CC'S FROM MASS HIGHWAY C[i �.l' ��— 4J� �f�Ciiiff
_ �a �t�:r
-�— - - -_ \
--
A
4'�un.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ug EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
DEVALL. PATRICK RECEIVED
ECEI E ii••••••t JAMES A. ALOISN JR.
GOVERNOR - SECRETARY
LJJJ
TIMOTHY P. HURRAY SEP 0 5 LUISA PAIEWCNSKY
LIEUTENANT GOVERNCR COMMISSIONER
DEPT.Of PLAkUNG&
C0PEL0P9AFNT
August 31, 2009
(By electronic mail and first class mail)
Thomas P. Hopkins, Director
Architectural Access Board
One Ashburton Place
Room 1310
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Salem Bridge St. Bike Path
Docket No: V08-117
MassHighway Project#005402
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
This is in regard to the Historic Approval Documents Submittal referenced in the Board's
Amended Decision for this case, dated July 28, 2009.
As the Board has previously been informed, the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MassHighway) submitted on June 24, 2009, a Section 106 "No Adverse Effect" finding to the
Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)for the proposed project changes
needed to comply with the Board's requirements. The regulations governing the time period for
reviewing an effect finding under Section 106 state:
33 CFR 800.5 (c) (1): Agreement with, or no objection to,finding. Unless the Council is
reviewing the finding pursuant to paragraph (c) (3) of this section, the agency official
may proceed after the close of the 30 day review period if the SHPO/THPO has agreed
with the finding or has not provided a response, and no consulting party has objected.
MassHighway has received verbal confirmation from the SHPO's staff that our June 24t1
finding was received by the SHPO shortly thereafter, and that the SHPO has not provided any
response, either within or beyond the 30 day review period. The Council (Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation) is not reviewing this finding.
As the Board has also been informed, the Salem Historical Commission, which had been
sent a complete copy of MassHighway's June 24, 2009 "No Adverse Effect"finding, responded
in a letter dated July 2, 2009, and suggested two changes for MassHighway's consideration.
MassHighway seriously considered both suggestions and, in a letter to the SHC dated July 21,
2009 (copy attached), has agreed to paint the railings a single shade of green, but has respectfully
TEN PARK PLAZA, BOSTON, MA 02116-3969
TELEPHONE: (617)973-7800•TELEFAX: (617)973-8040•TDD: (617)973-7306 •WWW.MHD.STATE.MA.US
1 {
declined the Commission's suggestion to substitute meandering paths for the MAAB-compliant
ramps as shown in our revised designs.
MassHighway has received no response from either the SHC or the SHPO following their
receipt of our July 21"letter. An inquiry to the Salem Planning Department(which provides
staff support to the SHC) confirmed that the SHC had received and discussed our July 2151 letter,
but no response to it has been received by MassHighway. Staff at the SHPO's office have
confirmed the receipt of copies of both the SHC's July 2nd letter and MassHighway's response.
Given that the SHPO has not objected to MassHighway's "No Adverse Effect" finding,
either within or outside of the mandated 30 day review period; and, given that the Salem
Historical Commission has made suggestions, but has not objected to this finding, and appears to
be satisfied by MassHighway's response, it is MassHighway's opinion that the Section 106
requirements for the proposed project changes have been met.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Roper
Structural Historian
Environmental Services Division
encs: MassHighway to SHPO,6/24/09
SHC to MassHighway,7/2/09
MassHighway to SHC,7/21/09
xcs: Brona Simon,SHPO(w/o encs)
�14a`nnahDi'Ml,SHC (w/o encs)
Damaris Santiago,FHWA(w/o encs)
Jane Estey,MassHighway(w/o encs)
Steve McLaughlin,MassHighway(w/o encs)
Frank Astone,Jacobs(w/o encs)
a I
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS T
luHIGHWAY �,RECEIVED EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT
DEVAL L, PATRICK ,TAMES A. ALOISI JR-
GOVERKOR AUGU18
2009 SPCHEIARY
TIMOTHY P MURRAY u `I
LIEUiExnxi GOVERxOx HIST
LUI$A PAIEwoxsKY
MASS, HIST MMISSIOUFH
August 18,2009 COMMs! lYl#vt j a1
RE: SALEM: Bridge Street(Route 1A)Reconstruction Project
Beverly-Salem Bridge to Washington Street(MHD#601017/MHC RC#41292)
Section 106 Review—No Adverse Effect
Ms. Brona Simon
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston,MA 02125
Dear Ms. Simon:
The Massachusetts Highway Department(MassHighway)proposes to expend federal funds to
construct the above-referenced project,which has been designed by the City of Salem. Proposed
work involves roadway and sidewalk reconstruction, intersection improvements, water main and
utility improvements, streetlight installation, landscaping, and shared-use path construction. The
project area is partially located within the Bridge Street Neck Historic District and is adjacent to
both the Salem Common Historic District and the Thomas March Woodbridge House, each of
which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. MassHighway has reviewed the
project under the terms of the 2004 Massachusetts Statewide Programmatic Agreement for
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as amended [36 CFR Part
8003(a)(2)], and has determined that the project will have No Adverse Effect on properties that
are listed in or may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The results
of that review are provided in this submittal.
As a point of information,the present Bridge Street Reconstruction Project is not a part of the
much larger Salem-Beverly Transportation Improvement Project. The recent completion of that
project's new Bridge Street Bypass along the western side of Bridge Street Neck,however,has
provided an alternative route for through traffic and has allowed the City an opportunity to
reconstruct this older section of Bridge Street in a manner compatible with the goals of the larger
project.
Project Description for the Bridge Street Reconstruction
The proposed project involves the reconstruction of Bridge Street from the intersection of Ames
Street(just south of the Beverly-Salem Bridge)to the intersection of Howard Street(just north of
Washington Street), a distance of approximately 3/4 of a mile.
TEN PARK PLAZA,BOSTON,MA 02116-3969
TELEPHONE:(617)973-7800•TELEFAX:(617)973-8040•TDD:(617)973-7306•W W W.MHD.STATE.MA.US
I
• The existing roadway will be full-depth reconstructed along Bridge Street for the length
of the project area. Minor widening or narrowing of the existing roadway will occur
within the existing paved highway layout to create consistent curb-to-curb widths
throughout the project area. These widths will be 28'from Howard Street to Winter
Street, 36'from Winter Street to Osgood Street,and 44'from Osgood Street to Ames
Street.
r
• All sidewalks within the project area will be reconstructed. A patchwork of brick,
cement concrete, and asphalt sidewalks presently is located along both sides of Bridge
Street south of the Webb Street/Saunders Street intersection. Cement concrete or asphalt
sidewalks are located north of that intersection. All sidewalks south of the Webb
Street/Saunders Street intersection on both sides of Bridge Street will be reconstructed
using brick with granite curbs. All sidewalks north of the Webb Street/Saunders Street
intersection will be reconstructed using cement concrete with granite curbs and a brick
accent stripe along the curb line. All sidewalks in the project area will be a minimum of
6.5'wide. Cement concrete wheelchair ramps will be installed in the new sidewalks at all
intersections.
• Improvements at the intersection of Bridge Street and Winter Street will include
extending the northeast corner of the intersection by a maximum of 40'to create a more
perpendicular alignment. The comer extension also will substantially reduce the cross
section at this intersection to 36', which is consistent with the proposed cross section for
Bridge Street between Winter Street and Osgood Street. A new brick sidewalk will be
constructed along the existing highway layout line behind the comer extension. The area
between the new sidewalk and the roadway will be landscaped with grass, shrubs, and
several trees. The existing signal pole with a flashing light at the intersection, and the
small raised traffic island on which the signal pole stands,will be removed. A new
ornamental mast arm signal pole with a flash cabinet will be installed in the new
landscaped area at the northeasterly corner of the intersection. The new mast arm signal
pole will be painted black and will match the design of other ornamental signal poles in
the city. No median of any type—painted,textured,or raised—will be installed along
Bridge Street at the Winter Street intersection as had been proposed in earlier phases of
project design.
• Improvements at the intersection of Bridge Street and Webb Street/Pleasant Street will
include replacement of the two existing mast arm signal poles, one on the westerly side of
the intersection in front of#110 Bridge Street and the other at the northeasterly corner of
the intersection adjacent to#111-113 Bridge Street. The new ornamental mast arm signal
poles will be painted black and will match the design of other ornamental signal poles in
the city. New pedestrian signal poles will be installed on either side of Bridge Street at
the crosswalk south of Webb Street. New traffic islands with imprinted brick texture,
flush with the pavement, will be installed along Bridge Street at the entrance to Pleasant
Street. The northeast comer of the intersection of Pleasant Street will be extended
slightly to create a more perpendicular alignment. One unauthorized curb cut will be
removed from Bridge Street south of the Pleasant Street intersection.
• The existing water main(whose poor condition requires frequent repairs)under this
section of Bridge Street will be replaced with a more appropriately sized new water main
in the same location;other underground utility lines will be upgraded(by others)while
the roadway is open; and roadway drainage improvements will be made.
2
r
• New ornamental lamp posts with pendant-type luminaires will be installed along Bridge
Street throughout the project area, as shown on sheets 74-81 of the attached project plans.
All lamp posts will be painted black. All will include the city name and seal on the base.
• Enhanced pedestrian crossings will be created across Bridge Street at Skerry Street and
Osgood Street: The existing flashing signal poles at those intersections will be removed
and new flashing signal poles will be installed. The new signal poles will be equipped
with an advanced push button system with locator tone, voice message, and Braille sign.
• More than fifty trees will be planted in curbside tree pits on both sides of Bridge Street
throughout the length of the project area.
Proiect Description for the Shared Use Path Construction
This project also proposes to construct a 400'long, 10'wide asphalt shared-use path west of
Bridge Street within an abandoned railroad right-of-way now owned by the City of Salem. The
new path will create a direct connection between two existing shared-use paths. One of the
existing shared-use paths is located west of Bridge Street and extends north-south parallel to the
recently completed Bridge Street Bypass. The other existing shared-use path begins on the
easterly side of Cross Street,runs easterly across Bridge Street, and then parallels Webb Street to
Collins Cove.
The section of abandoned railroad ROW in question is located between the westerly side of Cross
Street and the existing shared-use path along the Bridge Street Bypass. This section of the
abandoned ROW consists of the westerly end of a mid-19th century railroad cut that once extended
uninterrupted under both Cross Street and Bridge Street. Single span,timber stringer bridges that
once carried Cross Street and Bridge Street over this railroad cut were removed at some time during
the second half of the 20`h century,at which time the easterly two-thirds of the cut was filled in. The
existing shared-use asphalt path that begins at the easterly side of Cross Street and extends across
Bridge Street to Collins Cove was constructed on top of the filled eastern portions of the former cut.
The remaining fragment of the railroad cut is located west of Cross Street. The northerly and
southerly sides of the cut are supported at this location by substantial,quarried granite retaining
walls that are abruptly truncated at the westerly side of Cross Street. The northerly retaining
extends for approximately 75'west of Cross Street before ending; the southerly wall extends
approximately 100' west of Cross Street before being broken by a roughly 80' gap(where the
wall has either collapsed or been removed), the wall then continues for another couple of
hundred feet. The surviving section of the cut itself has been partially filled with earth,
household debris, and dense vegetation and is almost undetectable from either Cross Street to the
east or the shared-use path running along the Bridge Street Bypass on the west.
The construction of the proposed new shared-use path within the former railroad ROW will
require the removal of all the existing fill and debris from within this section of the cut. The cut
then will be partially filled with clean gravel and earth to create a 4% grade between Cross Street
and the Bridge Street Bypass shared-use path. The existing masonry retaining walls will remain
in place and will be partially visible on either side of the new shared-use path. The new path will
rise to, and terminate at,the westerly side of Cross Street directly opposite the existing shared-
use path that begins at the easterly side of the street. Short stretches of new,black-vinyl-clad
3
chain link fence will be used to control access to the path from Cross Street, and to close the
existing ca. 80' long gap in the southerly stone retaining wall. The new fencing in the gap will
be masked by dense plantings of new shrubbery;the side slopes of the new path within the cut
will be loamed, seeded and landscaped with grass, shrubs, and trees.
The new segment of shared-use path will be located between two existing asphalt connector
ramps (at Lemon Street and Saunders Street)that link the Bridge Street Bypass shared-use path
to city streets in the abutting residential neighborhoods. These existing connector ramps will
remain in place and will not be affected by this project.
Cultural Resources Identified within the Proiect Area
A review of the National Register of Historic Places revealed that the southern end of the project
area is located within the National Register-listed Bridge Street Neck Historic District,a
densely developed 80-acre urban neighborhood comprising some 416 buildings and sites located
on the peninsula of land between the North River and Collins Cove, north of downtown Salem.
The area within the district is primarily residential,except for scattered commercial uses (many
of them modem)along Bridge Street,which is the neighborhood's spine. Buildings within the
district range in date from the late 18th century up to the present; their original architectural
characters tend to be modest, and a high proportion of the standing structures have been covered
with artificial siding and/or otherwise altered. More than a dozen non-contributing vacant lots
are included within the district's bounds—most of these(ten)are located along the district's
westerly edge. Although the ca. 1850 construction of the Essex Railroad line through the Bridge
Street Neck neighborhood is mentioned in the historic district's National Register nomination,no
specific mention is made of the railroad's cut under Cross and Bridge streets,and the fragment of
stone-lined cut that still survives west of Cross Street is not included in the nomination's district
data sheets. Although the surviving sections of the cut's dry-laid stone retaining walls are only
fragments of a larger engineering project that has now largely disappeared,the walls appear to
retain enough engineering character,combined with an historical association with a
transportation development of importance to this neighborhood,to contribute to the historical
significance of the Bridge Street Neck Historic District.
The National Register-listed Salem Common Historic District also abuts the southeasterly
comer of the project area along the easterly side of Bridge Street from Howard Street to Winter
Street. The Salem Common Historic District includes residential properties from the 18th
through the 20'h centuries,typically of much greater architectural distinction than characteristic
of those found in the Bridge Street Neck Historic District. The most notable of the Salem
Common Historic District properties that abut the project area is the very fine Federal-style
Captain Nathaniel Griffin House,constructed c. 1837, at#1 Winter Street at the southeasterly
comer of the intersection of Bridge Street. The c. 1871 Italianate-style Kinsman-Cole House is
located across the street at#2 Winter Street at the northeasterly comer of the Bridge Street
intersection. Sidewalk work in the project area also extends south of Howard Street to the new
curb extension in front of the Howard Street Cemetery,which is a contributing property in the
Salem Common Historic District. The curb extension in front of the cemetery was previously
constructed as part of the Bridge Street Bypass roadway construction project.
4
The project area also passes in front of the individually NR-listed Thomas March Woodbridge
House(SAL.2968) at#48 Bridge Street on the northwesterly corner of March Street.
Constructed ca. 1809,the Woodbridge House is a three-story brick Federal-style dwelling that
was reportedly designed by Samuel McIntire. Three elevations of the hipped-roof house have
five bays and central entrances;the Bridge Street entrance features an ornate arrangement of
fanlight and sidelights. The house,presently occupied by a non-profit social services
organization,is separated from the street by a narrow lawn and a granite post/metal picket fence.
A review of the MHC Inventory of the Historical and Archaeological Assets of the
Commonwealth revealed numerous inventoried residential,commercial,and industrial properties
along Bridge Street in the northerly portion of the project area. These buildings generally range
in date from the late-19`s century through the early 20`s century. Most have been substantially
altered with synthetic siding or unsympathetic additions and none appears to exhibit the
distinguishing characteristics necessary for individual listing in the National Register.
Furthermore,the northerly portion of Bridge Street above March Street and Osgood Street has
been developed with a large proportion of mid-to late-20'h century industrial and commercial in-
fill. This area was omitted from the Bridge Street Neck Historic District and does not appear to
constitute a National Register-eligible historic district in its own right.
Proiect Impacts to National Register-Listed or Eligible Properties
It is MassHighway's opinion that the Bridge Street Reconstruction project in Salem will not
adversely affect the National Register-listed Bridge Street Neck Historic District,the National
Register-listed Salem Common Historic District, or the individually National Register-listed
Thomas March Woodbridge House. This project has been designed not only to improve the
safety and functionality of the roadway but also to enhance the aesthetics of the area's historic
setting. All roadway reconstruction work will be undertaken within paved areas of the existing
highway layout and will not require any takings of private property or other disturbance of
National Register-listed properties. In particular, enhancements along the length of the project
area include the installation of ornamental lamp posts and signal poles,the planting of more than
fifty street trees, and construction of brick sidewalks along Bridge Street south of the Webb
Street/Saunders Street intersection. Furthermore,the proposed work at the intersection of Bridge
and Winter/Northey Streets will narrow the cross-section of Bridge Street at that location to
provide a safer turning radius and to calm traffic within the adjacent historic districts.
The City of Salem and the project's designer have made every attempt to comply with specific
requests made by the SHC regarding this project in a letter dated February 7, 2009. To that end,
the project will narrow the current width of the Bridge Street roadway at the intersection of
Winter Street from more than 75'to 36', which is consistent with the existing roadway cross-
section for Bridge Street between Winter Street and Osgood Street. The SHC letter also
requested widening sidewalks, maintaining on-street parking,reducing unauthorized curb cuts,
eliminating painted medians, and providing street trees,all of which has been accomplished to
the greatest extent feasible throughout the project area.
The project is notable to incorporate dedicated bicycle lanes into the Bridge Street
reconstruction, as the SHC letter also requested. The roadway cross-section is not wide enough
5
to accommodate two bicycle lanes while also maintaining two full travel lanes,expanded
sidewalks, and on-street parking on the easterly side of Bridge Street north of Winter Street.
Bicycle travel has been addressed by this project in the form of a connecting shared-use path
between the existing shared-use paths along the Bridge Street Bypass west of the project area,
and along Webb Street east of Bridge Street. This connecting path will be constructed on an
abandoned and partially filled fragment of a mid-19d'railroad cut whose surviving granite
retaining walls will be preserved in place. The Salem Historical Commission expressed their
support for the construction of this path in their letter of January 8, 2009;MassHighway will be
happy to provide the SHC and the MHC with copies of photographs of the walls as they
presently exist, as the SHC requested.
Project impacts adjacent to the Thomas March Woodbridge House property will be limited to
sidewalk replacement,plus the addition within the new sidewalk of one new eastern red bud tree
and one new ornamental street lamp. The new sidewalk will be constructed of cement concrete-
an upgrade from the bituminous sidewalk that presently fronts the property.
Project impacts along Bridge Street will be confined to existing roadway, driveway apron and
sidewalk surfaces, drainage structures and utilities, and graded/landscaped roadside areas within
the existing roadway layout. Thus,little or no archaeological potential can be ascribed to these
project areas based on the nature of the proposed work and the effects of past roadway
construction,drainage and utility work, grading, and landscaping. The area of the proposed
shared-use path was previously surveyed in 1989-1990 by UMass Archaeological Services on
behalf of MassHighway as part of the initial cultural resources review for the Salem-Beverly
Transportation Improvement Project. No significant sites were identified.
Based on the nature of the proposed work, it is the opinion of MassHighway's Cultural
Resources Unit staff that the proposed project will not adversely affect any of the character- -
defining features of any of the National Register-listed or-eligible properties or districts within
or adjacent to the project area. We solicit your office's concurrence with our No Adverse Effect
finding for the Salem,Bridge Street Reconstruction Project under Stipulation V.C. (1)of the
amended Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. If you should have any questions,please contact
Jeffrey Shrimpton(at 617-973-7497)of MassHighway's Cultural Resources Unit staff.
Sincerely,
Stephen J.Roper
Structural Historian
Environmental Services
encls: Project plans °
Color photos w `
sxc�mfHc letters(a) CO0iCURf FENCE:��_A S
Bridge St.Neck HD map y 6 9 BR NA SIMON
cc: Hannah Diozzi,Salem Historical Commission STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATIONA MASSACHUSETTS OFFICER
Lynn Duncan,Director,Planning and Community Development,City of Salem MASSACHUSETTS
Damaris Santiago,PHwA HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Rc. 1f1:01a
6
J
I THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION ^Mwff
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEP "
'UR p
DEVAL L. PATRICK p�m111AI L 6 �ZyYOOJ JAMES A. ALOISI JR.
GOVERNOR JUN IV
SECRETARY
TIMOTHY P. HURRAY DEPT DO PLAt'gWa& LUISA PAIEWONSKV
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ll..r 1 (� y'�pt
COMMISSIONER
June 24, 2009
RE: SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Bridge Street Bypass (005402)
Section 106 Review—Notification of Project Change
Ms. Brona Simon
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission `'
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125
Dear Ms. Simon:
The Massachusetts Highway Department is writing to notify the Massachusetts State Historic
Preservation Officer of a minor change to the design of the multi-use path that was constructed
as part of the Bridge Street Bypass project in Salem. Your office accepted our finding of No
Adverse Effect for this project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, (36 CFR 800) in April 2004. The Bridge Street Bypass, which connects the
Salem-Beverly Bridge to Washington Street, is now open to traffic. The multi-use path along the
easterly side of the bypass also is open to the public.
At this time, MassHighway is proposing to install hand railings or asphalt wheelchair ramps at the
four locations where the multi-use path intersects with the ends of local streets. The proposed
hand railings and ramps are required to comply with the regulations of the Massachusetts
Architectural Access Board (MAAB). From north to south, the intersecting local streets include
Conant Street, Pearl Street, Saunders Street, and Lemon Street. The four streets are included
within the boundaries of the National Register-listed Bridge Street Neck Historic District.
Each of the four local streets now terminates at its westerly end (near the multi-use path) at a
newly constructed half-circular landscaped plaza consisting of brick and granite unit pavers and
landscape boulders. One boulder in the center of each plaza is etched with the name of the
intersecting local street.
TEN PARK PLAZA, BOSTON, MA 02116-3969
TELEPHONE:(617)973-7800 •TELEFAX: (617)973-8040•TDD: (617)973-7366 •WWW.MHD.STATE.MA.US
w
J
Asphalt connector paths bf variable lengths and slopes connect each half-circular landscaped plaza
to the new multi-use path. At Conant Street, the connector path is approximately 3' long with an
8.9% slope. At Pearl Street, the connector path is approximately 5' long with a 10.8% slope. At
Saunders Street, the connector path is approximately 50' long with a 7.0% to 7.9% slope. At
Lemon Street,the connector path is approximately 50' long with an 8.2%to 8.4% slope.
The existing connector ramps at Conant Street and Pearl Street are too short and too steep to
serve as acceptable wheelchair ramps. MassHighway, therefore,proposes to construct new 5-
foot wide, MAAB-compliant, at-grade, asphalt wheelchair ramps in the graded lawn areas along
the new multi-use path to connect to the half-circular landscaped plazas at Conant Street and
Pearl Street. Hand railings will not be installed along either of the new asphalt wheelchair ramps
at Conant Street or Pearl Street.
The new asphalt wheelchair ramp at Conant Street will be located on the southerly side of the
half-circular plaza. The Conant Street ramp will be approximately 35' long with a 3.5% slope
and will follow an essentially straight path between the multi-use path and the plaza. Two
recently planted trees and two landscape boulders along the side of the multi-use path near
Conant Street will be relocated to accommodate the new ramp.
The new ramp at Pearl Street will be located on the northerly side of the half-circular plaza. The
Pearl Street ramp will be approximately 40' long with a 4.5% slope and will curve at a 90° angle
between the multi-use path and the plaza. Two landscape boulders (but no trees) along the side
of the multi-use path near Pearl Street will be relocated to accommodate the new ramp.
New ramps are not required at Saunders Street or Lemon Street, but new hand railings will be
installed along the existing 50-foot long asphalt connector ramps at the ends of those streets to
comply with MAAB regulations. Galvanized steel hand railings meeting MAAB specifications
will be installed along both sides of each ramp. Railings also will be installed along the curved
periphery of the landscaped plaza at Saunders Street. A drawing of the proposed hand railing is
shown in the attached plans. The posts on the hand railings will be painted black and the railings
will be painted green (black paint absorbs heat and is not appropriate for use on railings). No
trees or landscape boulders will be disturbed by installation of the proposed hand railings.
It is MassHighway's opinion that the proposed installation of MAAB compliant hand railings
and wheelchair ramps at the landscaped plazas and connector ramps along the Bridge Street
Bypass multi-use path will not adversely affect the National Register-listed Bridge Street Neck
Historic District. The proposed hand railings and ramps will be unobtrusive features at the
extreme westerly extent of the district, in an area that already has been substantially altered by
construction of the Bridge Street Bypass roadway and the adjacent multi-use path.
Project impacts will be confined to existing paved or landscaped areas within the newly
constructed bypass layout. Thus, little or no archaeological potential can be ascribed to the
project area based on the nature of the proposed work and the effects of past roadway
construction, utility work; grading, and landscaping. The bypass corridor was previously
surveyed in 1989-1990 by UMass Archaeological Services on behalf of MassHighway as part of
the initial cultural resources review for this project. No significant sites were identified.
r
1
We solicit your office's concurrence with our finding that the proposed new work is consistent
with the previously determined No Adverse Effect finding for the Salem-Beverly Bridge Street
Bypass project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. If you
should have any questions,please contact Jeffrey Shrimpton(at 617-973-7497)of MassHighway's
Cultural Resources Unit staff.
Sincerely,
de�Lt �
Stephen J. Roper
Structural Historian
Environmental Services
Encl: Project plans
Color photos
CC: Hannah Diozzi,Salem Historical Commission
Damaris Santiago,FHWA
21
8 ¢ \♦ n l� s t+F'..,�,: s '`a ' r ' 3S J p 'r r y- Y r�T � v�"�, " • +4••`.
��j yt al
39.
FI Lr
TO Jv�
IF
t r.� Y �• 7,
'7� fY S i° d �'x'wr i Y �,1��„1�7Try-� •,i t .
r � t
v
.v `°•fit-S,� • � � � '�r��4 " -!�'f �pr. � +�!,; `� i,..
•���tt �! 3 � ,e�.�';j,4y,'�Af�- _.-,or ��.tMr.:s$^fS<p ,2i�;'�®—''--...
u
IIS Ilii �,v s ?
I
i
ltd
M lt�� � I •
x I a
.v.. v .
y' Y
� v
F
'�x M { V° >• yP
R/�� � .: �• 7 till � v�
l=
4 � 4 i,.y r urY`��"M� i •;, t ♦'�/�4� 5 Ona/:
't♦ ,l�tA,:, P '�i
T
Y All
+"�, rt;a x \• - ����t��,, �4'", tt,3r.}-� (- ,, #'Q:��� �� raj ��R�i � h - x:::; • .. � `.,
OrIl
r i � .. �� L}. '��,. -s•r•rs�r '� ..:¢Est y ;�-'- `4 �.
�I� ➢� Y -by
I' r �
a Y
K
J
a 111WWMMM �
7Rs'• i <.r - j
>
�•
,` �• ' .� !
x •. it '6. f
l 1
rs
t
�M1 t M1 f f
P u
Am-
T ¢f 'Ail
� � 1
M
OAIf 1 +1
a r
wit .
.avow
Y•F Y M g1 a' jowl'
St 4 �
ANNE
if
4
s.
� v r
N*d
13' X Yv
k _
Xj
w �
a
{ 1
{ ✓ > '� t/n J' � � Cyd'. ^;{ �13
A
'.$ p "•.:N'i f i. .J .iti �'Vii! � ..
r I _Llk a �"r• `�y� I —
'ibRL{!2. 7 p{yf
icy♦ Y Y k�
N
r �
M
n <
u �
.r y�•'v v�r i
l t
ti
f
i Man
lK
v
�-� • e `�:• ..xt`ScITT allA.
°' 1 t� .G'SJ ` +y
.vq+zI. ; -'t�. x. _-. J ..17��.�"
♦vk.
.41
i
A1d: s 3 XY ef1�i,
Aa
Mt
nr
x'
xp' re
i,. 7 `
ittf'•' l���f� `�.
�lr�M
�
W
�11x��At`. � � �`�' ia, - ��!♦
x s`.. !!!y, ,+ "' €a-�^{g'8'sc.S7Y} � � f;. b' � ,'� rf w.s ' •
!#G t." '�. ' `��_X 4i ,9 �fir� ;J• f y fY�f�r�. �'j� \i
,*�
Y ,rq\,
� ',
In
� } w ny,. wy � r1.�{a gy•�� S. y Y ` ' ! „yjA}�ti x���' L ! �.�.
N
i
SALEM
BRIDGE STREET BYPASS
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS �.ssl — --
MASS ---- ----,
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TLE S EE —
TITLE SHEET AND INDEX
BIKEPATH CONNECTIONS ALONG BRIDGE STREET BYPASS
IN THE CITY OF
SALEM
ESSEX COUNTY
NORTH RIVER
23 a
Q$pIY� , '-F
i wn ,ov wrc,r v r
�r sv
yBIKEPATH CONNECTION #3 ATKEPATH CONANT CONNECTION a4
BRIDGE STREET BYPASS AT PEARL STREET
ET
. ..----------- -- - BIKEPATH CONNECTION g,
-- . ... _-__ .___. . .-__. __r
%� � \\� ^ AT LEMON STREET EXISTING BIKEPATH / AT SAUNDERSN STREET X2 ekn5= � Av D PA,KAG
Sr81 P. ppla �7 I s� ar
JOD -.
SIV,
( z r V�:(r�Dae C L' cRas;
zis/z pe
I/ � t
wt�u sik'li � ILC RA � ✓MIT
✓ IDeo r a aR w •r� D. ffI i
� ln C✓�' �' r ,= wR � �iz� Dlr Daivewnr i f ff air re�wwnr
✓�� � r/z smel
u /J �" _ 4, ' ✓a sre� 6 r �^"' 1 _b roar ' ti jt� worzo P �za n>aeu;�/
.'
rc
4
q pgj ,��. J✓a .__..� �:` ¢,. DIi DRltCw 6
.tiY '/,,, 5 �� I Leel r ."I. .._ �'-x—=J GAkIGF
r _
��� I J � T� FI UHI Y DPN{
GR/ �,�� � p TOk
b. w'�- -
� —_ .I�Vsrorenll . �..�1 It�.___-r sl,gir t wain
v m i
A,
= - DD I� 1 - �..
-- rDa - �,� r � ,r, I
I_.. wo✓ i
�� � "
carznc�
E _
,
T
�„_, TD renrea, �,r, T ET T t to AT 1 �� nw�s,�Da w. -- �TOk�,;,
eR �'� I h 'o _J s., rcc S u r'v-�. r Derve s-aar I -�i T __ _ _
a.
,i S % Z �c1 g c z soa I yr c ..
7 <" h r.� _ _�-- - _ r� T
� aO� Ifi ��.-��.C) N� �L. -i siKe (A siDsr__'� P_ r. "/ uD°e y 4 z '/worocrr
r rref�r�
oa'�� �} �.vo� O _.--__ 'r I sroar O ._i F,. I 6-r I srN �_.
' srca,' �.I �U���� icr. . L. sr � s�/ o `4� �t�C�� ��� �. .r-.v"-.-"� _ 12ir�_�i Z�1 i A° III ... -�sr n
3U o. i
1 .�zy'� ��✓�i.�srw s`�ry�,��\J-r�aI�✓%`�r r.��`..;,r) ,� a° q4s��w'��Do,„�i..s�.eV��,A�o�e - r�zz�"rpsrw�a>axer„q2rAm6cc"ee_ea1,�r,-� l�'r,d))"l//iD_$_*�".TI-�7.-`(�4rr,....r��.' p,�}S t .4C; f 9i ITsw-r�Tn�o1Dr . VAm1 I���____s_QT�_sf'�-�,,�"VC/--�L-_n9rViOD�bc�-1.V�°1`- ��L/no w.cb-eDcee1D I I
2 � tiroar ;„anver =aDDs1eDre-icr'reehrwry,_
sn I� 1woa z NaD2ra_wiDe"e=w-iivox�_aosa=,t).PaT.re
'
z rrt SvzD
.L_J
-_
1 f V /✓ 'A' v� °H'� .. 11 Xu�DOL -.I avewaY +�ff`f1
% 6Joal. / 4�. ctrl a LSl l f)i Y S r -1� .�.
8
g SCALE IN FEET
g INDEX o ,o za 40 so
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
s 1 TITLE SHEET AND INDEX
'2-3 CONSTRUCTION PLANS
4 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS DATE: MAY 21, 2009
Z`.
SALEM
BRIDGE STREET BYPASS
sore leo.A.Raa.xo. ^ sxcLT eels
- MA55 N2 S4
HLE NO
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
1 OF 2
SALEM BY—PASS ROAD
a1G`•
c" zee
58 x1281
v-
-------- of l
FO.Yf-
e Ile
/ \
PROPOSED AMORNLS 11029
to oti
/
_ E%IeSING(SuOxP
s u ) p ,y p - — — \\\ 11321
I
k9>°- eu ow sl D
EXISTING SLOPED I 11 1`n EXISnNG OPE
l
we i)A Ra j A YLIa;tx9 0 ].9x (M4%.)n O ].os (SLSEN
/ � SWlff' l a R \ z1A.J� � .WIER ERG i 1 D
�4 ry
N-+
/ PROPOSED HANDRAILS
EXISTING SLOPE /9 *.'�' 1 U
�` 0 8,4 G SLOPE
/ O }.BF (MU(J C�1 avlm nv[n I xa 5zx 'o
rTeoluara[1F � / a e.ax (MAX.) � Fi B Noll �umea •.
IEXSnNG SLOPE -
\ D EXISTING($LOP)
1cf i 114E O 5.25 (MA�y) WLLYR OS \ O 5.7% NNNAX44
GLr o 'enulnB i I I D ze aoulacA
:.5 Ha 1Jbe EXISTINGMAY.)
48% D
'Ba o .Bz (MAY.) cax AOiKdErz 1k p1.rA 5 1szB
j q P � x G• � AOUW D D �1162a r6E3 J`Q' 1
41
e3.
bv
3 WC Y o-E
Ln
'0 B w1a 1i.2B ♦za r
}
1 I9.I1AA=_
Jz 1.10 '
9
0.5JLSP; - �� xr81R e°@.a - ,:,.+
1719
I,a _
79
xw.w
4- 8
s DETAILED PLAN — LEMON STREET DETAILED PLAN — SAUNDERS STREET
SCALE: 1' 10SCALE: 1' = 10
P
NOTES:
1. EXISTNO GRADES SHOWN ON THESE PUNS AAE DERNED FROM ON
THE GROUNO FIELO SURVEY PERFORMED BY BRYANT ASSOCIATES IN
MAY 2009 AND PROVIDED TO JACOBS EDWARDS AND XELCEY ON
PUN ENTITLED TOPOGRAPHIC PUN OF UND IN SALEM,
MASSACHUSETTS- MAY 15, 2009. -
wg�� 8 3.ELEVATIONS REFER TO N.G.V.D. OF 1929. SCALE IN FEET
VV
ou�
0 5 10 20 30
i
SALEM
BRIDGE STREET BYPASS
" srAre rzD.uo PRw.No. nscu srvssr m.0
3 srv4
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
2 OF
SALEM BY—PASS ROAD _
--- SALEM BY—PASS ROAD
xon_._._.. '--`;arr._.__--_._ gnou or s<ru_ - ___-.a r.ae ;:12s7
106
_..RELOCATE EXIST
_ rT-
�'i)
BOULJ.D_).ES.R 0 S PYP.)
PROPOSED LANDING/LVEL MU
-----------. PROPOSED LANDING/LWEL AREA PROPOSED LANDIIX1N;1GR5/9
tlLEn6¢L+'85AREA
RELOCATE
EXISTING BOULDER 1231 12.40 IH/121J 1104
. EXISTING SLOPE327Q
�•rry
:_rx,J]aa
.¢i
_
"-
)a.ar D eJmoER xn.<o :: .rB ro vv D rs 12301) r ...mn opor s JrE
D x tt tfi 11.19 1$. 13]2 T D Y1f'rt"5 "XIS 5/ /
-xe a U 5 O B9RG SLOPE
cJ BWIOEx d ✓6 BOU(MRp _.__yx..___ _
x0 a xs9J RELOCATE IXIST - �y� Q.
TREES (TYP) U�P"'1 e
�aF z' x ri1 RELOCATE r.J fie 5 ra iT' P t
r
EXISTING BOULDER r3J 9 Y e s_OS ° �e
11.60 _— CONSTRUCT 5' WIDE BR. GOND. x
SSK WITH 3.5%LONGITUDINAL
LOPE AND 1R CROSS SLOPE r rw+S
B �J
CONSTRUCT WIDE BR. CONICu 2— _
c 1.z SIDEWALK WTITH RR DI
_ .IJ.rd I'"flER SLOPE AND IR CROSS NAL
SLOPE 5; W
v_-�x r2s
EXISTING LANDING � 4 -5
o � m
All IS JJ A II ea ocR F 2 4
aer ty ars" I.B aS I F 1 se- Lo
e.rl'. II ry a I s3° m Ig �,e x vr,P
1Y`_ xa�o __ riles � Ie
N
XrE0 4i x:].4s m•
`9 I �155r x16.)0. 09 - E �Z
3 xrl I I 111CCC>)6
- I I
79
> S
s DETAILED PLAN — PEARL STREET DETAILED PLAN — CONANT STREET
sGLLE: r ID' SCALE 1' - m•
8
- I
s
w�� a
SCALE IN FEET
Bw. - o s 1D zD 30
�5
SALEM
BRIDGE STREET BYPASS
SIAIE Em.uo Fx SH.11 TATA-
F
PROJECT FI
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
i
GALVANIZED STEEL NANDBWL PER
MMB DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS
5'—V WIDE SIDEWALK - - -
1;C TOP COURSE _ •I '�_
2- BINDER COURSE
T GRAVEL BORROW
8�0 CEMENT CONCRETE FOUNDATION '
ELEVATION SECTION
BIT. CONC. SIDEWALK DETAIL HANDRAIL DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
1
i ..
B
1
0 o
E
332�ut)
07/03/02 WED 14:52 FAX 617 973 8879 NED-ENVIRONMENTAL 9002
r3
ofTr nsport lio Massachusetts Division
ofTmrnportation
Federal Highway 55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Administration Cambridge, MA 02142
June 27,2002
In Reply Refer To:
HCA-MA
Historic Salem Incorporated
P.O. Box 865
Salem,Massachusetts 01970
Subject.Salem—Bridge Street Bypass Project
Dear SirlMadame:
Thank you for your recent letters expressing your interest in being included in the public process for this
project.For your information,this project is currently being progressed by the Massachusetts Highway
Department as a non-Federally funded(100%State Funds)project.
At this time,the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA),the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MMD),and the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)are implementing the terms of the 1992
Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)for this project.We believe that the existing MOA and the on-going
consultation process provides sufficient flexibility to account for the effects of this project on historic
properties in the project area.
Consistent with the MOA and Stipulation I(A)-Design of the Bridge Street Relocation,we encourage
you to continue to work with the City of Salem Planning Department,the Salem Historical Commission
and the MHC in an effort to have your specific concerns addressed.
It is our understanding that the 75%design plans are currently available for public review at the City of
Salem Planning Department.Comments,if any,should be provided to Mr.Thomas Broderick-Chief
Engineer—Massachusetts Highway Department,Attention:Mr.Steven McLaughlin—Engineering
Expediting within thirty days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley Gee
Division
Administrator
By: Jo nn'Se " Engineer
cc:MHD District Office 4
Mr.T.Broderick-MHD Chief Engineer-10 Park Plaza
Mr. S.Roper—MHD Environmental -10 Park Plaza
il ?sr:
07/03/02 WED 14:53 FAX 617 973 8879 MRD-ENVIRONMENTAL 9003
C�
US Department
of TransportationMassachusetts Division
Federal Highway 55 Broadway, 101h Floor
Administration Cambridge, MA 02142
June 27,2002
In Reply Refer To:
HCA-MA
Mr. Stanley MCDermet
30 Dearborn Street
Salem,Massachusetts 01970-2450
Subject.Salem—Bridge Street Bypass Project
Dear Mr.McDermet:
Thank you for your recent letter expressing your interest in being included in the public process for this
project.For your information,this project is currently being progressed by the Massachusetts Highway
Department as a non-Federally funded(1001/a State Funds)project.
At this time,the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA),the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MRD),and the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)are implementing the terms of the 1992
Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)for this project.We believe that the existing MOA and the on-going
consultation process provides sufficient flexibility to account for the effects of this project on historic
properties in the project area.
We encourage you to continue to work with the City of Salem Planning Department, the Salem Historical
Commission and the MHC in an effort to have your specific concerns addressed.
It is our understanding that the 75%design plans are currently available for review at the City of Salem
Planning Department.Comments,if any,should be provided to Mr.Thomas Broderick—Chief Engineer
—Massachusetts Highway Department,Attention:Mr.Steven McLaughlin—Engineering Expediting
within thirty days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley Gee
Division Admmiiniisttrrator
By: Jahn nn,v '
Senior Area Engineer
cc:MHD District Office 4
Mr.T. Broderick-MHD Chief Engineer-10 Park Plaza
Mr.S. Roper—MHD Environmental =10 Park Plaza
07/03/02 WED 14:53 FAR 617 973 8879 ADM-ENVIRONRENTAL @004
of
US-Department Massachusetts Division.
of Transportation
Federal Highway 55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Administration Cambridge, MA 02142
June 27,2002
In Reply Refer To:
HCA-MA
Mr.James Treadwell
36 Felt Street
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Subject:Salem—Bridge Street Bypass Project
Dear Mr.Treadwell:
It was my pleasure to talk with you recently to discuss your letter expressing your interest in being
included in the public process for this project.For your information,this project is currently being
progressed by the Massachusetts Highway Department as a non-Federally funded(100%State Funded)
project.
At this time,the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA),the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MHD),and the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)are implementing the terms of the existing
1992 Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)for this project.We believe that the existing MOA and the on-
going consultation process provides sufficient flexibility to account for the effects of this project on
historic properties in the project area.
Consistent with the MOA and Stipulation I(A)-Design of the Bridge Street Relocation,we encourage
you to continue to work with the Salem Planning Department,the Salem Historical Commission and the
MHC in an effort to have your specific concerns addressed.
It is our understanding that the 75%design plans are currently available for public review at the City of
Salem Planning Department.Comments,if any,should be provided to Mr.Thomas Broderick—Chief
Engineer—Massachusetts Highway Department,Attention:Mr.Steven McLaughlin—Engineering
Expediting within thirty days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley Gee
Division/Administrator
By: John Marm/
Senior Area Engineer
cc: MHD District Office 4
Mr.T.Broderick-MHD Chief Engineer-10 Park Plaza
Mr.S. Roper—MHD Environmental -t0 Park Plaza
07/03/02 WED 14:54 FAX 617 973 8879 MHD-ENVIRONMENTAL 2005
of ransport ent
io Massachusetts Division
of Transportation
Federal Highway 55 Broadway, 10tt' Floor
Administration Cambridge, MA 02142
June 27, 2002
In Reply Refer To:
HCA-MA
Dr. Iain Maclean-Secretary
Downtown Salem Neighborhood Association
28 B Federal Street
Salem,Massachusetts 01970-2450
Subject:Salem—Bridge Street Bypass Project
Dear Dr.Maclean:
Thank you for your recent letter expressing your interest in being included in the public process for this
project.For your information,this project is currently being progressed by the Massachusetts Highway
Department as a non-Federally funded(100%State Funds)project.
At this time,the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MHD),and the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)are implementing the terms of the 1992
Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)for this project.We believe that the existing MOA and the on-going
consultation process provides sufficient flexibility to account for the effects of this project on historic
properties in the project area.
We encourage you to continue to work with the City of Salem Planning Department,the Salem Historical
Commission and the MHC in an effort to have your specific concerns addressed.
It is our understanding that the 75%design plans are currently available for public review at the City of
Salem Planning Department.Comments,if any,should be provided to Mr.Thomas Broderick—Chief
Engineer—Massachusetts Highway Department,Attention:Mr.Steven McLaughlin—Engineering
Expediting within thirty days of the date of this letter. t
Sincerely yours,
Stanley Gee
Division Adm
i
nistrator
By: o cVan
SAe�ngineer
cc:MHD District Office 4
Mr.T.Broderick-MHD Chief Engineer-10 Park Plaza
Mr.S.Roper—MHD Environmental -10 Park Plaza
07/03/02 WED 14:54 FAX 617 973 8879 MRD-ENVIRONMENTAL 0006
US.Department
of Transportation Massachusetts Division
Federal Highway 55 Broadway, 101h Floor
Administration Cambridge, MA 02142
June 27, 2002
In Reply Refer To:
HCA-MA
The Reverend Gail Seavey
Minister, First Univeralist Church
First Universalist Society
211 Bridge Street
Salem,Massachusetts 01970
Subject.Salem—Bridge Street Bypass Project
Dear Reverend Seavey:
Thank you for your letter of lune 2,2002 expressing your interest in being included as a consulting party
for this project. For your information, this project is currently being progressed by the Massachusetts
Highway Department as a non-Federally funded(1001/6 State Funded)project.
At this time,the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA),the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MHD),and the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)are implementing the terms of the existing
1992 Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)for this project.We believe that the existing MOA and the on-
going consultation process provides sufficient flexibility to account for the effects of this project on
historic properties in the project area.
Consistent with the MOA and Stipulation I(A)-Design of the Bridge Street Relocation,we encourage
you to continue to work with the Salem Planning Department, the Salem Historical Commission and the
MHC in an effort to have your specific concerns addressed.
It is our understanding that the 75%design plans are currently available for public review at the City of
Salem Planning Department.Also,we assure you that the MHD will provide any project documentation
available upon your specific request. Comments,if any,should be provided to Mr.Thomas Broderick—
Chief Engineer—Massachusetts Highway Department,Attention: Mr. Steven McLaughlin—Engineering
Expediting within thirty days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley Gee
Division Administrator
By: Jo �V n'n
Se"((((((ior Area Engineer
07/03/02 WED 14:54 FAX 817 973 8879 KHD-ENVIRONMENTAL R007
2
cc: MHD District Office 4
Mr.T.Broderick-MHD Chief Engineer-10 Park Plaza
Mr. S. Roper—MHD Environmental -10 Park Plaza
M)A�� H/G/'�IN�I1/ Ar eo Paul Cellucci "
as n 9 Patrick J."Moynihan Kevin J. Sullivan
Governor Secretary commissiorar
August 14, 1998
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, 20'h Floor
Boston, MA 02202 p,(®I
Attention: MEPA Unit a SEP 0
07 6106 eW
RE: Salem-Beverly Transportation Project - EOEA# M Plailni Dept.
Street By-Pass, Salem
Dear Secretary Coxe:
I am writing to notify you of a change in the Bridge Street By-Pass portion of the Salem-
Beverly Transportation Project. The Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) has
decided to change the alignment of the Bridge Street By-Pass as the City of Salem requested.
Accordingly, we are filing this Notice of Project Change with you.
The new alignment would cross the Parker Brothers site and connect with Bridge Street
near St. Peter Street. A new signalized intersection would be required where the By-Pass con-
nects with Bridge Street; signals would be added at the existing St. Peter Street- Bridge Street
intersection; and a new 3-way signalized intersection at Washington and Bridge Streets would be
created to replace the existing rotary. This is in contrast with the conceptual design submitted in
the 1991 Salem-Beverly Transportation Project EIR in which the By-Pass was located on the
western edge of the Parker Brothers site along the railroad tracks. The By-Pass would have ter-
minated at Washington Street, replacing the existing rotary at Washington and Bridge Streets
with a signalized 4-way intersection.
A Comparative Analysis of Terminus Alignments Final Report is enclosed. The report
-- concludes that the two terminus alignments both provide an acceptable improvement over exist-
ing traffic conditions and function as adequate roadway and intersection improvements. This
report has been mailed to the distribution list and all the commenters on the L-IR. The Technical
Appendix has been provided to agencies and notice of its availability has been mailed to the
other commenters.
Please contact Diane Madden at 973-7477 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gregory Ft. render st
Deputy Chief Engineer
Environmental Division
Massachusetts Highway Department • Ten Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973 • (617) 973-7500
Saat',r� QA5--,olYxz��and(eonad�ueG,
�77 //ai�i�cen.Ga//��u
' Jeti Jaw.( e.Y>16-J979
WILLIAM F.WELD -
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI -
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
RICHARD L.TAYLOR -
SECRETARY - April 27, 1992 .
JAMES J.KERASIOTES
COMMISSIONERXxrdCEI D
APR 9a 7007
RE: Salem-Beverly Transportation Project
Final Archaeological Report WSS HIST. COMM,
Ms. Judith B. McDonough
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical commission
80 Boylston Street CONWRRENIM:
Boston, MA` 02116 dkll
DITtI B.MCDONOUGH 511rj4L-
STATE
Attn: Ms. Brona Simon, State Archaeologist HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICER
Dear Ms,. McDonough: MASSACHUSETTS
HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Enclosed is the two-volume, final Phase I/II archaeological report
entitled Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation/Phase II-
Site Examination, Beverly-Salem Bridge Transportation Project
Beverly, Massachusetts. The report documents the results of the
combined Phase I/II archaeological investigation conducted by the
Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL) within the Beverly
portion of the proposed Salem-Beverly Transportation Project.
This final report reflects the comments conveyed to our staff by
the State Archaeologist based on her review of the draft
submission.
We agree with PAL's recommendation that no further archaeological
work is warranted. Therefore, we solicit your office's concurrence
that no further archaeological work is required in compliance with
Section 106 for the Beverly portion of the proposed project.
The Mcsxhus. p ^rm a Public .,, �.
°Yu e �. . en . P ,
p to ua.c�aD,�.., �
isro%v UNCI � '.
The Massachusetts Highway Department �1, &
10
9
e
'If there are any questions pertaining to this report, please
contact John Rempelakis (at 973-7493) or James Elliott (at 973-
7494) from our Cultural Resource Section.
. • Sincerely,
/CHIEF
HA W. SWANSON, P.E.
NGINEER
JEE/JER/jr w
Attachment
cc. Arthur Churchill, FHWA
Fessachusetts Department of Public Works
is now
✓en.gad JNa., .4odko?, 01116-19 7!
WILLIAM F.WELD -
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
RICHARD L.TAYLOR
SECRETARY
JAMES J.KERASIOTES
COMMISSIONER -
November 18, 1991
Mr. Donald E. Hammer
Acting Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway - 10th Floor
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
RE: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
Dear Mr. Hammer:
We have considered the most recent correspondence with the Massachusetts State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) concerning the Salem/Beverly Transportation Project. The
correspondence includes the June 14; 1991 request for comments by the Federal Highway
Administration, the June 28, 1991 response from the SHPO, the July 25, 1991 request for
clarification by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, and the corrected October 21,
1991 SHPO clarification.
After reviewing our Section 106 documentation we cannot agree with the SHPO's findings
regarding the proposed high-level, fixed-span bridge. Specifically we can not agree with the
SHPO's finding of "adverse effect" on the Fish Flake Hill Historic District nor with the finding
of "no adverse effect" on the Rantoul Street houses. We reiterate our position that the proposed
bridge will have " no effect" on the Fish Flake Hill District and the Rantoul Street houses. We
maintain that the setting of the District and the Rantoul Street properties is not intact, and
historically did not extend to include the location of the proposed bridge. In our opinion there
is no basis for the different findings of effect for these two adjoining areas.
We do concur, however, with the SHPO findings of "no effect" to the Federal Street H.D.,
I
Bessir Monroe House and the First Universalist Church. We also concur with the finding of
'conditional no adverse effect' to the Chestnut/ McIntire Historic Districts. The condition of
the edfect finding specifies that the SHPO and the Salem Historical Commission will review .
landscaping, lighting and sign plans for the relocated Bridge Street.
In regard to the Salem Signal Tower, we maintain that the Tower jg eligibile, but under Critera
A and C, not Criteria A, C and D, and that the Tower does not retain integrity of location or
setting. Therefore on behalf of the FHWA and in accordance with 800.4(c)(4) of the Council's
regulations we have sent appropriate documentation to the Keeper of the Register for evaluation.
Furthermore, in response to Council's request of October 17, 1991 under 800.6(e)(3) we are
sending documentation on the North River 'Canal to the Keeper for eligibility evaluation. The
Tower documentation was sent to the Keeper by letter dated November 15, 1991. The "Canal"
documentation will be mailed out to the Keeper by November 21, 1991.
The Phase UII archaeological field work for the Beverly portion of the project area has been
completed.. We just received the Phase UII archaeological report prepared by our consultant
PAL, Inc. recommending no further work. We will forward copies to your office, the State
Archaeologist and the Beverly Historic District Commission for review.
If FHWA agrees with our opinion on the effect findings discussed above, we ask that you seek
the comments of the Advisory Council. The Section 106 findings for the.Tower, 'Canal", and
the Phase VII archaeology will be processed after we receive the comments from the Keeper and
State Archaeologist. If you should have any questions please contact Mr. James Elliott at 617-
973-7494.
Sincerely,
7MA1CHABZW. SWANSON
Chief Engineer '.
JF/jo
Attachments
r
&w�ope,q1,T a&.,z,and(ea6&�
9ev,,.9Wuc. aaA& , ,.ii.56c 01!16-J91J
WILLIAM F.WELD _ d"
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
November 15, 1991
RICHARD L.TAYLOR
SEZRETARY
JAMES J.KERASIOTES
COMMISSIONER - -
SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
SALEM TOWER, SALEM, MA '
Ms. Carol D. Shull
Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places
U. S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
P. O. Box 37127
Washington, D. C. 20013-7127
Dear Ms. Shull:
The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, in
correspondence with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(copies attached) has determined that Salem Tower, a railroad
signal tower located within the Salem-Beverly Transportation
Project area, is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works
(MDPW) and FHWA agree to the tower's eligibility under National
Register Criteria A and C (36 CFR Part 60. 4) , but not under
Criterion D as we state herein. It is also our opinion that the
tower does not retain integrity of location or setting. Therefore,
at the request of FHWA and in accordance with 36 CFR Part
800.4(c) (4) of the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, we are submitting the' appropriate documentation
(attached) on Salem Tower and request your evaluation.
Documentary research carried out by MDPW's Cultural Resources
Section has shown that Salem Tower was constructed in 1928 as part
of the Boston & Maine Railroad's system-wide signal system and
track improvement project. The tower was then moved from its
original location at the northern portal of the Salem Tunnel (1839)
in 1949 when a new, longer tunnel was constructed beneath
Washington Street along the west side of the first one, which was
then filled. Salem Tower's original setting was a busy mid- to
late-nineteenth century train switching and coaling yard containing
spur tracks, a locomotive roundhouse, a coaling tower, and all of
the other structures and equipment characteristic of such a
_ Aaw _ _ ., _., ,y • ,_. _ _ _ _ _
trainyard. This setting has now been reduced to a paved parking
lot with the tower at its edge. All that remains of the tower's
original setting is the MBTA's Eastern Route Main Line track and
commuter, rail stop. Moreover, the tower is visually and physically
eclipsed by the adjacent Bridge Street overpass, constructed in
1954 in conjunction with the new Salem Tunnel project. Before the
signal tower was moved and the overpass built, the tower had also
housed the crossing guard, or flagman, who controlled the adjacent
Bridge and Washington Streets intersection.
The tower's original design has been compromised by the
alteration of its entrance and the removal of its interior
stairway. The tower has instead been disfigured by the addition of
an exterior steel stairway to the second floor. Moreover, the
electronic signal board now on the tower's second floor blocks the
view out of its many windows, negating an important purpose behind
the tower's original design - to provide visual contact with the
trainyard below.
Our conclusion is that Salem Tower is not eligible for listing
in the National Register under Criterion D because the interlocking
signal machinery for which the tower would have been significant,
and which the tower was designed to house, had been removed from it
and discarded by 1949. Thus, the significant technological
information that the tower might once have yielded, under Criterion
D, no longer exists. Furthermore, under the MBTA's ongoing Eastern
Route Signal and Communication project, all of their train signal
functions will be moved to Boston after December, 1991. After
that, Salem Tower will no longer serve the historic engineering use
for which the building was .specifically designed.
If you should have any questions, please contact Anne Booth of
the Department's Cultural Resources Section at (617) 973-7497 .
Sincerely,
MICHAEL W. SWANSON, P. ,E.
CHIEF ENGINEER
AB/m
Att.
U19, 6irc4dace 011zw al,J,Ycia�fecr�a��yr and 7JG/LSG�C[C�[
Ju,, Ad Jka C1 JJ6-!!J!
WILLIAM F WELD
0011 OP
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
,,EU'E�Al'GZVEa%OR
RICHARD L TAYLOR
SECAE' a
JAMES KERASiOTES September 10, 1991
OpuV•.SSOMEa
SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
Anthony J. Fusco
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway - 10th Floor
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
Dear Mr. Fusco:
With respect to the Advisory Council's letter of August 5,
and specifically call to their suggestion
1991 to FHWA, we wish to resp p Y 99
that a Determination of Eligibility for the North River Canal be
sought from the Keeper of the National Register. We must,
therefore, we
previously submitted in the Section 106
restate what p Y
Documentation for this project, and reiterate that in our opinion
the North River Canal is not National Register eligible. Our
opinion is based on the Department's thorough documentary research
prior to submittal of the Section 106 Documentation, and is
supported by the conclusions of the research into the canal's
significance previously carried out by the City of Salem's private
historic consultant. We wish also to restate that the State
Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with our opinion that
the "canal" is not National Register eligible in her letter of May
30, 1991 to FHWA. Finally, the Salem Historical Commission, based
on the report of the City of Salem's consultant and on the
Department's research, has also concurred that the North River
Canal is not National Register eligible in their letter of July 17,
1990 to the Department. We therefore cannot agree with the
Advisory Council's statement, made in their August 5, 1991 letter,
that Mr. Treadwell's request for submission of the North River
Canal to the National Register has merit.
We -still believe that the North River Canal is not eligible
for listing in the National Register for the following reasons.
f
�F First , it never was, properly speaking; a canal; and second, and
most important, the significant, historic tannery setting and
context of the North River .Canal is gone.
A canal, by definition, is a manmade waterway used for power,
irrigation, shipping, or travel. The North River "Canal" is,
instead, a channelization of the North River carried out by the
cities of Salem and Peabody during the late lssos to help the flow
of wastes and sewerage from the tanneries ranged along the river in
both cities. This channelization, as we stated in the Section 106
Documentation, was an attempt to solve the appalling health
problems that resulted from those wastes. The North River Canal is
therefore, properly speaking, a sewage or drainage ditch. The
channel was not built for, nor was it ever used as, a canal. Nor
was it ever, historically speaking, a "waterway" as the National
Park Service enthusiastically calls it in their publication, "The
Salem Project: Study of Alternatives: Public Summary." Perhaps
the existing "canal" or channelized river has much more of the
feeling of a waterway now, long divorced from its historic
surroundings and use, but it in no way resembled a "waterway"
during its period of historic use. The channelized river certainly ,
did serve to drain the offensive wastes from an extensive tannery
area, as the Park Service states, but the tannery buildings in the
Blubber Hollow area of Salem are now largely gone, and with them,
the historic integrity of the former tannery area. If one travels
upstream along the channelized river toward Peabody today, one sees
numerous empty or derelict sites where once tanneries stood, marked
occasionally by a brick smokestack among building rubble, rising up
from the undergrowth.
With much landscaping care, stringent security measures; and
careful attention to the probable presence of in-ground hazardous
wastes left from the tanneries, the North River Canal and its
immediate surroundings might well be developed into an attractive
linear park running upriver to the Peabody line. The National Park
Service has apparently proposed such a linear park in a limited
area along Bridge Street. With the aid of many interpretive signs
and the descriptive narrative of National Park Service
interpreters, park visitors might get some idea of the tannery
industry that once dominated the Blubber Hollow area, despite the
lack both of existing tannery structures and of the compelling
presence of that industry's stink and effluent. However, as far as
National Register eligibility is concerned, the existing North
River Canal clearly lacks integrity of feeling and association with
the historic tanneries to which it once related and which it once
served. The historic setting and context of the North River Canal,
even the historic appearance and smell of its contents, are gone.
If you still concur with the Department's opinion and those of
the MHC, SHC, and the City of Salem's historic consultant that the
North River Canal is not National Register eligible, we ask that
you restate those opinions and the reasons for them to the Advisory
Council, along with our opinion that there is therefore no valid ..
basis for Mr. Treadwell's request. If you should have any
questions in this regard, please call Anne Booth, the Department's
Historic Preservation Specialist, at 973-7497 .
Sincerely,
MICHAEL W. SWANSON, P.E.
CHIEF ENGINEER
AB/m
e
q_
i
j Y
1
gaw.t J� a.. .;0ua/nn OP f 16.9979
WILLIAM F.WELD
OOV WNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI _ June 12, 1991
U4Xn ENANT GOVERNOR
RICHARD L TAYLOR
SECRETARY
JAMES J. KERASIOTES
com�:s_:oneR
SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
Anthony J. Fusco
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway - 10th Floor
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
Attn: Arthur Churchill
Dear Mr. Fusco:
On May 17 , 1991 a Consultation Meeting was held to discuss the
FHWA/MDPW response to written comments, received from the
Consulting Parties and several interested parties, on the Section
106 Documentation for the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project. In
preparation for the Consultation Meeting, an on-site review was
conducted on May 16, 1991 to familiarize Ms. Anne Weinheimer, the
representative from the Advisory Council, with the project.
Members of the Consulting parties were invited to participate if
they desired. On May 17th, representatives from the Federal
Highway Administration, Massachusetts Department of Public Works,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,, Massachusetts Historical
Commission, Beverly Historic District Commission, and the Salem
Historical Commission met and discussed the project effects to
historic properties and archaeological sites.
As was discussed at the consultation meeting, FHWA and the
Department will conduct a Phase I/II archaeological investigation
within the proposed project limits on the Beverly side of the Essex
Bridge. The purpose of the survey will be to identify and evaluate
the integrity and significance of possible structural and cultural
remains associated with Beverly's Ferry Landing and early maritime
activities.
After careful consideration of the views expressed at the May
17th Consultation Meeting, we believe that the Salem-Beverly
Transportation Project will not alter the characteristics that
a
n-
4�
qualify the following properties for the National Register and,
therefore, will have No Effect on: the Fish Flake Hill Historic
District (NR) , Beverly; 8 to 26 Rantoul Street, Beverly (determined
potentially eligible for National Register listing by MHC in their
letter to FHWA, dated May 30, 1991) ; the First Universalist Church
(NR) , 211 Bridge Street, Salem; the Bessie Monroe House (NR) , 7 Ash
Street, Salem; the Peirce-Nichols House (NHL) , 80 Federal Street,
Salem; the Federal Street Historic District (NR) , Salem; the
Chestnut Street Historic District (Enlarged) (NR) , Salem; the
McIntire Historic District (LHD) , Salem; and the Salem Signal
Tower.
With respect to the Salem Signal Tower, it is the Department's
opinion, as we stated in the Section 106 Documentation, that the
tower's integrity of location and setting is gone, and its
integrity of design compromised. Salem Tower was constructed in
1928 as part of the Boston & Maine Railroad's system-wide signal
system and track improvement. The tower was then moved from its
original location at the northern portal of the Salem Tunnel (1839)
in 1950 when a new, longer tunnel was constructed beneath
Washington Street along the west side of the first one, which was
then filled. Salem Tower's original setting was a busy mid- to
late-nineteenth century train switching and coaling yard containing
spur tracks, a locomotive roundhouse, a coaling tower, and all of
the other structures and equipment characteristic of such a
trainyard. This setting has now been reduced to a paved parking s
lot with the tower at its edge. All that remains of the tower's
original setting is the MBTA's Eastern Route Main Line track and A
commuter rail stop. Moreover, the tower is visually and physically
eclipsed by the adjacent Bridge Street overpass, constructed in
1954 in conjunction with the new Salem Tunnel project. Before the
signal tower was moved and the overpass built, the tower had also
housed the crossing guard who controlled the adjacent Bridge and
Washington Streets intersection. The tower's original design has
been compromised by the alteration of its entrance and the removal
of its interior stairway. The tower has instead been disfigured by
the addition of an exterior steel stairway to the second floor.
Finally, the electronic signal board now on the tower's second
floor blocks the view out of its many windows, negating an
important purpose behind the tower's original design - to provide
visual contact with the trainyard below.
The Salem Signal Tower is also no longer eligible for listing
in the National Register under criterion D, in the Department's
opinion, because the interlocking signal machinery for which Salem
Tower was significant, and which the tower was designed to house,
had been removed from it and discarded by 1949. Thus, the
significant technological information that the tower might once
have yielded, under criterion D, no longer exists. Furthermore,
under the MBTA's ongoing Eastern Route Signal and Communication
project, all of their train signal functions will be moved to
Boston after December, 1991. After that, Salem Tower will no
longer serve the historic engineering use for which the building
was specifically designed. Under the Salem-Beverly Transportation
I
iJ
Project, the Department proposes to develop an appropriate plan for
moving the tower out of the proposed by-pass right-of-way and to
hire a qualified mover to undertake the move. The relocated tower
will be incorporated into the site plan for the proposed MBTA
parking garage. It will be placed near the railroad tracks in such
a way as to maintain the characteristics that make it National
Register eligible under criterion A and C: its remaining railroad
association and relative location in respect to the tracks, and its
distinctive building type.
In summary, the Department can agree that the Salem Signal
Tower is National Register eligible under criteria A and C.
However, for the reasons stated above, the tower is not eligible
under criterion D. We also believe that the tower no longer
retains integrity of location, setting or design. In our opinion,
moving the Salem Signal Tower once again, under the proposed Salem-
Beverly Transportation Project, will not alter the characteristics
that qualify the tower for National Register listing under criteria
A and C, and will therefore have No Effect on the tower.
If you agree with the Department's opinion in the above
findings, we ask that you formally seek the concurrence of the
State Historic Preservation Officer in those findings, in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800) .
If you should have any questions, please call James Elliott,
at 973-7494, or Anne Booth, at 973-7497 .
Sincerely,
MICHAEL W. SWANSON, P.E.
CHIEF ENGINEER
AB/m
C77_/
& �y�
,� C��rttu�iae ��ice o�✓�I¢or�tprf2fcose a.�cd �av�s/A��tltnst
WILLIAM F WELDGOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL
UEVMANT GOVERNOR
RICHARD L TAYLOR 16171 973 76W
SECRETARY
May 6, 1991
JAMES J. KERASIOTES
COMMISSIONER
Dear Sir/Madam:
4
In accordance with Chapter 30, Section 62 - 62H of the Massachusetts General
laws and 301CMR 11.00 (MEPA Regulations) , ae are enclosing for your review and
comment the Final Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report for the following
proposed project:
SAUWBEVERLY TRANSPORPATION PFOJECT
Salem/Beverly Bridge
Bridge Street By-Pass
Bridge Street Reconstruction
DJEA Number 0756
Please send your comments by June 10, 1991 to Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy
Chief Engineer, Project Development, Massachusetts Department of Public Forks,
10 Park Plaza, Room 4261, Boston, MA 02116. Please also forward a copy of your
comments to Secretary Susan Tierney, Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02202.
Sincerely,
James J. Kerasiotes
Ccmnissioner
RPL/scorn
att. a
I
V / W 0,
T y�
�e�h,cz.�erinenL a��u� �t�ra�
✓vir, .�a..E .�¢�a.. .,(Jiu/an.02116-.1973
Reply Code 0811
January 4, 1991
Anthony J. Fusco
Division Administrator ti
Region One
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway - 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
RE: Salem-Beverly Transportation Project
(Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bridge Street By-Pass)
Dear Mr. Fusco:
The attached documentation is provided in compliance with w
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36
CFR 800) . It responds to the concerns of the Massachusetts
Historical Commission (MHC) as expressed in their letters to the
Department dated October 17, 1988 and June 2, 1989, respectively
(copies attached) . The MHC was concerned that changes in the
Salem-Beverly Transportation Project, formerly known as the
Beverly-Salem Bridge and By-Pass Project, may result in damage or
adverse visual effects to the Fish Flake Hill Historic District in
Beverly, and to the Old Planters archaeological site, the North
River Canal, and the Revolutionary War Plaque in Salem. The
Department held an on-site Section 106 consultation meeting and
walkover of the project area on September 20, 1990 during which the
MHC also expressed concern about potential project impacts on the
Salem Signal Tower and requested additional information on the
"See-Side Eye Clinic" building at 15 Cabot Street and on the
adjacent Ferry Way site in Beverly. MHC's letter of December 4,
1990 to you reiterated their concern about the "See-Side Eye
Clinic" building (copy attached) .
This documentation also addresses the concerns of the Salem
Historical Commission (SHC) , a Section 106 consulting party, as
expressed in its letter of March 16, 1989 to the Department (copy
attached) . In addition to the above properties, the SHC also
listed several National Register properties which abut the south
side of Bridge Street. These properties are the Federal Street
Historic District (NR) , the Chestnut Street Historic District (NR) ,
the First Universalist Church (NR) , The Bessie Monroe House (NR) ,
and the Peirce-Nichols House (NHL) .
The Salem Historical Commission has also verbally expressed
their concern about the effect of the proposed project on the
McIntire Historic District, a local historic district which
includes properties along Bridge and Flint Street which abut the
project area. Nos. 1, 3 , 5, and 6 Harrington Court and Nos. 2-4,
6, 8, 10, and 12 Gifford Court; Nos. 7, 10, and 12 Carpenter
Street; and Nos. 52-56 Flint Street lie within the local historic
district but are not included within the boundary of the Chestnut
Street National Register Historic District. The Department had
originally proposed to round the southeast corner of the Bridge
Street/Flint Street intersection which required a sliver taking
from the property at No. l Harrington Court. This small taking is
no longer needed because of a design change. The Department has
therefore written a letter to the Mayor asking the City of Salem,
for whom the taking was made, to return it to the former owner.
Bridge Street will instead be relocated 5 to 30 feet away from the
historic district boundary beginning at this corner and tapering
back in to existing Bridge Street at the west perimeter of the
existing North Street access ramp (plan ,attached) .
The attached documentation also responds to the November 24,
1989 letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) to your office requesting (1) a full description of the
revised project; (2) a description of the historic properties that
may be affected by the revised undertaking; and (3) a statement
regarding your Determination of Effect for the project on those
properties, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800) .. In addition, the ACHP
requested a copy of the Reevaluation of the Final Environmental
Impact/4 (f) Statement for the Peabody-Salem-Beverly Connector and
Bridge, which is still in preparation.
The MHC, the SHC, and the ACHP also expressed concern about
the effect of the modified Beverly-Salem Bridge and By-Pass Project
on the Ephraim Skerry House (ca. 1710-1730) at 22 Conant Street,
Salem in their correspondence with the Department and with your
office. Subsequently, for several compelling reasons, the MHC and
the ACHP agreed to your request to phase the Section 106
consultation process for the Beverly-Salem Bridge and By-Pass
project specifically in regard to the Skerry House and in
accordance with Section 800.9 (c) (1) . As a result of that
consultation process both the MHC and the ACHP concurred with your
determination that demolition of this property would have No
Adverse Effect, based on the conclusion that the Skerry House
qualified for the National Register only under criterion D of the
National Register Criteria. The MHC concurred with your
determination of No Adverse Effect in their letter to you dated
October 17, 1989 while the ACHP concurred in their letter of
February 7, 1990 (copies attached) . The Department is now meeting
the conditions of that No Adverse Effect finding.
With respect to the Old Planters Settlement, the University of
Massachusetts Archaeological Services (LIMAS) , on behalf of the
Department and FHWA conducted background research to determine the
locations within the project impact area that were most likely to
contain potentially significant archaeological resources. At the
request of the Department, UMAS presented the results of their
research to MHC and other consulting parties in a meeting. UMAS
then conducted an intensive archaeological testing program at those
locations agreed to by MDPW and FHWA and permitted by the State
Archaeologist on the basis of the background research and meeting
presentation. The testing program included the Skerry House lot in
an attempt to find remains associated both with the Old Planters
Settlement and with the earliest occupation of the house. Of the
areas tested, only the Skerry House lot yielded potentially
significant cultural materials and was determined by the State
Archaeologist, MDPW and FHWA to warrant archaeological site
examination (MHC letters to the Department dated June 29, 1989 and
September 7 , 1989, copies attached) . The site examination of the
Skerry House lot was carried out by UMAS, at the request of the
Department and with the approval of the State Archaeologist, during
April and May 1990 to evaluate the National Register eligibility of
features and deposits identified during the previous testing. The .
investigation included the removal of floorboards and excavation of
an area inside the existing house, the removal of an early
nineteenth century feature in the north yard and the excavation of
trenches in the front and side yards to evaluate cultural materials
of possible association with the Old Planters Settlement and
earliest occupation of the Skerry House.
At the end of July 1990, UMAS submitted a pre-final report to
the Department which described the results of their background
research, intensive survey (Phase I) and site examination (Phase
II) and provided recommendations for no further archaeological work
associated with the Old Planters Settlement and Skerry House
occupation. The Department concurred with UMAS's recommendations
that the archaeological component of the Skerry House lot did not
appear to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register and
that no further archaeological work was warranted on the site. The
pre-final Phase I/II archaeological report together with the MDPW
Archaeologist's review comments were forwarded to your office via
cover letter, dated September 6, 1990. Your office, in turn,
submitted copies of the report and MDPW's review comments to MHC
for review. MHC transmitted copies of the archaeological report to
the project consulting parties via cover memorandum, dated
September 19, 1990. Allowing the required time for agency and
consulting party review, MHC issued their review comments on the
archaeological report in a letter, dated November 13, 1990. MDPW
and MHC review comments will be addressed by UMAS in the
preparation of their final Phase I/II archaeological report. The
Department expects to receive the final report from UMAS by the end
of January 1991.
3
:j
It is our opinion that the modified Beverly-Salem Bridge and
Bridge Street By-Pass project will have No Effect on the following
properties: the National Register properties abutting the east
side of Bridge Street in Salem; the McIntire Historic District
(LHD) , Salem; and the Fish Flake Hill Historic District (NR) ,
Beverly. It is our opinion that the proposed project will have No
Adverse Effect on the Salem Signal Tower. In our opinion, the
following properties do not retain sufficient integrity to warrant
eligiblity for listing in the National Register: the North River
Canal and Blubber Hollow area, Salem; No. 15 Cabot Street (the
"See-Side Eye Clinic" building) , Beverly; and the adjacent Ferry
Way site, Beverly. The North Street Bridge, on which is located
the Revolutionary War Plaque, is no longer included in the proposed
project area. If you concur with the Department in the above
findings, based on the attached documentation, we ask that you send
the documentation to the MHC and that you seek the concurrence of
the State Historic Preservation Officer in those findings in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800) .
If you should have any questions, please call Anne Booth at
973-7497.
Sincerely,
George R. Turner, Jr.
Chief Engineer
AB
att.
r
4
C
019%,x . and
%rrz- rk /n�a-. aalcur,0276-397
August 4 , 1989 CEI -ED
AUG 7 jjq
Ms . Valerie Talmage
State Historic Preservation Officer 1dASS. jVSr COM
Executive Director M.
Massachusetts Historical Commission
80 Boylston Street
Boston , MA 02116
Attention : Ms . Brona Simon, State Archaeologist
Dear Ms . Talmage :
Forwarded for your review is a report prepared by the
University of Massachusetts Archaeological Se
entitled "Preliminary Management Summary Report: Sabsurfac)
Testing of Areas 1 and 3 , Beverly-Salem Bypass Project , Salem,
MAssachusetts" . The report describes the results of their
subsurface testing around Thorndike Street ( Asea 3 ) . Burnside
Street (Miscellaneous ) and the Skerry House (Area 1 ) . Based on
the results of their £ieldtesting, UM'AS recommends that
additional testing be performed around the Skerry House .
The Department , however , does not concur with UMAS ' s
recommendations regarding the specific locations of this
additional testing . Attached for your review are written review
comments prepared by the Department ' s Archaeologist . if there
are any questions , please contact John Rempelakis (at 973-7493 )
or James Elliott (at 973-7494 ) , Cultural Resource staff of the
Department ' s Environmental Section .
Sincerely,
Robert H . Johnson, F . E.
Chief Engineer
JER/ag
Attachment
i
f
✓eir. �' a.��� �iu/tvr.0,? 6:4973
Reply Code: 0811
May 26 , 1989
RECEIVED
Ms. Valerie Talmage
g
State Historic Preservation Officer MAY 30 1989
Executive Director
Massachusetts Historical Commission
80 Boylston Street MASS. HIST. COMM.
Boston, MA 02116 Attn: Ms. Brona Simon
Dear Ms. Talmage:
Forwarded for your review is a 'completion report prepared by
the University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services (UMAS)
describing the results of their subsurface testing in Area 2 for
possible traces of the Old Planters Settlement in Salem. Based
on the results of their background research, UMAS identified
several locations (Areas 1 , 2, 3 and miscellaneous loci) for
yielding remains of the Old Planters Settlement within the
proposed limits of the March Street Bridge Replacement and
Beverly - Salem Bypass projects. The State Archaeologist issued
permit #1009 allowing UMAS to conduct excavations in these
locations.
At the request of the Department, UMAS began their
excavations in Area 2 which includes all of the March Street
Bridge project area and a portion of the Beverly - Salem Bypass
project area. UMAS was directed by the Department to begin work
in this area for the purpose of expediting construction of the
March Street Bridge project - an independent undertaking
involving the replacement of the deteriorating March Street
Bridge. Having completed their fieldwork in this area and
sufficient labwork, UMAS has provided to the Department a
completion report which recommends no further archaeological work
in Area 2 . The information contained in this report will be
included in the forthcoming final locational report required for
identifying traces of the Old Planters Settlement within the
Beverly - Salem Bypass project area. UMAS is presently
conducting archaeological fieldwork in Areas 1 (the Skerry House
Lot) and 3 (near Thorndike Street) . The Society for the
Preservation of New England Antiquities (SPNEA) has recently been
authorized by the Department to begin the historic structures
analysis of the Skerry House.
-2-
Department cultural resource staff have reviewed the
completion report and concur with UMAS' s recommendation that no
further archaeological work is warranted within the March Street
Bridge project area. The Department, therefore, solicits your
office' s concurrence with UMAS ' s recommendation. If there are
any questions, please contact James Elliott at ( 973-7494) or John
Rempelakis ( at 973-7493) , Cultural Resource Unit of the
Department' s Environmental Section.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Johnson, P.E.
Chief Engineer
JER/jal
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS i
INTER OFFICE COYasSPONDENCE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Fmm . ..James.E..Elliott,.Mauager..Cultural Resource Unit
Aftmum Frank A. Braca�lia, Deputy Chief Project. Development.,.,March .22,, 1� 89 '
ftbJwt .Salem.Bea7.erly.P=oJe�ct.........
Archaeology
JMAS A meeting was held at the Department of Public Works on March
M1 21 , 1989 . In attendance were representatives of the Universit
TCN 9
MUL1H6LW3-r-of Massachusetts Archaeological Services (UMAS) , the State
413 — ' Archaeologist , John Rempelakis , Anne- Booth and myself . The
549— findings of the documentary research on the Old- Planters
5l6l . Settlement and the recommendations for field excavations were
3TEVC
discussed .
11QaZ0X05KtThe following areas were recommended for field excavation:
61-7 -
91R
g158/ 1) Skerry House Lot
81S0 2) Stations 274 to 277 westerly between the existing railroad
tracks and the new location line .
3) Stations 278 to 281 westerly between the railroad tracks
and March Street Court .
14) Stations 282 to 286 easterly adjacent to Thorndike Street .
5) Area along the March Street bridge detour.
(Please note that no construction. activities should take
I-
_ place in these areas un-til archaeological clearance has
_ been received- from the Massachusetts Historical Commission
in compliance with Section 106 . )
The UMAS group expects to begin field excavations by April 5 ,
1989 under a permit to be issued by the State Archaeologist .
i� The permit issued under M.G.L. Chapter 9 Sections 26C and 27C prohibits
the disclosure of these site locations to the public.
James E. Elliott , Manager
cc Cultural Resource Unit
Robert Lapsley
Comm. DiGeronimo
Dep . Chief Construction
G 7
October 17, 1988 %MP Robert Johnson
Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza-, Room 4182
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Route 1-A Bridge over Danvers River, Beverly and Salem
Dear Mr. Johnson:
It has recently come to the attention of the Massachusetts Historical
Commission that the proposed Route 1-A Bridge project over the Danvers River
in Beverly and Salem, may have been modified since the MHC last reviewed the
project in 1980 in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800). These project changes may have an
adverse effect on significant historic and archaeological resources.
The MHC is concerned that the project changes may result in-damage or adverse
visual effects to: (1 ) The Skerry House, located at 22 Conant Street, Salem,
a National Register eligible First Period house which dates to 1725; (2)
Fish Flake Hill Historic District in Beverly; and (3) the Planters
archaeological site, located near the Danvers River in Salem.
The MHC requests the opportunity to meet with your department as soon as
possible, to review the scope of the proposed bridge and approaches, and its
likelihood that National Register listed or eligible properties will be
affected. The Department should take steps to insure that no immediate
actions are taken to demolish or destroy significant historic properties.
Please contact Brona Simon, the Director of Technical Services, at this office
i t0 arrange for a suitable day and time to meet.
Sincerely,
� f
Valerie A. Talmage
Executive Director
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Frank Bracaglia, MDPW
ACHP kk
FHWA E
Beverly Historic District Commission 4`
Sal Planni�pQQ Departm nt E
Massachusetts istortcaltZimmtsston.�alerieA.Talmage
LucutiveDirector,,Slate Historic Presernation`Olver
VAT/BS/di 80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727.8470 <'
Office of the Secretary of State,Michael j. Connolly,Secretary
_>
c
_ E.- �.z�ruGiLwiri�e�e�srlalrs�v2n���enJGrucfimi �.
O�&/t
September 23 �, 1974
i
i
i
i
Dear Sir:
In accordance with Section 102 (2) of Public Law 91-190 and
the Federal Highway Administration requirements, the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed improvements
to I-95 / Route 128 Interchange and Route 128 Improvements
(Task A) in Peabody, Massachusetts is submitted for your review
and comment consistent with your relevant areas of expertise.
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement is being distributed
to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 30, Section 62 of the
Massachusetts General Laws, as well as the Federal regulations.
The agencies designated to review and respond to Chapter 30
Section 62 must also forward a copy of their comments to Secretary
Charles H.W. Foster, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
18 Tremont Street, Boston, Massachusetts .
We are interested in receiving comments consistent with your
relevant area of expertise on this proposed project. Any
comments you desire to make should be returned so as to be
received by this Department by November 15, 1974.
Very truly yours,
BRUCE CAMPBELL
COMMISSIONER
/�ZP� (� lade
L'��
_ � (J.L'CLUt//IM/'/T r 7d`LbI�.A.�A91)/��BIJQf?YII,fA,Bfb
10D X Ytmrfi, �eefo�L 02114
October 26, 1973
Mrs. Francis C. Welch
41 Chestnut Street
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mrs. Welch:
The Department of Public Works is presently engaged in studies
regarding the feasibility of constructing a new bridge between Salem
and Beverly. The Department is concerned about the probable impact
of this project on the total environment. This concern pertains not
only to the study corridor, but extends to all environmental conditions
in the surrounding area for which a measurable impact may be forseen.
We are requesting your attendance at a special meeting (workshop)
of civic leaders, federal, state and local officials on Thursday, November
8, 1973 at 7 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chambers, Beverly City Hall,
Cabot Street in Beverly. This special meeting will be followed by a
general public meeting (workshop) at 8 p. m.
The meeting will be conducted by the Environmental Section of
this office. The intent of this meeting is to inform you and the general
public of the status of the study. The meeting is concerned with the
environmental issues identified and the values assigned. Engineering
details of design and proposed construction will not be presented at
this meeting, but will be the subject of discussion at a later date in the
project development.
- 2 -
Additional environmental comments will be welcomed by mail,
to my office, within a period of about one week after the meeting date.
Thank you for your interest in this project and its relationship
to our environment. Your cooperation is appreciated, and it is my
hope that you will be able to participate in this meeting, on the date
indicated.
Very truly yours,
Robert T. Tierney
Chief Engineer