Table of Contents Page

Study Objectives……………………..………………………………………… 3 Intended Audience …………………………………………………..………… 3 Project Support……………………….………………………………………... 3 Project Need…………………………………………………………………… 4 Study Area……………………………………………………………………... 6 Assessment Methodology……………………………………………………… 7 Summary and Results Structure Type…………………………………………………………... 8 Structure Condition……………………………………………………... 9 Geomorphic Compatibility……………………………………………… 9 Aquatic Organism Passage……………………………………………… 13 Structure Vulnerability………………………………………………….. 16 Discussion……………………………………………………………………… 19

Appendix-Town Specific Results Bradford………………………………………………………………… 20 New London…………………………………………………………….. 22 Newbury………………………………………………………………… 24 Salisbury………………………………………………………………… 27 Sutton……………………….……………………………………...... 28 Warner…………………………………………………………………... 30 Webster………………………………………………………………….. 33

A male rainbow trout observed trying to ascend about a perched culvert to spawn in a tributary

to the Connecticut . Duane Cross, courtesy photo.

2

Study Objectives

 To assess stream crossings within the Watershed to determine the level of Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP), Geomorphic Compatibility (GC), and Vulnerability  To communicate the results of these assessments to local communities and others responsible for road infrastructures so that they may be better informed to choose to use appropriate stream crossings and make appropriate land use decisions in the future  To work with communities in the watershed to prioritize problem areas and identify potential sources of funding to help assist with crossing replacement projects

Intended Audience

 Municipal road agents, public works department staff and state agencies in prioritizing and seeking funding for future stream crossing and culvert replacement and upgrades  Municipal conservation commissions and environmental organizations in identifying and developing important wildlife habitat connectivity restoration projects for many aquatic organisms, including brook trout;  The Local Advisory Committee (ARLAC) in implementing their objectives to restore water quality and protect the natural flow of the river for fish and wildlife habitat and public water uses.

Project Support

This assessment was conducted as part of the Warner River Watershed Conservation Project. Volunteers from the Basil W. Woods, Jr. Trout Unlimited Chapter and other Warner Residents made this effort possible. Without community support, the Fish and Game Department (NHFGD) would not be able to participate in an assessment of this scale. In collaboration with the NHFGD, Basil W. Woods, Jr. Trout Unlimited received an Embrace-A-Stream grant from Trout Unlimited National to help fund an intern to help facilitate these assessments. The primary goal of the Warner River Watershed Conservation Project is to ensure the sustainability of wild brook trout throughout the Warner River Watershed by fostering local landowner and citizen stewardship and by implementing sound conservation measures such as habitat protection, restoration and enhancement projects. The practice of maintaining outstanding water quality in our and streams goes hand in hand with brook trout conservation. We recognize for any long term, meaningful stewardship to occur, watershed residents must appreciate the value of supporting these fundamentals because they are worth preserving and not necessarily because regulations exist. Please visit this website: https://warnerriverwatershedconservationproject.wordpress.co m/

3

Project Need Freshwater habitats are among the most threatened ecosystems in the world. Subsequently, freshwater fish populations have declined due to impairments associated with dams or other barriers, water withdrawals, stream channel modification, and alterations to spawning and rearing habitat. These declines are expected to be further amplified as increased human population growth brings a greater demand for freshwater, more woodlands are lost to development, invasive species continue to spread, and natural climate patterns are altered.

A wild brook trout captured during an electrofishing survey in French Brook, Warner The New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan notes several regional fish species recovery plans or collaborative efforts to protect fish species of greatest conservation need. With one exception, these efforts focus on diadromous fish species. Currently, the single restoration effort focused on a resident freshwater species is the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV). This effort indicates that current knowledge of the status of the species is limited. According to an assessment by the EBTJV, only 7% of watersheds in New Hampshire are known to contain intact populations of wild Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). However, the status of wild Brook Trout is unknown in close to 88% of watersheds in New Hampshire. Despite range wide declines in Brook Trout populations, there has been little concerted effort to identify and protect coldwater stream habitat in the northeast, which holds the largest remaining area of intact native Brook Trout habitat in the U.S. An organized, watershed approach to aquatic habitat conservation offers the best chance to protect the habitat that remains intact and to reverse declines in areas that have already been degraded. This watershed scale approach also benefits other vulnerable aquatic habitats and emphasizes the connection between land use choices, clean water, and healthy fish communities. Habitat fragmentation and alterations to the natural geomorphology of a stream from road/stream crossings are some of the most commonly observed impacts within rivers and streams in New Hampshire. Until recently, the primary focus on addressing issues associated with the lack of aquatic habitat connectivity was concentrated on dams. Although these structures negatively impact aquatic habitats, road stream crossings are much more numerous across New Hampshire’s landscape. New Hampshire has an estimated quantity of 17,000 road stream crossings.

4

Stream crossing structures that are designed without consideration of flow variability and natural sediment transport can limit aquatic organism passage (AOP) and are often more vulnerable to failure during flooding events. Additionally, the rates of streambed and streambank erosion on the downstream side of the crossing and aggradation on the upstream side of the crossing are amplified. A suitable stream crossing is installed and sized appropriately to convey a given flow of water with expected sediment, wood, and ice with desired hydraulics for both public safety and AOP.

This crossing installed in the late 1970’s on the southern end of Bartlett Loop Rd in Warner failed in 2012. Fortunately, access to the properties beyond this crossing was still available from the northern side of Bartlett Loop Rd

Several communities in New Hampshire have experienced damage to their road infrastructure from flooding due to stream crossings that could not accommodate high flow events. Aside from the ecological damage, roads which are forced to be closed due to failed stream crossings and flood damage can slow response rates of emergency vehicles. With precipitation levels predicted to increase, this trend is expected to be intensified if our crossing structures are left uncheck. Nationwide, the average 100-year floodplain is projected to increase in size by 45% by the year 2100, while the annual damages from flooding are predicted to increase by $750 million. The road networks within the Warner River Watershed contain a high quantity of undersized culverts. Over half of these crossings are expected to be vulnerable during a 100 year storm event. Working towards a more resilient road network will also have significant ecological benefit. An additional component of flood resiliency is acknowledging flood prone areas. New development in these areas should be avoided to protect future damage to private and public property.

5

Study Area

Methodology Stream crossings

The area encompassed by the Warner River Watershed before the Warner River flows into the in Hopkinton The Warner River watershed drains parts of ten towns in Merrimack and Sullivan counties. These communities include Bradford, Goshen, Hopkinton, New London, Newbury, Salisbury, Sutton, Warner, Washington and Webster. The watershed is divided into four smaller watersheds where larger tributaries flow into the Warner River. Headwaters flow from the eastern side of , the southern portion of Mount Kearsarge and the northern side of the Mink Hills. The watershed utilizes approximately 209 miles of rivers and streams to drain the 149 mile2 area before entering the Contoocook River in Hopkinton. There are approximately 440 miles of private, town and state roads in this watershed. These roads intersect with rivers and streams at over 200 locations.

6

Assessment Methodology Crossing assessments began in 2014 with a focus on the Lower Warner River Watershed. In 2015, information was collected in the Watershed. The remaining crossings (in the Andrew Brook and Upper Warner River watersheds) were completed in 2016. Crossing assessments in 2014 and 2015 were primarily conducted by volunteers who received training by both New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG) and Trout Unlimited. In 2016, an intern, trained by the New Hampshire Geological Survey, completed the remaining assessments in the watershed with the support of volunteers. Collected information was reviewed by NHGS before being stored in the Statewide Asset Data Exchange System. Survey Years Crossing Assessment Protocol Used 2014 and 2015 NH Geological Survey Version 2, May-2014 2016 NH Geological Survey Version 5.0, 2016

.

Location of stream crossing assessments in the Warner River Watershed (2014-2016)

7

Summary and Results Survey crews visited 208 crossings were visited in seven communities during this assessment. Full assessments were completed on 151 crossings in the watershed. In the instances when a larger bridge was encountered (n = 43 locations), surveyors noted the structure type and coordinates. Similar notes were recorded in areas of crossings and dry streams (n = 14). Both photos and data collected at stream crossings were reviewed by NHGS. In the instances where photos did not appropriately show site conditions necessary for data validation (i.e. thick vegetation in images blocking site conditions), those crossings could not be scored for either geomorphic compatibility (n = 9) or AOP (n = 1). Bridges and open bottom arch structures were not scored for either geomorphic compatibility or AOP. The following results in this section summarize the data collected throughout the Warner River Watershed. Town specific data is summarized in Appendix I. Structure Types Almost half (46.2%) of all crossings encountered in the Warner River Watershed were noted to be round culverts. Elliptical culverts were encountered at 15.9% of the survey locations. Both of these structures usually lack streambed material throughout the bottom of the structure, limiting the ability to support AOP. Crossings with natural streambed material (e.g. bridges, bridges with abutments and open bottom arches) consisted of 28.4% of the crossings encountered. It is likely that these structure types support AOP. It should be noted that 52.6% of box culverts had natural streambeds (not represented in chart). A single ford crossing structure (a shallow area where a stream can be crossed) was noted on a Class VI road in the town of Warner.

8

Structure Condition Survey crews were instructed to identify the option that best describes the current condition of the crossing structure. Options for responses included: New, Old, Eroding, Collapsing and Rusted. Over half (58.7%) of the crossings were noted to be old but did not have obvious structural issues. While 10.7% of the crossings encountered throughout the watershed were noted to be new, 21.3%, 2.7% and 6.7% were found to be rusted, collapsing, or eroding, respectively.

Geomorphic Compatibility Beyond conveying water from greater elevations to lower elevations, rivers and streams carry a variety of sediments from clay to larger boulders. These systems are in constant states of adjustment trying to reach a balance between the energy they produce and the ability to maintain the conveyance of sediment (erosion) equal to what is being deposited (aggradation). This is the geomorphology of a stream. Appropriate stream crossings are designed to accommodate the natural process of sediment conveyance. These structures are expected to have greater lifespans, require less maintenance and have less of a chance of failing. The energy of a stream is influenced by channel slope, dimensions, and roughness. Floodplains provide a way for rivers and streams to dissipate energy during flood flows. Elevated waters are able to slowly span laterally outward along floodplains reducing velocity and energy. Stream crossings, streambank armoring and stream channelization prevent floodplains from being utilized during high flow events. In the presence of these conditions, the energy of a stream is maintained and can result in higher erosion rates further downstream. This affect is further

9 amplified when flood flows are forced through a constriction point of an undersized stream crossing. In these instances, the full flow cannot be conveyed through the structure opening and is forced to slow down and stage on the upstream side of the structure before it can continue to move downstream. As water accumulates on the upstream side of the crossing structure force is applied to both the road fill (lateral pressure) and downward on the crossing structure (horizontal pressure). This decrease in velocity and lose of energy reduces the ability for rivers and streams to carry material and an increased level of upstream deposition occurs. Overtime, this material accumulates in the upstream center of the channel, further reducing size of the crossing structure opening and redirecting flows to the sides of the crossing structure, compromising the road fill around the crossing structure.

Streambed materials can accumulate (aggradate) on the upstream side of undersized crossings. This sediment wedge can reduce the capacity of the crossing while redirecting flows away from the culvert, compromising the integrity of the road in this location. Conversely, the effect on river and stream behavior on the downstream side of an undersized crossing is essentially reversed. If a structure cannot accommodate the immediate conveyance of the full flow, a constriction occurs. This increases the pressure on the flow being forced through the constricting structure, increasing the velocity and energy of flows exiting the downstream side of the crossing structure. Greater energy on the downstream side of the structure results in increased erosion rates on the streambed and streambanks. Overtime, high rates of scour result in the elevation of the streambed to drop with scour pools developed at the downstream end of undersized crossings. As the stream bed elevation continues to drop, the vertical distance

10 between the bed and outlet of the crossing structure increases. This creates a waterfall or cascade type feature, making it difficult for fish and other aquatic organisms to ascend through the stream crossing. This is what is commonly referred to as a perched culvert.

Increased rates of erosion on the downstream side of undersized stream crossings will scour the stream bed leaving a vertical drop between the stream channel and outlet of the structure. This scenario can impede or prevent fish and other aquatic organisms from accessing necessary habitats.

Although high flow events have the ability to move a great deal of sediment during a short period of time, the rate of flow that has the most influence on the natural processes of stream erosion and aggradation rates is the bankfull flow. Although less intense than typical flood levels, the frequency of a bankfull flow event dictates how a stream tries to reach a balance between the produced energy and the ability to maintain the conveyance of sediment (erosion) equal to what is being deposited (aggradation). On average, this flow event occurs every 1.5 years. Survey crews were trained to recognize field indicators that indicate the locations of bankfull flows. The lateral width of bankfull flows were recorded for multiple locations at three locations: directly downstream from the crossing structure, immediately upstream from the crossing structure and well upstream of the structure (reference bankfull width) away from any influence of the stream crossing. A general rule of thumb is that an appropriately sized stream crossing structure should span 120% of the average bankfull flow width. This width accommodates the conveyance of both higher flows and sediments being transported by the river

11

and stream. The average width of a crossing structure in the Warner River Watershed was 56% of the bankfull flow width. Specific ratios of crossing structure widths to bankfull flow widths are presented in the town summary cards. The NHGS uses several variables collected at every survey location to coarsely score a stream crossing into different geomorphic compatibility categories. These categories range from Fully Compatible to Fully Incompatible with three intermediate groups. The variables used and categories are described in the table below. Field Collected Variables Used to Score Geomorphic Compatibility Wetted width in structure (downstream side) Upstream bankfull widths Angle of streamflow approaching structure Culvert slope compared to channel slope Upstream deposit types Upstream deposit height > 0.5 bankfull height Steeper stream segment within 1/3 mile upstream Scour undermining downstream side of structure Downstream bank heights taller than upstream bank height Bank erosion (upstream and downstream) Bank armoring (upstream and downstream)

Categories Used to Summarize Geomorphic Compatibility Fully These structures are fully compatible with natural river channel form and process, and are at a Compatible low risk of failure. Culvert replacement is not expected over the lifetime of the structure. When replaced, a structure similar to the currently existing one is recommended. Culverts that rank in this category provide examples of the proper sizing and construction at sites where replacements occur to ensure compatibility with flow and sediment transport processes. Mostly These structures are mostly compatible with natural river channel form and process, and are at Compatible a low risk of failure. Culvert replacement is not expected over the lifetime of the structure. When replaced, minor design adjustments are recommended to make the culvert fully compatible with river form and process. Partially These structures are either compatible with current form or process, but not both, with any Compatible compatibility only likely in the short term. Culvert replacement may be needed, given the moderate risk of failure during its design lifetime. When replaced a redesign of the culvert installation is suggested to improve the compatibility of the culvert with river form and process. Mostly These structures are typically undersized for the river or stream channel that contains them, Incompatible and/or are poorly aligned with the upstream channel geometry, creating a condition where the structures are mostly incompatible with river form and process. As a result, these structures are at a moderate to high risk of structural failure. When replaced, a redesign of the culvert should be initiated to improve the geomorphic compatibility. Fully These structures are typically undersized for the river or stream channel that contains them, Incompatible and/or are poorly aligned with the upstream channel geometry, while also showing reduced sediment continuity (passage of bed material through the culvert) and an increased risk for erosion. Culverts ranking in this category are not compatible with river form and process and are at a high risk of failure. Culverts ranking in this category should be prioritized for replacements to improve river geomorphology process compatibility.

12

Most of the stream crossings within the Warner River Watershed were either categorized as Mostly Compatible (30.1%) or Partially Compatible (23.7%). The percentage of stream crossings categorized as Fully Compatible (2.9%) and Fully Incompatible (2.9%) were very similar. The remaining stream crossings were categorized as Mostly Incompatible (13.9%). Bridges and open bottom arches were not scored for geomorphic compatibility. These structure types represented 26.6% of the stream crossings encountered.

Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP)

Wild brook trout and other aquatic organisms are not often thought of as being migratory and subsequently not often considered during road design. However, radio telemetry studies in New Hampshire have shown larger wild trout can move over 50 miles in a single year. When a population becomes isolated, concerns regarding genetic diversity and population health are present. If a catastrophic event (acid flush event from snowmelt, extreme drought year, large plumes of sediment) occurred upstream of an impassable barrier (i.e. dam, perched stream crossing) that decimates a wild brook trout population, fish may not be able to repopulate the area. Some species can be sensitive to water temperature and need to find areas with cooler temperatures in the summer. Perched stream crossings can limit the ability for species to find these cold water habitats, compromising survival rates. Reptiles and amphibians often choose to move over perched stream crossing structures to reach desirable habitats. This can lead to instances where these species are killed by moving traffic.

13

Overtime, the increase in downstream erosion rates resulting from undersized culverts can decrease the streambed elevation below the crossing. This leads to a hanging culvert and a waterfall with an outlet invert drop. Fish and other aquatic organisms have difficulty moving upstream in these situations. The outlet invert height should equal the streambed elevation in order to accommodate

The NHGS uses several variables collected at every survey location to coarsely score a stream crossing into different AOP categories. These categories range from Fully AOP to NO AOP with two intermediate groups. The variables used and categories are described in the table below. Field Collected Variables Used to Score Geomorphic Compatibility Outlet grade Outlet invert drop-structure invert drop (feet) Presence of downstream pool Entrance depth of downstream pool Water depth in structure outlet (feet) Number of culverts at crossing Structure opening partially obstructed Screening at inlet Substrate throughout structure

14

Categories Used to Summarize Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Full AOP Stream crossings have one culvert with an outlet that is at grade with the channel bed downstream with no drop (the culvert is not perched), have sediment throughout the structure, and have an upstream structure opening that is not partially obstructed. The crossing is functionally no different than the river/stream channel upstream or downstream of it, which leads to the ability of the structure to fully pass aquatic organisms through. Reduced Stream crossings in this category can have any of the following conditions, either AOP individually or in combination with each other: (1) have a culvert outlet where flow cascades into the river/stream channel directly downstream of it; (2) have more than one culvert at a crossing; (3) have an upstream structure opening that has some type of obstruction; or (4) a culvert where sediment is not present throughout the structure. These are factors that work to potentially limit AOP for some species or life stages. No AOP Stream crossings in this category have a free fall outlet and a measureable drop directly except for downstream of the culvert that is less than or equal to 1 foot, given the known strong adult trout swimming and leaping abilities of salmonid species. Additionally, cases where a pool exists directly downstream where data is not available for water depth at pool entry are placed into this category since salmonid species could jump into the culvert. No AOP Stream crossings in this category have a free fall outlet and a measureable drop directly including downstream of the culvert that is greater than 1 foot. Crossings are also placed into this adult trout category if the downstream pool has a depth at the point of entry that is less than the outlet drop height, or if the water depth in the culvert at the outlet is less than 0.3 feet.

Crossing structures that were scored as supporting full fish passage represented 6.7% of the total structures assessed. Presumably, bridge and arch structures with natural streambeds would support full fish passage as well. This results in 36.2% of the crossings offering fish passage in the watershed. Close to one third of the crossings (32.6%) were identified to support fish passage at a reduced rate. The most common reason for structures to be classified as Reduced AOP was because the structures lacked interior streambed material. Crossings that precluded all fish passage were noted at 29.0% of the survey locations. Crossing structures that have outlet drops navigable only to adult trout were found at 2.1% of the survey locations.

15

Structure Vulnerability

Being able to predict stream crossing structure performance at high flow events can be a valuable tool for communities. This information helps identify areas that able to accommodate floods flows, but more importantly, the structures at risk of over topping and failing at these flows. The ability for crossing structures to have the hydraulic capacity to pass 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year storm events was evaluated using the StreamWorks-TU Culvert Model (Version 1). This model uses a combination of field measurements and mapped watershed characteristics to develop a ratio between the structure capacity and height of water on the upstream side during these storm events. Stream Works-TU Culvert Model (Version 1) Inputs Field Measurements Mapped Watershed Features Culvert Type Reference Number Drainage Area Culvert Length Curve Number Culvert Inlet Elevation 24 hour Precipitation, 2-yr Culvert Outlet Elevation 24 hour Precipitation, 10-yr Roadway Elevation 24 hour Precipitation, 25-yr Number of Barrels 24 hour Precipitation, 50-yr Culvert Rise 24 hour Precipitation, 100-yr Culvert Span Mean April Precipitation Culvert Wall Rise (Arch Only) Representative Watershed Slope Culvert Embedded Depth Area of Wetlands and Ponds in Watershed Watershed Length, Flow Path

The model categorizes stream crossing structures into three categories for each specified storm event (2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year storm events). The three categories consist of Pass, Transitional and Fail. The Pass category predicts the water height on the upstream side of the crossing structure to be less than 85% of the opening of the crossing structure. When upstream water height is projected to be 85% to 115% of the structure opening, the structure is placed in the Transitional category at that specified flow level. The Fail category is assigned to crossings that are predicted to have an upstream water height greater than 115% of the size opening of the crossing.

16

The following figures represent the percentage of crossings that pass, fail, or are in transition during 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year flow events, by towns within the Warner River Watershed. As expected, the number of crossings that are able to pass a specified flow return decreased as the flow rate increases.

17

18

Discussion Ultimately, the size, placement and condition of these culverts have a direct impact on the flow and passage of water throughout the watershed and determine the vulnerability of road crossings and the surrounding landscape during severe weather events. This culvert condition information is also essential in determining the impact these crossing have on overall floodplain resiliency and connectivity of the river system for wildlife habitat and aquatic organism passage (AOP). By working collectively, with communities, stakeholders, and residents, the Warner River Watershed Conservation Project team and local decision makers hope to identify and assist in prioritizing restoration options, for undersized priority road stream crossings throughout the watershed. Watershed communities can now evaluate both environmental and potential road hazard risks associated with undersized stream crossings. Having access to this critical data, will not only help to enhance AOP, it will also present a chance to reevaluate community risk associated with culvert failures during extreme storm events. In the end, this proactive approach to addressing infrastructure needs within the watershed will help reduce maintenance and repair costs, safeguard against road safety issues, as well as protect critical wildlife habitat impacted by stream fragmentation. This information will assist: (1) municipal conservation commissions in identifying and developing important connectivity habitat restoration projects for brook trout and other important aquatic species; (2) NHFGD and NHDES in prioritizing funding for future restoration projects and other actions designed to protect the river; (3) support NHGS in gathering information about the status of stream crossings in the watershed; and (4) support the soon to be formed, Warner River Local Advisory Committee in implementing their goal to protect the natural flow of the river for fish and wildlife habitat and public water uses. The Warner River Watershed is presently a healthy combination of urban and rural landscapes. To maintain water quality for all of the communities, it is important that towns work across political lines to protect this extremely valuable natural resource. The investment and choice of culvert replacement and/or retrofit is ultimately a local and/or state decision. We hope you can make it to the Community Workshops incorporating your area. We look forward to working with you to restore the habitat within the Warner River Watershed.

19

Appendix 1. Town Specific Results

Town: Bradford *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_002 N Breezy Hill Rd Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_003 N Rt 114 West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_004 Y West Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Adult trout only F F F F F WARNER_005 Y East Washington Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 44.8 WARNER_007 N Rt 103 Unnamed Stream Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_008 N West Main St Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_009 Y Pleasant View Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Adult trout only T F F F F 29.5 WARNER_010 N Fairgrounds Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_011 N Fairgrounds Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_012 N Brown Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_013 Y West Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P T T F 45.9 WARNER_014 Y Fortune Rd West Branch Warner River Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP P P T F F 39.2 WARNER_016 Y West Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP T F F F F 36.0 WARNER_017 Y Fairgrounds Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P T WARNER_019 N Fairgrounds Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_022 N Johnson Hill Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_023 N River Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_025 Y Jewett Rd Hoyt Brook Bridge with Abutments No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 97.5 WARNER_026 N Center Rd Hoyt Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_027 Y Rowe Mtn Rd Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P P P P 56.9 WARNER_028 N West Meadow Rd Hoyt Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_029 N West Meadow Rd Hoyt Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_030 N West Rd Hoyt Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_031 Y Deer Valley Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP T F F F F 45.9 WARNER_033 Y Deer Valley Rd Hoyt Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 61.4 WARNER_034 Y Old Mountain Rd Hoyt Brook Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 38.5 WARNER_036 N Breezy Hill Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_037 Y Davis Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Not Scored Reduced AOP P P P P P WARNER_038 Y East Shore Dr Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP T F F F F 22.1 WARNER_039 N Rt 114 Unnamed Stream Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_041 Y Forest St Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP F F F F F 29.3 WARNER_043 Y Oakdale Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P P T F F WARNER_045 N Center Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_050 Y NH Route 114 Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 44.7 WARNER_052 N West Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_053 Y Center Rd Hoyt Brook Bridge with Abutments No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 42.8 WARNER_054 Y Forest St Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P T F F WARNER_055 Y Howett Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P T F F 37.7 WARNER_058 N East Washington Rd Hoyt Brook Open bottom arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_059 N Rt 103 Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch

21

Town: New London *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_064 Y RT 11 Lyon Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 64.0 WARNER_065 Y Old Main St Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 75.3 WARNER_066 Y Bog Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Not Scored Full AOP P P T T F WARNER_067 Y Forest Acres Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Not Scored Full AOP P P P T T WARNER_068 N Pine Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_069 N Carter Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_070 N Columbus Ave Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_071 N Gay Farm Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_072 N Gay Farm Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_073 N Burpee Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_074 N Columbus Ave Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_075 N County Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_076 Y Brookside Dr Lyon Brook Elliptical Culvert Fully Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 127.7 WARNER_077 Y Brookside Drive Lyon Brook Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P P P P 101.7 WARNER_078 N County Rd Lyon Brook Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_079 Y RT 11 Lyon Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 33.3 WARNER_080 Y Oxbow Rd Lyon Brook Box Culvert Mostly Incompatible Full AOP P P P P P 40.9 WARNER_081 Y South Pleasant St Lyon Brook Box Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P T 51.3 WARNER_082 N Forest Acres Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_295 Y Burpee Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP F F F F F 35.8 WARNER_296 N Columbus Ave Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-bridge/arch No Score-intermittent 64.0

22

23

Town: Newbury (page 1 of 2 ) *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_085 Y Cheney Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP T F F F F 68.0 WARNER_086 Y Richards Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP T F F F F 49.2 WARNER_088 Y Old Post Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP F F F F F 28.5 WARNER_089 Y Mountainside Drive Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 54.5 WARNER_090 Y Winding Brook Road Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 66.4 WARNER_091 Y South Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Not Scored P P P P P WARNER_092 Y Forest Brook Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Not Scored Reduced AOP P F F F F WARNER_093 Y Between the Mtns Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P P T F 51.0 WARNER_094 N Sutton Rd Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_095 N Old Province Rd Ring Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_096 Y Chalk Pond Rd Ring Brook Round Culvert Fully Incompatible Reduced AOP P F F F F 43.1 WARNER_097 Y Chalk Pond Rd Ring Brook Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P P P P 189.2 WARNER_098 Y Cheney Rd Shaw Brook Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 65.8 WARNER_099 Y Cheney Rd Shaw Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP P P P P P 54.6 WARNER_100 Y Cheney Rd Shaw Brook Bridge with Abutments No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 69.8 WARNER_101 N Rt 103 Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_102 N Rt 103 Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_103 N Village Rd Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_104 N Rt 103 Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_105 N Mountain Rd Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_109 Y Colburn Farm Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Full AOP P P P P P 106.9 WARNER_110 Y Old Province Rd Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP F F F F F 25.4 WARNER_111 Y Old Post Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP F F F F F 32.9 WARNER_112 Y Old Post Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Fully Compatible No Score-bridge/arch P P P T F 34.4 WARNER_113 N Mountain Rd Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_114 N Mountain Rd Andrew Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_115 Y Mountainside Dr Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P T T 48.8 WARNER_116 Y Newell Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P T F F F 59.3 WARNER_117 Y Mountain Rd Unnamed Stream Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 249.0 WARNER_118 Y Gillingham Dr Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 38.7 WARNER_120 Y Winding Brook Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP T F F F F 60.7 WARNER_121 Y Winding Brook Road Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P F F F F 41.3 WARNER_122 Y Winding Brook Road Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P F F F F 44.4 WARNER_123 N Rt 103 Unnamed Stream Open bottom arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_124 Y South Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Partially Compatible Full AOP P P P P T 43.5 WARNER_125 N Village Rd Unnamed Stream Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_127 Y Cheney Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 57.5 WARNER_129 Y Cheney Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP F F F F F 27.0 WARNER_130 Y Richards Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP F F F F F 68.4 WARNER_132 Y Rt. 103 Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Fully Incompatible Reduced AOP P P T F F 45.9 WARNER_136 Y Morse Ln Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P T F F

24

Town: Newbury (page 2 of 2) *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_137 Y South Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Incompatible Full AOP P P T F F 120.0 WARNER_141 Y Mountain Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P F F F WARNER_143 Y South Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 47.8 WARNER_144 Y Brown Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 81.5 WARNER_145 Y Mountain Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP P T F F F WARNER_298 Y Cheney Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P T F 70.2 WARNER_299 Y Old Post Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Full AOP P P T T F 33.5

25

26

Town: Salisbury *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_147 Y First Rd Knights Meadow Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP F F F F F 44.0 WARNER_211 Y Warner Rd Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 63.1

27

Town: Sutton *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_148 N Rt 103 Unnamed Stream Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_151 N Wadleigh Hill Rd Lane River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_152 Y Rt 114 Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Not Scored Reduced AOP F F F F F WARNER_153 Y Rt 114 Thistle Brook Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P T 50.8 WARNER_154 Y Rt 114 Thistle Brook Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P F F F F 39.9 WARNER_155 Y Rt 114 Thistle Brook Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP P T F F F 33.3 WARNER_156 Y Rt 114 Thistle Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 86.5 WARNER_157 Y Rt 114 Thistle Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP T F F F F 46.5 WARNER_158 Y Rt 114 Thistle Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 45.8 WARNER_159 Y Main St Thistle Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P F F F F 89.7 WARNER_160 N Wadleigh Hill Rd Lane River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_162 Y Poor Farm Rd Kings Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 49.8 WARNER_164 Y Newbury Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P F F F F 39.0 WARNER_166 Y Nelson Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Not Scored Reduced AOP F F F F F WARNER_167 N Felch Rd Lyon Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_170 Y Hominy Pot Rd Lyon Brook Elliptical Culvert Fully Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 63.6 WARNER_171 N King Hill Rd Lyon Brook Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_172 N Penacook Rd Unnamed Stream Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_174 Y Derby Farm Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Not Scored Reduced AOP P P P P P WARNER_175 N Rt 114 Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent WARNER_176 Y North Rd Stevens Brook Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 57.0 WARNER_180 N Bull Bridge Rd Lane River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_183 Y Stevens Brook Rd Stevens Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 51.7 WARNER_186 N Morse Loop Rd Unnamed Stream Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_222 Y Eaton Grange Rd Colby Brook Box Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 27.0 WARNER_283 Y North Rd Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P P T T 86.3 WARNER_284 Y Mastin Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Full AOP T F F F F 30.0 WARNER_285 Y Highschool Entrance Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P F F F F 71.4 WARNER_286 Y Beaver Pond Rd Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 80.9 WARNER_293 Y First Sutton Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Partially Compatible Full AOP P P T F F 35.8 WARNER_294 Y First Sutton Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP F F F F F 17.6 WARNER_297 Y Barker Rd Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 43.1

28

29

Town: Warner (page 1 of 2 ) *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_200 N Newmarket Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_201 N Rt 103 West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_202 N Rt 103 West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_203 N Melvin Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_206 Y Poverty Plains Rd Schoodac Brook Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch Reduced AOP P P P P P 63.2 WARNER_209 Y Schoodac Rd Frazier Brook Open bottom arch Fully Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 112.2 WARNER_210 Y Mason Hill Rd Frazier Brook Elliptical Culvert Not Scored Reduced AOP P P P P P WARNER_212 Y Brown Rd Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P T 78.1 WARNER_213 Y Mason Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P T F F F 42.8 WARNER_215 Y Kearsarge Mtn Rd French Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 49.2 WARNER_216 Y North Rd French Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 39.2 WARNER_217 Y North Rd Meadow Brook Bridge with Abutments No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 132.7 WARNER_218 Y Gore Rd Meadow Brook Box Culvert Fully Incompatible Full AOP P T F F F 33.9 WARNER_219 Y Gore Rd (Class VI) Unnamed Stream Ford Fully Incompatible No AOP F F F F F WARNER_220 Y Rt 103 Colby Brook Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch Reduced AOP P P P P P 83.2 WARNER_221 Y Waterloo St Colby Brook Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 169.9 WARNER_223 Y DAVIS RD Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P F F F 39.6 WARNER_225 Y Melvin Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P T F F F 38.5 WARNER_226 Y Horne Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P T T F 82.0 WARNER_227 Y Horne Rd Slaughter Brook Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 76.0 WARNER_228 Y Newmarket Rd Slaughter Brook Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 49.3 WARNER_229 Y Silver Brook Elliptical Culvert Fully Incompatible No AOP P P P P P 30.8 WARNER_231 Y Mink Hill Ln Silver Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 65.9 WARNER_232 Y North Village Rd Silver Brook Bridge with Abutments No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 103.7 WARNER_233 Y North Village Rd Silver Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 70.9 WARNER_234 Y East Joppa Rd Ballard Brook Round Culvert Partially Compatible Adult trout only T F F F F 22.2 WARNER_235 Y Rt 103 Ballard Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Adult trout only P P P P T 78.3 WARNER_236 Y Red Chimney Rd Ballard Brook Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P P P P 53.3 WARNER_237 Y Red Chimney Rd Ballard Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P P P T T 58.9 WARNER_238 Y Couchtown Rd Knights Meadow Brook Box Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 38.2 WARNER_239 Y Gore Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP F F F F F 37.5 WARNER_240 Y Duck Pond Ln Willow Brook Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP F F F F F 16.5 WARNER_241 Y East Sutton Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P F F F F 20.9 WARNER_242 Y Rt 103 Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 45.8 WARNER_243 Y Waterloo St Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Full AOP P P P P P 25.5 WARNER_245 N Laing bridge Rd West Branch Warner River Bridge No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch WARNER_246 Y Bartlett Loop Rd Willow Brook Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 61.0 WARNER_247 Y Bartlett Loop Rd Willow Brook Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 39.6 WARNER_249 Y School St Willow Brook Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 55.0 WARNER_250 Y Howe Ln Unnamed Stream Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P P P 45.8 WARNER_252 Y Mink Hill Ln Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Fully Compatible No AOP P P T T F 36.3

30

Town: Warner (page 2 of 2 ) *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_253 Y Burnt Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P F F F F 34.0 WARNER_256 Y Schoodac Rd Berkley Brook Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 37.6 WARNER_257 Y Collins Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P T F F 44.4 WARNER_258 Y Davis Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P T F F F 52.3 WARNER_260 Y I-89 South Bartlett Brook Elliptical Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 29.2 WARNER_261 Y I-89 North Bartlett Brook Elliptical Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P P P P P 29.7 WARNER_262 Y Parade Ground Rd Bartlett Brook Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Full AOP P P P P P 93.1 WARNER_263 Y West Joppa Rd Unnamed Stream Box Culvert Mostly Compatible Full AOP P P P P P 58.4 WARNER_264 Y West Joppa Rd Bartlett Brook Bridge with Abutments No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch F F F F F 41.3 WARNER_267 Y Poverty Plains Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P F F F F 21.4 WARNER_268 Y Rt 103 Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP P T T F F 61.6 WARNER_270 Y Ladd Ln Davis Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP T F F F F 31.9 WARNER_271 Y Newmarket Rd Davis Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P P P P P 39.0 WARNER_281 Y Retreat Rd Davis Brook Open Bottom Arch No Score-bridge/arch No Score-bridge/arch P P P P P 73.8 WARNER_282 Y Gore Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Incompatible No AOP P P T F F 58.0 WARNER_287 Y Loud Ln Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P P P T F 64.8 WARNER_288 Y Retreat Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P F F F F 40.7 WARNER_289 Y Newmarket Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible No AOP P T F F F 48.6 WARNER_290 Y Pumpkin Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP T F F F F 47.6 WARNER_291 Y Duck Pond Ln Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Mostly Compatible No AOP P F F F F 27.9 WARNER_292 N Pumpkin Hill Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert No Score-intermittent No Score-intermittent

31

32

Town: Webster *Structure Capacity at Flow Events P=Pass, T=Transitional, F=Fail USER_ID Full Road Name Stream Name Structure Type Geomorphic Fish Passage Crossing Capacity at Flow Events* Structure Survey Compatibility 2 10 25 50 100 Width/Bankfull Year Year Year Year Year Width Ratio % WARNER_274 Y White Plains Rd Unnamed Stream Round Culvert Partially Compatible Reduced AOP T F F F F 7.2 WARNER_275 Y Knights Meadow Rd Knights Meadow Brook Round Culvert Mostly Compatible Reduced AOP P F F F F 23.4 WARNER_276 Y White Plains Rd Knights Meadow Brook Round Culvert Not Scored Reduced AOP P P P P P

33