DOCSLIB.ORG

Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Industri-Plex Superfund Site Town of W Oburn, Middlesex County, Massachusetts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Industri-Plex Superfund Site Town of W Oburn, Middlesex County, Massachusetts Rest oration Plan and Environmental Asses sment for the Industri-Plex Superfund Site Draft for Public Review February 19, 2020 Prepared by: Industri-Plex NRDAR Trustee Council Commonwealth of Massachusetts U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration With support from: Abt Associates 6130 Executive Boulevard Rockville, MD 20852 Abt Associates Report Title Insert Date ▌1-1 This page intentionally left blank Industri-Plex RP/EA February 19, 2020 ▌i CONTENTS CONTENTS List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. vi 1. Introduction to the Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment ..................... 1 1.1. Trustee Responsibilities and Authorities ................................................................. 1 1.2. Summary of Industri-Plex NRDAR Settlement ........................................................ 2 1.3. Summary of Natural Resource Injuries ................................................................... 2 1.4. Purpose and Need for Restoration .......................................................................... 4 1.5. Restoration Goals ...................................................................................................4 1.6. Coordination and Scoping ....................................................................................... 4 1.6.1 Trustee Council Organization and Activities ................................................ 4 1.6.2 Summary of Public Involvement .................................................................. 5 1.6.3 Public Notification ........................................................................................6 1.6.4 Administrative Record ................................................................................. 6 2. Affected Environment ...................................................................................................7 2.1. Industri-Plex Environment ....................................................................................... 7 2.2. Socioeconomic Environment ................................................................................. 10 3. Restoration Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................. 12 3.1. Regulatory Criteria Set Forth in DOI NRDAR Regulations .................................... 12 3.2. Eligibility Criteria Developed by the Trustees ........................................................ 12 3.3. Evaluation Criteria Utilized by the Trustees to Select Preferred Projects............... 13 4. Restoration Alternatives ............................................................................................. 15 4.1. Summary of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 15 4.1.1 Alternative 1 (Preferred Action Alternative) ................................................ 15 4.1.2 Alternative 2 (Non-Preferred Action Alternative) ........................................ 17 4.1.3 Alternative 3 (No-Action/Natural Recovery Alternative) ............................. 17 4.2. Alternative 1 – Preferred Action Alternative ........................................................... 17 4.2.1 Shaker Glen Extension Wetland and Stream Restoration (Tier 1) ............. 17 4.2.2 Scalley Dam Fishway Design and Construction (Tier 1) ............................ 25 4.2.3 Riverine, Floodplain, and Riparian Habitat Restoration at Davidson Park (“HWG Option 2”) (Tier 1).................................................................. 34 4.2.4 Education and Outreach Activities to Be Incorporated into Tier 1 Projects (Tier 1) ......................................................................................... 45 4.2.5 Horn Pond Brook and Aberjona River Streambank and Fish Passage Restoration (Tier 2) ................................................................................... 50 4.2.6 Habitat Restoration at Mill and Judkins Ponds (Tier 2) .............................. 56 4.2.7 Downstream Fish Passage Restoration at Mystic Lakes Dam (Tier 2)....... 62 4.3. Alternative 2 – Non-Preferred Action Alternative ................................................... 68 4.3.1 Riverine, Floodplain, and Riparian Habitat Restoration at Davidson Park (“HWG Option 3”) .............................................................................. 68 4.3.2 Improved Water Management in the Horn Pond and Horn Pond Brook Tributary Watershed to the Aberjona River ................................................ 73 4.3.3 Freshwater Mussel and Clam Study .......................................................... 76 4.3.4 Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management to Improve Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 81 4.4. Alternative 3 – No-Action/Natural Recovery (Non-Preferred) ................................ 86 4.5. Comparison of Alternatives – NRDAR Evaluation ................................................. 86 Industri-Plex RP/EA February 19, 2020 ▌ii CONTENTS 4.6. Projects Considered but Not Evaluated ................................................................ 90 4.6.1 Land Conservation and Streambank Restoration at the Former Kraft Foods Parcel ............................................................................................. 90 4.6.2 Aberjona River Old Fence Removal .......................................................... 92 5. Monitoring Program, Performance Criteria, and Adaptive Management ................. 94 5.1. Measuring/Evaluating Restoration Progress ......................................................... 94 5.2. Performance Standards and Criteria ..................................................................... 94 5.3. Adaptive Management .......................................................................................... 94 6. Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of Restoration Alternatives ............... 95 6.1. Requirements for NEPA Analysis and Trustee Approach ...................................... 95 6.2. Impacts of the Proposed Alternatives .................................................................... 96 6.2.1 Fish Passage: Dam and Culvert Replacement .......................................... 96 6.2.2 Fish Passage: Technical and Nature-like Fishways ................................... 96 6.2.3 Wetland Restoration: Levee and Culvert Removal, Modification, and Set-back .................................................................................................... 97 6.2.4 Wetland Restoration: Wetland Restoration and Shoreline Stabilization Techniques ............................................................................................... 98 6.2.5 Wetland Restoration: Wetland Planting ..................................................... 99 6.2.6 Freshwater Stream Restoration: Channel Restoration ............................. 100 6.2.7 Freshwater Stream Restoration: Bank Restoration and Erosion Reduction ................................................................................................ 101 6.2.8 Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation Management: Invasive Species Control .... 101 6.2.9 Planning, Feasibility Studies, Design Engineering, and Permitting .......... 102 6.2.10 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring ......................................... 103 6.2.11 Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .................................................................... 103 6.2.12 Environmental Education Classes, Programs, Centers, Partnerships, and Materials; Training Programs ............................................................ 104 6.2.13 Road Upgrading and Decommissioning: Trail Restoration....................... 105 6.2.14 Signage and Access Management .......................................................... 106 6.3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Analyzed Alternatives ....................... 106 6.4. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ................................................................... 106 6.5. Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 107 7. Compliance with Other Authorities .......................................................................... 109 7.1. Laws ................................................................................................................... 109 7.1.1 Federal Laws ........................................................................................... 109 7.1.2 State Laws .............................................................................................. 110 7.1.3 Local Laws .............................................................................................. 112 7.2. Policies and Directives ........................................................................................ 113 7.2.1 Federal Policies and Directives ............................................................... 113 7.2.2 State and Local Policies .......................................................................... 113 8. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 114 9. List of Parties Consulted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metro Boston Regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategy - WORKING DRAFT
    Metro Boston Regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategy - WORKING DRAFT - Funding provided by the Federal Sustainable Communities Program and the Barr Foundation Revised June 2015 By: Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 617.933.0700 www.mapc.org With assistance from: Tellus Institute 11 Arlington St. Boston, MA 02116 Acknowledgements This report was originally produced in June 2014 by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, and revised on June 1 , 2015 after discussion and approval by the MAPC Executive Committee. Technical assistance was provided by Martin Pillsbury, Environmental Director (Project Manager); Julie Conroy, Senior Environmental Planner (Primary Author); Sam Cleaves, Senior Regional Planner (Author); Bill Wang, GIS Analyst; and Barry Keppard, Public Health Division Manager; James Goldstein, Senior Fellow, Tellus Institute; and William Dougherty, President, Climate Change Research Group. Editing and continued guidance was provided by Marc Draisen, MAPC Executive Director. The Metro-Boston Regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (RCCAS) was undertaken with funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Sustainable Communities Program and the Barr Foundation. We would also like to thank the MAPC Officers for their continued support: Lynn Duncan, President; Keith Bergman, Vice President; Shirronda Almeida, Secretary; and Taber Keally, Treasurer. Special appreciation goes to the members of the RCCAS Advisory Committee for their continuous assistance and leadership: John Bolduc Environmental Planner Cambridge Community Development Dept. Wayne Castonguay Executive Director Ipswich River Watershed Assoc. Hunt Durey Acting Director MA Dept. of Ecological Restoration Kwabena Kyei-Aboagye MA Urban Program Manager U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Residents' Guide
    RESIDENTS' GUIDE BURLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01803 INCORPORATED FEBRUARY 28, 1799 September 2019 Acknowledgements This guide was compiled and updated by the Town Clerk's Office and made possible by the input of many town employees whose contributions are appreciated. Cover illustration by Heather Chew. Contents Introduction..................................................................................................5 Burlington at a Glance.................................................................................7 Past and Present........................................................................................... 9 The Early Years .........................................................................................9 Historical Points of Interest .....................................................................10 Government................................................................................................ 12 Board of Selectmen............................................................................12 Town Administrator...........................................................................12 Town Meeting.................................................................................... 12 Organizational Chart.......................................................................... 13 Department Contact Information....................................................... 14 Volunteer Opportunities.....................................................................16 Public Meetings..................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Western Woburn Greenway Study Jennifer H
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Studio and Student Research and Creative Activity Spring 5-2010 Western Woburn Greenway Study Jennifer H. Masters University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Bryan C. Aldeghi University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Eric C. Kells University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Maureen C. Pollock University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Rebekah Lynne Decourcey University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/larp_grad_research Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons, Landscape Architecture Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Other Environmental Sciences Commons, Sustainability Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Masters, Jennifer H.; Aldeghi, Bryan C.; Kells, Eric C.; Pollock, Maureen C.; Decourcey, Rebekah Lynne; Waag, Carol; Kwon, Youjin; Ostermier, Kathryn E.; McGeough, Patrick T.; and Ball, Ryan Patrick, "Western Woburn Greenway Study" (2010). Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Studio and Student Research and Creative Activity. 6. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/larp_grad_research/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Studio and Student Research and Creative Activity by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Jennifer H. Masters, Bryan C. Aldeghi, Eric C. Kells, Maureen C. Pollock, Rebekah Lynne Decourcey, Carol Waag, Youjin Kwon, Kathryn E.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport
    EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT AT THE WELLS G&H SUPERFUND SITE, WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, FROM 1960 TO 1986 AND ESTIMATION OF TCE AND PCE CONCENTRATIONS DELIVERED TO WOBURN RESIDENCES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree, Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Maura A. Metheny, B.S., M.S. The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee Professor E. Scott Bair, Advisor Assistant Professor Anne Carey Approved by Professor Carolyn Merry ______________________________ Professor Franklin Schwartz Advisor Department of Geological Sciences Copyright by Maura A. Metheny 2004 ABSTRACT Contamination of municipal wells G and H was discovered in 1979 and was statistically linked by epidemiological studies to leukemia cases that occurred in Woburn, Massachusetts in the late 1960’s through the early 1980’s. Historical contamination of the buried valley aquifer at the 133 hectare Wells G&H Superfund Site is simulated using MT3D-HMOC code to determine the possible contamination history of the wells with TCE and PCE. A MODFLOW groundwater flow model calibrated using measured heads, measured streamflow gains and losses, and tritium/helium-3 groundwater ages was used to compute flow velocities. The 26-year transient groundwater flow model incorporates realistic pumping schedules and variable recharge rates. Although the wells operated from 1964 to 1979, the transport model spans the period 1960 to 1985 so that the simulated concentrations can be compared to water quality measurements from 1979 through 1985. At least five local sources contributed TCE, PCE, and other contaminants to the groundwater system. The precise contaminant release times and source concentrations are not known for the sites.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning of Winchester on Massachusett Land
    Posted at www.winchester.us/480/Winchester-History-Online THE BEGINNING OF WINCHESTER ON MASSACHUSETT LAND By Ellen Knight1 ENGLISH SETTLEMENT BEGINS The land on which the town of Winchester was built was once SECTIONS populated by members of the Massachusett tribe. The first Europeans to interact with the indigenous people in the New Settlement Begins England area were some traders, trappers, fishermen, and Terminology explorers. But once the English merchant companies decided to The Sachem Nanepashemet establish permanent settlements in the early 17th century, Sagamore John - English Puritans who believed the land belonged to their king Wonohaquaham and held a charter from that king empowering them to colonize The Squaw Sachem began arriving to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Local Tradition Sagamore George - For a short time, natives and colonists shared the land. The two Wenepoykin peoples were allies, perhaps uneasy and suspicious, but they Visits to Winchester were people who learned from and helped each other. There Memorials & Relics were kindnesses on both sides, but there were also animosities and acts of violence. Ultimately, since the English leaders wanted to take over the land, co- existence failed. Many sachems (the native leaders), including the chief of what became Winchester, deeded land to the Europeans and their people were forced to leave. Whether they understood the impact of their deeds or not, it is to the sachems of the Massachusetts Bay that Winchester owes its beginning as a colonized community and subsequent town. What follows is a review of written documentation KEY EVENTS IN EARLY pertinent to the cultural interaction and the land ENGLISH COLONIZATION transfers as they pertain to Winchester, with a particular focus on the native leaders, the sachems, and how they 1620 Pilgrims land at Plymouth have been remembered in local history.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Names
    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Environmental Concerns at Ginn Field and Childhood Cancer Incidence from 2000-2008 in Winchester, Middlesex County, Massachusetts
    Massachusetts Department Of Public Health Health Consultation: Evaluation of Environmental Concerns at Ginn Field and Childhood Cancer Incidence from 2000-2008 in Winchester, Middlesex County, Massachusetts January 2012 Bureau of Environmental Health, Community Assessment Program 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................1 II. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5 III. BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................5 IV. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL COMMUNITY EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND HEALTH CONCERNS.................................................................................................................7 A. EXPOSURE TO SOIL .............................................................................................................. 9 B. EXPOSURE TO SEDIMENT ................................................................................................... 13 C. EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................ 15 D. EXPOSURE TO GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................... 17 E. EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES.................................................................................................. 18 V. ANALYSIS OF CANCER INCIDENCE ........................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology of Massachusetts
    Hydrology of Massachusetts Part 1. Summary of stream flow and precipitation records By C. E. KNOX and R. M. SOULE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1105 Prepared in cooperation with Massachusetts Department of Public ff^orks This copy is, PI1R1rUDLIt If PROPERTYr nuri-i LI and is not to be removed from the official files. JJWMt^ 380, POSSESSION IS UNLAWFUL (* s ' Sup% * Sec. 749) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1949 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR J. A. Kruft, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. G. - Price 91.00 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Introduction........................................................ 1 Cooperation and acknowledgments..................................... 3 Explanation of data................................................. 3 Stream-flow data.................................................. 3 Duration tables................................................... 5 Precipitation data................................................ 6 Bibliography........................................................ 6 Index of stream-flow records........................................ 8 Stream-flow records................................................. 9 Merrimack River Basin............................................. 9 Merrimack River below. Concord River, at Lowell, Mass............ 9 Merrimack River at Lawrence, Mass............................... 10 North Nashua River near Leominster,
    [Show full text]
  • ABERJONA RIVER: a History of Its Use, Abuse, and Restoration
    Posted at www.winchester.us/480/Winchester-History-Online Please follow the link to learn about the project and read the article in context. ABERJONA RIVER: A History of its Use, Abuse, and Restoration PARTS 1-4 1 By Ellen Knight2 Part 1: HISTORIC LANDSCAPE No landscape in Winchester could be more historic than the Aberjona River and its tributaries. The history of the town of Winchester begins with its waterways, in particular the Aberjona River, which runs through the town’s history from its earliest Colonial days to the present. The river drew settlers. The first house was built along its banks. It offered a source of power for industry from the time the first colonist built a dam for a mill pond to power a gristmill until the last century. Stretching north and south of the Mill Pond, which lies at the heart of the civic center, the river still suggests opportunity for economic development. The river has been a scene for recreation—boating, skating, fishing. Within living memory residents canoed its lower channel up to the town center. It has inspired artists. Among others, J. Foxcroft Cole sat before his e asel en plein air and captured river scenes in oils (as pictured right). For historians it has provided a mystery since the derivation of its name, generally ascribed to Algonquin origin, appears to have been lost before histories were compiled. Combined with its parks, the river has been a place of beauty and enjoyment. It has also seen tragedy. The last Native American known to live here, Hannah Shiner, fell in near Main Street and drowned in 1820.
    [Show full text]
  • Middlesex County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 3 OF 8 MIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACTON, TOWN OF 250176 ARLINGTON, TOWN OF 250177 Middlesex County ASHBY, TOWN OF 250178 ASHLAND, TOWN OF 250179 AYER, TOWN OF 250180 BEDFORD, TOWN OF 255209 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BELMONT, TOWN OF 250182 MELROSE, CITY OF 250206 BILLERICA, TOWN OF 250183 NATICK, TOWN OF 250207 BOXBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250184 NEWTON, CITY OF 250208 BURLINGTON, TOWN OF 250185 NORTH READING, TOWN OF 250209 CAMBRIDGE, CITY OF 250186 PEPPERELL, TOWN OF 250210 CARLISLE, TOWN OF 250187 READING, TOWN OF 250211 CHELMSFORD, TOWN OF 250188 SHERBORN, TOWN OF 250212 CONCORD, TOWN OF 250189 SHIRLEY, TOWN OF 250213 DRACUT, TOWN OF 250190 SOMERVILLE, CITY OF 250214 DUNSTABLE, TOWN OF 250191 STONEHAM, TOWN OF 250215 EVERETT, CITY OF 250192 STOW, TOWN OF 250216 FRAMINGHAM, TOWN OF 250193 SUDBURY, TOWN OF 250217 GROTON, TOWN OF 250194 TEWKSBURY, TOWN OF 250218 HOLLISTON, TOWN OF 250195 TOWNSEND, TOWN OF 250219 HOPKINTON, TOWN OF 250196 TYNGSBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250220 HUDSON, TOWN OF 250197 WAKEFIELD, TOWN OF 250221 LEXINGTON, TOWN OF 250198 WALTHAM, CITY OF 250222 LINCOLN, TOWN OF 250199 WATERTOWN, TOWN OF 250223 LITTLETON, TOWN OF 250200 WAYLAND, TOWN OF 250224 LOWELL, CITY OF 250201 WESTFORD, TOWN OF 250225 MALDEN, CITY OF 250202 WESTON, TOWN OF 250226 MARLBOROUGH, CITY OF 250203 WILMINGTON, TOWN OF 250227 MAYNARD, TOWN OF 250204 WINCHESTER, TOWN OF 250228 MEDFORD, CITY OF 250205 WOBURN, CITY OF 250229 Map Revised: July 7, 2014 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25017CV003B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study Volume 7
    VOLUME 7 OF 8 MIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACTON, TOWN OF 250176 ARLINGTON, TOWN OF 250177 Middlesex County ASHBY, TOWN OF 250178 ASHLAND, TOWN OF 250179 AYER, TOWN OF 250180 BEDFORD, TOWN OF 255209 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER BELMONT, TOWN OF 250182 MELROSE, CITY OF 250206 BILLERICA, TOWN OF 250183 NATICK, TOWN OF 250207 BOXBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250184 NEWTON, CITY OF 250208 BURLINGTON, TOWN OF 250185 NORTH READING, TOWN OF 250209 CAMBRIDGE, CITY OF 250186 PEPPERELL, TOWN OF 250210 CARLISLE, TOWN OF 250187 READING, TOWN OF 250211 CHELMSFORD, TOWN OF 250188 SHERBORN, TOWN OF 250212 CONCORD, TOWN OF 250189 SHIRLEY, TOWN OF 250213 DRACUT, TOWN OF 250190 SOMERVILLE, CITY OF 250214 DUNSTABLE, TOWN OF 250191 STONEHAM, TOWN OF 250215 EVERETT, CITY OF 250192 STOW, TOWN OF 250216 FRAMINGHAM, TOWN OF 250193 SUDBURY, TOWN OF 250217 GROTON, TOWN OF 250194 TEWKSBURY, TOWN OF 250218 HOLLISTON, TOWN OF 250195 TOWNSEND, TOWN OF 250219 HOPKINTON, TOWN OF 250196 TYNGSBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250220 HUDSON, TOWN OF 250197 WAKEFIELD, TOWN OF 250221 LEXINGTON, TOWN OF 250198 WALTHAM, CITY OF 250222 LINCOLN, TOWN OF 250199 WATERTOWN, TOWN OF 250223 LITTLETON, TOWN OF 250200 WAYLAND, TOWN OF 250224 LOWELL, CITY OF 250201 WESTFORD, TOWN OF 250225 MALDEN, CITY OF 250202 WESTON, TOWN OF 250226 MARLBOROUGH, CITY OF 250203 WILMINGTON, TOWN OF 250227 MAYNARD, TOWN OF 250204 WINCHESTER, TOWN OF 250228 MEDFORD, CITY OF 250205 WOBURN, CITY OF 250229 EFFECTIVE: JUNE 4, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25017CV007A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Division Highlights
    2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan Letter from the Secretary & CEO On behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), I am pleased to present the 2017-2021 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Shaped by careful planning and prioritization work as well as by public participation and comment, this plan represents a significant and sustained investment in the transportation infrastructure that serves residents and businesses across the Commonwealth. And it reflects a transformative departure from past CIPs as MassDOT and the MBTA work to reinvent capital planning for the Commonwealth’s statewide, multi-modal transportation system. This CIP contains a portfolio of strategic investments organized into three priority areas of descending importance: system reliability, asset modernization, and capacity expansion. These priorities form the foundation of not only this plan, but of a vision for MassDOT and the MBTA where all Massachusetts residents and businesses have access to safe and reliable transportation options. For the first time, formal evaluation and scoring processes were used in selecting which transportation investments to propose for construction over the next five years, with projects prioritized based on their ability to efficiently meet the strategic goals of the MassDOT agencies. The result is a higher level of confidence that capital resources are going to the most beneficial and cost-effective projects. The ultimate goal is for the Commonwealth to have a truly integrated and diversified transportation investment portfolio, not just a “capital plan.” Although the full realization of this reprioritization of capital investment will be an ongoing process and will evolve through several CIP cycles, this 2017-2021 Plan represents a major step closer to true performance-based capital planning.
    [Show full text]