stakeholder briefing local municipality | mass.gov

MEMORANDUM

To: Ryan McNeill Date: February 14, 2018 MassDOT

From: Jeff Dietrich HSH Project No.: 2015188 Howard Stein Hudson

Subject: MassDOT I-495/I-90 Interchange Improvements Project #607977 Local & Municipality Stakeholder Briefing Meeting Notes of January 18, 2018

Overview On January 18, 2018, MassDOT Highway Division, along with representatives from the consultant team associated with the I-495/I-90 Interchange Improvements Project held a stakeholder information meeting to provide an update of the project progress and introduce its purpose and need and the Measures of Effectiveness to local government stakeholders as well as gather their input.

MassDOT Project Manager E. Ryan McNeill began the meeting by providing a quick overview of the project process. A presentation was then given by Joseph Grilli of HNTB and Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis of Howard Stein Hudson. Mr. Grilli spoke about the safety issues and the alternative concepts under consideration. He also discussed the surveys and studies that have already been completed and those that still need to be done, the project timeline and next steps. Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis, Public Involvement Manager at Howard Stein Hudson, outlined the public outreach process and asked attendees to encourage their constituents to use the WikiMap. The floor was then opened up for questions, comments and concerns.

The tone of the discussion was positive and supportive of the Purpose and Need for the project, with questions focusing on the details of the alternative concept designs proposed for the interchange, protection of environmental resources, traffic, and maintenance of existing emergency access points along I-495. The Town of Westborough also presented details on area culverts within the Cedar Swamp ACEC, suggesting that further evaluation of restoration and rebuilding of these culverts would be a great benefit to Westborough and the ACEC if included as a mitigation effort for this project. The project team suggested that the town should continue to work with the MEPA office, the

MBTA, and CSX, to evaluate the feasibility and applicability of those projects within the timeframe and scope of this interchange project.

All parties were asked to publicize the WikiMap to their constituents, and to proactively reach out to the project team with any questions or needed assistance; as well as to return to future briefings.

Agenda I. Welcome & Opening Remarks ................................................................................................... 2

II. Presentation .................................................................................................................................. 3 III. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Detailed Meeting Minutes1 Welcome & Opening Remarks C: Ryan McNeill: Welcome all and thank you for coming. My name is Ryan McNeill. I am the

MassDOT Project Manager for the I-495/I-90 Interchange Improvements Project. Today is the first of three stakeholder briefings that we are going to have. The intent of today’s meeting is to roll out the project generally. We’re going to tell you why we’re here, the purpose and need of the project and the current direction of the project. We also want to hear what you have to say, which is just as important.

This presentation is very similar to the public presentations we’ve given before. We have a similar schedule for public presentations. We’re holding three major public information meetings. Today will be less formal than a public information meeting. We’re here to tell you where we are in this process and hear what you have to say. As we go through the presentation, feel free to ask any questions or provide your input and local knowledge. We are going to be here as long as we need to today to talk with you.

This round of stakeholder meetings will include six meetings. We were here at 8 p.m. last night presenting the project to environmental advocates. We were here last week with the business community including Dell, EMC, Staples, Cumberland Farms and AAA. We have some more

1 Herein “C” stands for comment, “Q” for question and “A” for answer. For a list of attendees, please see Appendix 1. For copies of meeting flipcharts, please see Appendix 2.

upcoming focused stakeholder meetings over the next couple of weeks. In three or four months, we’ll invite you out again to present the alternatives for the interchange reconstruction that we’ve been considering. We’re creating matrix and a series of criteria to fill in for the pros and cons of the alternatives to help us collectively decide. We are going to show you the alternatives and the matrix and how we’ve scored the different criteria.

In probably eight to ten months from now, we will give a presentation of the preferred alternative we’ve collectively determined to proceed with and get your input again. Then we will start the design of the project in earnest.

Thanks again for coming. A big part of this meeting is that we are here to hear from you. Feel free to stop the presentation or you can hold your questions until the end. I will now turn it over to Joe Grilli who is the project manager for the consultant design team to start the presentation.

Presentation C: Joe Grilli: Thanks, Ryan. Good afternoon everyone. We have an agenda that covers six or seven

items of what we want to accomplish today. We will be introducing the project team, talking about the project area and the need for the project. We will go over the history of the project, next steps of the project, the alternatives analysis that is getting underway and of course we’ll conclude with more information on the public outreach process and a discussion. Feel free to interject at any time but we will have time reserved at the end of the presentation for any other questions, comments or concerns.

The goals of today’s meeting are to update stakeholders on where we are with the project, go over the project development process including the project schedule, obtain input on the project’s purpose and need and the Measures of Effectiveness that will measure the purpose and need. We would like to hear from you and ultimately, we want to ask your help in spreading the word.

MassDOT is the project proponent, responsible for the environmental documentation for this project and ultimately the design. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency. They have an oversight role in the federal environmental process. HNTB is the lead consultant, with sub consultants Howard Stein Hudson handling Public Involvement and Traffic Engineering, Tetra Tech handling Environmental Issues, HMMH handling the Air and Noise Evaluation and Green International is doing survey work and some of the design.

I am sure you’re all familiar with this area. It is the juncture of I-90 and I-495, covering Hopkinton, Westborough and some of Southborough. The area on the map denoted in yellow is

the possible limits of work, extending onto the main lines for acceleration and deceleration lanes. As everyone knows, this area has a lot of environmental resources adjacent to it. This map is a bit old so we’re in the process of updating a lot of the environmental information.

The need for the project is based on four elements: safety, operations, freight movement and supporting economic development.

In terms of safety, this is a high crash location. In the most recent five-year period there were 460 crashes with two fatalities. The recent removal of the tolls presents opportunities to improve geometrics. There are deficiencies that the different alternatives will correct, such as substandard ramp configurations, design speeds and weaving movements. This safety issues graphic shows two specific locations marked by stars. These locations account for about one third of crashes that have occurred in that five-year period. Queues emanating out from those locations are indicated by the orange lines, radiating back from the interchange onto the highways. The ramps in yellow have various degrees of substandard design speed or other configurations. The interchange was designed for a toll plaza. This presents a great opportunity to correct those things.

On the subject of operations, there is deficiency here. This is a major crossroads of commuter traffic. It is also a very busy interchange for weekend and holiday traffic. Many times, interchange traffic backs onto the mainline highways. Congestion can occur at the interchange that radiates out onto the mainline highway. This interchange handles about 75,000 vehicles per day. The mainlines carry 100,000 and 110,000 vehicles on each of the roads. This is a very busy interchange.

It is also a critical location for freight coming into eastern Massachusetts. Half of all the trucks entering eastern Massachusetts go through this interchange. I-495 is known as “Boston’s Distribution Belt” from a freight perspective. There are at least a couple of major truck generators, commercial developments immediately adjacent to the interchange such as the CSX TRANSFLO facility and Cumberland Farm’s warehouse and distribution center. This map shows the primary highway freight system in Massachusetts. You can see I-90 and I-495 are part of that primary highway freight system in the state. This is a national designation.

The other part of the need is to support growth and development. Based on studies done several years ago, the state identified Priority Development Areas, or PDAs, in which infrastructure was already in place and the environmental impact of development would be minimal. There are several in the state. One of them is just north of the interchange.

To sum it all up into a purpose: the project will provide a safe and efficient system interchange of these two nationally and regionally significant interstate highways.

Are there any questions so far on the purpose and need of the project?

C: As I said, the All Electronic Tolling System (AETS) has been in place since October 2016. In November of 2017 work was finished on removing that facility and restriping interchange 11A. That project was completed. We then took the opportunity between completion of that project and before the winter to take additional traffic counts in a post-AETS scenario. We will talk more about that later. The fact that there is no longer a toll plaza opens more opportunities for different configurations of this interchange.

The interchange was studied in 2013 as part of a Route 9/I-495 study. It was recommended that improvements be implemented at I-495/I-90. MassDOT did a feasibility study in 2015 which led to this environmental process and design advancement. An ENF was filed for the project in March 2015. The Secretary Certificate was issued and that became the starting point for design and environmental analysis moving forward for this project.

Q: Sue Speckman: What is an ENF?

A: Joe Grilli: It is an Environmental Notification Form. It is the beginning of the state environmental review process. The secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) indicated that this project does require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that’s what we’re beginning to prepare while advancing the design.

The Secretary’s Certificate indicated these three alternatives. Alternative 14-4 provides direct-connect ramps south to east at the interchange. Alternative 14-5 provides those same two ramps, but also includes a direct ramp from I-90 Westbound to I-495 Northbound. It also eliminates the loop in the southwest with a flyover for westbound I-90 traffic. Alternative 22-3 incorporates most of those features but also adds more direct connections, including I-90 Eastbound to I-495 Northbound. In addition to doing some refinement of these three alternatives, we’re also developing a fourth alternative that combines many of these features in various ways.

With the new traffic counts obtained last fall, we’re revisiting the alternatives to make sure that we make changes if they are needed. As Ryan said, we will have another meeting in the upcoming months where we’ll get more specific on traffic analysis and designs; we’ll also have more information on environmental resources and potential effects.

Our scope of work is generally to prepare the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and to do the design. Specifically, a Road Safety Audit (RSA) has been done; archeological studies have been done as well as a historic review. We’ve done two rounds of traffic counts. We have survey work underway. Much of the survey work has been done but there are still a few things left to do. We need to do traffic and safety analysis, refinements to the design and development of the additional design alternative. Information on environmental natural resources has been compiled, including: Atlantic White Cedar inventory, wetland verification of what was presented in the Abbreviated Notices of Resource Area Delineation (ANRADs) a few years ago, and assessment of the Sudbury River and Whitehall Brook and other important resources. There are a lot of resources in the area. Some of you are aware that Tetra Tech is advancing evaluation and screening of potential on and off-site mitigation alternatives. We expect that there will be some level of environmental impact that will need to be mitigated. Work to screen those sites and ultimately pick one is being advanced while we evaluate the environmental impacts.

We still must select a Preferred Alternative in the next eight months or so, prepare filings for the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and complete the 25% design.

This graphic shows the general project development process. Right now we’re in the top row, at the beginning of this process, refining our alternative concepts and doing alternative analysis. Later this year there will be a recommendation for a Preferred Alternative, to advance through MassDOT and FHWA. The MEPA documentation would be prepared and filed in spring 2019. The advancement of the design to 25% would continue, leading up to permitting. Currently we are envisioning this as a Design-Build project. Selection of a Design-Build team would occur in late 2021-2022.

The project is currently partially funded on the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to the tune of $129 million. The costs have to be developed further and there might be need for another $130 million or more in future programming, but the initial costs are already programmed.

Our next steps include the alternatives analysis. We’re going to develop and refine the alternatives. We will be integrating public involvement and input throughout the project and that is part of why we are here today. We are going to complete the benefit/impact analysis for the alternatives and mitigations. We will weigh them based on these Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs). Nate Cabral-Curtis of Howard Stein Hudson will talk more about Public Involvement so I’ll skip that for now.

The Measures of Effectives are the ways we will evaluate each alternative. The first three - safety, geometric features, and mobility & operations — directly relate to a component of the Project Need. The other three are also important. Environmental considerations are obviously very important. We will assess impacts as well as potential mitigation opportunities for the alternatives. There is a capital cost and a lifecycle cost over the life of the project. Construction challenges are the risk involved in constructing one alternative versus another; for example, how much activity will occur off-line, not under traffic or over a railroad, which is less risky. It is riskier and more time-consuming to bridge over a railroad than to build a new bridge. This is all going to be part of the alternative analysis.

Before I hand it over to Nate to discuss public outreach, are there any questions or comments at this point on the Measures of Effectiveness?

Q: Stephen Slaman: At the last meeting in Westborough we asked about access. I don’t know if this project includes I-495 down to West Main Street. To meet federal standards, some of our access points on the interchange that we use for emergency access are being eliminated. We’re going to investigate if there are any alternatives. I know MassDOT uses some of the same access points for salt, maintenance and snow removal. Has anything been discussed on that?

A: Ryan McNeill: We’ve had conversations about that. I was not at that meeting, but that has been echoed through meetings since. At this point we’re still at 15,000’ or 20,000’, looking at the broader concepts. As we drill down into design and once we select an alternative, we will see what we can do to accommodate you folks. Safety and response are certainly important to us, so we will work on being accommodating to you as well as our operations and maintenance folks. My expectation is that we will meet with you on the side as the design progresses.

C: Stephen Slaman: I know some of what we talked about—for example, creating access from Fruit Street onto I-495—would collide with environmental concerns. That’s why I’m wondering if there is some discussion to be had there. It is nice to know how far off those options are. That way, even if they don’t come to fruition, we can still say that it was considered early in the process and couldn’t happen. I would love to get some feel to that now, rather than in two years saying it never happened and have no idea why.

C: Ryan McNeill: Absolutely, we’ve heard you and we will consider it.

C: Stephen Slaman: There was some technological discussion about the ability to limit access with situational awareness regarding the interchange.

C: Joe Grilli: Thank you. I will now hand it over to Nate to discuss our public outreach efforts.

C: Nate Cabral-Curtis: The raft of meetings that we are doing has been going over well. I’m asking all of you to help me push the WikiMap. We have a project website where minutes and presentations will reside. The fact sheet is also on the website. You can download copies and print them out for friends and relatives. If you write to the email address it comes to me, Ryan, and the project’s dedicated Legislative Liaison, Donny Dailey.

We have three rounds of planned meetings over the course of this year. Once we get out of this year, the meetings don’t end. There will be a MEPA hearing for the environmental filings for the project and a 25% Design Public Hearing (DPH), which is an official MassDOT deliverable. Think of it as a hyper Public Information Meeting. It has a slightly longer notification period and a 25% design available for the public to comment on.

We are having these targeted briefings. This list gives you a flavor of the folks we’ve been reaching out to. We are trying to work with you to integrate the goals of the stakeholders into what we’re doing so that this is a project that works for everyone.

This map shows you where our stakeholders are located. As you’d expect, most of them are clustered around the interchange, some in Boston, with some spread around the west and north in Acton and Concord.

What is the WikiMap? When we do projects, usually we have a residential population around the project who will want to comment on it. In this case, we have a lot of people who are daily interchange users present for only a few minutes. They are passing through on their way to work or vacation destinations and they won’t hang around to come to an evening meeting. They’ve got to go where they’re going to go. They live outside the interchange zone, but we need to hear from them too because they use the interchange every day. We’ve put up posters in the Turnpike Service Plazas and town libraries around here to get people’s input and ask them to use the WikiMap. It is a web-based tool that allows you to drop a pin of different types. Say you’re a truck driver that constantly uses the interchange: you can select a pin, drop it on the ramp and talk about how icy it gets. We’ll then be able to pay attention to that, so we can figure out how we can resolve that issue.

This is a very early screenshot of the WikiMap from July. If you log in now, there are many more entries. I would encourage all of you, especially folks in town government that have access to email lists, to share an email that I’ll prepare for you with your constituents. I’ll decant what’s in this map to Joe and Ryan as the project progresses. We may find that there are comments that

people have up-voted, which is to say that many agree with one comment. We will match what we observe technically with people’s lived experience to ensure that when we go to the public, we can say that the option is reflective of their experience.

Again, here is the address for the map. You can also Google “I-495/I-90 Interchange WikiMap.” This is our contact information.

Discussion Q: Karina Quinn, Town of Southborough: When you pick a flag and type a comment in, can you

see everyone else’s comments? What are some of the more extreme ones you’ve seen?

A: Nate Cabral-Curtis: Yes, you can see all the comments. I honestly haven’t looked through them all yet. I have seen a fair bit of “you removed the plazas, why is there still traffic” type questions. That is because the weaving condition from the toll plazas is still present.

C: Karina Quinn: The best answer I heard for that was when Joe said it was originally designed as a toll plaza. I don’t think a lot of people think about that.

A: Ryan McNeill: It really is a big source of the problems, as well as the opportunity we have in front of us. If you compare this interchange to just about any other interchange in the state or country, the weaving movements are all channeled through one spot instead of being spread out. The booths being gone allows us to pull movements apart—like separating out a bowl of spaghetti. We’re trying to create that direct connection and improve safety operations.

Q: Karina Quinn: Can you speak to which one of those four concepts is best? Are you able to rank them yet? It looked like the last option is way more complex than the first.

A: Ryan McNeill: That is accurate, that the last is most complex. Those alternatives were presented in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF). Since then the project team has revised and modified the concepts, applied more engineering, looked at them more fully with a cost and environmental filter as well as filters of avoidance, minimization, and constructability. We’ll show the modified alternatives next time as well as the scoring of each concept. As of right now, we are looking at them all equally, until we have enough data to put that “best” filter on them and figure out which one will be the best alternative for us to build.

Q: Karina Quinn: What is the ballpark overall cost?

A: Ryan McNeill: There is $129 million programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in 2020, 2021 and 2022. It stops in 2022 because the STIP stops there, but STIP recognizes that additional money will be needed. The cost of the alternatives at the conceptual level ranges from $160 million to $355 million between alternatives. That is quite the range. Regardless of which alternative we pick, more programmed money will be needed. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the state and the federal government recognize that and are committed to this project.

Q: Karina Quinn: Do you have an idea of the number of agencies that will be involved?

A: Ryan McNeill: Between the local, state and federal components, maybe ten to 15 agencies. From an environmental standpoint you have MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP); the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); the local Conservation Commissions; the Army Corps of Engineers; the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which manages the NEPA process; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). We’ve met with the MBTA and we need to make sure we don’t disrupt travel and meet the future needs of the T. It is a large and complex project that a lot of people will touch. That is part of the reason why we’re here and doing all of this public involvement: to get a good understanding in the community and for the design team to understand what folks need and want.

Q: Derek Saari: It was difficult in the ENF to comment on three or four alternatives all at once: obviously the designs weren’t very mature, so it was difficult to rationalize our comments. Are you picking one design and moving forward with the permitting so that we can focus our comments on one design?

A: Ryan McNeill: Absolutely. Once we get into the permitting process will be down to one design. The sooner we can eliminate alternatives the better. The only reason we would put multiple alternatives through the MEPA process is if they are truly equal. The goal is to bring only the Preferred Alternative through the MEPA process.

Q: Elaine Lazarus, Town of Hopkinton: Given the location of the project in three different towns, would it make sense while you’re developing the alternatives to meet with all three Conservation Commissions together so they can work together?

A: Mark Fobert, Tetra Tech: We had a meeting with everyone in March.

A: Ryan McNeill: We are still subject to the town lines for the regulatory part of the project, but environmental concerns don’t pay any attention to town lines. The environmental resources are the most complex piece in my mind. We have met and we will continue to meet as we go forward in the process.

C: Elaine Lazarus: From Hopkinton’s perspective, it is most important that this intersection is improved. The backups affect all of us. It impacts the local roads and hampers emergency response and actually increases incident counts. I think that emergency access is very important.

Q: Karina Quinn: What is the construction timeframe?

A: Ryan McNeill: At this point we are looking at three to five years depending on the alternative. We need to keep traffic moving and that is a difficult construction dance. My last project was the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge over the Turnpike. For that project we made a concerted effort to get in there and put stop signs up on the commuter rail, the Turnpike, Commonwealth Avenue and the Green Line. We demolished and built two-thirds of the bridge in 18 days. You don’t really have that ability here, and the need to have it on an accelerated schedule isn’t here, either. It will be more of a conventional construction process, and keeping folks moving and providing access extends the construction period.

Q: Karina Quinn: The Fast 14 techniques are not applicable?

A: Ryan McNeill: Bridges are a big part of this project but the ramps are an even bigger factor. The Fast 14 or Commonwealth Avenue or Winter Street all focused on the bridges almost exclusively. Here we have the ramps to build as well.

C: Don Burn, Town of Westborough: I went back through my notes after last night’s meeting and found my old notes from 25 years ago when you guys were last here. All they were doing there was widening the road to put in some extra toll booths. It took three times longer than originally expected because of the environmental headaches.

A: Ryan McNeill: As a department, I would like to hope we’ve gotten better at anticipating problems. Especially with this project where it is so important that we get it right, we’ve done a lot of background research on paper and on the ground. That’s not to say something might not show up, but we’re trying to avoid surprises.

C: Don Burn: The last time around they discovered more archeological issues than they had expected. Also I remember at the time there were questions about why they weren’t fixing the ramps, and the answer was that they already had to deal with enough headaches.

Q: Stephen Slaman: Is it inevitable that the overpasses on the interchange are being replaced?

A: Ryan McNeill: There are 20 structures in the area. For I-495 over I-90, the bridges will be rebuilt. The entire profile of I-495 will be elevated a couple of feet. You’d think that’d be the constant, since I-495 isn’t breaking the mold and will basically be where it is today, but because we’re changing the vertical geometry, the bridges will be changed. The I-90 bridges over the Commuter Rail will stay where they are, but there will be different ramp configurations in different spots and new structures in a couple of the quadrants.

Q: Fred Litchfield, Town of Northborough: Joe had indicated that new counts had been done after the all-electric tolling had been put in. What do they show and how are they different from previous counts?

A: Joe Grilli: We are still digesting that information, but they generally show very similar numbers to the 2016 counts. There are a couple of differences here and there at the on-ramps.

C: Ryan McNeill: Again, we’ll be here as long as you would like to talk this afternoon, but if you go back to the office, use the email address, project website and the WikiMap. We’re here and we’re not going anywhere. We would like for this to be a collaborative process.

C: Nate Cabral-Curtis: I will send a follow-on email with the link to the WikiMap asking you to push it with constituents. I know lots of towns have lists or a reverse 311 system. I would love to come back to the second round of Public Information Meetings and say we got 1,500 comments on the WikiMap. That is the email that you will be getting from me tomorrow. If there is a town website, please put the link to the WikiMap on it. We want to maximize the amount of exposure it receives.

C: Ryan McNeill: We would like to see a link to our website on the town websites as well. If you need us to prepare any materials about the project, just let us know how we can help out. We can focus in on your town.

C: Nate Cabral-Curtis: We can also provide a web button, which is a link and a JPEG logo to mount on the town website. Let me know if you would like that and I can make it happen. Any other questions or comments?

C: DS: I had a couple of comments just focusing on this map I’ve brought.2 I’ve attended plenty of these meetings including a jam-packed meeting in Boston. Early on I was talking about appropriate mitigation for the Town of Westborough to receive. The initial reaction from the Department of Environment Protection representative was that the area I was referencing was “not close enough in proximity to the project.” I completely disagree with her assessment. My job is to represent Westborough and what is best for my community and I know what we need.

Here’s the interchange, and the railroad. There are a series of culverts that go under that railroad. They are all identified in this 1973 book which was the forerunner to getting the July 3, 1975 Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation. Even in the book it talks about culverts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Culvert 4 was a $1.6 million project that I was able to do when CSX came in. That was a jack-and-bore on the two mainlines plus on the spur lines, plus the culvert under the actual facility. It dropped the water levels by 5’ in this swamp. If you look at the aerial shots from prior presentations, this one particular resource area was dead because it was under 5’ of water. That whole ecosystem was severely altered. The harm is still visible.

Looking at these other culverts, including the Rudders Brook Culvert which I will refer to as 1A, in this book they were clogged or blocked in 1973. I was born in 1974, and they haven’t gotten any better. I’ve tried mightily but there’s nothing I can do to make them flow. The three main reasons for why the ACEC was designated were for flood control, water supply protection, which has been lessened over time, and public recreation. The flood control aspect of it is no longer valid. It is difficult to look at the floodplain on the southerly side of the track because the flooding is being curtailed north of the track. One of our ball fields, Rogers Field, is in water right now.

In looking at mitigation, I had no permits when I did CSX. I wanted the project done and they were nervous, but we followed the federal preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. You can’t impede the railroad, including wetland permits. There were no permits done during that project. Mitigation would be a win for our community where you’re not on private property with easements or takings. The price of land in Westborough is crazy; folks won’t want you to mitigate on private property to create wetlands. Here, you’re only affecting the railroad and you’re improving environmental conditions by volumes over. I will present this to my Selectmen because if it is not going to be done here, it has to be done no matter what. I’m either going to be applying pressure to the railroad or here, but I need local support because I don’t have the leverage that I had from CSX. I just wanted to let you know that pursuing this is a goal for me for 2018.

2 The map referenced is included in this document as Appendix 2.

C: Ryan McNeill: We also talked about this a bit at that meeting in Framingham. I fully support the idea and I love the idea of getting creative to magnify the benefits. Smaller projects with the largest benefits can be an impact-multiplier. Our responsibility is to get the interchange permitted and built. The process starts with the towns but goes immediately to the MassDEP. We’re going to continue the conversation with MassDEP. I think that is the right way to go but I’m beholden to their process. If we can get them to agree, and somehow quantify those benefits, I think the project could be fully supportive of that, but if MassDEP can’t figure out how to apply that to the Wetlands Protection Act, then we won’t be able to follow up on it. Sometimes, I think, we focus more on the regulations than the environment. This project focuses on the environmental benefits and I fully support it. If we can combine those two then I think that would be fantastic.

C: Derek Saari: Susan [McArthur, MassDOT] has done a great job talking about the variance process with the Conservation Commissions. You should be able to look at all aspects of a project, like we do in Westborough, when we’re talking about permitting and variances.

C: Don Burn: Last night we were talking about the Atlantic White Cedar. I know years ago there was a DCR survey and that large peninsula used to have a large stand of Atlantic White Cedar. They were all killed by the flooding attributed to what is now an MBTA culvert. One way or another it will come back to MassDOT because those culverts were substandard. I don’t know if you can find that study, but we joked that down in Plymouth they spent a ton of money creating a swamp.

C: Ryan McNeill: To recap the conversation, we have completed our Atlantic White Cedar survey; we have a little more than 100 cedars. We have GPS’ed them and applied them to our Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) so we know elevation of the base of those trees. We also have several ground-wells in that area and are monitoring them quarterly. The expectation is that, wherever this mitigation goes, we’ll have that data. It seems like the Atlantic White Cedar is particularly susceptible to water elevations. We will make an educated design on where those go.

C: Don Burn: That stand near the peninsula was probably several times the number of those 100 trees that are left.

C: Derek Saari: My first step is to inform my Selectmen, get their support and move their support even higher from there.

Q: Fred Litchfield: Is this culvert repair or just maintenance?

A: Derek Saari: This would be a new directional bore under the railroad, replacing all of them. These are original from 1870 to1880, granite box culverts. At one point they ran some fiber-optic line down the center line of the two, trenching the cable. That didn’t help because it dislodged the ceiling of the box culvert and ballast began falling in. When I was cleaning some of these I was doing nothing but removing ballast, but I can’t grout it off—all I can do is continue to remove it. The Town of Westborough has spent phenomenal resources, getting flagmen and running maintenance, but all we’re doing is chasing a Band-Aid. Now it’s impacting our recreational fields, other amenities and private property. There was a huge effect on Walkup Drive and Flanders Road when the water was 5’ high. Sewer pump stations have helped, but some of these are getting to a point where it is threatening the stability of the track ballast.

Q: Fred Litchfield: CSX doesn’t want to pay for the fix?

A: Derek Saari: We’ll see, but one way or another I’ll get them done.

C: Ryan McNeill: If those culverts are structurally unsound, you may have a case with the MBTA. Structurally sound culverts are in their best interest. There is a lot of service going through there. I’d think they’d know, but if they don’t, you should talk to them. As I said, I love the idea but I have to fit it in the timeframe of the project.

C: Derek Saari: Fair enough.

C: Ryan McNeill: Thank you all for coming, we appreciate it.

Next Steps This series of stakeholder briefings will continue through January 2018. A round of public information meetings is anticipated in the spring. The schedule for permitting and preliminary design anticipates three rounds of public information meetings; targeted briefings; and internal and agency coordination meetings. Further in the project, a MEPA meeting, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), 25% Design Public Hearing, federal environmental permitting, and Design/Build procurement are all anticipated. Construction and final design will proceed in parallel once a Design/Build contractor is selected; construction estimates will be created as the design progresses.

Public involvement will continue throughout all phases of the project. More information, past presentations, information regarding the history of the project including the ENF phase of work, and contact information is available at the project webpage: mass.gov/massdot/495-90interchange

Appendix 1: Meeting Attendees First Name Last Name Affiliation

Don Burns Westborough

Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis HSH

Jeff Dietrich HSH

Mark Fobert Tetra Tech

Joe Grilli HNTB

Elaine Lazarus Hopkinton

Fred Litchfield Northborough

Don MacAdam Hopkinton

Susan McArthur MassDOT

E. Ryan McNeill MassDOT

Marjorie Peairs Westborough

Karina Quinn Southborough

Derek Saari Westborough

Stephen Slaman Hopkinton

Sue Speckman Westborough

Appendix 2: Culverts Map

As provided by Derek Saari, Town of Westborough

stakeholder briefing local municipality | mass.gov

Documents