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
Response: The project will comply with the stormwater management standards as identified in the
2008 MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, with further guidance provided in the 2004 MassDOT
Stormwater Handbook for Highways and Bridges. The project contains a mix of new development
and redevelopment. New development components will comply with all of the performance
standards. Redevelopment components will meet the performance standards to the ―maximum
extent practicable,‖ and result in an improvement over existing conditions. The MassDOT 2004
Stormwater Handbook for Highways and Bridges outlines a ―macro‖ approach to stormwater
management specifically for roadway projects because of their linear nature. The macro approach
evaluates the entire drainage system within the study area as a whole rather than at individual
outlets. Under this approach, the designer/engineer treats the highway segment under study in
relationship to its overall drainage area, with overall impacts analyzed and addressed. All outlets
(existing and proposed) have been evaluated to determine the highest level of treatment that could
practicably be incorporated into the design, given the project constraints.
2.3.5 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission
The Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC) submitted a letter dated December 19, 2011.
MVPC-1: First, environmental mitigation such as wetlands replication and invasive species control on site has
marginal if any real improvement on the habitat quality along the river. We encourage MassDOT to persuade
environmental regulatory agencies to allow them to direct their mitigation efforts toward larger scale projects in the
watershed in the vicinity of the project, in this case the Great Marsh, in order to have more impactful results. There is
significant multi-stakeholder Task Force; involvement in coastal wetland restoration and invasive species control in
the nearby Merrimack River estuary that would benefit greatly from MassDOT resources. The results of such an
effort would far exceed the improvements projected by the cumulative local mitigation activities.
Response: The comment is noted. MassDOT‘s proposed wetland mitigation is consistent with the
applicable regulatory performance standards in the Wetlands Regulations for replication of BVW.
MassDOT has finalized mitigation area design after coordination with the conservation commissions.
We understand that there is an upcoming project to restore a portion of the Great Marsh in
Salisbury, though MassDOT‘s involvement in this project is unlikely due to the Massachusetts
Wetlands Regulations requirement to provide on-site mitigation. It is important to note that no BVW
will be impacted in Salisbury or Newburyport, and consequently, BVW mitigation is not proposed in
these municipalities. BVW will be impacted and mitigated for in Amesbury.
MVPC-2: Second, the proposed non-motorized trail will provide tremendous connections to the bicycle/pedestrian
network being built by the three communities and access points are invaluable to those connections. The City of
Amesbury has discussed the possibility of pursuing an additional access point to the trail from Main Street in the
future and we ask that this be taken into consideration during the design of the bridge.
Response: Amesbury has requested consideration of an additional access point to the Shared-Use
Path in the vicinity of the existing Visitor Information Center at 520 Main Street. 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, the limited space available at the 520 Main Street location and
2-34