[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26510]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 26, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5097-1]
Proposed Determination To Prohibit or Restrict the Use of
Wetlands and Other Waters as Disposal Sites for the Nashua-Hudson
Circumferential Highway in Nashua, Hudson, Litchfield, and Merrimack,
NH
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Section 404(c) Determination and Public
Hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (Act) authorizes the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit or restrict the
discharge of dredged or fill material at defined sites in the waters of
the United States (including wetlands) whenever it determines, after
notice and opportunity for hearing, that use of such sites for disposal
would have an unacceptable adverse impact on various resources,
including wildlife. EPA-New England proposes under Section 404(c) of
the Act to prohibit use of wetlands and other waters by the proposed
Nashua-Hudson Circumferential Highway (NHCH) as disposal sites for
dredged or fill material. The highway would directly eliminate 40 acres
of valuable wetlands and indirectly degrade or threaten extensive
additional wetland habitat. EPA-New England believes that filling the
wetlands and waters of the site may have an unacceptable adverse effect
on wildlife habitat and possibly municipal water supplies, and that
less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives may be
available.
Purpose of Public Notice
EPA seeks comment on this proposed determination to prohibit or
restrict the disposal of dredged or fill material into wetlands and
waters in the greater Nashua area associated with construction of the
proposed highway. See Solicitation of Comments, at the end of this
public notice, for further details.
Public Comment
Comments on or requests for additional copies of the proposed
determination should be submitted to the designated Record Clerk at the
EPA New England Regional Office, Lucy Delvalle, U.S. EPA, JFK Federal
Building, WWP, Boston, MA 02203-2211, (617) 565-3474.
EPA seeks comments concerning the issues enumerated under the
Solicitation of Comments at the end of the document. Copies of all
comments submitted in response to this notice, as well as the
administrative record for the proposed determination, will be available
for public inspection during normal working hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.) at the EPA Regional Office.
In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 231.4, the Regional
Administrator has decided that a hearing on this proposed 404(c)
determination would be in the public interest.
Hearing Date and Location
Monday, November 21, 1994 at 6 pm; Hudson Memorial School; 1
Memorial Drive; Hudson, NH.
Hearing Procedures
(a) written comments may be submitted prior to the hearing, and
both oral and written comments may be presented at the hearing.
(b) the Regional Administrator of EPA New England, or his designee,
will be the Presiding Officer at the hearing.
(c) any person may appear at the hearing and submit oral and/or
written statements or data and may be represented by counsel or other
authorized representative. Any person may present written statements or
recommendations for the hearing file prior to the time the hearing file
is closed to public submissions.
(d) the Presiding Officer will establish reasonable limits on the
nature, amount, or form of presentation of documentary material and
oral presentations. No cross examination of any hearing participant
shall be permitted, although the Presiding Officer may make appropriate
inquiries of any such participant.
(e) the hearing file will remain open for submission of written
comments until close of business, Tuesday, December 6, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark J. Kern, EPA Water Quality
Branch, JFK Federal Building, WWP, Boston, MA 02203-2211. (617) 565-
4426.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND
I. Section 404(c) Procedure
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., prohibits the
discharge of pollutants, including dredged or fill material, into the
waters of the United States, including wetlands, except in compliance
with, among other requirements, section 404. Section 404 establishes a
federal permit program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill
material subject to environmental regulations, known as the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, developed by EPA in conjunction with the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). Except for section 404(c) actions, the Corps may
issue permits authorizing dredged and fill material discharges into
waters and wetlands if they comply with, among other requirements,
EPA's 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Section 404(c) authorizes EPA, after
providing notice and opportunity for hearing, to prohibit or restrict
filling waters of the United States where it determines that such use
would have an unacceptable adverse effect on wildlife or other
specified environmental interests. EPA can exercise 404(c) to ``veto''
a permit the Corps has decided to issue or to protect valuable aquatic
areas in the absence of any specific permit decision.
Regulations published in 40 CFR Part 231 establish the procedures
to be followed by EPA in exercising its section 404(c) authority.
Whenever the Regional Administrator has reason to believe that use of a
site may have an unacceptable adverse effect on one or more of the
pertinent resources, he may begin the process by notifying the Corps of
Engineers, the applicant, and the landowners of the aquatic sites (if
different from the applicant), that he intends to issue a proposed
determination under section 404(c). Unless one of these parties
persuades the Regional Administrator within 15 days that no
unacceptable adverse effects will occur, the Regional Administrator
publishes a notice in the Federal Register of his proposed
determination, soliciting public comment and offering an opportunity
for a public hearing. Today's notice represents this step in the
process.
Following the public hearing and the close of the comment period,
the Regional Administrator may either withdraw the proposed
determination or prepare a recommended determination. (A decision to
withdraw may be reviewed at the discretion of the Assistant
Administrator for Water at EPA Headquarters.) If the Regional
Administrator prepares a recommended determination, he then forwards it
and the complete administrative record compiled in the Region to the
Assistant Administrator for Water at EPA Headquarters. The Assistant
Administrator makes the final decision affirming, modifying, or
rescinding the recommended determination.
II. Project Description and History
The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) proposes to
construct the Nashua-Hudson Circumferential Highway, a 13 mile limited
access toll road in the City of Nashua and the Towns of Hudson,
Litchfield and Merrimack in New Hampshire. A bypass highway, similar to
the NHCH, has been proposed for many years. For the past decade EPA has
raised environmental concerns regarding the highway. In its review of
an earlier 1984 EIS, EPA recommended permit denial due to concerns
about drinking water impacts at the Pennichuck Reservoir and wetland
losses. In 1990 the Army Corps of Engineers required a revised EIS to
focus on these issues.
During the past three years, EPA reviewed several draft EIS
documents, attended numerous meetings with DOT and the Corps, and
conducted many site visits. EPA consistently advised the Corps and
NHDOT that potential impacts to the Pennichuck Reservoir area,
wetlands, and other water resources must be avoided and reduced. In
1992, EPA sent several letters to the Corps stating concerns regarding
severity of the aquatic impacts, the need to examine other
alternatives, and the potential adverse drinking water impacts. EPA
alerted the Corps that these impacts could cause the highway to violate
the Guidelines.
The Corps released the revised draft EIS in October 1992. EPA
commented to the Corps in March 1993 that the proposed project violated
the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and should be denied a permit and that the
project was a candidate for prohibition under EPA's section 404(c)
authority. The Corps issued the final EIS in October 1993. EPA restated
its concerns in a November 1993 comment letter on the final EIS and
identified the highway as a likely candidate for action under section
404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
At several points in February and March 1994, the Corps indicated
its intent to issue a 404 permit for the NHCH, notwithstanding EPA's
objections. On March 31, 1994, EPA began the first step in the 404(c)
process by notifying DOT and the Corps that it believed the filling of
the wetlands and other waters may have an unacceptable adverse effect
on wildlife habitat and drinking water resources.
EPA subsequently sent the notification letter to the numerous
landowners in the right-of-way. The Corps, DOT and some landowners
submitted letters in response to the notice that EPA was commencing the
404(c) process. EPA also met with DOT and the Corps on May 13 and 26,
1994, and with approximately 20 landowners on June 23, 1994 in Hudson,
NH. Because these consultations did not convince the Regional
Administrator that the highway would not cause an unacceptable impact,
he is proceeding to this next step in the process.
III. Characteristics and Functions of the Site
The wetlands within the proposed alignment of the NHCH as well as
the 100+ square mile study area, as defined in the EIS, provide high
quality, diverse habitat for fish and wildlife, a travel corridor for
upland and wetland wildlife, food web production for on-site and
downstream biological communities, nutrient and pollutant uptake and
assimilation, floodwater storage, and flow moderation. Additionally,
they serve as an environment for fishing, hunting, bird watching and
other recreational activities. The EIS states that the vast majority of
the wetlands provide a wide spectrum of functions and values. Wildlife
habitat rated the highest at most of the sites.
Most of the wetlands in the study area are riparian systems which
border streams that flow to the Merrimack River, including Limit,
Second, Merrill, Glover, Chase, and Pennichuck Brooks. Wetlands
bordering streams provide special values. The streams transport organic
material from upstream areas in the watershed to the floodplain
wetlands, supporting food web production for on-site and downstream
biological communities. Riverine wetlands also assimilate nutrients and
pollutants, store floodwater, and moderate flows. These riparian
corridors are also valuable because of their high productivity and
travel use by wildlife.
The study area contains valuable wildlife habitat, and includes
over 200 different species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles.
The New Hampshire Heritage Program considers over 20% of these species
uncommon, rare, threatened, or endangered in the state. Over 75% of the
species in the study area utilize or depend on wetlands or riparian
systems for survival.
Some of the more than 100 bird species that utilize the study area
include great blue heron and green-backed heron. Several wetland birds
are uncommon or threatened, including species such as American bittern
and eastern screech owl. Many of these aquatic species need large
tracts of land to survive, such as northern waterthrush and belted
kingfisher; others, such as red-shouldered hawk, depend greatly on
riparian wetland systems. The bald eagle, a federal endangered species,
uses this portion of the Merrimack River during winter for feeding,
roosting and as a travel corridor. A peregrine falcon, also a federal
endangered species, was observed at the Second Brook wetland complex
during its migratory patterns.
More than 40 mammal species live in the study area, including otter
and mink. These aquatic species also require large blocks of habitat in
which to forage and breed. Some of the mammal species in the study area
are considered uncommon or rare in the state, such as fisher, hoary
bat, and southern bog lemming.
Over 30 species of reptiles and amphibians also inhabit the project
site such as the uncommon blue spotted salamander; the vast majority of
these species need wetlands for various life functions. Several species
of amphibians in New Hampshire are obligate vernal pool species; that
is, they require vernal pools to breed and survive. Moreover, some of
these species, which can live 20 to 25 years, return to their natal
pools each year to breed. Therefore, destruction of these pools may
eliminate entire breeding populations of these animals. For example,
one obligate species, spotted salamander, was observed at numerous
vernal pools directly on the proposed alignment. Another obligate
species, blue spotted salamander, a state listed species, was also
observed at several locations on the proposed alignment. Painted
turtles and other species were also observed using these valuable
aquatic systems.
Fish use wetlands as nursery areas and most important recreational
fishes spawn in wetlands. Second Brook and Glover Brook are stocked
with trout; the Merrimack River itself likely supports more than 30
fish species.
Area-sensitive species such as mink and otter as well as forest
interior birds, such as red-shouldered hawk, broad-winged hawk,
northern waterthrush, Canada warbler, barred owl, and black and white
warbler live in the study area. These wetland species typically require
large tracts for breeding and decline sharply with habitat
fragmentation and reductions in forest patch sizes.
Several large blocks of habitat in the study area support these
interior, secretive animals. These habitats, generally associated with
the large wetland complexes, are primarily undeveloped tracts of land
and water with several corridors to allow free range of movement. The
Second Brook area and lands to the east form a habitat block of
approximately 5,000 to 10,000 acres, uncommonly large for this portion
of New Hampshire. Large wildlife habitats also exist to the north in
Londonderry and Litchfield.
The Merrimack River, which flows north to south, dominates the
hydrology of the study area and is fed by numerous tributaries flowing
east to west. Since most of the proposed highway heads north and south,
the 13 mile road would inevitably cross and fill a number of
tributaries and sub-tributaries to the Merrimack.
Wetlands at the site help to maintain and/or improve water quality,
as well as regulate water quantity. Wetland plants and soil trap,
assimilate, and transform pollutants entering the watershed. Wetland
trees and shrubs retard floodwater, decreasing downstream flood stages.
The basal flow contribution from wetlands to streams during summer
stress periods provides water at the most important time of year.
The Merrimack River is an existing and future source of water
supply for a number of communities in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
In fact, the Merrimack River is a supplemental and emergency supply
source for Nashua, although the intake is upstream from the proposed
project. The Merrimack River is currently the primary drinking water
source for a number of communities in Massachusetts (e.g. Lawrence,
Lowell, Methuen, and Tewksbury), all of which are downstream of the
proposed project and take raw water directly from the Merrimack River,
just prior to treatment. Another community, Andover, MA, augments its
primary supply by pumping water from the Merrimack. In addition, the
Merrimack River has been considered as a future drinking water supply
source for several additional communities, many of which are downstream
(e.g. Haverhill, MA, North Andover, MA) of the proposed project.
The NHCH would result in approximately 1.25 miles of roadway and
two proposed interchanges within the Pennichuck Brook drainage
watershed. Pennichuck Brook and ponds serve as the primary public water
supply for the City of Nashua and for sections of other neighboring
communities. There are many small public water supply systems that rely
on drilled wells in Hudson and Litchfield. In addition, the Southern
New Hampshire Water Company has a high yield wellfield in southern
Litchfield.
EPA, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, having recognized the
important environmental resources in the area, have been working to
implement a multi-million dollar initiative to protect the aquatic
resources of the Merrimack River Watershed. Considerable time, money
and effort have been expended during the past three years to protect
water quality and wildlife habitat. This project would adversely affect
the very resources that EPA has targeted for protection with this
watershed initiative.
IV. Basis of the Proposed Determination
A. Section 404(c) Criteria
The CWA requires that exercise of the final section 404(c)
authority be based on a determination of ``unacceptable adverse
effect'' to municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fisheries,
wildlife or recreational areas. EPA's regulations define ``unacceptable
adverse effect'' at 40 CFR 231.2(e) as:
Impact on an aquatic or wetland ecosystem which is likely to
result in significant degradation of municipal water supplies
(including surface or groundwater) or significant loss of or damage
to fisheries, shellfishing, or wildlife habitat or recreation areas.
In evaluating the unacceptability of such impacts, consideration
should be given to the relevant portions of the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230).
One of the basic functions of section 404(c) is to police the
application of the section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Those portions of the
Guidelines relating to the analysis of less environmentally damaging
practicable alternatives and significant degradation of waters of the
United States are particularly important in the evaluation of
unacceptability of environmental impacts in this case. The Guidelines
forbid the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States if, among other requirements, there is a less
environmentally damaging practicable alternative or if it would cause
or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United
States.
B. Adverse Impacts of the Proposed Project
Direct Impacts to Wildlife
The project as currently proposed by DOT would directly fill
approximately 40 acres of wetlands.1 Destruction of wetland
acreage correlates with loss of functions and values including habitat
destruction, reduced primary and secondary productivity and alteration
of hydrological functions. The NHCH would also cross 18 streams,
causing the direct loss of 3,000 feet of stream bed, place 200 acres of
roadway on top of fourteen different high yield aquifers, and eliminate
600 acres of undeveloped upland habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\All of the full build alternatives described in the EIS would
cause similar long term impacts to the environment. Therefore, the
following summary is generally applicable to the other full build
options as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed project would disrupt high quality aquatic ecosystems
already experiencing stress from encroaching development in southern
New Hampshire. The large direct loss of wetlands would cause the death
and displacement of wildlife, and reduce water quality functions.
Uncommon species would suffer the most, especially area sensitive
animals, species dependent on riparian habitats, and smaller animals
that are either less mobile or depend on vernal pools.
The project would destroy at least 5 vernal pools. Vernal pools are
especially valuable to wildlife, particularly as breeding areas for
amphibians. Given the strong fidelity of numerous aquatic species to
their natal ponds, the direct destruction of the pools results in the
loss of a large and important wildlife resource. Several populations of
different species would be lost, including spotted salamander and the
rare state listed blue-spotted salamander.
The highway would impact one of the last essentially intact
ecosystems remaining in the greater Nashua area and cause impacts well
beyond the footprint of the fill. Numerous streams and wetlands would
be bisected, thereby altering the hydrology, disrupting species
movement and increasing predation of uncommon species.
Indirect Impacts to Wildlife
In addition to direct losses, the NHCH would degrade wetlands,
including vernal pools, that would border the proposed highway. When a
large highway fragments habitat blocks, common species proliferate at
the expense of the more unusual wetland wildlife species. Fragmentation
causes increased nest predation and parasitism to songbird populations.
Large highways act as funnels moving some predators, such as red fox
and crows, into previously buffered wetland interior areas.
Riparian corridors help maintain viable wildlife populations by
adding to the natural connectivity of habitats already fragmented by
development. Far ranging aquatic mammals inhabiting the site which
often travel along streams, such as fisher and mink, would be impacted
adversely. While such species are capable of crossing highways, they
often avoid areas of human disturbance. Fast moving vehicles would kill
some of these individuals which venture onto the highway especially at
night.
Large highways restrict wildlife movement and interfere with the
natural exchange of genetic material. A large highway with fences,
broken canopy, and vehicle activity throughout much of the night
presents a significant barrier to the movement patterns of animals,
resulting in increased direct mortality and avoidance behavior. Because
of its size and projected high traffic volume, this highway will likely
act as a barrier to restrict the movement of numerous wetland species
across the landscape, especially small mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians.
DOT has asserted that: (1) local roads and other disturbances have
already fragmented the area to some degree; (2) the undeveloped block
of habitat near Second Brook is actually 10,000 acres, not 3,000 or
5,000 acres and the road would not pass through the center of it; (3)
the bridges and culverts would provide for the movement of animals; (4)
DOT's consultant conducted a site specific analysis of the habitats and
wildlife; and (5) the vernal pools, several of which are impaired, do
not contain any special species. EPA agrees in part with some of these
statements, but nevertheless believes the NHCH could have unacceptable
effects on wildlife. EPA is, however, especially interested in
receiving comment on the five issues raised above.
In considering DOT's statements, EPA has been mindful of several
factors. First, while there are local roads in the area, most of them
are roughly 25' wide and have tree canopies which cover most of the
road. Fragmentation impacts are generally proportional to the size of
the interruption. A 250' wide highway such as the NHCH, with activity
throughout the day and night would normally cause an order of magnitude
or greater impact than existing conditions.
Second, EPA agrees that the overall habitat block approximates
10,000 acres, but this fact only underscores the value of the area for
wildlife. That a roadway further east could cross more of the center of
the block does not change the severe impacts of a highway in the
present proposed location. Third, we hope that the bridges and culverts
would help with animal movement patterns; however, despite these
efforts less than 2% of the roadway will allow passage and, in any
event, there is little known regarding animal use of oversized
culverts. These passages would not assist many of the small species
searching for food or breeding sites that cannot find or travel to the
nearest potential passageway. Other long ranging species can and will
cross highways without using a culvert and are subject to roadkill.
While the EIS provided much useful information, it contained
relatively few site specific wildlife observations and the likely
impacts of the highway. Thus, EPA contracted with wildlife experts to
gain site specific information lacking in the EIS. Preliminary results
for reptiles and amphibians confirm that many of the vernal pools the
NHCH would impact provide high quality breeding habitat for many
wetland species, including a rare state listed species.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Construction of the highway may also spur secondary development
along the route which will degrade additional aquatic resources. The
highway would allow quicker access to the region, encouraging greater
development especially for certain types of projects. Location and
access are major siting criteria for many types of commercial and
industrial development. In addition, these projects normally require
reasonably large tracts of land increasing the prospects of adverse
impacts to wetland habitat. Over time, additional point and non-point
contamination sources may degrade the quality of both surface and
groundwater supply resources.
Based on the number of permit applications that EPA, the Corps, and
the State have reviewed the past 10 years, the greater Nashua area has
experienced some of the most severe cumulative loss of aquatic habitat
in New England. The direct and indirect impacts from the proposed
highway would aggravate the severe cumulative loss of habitat and
depletion of biodiversity that has occurred. Furthermore, other large
highways proposed in this vicinity, such as the Manchester Airport
highway, the Nashua southwest bypass, and the Windham-Salem Route 111
bypass are currently in the planning stages. If built, these highways
would result in additional cumulative impacts to the wetlands and
streams that flow into this portion of the Merrimack River.
Water Quality Impacts
The NHCH would also reduce overall water quality as a result of
temporary construction related adverse impacts, the long-term adverse
impacts from contamination from highway stormwater runoff, the
anticipated secondary and cumulative impacts associated with newly
constructed highways, and the potential for bulk chemical or fuel
spills. Greater amounts of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants
associated with urban runoff, such as heavy metals, oil and grease, and
organic contaminants could enter groundwater and tributary streams and
flow into the Merrimack River. Sedimentation results in turbidity and
often transports pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins into the
streams, which adversely affects aquatic life.
EPA is aware that DOT proposes to make a substantial effort to
reduce impacts to drinking water resources. It plans to install a
closed drainage system near the Pennichuck water supply that diverts a
majority of the runoff to a detention pond downstream of the intake. It
also proposes to divert drainage from the F.E. Everett Turnpike (not
part of the NHCH), several bridges (including crossing the Merrimack
River), several interchanges, including the Turnpike and Route 102, and
other locations, and discharge the contaminated water into lined
detention basins for water quality renovation, prior to being
discharged to a surface water source (e.g. the Merrimack River or an
associated tributary). DOT also states it will carefully maintain these
structures and ponds and designate a Environmental Coordinator to
oversee the implementation of the plans. In addition, there has been
discussion about implementing some type of long-term water quality
monitoring plan to evaluate the effectiveness of selected detention
basins.
While these measures will help considerably, and in the case of the
F.E. Everett Turnpike, actually improve an existing situation, the
highway would unavoidably increase overall pollution to these water
supply sources. The NHCH would place over 200 acres of land under
pavement and impact a number of surface and groundwater public water
supplies by adding contaminants to these aquatic systems. Stormwater
runoff from the highway would degrade both surface and groundwater.
While mitigation measures could reduce these impacts, it is difficult
to control fully the pollutants generated by a large highway crossing
many streams and wetlands.
For example, long-term problems such as accidents, spills,
maintenance and disposal would remain. Detention ponds hopefully remove
the majority of the pollutants, but some pollution passes through and
enters aquatic systems. Over time, detention ponds may become a sink of
pollution unless properly and frequently dredged and maintained. In
time, impermeable lining material may be altered in such a way that it
could be functioning less efficiently. Also, numerous portions of the
highway would drain directly to groundwater, wetlands and streams.
Secondary development in the watershed, in part spurred by the
highway, would worsen water quality concerns. Historical studies and a
recent planning study (I-190/Wachusett Reservoir Water Supply
Protection Study, 1992) support the fact that the presence of
interstate highways encourages development and induces growth. Highways
provide the necessary access to areas where development has not
occurred, as well as additional access to existing developed areas. The
Pennichuck Corporation, which owns and operates the Pennichuck Water
Supply, controls only 11% (approximately 1800 acres) of the entire
Pennichuck Brook watershed. In fact, the Pennichuck Corporation has
sold nearly 200 acres of watershed land in recent years and EPA
anticipates continued development within the watershed.
The NHCH could directly or indirectly adversely impact a number of
groundwater resources, particularly in the communities of Hudson and
Litchfield along the project corridor. The increased secondary and
cumulative growth will be concentrated at or in the vicinity of the
proposed interchanges, within sensitive water supply resource areas.
Groundwater degradation is a nearly inevitable consequence of increased
development, increased land use, and industrial development.
Additionally, there is no assurance that new interchanges would not be
constructed in the future along this proposed limited access highway,
which would further increase developmental pressures.
The FEIS also concludes that any of the full or partial build
alternatives will degrade or pose a contamination threat to surface
water and groundwater resources as a result of stormwater runoff, the
possibility of accidental spills, and short-term construction impacts.
The FEIS presents these impacts to water supply resources as being
essentially unavoidable and states that these potential adverse impacts
should be minimized and mitigated, primarily through the use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and other structural means. However, the
future responsibility of mitigating any adverse impacts to water supply
resources from accelerated or enhanced associated development would be
deferred to local zoning and planning boards.
C. Project Need and Alternatives
There is clearly a need to reduce or minimize traffic congestion in
the greater Nashua area and the Central Business District (CBD) in
particular. This is especially true at the Taylor's Falls Bridge, the
only crossing of the Merrimack River in New Hampshire south of
Manchester. Several primary routes converge on the bridge--Routes 111,
102, and 3A. However, no alternative, including the NHCH, will solve
all the traffic difficulties; under all options traffic problems
remain.
EPA requests public comment on the effectiveness of various
alternatives to reduce traffic problems in the Nashua area, including
the NHCH. We also request comment on other alternatives or combinations
of options which would cause considerably less environmental damage,
including partial build options, mass transit, reducing existing
traffic during rush hours, and improving or expanding existing local
roads (see discussion below).
Background
EPA concurred with the project purpose as originally defined by the
Corps: ``to provide a transportation improvement to assist east-west
traffic movements and to reduce congestion on existing bridges and
streets in and near the central business districts of Nashua and Hudson
by adding new crossings of the Merrimack River.'' However, the EIS
includes the additional ``goal'' of reducing traffic volumes for the
CBD in the year 2010 to a level less than existing traffic levels, as
specifically measured by the percent change in LOS F miles (explained
below) from 1990 to 2010. Alternatives which did not meet this specific
goal were eliminated as being ``impracticable.'' Because this test for
practicability is constrained in space (central business district),
time (compares two specific years of analysis) and measure (percentage
of miles of level of service F), it artificially eliminated certain
alternatives from further consideration.
EPA believes the basic project purpose, in keeping with the
requirements of the Guidelines, would be: to reduce a large portion of
the traffic congestion in the greater Nashua area (as defined in the
EIS), with greater importance being given to the Central Business
District. This basic project purpose would provide a sound basis to
evaluate and judge the practicability of various options.
Traffic engineers analyze traffic conditions and future projections
using a number of different techniques, including the following:
1. Average daily traffic volume (ADT) for roadway segments
2. Level of Service (LOS)--for roadway segments
3. Level of Service (LOS)--for intersections
4. Free-Flow and Congested Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT)
Typically highway departments use a peak-hour analysis of existing
and projected conditions to determine the need for highway
improvements. Existing and future ``Levels of Service'' are analyzed.
LOS is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions assigned
a letter A-F. LOS A and B represent relatively little traffic and LOS E
and F represent heavy traffic conditions and vehicular delay for at
least peak hours (prime commuting hours).
All of these methods were used with Nashua to predict future
traffic conditions (2010) in three separate locations:
1. The central business district (CBD)
2. The F.E. Everett Turnpike (Turnpike)
3. Roadway segments bordering the CBD
DOT's Traffic Projections
The proposed NHCH provides some traffic relief for the central
business district. Using DOT data and models, the full build would
remove LOS F' in the CBD (F' is worse than F), while, for example, if a
partial build highway from Route 102 north to the Turnpike were
constructed, 1.2 miles of LOS F' would remain.
In the CBD in 2010 with the NHCH built, 4.5 miles of traffic
congestion (LOS F', F, & E) would result. Under the no build condition,
8.9 miles of congestion would remain (LOS F', F, & E).
However, the proposed NHCH does not provide substantial traffic
relief for the entire study area. Using DOT's data and models, any
traffic measurement--ADT, LOS for intersections, LOS for road
segments--shows modest traffic improvements for the NHCH. In the study
area in 2010, 27.3 miles of congestion (LOS E, F, and F') would remain.
Under a no build alternative 39.7 miles of congestion would result.
When one examines the vehicle hours of travel (VHT), it appears
that the partial build option supplies a substantial portion of traffic
relief that the NHCH would provide. The percent of free-flow traffic
would be 69% for the NHCH verses 66% for the partial build from Route
102 north to the Turnpike. The following table summarizes the congested
and free-flow hours of travel:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congested
Alternative Free-flow VHT VHT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-Build (2010)......................... 169,172 (50.1%) 168,416
Full Build (2010)....................... 162,461 (68.5%) 74,727
Partial Build (2010).................... 164,646 (65.7%) 86,140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT's models may also overestimate traffic benefits from a full
build highway. For example, the model assumes the same future traffic
growth in the study area, with or without the highway. EPA's experience
with other highways in New England suggests that they do alter land use
and development patterns. We have no reason to believe that this
highway would be any different. If the highway generates more
development, the corresponding increase in traffic could increase
levels beyond current projections for the full build (or reduce
projections for the no build option). We request comment from the
public on whether the highway will likely spur additional development
and traffic growth.
Increased traffic in the study area resulting from the NHCH could
place additional burdens on the two North-South roads in the region, I-
93 and especially the F.E. Everett Turnpike. Both of these roads are
proposed for widening in the near future, and major portions of the
Turnpike will be at LOS F conditions even after expansion. Even with
the EIS assuming no increased growth in traffic caused by the highway,
the EIS shows that parts of the Turnpike already experiencing LOS F
conditions will receive greater traffic volumes once the NHCH is in
place. This condition would worsen if the NHCH generates additional
traffic to the area.
The current analysis gives little weight to toll avoidance.
However, this is a factor that could cause the full build to reduce
congestion less than projected in the CBD because the Taylor's Falls
Bridge, the primary focal point of traffic in the CBD, would be the
only non-toll road remaining in New Hampshire to cross the Merrimack
River south of Manchester. (The Sagamore Bridge, currently free, would
require a toll once it is part of the NHCH.) Some percentage of
vehicles currently using the Sagamore Bridge would avoid paying the
toll by using either the Taylor's Falls Bridge, or the Tyngsborough
Bridge, five miles south in Massachusetts. The EIS did not discuss the
issue of tolls and toll avoidance, and EPA requests comment on these
issues.
In summary, the proposed highway would only provide partial traffic
relief for the overall traffic patterns in the greater Nashua area.
Other measures of reducing traffic volumes, which cause much less
impact to the environment, may also provide some portion of the relief
that the NHCH would provide. Such measures and combinations of measures
could include partial build options, traffic demand management measures
(TDM), traffic systems management (TSM), and local improvements.
Partial Build Options
Partial build alternatives would involve constructing one or more
segments of the NHCH but something short of the full highway proposed
by DOT. All the partial build alternatives discussed below have
substantially less impact to wildlife because the partial build options
would not fragment the 10,000 acre habitat block, would not destroy
several valuable vernal pools, and it would avoid nine streams and
other valuable wetlands. Partial build alternatives include:
Southern Bridge. This option would be an expansion of the
Sagamore bridge in the south from the F.E. Everett Turnpike in Nashua
to Route 3A in Hudson, allowing direct access from the Turnpike across
the Merrimack River to Hudson.
Two Bridges. This option would include expansion of the
Sagamore bridge in the south from the F.E. Everett Turnpike in Nashua
to Route 3A in Hudson and construction of a new bridge in the north
also from the F.E. Everett Turnpike in Merrimack to Route 3A in
Litchfield. Thus, it would provide a new crossing of the Merrimack
River between Nashua and Manchester.
Partial Build to Route 102. Identical to the above
alternative, this option would also extend the northern section two
miles east to Route 102 in Litchfield.
Partial Build to Route 111. This alternative is the same
as above, plus an extension of the northern section another four miles
southeast to Route 111.
Partial build alternatives, as measured by LOS of segments, appear
to do relatively little to improve traffic in the CBD. However, as
measured by average daily traffic, the partial build option from Route
102 north to the F.E. Everett Turnpike, for example, would provide over
50% of the traffic benefits of the full build in the CBD and over 75%
of the traffic benefits of the full build for the entire traffic
network. DOT states in several documents that a bridge to the north
would provide traffic benefits to the study area.
However, DOT has also stated that the partial build options will
not provide traffic relief or could even make the traffic situation
worse, including adding more traffic on local roads, such as Route 3A.
We understand that local roads in the area will be busier with more
cars in the future, but that may be true if the NHCH is built as well.
EPA seeks comment on this issue as well.
TDM/TSM Measures
Traffic demand measures (TDM) reduce the number of vehicles on
roadways especially during peak travel times when the worst congestion
occurs. Traffic system management (TSM) refers to infrastructure
improvements to enhance the efficiency of vehicle movement.
DOT and the Nashua Regional Planning Commission have already made
important strides in acquiring funds in recent years to pursue some
TDM/TSM measures. Some of the projects which have been funded or for
which they are pursuing funding include:
1. improving traffic circulation at Taylor's Falls Bridge
2. constructing an intermodal transit facility (downtown Nashua)
3. expanding existing and building new park and ride facilities
4. completing a statewide plan for TDM, mass transit, and high
occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV)
5. buying old railroad corridors for bike and walking trails
6. building an HOV lane at the Bedford toll--2 year trial
7. providing free shuttle bus service along Main Street in Nashua for 2
years
8. improving downtown traffic circulation in Nashua
Additional and expanded TDM and planning techniques for managing
and reducing peak congestion, which appear to have the greatest
potential in the greater Nashua area include:
(1) organized operation of mini-vans for car-pooling and ride-
sharing;
(2) better management, operation, and extension of the local bus
system;
(3) changing future land use development patterns to encourage
cluster developments;
(4) parking disincentives;
(5) removing disincentives to implement and utilize mass transit;
(6) extending rail service to the greater Nashua and Manchester
area from Boston;
(7) telecommunications in lieu of travel; and
(8) incentives to business for implementing staggered work hours
and many of the measures listed above.
It is important that TDM measures be combined with TSM to prevent
the improved mobility from attracting new users and leading to future
congestion problems. Traffic flow improvements could include signal
system timing/optimization, addition of turning lanes, restrictions of
single occupant vehicles (to enhance HOV operations and attract users),
fringe park and ride lots, and pedestrian/non-motorized improvements.
Local road improvements
Local improvements include anything that expands capacity on the
basic existing traffic network, for example, improving traffic flow
across the Taylor's Falls Bridge. While some TDM/TSM measures could
also be listed under this category, other local improvements could
involve adding additional lanes, overpasses, mini-bypasses, or other
structural changes. Since the EIS does not focus on this issue very
much, EPA would appreciate comments on needed improvements to the
existing traffic network.
D. Mitigation
The current mitigation plan consists of avoiding, minimizing and
compensating for environmental losses. DOT has endeavored to minimize
impacts by proposing: 1. two bridges and five box culverts at some of
the stream locations; 2. closed drainage systems to divert and treat
runoff in order to minimize impacts to drinking water resources; 3. 26'
median widths at wetland locations; 4. 2:1 side slopes to minimize
impacts; and 5. two retaining walls to reduce impacts.
The compensatory mitigation portions of the plan consist of the
following: 1. attempted creation or restoration of 44 acres of wetlands
mainly at the former Benson's Wild Animal Farm; 2. bringing Merrill
Brook above ground at Benson's; 3. constructing water detention basins
adjacent to the roadway; 4. preserving an additional 100 acres at
Benson's and 135 acres along an old alignment that DOT owns in the
southern portion of the site; and 5. protecting water supply by
capturing part of the runoff from the existing F.E. Everett Turnpike.
In general, DOT has proposed a substantial mitigation plan,
especially to minimize impacts. However, EPA believes that the
environmental benefits, especially for wildlife, of the proposed
compensation plan fall well short of the impacts the NHCH would cause.
While creation and restoration may be beneficial to the aquatic
environment, especially when applied at a low value site in a
relatively undisturbed landscape setting, wetland creation suffers from
both theoretical limitations and practical problems.
First, the poor track record associated with wetland creation
suggests that it would be unwise to rely on this mitigation to provide
all of the intended benefits. Some wetland functions, such as flood
storage, can normally be replicated successfully. Attempts to mitigate
wildlife habitat losses have met with mixed success, and benefit only a
few select species. There has been little or no demonstrated ability to
recreate other wetland values such as groundwater discharge and
recharge or the complex interactions of water, soil and plants involved
in the uptake and transformation of nutrients and pollutants.
DOT has made an effort to address this uncertainty by offering to
construct the mitigation at Benson's before the highway can proceed.
This would allow the success or failure at Benson's to be evaluated
with greater certainty. EPA believes that demonstrating success at the
Benson's site or other selected sites prior to highway construction
makes sense and should be part of any mitigation plan should the NHCH
be partially or fully constructed. However, even if successful, it
would not alter the insufficiency of the current mitigation plan. The
creation site borders 3 roads, including the busy Route 111. The
potential for human alteration and disturbance, from off road vehicles
and other human intrusion, would remain, as well as the impacts to
wildlife from fragmentation and being hit by cars and trucks. Thus,
restoring the site would only offset a modest amount of the impacts the
highway would cause to uncommon species in the study area.
Second, the proposed mitigation would not replace many lost
functions and values. It would not compensate for fragmenting one of
the last large undeveloped tracts remaining in the study area, which
provides an oasis for many species of wildlife. The plan would not
replace riparian streams, floodplains or the spectrum of natural
resource values these areas provide. Also, it would do little to offset
the large indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts the highway would
inevitably cause or contribute to.
While preservation cannot replace the direct and indirect impacts
from fragmentation, it can reduce the likely secondary and cumulative
impacts. However, the current preservation proposal appears
insufficient to provide substantial environmental benefits. The 100
acres at Benson's, while useful to buffer the creation area, would be
located between the new highway and the developed portions of Hudson,
providing only modest wildlife access and benefits. The 135 acres,
which is part of the old right-of-way, protects some useful habitat;
however, it is a long linear parcel and some of it lies inside of or
adjacent to the NHCH.
Three areas appear to be especially valuable and vulnerable to
secondary impacts in the future: (1) the 5,000-10,000 acre block in the
southeastern portion of the study area; (2) a large wetland and upland
complex in the southern part of Litchfield and Londonderry, containing
several rare species and bordering other protected lands; and (3)
floodplain forest and farmland along the Merrimack River in Litchfield.
We request comment on the adequacy of the current preservation package
and whether additional preservation options, such as portions of those
described above, could offset the likely secondary and cumulative
impacts of the highway.
After considering the project's impacts and the uneven track record
of wetland creation and enhancement projects to compensate for projects
involving much less severe impacts, EPA has concluded that the adverse
effects of the highway will be difficult to mitigate sufficiently to
render them environmentally acceptable. The mitigation plan described
in the EIS and other documents would not compensate for the severe
impacts to wildlife which the project would cause.
V. Proposed Determination
Based on the current proposal, the Regional Administrator proposes
to recommend that the discharge of dredged or fill material into
wetlands and other waters associated with the Nashua-Hudson
Circumferential Highway be prohibited. This action would not prohibit
other uses of the land on the alignment, nor would it preclude possible
permitting of partial build alternatives.
This proposed determination is based primarily on the adverse
impacts to wildlife. EPA has already concluded and stated in previous
letters that the project would cause or contribute to significant
degradation of waters of the United States and violate the
Sec. 404(b)(1) Guidelines. It would directly destroy 40 acres of
wetlands in an area beset with cumulative impacts, and will degrade
additional wetlands through secondary and indirect impacts. Based on
current information, the Regional Administrator has reason to believe
that the adverse impacts of the Nashua-Hudson Circumferential Highway
would be unacceptable. Moreover, these impacts may be in part
avoidable.
VI. Solicitation of Comments
EPA solicits comments on all issues discussed in this notice. In
particular, we request information on the likely adverse impacts to
wildlife and other functional values of the streams and wetlands at the
site. We also seek information pertaining to plants, animals and
hydrology of the site and adjacent lands. All studies of the natural
resource values of the area or informal observations would be helpful.
Information on species or communities of regional and/or statewide
importance would be especially useful.
While the significant loss of wildlife habitat serves as EPA's main
basis for this proposed 404(c) determination, New England has
additional concerns with the proposed project including water quality
and drinking water impacts, alternatives, and mitigation. In
particular, EPA solicits comments on particular aspects of the project
including:
(1) The presence and likely impacts to fish and wildlife resources
using the study area;
(2) The potential for indirect impacts from the NHCH to fish and
wildlife resources, such as fragmentation, noise and roadkill;
(3) The extent to which local roads and other disturbances have or
have not fragmented the study area;
(4) The extent to which the bridges and culverts would or would not
provide for the movement of animals;
(5) The potential for secondary wetland losses, through additional
development that would benefit from access to the highway;
(6) Evidence of past and likely future cumulative impacts to the
aquatic environment;
(7) Information on potential for drinking water and other water
quality impacts;
(8) Information on whether the new highway would generate
additional traffic and land use changes compared to a no-build
alternative;
(9) The extent to which additional traffic would travel across the
Taylor's Falls Bridge and the Tyngsborough Bridge to avoid paying tolls
on the Sagamore Bridge or the northern bridge.
(10) The extent to which partial build options would provide
traffic relief or make the traffic situation worse, including adding
more traffic on local roads, such as Route 3A;
(11) The effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the NHCH in
reducing traffic congestion;
(12) Information on the availability of less environmentally
damaging practicable alternatives to satisfy the basic project
purpose--reducing traffic congestion in the greater Nashua area--taking
into account cost, technology, and logistics;
(13) The extent to which local improvements, such as adding
additional lanes, overpasses, and mini-bypasses, could provide traffic
relief;
(14) The effectiveness of TDM/TSM in reducing traffic under a no
build or partial build alternative. If a full build is permitted, what
TDM/TSM solutions should be implemented and why?;
(15) Information on the current mitigation plan and whether it
would replace the functions and values of the aquatic habitats
destroyed or degraded;
(16) The potential for a different or supplemental mitigation plan
which could reduce the direct and indirect impacts of the NHCH to an
environmentally acceptable level. Mitigation could involve avoidance,
by bridging for example, additional wetland creation, habitat
preservation, additional water quality mitigation measures, watershed
and aquifer preservation, up-front success requirements or other
factors. Recommendations of appropriate sites are encouraged.
(17) The current preservation package and additional preservation
options, and whether the protection could offset the likely secondary
and cumulative impacts of the highway.
The record will remain open for comments until December 6, 1994.
All comments will be fully considered in reaching a decision to either
withdraw the proposed determination or forward to EPA Headquarters a
recommended determination to prohibit or restrict the use of the
wetlands as a disposal site for construction of Nashua-Hudson
Circumferential Highway.
For further information contact: Mr. Mark J. Kern, U.S. E.P.A., JFK
Federal Building, WWP, Boston, MA 02203-2211, (617) 565-4426.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 94-26510 Filed 10-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
