To: File

From: Christopher R. Bean, P.E.

Date: November 30, 2000

RE: Derry-Londonderry Exit 4-A
        Environmental Impact Statement
        CLD Reference No 97-0209

Subject: Public Informational Meeting

Location:  West Running Brook Middle School, Derry, NH

Purpose of Meeting: The intent of the meeting was to update the public on the status of the Exit 4A Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and to receive public input on the remaining five alternatives to determine whether there is substantial justification to eliminate any particular alternatives.

1. Introductions/Purpose of Meeting

After Chris Bean (CLD Project Manager), Carol Granfield (Derry Town Administrator), and Dick Plante (Londonderry Town Manager) greeted the public and introduced various officials or representatives, Chris explained the purpose of the meeting (see above).

2. Brief Project History

As a large number of people in attendance were not familiar with the Exit 4A project, Chris gave a brief project overview to explain what steps had already been taken by the Towns, and what actions are currently being undertaken by CLD on the Towns’ behalf. The brief project overview is as follows: 

1985

• Southern NH Planning Commission determined that a new interchange in the Ash Street area would relieve traffic congestion on NH 102.

• Town of Derry approached NHDOT about funding the Exit 4A project. 

1987

• State legislation passed in May, allowing NHDOT to work with the Towns on the Exit 4A project.
• The Towns joined in partnership with a Developer (Boston North) that would help to enhance the tax base in both towns, relieve traffic congestion along NH 102 near Exit 4 and along Broadway in Derry, and provide access to industrial properties in Londonderry and Derry.
• Derry agreed to provide sewer capacity to the Developer's land.
• Londonderry zoned the Developer's land to enhance development potential.
• The Developer paid for several engineering studies and imporvement projects in the vicinity of NH 102. The Developer also paid for Exit 4A initial studies and agreed to donate lands at Exit 4A, as needed. 

1988

• A Public Hearing was held in October.  The original Exit 4A design concept was approved.

• The Towns submitted an application to the FHWA to allow for a new interchange along I-93.

1991

• FHWA Conditional Approval received for new interchange on I-93.FHWA conditions included:
  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process must be followed. The NEPA process is mandated by the Federal government to ensure all reasonable design alternatives are considered and that all environmental constraints are identified during the planning stages. FHWA stated that an EIS must be completed to document the environmental impacts that might occur along the various alternatives. Failure to follow NEPA regulations may leave the Towns vulnerable for future lawsuits.
  • No westerly access from a new interchange is to be considered as part of this project. During the review of preliminary interchange locations, all remaining interchanges were found to have possible western alignments. If it is determined that westerly access from the proposed interchange is needed at a point in the future, a separate environmental evaluation and design effort will be required at that time.
  • The proposed interchange must safely accommodate proposed widening of I-93. CLD has been coordinating with NHDOT to ensure that the proposed interchange would accommodate the proposed widening of I-93 to a maximum of eight lanes. If the Exit 4A interchange is built prior to the widening of I-93, the NHDOT will pay to match in the associated on/off-ramps to allow for the safe merging onto and exiting from I-93.
  • The State (NHDOT) must review the proposed project. The NHDOT consistently attends Exit 4A public meetings and has several key staff members (David J. Brillhart, Chief Project Manager, and Marc Laurin, Senior Environmental Manager) on the project’s TAC. NHDOT will review design plans once they have been completed. See attached Status Sheet for account of CLD’s coordination with the NHDOT on the I-93 Widening Project. 

1996

• State Bill 581 placed the Exit 4A project on the State’s 10-Year Transportation Plan.

1997

• Derry and Londonderry each approve $5 million bonds to pay for the preparation of an EIS and the engineering and construction of a new interchange alignment.

Existing EIS Process 
A Scoping Meeting was held in June of 1998 to kick off the Derry/Londonderry-funded, FHWA‑required EIS process.Since that time, CLD has:

• Identified and mapped various natural/cultural/socioeconomic resources within the project area. 
• Held frequent coordination/work/update sessions with the LAOC, TAC, CATF and Natural Resource Agencies to develop agreement on which alternatives could best serve the purpose and need of this project. 
• Completed a draft Scoping and Rationale Report (identifies existing resources being reviewed, how these resources were identified, and explains the reasoning behind the removal of alternatives from further consideration).The Report was submitted to Towns, NHDOT, and FHWA on July 17, 2000.
• Completed Conceptual Corridor Design to determine footprint/slope limits for each of the five remaining alternatives.

Future milestones in the EIS process are as follows:

• A Public Hearing and the release of a Draft EIS are scheduled to occur in the spring or summer of 2001.
• Final EIS approval is anticipated in the winter of 2001/2002.
• Final design/ROW purchases would occur from winter 2002 to winter 2003/2004.
• Construction is scheduled for the spring of 2004

3. Description of Five Remaining Alternatives 

Early Coordination 
Bill Grace, CLD’s Environmental Manager, explained that in the initial phase of the EIS process, CLD coordinated with the LAOC, TAC, CATF and the Natural Resource Agencies to develop potential alignment corridors. These corridors would connect I-93, at a new interchange, to NH 102 and to points west of the interstate. Initial input resulted in the development of 47 alignment corridors. For initial research purposes (identification of potential resource impacts), corridors following along existing roadways were set to 120 feet wide, while alignments along new or undisturbed alignments were set to 300 feet wide.

Five Remaining Alternatives
Four new location alternatives are named as A, B, C, and D, and the minor upgrade of NH 102 is Alternative F (a major 5-lane upgrade of NH 102 was identified as Alternative E, but is no longer being considered). 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. Please see attached plan for details.

Alternative A
This alternative would involve a new connector road through an undeveloped area and then follow Folsom Road to the intersection with NH 28 (Ross’ Corner) and continue along Tsienneto Road to NH 102.This alternative would require the acquisition of several properties along Folsom Road. The new roadway would be five lanes wide from I-93 to Ross’ Corner, three lanes wide to NH 28 Bypass, and two lanes wide to NH 102.

Alternative B
This alternative would include a new connector road through an undeveloped area and would then pass through portions of an industrial park in Derry (requiring the full acquisition of one property and partial acquisition of another commercial property), intersect with NH 28, and proceed to the northeast on a new location before connecting with NH 102 at the existing Tsienneto Road intersection. This alignment would run adjacent to and between the power lines and London Road (Carriage Hill Estates), located immediately west of NH 28 Bypass. A number of properties along London Road would need to be acquired under this alternative. Two properties on Scenic Drive, on the north side of the power lines, and a new residence near the easterly end of Tsienneto Road, near NH 102, would need to be acquired as well. The new roadway would be five lanes wide from I-93 to NH 28, three lanes wide to NH 28 Bypass, and two lanes from there to the eastern end.

Alternative C
This alternative would include a new connector road that parallels and crosses high voltage power lines before matching into NH 28.It would then follow NH 28 to Ashleigh Drive where it would follow the same alignment as Alternative B to the existing Tsienneto Road/NH 102 intersection. Two commercial properties near the western extent of the alignment would be acquired. The same acquisitions as Alternative B near Carriage Hill Estates, Scenic Drive, and Tsienneto Road would also be required for this alternative. The roadway would be five lanes wide to Ashleigh Drive, three lanes to NH 28 Bypass, and two lanes from there to the eastern end.

Alternative D
This alternative follows the same alignment as Alternative C, but continues further south on NH 28 to Ross’ Corner, and then follows Tsienneto Road to the end. The same two properties near the western extent of Alternative C would be acquired, plus the Green Forrest Inn on NH 28.The roadway would be five lanes wide to Ross’ Corner, three to NH 28 Bypass, and two lanes to the end of Tsienneto Road.

Alternative E
This is the Major Upgrade alternative, widening NH 102 to five lanes from I-93 to NH 28 (Crystal Avenue), and four lanes from there to NH 28 Bypass. This alternative addresses current and future traffic needs and is not sensitive to impacts to the existing buildings. Due to the severity of impacts, this alternative is no longer being considered. 

Alternative F
This is the Minor Upgrade alternative, widening NH 102 to three lanes to NH 28 (Crystal Avenue) and two lanes from there to NH 28 Bypass. Right-of-way impacts would be minimized, but all on-street parking (113 spaces) would be lost. Traffic congestion would see little to no improvement.

Mini-Matrix
A matrix or chart was prepared that explained the amount of impacts that would occur to particular resources along each of the five remaining alternatives. The information in this matrix is attached.

4. Description of Traffic Analysis 
   
   Paul Konieczka, Traffic Team Leader at CLD, presented the traffic analysis that has been developed to date to determine the effectiveness of each alternative. Paul explained that CLD worked with Southern NH Planning Commission (SNHPC) to use their traffic model. SNHPC’s traffic model was used to compare how well each alternative would remove traffic from the downtown Derry area in the year 2020.The model results showed that the southern interchange options along I-93 removed approximately 40% of the traffic from NH Route 102.The northern interchange options removed 20-25% of traffic from NH 102.Paul referenced a table (copy attached) that displayed the projected volumes of traffic if each of the various alternatives were constructed on the following four road segments:
   1) Tsienneto Road east of Bypass 28; 
   2) NH 102 east of Tsienneto Road; 
   3) Folsom Road west of Crystal Avenue; and 
   4) the Proposed Bypass (off-alignment segment that closely follows the power line corridor) east of Bypass 28. 
   
   Paul explained that a lot of work is still necessary in order to complete the Exit 4A EIS. The traffic team must make sure that the lane configurations at the I-93 intersection match in and are consistent with I-93 activities. They must also make sure that the intersections along the remaining alternatives can handle the projected traffic along the various roadways. Next steps in the more intensive evaluations include intersection analysis, air and noise modeling along the remaining alternatives, and preparation of pertinent documentation. 
   
   
5. Public Input and Questions 
   
   
   1. Long-time Resident on London Road: The bypass alternatives would take 7 homes. The bypass alternatives would take businesses and homes. The alternative would take a whole neighborhood. He doesn’t want to lose his home. 
      
      
   2. Derry Resident: The northern interchange would not work. Wants to know why we are looking at this interchange. His understanding is that the purpose of the project was to relieve traffic downtown and improve tax base for the two towns. Alternatives B and C would go near the proposed school site. Alternatives B and C are taking whole neighborhoods. 
      
      The Federal Highway Administration is the lead federal agency on this project. They are concerned that we should not eliminate alternatives too soon without properly reviewing their impacts on the surrounding area.
      
      
   3. Property Owner on Scenic Drive: He does not live at the residence. Wants to know why the meeting was not televised. Alternatives B and C open land to more development. Wants to know why a developer is paying for this environmental impact statement.
      
      The Towns are paying for this environmental impact statement. The Developer paid for the initial studies that were used in support of the initial application and approval of a new access point on I-93.
      
      Rich Roach, US Army Corps of Engineers: Wouldn’t a new alignment have controlled access?
      
      Access to the preferred alternative would be limited adjacent to the new interchange and controlled easterly to a point where the proposed road meets an existing developed section of road, such as Folsom Road or NH 28.Access questions along the portions east of NH 28 would be a Town issue related to planning and zoning regulations.
      
      George Sioras, Derry Planning Director: If any subdivisions are proposed along the preferred route, the Derry Planning Board will review the project to see where the appropriate access points should be placed.
      
      Roberta Robie, CATF member/Derry Cable Committee member: If you would like the meetings televised, call the Town Administrator. It is a lot of work to set up, break down, and move the television equipment, as only a few women usually operate the equipment. 
      
      We will look into getting future meetings televised. Carol Granfield, Derry Town Administrator, agreed to hold the next meeting at a location that will facilitate televised coverage. Andy Greco, Londonderry Town Councilman, asked for a meeting at a site in Londonderry, which would also be televised.
      
      
   4. Andrew Greco, Londonderry Town Council: Can the impacts on the matrix be split to show impacts in Londonderry and Derry?A second Public Informational Meeting, similar to this meeting, needs to be held in Londonderry. 
      
      CLD will provide a copy of the matrix broken out to show impacts in each town. A second round of Public Informational Meetings will be held in Derry and Londonderry to discuss exactly the same information that was available for discussion at this meeting. As was the case with this meeting, the general public from either town is welcome to attend. 
      
      
   5. Resident of Olde Coach Road (just north of Carriage Hill Estates). The NH Bypass 28/Olde Coach Road area is hilly with poor sight distance.There are a lot of kids in these neighborhoods. The area is along the local school bus route. Alternative A is preferred, since it would impact fewer homeowners, would be shorter in length, and cost less money.
      
      
   6. Resident of Scenic Drive. Is there a preferred alternative? Alternatives B and C would have 20,000-30,000 cars daily; what is the number of cars that would be using Scenic Drive with these options?
      
      There is no preferred alternative at this time. We have to follow through with the Environmental Impact Statement and complete the NEPA process, to ensure that each alternative has been fairly reviewed. Further traffic analysis is needed to determine how many cars would be using Scenic Drive if Alternative B or C were constructed.
      
      
   7. Barkland Drive Resident. How are we going to use the input we’re getting tonight? Are you going to be putting together a report that summarizes a lot of the information discussed here?
      
      Minutes from tonight’s meeting will be made available to the public through the two towns’ Administration and Planning offices. All members of the LAOC, TAC, and CATFwill receive minutes. If anybody would like to receive minutes, please see us after this meeting. CLD will also post the minutes on their web site www.cldengineers.com, 
      (click on Meeting Minutes, then look for Exit 4A EIS). 
      
      
   8. Carol Granfield, Derry Town Administrator: Carol conducted a vote (show of hands) that Jim MacEachern, Derry Town Council member, counted. The results were as follows:

      In favor of:
      	A	64
      	B	9
      	C	1
      	D	4
      	No Build	30

9. Olde Coach Road Resident. There’s no traffic problem in Derry.
   
   
10. English Range Road Resident.What is the anticipated traffic level at Ross’ Corner?What’s the future of Ross’ Corner?Can you alter A to connect from Bypass 28 to Alternative B/C east of Bypass 28? 
    
    The newly reconstructed Ross’ Corner has more capacity.CLD will be looking further into capacity levels at this intersection.We have already considered the alteration of Alternative A that is mentioned.However, there are publicly owned recreational fields and a historic property that would be impacted. 
    
    
11. David Nelson, Derry Planning Board Chairman:Looks like minor design adjustments could be made to avoid impacts to commercial buildings and residences along Alternative B.
    
    The design alternatives shown are preliminary.We will look to see if we can avoid buildings in the Derry Industrial Park area.It is a balancing act between multiple small impacts versus one large impact.In the area near London Road, if the proposed alignment were shifted to the south to avoid building impacts, the power lines and the new road would act as barriers with residences in the middle.It is more reasonable to place the two barriers (power lines and new road) next to each other, minimizing impacts.
    
    David Nelson: Any alternative would have impacts.We do have a traffic problem now.Looking at 2020, Derry will be nearly built out at that time.This project is a quality of life issue – try to avoid gridlock.The No-Build Option is not a valid option.
    
    George Sioras: One of the issues that the Exit 4A TAC takes under consideration is ozone/air quality.Derry and Londonderry are in a critical air quality zone.They get smog and dirty air from the south.The No-Build Alternative would put the area into a severe air quality zone.
    
    
12. Resident who lives 100 feet south of Folsom Road.Alternative A would make it more difficult to get access onto Folsom Road.
    
    
13. Ash Street Resident.What do you anticipate the intersection of Folsom Road and High Street to look like?Would there be a traffic signal?
    
    Preliminary design plans show median islands would be constructed along Folsom Road to help control the flow of traffic.Also, at the High Street intersection, channelization of traffic lanes would be provided to facilitate traffic flow.It is too early to say whether a traffic signal would be warranted at the intersection of Folsom Road and High Street.
    
    
14. Linlew Drive Resident. Why were property owners not notified in writing of this meeting?
    
    The proposed alignments are not final, and identifying the current abutters on all of the alternatives would have been a very time-consuming and costly undertaking. Information on the meeting was distributed to the Derry News, Union Leader, and Eagle-Tribune for their use in relaying information to the public prior to this meeting.
    
    
15. Property Owner on Scenic Drive and corner lots of Tsienneto Road. The eastern portion of Tsienneto Road has always needed widening.How wide would any widening have to be on Tsienneto to accommodate the alternatives on this road? 
    
    Widening of this section would be needed to match in with a 30-foot section of Tsienneto Road to the west.In order to approximate where roadway widening would occur on Tsienneto Road between Fieldstone Drive and NH 102, measure 15 feet from the existing centerline to proposed edge of pavement.Beyond the pavement, there would be additional slope impacts in order to provide roadway drainage and a clear zone.
    
    Same Property Owner: I would rather give up some of my land along Tsienneto Road than have homes taken along the other alternatives.
    
    
16. Are there any websites available that would have information or maps on this project?
    
    No, there are no websites developed for this project.CLD will post the minutes on our website. See , click on Meeting Minutes, then look for Exit 4A EIS. 
    
    
17. Will the minutes of this meeting be available at the library?
    
    The two towns have minutes from every meeting that has been held.CLD will continue to forward minutes to each of the towns for their use.Each Town will look into forwarding them to the respective libraries, for public review.
    
    
18. Jim MacEachern: Contact any of the LAOC, TAC or CATF members for minutes from any Exit 4A meetings.We are trying to reduce costs by eliminating any extra alternatives.

The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

JRP:cww

Attachments

cc: