Site_Visit_Pre-Bid_042517_Notes_and_Documents.pdf

Project: AG-1484-S-14-004/Road XB442 AOP Onsite Pre Bid Meeting Questions and Answers Meeting Date April 25, 2017

Forest Service personal on site: Johanna Nugent and Scott Lees

Question – Can the proposed plate arch culvert be reduced in size to 44 FT 4 IN?

Answer - No. It has to be the 45 FT 0 IN as shown on the plans.

Question – Can material be purchased this year and be paid for?

Answer – No.

Question – Can a copy of the soils logs be made available?

Answer – Yes we will provide the Geotechnical report.

Question – Can the Forest Service provided the 10 year 24 hour rainfall event?

Answer – No. We will provide the Hydrology report for used to determine the 100 and 25 year events.

Question – Does the Forest Service have Wetlands plan?

Answer – No. The contractor who is awarded the project will have to produce a plan for NHDES.

Question – If while getting a NHDES permit the state requires a change to the design is the contractor responsible for the cost of the design change?

Answer – No, the Government is.

June 26, 2013

Scott Burbank, P.E.

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

7056 US Route 7 North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473

RE: Foundation Recommendations Report AOP Culvert Replacement Forest Road 44E – 0.5 over Louisville Brook (Site 1) AOP Culvert Replacement Forest Road XB442 – 0.02 over Albany Brook (Site 2)

White Mountain National Forest, Saco Ranger District GeoDesign #837-40

Dear Scott:

GeoDesign is pleased to submit this report on the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) culvert replacement foundation recommendations for sites 1 and 2. This report includes the site evaluation data that we collected (i.e., test pit logs and grain size analysis), our summary of the subsurface conditions at each brook crossing, and our recommendations for bearing pressure and subgrade preparation at each crossing for the replacement culvert.

Our recommendations for bearing resistance at Site 1 were previously sent via email on February 12, 2012, and our recommendations for bearing resistance at Site 2 were previously sent via email on April 17, 2012.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 802-674-2033 (Ext. 209).

Sincerely, GeoDesign, Inc.

Shawn P Kelley, Ph.D., P.E. Alan Baribault, E.I.

Associate Engineer 2

Enclosed: WMNF Culvert evaluation report

Submitted: One electronic copy via email (sburbank@vhb.com and CHakey@VHB.com) and one hard copy mailed via U.S. Post Office mailto:sburbank@vhb.com mailto:CHakey@VHB.com

U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e ( U S D A )

F o r e s t S e r v i c e , E a s t e r n R e g i o n

AOP Culvert Replacement Forest Road 44E – 0.5 AOP Culvert Replacement Forest Road XB442 – 0.02

Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations

FSR 44E – 0.5 over Louisville Brook FSR XB442 – 0.02 over Albany Brook

White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) Saco Ranger District

Town of Bartlett Carroll County, NH

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Mr. Scott Burbank, P.E.

7056 US Route 7 North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473

June 26, 2013

54 Main Street, P.O. Box 699, Windsor, Vermont 05089

(T) 802.674.2033, (F) 802.674.5943 GeoDesign Project Number: 837-40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................... I

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

3 SITE LOCATION AND SUBSURFACE DESCRIPTION

3.1 Geology

3.2 Subsurface Explorations

3.3 Subsurface Description

3.3.1 Stratigraphy (FSR 44E)

3.3.2 Stratigraphy (FSR 442)

3.3.3 Groundwater

3.3.4 Laboratory Testing

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Bearing Pressure and Expected Settlement

4.1.1 FSR 44E (Site 1)

4.1.2 FSR 442 (Site 2)

4.2 Lateral Earth Pressure against backfilled culverts

4.3 Material and Compaction Requirements

4.3.1 Working mat

4.3.2 Soil Material

4.3.3 Compaction Requirements

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

6 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT REVIEW AND FIELD OBSERVATION

7 LIMITATIONS

8 ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Site Location Plans........................................................................... 8-1 Attachment 2 – Site Photographs............................................................................... 8-5 Attachment 3 – Test Pit Log .................................................................................... 8-10 Attachment 4 – Grain size analysis results .............................................................. 8-14 Attachment 5 – Bearing Resistance recommendation Emails ................................. 8-17 Attachment 6 – Limitations ..................................................................................... 8-22 i

AOP Culvert Replacement Forest Road 44E-0.5 Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations

June 26, 2013

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The subsurface conditions at the brook crossing of Forest Service Road 44E-0.5 (FSR 44E) over Louisville Brook and Forest Service Road XB442-0.02 (FSR 442) over Albany Brook located as shown on Attachment 1 are evaluated in this report. Geotechnical recommendations are given for each culvert replacement. Explorations indicate that the sites have firm bearing soils at or above design foundation bearing elevation (which is approximately six feet below stream bed elevation). The sites have subsurface conditions conducive to shallow footings for the proposed open bottom culvert crossing design.

We conducted a subsurface exploration consisting of one test pit excavation at each site, photographs of which appear in Attachment 2. These recommendations were developed using test pit data obtained at each site, the logs of which are in Attachment 3. We subcontracted a tracked excavator to perform the site explorations. We estimated soil parameters based on gradation data and calculated factored net bearing resistance and expected settlement based on design loads and footing dimensions provided by VHB, per the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

Sieve analyses were performed on soil samples within the expected bearing soil strata for the proposed open bottom culverts for scour analysis by VHB at each brook crossing. These data are presented in Attachment 4.

We recommend that a field engineer from our office observe the excavation for the proposed open bottom culverts when the replacement foundation excavation occurs. The purpose of the on-site evaluation is to compare the exposed soil conditions with our design interpretation, and applicability of our foundation recommendations.

2 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

This report presents our subsurface evaluation and the geotechnical engineering we performed for the FSR 44E over Louisville Brook and FSR 442 over Albany Brook in the WMNF. We have provided recommended factored net bearing resistance for the proposed culvert crossing and expected settlement for each structure. Our evaluation included one test pit and grain size analysis at each site, and through interpretation of this data, we are providing foundation recommendations for the brook crossings.

The sites currently have a buried corrugated metal culvert pipe as the brook crossing. We understand the proposed crossings will be an open bottom arch culvert.

The objective of this report is to provide VHB with a characterization of the subsurface conditions at the expected replacement culvert locations and geotechnical design criteria for foundation design for each brook crossing.

June 26, 2013

3 SITE LOCATION AND SUBSURFACE DESCRIPTION

The Site 1 culvert location is at the 0.5 mile mark on FSR 44E, where it crosses Louisville Brook. The Site 2 culvert location is on FSR 442, where it crosses Albany Brook. Both crossings are in the Saco Ranger District of the White Mountain National Forest and the Town of Bartlett in Carroll County, New Hampshire, as presented in Figure 1 in Attachment 1.

3.1 Geology

Soils encountered in the test pits generally match published mapping data provided on the Surficial Geology of New Hampshire (Goldthwait, 1950). The Surficial Map indicates predominantly ground moraine. Bedrock (which was not encountered in the test pits) is mapped on the Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire (Lyons, 1997) as Granite from either the Conway Granite or the Mount Osceola Granite Formation (which is in close proximity to the site).

3.2 Subsurface Explorations

GeoDesign performed one test pit at each crossing site at the location shown in Figures 2 and 3 in Attachment 1. Test pits were performed by Burnham Company, Inc. on January 20, 2011.

The test pits were observed and logged by GeoDesign personnel. Photographs from the excavations are presented in Attachment 2, and the test pit logs are provided in Attachment 3.

The locations of the test pits shown on the attached figures in Attachment 1 is approximate and is based on taped measurements made in the field by GeoDesign personnel with reference to the vicinity of existing site features and edge of brook. Test pit locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the location method used. Ground surface elevations at the sites were estimated from electronic site plans provided by VHB, entitled 2011-06-22 Preliminary Planset.pdf (FSR 44E) and from 5726321_FSR 442_Contract.pdf (FSR 442).

3.3 Subsurface Description

In general, test pits were extended through embankment fill, original topsoil, and into dense native soils at or below the proposed bearing elevation at both brook crossings. The test pit logs may be found in Attachment 3, and provide additional detail.

Large cobbles and boulders were visible on the ground surface in site photographs provided by VHB (covered by snow during our exploration) at the culvert crossing embankment. Similar sized cobbles and boulders were excavated from the test pits, but a maximum of three to four-inch particles were included in the laboratory samples.

June 26, 2013

3.3.1 Stratigraphy (FSR 44E)

One test pit was performed at the site as seen on Figure 2 of Attachment 1. Test pit TP-FSR44E was performed on the southwestern end of the brook crossing at the road surface, with an estimated ground surface at Elevation 1001. Figures 4 through 6 present photographs of the test pit excavation and the bottom of the test pit. The generalized subsurface profile at the crossing is as follows:

Sand & Silt Fill (FILL) – Approximately 4.25 feet of fill exists (topsoil and roadway embankment fill) in the embankment with numerous boulders and cobbles present. This fill is mixed as described in the test pit log. Also, traces of roots (or root mat) and organic debris were present throughout. At the time of exploration, the upper 1.5 feet was frozen. Excavation effort was difficult in this layer.

Cobbles and Boulders (Possible old stream bed) – A layer of cobbles and boulders was encountered below the fill layer to a depth of approximately eight feet. Many boulders and cobbles were removed (refer to the test pit log for number and sizes), mixed with some Sand and Gravel. Excavation effort was difficult in this layer.

Sandy Gravelly Silt (Ground Moraine) – Ground Moraine consisting of a dense mixture of Silt, Sand, and Gravel was encountered from approximately at the bottom of the test pit. The exploration was terminated in this layer at approximately 14 feet below ground surface. Occasional boulders were encountered in this layer, and excavation effort was difficult.

The ground moraine is expected to be the bearing stratum for the open bottom culvert shallow footing. One sieve analysis was performed on a sample from the test pit in the Ground Moraine (bearing stratum). The sample was from approximately 13 to 14 feet below grade and contained 42% silt.

3.3.2 Stratigraphy (FSR 442)

One test pit was performed at the site as seen on Figure 3 of Attachment 1. Test pit TP-FSR442 was performed on the northwestern end of the brook crossing at the road surface, with an estimated ground surface at Elevation 1000. Figures 7 through 9 present photographs of the test pit excavation and the bottom of the test pit. The generalized subsurface profile at the crossing is as follows:

Sand (FILL) – Approximately three feet of fill exists (roadway embankment fill) in the embankment, consisting primarily of Sand, with Gravel and occasional boulders present.

Also, traces of roots (or root mat) and organic debris were present throughout.

Excavation effort was difficult at first, but easy for most of this layer

Sand and Gravel with Boulders – A layer of Sand and Gravel was encountered below the fill layer to a depth of approximately 12 feet. Many boulders and cobbles were removed (refer to the test pit log for number and sizes), mixed with some Sand and Gravel.

Excavation effort was easy to moderate in this layer.

June 26, 2013

Gravelly Sand and Silt (Ground Moraine) – Ground Moraine consisting of a dense mixture of Sand, Silt, and Gravel was encountered from approximately 12 feet to the bottom of the test pit. The exploration was terminated in this layer at approximately 19 feet below ground surface. Frequent boulders were encountered in this layer, and excavation effort was difficult.

The ground moraine is expected to be the bearing stratum for the open bottom culvert shallow footing. One sieve analysis was performed on a sample from the test pit in the Ground Moraine (bearing stratum). The sample was from approximately 18 to 19 feet below grade and contained 40% silt.

3.3.3 Groundwater

At FSR 44E, groundwater was encountered during the excavation of the test pit at approximately seven feet deep, (slight seepage), approximately corresponding to the stream elevation. The remainder of the excavation was dry (no standing or seeping water) during the time that it was open. At FSR 442, groundwater was encountered during the excavation of the test pit at approximately 11.5 feet deep, approximately corresponding to the stream elevation. The remainder of the excavation was wet during the time that it was open. Groundwater elevations will fluctuate over time and these reported observations were made on the dates noted in the log.

3.3.4 Laboratory Testing

Washed split-sieve tests at each site were performed on one sample from the roadway embankment to determine suitability for re-use, and a second from the anticipated strata at the proposed foundation bearing surface (i.e. strata within six feet below stream bottom) for the proposed open bottom culvert. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D6913 method A. No particles larger than small cobbles were collected in the sample specimens, and due to the large gravel and cobbles present, two samples were undersized according to the ASTM test method. A summary table is presented below, and the gradation curves are presented in Attachment 4.

Table 1. Lab Test Specimen Sample Sizes

Site Sample Depth (ft)

MIN SAMPLE SIZE

PER ASTM (kg)

TEST SPECIMEN

SIZE (kg)

PERCENT

SILT

FSR44E S1 1.5 – 3.5 70 19.59 9

FSR44E S2 13 - 14 20 22.33 42

FSR442 S1 2 – 3 20 24.94 21

FSR442 S2 18 – 19 70 16.93 40

June 26, 2013

4 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Bearing Pressure and Expected Settlement

The recommended bearing pressure at the proposed bottom of footing elevation (assumed to be designed at six feet below brook/river bottom elevation) was calculated based on footing dimensions and loading combinations provided by VHB. We received these values via email correspondence from VHB, and have summarized it for each site below. This design information was transmitted via email to VHB on February 10, 2012 and April 17, 2012. Copies of these emails are included in Attachment 5.

4.1.1 FSR 44E (Site 1)

The footing dimensions (for each side) for the proposed open bottom culvert used in our design calculations is 7 feet wide, 56 feet long, with an embedment of up to 18.37 feet on the non-stream side and embedment varying from 5 to 6.2 feet on the stream side. For the strength limit case, you reported an eccentricity of 0.93 feet and factored bearing pressure of 5.33 kips per square foot (ksf), and for the service limit case, an eccentricity of 0.89 feet and factored bearing pressure of 3.87 ksf. Also, we assumed a maximum scour depth of two feet (minimum embedment on the stream side of 3 feet). For our calculations, we followed the guidelines established in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 5th edition 2010.

Based on the information above, and the subsurface data we collected at the site, we have computed the following:

a factored net bearing resistance which is greater than 5.33 ksf for the Strength Limit State; and, a factored net bearing resistance of approximately 5 ksf for the Service Limit corresponds to an estimated total settlement of one inch or less.

We expect that settlements will be largely complete during construction.

4.1.2 FSR 442 (Site 2)

The footing dimensions (for each side) for the proposed open bottom culvert used in our design calculations is 7 feet wide, 45 feet long, with an embedment of up to 16.5 feet on the non-stream side and embedment varying from 5 to 7.2 feet on the stream side. For the strength limit case, you reported an eccentricity of 0.91 feet and factored bearing pressure of 4.42 kips per square foot (ksf), and for the service limit case, an eccentricity of 0.85 feet and factored bearing pressure of 3.19 ksf. Also, we assumed a maximum scour depth of three feet (minimum embedment on the stream side of two feet). For our calculations, we followed the guidelines established in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification, 5th edition 2010.

June 26, 2013

Based on the information above, and the subsurface data we collected at the site, we have computed the following:

a factored net bearing resistance which is greater than 4.42 ksf for the Strength Limit State; and, a factored net bearing resistance of approximately 5 ksf for the Service Limit corresponds to an estimated total settlement of 1 inch or less.

We expect that settlements will be largely complete during construction.

4.2 Lateral Earth Pressure against backfilled culverts

Recommended earth pressure design criteria are presented below for free draining compacted Granular Backfill, meeting the gradation requirements shown in Table 2 (refer to Section 4.3.2):

Horizontal Earth Pressures and Sliding Resistance Foundation walls for the culvert should be designed for the lateral earth pressures outlined below. Load factors for earth pressures should be taken from Table 3.4.1-2 in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Resistance factors for bearing and sliding resistance should be taken from Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 in AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.

Granular Backfill

Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure, Ka = (1-sinf)/(1+sinf) = 0.28 Coefficient of At-Rest Earth Pressure, Ko = (1-sinf) = 0.44 Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure, Kp = tan2(45+f/2) = 3.5 (Rankine) Backfill Density, = 135 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) Friction angle, f = 34 degrees

Coefficient of friction, (ultimate) f, (from DM-7.2 Table 7.2-63)

Mass footing concrete on Granular Backfill or crushed stone = 0.55 Mass footing concrete on Natural Glacial Till Soil = 0.55

Reliance on passive pressure in front of foundation/abutments is not recommended due to scour potential.

4.3 Material and Compaction Requirements

4.3.1 Working mat

Since both culvert replacement sites have subgrades with a significant percentage of silt, a 6-inch working mat consisting of ¾ inch crushed stone enveloped in non-woven geotextile fabric should be placed on the soil subgrade for the culvert replacement. If conditions are other than anticipated (i.e., partially or entirely on bedrock), GeoDesign should evaluate those conditions

June 26, 2013 during construction and provide bearing surface preparation recommendations at that time. This is to limit the risk of an abrupt hard spot beneath the footing that could lead to a foundation crack.

Fabric should be needle-punched non-woven material. Seams should be overlapped a minimum of 12 inches. During backfill placement, the drop height should not exceed three feet and equipment traffic should be kept off the fabric.

4.3.2 Soil Material

For material to be used as structural backfill below culvert footings and behind culvert walls, we recommend the use of Granular Fill for Structures, meeting the gradation requirements shown in Table 2, below.

Table 2. Granular Backfill Requirements for Structures

Sieve Designation Percentage by Mass (Weight) Passing

Square Mesh Sieves

75 mm (3 inch) 100

4.75 mm (No. 4) 45 to 75

150 μm (No. 100) 0 to 12

75 μm (No. 200) 0 to 6

Material beyond the structural backfill behind the abutment and below the roadway should meet the requirements for the particular use for which the material is intended, and show evidence of satisfactory compaction when placed in embankments. The natural moisture content shall be less than the laboratory optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with AASHTO T 99, method C. Material excavated from the abutment and approach roadway area may be reused as Earth Borrow provided debris and wood/organics are removed and materials can meet compaction requirements.

4.3.3 Compaction Requirements

Compaction should comply with the attached Table 3 (Report Section 5). Compaction near freshly placed concrete should not occur within seven days. In addition, all backfill soils beneath and within ‘zone of influence’ of footings as defined as a plane beneath the edge of the footing extending beneath the footing on a slope of 1:Horizontal to 1:Vertical should be compacted to 95% Modified Proctor as defined in ASTM 1557 (or AASHTO T180) and should be within two percent of optimum water content.

Earth borrow should be compacted to, 90% Standard Proctor as defined in ASTM 698 (or AASHTO T99). The material within the top 24 inches of the road surface (or embankment surface), should be compacted to not less than 95% of the maximum dry density. Field moisture

June 26, 2013 content should not exceed two percent above the optimum moisture content determined by

AASHTO T99.

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

A key construction consideration, evident during design, is the potential for encountering local variations in the soils at exposed subgrade level. Having on-site geotechnical engineering representation will be critical during excavation and subgrade preparation for the construction of these new brook crossings.

Inflow of water into the excavation during construction will require measures to control water inflow, which is critical to this design that assumes undisturbed subgrades. Firm and stable subgrades are critical for limiting risk of excess differential settlement of the culvert wall footings. The substantial quantity of boulders in most areas may make the installation of a sheet piling system difficult and the contractor bidding the work must account for such conditions.

Dewatering systems will be required for these excavations and contractors must also provide for measures to properly control water.

Table 3. Recommended loose lift thickness for fill and maximum number of passes of compaction equipment.

Maximum Loose Lift Thickness

Minimum Number of Passes

Compaction Method

Maximum Stone Size

Below Structures and Pavement

Less Critical Areas

Below Structures and Pavement

Less Critical Areas

Hand-operated vibratory plate or light roller in confined areas

4” 6” 8” 6 4

Hand-operated vibratory drum rollers weighing at least 1,000#

6” 8” 10” 6 4

Light vibratory drum roller, minimum dynamic force 3,000# per ft. of drum width

6” 10” 14” 6 4

Medium vibratory drum roller, minimum dynamic force 5,000# per ft. of drum width

8” 12” 18” 6 4

Large vibratory drum roller, minimum dynamic force 8,000# per ft. of drum width

10” 16” 24” 6 4

In confined areas, smaller vibratory compactors may be used, provided maximum stone size matches the compaction equipment per Table 3.

June 26, 2013

The subsurface information obtained was from one exploration at each site. Refusal or bedrock was not encountered at either site, and subsurface conditions could vary across each site. It is important that if bedrock is encountered within the excavation, GeoDesign should reevaluate the subgrade criteria and provide additional recommendations for rock removal.

6 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT REVIEW AND FIELD OBSERVATION

To maintain continuity between the design and construction phases, GeoDesign recommends that it be given the opportunity to review the construction documents. GeoDesign will also review geotechnical aspects of contractor/design submittals for consistency with the specifications and geotechnical design intent.

Our design recommendations are based on GeoDesign providing construction observation of subgrades. This will provide us the opportunity to evaluate that the subgrades are as anticipated, and to recommend adjustments as warranted.

7 LIMITATIONS

This report is subject to the limitations presented in Attachment 6.

June 26, 2013

8 ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1 – SITE LOCATION PLANS

8-1

~GEODESIGN

\\'\'\\.~ N C 0 R P 0 R A T E D

Geotechnical I Construction I Environmental Engineers and Scientists

54 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 699 • WINDSOR, VERMONT 05089-0699

TEL: 802.674.2033 • FAX: 802.674.5943

JOB 837-LjO WJV}JJF ;:::;r.z Y46"-DS

SHEET NO. OF

CALCULATED BY "J"P(;v DATE 1/ 'J.oj~ofl

CHECKED BY DATE

SCALE

··j j· ·j·+i.. ;,:~, ................ ,: .. ~ ~t abaribault Rectangle abaribault Typewritten Text Figure 2.

~ G E 0 D E S I ·o N ~~ I N C 0 R P 0 R A T E D

Geotechnical I Construction 'I ·;tnvirqwPental Engineers and Scientists· :' · ·

54 MAIN STREET • P,O. BOX 699 • WINDSOR, VERMONT 05089-0699

TEL: 802.674.2033 • FAX: 802.674.5943

JOB 937-l-(0

SHEETNO.~--------- OF-_______ _

CALCULATED BY --==:J'"--"-'D,_,G,______ DATE.~_.,I1,_,_/ ""-(}.=ol-./=2-=0__,_/1-{ __

CHECKEDBY _________ DATE. ______ _

SCALE

spk Rectangle spk Typewritten Text .2 abaribault Rectangle abaribault Typewritten Text Figure 3.

abaribault Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 2 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

8-5

Figure 4. Photograph of Test Pit TP-FSR44E location (Brook flowing to left)

Figure 5. Photograph of Test Pit TP-FSR44E at approximately 4 feet deep.

8-6

Figure 6. Photograph of Test Pit TP-FSR44E at approximately 14 feet deep.

8-7

Figure 7. Photograph of Test Pit TP-FSR442 location (Brook flowing to right)

Figure 8. Photograph of Test Pit TP-FSR442 at approximately 5 feet deep.

8-8

Figure 9. Photograph of Test Pit TP-FSR442 at approximately 19 feet deep.

8-9

ATTACHMENT 3 – TEST PIT LOG

8-10

1) 18" of snow over ground surface. Ground surface at test pit is ~4' below the snow trail surface on the roadway embankment.

2) Top of test pit is approximately 7' above river elevation (visual estimate).

3) Slight seepage observed at 7' deep from the test pit sidewall. No pooling water observed in the test pit.

1.5

3.5

4.25

999.5

997.5

996.75

Black / brown fine to coarse SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL, some Roots / Wood, some Silt, frozen.

(TOPSOIL / ROOT MAT)

Brown fine to coarse GRAVEL, some (+) fine to coarse Sand, some Cobbles, trace (+) Silt, trace Roots / Root Fibers, dry. With frequent Boulders.

(ROADWAY EMBANKMENT FILL)

Mottled fine to coarse SAND, some Silt, some Roots / Wood, dry.

(TOPSOIL / ROOT MAT)

Brown COBBLES and BOULDERS, some fine to coarse Sand, some fine to coarse Gravel, little Silt.

(BOULDERS & COBBELS)

Bluish tan SILT and fine to coarse SAND, some (-) fine to coarse Gravel, moist. With occasional Boulders.

(SANDY GRAVELLY SILT)

Bottom of Exploration at 14.0 ft

T P

L O

G S

T A

N D

A R

D

-4

T

P S

.G P

J G

E O

T E

S T

P

IT

.G D

T

/2

/1

Weather:

Josh Gilman

0.5 Cu. Yd.

TP-FSR44E

Test Pit Plan (feet)

Operator:

Station:

White Mountain National Forest FSR 44.2 over Albany Brook and FSR 44E over Louisville Brook

Bartlett, NH

Contractor: Depth (ft)

71/20/11, 0:00 994

Elevation (ft)

Burnham Company

Hitachi

EX 120

Moisture

E. Coordinate:

GeoDesign Rep:

Notes

January 20, 2011

Capacity:

Groundwater Observations

TEST PIT LOG

Test Pit No.:

Strata Description

1233 Shelburne Rd., Suite 360 So. Burlington, VT 05403

Phone: 802-652-5140

837-40

JFW

Notes:

837-40

JFW

E xc av at io n

E ff or t

S ym bo l

Elevation & Depth (feet)

Project Name

N. Coordinate:

20'

Test Pit No.:

Page No.:

File No.:

Checked By:

Model:

Reach:

1) Soil Samples screened in the field using an Ion Science PhoCheck 1000 Photoionization Detector (unless otherwise noted in Remarks). The meter was calibrated relative to a benzene in air standard. ND = None Detected; NR = Not Recorded; NA = Not Applicable; OR = Out of Range

2) Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated, fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors than those present at the time readings were made.

3) Boulder Count Class Designations (diameter range): A = 6"-18" (0.15m - 0.46m) , B = 18"-36" (0.46m - 0.91m), C = >36" (>0.91m).

4) Excavation Effort: E = Easy, M = Moderate, D = Difficult.

5) Proportions Used: Trace = 1-10%; Little = 10-20%; Some = 20-35%; And = 35-50%

6) Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between material types, transitions may be gradual.

Time Finished:

Boulder Count and Class

Make:

6.5 ft

Time Started:

R em ar ks

PID

Reading

Ground Surface Elevation (feet):

Bernie Quint

TP-FSR44ETP-FSR44E

Depth (feet)

Sunny, Teens

Date:

Date

Offset:

NR Slight seepage. 13:30

GeoDesign, Inc P.O. Box 699 Windsor, VT 05089 Phone: 802-674-2033/Fax: 802-674-5943

Frozen

Frozen

Dry

Dry

Dry

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

6" to 18" dia: ~10 18" to 36" dia.: ~10

>36" dia.:~2 from G.S. to 4' deep.

6" to 18" dia: ~25-30 18" to 36" dia.: ~20

>36" dia.:~4 from 4' to 8' deep.

6" to 18" dia: ~10 from 8' to 14' deep.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

1) 20" of snow over ground surface.

2) Top of test pit is approximately 11' to 12' above river elevation (visual estimate).

3) Note an increase in excavation effort and cobbles and boulders below 13' deep.

4) Material above 12' deep continuously caved into the excavation throughout the test pit advance.

3.5

996.5

Brown fine to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse Gravel, some Silt, trace Roots / Root Fibers, moist. With occasional Boulders.

(ROAD EMBANKMENT FILL)

Black / brown / tan fine to medium SAND, some Silt, trace Root Fibers, dry.

(TOPSOIL / ROOT MAT)

- 0.5' thick layer starting at 3' deep to the west and 5' deep to the east.

Tan / brown fine to coarse GRAVEL, some fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, dry to wet. With frequent

Boulders.

(SAND & GRAVEL)

Brown SILT and fine to coarse (with seams of medium to coarse) SAND, little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Cobbles, wet. With frequent Boulders.

(GRAVELLY SAND & SILT)

T P

L O

G S

T A

N D

A R

D

-4

T

P S

.G P

J G

E O

T E

S T

P

IT

.G D

T

/2

/1

Weather:

Josh Gilman

0.5 Cu. Yd.

TP-FSR44.2

Test Pit Plan (feet)

Operator:

Station:

White Mountain National Forest FSR 44.2 over Albany Brook and FSR 44E over Louisville Brook

Bartlett, NH

Contractor: Depth (ft)

11.51/20/11, 0:00 988.5

Elevation (ft)

Burnham Company

Hitachi

EX 120

Moisture

E. Coordinate:

GeoDesign Rep:

Notes

January 20, 2011

Capacity:

Groundwater Observations

TEST PIT LOG

Test Pit No.:

Strata Description

1233 Shelburne Rd., Suite 360 So. Burlington, VT 05403

Phone: 802-652-5140

837-40

JFW

Notes:

837-40

JFW

E xc av at io n

E ff or t

S ym bo l

Elevation & Depth (feet)

Project Name

N. Coordinate:

20'

Test Pit No.:

Page No.:

File No.:

Checked By:

Model:

Reach:

1) Soil Samples screened in the field using an Ion Science PhoCheck 1000 Photoionization Detector (unless otherwise noted in Remarks). The meter was calibrated relative to a benzene in air standard. ND = None Detected; NR = Not Recorded; NA = Not Applicable; OR = Out of Range

2) Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated, fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors than those present at the time readings were made.

3) Boulder Count Class Designations (diameter range): A = 6"-18" (0.15m - 0.46m) , B = 18"-36" (0.46m - 0.91m), C = >36" (>0.91m).

4) Excavation Effort: E = Easy, M = Moderate, D = Difficult.

5) Proportions Used: Trace = 1-10%; Little = 10-20%; Some = 20-35%; And = 35-50%

6) Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between material types, transitions may be gradual.

Time Finished:

Boulder Count and Class

Make:

ft

Time Started:

R em ar ks

PID

Reading

Ground Surface Elevation (feet):

Bernie Quint

TP-FSR44.2TP-FSR44.2

Depth (feet)

Sunny, Teens

Date:

Date

Offset:

12:20 In test pit. 10:50

GeoDesign, Inc P.O. Box 699 Windsor, VT 05089 Phone: 802-674-2033/Fax: 802-674-5943

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Dry

Wet

Wet

Wet

Wet

6" to 18" dia: ~5 from G.S. to 4' deep.

6" to 18" dia: ~30 18" to 36" dia.: ~20

>from 5' to 12' deep.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

D

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

M

M

M

M

Brown SILT and fine to coarse (with seams of medium to coarse) SAND, little fine to coarse Gravel, trace Cobbles, wet. With frequent Boulders.

(GRAVELLY SAND & SILT) (Continued)

Bottom of Exploration at 19.0 ft

Weather:

Josh Gilman

0.5 Cu. Yd.

TP-FSR44.2

Test Pit Plan (feet)

Operator:

Station:

White Mountain National Forest FSR 44.2 over Albany Brook and FSR 44E over Louisville Brook

Bartlett, NH

Contractor: Depth (ft)

11.51/20/11, 0:00 988.5

Elevation (ft)

Burnham Company

Hitachi

EX 120

Moisture

E. Coordinate:

GeoDesign Rep:

Notes

January 20, 2011

Capacity:

Groundwater Observations

TEST PIT LOG

Test Pit No.:

Strata Description

1233 Shelburne Rd., Suite 360 So. Burlington, VT 05403

Phone: 802-652-5140

837-40

JFW

Notes:

837-40

JFW

E xc av at io n

E ff or t

S ym bo l

Elevation & Depth (feet)

Project Name

N. Coordinate:

20'

Test Pit No.:

Page No.:

File No.:

Checked By:

Model:

Reach:

1) Soil Samples screened in the field using an Ion Science PhoCheck 1000 Photoionization Detector (unless otherwise noted in Remarks). The meter was calibrated relative to a benzene in air standard. ND = None Detected; NR = Not Recorded; NA = Not Applicable; OR = Out of Range

2) Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated, fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors than those present at the time readings were made.

3) Boulder Count Class Designations (diameter range): A = 6"-18" (0.15m - 0.46m) , B = 18"-36" (0.46m - 0.91m), C = >36" (>0.91m).

4) Excavation Effort: E = Easy, M = Moderate, D = Difficult.

5) Proportions Used: Trace = 1-10%; Little = 10-20%; Some = 20-35%; And = 35-50%

6) Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between material types, transitions may be gradual.

Time Finished:

Boulder Count and Class

Make:

ft

Time Started:

R em ar ks

PID

Reading

Ground Surface Elevation (feet):

Bernie Quint

TP-FSR44.2TP-FSR44.2

Depth (feet)

Sunny, Teens

Date:

Date

Offset:

12:20 In test pit. 10:50

GeoDesign, Inc P.O. Box 699 Windsor, VT 05089 Phone: 802-674-2033/Fax: 802-674-5943

Wet

Wet

Wet

Wet

6" to 18" dia: ~30-35 18" to 36" dia.: ~20

>36" dia.:~5 from 12' to 19' deep.

NA

NA

NA

NA

D

D

ATTACHMENT 4 – GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS

8-14

0.0010.010.1110100

D60

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

41.5

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

coarse fine

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

D100 %Gravel %Sand

Borehole No. Sample No. Depth (ft)

23.024

0.188

SAND

COBBLES

%Clay fine coarse

%Silt

1 1/2 3/8 medium

SILT OR CLAY

HYDROMETER

Fines based on % passing No. 4 sieve.

3/46

13.0-14.0

TP-FSR44E

D30 D10

GRAVEL

Moisture Content

NR

NR

Project: White Mountain National Forest

Location: Bartlett, NH

Number: 837-40

Tested By: JFW Reviewed By:SPK

Date:January 25-26, 2011 Method: ASTM D 6913 (Method

A)

32 22

2.073 0.095

P E R C E N T F

IN

E R B Y W

E

IG

H T

54 Main Street Windsor, VT 05089 Telephone: (802) 674-2033 Fax: (802) 674-5943

101.6

76.2

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

S

IE

V E F O R M

-4 L A B O

N L Y .G

P J

U S L A B .G

D T

/3 /1

1.5 - 3.5

TP-FSR44E 38

Notes:

1.Test specimens were stored in test pit bags prior to sampling. Moisture content was not tested.

2. Both test specimens were undersized per ASTM D 6913.

3. The TP-FSR44E test specimen from 1.5' to 3.5' deep contains 22% Cobbles.

0.0010.010.1110100

D60

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

41.5

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

coarse fine

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

D100 %Gravel %Sand

2 50

1.628

0.256

SAND

COBBLES

%Clay fine coarse

%Silt

1 1/2 3/8 medium

SILT OR CLAY

HYDROMETER

Fines based on % passing No. 4 sieve.

3/46

TP-FSR44.2

TP-FSR44.2

D30 D10

GRAVEL

Moisture Content

NR

NR

Project: White Mountain National Forest

Location: Bartlett, NH

Number: 837-40

Tested By: JFW Reviewed By:SPK

Date:January 25-26, 2011 Method: ASTM D 6913 (Method

A)

56 27

0.183

P E R C E N T F

IN

E R B Y W

E

IG

H T

54 Main Street Windsor, VT 05089 Telephone: (802) 674-2033 Fax: (802) 674-5943

76.2

101.6

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

S

IE

V E F O R M

-4 L A B O

N L Y .G

P J

U S L A B .G

D T

/3 /1

Borehole No. Depth (ft)

2.0-3.0

18.0-19.0

Notes:

1.Test specimens were stored in test pit bags prior to sampling. Moisture content was not tested.

2. Both test specimens were undersized per ASTM D 6913.

3. The TP-FSR44.2 test specimen from 18.0' to 19.0' deep contains 4% Cobbles.

ATTACHMENT 5 – BEARING RESISTANCE RECOMMENDATION EMAILS

8-17

Shawn Kelley

From: Dan Howey [dhowey@geodesign.net]

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:26 PM

To: sburbank@vhb.com

Cc: Shawn Kelley

Subject: RE: White Mountain National Forest FSR 44 (Site 1)

6/19/2013

Scott- I am responding to your email to Shawn last night since Shawn is out of the office. In your email below to Shawn, you reported the following:

The footing is 7’-0” wide and it is 56’-0” long. The embedment is 18.37’ on the non-stream side and varies from 5’ to 6.2’ on the stream side.

Strength I eccentricity = 0.93’, factored bearing pressure = 5.33 ksf Service I eccentricity = 0.89’, factored bearing pressure = 3.87 ksf

Based on the above, the plans you sent, and subsurface data we collected at the site, we have computed the following:

A factored net bearing resistance greater than 5.33 ksf for Strength Limit State (OK).

A factored net bearing resistance of approximately 5 ksf for Service Limit State (corresponding to an estimated total settlement of 1 inch or less).

For our evaluation, we assumed that material below the footing was similar in density and gradation to the material encountered at the bottom of the test pit, since the test pit ended at about the bottom of footing elevation.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks- Dan

Dan Howey, P.E.

GeoDesign, Inc 54 MainStreet PO Box 699 Windsor, VT 05089 Tel 802‐674‐2033 xt 211 Fax 802‐674‐5943 www.geodesign.net

G E O D E S I G N INCORPORATED

Geotechnical | Construction | Environmental

Engineers and Scientists

This message is intended solely for the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are informed that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of the material contained herein, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender or GeoDesign and purge this message. This message shall not be construed as official project information or as direction except as expressly provided in the contract documents.

From: Shawn Kelley [mailto:skelley@geodesign.net] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:07 PM To: Dan Howey Subject: Fwd: White Mountain National Forest FSR 44 (Site 1)

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Burbank, Scott" <SBurbank@VHB.com> Date: February 9, 2012 6:13:39 PM EST To: Shawn Kelley <skelley@geodesign.net> Cc: "Guyette, Aaron" <AGuyette@VHB.com>, "Cronin, Briana" <BCronin@VHB.com> Subject: White Mountain National Forest FSR 44 (Site 1)

Shawn, Please find attached the plans for the WMNF FSR 44 (Site 1).

The footing is 7’-0” wide and its length is 56’-0” long. The embedment is 18.37’ on the non-stream side and varies from 5’ to 6.2’ on the stream side.

Strength I eccentricity = 0.93’, factored bearing pressure = 5.33 ksf Service I eccentricity = 0.89’, factored bearing pressure = 3.87 ksf

We plan on submitting the final plans tomorrow in the late afternoon, so please make every effort to verify the nominal bearing resistance, we assumed 12 ksf, by early tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks, Scott Scott E. Burbank, PE Project Manager VHB | Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Transportation | Land Development | Environmental Services 7056 US Route 7 Post Office Box 120 North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 Phone: 802.425.7788 x6457 | Fax: 802.425.7799 Cell: 802.324.3055 sburbank@vhb.com www.vhb.com

This communication is confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately.

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission.

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. | 101 Walnut St | Watertown, MA 02472 | 617.924.1770

<fsr44E.pdf>

6/19/2013

Shawn Kelley

From: Shawn Kelley [skelley@geodesign.net]

Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:05 PM

To: Shawn Kelley

Subject: Fwd: 837-40 Bearing calc - Site #2

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Shawn Kelley <skelley@geodesign.net> Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM Subject: 837-40 Bearing calc - Site #2 To: Scott Burbank <SBurbank@vhb.com> Cc: Aaron Guyette <AGuyette@vhb.com>, Alan Baribault <abaribault@geodesign.net>, Dan Howey <dhowey@geodesign.net>

Scott, In your email yesterday, you provided the following eccentricity and bearing pressures for Site 2 FSR 442 of the WMNF:

Abutment loads for FSR 442

STR. 1 e= 0.91 Bearing = 4.42ksi

SER. 1 e=0.85 Bearing = 3.19ksi

From the plans that you sent, we see that both footings are 7' 0" wide and 45' 0" long. The embedment on the stream side varies from 7.2ft at the inlet to 5.0 feet at the outlet, and on the bank side is up to approximately 16.5 feet.

Based on the information above that you provided and the subsurface data we collected from the site and laboratory testing, we have computed the following:

- A factored net bearing resistance of greater than 4.42 ksf for the Strength Limit State

(OK)

- A factored net bearing resistance of approximately 5 ksf for the Service Limit State (corresponding to an estimated 1 inch of settlement) (OK)

For our evaluation, we assumed that the material below the footing elevation is similar in density and gradation to the material in the test pit (the test pit terminated approximately 3 feet below the footing), and that the material is similar over the footing area.

Due to the silt content (approximately 40 percent) we recommend that subgrades should be protected with a working mat of crushed stone enveloped in filter fabric to prevent disturbance. We also recommend that we or a qualified geotechnical consultant observe the excavation and evaluate the subgrade.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

-Shawn

Shawn P. Kelley, Ph.D.

GeoDesign, Inc PO Box 699 Windsor, VT 05089 Phone: 802-674-2033 x 209 Cell: 802-272-7710 Fax: 802-674-5943 skelley@geodesign.net

Region 1 Governor Past-President - Vermont Section American Society of Civil Engineers http://www.asce.org/Regions-Sections-Branches/Region-1/Region1/

This message is intended solely for the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are informed that any dissemination, copying or disclosure of the material contained herein, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender or GeoDesign and purge this message. This message shall not be construed as official project information or as direction except as expressly provided in the contract documents.

ATTACHMENT 6 – LIMITATIONS

8-22

8-23

Explorations

1. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from a single subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations in the subsurface may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this memorandum.

2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretations of one exploration and soil samples from that exploration; actual non-engineered fill / native soil transitions are probably more erratic. For specific information, refer to the exploration logs.

3. Water level readings have been made in the exploration test pits at times and under conditions stated on the test pit logs. These data has been reviewed and interpretations made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors occurring since the time measurements were made.

Review

4. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by GeoDesign, Inc. It is recommended that this firm be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that geotechnical engineering recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.

Uses of Report

5. This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project by GeoDesign, Inc.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of VHB, Inc. and their design team for specific application to the proposed AOP Culvert Replacement FSR 44E and FSR 442 in Bartlett, NH in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices.

No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

6. This geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project by GeoDesign, Inc.

This report is for design purposes only and is not sufficient to prepare an accurate bid.

Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to design considerations only.

\\vtnfdata\projects\57263.21\tech\Site 2 - FSR 442 over Albany Brook Trib\Hydrology\HydrologicAnalysisMemo_WMNF_Site2.docx

Transportation

Land Development

Environmental S e r v i c e s

7056 US Route 7

Post Office Box 120

North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473

Telephone 802.425.7788

Fax 802.425.7799 www.vhb.com

Memorandum To: Aaron Guyette, P.E. Date: June 10, 2013

Project No.: 57263.21

From: Robert Wildey Re: Site 2 – FR442 over Albany Brook Bartlett, NH

Hydrology For this site location three methods were used to develop the hydrology and then averaged to generate flow rates. The methods were the USGS Stream Stats (regression method program), HydroCad (TR-20 method) and Potter’s Method.

According to NHDES regulations, this is a tier 2 crossing based on watershed size (200 to 640 acres) so the design flows are for the 100-yr event. Below is a table showing the design flows from the three methods.

Method 100 Year Flow (cfs)

USGS Stream Stats 278

HydroCAD (TR-20) 660

Potters Method 278

Average 386

In order to calculate the 100 year flow for the Potters method a Gumbel Probability Graph was used.

The method only has formulas for the 5, 10, 25, and 50 year events.

Attached are the backup data for each method.

Computations

Project Project # 57263.21

Location Sheet

Calculated By RAW Date 6/10/2013

Checked By Date

Title Hydrologic Analysis

WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Drainage Area 0.52 sq.mi 1.35 sq.km 135 ha 333 acres

Terrain and Land Use

Potter's Method - Drainage area ≤ 400 ha (1,000 ac)

Q = RF * LF * FF * Peak Q25

Drainage area 333 acres

RF = 1.3 (Figure 2-12, NH DOT Drainage Design Manual, 1998)

LF Description =

LF = 0.3 (Page 2-39, NH DOT Drainage Design Manual, 1998)

FF = Q5 Q10 Q25 Q50

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 (Page 2-39, NH DOT Drainage Design Manual, 1998)

Peak Q25 = 410 (Figure 2-11, NH DOT Drainage Design Manual, 1998)

Flood Flows

Q5 = 96 cfs

Q10 = 128 cfs

Q25 = 160 cfs

Q50 = 192 cfs

Reference : Potter, 1950. Surface Runoff from Small Agricultural Watersheds," Research Report No.II-B, Highway Research Board.

Notes:

Steep, Forested

WMNF FR 443 over Albany Brook

Bartlett, NH

Steep, Forested

Transportation

Land Development

Environmental

S e r v I c e s

\\vtnfdata\projects\57263.21\tech\Site 2 - FSR 442 over Albany Brook Trib\Hydrology\HydrologicAnalysis_WMNF-Site2.xlsx 6/10/2013 rwildey Arrow

Arrow

Callout Site

57263.21 Site #2

FSR 442 over Albany Brook

11/29/2010 1:17:44 PM

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey

URL: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/nh_ss/default.aspx

Page Contact Information: StreamStats Help Streamstats Status Page Last Modified: 11/29/2010 15:17:38

Page 1 of 1USGS StreamStats

11/29/2010http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/nh_ss/default.aspx?stabbr=NH&dt=1291061321601

;onpageshow='if(!done)window.onload();'

Basin Characteristics Report

Date: Mon Nov 29 2010 13:15:11 Mountain Standard Time

NAD27 Latitude: 44.0599 (44 03 35)

NAD27 Longitude: -71.2970 (-71 17 49)

NAD83 Latitude: 44.0599 (44 03 36)

NAD83 Longitude: -71.2965 (-71 17 48)

Parameter Value

Slope along the flow path between points 10 and 85 percent of the length along the longest flow path determined by a GIS, in feet per mile 1020

Mean april precipitation in inches 4.239

Percent of area covered by wetlands 0.0000

Area in square miles 0.52

Page 1 of 1Basin Characteristics Report

11/29/2010http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gisimg/Reports/BasinCharsReport333675_20101129131...

;onpageshow='if(!done)window.onload();'

Streamstats Ungaged Site Report

Date: Mon Nov 29 2010 13:16:23 Mountain Standard Time

Site Location: New_Hampshire

NAD27 Latitude: 44.0599 (44 03 35)

NAD27 Longitude: -71.2970 (-71 17 49)

NAD83 Latitude: 44.0599 (44 03 36)

NAD83 Longitude: -71.2965 (-71 17 48)

Drainage Area: 0.52 mi2

Peak Flows Region Grid Basin Characteristics

100% Peak Flow Statewide SIR2008 5206 (0.52 mi2)

Parameter Value Regression Equation Valid Range

Min Max

Drainage Area (square miles) 0.52 (below min value 0.7) 0.7 1290

Mean April Precipitation (inches) 4.239 2.79 6.23

Percent Wetlands (dimensionless) 0.0000 0 21.8

Stream Slope 10 and 85 Method (feet per mi) 1020 (above max value 543) 5.43 543

Warning: Some parameters are outside the suggested range. Estimates will be extrapolations with unknown errors.

Peak Flows Region Grid Streamflow Statistics

Statistic Flow (ft3/s) Prediction Error (percent)

Equivalent years of record

90-Percent Prediction Interval

Minimum Maximum

PK2 50.2 3.2

PK5 92.3 4.7

PK10 130 6.2

PK25 182 8

PK50 226 9

PK100 278 9.8

PK500 408 11

Page 1 of 1Streamflow Statistics Report

11/29/2010http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gisimg/Reports/FlowStats…