Gene mentioned that some comments were not incorporated
into the criteria. The most interesting of these was how
to deal with secondary growth. It was felt this was too
difficult to evaluate at this time and that the purpose
of this screening is to identify reasonableness not select
the preferred alternative. Rosemary recommended evaluating
the effect the concept would have on population and employment
growth in the region. A statement like this will be added
to the Community Issues screening criteria.
Gene also mentioned a comment to evaluate each component
separately versus the entire concept. The intent is to
evaluate entire concepts for this Phase to determine whether
it is reasonable. However, the impacts of each component
will be known and can be discussed in the evaluation.
Bill O’Donnell made several comments. He stated
there should be mention of effects to travel during construction.
Gene responded that this would be added to Transportation
Issues under Implementation. Bill did not like the term “land
use preferences” under Community Vision. It was agreed
to change “land use preferences” to “land
use plans”. Bill felt that to be consistent, public
support should be broken down by community. There could
be an option that one community supports and another does
not. Bill questioned the inclusion of recreation lands
under Natural Environment. It was decided to include a
Community Resources section in the Community Issues and
include criteria dealing with recreation lands, schools,
parks and other issues.
Rosemary questioned
the term “peak periods”.
Gene explained that the transportation model uses the 30th
highest hour during the year for the design hour. This
is the standard practice in transportation studies. Gene
also explained that it was determined that the 30th highest
hour for this corridor was not one of the special event
periods for the region. A graph of the top 200 hours was
developed by the NHDOT and it showed that the 30th highest
hour fell on the flat part of the graph. Ansel added that
different strategies might work differently for different
types of traffic, i.e. local, commute and tourist.
Mark Kern commented that there may need to be space provided
for qualitative impacts for certain natural resource impacts.
Gene mentioned that qualitative impacts would be determined
and that if a concept received an evaluation based upon
this impact, the quantity of the impact could be mentioned
under the comment section.
Mark Hemmerlein commented that unfragmented habitat should
be added to the natural resources section.
Gene then asked
for the committee’s opinion on the
Planning Summit. He stated that the project team had heard
good reports from groups and individuals that attended
and are considering having more of these types of meetings.
Mike Tardiff commented that the representative from Boscawen
was pleased to have been invited. There were at least four
of the other communities represented at the Summit.
5.0
Draft Purpose and Need
Gene began by saying that the Draft Purpose
and Need that was distributed is a first draft and that
the final Purpose and Need statement will not come until
the end of this phase of the project. He stated that
the format of the document follows guideline for preparation
of Purpose and Need statements.
Amy commented
that there was no mention of congestion in the purpose.
Gene stated that the term “efficient” is
used instead of congestion.
Rich Roach
mentioned that the USACOE is concerned with the practicality
of an option. He doesn’t think
the last sentence of the Purpose is needed. He also asked
whose project is this? What is their purpose? It was
explained that this is a NHDOT project with FHWA being
the lead federal agency.
It was agreed that the Purpose and Need should be open
to all modes of transportation. There were no additional
needs identified by the committee members.
6.0
Approach to Developing Alternatives
Gene distributed a document entitled Approach
to Corridor Planning. Gene described this new approach
that is under consideration. He described that the traditional
approach to corridor planning is to conduct a study that
evaluates the need for a corridor for a future design
year. In the case of this corridor the design year is
2030 and the construction year is currently around 2013.
Therefore, if the traditional approach were taken no
improvements would begin for about 10 years and would
accommodate a future need about 30 years into the future.
Gene
then asked the resources agencies if they had any comments
or problems with the new approach. Rich Roach
stated that if the phased projects have their own independent
utility there is no reason it couldn't be done.
Rosemary thinks there is a NEPA precedent for this type
of approach and she said she would talk it over with
other EPA personnel.
Bill O’Donnell gave two options for approaching
the environmental clearance. One is to prepare an EIS
for all of the improvements. The other is to prepare
CE’s for the smaller projects where there would
not be significant impacts. When Gene mentioned the idea
of a corridor master plan document with updates as projects
proceed, Bill stated that FHWA has had some bad experiences
with corridor EIS’s and prefers to deal with one
EIS. However, if the corridor document had detailed environmental
analysis it could be done. Bill said that he would discuss
this with other FHWA personnel.
Other options
discussed included a master plan corridor environmental
document that would outline the “vision” for
the I-93 corridor and the near term improvements. Separate
environmental documents would then be completed for each
phase as long as it has independent utility.
Another option mentioned was to complete an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the near-term project and deal with
the later phases as they come up. This may require a
planning document that outlines the overall goals and
explains how each phase works towards this goal.
Gene stated that the project team would like to get
concurrence on this approach before proceeding. Getting
feedback from the federal agencies is extremely important.
7.0 General Discussion
Gene stated that he would post updates
to all of the project documents on the web site once
the updates have been made.
8.0
Next TRC Meeting
The next TRC meeting will be scheduled
once more is learned about the phased approach. Gene
will notify all committee members by e-mail.
Submitted
by,
Gene McCarthy, P.E.
McFarland-Johnson, Inc.
