M E M O R A N D U M

TO: File

FROM: William P. Grace

DATE: July 18, 2001

RE: Derry-Londonderry Exit 4A

Environmental Impact Statement

CLD Reference No. 97-0209

SUBJECT: Resource Agency Meeting

LOCATION: NHDOT Highway Design Conference Room

ATTENDEES: *Jeff Brillhart NHDOT

*Marc Laurin NHDOT

Mark Hemmerlein NHDOT

Charlie Hood NHDOT

Bill Hauser NHDOT

*Bill O’Donnell FHWA

Harry Kinter FHWA

Richard Roach ACOE

Mark Kern EPA

Lori Sommer NHDES

Gino Infascelli NHDES

*George Sioras Town of Derry

**Roberta Robie Town of Derry

Bill Grace CLD

Jamie Paine CLD

*TAC Members

**CATF Member

Purpose of Meeting: To discuss two new alternatives and recommendations for the remaining alternatives to be studied through the Draft EIS phase.

Items Discussed:

1. Review of Remaining Alternatives

Bill Grace gave a brief overview of the remaining alternatives. The four new location alternatives are known as A (southern interchange – Tsienneto Road), B (southern interchange – bypass of Tsienneto Road), C (northern interchange – Route 28 – bypass of Tsienneto Road), and D (northern interchange – Route 28 – Tsienneto Road). The minor upgrade of NH Route 102 is Alternative F. Two different locations for a potential new interchange are being considered. One interchange is located 0.4 miles north of the Ash Street overpass. Alternatives A and B would both begin at this point and extend easterly from there. The second interchange is located just south of the Stonehenge Road overpass. Alternatives C and D would begin there and extend to the south and east.

At the conclusion of the last Resource Agency meeting held on 9/20/00, the Agencies recommended that Alternatives A, B, C, D and F, as well as the no-build alternative, be carried forward for more detailed studies through the Draft EIS phase. The Resource Agencies felt that continuing with only one new interchange location would not represent a reasonable range of alternatives and that Alternatives B and C would be more difficult to accept and to permit since those options would have slightly more negative impacts to natural resources.

New alternatives involving improvements to Londonderry Road and connections to the existing Alternatives A and B were suggested by an individual at the January, 2001, Public Informational Meetings. FHWA and NHDOT felt those options might have some merit and suggested that the Towns investigate these new options further. CLD was then directed by the Towns to develop pre-conceptual plans and initial impact studies and report back to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Local Administrative Oversight Committee (LAOC). A joint meeting with the TAC and LAOC was held on July 17, 2001. It was determined that although Alternatives G and H provided only minimal traffic reductions along Broadway and involved substantial right-of-way impacts on Londonderry Road, more input from the Resource Agencies, the Town Councils and the public should be solicited before these alternatives are removed from further consideration.

2. Possible Alternatives ‘G’ and ‘H’

CLD developed a conceptual plan showing a hybrid alternative (Alternative G) using Londonderry Road and connecting to Alternative A. Bill Grace explained that this alternative would begin on NH Route 102 (Broadway) just east of the Exit 4 ramps and require modifications to the Broadway/Londonderry Road intersection, providing a primary through movement for traffic along Londonderry Road and a secondary movement for traffic continuing down Broadway. This intersection would be signalized. A second hybrid alternative (Alternative H) also uses Londonderry Road and would connect to Alternative B. A preliminary environmental impact matrix and a 1 inch/2000 ft. plan view including the two new alternatives and the other remaining alternatives (A, B, C, D, and F) was distributed for discussion.

Both Alternatives G and H would require the expansion of Londonderry Road to five lanes and would involve substantial right-of-way impacts to homes and businesses along Londonderry Road and NH Route 102. These include the Derry Plaza, which contains seven businesses. The design of Londonderry Road was modified to avoid taking two new commercial/industrial buildings on the easterly side of Londonderry Road and to minimize other right-of-way acquisitions.

Alternative G would require the acquisition of 21 buildings (10 residential and 11 commercial), impact 1.3 acres of wetlands, 11 historic properties including 6 buildings and would cost approximately $13.4 million, including engineering design, construction, and right-of-way.

Alternative H would require the acquisition of 24 buildings (13 residential and 11 commercial), impact 4.2 acres of wetlands, 4 historic properties (no buildings), and would cost approximately $15.5 million for design, construction, and right-of-way.

3. Comments and Concerns for Alternatives G and H

Richard Roach asked about wetland impacts. CLD explained that there is a wetland system just east of Londonderry Road, and there would be some minor impacts there. However, the new alternatives have less total wetland impacts than Alternatives A and B because there are wetland impacts associated with a new interchange for A and B that are not involved with Alternatives G and H.

Mr. Roach noted that NEPA and Section 404 regulations require that the natural, socio-economic and cultural environments need to be considered and a reasonable range of alternatives need to be carried forward through the Draft EIS. The new alternatives have serious impacts to the socio-economic environment. The Towns need to collectively decide if these impacts are reasonable and acceptable.

Potential traffic benefits along Broadway if the new alternatives progressed were discussed. Southern NH Planning Commission completed a traffic model analysis for the new alternatives. Alternatives G and H would provide only minimal traffic volume reductions on Broadway. The new alternatives would provide less relief (for Broadway) than the two northerly alternatives (C and D) and much less relief than Alternatives A and B.

Richard Roach asked how the Towns of Derry and Londonderry felt about the impacts associated with the new alternatives and the perceived traffic benefits. George Sioras responded that the Town of Derry feels that the new alternatives provide little traffic relief and also would require substantial right-of-way impacts. The Town of Derry would not be opposed to eliminating these alternatives from further study. The primary goal of the project is to relieve traffic congestion on Broadway. Economic development is secondary. George also noted that these new alternatives were mentioned at the January, 2001, Public Informational Meetings by a Londonderry Town Councilor, but were also discussed during the very early phases of the original Exit 4A discussions back in the mid-1980’s. Bill Grace noted that the Town of Londonderry has not submitted a united official position on the new alternatives. Upcoming meetings with each of the Town Councils will be held in the near future to discuss this issue.

Mark Kern of the EPA noted that the traffic reductions of the new alternatives were relatively minor. He also asked if the EIS process had begun to consider secondary impacts beyond the Project Study Area limits. Bill Grace responded that this issue had not yet been evaluated. George Sioras noted that residential development in Chester and Sandown is currently occurring at a rapidly growing pace, regardless of potential for Exit 4A improvements. George noted that approximately 400 building lots have been approved in Chester and await construction.

4. Removing Alternatives

The Resource Agencies in attendance were asked if it would be acceptable to remove the new alternatives from further consideration. The group did not feel strongly one way or the other and would not oppose removal from further consideration. The Towns will need public input to determine if these alternatives should be carried forward.

5. Next Steps

a) Town Councilor Meetings

The new alternatives will be presented to the Derry and Londonderry Town Councilors and the official position of each town will be solicited.

b) Public Informational Meeting

One joint public meeting, with appropriate announcement in local newspapers and on local cable access channels, will be held to notify the public that Alternatives G and H have been developed and are not being proposed for further study. Public input will be solicited. Input from the general public is critical, and the rationale behind these decisions should be well documented.

WPG:cww

cc: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project Team:

Derry: George Sioras, Alan Swan, Doug Rathburn Victoria Bunker

Londonderry: Andre Garron and Janusz Czyzowski Lynn Monroe (Preservation Co.)

FHWA: Bill O’Donnell, Butch Waidelich Bruce Mayberry

NHDOT: David J. Brillhart and Marc Laurin

SNHPC: Moni Sharma

Local Administrative Oversight Committee (LAOC):

Carol Granfield Derry Town Administrator

James MacEachern Derry Town Councilor

Edmund Boutin, Esq. Derry Counsel

Troy Brown Londonderry Interim Town Manager

Andrew Greco Londonderry Town Councilor

Robert Carr, Esq. Londonderry Counsel

Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF):

Derry: Londonderry:

George Sioras Troy Brown

Albert Doolittle Jim Anagnos

Roberta Robie Eugene Harrington

Jack Dowd Jennifer A. Sollars

Barbara Concannon Gerry Shuck

Frank Mazzuchelli Rep. Sherman Packard

Suzanne Regali