Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ...

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project FEIR
Chapter 2.0: Response to Comments on the Environmental Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Report
cofferdams around existing and proposed bridge piers, are designed to prevent impacts to the river and to allow
traffic to continue to flow during construction. We support these construction controls and recommend that FHWA
and MassDOT condition the in-water cofferdam construction work to be consistent with time of year (TOY)
restrictions and other recommendations from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and the National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Response: The comment is noted. Consultations with the DMF and NMFS have been completed,
and MassDOT has agreed to comply with DMF and NMFS conservation recommendations.
As noted in the correspondence from the MA DMF dated December 9, 2011 (subsequent to the
publishing of the EA/DEIR): ―If the project avoids simultaneous installation of multiple cofferdams,
Marine Fisheries does not recommend any time of year (TOY) restrictions on the construction
process.‖ NMFS indicated the following in a letter dated June 8, 2011: ―Based on the analysis that
any effects to shortnose sturgeon from the proposed action will be insignificant or discountable,
NMFS is able to concur with the determination that the proposed reconstruction of the Whittier
Bridge in Amesbury, Massachusetts is not likely to adversely affect any listed species under NMFS
jurisdiction.‖
MassDOT has committed to DMF and NMFS conservation recommendations, including limiting the
installation or removal of cofferdams within the river to one at a time; therefore, no TOY restrictions
are required for the project.
2.2.3 Essex National Heritage Commission
The Essex National Heritage Commission submitted a comment letter dated December 21, 2011.
ENHC-1: Our review of the EA/DEIR identified two important actions that would significantly strengthen the integrity
and utility of the proposed Shared-Use Path. The first entails providing a connection between the path and Main
Street in Amesbury. Doing so will greatly increase the path's use by Amesbury residents as well as the myriad of
cyclists who already access the region's upriver communities via Main Street.
Response: Providing a connection from the Shared-Use Path to Main Street near the visitor center
would be very difficult to permit and, therefore, is not included in the project. But such a connection
would not be precluded by the project. The visitor center, the former Smith‘s Chain Bridge Filling
Station No. 3, has been determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer to be eligible for
individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As such, any construction on its lot or
modifications of the building would trigger review under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and would require modification of the project‘s Section 106 Memorandum of
Agreement. If determined to be an adverse impact under Section 106, Section 4(f) would be
triggered. Additionally, due to the limited space available at the 520 Main Street location and the
difference in elevation between the visitor center parcel and the Shared-Use Path (approximately 40
feet), a connection would not be feasible, would require a large ramp structure with grades in excess
of handicapped accessibility requirements and would result in additional wetland impacts to Wetland
I, located behind the visitor center building. Additional wetland impacts in excess of 40 square feet at
Wetland I would result in the need for wetlands Variance for the project, the timeline for which would
push the project outside of the Accelerated Bridge Program funding schedule.
2-12