New Hampshire Department of Transportation Concord to Spaulding Turnpike study : scoping report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

INPIRSTATE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPAULDING
f9k N P
ro) CONCORD TO SPAULDING TURNPIKE STUDY

EnvirDnmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Highway Design Plans

4:4
<

I LACONIA
%tl 6 1 L F 0 R D V
OAVIIUR I H I L 5 A SORNTON 11, 1
L' j P
E -jT, -,K@ N,
-DELMONT NEW
0*) A L T 0 N OURHAM@*
A 1, 0 0 If E R
MILTON
0 1 L IS A N
0 ORTHFIELD

S A L I S 9 UAY

C NTERIURY
SUT To
. ..........
LOUDON ig -
VEWDURY M\ E

IS A R V R
b'"ORTH
..........

C 0 111 C
BRADFORD

..........
HOP TON
% .. . .... .........
IIIENSIXER
iV
P E M DR 0
"'o

/ALLENSTOV%@
0 MINIM I
01, 1 DURHAM
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

DUMBARTON*,
NEWMARKET
H KSITT NEW ASTLE
C A EPPING
EWFIELOSe' v I Z,#
/RAYMOND ' V
17r 4@
A@'A
tyt, -17-N 4 -G - IN A RYE
o f, I '? k L 4,
\EXETER NO H
+ HAM TON
AUBURN FREMONT I
I CHESTER

H PTIDN
ISANDOW0 A-11 ee
I A@ IP

DERRY PST A
WTON
IN io

IN HAM
SAI,

'N.
<@@C 02

\
To
E- \\R.'

IS A N N

....................... .......
....... .......

............

C,NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONCORD TO SPAULDING TURNPIKE STUDY

UPDATE I
SCOPING REPORT

NHDOT Project No. 10428

October 25, 1989

PREFACE

The enclosed material includes a package of (1) revisions, corrections and
clarification of the material contained in the October 19, 1989 Scoping Report
and/or (2) the addition of new information. As the Scoping Report evolves into
a review draft of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of Phase
II, it is anticipated that a series of Updates will be issued to all
participants to respond to their comments and to keep them current as the Concord
to Spaulding Turnpike Study progresses.

UPDATE I

SCOPING REPORT

Item Lqe

#1 1-10 Figure 1-3, Study Area Highway Map

The interstate highway noted under the word "Concord"
should be labelled "1-89."

#2 1-13 Figure 1-4, 1989 Average Annual Daily Traffic

The number "3,300" at the diamond on Route 125 just south
of Rochester should read "13,300."

#3 11-2 Figure II-1 Existing Land Use

The page number should read "11-3"

#4 11-12 part b. Potential Future Housing Starts

At the end of the first paragraph on the page, the
following sentence should be added, "Somersworth is also
anticipating substantial new residential development."

#5 11-12 part c. Commercial and Industrial Activity

In the fifth paragraph, the two sentences that begin with
"Somersworth inaugurated...." and end with ...... 50,000
square feet." should be removed.

#6 11-21 Figure 11-7 Floodplain

The following Note should be added: "Town of Northwood
not mapped by FEMA."

#7 11-25 Figure 11-9 Groundwater Resources

The Sources note shoul d repl ace " sourses " wi th " sources
"NHOPS" with "NHDES"; and "aquifiers" with "aquifers."

#8 111-4 Section 3. Highway Design, part a. General

Items under "Minimum Vertical Clearances (Feet)" listed
should be removed and replaced by the following:

Mainline under local road or railroad 161-1611
Mainline over local road (at interchange) 161-611
Mainline over local road 141-611
Mainline over railroad 221-611

#9 111-5 para b. Superelevation

Item listed should be removed and replaced by:

Mainline Maximum = 0.08 Ft./Ft.
Ramps Maximum = 0.06 Ft./Ft.

#10 111-5 part c. Pavement Widths

The word "Paved" should be added to begin the second
sentence of the paragraph.

#11 111-5 Section 5. Construction

The words "of the new bridges" should be removed from
the first sentence.

#12 IV-2 The itemized listing at the top of the page should be
labelled "CONSTRAINT MAPS" and an item #17, "Mineral
Resources" should be added.

#13 IV-2 In the third sentence of the first full paragraph, the
word "conceivable" should be spelled "conceivably."

#14 IV-3 Figure IV-1 Potential Highway Corridors

The map inserted in the report should be replaced with
the attached Figure IV-1 which restores, after quality
control review, eight links as follows:

Loudon/Concord I
Rochester 3
Barrington 4

and removes one link in Epsom

#15 IV-4 Section 4. New Location Corridors

In the third paragraph, the word "pervasive" should be
removed and replaced with the word "extensive."

#16 IV-4, IV-5 part a. Deerfield Group

In the second characteristic, or bullet, the second
sentence beginning with "These links...." andendingwith
it .... of Manchester...." should be removed.

#17 IV-5 part a. Deerfield Group

The third characteristic, or bullet, beginning with
"Since the...." and ending with "....with 1-93...."
should be removed in its entirety.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JOHN O, MORTON BUILDING

Wallace E. Stirkney, D. E. Gazen Drive
Commissioner P.O. Box

December 1, 1989

Ms. Kathy Cousins
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management/NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20235

SUBJECT: Concord Spaulding Turnpike, 10428

Dear Ms. Cousins:

The New Hampshire Department of Transportation has completed the Scoping Report
for the Concord to Spaulding Turnpike Study. I have enclosed a copy for your
review and comment and thank you for the assistance you have provided in the
initial resource inventory process.

I have attached a list of the twenty-two technical reports used as a base to
develop the Scoping Report. I have also enclosed for your review and comments
a selection of these reports which may be of particular interest. Please contact
me if you would like copies of any additional reports. Also, please make these
reports available to other appropriate personnel in your agency who would. be
interested in reviewing them.

I welcome your review of the study documents and your comments on the accuracy
of the information they contain.

Thank you for your interest and assistance.

Sincerely,

William R. Hauser, Supervisor
Environmental Services Section
Bureau of Environment
Room 109 Tel. (603) 271-3226

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPAULDING
INTERSTATE
A
C;5) nQ 65) CONCORD TO SPAULDING TURNPIKE STUDY
V "D ,- 7j. Q)

Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Highway Design Plans

..... .....

COMIA

6 1 L F 0 R 0
DANBURY I N I L L 'Al 1 0 A k T 0 N 1,,
E -,jT,
P

NEW
00* 1 BELMONT A L T 0 N DURHAM\* 0
A N 0 0 V f A
WILTON
0 ILMANTON
L I'D MI

S A L I S 0 U RY

C NTER&URY
S U I T 0
L 0 U 0 0
NEW
BURY
M\ E k

IN A N M A 0 T K

IRAOFOAD C 0 a C
@WSFORD

HOP 7014

HENNIKER
PEMOR6W

1 0 IALLENSTO . . . . . . . .
0 U R H A M

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III IDUMBARTON",
r T (WHARKET NEW CASTL
N KSETY lb
CAN 0 % i,
ippi NO
EWFIELD$r 1 ;f4 1
/AAYMOND V 0 -
A
tyt- + -N, I iry E
C I,
AUBURN@, to----J FREMONTI 1EXETER NO H@(-
CHESTER "M TOM
r
4. 34 MPTOM
SANDOWNI
I
4t
I
_j
DERRY KUWSTEAD 4,- r T10 DON -1
\LCMDONDERR KWT 10 %,0 N

L
WIND04AN 2010
., // $ALI11I
IN.
1

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CONCORD TO SPAULDING TURNPIKE STUDY

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NUMBER 10

THE COASTAL ZONE

NHDOT Project #10428

Prepared by:
Sverdrup Corporation

October 19, 1989

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
NUMBER 10

THE COASTAL ZONE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EAge

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

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. Nature and Significance of the Coastal Zone Resource . . . . . .

B. Sources of Information on Coastal Zone Resources . . . . . . . .

C. Description of the Coastal Zone Resources in the Study Area . . .

D. Regulatory Requirements Affecting the Coastal Zone Resource . . . 4

E. Issues for Consideration in Alternative Evaluation . . . . . . . 6

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Appendices - Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

LIST OF FIGURES

1. New Hampshire Coastal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Coastal Zone Areas in the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The inventory conducted in the Concord to Spaulding Turnpike Study of the
many different types of resources existing in the Study Area is being reported
in a Scoping Report and in a series of technical memoranda. This technical
memorandum presents the results of the inventory of Coastal Zone resources in
the study area.

A. NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COASTAL ZONE RESOURCE

The Coastal Zone, as defined by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
is "... the coastal waters ... and ... transitional and intertidal areas, salt
marshes, wetlands, and beaches ... The zone extends inland from the shorelines
only to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the use of which have a
direct and significant impact on the coastal waters." The defining of the
coastal zone is predicated on an analysis of water resources. "Water provides
the essential linkage of land and sea elements of the coastal ecosystem ...
Coastal waters are a mixture of fresh water from the land and salt water from
the sea. The workings of the coastal ecosystem are influenced by both sources
of water supply, by the forces that drive them, and by the interplay between
them" (Clark, 1974).

In this water environment are areas of tremendous biological productivity,
areas of great recreational value, areas of unique scenic value, and areas that
provide access to the productive use of the seas. Clearly, "... the coastal zone
is rich in a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, industrial, and
aesthetic resources ..." (Roy Mann Associates, Inc., 1975).

B. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES

The primary source of information on coastal zone resources in the study
area is the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hampshire Coastal
Program for Ocean, Harbor, and Great Bay Areas prepared by the United States
Department of Commerce and the New Hampshire Office of State Planning. This
document defines coastal boundaries and provides a justification for their
selection.

C. DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA

New Hampshire's Coastal Zone includes not only the eighteen miles of
shoreline on the Atlantic Ocean but also the major system of tidal rivers and
bays that outlets to the ocean at the Piscataqua River. (Figure 1) "Arranged
like five spindling fingers, five rivers - the Squamscot, Lamprey, Oyster,
Bellamy, and Salmon Falls - flow together from different parts of the hinterland,
mingling their waters in an inland system that transforms New Hampshire's tiny
stretch of shoreline into a maritime center of beauty and importance" (Adams,
1976). It is the coastal zone surrounding this inland system, consisting of
Little Bay, Great Bay, and the entering rivers, that affects the.study area.

Portions of the defined coastal zone expand into the study area in the
extreme southeastern corner and cover portions of the four communities of Durham,
Madbury, Dover, and Rollinsford (Figure 2).

Figure

NEW HAMPSHIRE

It INSFOR0
COASTAL PROGRAM

0 0

M A D a U A Y.-
FIRST TIER BOUNDARY

SECOND TIER AREA

U R H A M

WOW".
T

it,
c W A N
<

It
f L 0

I, T 0 4 T
\ %

x a T 1 0 No a T 14

46
Istits Of
SNOALS

AM P'T 0 $1

A N T

s It

-w Viampshlre
MasS.

NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING t966

.ISSUES STUDY AREA-BOUNDARY

ARNSTFAD
ORMINGTON

SECON
-PITTSFIELU
AREA
L DON STRAFFORD
PISCAT
COCHE
SALMO
CHICHEST.R
RIVER@
C NCO
SECOND
TIER
AREA
AT THE
BELLAMY
EPSOM
PE ROKE ""NORTH
WOOD
BAR.",
SECOND TIER AREA M Az
AT THE OYSTER RIVER
ALLENSTO N
DEERFIE

NOTTINGHAM LEE
/SS
I
UES
rv

..........
LEGEND S 7 UD 4R
E30
FIRST TIER AREA
SECOND TIER AREA
FIRST TIER@A@RE

Source: New Hampshire Coastal Program Final Environmental impact Statement July, 1988

The boundary of the coastal zone is two tiered. The first tier extends
up the Piscataqua River to the Dover Point area at the confluence of Little Bay
and the Piscataqua River and then extends around Little Bay and Great Bay inland
until some identifiable feature, such as a roadway, is reached which effectively
separates the shoreland from inland areas. These first tier areas extend land-
ward to cover all coastal resource areas, all major coastal issue areas, and all
lands which could have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters as a
result of their use. Areas within Durham, Madbury, and Dover lie within first
tier areas.

The second tier areas are considered to have a less direct influence on
the coastal waters. They include areas along tidal rivers to the limit of tidal
action and adjacent areas inland to the limit of the Wetlands Board jurisdiction
which extends to these areas within 100 feet of the highest observable tide line,
up to three and a half feet above mean high water. Typically, these second tier
areas include the rivers themselves, their banks, and adjacent salt marshes.
They radiate outward from the Great Bay and Little Bay along the tributary
rivers. Such second tier areas extend along the Oyster River in Durham and
Madbury, along the Bellamy River in Dover, and along the Piscataqua River in
Dover, and along its tributaries, the Cocheco River in Dover, and the Salmon
Falls River in Rollinsford. In all, there are about seven square miles of
coastal zone area within the study area.

These coastal zone areas, as shown in Figure 2, are part of the Great and
Little Bay Estuarine System, covering approximately seventeen square miles and
forming one of the largest such systems on the Eastern Seaboard. The system is
formed by the convergence of rivers with a combined watershed of approximately
930 square miles. The system has approximately 830 acres of salt marsh.

D. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING THE COASTAL ZONE RESOURCE

The Congress declared it a national policy "... to preserve, protect,
develop, and where possible, to restore and enhance, the resources of the
Nation's coastal zone..." in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. However,
the Congress considered the implementation of such policy would be best achieved
through the exercise of existing state authority. To this end, coastal states
have prepared management programs to deal with coastal issues.

The Act provided for assistance and encouragement to coastal states in
developing and managing comprehensive programs for their coastal areas. The
programs provided for under the Act are administered by the United States
Department of Commerce. A state management program, to be approved, must: (1)
identify and evaluate coastal resources that require management or protection,
(2) re-examine existing policies or create new policies to manage or protect
these resources, (3) determine specific uses appropriate to specific geographical
areas, (4) identify the inland and seaward areas subject to the management
program, (5) provide for the consideration of the national interest in siting
facilities that meet more than local requirements, and (6) include sufficient
legal authorities and organizational arrangements to implement the program
(United States Department of Commerce and New Hampshire Office of State Planning,
1988). The final authority on administration of the Coastal Zone Management
Program lies with the individual state. once a state has developed a

coastal zone management plan that is accepted by the federal government, the
federal government cannot take actions that are not in line with the state plans"
(ReVelle and ReVelle, 1981).

There is also a direct project review responsibility on the Federal level
for activities in the coastal zone. One of the many functions of the Corps of
Engineers is to issue permits for activities which may obstruct or alter the
nation's navigable waters. This authority dates back to the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and has been augmented by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972 and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Originally, the permit program was intended to provide consideration of the
effects of aproject on navigation but the more recent legislation has broadened
the program to take into account much broader issues such as water quality and
aesthetics. The permit program now applies to all the waters of the United
States including coasts and adjacent wetlands, rivers, streams, and marshes.
This typically includes areas within the coastal zone. The permit application
procedure requires agency and public review and in some cases a public hearing.

On the state level, the policies of the New Hampshire Coastal Program for
Ocean, Harbor, and Great Bay Areas are based on existing state laws which
constitute the legal basis for state agency decisions in the coastal zone.
Enforcement laws and regulations are those which form the basis for
administrative decisions to approve or disapprove activities which fall within
the jurisdiction of a specific agency. Chief among these are the Wetlands Board
regulations which are applicable to saltwater wetlands, banks, and intermittent
streams, which are all typically found within the coastal zone.

The rules and regulations of the New Hampshire Wetlands Board are contained
in the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Chapter Wt10O through Wt800.
The authority of the regulations is derived from legislative acts relating to
excavating, dredging, or filling waters of the state and filling, dredging,.or
erecting structures in great ponds and public owned water bodies. An eleven
member board reviews permit applications for projects affecting wetlands
resources and conducts public hearings if deemed necessary.

Any state project which may affect Coastal Zone Resources must undergo a
review to determine its consistency with Coastal Zone Program policies. This
review is carried out by the Office of State Planning which is the state agency
responsible for administering the coastal zone program. Procedures for
conducting this consistency review for transportation projects were originally
developed in a three party agreement of October 4, 1984, between the Office of
State Planning, the former Department of Public Works and Highways, and the
Federal Highway Administration. This agreement was slightly revised as of April
18, 1986, to institute the currently applicable agreement between the Office of
State Planning, New Hampshire the Department of Transportation, and the Federal
Highway Administration.

Under the consistency review program, any major project proposal developed
.by the Department of Transportation and submitted as part of the New Hampshire
Intergovernmental Review Process must contain a statement that the activity is
consistent with the New Hampshire Coastal Program. The Office of State Planning
will review the project proposal, issue a certification that the project is

conceptually consistent with the Coastal Zone Program, and send a copy of the
certification to the Federal Highway Administration. When applications for state
permits, such as the New Hampshire Wetlands Board permit, or federal permits,
such as the Corps of Engineers permit are filed, copies of the application are
sent to the Office of State Planning. When the permits are issued, the Office
of State Planning issues a certification of consistency and sends a copy to the
Federal Highway Administration and any other federal agency involved.

One of the very broad policies of the New Hampshire Coastal Zone Program
is to maintain the rural character of the Great Bay area. A general agreement
of February 4, 1987, was executed between the Office of State Planning and the
Department of Transportation relating to this policy. It was agreed that no new
highway locations would be considered in the Great Bay area without extensive
environmental analysis and coordination with the Office of State Planning to
ensure that this rural character would be preserved.

The New Hampshire Coastal Program Environmental Impact Statement was
reviewed by the Department of Transportation in the spring of 1988. In a letter
dated May 23, 1988, the Department was able to indicate that no major projects
were imminent in the Coastal Zone but that the Concord to Spaulding Turnpike
Study could potentially propose activity in the Coastal Zone.

E. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

The New Hampshire Coastal Program for Ocean, Harbor, and Great Bay Areas
presents sixteen areas of coastal policy that reflect state priorities aimed at
balancing development needs with resource protection and provide consistent
guidelines for state agency action in the coastal zone. These policies relate
to:

1. Coastal resource protection,
2. Fish and wildlife management,
3. Offshore/onshore sand and gravel removal,
4. Oil spill prevention and cleanup,
5. Rare and endangered species,
6. Unique natural areas,
7. Recreation facilities,
8. Rural quality of Great Bay,
9. Floodplain protection,
10. Air quality protection,
11. Water quality,
12. Energy facilities siting,
13. Coastal dependent uses,
14. Dredging and dredge spoil disposal,
15. Historic preservation, and
16. Research and education.

This very comprehensive list of policy concerns provides for a wide ranging
review of any project affecting the coastal zone under the existing regulations
of state agencies. Any highway project taking place in the coastal zone would
have to be reviewed under several of these policy areas.

REFERENCES

Adams, John P., Drowned Valley, The Piscataqua River Basin, The University Press
of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1976.

Clark, John, Coastal Ecosystems, Ecological Considerations for Management of the
Coastal Zone, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1974.

ReVelle, Penelope, and Charles ReVelle, The Environment, Issues and Choices for
Society, Willard Grant Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1981.

Roy Mann Associates, Inc., Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C., 1975.

United States Department of Commerce and New Hampshire Office of State Planning,
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hampshire Coastal Program
for Ocean, Harbor, and Great Bay Areas, United States Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 1988.

APPENDICES CORRESPONDENCE

A Correspondence of October 4, 1984, The Original Memorandum of
to the Office of State Planning Agreement on Procedures for
from the Department of Public Works Federal Consistency Reviews
and Highways transmitting a Memorandum for Department of Public Works
of Agreement. and Highways Projects in the
Coastal Zone.

B Correspondence of April 18, 1986, The Current Memorandum of
to the Office of State Planning Agreement on Procedures for
from the Department of Transportation. Federal Consistency Reviews for
Department of Transportation
Projects in the Coastal Zone.

C Memorandum of February 4, 1987, Memorandum of Agreement that no
from the Office of State Planning new highway locations will be
to the Department of Transportation. considered in the Great Bay area
without extensive environmental
analyses responsive to the
Coastal Program policy of
preserving the rural character
of the Great Bay area.

D Correspondence of May 23, 1988, A Review of the New Hampshire
from the Department of Transportation Coastal Program Environmental
to the Office of State Planning. Impact Statement reviewing
highway activities in the coastal
zone management area and advising
that the Concord to Spaulding
Turnpike Study would begin soon.

@4 A

APPENDIX A
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NVORKS AIND HIGHWAYS

JOHN 0. %IORTON BUILDING

October 4, 1984
REUEL IV. WEBB. P.E. CONCORD. N.H. 03301
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND C111EF EXCINEER

David Scott, Acting Director
office of State Planning
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Dear Mr. Scott:

Re: Memorandum of Agreement (IMOA) on
Procedures for Federal Consistency
Reviews in Coastal Zone 'Management

At a meeting held here on November 23, 1983, Peter Piattoni and Marcia Keller
of your staff outlined to representacives of the Department and the Federal Highway
Administration che features of New Hampshire's new Coastal Program. More
specifically discussed were the requirements with respect to federal consistency
reviews under that program. My purpose in writing is that this will confirm the
resulcs of that meeting and serve as a memorandum of understanding between our
agencies on procedures to be followed.

It is recognized that the %1H Coastal Program is based on, and relies
exclusively upon, existing state laws, Ltgulations and_2_genc_y_pro @rams. These
actions by existing agencies take place throughout the project development cycle
be-inning with the programming of highway projects under the NH Intergovernmental
Review Process (formerly "A-95 Process") and continue through the issuance of any
required State permits, where necessary prior to construction.

.Ul who took part in the November meeting were pleased that, in view of the
fact chat New Hampshire-s Coastal Program comprises existing state laws and inplace
procedures, che requirements to assure federal cons-istency can be met wich a few
straightforward, simple steps as follows:

1. Each project submission by the New Hampshire Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPW&H) under the New Hampshire Intergovernmental Review
Process (IRP) (formerly A-95) for a project in any of the seven Atlantic
coastal municipalities (Seabrook, Hampton Falls, Hampton, North Hampton,
Rye, Portsmouth, and New Castle) will contain a statement that the project
complies with the New Hampshire Coastal Program (NECP) and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with the program.

Where project development is proceeding in accordance with the NHCP, along
with the IRP the Office of Scare Planning (OSP) will inform the DPW&H
that, conceptually, the project meets the federal consistency
requirements. A copy of this letter will be sent to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Formal consistency review will be initiated when,
and if, state permits are required and upon application for state
permit(s) DPW&H will send copies of applications to OSP/Coascal Program.

-LIVF FREE OR DIE"

c@- -.8
'Page 2
October 4, 1984

In instances where state permit(s) are required, issuance of such
permit(s) will constitute consistency. When OSP has been notified by the
New Hampshire Wetlands Board, and any other applicable state regulatory
agency, that the required state permit(s) have been issued, OSP will
provide DPW&H with a letter certifying federal consistency for the
project. A copy of this letter will be sent to Division Administrator,
FHWA.

For any project submitted for federal assistance, but excluded from the
IRP as defined in the Memorandum of Agreement dated September 12, 1984,
between DPW&H and OSP (see attached), the DPW&H hereby certifies that the
excluded project activities will comply with the New Hampshire approved
Coa,stal.Program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such
pr.9gram. It is agxeed, however, that bridge replacement projects wilY not
be excluded from the Coastal Program and will be submitted for federal
consistency review as specified in Section I of this MOA.

2. Upon each application by DPW&H for a federal permit or--license for
7 activity proposed in a coastal community, a copy of the application :with
all of its supporting documents will be furnished to OSP.

OSP will then prepare and transmit a copy of the federal consistency
certification to the federal agency involved. A copy of this certificate
will be sent to FHWA.

3. At the request of any one of the three parties to this agreement,
discussions may be undertaken to modify or change this agreement.

Upon review and concurrence in the foregoing by your office, would you kindly
endorse all three copies as provided below and forward them to the Federal Highway
Administration, to attention of Herbert E. Hodgdon, P.E., Transportation Planner.
Upon review and concurrence by FHWA, we would then appreciate their returning a
fully executed copy to each of our offices, OSP and NH DPW&H.

Very truly yours,
q
'0 61@') 6Z-@
eue@J;q. Webb
Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer

Concurrence by Concurrence by
Office of State Planning Federal Highway Administration

Acting Director Division Administrator
Dated Dated /0 p e /;y

Memorandum of Agreement
between the between the
New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways
and
The Office of State Planning

It is mutally agreed that the following specific program activities contained
within Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Category #20.205 will be con-
sidered exempt from review under New Hampshire Intergovernmental Review Process.
1. Traffic Engineering
A. Signals
B. Signing
C Pavement Marking

2. Safety Projects
A. Hazard Elimination
B. Rail-Highway

C. Intersection Reconstruction
D. Truck Escape Ramps

3. 3R Type Projects
A. Rehabilitation within existing ROW
B. Resurfacing of more than 3/4"

4. 4R. Type projects not involving new construction or major added
A. Reconstruction of existing roadway with minor widening and new

5. All project involving the new construction of seatured direced solely
at the operation of a highway facility.

A. Rest Areas
B. Landscaping
C. Lighting
D. Vehicle Weight Stations
E. Fencing

6. Bridge Replacement Projects
A. Bridge Replacement (involving only bridqes with minor realignment
within existing ROW. All CZM area brides must be submitted.)
B. Bridge Rehabilitation
C. Bridge Removal
D. Bridge Approaches

7. Experimental and Demonstration Projects
A. Materials Testing
B. Demonstration Projects

8. Emergency Relief Projects

9. Roadway and Bridge Maintenance Projects

Memorands of Agreement -2- DPWH & OSP

10. Miscellaneous
A. Interstate Cost Estimate
B. Highway Planning and Research Program
C. Carpool. Program (except carpool lot construction)
D. Speed Monitoring Program
E. Truck Size and Weight Program

Walter F. Mead
David G. Scott Assistance Commissioner
Acting Director Department of Public Works
Office of State and Highways Ind
State Singel Point of Contact

The State of New Hampshire

Department of Transporation APPENDIX B

John O Morton Building

April 18, 1986 Gaepn Drive
P. O. Box 483
Concord, NH. 03301-0483

David Scott, Acting Director
office of State Planning
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, NH 03301

Dear Mr. Scott:

Re: Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on
Procedures for Federal Consistency
Reviews in Coastal Zone Management

In October, 1984, the referenced MOA was fully execuced by you, former
Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer Reuel W. Webb of this Department and
former Division Administrator Frederick T. Comstock of the Federal Highway
Administraction. The Office of State Planning, following consultation with
the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, has recenctly requested amendment to Step 1 of
the Agreement. Also, the original agreement signatories from this agency
and FHWA have retired and, effective February 28, 1986, the New Hampshire
Department of Public Works and Highways ceased to exist and was succeeded by
the New Hampshire Department of Transportation. Therefore, in adoption of
all of the necessary revisions, this letter constitutes a new MOA between
our agencies, hereby superseding the MOA endorsed in October, 1984.

it is recognized that the NH Coastal Program is based on, and relies
exclusively upon, existing state laws, regulations and agency programs.
Those actions by existing agencies take place throughout the project
development cycle beginning with the programming of highway projects under
the NH Intergovernmencal Review Process (formerly, "A-95 Process") and con-
tinue through the issuance of any required State permits, where necessary,
prior to constuction. It is mutually agreed that projects subject to
federal consistency reviewing in "coastal zone management will be processed in
accordance with the following steps:

1. Each project submission by the New Hampshire Department of
Transportation (DOT) under the New Hampshire Intergovernmental
Review Process (IRP)(formerly A-95) for a project in any of the
seven Atlantic coastal municipalities (Seabrook, Hampton Falls,
Hampton, North Hampton, R7e, Portsmouth, and New Castle) will
contain a statement that the project complies with the New Hamp-
shire Coastal Program (NHCP) and will be conducted in a manner
consistent with the program.

/
David Scocc, Acting Director
Page Z
April 18, 1986

Where project development is proceeding in accordance with the
NHCP, along with the IRP the Office of State Planning (OSP) will
inform the DOT chat, conceptually, the project meets with the
federal consistency requirements. A copy of this letter will be
senc to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Formal
consistency review will be initiated when state permit(s) are
required and upon application for state permit(s) DOT will send
copies of applications to OSP/Coastal Program.

In instances where state permit(s) are required, issuance of such
permit (s) will constitute consistency. When OSP has been notified
by the New Hampshire Wetlands Board, and any other applicable
state regulatory agency, that the required state permit(s) have
been issued, OSP will provide DOT with a letter certifying federal
consistency for the project. A copy of this letter will be sent
to Division Administrator, FHWA.

If a state permit is not required, the proposed activity is then
reviewed under standard Consistency procedures as outlined in
"Federal Consistency and the New Hampshire Coastal Program - An
Applicant's Guide" Part III:A.

For any project submitted for federal assistance, but excluded
from the IRP as defined in the memorandum of Agreement dated
September 12, 1984, between DPW&H (now DOT) and OSP (see
attached), the DOT hereby certifies that the excluded activities
will comply with the New Hampshire approved Coastal Program and
will be conducted in a manner consistence with such program. It is
agreed, however, that bridge replacement projects will not be
excluded from the Coastal Program and will be submitted for
federal consistency review as specified in Step I of this MOA.

2. Upon each application by DOT for a federal permit or license for
an activity proposed in a coastal community, a copy, of the
application with all of its supporting documents will be furnished
to OSP.

OSP will then prepare and transmit a copy of the federal
consistency certification to the federal agency involved. A COPY
of this certificate will be sent to FHWA.

3. At the request of any one of the three parties to this agreement,
discussions may be undertaken to modify or change this agreement.
A

David Scott, Acting Director
Page 3
April 18, 1986

Upon review and concurrence in the foregoing by your office, would you
kindly endorse all three copies as provided below and forward them to the
Federal Highway Administration, to attention of Richard Lemieux, P. E.,
Transportation Planner. Upon review and concurrence by FHWA, we would then
appreciate their returning a fully executed copy to each of our offices, OSP
and DOT.

Very truly yours,

Edgar W. Huckins, Director
Division of Project Development
Room 102 - Tel. 271-3739

EW-R: mle

Concurrence by Concurrence by
Office of State Planniaa Federal Highway Administration

- J10
xc

A@ting Dire.ccor DivIsibn Administrator

Dated Dated
a,
P,

APPENDIX C

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation
and
The Office of State Planning

Whereas; The State of New Hampshire wishes to participate in the
Coastal Program. authorized by congress in the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) and administered by the Department of Commerce, and

Whereas; The CZMA requires that an approvable Coastal Program includes
the state's ability to control competing and conflicting uses in the Coastal
Zone. and

Whereas; Infrastructure. including highways and sewers. is a
prerequisite to high density development. and

Whereas; The state's policy on development in the Great Bay portion of
the Coastal Zone is to ensure that development is limited to a low and
moderate density. thus preserving its rural character and scenic beauty'and

Whereas; The Council on Resources and Development (CORD) has adopted the
Coastal Program policies.

Then; It is hereby agreed that. in accordance with the Governor's 10
.Year Highway Plan (adopted by the Governor and Council in November of 1985
and October of 1986). it is anticipated that there will be no new stat'e- -
Cunded highway improvements built in or adjacent to the Coastal Zone as
I
defined by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hampshire
Coastal Program (Ocean. Harbor, and Great Bay Area). except for planned
safety improvements to Route 4. This will not increase development pressures
within the are,i of Great Bay and therefore will be consistent with the
....:7::;Coasta1 Program' policies....-I.
Any 'Changes in the above which may af f ect::this!-agreement will' be-
reviewed and may. require a program-change to the New Hampshire Coastal-_.
..Program. In any case..no -new highway. locations will beiconsidered until.
ses [email protected] co nj -vith -the-.
extensixe- e@nvironm -Intal 'analy [email protected]
Office - of Statle Pli-nniing.

2-1 I-,Yl e 7
David G. Scott Date Wallace Stickney Date
Acting Director Commissioner
office of State Planning Department of Transportation
Chairman. CORD

APPENDIX D
The State of New Hampshire JLO
WRH
Department of Transportation CHH

John O, Marton Building

Wallace E. Stickney, D. E.
Commissioner
Gazem Drive
P. O. Box 483
Concord, N. H. 03301-0483
May 23, 1988
E

John Dabuliewicz, Director
Office of State Planning
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, NH 03301
TRANSPORTATION
Dear Mr. Dabuliewicz:

I have reviewed the final EIS for the New Hampshire Coastal Program.
This letter is to review once again the projects DOT has underway in the
coastal zone management area.

The Route 4 Safety improvement remains the only active project which
crosses the first tier area. These improvements will not add capacity to
Route 4.

The Legislature has mandated a study of the existing Route I Corridor
which crosses a small portion of the first tier area in Hampton Falls and in
Seabrook. This study is also devoted to improving safety and is not
expected to recommend significanct increases in capacity.

Regarding the second tier area, the planned improvement to Route 101 on
essentially the existing right-of-way crosses the second cier as it passes
over the Squamscott River in Exeter. This is not a new project as it has
been underway for over a decade and the State has owned the right-of-way.
since the early 70's. In any event, Wetlands Broad procedures and permits
will be followed to the letter at that crossing as well as all others. The
purpose for the highway is to provide an east-west link between Route 93 and
95, and is expected to take traffic pressurc off Route 4. It is a two lane
limited access highway over almost the entire distance and in fact is a four lane divided highway over about half that distance.

We expect to initiate the legislatively mandated study of a Concord-
Spaulding Turnpike Highway soon. It is not clear whether some second tier
crossings may be involved as the results of this study will not be available
for two or more years.

I hope this provides precise information as to what the activities of
the DOT within the first and second tier coastal zone areas will be.

Sincerely,
WES/ab
Wallace E. Stickney, P. L.. (ab)

#18 IV-5 part c. Bow Lake Group

In the second characteristic, or bullet, the phrase "a
bypass" should twice be replaced by the phrase "an
alternate."

#19 IV-5 part c. Bow Lake Group

The fourth characteristic, or bullet, beginning with the
phrase "They may...." and ending with the phrase
11 .... north side." should be removed in its entirety.

The reason for these changes under Items #16 through #19
is that the legislation authorizing the study makes no
reference to a northern New England east-west regional
highway and limits to study to considering possible
routes for a highway from 1-393 to a terminus on the
Spaulding Turnpike north of Exit 9.

#20 V-3 Section D. SELECTION ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED

The first paragraph should be removed and replaced by
the following:

"The Phase II goal is to use informed judgement to
objectively select alternatives to advance to preliminary
desir and more detailed environmental analysis in Phase
III.

ISSUES STUDY AREA BOUNDARY

FARMINGTON
EIARNSTEA

..........

V
EJ-D
cz
LO ON. STRAFFORD a

CHESTzE-

CON OR

y'r
PEM OK
EPSOM RINGTO
NORTHWQ
jO

ALLEN N
EER51EL

LEGEND -"NOTTING-HAV Q. LE
/ss 10
s
A. DEERFIELD GROUP
A.
AR
B. NORTHWOOD RIDGE GROUP
0
C. BOW LAKE GROUP
y
CORRIDOR CENTERLINES

NOTE: FOR CLARITY CENTERLINES OF CORRIDORS ARE SHOWN;
ACTUAL CORRIDOR WIDTH IS ONE MILE.

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

-3 6668 14111459 7