Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS 7.0 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS This section of the RDEIR/DEIS presents a brief summary of compliance and consistency with applicable federal and state environmental laws, regulations, and programs for the LPA. 7.1 Federal Laws, Regulations and Programs Table 7­1 presents a brief summary of the project’s compliance with applicable federal laws, regulations, and programs. The project is in full compliance with applicable laws, regulations and programs and in particular will serve as a model for projects that will result in compliance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 on EJ. Section 7.1.1 presents the draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. 7.1.1 Draft Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation Federal law 23 U.S.C. Section 138, commonly known as Section 4(f) from its previous designation in the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, requires that any transportation project financed with federal funds, which will require use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site, be approved and constructed only if: • There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land, and • The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the site. If a feasible and prudent alternative to using such land exists, that alternative must be selected. If such use is unavoidable, then measures must be identified to minimize direct and indirect harm to the property. Section 4(f) mandates that special efforts are made to "preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites." These special efforts include a Section 4(f) evaluation which describes resources affected, discusses direct (property acquisition) and indirect impacts to these resources from project alternatives, identifies and evaluates alternatives that avoid such impacts, and mitigation measures to minimize unavoidable adverse effects. Indirect impacts, or proximity impacts, occur when the proposed project does not use land from a Section 4(f) property, but the project's proximity results in impacts that are so severe as to substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes of the resource. It should be noted that the parklands and open spaces existing along the Urban Ring corridor, described in Chapter 5, Section 5.15, are urban parks located in a densely developed metropolitan area. Implementation of Urban Ring Phase 2 service along the LPA alignment, although adding BRT vehicles to the traffic volumes currently passing by these parks, is not expected to result in indirect impacts to identified parklands and open spaces. It should also be noted that coordination has been initiated with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Chapter 5, Section 5.14 details the historic sites identified along the Urban Ring corridor. Through coordination with the Massachusetts SHPO, preliminary determination of adverse effects to National Register­listed or eligible historic properties resulting from the project will be verified. If there are determined to be such effects, then this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation will be revised to incorporate those effects and to consider avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm for those historic sites. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­1 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Table 7­1: Compliance with Federal Laws, Regulations and Programs
Law, Regulation or Program Brief Description of Compliance Clean Water Act of 1977 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Wetlands subject to jurisdiction under Clean Water Act Section 404 are affected. Detailed delineations of these resources would be conducted as required during the future design phase of the project. All wetland and water resource impacts would be minimized to the extent practicable. Any impacts to wetland or water resources would be mitigated to compensate for any loss of water resource area or function. The mitigation requirements will be worked out through consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the conservation commissions of the affected communities. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Coordination with Massachusetts SHPO is ongoing. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Correspondence with USFWS – no federal listed Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species habitat in project area Section 4(f) of The Department of Transportation Act Minor, unavoidable “de minimis” impacts to publicly owned parklands. In all cases, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the affected resources. Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 Construction and implementation of the project will require some property takings for construction of project elements. The anticipated ROW requirements of the LPA total 27.32 acres, comprising 8.90 industrial/commercial, 6.54 acres institutional/municipal, and 11.88 acres railroad right­of­way. There are no residential takings or business relocations. Affected property owners will receive just compensation in compliance with the FTA procedures established under the Act. The project is not located over a Sole Source Aquifer – not Safe Drinking Water Act: 42 U.S.C. 300F­300J­6 applicable. (P.L. 93­523) (P.L. 99­339) Executive Order 12898: EJ The LPA will not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on the minority or low­income populations in the corridor or the seven­city region. The LPA would provide benefits to residents including the minority and low­income populations living near the stations. These benefits include improved access to transit, transit travel time savings, expanded access to employment and amenities, and the potential for increased economic development. Executive Order 11900: Protection of Wetlands No wetlands subject to jurisdiction under Clean Water Act Section 404 are affected – not applicable. Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management, as amended by Executive Order 12148 There would be no impact on the existing values of the mapped floodplains or regulatory floodways, and new structures would not increase the elevation of the 100­year storm event. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972: 16 U.S.C. 145 et seq. (P.L. 92­583) (P.L. 94­310) (P.L. 96­464) and CZMA Reauthorization Amendments of 1990: 6217(g) Project is consistent with approved Massachusetts CZM. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­2 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Table 7­1: Compliance with Federal Laws, Regulations and Programs (Cont’d)
Law, Regulation or Program Clean Air Act (as amended), Transportation Conformity Rule: 23 U.S.C. 109(j), 42 U.S.C 7521 (a), (P.L. 101­549) Brief Description of Compliance The project is included in the latest transportation plan. The project has been included in the Boston MPO’s transportation model used for the conformity analyses. The LPA will improve air quality at the intersection, municipal, and regional levels compared to the No­Build and Baseline Build Alternatives, largely due to the project’s ability to divert automobile trips to public transportation. Maximum 1­hour and 8­hour carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations remain the same for Project Build and No­Build scenarios, but future year CO concentrations are generally below existing levels due primarily to future year emission controls required by federal regulations. The LPA exhibited the lowest emissions of all future cases, while the No­
Build case exhibited the highest emissions because increased public transportation reduces the number of individual motor vehicles in the project area. The introduction of ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel in 2007, along with future emission standards (established under state and federal regulations) will significantly reduce fine particulate emissions from on­road diesel powered vehicles in future years. Description of the Section 4(f) Resources The Urban Ring Phase 2 project will directly impact seven areas of publicly owned open space along the Urban Ring Corridor: • Parkland along the north side of Revere Beach Parkway between Sweetser Circle and Santilli Circle in Everett may be converted to transportation use. • Fort Washington Park will be subject to visual disturbance during construction, and increased noise and vibration during operation. • The Memorial Drive overpass, part of the DCR parkway system, will be modified to accommodate a busway beneath it. • The Grand Junction Railroad connections on both sides of the Charles River (Cambridge and Boston) will be affected by the LPA alignment. This will impact park spaces in the Charles River Reservation. • Modifications to the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge will affect the water sheet of the publicly­owned Charles River. • Construction of a busway tunnel portal in the vicinity of the Landmark Center east and west of Park Drive will be immediately adjacent to the north and west sides of the Boston Parks and Recreation building used for office and storage/maintenance facilities. Impacts in the park portion of the project area will be temporary and construction related, and existing conditions will be restored once the tunnel is completed. • The small pocket park in Kendall Square (Galaxy Park) will be modified to accommodate the proposed exclusive bus lanes and bike lane connecting Third Street to Main Street at the Kendall Square MBTA Station. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­3 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Revere Beach Parkway Description of the 4(f) Resource Revere Beach Parkway is a major arterial roadway under the control of the DCR and runs from Medford in the west to Revere Beach. The parkway is part of the system of parklands and parkways first laid out nearly 100 years ago throughout the Boston region by the noted American landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. The parkway network is designed to link parklands throughout the region. Revere Beach Parkway is being considered by the DCR for inclusion in the “Historic Parkways Initiative” of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and at a future time may be considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. As a parkway, the land contained within the right­
of­way of the parkway is considered as public open space and impacts to the parkway land are being considered as open space impacts for the purposes of this 4(f) Evaluation. The proposed busway bridge across the Malden River will require review and permitting related to waterways access and environmental impacts. The U.S. Coast Guard will need to review the proposal to determine whether a moveable span will be required at this location to enable adequate waterways access. If the U.S. Coast Guard approves a fixed span in this location, the capital, operating and maintenance costs will be lower, which will improve the cost effectiveness of the project. A fixed span may have the further advantage of potential cost savings on construction of the busway bridge because the existing six­lane moveable span that carries the Revere Beach Parkway in this corridor is in need of replacement. The owner of the bridge, the DCR, has indicated that it may be necessary to construct a temporary bridge for maintenance of traffic. If design and timing issues can be addressed, converting the temporary bridge to later busway use could reduce the environmental impacts and costs of a completely new busway bridge over the Malden River. Impacts to the 4(f) Resource In Everett, parkland along the north side of Revere Beach Parkway between Sweetser Circle and the bank of the Malden river may be converted to transportation use. Although the segment of land affected by the new busway does not contain any active recreational areas, it is an open space that is part of the DCR parkway system. No significant permanent adverse impacts to parks and open spaces are anticipated from this project element, although it will result in a change in use of existing parkland. During construction, 3.06 acres of parkland will be converted temporarily and existing conditions will be restored once construction is completed. A total of approximately 1.90 acres of parkland will be permanently converted to transportation use. Avoidance Alternatives There is no feasible alternative to avoid impacts to the parkway layout other than the proposed Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Use of the existing Revere Beach Parkway in mixed traffic was proposed in the DEIR, but was found to be slow and unreliable due to traffic congestion and delay. It would not meet the criteria for BRT service. There is no opportunity for bus lanes in the existing Route 16 right­of­way between Chelsea and Route 99. Widening the parkway to add bus lanes is not feasible in key sections between Route 99 and Wellington Station because of existing intersections, grade changes, and the presence of wetlands along the south side of eastbound Revere Beach Parkway. A separate busway along the south side of Revere Beach Parkway would have a larger impact on parkland, as well as a larger impact on wetlands, compared to a busway along the north side of the parkway. A busway along the south side of the parkway would have a larger impact on the existing path network on the east side of the Malden River, and would have less potential for coordination of the busway bridge with the planned replacement of the Revere Beach Parkway bridge over the Malden River. The potential reuse of the temporary bridge on the north side avoids additional new construction and associated impacts. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­4 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Measures to Minimize Harm Because of the de minimis size of the impact, the dense commercial nature of the area, and the lack of feasible alternative locations for the proposed busway that would avoid impacts to the parkway right­of­
way, there is no feasible alternative to minimize harm to the resource other than the proposed LPA. Fort Washington Park Description of the 4(f) Resource Fort Washington Park is a municipal park originally built in 1775. The remnants of the fort are located at 101 Waverly Street between Reardon and Talbot Streets. Fort Washington is the only surviving physical remnant of the Revolutionary War in Cambridge. This park is located immediately adjacent to existing active and inactive railroad tracks. Impacts to the 4(f) Resources The LPA proposes a two­way busway in the vicinity of Fort Washington Park (at an existing pedestrian grade crossing). On the west end of Albany Street, BRT buses will enter a two­way busway approximately 350 feet east of Fort Washington Park. The route connects to the existing Grand Junction Railroad right­
of­way adjacent to the southeast corner of Fort Washington Park and passes along the east side of the park on the railroad right­of­way. A multi­use path, to be built by others, will be aligned between the park and the busway. It is likely that the multi­use path will be built before the Urban Ring. During construction, 0.04 acres of parkland will be converted temporarily and existing conditions will be restored once construction is completed. A total of approximately 0.03 acres of parkland will be permanently converted to transportation use. During construction, there will be visual disturbance, but this will be limited to one side (the east side) of the park. Access to the park from Vassar Street will not be affected. Pedestrian access to the park will be maintained throughout construction. During operation, the park could experience increased noise and vibration due to bus traffic, but the project is not likely to adversely impact the future use of the park, as compared to its current use. Avoidance Alternatives Various options that would have circled the park with buses or put buses at the front of the park were evaluated and eliminated because they were found to have a greater impact on the park than the proposed LPA. There is no feasible alternative to avoid impacts to the park other than the proposed LPA. Measures to Minimize Harm Because of the de minimis size of the impact, the dense institutional and commercial nature of the area and the lack of feasible alternative locations for the proposed busway that would avoid impacts to the park, there is no feasible alternative to minimize harm to the resource other than the Baseline (or No Build) Alternative. Memorial Drive Overpass Description of the 4(f) Resource All along DCR’s historic Memorial Drive parkway is the Charles River Reservation, a 17­mile linear park located on the banks of the Charles River, stretching from Watertown to the Charles River Dam in Boston. The Charles River Reservation is on the National Register of Historic Places and is one of the most significant open spaces in the Boston metropolitan area. Many bicyclists, walkers, and joggers use the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­5 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS walking and bicycle trails along both the Cambridge and Boston banks of the river. The Charles River Esplanade is on the Boston side of Sector 6. The Memorial Drive overpass is also part of the DCR parkway system. Impacts to the 4(f) Resources The Memorial Drive overpass will be modified to accommodate beneath it a busway, multi­use path (by others) and the relocated existing railroad track. The overpass will be reconstructed and widened by approximately 15 feet. During construction, 0.04 acres of parkland may be converted temporarily and existing conditions will be restored once construction is completed. A total of approximately 0.01 acres of parkland may be permanently converted to transportation use. Avoidance Alternatives The alternative of using the existing Cambridgeport local roadways and the existing Boston University (BU) Bridge was proposed in the Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR and would have required taking of parkland in the area of the rotary on Memorial Drive. Travel times in mixed traffic over the BU Bridge are slow and unreliable compared to the busway alternative, and updated traffic analysis of future conditions indicates a worsening of congestion along the BU Bridge route. Also, public comment on the DEIR surface routing raised strong objections to the routing of the BRT over local streets. There is no feasible alternative to avoid impacts to the Memorial Drive overpass other than the proposed LPA Measures to Minimize Harm Because of the de minimis size of the impact and the lack of feasible alternative locations for the proposed busway alignment in this area that would avoid impacts to the parkway right­of­way, there is no feasible alternative to minimize harm to the resource other than the proposed LPA.. Grand Junction Railroad Connections Description of the 4(f) Resource The Grand Junction Railroad bridge crosses the Charles River diagonally underneath the Boston University Bridge (previously the Essex Street Bridge). Impacts to the 4(f) Resource The LPA proposes a two­way busway connecting across the existing Grand Junction Railroad track. The two­way busway (on the southeast side of the Grand Junction Railroad single track) will connect under Memorial Drive, across the Charles River on a reconfigured and rebuilt railroad bridge, and over Storrow Drive. This will impact park spaces in the Charles River Reservation on the Cambridge and Boston sides of the Charles River. During construction, 0.08 acres of parkland will be converted temporarily and existing conditions will be restored once construction is completed. A total of 0.03 acres of parkland will be permanently converted to transportation use. The busway operation adjacent to the Grand Junction Railroad track and the reconstruction of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge will require coordination with the current owner of the right­of­way, CSX Transportation. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently reached agreement with CSX on purchase of various CSX properties, including the Grand Junction Railroad, which is expected to facilitate coordination on reconfiguration and use of these facilities for the proposed Urban Ring. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­6 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Avoidance Alternatives For reasons described in the preceding discussion of the Memorial Drive overpass, there is no feasible alternative to avoid impacts to the park area adjacent to the existing railroad right of way other than the proposed LPA Measures to Minimize Harm Because of the de minimis size of the impact and the lack of feasible alternative locations for the proposed busway that would avoid impacts to the adjacent parkway right­or­ways, there is no feasible alternative to minimize harm to the resource other than the proposed LPA.. Grand Junction Railroad Bridge Description of the 4(f) Resource DCR's Charles River Reservation is a linear park stretching from Boston Harbor up the river for 20 miles. The lower half of the reservation, from downtown Boston to the Watertown Dam, is the Charles River Basin, which includes the Charles River Esplanade on the Boston side. Impacts to the 4(f) Resource Modifications to the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, a private bridge, may affect the watershed of the publicly­owned Charles River. The recent agreement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and CSX regarding this and other rail properties could facilitate development of effective mitigation measures. The proposed Urban Ring modifications to the Grand Junction Bridge will include a pedestrian path connecting the existing and planned path networks on the north and south sides of the Charles River. This path connection across the Charles River is a component of the Charles River Basin Master Plan developed by DCR. Modifications to the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge may affect the water sheet of the publicly­owned Charles River. During construction, 0.11 acres of the water sheet will be converted temporarily and existing conditions will be restored once construction is completed. A total of 0.03 acres of the water sheet will be permanently converted to transportation use in the form of extending the length of the existing bridge piers to accommodate the reconfigured bridge deck. No new bridge piers are anticipated. Avoidance Alternatives For reasons described in the preceding discussion of the Memorial Drive overpass and parkland adjacent to the bridge approaches, there is no feasible alternative to avoid impacts to the water sheet other than the proposed LPA. Measures to Minimize Harm Because of the de minimis size of the impact, the lack of feasible alternative locations for the proposed busway and pedestrian path that would avoid impacts to the water sheet, there is no feasible alternative to minimize harm to the resource other than the proposed LPA.. Landmark Center Description of the 4(f) Resource Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­7 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS The City of Boston is currently completing 25% design for a multi­use path that leads from Riverway Park to Fenway Station under Park Drive past Landmark Center along the CSX railroad right­of­way to Maitland Street. The path will ultimately extend to a new Yawkey Station. It is likely that the multi­use path will be built before the Urban Ring. The Boston Parks and Recreation Back Bay Yard building (400 Park Drive) is used for office and storage/maintenance facilities. This building, constructed in 1895, was an early addition to the Emerald Necklace. Impacts to the 4(f) Resource Construction of a busway tunnel portal at the Landmark Center will require heavy construction adjacent to the north and west sides of the Back Bay Yard building, and temporary relocation of a segment of the proposed multi­use path. Impacts in the park portion of the project area will be temporary and construction related, and existing conditions will be restored once the tunnel is completed and the surface areas above it restored. No significant permanent adverse impacts to parks and open spaces are anticipated from this project element, although it will result in a change in use of existing parkland. During construction, 0.12 acres of parkland may be converted temporarily and existing conditions will be restored once construction is completed. None of the parkland will be permanently converted to transportation use. Coordination between EOT, the City of Boston, the Landmark Center, and MTA Parcel 7 will continue as the Urban Ring project advances. During the preliminary engineering phase of the project, the specific location and operations of the portal will be evaluated. This will include ways to prohibit general traffic and pedestrians from entering the tunnel, avoiding conflicts between buses and general traffic/pedestrians, traffic control, grading, lighting, drainage etc. Based on the evaluation results, the exact portal location will be identified. Avoidance Alternatives There is no feasible alternative to avoid impacts to the Landmark Center and the proposed multi­use path other than the proposed LPA. Measures to Minimize Harm Because of the de minimis size of the impact, the dense commercial nature of the area, and the lack of feasible alternative locations for the proposed tunnel portal that would avoid impacts to the Landmark Center building and proposed multi­use path, there is no feasible alternative to minimize harm to the resource other than the proposed LPA.. Galaxy Park Description of the 4(f) Resource Galaxy Park is a park that was acquired and improved by the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority using Department of Housing and Urban Development funds as an open space in 1990. It features a distinctive sculpture in the center, which acts as a water fountain in the summer and a steam fountain in the winter. There are several benches and seating areas around the fountain and it is a popular lunchtime destination for area office workers and students. Impacts to the 4(f) Resources The LPA proposes a short busway connection between Third Street and Main Street near Kendall Square. The busway would travel south on Third Street to the intersection with Broadway. From there, the busway would travel across Broadway, pass in front of One Cambridge Center on the west side of Galaxy Park, and then travel onto Main Street using the existing westbound buslane. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­8 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS To facilitate the connection between Third Street and Main Street, 0.11 acres of parkland will be converted temporarily and existing conditions will be restored once construction is completed. A total of approximately 0.10 acres of parkland will be permanently converted to transportation use.. During construction, there will be visual disturbance near the fountain and seating areas of the park and access via the western side of the park may be limited. However, pedestrian access to the park will be maintained. During operation, the park could experience increased noise and vibration due to bus traffic, but the project is not likely to adversely impact the future use of the park, as compared to its current use. Avoidance Alternatives Various options that would have either bypassed the park completely or not require additional land be converted to transportation use were evaluated and eliminated. These options would have negated the purpose of the project by either not servicing the Kendall Square MBTA station or significantly lengthening travel time by the buses. Thus, there is no feasible alternative to avoid impacts to the park other than the recommended LPA. Measures to Minimize Harm Because of the de minimis size of the impact, the dense commercial nature of the area and the lack of feasible alternative locations for the proposed busway that would avoid impacts to the park, there is no feasible alternative to minimize harm to the resource other than the proposed LPA.. In summary, Table 7­2 provides a condensed listing of the amount of publicly owned open space that will be temporarily and permanently impacted and thus require a Section 4(f) evaluation. Table 7­2: Publicly Owned Open Space Impact Summary PARK LOCATION Revere Beach Parkway Fort Washington Park Memorial Drive Underpass GJRR Connections (Storrow Drive Overpass) GJRR Bridge Water Sheet Landmark Center (400 Park Drive) Galaxy Park Town Everett Cambridge Cambridge Temporary Impact (ft2) 133,294 1,750 1,553 Temporary Impact (ac) 3.06 0.04 0.04 Boston Cambridge/Boston 3,508 5,000 0.08 0.11 1,288 1,140 0.03 0.03 Boston Cambridge 5,385 4,970 0.12 0.11 0 4,208 0.00 0.10 Permanent Permanent Impact Impact (ac) (ft2) 82,640 1.90 1,405 0.03 513 0.01 Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­9 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS 7.2 State Laws, Regulations and Programs Table 7­3 presents a summary listing of the project’s compliance with the provisions of applicable Massachusetts’ laws, regulations, and programs. Draft Executive Order 385 Findings and Draft MGL Section 61 Findings are provided herein. 7.2.1 Draft Executive Order 385 Finding Introduction Executive Order 385, entitled “Planning for Growth,” states the policy of the Commonwealth to “actively promote sustainable economic development in the form of: a) economic activity and growth which is supported by adequate infrastructure and which does not result in, or contribute to, avoidable loss of environmental quality and resources, and b) infrastructure development designed to minimize the adverse environmental impact of economic activity.” Section 7 of the order requires state agencies to make a finding that the siting, design, construction, and funding (or permitting) of infrastructure projects are consistent with the provisions of the order. Section 8 of the order also directs the Secretary of Environmental Affairs to “consider the consistency of Agency actions with the provisions of this Order in its review of any project requiring the filing of an ENF pursuant to the MEPA.” A Draft Executive Order 385 Finding is included in this section, in compliance with the requirements of Sections 2, 7 and 8 of the order. Project Description A complete description of the LPA is included in Chapter 2. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­10 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Table 7­3: Compliance with Massachusetts Laws, Regulations and Programs
Law, Regulation or Program Brief Description of Compliance Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Act: M.G.L. c. 9, §§ 26­27D and regulations at 950 CMR 71.00 Coordination with Massachusetts SHPO is ongoing. Massachusetts Clean Waters Act: M.G.L. c. 21, §§ 26­53 and regulations at 314 CMR 3.00 (Surface Water Discharge Permit Program), 314 CMR 4.00 (Surface Water Quality Standards), 314 CMR 9.00 (Water Quality Certification) The project will not result in direct impacts to surface waters of the Commonwealth. Appropriate stormwater management measures will be enacted along BRT busways and at new BRT stations to ensure compliance with the appropriate regulatory authority. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM): M.G.L. c.21A, § 4A and regulations at 301 CMR 20.00 – 26.00 Project is consistent with approved Massachusetts CZM Plan. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): M.G.L. c. 21A, § 2(7) and regulations at 301 CMR 12.00 The project does not impact an ACEC – not applicable. Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP): M.G.L. c. 21E and regulations at 310 CMR 40.000 Construction specifications will be prepared to ensure that any OHM contamination is properly addressed in compliance with the MCP. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA): M.G.L. c. 30, §§ 61 – 62H and regulations at 301 CMR 11.00 This RDEIR/DEIS partially fulfills the statutory and regulatory requirements. Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MWPA): M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 and regulations at 310 CMR 10.00 Wetlands subject to jurisdiction under the MWPA are affected. Detailed delineations of these resources would be conducted as required during the future design phase of the project. All wetland and water resource impacts would be minimized to the extent practicable. Any impacts to wetland or water resources would be mitigated to compensate for any loss of water resource area or function. The mitigation requirements will be worked out through consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the conservation commissions of the affected communities. Executive Order 149: Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) and Floodplain Use There would be no impact on the existing values of the mapped floodplains or regulatory floodways, and new structures would not increase the elevation of the 100­year storm event. Executive Order 385: Planning for Growth Project is consistent with relevant portions of the executive order. Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy of Massachusetts EOEA, October 9, 2002 The LPA will not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on the minority or low­income populations in the corridor or the seven­city region. The LPA would provide benefits to residents including the minority and low­income populations living near the stations. These benefits include improved access to transit, transit travel time savings, expanded access to employment and amenities, and the potential for increased economic development. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­11 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Project Impacts and Potential Mitigation Land Use and Economic Activity In a display of cross­jurisdictional support for this project, the chief executives from the six municipalities signed a precedent setting Circumferential Ring Regional Planning Compact in October of 1995. In the Compact, the cities adopted a set of planning principles, committed to working with the MBTA during the Urban Ring MIS, and agreed to coordinate transportation and land use policies within the Corridor. Each of the Compact jurisdictions is pursuing plans and policies that encourage Transportation Oriented Development (TOD). The Compact communities have enacted land use policies, including zoning and redevelopment plans, intended to concentrate development within the Urban Ring. These communities have documented their respective plans and policies in the Urban Ring Compact Report, July 2001. The municipalities have enacted zoning, land use plans, and other policies that promote increased density. In established employment centers, further growth is encouraged while limiting congestion. In emerging employment areas, new economic development is encouraged on underutilized properties. The Compact communities also wish to promote residential growth in the corridor, and to revitalize the neighborhood business centers that serve these residential communities. 1
During the preparation of the Urban Ring MIS, an analysis of Activity Centers was conducted to inform the location of stations in the MIS Recommended Alternative. Those station locations were further refined during the preparation of this report. Tables 7­4 to 7­6 list the recommended BRT station locations included in the LPA. The station locations are intended to serve the locally identified Activity Centers. MetroPlan/MetroFuture, prepared by the MAPC, serves as the regional development plan for the Boston metropolitan area. The plan has, since its adoption in 1990, provided a regional strategy to contain sprawl through encouragement of sustainable development patterns. The Urban Ring Project is consistent with MetroPlan/MetroFuture as it will promote mixed development in urban areas that feature greater densities and existing public infrastructure. By doing so, the region can expand and strengthen its economy while limiting energy use, traffic congestion and environmental degradation, and safeguarding air, water, and land resources. The purpose of the Urban Ring Project is to provide additional transit options to serve identified employment centers through the development of a circumferential transportation system that connects the existing radial facilities, provides access to the employment centers, while relieving congestion on the core portions of the existing radial transit network. Tables 7­4 to 7­6 also list the linkages with the existing MBTA transit system for each of the 36 proposed BRT stations included in the LPA. The LPA is consistent with, and highly supportive of, the plans and policies of the municipalities in the Urban Ring corridor. The projected impacts of the Urban Ring are highly beneficial in the categories of transportation access and mobility, the environment, and land use and economic development. The Urban Ring Phase 2 project is generally consistent with Massachusetts Governor Patrick’s emphasis on encouraging smart growth and sustainable development and encouraging state infrastructure. Chapter 4 describes the project’s consistency to the administration’s smart growth initiatives. 1
MBTA, MIS of Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Project corridor – Final Report, July 2001. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­12 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Table 7­4: BRT Stations by Location, Connections, Routes and Headways: LPA Segment A Sector/
Station No Station Name Location BRT Routes(1) Connections Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail 1.2 Logan West Garage Boston 2 171, 448, 449, 459 1.3 Airport Boston 1, 2, 7 171, MPA Shuttles BLUE 1 ,2, 7 1, 2, 7 111, 112, 114, 116, 117 1, 2, 7 112 Newburyport/ Rockport 1, 2 99, 105, 106, 110, 112 1, 2 90, 97, 99, 100, 106, 108, 110, 112, 134 ORANGE 2.2 Griffin Way Chelsea 2.3 Downtown Chelsea Chelsea 2.4 Mystic Mall Chelsea 3.3 Everett Everett 4.2 Wellington Medford 4.3 Assembly Square Somerville 1, 2 90, 92 4.9 Inner Belt Somerville 1, 5 86, 91 1, 2, 5 4.10 Sullivan Square Boston 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 101, 104, 105, 109,CT2 ORANGE Newburyport/ Rockport/Haverhill (1) BRT 1, 2, and 7 routes each have the following headways: 10 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 15 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 20 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings BRT 5 and 6 routes each have the following headways: 7 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 12 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 15 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­13 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Table 7­5: Sector/
Station No. BRT Stations by Location, Connections, Routes and Headways: LPA Segment B Station Name(1) Connections Location BRT Routes
(2) Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail 5.1 New Lechmere Cambridge 1, 5 69, 80, 87, 88 GREEN C/D 5.2 First Street/Galleria Cambridge 1, 5 5.3 Binney Street Cambridge 1, 5 5.4 Fulkerson Street Cambridge 1 5.5 Kendall/MIT Cambridge 1, 5 64, 68, 85, CT2 RED 6.1 MassAvenue/MIT Cambridge 5 1, CT1 6.2 Cambridgeport Cambridge 5 6.3 BU Bridge Boston/Brk 5, 6 47 GREEN B Comm Ave/ Pack Corner (Options B&C) Boston 6 57, 170 GREEN B Linden Street (Option C) Boston 6 Brighton Ave/ Harvard Ave (Option C) Boston 6 57 7.1 7.2 Union Square (Option C) Boston 6 57 Cambridge Street/Harvard Ave (Option C) Boston 6 7.3 Allston West Station Boston 6 Framingham 7.4 (Not Used) Boston 6 7.5 North Harvard Street Boston 6 64, 66 Barry’s Corner (Option C) Boston 6 7.6 Western Ave Boston 6 66, 86 7.7 Harvard Square Cambridge 6 1, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75,77, 78, 86,96 RED 8.2 Yawkey Boston 5, 6, 7 Framingham 8.4 FenwayStationParkDr Boston 47 GREEN D and C 8.8 LMA Boston 5, 6, 7 8, 19, 47, CT2, CT3, Shuttles 8.11 Ruggles Boston 5, 6, 7 8, 15, 19, 22, 23, 28, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 ORANGE Attleboro/ Stoughton 5, 6, 7 (1) In Sector 7 the final alignment to/from Allston has not been selected. All potential station locations for options under consideration are shown. (2) BRT 1, 2, and 7 routes each have the following headways: 10 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 15 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 20 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS BRT 5 and 6 routes each have the following headways: 7 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 12 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 15 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings Page 7­14 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Table 7­6: BRT Stations by Location, Connections, Routes and Headways: LPA Segment C Sector/
Station No. Station Name Location BRT Routes (1) Connections Bus Rapid Transit Commuter Rail 6, 7 1, 8, 47, 170 Silver Line 7 1, 8, 14, 15, 19, 23, 28, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 66, 170, 171 Silver Line 9.1 Washington Street Boston 9.2 Dudley Square Boston 9.3 Crosstown Center Boston 6, 7 1, 47 9.4 BU Medical Center Boston 6, 7 8, 10, 47, CT1 Fairmont New Market Boston 6 8, 10 10.6 Edward Everett Square Boston 6 16, 17, 8, 41 10.8 JFK/UMass Boston 6 8,16,41 RED Old Colony 11.1 Broadway Boston 7 3, 9, 11, 47 RED 11.2 A Street Boston 7 3 11.5 World Trade Center Boston 7 3,4,6,7,448,449,459, 171 Silver Line 10.3 (1) BRT 1, 2, and 7 routes each have the following headways: BRT 5 and 6 routes each have the following headways: 10 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 7 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 15 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 12 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 20 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings 15 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­15 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Displacements and Relocations Construction and implementation of the project will require approximately 27 acres of property takings along the Urban Ring corridor for construction of project elements including BRT busways and BRT stations. Approximately 43% of the right­of­way (ROW) impacts occur along railroad ROWs, 33% are industrial commercial properties, and 24% are institutional/municipal properties. The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and relocation resources will be available without discrimination to all businesses being relocated. There are no residential takings or business relocations 2
associated with the project . Neighborhoods and Population As with Land Use and Economic Activity, the Urban Ring Project provides increased transit access to neighborhoods along the Urban Ring corridor. Population growth in the Urban Ring corridor will exceed that of the region as a whole, thus the project will provide increased transit access and a viable alternative to private automobiles within a corridor with steadily increasing population. The project serves as an exemplary model for demonstrating compliance with EJ requirements under both federal and Massachusetts policies and requirements. The majority of the project alignment and the proposed stations serve EJ populations, and the project does not impose undue burdens on those EJ populations. By providing enhanced transit access to corridor employment and activity centers, the project provides substantial benefits to EJ populations in the corridor communities. Visual Resources and Aesthetics Site planning explorations indicated that the development of Urban Ring Phase 2 stations at each of the selected locations was feasible with minimal visual/aesthetic impacts. Construction of BRT tunnels and busways, and buses traveling in mixed traffic and exclusive bus lanes at various locations along the corridor are not expected to result in adverse visual impacts at any location. In general, the construction of BRT stops and other Project improvements will greatly enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the place where such facilities are planned. Air Quality The Project will improve air quality at the intersection, municipal, and regional levels compared to the No­
Build and Baseline Build Alternatives, largely due to the project’s ability to divert automobile trips to public transportation. Air quality analyses of existing and future alternatives were conducted in accordance with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance and air quality modeling procedures. A microscale analysis indicated that maximum 1­hour and 8­hour CO concentrations remain the same for Project Build and No­Build scenarios, but future year CO concentrations are generally below existing levels due primarily to future year emission controls required by Federal regulations. A mesoscale analysis demonstrated that the LPA exhibited the lowest emissions of all future cases, while the No­Build case exhibited the highest emissions because increased public transportation reduces the number of individual motor vehicles in the project area. Regarding fine particulate emissions, the introduction of ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel in 2007, along with future emission standards (established under state and federal regulations) will significantly reduce fine particulate emissions from on­road diesel powered vehicles in future years. ULSD is currently used by the MBTA in its bus fleet. 2
One of the Allston route options still under consideration would impact an existing business at the north end of Malvern Street, Boston, only if selected as the recommended option. Analysis of Allston route options is ongoing. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­16 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Noise and Vibration Construction noise and vibration vary greatly depending on the construction process, type and condition of equipment used, and layout of the construction site. For this project, the primary locations for assessing construction noise and vibration impacts will be at the proposed portals for the tunnel boring machine and the stations in the LMA. The potential for construction disturbing vibration­sensitive equipment is of specific concern in the LMA and at MIT. The potential for construction noise impact will be minimal for commercial and industrial land use, with impact screening distances of 70 feet and 40 feet, respectively. The potential for temporary construction noise impact would be limited to locations within about 125 feet of the corridor for residential land use. However, the potential for noise impact from nighttime construction could extend to residences as far as 400 feet. Potential construction noise impacts will be evaluated during engineering and design of the project as more details of the construction scenarios are known, including potential haul routes for excavated material. Noise­sensitive land use along the project corridor was identified based on preliminary alignment drawings, aerial photographs, GIS data, visual surveys, and input from abutters. Noise­sensitive areas adjacent to the proposed corridor include single­family residences, multi­family residences, non­
residential (commercial) locations and a number of institutional land uses, including the LMA, MIT and others. The analysis indicates that no locations are projected to have severe noise impacts. Potential noise impacts at stations were also evaluated. Because of the high existing noise levels at the proposed station locations and the limited amount of noise generating activities, no noise impact is projected for any of the station locations on any of the alternatives. The only portions of the proposed alternatives with the potential for vibration impact from bus operations are the LMA and MIT. However, based on the ambient vibration measurement program conducted in these locations, the Project bus operations are not projected to generate vibration levels higher than existing vibration generated by current bus operations, trucks, and deliveries to buildings. Plant and Animal Species and Habitats There are no federal or state­listed threatened or endangered species known to occur within the Urban Ring corridor. The most recent Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas shows that there is one small area 3
of priority habitat of rare species and estimated habitat of rare wildlife located in Sector 1 in East Boston. The proposed LPA alignment follows abandoned railroad right of way and existing roadways in this area and is not expected to have any impacts to plant and animal species and habitats. Water Resources The water resources in the Urban Ring corridor consist of Boston Inner Harbor and the following five rivers: Malden River, Chelsea River, Mystic River, Charles River, and Muddy River. The Urban Ring corridor includes areas that may be located on land areas, particularly filled tidelands, subject to jurisdiction pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 – the Public Waterfront Act. Additionally, there are a number of local, state, and federal jurisdictional wetlands along the project corridor. Any alteration of the wetlands or encroachment within a 100­foot buffer around the wetlands would be prohibited. Therefore, coordination with both the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the local conservation commissions that administer the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, would be anticipated. In locations where the Urban Ring alignment utilizes existing roadways and rail corridors, no significant impacts to water resources or wetlands are anticipated. 3
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas, 12th Edition, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. October 1, 2006 (Effective Date). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­17 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS Energy The impacts of the proposed BRT service on the regional energy economy of the Boston Metropolitan Area and the state of Massachusetts, are expected to be positive. Direct impacts to the energy economy would result from the anticipated reduction in gasoline and diesel vehicle fuel usage that would result from the reduction in VMT on regional roadways. The BRT vehicles are planned to be powered by hybrid electric drive. Gasoline, diesel fuel, and electrical energy would be consumed during the construction of new BRT stations and other infrastructure, but this is expected to be an insignificant amount in comparison to expected growth in regional energy demand. Operation of the system will result in a net decrease in energy consumption due to the significant mode shift from auto to transit achieved by the Project. Hazardous Materials A hazardous materials investigation was conducted to indicate potential releases of oil and/or hazardous materials (OHM) that may have occurred within the corridor. Existing stations where no construction is proposed will not affect, or be affected by, the potential presence of site contamination. The analysis indicated that 19 potential new bus stop locations are in the vicinity of at least one open DEP site. Numerous 21 E sites are located in the vicinity of the Urban Ring corridor and several of these sites are owned by the MBTA. The MTBA is currently working to remediate several of these sites, including the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility, Wellington Station, and Sullivan Square Station. In comments submitted in response to the Expanded ENF, DEP recommended that the MBTA consider combining these sites using the single Special Project Designation provisions outlined under 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). EMF and Moving Metal The Urban Ring route will pass in proximity of several areas where sensitive electronic instrumentation is located and used in the context of research laboratory experiments. These areas include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) campus, the Boston University laboratories (BU), the Longwood Medical Area (LMA), and the Boston City Hospital Medical Center (BMC). The two distinct features of transportation technology that may give rise to electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic interference (EMI) are (1) the “moving metal” of the vehicle chassis, and (2) the EMF associated with the electrical currents that are used for the propulsion system. The EMF/EMI levels associated with the project alternatives were estimated by distance from the proposed busway tunnel, busways, and bus lanes, and the results for the LPA showed minimal increases in EMF/EMI that are unlikely to have significant impact. Public Service and Utilities The communities within the Urban Ring corridor are highly developed and have well­established public service systems and utilities networks. Public services that could be affected by the Project include fire, police, emergency medical service, solid waste collection and snow removal. Areas of mixed traffic are generally predicted to result in negligible impacts to public service requirements because the increase in bus traffic will be offset by an overall reduction in passenger vehicle traffic from the Urban Ring project. Bus lanes would be open to use by emergency vehicles, which is a potential project benefit, particularly in areas of the corridor with significant existing traffic congestion. No significant impacts on solid waste collection and disposal services are anticipated. Minor alterations in hauling routes may be required but should not significantly impact their services. In mixed traffic areas and areas with proposed surface bus lanes and busways, the anticipated construction would have little or no impact on existing utilities. For the proposed LPA tunnel, there will be a combination of utility Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­18 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS protection and relocations, particularly in the area of the tunnel portals and underground stations. This includes main trunk lines, interceptors, deep systems and underground conduits. Historic and Archaeological A documentary reconnaissance survey of historic resources was completed for the Project to identify previously recorded individual properties, areas, and districts that may be eligible for listing in the State Register and National Register. A reconnaissance archaeological survey was conducted to identify areas within the Urban Ring corridor that are considered to be archaeologically sensitive. The results address historic 4
resources in the Urban Ring Area of Potential Effect (APE). The greatest numbers of historic resources within the APE are located in Boston, followed by Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, and Medford in descending order. A total of 1,068 individual properties and 88 historic districts and areas within the Urban Ring Phase 2 APE were identified for all the alternatives, options, and stations. While the APE for the Project includes numerous architectural resources, it is likely in most instances that few of the resources will be physically affected by the Project. Those that may potentially be affected are primarily roadways and bridges. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The findings may be “No Historic Properties Affected,” “No Adverse Effect,” or “Adverse Effect”. An adverse effect is defined as “alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register” (36 CFR 800.16(I)). Effects can be direct or indirect and can be immediate or reasonably foreseeable: cumulative, later in time, or at a distance. The majority of the Urban Ring LPA is not expected to have any impact on historic properties located along the proposed corridor. By utilizing the existing street network and operating in bus lanes and mixed traffic within the existing curb lines, the LPA would avoid historic properties throughout all but a small number of locations. There are specific elements of the LPA that may have direct and/or indirect impacts to historic properties that may result in a “finding of effect” and in some cases the effect may be considered “adverse” Each of these locations was included in the LPA only after an extensive review of alignment alternatives and options seeking to avoid or mitigate the potential effects while still addressing the purpose and need for the Project. In most cases, the impacts are temporary, associated with construction and will result in a finding of no adverse effect. The proposed busway adjacent to Revere Beach Parkway in Everett would introduce an additional, parallel lane to this NR property that may result in direct (construction) and indirect (visual) impacts to this resource. However, the Revere Beach Parkway corridor in this area adjacent to the proposed busway is a general use parkway currently used by trucks and buses and the additional lane is not expected to result in a finding of adverse effect. The proposed shift of bus traffic from Albany Street to a busway within the CRX right of way would introduce new traffic patterns near Fort Washington Historic District and would require careful evaluation to determine if there is an adverse effect to this property. The proposed crossing of the Charles River on a rebuilt Grand Junction Railroad bridge may result in temporary direct (construction) and indirect impacts to the Charles River Basin Historic District and the BU Bridge. Careful review of the proposed design and construction methods for the rebuilt Grand Junction Railroad Bridge will be needed to determine if these impacts are an “adverse effect”. The construction of the portals for the proposed tunnel through the Longwood Medical Area would result in temporary construction and visual impacts to the Back Bay Yard, Riverway Administration Building and the Landmark Center, resulting in a finding of effect on these properties. However, the impacts are temporary and upon completion of construction the area would be restored to its current or improved conditions, resulting in a finding of no adverse effect. The proposed tunnel and underground stations beneath the Fenway and Longwood Medical Area were carefully evaluated to determine whether or not 4
The APE extends 50 to 100 feet from the centerline, depending on present use, and 150 feet around stations. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­19 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS construction of the tunnel would result in vibrations that could directly impact above ground historic resources. The tunnel portals, alignments, and station locations of the LPA were modified during conceptual design to avoid any long­term adverse impacts on historic resources. Preliminary analysis of tunnel operations has indicated that the passage of rubber­tired buses through the tunnel would not result in any vibration that could impact above ground historic resources. During preliminary engineering and final evaluation of environmental impacts, additional analysis of subsurface conditions and tunnel construction methods will be conducted to confirm these preliminary findings, resulting in a finding of no adverse effect. Further survey and evaluation is needed in the Allston/Harvard area of the LPA to identify historic properties. Furthermore, the location of each stand alone bus shelter should be reviewed to confirm that there is no impact to surrounding historic properties. If any shelter is found to have an impact options for relocation or design should be considered. Further archaeological investigations are recommended wherever the LPA traverses new alignment (i.e. busways, the proposed tunnel) to determine whether there would be any impacts on significant archaeological sites. As the project moves forward and the design is refined, continued coordination and consultation will occur to insure that project planning takes into account potential impacts on historic properties and that all measures to avoid or mitigate impacts and adverse effects are considered. If the Project results in a finding of adverse effect on historic properties, measures to avoid and/or mitigate the adverse effect will be developed through consultation and implemented through a memorandum of agreement.. Parks and Open Space Parks along the proposed LPA route will experience increased bus traffic and associated noise, but in heavily developed and trafficked areas, the overall impact is not expected to be significant or affect park use. Locations that do not require “use” of parks or any change in use, the project will not impede the public’s use or enjoyment of the park. Park users may experience some increased bus traffic, noise, and vibration from operation on the adjacent roadways, but the surrounding roadways are currently heavily used by all types of traffic and impacts are expected to be minor. Increased bus traffic from the Project occurs in some locations, but is not expected to result in a significant change over existing conditions. In other locations, the LPA would result in a net decrease in bus traffic through and adjacent to parks, notably where the proposed Fenway/LMA BRT tunnel enables a reduction in bus volume on surface roadways and parkways through the historic Emerald Necklace Park in the Fenway neighborhood of Boston. Assessment of the environmental consequences of the Project to public parklands and open space was based on the extent to which the Project “uses” a Section 4(f) and/or a Section 6(f) resource or whether it is a “conversion” under Massachusetts Article 97. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 establishes the requirement for consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. Before approving a project that “uses” a Section 4(f) resource, FTA must find that there is no prudent and feasible alternative, and that the selected alternative minimizes harm to the resource. Section 6(f) of the DOT Act applies much the same procedural standards to publicly­owned parks and open space purchased with federal funds under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program. Several of the parks and open spaces 5
located along the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT corridor have received LWCF monies. Consistency with Executive Order 385 Construction of the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project is consistent with the policy of the commonwealth stated in Section 2 of Executive Order 385. The project is designed to provide “adequate infrastructure” through 5
National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund, Detailed List of Grants by County: Massachusetts, http://waso­
lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm, May 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­20 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS reconstruction of and improvements to existing state public transit systems in order to accommodate existing and projected future peak period passenger demand, to alleviate extreme peak period congestion in the central transit core, and to improve access throughout the Urban Ring corridor. The environmental impacts resulting from the construction of the proposed project have been summarized in this Executive Order 385 Finding. Through implementation of the mitigation measures described above, the environmental quality of the project area will not be adversely impacted. Finding The environmental impacts resulting from the construction of the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 project have been fully reviewed and the impacts summarized in this Executive Order 385 Finding. The Executive Office of Transportation finds that the construction of the proposed project is consistent with the policies of the commonwealth to provide for adequate infrastructure, to correct existing mass transit deficiencies, and to actively support sustainable and transit­oriented economic development in the Urban Ring corridor and the Boston metropolitan area. The EOT also finds that with the implementation by the EOT of the mitigation measures described above, the proposed Project does not result in, or contribute to, avoidable loss of environmental quality and resources in the project area. The Project also provides for infrastructure development designed to minimize the adverse environmental impact of economic activity. ______________________________ ________________, Title Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works ________________ Date Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­21 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS 7.2.1 Draft MGL Section 61 Finding DRAFT
Finding of the Department of Environmental Protection
Environmental Protection Pursuant to M.G.L.
Chapter 30, Section 61
Project: Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Project Location: Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Somerville Project Proponent: Executive Office of Transportation EOEA File No.: 12565 DEP Permit: 1. Chapter 91 License Project Description The Urban Ring is a proposed major new bus rapid transit (BRT) system that would run in a roughly circular “ring” through densely developed portions of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford and Somerville. The Urban Ring would provide faster and more direct transit service both for the high volume of trips within the corridor, and to/from corridor connections with the MBTA’s existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems. As a result, the Urban Ring would improve transit access and capacity in the corridor, reduce crowding in the central subway system, and support transit oriented development and smart growth plans and policies. The primary purpose of Urban Ring Phase 2 is to significantly improve transit access, mobility, and capacity for the many residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, major educational and medical institutions, and other important destinations in the Urban Ring corridor, and their connections with the surrounding region. The Urban Ring Phase 2 is also intended to reduce crowding in the MBTA’s central subway system and to support smart growth and transit­oriented development (TOD) by eliminating or reducing constraints on transportation access and capacity in the corridor. The Urban Ring Phase 2 is designed to achieve these objectives by providing fast, frequent, and more direct transit trips between points within the corridor, as well as for trips to and from Urban Ring connections with the many “spokes” of the MBTA’s existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems. 2. Overall Project Impacts Filled Tidelands The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) alignment includes areas that are adjacent to existing infrastructure crossing facilities and may be located on land areas, particularly filled tidelands, subject to jurisdiction pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 – the Public Waterfront Act. Historic maps and charts of the project area that provide evidence of former shoreline configurations and upland/tideland boundaries were examined. A preliminary evaluation of areas along the alignment was performed in order to identify areas that are potentially located within Chapter 91 jurisdiction. These areas are described as follows: Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­22 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS East Boston and Chelsea – On the southern shoreline of Chelsea River in East Boston, the project alignment is within the Chelsea River Designated Port Area (DPA), including areas landward of the historic MHW shoreline, the limit of Chapter 91 jurisdiction on filled tidelands in a DPA. Eastern Avenue forms the landward limit of the Chelsea River DPA. Medford – In Medford, near the Fellsway approach to the Wellington Bridge, a long, narrow inlet off of the Mystic River is located immediately to the west of the Fellsway. Additionally, the alignment traverses the Route 16 Bridge. In these areas, the line that is 250 feet landward of the high water mark is the limit of Chapter 91 jurisdiction. Somerville – In Somerville, the Assembly Square area has historic fill areas that were former inlets of the Mystic River. Potential Chapter 91 jurisdiction is limited to areas within 250 feet of the existing Mean High Water mark of the Mystic River. Additionally, the Malden River itself may be impacted by the construction of a new busway that would also trigger Chapter 91 licensing. Impacts may include filling or altering wetland resource areas. The LPA traverses the Charles River over the Grand Junction railway right­of­way. This area is not within a DPA. Chapter 91 jurisdiction would extend to a line 250 feet landward of the current mean high water line of the Charles River. Existing bridge abutments on each bank and the existing bridge piers in the river may be extended. Impacts may include filling or altering wetland within the footprint of the extended abutment or pier. Because only half of the existing railroad bridge width is currently in use, the amount of expansion needed to accommodate the busway is minimized. A more refined determination would be conducted as the project design progresses and the extent of project­related construction is known. 3. Specific Project Mitigation Measures The new structure is proposed to be positioned outside the floodway so that no obstruction of the floodway will occur. 4. Findings For the reasons stated above, the Department hereby finds that, with the implementation of the mitigation measures described above by the Proponent, all practicable means and measures will be taken to avoid or minimize waterways or navigational impacts to the environment resulting from the Urban Ring Project. Appropriate and more detailed conditions will be included in the DEP Chapter 91 License to be issued by the Department that will describe more fully and assure implementation of the mitigation measures described in this Finding. _____________________________________ ____________________ Date Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­23 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS 7.3 Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) establishes a national policy to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations” and to “encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone...” (16 U.S.C. 1452, Sec. 303 (1) and (2)). Section 307 (c)(3)(A) of the CZMA provides that “... any applicant for a required federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide ... a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.” Similar requirements are included for activities conducted by or funded by a federal agency. Federal consistency review is required for project proposals that are in or can reasonably be expected to affect the resources or land or water uses of the Massachusetts coastal zone, and require a federal license or permit, or are federally funded. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project is located within the designated Massachusetts Coastal Zone and the Project will be federally funded. Therefore, the MBTA must demonstrate that the proposed activity is consistent with enforceable CZM program policies. Massachusetts has developed its CZM Plan, which includes enforceable CZM program policies promulgated at 301 CMR 21.98. The CZM Program Plan establishes program policies for water quality, habitat, protected areas, coastal hazards, port and harbor infrastructure, public access management, energy policy and management, ocean resources, and growth management. These policies, described below, embody coastal policy for the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Projects subject to federal consistency review must be consistent with CZM program policies. CZM enforces its program policies through existing Massachusetts’ statutes and their implementing regulations. In addition, the CZM Program Plan lists “management principles”. These policy statements are not currently enforceable through existing state statutes and regulations. 7.3.1 Water Quality Policies WATER QUALITY POLICY #1: Ensure that point­source discharges in or affecting the coastal zone, are consistent with federally approved state effluent limitations and water quality standards. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project will not result in additional point source discharges of stormwater runoff to any surface waters or wetlands in the vicinity of the project. Minor additional areas of impervious surfaces at several new BRT stations may generate additional stormwater flows. These flows will be discharged to adjacent state or municipal stormwater drainage systems. WATER QUALITY POLICY #2: Ensure that nonpoint pollution controls promote the attainment of state surface water quality standards in the coastal zone. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project does not involve nonpoint runoff, and therefore, this policy does not apply. WATER QUALITY POLICY #3: Ensure that activities in or affecting the coastal zone conform to applicable state requirements governing sub­surface waste discharges and sources of air and water pollution and protection of wetlands. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­24 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project will not result in discharges to groundwater; therefore, this policy does not apply. 7.3.2 Habitat Policies HABITAT POLICY #1: Protect wetland areas including salt marshes, shellfish beds, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, salt ponds, eel grass beds, and freshwater wetlands for their role as natural habitats. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project will have no direct impacts to coastal or inland wetland resource areas, therefore this policy does not apply. HABITAT POLICY #2: Promote the restoration of degraded or former wetland resources in coastal areas and ensure that activities in coastal areas do not further wetland degradation but instead take advantage of opportunities to engage in wetland restoration. This policy does not apply. 7.3.3 Protected Areas Policies PROTECTED AREAS POLICY #1: Assure preservation, restoration, and enhancement of complexes of coastal resources of regional or statewide significance through the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Program. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project does not impact coastal resources of regional or statewide significance; nor does it impact an ACEC. Therefore, this policy does not apply. PROTECTED AREAS POLICY #2: Protect state and locally designated scenic rivers and state classified scenic rivers in the coastal zone. There are no state or locally designated scenic rivers in the project area; therefore, this policy does not apply. PROTECTED AREAS POLICY #3: Review proposed developments in or near designated or registered historic districts or sites to ensure that the preservation intent is respected by federal, state, and private activities and that potential adverse effects are minimized. Numerous National Register and State Register historic districts and properties have been identified along the Urban Ring corridor. The project sponsor will coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to determine whether there are any adverse effects from construction and operation of the Project. If it is determined that an adverse effect has occurred, the project sponsor will work with the SHPO and the MHC to determine the appropriate mitigation. 7.3.4 Coastal Hazard Policies COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #1: Preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the beneficial functions of storm damage prevention and flood control provided by natural coastal landforms, such as dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, coastal banks, land subject to coastal storm flowage, salt marshes, and land under the ocean. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project will not affect the listed coastal resources; therefore, this policy does not apply. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­25 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #2: Ensure construction in water bodies and contiguous land areas will minimize interference with water circulation and sediment transport. Approve permits for flood or erosion control projects only when it has been determined that there will be no significant adverse effects on the project site or adjacent or downcoast areas. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project does not include construction in or adjacent to water bodies, nor is it a flood or erosion control project; therefore, this policy does not apply. COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #3: Ensure that state and federally funded public works projects proposed for location within the coastal zone will: • Not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers or other natural resources; • Be reasonably safe from flood and erosion related damage; • Not promote growth and development in hazard­prone or buffer areas, especially in Velocity zones and ACECs; and • Not be used on Coastal Barrier Resource Units for new or substantial reconstruction of structures in a manner inconsistent with the Coastal Barrier Resource/Improvement Acts. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project does not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers or other natural resources; a wetlands mitigation area will replicate the minimal amount of Inland Bank resource protected under the MWPA. The project does not affect mapped flood zones or regulatory floodways and will not result in flood impacts in the project area. A detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan will be implemented during construction in compliance with the requirements of the Massachusetts General Permit for Construction Stormwater Discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. As noted, there are no hazard­prone or buffer areas to coastal flood velocity zones or an ACEC in the project area. There are no Coastal Barrier Resource Units affected by the project. COASTAL HAZARD POLICY #4: Prioritize public funds for acquisition of hazardous coastal areas for conservation or recreation use, and relocation of structures out of coastal high hazard areas, giving due consideration to the effects of coastal hazards at the location to the use and manageability of the area. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project is not a land acquisition project; therefore, this policy does not apply. 7.3.5 Port and Harbor Infrastructure Policies As the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project is not a port or harbor infrastructure project, these policies (Policies 1–3) and Ports Management Principle #1 do not apply and are not listed here. 7.3.6 Public Access Management Principles PUBLIC ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE #1: Improve public access to coastal recreation facilities and alleviate auto traffic and parking problems through improvements in public transportation. Link existing coastal recreation sites to each other or to nearby coastal inland facilities via trails for bicyclists, hikers, and equestrians, and via rivers for boaters. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­26 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project is a public transit improvement project and therefore is consistent with this policy. Although the main purposes of the project do not include linking existing coastal recreation areas to each other or nearby inland facilities, improved access along the Urban Ring corridor will result in improved access between major parklands and open spaces along the corridor, including the East Boston Harbor Walk at Logan Airport, the Mystic River Reservation, the Charles River Reservation and the Back Bay Fens, among others. PUBLIC ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE #2: Increase capacity of existing recreation areas by facilitating multiple use and by improving management, maintenance and public support facilities. Resolve conflicting uses whenever possible through improved management rather than through exclusion of uses. The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project, through the improvement of the existing public transit system in the coastal zone, can be considered as an improvement to public support facilities serving existing recreation areas. Therefore, the project is consistent with this principle. PUBLIC ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE #3: Provide technical assistance to developers of private recreational facilities and sites that increase public access to the shoreline. This management principle does not apply. PUBLIC ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE #4: Expand existing recreation facilities and acquire and develop new public areas for coastal recreational activities. Give highest priority to expansions or new acquisitions in regions of high need or limited site availability. Assure that both transportation access and the recreational facilities are compatible with social and environmental characteristics of surrounding communities. The project has been designed to improve and enhance transit access in the Urban Ring corridor and surrounding communities, including any improved recreation facilities along the corridor. 7.3.7 Energy Policy and Management Principle The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project is not an energy project; therefore, Energy Policy #1 and Energy Management Principle #1 do not apply and are not listed here. 7.3.8 Ocean Resources Policies The Urban Ring Phase 2 Project does not involve impacts to ocean resources; therefore, Ocean Resources Policies 1–3 do not apply and are not listed here. 7.3.9 Growth Management Principles GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE #1: Encourage, through technical assistance and review of publicly funded development, compatibility of proposed development with local community character and scenic resources. EOT, in developing the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project, has undertaken a considerable program of consultation with the planning and community development officials of the corridor communities in order to maximize the potential benefits of the project to local growth management and economic development efforts. Scenic and visual resources have been considered in the proposed design of BRT busways and BRT station elements throughout the corridor. Therefore, the project is consistent with Growth Management Principle #1. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­27 November 2008 Chapter 7 COMPLIANCE/CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE #2: Ensure that state and federally funded transportation and wastewater projects primarily serve existing developed areas, assigning highest priority to projects that meet the needs of urban and community development centers. In a display of cross­jurisdictional support for the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project, the chief executives from the original six corridor municipalities signed a precedent setting Circumferential Ring Regional Planning Compact in October of 1995. In the Compact, the cities adopted a set of planning principles, committed to working with the MBTA during the Urban Ring MIS, and agreed to coordinate transportation and land use policies within the Corridor. Each of the Compact jurisdictions is pursuing plans and policies that encourage TOD. The Compact communities have enacted land use policies, including zoning and redevelopment plans, intended to concentrate development within the Urban Ring. These communities have documented their respective plans and policies in the Urban Ring Compact Report, July 2001. In addition, the municipalities have enacted zoning, land use plans, and other policies that promote increased density. In established employment centers, further growth is encouraged while limiting congestion. In emerging employment areas, new economic development is encouraged on underutilized properties. The Compact communities also wish to promote residential growth in the corridor, and to revitalize the neighborhood business centers that serve these residential communities. MetroPlan/MetroFuture, prepared by the MAPC and currently being updated, serves as the regional development plan for the Boston metropolitan area. Since its adoption in 1990, this plan has provided a regional strategy to contain sprawl through encouragement of sustainable development patterns. The Urban Ring Project is consistent with MetroPlan/MetroFuture as it will promote mixed development in urban areas that feature greater densities and existing public infrastructure. By doing so, the region can expand and strengthen its economy while limiting energy use, traffic congestion and environmental degradation, and safeguarding air, water, and land resources. The purpose of the Urban Ring Project is to provide additional transit options to serve identified Activity Centers through the development of a circumferential transportation system that connects the radial facilities and provides access to these centers, while relieving congestion on the core portions of the existing radial transit network. The proposed Urban Ring Project is consistent with, and highly supportive of, the plans and policies of the municipalities in the Urban Ring corridor. The projected impacts of the Urban Ring are highly beneficial in the categories of transportation access and mobility, the environment, and land use and economic development. For the reasons cited above, the project is consistent with Growth Management Principle #2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLE #3: Encourage the revitalization and enhancement of existing development centers in the coastal zone through technical assistance and federal and state financial support for residential, commercial and industrial development. As noted under the previous Growth Management Principle, the project sponsor has coordinated with the affected municipalities throughout the development of the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project in order to maximize the project’s support for local residential, commercial and industrial development plans. Therefore, the project is consistent with Growth Management Principle #3. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 7­28 November 2008