Expanded Environmental Notification Form:
I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
Reading, Woburn, Stoneham, and Wakefield, Massachusetts
August 31, 2007
Table of Contents
ENF Form
Summary Details
Project Description
Land Section
Rare Species Section
Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands Section
Water Supply Section
Wastewater Section
Transportation – Traffic Generation Section
Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section
Energy Section
Air Quality Section
Solid and Hazardous Waste Section
Historical and Archaeological Resources Section
Attachments
Locus Map
Existing Conditions Plan
Proposed Conditions Plan
ENF Distribution List
Expanded Project Narrative:
I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study Final Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
1. Framework for the Study
2. Defining the Problem
3. Developing and Evaluating Alternatives
4. Recommendations
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
For Office Use Only
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs g MEPA Office
ENF
Environmental
Notification Form
EOEA No.:
MEPA Analyst:
Phone: 617-626-
The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review in accordance with
the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.
Project Name: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
Street: Intersection of I-93 and I-95
Municipalities:
Watershed: Mystic River
Reading/Woburn/Stoneham/Wakefield
Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 428 30’ 08” N
Longitude: 718 07’ 09” W
Estimated commencement date: 2011
Estimated completion date: 2020
Approximate cost: $187 to $276 million incl transit Status of project design:
5% complete
Proponent: Executive Office of Transportation/MassHighway
Street: 10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Municipality: Boston
State: MA
Zip Code: 02116
Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this ENF May Be Obtained: Bob Frey
Firm/Agency: EOT/MassHighway
Street: 10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Municipality: Boston
State: MA
Zip Code: 02116
Phone: 617-973-7449
Fax: 617-973-8035
E-mail: [email protected]
Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Yes
Has this project been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EOEA No.
)
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EOEA No.
)
Is this an Expanded ENF (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) requesting:
a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8))
Yes
a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09)
Yes
a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11)
Yes
a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11)
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an agency of the Commonwealth, including
the agency name and the amount of funding or land area (in acres):
Project funding will be from MassHighway for highway improvements, MBTA for transit elements,
and EOT for Transportation Demand Management elements. Federal funding is also expected.
Are you requesting coordinated review with any other federal, state, regional, or local agency?
Yes(Specify: MassHighway, MBTA, FHWA, FTA, USACE)
No
List Local or Federal Permits and Approvals: Notice of Intent (Reading, Woburn, and Wakefield
Conservation Commissions) and DEP Variance; DEP Section 401 Water Quality Certification;
USACE Section 404 Permit; NEPA EIS and Record of Decision from FHWA. Evaluation of air
quality conformity of Transportation Improvement Program with the State Implementation Plan.
Revised 10/99
Comment period is limited. For information call 617-626-1020
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
Which ENF or EIR review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03):
Land
Water
Energy
ACEC
Rare Species
Wastewater
Air
Regulations
Summary of Project Size
& Environmental Impacts
Existing
Wetlands, Waterways, & Tidelands
Transportation
Solid & Hazardous Waste
Historical & Archaeological
Resources
Change
Total
LAND
State Permits &
Approvals
Gross square footage
0
0
0
Number of housing units
n/a
n/a
n/a
Order of Conditions
Superseding Order of
Conditions
Chapter 91 License
401 Water Quality
Certification
MHD or MDC Access
Permit
Water Management
Act Permit
New Source Approval
DEP or MWRA
Sewer Connection/
Extension Permit
Other Permits
(including Legislative
Approvals) – Specify:
USACE Sec 404
Maximum height (in feet)
n/a
n/a
n/a
* Depending on Alternative
132 A
Total site acreage
11.5 A
New acres of land altered
88.7 A
Acres of impervious area
11.5 A
Square feet of new bordering
vegetated wetlands alteration
2,937 SF to
11,438 SF,
plus shadow *
Square feet of new other
wetland alteration
0
Acres of new non-water
dependent use of tidelands or
waterways
0
100.2 A
STRUCTURES
TRANSPORTATION
Vehicle trips per day
377,500
0 (some
regional trips
may be reallocated)
377,500
Parking spaces
0
0
0
WATER/WASTEWATER
Gallons/day (GPD) of water use
0
0
0
GPD water withdrawal
0
0
0
GPD wastewater generation/
treatment
0
0
0
Length of water/sewer mains
(in miles)
0
0
0
Page 2 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
CONSERVATION LAND: Will the project involve the conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural
resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97?
Yes (Specify__________________________________ )
No
Will it involve the release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation
restriction, or watershed preservation restriction?
Yes (Specify__________________________________ )
No
RARE SPECIES: Does the project site include Estimated Habitat of Rare Species, Vernal Pools, Priority Sites of
Rare Species, or Exemplary Natural Communities?
Yes (Specify__________________________________ )
No
No Priority or Estimated Habitats are known to exist in the area disturbed by the project; A copy of the ENF is
being sent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) for their concurrence.
HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Does the project site include any structure, site or district
listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the
Commonwealth?
Yes (Specify__________________________________ )
No
There are no historic resources in or near the interchange or interstates/other roadways to be disturbed and
archeological resources are unlikely due to the previous construction of the highways and interchange.
If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or
archaeological resources?
Yes (Specify___________________________________ )
No
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: Is the project in or adjacent to an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern?
Yes (Specify__________________________________ )
No
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project description should include (a) a description of the project site,
(b) a description of both on-site and off-site alternatives and the impacts associated with each
alternative, and (c) potential on-site and off-site mitigation measures for each alternative (You may
attach one additional page, if necessary.)
The I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study, completed in June 2007, was an extensive multi-year effort by
the Executive Office of Transportation, working closely with an Interchange Task Force (ITF) of residents,
businesses, legislators, and local officials, as well as with other agencies including FHWA, MassHighway, and
the MBTA. The primary goals of this planning study were to examine and recommend ways to improve traffic
flow and safety at the interchange while minimizing impacts in surrounding communities. It represents an open,
participatory process which has collectively proposed context-sensitive, multi-modal solutions to a critical
regional transportation problem. The study’s Final Report is incorporated in this ENF as an Expanded Project
Narrative. An abbreviated project description and summary is as follows:
Project Site: The I-93/I-95 interchange carries over 375,000 vehicles per day, the highest daily traffic volume
in Massachusetts. The interchange is closely linked to the adjacent I-95 (Route 128) interchanges with Route 28
in Reading/Stoneham (Exit 38) and with Washington Street/ Mishawum Road in Woburn (Exit 36). There are
residential neighborhoods abutting the highway layout in the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants.
There is a major employment area in Woburn to the west of the interchange. A wetland area abuts the
interchange in the southwest quadrant and there are some wetland areas within the cloverleaf. There are no
wildlife habitats or cultural resources in the immediate project area.
The Anderson Regional Transportation Center and MBTA Mishawum Station are located nearby on the Lowell
Commuter Rail Line. Together, the highway and transit facilities serve a large portion of employment and
shopping trips to Boston and along Route 128 as well as through-trips on the interstate highways. There is
significant congestion in the interchange resulting from substandard geometry (particularly short weaving
Page 3 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
distances), and from a lane drop (four to three lanes on northbound Route 128). The interchange also has a
substantially higher crash rate (adjusted for traffic volume) than any similar cloverleaf interchange in
Massachusetts. Analyses of crash locations show that crash clusters correspond to weaving sections and other
substandard merge and diverge areas.
Alternatives: The study’s final report (attached) recommends development and implementation of highway,
transit, and transportation demand management (TDM) improvements as an integrated package. The package of
recommendations includes interim improvements to Route 128 and early implementation of noise barriers (after
the approval of federal environmental documents and the design effort, and where barriers are determined to be
reasonable and feasible in accordance with federal and state policies).
The preferred major highway alternative, called H3, would remove the northwest and southeast loop ramps (thus
eliminating all weaves from the central interchange) and provide a connector road to I-93 from northbound
Route 128, with a split on-ramp from Washington Street that eliminates the inadequate northbound weave to I93 (land use constraints prevent the removal of the Route 128 southbound weave from I-93 to the Mishawum
Road off-ramp). Extension of the 4th northbound lane on Route 128 to Exit 40 (Route 129 in Wakefield) moves
the lane drop to a lower volume location where an acceptable level of service would be maintained and thus
would relieve the current backup. These modifications to the interchange solve most of the traffic flow
problems and improve safety within the interchange. Analysis with a CORSIM microsimulation model of the
area indicates that traffic operations would be substantially improved and delays would be reduced. With
reduced delays, the interchange would process more vehicles, which would have travel time benefits for many
drivers, and would shorten the period of maximum congestion in the area. With fewer drivers seeking alternate
routes to avoid the original congestion, traffic on local streets used as “cut-throughs” (cited as a significant
problem by the local communities) would be reduced as well. Although Route 128 and I-93 would continue to
operate near capacity downstream from the interchange, system-wide travel and mobility are improved
throughout the region.
The major highway alternative has two versions recommended for further engineering and environmental
analysis in the EIR – designated as H3-OS and H3-US. The semi-direct ramps (that replace the eliminated loop
ramps in the northwest and southeast quadrants) both pass over I-93 and Route 128 in H3-OS. In H3-US, one of
the ramps passes under the expressways. These two versions were the outcome of a process of development and
evaluation of highway improvements with the ITF, beginning with screening of 16 preliminary components for
potential effectiveness, avoidance of takings, and maintenance of direct local access. Four alternatives
designated H1 through H4 were evaluated in detail for these criteria as well as wetland impact and a qualitative
assessment of visual and noise impacts.
Alternative H3 was judged the most promising in terms of performance and minimized impacts. Additional
engineering and quantitative analysis of noise are necessary to fully evaluate the H3-OS and H3-US versions, so
both versions of this alternative are proposed for further analysis in the EIR.
In addition, interim improvements are recommended, including extension of the 4th lane on northbound Route
128 to Exit 40, commencement of the 4th lane on southbound Route 128 at the Exit 38 on-ramp (from Route
28), and construction of a temporary on-ramp from Cedar Street in Woburn to I-93 southbound. These interim
improvements would provide immediate relief at relatively low cost and help to mitigate construction period
impacts. It is anticipated that noise barriers will be warranted at many locations where existing noise levels
approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC). It is recommended that noise mitigation for the full
interchange modification be considered for implementation in the interim phase, provided that – consistent with
MassHighway’s Type 1 Noise Abatement Program – it is determined by FHWA and MassHighway that noise
barriers at each location would be practicable, reasonable, and acceptable to the public, and where compatible
with later construction staging. This noise impact assessment process is followed regardless of whether
construction of a proposed noise barrier is performed with a combination of federal-aid funds and state funds or
with state funds only.
Page 4 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
An integral part of the recommended package of improvements is a set of transit and TDM improvements which
were developed to serve commuting both to Boston and to major employment centers in Woburn, Burlington,
and Lexington. Analysis with the CTPS regional travel demand model indicates that these improvements could
remove approximately 10,000 daily trips from the interchange area at a reasonable cost, which include
additional commuter rail service, shuttles from Anderson Regional Transportation Center, improved signage and
information to encourage transit use and carpooling, and improved pedestrian/bicycle access to Anderson (see
attached report sections 3.5 and 4.2 for a full list of these measures). Because of their importance in increasing
mobility and mode choice, these non-highway elements are viewed as a central part of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: Additional refinements to reduce impact have been considered, for example flipping the
position of the two ramps that enter northbound I-93 to reduce impacts on the South Street neighborhood. These
and other possible refinements require further development and evaluation in the EIR. As noted above, noise
mitigation would be an important part of the project and it may be possible to construct noise barriers in the
interim phase to address impacts of the full interchange reconstruction. Consistent with the Type 1 Noise
Abatement Program, detailed noise analyses would be conducted in the EIR to confirm existing and compute
future sound levels at sensitive receptor locations to fully determine if adverse noise levels currently exceed, or
will exceed, the NAC for the receptors and to determine if impacted receivers qualify for a noise barrier.
Further efforts will be needed to minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands in and adjacent to the interchange.
The proposed temporary Cedar Street ramp would help to mitigate construction period impacts, as would early
implementation of transit and TDM measures.
Review Process: With the recommendation that both highway and non-highway elements are advanced in a
single package, it is suggested that EOT be the lead agency in MEPA review with close involvement by
MassHighway and the MBTA. For this reason, and because interim improvements are recommended which
should be evaluated in the context of the full build solutions, a special review procedure is requested. It is also
recommended that the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for the MEPA process should involve the members of the
ITF as well as other members the Secretary deems appropriate.
Note: See attached final report for the I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study for additional project
background and more detailed project descriptions.
Page 5 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
LAND SECTION – all proponents must fill out this section
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1)
X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify each threshold:
The project will involve creation of approximately 11.5 acres of impervious surface due to added
lanes on Route 128 east of I-93 and new interchange ramps. The work will also modify existing
paved shoulders, which are wider than necessary. The areas within the interchange would be altered
by construction of two new semi-direct ramps and removal of two existing loop ramps; some regrading and re-landscaping of the interchange infield areas and areas currently occupied by the
removed ramps would be required. Some land adjacent to the existing interchange in the northeast
and southwest quadrants would be required.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows:
Change
Total
Existing
Footprint of buildings
Roadways, parking, and other paved areas
Other altered areas (describe)
Undeveloped areas
__0_____
_88.7____
_32.6____
___0_____
___0____
___11.5_
___-0.2__
____0___
___0____
_100.2__
__32.4__
___0_____
Other altered areas consist of the existing interchange infield and land immediately abutting the
highways and ramps including limited land takings in the northeast and southwest quadrants.
B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last three years?
___ Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with agricultural soils) will be
converted to nonagricultural use?
C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use?
___ Yes X No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and indicate whether
any part of the site is the subject of a DEM-approved forest management plan:
D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any
purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe:
E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation
restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? ___ Yes X No;
if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? ___ Yes ___ No; if
yes, describe:
F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental
change in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
describe:
G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an
existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121B? Yes ___ No X; if yes, describe:
H. Describe the project's stormwater impacts and, if applicable, measures that the project will take
to comply with the standards found in DEP's Stormwater Management Policy:
The project would add a fourth northbound lane on Route 128 from the Interchange with I-93 (Exit
37) to Route 129 (Exit 40); and an auxiliary southbound lane on Route 128 from Route 28 (Exit 38)
to the Mishawum Road on-ramp (Exit 36). Much of the area of the fourth lane is already paved, and
Page 6 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
bridges east of I-93 would not be altered. A parallel connector road from northbound Route 128 to
the interchange and new ramps within the interchange would create new impervious area. The
stormwater system for the project has not yet been designed, but would include elements to meet
DEP stormwater policy regarding peak discharge rate and water quality. Based on review of the
stormwater policy, it is expected that the project would be classified as a new project and would
therefore meet all the applicable standards in the DEP Stormwater Policy and MassHighway’s
Stormwater Handbook for Highways and Bridges. Land is available within the interchange and the
highway layout to provide drainage structures. With appropriate design, the project’s stormwater
impacts would be the same as those of the current highway and interchange.
I.
Is the project site currently being regulated under M.G.L.c.21E or the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan? Yes ___ No X; if yes, what is the Release Tracking Number (RTN)?
J.
If the project is site is within the Chicopee or Nashua watershed, is it within the
Quabbin, Ware, or
Wachusett subwatershed? ___ Yes __ No; if yes, is the project site subject to regulation under the
Watershed Protection Act? ___ Yes ___ No
K.
Describe the project's other impacts on land:
The project would alter land immediately adjacent to I-93 and I-95 as described above. Except for
a triangular area of 1700 to 4700 square feet in the northeast quadrant of the interchange
(depending on the alternative) and an elevated ramp above 26,000 square feet of wetland area
immediately southwest of the interchange, all work would be done within the existing highway
layout line.
For the proposed pedestrian bridge at Anderson RTC, the MBTA and City of Woburn would
need to negotiate an agreement with an industrial/commercial property owner(s) located west of
and adjacent to the rail line and in the immediate vicinity of the station for use of/access to land
extending to New Boston Street. This proposal has the support of the City of Woburn and area
business organizations, and it is hoped that all parties would be able to achieve a mutually
beneficial arrangement. Alternately, a small amount of property (estimated less than 1 acre)
would need to be acquired to provide access.
III.. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan and the open space plan and
describe the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan(s):
While the project is not subject to local land use regulation, the planning process which led to the
project alternatives included municipal officials, residents, and business interests from the host
communities, who served as members of the Interchange task Force. The project alternatives
recommended for environmental analysis were designed to be compatible with adjacent residential
and business land uses and to maintain and improve direct local access to these land uses. Except for
the limited areas of needed property acquisition described above, the project remains within land
already in transportation use. No open space will be affected.
B. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency and
describe the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan:
As described in the I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study Final Report, which is attached to
this ENF as the expanded project narrative, the study’s recommendations consider regional land use
policy, specifically the MAPC MetroFuture initiative, and recommends incorporation of regional and
local land use planning in future transportation project planning in the large area served by the
Page 7 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
interchange and adjacent Anderson Regional Transportation Center. MAPC was continually and
actively represented on the Interchange Task Force which worked with EOT to develop the proposed
recommendations.
C. Will the project require any approvals under the local zoning by-law or ordinance (i.e. text or map
amendment, special permit, or variance)? Yes ___ No X; if yes, describe:
D. Will the project require local site plan or project impact review?
___ Yes X No; if yes, describe:
RARE SPECIES SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see
301 CMR 11.03(2))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? ___ Yes X No
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and
Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Rare Species section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts
Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? ___ Yes ___ No. If yes,
1. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat (contact:
Environmental Review, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Route 135,
Westborough, MA 01581, allowing 30 days for receipt of information):
2. Have you surveyed the site for rare species? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, please include the
results of your survey.
3. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an
Order of Conditions for this project? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, did you send a copy of the
Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance
with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? ___ Yes ___ No
B. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in
accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe:
C. Will the project alter "significant habitat" as designated by the Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.30)? ___ Yes ___
No; if yes, describe:
D. Describe the project's other impacts on rare species including indirect impacts (for example,
stormwater runoff into a wetland known to contain rare species or lighting impacts on rare moth
habitat):
WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and
tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
There are two alternatives recommended for environmental analysis; one alternative has more than
5,000 square feet of direct alteration of bordering vegetated wetlands; both alternatives have shading
impacts on more than 26,000 square feet of wetland; therefore a variance under 310 CMR 10.05(10)
Page 8 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
may be required. [301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)2]
B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands,
waterways, or tidelands? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify which permit:
Wetlands permits/approvals would include local Orders of Conditions.
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands,
Waterways, and Tidelands Section below.
II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits
A. Describe any wetland resource areas currently existing on the project site and indicate them on
the site plan:
Four wetland areas lie within the existing I-93/I-95 cloverleaf and an additional wetland area is
adjacent to the southwest quadrant of the cloverleaf (See Figure 2-17 in the attached Final Report).
The wetlands are connected by culverts and drain in a southerly direction to the Aberjona River.
B. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:
Coastal Wetlands
Area (in square feet) or Length (in linear feet)
Land Under the Ocean
_______________________________ n/a _
Designated Port Areas
_______________________________ n/a _
Coastal Beaches
_______________________________ n/a _
Coastal Dunes
_______________________________ n/a _
Barrier Beaches
_______________________________ n/a _
Coastal Banks
_______________________________ n/a _
Rocky Intertidal Shores
_______________________________ n/a _
Salt Marshes
_______________________________ n/a _
Land Under Salt Ponds
_______________________________ n/a _
Land Containing Shellfish
_______________________________ n/a _
Fish Runs
_______________________________ n/a _
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage
_______________________________ n/a _
Inland Wetlands
Bank
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
Land under Water
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
Riverfront Area
________________________________0___
Alt H3-OS: 2,937 SF plus 31,272 SF of elevated ramp
above wetlands
Alt H3-US: 11,438 SF plus 26,369 SF of elevated ramp
above wetlands
________________________________0___
________________________________0___
________________________________0___
________________________________0___
C. Is any part of the project
1. a limited project? ___ Yes X No
2. the construction or alteration of a dam? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe:
3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? ___ Yes X No
4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe the volume of
dredged material and the proposed disposal site:
5. a discharge to Outstanding Resource Waters? ___ Yes X No
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? ___ Yes X No; if yes, identify the area (in sq ft.):
Page 9 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
D. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? X Yes ___ No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed or a local Order of
Conditions issued? ___ Yes X No; if yes, list the date and DEP file number:______________. Was
the Order of Conditions appealed? ___ Yes ___ No. Will the project require a variance from the
Wetlands regulations? X Yes ___ No.
E. Will the project:
1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? ___ Yes X No
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state or local law?
___ Yes X No; if yes, what is the area (in s.f.)?
F. Describe the project's other impacts on wetlands (including new shading of wetland areas or
removal of tree canopy from forested wetlands):
As discussed in the attached Final Report, the two recommended alternatives differ in that
Alternative H3-OS has two elevated semi-direct ramps passing over the interchange, while H3-US
has one semi-direct ramp passing over and another passing under I-93 and Route 128. H3-US
therefore has larger direct impacts to wetlands in the cloverleaf, while H3-OS passes over the
wetlands and has shading effects. Both alternatives pass over the edge of the wetland in the
southwest quadrant at a height ranging from 16 to 30 feet and have primarily shading effects on this
wetland.
The extension of the fourth northbound lane on Route 128 to Exit 40 involves work within the
highway layout, none of which is wetland; however, approximately 3000 linear feet of this work in
Wakefield is in the buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetland between Parker Road and North
Avenue. Best Management Practices during construction and appropriate stormwater design can
avoid all potential impacts to this wetland.
III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits
A. Is any part of the project site waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that are
subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes X No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91
license or permit affecting the project site? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, list the date and number:
B.
Does the project require a new or modified license under M.G.L.c.91? ___ Yes ___ No;
if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water dependent
use?
Current ___ Change ___ Total ___
C. Is any part of the project
1. a roadway, bridge, or utility line to or on a barrier beach? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
describe:
2. dredging or disposal of dredged material? ___ Yes X No; if yes, volume of dredged
material ______
3. a solid fill, pile-supported, or bottom-anchored structure in flowed tidelands or other
waterways? ___ Yes X No; if yes, what is the base area? _______
4. within a Designated Port Area? ___ Yes X No
D. Describe the project's other impacts on waterways and tidelands:
IV. Consistency:
A. Is the project located within the Coastal Zone? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe the project's
consistency with policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan:
Page 10 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
WATER SUPPLY SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR
11.03(4))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section
below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in gallons/day, the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed activities
at the project site:
Change
Total
Existing
Withdrawal from groundwater
________
________
________
Withdrawal from surface water
________
________
________
Interbasin transfer
________
________
________
Municipal or regional water supply
________
________
________
B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there
is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? ___ Yes ___ No
C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water source,
1. have you submitted a permit application? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, attach the application
2. have you conducted a pump test? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, attach the pump test report
D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons/day)?
Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal?___ Yes ___ No
E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility,
water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility?
___ Yes ___ No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site:
Existing
Water supply well(s) (capacity, in gpd)
________
Drinking water treatment plant (capacity, in gpd) ________
Water mains (length, in miles)
________
Change
________
________
________
Total
________
________
________
F. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?
G. Does the project involve
1. new water service by a state agency to a municipality or water district? ___ Yes ___ No
2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, how many acres of
alteration?
3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking
water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? ___ Yes ___ No
H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts) on water resources, quality,
facilities and services:
III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to
enhance water resources, quality, facilities and services:
Page 11 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
WASTEWATER SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR
11.03(5))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify
which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation -- Traffic
Generation Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Wastewater Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in gallons/day, the volume and disposal of wastewater generation for existing and
proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00):
Discharge to groundwater (Title 5)
Discharge to groundwater (non-Title 5)
Discharge to outstanding resource water
Discharge to surface water
Municipal or regional wastewater facility
TOTAL
B.
Existing
________
________
________
________
________
Change
________
________
________
________
________
Total
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
Is there sufficient capacity in the existing collection system to accommodate the project?
___ Yes ___ No; if no, describe where capacity will be found:
C. Is there sufficient existing capacity at the proposed wastewater disposal facility?___ Yes ___
No; if no, describe how capacity will be increased:
D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other
wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? ___ Yes ___
No.
If yes, describe as follows:
Existing
Change
Total
Wastewater treatment plant (capacity, in gpd)
________
________
________
Sewer mains (length, in miles)
________
________
________
Title 5 systems (capacity, in gpd)
________
________
________
E. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is
the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?
F. Does the project involve new sewer service by an Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality
or sewer district? ___ Yes ___ No
G. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, or other sewage residual
materials? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the capacity (in tons per day):
Change
Total
Existing
Storage
________
________
________
Treatment, processing
________
________
________
Combustion
________
________
________
Disposal
________
________
________
Page 12 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts) on wastewater generation and
treatment facilities:
III. Consistency -- Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state,
regional, and local plans and policies related to wastewater management:
A. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive
wastewater management plan? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, indicate the EOEA number for the plan and
describe the relationship of the project to the plan
TRANSPORTATION -- TRAFFIC GENERATION SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301
CMR 11.03(6))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways? ___ Yes
X No; if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other
Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below.
II. Traffic Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site:
Existing
Change
Total
Number of parking spaces
_______
________
_______
Number of vehicle trips per day
________
________
________
ITE Land Use Code(s):
B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site?
Roadway
1. ____________________
2. ____________________
3. ____________________
Existing
________
________
________
Change
________
________
________
Total
________
________
________
C. Describe how the project will affect transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities
and services:
III. Consistency -- Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional,
state, and federal plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities
and services:
ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SECTION
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other
transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative
terms:
Page 13 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
Approximately 2.7 miles of roadway will be widened in three locations: extension of the fourth
northbound lane on Route 128 from Route 28 in Stoneham to Route 129 in Wakefield (1.5 miles);
addition of a southbound auxiliary lane on Route 128 from Route 28 in Reading to the Mishawum
Road on-ramp in Woburn (0.6 miles); and addition of a parallel connector road (varies from 2 to 3
lanes including off and on ramps) from northbound Route 128 beginning at the bridge over the
MBTA Lowell Branch railroad and continuing to the I-93/I-95 interchange (0.6 miles). The existing
Washington Street on and off-ramps would be rebuilt in a new configuration as shown in the
attached Final Report; the Washington Street bridge over Route 128 would also be reconstructed to
provide lateral clearance for the parallel connector road to I-93. The total widening exceeds two
miles and thus requires a mandatory EIR per CMR 11.03 (6)(a)1.a.
B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation
facilities? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section
below.
II. Transportation Facility Impacts
A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities at the project site:
Existing
Change
Length (in linear feet) of new or widened roadway
27,200
Total
____0___
27,200
3 ln x 13,330’
3 ln x 6,060’
1 ln x 13,330’
1 ln x 6,060’
4 ln x13,330’
4 ln x 6,060’
Rte 128 NB, east of Mishawum overpass to C-D split 4 ln x 1,570’
Rte 128 NB, new C-D road to Washington off,
(reduce 128 mainline to 3 lanes)
4 ln x 1,030’
Rte 128 NB, Washington off to Washington on
(reduce 128 mainline to 3 lanes)
4 ln x 1,200’
Rte 128 NB, Washington on to new I-93 ramps
(reduce 128 mainline to 3 lanes)
4 ln x 1,260’
Rte 128 NB, new I-93 ramp split to I-93 SB on
(reduce 128 mainline to 3 lanes)
4 ln x 880’
Rte 128 NB, I-93 SB on to former I-93 NB off
4 ln x 600’
Rte 128 NB, former I-93 NB off to Rte 129 off (Exit 40) 3 ln x 13,330’
1 ln x 1,570’
5 ln x 1,570’
3 ln x 1,030’
6 ln x 1,030’
2 ln x 1,200’
5 ln x 1,200’
3 ln x 1,260’
6 ln x 1,260’
Width (in feet) of new or widened roadway
Interim Improvements
Rte 128 NB, I-93 NB on to Rte 129 off (Exit 40)
Rte 128 SB, Rte 28SB on to Mishawum off
Full Improvements
Rte 128 SB, Rte 28 SB on to new I-93 off
Rte 128 SB, new I-93 off to I-93 NB on
Rte 128 SB, I-93 NB on to former I-93 SB off
Rte 128 SB, former I-93 SB off to I-93 SB on
Rte 128 SB, I-93 SB on to Mishawum off
3 ln
3 ln
4 ln
3 ln
4 ln
x 1,760’
x 1,340’
x 630’
x 880’
x 1,450’
-1 ln x 880’ 3 ln x 880’
-1 ln x 600’ 3 ln x 600’
1 ln x 13,330’ 4 ln x13,330’
1 ln x 1,760’
no change
no change
1 ln x 880’
1 ln x 1,450’
4 ln x 1,760’
3 ln x 1,340’
4 ln x 630’
4 ln x 880’
5 ln x 1,450’
As described in the Project Description and attached Project Narrative, the interim improvements would
add a fourth lane on Route 128 northbound (NB) from Exit 37 (I-93) to Exit 40 (Route 129) and a fourth lane
on Route 128 southbound (SB) from Exit 38 (Route 28) to Exit 36 (Mishawum Road), plus a new temporary
ramp from Cedar Street in Woburn to I-93 SB.
Page 14 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
The full improvements would include the 4th lane on Route 128 NB and SB provided by the interim
improvements and also would add a northbound collector-distributor (C-D) road (2 to 3 lanes) from Route
128 NB to the new interchange ramps serving I-93 in both directions. The project area has an existing total
of 17.27 lane-miles on Route 128; the interim improvements would increase this total by 3.79 lane-miles; the
full improvements would increase the existing total by 4.64 lane miles. In addition to these changes to Route
128, the full interchange improvements would replace two existing single-lane loop ramps with 2-lane semidirect ramps and would also replace the single-lane slip ramp from Route 128 NB to I-93 SB with a two-lane
ramp.
Other transportation facilities:
Recommended pedestrian access improvements to the Anderson Regional Transportation Center
include a pedestrian bridge over the MBTA Lowell Line.
B. Will the project involve any
1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)?
2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)?
3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)?
1,600 lin. ft
___to be determined___
________no_____
Some alteration of the existing bank between South Street and I-93 will be necessary; this bank is
approximately 1,600 feet long. Current conceptual engineering plans indicate that alteration of the slope and
ledge outcrop in this area would extend to between 15 feet and 25 feet from the edge of South Street.
(Figures 4-6 and 4-7 in the Project Narrative show this area.) Preliminary design is needed to determine the
exact extent of alteration and whether any shade trees on South Street will be removed. Impacts will depend
on the alternative selected and the refinements made in this area.
III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local
plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services,
including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation Improvements
Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan:
The project is consistent with the Massachusetts Long Range Transportation Plan, which cites the
I-93/I-95 interchange as a needed major infrastructure improvement; a placeholder for the interchange
improvements is included in the Boston Regional Transportation Plan. An integral part of the proposed
project is a package of transit improvements to provide additional commuter rail service in the project area
and shuttle bus service along Route 128 from Peabody to Lexington with connections at the Anderson
Regional Transportation Center (ARTC). The proposed project also includes Transportation Demand
Management measures to increase transit use and carpooling. The total estimated effect of these nonhighway measures would be to remove up to 10,000 average daily trips from the highway system. Although
pedestrian and bicycle improvements are not permissible within the Interstate Highway layout, pedestrian
access improvements to the ARTC are also proposed. The net effect of the project will be an improvement in
regional mobility and increased mode choice.
The project is consistent with the state transportation policy of providing remediation of existing
problems before adding new capacity. Although the recommended alternatives include providing 2-lane
interchange ramps where possible and extending the northbound fourth lane on Route 128 to remove the
existing bottleneck that causes backups through the interchange, these improvements address shortfalls in the
interchange area, not new capacity improvements in the region.
In addition, the alternatives recommended for environmental analysis represent context-sensitive
solutions which minimize impacts on the abutting neighborhoods and business areas. These alternatives
were developed in close cooperation with an Interchange Task Force of residents, local business interests,
municipal officials and state legislators to achieve context sensitive design.
Page 15 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
ENERGY SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 11.03(7))?
___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify
which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section
below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site:
Change
Total
Existing
Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts)
________
________
________
Length of fuel line (in miles)
________
________
________
Length of transmission lines (in miles)
________
________
________
Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts)
________
________
________
B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are
1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)?
2.
the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)?
C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new,
unused, or abandoned right of way?___ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:
D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services:
III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans
and policies for enhancing energy facilities and services:
AIR QUALITY SECTION
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR
11.03(8))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B.
Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
specify which permit:
No stationary source is involved in the project; however conformity to the State Implementation Plan
is required, and this determination will be made in the context of the Regional Transportation Planning
process through the Boston MPO in coordination with DEP and EPA.
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air
Quality Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR
7.00, Appendix A)?___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons per
day) of:
Page 16 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
Particulate matter
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
Volatile organic compounds
Oxides of nitrogen
Lead
Any hazardous air pollutant
Carbon dioxide
Existing
Change
Total
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts:
III. Consistency
A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan:
B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see
301 CMR 11.03(9))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? ___ Yes X
No; if yes, specify which permit:
No disturbance of known areas of hazardous waste are anticipated; standard MassHighway
procedures will be used to confirm this as design and construction proceed. Demolition debris from
the existing ramps that are to be altered or removed will be disposed on in conformance with
standard MassHighway procedures.
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological
Resources Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits
A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of solid waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day)
of the capacity:
Change
Total
Existing
Storage
________
________
________
Treatment, processing ________
________
________
Combustion
________
________
________
Disposal
________
________
________
B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or
disposal of hazardous waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per
day) of the capacity:
Existing
Change
Total
Storage
________
________
________
Recycling
________
________
________
Treatment
________
________
________
Disposal
________
________
________
Page 17 of 19
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project (continued)
C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe
alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal:
D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos?
___ Yes ___ No
E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts):
III. Consistency--Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste
Master Plan:
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION
I. Thresholds / Impacts
A. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either
case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological
Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes X No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of all
or any exterior part of such historic structure? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:
MassHighway’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) staff, in consultation with staff of the
Massachusetts Historical Commission, will evaluate the project for historic and archaeological
impacts under the terms of its amended Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.
B. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places
or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes X No; if
yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? ___ Yes
___ No; if yes, please describe:
MassHighway’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) staff, in consultation with staff of the
Massachusetts Historical Commission, will evaluate the project for historic and archaeological
impacts under the terms of its amended Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.
C. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A and B, proceed to the Attachments and
Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below.
D. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes,
attach correspondence
E. Describe and assess the project's other impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried
historical and archaeological resources:
II. Consistency -- Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state,
regional, and local plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources:
Page 18 of 19
8/31/07
ENF DISTRIBUTION: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
Two Full Copies, One Copy of First Five Pages, Including Project Description:
•
Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
One Copy:
•
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs – Policy Director
Undersecretary for Policy
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
•
Department of Environmental Protection – Boston Office
Commissioner’s Office
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
•
DEP/Northeastern Regional Office
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
205B Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
•
Executive Office of Transportation
Attn: Environmental Reviewer
10 Park Plaza, Room 3170
Boston, MA 02116
•
Massachusetts Highway Department
Public/Private Development Unit
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
•
Massachusetts Highway Department – District 4
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
519 Appleton Street
Arlington, MA 02174
•
Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
10 Park Plaza, Room 3510
Boston, MA 02116
•
Massachusetts Historical Commission
The Massachusetts Archives Building
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125
Page 1 of 5
8/31/07
ENF DISTRIBUTION: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
•
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Attn: Jim Gallagher
60 Temple Place, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
•
Reading Board of Selectman
Attn: Peter Hechenbleikner
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
•
Reading Planning Department
Attn: Carol Kowalski
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
•
Reading Conservation Commission
Attn: Fran Fink
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
•
Reading Health Department
Attn: Jane Fiore
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
•
Woburn City Council
Attn: William Campbell, Clerk of the Council
City Hall – 10 Common Street
Woburn, MA 01801
•
Woburn Planning Department
Attn: Ed Tarallo
City Hall – 10 Common Street
Woburn, MA 01801
•
Woburn Conservation Commission
Attn: Theresa Murphy
City Hall – 10 Common Street
Woburn, MA 01801
•
Woburn Board of Health
Attn: John Fralick
City Hall – 10 Common Street
Woburn, MA 01801
•
Stoneham Board of Selectman
Attn: Muriel Doherty, Office Manager
35 Central Street
Stoneham, MA 02180
Page 2 of 5
8/31/07
ENF DISTRIBUTION: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
•
Stoneham Planning Board
Attn: Phyllis Medeiros
35 Central Street
Stoneham, MA 02180
•
Stoneham Conservation Commission
Attn: Sylvia Lynch
35 Central Street
Stoneham, MA 02180
•
Stoneham Board of Health
Attn: Robert Bracey
35 Central Street, Basement Level
Stoneham, MA 02180
•
Wakefield Board of Selectmen
Attn: Thomas Butler
1 Lafayette Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
•
Wakefield Planning Department
Attn: Paul Reavis
1 Lafayette Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
•
Wakefield Conservation Commission
Attn: Rebecca Davis, Conservation Agent
1 Lafayette Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
•
Wakefield Board of Health
Attn: Peter Gray
1 Lafayette Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
•
Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program
Attn: MEPA Reviewer
1 Rabbit Hill Road
Westborough, MA 01581
•
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Attn: MEPA Reviewer
Charlestown Navy Yard, 100 First Ave.
Boston, MA 02129
•
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Attn: MEPA Reviewer
250 Washington Street
Boston, MA 02108-4619
Page 3 of 5
8/31/07
ENF DISTRIBUTION: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
•
MBTA
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910
Boston, MA 02116
•
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: MEPA Reviewer
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742-2751
•
Interchange Task Force (ITF) members as follows
(additional ITF members included in list above):
Note: residential addresses omitted for privacy reasons
Sen. Richard Tisei
State House, Room 313
Boston, MA 02133
Camille Anthony
Reading Selectman
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Mayor Thomas McLaughlin
City of Woburn
10 Common Street
Woburn, MA 01801
4th Middlesex District Senate
Office (fmr. Robert Havern)
State House Room 513
Boston, MA 02133
Rick Schubert
Reading Selectman
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Jay Corey
Woburn City Engineer
10 Common Street
Woburn, MA 01801
Rep. Patrick Natale
State House Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Jonathan Barnes
Reading Plan Eco Devlp Comm.
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dennis Clarke
Cummings Properties
200 West Cummings Park
Woburn, MA 01801-6396
Rep. Michael E. Festa
State House Room 473F
Boston, MA 02133
Joe DiBlasi
Reading North R Chamber of C
PO Box 771
Reading, MA 01867
Paul Meaney
Woburn Business Association
P.O. Box 3057
Woburn, MA 01888-1857
Rep. Paul C. Casey
State House Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
David Ragucci
Town of Stoneham
35 Central Street
Stoneham, MA 02180
Eileen Hamblin
Eastern Middlesex Realtors
70 Main Street
Reading, MA 01867
Rep. Bradley H. Jones
State House Room 124
Boston, MA 02133
Robert Grover
Stoneham Public Works
16 Pine Street
Stoneham, MA 02180
Richard Stinson
Wakefield Public Works
1 Lafayette Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
Josh Grzegorzewski
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Craig Leiner
MassPort
1 Harborside Drive
East Boston, MA 02128
Dan Sullivan
Mass. Motor Transportation
10 Liberty Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Andrew Motter
Federal Transit Administration
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
MassRIDES
Attn: Jennifer Doyle
10 Park Plaza, Suite 2180
Boston, MA 02116
Joe Cosgrove
MBTA Director of Planning
10 Park Plaza, Suite 5750
Boston, MA 02116
Page 4 of 5
8/31/07
ENF DISTRIBUTION: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
Maureen Rogers
North Suburban Massachusetts
Chamber of Commerce
3 Baldwin Green Common
Woburn, MA 01801
Art Kinsman
Southern New England
Automobile Association
900 Hingham Street
Rockland, MA 02370
Bill Webster
THAG
Reading, Woburn, and Stoneham
George Katsoufis
ITF Citizen Rep.
Reading
Paul Medeiros
ITF Citizen Rep.
Woburn
Suzanne Smith
ITF Citizen Rep.
Stoneham
Jeff Everson
PRESERVE
Reading
Darlene Bruen
City Councilor
Woburn
Tony Kennedy
Former Selectman
Stoneham
Page 5 of 5
8/31/07
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
Expanded Project Narrative
The following Expanded Project Narrative is the I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation
Study Final Report (June 2007). The report describes the process through which the
problems at the existing interchange were defined, the goals and objectives established
to address the problems, the development and evaluation of highway and non-highway
alternatives, and the resulting recommendations.
Section 4.1 of this report describes the two highway alternatives recommended for
refinement and environmental analysis. Section 4.2 describes recommended transit
and TDM actions. Section 4.3 discusses recommendations for project development
phases following the planning study, including the present environmental phase
involving preliminary engineering and a coordinated analysis involving the Federal
Highway Administration, MassHighway and the MBTA.
Further information regarding this study, including meeting summaries, public
presentations, and numerous study documents, is available on the study web site:
www.9395info.com
ENF: I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Improvements Project
Electronic Version Only:
INSERT TO APPENDICES: Expanded Project Narrative
I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study Final Report (June 2007)
Due to the large file size, this insert (I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study Final
Report – June 2007) can be found on-line at the following web site:
www.9395info.com
Follow the report link on the home page to view or download.
Note: A printed report was distributed to ENF recipients as outlined in the ENF Distribution List.
*********************************************************
More detailed electronic versions of the maps on the preceding two pages:
•
Locus Map
•
Existing Conditions Plan
can also be found at the web site listed above. The higher resolution versions on
the web site can be zoomed in to show greater detail for a given area.
Note: Printed copies of these two maps were also distributed to ENF recipients as outlined in
the ENF Distribution List.
*********************************************************
With the large file sizes, please be patient when viewing or downloading.
If you have any questions concerning the above report, maps, or any part of the ENF
document, please contact:
Bob Frey
EOT Planning
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 973-7449
E-mail: [email protected]