PIhe/ re.
of~I'Wv.J4aorMA~(/'}/
G~~ (i}l/g~
~OO
01 Gmfl~'yfll'~
rrfanW/tir!f/&,(}JtweI;
.q]~
/jJ~900
.Jf.J1' 02~~4-2524
Min ROMNEY
Tel. (617) 626-1000
Fax. (617) 626-1181
GOVERNOR
http://www.mass.gov/envir
KERRY HEALEY
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER
May 20, 2005
SECRETARY
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT MUNICIPALITIES
PROJECT WATERSHEDS
EOEA NUMBER
PROJECT PROPONENT
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR
Circumferential Transportation
Improvements in the Urban Ring
Corridor - Phase 2
Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
Chelsea, Everett, Medford and
Somerville
Charles, Boston Harbor (Mystic), and
North Coastal
12565
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority
December 8, 2004
As Secretary of Environmental Affairs, I hereby determine
that the Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
submitted for this project adequately and properly complies with
the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (G. L. c. 30,
ss. 61-62H) and its implementing regulations (301 CMR 11.00).
This finding is conditioned upon the submission of a Notice of
Project Change (NPC) by September 1, 2005, describing proposed
changes to the Special Review Procedure (SRP) , with the intent
of reestablishing coordinated review of the Urban Ring project
under both the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The specific
requirements for submission of the NPC are discussed on pp. 5-6
of this Certificate.
o
Printed on Recycled Stock 20% Post Consumer Waste
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Project Description
The proposed Urban Ring project, which is located in the
municipalities of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea,
Everett, Medford and Somerville, would construct Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) facilities along a circumferential corridor
encircling downtown Boston, and new and improved commuter rail
stations connecting to the BRT service.
The proposed BRT facilities would provide a combination of
exclusive busways and bus-only lanes, and where in mixed
traffic, would incorporate signal priority for buses. The
busways and bus-only lanes would be constructed primarily along
active and inactive rail corridors and along transportation
easements and corridors reserved for such purposes.
Facilities
would include up to 43 BRT stations with sheltered platforms,
passenger information displays, and other amenities.
Three of
the commuter rail stations to be constructed are new and three
others will be expansions of existing commuter rail stations.
Phase 1 of the Urban Ring project entails Transportation
Systems Management, consisting of modifications to existing bus
routes, improved Cross-Town (CT) and Express (EC) bus service,
bus maintenance facility modifications, and acquisition of
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 40-foot buses.
Phase 1 was
originally scheduled for implementation in 2001-2005 and
received a Phase 1 Waiver from environmental review under MEPA.
Phase 2, which is the subject of the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) currently under review, entails the
construction and implementation of new BRT routes and new and
improved Commuter Rail (CR) stations along the route of the
Urban Ring. A fleet of BRT buses will be purchased and
additional BRT vehicle maintenance capacity will be provided.
The bus routes from Phase 1 will continue where they are not
redundant to BRT service.
The BRT routes will operate at
frequencies comparable to existing rapid transit lines. The
Locally Preferred Alternative for Phase 2 consists of the
following specific elements:
• 7 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes;
• 6 Cross-Town (CT) routes;
2
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
• 1 Express route;
•
•
•
38 BRT stations;
8 Commuter Rail connections; and
18 Rapid Transit connections.
In Phase 3, rail service would be implemented in the most
heavily traveled portion of the Urban Ring corridor, between
Sullivan Square and Dudley Square. A fleet of electric-powered
rail transit vehicles would be purchased, and additional rail
transit vehicle maintenance capacity would be provided. With
the possible exception of one BRT route, all of the Phase 2 BRT
services and new and improved commuter rail connections
implemented as part of Phase 2 would continue to be utilized.
MEPA History
The Urban Ring project was the subject of an Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) in September, 2001. On November 9,
2001A Certificate on the ENF was issued, that required the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, as well as a
Certificate Establishing a Special Review Procedure. The SRP
was deemed necessary due to the complexity and phased
implementation of this long-term project.
The SRP included the
establishment of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
representing the Urban Ring Compact Communities, institutions,
and other key stakeholders in the Urban Ring corridor.
Response to the DEIR
The comments submitted in response to the DEIR
overwhelmingly endorsed the concept of the Urban Ring and noted
that the DEIR does an admirable job of analyzing the many
benefits that circumferential transit improvements would provide
and justifies the need for these improvements.
It is clear that
the Urban Ring would serve a large population of existing and
potential riders, increase the effectiveness of the transit
system, and provide significant economic and environmental
benefits, including:
• increased transit ridership and better service;
• improved access to jobs and health care services;
• environmental justice;
3
EOEA #12565
•
•
•
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
economic development;
improved air quality; and
advancement of smart growth objectives.
Comments submitted in response to the DEIR indicate strong
support for the Urban Ring project, particularly among major
institutions and employers in the corridor. As stated by the
Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) in its comments:
"The Draft EIR has demonstrated that the Urban Ring could
be one of the most beneficial transportation projects
within the Boston region.
First, it has major transit
system benefits.
It makes the largest contribution to
increased regional transit mode share of any project
currently in planning. Of particular note, it greatly
increases the effectiveness of the commuter rail system by
giving passengers connections to their employment
destinations not now accessible by transit. Equally
significantly, it directly improves the functionality of
the present rapid transit system by decongesting the core
portions of the Red and Green Lines, which have reached
peak hour capacity.
In addition, the DEIR demonstrates the
importance of the project to the residents of the
communities along the corridor, and particularly to
minority and low-income residents."
Because of the benefits of the project, many commenters
noted the need for an implementation strategy, including a
reconsideration of project phasing and an exploration of costs
and funding mechanisms. The MBTA should work to develop this
strategy because municipalities in the Urban Ring corridor have
established plans and permitted projects that would rely on the
project (most significantly, the North Point project in
Cambridge, which will accommodate both the relocated Green Line
Station and the future Lechmere Urban Ring Station), and the
urgent need to secure necessary rights-of-way, most notably the
CSX right-of-way in Chelsea and East Boston.
Many commenters also noted the need to study alternative
routing, in addition to the Locally Preferred Alternative
(Preferred Alternative) presented in the DEIR.
Several segments
4
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
of the Preferred Alternative were cited as inadequate to serve
the corridor either because the quality of transit service would
be insufficient, or because of adverse impacts, or both. Many
commenters urged the META to work to implement Phases 1 and 2 as
soon as practicable, but requested that where the Preferred
Alternative does not appear to be adequate, that new
alternatives be developed (including alternate surface routing
and transit tunnels) or that elements of Phase 3 be advanced.
Finally, many commenters were concerned that the DEIR had
been submitted separate from the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), as required by the Certificate Establishing a
Special Review Procedure of November 9, 2001, and lacking in
some elements required for a DEIS, including analyses of
feasibility, cost, ridership, and other criteria that would
inform an implementation strategy.
proposed Modification to the Special Review Procedure
In a letter dated May 18, 2005, and attached as an
addendum to this Certificate, the META indicates its desire to
reestablish coordinated environmental review of the Urban Ring
Project under both MEPA and NEPA.
In order to achieve this
outcome, the META agrees to file a Notice of Project Change
(NPC) by September 1, 2005 to modify the existing Special Review
Procedure established in the Certificate of November 9, 2001.
I
am allowing the META to submit the NPC using a letter format
rather than the standard NPC form.
As agreed, the NPC should seek the following modifications
to the Special Review Procedure.
First, it should describe
efforts to reestablish coordinated review of the project under
MEPA and NEPA we would re-link the documentation required for
review under MEPA and NEPA.
I note that the META has committed
to a joint filing of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) with a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised
DEIR) , which would respond to the comments received during the
DEIR public review process.
Second, the NPC should propose new
filing dates for the Revised DEIR/DEIS and the Final EIR/Final
EIS for Phase 2, as well as the DEIR/SEIS for Phase 3. Finally,
the NPC should describe proposed changes to the membership of
the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) in order to open up the
5
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
public process to neighborhood organizations, institutions and
advocacy groups that have expressed interest in participating.
The MBTA should ensure that the CAC is involved in the
preparation of the NPC prior to its submission.
SCOPE
The following is the scope of required elements of the
Revised DEIR, which will be submitted in conjunction with the
submission of the DEIS to FTA for review under NEPA.
General
The Revised DEIR should follow the general guidance for
outline and content contained in Section 11.07 of the MEPA
regulations, as modified by this Scope. The Revised DEIR should
include a copy of this Certificate and a copy of each comment
letter received. The proponent should circulate the Revised
DEIR to those parties who commented on the ENF, to any state
agencies from which the proponent will seek permits or
approvals, and to any parties specified in Section 11.16 of the
MEPA regulat.ions. A copy of the Revised DEIR should be made
available to all public libraries in the Urban Ring Compact
communities.
In addition, I strongly encourage the MBTA to
conduct extensive public outreach in its notification of the
availability of the Revised DEIR for public review and comment,
particularly in environmental justice communities.
Project Phasing
The Revised DEIR should provide an update on efforts to
implement Phase 1 and explain how the delay in progress would
affect the implementation of Phase 2. Likewise, the Revised
DEIR should demonstrate that the implementation of Phase 2 would
not adversely affect the implementation of Phase 3.
I strongly
encourage the MBTA to work towards implementing Phase 1 and to
reconsider the phasing of the project to advance certain
elements of Phase 3, which is proposed to use dedicated rights­
of-way to provide heavy rail, light rail, BRT or some
combination of these modes and would engender greater support
for the Urban Ring concept as a whole than the implementation of
Phase 2, which would rely heavily on buses in mixed traffic.
6
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Project Alternatives
The DEIR has demonstrated that there are segments of the
Urban Ring where BRT could be very successful operating at grade
in either exclusive bus lanes or busways, and in some cases, in
short segments operating in mixed traffic. However, there are
certain segments where alignment issues need to be resolved or
where alternative strategies need to be explored, including the
possibility of constructing tunnel segments.
Many commenters, particularly those in the Fenway and
Longwood Medical Area (LMA) , expressed concerns about the
impacts of proposed BRT infrastructure on institutional property
and the historic Emerald Necklace parks and parkways. The DEIR
may have underestimated the impacts on traffic operations of BRT
vehicles operating in mixed traffic or in dedicated bus lanes.
In mixed traffic, BRT vehicles would likely contribute to delays
and degraded levels of service at intersections along the
proposed Urban Ring route.
Consequently, the DEIR may have
overestimated travel time and ridership benefits of BRT vehicles
operating in mixed traffic, where they would contribute to
existing high levels of congestion, or in bus-only lanes, where
enforcement may be an issue.
The Revised DEIR should provide
additional analyses of traffic operations, impacts to
pedestrians and bicyclists, and visual impacts of the proposed
routing of Urban Ring buses.
This analysis should carefully
consider the numerous comments and suggestions received.
The Revised DEIR should fully analyze the impacts of
implementing the Urban Ring along segments of the Preferred
Alternative route and explore the feasibility of the variants
suggested by many commenters.
In particular, the Revised DEIR
should evaluate other options for the proposed surface routing
of buses on The Fenway, Ruggles Street, Longwood Avenue, and
Avenue Louis Pasteur. The Revised DEIR should also reassess
proposed bus routing along Park Drive, Mountfort Street, and
Commonwealth Avenue, considering potential impacts to the
Cottage Farm neighborhood in Brookline, and reevaluate Charles
River crossing options other than the Boston University Bridge.
The surface roadway variants suggested by commenters may better
address the corridor's service needs and minimize potential
impacts and I strongly encourage the MBTA to consider them.
7
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Collectively, though, the issues raised by many commenters
regarding the proposed routing through the Fenway and LMA raise
serious questions about the feasibility of providing BRT service
on congested city streets. Therefore, a final decision on
routing should be made only after comparing a surface BRT system
with a tunnel that would remove buses from surface streets. The
Revised DEIR should evaluate the feasibility of constructing
portions of the Urban Ring in tunnels, particularly in the
Fenway and Longwood Medical Area (LMA) from the vicinity of
Ruggles Station to Yawkey Station and as a means of crossing the
Charles River.
The Revised DEIR should address the concerns of the City of
Cambridge and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
regarding proposed routing along the Grand Junction corridor,
traffic circulation in the Lower Cambridgeport area, and
proposed routing and necessary right-of-way takings in the
Kendall Square/Main Street area. The Revised DEIR should also
identify improved interfaces/connections with new Lechmere
Station, the North Point development, proposed Green Line
extension options, and Harvard University's Allston-Brighton
Initiative.
The Revised DEIR should re-examine the impacts of access to
and circulation in the Boston Medical Center/Biosquare area,
with routing other than through the Massachusetts Avenue
Connector and the South Boston Haul Road/South Boston By-Pass
Road (SBHR/SBBR), as well as access and circulation of all buses
in the Ruggles Station bus loop and ramps. At the urging of the
City of Chelsea, the Revised DEIR should also reconsider routing
the Urban Ring along the Griffin Way variant (Variant 2A).
The DEIR noted that, in order to accommodate the proposed
new commuter rail stations, existing commuter rail stations may
be closed or consolidated.
Closing an existing station should
be considered only after careful evaluation of all relevant
factors.
In its comments, the City of Malden expressed its
opposition to the proposed closure of the Malden Center Commuter
rail Station. The Revised DEIR should reconsider any proposed
commuter rail station closures and present alternatives to
station closures such as greater use of express trains.
8
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
The Revised DEIR should evaluate the feasibility of
constructing a new commuter rail station in Allston on the
Worcester/ Framingham Line, as well as transit services from a
station located in Allston to Yawkey and Back Bay Stations.
In
general, the Revised DEIR should re-examine the costs and
benefits and associated service impacts of any proposed new
commuter rail stations on a case-by-case basis.
In light of any proposed routing changes, the Revised DEIR
should also address the following items:
• Consider restructuring the existing network of private and
public bus routes to achieve greater cost efficiencies and
reduce congestion;
• Reexamine the choice of vehicle technology in light of the
ongoing MBTA test program;
• Evaluate potential improvements to bicycle access and
circulation in the Urban Ring corridor;
• Update new ridership projections;
• Provide revised estimates of capital and operating costs;
• Evaluate potential funding sources, including joint
development opportunities, and develop a financial plan
sufficient to satisfy DEIS requirements.
Institutional Impacts
The DEIR did not fully address potential impacts from
moving metal, electro-magnetic fields and vibration,
particularly in areas with a high density of medical, academic,
research and cultural institutions, particularly in the vicinity
of the Fenway, LMA, and MIT. An analysis of these potential
impacts and measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate them must be
completed before alternative routes can be selected. This
analysis should be based on a set of uniformly applied criteria
in order to determine the feasibility of mitigating potential
impacts. The Revised DEIR should present the results of this
analysis and commit to appropriate mitigation measures.
9
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Transportation
Right-of-Way Preservation
The MBTA should continue to work diligently in its railroad
right-of-way (ROW) procurement efforts throughout the
environmental review process in order to preserve the necessary
infrastructure to complete Phases 2 and 3. ROW procurement is
critical in order to link the Phase 2 project to the commuter
rail system and to fully implement Phase 3. Dedicated busways
for Phase 2 are superior to bus-only lanes in mixed traffic.
The success of the BRT system, in terms of increased ridership
and air quality benefits, hinges on dependable service and
schedule adherence. Without this ROW procurement, the goals of
maximizing system-wide transit ridership and achieving air
quality benefits will likely not be met.
The Revised DEIR should report on the status of ROW
acquisition for the project, particularly for the CSX ROW in
Chelsea and East Boston. The Preferred Alternative for the
Urban Ring project proposes to use a portion of the CSX ROW,
which the owner will sell if it is not purchased by the
Commonwealth soon.
It is critical that this key piece of the
proposed Urban Ring route is preserved for transportation use.
Sale of the ROW would severely hinder development of the Urban
Ring and increase the cost of future land acquisition.
South Boston Haul Road/South Boston Bypass Road
The DEIR states that continued availability of the South
Boston Haul Road (SBHR) as a transit route following completion
of the CA/T Project is crucial to the Urban Ring; that it is
recommended that the Urban Ring buses be allowed to use the
SBHR; and that the Urban Ring project would not affect freight
movement on the SBHR.
The SBHR was opened in September 1993 primarily as a truck
route, built by the Central Artery (CA/T) Project as an early
project construction mitigation measure to remove construction
vehicles and other trucks from South Boston streets.
In 1990,
the SBHR was extended to become the South Boston Bypass Road
(SBBR). The proper reference to this roadway is to the SBBR.
The SBBR, 1-93 northbound, and 1-93 southbound, along with their
access ramps, are part of the Metropolitan Highway System.
10
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
The DEIR indicates that the SBBR currently is used by CA/T
construction vehicles and by MBTA buses and taxis. The use of
the SBBR by MBTA buses and taxis has been approved only as a
temporary measure during CA/T construction. Vehicles with
commercial license plates will continue to be allowed on the
SBBR. Overall, the primary objective of the SBBR roadway use
policy is to attract authorized vehicles to the SBBR, thereby
diverting them from the local streets of South Boston. Upon
completion of the CA/T project, the SBBR would not be open to
general traffic and high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), such as
taxis and buses, with the exception of MBTA buses with no
passengers accessing Cabot Yard and special buses for the
Children's Museum.
Because use of the SBBR is limited to designated vehicle
classes and the roadway is under the control of MassPike, the
MBTA will need to obtain MassPike's approval to add Urban Ring
vehicles as an additional vehicle class authorized to use the
SBBR.
Furthermore, in order for MassPike to allow this change
in use, Masspike must request and obtain approval from the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for a functional change in
a completed FHWA-funded facility.
The request to FHWA must
justify the proposed change in use, discussion alternatives, and
evaluate environmental impacts. The Revised DEIR should provide
this analysis as well, following the scope outlined by the
Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) in its comments.
The MBTA must also coordinate such a proposed change in use
with those entities that have shown an interest in the South
Boston portion of the CA/T Project, as detailed in MassPike's
comments.
If approved by MassPike, the change in authorized use
of the SBBR by Urban Ring buses would constitute a change to the
CA/T Project. Therefore, I will require the MBTA to submit a
separate Notice of Project Change (NPC) for the CA/T Project.
The DEIR states that Uthe proposed BRT (bus rapid transit)
facilities would provide a combination of exclusive bus ways and
bus-only lanes, and where in mixed traffic would incorporate
signal priority for the buses." The Revised DEIR should explain
what this means with respect to the SBBR and the TWT, given that
the DEIR appears to show a designated Urban Ring busway on the
SBBR as opposed to Urban Ring buses traveling in mixed traffic.
11
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
The DEIR concludes that traffic operations on the SBBR
would not be adversely affected by the addition of Urban Ring
vehicles. The Revised DEIR should include plans, assumptions
and analysis that support this conclusion, including the
proposed signal improvements and turning movements at the
intersection of Richards Street with the SBBR, which would
require the approval of and be controlled by Masspike.
The DEIR proposes an Urban Ring bus stop along the SBBR.
From both a public safety and traffic standpoint, MassPike has
serious concerns about whether a bus stop and/or BRT station can
be accommodated on, or close by the SBBR. The Revised DEIR
should provide more explicit information on this proposed bus
stop, explain the traffic assumptions regarding its use, and
discuss all access and operational parameters.
I strongly urge
the MBTA to work with MassPike to resolve these issues.
East Boston Haul Road/Chelsea Truck Route
The DEIR indicates that the Urban Ring would use a proposed
East Boston Haul Road/Chelsea Truck Route along an abandoned
railroad right-of-way (ROW).
In its comments, MassPort states
that if such a facility was to be developed, it would have use
for it as a means of transporting airport employees to and from
a remote parking facility located in Chelsea. The facility
could also be potentially used by trucks and other buses,
thereby relieving traffic congestion in East Boston. The
Revised DEIR should provide the necessary capacity analyses to
determine if shared use could be supported by this facility,
thereby providing a unique opportunity to serve both public
transportation and airport needs.
DCR Parkways
The Revised DEIR should also describe and analyze potential
impacts to DCR parkways including the Fellsway, Revere Beach
Parkway and Morrissey Boulevard and propose adequate and
appropriate mitigation for these impacts. As discussed in
greater detail in the Historic and Archeological Resources
section below, I expect that the MBTA will coordinate closely
with DCR in addressing these issues.
12
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Air Quality
The DEIR evaluated the Baseline Alternative as compared to
the proposed Locally Preferred Alternative (Preferred
Alternative). The Baseline Alternative is the equivalent of a
No-Build Condition and consists of the full Urban Ring Phase 1
network with the addition of eleven new or improved Cross-Town
Bus routes and two Express Commuter Bus routes. The Preferred
Alternative consists of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system powered
by compressed natural gas (CNG) throughout the Urban Ring
corridor using a combination of dedicated busways and bus-only
lanes along rail corridors and 43 new BRT stations. The
analysis year for comparison of project alternatives is 2025.
The DEIR indicates that the Preferred Alternative provides
overall transportation and air quality benefits superior to the
Baseline Alternative.
In its comments, DEP states that the comparative analysis
adequately demonstrates that the project would conform to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) based on the
project's inclusion in a conforming regional transportation
plan. The Preferred Alternative will remove a total of 17,700
auto person trips from the regional transportation network and
eliminate 176,900 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared with the
Baseline alternative. As a result, the Preferred Alternative
provides greater reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) ,
particulate matter (PM10), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions
while contributing to a slight increase in nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions, as compared to the Baseline Alternative. A
microscale analysis using DEP-recommended procedures indicates
that the Phase 2 project would not result in exceedances of the
National or Massachusetts Amb~ent Air Quality Standards
(N/MAAQS) for CO.
The DEIR addressed DEP's specific comments on the Expanded
Environmental Notification Form (Expanded ENF) with the
exception of providing a commitment for the retrofit of off-road
diesel construction equipment and use of Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel.
A commitment to a diesel retrofit program for this project is
required pursuant to the Administrative Consent Order (ACO)
between DEP and EOT.
The Revised DEIR should include a clear
commitment to implement a diesel retrofit program.
13
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Emerald Necklace Parkways
The Metropolitan Parkway System is a significant historic
resource listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) has
recognized this significance through its creation of the
Historic Parkways Initiative, an ambitious collaborative
historic preservation effort to support the protection of
parkways as historic landscapes, which are also protected under
Article 97 of the Amendments to the State Constitution. The
DEIR properly characterizes the DCR's parkways along the Urban
Ring Corridor as parklands. However, the DEIR asserts that the
Urban Ring project would result in minimal impacts to DCR
parkways and open spaces and, therefore, proposes no mitigation.
Moreover, the DEIR does not acknowledge that the parkways are
historic resources protected under state and federal law.
Careful planning must be undertaken to acknowledge the historic
character of the parkways, their existing protections under
state and federal law, and to prevent irrevocable damage to
these historic resources. All treatment and management of our
historic parkways must meet the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and will
require additional consultation with the Massachusetts
Historical Commission.
The Fenway, Park Drive and the adjacent Back Bay Fens are
part of the Emerald Necklace Park System, which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, and are designated as
landmarks by the Boston Landmarks Commission. The Fenway and
Park Drive are classified as pleasure roads where bus and truck
traffic is prohibited, unless specifically permitted by DCR.
The Urban Ring project proposes to operate 108 buses along the
Fenway as well as alterations in the alignment of the roadway.
The proposed change in traffic patterns (a contra-flow bus lane
and revised jughandle on the Fenway, necessitating the taking of'
parkland) will result in a significant impact to the visual and
historic character of both the parkway and the adjacent historic
parkland of the Back Bay Fens. The Revised DEIR should explore
all feasible alternatives before DCR would approve any plans to
alter parkland and parkways in the Back Bay Fens.
14
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
The plans for the Urban Ring do not take into consideration
the Muddy River Restoration Project. As a partner in one of the
most ambitious and comprehensive landscape preservation projects
in the nation, the Commonwealth has made an extraordinary
commitment to the preservation of the Emerald Necklace Park and
Parkway System by providing extensive technical and funding
assistance. Both the volume of buses and the alteration
proposed by the MBTA will significantly impact the successful
implementation of the Muddy River Restoration Project and result
in significant additional capital and operating expenses to be
assumed by DCR. Given the Commonwealth's commitment to the
preservation of the Emerald Necklace and its significant
investment in the Muddy River Restoration Project, the MBTA
should reconsider routing of Urban Ring buses along the Fenway
and Park Drive.
The plans for the Urban Ring also do not consider the
visual and historic character of the Charles River. As
proposed, the crossings of the Charles River by BRT vehicles in
mixed traffic require further analysis and description of the
impact of such traffic upon this unique riparian corridor and
surrounding communities.
In its comments, MHC notes that the
proposed alteration of a traffic island along Memorial Drive in
Cambridge would affect a National Register-listed property
within the Charles River Basin Historic District. The Revised
DEIR should thoroughly address these issues.
In summary, the Revised DEIR should acknowledge these
parkways as historic resources, provide further analysis and
description of potential impacts to historic resources, and
propose adequate and appropriate measures to mitigate these
impacts, or conversely, propose alternate routes that would
avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the visual and historic
character of both the parkways and the adjacent historic
parkland of the Back Bay Fens, as well as the Charles River.
Several commenters requested that, in addition to alternate
surface routes for BRT vehicle, the MBTA should consider the
feasibility of constructing a transit tunnel(s) between Ruggles
Station and Yawkey Station via the LMA and as a means of
crossing the Charles River; I concur that the Revised DEIR
should explore both of these alternatives.
In addition, the
Revised DEIR should consider the project's relation to the
15
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
successful implementation of the Muddy River Restoration
Project. Finally, the Revised DEIR should address the Urban Ring
project's significant additional operating, maintenance and
capital costs to DCR if buses were to be routed along historic
parkways.
Area of Potential Effect
In its comments, MHC states that the proposed area of
potential effect (APE) on historic properties for the Urban Ring
project as presented in the DEIR appears to be consistent with
that which was proposed by the MBTA (a 100-foot corridor to
include 50 feet on either side of the corridor's right-of way
center line in areas where bus routes and stations are proposed,
and a 200-foot corridor for the project alignment that would
encompass abandoned rail corridors). MHC advised the MBTA and
the FTA that in areas where construction of the BRT stations may
occur, the APE may be wider or larger than 50 feet on either
side of the right-of way.
In these locations, the presence of
historic resources should account for a wider APE.
The Revised DEIR should include a more comprehensive and
detailed analysis of potential effects to historic properties.
The DEIR indicates solely that there will be visual effects that
may need to be mitigated and alignment issues that may need to
be re-examined in order to avoid or mitigate effects. Although
The DEIR summarizes the likely effects to historic properties,
the Revised DEIR should include comprehensive maps that depict
the proposed stations, bus maintenance facilities, platforms,
geometric roadway improvements and routes, as well as adjacent
historic properties.
Furthermore, the Revised DEIR should
include architectural reconnaissance information described by
MHC in its comments. Where impacts are likely to be physical
and visual in nature, the Revised DEIR should provide detailed
project plans and information.
I encourage the MBTA to consult
with MHC and to consider design alternatives that respond
directly to the contexts which contain historic properties.
Archeological Resources
The DEIR notes that limited portions of the project area of
potential effect are considered to be archaeologically
sensitive, and proposes that additional archaeological
investigations will be conducted for these areas. MHC will
16
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
review the final reconnaissance survey archaeological report to
offer more specific recommendations for which portions of the
project area of potential effect may require systematic
archaeological testing as part of an intensive (locational)
archaeological survey. The Revised DEIR should include a
summary of consultations with MHC and progress achieved on this
issue.
Wetlands, Waterways and Tidelands
The DEIR indicates that constructing the Locally Preferred
Alternative (Preferred Alternative) will not result in direct
impacts to any federal or state jurisdictional wetlands,
including the 25-foot Riverfront Area. The DEIR also notes that
all proposed Preferred Alternative facilities would be located
beyond the 100-foot buffer zone of regulated wetland resource
areas.
If the MBTA wishes to move forward with plans to alter
the intersection of the Fenway and Brookline Avenue by
constructing a turning lane, the Revised DEIR should elaborate
on whether its proximity to the Muddy River would result in any
impacts to wetlands or buffer zones and its potential impact on
the proposed culvert under Brookline Avenue that will be
constructed as part of the Muddy River Restoration Project=.
The DEIR indicates that the Urban Ring corridor includes
areas that are adjacent to existing infrastructure crossing
facilities that may be within Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas,
and that a more detailed determination of Chapter 91
jurisdiction will be conducted as the project design progresses.
The Revised DEIR should provide an update regarding potential
activities within Chapter 91 jurisdictional boundaries,
including a discussion of potential impacts to water-dependent
industrial uses in the Chelsea Creek Designated Port Area (DPA)
Stormwater Management
The DEIR states that stormwater management systems will be
provided along railroad corridor busways where practicable, that
additional volumes of stormwater may be discharged to municipal
and DCR drainage systems, and that Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be implemented if required.
The Revised DEIR should
provide a detailed discussion of stormwater management for
17
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
proposed roadway alterations as well as an update on municipal
and DCR permitting requirements. The Revised DEIR should also
provide detailed information on the drainage system for the
existing MBTA maintenance facility and its capacity to handle
and treat stormwater flows from the North Point viaduct,
including estimates of flow.
The Revised DEIR should discuss
the adequacy of using existing tracks ide drainage systems for
proposed busways along rail corridors and explain why 80 percent
removal of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is not feasible for the
proposed busways.
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
The Revised DEIR should summarize any potential impacts of
the Urban Ring project on water distribution sections owned by
the Massachusetts Water resources Authority (MWRA) , listed in
its comment letter, and report on any consultations with the
MWRA.
The Revised DEIR should summarize any potential impacts to
municipal water and sewer infrastructure and report on any
consultations with municipal water and sewer commissions.
Hazardous Materials
As noted in the DEIR, the MBTA intends to use the services
of a License Site Professional (LSP) to manage activities in and
around the numerous 21E sites known to exist within the Urban
Ring Phase 2 corridor.
Proposed measures include developing a
soil pre-characterization program, formulating a formal health
and safety plan, and developing a contaminated soil and
groundwater management plan. The Revised DEIR should report on
any progress that has been made in developing these measures.
Also, in comments submitted in response to the Expanded ENF, DEP
recommended that the MBTA consider combining the numerous 21E
sites using the single Special Project Designation provisions
outlined under 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP)
The MBTA should discuss whether it intends to adopt this
recommendation in the Revised DEIR.
18
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Responses to Comments and Circulation
At a minimum, the Revised DEIR should respond to the
concerns raised in the comment letters to the extent that they
are within MEPA jurisdiction. The Revised DEIR should include a
copy of each comment letter submitted and respond to each
substantive comment.
The MBTA should circulate a hard copy of
the Revised DEIR to each federal, state and local agency from
which permits or approvals will be sought.
To save paper and other resources, I will allow the MBTA to
circulate the Revised DEIR in CD-ROM format, although the MBTA
should make available a reasonable number of hard copies
available on a first-come, first-served basis to accommodate
those without convenient access to a computer.
In the interest
of broad public dissemination of information, I encourage the
MBTA to send a notice of availability of the Revised DEIR
(including relevant comment deadlines, locations where hard
copies may be reviewed and electronic copies obtained, and
appropriate addresses) to those who submitted comment letters.
Mitigation
The Revised DEIR should include a summary of all mitigation
measures to which the MBTA has committed to implementing.
The
Revised DEIR should also include revised draft Section 61
Findings for use by the state permitting agencies.
May 20, 2005
Date
Addendum: MBTA letter (5/18/05)
ERH/RAB/rab
19
EOEA #12565
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Comments Received:
05/16/05
04/08/05
04/07/05
04/06/05
04/06/05
04/05/05
04/05/05
04/05/05
04/04/05
04/04/05
04/04/05
04/04/05
04/04/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
04/01/05
03/31/05
03/31/05
03/31/05
03/31/05
03/31/05
03/31/05
03/31/05
03/29/05
03/29/05
03/25/05
03/25/05
03/23/05
Boston University
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
Boston Parks and Recreation Department
Boston Harbor Association
City of Cambridge
Department of Environmental Protection Northeast
Regional Office
Boston Environment Department
Boston Transportation Department
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Chelsea T Riders Union
John Kyper
Alison Pultinas
John Kyper
Adaptive Environments
Sean Bender
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston Transportation Department
Conservation Law Foundation
Matilda Drayton
Sarah Freeman
Massachusetts Port Authority
Arshag Mazmanian
On the Move
Partners HealthCare
Sierra Club
Wentworth Institute of Technology
Charles River Watershed Association
Maggie Cohn
Emmanuel College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Arshag Mazmanian
Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services
Marilyn Wellons
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Gloria Murray
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
Boston Freight Terminals
Chelsea Department of Planning and Development
20
--------,-"",
,",
,
EOEA #12565
03/23/05
03/23/05
03/23/05
03/23/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/21/05
03/18/05
03/18/05
03/18/05
03/18/05
03/18/05
03/16/05
03/16/05
03/15/05
03/11/05
03/09/05
03/04/05
03/01/05
02/24/05
02/16/05
02/16/05
02/15/05
01/06/05
12/28/05
Phase 2 DEIR Certificate
5/20/05
Emerald Necklace Citizens Advisory Committee
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
Massachusetts College of Art
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral of New England
Brookline Board of Selectmen
Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association
CBR Institute for Biomedical Research
Inner Core Committee
Judge Baker Children's Center
Robert LaTremouille
Anne McKinnon
Arshag Mazmanian
Winsor School
George Bailey, MBTA Advisory Board
Susan DeLong
Harvard University
Mayor Richard C. Howard, City of Malden
Shepley Bulfinch Richardson & Abbott
Fenway Alliance
Karen Wepsic
City Councilor Michael P. Ross
Northeastern University
Children's Hospital Boston
Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Massachusetts Academic and Scientific Community
Organization, Inc.
Fenway Civic Association
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
Stephen H. Kaiser
Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee
Joshua D. Mello
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
21
IoWM~ft& @jf'k~/
dOO
oil Iomp~.YlI/~
rr6awtbud1f&:JJtwet; .CfJuiI& 900
.ojj~ eJItYi 02dd4-2524
Min ROMNEY
Tel. (617) 626·1000
Fax. (617) 626-1181
http://www.mass.gov/envlr
GOVERNOR
KERRY HEALEY
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
STEPHEN R. PRITCHARD
SECRETARY
November 17, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE
NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE
MODIFYING
A SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT MUNICIPALITIES
PROJECT WATERSHEDS
EOEA NUMBER
PROJECT PROPONENT
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR
Circumferential Transportation
Improvements in the Urban Ring
Corridor - Phase 2
Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
Chelsea, Everett, Medford and
Somerville
Charles, Boston Harbor (Mystic), and
North Coastal
12565
Executive Office of Transportation
September 7, 2005
Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the MEPA regulations, I hereby
modify an existing Special Review Procedure (SRP) , which was the
subject of a Certificate Establishing a SRP dated November 9,
2001, to guide the continuing MEPA review of this project.
In a Certificate on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for this project, dated May 20, 2005, I required that the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) submit a
Notice of Project Change (NPC) by September 1, 2005, describing
proposed changes to the existing SRP, with the intent of
reestablishing coordinated review of the Urban Ring project
under both MEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) .
o
Printed on Recycled Stock 20% PoslConsumer Waste
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
11/17/05
Proposed Modifications to the Special Review Procedure
As agreed, the NPC seeks the following modifications to the
Special Review Procedure. First, it describes how coordinated
review of the project under MEPA and NEPA would be re­
established. Second, the NPC propose new filing dates for the
Revised DEIR/DEIS and the Final EIR/Final EIS for Phase 2, as
well as the DEIR/DEIS for Phase 3.
Finally, the NPC describe
proposed changes to the membership of the Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) in order to open up the public process to
neighborhood organizations, institutions and advocacy groups
that have expressed interest in participating.
Re-Establishment of Coordinated Review under MEPA and NEPA
The Urban Ring project was the subject of an Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) in September, 2001. On November 9,
2001, a Certificate on the ENF was issued, that required 'the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
In addition, a
Certificate Establishing a Special Review Procedure (SRP) was
also issued on that date. The SRP was deemed necessary due to
the complexity and phased implementation of this long-term
project.
The first deadline established in the SRP was for a
combined DEIR/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be
filed on or before August 31, 2003. This date was established
to coincide with deadlines established in an Administrative
Consent Order (ACO) between the Department of Environmental
Protection (ACO) and the Executive Office of Transportation
(EOT) that required that a DEIR be submitted to the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) by this date. On two
separate occasions, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA), on behalf of EOT, requested and received
extensions of this deadline until November 30, 2004.
These
delays were the result of certain requirements unique to the
NEPA review process, which were not resolved by this deadline,
and, as a result, EOT and the MBTA submitted a separate DEIR
(without a DEIS component) to EOEA on November 30, 2004.
In a letter dated May, 18, 2005 the MBTA informed EOEA of
its intent to re-link the MEPA and NEPA review processes and
that it was seeking the guidance of the Federal Transit
2
----,---...
-".".,
..
",
.... ..
,
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
11/17/05
Administration (FTA) in developing the DEIS for Phase 2 of the
project.
In addition, the MBTA committed to a joint filing of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a Revised
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised DEIR) , which would
respond to the comments submitted in response to the DEIR.
In a letter dated September 8, 2005, EOT Secretary Cogliano
indicated that the preparation of the Revised DEIR/DEIS will be
directed by EOT's Office of Transportation Planning.
In a
follow-up letter dated September 30, 2005, EOT identified
potential funding sources for the preparation of the Revised
DEIR/DEIS.
Schedule of Filing Dates for Environmental Review Documents
In the NPC, the MBTA proposed the following schedule of
filing dates for each of the environmental review documents to
be submitted under MEPA and NEPA. The NPC indicates that the
ability to meet the proposed deadlines is contingent upon
several factors, most notably the satisfactory completion of
components of the federal review process, which may necessitate
changes to the proposed schedule. Furthermore, the NPC requests
that the modified SRP establish a mechanism by which the
proponent may request and obtain extensions to these deadlines.
Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the
proposed schedule, in particular, the fact that the first
submission date, that for the Revised DEIR/DEIS, would be
submitted two years from now, and that the overall schedule has
been pushed out several years from the schedule indicated in the
original Certificate Establishing a SRP.
I share these
concerns, but realize that the preparation of each environmental
review document will be a complex process. Therefore, I hereby
establish the following schedule for the submission of
environmental review documents, as proposed in the NPC:
• Revised DEIR/DEIS for Phase 2 to be submitted no later than
November 30, 2007;
• Final EIR (FEIR)/Final EIS (FEIS) for Phase 2 to be
submitted no later than December 31, 2008;
• DEIR/DEIS for Phase 3 to be submitted no later than
December 31, 2010; and
3
''''''1
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
11/17/05
• FEIR/FEIS for Phase 3 to be submitted by a deadline to be
determined jointly by EOEA and the FTA.
However, I wish to stress the importance that the
environmental review process remain on track in accordance with
the schedule indicated above.
I consider these deadlines to be
firm and direct EOT to expedite the environmental review process
in order to ensure that the established deadlines are met.
Therefore, I decline to establish a formal mechanism by which
the proponent may request and obtain extensions to the
established deadlines and will require that each and any
proposed change to the established schedule be the subject of a
separate Notice of Project Change (NPC).
Moreover, I am directing the CAC to focus on issues of
timeliness, and will require the submission of bi-annual (twice
yearly) progress reports. The purpose of these progress reports
will be for EOEA and the general public to gain an understanding
of any issues related to the timely submission of the
environmental review documents. The progress reports should
describe progress to date on the preparation of each document,
indicate milestones achieved, and note any issues that would
pose an obstacle to timely submission so that action can be
taken towards their resolution. The progress reports should be
submitted according to the following schedule and posted on both
the EOT and MBTA websites:
• September 30, 2006
• March 31, 2007
• September 30, 2007
• March 31, 2008
• September 30, 2009
• March 31, 2009
• September 30, 2009
• March 31, 2010
• September 30, 2010
Beyond 2010, deadlines for progress reports related to the
preparation of the FEIR/FEIS for Phase 3 of the project will be
determined in the Certificate on the DEIR/DEIS for Phase 2.
4
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
11/17/05
Changes to the Membership of the Citizens Advisory Committee
The original SRP included the establishment of a Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) representing the Urban Ring Compact
Communities, institutions, and other key stakeholders in the
Urban Ring corridor.
The NPC proposed several changes to the membership of the
CAC, specifically the addition of:
• a representative from the City of Medford;
• representatives from neighborhood organizations and other
groups representing residents of the Urban Ring corridor;
• representatives from major educational, medical and
cultural institutions along the corridor not currently
represented on the CAC;
• representative(s) from transit rider advocacy groups; and
• representatives from state agencies and authorities that
will be critically involved in any capital investments
and/or the development of service and operations plans,
namely the MBTA, Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort),
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MassPike), and the
Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
In addition, the NPC indicated a desire to limit CAC membership
to no more than 25 members.
The current CAC has 20 members.
In response to the changes proposed in the NPC, I hereby
reconstitute the CAC to include:
• one or more representatives from each of the Urban Ring
Compact Communities (Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
Chelsea, Everett, Medford, and Somerville) ;
• representatives from a variety of neighborhood and other
organizations that submitted letters nominating
individuals with a demonstrated willingness and commitment
to serve on the CAC; and
• representatives from major educational, medical and
cultural institutions along the corridor.
Individual CAC members are named in the attached Appendix to
this Certificate and will be notified under separate cover of
their appointments.
While I share the concern that the CAC could become unwieldy
and difficult to manage if allowed to grow too large, I
5
-----,--.....
",., .. _"",
...
'
EOEA #l2565
NPC Certificate
U/l7/05
recognize that appointing representatives from state agencies
and authorities would take representation away from other
stakeholders with a legitimate interest in the project.
However, it is critical that the state agencies and authorities
named above playa role in the development of the project.
Therefore, I am naming representatives from each of these four
agencies and authorities to serve as ex-officio members, in
addition to the expanded membership of the CAC.
I recognize
that the CAC is rather large, but because it will include many
individuals with diverse skills and interests, this should be
viewed as an asset in developing and appointing CAC members to
work together in various sub-committees.
I therefore direct EOT to give the CAC a meaningful role in
the development of the environmental documents for each phase of
the Urban Ring project, which EOT can then evaluate and
incorporate into the documents, if appropriate.
I strongly
recommend that CAC meetings be conducted on a regular and
relatively frequent basis, perhaps quarterly, or on a schedule
agreeable to the CAC membership.
In addition, given the long­
term nature of this project, and in order to adequately inform
and engage the greater public in the planning process, I will
require EOT to publicize and conduct annual public outreach and
informational meetings on the phasing, scheduling and design of
the Urban Ring project.
The proponent's signature below indicates consent to the
modification of this Special Review Procedure and the specific
provisions outlined in this Certificate.
t DAte
EOEA Secretary
6
-----_.._.. ..
... ,
,'"
"
...
,",.,,,,
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
11/17/05
Comments Received:
08/12/2005
08/19/2005
08/22/2005
08/22/2005
08/22/2005
08/24/2005
08/26/2005
08/29/2005
08/29/2005
08/31/2005
09/16/2005
09/19/2005
09/23/2005
09/26/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/27/2005
09/28/2005
09/30/2005
09/30/2005
09/30/2005
09/30/2005
09/30/2005
10/03/2005
10/04/2005
10/04/2005
10/07/2005
10/13/2005
10/18/2005
Conservation Law Foundation
Boston University
Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Medical Academic and Scientific Community
Organization, Inc. (MASCO)
Artery Business Committee
City of Cambridge Community Development
Department
Boston Transportation Department
University of Massachusetts Boston
City of Cambridge Executive Department
Executive Office of Transportation
Arshag Mazmanian
Thomas Glynn, on behalf of Partners Healthcare
Alternatives for Community and Environment
Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Dana Park Neighborhood Association
Emmanuel College
Conservation Law Foundation
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Paul Levy, on behalf of Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center
James Rooney, on behalf of Massachusetts
Convention Center Authority
Marilyn Wellons
Karen wepsic
Rider Oversight Committee
Artery Business Committee
Boston Environment Department
City of Chelsea Department of Planning &
Development
Harvard University
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Executive Office of Transportation
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Fenway Community Development Corporation
The Fenway Alliance
Charlotte Nelson
7
-
,~""'H·_"",·
,"",,,,
EOEA #12565
10/19/2005
10/21/2005
10/26/2005
10/28/2005
11/03/2005
11/04/2005
11/07/2005
11/08/2005
11/10/2005
11/14/2005
11/14/2005
11/15/2005
11/16/2005
NPC Certificate
William Richardson
Marilyn Wellons
Dana Park Neighborhood Association
University of Massachusetts Boston
Eugene Benson
Maureen Lacey
Ellin Reisner (2)
Jeffrey Rosenblum
City of Everett
Larry Brophy, on behalf of Northeastern
University
Joseph Beckmann
Town of Brookline
Move Massachusetts
SRP/RAB/rab
8
_ _ _ _ _ _, _... "~H·'·."'"
'·'01. ,,,'
11/17/05
NPC Certificate
EOEA #12565
11/17/05
APPENDIX: URBAN RING CAe REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Richard Garver
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Mr. Ralph Denisco, Senior Transportation Planner
Mr. Vineet Gupta, Director of policy and Planning (alternate)
Boston Transportation Department
Ms. Suzanne Rasmussen
Ms. Cara Seiderman (alternate)
City of Cambridge
Mr. John DePriest, Director of Planning
City of Chelsea
Ms. Marzie Galazka, Assistant Director of Community and Economic
Development
City of Everett
Mr. Jeff Levine
Town of Brookline
Ms. Lisa Lapore, Director of Infrastructure
City of Somerville
Representative to be determined (TBD)
City of Medford
Ms. Aditi Pain, Sustainability Manager
University of Massachusetts - Boston
Mr. Thomas Fawcett, Director of Operations
Mr. James Shaer, Director of State Relations (alternate)
Boston University
Ms. Deborah Poodry, Director of Campus Planning and Design
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ms. Deborah Kuhn, Vice President for Administration
Mr. Harris Band (alternate)
Harvard University
9
----_.--,
--~"''''''."'''.''
..•', ,-;".,
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
11/17/05
URBAN RING CAC REPRESENTATIVES (cont.l
Mr. Larry Brophy, Associate Director
Government Relations and Community Affairs
Northeastern University
Ms. Sarah Hamilton, Vice President
Ms. Christine Apicella, Senior Planner
Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc.
Ms. Maureen Lacey, Director of TranSComm
Boston University Medical Center
Mr. Arthur Mombourquette, Vice President
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Ms. Elizabeth Gerlach
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Mr. Thomas Nally, Planning Director
Artery Business Committee
Ms. Carrie Schneider, Staff Attorney
Conservation Law Foundation
Mr. Daniel Wilson
Move Massachusetts
Mr. Jeffrey L. Rosenblum, Executive Director
Livable Streets Alliance
Mr. Joseph Beckmann
Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership
Mr. Aaron Henry
Fenway Community Development Corporation
Mr. William Richardson, President
Fenway Civic Association
Ms. Kelly Brilliant, Executive Director
Fenway Alliance
10
----~.--_
... -"
....
,..
,",'
..',,,,,
-
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
11/17/05
URBAN RING CAC REPRESENTATIVES (cont.)
Ms. Charlotte Nelson
Roxbury Strategic Master Plan Oversight Committee
Ms. Karen Wepsic
On the Move Steering Committee
MBTA Rider Oversight Committee
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
Mr. Scott Darling, Environmental Counsel
Mr. Peter Calcaterra , Project Manager (alternate)
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Mr. Rick McCullough, Director of Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority
Mr. Bob Reyes, Assistant Director, Transportation and Land Use
Planning. Representative TBD
Massachusetts Port Authority
Representative TBD
Department of Conservation and Recreation
11
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ....
,~~","~'''.
".." 0."'."
rr/ie Commonwea[t/i of gv[assac/iusetts
~cutive Office of CEnergy andCEnvironmenta[;Affairs
100 Cam6ric(ge Street, Suite 900
(]3oston, :M;A 02114
Deval L. Patrick
GOVERNOR
Tel: (617) 626-1000
Fax: (617) 626-1181
Timothy P. Murray
LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR
http://www.mass.gov/envir
Ian A. Bowles
SECRETARY
July 11, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE
NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE
MODIFYING
A SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT MUNICIPALITIES
PROJECT WATERSHEDS
EOEANUMBER
PROJECT PROPONENT
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR
: Circumferential Transportation
Improvements in the Urban Ring
Corridor - Phase 2
: Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
Chelsea, Everett, Medford and
Somerville
: Charles, Boston Harbor (Mystic), and
North Coastal
: 12565
: Executive Office of Transportation
: June 11,2007
Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the MEPA regulations, I hereby modify an existing Special
Review Procedure (SRP), which was previously the subject of a Certificate Establishing a SRP
dated November 9,2001, a another Certificate Modifying a SRP issued on September 7,2005, to
guide the continuing MEPA review of this project.
Proposed Modifications to the Special Review Procedure
The NPC propose new filing dates for the Revised DEIR/DEIS and the Final EIR/Final
EIS for Phase 2, as well as the DEIR/DEIS for Phase 3 based on the need to revise the horizon
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
07/11/07
year 2030 demographic assumptions that were officially accepted by the Boston Region
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). In the Urban Ring Corridor, the year 2030
projections for employment growth included in the MPO's current 2007 Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) are lower than the year 2025 projections included in the previous 2004 RTP. The use
of the MPO's officially adopted projections is a pre-requisite for funding of the Urban Ring
project under the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New Starts program. However, if the
projections to be used indicate that the area to be served by the Urban Ring would not experience
robust growth within the planning horizon, the project's chances of receiving this funding would
be diminished. Additionally, there are a number of rapidly growing employment centers within
the Urban Ring corridor that would experience only minor employment growth by 2030 under
these current projections.
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the regional planning
agency (RPA) for the Boston metropolitan area, has been working on a long-range plan called
MetroFuture, that includes year 2030 population and employment projections that are different
(higher) than the MPO's 2007 RTP, and indicate more robust population and employment
growth in the Urban Ring corridor.
According to the NPC, and for the reasons stated above, the Executive Office of
Transportation (EOT) wishes to use the MetroFuture demographic projections in its planning for
the Urban Ring Phase 2 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR)/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). EOT submitted the NPC to enable the MPO to update
the official demographic assumptions for its RTP. The six-month extension requested in the
NPC for the submission of the RDEIR/DEIS and subsequent environmental documents for the
project is intended to allow the Boston Region MPO to make its demographic assumptions
consistent with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's MetroFuture Plan, and with the latest
development plans and proposals throughout the Urban Ring corridor.
I concur with the comment letters received, which expressed general support for the
requested extensions, that it is important to ensure that the demographic assumptions used for
ridership projections are suitably robust and reflect the strong growth that is realistically
expected in many areas of the Urban Ring corridor. Therefore, I hereby revise the schedule for
the submission of environmental review documents, as proposed in the NPC, to the following:
• Revised DEIRIDEIS for Phase 2 to be submitted no later than May 31, 2008;
• Final EIR (FEIR)/Final EIS (FEIS) for Phase 2 to be submitted no later than June 30,
2009;
• DEIR/DEIS for Phase 3 to be submitted no later than June 30, 2011; and
• FEIRIFEIS for Phase 3 to be submitted by a deadline to be determined jointly by this
office and the Federal Transit Administration.
Again, I wish to stress the importance that the environmental review process remain on
track in accordance with the revised schedule indicated above. I consider these deadlines to be
2
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
07/11/07
firm and direct EaT to expedite the environmental review process in order to ensure that the
established deadlines are met. I note that the NPC provided a summary of progress made to date
and commend EaT for its good faith effort to adhere to the schedule previously established.
However, I continue to require that any additional proposed change to the newly established
schedule be the subject of a Notice of Project Change (NPC).
I will continue to require the submission ofbi-annual (twice yearly) progress reports.
The purpose of these progress reports will be to provide reviewing agencies and the general
public an understanding of any issues related to the timely submission of the environmental
review documents. The progress reports should describe progress to date on the preparation of
each document, indicate milestones achieved, and note any issues that would pose an obstacle to
timely submission so that action can be taken towards their resolution. The progress reports will
be posted on both the Environmental Monitor and the MBTA websites and should be submitted
according to the following schedule:
• September 30, 2007
• March 31, 2008
• September 30, 2009
• March 3 1, 2009
• September 30, 2009
• March 31,2010
• September 30, 2010
• March 31, 2011
• September 30, 2011
Beyond 2011, deadlines for progress reports related to the preparation of the FEIR/FEIS
for Phase 3 of the project will be determined in the Certificate on the DEIR/DEIS for Phase 2.
Responses to Specific Comments on the NPC
While the comment letters received on the NPC generally expressed support for the
proposed extensions of the deadlines for submissions of environmental review documents, I
would like to address specific comments and suggestions raised by two of these letters.
In its comments, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) expresses its concern that the
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIRIDEIS will limit the consideration of project alternatives to bus rapid
transit (BRT) only. I note that the Major Investment Study (MIS) for the Urban Ring, completed
in 2001, analyzed a wide range of system tec1mology and routing alternatives and recommended
a project with phased implementation, including earlier implementation ofBRT in the full
corridor (Phase 2) and later implementation of rail transit in a section of the corridor (phase 3).
This phasing strategy was designed to manage project costs and enable delivery of transit
benefits in an attainable time frame and was accepted by the FTA and the Secretary of
Environmental Affairs at that time. Additionally, CLF states that the Urban Ring should include
3
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
07111/07
elements of Phase 3 as part of the Phase 2 alternatives analysis. After consultation with EaT, I
am satisfied that EaT is working to ensure that the recommendations for Phase 2 do not preclude
Phase 3 implementation, and, in fact, that they facilitate Phase 3 implementation, in accordance
with the May 20, 2005 Certificate on the DEIR that established the scope for the RDEIR/DEIS.
For example, EOT has informed me that the RDEIR/DEIS will include analyses ofBRT tunnels
and that all of the tunnels are being designed to enable future conversion to rail use in Phase 3.
Additionally, eLF suggests that the proportion of dedicated running way (busways and
bus-only lanes) for Phase 2 is too low. Based on consultation with EaT, it is clear that the
RDEIR/DEIS will identify significantly more dedicated running way than the DEIR. EOT is
committed to identifying potential segments of the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor where more
dedicated running way could be provided by consulting with municipalities and other
stakeholders to evaluate these proposals.
In its comments, Harvard University suggests that the RDEIR/DEIS include a "sensitivity
analysis" of a range of different demographic scenarios to evaluate the potential benefits of the
Urban Ring Phase 2. FTA guidance for its New Starts program, which will largely fund the
Urban Ring, requires that the project proponent use the officially-recognized demographic
assumptions from the MPO's RTP to assess travel demand under all conditions (No-Build,
Baseline, and all Build Alternatives) in order to provide a consistent basis for comparing benefits
and costs. As a pure planning approach, and in the absence of a methodology specifically
defined and required by EOT's federal funding partner (FTA), I agree that a "sensitivity
analysis" could provide a more enhanced analysis of alternatives. However, the ridership
projections resulting from an alternate demographic scenario could not be used for a New Starts
application, and any analyses of sub-areas within the corridor that would likely experience robust
employment growth within the planning horizon would be based on institutional projections of
growth. With each institution advocating for scenarios that project robust growth within their
particular sub-area of the corridor, I believe that EOT would experience substantial difficulty in
arriving at a common denominator for future ridership projections upon which all stakeholders
could agree. Therefore, I will not require the inclusion of a "sensitivity analysis" in the
RDEIR/DEIS.
Harvard also states that EOT should prepare for new federal criteria on the economic
development impacts of transit projects. I note that the evaluation of projects applying for New
Starts program funding has long included potential economic development impacts as a factor
that can serve as a "tie-breaker" for a project that lies on the borderline between two ratings for
project justification and that newly-released FTA guidance continues to encourage the reporting
of information on a project's potential economic development impacts. Both the Urban Ring
MIS and the Phase 2 DEIR included a discussion of anticipated economic development impacts
resulting from the project, and 1expect that the Phase 2 RDElR/DEIS will do so as well. lfFTA
releases guidance with new economic development measures, and there is adequate time to
respond before the Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS is due, EOT should include these measures in the
document.
4
EOEA #12565
NPC Certificate
07111/07
Administrative Matters
Since the appointment of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for this project,
several appointments for CAC representatives and their alternates have changed as specific
participants have come and gone. Typically, these changes have arisen from participants
assuming new job positions. Rather than issue formal letters or declarations of new
appointments for the CAC, as my predecessors have done in the past, I am confident that EOT
can manage this process going forward. The original appointments to the CAC, as specified in
the Certificate Modifying a SRP issued on September 7,2005, still apply to the specific
institutions and other entities and organizations that currently comprise the CAC. Lastly, I
would like to take this opportunity to thank these organizations and individuals for their
continued commitment and participation.
The proponent's signature below indicates consent to the modification of this Special
Review Procedure and the specific provisions outlined in this Certificate.
July 1I, 2007
Date
~15~)~
Ian Bowles
Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs
~a
Bernard Cohen
Secretary of Transportation
Comments Received:
06/26/07
06/26/07
06/28/07
07/02/07
07/03/07
07/05/07
07/09/07
07/11/07
Arshag Mazmanian
Karen Wepsic
Conservation Law Foundation
A Better City
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Harvard University
Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc.
Executive Office of Transportation
IAB/RAB/rab
5
crfie Commonwealtfi
~cutive
of:M.assacfiusetts
Office of (Energy and(Environmenta{jIffairs
100 Cam6ridge Street, Suite 900
(Boston, 5lf}I 02114
Deval L. Patrick
GOVERNOR
Tel: (617) 626-1000
Fax: (617)626-1181
http://www.mass.gov/envir
Timothy P. Murray
LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR
Ian A. Bowles
SECRETARY·
May 30, 2008
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE
NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE
MODIFYING
A SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT MUNICIPALITIES
PROJECT WATERSHEDS
EOEANUMBER
PROJECT PROPONENT
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR
: Circumferential Transportation
Improvements in the Urban Ring
Corridor - Phase 2
: Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
Chelsea, Everett, Medford and
Somerville
: Charles, Boston Harbor (Mystic), and
North Coastal
: 12565
: Executive Office of Transportation
: April 23, 2008
Pursuant to Section 11.09 of the MEPA regulations, I hereby modify an existing Special
Review Procedure (SRP), which was previously the subject of a Certificate Establishing a SRP
dated November 9,2001, and two Certificates Modifying the SRP issued on September 7,2005,
and July 11,2007, to guide the continuing MEPA review of this project.
Proposed Modifications to the Special Review Procedure
The NPC propose new filing dates for the Revised DEIR/DEIS and the Final EIR/Final
EIS for Phase 2, as well as the DEIR/DEIS for Phase 3 based on the unexpected need to develop
a third round of demographic assumptions for the horizon year 2030 employment projections
that were officially accepted by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),
EEA #12565
NPC Certificate
05/30108
and are the basis for projected ridership in the Urban Ring Corridor. According to the NPC,
because the development of this third round of demographic assumptions was not completed
until December 2007, final modeling and ridership projections for the Urban Ring Phase 2
alternatives was delayed. This infonnation was to have been included in the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR)/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was
to have been submitted on May 31, 2008.
I have consulted with the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) on its request and,
while I am disappointed and concerned that the schedule for the environmental review of this
important project continues to slip, I fmd that there are no feasible means to develop the
necessary analysis on the current filing schedule. I therefore accept EOT's justification of the
need for another adjustment in the review schedule, noting that the proponent has made a good
faith effort to address stakeholders' technical and procedural input, and to provide adequate time
for review of project documentation by the citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the Federal
Transit Administration FTA) and others. Therefore, I hereby revise the schedule for the
submission of environmental review documents, as proposed in the NPC, to the following:
• Revised DEIRIDEIS for Phase 2 to be submitted no later than November 30, 2008;
• Final EIR (FEIR)/Final EIS (FEIS) for Phase 2 to be submitted no later than December
31,2009;
• DEIRIDEIS for Phase 3 to be submitted no later than December 31, 2011; and
• FEIR/FEIS for Phase 3 to be submitted by a deadline to be detennined jointly by this
office and the FTA.
I note that the FEIRIEIS is expected to infonned by Preliminary Engineering that cannot
be undertaken until FTA grants approval in response to a federal New Starts application. I
strongly encourage EOT to submit a New Starts Application within a time frame that would
allow FTA to grant approval and then complete and submit the FEIR/FEIS by December 31,
2009, reflecting Preliminary·Engineering. Although FTA will accept 2009 New Start
applications up to September of that year, a fully reviewed FEIR/FEIS based on Preliminary
Engineering would seem to require that the application be submitted well before that date.
Therefore, I strongly recommend that EOT take the necessary steps to submit its New Starts
application early, rather than later, I 2009, thereby ensuring that the submission of the
FEIR/FEIS remain on schedule.
Again, I wish to stress the importance that EOT make every effort to adhere to the
revised schedule indicated above. I consider these deadlines to be finn and direct EOT to
expedite the environmental review process in order to ensure that the established deadlines are
met. I will continue to require that any subsequent change to the newly established schedule for
the submission of fmal documents be the subject of a Notice of Project Change (NPC) to be
based on consultation with, and justification by, the Secretary of Transportation. I expect that
that this will be the last request for extensions.
2
EEA #12565
NPC Certificate
05/30/08
I note that many commenters on the NPC suggested three-, rather than six-month
extensions for the submission of the Phase 2 FEIR/FEIS and the Phase 3 DEIR/DEIR. I have
reluctantly granted the requested six-month extensions because I am satisfied, based on my
consultation with EOT and the CAC, that the three-month extensions would not be sufficient and
would only necessitate the submission of yet another NPC in 2009 requesting an adjustment in
schedule. I concede that adequate time must be given to ensure that the fmal environmental
review documents are produced to the highest standard practicable. While I sympathize with the
frustration expressed by commenters, particularly in their requests for an enforceable schedule
for the submission and/or distribution of draft and interim documents, I am reluctant to add more
procedural requirements to this process. The Commonwealth's interest in advancing the project
and the required schedule for the submission of final documents to be reviewed under MEPA
and NEPA should be sufficient to drive the schedule for draft and interim documents. However,
in order to ensure that interim milestones are achieved in a timely manner, I am requiring that
EOT establish schedules for project milestones for each six-month period so that CAC members
will know when to expect to receive draft and other interim documents for their review. These
schedules should accompany each bi-annual (twice yearly) progress report and will be published
in the Environmental Monitor according to the previously established schedule, reiterated below.
Because the next progress report is not due until September 30, 2008, I am requiring that EOT
establish a project schedule for the remainder of 2008 that will be due on June 30, 2008. This
schedule will should present an ambitious, yet realistic, schedule for the completion and
distribution to the CAC of draft and/or interim documents pre-requisite to the Revised
DEIRIDEIS.
Generally, the purpose of these progress reports will be to provide reviewing agencies
and the general public an understanding of any issues related to the timely submission of the
environmental review documents. The progress reports should describe progress to date on the
preparation of each document, indicate milestones achieved, and note any issues that would pose
an obstacle to timely submission so that action can be taken towards their resolution. The
progress reports will be posted on both the Environmental Monitor and the project website and
should be submitted according to the following schedule:
• September 30, 2008
• March 31, 2009
• September 30, 2009
• March 31, 2010
• September 30,2010
• March31,2011
• September 30, 2011
Beyond 2011, deadlines for progress reports related to the preparation of the FEIR/FEIS
for Phase 3 of the project will be determined in the Certificate on the DEIRIDEIS for Phase 2.
3
EEA #12565
NPC Certificate
05/30/08
The proponent's signature below indicates consent to the modification of this Special
Review Procedure and the specific provisions outlined in this Certificate.
May 30, 2008
Date
4~~
Ian Bowles
Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Bernard Cohen
Secretary of Transportation
Comments Received:
05/08/08
05/12/08
05/13/08
05/13/08
05/13/08
05/14/08
05/15/08
05/16/08
05/19/08
OS/20/08
OS/20/08
OS/21/08
OS/21/08
OS/21/08
OS/22/08
OS/22/08
OS/23/08
Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc.
Arshag Mazmanian
Karen Wepsic
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Partners Healthcare
Massachusetts College of Art and Design
Conservation Law Foundation
Children's Hospital Boston
Partners Healthcare
Harvard University
A Better City (ABC)
Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Boston University
Urban Ring Compact
City of Somerville
IABIRAB/rab
4