The URL can be used to link to this page

CORRESPONDENCE TO PLANNING ^ _ . _ l r t� �Owil, yr `t. f Councilor Airbad 36ettral P.O. Box 525 Salem, MA 01970 Tel/Fax 978.744.5946 16 May 2002 Ms. Jane Guy Planning Department City of Salem Salem,MA 01970 Dear Ms. Guy; Please forward to me all Massachusetts Highway Department and Massachusetts Historical Commission correspondence that you have in the Salem Historical Commission files regarding the Salem/Beverly Transportation Project. You may leave this package for me in the City Clerk's office or mail it to me at 26 Oakland St., Salem. I spectfully, ichae encal Councilor for Ward 6 2 -A 'I- �� g.. . �s�� ,v. s ✓ is r - t � > r� x.4 4 /ffr- f K .tom r s ct'� sl r .s� ��✓z �(��" % ,--iZ kr.ate �-^� ayv``�v'��i8 �t}ice 4 my J! s «• / r PARKER SALEM, MBTA � � r F� BROTHERS \ $T,4fIflN t � .• SITE z [Y If a' €'� / r }v��F� ;y /j�"£•..y f7 \ ,Y„ v {N r. / �Zr�`'�� r _�,J / J 4�. �' lr 4Y '2�"",r� ��'�t � tl�:j>✓d)�ti / +}�fc'�/i� Jfj i •� I r i w"S' �E 1 1 j� l L ��.� r l��Y . / A 4 x4�\l W E a M M N ^ 0 SALEM - BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT m BRIDGE STREET BY-PASS 3 PROPOSED CITY OF SALEM ALIGNMENT 0 i SCALE: T 250' MARCH, 1998 w m m E 0 Prepared By M EDWARDS AND RELCEY,INI. l0 TiE 9NMfEi CSNIFA / 1 SlY NNX 51Ih£i.9111E 10] msmx,xnsxwu9:m mlze-11ai FIGURE 2 a 4rq JUL 2 2 ta . Salem Pian ::,g DY-pt. �3 i AA gV PARKER SALEM,, META L` " : / BROTHERS STA'fiQflN SITE gK TRS—T , E �` f�J I � r ''a L N 1� ✓.�-�'z;Tl J''� A s _--"'- a 0y i , .1 _ i�h .fi' .,• W E o N 0 SALEM - BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT m BRIDGE STREET BY-PASS 3 PROPOSED MASSHIGHWAY ALIGNMENT 0 N C7 SCALE: T = 250' MARCH, 1998 w coN Q / 0 Prepared By EDWARDS AND RELCET,INC. FIGURE 3 a f07�/�113//�98 MON 11:33 FAX 817 973 8879 MRD-ENVIRONMENTAL 0002 �gil'If w ArgeO P;wl Cellucci Patrick J. Movnine;: eVin d unit%;:, June 8, 1998 Mr, Craig Wheeler, Planning Director City of Salem 1 Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 RE: Bridge Street By-Pass Dear Mr. Wheeler: Following Commissioner Sullivan's decision to change the alignment of the Bridge Street By-Pass as the City of Salem requested,the Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway)has been preparing a Notice of Project Change(NPC) to file with MEPA. One of the environmental issues that will likely be raised is the effect of the changed alignment on nearby historic properties which will be closer to the new roadway. The two National Register properties nearby are the First Universalist Church at 711 Bridge Street and the Bessie Monroe House at 7 Ash Street. When the NPC is distributed,the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)will ask MassHighway what the position of the Salem Historical Commission(SHC) is. I understand that.at Diane Maddens request,you are in the process of bringing this matter to the attention of the SHC at an upcoming SHC meeting. Please contact me when you learn their opinion of this change. When MassHighway 4 makes such a large-scale change in a project on the behalf of a municipality.the necessary permitting and regulatory changes go more smoothly when the pertinent municipal boards support the project. Once we learn the outcome of your discussions with the Salem Historical Commission,the NPC will be filed with MEPA and the other regulatory agencies can be contacted. Sincerely, Gregory H. Prendergast Deputy Chief Engineer Environmental Division rviassachtisetts Hipht o-v Ll aoartmenr T-n ?.?rlr Plaza. nosron. n?A 021 Wim.. i Jer gaAk — a,&,v vLL.Sac 021f6-9979 APR 9 WILLIAM F.WELD $gyp /�92 GOVERNOR �"O pE =£t ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR6y�� RICHARD L.TAYLOR April 21, 1992 SECRETARY JAMES J.KERASIOTES COMMISSIONER RE: Salem-Beverly Transportation Project Phases I/II Archaeological Report Mr. William Luster City Planner City of Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Attn: Ms. Jane Guy, Planning Assistant Dear Mr. Luster: As promised at the February 19, 1992 meeting, we are forwarding to your office the - final Phase I/II archaeological report entitled Archaeological Investigations at the Ephraim Skerry House and the March Street Peninsula, Salem, Massachusetts. This report documents the Phase I and Phase II archaeological investigations conducted by the University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services (UMAS) for locating and evaluating the Old Planters Settlement and earliest occupation associated with the Skerry House. The report was reviewed by the consulting parties and approved by the State Archaeologist. If there are any questions, please contact James Elliott (at 617- 973-7494) or John Rempelakis (at 617-973-7493) from our Cultural Resource Section. Sincerely, Frank A. Bracaglia, P.NE. Deputy Chief Engineer Project Development JEE/JER/jr Attachment cc. Ms. Brona Simon, MHC V,TTSCOO *�js V � O d n h August 17, 1989 O Jane N V`�Miss10 Gay Dept. cV Salem0_tn Wealth to ice" � (. �t L) One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 A U 3 i icag RE: Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass 00 Dear Ms. Gay: Thank you for your continued interest in the effects that the Beverly-Salem Bypass project might have on significant historic or archaeological properties. Enclosed please find a copy of materials recently submitted to the MHC by the MDPW concerning the results of UMass' archaeological survey of the Skerry House and bypass project areas. Please let me know if you have any comments on these materials. I would greatly appreciate hearing from you by August 31 , 1989, if you do have any comments, so that MHC can respond to the MD il3Td—'n a timely manner. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Brona Simon Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer State Archaeologist Massachusetts Historical Commisssion Enclosure xc: Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW Robert Johnson, MDPW Don Klima, ACHP James Walsh, FHWA Massachusetts Historical Commission,Valerie A.Talmage,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470 Office of the Secretary of State,Michael J. Connolly,Secretary i PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT SUBSURFACE ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING OF AREAS 1 AND 3, BEVERLY SALEM BYPASS PROJECT SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Presented to: Mr Robert Johnson Chief Engineer Massachusetts Department of Public Works Ten Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Presented by: University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services The Environmental Institute Blaisdell House University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 June 21, 1989 Principal Investigator Dr. Mitchell T. Mulholland Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Arthur S. Keene C , ' 1 Introduction. A Phase I archaeological site locational survey was conducted at the Skerry House and two empty lots at the ends of Burnside and Thorndike streets (Figures 1-3) . Leslie Shaw of UMASS Archaeological Services and Steven Mrozowski of UMASS Boston were the Project Archaeologists. Edward Hood of -UMASS Archaeological Services served as field supervisor. This document is a preliminary Management summary Report of in Areas 1 (the Skerry House) and 3 the survey (the area south of the railroad bridge, in the vicinity of Thorndike and Burnside Streets. Identification of all artifacts in the test units containing seventeenth and eighteenth century materials has been completed. Materials from units containing only more recent materials are being analyzed. BURNSIDE STREET AREA (Area 3) The Burnside Street location is an approximately 10 x 16 meter (approx. 35 x 60 ft ) lot abuting the MBTA corridor on its northwestern border, and that until recently contained a residential structure (which has been removed as part of the planned by-pass and bridge work ) . On May 24th this tested with four 40 x 40 cm test pits placed lot was in areas that would have been outside of the location of the residential structure (Figures 2 and 4) . All of these units revealed extensive disturbance from the mid- to late-twentieth century, and/or reached natural undisturbed soils without encountering artifactual materials that are clearly earlier than the mid-nineteenth century. No further archaeological investigation is recommended for this lot. THORNDIKE STREET AREA (Area 3) The Thorndike Street Lot (Area 3) is approximately 22 x 26 meters in size, also having the MBTA rail road tracks on its northwestern border. A residential structure stood in the area until recently, and a resident from the adjacent house claimed that the entire foundation had been dug-out at the time the house was razed. The hole was then re-filled completely and flattened over with loam. On May 24th, five 40 x 40 cm test pits and one 1 x .5 meter test units were excavated in areas believed to lay outside Of the area of destruction and fill (with one unit actually placed on the site of the garage. This structure was presumed not to have had a basement and thus could have preserved earlier archaeological materials beneath it (Figures 3 and 5) . All units had extensive disturbance from the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The northwestern edge of the lot appears to contain an extensive nineteenth century cinder and ash dump which contained late-nineteenth century archaeological , materials. Artifacts included an intact patent medicine bottle of local manufacture (Test Units 2 and 3 ) . Otherwise, late and modern disturbance at the site extended down to the natural soils. No further archaeological investigation is recommended for this lot. SKERRY HOUSE On May 18, a 3-person crew, directed by Edward Hood, conducted an electrical resistivity survey on the site to locate possible buried archaeological features such as pits and foundation walls. Two areas were surveyed, Skerry Area A being a block in the central part of the front yard of the Skerry House, and Skerry Area B being a block in the center of the vacant lot immediately behind the same house (Figure 6 ) . Between May 22nd and 26th anomalous areas indicated by the resistivity survey were examined 2 with archaeological test units. Upon completion of the resistivity survey, test units were placed within the easement area around the Skerry house to further document the archaeological remains on the site, and to evaluate anomalies revealed by the resistivity survey. —Skerry House - Front YardArea A In the front yard, six 4p 40 cm test units, three .5 x 2m test one slightly larger test unit, and two wide, shallow backhoe trenchesnitwere excavated. The northwest edge of each unit was widened with shovels by 50 cm to reveal profiles. These units are as follows: (see Figure 7) . 40 x 40 cm shovel test pits: Unit ' s 1, 2 , 5, 8, 17, and 18. . 5 x 2 m test units: Unit ' s 3, 4, 6, 11. Back Hoe Trenches: 's 1, and 2. Anomalies revealed by the resistivity survey were analyzed through subsurface testing and are as follows (Figures 6 and 7) : Unit 3 revealed a Pit and dump filled with mid- to late-nineteenth century coal cinders; Unit 4 was a clump of roots from a removed tree, though an interesting seventeenth- to eighteenth-century midden was found beneath this (more discussion on this midden layer is provided below); Unit 6 contained no obvious feature, though as Unit 8 confirmed (see below) thereis an increasing amount of nineteenth to twentieth century construction debris as one nears the south facade of the Skerry house. Unit 6 also encountered the seventeenth-eighteenth century midden layer. Unit 11 was excavated west of the house on the suggestion of Mr. Smith, the property owner. He reported that he had uncovered .a well while removing an old tree stump in that area of the yard. Though the well itself was not located, a car radiator was recovered which Mr. Smith claimed he had thrown into the hole created by the stump. He also noted that he had filled the well with an old water heater and other such modern appliances. Given this information, it was decided that the general location of the well had been identified, but that further investigation was unnecessary given the amount of recent material deposited wiithin it . On the basis of these and the other test units excavated in the front yard area of the Skerry house, no clearly seventeenth century structures or features were encountered. What was found, is an apparently intact midden layer or continuously built-up yard/work space containing mostly eighteenth century, but also some definite seventeenth century materials. This area extends across the southeast portion of the front yard between Test Units 6, 4 and 5, and also in Backhoe Trenches 1 and 2 (Figure 7) . The units, depths of the seventeenth-eighteenth century layer, and diagnostic artifacts from these units are as follows (Figure 7; Appendix B) : Unit 8: . Stratum of brown sandy loam 27-59 cm in depth from the surface. Diagnostic artifacts: 1 early cut nail; 4 wrought nails; 2 8/64" diamater pipe stems (1620-1650) ; 1 7/64" diamater pipe stem (1650-1680) , having a late seventeenth-early eighteenth century shape; 5 redware sherds; 1 creamware sherd 1762-1820) . This unit also contained the highest number of nineteenth century structural material, undoubtedly related to its proximity to the Skerry house. Later materials in this stratum include coal cinders, 1 wire nail, plain r 1 3 J whiteware (1820-1900) , 1 cut nail, red-bodied earthenware, bone, various Pieces of window and crown glass. Unit 6: . Stratum of medium brown sandy loam 16-60 cm in depth from the surface. Diagnostic artifacts: 1 twentieth nails and fragments; small amount of coalcinder;ce6tuWi ought coin; 17 cut hand-pressed brick fragment; 3 7/64" diameter pipe stem (1650-1680); 3 8/64" diamater pipe stem (1620-1650) ; 1 6/64" diamater pipe stem (1680-1710) ; 13 black glazed redware sherds; 17 other redware sherds; 1 probable Nottingham red stoneware sherd (1700-1799) ; 1 possible seventeenth century black-bodied, red-glazed sherd; 1 buff bodied slipware; 1 blue-glazed Delftware sherd ( 1680-1800) ; 27 creamware sherds ; 1 yellow-glazed buff/white bodied sherd (1625-1725); 1 partially reduction-fired redware sherd (generally early seventeenth century in date) ; 1 possibly North Devon gravel-tempered sherd (1650-1783) ; 1 brown salt glaze stoneware sherd (1625-1783) ; 60 assorted pearlware sherds (1780-1840) ; 3 whiteware sherds ( 1820-1900) . Other materials include a two-tined fork, crown and window glass, melted window glass, a metal button, coal clinker, iron fragments, bone ( including one of pig) , oriental-export porcelain and a questionable lithic flake. Unit 4: . Stratum of medium brown sandy loam 17-38 cm in depth. Diagnostic artifacts: 1 wire nail (late nineteenth-early twentieth century) ; 23 cut nails and fragments; 2 wrought nails; 1 4/64" diamater pipe stem (1750-1800) ; 2 sherds of reduction-fired redware (generally early seventeenth century) ; 1 sherd of narrow combed buff-bodied slipware (1670-1700) ; 10 creamware sherds (1762-1820) ; 28 pearlware sherds ( 1780-1840) ; 1 blue glass tubular bead with 10/64" bore diameter (a possible seventeenth-eighteenth century trade bead) . Other materials included oriental export porcelain, redware, crown and window glass, coal cinders and marine shell. Unit 2: . Stratum of brown fine sandy loam 14-30 cm in depth. Diagnostic artifacts: 3 cut nails; 2 pipe bowl fragments, one with an early heel (1610-1700) ; 2 creamware sherds (1762-1820) ; 6 pearlware sherds (1780-1840) ; 1 flake or gunflint fragment. Other materials include 13 orange brick fragments, coal and coal cinders, burned bone, marine shell, window glass and redware. Unit 5: . Stratum of dark brown silty sand grading into. the sterile orange brown sand 23-62 cm in depth. Diagnostic artifacts: 1 possible Devon gravel-temper sherd (1650-1783), 3 creamware sherds (1740-1840); 3 pearlware sherds (1780-1840); 1 whiteware sherd (1820-1900) ; 1 complete pipe bowl with definite 1610-1660 body, and a 7/64" bore diameter (1650-1680), placing it most likely in a date range of 1650-1660. Summary. In all, 162 temporally diagnostic artifacts were recovered from the areas containing seventeenth century artifacts. Twenty-two artifacts date to the seventeenth century (13. 68), 134 (82.78) to the eighteenth century, and 6 (3.78) date to the mid- to late-nineteenth century. There is minimal disturbance in this stratum from nineteenth and twentieth century activity. The stratum may be related to the "Old Planters" settlement and much Of it is undoubtedly the result of domestic dumping directly associated with the early occupation of the f 4 Skerry house. This type of refuse disposal was less common by the early nineteenth century as Salem's population grew and town dumps were established. In general, seventeenth century material is much lower in frequency than artifacts from later periods. Often architecture of this period in New England, particularly of the early seventeenth century, is impermanent. Despite the intensive survey conducted on the property it is not suprising that structural remains from this time period were not found. Structures were probably of "post-in-ground" construction, lacking the heavy stone foundations typical of later architecture. The remains of seventeenth century dwellings are not unlike those of prehistoric sites, consisting of packed living floors, pits and post molds, . surrounded by an area of discarded artifacts. It is significant that a distinct distribution of artifacts from the period was encountered in an apparently undisturbed stratum. The earliest artifacts may date from 1610. Given the impermanent nature of structures typical of the First Settlement, a site of this period should be treated like a prehistoric site, using the artifact distribution as an indicator of possible small features in the vicinity. The artifact distribution may be the key to the location of portions of the Old Planters settlement; it is certainly important evidence related to the Skerry family and who built and occupied the Skerry house. The stratum also contains a continuum of artifacts from the seventeenth through the late eighteenth century a period that is poorly documented in Salem's history. The artifacts and possible features in and below the stratum may have a potential to contribute to our understanding of human conditions following the earliest settlement and preceding Salem's rise in population in the early nineteenth century. There are clearly artifacts in this layer dating to the period of the "Old Planters" settlement which was established in this area in 1626. Crude black or reduction-fired sherds, early-to mid- seventeenth century pipe stems and bowl, a possible trade bead, a sherd of brown salt-glaze stoneware, as well as the other early materials listed above for Units 's 2, 4, 5, 6, and, 8, were found in a relatively intact layer situated directly on top of the natural B-zone subsoil . This provides evidence for remains related to the seventeenth century settlement and use of the Skerry lot area. Given the discovery of seventeenth century materials, it is possible that small "post-in-ground" structural features may be present in the subsoil directly beneath this early artifact bearing layer. To locate them it will be necessary to strip portions of the area to detect Post molds and other structure-related features. Further investigation of this part of the front yard (Figure 10) with wide, shallow, hand-excavated units is recommended. We recommend that at least ten 1 x 1 meter units, be excavated in the area to determine whether or not features are associated with the seventeenth-eighteenth century artifact distribution. To expedite the process a backhoe should be used to remove the overburden. The time necessary to complete such an excavation is approximately four days with the appropriate-size field crew. 5 Skerry House = Backyard and Lot (Area B) . The electrical resistivity survey revealed - several subsurface anomalies which were then subject to subsurface testing. The backyard and lot of the Skerry house and the adjacent lot of a house that stood until recently at the end of Skerry Street were tested with four 40 x 40 cm test pits, one 1 x .5 meter unit, one shallow 3 x 2-meter unit (on the recommendation of Stephen Mrozowski --Unit 10), one approx. 2 x 2 meter shallow, backhoe trench, one 1 meter and 3-meter long bachhoe trench„ and one 1.75-meter deep and 6-meter long backhoe trench (B.H.T. 5) . This area is more disturbed than the front yard, though in at least one area a substantial mid-nineteenth century feature survived intact at a shallow depth. In general, the natural B-zone soil survives to withing 30 cm Of the present surface, and as shown by Backhoe Trench 5 , the bank dropping off to the MBTA tracks has been cut back and not filled in. Thus the soils on the flat area of the Skerry back-lot are natural and not substantially built up. One large, square, pointed, post mold was found in Test Unit 10 extending into the subsoil. In order to detect additional structural remains of what could possibly be an early structure, a large hand-excavated unit was dug adjacent to the post mold over an area of 2 x 3 meters. Two features were encountered as anomalies in the electrical resistivity data in this unit; Feature 2 which was late nineteenth to twentieth century in date, and Feature 1 which was a large, well-preserved and very clearly-defined early- to mid-nineteenth century trash pit. Since this was not a time period of priority interest for this survey project, only a brief sample (approx. 40 x 40cm) of this feature was excavated. The amount of Pearlware, Creamware, Redware, and in particular faunal remains was suprisingly large. One complete, but broken Pearlware plate was recovered in large fragments from the small sample taken of this trash-pit . The size of the trash pit is estimated as approximately ', one meter square. The materials from this pit date largely to the ownership of the Skerry House by the Webb and Archer families ( 1799-1843) . There is a rich collection of faunal materials found in the pit, including shell fish and sea mammal (probably whale) . The feature appears to be the result Of a single dumping episode probably related to the termination of century of ownership by the Skerry family, and the subsequent reoccupation of the house by the Webb and then Archaer families. The period that is represented is a major period of transition in Salem as an agricultural community to maritime prominence. The house was probably used as a tenement coinciding with Salem' s commercialism as a maritime power. The feature may provide a good example of what appears to be mass dumping at household sites evident in other areas of the Northeast during the period following the American Revolution and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The integrity of Feature 1, and its clear association with the Skerry property, make it an invaluable part of any interpretations regarding the late-eighteenth through mid- nineteenth century occupants of the Skerry House. Though this feature is "late" in date for the priorities of the archaeological survey, the clarity of definition of this feature and its extremely rich artifact content warrants a full mitigation of this feature. 6 Several test units were excavated immediately adjacent to the Skerry House (within the existing chain-link fence - Figure 9) . Unit 19 was placed directly against the foundation of northeast section of the house and uncovered a building sequence consisting of the insertion of a new foundation under the northeast section of the house. Other apparently nineteenth-century remodeling (as evidenced by deposits of plaster with lath marks) followed. This may have cut through an earlier land surface. Unit 21 was placed against the grid-north foundation of the northeast section of the house and revealed a stone foundation running parallel to the main foundation at approximately less than one meter away and extending along for an undetermined distance. Its purpose could not be ascertained, because of the limited working space between the present house foundation and the chain-link fence. The fill in this feature contained creamware and pearlware, suggesting an end-of-use date in the early-to mid-nineteenth century. It is possible that this wall is part of a lean-to that may have existed on the north side of the house. Unit 20 was excavated to the north of the main body of the Skerry house, in an alcove-like area created by small additions attached to this rear section of the house. A relatively shallow B-horizon was observed here, with an intact late-eighteenth to mid-nineteenth century layer above it . It is likely that this area was well outside the original structure of the house and seems to have suffered little disturbance from later construction activities as was seen in Units 19, 22 and 8. On the basis of the excavated units nearest the Skerry House, it would be worthwile to link the architectural analysis currently being conducted on the house to these deposits, particularly those to the immediate north of the house (Units 20 and 21) , as well as the rebuilding sequence observed in Unit 19. It is possible that information and questions revealed in the architectural survey may usefully answered or elaborated by further excavation near the immediate north of the house in the vicinity of Units 20 and 21. Also, it should be considered that early archaeological deposits may be preserved under more recent additions to the house, and archaeological testing may be warranted in the basement and sub-floor areas of certain sections of this house, depending on the results of the architectural survey. If .�:... floorboards are to be removed by the architectural -historians, an archaeologist should be present to assess the potential for evidence of the "Old Planters" settlement. Otherwise, in terms of seventeenth century remains, or clearly-defined later remains, no further archaeological investigation is immediately warranted in the area within the chain-link fence surrounding the Skerry house. 7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) BURNSIDE ST. : No further investigation. 2) THORNKIDE ST. : No further investigaton. 3) SKERRY HOUSE, FRONT YARD: Phase II site examination is recommended for the southeastern section of this area (Figure 10) to locate possible structural features associated with the intact seventeenth-eighteenth century midden layer found here. The existance of artifacts dating to the seventeenth century prior to the 1683 Purchase of the property by Francis Skerry, provides evidence for remains associated with the "Old Planters" settlement. It is quite possible given the relatively low degree of disturbance in this section Of the yard, and the clarity of the interface between B-horizon soils and this early artifact-bearing layer, that "post-in-ground" or other impermanent structural remains may be present in this section of the Skerry House lot. 4 ) SKERRY HOUSE, BACK YARD: . Phase II site examination is recommended for the early- to mid-nineteenth century trash pit located here. Its clarity of definition and extreme richness of artifact content warrant its examination. Of particular interest is the close association of this feature to the house Property and the dating of it to the known ownership/occupation of the house by the Archer and Webb families between 1799 and 1866. Also present was an extremely rich deposit of faunal remains including shell fish and sea mammal, making a dietary analysis of at least one period of the house 's occupation possible. 5 ) SKERRY HOUSE, AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HOUSE AND BENEATH LATER ADDITIONS: It is recommended that close attention be paid during the architectural analysis to the potential existence of intact archaeological remains beneath post-seventeenth century additions to the earliest section of the house ( if in fact such a section exists) . Evidence of building sequences were found during archaeological testing, so the potential for linking architectural and archaeological data on the house 's construction is possible. If the floorboards are to be removed during the archaeological survey, it is recommended that subsurface testing be conducted by an archaeologist to determine whether evidence of the "Old Planters" settlement exist. <$ L �• iii 4P"Jli_j 3-W-5 _ Gran BI ck 31W-4 3-3 �Z: - J i 4 _aL z l? ?g -' _ 2`�r.. 3-4 q R.Ties 3, �f..6' . -1 i9' NO L1(i•� ) iso' ' T?� She 5� 3-W=2 775' Y� G.G. X95' - _ — �–.`- ♦r _j B. 3 PROP. TOP 4F 2 ST. W.F. (V21/2 ST. W.F. l4' C.B. SLOPE` EH5 ENT" LINE iio' '% 1 0 J 5 ! s 19 8 W.G. G.G. 3,12T- I Nw�� , 34. o U O N #220 16 3-RT- Bit. Conc. ; T. c' 0 3 Wd. F. Drive I _/09 2 ST. W.F. $ ) Q, Ot�gz o�p O L n x23 O1 SMITH -� c 6' Cem. Conc: r. D " l �� H ; GAR, Bit. Conc. Dr. 21/2 ST. W.F. ° Z GAR. Bit. Conc. Dr. MWG. mo o AW.G. #21 ^73' -, sae g C.L.F%--.i ' -E3it .onc Cl) B' n Dr. ^� 9 a ( J / #15 v4' W.G. 2 ST.WF. o �0 w ;o0 2 ST. 2 ST. W.F. ra r- (Tl o a W.F. ', o a C7 #19 tTl ° � #13 ° M.H. Bit. Conc. — I #20 0� Drive - £O6- LFA iso' Bit. Conc. Dr. '�cHUSETTs gAY IRAN ppRr 3 ( No ACCESS `'AT �- __ ATION - AUTHORITYv J"tir Jl_� �--I--� !Y3 NO ACC ESS) — _ 27 C1ll JJ_ - � — 6 261 9 $ - _ - a, C. _ _. 76 pRn 32i' � �5-c �6 C. WD. Fence I U 3.x..7 ✓ P _ t _ I OF SLc)pE CASE-ME LINE ' `: �S _� #zo T W as is l 3 3-? I L. F� 3 -W-9 14 S - a_ O-i7_C • -� w CITY.. 16_C I3 -D- OF SALEM I s , O 39 2 ST. W.F. 16 �J T I 3 I LITMAN CO t co 3 IS 1 , ( o -:h001 M. IST. BRICK I j the Ic EASE N 4 a — R ST o Play9'ound J wI -- o M.H. I o M.H. U 111/2 I col G m Irl ST W. PROP, w I #16 o - - — - e PROR Fib ure �, I B t.Con Iv �iur�Side St-. 'tv�-�1 w g � f rr •�2-•, - ST W.F. 17 u15 10 Z FRAM ' t � 0C.S. M. til y I . . us LOCA I IO LING Y- EASEMENT i. �I -�...,� EASEMENT Pp0" /? qL L NO l ��\ -- _-=_.��'\ •' .: � 286 , 12.5 � ! �' � •�. <. . �— 87 GA.tlR. / - s PROP ToP ,1 OF SLOPE cJ 43 REED\ J 0 -2j n Ifni 10,6 3 ss-ac IA id._ b \ ! — 2 $T_ $ll 3 V r4 PROS? 419L, r/s�Eo 1EfRAiEY 42 > 12. y F 3 �, E C 6 lyDb�c -- w- `�V I Pool\ 64RN 3-o i5c 13.7 M.H. 4 K D, FENoE i3g 2/ v o / //2 S ono o M 1 F. 4 4 LI. \�.. . Do x ` %iyi. #!20 12.2 2 (/ 12.9 2 ST .x:M.H. :p�� CH H 45 12. / �b SNEfit W E,!_ 5 H / �8_T15 T11.7 !/ "� �✓ 46 RqN i Z COso, S / K4 x 1112 J ; I WF Wig, Grovel // aco AD �- ' �\ 12.2 WF ST g # 1s _ 13 \'•. /11 1ST 1// \\ l f qa w ST a x coV ✓.�` D/RT OR Wq 13 s / V # /91 10.7 48 e4 ' 1 T Ltj cv 1 / 10.8 \ 2WD. I S _ z � SID, ea /A / 12. , 3.5 �"5 '�� // .` Rr r Grovel MOORE rum Ou ��•■roe ■.mmaa.o■onma ®�■ �,■® umm,.nmum■m.mu,■u,maaa.■® .■u.■w�iummumE.um,■u■,.u,.noum■m,®um Nmumum,uu„■o■■,■,mu.,,.,.,■.,,m,un,.■u,uu„■® ®®umumo.�np■nm„ .■u.,m,■■■,,,■,,,uaum.uu u.Y ■anm..�u■.,.■.■n....nn,uu.m■um�ii,au■.® �t,■■u,u■.mum,m.mama ,■■..u■mo��m. ,� ■ ■ SERUM a� ,,.,■■.■ ■■■.■� ,m�ii,■�O.■,�O,pnnO�O,u� ■■., ,ummu0��■m0 am ummuuo•mu ■mu® no ERROR WOORE MEN,00aG®a�uG� � uui■■�rm�u ® u mu i I ®umMANOR ®® R� iiiiiiiiiiiiiin 3 C=m��,®■ o•a ■�m■m�om u■►. umud, mn�mommo.ummuum ®oCnrz� mo�u■,mumin n,n,m,,.■■.=■■�i■i■--i■.uiii�mcm��_ �� a�■ .n�n■nn�0�■�■IIu■■•unm■m■ m,u■,a■umO,m. ■■■.,ou■n■■■=in■mm ,■nu,o�n i 23 I 221 21 77 I 20 -t7 ---{- -I 16 I I rr j_ I 14 r -- r ------------ LJ I w — w , I I 641 I - I J r- --.-- _ I _ 1 1 ,6 b 8 9 . 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 5 /1) �V oars w the Centimeter ! 23 pp 22 �47 1 1 1I 20 p 1 p 1 77 7 ' I —110_ pp 1Irl 1 } o-1 1 IT r— TV w b-1i. _ T 1 _ ry� I _ I I I I • _ I I _ I 21- l _ - T - _ pp r cv 1 i 11 IIT I I , , ' ill 1 II 1 II 121 3 14 16 7 8 1 910 11 1112 . 113 14 15 �_�pap�•p I CL�yMy y. C o� �16 17 18 , 5 Sq.re IJ`thc�Gencimetcr �� O 6—_--!_l V•�6SM of Sk / Jtl.. S/4 24 1 S,_ 23�I I __. N�15{wY-2 � lye' 'D �fAKif77M l:�✓l fl� '��'f(G'U� 1 I 22 - J . . I 21 - - — + iI 4 -r _{ . I l-rt -I ' I � I I I I •'i 20 -- + - 7 — _ ti= Tk I _ � I i j � I I • I � � �� I Ij �.l'lta �m✓✓f _I I I I d u dledw,SlVd II I _ I .. a. wn Lam, .I I I I Iz 2Irn, I - � r)cT1e1112 -Sltel 113 " (ilefcw S lrtrh?ti 2 y3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 0 l i /IJ(r12 13 14 15 16 i 7 /1�8j�g '' UarL9[o [hc C:cntime[cy�• 1y Roes I /fret I. �!�iI • ya1 (/j I ?T _LT �I = bi £i _ ZI TT_ OT 6 c c 1 i r I , { 1 �1 c C�a -- l o K \ I1_ f I I 1 i .- ' I : 1.111 ! 1 III II I11 i_ =JI bZ �L)rSkerrvc l me Areit ioatk.v,►,rJ I i 24 - , ' _- 11L S tL 23 a 1 , 2221 ��--,- - _ . h 0 I I I I I ', I I I I ,-- _ _ h 191 is 1 _ �I 2 37 — n .__ T 3i �_ 3J I - 1 i5 I T _ II I I 14 C _ _1 I 13 -- o-- — -�Trl _ 10 GAI 17, lWV Lr 7 t � I _T II I li I : II Gf T I — � i it I I I II I •I�'� : I III . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 adjatoii 55quarta m the C ...Vete roi vrt 1 Skerry 6wsc • 7� Preliminary management. Summary Report of Areas 1 and 3 , Bevely-Salem Bypass Project : Review Comments P. 1 last paragraph - Are Areas A and B parts of or all of Areas 1 and 2 depicted in fig . h? Clarify labels in text and make them consistent with the graphics . p. 2 Skerry House, Front Yard - Area A or Area 1? What were the sizes of backhoe trenches 1 and 2? How deep was unit 11 excavated and was it. extended? Is this the well depicted by Perley on the west side of the house? p. 3 Descriptions of Units - Are there discrete layers of 17th and 18th c . materials within the stratum? Excavation by arbitrary levels within each stratum where materials were encountered? Seed description of field methods employed . Justification for placement of test units not related to results of resistivity testing? What did backhoe trenches i and 2 yield? P . 3 , 4 Summary of Skerry House , Front Yard Generalization about " impermanence" of 17th c . architecture is not necessarily true . In the historic documentation of the area , Bentley refers to Capt. Osgood ' s account of "stone foundations mortared with clay , wattle and daub walls over light wooden frame . " The length of stay of the ,settlers , status of individuals and descriptions of houses from early depositions indicate a more permanent-type of architecture . Need to integrate what is known from the historic records with the results of the archaeol . testing . Difficult to use generalizations about impermanent architecture as justification for not finding structural features . Answer may lie in .the testing scheme employed . There should be some discussion about filling episodes in the front yard as divulged through subsurface testing; small vs . large amounts of fill and their locations . Is there a discrete layer of 17th c. materials? The apparent mixing of 17th & 18th c . materials and predominance of 18th c . materials provide evidence for the first period occupation of the Skerry House rather than the Old Planters Settlement . Try to speak to the evidence recovered from the Phase I survev . This Phase I survey was more comprehensive than a typical Phase I . 40 While a few diagnostic materials of the early - mid 17th c . were found, the importance of the lot lies in its potential for yielding information on the composition of an archaeological ''assemblage'' from a poorly known period . In this case , an early-mid 17th c . domestic "assemblage" can be as important as structural features . A comparison of the materials recovered from the Skerry House with materials and features recovered by NPS in their excavations of the 17th & 18th c . Narbonne House is suggested . Were any of the units taken below the early artifact bearing layer? p. 5 , 6 Skerry House Backyard & Lot - Area B or Area 2? - ;dhat were the dimensions o£ the postmold encountered in Unit 10? - [Ghat is the nature of the disturbance as revealed through subsurface testing? - What is meant by "brief sample ( approx . 10 x 10 cm. ) " of feature 1 , the early-mid 19th c . trash pit ; needs more detail and clarification . - can the "surprisingly large" amount of materials recovered from the 19th r_ . feature be quantified? - The mid-19th c . feature does not relate to the research directives for testing on the lot as determined by the background research; it appears that an adequate sample has already been retrieved . P. t; - describe the stone foundation encountered in Unit 21 ; Was a corner found? - Describe the intact late 18th to mid-19th r_ . layer discovered in Unit 20 . p. 7 Summary and Recommendations 1 . Skerry House Front Yard Limited testing appears to be warranted in the SE section to evaluate the significance of the 17th & 18th c . materials & to locate related features . Subsurface testing should be oriented toward the concentrations of materials . -3- 2 . Skerry House : Area adjacent to House A . Smaller single-story northern-most addition in back of house ( no cellar ) - no testing warranted within the structure ; logistical problems of testing and risk of personal injury due to instability of structure outweigh potential return of subsurface testing here . Locational survey has yielded evidence for post-Skerry House )ccupation ( 19th c . ) modifications in back of house . B . Larger multiple-story addition in back of house ino _eilar ) - no testing warranted within this structure for reasons cited above . * C. South side of Skerry House - This area was ignored in the locational survey; the architectural study shows that one of the bay sections of the 18th c . Skerry House had been truncated, probably in the 19th c . Two testpits should be placed along the south wall of the house to conform with the corners of what would have been a bay section of the Skerry House . These test units should serve a three-fold function: 1 ) to establish early building sequences of the Skerry House ; 2 ) locate refuse or' outbuilding remains related to original occu g pation of she house ; , ) Locate traces of the Old Planners Settlement . 3 . Skerry House Back Yard Further testing of the early-mid 19th c . feature .is unwarranted; this feature does not relate to either the Old Planters Settlement or the original occupation of the Skerry Nouse - the purposes for conducting the archaeological survey as determined by background research . - Because UMASS ' s recommendations are locational in scope , the recommendations for additional work should be expressed as extended Phase I . ' �StTTS *�IS V� O d n � N CIO -7 41111 S 0 June 5, 1989 `"?onWealth to RECEIVED Peter Butler JUN 1 3 '1989 Salem Planning Department One Salem Green "„ � tDEPT. Salem, MA 01970 SALUI TLfUgi6 RE: Beverly-Salem Bypass Dear Mr. Butler: Thank you for your expressed interest in the effects which the Beverly-Salem Bypass and March Street Bridge projects might have on significant historic and archaeological properties. The MHC recognizes the importance of your input as an interested party in the "Section 106" consultation process. Enclosed please find a copy of materials which were submitted to the MHC by MDPW concerning the March Street Bridge project and the results of the archaeological survey which was conducted by UMass. Please let me know if you have any comments. I would appreciate hearing from you by June 16, 1989 if you have any comments, so that MHC can respond to the MDPW in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Brona Simon State Archaeologist Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission Enclosure cc: ETIerf-DiGerorrimo, MDPW Robert Johnson, MDPW Don Klima, ACHP James Walsh, FHWA BS/kb Massachusetts Historical Commission,Valerie A.Talmage,Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617) 7278470 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J. Connolly,Secretary MEMO TO: CRAIG WHEELER FROM: JOHN H. CARR, JR. RE: BRIDGE STREET RELOCATION ROAD/RAIL CORRIDOR DATE: MARCH 31, 1998 As a follow-up to our last conversation,the following are.the spatial requirements set forth in the 106 approved plans, and the available land south of the 7 foot wide SESD pipe, measured at two locations, i.e opposite the. northeast corner of Carpenter and Bridge Streets, and opposite the northeast corner of Lynn and Bridge Streets. All measurements are measured from the existing southerly curb of Bridge Street. 1. Opposite N E Corner Of Carpenter & Bridge Streets Our field measurements show that the 106 approved plans can easily be built here without encroaching on any part of the SESD easement. This is based on the following: Distance to centerpoint of pipe 142 feet Distance to southerly edge of easement 129 1/2 feet Requirements of project buffer at Carpenter Street 35 feet 2 inbound lanes 24 feet median strip 16 feet 2 outbound lanes 24 feet Total 99 feet Available land for rail corridor 30 1/2 feet ### Land needed for rail corridor 10 1/2 feet- see below Surplus land 191/2 feet Incidentally, I believe your most recent plan called for one inbound lane to be 26 feet wide, which is wrong. According to the 106 approved pians, each ' of the 4 lanes is to be 12 feet wide, which obviously frees up an additional 2 feet, which may be useful elsewhere along the length between Flint Street and the overpass see below. 2. Opposite N E Corner of Lynn and Bridge Streets t At this point the distance between the existing southerly curb of Bridge Street and the centerline of the SESD pipe is 122 1/2 feet. The spatial requirements for the new roadway at this location are 96 1/2 feet, based on the following: I i width of buffer 32 112 feet width of 2 inbound lanes 24 feet width of median strip 16 feet. width of 2 outbound lanes 24 feet Total 96 1/2 feet Thus the difference between the new northerly curb of Bridge Street and the centerpoint of the existing SESDpipe is 26 feet. (122 1/2 - 96 1/2). Since the SESD easement is 25 feet wide, and the pipe itself is feet wide, located in the center of the easement, one needs to subtract 3 /2 feet from the above 26 feet in order to determine the distance between the new northerly curb and the southerly edge of the pipe, resulting in a figure of 22 112 feet. This represents the land north of the new northerly curb that is not sitting directly atop the SESD pipe. In terms of spatial requirement needed for the rail corridor, I spoke with Roger Bergeron at Guilford Transportation on March 17, 1998 and he said the following are the applicable measurements: distance between rails 4 feet,8 112 inches length of tie 8 feet 6 inches: ballast on either side,of tie 810 14 inches t Thus, allowing(for purposes of discussion) 12 inches of ballast from the ends of each tie results in a rail corridor 10 112 feet wide; which may even be generous, since this allows for approximately 3 feet of open space pn ie ther side of the 4 feet 8 1/2 inch wide rails. Assuming then that 10 1/2 feet is a reasonable width for the rail corridor, especially considering the low frequency and speed of the trains traveling over the single track,:this means we have a need to locate a 101/2 foot rail corridor, i and a maximum space of 22 1/2 feet in-which to do it opposite Lynn Street; ,i.e. without locating the rail corridor above the.pipe. Although tight, it is even possible to locate such a 10 1/2 foot wide rail corridor between the new northerly curb of Bridge Street and the southerly edge of the SESD easement altogether, based on the following field measurements: f 3 distance to southerly edge of easement 110 feet distance to new northerly curb 96 1/2 feet land available for rail corridor 13 1/2 feet width of rail corridor 10 1/2 feet I surplus land 3 1/2 feet Thus, the foregoing would allow for a 3 112 buffer between the new northerly curb and the 10 1/2 foot rail corridor without utilizing 1 inch of the 9 feet of the southerly half of the SESD. easement that does not sit atop the pipe (i.e. 12 1/2 - 3 1/2 feet). r ( 3 t t i It does seem advisable, however, to Iodate the rail corridor at least partly on the SESD easement to provide for the maximum possible buffer between it and the new northerly curb_ Roger Bergeron also said he was waiting to hear back from the SESD engineer to set up a 'courtesy meeting"to broach the subject of locating part of the new single-track rail corridor on the SESD easement. Anything you could do to expedite this, and explain the situation to Salem's representative on the SESD Board to pave the way, would be greatly appreciated. Finally, the following points should also be made: 1. The 106 plans called for the relocation of the then 3 track rail corridor north of the SESD easement. 2. Although the easement was not labeled on the plan as such; that is exactly where the three rails are shown on the Mass Highways revised plans, dated February 6, 1991, which were approved by the Historic Commission as part of the federally-mandated 106 review process. a 3. Any relocation of the new single-track rail corridor cannot come at the expense of the essential elements of the 106 plan, which were intended to I ameliorate the adverse effects of the 4 lanes on the adjacent National i Register and McIntire historic districts. 4. in the event the new tail corridor cannot be-made to work within the space between the new northerly curb and the SESD pipe (as distinct from the wider SESD easement); I think it reasonably ''likely that the Federal Street 3 Neighborhood Organization, and others, will ask the Federal Advisory Council to strictly enforce the 106 Memorandum of Agreement, taking the entire record into account, by relocating the rail corridor to the north of the i SESD pipe, as originally envisioned. . 5. This would necessarily be at the expense of the park. 6. To say the least, this would be regrettable, all the more so because (as g shown above) jf iame irely unnecessary. I 3 t cc: Mayor Stanley Usovicz Councilor Regina Flynn Roger Bergeron, Guilford Transportation Paul Cincotta, Rizzo Associates Meg Toohey, Federal Street Neighborhood Organization -,.,Wayne Sousa, Federal Street Neighborhood Organization 270Y � D/u r