Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ...

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project FEIR
Chapter 1.0: Changes Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Resolution of Additional Issues
Table 1-1:
List of Permits and Approvals (continued)
Permit/Approval
Federal and State Consultations
Section 106 Consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966with the Massachusetts Historic Commission (the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO)) and coordination with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation on behalf of the FHWA. MassDOT consultation has also
occurred with the local Historic Commissions in Newburyport, Amesbury, and
Salisbury. A Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been signed
by all parties.
Section 7 Consultation (informal) with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In a letter dated June 8,
2011, NMFS stated: “Based on the analysis that any effects to shortnose
sturgeon from the proposed action will be insignificant or discountable, NMFS is
able to concur with the determination that the proposed reconstruction of the
Whittier Bridge in Amesbury, Massachusetts is not likely to adversely affect any
listed species under NMFS jurisdiction. Therefore, no further consultation
pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA is required.” NMFS also concluded, with
regards to the Atlantic sturgeon, that: “… all effects of the proposed action are
likely to be insignificant and discountable and the proposed action is not likely
to result in the injury or mortality of any Atlantic sturgeon, the action is not likely
to appreciably reduce the survival and recovery of any DPS [distinct population
segment] of Atlantic sturgeon and therefore it is not reasonable to anticipate
that this action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. As such, no conference is necessary for Atlantic
sturgeon.”
Coordination with NMFS and Massachusetts Department of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act regarding potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH),
and EFH and non-EFH species in the Merrimack River. NMFS indicated the
following in a letter dated November 29, 2011: “We recommend pursuant to
Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA that you adopt the following EFH conservation
recommendations: 1) All in-water work should take place within cofferdams as
shown on the project plans. The installation of the cofferdams should only be
conducted one at a time, to minimize noise and/or turbidity impacts. 2) From
April 1 through June 30 of any year, at least one of the channels should remain
unobstructed at all times to minimize impacts to Atlantic salmon migration. 3)
From April 1 through June 30 of any year, an observer should be present onsite
at the time of the installation of the cofferdams. If Atlantic salmon or other
anadromous species are observed in the work area, the in-water work should
be delayed until they have passed through. Prior to cofferdam installation,
MassDOT should submit an observer plan to us for approval.
Status
Complete. MOA signed March 23, 2011
Complete. NMFS determination letter
issued June 8, 2011
Complete. NMFS correspondence dated
November 29, 2011. DMF letter dated
December 9, 2011.
As noted in the correspondence from the MA DMF dated December 9, 2011
(subsequent to the publishing of the EA/DEIR): “If the project avoids
simultaneous installation of multiple cofferdams, Marine Fisheries does not
recommend any time of year restrictions on the construction process.”
1-2