Final Report - VHB.com

1/Gurnet Road is projected to improve from LOS F to LOS C and the intersection of
Gurnet Road and Forrestal Drive/Lee’s Tire is projected to improve from LOS C to
LOS B.
In general, each of the three options either moderately or substantially meets the five
study objectives. As for the objectives of “improving mobility” and “accommodating
NASB travel demands,” Option 3 is rated as moderately meeting the objectives as
compared to Options 1 and 2, which are rated as substantially meeting them. Options
1 and 2 provide direct free-flow ramps as compared to Option 3, which includes a
series of traffic-signal–controlled intersections.
Environmental Impacts
The locations of the proposed interchanges providing direct access from US Route 1
into the NASB for Options 1 and 2 occupy the same general area. Therefore, these
two options affect similar environmental resources but differ slightly due to different
footprints associated with each. However, Option 3 is located closer to Cooks Corner
(i.e., to the east relative to Options 1 or 2); therefore, it affects a different set of
environmental resources, which are discussed in the following subsections.
Environmental Resources
Option 1 and 2 would both impact a large scrub-shrub/forested wetlands, located
just west of the Merrymeeting Plaza on State Route 24 (i.e., Bath Road). Additionally,
the “trumpet/loop” portion of Option 1 would be located on the north side of
US Route 1, impacting a second emergent wetlands system. Potential impacts to
wetlands for Strategy 1 range from 1.2 acres (Option 3) to 4.0 acres (Option 1).
Stream-crossing impacts range from one stream crossing associated with Option 1 to
three stream crossings associated with Option 3.
The primary measure for water quality used in this Feasibility Study is the number of
new impervious surfaces associated with the construction of each option (i.e.,
measured as the number of acres of new pavement). Option 1 has the largest project
footprint of the three options evaluated and therefore would have a slightly larger
impact on water quality than Option 2 or 3. However, potential water-quality
impacts can be managed through the use of appropriate water quality best
management practices (BMPs) including stormwater detention and treatment
structures. Such measures would be designed if any of the options is selected for
advancement to preliminary design.
All options for Strategy 1 would impact the floodplains with Option 1 having the
greater impact on these resources than Options 2 and 3. The “trumpet/loop”
footprint of Option 1 would be located primarily within the Zone AE floodplain
associated with the Androscoggin River. This is one of the more notable impacts
associated with any of the proposed options and would require discussion with
resource agencies such as the Maine DEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Conclusions 148