegetation required for recognition of a vegetated wetland.

Portions of the bottom of the Soucook River have sparse to moderately dense aquatic vegetation (Figure 8), consisting primarily of wild celery (Vallisneria americana), bur-reed (Sparganium spp.), and common naiad (Najasflexilis). Most of the river bed, however, has a bare sand or cobble/gravel bottom.

The Soil Survey of Merrimack County does not depict wetland soils in the vicinity of the North Pembroke Road Bridge. Field observation of the soils within the wetlands indicates that they are poorly drained mineral soils similar to the Rippowam soil series. The classification of the Soucook River, in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ofthe United States (Cowardin et al., 1979), would be Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand, Permanently Flooded, R2UB2H). Vegetated wetlands on the river floodplain would be classified as Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded (PFOlC).

Several small (2-6") fish were observed within the Soucook River, rising to surface insects to the east of the bridge. Perennial streams of this size would have the potential to provide habitat for modest coldwater (i.e., trout) and warmwater fish populations (i.e., smallmouth bass).

Vernal Pool. No vernal pools were observed within the vicinity of the North Pembroke Road bridge, applying the following definition and methodologies: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Service definition of vernal pool at Env-Wt 101.106; delineation methods at Env-Wt 301.01 (f); and guidelines for identifying and describing vernal pools given in "Identification and Documentation of Vernal Pools in New Hampshire" published by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.

Invasive Plant Species. The lands within the survey area for this project were investigated for the potential presence of invasive plants identified in the New Hampshire Department of Transportation

1494 Route 3A, Unit 1, Bow, New Hampshire 03304 Phone: 603-856-8925 E-Mail: [email protected] 11/11/2017 TES Environmental Consultants, LLC (NHDOT) Best Management Practices for Roadside Invasive Plants. Three invasive plant species were observed in the survey area: Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), and glossy buckthom (Rhamnusfrangula). The Oriental bittersweet is very common throughout the upland forest and along the top of the river bank. Japanese knotweed was restricted to one upland area north of North Pembroke Road, outside of the road right-of-way along the east side of a woods road extending north from North Pembroke Road on the west side of the Soucook River. Glossy buckthom is scattered widely in the upland forest throughout the survey area. For these reasons: the extensive nature of the bittersweet infestation, the location of the knotweed on private property, and the widely scattered occurrence ofbuckthom, no attempts to control these invasive species are advised.

Wetland Functional Assessment Methodology

Wetland functions and values, and their significance were evaluated using the US Army Corps Highway Methodology guidelines. The following is a list of the 14 wetland functions and values with a brief description of each.

1. Groundwater Recharge should relate to the potential for the wetland to contribute water to an aquifer ( often combined with the following). 2. Groundwater Discharge should relate to the potential for the wetland to serve as an area where ground water can be discharged to the surface. 3. Floodflow Alteration: This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland in reducing flood damage by attenuation of floodwaters for prolonged periods following precipitation events. 4. Fish and Shellfish Habitat: This function considers the effectiveness of seasonal or permanent water bodies associated with the wetland in question for fish and shell fish habitat. 5. Sedimentffoxicant/Pathogen Retention: This function reduces or prevents degradation of water quality. It relates to the effectiveness of the wetland as a trap for sediments, toxicants or pathogens. 6. Nutrient RemovaVRetentionffransformation: This function relates to the effectiveness of the wetland to prevent adverse effects of excess nutrients entering aquifers or surface waters such as ponds, lakes, streams, rivers or estuaries. 7. Production Export: This function relates to the effectiveness of the wetland to produce food or usable products for humans or other living organisms. 8. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization: This function relates to the effectiveness of a wetland to stabilize stream banks and shorelines against erosion. 9. Wildlife Habitat: This function considers the effectiveness of the wetland to provide habitat for various types and populations of animals typically associated with wetlands and the wetland edge. Both resident and or migrating species must be considered. 10. Recreation: This value considers the effectiveness of the wetland and associated watercourses to provide recreational opportunities such as canoeing, boating, fishing, hunting and other active or passive recreational activities. Consumptive opportunities consume or diminish the plants, animals or other resources that are intrinsic to the wetland, whereas non-consumptive opportunities do not. 11. Educational/Scientific Value: This value considers the effectiveness of the wetland as a site for an "outdoor classroom" or as a location for scientific study or research. 12. Uniqueness/Heritage: This value relates to the effectiveness of the wetland or its associated water bodies to produce certain special values. Special values may include such things as archeological sites, unusual aesthetic quality, historical events, or unique plants, animals, or geological features.

1494 Route 3A, Unit 1, Bow, New Hampshire 03304 Phone: 603-856-8925 E-Mail: [email protected] 11/11/2017

Appendix D Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River

Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis North Pembroke Road over Soucook River Concord and Pembroke, New Hampshire

Northstar Hydro, Inc. for HDR, Inc.

January 17, 2018

B-2

Preliminary Hydrologic/Hydraulic and Scour Analysis, North Pembroke Road over Soucook River in Concord and Pembroke, New Hampshire.

1.0 Introduction.

This report was prepared by Northstar Hydro, Inc. (NHI) for HDR to assist in the preliminary design of a replacement bridge over the Soucook River on North Pembroke Road. The 2016 version of the New Hampshire DOT Bridge Design Manual recommends a minimum of 1’ of freeboard above the 100-year flood level as estimated at the toe of the upstream embankment.

The project site is located on the Pembroke/Concord town line and is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Site location

B-3 1 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour The bridge is located below a sharp meander and the river flows through the bridge at an angle. The bridge is on the outside of a river bend. Flow is from north to south in Figure.

Figure 2. Arrow showing river flow towards westerly downstream bank. Note also that bridge is on bend in river. The existing bridge is supported on two abutments and two piers. The stream bed has some cobbles and large rocks above the sandy bottom and the westerly bank shows signs of undercutting and erosion both up- and down-stream. Figure 3 shows the downstream face of the bridge.

Figure 3. Downstream face of bridge, taken from westerly bank. Figures 4 and 5 are taken from the bridge looking upstream and downstream respectively. Figure 6-10 illustrate other hydraulic features at the bridge site.

B-4 2 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 4. Looking downstream from the bridge.

Figure 5. Looking upstream from bridge.

B-5 3 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 6. Looking across upstream face from easterly bank.

Figure 7. Looking at downstream westerly bank. Note undercutting of embankment.

B-6 4 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 8. Heavy riprap on westerly bank under bridge.

Figure 9. Heavy riprap on easterly embankment at abutment

B-7 5 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 10. Cobbled stream bottom near piers and under bridge.

2.0 Review of Existing Data:

NHI compiled and reviewed existing data related to study components for the project site. Data included:

 FEMA Flood Insurance Study. The site was studied in detail by FEMA in 1979 and remapped by FEMA in 2010. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the site were not redone, but flood zones were remapped using LIDAR data (Figure 11). FEMA flood flows and elevations are detailed in report section 3.0, Hydrology.

B-8 6 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 11. FEMA Effective FIS at project site. FEMA mapped the 100-year flood elevation at this site in 1979 at elevation 270 just upstream of the North Pembroke Road Bridge and 271 to 272 upstream of the “Trailer Park Bridge” which has since been removed. The FEMA flood profile is shown in the appendix.  USGS Stream Gaging Station 01089100 Soucook River, at Pembroke Road, Near Concord, NH. The USGS has maintained a working stream gage just upstream of the project site from 1989 to the present. Selected gage readings are included in the hydrology table in section 3.0 of this report. The gage is shown in Figure 12 below.

B-9 7 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 12. Stream gage is installed on old bridge abutments upstream of the bridge. NHI also compiled a GIS database of information for the project site, including aerial photos, topographic maps, LIDAR data and project survey.

3.0 Hydrology At the project location, the Soucook River drains 82.7 square miles including 5.58 percent wetlands and the average stream slope is 26.7 feet per mile. The drainage basin is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Soucook River Drainage Basin

B-10 8 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour Several sources of data were compiled for the hydrologic analysis. FEMA provided a flow distribution in their 1979 flood study. These flows were computed as follows according the to the most recent FEMA FIS study.

The stream gage upstream of the bridge has been in operation since 1989, providing a 28 year record. This data was used in Streamstats to compute the flow array used for this flood study. In addition a series of peak flows and gage elevations were used as a source of data for calibration of the hydraulic model. Table 1 summarizes hydrologic data in order of increasing flow rate. The table also includes gaged water surface elevations and 1979 FEMA FIS elevations. The final columns of the table reflect modeled elevations from the HECRAS hydraulic model as discussed in 4.0. Recommended project hydrology is from StreamStats and is based on the gage record and USGS regression formula. Because the methodology is updated and site specific StreamStats is recommended over FEMA flows.

B-11 9 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour Gage HECRAS Storm Date or Data Flow, elev FEMA map elev. Calibration modeled elev. Frequency Source cfs NAVD NAVD Target DS US US at 255.3 BR BR gage Gage at gage bridge mean annual Streamstats 138 June 24, 2013 Gage record 1000 263.9 October 25, 1990 Gage record 1020 263.85 March 27, 2003 Gage record 1050 264.03 March 9, 1995 Gage record 1150 264.23 April 14, 2001 Gage record 1210 264.47 March 8, 2011 Gage record 1250 265.35 April 7, 1989 Gage record 1260 265.5 September 7, 2008 Gage record 1340 264.72 2-year Streamstats 1360 264.8 264.9 264.8 March 31, 1993 Gage record 1400 264.88 December 8, 2012 Gage record 1460 264.99 February 26, 2016 Gage record 1470 265.01 March 27, 2003 Gage record 1550 265.33 March 15, 2010 Gage record 1750 266.11 April 17, 1996 Gage record 1750 265.76 September 7, 2008 Gage record 1770 265.65 April 4, 2005 Gage record 1930 266.14 June 17, 1998 Gage record 2020 266.32 5-year Streamstats 2130 April 17, 1996 Gage record 2320 266.89 10-year FEMA 2620 266 267 267 10-year Streamstats 2730 267.3 267.3 267.1 25-year Streamstats 3570 268.2 268.4 268.2 April 17, 2007 Gage record 3740 268.7 50-year Streamstats 4280 269.4 269.3 269 50-year FEMA 4450 268 268.5 270 100-year Streamstats 5040 270.2 270.2 269.9 May 14, 2006 Gage record 5110 270.22 100-year FEMA 5475 269 270 271 500-year Streamstats 7110 272.5 272.2 500-year FEMA 8255 270.5 272.5 273 Table 1. Summary of available hydrologic data and stream elevations at project site. Project hydrology is shown in bold.

B-12 10 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour 4.0 Project Survey

HDR provided survey of the project site and stream channel. Figures 14 and 15 show the extent of project survey. Downstream channel survey extends approximately 210 feet below the bridge. Upstream survey extends to about 250 feet upstream and includes about 80’ above the stream gage and old bridge abutments.

Figure 14. Project plan sheet showing extent of channel survey. Project survey was used for channel detail for the HECRAS hydraulic model.

5.0 Hydraulic Analysis Project hydraulics were evaluated using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model HECRAS version 5.03, the preferred program for NHDOT bridge design work. The geometric model was compiled using ArcGIS software and HEC-GeoRAS extension. Channel detail was based on project survey. Overbank elevation data was extracted from the DEM based on NH LiDAR data. Project cross sections used in the HECRAS model are shown in Figure 15.

B-13 11 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 15. Cross section locations for HECRAS modely. Note meander upstream. Note the meander upstream of the bridge. Sections were assumed to be ineffective flow where meander flow at the upstream segment of the bend merged with flow for the downstream portion of the bend. Some flow will overtop the trailer park area flowing as shown in Figure 16.

B-14 12 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Figure 16. Flow from meander towards bridge is shown with red arrow. The model was built to simulate the existing bridge. Bridge detail was based on project plans as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Bridge section - downstream face.

The flow model was based on flows as shown in bold in Table 1 and computed by StreamStats. The model was run in steady flow mode within the subcritical flow regime. The downstream

B-15 13 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour elevation boundary was based on normal depth with water surface slope of 0.00057 feet per feet as shown in the FEMA flood profiles for the Soucook River.

Piers were simulated assuming a skew to flow of 18 degrees. This estimate is based on field reconnaissance and project plans.

Overbank “n” value was generally set at 0.07 to 0.08 and channel “n” value was set to .035. Contraction and expansion coefficients were set at 0.1 and 0.3 with values at the bridge set at 0.3 and 0.5.

The model was calibrated to recorded flood levels at the stream gage. Table 1 shows recorded flood levels and model predicted flood levels. The table also includes effective elevations for the current Flood Insurance Study. The model showed excellent calibration to both the gage record and the FEMA study. Modeled elevations are shown in blue in Figure 18. Gage rating curve elevations are shown as red points. Section 314 (green on Figure) was selected as representative of the upstream face of the bridge in accordance with the NHDOT Bridge Design Manual.

PembrokeRoad Plan: EXSS 12/28/2017 Soucook River Pem broke Reach Legend

WS 500 yr WS 100 yr WS 50 yr

WS 25 yr

270 WS 10 yr WS 5 yr

WS 2 yr WS 100 cfs Ground

OWS 2 yr 265 OWS 10 yr OWS 25 yr

OWS 50 yr OWS 100 yr Elevation (ft) Elevation

260

255

Section 314

100 200 300 400 500 Main Channel Distance (ft) Figure 18. Predicted flood elevations vs gage rating curve. The proposed bridge was modeled in HECRAS. The proposed bridge section is shown in figure 19. Note the 120’ span with piers eliminated.

Figure 19. Proposed bridge profile

B-16 14 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour . Figure 20. Proposed Bridg Profile, Preliminary Design Model results for existing and proposed conditions are shown in the appendix and key hydraulic data is summarized in Table 2.

Summary of Hydraulic Data Existing Bridge Proposed Bridge Low Chord 271.8-273.1 271.3-272.7 Width at Q100 (perpendicular to flow) 71’ 91’ Headwater at Q25, ft (at 314) 268.1 267.5 Energy Grade Line for Q25 at US face. 268.4 267.8 Headwater at Q50, ft, (at bridge face) 269.0 268.2 Energy Grade Line for Q50 at US face 269.3 268.5 Headwater at Q100, ft, (at bridge face) 269.9 268.9 Energy Grade Line for Q100 at US face 270.1 269.2 Discharge Velocity at Q25, fps 8.8 6.0 Discharge Velocity at Q50, fps 9.9 6.8 Discharge Velocity at Q100, fps 11.0 7.5 Ordinary High Water Elevation (Q1.1) (US face), ft TBD TBD Discharge Velocity at Q1.1, fps TBD TBD Discharge Velocity Q2, fps 4.8 1.2 Clearance @ Q25, ft (use EGL) 3.4 3.5 Clearance @ Q50, ft (EGL) 2.5 2.8 Clearance @ Q100, ft (EGL) 1.7 2.1 Bridge Opening Area, ft2 851 1068 Flow Area at Q100, ft2 (US Face) 521 720

Table 2. Summary of Hydraulic Data

B-17 15 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour Generally, flood levels and velocities under proposed conditions are predicted to be lower due to the expanded section provided by the wider span and removed piers.

6.0 Scour Analysis

The existing bridge was analyzed for potential scour resulting from contraction and local affects, including pier and abutment scour. Each component was analyzed according to recommendations in FHWA HEC-18 and results of the hydraulic analysis. Estimated scour is summarized in Table 3. Scour computations are included in the appendix.

Type of Scour Left Channel Right Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Long Term Bed 1 1 2’ 2 1 1 Contraction- 0.6 0.6 10.2 7.7 0.0 0.0 100-yr - 1.8 0.0 12.6 8.4 0.4 0.0 500-yr Pier -100 yr 24* 0.0 -500yr 27.4* 0.0 Abutment – 6.9 6.3 7.0 3.4 100-yr -500- 5.9 9.3 11.7 8.1 yr Total -100-yr 8.5 7.9 36.2 9.7 8 4.4 -500-yr 8.7 10.3 42 10.4 13.1 9.1 Table 3. Summary of Scour Calculations for Existing and Proposed Bridge. All calculations assume live bed scour, based on estimated sand bed D50 of 1.5 mm. Abutment scour protection is recommended for the replacement structure. With properly designed protection, abutment scour is expected to be 0.0’. *Note, HEC-18 recommends maximum pier scour at 23’ based on pier width.

7.0 Summary and Conclusions

 The existing bridge, supported on two abutments and two piers is poorly aligned with flow and is located on a bend in the river.  The project site and bridge reach show evidence of erosion and scour of the westerly bank and in the streambed.  FEMA mapped the 100-year flood elevation at this site in 1979 at elevation 270 just upstream of the North Pembroke Road Bridge and 271 to 272 upstream of the “Trailer Park Bridge” which has since been removed.

B-18 16 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour  A USGS stream gage, just upstream of the project site has recorded flow and elevation data since  1989.  The Soucook River drains 82.7 square miles of drainage area at the project site.  The FEMA predicted flood flows for the project site are slightly higher than those predicted by the current USGS/Streamstats flow distribution. For example, the Streamstats 50-year flow is 4280 cfs whereas the FEMA flow was 4450 cfs. The Streamstats distribution was used for this bridge study.  The flood of record at the site occurred in May of 2006 with a recorded elevation of 270.2 and projected flow of 5110 cfs.  A hydraulic model of the river reach that affects the project site was compiled using project survey and LIDAR data imported through model HEC GeoRAS.  Existing and proposed bridge models were compiled based on survey plans, site reconnaissance and proposed plans as furnished by HDR.  The HECRAS model was calibrated to recorded flood levels at the USGS gage. Excellent agreement was reached between recorded data and modeled flood levels.  Under existing conditions, the 100-year flood clearance is 1.7’. For proposed conditions, the 100-year projected clearance is 2.1’ to the lowest point on the low steel. The flood of record would have had clearance of about 2.5’ at the existing bridge and 2.8’ for the proposed bridge.  Under existing conditions, contraction scour is projected to be in the range of 10’ for the 100-year flood. Pier scour is projected to 24’ for the 100-year flood.  For proposed conditions, projected scour decreases substantially due to removal of the piers. This enlarges the bridge section and eliminates local scour effects from pier base. Projected total scour is about 10’ for both the 100-year and 500-year floods.  Geotechnical information including D50 is required to finalize scour computations.

References New Hampshire DOT, Bridge Design Manual, Chapter 2 - Bridge Selection, Revised April 2016. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 0553E. Merrimack County, New Hampshire. April 19, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study. Merrimack County, New Hampshire. 33013CV001VA and 2VA. April 19, 2010 U. S. Dept. of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey. Estimated Discharges at Selected Annual Exceedance Probabilities for Unregulated Rural Streams in Vermont. SIR 2014 5078. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. HEC-RAS River Analysis System. Version 5.0.3. September 2016. Davis, CA U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Evaluating Scour at Bridges, 5th edition. HEC-18. April 2012 , Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-003

B-19 17 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures. HEC-23. Volume 2. September, 2009. FHWA-NHI-09-112 . DG 14, Rock Riprap at Bridge Abutments and DG 4, Riprap Revetment U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Design of Riprap Revetment. HEC No. 11. FHWA IP-89-016, March 1989

ESRI ArcMap, ArcGIS Desktop USGS Stream Gaging Station 01089100 Soucook River, at Pembroke Road, Near Concord, NH. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=01089100

United States Geological Survey, Streamstats Version 4.0. https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/

B-20 18 Soucook River at North Pembroke Road, H-H and Scour

Soucook River North Pembroke Road, Preliminary Design H-H and Scour Report Appendix

FEMA Flood Profile of Soucook River at Project Site Freeboard Requirements from NH DOT Bridge Design Manual HECRAS Output Flood Profiles Existing with Calibration Data Existing Proposed Existing Table 1 and Bridge Table Proposed Table 1 and Bridge Table Bridge section plots Existing Bridge and Cross Section Tables Proposed Bridge and Cross Section Tables Scour Calculations Existing Proposed Section plots for scour calculations, existing and proposed

B-21

B-22 Appendix 1 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-23 Appendix 2 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-24 Appendix 3 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-25 Appendix 4 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-26 Appendix 5 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-27 Appendix 6 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-28 Appendix 7 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-29 Appendix 8 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-30 Appendix 9 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-31 Appendix 10 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-32 Appendix 11 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-33 Appendix 12 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-34 Appendix 13 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-35 Appendix 14 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-36 Appendix 15 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-37 Appendix 16 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-38 Appendix 17 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-39 Appendix 18 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-40 Appendix 19 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-41 Appendix 20 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-42 Appendix 21 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-43 Appendix 22 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-44 Appendix 23 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-45 Appendix 24 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-46 Appendix 25 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-47 Appendix 26 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-48 Appendix 27 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-49 Appendix 28 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-50 Appendix 29 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-51 Appendix 30 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-52 Appendix 31 Soucook at North Pembroke Road B-53 Appendix 32 Soucook at North Pembroke Road

Memorandum To: Paul Lefebvre, HDR

From: Ellen O’Brien, Nicole Buck, Northstar Hydro, Inc.

Date: September 12, 2018

Re: Questions related to Hydrologic/Hydraulic Design of North Pembroke Road over Soucook River.

The following are our responses to your email of 9/6 related to NHDOT comments on the H/H design for North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River.

1. Can you clarify what we should use for the Q100, Q50, and Q25 design flood elevations? The following table has highlighted numbers that should be used for design for the new bridge span. Summary of Hydraulic Data Existing Bridge Proposed Bridge Headwater at Q25, ft (at 314) 268.1 267.5 Energy Grade Line for Q25 at US face. 268.4 267.8 Headwater at Q50, ft, (at bridge face) 269.0 268.2 Energy Grade Line for Q50 at US face 269.3 268.5 Headwater at Q100, ft, (at bridge face) 269.9 268.9 Energy Grade Line for Q100 at US face 270.1 269.2

2. Can you confirm that the bridge would be defined as a Tier 3 Stream Crossing according to the NH Stream Crossing Rules? (Env-Wt 900). Yes it is a Teir 3 stream under Env-Wt 904.04 a) (1) – The watercourse has a contributing watershed greater than 640 ac (or 1 sq. mi.). The watershed at this location was measured at 82.7 square miles.

3. Can you provide a Bankfull Width? Bankfull width was not measured in the field as a “stand alone” item but can be inferred from data contained in surveyed cross sections and the project hydraulic model.

Using model sections from HECRAS (field surveyed), the 2-year top width average through the modeled reach is 79’ using the main channel area and not including floodplain area. Bank to bank average width for the reach is 76’. The New Hampshire regression curve for this size of drainage basin is 108’.

4. Can you provide the structure span required to satisfy the NH Stream Crossing Guidelines. I believe the number is (1.2 x bankfull width + 2 feet), but I’m not entirely sure. We

B-54 will need the minimum structure span to satisfy NHDOT comments, but also for the dredge and fill permit in the next phase of design. Using the 2-year width for the stream, 1.2X BFW is 95’. Using bank to bank width, 1.2’ X Bank to Bank is 91’. According to HDR plans, the full bridge span is 120’ and is set well above the 100-year flood level. 1.2X the 100-year width at the bridge would be only 112’.

Attached to this memo are plotted sections from the HECRAS model showing 2-year, 100-year and bank station widths. Also attached are HECRAS tables and a summary customized table for computation of width for the 2-year flood within the river channel and the bank to bank width. References for stream crossing design width include the  UNH New Hampshire Stream Crossing Guidelines from May of 2009 which recommends using 1.2 times bank full width,  and the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Park Env-Wt 902-904 which defines this crossing as a Tier 3 crossing. Requires that the design does not increase flooding on abutting properties and able to pass flow such that the channel stability is not impacted. Documentation for these criteria is contained in the Preliminary Design Report for this project. Selected sections of these references are attached to this memo.

B-55 B-56

B-57 B-58 B-59 B-60 B-61 B-62 B-63 B-64 B-65 B-66 B-67 B-68 B-69 B-70 B-71 B-72 B-73 B-74 B-75 B-76

Appendix E NHDES Stream Crossing Worksheet

NHDES‐W‐06‐071 WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION STREAM CROSSING WORKSHEET Land Resources Management Wetlands Bureau

NOTE: This worksheet can be used to accompany Wetlands

RSA 482‐A/ Env‐Wt‐900 Permit Applications when proposing stream crossings.

1. Tier Classifications Determine the contributing watershed size at USGS StreamStats Note: Plans for Tier 2 and 3 crossings shall be designed and stamped by a professional engineer who is licensed under RSA 310‐A to practice in New Hampshire. Size of contributing watershed at the crossing location: 52,928 acres Tier 1: A tier 1 stream crossing is a crossing located on a watercourse where the contributing watershed size is less than or equal to 200 acres Tier 2: A tier 2 stream crossing is a crossing located on a watercourse where the contributing watershed size is greater than 200 acres and less than 640 acres Tier 3: A tier 3 stream crossing is a crossing that meets any of the following criteria: On a watercourse where the contributing watershed is more than 640 acres Within a Designated River Corridor On a watercourse that is listed on the surface water assessment 305(b) report Within a 100‐year floodplain (see section 2 below) In a jurisdictional area having any protected species or habitat (NHB DataCheck) In or within 100 feet of a Prime Wetland 2. 100‐year Floodplain Use the FEMA Map Service Center to determine if the crossing is located within a 100‐year floodplain. Please answer the questions below: No: The proposed stream crossing is not within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain. Yes: The proposed project is within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain. Zone = AE Elevation of the 100‐year floodplain at the inlet: 269.4 ft. (FEMA El.) feet (FEMA El. or Modeled El.)

3. Calculating Peak Discharge Existing 100‐year peak discharge (Q) calculated in cubic feet Calculation method: USGS StreamStats per second (CFS): 5040 CFS Estimated Bankfull discharge at the crossing location: 1360 CFS Calculation method: USGS StreamStats

Note: If Tier 1 then skip to Section 10 4. Predicted Channel Geometry based on Regional Hydraulic Curves For Tier 2 and Tier 3 Crossings Only Bankfull Width: 108 feet Mean Bankfull Depth: 4.2 feet Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: 450 square feet

[email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov NHDES Wetlands Stream Crossing Worksheet – Revised 03/2019 Page 1 of 5 5. Cross Sectional Channel Geometry: Measurements of the Existing Stream within a Reference Reach For Tier 2 and Tier 3 Crossings Only Describe the reference reach location: Downstream of bridge Reference reach watershed size: 52,928 acres Cross Section 1 Cross Section 2 Cross Section 3 Parameter Describe bed form Describe bed form Describe bed form Range STA 0+34; riffle STA 0+82; riffle ______(e.g. pool, riffle, glide) (e.g. pool, riffle, glide) (e.g. pool, riffle, glide) Bankfull Width 86 feet 81 feet ______feet 81 ‐ 86 feet Bankfull Cross Sectional Area 386 SF 391 SF ______SF 386 ‐ 391 SF Mean Bankfull Depth 4.5 feet 4.8 feet ______feet 4.5 ‐ 4.8 feet Width to Depth Ratio 19.3 16.8 ______16.8 ‐ 19.3 Max Bankfull Depth 7.3 feet 7.6 feet ______feet 7.3 ‐7.6 feet Flood Prone Width 659 feet 726 feet ______feet 659 ‐726 feet Entrenchment Ratio 7.6 9 ______7.6 ‐ 9 Use Figure 1 below to determine the measurements of the Reference Reach Attributes

Figure 1: Determining the Reference Reach Attributes

6. Longitudinal Parameters of the Reference Reach and Crossing Location For Tier 2 and Tier 3 Crossings Only

Average Channel Slope of the Reference Reach: 0.01 Average Channel Slope at the Crossing Location: 0.008

7. Plan View Geometry For Tier 2 and Tier 3 Crossings Only Sinuosity of the Reference Reach: 1.54 Sinuosity of the Crossing Location: 1.54 Note: Sinuosity is measured a distance of at least 20 times bankfull width, or 2 meander belt widths

% of reach that is bedrock 0 %

% of reach that is boulder 5 %

% of reach that is cobble 5 %

% of reach that is gravel 10 %

% of reach that is sand 75 %

% of reach that is silt 5 %

9. Stream Type of Reference Reach For Tier 2 and Tier 3 Crossings Only Stream Type of Reference Reach: C5 Refer to Rosgen Classification Chart (Figure 2) below

Figure 2. Reference from Applied River Morphology, Rosgen, 1996

10. Crossing Structure Metrics [email protected] or (603) 271‐2147 NHDES Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95, Concord, NH 03302‐0095 www.des.nh.gov NHDES Wetlands Stream Crossing Worksheet – Revised 03/2019 Page 3 of 5 Existing Structure Type: Bridge Span

Pipe Arch Open‐bottom Culvert Closed‐bottom Culvert Conditions

Closed‐bottom Culvert with stream simulation Other: Span w/ 2 piers Existing Crossing Span 109.5 feet Culvert Diameter ______feet

Existing (perpendicular to flow) Inlet Elevation ______Existing Crossing Length 23 feet Outlet Elevation ______(parallel to flow) Culvert Slope ______Proposed Structure Type: Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Alternative Design Bridge Span

Pipe Arch Closed‐bottom Culvert Open‐bottom Culvert Conditions

Closed‐bottom Culvert with stream simulation Proposed structure Span 120 feet Culvert Diameter ______feet (perpendicular to flow) Inlet Elevation ______Proposed Proposed Structure Length 33 feet Outlet Elevation ______(parallel to flow) Culvert Slope ______Proposed Entrenchment Ratio* 9 Note: To accommodate the entrenchment ratio, For Tier 2 and Tier 3 Crossings Only floodplain drainage structures may be utilized

* Note: Proposed Entrenchment Ratio must meet the minimum ratio for each stream type listed in Figure 3, otherwise the applicant must address the Alternative Design criteria listed in Env‐Wt 904.09

Figure 3. Reference from Applied River Morphology, Rosgen, 1996

100 year flood stage elevation at inlet 269.4 268.2 Flow velocity at outlet in feet per second (FPS) 11 7.5 Calculated 100 year peak discharge (Q) for the proposed structure in CFS 5040

Calculated 50 year peak discharge (Q) for the proposed structure in CFS 4280

12. Crossing Structure Openness Ratio For Tier 2 and Tier 3 Crossings Only

Crossing Structure Openness Ratio = N/A Openness box culvert = (height x width)/length Openness round culvert = (3.14 x radius2)/length

13. General Design Considerations Env‐Wt 904.01 requires all stream crossings to be designed and constructed according to the following requirements. Check each box if the project meets these general design considerations. All stream crossings shall be designed and constructed so as to: Not be a barrier to sediment transport. Prevent the restriction of high flows and maintain existing low flows. Not obstruct or otherwise substantially disrupt the movement of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody beyond the actual duration of construction. Not cause an increase in the frequency of flooding or overtopping of banks. Preserve watercourse connectivity where it currently exists. Restore watercourse connectivity where: (1) Connectivity previously was disrupted as a result of human activity(ies); and (2) Restoration of connectivity will benefit aquatic life upstream or downstream of the crossing, or both. Not cause erosion, aggradation, or scouring upstream or downstream of the crossing. Not cause water quality degradation.

14. Tier Specific Design Criteria Stream crossings must be designed in accordance with the Tier specific design criteria listed in Part Env‐Wt 904.

The proposed project meets the Tier specific design criteria listed in Part Env‐Wt 904 and each requirement has been addressed in the plans and as part of the wetland application.

15. Alternative Design

NOTE: If the proposed crossing does not meet all of the general design considerations, the Tier specific design criteria, or the minimum entrenchment ratio for each given stream type listed in Figure 3, then an alternative design plan and associated requirements must be addressed pursuant to Env‐Wt 904.09. I have submitted an alternative design and addressed each requirement listed in Env‐Wt 904.09

Appendix F Endangered Species Review

CONFIDENTIAL – NH Dept. of Environmental Services review Memo NH Natural Heritage Bureau NHB Datacheck Results Letter

To: Brett Battaglia, HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103

From: Amy Lamb, NH Natural Heritage Bureau Date: 6/15/2020 (valid for one year from this date) Re: Review by NH Natural Heritage Bureau NHB File ID: NHB20-1607 Town: Concord, Pembroke Location: North Pembroke Road Description: The proposed project includes replacement of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) Bridge No. 183/156, that carries North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River in Concord and Pembroke, NH. The bridge is programmed by NHDOT to State Municipal Bridge Aid funds for Fiscal Year 2018 as project number 14841A and budgeted by the City of Concord in their Capital Improvements Program as CIP-478. The bridge is jointly owned by the City of Concord and the Town of Pembroke. The North Pembroke Road Bridge Project is a municipally managed bridge project and funded by a combination of state and local funds. Through a municipal agreement, the City of Concord is responsible for the management of design, permit, and construction in accordance with NHDOT requirements. As currently proposed, the project includes a complete bridge replacement on the existing roadway alignment under a full bridge closure. The recommended replacement structure is a single span prestressed concrete box beam bridge on the existing bridge alignment utilizing a traffic detour and closing the bridge to traffic. Wetlands around the bridge will be minimally impacted during the construction of the project. cc : Kim Tuttle

As requested, I have searched our database for records of rare species and exemplary natural communities, with the following results. Comments: This site is within an area flagged for possible impacts on the state-listed Alasmidonta varicosa (brook floater) in the Soucook River; please contact the NH Fish & Game Department. Contact NHB if there will be impacts to the roadside embankment west of the bridge.

Invertebrate Species State 1 Federal Notes Brook Floater ( Alasmidonta varicosa ) E -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below).

Plant species State 1 Federal Notes wild lupine ( Lupinus perennis ssp. perennis ) T --

Vertebrate species State 1 Federal Notes Eastern Hognose Snake ( Heterodon platirhinos ) E -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). Northern Black Racer ( Coluber constrictor T -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below). constrictor )

Department of Natural and Cultural Resources DNCR/NHB Division of Forests and Lands 172 Pembroke Rd. (603) 271-2214 fax: 271-6488 Concord, NH 03301 CONFIDENTIAL – NH Dept. of Environmental Services review Memo NH Natural Heritage Bureau NHB Datacheck Results Letter

Wood Turtle ( Glyptemys insculpta ) SC -- Contact the NH Fish & Game Dept (see below).

1Codes: "E" = Endangered, "T" = Threatened, “SC” = Special Concern, "--" = an exemplary natural community, or a rare species tracked by NH Natural Heritage that has not yet been added to the official state list. An asterisk (*) indicates that the most recent report for that occurrence was more than 20 years ago.

Contact for all animal reviews: Kim Tuttle, NH F&G, (603) 271-6544. A negative result (no record in our database) does not mean that a sensitive species is not present. Our data can only tell you of known occurrences, based on information gathered by qualified biologists and reported to our 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.

NHB20-1607 EOCODE: PDFAB2B342*025*NH

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Plant Record

wild lupine ( Lupinus perennis ssp. perennis )

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Apparently secure but with cause for concern State: Listed Threatened State: Imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Fair quality, condition and/or landscape context ('C' on a scale of A-D). Comments on Rank: Marginal quality, viability, condition, defensibility.

Detailed Description: 2007: Observed and photographed in dozens of clumps. Exact count not made, estimated around 100 plants/clusters. 2002: Approximately 40 plants, 70% in fruit, 10% in flower. 1992: Lupinus perennis (wild lupine) grew on the north side of the road. A total of 36 plants were present, and ranged in size from 3 to 60+ leaves (mode = 25-30 leaves). The productivity appeared high, for several hundred pods were present. Small plants tended to be downhill from the large plants. 1990: 511 ramets, 255 genets, 41 in flower. Feeble vigor. General Area: 2007: Sloped roadside embankment between paved road and dry oak-pine forest above. 1992: Quite a bit of Coronilla varia (crown vetch) and Lotus corniculatus (birdsfoot trefoil) were also present. 1990: Artificial road embankment with pitch pine, white pine, scrub oak, and sweet fern. General Comments: 1990: Some insect damage evident. Management 1990: Possibly seed the slope or use existing population as seed source. Comments:

Location Survey Site Name: North Pembroke Road Managed By:

County: Merrimack Town(s): Concord Size: .6 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions: From Rte. 3, go north on Rte. 106 then take a right onto North Pembroke Road. Park where its safe to do so. Site is on left side of the road, just past the embankment.

Dates documented First reported: 1990 Last reported: 2007-06-08

CONFIDENTIAL – NH Dept. of Environmental Services review NHB20-1607 EOCODE: ARADB17020*011*NH

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record

Eastern Hognose Snake ( Heterodon platirhinos )

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Endangered State: Critically imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank: --

Detailed Description: 2011: H005: 1 male radiotracked.2010: H001: 1 female radiotracked. Found dead after being mortally wounded by synthetic erosion control netting. H002: 1 male radiotracked. H003: 1 male radiotracked. Found dead with a couple of holes in body. H004: 1 male observed. 2009: H001: 1 female radiotracked. H002: 1 male radiotracked. H003: 1 male radiotracked.2008: Area 11614: 1 adult seen.1992: Area 6422: Observed.1985: Area 11614a: 1 young specimen killed by Brian Towle of Allenstown. Specimen turned in to NHNHI by Eric Orff, New Hampshire Fish and Game. Adults seen in summer. General Area: 2009: Telemetry data: Mix of cover types, with beech/oak forest, mixed forest, white/red pine forest, and cleared area. A power line right-of-way also passes through the area. 2008: Area 11614: Found inside residence. Observer released it outdoors. 1992: Area 6422: Yard. Pine barrens.1985: Area 11614a: Gravel pit. General Comments: 2009: Telemetry: Proposed location of new National Guard Training Facility. Management -- Comments:

Location Survey Site Name: Pembroke Gravel Pit Managed By: Pembroke Water Works

County: Merrimack Town(s): Pembroke Size: 71.6 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions: 2008: Area 11614: 21 Chenell Drive, Concord.1992: Area 6422: Broken Bridge Road, near Louis Diner. [The corner of Broken Bridge Rd. and Rte. 3.]1985: In gravel pit, ca. 1.5 miles north on Rte. 106 from junction with Rte. 3. Small dirt road west of Rte. 106 leads to gravel pit.

Dates documented First reported: 1985 Last reported: 2011-10-26

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461.

CONFIDENTIAL – NH Dept. of Environmental Services review NHB20-1607 EOCODE: ARADB0701D*003*NH

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record

Northern Black Racer ( Coluber constrictor constrictor )

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure State: Listed Threatened State: Imperiled due to rarity or vulnerability

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank: --

Detailed Description: 2007: Area 11810: 1 observed.2006: 1 adult snake observed.2003: 1 adult, sex unknown seen (Obs_id 395). 2002: 1 adult seen (Obs_id 2002.0037).1998: 1 seen. Adult. (Obs_id 1998.0061). General Area: 2007: Area 11810: Airport clear zone.2003: Terrestrial - Scrub / shrubland (Obs_id 395). 2002: In leaf litter (Obs_id 2002.0037).1998: Pitchpine/scrub oak near to beaver flowage (Obs_id 1998.0061). General Comments: 2003: Acording to C. Goulet, snake could have been between 2-3 feet long. She has seen racers on the airport before (Obs_id 395). 2002: First I heard it, rattled its tail in leaf litter and assumed an aggressive "s" position while flicking its tongue. It was about 1" long. It was a hazy black with no pattern and a creamy white chin (Obs_id 2002.0037).1998: Snake was large 3 feet plus and looked like it had eaten recently-took off like a rocket in the beaver pond which was 200+ yards down slope from where it was (Obs_id 1998.0061). Management -- Comments:

Location Survey Site Name: Concord Airport Managed By: Airport Bluff + Floodplain

County: Merrimack Town(s): Concord Size: 20.0 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions: 2007: Area 11810: Airport clear zone outside fence.2006: Concord Airport along fence about 200 meters south of aviation (?). 2003: On the Concord municipal airport, southeast conservation zone off of abandoned runway between active runway 12-30 and 17-35. Snake was seen roughly in the middle of the conservation zone near the edge of the ravine of the Soucook River (Obs_id 395). 2002: Along fence in Concord municipal airport (Obs_id 2002.0037).1998: Near fence at east end of Concord Airport (Obs_id 1998.0061).

Dates documented First reported: 1998-04-30 Last reported: 2007-09-01

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461.

CONFIDENTIAL – NH Dept. of Environmental Services review NHB20-1607 EOCODE: ARAAD02020*204*NH

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau - Animal Record

Wood Turtle ( Glyptemys insculpta )

Legal Status Conservation Status Federal: Not listed Global: Rare or uncommon State: Special Concern State: Rare or uncommon

Description at this Location Conservation Rank: Not ranked Comments on Rank: --

Detailed Description: 2017: Area 14558: 1 adult observed, sex unknown. 2016: Area 13993: Shell of adult female observed. 2015: Turtles 7001, 7002, 7005, 7006, 7008, 7010: 6 turtles radiotracked, 4 male and 2 female. 9 individuals not radiotracked: 4 adult males, 3 adult females, 2 juveniles, sex unknown. 2013: Area 13530: 1 adult observed, sex unknown. 2011: Area 12898M: 1 adult female observed, 745 grams on 7-07. 1 adult observed on 8-08. Area 12913: 1 adult female observed. General Area: 2017: Area 14558: Forest near powerlines. 2016: Area 13993: Airport bluff. Sandy bank down to river. Area was recently cleared. 2015: Turtles 7001, 7002, 7005, 7006, 7008, 7010: In channel, on banks, and in floodplain of Soucook River. 2013: Area 13530: Shrubland. Along managed powerline easement adjacent to Soucook River 2011: Area 12898: Found under dense cover of hazelnut shrubs in power line right-of-way. General Comments: 2016: Area 13993: Appears to be a mower strike on carapace. Not sure if cause of death. 2013: Area 13530: Observation comment: This is the fourth known sighting for this site. Management -- Comments:

Location Survey Site Name: ROW north of Rte. 3 Managed By: Airport Bluff + Floodplain

County: Merrimack Town(s): Pembroke Size: 32.2 acres Elevation:

Precision: Within (but not necessarily restricted to) the area indicated on the map.

Directions: 2017: Area 14558: West of powerlines in forested area on NH Army National Guard Regional Training Intitute Property. 2016: Area 13993: Concord airport taxiway expansion area. 2013: Area 13530: Along powerline easement of NH Army National Guard Regional Training Intitute Property. 2011: Area 12898M: Power line right-of-way just south of Soucook River.

Dates documented First reported: 2011-07-07 Last reported: 2017-08-18

The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department has jurisdiction over rare wildlife in New Hampshire. Please contact them at 11 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301 or at (603) 271-2461.

CONFIDENTIAL – NH Dept. of Environmental Services review United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New England Ecological Services Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5094 Phone: (603) 223-2541 Fax: (603) 223-0104 http://www.fws.gov/newengland

In Reply Refer To: June 03, 2020 Consultation Code: 05E1NE00-2020-SLI-2792 Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443 Project Name: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, 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, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered 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 of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the 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 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 06/03/2020 Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443 2

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 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 biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents 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, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

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

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (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; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html.

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

Attachment(s):

▪ Official Species List

06/03/2020 Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443 1

Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

New England Ecological Services Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5094 (603) 223-2541

06/03/2020 Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443 2

Project Summary Consultation Code: 05E1NE00-2020-SLI-2792

Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443

Project Name: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project

Project Type: BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE

Project Description: The proposed project includes replacement of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) Bridge No. 183/156, that carries North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River in Concord and Pembroke, NH. The existing bridge carrying North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River is comprised of a steel stringer bridge with concrete deck. The bridge and its approaches have substandard width and rail, which classifies it as functionally obsolete. The bridge also has structural deficiencies that require attention. The bridge is jointly owned by the City of Concord and the Town of Pembroke. The North Pembroke Road Bridge Project is a municipally managed bridge project and funded by a combination of state and local funds. Through a municipal agreement, the City of Concord is responsible for the management of design, permit, and construction in accordance with NHDOT requirements. As currently proposed, the project includes a complete bridge replacement on the existing roadway alignment under a full bridge closure. The recommended replacement structure is a single span prestressed concrete box beam bridge on the existing bridge alignment utilizing a traffic detour and closing the bridge to traffic. The proposed bridge alternative requires a raise in the vertical alignment of approximately 1 foot in order to maintain 1’-0” of freeboard over the Q100 flood elevation. Since relatively steep sag vertical curves enter the site from both the west and east, raising the road improves the vertical geometry of North Pembroke Road. Steeper side slopes will be utilized to match existing grade within the right of way to the south and without impacting wetlands to the north. It is anticipated that stone side slopes at a 1.5:1 slope will be used. Wetlands around the bridge will be minimally impacted during the construction of the proposed project. Cofferdams and/or water diversions structures will be used during any construction activities that occur within the limits of the Soucook River and all work will be performed in the dry. In general, the proposed project to replace the North Pembroke Road bridge would not be expected to cause any degradation of the functions and values associated with the river and adjacent wetlands. Continued unrestricted passage of flows, sediments, and movement of fish and wildlife through the area will continue as under the present conditions. With implementation of best management construction practices, the

06/03/2020 Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443 3

project would avoid potential construction phase impacts related to sedimentation and erosion.

Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/43.213369005716295N71.48020308555417W

Counties: Merrimack, NH

06/03/2020 Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443 4

Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this 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.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Mammals NAME STATUS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045

Insects NAME STATUS Karner Blue Butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6656

Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1890

06/03/2020 Event Code: 05E1NE00-2020-E-08443 5

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

TABLE 2 FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

FEDERAL GENERAL COUNTY SPECIES TOWNS STATUS LOCATION/HABITAT Forests with somewhat poorly Meredith, Alton and Small whorled Pogonia Threatened drained soils and/or a seasonally Laconia high water table Belknap Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Albany, Brookfield, Forests with somewhat poorly Eaton, Effingham, Small whorled Pogonia Threatened drained soils and/or a seasonally Madison, Ossipee, high water table Carroll Wakefield and Wolfeboro Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Regenerating softwood forest, Canada Lynx Threatened usually with a high density of All Towns snowshoe hare. Connecticut River main channel Northumberland, Coos Dwarf wedgemussel Endangered and Johns River Lancaster and Dalton Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats S. Branch Ashuelot River and Swanzey, Keene and Dwarf wedgemussel Endangered Ashuelot River Surry Cheshire Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Haverhill, Piermont, Dwarf wedgemussel Endangered Connecticut River main channel Orford and Lyme Forests with somewhat poorly Small whorled Pogonia Threatened drained soils and/or a seasonally Holderness Grafton high water table Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Forests with somewhat poorly Small whorled Pogonia Threatened drained soils and/or a seasonally Manchester, Weare high water table Hillsborough Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Pine Barrens with wild blue Karner Blue Butterfly Endangered Concord and Pembroke lupine Bow, Danbury, Epsom, Small whorled Pogonia Threatened Forests Loudon, Warner and Merrimack Allenstown Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats

FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

FEDERAL GENERAL COUNTY SPECIES TOWNS STATUS LOCATION/HABITAT Piping Plover Threatened Coastal Beaches Hampton and Seabrook Atlantic Ocean and nesting at the Roseate Tern Endangered Isle of Shoals Coastal Beaches and Rocky Red knot1 Threatened Coastal towns Rockingham Shores, sand and mud flats Deerfield, Northwood, Small whorled Pogonia Threatened Forests Nottingham, and Epping Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Middleton, New Durham, Forests with somewhat poorly Milton, Farmington, Small whorled Pogonia Threatened drained soils and/or a seasonally Strafford, Barrington, and high water table Strafford Madbury Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Acworth, Charlestown, Northeastern bulrush Endangered Wetlands Langdon Plainfield, Cornish, Dwarf wedgemussel Endangered Connecticut River main channel Claremont and Sullivan Charlestown Jesup’s milk-vetch Endangered Banks of the Connecticut River Plainfield and Claremont Threatened Winter- mines and caves, Northern Long-eared Final 4(d) Summer – wide variety of Statewide Bat Rule forested habitats Updated 02/05/2016

1Migratory only, scattered along the coast in small numbers -Eastern cougar, gray wolf and Puritan tiger beetle are considered extirpated in New Hampshire. - Endangered gray wolves are not known to be present in New Hampshire, but dispersing individuals from source populations in Canada may occur statewide.-There is no federally designated Critical Habitat in New Hampshire

Appendix G Brookfloater Mussel Study Report

September 29, 2020

Mr. Kevin Slattery, PWS New England Transportation Environmental Services Section Manager HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, Maine 04103 Via email: [email protected]

Re: Soucook River Brook Floater Survey / Concord, New Hampshire / SWCA Project No.: 62389

Dear Mr. Slattery:

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) is pleased to provide you with this report summarizing the results of our 2-day freshwater mussel survey in support of the proposed North Pembroke Road bridge replacement project over the Soucook River in Concord, New Hampshire. SWCA also mapped the locations of all submerged aquatic vegetation within or near the construction footprint. The primary objective of the mussel survey was to determine if brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), a state-endangered species, occurs within the potential impact area of the proposed bridge work. The survey area encompassed approximately 300 meters (m) (984 feet) of the Soucook River, beginning approximately 190 m (623 feet) downstream of the bridge, passing under the bridge, and ending 120 m (394 feet) upstream of the bridge.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Steve Johnson, Ph.D. Senior Ecologist SWCA Environmental Consultants

Soucook River Brook Floater Survey / Concord, New Hampshire / SWCA Project No.: 62389

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River in Concord, New Hampshire, has been slated for replacement. The section of the Soucook River associated with this project is potential habitat for brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), a state-endangered species in New Hampshire. To develop construction designs minimizing impacts to rare mussels and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) within the project area, HDR contracted SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to conduct a rare freshwater mussel survey focusing on brook floater but also documenting any other potential state-listed mussel species present.

The survey area initially chosen extended from 100 meters (m) (328 feet) downstream (south) of the bridge to 50 m (164 feet) upstream, for a total length of approximately 160 m (525 feet), including the area under the bridge; however, after arriving on-site and observing no brook floaters within this area, SWCA chose to extend the survey area because brook floaters are often observed at extremely low densities and the habitat observed appeared to be very suitable for the targeted species. SWCA extended the survey area to approximately 190 m (623 feet) downstream of the bridge and 120 m (394 feet) upstream for a total survey length of approximately 320 meters (1,050 feet) (Figure 1). Because the river within this area averaged 7 to 10 m in width, was generally less than 1 m in depth, and water clarity was high, it was possible to conduct a thorough survey of the extended survey area in 2 days.

Three SWCA mussel biologists conducted timed meander surveys throughout the survey area on August 18 and 19, 2020. The biologists used snorkel equipment to conduct visual and tactile surveys of the substrate in all depths less than 3 feet. A single biologist used SCUBA equipment to conduct visual and tactile surveys in a portion of the river where depths ranged from 1 to 2 m. During tactile searches, the biologists raked their fingers through the soft substrate to depths of 10cm. The biologists towed a floating workstation with a global positioning system (GPS) unit to record survey tracks and location coordinates for any rare mussels observed. The divers also took representative photographs of each mussel species observed.

To determine the relative density of mussels within the survey area, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) was calculated by dividing the total number of mussels observed by the total number of diver hours surveyed.

SURVEY RESULTS

We observed a mix of substrate types highly suitable for freshwater mussels. Sediments ranged from soft sand to mixes of sand, gravel, and cobble. There were also a few scattered boulders at the upstream (north) end of the survey area. A thin layer of brown algae was observed over much of the river bottom. In our experience, this often indicates areas with stable substrates where mussels often concentrate. Water clarity was very good, and flows were low, providing excellent survey conditions. Representative photographs of the substrates and mussel species observed can be found in Appendix A.

Two species of mussel were observed: eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) and triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata). Neither of these species are state protected in New Hampshire. We estimated a population size of approximately 1,000 eastern elliptio within the survey area. All individual elliptio appeared healthy, and we observed a wide range of sizes indicating successful recruitment. Only a single triangle floater was observed near the upstream end of the survey area. The shell of this individual was extremely worn, indicating it was an older individual near the end of its life expectancy. Elliptio densities were moderate to high throughout most of the survey area, with an averaged CPUE of 32.5 mussels per surveyor per hour. In contrast, the CPUE for triangle floater was only 0.03 mussels per surveyor per hour.

No invasive aquatic plants or animals were observed within the survey area. Several native plant species were observed in two patches of SAV within the footprint of the bridge work, one immediately upstream of the bridge and one downstream. The downstream SAV patch consisted of a mix of Callitriche heterophylla,

2 Soucook River Brook Floater Survey / Concord, New Hampshire / SWCA Project No.: 62389

Sparganium americanum, and Nasturtium officinale. We estimated cover within this patch at 65%. The upstream SAV patch is a mix of Potamogeton epihydrus, Callitriche heterophylla, Sparganium americanum, and Nasturtium officinale. It should be noted that while N. officinale is not on the NH list of noxious or invasive species, it is on the state watch-list of potentially invasive species. We estimated vegetative cover at 65% for the downstream patch of SAV as well. Both the upstream and downstream SAV patches were mapped and are shown in Figure 1.

The biologists also searched for invasive bivalves that could potentially exist within the Soucook River. Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) require waters with high calcium levels and are unlikely to persist in New Hampshire. The observed habitat appeared to be suitable for Asian clams (Corbicula fluminalis); however, no individuals were found. All three mussel biologists are extremely familiar with this invasive species as it commonly does occur in areas with native mussels, but extensive searching produced no Corbicula on-site.

SUMMARY

On August 18 and 19, 2020, SWCA conducted a 2-day freshwater mussel survey to determine the presence/absence of brook floater or other rare mussel species within the potential impact zone of the proposed bridge work over the Soucook River in Concord, New Hampshire. No rare mussels were found. Two species of common mussel were observed. Eastern elliptio was relatively abundant within the entire survey area, but only a single triangle floater was observed. SAV was mapped in two loose patches on either side of the bridge. The estimated vegetative cover for both patches was 65%. No invasive species were observed; however, one potentially invasive plant, Nasturtium officinale, was observed.

3 Soucook River Brook Floater Survey / Concord, New Hampshire / SWCA Project No.: 62389

Figure 1. Results of freshwater mussel survey conducted August 2020. Over 1,000 eastern elliptio were observed throughout the entire surveyed area, but only one triangle floater was observed.

APPENDIX A

Representative Photographs

Photo A-1. Eastern elliptio filtering among sand/gravel substrate. Note thin layer of brown algae covering much of the substrate.

Photo A-2. Eastern elliptio filtering in sand substrate near scattered cobble.

A-1

Photo A-3. Eastern elliptio were relatively abundant throughout the survey area.

Photo A-4. A single triangle floater with an extremely worn shell was observed near the upstream end of the survey area.

A-2

Photo A-5. SAV observed downstream of bridge.

Photo A-6. SAV observed upstream of bridge.

A-3

Photo A-7. Underwater view of Potamogeton epihydrus.

Photo A-8. Callitriche heterophylla.

A-4

Appendix H Section 106 Cultural Resources Memorandum of Effect

Appendix I Tax Maps and Abutter Information

Concord, New Hampshire Tax Map

Approximate Project Location

August 25, 2020 1:1,854 0 75 150 300 Feet

0 0.0175 0.035 0.07 Miles

City of Concord, New Hampshire Pembroke, NH Tax Map

Approximate Project Location North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Project NHDES Standard Dredge and Fill Permit Application List of Abutters

Parcel Location Owner and Mailing Address Town of Pembroke 559‐11 825 NO PEMBROKE PEMBROKE, TOWN OF RD 311 PEMBROKE ST PEMBROKE, NH 03275 559‐14 830 NO PEMBROKE NEW ENGLAND FLOWER FARMS, LLC RD 7316 PLEASANT ST LOUDON, NH 03301 City of Concord 62/Z 6 SHEEP DAVIS RD CITY OF CONCORD 41 GREEN ST CONCORD, NH 03301‐4255 111/2/9 242‐244 SHEEP GABRIELLE REALTY LLC DAVIS RD 1B COMMONS DR UNIT 8B LONDONDERRY, NH 03053‐3442 111/2/13 220 PEMBROKE RD HARDY WENDY L & ERNEST J 220 PEMBROKE RD CONCORD, NH 03301‐5756

March 2, 2021

«Name» «Street» «TownStateZip»

Re: North Pembroke Road Bridge Replacement Town of Pembroke: Map 559 Parcels 11 and 14 City of Concord: Map 62 Parcel Z 9 and Map 111 Parcels 2/11 and 2/9

Subject NH Department of Environmental Services Wetlands Bureau Dredge & Fill Application

Dear Abutter:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the City of Concord, NH is applying to the NH Department of Environmental Services Wetlands Bureau, which requires this notice for a Dredge and Fill Permit to impact areas under its jurisdiction. The project is for the replacement of the North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River.

A copy of the application, including plans, will be made available for your review after March 12, 2021 at the Town Offices in Pembroke, NH or City Hall in Concord, NH and at the NH Department of Environmental Services Wetlands Bureau, 29 Hazen Drive in Concord.

If you have any questions that we might be able to answer, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Sincerely,

HDR ENGINEERING, INC.

Thomas A. French, PE

hdrinc.com

250 Commercial St., Suite 3007, Manchester, NH 03101 T 603.391.0900 F 603.391.0902

Appendix J Appendix B New Hampshire General Permits (GPs) Required Information and Corps Secondary Impacts Checklist and Supplemental Narrative

Appendix B

New Hampshire General Permits (GPs) Required Information and Corps Secondary Impacts Checklist

In order for the Corps of Engineers to properly evaluate your application, applicants must submit the following information along with the New Hampshire DES Wetlands Bureau application or permit notification forms. Some projects may require more information. For a more comprehensive checklist, go to https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/ “Useful Documents, Forms and Publications” and then “Corps Application Form and Guidance.” Check with the Corps at (978) 318-8832 for project-specific requirements. For your convenience, this Appendix B is also attached to the State of New Hampshire DES Wetlands Bureau application and Permit by Notification forms.

All Projects: • New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) Wetlands Permit Application. • Request for Project Review Form by the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources (DHR) https://www.nh.gov/nhdhr/review/rpr.htm. • Photographs of wetland/waterway to be impacted. • Purpose of the project. • Legible, reproducible plans no larger than 11”x17” with bar scale. Provide locus map and plan views of the entire property. • Typical cross-section views of all wetland and waterway fill areas and wetland replication areas. • In navigable waters, show mean low water (MLW) and mean high water (MHW) elevations. Show the high tide line (HTL) elevations when fill is involved. In other waters, show ordinary high water (OHW) elevation. • On each plan, show the following for the project: . Vertical datum and the NAVD 1988 equivalent with the vertical units as U.S. feet. In coastal waters this may be mean higher high water (MHHW), mean high water (MHW), mean low water (MLW), mean lower low water (MLLW) or other tidal datum with the vertical units as U.S. feet. MLLW and MHHW are preferred. Provide the correction factor detailing how the vertical datum (e.g., MLLW) was derived using the latest National Tidal Datum Epoch for that area, typically 1983-2001. . Horizontal state plane coordinates in U.S. survey feet based on the Traverse Mercator Grid system for the State of New Hampshire (Zone 2800) NAD 83. . Project limits with existing and proposed conditions. . Limits of any Federal Navigation Project in the vicinity of the project area and horizontal State Plane Coordinates in U.S. survey feet for the limits of the proposed work closest to the Federal Navigation Project; . Volume, type, and source of fill material to be discharged into waters and wetlands, including the area(s) (in square feet or acres) of fill in wetlands, below the OHW in inland waters and below the HTL in coastal waters. . Delineation of all waterways and wetlands on the project site,: • Use Federal delineation methods and include Corps wetland delineation data sheets (GC 2). • For activities involving discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., include a statement describing how impacts to waters of the U.S. are to be avoided and minimized, and either a statement describing how impacts to waters of the U.S. are to be compensated for (or a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan) or a statement explaining why compensatory mitigation should not be required for the proposed impacts. Please contact the Corps for guidance.

1 Appendix B August 2017 New Hampshire General Permits (GPs) 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. Work includes filling, clearing, flooding, draining, excavation, dozing, stumping, etc. 3. See 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 X 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? X 2.2 Are there proposed impacts to SAS, special wetlands. Applicants may obtain information from the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB) DataCheck Tool for information about resources located on the property at X https://www2.des.state.nh.us/nhb_datacheck/. The book Natural Community Systems of New Hampshire also contains specific information about the natural communities found in NH. 2.3 If wetland crossings are proposed, are they adequately designed to maintain hydrology, X 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 X 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? X 2.6 What is the area of the previously filled wetlands? N/A - Linear ROW Project 2.7 What is the area of the proposed fill in wetlands? See Supplemental Narrative 2.8 What is the % of previously and proposed fill in wetlands to the overall project site? N/A - Linear ROW Project 3. Wildlife Yes No 3.1 Has the NHB & USFWS 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 an NHB ID number & a USFWS X IPAC determination.) NHB DataCheck Tool: https://www2.des.state.nh.us/nhb_datacheck/ USFWS IPAC website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index

2 Appendix B August 2017 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: X • PDF: https://wildlife.state.nh.us/wildlife/wap-high-rank.html. • 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, X 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 X industrial development? 3.5 Are stream crossings designed in accordance with the GC 21? X 4. Flooding/Floodplain Values Yes No 4.1 Is the proposed project within the 100-year floodplain of an adjacent river or stream? X 4.2 If 4.1 is yes, will compensatory flood storage be provided if the project results in a loss of X flood storage? No loss of flood storage will result from the project 5. Historic/Archaeological Resources For a minimum, minor or major impact project - a copy of the Request for Project Review (RPR) Form (www.nh.gov/nhdhr/review) with your DES file number shall be sent to the NH Division X of Historical Resources as required on Page 11 GC 8(d) of the GP document** *Although this checklist utilizes state information, its submittal to the Corps is a Federal requirement. ** If your project is not within Federal jurisdiction, coordination with NH DHR is not required under Federal law.

3 Appendix B August 2017

Army Corps of Engineers Secondary Impacts Checklist Supplemental Narrative

1. Impaired Waters

1.1 Will any work occur within 1 mile upstream in the watershed of an impaired water?

No. The project will not occur within 1 mile upstream in the watershed of an impaired water.

Construction Best Management Practices

Proper Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used during the construction of the project to minimize water quality degradation. Prior to the commencement of construction, the project contractor will be responsible for providing and implementing a professionally prepared Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approved by the NHDOT/City of Concord, consistent with the Construction General Permit (CGP). The preparation and implementation of the SWPPP is anticipated to ensure erosion, scouring or general water quality degradation does not occur from discharges from this project. Best Management Practices such as sediment fencing and/or staked haybales will help protect water quality within the Soucook River and adjacent wetlands.

Dewatering of the area within the cofferdams will be necessary. Dewatering will be accomplished so that no heavy silt-laden water flows into the Soucook River. Water will be pumped into a filter bag(s) and/or settling basin in the upland areas next to the bridge. This will confine suspended particulates and decrease potential for turbidity releases in the river. The captured sediment and filter bag(s) will be removed following dewatering operations.

2. Wetlands

2.1 Are there streams, brooks, rivers, ponds, or lakes within 200 feet of any proposed work?

Yes. The project area is located over and within the Soucook River, an inland waterway with an 82.7 square mile watershed. The 29.2-mile-long Soucook River begins at the outlet of Rocky Pond on the border between the towns of Canterbury and Loudon. The river flows south through gently rolling terrain, soon entering Loudon village, crosses a small dam, and continues south along a rapidly developing suburban corridor on the outskirts of Concord, New Hampshire. The river forms the boundary between Concord and Pembroke and ends at the Merrimack River downstream from Garvins Falls (Five Rivers Conservation Trust undated).

2.2 Are there proposed impacts to SAS, special wetlands.

Yes. The project proposes impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (inland waters) as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Proposed Impacts to Special Aquatic Sites (SAS)

Wetland Type Cowardin Permanent Temporary Total Temp & Classification Impacts (sf) Impacts (sf) Perm (sf)

Riverine, Lower R2AB3 0.0 130 130 Perennial, Aquatic Bed, Rooted Vascular*

Notes: * Portions of the bottom of the Soucook River in the project area have sparse to moderately dense SAV, consisting primarily of twoheaded water-starwort (Callitriche heterophylla), American bur-reed (Sparganium americanum), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), and ribbonleaf pondweed (Potamogeton epihydrus). Sediments in the project area range from soft sand to mixes of sand, gravel, and cobble (SWCA 2020) (see Appendix B).

2.3 If wetland crossings are proposed, are they adequately designed to maintain hydrology, sediment transport & wildlife passage?

Yes. The City of Concord and the Town of Pembroke propose to replace Bridge No. 183/156 which carries North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River. The replacement structure is expected to improve the sufficiency rating and to resolve both functional and structural inadequacies found at the existing bridge.

The proposed replacement bridge over the Soucook River spans the Soucook River at the North Pembroke Road crossing, allowing the natural river channel to flow under the bridge without obstruction. The replacement bridge will ensure the balance of sediment erosion and deposition as well as aquatic organism passage. Additionally, the proposed span of the replacement bridge will increase passage of aquatic organisms during normal to high flow conditions as a result of removal of the existing bridge piers. The proposed replacement bridge will not create a barrier to sediment transport. The natural transportation of sediment within the Soucook River will be maintained during and after the proposed replacement work is completed. Water diversion structures and erosion control barriers will be installed, as necessary, during replacement of the bridge around areas of proposed structural repair work to minimize the potential of additional sediment entering the Soucook River during bridge replacement activities. The replacement bridge will have a hydraulic opening slightly larger than the existing bridge, will not have bridge piers, and will have flow characteristics essentially matching the existing bridge and will continue to provide passage for aquatic life as it currently does.

The existing crossing currently provides a wildlife shelf of suitable substrate to allow for wildlife passage at normal flows along its eastern bank and this area will be minimally disturbed during construction of the project (see Appendix B, Photo 5). Additionally, on the western side of the crossing, vegetated riprap is proposed. The riprap in this area will be partially filled with soil and seeded to provide suitable substrate to allow enhanced potential for wildlife passage, natural cover, and protect the area from erosion.

2.4 Would the project remove part or all of a riparian buffer?

Yes. The proposed project will involve minimal brush clearing along both bridge abutments as shown in the proposed clearing limits identified in the attached Wetland Permitting Plans. However, very little riparian vegetation will be removed as the banks in the vicinity of the Soucook River near the bridge abutments are mostly vegetated with herbaceous species and a few scattered shrubs. The majority of the brush clearing required for the project would be located along the North Pembroke Road embankments away from the Soucook River.

2.5 The overall project site is more than 40 acres?

No. The overall project site is less than 40 acres.

2.6 What is the area of the previously filled wetlands?

N/A. The project is a linear right-of-way project located along North Pembroke Road in Concord and Pembroke, New Hampshire.

2.7 What is the area of the proposed fill in wetlands?

Only 26 sq. ft./9 linear feet of permanent bed impacts are required to complete the bridge replacement project for the installation of riprap for bank stabilization along the west bank of the Soucook River (see Appendix A). Additionally, approximately 120 sq. ft./65 linear ft. of temporary bed impacts associated with the removal of the bridge piers, approximately 1,200 sq. ft./70 linear feet of temporary bed impacts associated with cofferdam enclosed access areas, approximately 80 sq. ft./10 linear feet of temporary bank impacts associated with clearing activities, and approximately 130 sq. ft. of temporary impact to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are proposed to occur in order to conduct the bridge replacement activities.

2.8 What is the % of previously and proposed fill in wetlands to the overall project site?

N/A. The project is a linear right-of-way project located along North Pembroke Road in Concord and Pembroke, New Hampshire.

3. Wildlife

3.1 Has the NHB & USFWS 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?

Yes. A search for the occurrence of rare plant, animal, or natural communities within the vicinity of the proposed project was completed using the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau’s (NHB) online Datacheck tool. A project report provided by the NHB, dated June 15, 2020, indicated that there are five recorded occurrences for sensitive species within or in the vicinity to the project area. These five species include the brook floater mussel (Alasmidonta varicosa) (state endangered), wild lupine (Lupinus perennis ssp. perennis) (state threatened), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos) (state endangered), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor) (state threatened), and the wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) (species of Special Concern). According to

3 the NHB project report (File No. NHB20-1607), the mapped occurrences of rare plant or animal species nearest to the project area include wild lupine located on the western side of the North Pembroke Road Bridge over the Soucook River in the vicinity of the project area as well as mapped brook floater mussel habitat within the project area. No work is proposed in the area associated with wild lupine and no laydown or other potential to impact the threatened plant species present in this area will be allowed. Refer to Appendix F, Endangered Species Review, for the NHB report. Additionally, the NHB project report provided a mapped occurrence of the brook floater mussel as occurring within the project area. Accordingly, a brook floater mussel survey was conducted in the project area in accordance with the approved study plan by New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) to document freshwater mussels, suitable freshwater mussel habitat, and areas of SAV within the study area. The study methods and results are described in detail in the Brook Floater Mussel Study Report (SWCA 2020) which was provided to NHF&G on October 2, 2020 as Appendix G.

Brook Floater Mussel Study

Potential impacts to the NLEB were considered since the project involves a bridge replacement project. The NLEB is federally listed as a threatened species. Tree clearing activities are one of the largest threats to the NLEB. As mentioned above, the proposed project will not require tree clearing. This aerial insectivore may forage adjacent to the project area in forested habitats in the summer, but is not expected to be adversely affected as a result of project construction. Hibernacula was not observed on the site. This bat species roosts in upland areas (live or snag trees, caves, etc.), and the wooded areas in the vicinity of the project likely provide a more preferable habitat with older tree stands that would be more adequate for summer roosting habitat. Therefore, it is our opinion that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat.

The proposed project will require some clearing of brush and grading activities adjacent to Pembroke Road, however no known small whorled pogonia habitat is located within the project area and it is unlikely that suitable habitat for small whorled pogonia would be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to affect small whorled pogonia or its habitat. Furthermore, the USFWS New England District list of species by town does not list small whorled pogonia as occurring within Concord and Pembroke (Appendix F - Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in New Hampshire).

3.2 Would work occur in any area identified as either “Highest Ranked Habitat in N.H.” or “Highest Ranked Habitat in Ecological Region”?

Yes. The New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) developed the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) document that identifies habitat types across the state as well as ranked habitat tiers. Habitat tiers were created by NHF&G using biological data, landscape data, and human influence information. Habitat tiers are separated into three rankings, which are 1) Highest Ranked Habitat in New Hampshire, 2) Highest Habitat in Biological Region, and 3) Supporting Landscape. Portions of the proposed project area have been mapped as Highest Ranked Habitat in New Hampshire (refer to Figure 2).

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)?

No. The proposed project would not impact more than 20 acres of an undeveloped land block (upland, wetland/waterway) on the entire project site and/or on an adjoining property.

3.4 Does the project propose more than a 10-lot residential subdivision, or a commercial or industrial development?

No. The City of Concord proposes to replace Bridge No. 183/156 which carries North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River.

3.5 Are stream crossings designed in accordance with the GC 21?

Yes. Bank stabilization measures are designed to minimize environmental effects. Riprap will be replaced/placed along the western and eastern abutments to stabilize these areas back to pre- construction conditions. Riprap is also proposed on both approaches to minimize slope impacts and clearing limits on adjacent properties. Additionally, on the western side of the crossing at the bridge abutment, the riprap proposed for this area will be partially filled with soil and seeded to provide suitable substrate to allow enhanced potential for wildlife passage, natural cover, and protect the area from erosion.

4. Flooding/Floodplain Values

4.1 Is the proposed project within the 100-year floodplain of an adjacent river or stream?

Yes. The project area is located in Zone AE of the Soucook River as shown on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map; Panel No. 33013C0553E, dated April 19, 2010 (see Appendix D). The project area was studied in detail by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1979 and

5 remapped by FEMA in 2010. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the site were not redone, but flood zones were remapped using LIDAR data. FEMA flood flows and elevations are detailed in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses in Section 3.0, Hydrology (see Appendix D). FEMA mapped the 100-year flood elevation at this site in 1979 at elevation 270 just upstream of the North Pembroke Road Bridge and 271 to 272 upstream of the “Trailer Park Bridge” which was previously located on the northwestern side of the bridge which has since been removed. Under the proposed condition there is a small decease in the Q100 elevation (268.9) compared to the existing condition (269.9).

4.2 If 4.1 is yes, will compensatory flood storage be provided if the project results in a loss of flood storage?

No. No loss of flood storage will result from the project. Generally, flood levels and velocities under the proposed project are predicted to be lower due to the expanded section provided by the wider span of the replacement bridge and by removal of the existing bridge piers (see Appendix D for further discussion).

5. Historic/Archaeological Resources

For a minimum, minor or major impact project - a copy of the Request for Project Review (RPR) Form (www.nh.gov/nhdhr/review) with your DES file number shall be sent to the NH Division of Historical Resources as required on Page 11 GC 8(d) of the GP document

Yes. HDR completed and submitted a Request for Project Review (RPR) Form with accompanying documentation for the proposed project work. The project was reviewed by cultural resources staff at NHDOT Bureau of Environment (BOE) and the Division of Historic Resources staff at the State Historic Preservation Office.

The executed Memorandum of Effect can be found in Appendix H.

Appendix K NHB and NHF&G Correspondence

From: Lamb, Amy Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:20 AM To: Battaglia, Brett Cc: Tuttle, Kim Subject: NHB review: NHB20-1607 Attachments: NHB20-1607_Battaglia.pdf

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Attached, please find the review we have completed. If your review memo includes potential impacts to plants or natural communities please contact me for further information. If your project had potential impacts to wildlife, please contact NH Fish and Game at the phone number listed on the review.

Best, Amy

Amy Lamb Ecological Information Specialist

NH Natural Heritage Bureau DNCR - Forests & Lands 172 Pembroke Rd Concord, NH 03301 603-271-2834 From: Lamb, Amy Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:51 AM To: Battaglia, Brett Subject: RE: NHB review: NHB20-1607

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Brett,

Thank you, talk to you then. Please call 892-5162 – the other number is my office phone and I can’t access it because I am working remotely.

-Amy

From: Battaglia, Brett Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:48 AM To: Lamb, Amy Subject: RE: NHB review: NHB20-1607

EXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Thank you Amy, I will call you at 603-271-2834 around noon today if that works for you.

Thank you,

Brett Battaglia , PWS, CWS, CPESC Senior Environmental Scientist

HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5345 D 207.239.3865 M 207.671.9332 [email protected] hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Lamb, Amy [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:19 AM To: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Subject: RE: NHB review: NHB20-1607

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Brett,

I can do a quick call sometime today, but Thursday I am going to be in the field. Sometime between 10 am and 2 pm today would be best.

Thanks, Amy

From: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:53 AM To: Lamb, Amy < [email protected] > Cc: Tuttle, Kim < [email protected] > Subject: RE: NHB review: NHB20-1607

EXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Good Morning Amy, I hope everything finds you well during these unique times!

Following review of the NHB project review form I wanted to reach out to you to identify a time that would be good for you to jump on the phone for a few minutes to discuss the project. As of now, there would be impacts on the embankment west of the bridge and we will have impacts to bed/banks of the Soucook River.

I am out of state until Thursday this week and unfortunately out of state again conducting field work the following week. I was wondering if you could potentially talk this Thursday, July 2. I could potentially discuss the project with you today after 12 noon if that was better for your schedule. Following our discussion, I planned to reach out to Kim to discuss wildlife related concerns associated with the project.

Thank you in advance for your help with this important project!

Brett Battaglia , PWS, CWS, CPESC Senior Environmental Scientist

HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5345 D 207.239.3865 M 207.671.9332 [email protected] hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Lamb, Amy [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:20 AM To: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Cc: Tuttle, Kim < [email protected] > Subject: NHB review: NHB20-1607

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Best, Amy

Amy Lamb Ecological Information Specialist

NH Natural Heritage Bureau DNCR - Forests & Lands 172 Pembroke Rd Concord, NH 03301 603-271-2834 From: Detzel, Seta Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 7:30 AM To: Battaglia, Brett Subject: RE: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Great, thank you.

-Seta

From: Battaglia, Brett Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:11 PM To: Detzel, Seta Subject: RE: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

EXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Thank you very much Seta. Attached are two design progression plans that are still DRAFT but are at a point to allow for a good understanding of the project.

Thank you for all your help! Talk to you tomorrow at 9AM.

Brett Battaglia , PWS, CWS, CPESC Senior Environmental Scientist

HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5345 D 207.239.3865 M 207.671.9332 [email protected] hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Detzel, Seta [mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 12:06 PM To: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Subject: RE: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Brett,

Thanks for asking. I prefer to review the plans in advance, especially with bridge projects. You can call my office line tomorrow at 9: (603) 271-2917.

Speak to you then, Seta

From: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:54 AM To: Detzel, Seta < [email protected] > Subject: RE: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

EXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.

If it was easy to set up some type of meeting so we could have screen-sharing capabilities I could kind of go over what we are doing from our draft plan set – would that work better for you? If you just wanted a couple drawings showing that stuff I could just send to you the information in pdf and then we could just do a phone call. Let me know what is easier for you.

Thank you,

Brett Battaglia , PWS, CWS, CPESC Senior Environmental Scientist

HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5345 D 207.239.3865 M 207.671.9332 [email protected] hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Detzel, Seta [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 11:27 AM To: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Subject: RE: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Yes, 9 am works. Do you prefer screen-sharing capabilities (e.g. Zoom) or is a voice call ok?

-Seta

From: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:44 AM To: Detzel, Seta < [email protected] > Subject: RE: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

EXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Thank you Seta, would Thursday at 0900 hrs. work for you?

Thank you,

Brett Battaglia , PWS, CWS, CPESC Senior Environmental Scientist

HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5345 D 207.239.3865 M 207.671.9332 [email protected] hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Detzel, Seta [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 10:15 AM To: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Subject: RE: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Brett,

I hope all is well with you too. We could schedule a call for this Thursday any time except 1-2 pm, or next Monday the 27 th any time after 930 am.

Best,

Seta A. Detzel, Wetlands Specialist Wetlands Bureau, Land Resources Management Water Division, NH Department of Environmental Services P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095 Phone: (603) 271-2917 Email: [email protected] Follow us on Twitter! Like us on Facebook!

From: Battaglia, Brett < [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:35 AM To: Detzel, Seta < [email protected] > Subject: North Pembroke Road Bridge Project, Concord & Pembroke, NH

EXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Good morning Seta, I hope all is well with you!

So below is an overview of another bridge project I am working on over the Soucook River in Concord and Pembroke, NH. Like we coordinated on the Washington Street bridge project, I was hoping that when a time is good for you we could have a phone call so I could describe the project to you quickly, let you know what we are thinking as far of permitting requirements and supportive information, just to ensure we go down the correct permitting path with coordination with the NHDES. I have already been speaking with Amy Lamb at NHB and coordinating with the NHFG for a rare mussel survey, etc.

The proposed project includes replacement of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) Bridge No. 183/156, that carries North Pembroke Road over the Soucook River in Concord and Pembroke, NH. The bridge is programmed by NHDOT to State Municipal Bridge Aid funds for Fiscal Year 2018 as project number 14841A and budgeted by the City of Concord in their Capital Improvements Program as CIP-478. The bridge is jointly owned by the City of Concord and the Town of Pembroke. The North Pembroke Road Bridge Project is a municipally managed bridge project and funded by a combination of state and local funds. Through a municipal agreement, the City of Concord is responsible for the management of design, permit, and construction in accordance with NHDOT requirements. As currently proposed, the project includes a complete bridge replacement on the existing roadway alignment under a full bridge closure. The recommended replacement structure is a single span prestressed concrete box beam bridge on the existing bridge alignment utilizing a traffic detour and closing the bridge to traffic. Wetlands around the bridge will be minimally impacted during the construction of the project.

I am sure you are super busy, but if there is any way you could carve out a little time from your busy schedule for a conversation let me know when may be good for you.

Thank you in advance for your help with this project!

Brett Battaglia , PWS, CWS, CPESC Senior Environmental Scientist

HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5345 D 207.239.3865 M 207.671.9332 [email protected] hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Tuttle, Kim Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:40 AM To: Battaglia, Brett Cc: Doperalski, Melissa Subject: NHB20-1607 bridge replacement Soucook River Concord, Pembroke Attachments: Hognose Snake Flyer.pdf; SnakeFlyer_FinalVersion.pdf; SEEKING REPORTS OF RARE TURTLES.PDF

CAUTION: [EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Brett,

If you want to discuss potential impacts to brook floater mussel and the other listed wildlife species, please contact Melissa Doperalski, NHFG Nongame Diversity Biologist, as she will determine whether a brook floater mussel survey will be required if the bed or banks of the Soucook River will be impacted. What does the river substrate look like 50 meters upstream to 100 meters downstream in this reach? If it is sand or silt, a mussel survey may not be required. If you have a photo or two of typical river substrate in this area, please email to Melissa to help her make her determination.

In order to avoid impacts to wood turtles, black racers and eastern hognose snake, avoid the use of welded plastic or 'biodegradable plastic' netting or thread in erosion control matting. There are numerous documented cases of snakes and other wildlife being trapped and killed in erosion control matting with synthetic netting and thread. The use of erosion control berm, white Filtrexx Degradable Woven Silt Sock, or several 'wildlife friendly' options such as woven organic material (e.g. coco or jute matting such as North American Green SC150BN or equivalent) are readily available. Please let us know what is specified on the plan.

The following bolded notes should be prominently added to the plans along with a photo of wood turtle, northern black racer and eastern hognose snake that you may copy from the attached flyers: Construction personnel should be aware of the potential to encounter wood turtles, especially during turtle nesting season which extends from late May through the beginning of July.

IF WOOD TURTLES ARE FOUND LAYING EGGS IN THE WORK AREA, PLEASE CONTACT MELISSA DOPERALSKI (603-479-1129 cell) or JOSH MEGYESY (cell 978-578-0802 or 271-1125 office) FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.

ALL OBSERVATION OF EASTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY reported to the NHFG Department (Melissa Doperalski 603-479-1129 cell or Brendan Clifford 603-944-0885 cell). Please attempt to photograph this species to send to us for verification.

All observations of northern black racer snakes encountered from the end of September through the month of April must be immediately reported to the NHFG Department (Melissa Doperalski 603-479- 1129 (cell) or Brendan Clifford 603-271-0463) as this indicates a potential hibernaculum in the area. Please attempt to photograph this species if possible.

Thanks,

Kim Tuttle Wildlife Biologist NH Fish and Game 11 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-6544

From: Battaglia, Brett Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:53 AM To: Lamb, Amy Cc: Tuttle, Kim Subject: RE: NHB review: NHB20-1607

EXTERNAL: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize and trust the sender.

Good Morning Amy, I hope everything finds you well during these unique times!

Thank you in advance for your help with this important project!

Brett Battaglia , PWS, CWS, CPESC Senior Environmental Scientist

HDR 970 Baxter Boulevard, Suite 301 Portland, ME 04103-5345 D 207.239.3865 M 207.671.9332 [email protected] hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Lamb, Amy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:20 AM To: Battaglia, Brett Cc: Tuttle, Kim Subject: NHB review: NHB20-1607