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
and vibration. I would ask you to require the recommended time of year (TOY) restrictions be utilized, as detailed by
species in the Mass Division of Fisheries Technical Report TR-47. This document does a good job of showing the
appropriate environmental windows. There are fish restoration programs underway and we want to eliminate ANY
potential threats to them and the TOY restrictions will help.
Response: 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 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.‖ A copy of the DMF correspondence is included in Appendix C.
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.
GP-2: Noise from construction needs to be addressed early in your process. This is a joint filing (MEPA/NEPA) and
the two have distinctly different methods of dealing with this issue. MassDEP relies on L90 numbers, while the
Federal- Agencies rely on Leq numbers. This will lead to very confusing comparisons. DEP uses a 10 db L90
maximum over baseline to establish enforcement actions. MassDOT claims they are, not subject to this or any
oversight and will control noise through a noise policy through the contractors. My feeling is that this approach does
not work and puts an unfair burden and potential health hazards on the sensitive receptors adjacent to the project.
MEPA can and should use hard upper limit numbers to protect the Public Health of the affected neighbors in the
FEIR. MEPA should also clarify any jurisdictional disputes regarding enforcement on nuisance noise between DEP,
FHWA, and MassDOT. When all is said and done a clear concise enforcement policy regarding nuisance noise
should be in the FEIR.
Response: The analyses of highway noise and construction noise for the project show full
compliance with existing regulations and policies. MassDOT will require the design/build contractor
to submit a noise control plan for review and approval. The noise control plan will be implemented to
minimize noise during construction. Noise monitoring will be required to document compliance with
the noise monitoring plan. Predicted or measured noise levels that exceed or approach the
recommended construction noise limits will be addressed. The construction noise limits specified in
the construction noise mitigation analysis are in fact referenced to L 10 limits.
The DEP regulation pertains to ―construction and demolition equipment… which may be fitted and
accommodated with equipment… to suppress sound or may be operated in a manner so as to
suppress sound.‖ 310 CMR 7.10(2). (Emphasis added.) Moreover, one of the statutes that
authorizes the DEP noise regulation, Chapter 111, Section 142B of the General Laws, provides: ―this
section shall not operate to abrogate any of the powers and duties, as defined by general or special
law, of any agency or political subdivision of the commonwealth.‖ MassDOT has a duty to replace
structurally deficient bridges, including the Whittier Bridge, under St. 2008, c. 233, An Act Financing
An Accelerated Structurally-Deficient Bridge Improvement Program.
2-68