No preview available
MISC CC'S 1A c. Cc �1 — ,� S� �, ___ --�-- Id 04 0 OU ��FD'asW ® Gr LE 3 JUN 2 1004 1 0reS le pow1146 F�... P.O. Box 865 Salem, MA 01970 incorporated "Telephone: (978) 745-0799 June 21, 2004 Mr. Alexander Almeida ` Massachusetts Division Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 55 Broadway, 10`h Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Re: Salem-Beverly Transportation Improvement Project Realignment of Bridge Street Bypass(005402) Section 106 Effect Finding Historic Salem would like to comment on the letter from the Massachusetts Highway Department to the Federal Highway Administration dated April 15, 2004 and conveyed to the Massachusetts Historical Commission by the Federal Highway Administration on May 7, 2004. We have concerns about the findings which we would like to draw to your attention. We do not agree with the finding of"no effect" with respect to the First Universalist . Church. In particular,the letter does not address the visual effect of creating an additional 20 feet of roadway directly adjacent to the Church, nor does it address whether or not there is an anticipated increase in traffic as a result of the project. The fact that the"back of the church faces the roadway is not an obviating factor, as this is the fagade which is most visible to the public and in effect acts as the church's front door". Also, has there been any determination as to the effect of construction and excavation on the structure, and recommendations as to actions that should be taken to mitigate any potential adverse effects? Similarly, with regard to the Bridge Street Neck Historic District, there is no discussion of the visual impact of the road on the historic resources and efforts to mitigate the effect, nor of the effects of noise and vibration from the new road: Finally, in the section on Section 106 Consultation, MHD states that they "have considered the views of other, interested local parties." We are not aware of any efforts Fax: (978) 744-4536 ° Email: hsi@nii.net e Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ ' S to contact those listed as "interested parties"to the 106 review process nor the public in general in the determination of the effect findings. We remain concerned, as we have stated previously, that the public has not yet had an opportunity to review and comment on the 106 review process, as we understand is required under Section 106. Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. We would be very happy to meet with you at any time to further discuss our concerns. Si er Rich d Thompson Offi e Administrator CCs Massachusetts Historic Commission City of Salem Planning Department Salem Historic District Commission s C, Massachusetts Division 55 Broadway, 10th Floor d M�.6 -t LJ U.S.Department Cambridge, MA 02142 of Transportation Federal Highway - MAY 17 280 Administration �p May 7, 2004 PflRAP In Reply Refer To: HEC-MA Ms. Cara Metz State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historic Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston,Massachusetts 02125 Subject. Salem-Beverly Transportation Improvement Project Realignment of Bridge Street Bypass (AIHD Project#005402) Section 106 Review Dear Ms. Metz: Please find enclosed with this letter, a copy of Massachusetts Highway Department's April 15, 2004, letter and documentation supporting a finding of"No Adverse Effect" for the referenced project. This documentation addresses new effects to the historic and archaeological resources resulting from the proposed realignment, as well as potential effects to historic resources identified since the original 1992 effect determination and the resulting Memorandum of Understanding(MOA). The Federal Highway Administration has completed our review of the documentation provided by the MHD. Based on our review, we concur with the "No Adverse Effect"finding for this project. We also find that that Stipulation I of the original 1992 MOA has been fulfilled (consultation on the project design plans for compatibility with the neighboring historic properties). We seek your concurrence, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800). 2 We are transmitting full copies of the supporting documentation via carbon copy of this letter to the consulting and interested parties noted below. Please do not hesitate to contact us, should you have any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, Stanley Gee Division Administrator (kc' By: Alexander Almeida Project Delivery Team Leader Enclosures cc: Mr. Thomas Broderick—MHD - Room 3510 Mr. Greg Prendergast—MHD - Environmental t I--v HA Atsi L[ � r o Pl�',,;,lfr'i. P.O. Box 865 1970 Salem, M4 00799 incorporated Telephone: (978) 745-0799 September 23, 2002 Thomas Broderick Att. Mr. Steven McLaughlin Massachusetts Highway Department 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Art: Steve McLauglin Dear Mr. Broderick: Apparently a number of interested Salem parties have individually contacted various agencies, including yours, regarding concerns with the Bridge Street By-Pass in Salem, its impact on historic resources, and aspects of its design. These parties include the First Universalist Church, the Downtown Salem Neighborhood Association, Historic Salem, Inc., James R. Treadwell, and Staley McDermet. We have been advised to contact you regarding our concerns, and will keep the other agencies informed with copies of our correspondence. The current project, as realigned, now directly abuts a National Register property (the First Universalist Church), and two National Register Districts, the Salem Common National Register Historic District, and the newly nominated North River National Register District. The Old Salem Jail and Jailer's House, and the Howard Street Burying Ground as well as many other historic properties are located within these districts. As a result of this recent realignment, the current project appears to have more potential negative impacts on many of the above historic resources than the original project that underwent Section 106 review ten years ago. We have been advised that the Federal Highway Administration (we assume in collaboration with the Massachusetts Highway Department) will be investigating and proposing a new Section 106 effect determination that takes into account the significant changes and the associated new impacts that are a function of the realignment of the roadway. We look forward to receiving your proposed Section 106 effect finding and associated documentation and participating in its review. /Sincerely, [/ �ttl.;L,jE b;cZGc-coi—__ Historic Salem, Inc.' Cc:FederalHighway Administration Massachusetts Historic Commission Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Salem City Planner Salem Historic Commission Fax: (978) 744-4536 • Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ l: _tJ ��_J OO 13 PP 13 10, Historic" . re P6'Box865 v inTelephone: (978) 744 5-0799 May 29, 2002 Mr. Stanley Gee Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 55 Broadway Cambridge,MA 02142 Mr. Don Klimer Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. #809 Washington,D.C.,20004 Ret Bridge Street By-Pass Road protest,Salem MA Dear Mr Gce,and Mr.Khmer •:r y . , . . We arc most appreciative of your Providing information with respect to the Bridge Stree(,By-Pass Road in Salem. We have.a number,of questions and comments.about die Section.106 review process as it pertains to this project, and would greatly appreciate your continued assistance. 1. Request of Historic Salem hhc, to.participate in the 106 consultation process On April 10, Historic Salem, Inc. asked to participate in the Section 106 consultation process for this project. Can you please advise as to die status of that request? 2. Involvement of die public We continue to be concerned that the public may not have been adequately informed and consulted as required by the 106 regulations. We understand that in letters from the Advisory Council to interested parties (Letters from Don Klimer to Staley McDermet and Iain Maclean dated May 6,2002), with respect to their questions regarding public outreach and input,reference is made to "a public meeting in 2001." The Council may be referring to a meeting held in Salem on NQvembcr 19,2001. It is our understanding that this meeting was described body before and at the meeting as a meeting with a limited agenda, primarily to discuss landscape details. We are not aware of any public advertising for this meeting. There was an article about the meeting which appeared in the Salem Evening News November 16, 2001 which gives no indication that the purposc:of die meeting is to describe die effect of die new alignment on historic structures. The article, which is attached for your information,states that"The design of the road is set", and mentions only discussion of landscape details, the location of traffic lights, and questions on land- takings. We are not aware that any of the presenters at the meeting indicated that any of the purposes of the meeting was to discuss the effect of die new alignment on historic structures,nor that any of die agencies involved had individuals in attendance at the meeting for die express Fax: (978) 744-4536 ' Email: hsi@nii.net P Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ purpose of seeking public input into the 106 review process. This meeting does not appear to be part of an effort to "provide the public with information about an undertaking and its effects on historic properties and seek public comment and input." (36CFR,Part 800, Subpart A, 800.2(d). If another meeting took place in 2001 for that purpose,is it possible to learn when and where it was held, and how it was advertised? Reference was also made in the letters from the Advisory Council to a Notice of Project Change made by the Massachusetts Highway Department as part of the Massachusetts Environmental Planning Process. The Notice stated that the change in the road's design "may require a review of the Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act" (Notice of Project Change, August 14, 1998, Paragraph 8, "Environmental Review"). Indicating that a 106 review process may be required would not appear to constitute informing the public that such a review is taking place nor is it a request for public comment on such a review. The Notice of Project Change also included a letter from the Salem Historic Commission about some aspects of the changed design. However, the letter does not appear(nor was it necessarily intended) to address the requirements of Section 106 to identify impacts and consider alternatives. As additional information, to the best of our knowledge the topic of review of the new alignment has not appeared on the Agenda of the Salem Historic Commission or the Salem Planning Board. 3. Seeking of public input with respect to the Resolution of Adverse Effects We respectfully request that the agency or agencies responsible for implementing the Section 106 review process for this project provide"an opportunity for members of the public to express their views on resolving adverse effects on the undertaking" as required by 36 CFR 800.6(a)(4) of the National Historic Preservation Act. As Salem's non-profit preservation advocacy organization, we are most concerned that all appropriate measures are taken to protect our historic resources. Again, we are most appreciative of any assistance you can provide to us. Sincerely, John K' f Margaret''T�.S. Two he Executive Director Pres dey Historic Salem, Inc. Historic Salem, Inc. Cc: Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz, City of Salem Regina Flynn, President,Salem City Council Karen Theimer Brown, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Cara Metz,Executive Director,Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Brona Simon,Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, MHC James Scanlon, Acting Secretary,Executive Office of Transportation and Construction John Cogliano, Acting Commissioner, Massachusetts Highway Department Gregory Prendergast,Deputy Chief Engineer,MassHighway Environmental is ance-Kaspa iaarChairman,Salem-Historic=Commission Joseph Walsh,City Planner,Salem Planning Department James Igoe, Historic Massachusetts, Inc. The Evening News, Salem,Mass.,Friday,November 16,2001 A3 AV a0e Bypass road forum set for- Monday By DAVE GERSHMAN the current Bridge Street across project's chief landscape architect, "These are details mala people News staff from the old Salem Jail. and traffic consultants. A repre- in the neighborhood have been Recently, however, officials sentative of the state's right-of-way asking for and that's whyg SALEM—State officials will worked on plans to landscape the department will attend to answer Idighwav ipm inQ t Iem" hold an informational meeting area and reconstruct Bridge Street questions on land-takings. Walsh said. -Monday on plans to build the once the new road is finished. "Most people are by now very fa- The state officials will bring de- Bridge Street bypass road and "We've been waiting a long time miliar with the route the bypass tailed landscaping plans and in- landscape the finished project. for these landscape and road im- road will take,"acting City Planner vite residents to draw in where. The meeting,Which starts at 7 provement plans," said Ward 2 Joe Walsh said."The road itself is they think more trees,shrubs and p.m.at the Carlton School,is open. Councilor Regina Flynn. "These the same as it has been for years,so other landscaping elements should to all residents. . pplans make all the difference in at first it will look very similar to be placed. The design of the bypass road is the world to the residents of the what we've all seen before." The meeting, which was re- '.seLIt starts at the Veterans Memo- neighborhood that this roadway But, Walsh said, new informa- quested by Mayor Stan Usovicz, rial Bridge,runs along the North will pass through." tion will be available on other as- Council P5 esident Joan Lovely and River, dives through the apart- The presentation will be made pects of the project, such as the Flynn,was originally scheduled for ments at the former Parker by the Massachusetts Highway De- road's landscaping, and where this week,but had to be moved be- Brothers property,and connects to partment's project manager, the -traffic`lights will be placed.'—" cause of a scheduling conflict. Z ;06/1412002 14:19 FAX 5179737554 HASS.HIGHWAY DEPT HWY EN Q002 'JUN 1 '� 202 rune 2, 2002 Mr. Stanley Gee Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Region I 55 Broadway Cambridge , MA 02192 RE, Section 106 Review of the Bridge Street Bypass Road Salem Massachusetts Dear Mr . Gee: Our Organization has just learned the consultation, pursuant to S,tctiah 106 of the National Historic Preservation 1kct of 1966, is currently undervay regarding a change to the alignment of the proposed Bridge Street Bypass Road. We undetrstand that this consultation relates to the change to the undertaxing which was initially proposed by the Massachustntts Highway Department in 1998 . We would note that the previously proposed alignment was 1) located a :significant distance from our individually listed Nation;ll Register property at 211 Bridge Street, 2) effective:_y seperated from our historic resource by the buildings of :he Parker Brothers Complex and 3) deter- mined to have "no e::fect" on the First Universalist church. The proposal curriantly being considered as part of the historic review process would locate the five lane Bypass Road immediately aijacent to our church (circa 1806) , thus effecting our setting, and could introduce increased levels of noise, pollution and vibration could adversely effect our historic property and our Congregation. In view �jf our interest and concern with the effect of the Bypass Road on our significant historic resource, we, as repreaentatiVes of the owners and custodians of the First Universalist church, vould respectfully request, pursuant to the Regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservati0n(36 CFR Part 800) at Parts 80asa . 2 ) 6) and800. 3(f ) ( 3) , that we be designated to participate consulting -party regarding . the impact of the proposed realignment of the Bypass Road on significant historic resources . Z '{ INZVOL19 'ON M NIKUY 1UR0IH 1"MA NJ ZE:ZI alll ZO-EI-NIII 06/i412002 14:15 FAX 6179737554 _ MASS.HIGHWAY DEPT HWY EN IR005 2. We would further note : 1_ that f:he existing Memorandum of AgrBement for the Salem.-Beverly Transportation Project does not estab:.ish a process to plan for subsequent discoveries such as the unanticipated effect on histo!:ic properties after the completion of the Section 106 process, 2 . that -,he construction of the Eypass Road has not commenced and that the plane are not finalized,and 3 _ that :,his organization has not been consulted by the M;iesachusetts Highway Department, the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer nor t:ae Salem Historical commission as they have condu =ted deliberations regarding the change to the undertaking's location and its impact on historic properties . Due to t'te seasonal scheduling at the First Universalist :hurch, we would very much appreciate a response to this request to be a consulting party by the third week in June. Most Sincerely, � c Reverend Gail Seavey Minister, First Univeralist church T. William Smith Chair of the House Committee, for the Board of Directors, First Universalist Church cc: Don Klima, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Cara Metz, 'Massachusetts Historic Preservation Officer Thomas Broderick, Massachusetts Highway Department Salem H191,orical commission E 'd tbUt bLI9 '01 IVA RIND PARN9 'I NRUA ➢fid ZPZ1 IlHZ ZO-£i-NIlf Subject: FW: Info on public process regarding Bypass Project/Salem -----Original Message----- From: Joe Walsh Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:59 PM To: Steve McLaughlin (MHD) (E-mail) - Cc: lane Guy Subject: Info on public process regarding Bypass Project/Salem Steve - Thanks for your call. Here is an informal summary for your information of public process surrounding the Bridge Street Bypass. Please note that this is in no way a comprehensive list. I'm sure there are many (many) other meetings and hearings on this topic over the last 20 years that the roadway has been contemplated. But this will certainly give you a sense of the types of meetings that were held in the last few years and the level of public awareness about this project. Included here is information on meetings and hearings held from 1997 to 2002 by MHD, the City Administration, the City Council, the Historic Commission and the Planning Board. In addition, this remains one of the most covered stories in the Salem Evening News during this period, and several Page One Stories with renderings and copies of the roadway plan have appeared during this period. If you need copies of any of the meeting minutes or newspapers articles referred to in here, or of you need a more formal recitation of these events, please let me know. For starters, this list of public meetings starts in 1997-98, when a new alignment for the last few hundred feet of the road was proposed. I picked that start date since, as you know, this is an over a mile long stretch of road, running from the bridge and connecting back to Bridge Street, and the entire Salem Beverly Transportation Project has been reviewed for almost two decades. (For example, then DPW Commissioner Jane Garvey held a public hearing on the entire project at Salem High School on July 9, 1990; the 106 review process was conducted from 1988 to 1992 and incorporated into the MOA of 1992; and the 25% hearing on the design of the bypass itself was held on January 21, 1997 in Salem in City Council Chambers.) The listing here starts following that 1997 25%hearing, because the only significant change of note in the design since then(and since the MOA was signed) is the realignment of a few hundred feet of the terminus of the road. By way of project history, in 1987-89 a viaduct had been added to the bypass section along the river to bring traffic over the railroad tracks and make the terminus of the road at the main Washington Street intersection. It was at the 25%hearing held by MHD in 1997 that several citizens encouraged the state and the city to alter these last few hundred feet of road in order to eliminate the viaduct, open the views of the river, and bringits terminus into Bridge Street and not into the main intersection at Washington Street. (No doubt this new route would have been considered originally, but the Parker Brothers Company was still in business when the road when the viaduct was added in the late 80s; when they closed and the building was demolished, we had the first opportunity to connect the bypass to the downtown by crossing through this site instead of going around it.) Both Mayors - outgoing Mayor Neil Harrington and then Mayor-elect Stan Usovicz -- met with Highway officials and concurred in the proposed new at-grade (no viaduct)terminus alignment. MHD's engineers studied it and included it in the plan as the City's Preferred Alternative. After that decision, here are some public hearings and meetings and notifications that have occurred recently concerning the re-alignment of the Bridge Street Bypass: The Salem Historic Commission - a signatory of the 1992 MOA -- reviewed the alignment plans immediately after they had been proposed in 1998. The Salem Historical Commission(SHC) became formally involved ten years earlier in 1988. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation was executed in 1992, following many months of public meetings held by the Salem Historical Commission, as well as several neighborhood meetings at which SHC representatives were present and various project site visits. As a result of these meetings,the MOA acknowledged that the project"will have an effect upon historic properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places." In 1998, the Salem Historical Commission was provided with a conceptual alternative alignment of the Bridge Street Bypass. At its meetings that summer and again on August 5, 1998, the SHC reviewed the new alignment along with the most recent project design plans. The majority of the length of the roadway which runs along side a residential area was unchanged from the time the MOA was signed; the change in the roadway alignment was in the area that passed through a now open blighted parcel where the Parker Brothers site once stood. Minutes of the meeting show that the Historic Commission "noted that the new alignment will be closer to the First Universalist Church and the Bessie Monroe House, two National Register properties." However, both of those propreties had already been identified in the original 106 review process from 1988-1992, and the Commission noted in its letter to MHD dated August 6, 1998 (letter available), that "the alternative alignment will provide an opportunity for a coordinated development of the Parker Brothers site and proposed new MBTA garage. This coordination of development in itself would have a mitigating effect for the historic properties." The one new issue raised by the Commission was concern for the stone wall of the nearby Howard Street Burial Ground, which the new alignment was now closer too, noting the wall "is already in a state of deterioration." The SHC's August 6, 1998 letter officially asked that MHD take that historic resource into consideration in the roadway's on-going design. (MHD responded to this issue by committing to the repair of the wall and the creation of a small triangular park space between the wall and the roadway.) • In addition to the HisCom, the Salem City Council has held several meetings regarding this alignment and the entire project. In addition it has received tremendous coverage by the local newspaper,the Salem Evening News. This was especially true in 1999: In the early months of 1999, there was a lengthy period of debate by local officials concerning the new alignment. Salem residents were able to follow the ongoing discussions through various newspaper articles regarding the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project and the pending development of the Parker Brothers site. As a result, a public hearing of the City Council's Committee on Community and Economic Development was held on April 14, 1999 and the proposed alignment change was printed in the Salem Evening News on the day of the public hearing (attached). This was one of several public hearings held by the City Council regarding this project and focusing on the new terminus alignment. This process was covered in the Salem Evening News, the local paper, extensively at this time: In July, 1999, Secretary Kevin Sullivan notified Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr. in a letter that he had received support to proceed from State Representative J. Michael Ruane,the Salem Chamber of Commerce and the Counsel for the developers of the Parker Brothers site. The new alignment was printed in the Salem Evening News on two other occasions including on July, 16, 1999, where it was printed on the front page. Copies of these three articles are available. In addition, Mayor Usovicz wrote an op-ed on the road way and its importance to Salem. A drawing of the roadway noting the new alignment was printed with the article. Along with the SHC review and the 1999 debate within the city council, there have been numerous recent opportunities for the public to be informed of the status of this . project and to review and comment on the alternative alignment. The Planning Board held several meetings in 2000: • The Salem Planning Board provided extensive opportunity for public review and comment when a development proposal for the old Parker Brothers Site was formally reviewed. That project -- to build 266 units of housing, plus a coffee shop, bank and other retail -- is being built along either side of the new proposed alignment. For that reason,the site plan reviewed by the planning board (and every rendering and plan published in the environmental documents as well as in the newspapers) specifically highlighted the proposed new alignment. Specifically, five months of public hearings (February 3, 2000 through June 15, 2000), which were advertised as well as reported on in the Salem Evening News, were conducted by the Salem Planning Board regarding the development of the Parker Brother site by JPI Associates. One session was held at Old Town Hall to allow for the nearly two hundred or so people who attended. (Minutes and the final decisions, as well as articles about the project, are available). • Also in 2000, the City Council held another public meeting with representatives of the District Office of MHD to discuss the alignment and the entire project. (I believe Stephen O'Donnell represented MHD). More recently, as MHD moved the project forward and released the 75%plan, several more hearings and meetings were held by MassHighway and the Salem Department of Planning and Community Development. Of note in 2001 are: In October 2001, MHD held a neighborhood meeting at the Carlton School, in the Bridge Street Neck neighborhood, where Steve McLaughlin, George Batchelor, and Frank Astone of E&K presented the 75%plans. As we noted at that meeting, a 75% public meeting is not required and was an extraordinary public outreach effort, in my opinion. As you remember, the school gymnasium was packed. Following that meeting, several neighborhood associations -meeting together as a Neighborhood Coalition--met to write a comment memo on the 75% plans to MHD. That is the document you have been using to amend the 75%plans. At this date, all of the several pages of specific comments have been addressed, nearly all of them 100% responsive to the residents changes. Most significantly, the number of lanes was reduced, a 2+ acre park was added in the neighborhood, historic style lighting and guardrails were added the length of the roadway and the cemetery wall repair was included. On December 10, 2001 the City Council convened as a Committee of the Whole, holding an open public meeting to discuss this project. I personally presented MHD's 75%plans, answered questions from councilors. I gave an update on the responses we had to that date from MHD regarding the residents' memo. Several hours of public comment followed before the meeting ended. • For 30 days, in conjunction with the December hearing, copies of the plans as well as a wall-sized rendering of the roadway were on display in City Hall Annex for public review. I made the announcement at the plans availability at l f the public meetings and it was also reported in the Salem News. Finally, in 2002, following our MOA conference, the Salem Historic Commission just held two public meetings where residents again were afforded the opportunity to comment on the impact of the roadway on historic resources as the SHC reviewed the project for consistency with the MOA. I know this is not an exhaustive listing, but I think it give you a sense of the number of public meetings and hearings - held by MHD, the City, The City Council, The Historic Commission and the Planning Board-- over the last 4 years especially, during the time Mayor Usovicz has been in office. These meetings do not of course include the dozens of neighborhood meetings and small group discussions that the Ward 2 City Councilor and I have held over the last few years. The Mayor and Administration are certainly satisfied that opportunity for extensive public review and comment have been provided the residents of Salem on this project, and we look forward to a speedy start to its construction -- after more than 20 years of planning! I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information. Joe Walsh Joseph P. Walsh Director, Department of Planning and Community Development City of Salem, Massachusetts *13Simofick�1t m P.O. Box 865 incorporated Salem, M4 01970 0799 Telephone: (978) 745-0799 April 10, 2002 BY FAX 617-494-3355 Page 1 of 2 Mr. Stanley Gee Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 55 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02142 Re: Bridge Street By-Pass Road project, Salem,MA Dear Mr. Gee: By a resolution of the Board of Directors of Historic Salem Inc. on April 8, 2002, we request the opportunity to participate in the Section 106 review process for the Salem Bridge Street By-Pass Road project. We believe that the project may have an adverse effect on National Register listed and National Register eligible properties. Historic Salem, Inc. is the City of Salem's non-profit preservation advocacy organization, with more than 750 individual, family and corporate members. Founded in 1944, Historic Salem, Inc. is one of the nation's oldest preservation organizations. Historic Salem, Inc.'s mission is to ensure that the historic resources of Salem, which are the key to its identity, its quality of life, and its economic vitality, are preserved for future generations, and that new development complements the historic character of the City. Historic Salem, Inc. has been instrumental in saving numerous historic properties, including the ca. 1675 "Witch House"(Johnathan Corwin House),the ca. 1805 Bowditch-Osgood House(home of the famed astronomer and mathematician,Nathaniel Bowditch, author of"The New American Practical Navigator"), as well as the Narbonne House at the Salem Maritime National Historic Site and the Pickman House on Charter Street. In 1977, Historic Salem Inc. published The Salem Handbook, a guide to historically sensitive home renovation and architectural survey work, and was instrumental in the creation of the Salem Historical Commission and the establishment of the numerous historic districts that have followed. Historic Salem, Inc. publishes an annual Most Endangered Historic Resources List, and maintains a House Plaque Program,which has provided research for more than 600 historic structures in Salem. Given our longstanding involvement in the preservation of historic resources in the City of Salem, we are greatly concerned about the potential impacts the proposed Bridge Street By-Pass Road project will have on many of the historic resources in our community. We recently became aware that in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Massachusetts Highway Department(MassHighway) has submitted a proposed revision to the Bridge Street By-Pass Road project to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). As you are probably aware, the By-Pass Road project is a follow-up to the Beverly-Salem Bridge project, constructed Fax: (978) 744-4536 ' Email: hsi@nii.net - Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/ April 10, 2002 Mr. Stanley Gee Federal Highway Administration Page 2 by the MassHighway in the early 1990s. As a result of the Beverly-Salem Bridge project, a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)was signed in 1992 by three signatories: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP), and the State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO). In addition, the following entities were concurring parties to the 1992 MOA: MassHighway,the Salem Planning Department, the Salem Historical Commission and the Beverly Historic District Commission. Since the MOA was executed in 1992, several significant changes have occurred locally regarding the identification of historic resources. Specifically, an expansion to the existing Salem Common National Register listed Historic District has been approved by the MHC, and is expected to be submitted to the National Park Service in the coming weeks for formal designation. Similarly, a proposal to list Bridge Street Neck as National Register Eligible has been approved by MHC, and will also be submitted to the National Park Service in the coming weeks for formal designation. Both of these significant historic resources need to be taken into consideration in the review of the proposed revisions to the Bridge Street By-Pass Road project. While not having the opportunity to review the project plans, we understand the revisions, first proposed in 1998, include an alteration to the alignment of the roadway, moving a 2,000 foot portion of the new road from the edge of the North River southward, substantially closer to numerous National Register listed properties as well as the two pending National Register eligible historic districts mentioned above. These impacts need to be taken into consideration as part of the on going Section 106 review process. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(6)of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Salem, Inc. respectfully requests the opportunity to participate in the on-going Section 106 consultation process. Therefore, Historic Salem, Inc. would appreciate the opportunity to participate in meetings held between FHWA, MassHighway and MHC regarding the Bridge Street By-Pass Road project. Thank you in advance for your sistance in addressing thi mportant i Sincerely, ooh�!. off argaret S. Twohey Ex ve Director President cc: Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz, City of Salem Regina Flynn, President, Salem City Council Don Klimer, Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Cara Metz, Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Brona Simon, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, MHC James Scanlon, Acting Secretary, Executive Office of Transportation and Construction John Cogliano, Acting Commissioner, Massachusetts Highway Department Thomas F. Broderick, Chief Engineer, Massachusetts Highway Department Gregory Prendergast, Deputy Chief Engineer, MassHighway Environmental Lance Kasparian, Chairman, Salem Historical Commission Joseph Walsh, City Planner, Salem Planning Department r � — } ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI Tel: (617) 727-9800 GOVERNOR - Fax: (617) 727-2754 TRUDY COXE htip://www,magnet.state.ma.us/envir SECRETARY September 25, 1998 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE PROJECT NAME : Salem-Beverly Transportation Project PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Salem/Beverly PROJECT WATERSHED : North Coastal EOEA NUMBER : 756 PROJECT PROPONENT : Massachusetts Highway Department DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR August 25, 1998 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L. c .30, ss . 61-62H) and Section' 11.10 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11 . 00) , I have reviewed the Notice of Project Change (NPC) submitted on this project and hereby determine that it does not require the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report . As proposed in 1974, the project involved construction of a connector road from Route 128 to and including the construction of a new Salem/Beverly Bridge over the North River. The Department of Public Works proposal to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project was accepted, if the project were not segmented, by a statement of the Secretary on the Environmental Assessment Form issued May 14, 1974 . On October 6, 1975 the Secretary issued a statement that the Draft EIR was not adequate . On January 14, 1982 the Secretary issued a Certificate that the Final EIR was not adequate and required the preparation of a Supplemental EIR. On July 14, 1982 the Secretary issued a Certificate that the Supplemental FEIR was adequate . On December 31, 1987 the Department of Public Works filed a Notice of Project Change describing the determination in 1982 to eliminate the connector to Route 128 and to extend the roadway in Salem south to Boston Street . The proposal involved filling of wetlands and the Department proposed to prepare an additional Pnnm m ReCOW Sock PDX Post Go Us w e EDEA #756 NPC Certificate September 25, 1998 Supplemental EIR. A scope for the Supplemental EIR was issued March 11, 1988 by the Secretary. A Certificate determining an adequate Draft SEIR was issued August 2, 1990, and a Certificate determining an adequate Final SEIR was issued June 14, 1991 . The current NPC describes a change in alignment of the connector roadway south of the bridge. The alignment described in the Final SEIR was to follow the MBTA right-of-way, fronting on the Parker Brothers site. It involved a single four-way-intersection with Washington Street, to replace the existing rotary, and it would have taken 3 .4 acres from the Parker Brothers site. Since the FSEIR preparation, the Parker Brothers site has been cleared for marketing by its new owners, Hasbro Corp. Consequently, the community requested the new alignment of the By-Pass described in this NPC, which would cut across the Parker Brothers site and become part of Bridge Street near St . Peter Street . Bridge .Street near Howard Street would bend to form a new 4-way signalized intersection with the By-Pass . A leg of this intersection would provide a new site access for the Parker Brothers site . The unsignalized intersection with St . Peter-. - Street would become signalized. The Washington Street/Bridge Street intersection and rotary would become a 3-way signalized intersection. The new preferred alignment would require 4 .2 acres from the 15 acre Parker Brothers site; improve intersection level of service (LOS) ; not change the travel time for the roadway segment; improve pedestrian access; eliminate construction of a roadway bridge; and save $2 .6 million. The alternative will place the roadway closer to two historic structures, impacts on which will be mitigated during the Section 106 process . Based on a review of the information provided by the proponent and consultation with relevant public agencies, I find that the potential impacts of the project are not significant enough to warrant preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. No further MEPA review is required. However, I note that there is a current proposal to construct a new 1000-car garage for the MBTA immediately to the west of the Parker Brothers site, serving the Salem commuter rail station (EDEA File #11760) . The garage has been designed to accommodate an access bridge from Bridge Street, at approximately the location of the Washington Street/Bridge Street intersection. 2 SII 4- Y 1' EOEA #756 NPC Certificate September 25, 1998 The final intersection design should accommodate both vehicle access to the garage and pedestrian access to the MBTA station. I expect the proponent and its sister transportation agency will work closely and expeditiously, so that the full transportation environmental, and economic benefits of both projects can be realized. The proponent should also. continue to work with the historic agencies to minimize impacts to the historic properties, and to coordinate the final roadway design with planning for the redevelopment of the Parker Brothers site. The MIM and any other state agency required to act on the project should prepare revised Section 61 Findings to include the revised alignment of the project utilizing the EIR and NPC commitments . The Findings should be provided to my office as required by Section 11 . 12 (5) e of the MEPA regulations . o Note that Section 11 . 08 (9) requires notification of commencement of construction. This should apply to the revised alignment . September 25 , 1998 DATE J®rudy Coxe Comments received Salem Historical Commission - 8/6/98 MCZM - 9/14/98 MAPC - 9/15/98 CC: MBTA EOTC TC/DES/ds 3 Commonweafth of MOSSOChusett$ Executive office of Environmental Affairs Department of � Environmental Protection WIIIUm F. Weld Go 0,,j,l S.Gp•nbwm December 7, 1992 conv Massachusetts Highway Department c/o Edwards & Kelcey, Inc. The Schrafft Center 529 Main Street Boston, MA 02129 Attn: Robert J. Joseph RE: Waterways Application. No. W92-1400/License No. 3146 North River, Salem, Essex County Dear Sir: The Department of Environmental Protection has approved the enclosed referenced license authorizing you to perform certain activities pursuant to G.L. chapter 91 and regulations. 310 CMR 9.00. Any unauthorized substantial change in use or substantial structural alteration of any structure or fill authorized by this license shall render it void. Furthermore, this license must be recorded at the referenced Registry of Deeds within 60 days from date of issuance. Work or change in use authorized by this license shall not commence until said license and plans are recorded and the Department has received written notification of the date, book and page number of record. Please complete and return the enclosed Notification Form to this office. You are also required to notify the Department in writing of the date the authorized work or change in use is completed. Sincerely, 4Jn A. Simpson tion Chief Waterways Regulation Program JAS/RP/rp cc: DEP-Region NE, Wetlands File Nos. 64-197 & 5-388 U. S. ACOE, Regulatory Functions Branch w/enc. office of Coastal Zone Management w/enc. Salem Harbormaster _ MEPA Unit, EOEA No. 0756 On•vVint•t Str•st • Boston,Massaehumn:6 02100 • FAX(617)558.1019 • T•1•phon•(6177)x7)-WW I � • - A John A. Simpson, Section Chief Waterways Regulation Program Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02108 RE: Waterways Application No. W92-1400/License No. 3146 North River, Salem, County of Essex Dear Mr. Simpson: This is to notify you that the referenced license was recorded on 1/12/93 book number 11698 page number(s) 195 We will notify your office in writing of the date the authorized work or'change in use is completed. Sincerely, JAS/ i Robot G. Neiley, City of Beverly Massachusetts William`'" ' / 1V illimn PinchCha Historic District Commission Vice)allies - Jamess BBailey City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA o1915 Eli:abcth F. Clark John Condon John Prates Carole Schaeffer: Atenniers April 14, 1992 Margaret A. Albee Larry J. Simpson Alrern,nes Ms. Anne Weinheimer Eastern Office of Project Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Old Post Office 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW#809 �® Washington, D.C. 20004 �p �99� Subject: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project; Comments re. draft M`OIgGO Dear Anne: t The Beverly Historic District Commission has received copies of the comments from the consulting parties regarding the Council's draft MOA for the referenced project. The Commission was surprised that the joint comments of the Massachusetts Highway Department and the FHWA suggested major revisions that are at substantial variance with the Council's Draft and with our understanding of the consensus that was reached at the last Consultation Meeting. In,order to-thoroughly review the MHD proposal and its impact on the MOA as it would effect Beverly,.the BHDC requests the Advisory Council to allow 30 days for review and response before issuing a revised MOA. Sincerely, William B. Finch, Chairman cc: Judith B.McDonough,MHC Mr. Arthur Churchill, FHWA Mr. James Elliot, MDPW Ms. Annie C. Harris, SHC t' Ms.Jane Guy,SPD i Ilobcn C. Nciley ChaiCity of Beverly, Massachusetts wkiliaIn Pinch Historic District Commission ChJ1fnIJf1 City Hall 191 Cabot Street Beverly, MA o1 1 Fli�A th F. . ' ' 9 5 ElixabcQ, F. Clark John Condon March 18, 1992John Pines Ciwle Schicil r Ms. Anne Weinheimer Members Eastern Office of Project Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation htugsiet A. Albee The Old Post Office Lioy I Shnp{un 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #809 nheinxes Washington, D.C. 20004 Subject: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project; MOA Dear Anne: The Beverly Historic District Commission has reviewed the draft MOA for the referenced project,and is in general concurrence with it. The Commission does request some additional wording under Section II.A., Items 2-6,to further clarify the considerations to be included in the Treatment Plan. The suggested additions arc printed in italics in paragraphs 2 - 6 below. 2. Lighting. The use and placement of bridge lighting standards, including light intensity and color tonperahure, and directional signage that would reduce the perceived elevation of the bridge profile The use of cobra arm standards should be avoided. ti 3. Barriers. Reevaluation of the use, type, and location of road barriers and rails in the median strip and at side edges, to determine whether they would be desirable, safe,and effective, and if so, what design would be most compatible with the historic district. The use of jersey barriers should be limited or avoided if at all possible. 4. Pedestrian Access. Enhancement of pedestrian access to the bridge and to the Ferry Way Landing to afford a safe and inviting access to both. 5. Landscaping. Development of a comprehensive landscaping scheme that would use indigenous species and decorative plantings as well as appropriate paving materials and hard design elements to mute the expanse of approach road surface, wing walls, and abutments, and enhance the gateway character of the approach location. u 6. Signage. The use of interpretive signage to show the uniqueness of the Historic District and its relationship to the early formation of the atba' Traffic signage should be designed and located so as to not dominate the approach roadway and to be in scale with the adjacent Historic District. The use of overhead sign masts should be avoided. Please let us know if there are any problems with these additions. r Sincerely, _ Vf t,_3 t; cc: Judith B. McDonough, MHC a . 0 , Mr. Arthur Churchill, FHWA 12 — Mr. James Elliot, MDPW Z rr'AR 2 J 1992 Ms. Annie C. Harris, SHC William B. Finch, Chairman 4,e-115s.Jane Guy,SPI) r 1'— CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0-141n,8"s WILLIAM E. LUSTERONE SALEM GREEN City Planner 01970 1 (508) 745-9595, EXT. 311 FAX (508) 744-5918 March 16, 1992 Don Klima Director, Eastern Office of Project Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809 Washington, DC 20004 RE: Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Salem/Beverly Transportation Project Dear Mr. Klima: The Salem Planning Department is in receipt and support of the Draft MOA for the Salem/Beverly Transportation Project. As City Planner, I feel that, as written, it will provide an expedient resolution to the ongoing concerns of the parties involved, without further hindering the progress of the review processes . I would like to offer the following comments : I .A. - Add to this paragraph, before the last line: "Consultation should include, but not be limited to, lighting, pedestrian walkways, curbcuts and curbing, planting materials, waterfront park design, traffic signals, and other roadway design details (number of lanes, width, setbacks, viaduct design, etc. ) . " I .A. l . - " . . .style and scale compatible. . . " should read " . . .style, scale and location compatible. . . " I .A. 3 . - " . . .to provide a visual buffer. . . " should read " . . .to provide a year-round visual buffer. . . " . Add to the paragraph: "The median strip and buffer should be thickly planted with mature trees and shrubs . " The City of Salem has attempted to be a positive participant in the Section 106 Review Process . Representatives have worked to be realistic with regard to the project design, while trying to keep the best interests of Salem' s residents and Salem' s historic fabric foremost. This has resulted in practical compromises that produced workable solutions . Representatives of the City of Salem will be made available to provide the necessary assistance to the FHWA and the MDPW during the completion of the design phase. We look forward to a final design that is the outcome of continued cooperative consultation among the interested parties . We expect that this will result in long-awaited high speed access that was designed in the best interest of the community. Thank you for your consideration. , Sincerely, iam Luster ity Planner cc: A. Churchill, FHWA J. Elliott, MDPW J. Orfant, MDPW J. McDonough, MHC B. Simon, MHC W. Finch, BHDC A. Harris, SHC J. Guy, SPD JG\JG\MGAltz 0U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION ONE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER 55 BROADWAY, 101E FLOOR CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02142 BR-F-54 (085) IN ma NMN ie: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project HB-MA January 17, 1992 Mr. Don L. Klima, Director Eastern Office of Project Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Old Post Office Suildi.na 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW f809 Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Mr. Klima: Thank you for your December 26, 1991 letter and comments concerning the Salem/Beverly Transportation Project and its potential for effects to significant historic properties. All consulting parties are in agreement that the project will have no effect to the Federal Street Historic District, the First Universalist Church, the Bessie Monroe House, the Pce-Nichols House, the Revolutionary War Plague and Blubber Ho low. These properties are either listed in the National Register of Historic Places or their potential for historical significance has been discussed. All parties also agree concerning the finding of no adverse effect for the McIntire Historic District and the Chestnut Street Historic District and Addition. This finding is conditioned by the offer of the Federal Highway Administration and Massachusetts Highway Department to submit to the Salem Historical Commission and the MA. SHPO for review, landscaping, lighting,. and sign plans for the relocated Bridge Street. The Salem Signal Tower was submitted to the Keeper in accordance with 800.4 (c) (4) to resolve the dispute over relevant National Register Criteria. The so-called North River Canal was also submitted to the Keeper, but at your direction consistent with 800.6(e) (3) . Acting on your recommendation, we invite the MA. SHPO, Beverly Historic District Commission, . the Salem Historical Commission and the ACHP to a meeting with FHWA and the MDPW on February 19, 10 a.m. , in Room 4260, at the MDPW, 10 Park Plaza, Boston. We hope this meeting will resolve the outstanding issues. Also, we may hear from the Keeper of the Register regarding the Tower and "Canal" before this meeting, so that any effects to these properties may also be discussed. -more- -2- In preparation for this meeting, we would appreciate your definitive response to certain issues. Temporarily putting aside the question of the Tower and "Canal", we still disagree about the effects to the Rantoul Street Historic District and the Fish Flake Hill Historic District. FHWA and the MDPW maintain that the project will have "no effect" to any significant historic or architectural features of the Rantoul Street area. Further, we do not understand why the project can have "no adverse effect" on the Rantoul Street area and yet can have an "adverse effect" on the adjacent Fish Flake Hill District. FHWA and the MDPW believe that the project will have "no effect" on the significant characteristics o's the Fish Flake Hill District that make it eligible for listing in the National Register. This conclusion is supported by additional historical research into the significance of the area as well as an analysis of the current setting of the District prepared by the Department. This information was submitted to you previously as part of the 106 documentation. To understand the findings of the SHPO, we require a response to our analysis and a statement identifying significant features of both districts thought to be affected as well as a listing of project aspects resulting in these effects. To date, the SHPO has not provided this necessary information. The Council's commentary has been equally non-specific. The statement in your December 26, 1991 letter that, "In cases where a SHPO objects to an agency's determination of 'no effect' , our regulations specify that it must be assumed that an effect has been found. . . ," causes us great concern. We do not believe that the SHPO's nor the Council's assumption meet the requirements of 800.9(a) : An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. For the purpose of determining effect, alteration to features of the property's location, setting, or use may be relevant depending on a property's significant characteristics and should be considered. -3- We look forward to your response as well as your participation at the consultation meeting. Resolving these questions is crucial to successful completion of this and future project reviews. Sincerely yours, Donald E. Hammer, Acting Division Administrator By: A. R.C�ill--C[� District Engineer pc: Mr. Jeffrey E. Firmin - Region w/attachment and two (2) copies d Mr. F. Bracaglia - MDPW U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CEI V 1 D FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION ONE TRANSPORTA71ON SYSTEM CENTER NOV 27 1991 35 BROADWAY, 10TH FLOOR CAM MGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02142 AAASS. HIST. COMM. IN IIi�L1 evu 70: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project HB-MA Massachusetts BR-F-54 (085) November 19, 1991 Mr. Don L. Klima, Director Eastern Office of Project Review 602" EIV Advisory council on Historic Preservation The old Post office DEC 3 1991 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW ,#809 Washington, D.C. 20004 SALEM PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Klima: We request the comments. of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the Salem/Beverly Transportation Project. We have received the comments of the SHPO; copies of that correspondence (June 17, 1991) request for comments by us, the June 28, 1991 response from the SHPO, the July 25, 1991 request for clarification by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) , and the revised October 21, 1991 SHPO clarification are enclosed. We are bringing the project to the attention of the council because we disagree with the findings of effect by the SHPO. There has already been considerable consultation on this project. Anne Weinheimer of your staff made an on-site review on May 17, 1991. The following day there was a consultation meeting with the consulting parties, where the FHWA/MDPW and SHPO findings of effect were reviewed and discussed. The SHPO correspondence, identified above, illustrates the divergent opinions and explains the basis for the FHWA/MDPW findings of effect and our reasons for contesting the finding of the SHPO in the instance of the proposed bridge and its presumed effect on the Fish Flake Hill District in Beverly. The project and our effect findings are adequately described in the materials which have already been sent to you. These include the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) , Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) , the 106 Documentation prepared by the MDPW, the MDPW response to comments by consulting and interested parties on the 11106 Documentation" and project plans. -more- ZOa ''tI 0XnO0 &V O'S 'T. naV Wa 0S TO T6 'LZ T-T -2- We have the following comments about the effects of the project on National Register properties. We concur with the SHPO findings of "no effect" on the Federal Street Historic District, Bessie Monroe House and the First Universalist Church. We also concur with the findings of "conditional no adverse effect" on the Chestnut/McIntire Historic Dsitricts. In the instance of the Chestnut/McIntire Districts, the condition is a review by the SHPo and the Salem Historical Commission of landscaping, lighting and sign plans for the relocated Bridge Street. The absence of a final design plan creates sufficient uncertainty to rule out the "no affect" finding which would normally be appropriate for this action. Conditioned "no adverse effect" findings provide satisfactory safeguards and means to avoid adverse effects. In regard to the Salem Signal Tower, we disagree with SHPO opinion about the eligibility of the Tower as expressed in her recent correction to her October 21, 1991 letter. We maintain that the Tower is eligible, but only under Criteria A and C, not Criteria A, C and D, and that the Tower does not retain integrity of location or setting. We do concur to a finding of "conditional no adverse effect" with a condition of developing a tower relocation plan to be reviewed and approved by the SHPO. The absence of final design plans for Bridge Street Connector and an approved tower relocation plan create sufficient uncertainty to eliminate "no effect" findings which we believe would be appropriate for this action. Conditioned "no adverse effect" findings provide satisfactory safeguards and means to avoid adverse effects. FHWA and MDPW continue to find that the proposed bridge will have "no effect" on the Fish Flake Hill District in Beverly. We believe that this finding is supported by the location of the proposed bridge in reference to the historic orientation of the District and the overall lack of integrity of the historic setting of the District. These points are elaborated fully in the Section 1o6 documentation already in the Council 's possession. The alternative bridge designs have been exhaustively examined in the original Draft and Final EIS as well as the supplemental Draft and Final EIR. We believe that further evaluation or-re-examination of these alternatives is of no benefit. With reference to the sHpo comments of October 21, 19911 we are not opposed to reasonable enhancement of the "gateway" . Landscaping and design plans for the Beverly approaches can be made available for review by the SHPO and the Beverly Historic District Commission. Consistent with the finding of "no effect" on the Fish Flake Hill District, we find that the proposed bridge will have "no effect" on the Rantoul Street houses. MDPW has sent to the Keeper of the, Register for evaluation, documentation for the Salem Signal Tower_ as required b 800.4 (c) (4) , and documentation for the North River "Canal" as y soa ZIONnOD &WCSX norm v,Ta09 To 16 'LZ ' TT -3- requested by you under 800.6(a) (3) . The Phase I/II archaeological field work for the Beverly portion of the project area has been completed. The MDPW is reviewing a report prepared by PAL, Inc. and will forward it to us and the SHPO and State Archaeologist upon completion. We are informed that there were no significant sites found and the report recommends no further archaeological work. The Section 106 findings for the tower, "Canal", and the Phase I/II archaeology will be processed after our consideration of the Keeper _and the State Archaeologist's comments. The Salem/Beverly Transportation Project has been under intensive public scrutiny and review for over ten years. The original (1981) Section 106 review of the project resulted in a finding of "no effect" for a project substantially the same as the current one (a high level, fixed span bridge) . During the course of the current review all previous alternatives have been re-examined and the project has undergone revisions that have reduced its impacts and which we believe have successfully addressed outstanding environmental and historical issues. It will provide badly needed bridge and traffic improvements to the Beverly/Salem area. This project has successfully completed all required environmental reviews and has been through Section 106 review. Further delay is not in the public interest and will not result in significant improvement to the project. For these reasons we believe that the project warrants an expeditious review by the Council. if you should have any questions regarding aspects of the project, our findings or the project documentation, please contact Arthur Churchill of my staff at 617-494-2528, (FTS 837-2528) . Sincerely yours, Donald E. Hammer, Acting Division Administrator By: A. R. Churchill District Engineer pc: Mr. James Elliott (with attachments) MDPW Mr. Jeffrey Firmin (with attachments) Region HPP-01 T, 0 a -7 1 O H n v+t a U 9 t 0 Z 6 •L"'�"' U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION rEDERAI NIGNWA♦ ADMINISTRATION REGION ONE Votpe Eetimel Trw%portatim System Cater 55 11rou6ny 111th floor Cee6ritlpe. NA 02142 Mass Project BR-F-54(085) Beverly-Salem HB-MA September 19, 1991 Mr. Don L. Klima, Director Eastern Office of Project Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, $809 Washington, D. C. 20004 Dear Mr. Klima: Your letter of August 5, 1991 acknowledged receipt of information which we submitted to Massachusetts SHPO regarding our determination that the above project will have no effect on historic properties identified in the project area. You also suggested that we seek a determination from the Keeper of the National Register concerning eligibility of the North River Canal for listing as requested by Mr. James R. Treadwell of Salem inasmuch as it was the Council ' s belief that the Treadwell of, had merit. The attached copy of a letter from the Massachusetts Department of Public Works expresses disagreement with your position and provides additional data to support a conclusion that the North River Canal is not eligible for listing in the National Register. On the basis of this data, developed as a result of the research conducted by the Department and supported by the findings of the City's .private' historic consultant, as well as the documented concurrence of the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Salem Historic Commission, we agree that the property is ineligible for listing in the National Register. We request that you review this matter and we will greatly appreciate any additional comments you may have at an early date so that we can complete the historic review requirements for this project as expeditiously as possible. Sincerely yours, Donald E. Hammer, Acting Division Administrator By: A. R. Churchill District Engineer U. S. DEPARTMENT- OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL. HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION ONE Q TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER. � 4 i Ill�p -55BROADWAY, 10THFLOOR CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS02142 IN REPLY REFER TO! Br-F-54 (085) , Beverly-Salem HB-MA July 31.: 1991,�.�"-.. _. .. Ms. Judith B. McDonough, Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street 4tj -09) Boston, Massachusetts 02116 `SS:H�S Dear Ms. McDonough: T C.0M4 The attached copy of a. July 25, 1991 letter from the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) requests clarification of numerous comments and background for several assertions with. respect to your determinations of the effect of this project on the identified historical properties in the impacted area. t We are requesting your response to the issues . raised by the Department .so that we may complete the Section 106 documentation and submit our findings to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for review in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5 (d) (1) . It is our intent to submit this data to the Council by August 30, 1991 and we will greatly appreciate receipt of any additional comments you may wish to provide by that date. Sincerely yours, -____Anthony J. Fusco - Division Administrator By: A. R. Churchill District Engineer Attachment WILLIAM F.WELD e Z s GOVERNOR Aye t _ AFGEO PAUL CELLUCCI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 14 RICHARD L.TAYLOR SECRETARY — JAMESJ.KERASIOr'cS - COMM158.01.ER u - July 25, 1991 Mr. Anthony J. Fusco, ------- Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 55 Broadway, 10th Floor Cambridge, MA. 02142 I ATTN: Arthur Churchill RE: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project Dear Mr. Fusco: The Cultural Resources Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works reviewed the MHC comments of June 28; 1991 concerning the effects of the Salem/Beverly Transportation 1 Project on numerous National Register properties. We request that. MHC clarify numerous j comments and provide background for severalassertions. Our specific requests for t clarifications are as follows. n ; *Bridge Street Widening and the McIntire, Chestnut Street and Federal Street Historic Districts. The MHC comments assert that the widening and relocation of Bridge Street will "tend to isolate the historic district..." From what, will the historic district be isolated? In documentation submitted to MHC, we addressed the issue of the lack of integrity of the setting of the district along Bridge Street. Is it their contention that the setting isintact? Are they implying that the district will be isolated from the current condition of polluted l river channel, overgrown, weed choked railroad right-of-way, abandoned factory and junk yards? Are they suggesting that these features add to the overall historic and architectural.significance of the.District? Further, since the bulk of the proposed action E R Anthony J. Fusco Salem/Beverly Transportation Project July 25, 1991 will occur at grade, MHC should identify what;elements of the proposedproject will have an isolating effect. Does MHC contend that the effect will result from the relocation of the roadway and railroad tracks away from the edge of the district, from the associated landscaping or from the wetland restoration? The issue of the integrity of the setting and the features of the project are critical; I refer to 800.9(b)(3), on the Criteria of Adverse Effect which states: Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the National Register. Looking at the Bridge Street edge of the District, and looking at its historical development, we concluded that the setting is not intact in this area, and is not a character defining feature. There is no opportunity for isolation without an intact setting, thus no effect from the action. We agree with the finding of "no effect" to the Federal Street.Historic District because, just as to the south at the McIntire/Chestnut District, the project borders the District but, the setting is not intact or character defining. We question how the interpretation of the i Criteria by MHC can be so radically different for two:adjoining historic districts which s border the same proposed action and share the identical altered, non-contributing setting. The MHC should be requested to provide a detailed analysis of their application of the Criteria for these two areas as well as an explanation of the different effect' determinations. i ®Salem Signal Tower The application of the Criteria of Effect to the proposed action on the Salem Signal t Tower fails to thoroughly account for the historic characteristics of the property. ficance: The Salem Signal Tower is a moved To reiterate our position on its signi1 structure. The equipment associated with its major period of historical' significance has been removed. The conditions and character of its setting have been substantially altered. The Criteria Considerations of the National Register Regulations are unambiguous. 2 e Anthony J. Fusco Salem/Beverly Transportation Project July 25, 1991 Criteria Consideration B provides that building or structure removed from its original location is not eligible for the National Register unless it is significant primarily for its architectural value or it is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic .person or event. This consideration recognizes that the original locations of most historic properties contribute to their significance, so that their relocation may effectively sever them from their significant associations. A structure: significant for its architecture without reference to its surroundings may be eligible for the National Register even if it has been moved, however, and if there is no other building to represent a particular important event or person, a relocation building may be registered. MHC has directed us to seek a Determination of Eligibility from the Keeper .of the Register because the application of National Register Criteria is in dispute. It is premature of MHC to apply Criteria of Effect without the.establishment of the Tower's significance by the Keeper. If the Keeper finds the Tower eligible it must be despite its alterations, lack of original location, alterations to setting, and lack of significance defining equipment. Location can not be a factorin the significance of the Salem Tower, according to the Consideration above. A move„with the appropriate safeguards as n proposed, will have no effect on the characteristics of significance that qualify the Tower for possible inclusion in the Register. We see agreement in principle with this position as evidenced in the comments of the MHC: "...the adverse effect is acceptable. The fact that the Tower has already been moved in the past further strengthens this determination." Our disagreement lies in MHC's mis-application of the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect; a finding of adverse effect is not,substantiated by the Regulations„ significance of the property or the aspects of the project. MHC has also.requested "thata detailed reuse plan be developed for the structure which will insure its continued viability and active use;" It is the operations of the MBTA and not the proposed action under discussion, that result in the Tower being taken out of t "active use." Accordingly, insuring "viability and active use" of historic properties in its ownership is the concern of the MBTA. *New Beverly-Salem Bridge and the Fish Flake Hill Historic District and So-Called "Rantoul Street Historic District." i The MHC asserts that the project will "have an adverse Effect on Fish Flake Hill Historic District by isolating the historic district from its setting and by introducing elements which are out of character with the district and its setting." But again they have E 3 w . Anthony J. Fusco Salem/Beverly Transportation Project July 25, 1991 failed to identify the significant features or characteristics of the setting or to respond to the changes and actual character of that setting.` Our documentation discusses historic precedent for defining the setting'of'the present District as well as establishing the lack of integrity of the modern setting. Their comments overlook that discussion. They also state that the "bridge will be very visible from the district." and "...will be very visible from major overlooks within the Fish Flake Hill district as well as from views outside the district, e.g., from Salem, the harbor, and the Danvers River looking toward the . district." These so-called "overlooks" are not identified in any historical or, National Register documentation for the District. This is the first time we have heard the use of this term. Their significance to the District has not been established. Our historical research and documentation has established that the primary orientation of the Historic District is 6 towards the working harbor which begins several hundred feet east of the bridge location. I Similarly, the significance of the view of the District from outside vantages has not been defined nor have these viewing points been adequately identified, e:g. "from Salem, the harbor, and the Danvers River..." Substantial photographic documentation which we i submitted demonstrates that the view towards the District from the Harbor is dominated i by the boatyards, McDonald's Restaurant and substantial modern condominiums. In a these photos only fragmented views of a few District buildings are visible and are lacking in overall historic context or setting. Historical features must be established with documentary evidence. The MHC should provide documentation and identify authorities for these "overlooks" and "views from outside the district." t i On the setting of the District, MHC contends that "the historic characteristics of the setting of Fish Flake Hill which are characterized by small, low scale buildings, structures, roadways and bridges." In making this assessment the MHC has disregarded other substantial elements such as the mid-rise condominium buildings, the Ventron industrial facility, the power transmissionlines, substantial_marine related buildings, the i power plant and oil tanks. This area has always been a .mixed use one, combining residential and commercial with an industrial and transportation corridor. MHC must incorporate a more thorough assessment of the character of the area in deliberations; simply viewing a bridge from the District in the: very mixed environment can not be considered an adverse effect. i 1 t Similarly, their observations of aspects of the project are inconsistent: "The proposed approach roadway configuration where the bridge touches down in Beverly will result in a much larger increase in the amount and elevation of actual roadways than existing 4 i " Anthony J. Fusco Salem/Beverly Transportation Project July 25, 1991 conditions. Thus, the approach will create a wide expanse of blacktop on the immediate edge of the historic district...", yet "Review of the project plans and model indicate that minor modifications to the Cabot and Rantoul Street intersection are proposed." The latter statement is a more accurate observation of the current condition which is characterized by a wide expanse of undifferentiated pavement resulting from the intersection of the current bridge and several roadways with a substantial number of surface parking lots. The proposed action will have a beneficial effect on the current condition through better organization, appearance and safety. — Most deficient in their assessment is a rationale for the changed finding,of effect for this project. The previous version of this bridge,,eight feet lower and ra.travel lane narrower warranted a finding of "no effect", yet this proposal results in an "adverse effect."We do not understand this change in finding since both proposals share the same features, discussed in their comments such as concrete supports and approach roadways._ The, MHC must be pressed to provide a specific detailing of the exact elements of change that result in their redefinition of the finding of effect; In summary, the MHCis not considering the significant and character defining features of the' ' National Register Properties in their application of the Criteria. Instead they have taken the position that any change resulting from the project is an effect: Again we find this position is not supported by the Advisory Council Regulations which we find to be explicit: 3 f 800.2(o) "Undertaking" means any project, activity, or program that can result in changes in the character or use ofhistoric,2rogerries(emphasis ours), if any such historic properties are located in their area of potential effects... And, i 800.9 Criteria of Effect acrd Adverse Effect l (a) An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter characteristics of the yroperty that may(jual fy the properry for inclusion in the National Register (emphasis ours). For the purpose of determining effect,alteration to features of [ the property's locationsetring, or use may be relevant depending upon a propem's significant characteristics (emphasis ours) and should be considered. 4 1 5 Anthony I. Fusco Salem/Beverly Transportation Project July 25, 1991 It remains the Department's opinion that no aspect of this project,will effect any significant, intact and character defining features of any of the National Register properties in the vicinity. We continue to find that this project has "no effect." Sincerely, ICHAEL SWANSON, P.E. I `�HIEF ENGINEER JE/JRO/jo t jt t j� S t - f 9 t 6' :.;: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN15TRATION REGION ONE TR- NSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER 55 BROADWAY, 10TH FLOOR CA.NIBRIDGE, NLASSACHUSETTS 02142 iN RE>Lt REFER TO: BR-F-54 (085) , Beverly-Salem HB-MA June 14 , 1991 Ms. Judith B. Mrtid..' Fxa"tive Director State Historic fttMassachusetts HC80 Boylston StrBoston, MassachDear Ms. McDono ; The attached June 12 , 1991` "" 'f om the Massachusetts Department of Public Works presents conclusions regarding national register eligibility and findings of effect with respect to several historic properties in the area of the proposed Salem-Beverly Transportation Project. We agree with these determinations and are notifying you and the other Consulting Parties and interested persons in accordance with 36 CFR 800 . 5 (b) . Required documentation was provided by our letters of January 8 and April 29 , 1991. Sincerely yours, Anthony J. Fusco Division Administrator By: A. R. Churchill District Engineer pc : Mr. James Elliott-BTP&D Alf /,. ., . . .. r Robert C. Neiley City of Beverly Massachusetts Chairman � William Finch Historic District Commission Vice Chairman i lames Bailey City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Be'verly,"MA:,01915 Elizabeth F. Clark John Condon John Frates February 5, 199T Carole Schaeffer <!> Mr. Anthony J. Fusco Members Administrator 9j�j BB��� Margaret A. nlbee US Department of Transportation W"i Larry h Simpson Federal Highway Administration - Region I Alternates 55 Broadway - 10th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Subject: Salem-Beverly Transportation Project Dear Mr. Fusco: The Beverly Historic District Commission has reviewed the °Documentation Submitted Pursuant to: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966°. This material was received by the Commission on January 23, 1991. At a Regular Meeting on February 13, 1991, the Beverly Historic District Commission voted unanimously to submit the attached comments regarding the Documentation in relation to Historic Properties in Beverly that may be effected by the proposed Salem- Beverly Transportation Project. The Commission trusts that our comments will be considered as you revise the Documentation and consider the effects of this project on our important historic resources and community. The Commission appreciates the opportunity to participate in the Section 106 process and sincerely hopes it will result in a positive resolution of the historic preservation concerns surrounding this important project. Sincerely, William B. Fine Chairman Enclosures cc: Don L. Klima, ACHP Judith B. McDonough, MHC James Kerisotis, MDPW Mayor F. John Monahan, Beverly Rep. James Henry, Beverly Beverly Historical Society Salem Historical Commission Robert C. Neilcy City of Beverly Massachusetts Chairman , William Finch Historic District Commission Vice Chairman City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverl , MA 01 1 lames Bailey Y 9 5 Elizabeth F. Clark John Condon John Frates Carole Schaeffer Al embers Margaret A. Albee Larry I. Simpson Alternates BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION COMMENTS REGARDING SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION RECEIVED 1/23/91 FOR SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT The Beverly Historic District Commission (BHDC) has reviewed the Section 106 Documentation presented for the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project, and finds that it cannot concur with the Finding of No Effect for Historic Properties in Beverly presented by the Documentation for reasons presented below. 1 . IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Pursuant to Section 106 Regulations 600.4(b., and c.), the BHDC is concerned that all historic properties that may be affected by the Project have not been adequately identified and evaluated. The nomination for the Fish Flake Hill National Register Historic District (FHHD)describes the District as reprasenting "a remarkably cohesive picture of the waterfront's evolution from fishing village to bustling harbor to industrialized base." The significance of the district is thus clearly tied to the development of the adjacent waterfront,transportation routes, and nearby 19th century industrial uses. A re-evaluation of these areas may suggest changes to the boundaries of the District to better express and preserve these relationships. Some of these properties may also be considered eligible in their own right. The specific areas of concern are discussed below. SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2191 - PAGE 1 A. WATERFRONT- The waterfront area that should be re-examined for the presence or absence of historic properties and their significance extends from Tuck Point up to and including the Bridge. While few extant structures from the 18th and 19 centuries survive outside the district, the waterfront may still be significant to the district in terms of historic sites, archaeological resources, setting and context, and usage. The 18th and 19th century development of the District is directly bound up with the waterfront, as many properties originally extended from the still extant houses down to the water. The mercantile and shipping activities along the waterfront generated the substantial wealth that stimulated the construction of the houses, docks, and roadways in this portion of Beverly during the 18th and early 19th centuries. The Ferry Way and the Essex Bridge of 1788, are specific properties that stimulated the development of the primary road system through the District. The existing waterfront provides the setting and still evokes the usage that makes the significance of the District comprehensible. B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERNS - Regarding archaeological resources,the BHDC concurs with the statement in the Documentation that the "remnants of the late seventeenth and eighteenth century ferry landing, structural remains of of the 18th century wharfs, and wharf fills containing cultural materials associated with Beverly's maritime commerce and privateering activities during the 18th century" may lie within the Project Area. In addition to these,the remnants of 17th and 18th century roadways, storehouse facilities, and dwelling houses may also be present. In order to determine the range of potential archaeological resources, a more thorough investigation of early documents followed by an appropriately designed, reconnaisance-level program of subsurface archaeological investigations is needed. The BHDC contends that the data presented in the Documentation, together with geotechnical data supplied to the Commission following the 1/30/91 meeting at the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW), is inadequate for identifying the range of possible archaeological remains and insufficient for predicting the extent of disturbance to these potential resources by modern construction activities. For example, due to the spacing between the cores, the remains of the Ferry Landing, wharfs, or any building foundations that may be present within the impact area may readily have been missed. Further,any evidence of the historic roadbeds in this area would not be detected by this testing technique. The presence of wood and brick in one of the core samples (Boring BB-40) may indicate that potential archaeological resources may exist in the project area. However the geotechnical data is inadequate for determining the archaeological significance of these fragments. SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 2 l f The BHDC therefore believes that the finding of the Documentation that "the probability of recovering resources of historic integrity is low" is not adequately supported by either the documentary research or the field testing presented. Accordingly, as mentioned above,the BHDC requests that further documentary research followed by an appropriately designed field testing program be conducted in order to properly identify and evaluate potential archaeological resources that may be within the Project area in Beverly. C. SEASIDE EYE CLINIC-This needs to be evaluated in the context of the possibility of expanded District boundaries as well as its relationship to the Girdler Coal Co. and the industrial development theme. While the data presented appears to be thorough in terms of physical fabric, the Documentation fails to point out that the ca. 1830 component constitutes over 50%of the structure. The loss of integrity thru its moving ca. 1891 is a spurious argument since the structure in its current form was apparently no more than ten years old at that time, and most of its history relates to its usage by the Girdler Coal Co. after it was moved. The potential value of the building as a vernacular structure reflecting change over time is not assessed. Have local historical institutions been checked for period photographs that might document its relationship to the historic landscape? Finally,the presence of a structure at this location on a ca. 1852 map of Beverly raises questions about the origin of the ca. 1830 portion, and the assumption that it was not present in 1880 because it is not shown on that specific map. D. RANTOUL STREET-The late 19th and early 20th century changes to the District relate to a change from maritime development to industrial activities. There are several factory buildings at the intersection of Rantoul and Cabot Streets, and a group of worker housing that present a very distinct architectural rhythm along the lower end of Rantoul Street that may be eligible either as an extension to the FHHD,or as a separate district. The factory may relate to early industrial shoe manufacturing in Beverly, and the houses were specifically built for the workers.. The previous exclusion of these properties was probably based on concerns about possible owner objections to listing. The Commission requests that the potential eligibility of these properties be evaluated. 2 . ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS Pursuant to 800.9, the BHDC is concerned that the the criteria of effect and adverse effect have not been fully and adequately applied to historic properties within or adjacent to the Project area in Beverly. SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 3 1. The visual documentation and analysis provided is inadequate. The photographs are mostly aerial views taken from over 1,000 feet up and do not convey any sense of the scale of the proposed bridge in relation to the FHHD and its setting,feeling, visual aspects, nor to other potential historic properties,as viewed form the ground. Nor are they annotated to show district boundaries and other potential historic properties in relation to the project. Previous requests from the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)that have not been met in the documentation have asked for photographs both from within and and looking towards the District, and that utilize the existing model to better simulate ground level views with the Project in place. As an example, it would be useful if Photo 15 was air brushed to show the Project in place and the edge of the District marked. 2. The verbal description of the setting is misleading and inaccurate, citing only large scale structures in order to justify the scale of the proposed project. The wording focuses on the steel boat shed, implying that it blocks all views of the water from the District,and then locates the Tuck Point Condos to its east while failing to mention the long expanse of open boat yards and docks between these two features. The reasoning is faulty, suggesting that because the environment is less than pristine, it is appropriate to build another out of scale structure that will completely overwhelm the existing setting. In our view, this section of the Documentation does not constitute an unbiased, professional visual analysis of the site and the setting issues. The BHDC requests that the verbal description and analysis of the setting be completely redrafted and include references to annotated photographs and drawings,as well as a discussion of the importance of the waterfront/harbor setting to the significance of the District. The discussion should focus on the effect of the proposed project on the setting rather than composing an analysis of the setting to justify the project. We have attached a photograph of the project model to these comments as an example. The BHDC also believes strongly that this photograph illustrates the adverse visual effects that the proposed project will have on the District's setting. The documentation states that the nearest building to the project within the District is a non- contributing commercial building, but fails to acknowledge that almost as close and right across the street there is a contributing early 18th century building, and that additional contributing buildings further up Front Street have direct views to the project area. All of these structures will be affected by whatever changes are made to the existing street pattern and streetscape in this portion of the project area. SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 4 The nature of these impacts will in part be a function of the scale and details of the proposed features. Part of the Commission's concern is that the design and scale of these features will be at a highway scale in conformance with typical Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)standards. What will the light standards be? What about signage,and possible traffic lights? Where does the concrete Jersey Barrier median strip actually terminate? There is no precise information on these features in the documentation. The BHDC requests detailed design information on materials, color, location, etc. together with appropriate drawings on the following elements including but not limited to: Retaining walls and abutments. Lighting and light standards. Signage including sign structures. Roadways including lane layouts,turning lanes, and travel speeds. Traffic signalization, including alternate plans where signalization is not currently proposed. Paving materials for both roadways and sidewalks. Curbing and curbcuts. Median strips. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian amenities. Landscaping including specific plant materials, sizes, locations, etc. Site improvements relative to existing parks and open space. The Commission also requests that the project area and the specific new structures and landscape changes that will result from the project be described in more precise terms in relation to the district and other potential historic properties. Past Project environmental documents have implied a limited impact area by describing the proposed bridge as having a terminus within a few feet from the terminus of the existing bridge. The present document continues to describe the bridge in this manner. The document ignores the size , height and overall scale of the bridge approach roadway that is at an elevation of about 24'at the so called bridge terminus, and that forms a massive, high concrete wing wall structure extending all the way to MacDonalds within a few hundred feet of the District boundary. From the point of view of a visual analysis the bridge and its approach roadway structure should be treated as a single continuous element. 3. The information and justification for a finding of"No Effect" based on traffic continues to be inadequate. The documentation states that MDPW does not plan any changes to the existing SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 5 i traffic circulation pattern within the District(which includes Cabot Street as well as Water and Front Streets), but does not address the possibility that the changes in roadway geometry and channelization coupled with probable higher speed traffic movements off the bridge may force the City of Beverly to institute changes within the District after the project is completed. In our view if there is a realistic possibility for this to occur,even as an action by another agency through an indirect result of the project,than such a change should be evaluated as a potential project impact. Similarly,the justification for four travel lanes based on the presence of two distinct feeder streets to the project is not adequately documented in terms of actual and projected traffic volume numbers from each source,and the capacity of the proposed new roadway and bridge in terms of volume and flow. In an effort to address these issues following the 1/30/91 Consultation Meeting,the MDPW supplied the BHDC with a copy of a preliminary document dated 1/2/90 relative to a Final CTPS Technical Memorandum"Bridge Street Bypass Traffic Forecasts". Unfortunately, the document supplied was missing substantial sections of text and data due to xerox problems. However, the document did not appear to respond to the specific issues discussed above. The Documentation alleges that the project will provide an improved level of service that will reduce the existing level of traffic cutting thru the District to avoid the queue on Cabot and Rantoul Streets. This reflects a misunderstanding of the current situation and the potential impacts of the Project. Existing thru traffic is limited primarily to Stone Street (Route 127) and to a lessor extent Water Street, and is derived from trip originations adjacent to the Route 127 corridor. There is little, it any, queue jumping because the current one and two way system discourages lt. The Commission's concern is twofold. The first is the possibility of changes to the District's Street system discussed above, which might encourage queue jumping. Secondly, what if the improved level of service results in an increase of traffic through the 127 corridor, and hence thru the district. Much of the case presented for no change to the District due to traffic related impacts is predicated on current projections of very limited growth. The Documentation does not consider the effects if this assumption proves wrong. Past traffic projections have proven to be substantially incorrect. The strongest proponents of the project as currently designed are business and political interests who claim that the project is needed to promote growth in the region. If they are correct and the project generates growth it will generate higher traffic volumes, SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 6 which are predicated on growth, and the concerns about impacts due to increased traffic volumes will become real. The Commission requests that this possibility be evaluated. 4. The Commission is pleased that at last noise data has been gathered within the District. The documentation indicates that the change in height of the noise source was considered, but says nothing about factoring in the increased speed of travel that will occur on the new bridge due to the four lane highway type cross section. The data presented includes the noise from the railroad which is a.point source of limited duration,but very substantial loudness,that may be skewing the figures for existing levels upwards. In an effort to address these issues following the 1/30/91 Consultation Meeting,the MDPW supplied the BHDC with a copy of a document dated 12/90 titled "Reevaluation of the Noise Study" by Daniel J. Brown. Unfortunately,the document supplied was missing substantial sections of text and data due to xerox problems. While the document clarified some of the methodology questions, it did not provide specific data for the existing and projected noise at each site with and without the railroad factored in. The methodology description states that the speed used was 40 MPH, and that height was taken into consideration, but says nothing about factoring in the effect of the steep 6%grade on the projected noise. It does not provide data for a speed of 50 MPH, although the cross section of the roadway would suggest that such speeds may commonly occur regardless of the posted speed. One fact stated in the 12/90 supplementary data was that the current noise level at the Ferry Landing Park would increase to 69 Db and therefore would exceed FHWA standards. This fact underscores the BHDC's concern that the Project will adversely effect the potential Historic Resources and Sites along the Waterfront. The Commission requests that the Documentation present the noise data in a clear manner both with and without the railroad noise,that traffic speed and road grades be factored in, and that additional raw figures and pertinent methodology data be included to support the findings. The Commission recognizes that the noise at stations 2 and 3 will clearly not exceed FHWA standards, but remains concerned that exclusive of the railroad there may be a clearly perceivable increase in background noise levels that may impact the District in terms of livability and economic viability. 5. There is no discussion of potential atmospheric effects. SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 7 I 6. The Documentation continues to maintain that the only aspects of the project subject to 106 Review are changes since 1981. The BHDC takes issue with this and maintains that the combination of factors including the passage of time, the extent of changes to the entire Project including the dropping of the 128 Connector component thru Peabody, the major changes in scale and type of roadway thru Salem,the changes in size to the Bridge, and the seven fold increase in the size of the Fish Flake Hill Historic District all constitute a cumulative extent of change to the project that warrants complete reevaluation under the 106 Process. A review of previous environmental documents concerning this project suggests that the limited Consultation that occurred wlth historic preservation agencies primarily took place ca. 1973-75. The Documentation presented at that time is substantially below current professional standards for the issues at hand. While there is a letter from the MHC to MDPW of 3/27/80 relative to"Task B" Section 106 issues, we are not aware of any document in the 1981 FEIS by FHWA making a formal finding relative to Section 106 for the project as then proposed. Thus from a technical perspective the 106 process was never formally concluded for the 1981 project. Finally, regardless of the above technical issues,the action of demolishing the Skerry House clearly violated the basis for the 1981 determination of no effect and has triggered the involvement of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP) relative to the full project. Correspondence from the ACHP to FHWA clearly backs up the BHDC's opinion that the full project should be reevaluated under Section 106. The Advisory Council in a letter of 9/24/89 to FHWA notes that the previous "no Effect" determination made for the Project "should no longer be considered valid", and that the Section 106 review process should be reopened by FHWA. In a letter of 11/24/89 to FHWA the ACHP requests"a description of the full undertaking"together with data regarding historic properties that might be affected,findings relative to the Criteria of Adverse Effect,the views of the public, and MDPW's"Environmental Reevaluation". OTHER CONCERNS 1. The letters reproduced in the Documentation do not sufficiently represent the comments that have been made regarding this Project. There are no letters included from the BHDC despite numerous comments sent by the BHDC to the MDPW and/or the MHC relative to the 106 process, and others in relation to the MEPA process. relative to Historic Preservation concerns. The Commission requests that all its correspondence relative to the 106 Process and related concerns be included in the Documentation. SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 8 r 2. The Comments filed by the BHDC relative to the Draft SEIR under the MEPA process are attached to this letter for inclusion in the 106 record. While some of these comments relate to other specific environmental issues, the bulk of them are germane to the 106 issues, and the content of the SEIR was very similar to the content of the Documentation. 3. Paragraph 800.2(c) refers to undertakings that"may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties". The BHDC is concerned that the project as proposed may indirectly cause changes in the residential usage within the district and/or substantially diminish the current rehabilitation efforts taking place because it may adversely effect the quality of fife within and adjacent to the District. For a fuller discussion of this issue please seethe attached DEIR/MEPA comments, pp. 3-5. 4. The documentation references a 1985 planning study entitled "Beverly Harborfront Public Improvements"as evidence that the street geometry of the project adjacent to the FHHD has remained relatively unchanged since the 1981 FEIS. The reference implies that this geometry was fully accepted at that date. We note for the record that the study was made for the purpose of securing funds for the Public Pier that has now been completed, and simply accepted the proposed bridge as a given parameter. The problems of the bridge design did not go entirely unnoticed however, as evidenced by the discussion on page 8 of that study stating that Traffic and pedestrian access to the Beverly Harborfront will be seriously altered by the construction of the New Beverly-Salem Bridge and the reconstruction of The Cabot Street approach to the bridge. In effect the reconstruction will impose a"Chinese Wall"to vehicular traffic and force pedestrians to cross at the signalized Cabot Street/Rantoul Street intersection. 5. The time given the Commission to review the Documentation previous to the January 30 Consultation Meeting at MDPW was extremely short,the material being received on Wednesday, January 23. Further, the letter of MDPW summarizing the Documentation and recommending the Agency's Determination of No Effect was not included in the Documentation. The Commission requests that more time be given to review future revisions of the documentation and to schedule Consultation Meetings. 6. The BHDC notes that the ACHP has requested to be actively involved in the current Consultation process, and has been forwarded a copy of the current Documentation materials. The BHDC would hope that the ACHP will be asked to be present and offer their comments at the SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 9 r next consultation meeting,and that they will also have the opportunity to tour the project site and participate in a local public meeting to obtain the input of Beverly citizens relative to the Section 106 process. CONCLUSIONS The BHDC is in full concurrence with the findings of the MHC relative to the Documentation as outlined in their letter of 1/1 B/91 to FHWA, and underscores their request for additional information in relation to the five broad issues in both Beverly and Salem listed in their letter. The BHDC is of the opinion that the proposed project, specifically the Salem-Beverly Bridge and its approach roadway, will have an"Adverse Effect"on the Fishf lake Hill Historic District and related properties which the BHDC believes may be found to be Historic Properties, such as the "See- Side Eye Clinic" Building and the Ferry Way,through the alteration and diminution of the District's setting, and probable audible and atmospheric changes due to alterations to existent traffic patterns and volumes. The BHDC further believes that the Project may adversely impact archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Ferry Landing. Accordingly, the BHDC requests that the Documentation include in depth analysis of alternatives that may reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of the project as currently proposed. Many of the adverse effects derive from the overwhelming height and scale of the proposed bridge, either through direct visual effects or the approach roadway geometry that is dictated by the steep grade and excessive width of the proposed bridge. Therefore the alternatives considered must include substantially lower bridge structures,specifically draw-bridge structures, to reduce visual impacts and allow changes to the approach roadway that may reduce the impacts to potential historic properties. The BHDC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Documentation for this important project relative to the Section 106 process. We sincerely hope that our comments will be acted on so that the project can be built in a manner that will truly provide long term benefits to Beverly and Salem and our historic resources. To that end we look forward to receiving and reviewing a fully updated project documentation that considers substantial and viable alternatives to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects we strongly believe will occur if the project is built as currently designed. SECTION 106 COMMENTS - BHDC 2/91 - PAGE 10 a�rr :Nmy k � S• t49Fg.4`"r:�`x' i`re w.x r3.rf° r 1 -.o u y I .]e .+� 4$4 w �' f > •+ 1 }� 1: r K, t F{�' vy £'^.V° 'j G s�a a'i .k`^fit # 'eT ,S k� &`�" ri ♦ `.0 '� MS x,� ''.✓` { M s £ m krs x'rrm �' " 't<iE� ,s.E 'K `,,� p- ixJ .{k.a.rm�° dm�rt": zj�°-�a,.` 1 '�'.�s `. fiyd- 1 w '-,�"di. r :$a h. Y..��2 '4 �' �e" ° ... ^.•�3 elm ri"% P ."'g� r�4 h "5 Y" "ztc"p .L � �"'F � Y, �' 'ks 'x g}�j",ax.a��'y;'��},r em x '+`ix L: NEW 63' HIGH, r 9'IT 's';;, Z.rxti- S EXISTING BRIDGE a _ �� 1pi't`e 'fjS{' A�f' arta �.,•l..r y .a..-.: i :C t•'Y' 'J ,riaa>str`t t- �,vewx r � s ♦ 4 .rh,r, 9 R Zy i Yap ..nia nr m LL -r, ��u »v "`s ° ` K',`ci a '� •'"�i r eco ?r e '.. +M�k,�s. �� t � t sr �BOI b flP YJ ar fix ue=-* fes" r7 +7`4' k � gOT' S,l'vy �g a r ,b �"µI'm^ ca _ .4S"'s4p 't' Citi U i i i ^i it i z g�li'cdS -• SS s:A i`Tn�. �'��L '(YG`���pj� A ; $ � ��Nw-. yy 1 C- M' CABOTVIEW OF MDPW MODEL OF PROPOSED SALEM-BEVERLY BRIDGE AS SEEN FROM ABOVE ••L STREET SHOWING RELATIONSHIPOF •• TO THE FISHFLAKE HILL NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. r - July 23, 1990 Mr . Frank Bracaglia Deputy Chief Engineer Project Development Massachusetts Department of Public Works 10 Park Plaza Room 4261 Boston, Ma 02116 RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Salem-Beverly Transportation Project Dear Mr . Bracaglia : We are writing to voice our strong opposition to the proposed widening of Bridge Street between Flint Street and Washington Street in the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project . As residents in the historic neighborhoods adjacent to Bridge Street, we are concerned about the adverse impact of the proposed reconstruction to our neighborhoods, particularly when there are clearly alternative designs which would minimize this negative impact . \ our opposition to the current plan centers on our concerns about increased noise levels and safety. We believe that the noise study conducted for the draft EIR is totally inadequate in judging the impact of the Bridge Street Reconstruction on the neighborhoods . The two noise receptors used during the study (Number 18 and 19 ) were placed at the endpoints of the reconstruction project and do not measure the noise impact on the historic district . The two sites chosen both require drivers to slow down due to intersections . We strongly believe that noise readings at the midpoint of the proposed reconstruction project will tell a very different story. Furthermore, the predicted noise levels for site 18 and 19 in the year 2010 has decreased in the study from current levels . It is incomprehensible to us that a four lane highway with increased traffic and no efforts at noise abatement will yield lower noise levels than the current two lane road . We also believe that the investigation of various abatement measures for the existing and future noise problems was also inadequate . The current noise levels and the proposed future noise levels both exceed the FHWA criteria for consideration of noise abatement. (We expect that the noise levels will greatly exceed the criteria if some of the problems with the study described above are corrected) In the discussion of the abatement measures that were considered, the report a concluded only that noise barriers were infeasible for this section of the project. We agree with this conclusion but we do not understand why the most effective abatement option, altering the alignment, was not discussed. Clearly, moving the road away from the " neighborhoods onto the land that was already purchased by the DPW for this project would be a very effective noise abatement measure . In addition to our concerns about increased noise levels, we are also concerned about the safety of our children and the safety of drivers that must use Bridge Street to access or exit their neighborhood or driveway. A new four lane Bridge Street will make many of our backyards which are adjacent to Bridge Street unusable by our children. Since there are no public parks within safe walking distance from our neighborhoods, the impact of this project would be severe . Bridge Street is also the only alternative for many residents of our neighborhoods to access or exit their homes . Pulling out of a driveway or small neighborhood street onto a four lane road will make an already difficult entrance extremely dangerous . Many of us have invested countless hours and large sums of money to rehabilitate our historic homes and neighborhoods over the past twenty years . Encouraged by the recognition by the federal, state, and city governments of the historical significance of our neighborhoods, we have worked hard to make our neighborhoods great places to live and to look at . And yet we see all of this effort jeopardized by a roadway project which has been designed without considering the quality of life of the nearby residents . What makes this project particularly unacceptable is that there are so many alternative designs which could accomplish the same traffic goals and minimize the negative impact to our homes and neighborhoods . The DPW originally planned to build the roadway on the land on the opposite side of Bridge Street and systematically took all the land necessary to build the roadway so it would not be on top of our neighborhoods . The land is still available for DPW to build the additional two lanes away from our neighborhoods and we strongly recommend that DPW redesign this portion of the project . Sincerely, The Concerned Residents of : River Street, Beckford Street, Carpenter Street, Andover Street, Lynn Street, Gifford Court Please direct any responses to Ed Pliner, 12 River Street, 741-4445. CC: John DeVillars, Secretary EOEA Jane Garvey, Commissioner DPW Ellen DiGeronimo, Deputy Commissioner, DPW Brona Simon, Mass Historic Commission Mayor Neil Harrington Salem Historic Commission NAME ADDRESS ' JG ----------- _R �L R--- i - ---------------------------------- ---- �� ---- ( � --------------�_ � ---------- ---------------- -- - ------------= �=--- - g-o ---- -4aj--*---1//Z� /-.C� �-- - - --- - -- ---- -------1�- - --- �`----- - -- -------------------- -------`------- _-r. �L� ---------------s �= �_------- NAME / ADDRESS � ll. _ ,dL421 ------ 2'Yz� j,LL� in n u -- 3 -------k4------ - ------- --_— 4t -- --- _ ----- - ------------------- --------------�-/ L-----So. 33 - - -- -----------� -------- ---------- 1 -- - - ------- ----------------2�T 6t�----------------------- - - - --- - - ---------------- ----�- ---- - -- --------------------*----`----------- ' -------------100 y�t ----- 1 ----- ---- - -------- °r�--- ---------- NAME ADDRESS -- X_ - -- ----------------3-- � --5 -- -- -.6� ----------------- 3-- L �2`-------- ------------------- -�k= -------------------- ------ -- `�_L Lp-- ---- --- (tel ,p �� ------------- - ---- -k-----<4 - _ cf ,z 6ao ___________ _______________________1-------------- ___ _________ �=F�x L- - '- -- - -------'----------/ ��--5�----- �, NAME ADDRESS mig -------------- ----- � 'e- ----------------- -- DYE -- ------------ �• `1 }! Selo 1 NAME ADDRESS I,44� P 1,o6O l 7 .5 vel 5� ------------------------------------------------------- ��------z 3--- v4 S�=----------- 2:2) 1l+ vet St ; r�---- - 1; ---�----------- - ----------0-------- - ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- r NAME ADDRESS - - ------------ - - -� s- Robert G. Neiley City of Beverly, Massachusetts Chairman William Finch Historic District Commission Vice Chairman City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915 lames Bailey Elizabeth F. Clark John Condon Kathleen O'Donoghue Carole Schaeffer Members John Frates March 8, 1989 Alternate Ms. Valerie A. Talmage Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Dear Ms. Talmage: This letter is to document the meeting held by the Massachusetts Historical Commission at the office of the MDPW on December 14, 1988 to address concerns expressed by the Beverly Historical Commission and the Salem Historical Commission in relation to the Proposed Beverly-Salem Bridge and By-Pass Road. Attending were Brona Simon of the MHC, William Finch of the BHC, Annie Harris of the SHC, representatives of Olde Salem Village, the Salem Planning Department, and the MDPW. The concerns of the Beverly Historic Commission were that the Bridge as currently proposed would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent Fishflake Hill National Register Historic District because of its excessively great height and width, because it would alter the traffic patterns within the district in a negative way, and would result in increased noise levels in portions of the District. It was also noted that since the project was previously reviewed by the MHC the district had been increased four fold in the number of buildings included, and that the bridge had increased in height. These concerns were initially expressed by the BHC in a letter of testimony presented to the US Coast Guard at the Coast Guard's licensing hearing of July 1988, and forwarded at that time to the MHC with a letter requesting that the 106 review process be re- evaluated for the reasons stated in the letter of testimony. Copies of these letters are attached. The concerns of the Salem Historic Commission were in regards to potential problems with the moving of the Skerry House, and the recent realization that the right of way for the proposed by-pass crossed over with the location of known as the Old Planters Site for a considerable distance. , `e This site was settled in 1626 by Roger Conant. It is of great historical importance both as the first settlement in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and as the founding of Salem. After the concerns of the BHC were explained by William Finch, Brona Simon commented that the visual material made available by the MDPW staff did not clearly show the relationship of the Historic District to the proposed bridge and related roadways. She requested the MDPW to provide additional material in the form of both new aerial photographs and plans annotated to clearly show the District in relation to the proposed bridge. She also requested that the model that the MDPW stated was to be built should also include the Historic District. She indicated that the MHC could not make any findings in this matter until such additional material was provided to the MHC by the MDPW, who then agreed to provide such material along with relevant noise and traffic data. Brona Simon presented the background on the Skerry House issues noting that it was a recognized first period house thought to date to ca. 1700-1725, and that other structures were thought to have occupied its lot previous to that. She stated that as part of the 1975-1981 Environmental Review Process the MDPW had agreed to insure that the house would be moved back on its current site to avoid the highway but still maintain its historic south facing orientation towards the water of the North River. Apparently an MOA was not produced for this mitigation step. Unfortunately the owners recently built a new house directly behind the Skerry House with the funds paid them by the MDPW for the taking of the portion of their property needed for the highway. They no longer wished to move and occupy the historic building, thus making it impossible for the MDPW to carry out the agreed mitigation measures. Details of this situation were further explained by Anne Booth of the MDPW. The problem was further complicated by the Salem Building Inspector requiring the removal of the Skerry House from the lot before he would issue an occupancy permit for the new structure. It was also noted that the MDPW had not been able to find another site to move it to. The alternative of changing the roadway design to avoid taking the house was not discussed. The Olde Salem Village indicated that they were interested in moving it to their museum village in South Salem if funds could be provided for the move and the technical difficulties involved in the moving resolved. These issues had not been resolved in sufficient depth to determine if this might offer a feasible mitigation measure. It was also noted that while the house and surrounding property had been examined by Abbot Cummings to verify its significance, it had not been studied sufficiently to judge the relative importance and dates of the various additions to the house that might be lost in the process of moving it. page 2 l The discussion was concluded with the MDPW agreeing to continue to try to determine procedures that would enable them to fund or otherwise facilitate moving the house, and to have an in depth Historic Structures Report prepared for the house and property. This report would inventory its historic fabric in detail and form a basis for specifying appropriate procedures to move and ultimately restore the house. The significance of the Old Planters Site was briefly described by Brona Simon and others. This Site was established by Roger Conant in 1626 on the southerly shore of the North River, and constituted the first settlement of Salem and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was noted that Plymouth was initially outside of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Conant's settlement was described as having about 20 dwellings spread along the North River shore from south of the Skerry House to the area of Stromberg's Restaurant. Conant eventually left the North River Site to settle in what is now Beverly where he was recorded in about 1636. It was stated that this site was overlooked during the environmental review of the project in the 1970's because no literature search was made in reviewing potential archaeological resources in the right of way of the proposed roadway. The settlement and its location is amply described in local historical literature. The site was again found as a result of a recent study of potential local archaeological sites throughout the community funded by the City of Salem. However, the site was not considered to be impacted by the proposed roadway because it was thought to have been previously disturbed by the construction of the current railway bed. There was considerable discussion as to the extent of disruption that would be generated by the construction of the roadway and the related March Street Overpass. Brona Simon stated that the historical grade level was thought to be some six feet below the current grade of the 'railroad, and that there was therefore a strong possibility that the site had not been destroyed by modern construction.' If undisturbed the-site would be extremely important as most other early settlement sites such as Plymouth and Boston had been lost to modern construction. At the conclusion of the discussion the MDPW stated that they would carry out archaeological testing wherever construction within the right of way might impact the settlement site. The purpose of the testing would be to determine if undisturbed resources were present at specific locations. Specific actions that might be taken if resources were found as a result of testing were not discussed. In closing, the Beverly Historical Commission has been pleased that the MHC held this meeting to review these important issues, and requests that the page 3 Commission provide them with copies of any Memorandum of Agreement reached with MDPW, and generally inform the BHC as further progress is made in considering the project and its impacts. Sincerely, /Air/4 b, 6� William B. Finch Vice Chairman cc: Don Kilma, President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Annie Harris, Salem Historical Commission Ellen M. DiGeronimo, MDPW James A. Walsh, Federal Highway Administration John McDonald, US Coast Guard Ward Two Civic Association, Beverly Salem Common Neighborhood Association, Salem page 4 to split the through and local traffic flow. of Salem's downtown that will further about the viaduct over the railroad tracks- ; o .�' 'O� OrtV,a aT 2)ThiswillrequirepassageunderlheNorthStreet 3� C"ARD o a �, / ' „ discourage economic revitalization at Parker Brothers,which they argue will 4 overpass,constructing entry and exit ramps from T C FELT ]T. w North g rY P [R. 1 t,RE ar L: Drat street to the by-para for traffic to and from i °r,gep W u e[ RD''O" w,. � cuar „ ,i. 2) Is the layout' of the design under the current design. obstruct the view dawn the North River Y BRiDC[ Beverly, relocating the MBTA railroad tracks /� RN kNNOA,T W �� , functionally correct?What are the lost • Concern centers on the awkward from Washington Street. Despite the r ( north and west 50 feet onto new fill in the North ' ; f \� opportunities or aemaccess to the downtown from theb ass e z • Sr, �/ // Rq I \ <,\ �' (4)This pan of the project will require constructing PP fSl ? hdf by-pass deplorable state of the North River, the P er, _ River, afour-lane steel or concrete span with atotal height Man Salem critics object m the exit at North Street and on the need to argument is made that a foto-lane 25 feet over the MBTA railroad tracks at Parker ¢ ° Vii, Y 1 ¢ aO[/T a " a of 63 feet and a clearance of 48 feet over the •EpE Jr• Brothers,continuing the roadway inside the new - =o "w[Cq = D �' Danvers River channel, and includes an access design for the through and local plan for an improved and landscaped highway will permanently mar the ,t track alignment over the old radroadright-of-way, OR u Qk' jy /p/o/'� [a RB �J road under the bridge m the new Beverly cityconnections and the location of the on Bridge Street downtown access all the landscape: In addition, neighborhood NARKING and constructing a new March Street overpass to NE g y t) c i CT. the March Street Peninsula. Primary signs and EVER[TT/ / /,�' marina. Primary signals and signs are proposed at and off ramps. They point out that the way from Boston Street to Washington critics point out that the 50 mph design L n S ti Cr ¢ signals will be at the Bridge/Hint intersection,and. Jr. —�_/�/� i' the intersection of the Bridge Street viaduct and at current design has major flaws as a by- Street. will substantially increase the noise �_/ / the northern terminus of the bridge at the Rantoul, AW on the North Street overpass for the entrance and ,T JA� ,^ - - `-� V / l pass route and provides Salem with few Two other major concerns are raised levels in the Bridge Street neighborhood, (])This portion of the project will require = I - - J Cabo[ and Water Streets intersection. a partial taking of the Allied Lumber facilities; T aW ,. of a. I� rp - _.!' advantages for downtown access. They by critics about the functional integrity of at the Carlton School, across the North relocating and re-digging the North River Canal ' '.� sE ;r` ER, %� ° note that an serious design of the west the current design: River to North Salem, at the railroad northov l Nk /%' Y g g Bridge itreet, btlding a,widening and repaving ,r— Td, Tq I _._ _- (3)This pan of theprojectwill f B d-an intersection _- Bridge Street, building a grade crossing for the � � r� at the bridge for the cast end of Bridge Street built end OfBridge Street and the North$Vee[ Changes need to be made to station/court complex, and in the B&M railroad line,and installing new signs ana sarY �`9 Jr - r \J r on concrete pilings to preserve the tidal Bats overpass should be part of a accommodate the recently announced McIntire Historic District. signals on Bridge Street. between Stromber 's and the railroad brid e. r; comprehensive solution to the Route 114 plans for a multi-story MBTA parking - _ 'Eand Boston and Bridge Street access garage at the train station. Traffic from 4)Are there better uses for these in- OE W,RR JrN �cf N< issues. Since the by-pass design was Peabody and the west along with the town land resources than a highway? • T EN Or ..D ` _ ,,,_..-.., .. ...-� J.t sW�TN -N T. ?` -- - .. .. . .. originally part of the connector project,a- traffic from-Beverly,North Street, and Land use critics are disturbed about ^, n Or P� 1. \Jl + _ stand-alone project should be re- the south will all have to merge onto the the loss of commercial and light designed to rationalize its connection to two-lane section of Bridge Street to enter industrial development opportunities, j 4 local Salem streets,these critics argue. the lot.Because the MBTA lot will have particularly in the North River canal area. aT. BRO,o f Specific charges are made that the by- obvious peak load demands,the current Business development advocates y,°o pass is a highway to nowhere with lack of integration and planning is of point out that if Bridge Street from # DBUgV C K LE40N �,„ P SKE0.0.k -s B0.tDDE $ bottlenecks at both ends that will great concern. Boston to North Street, at least, were frustrate its intentions. The lighted • Much Bridge Street traffic will in widened to a four-lane boulevard,all the intersections at Bridge and Boston fact continue to use Bridge Street with taken land betweenthe new Bridge Street G P 9 ROt N ¢ i f c �.' IC i EN4C ' ,, o f--JF� r ar ;< Q I egos s r o M Z f m Streets and Bridge and Flint Streets the viaduct as an entrance to or exit from and the North River Canal would then be o v z � a C o � oA where the by-pass begins will need to the bridge. This will likely be true for available for commercial,retail or light ° ¢ DTT s z C E, ' ° i W �T. m ¢ z 4 ° s handle heavy cross traffic,for example, Marblehead-Beverly traffic and traffic industrial use. t R"[ J Ot �' JO f ti� Cti Ja �, A A ti � n WAPN O = < r J ii\ as will the lighted intersection of the moving between the Salem waterfront _ treean ° J Bridgeand and Common areas and Beverly. Hillthe ectaffectthewater 4jlE 9f'J 1, Jr L Jr O JEr ( JA p 44 ry „ R,qk[ A n BNATON E JA g 5) owwPro j c° , PT 0 ,� R: e > w LO �`_ the intersections in Beverly, Existence of the viaduct access to the resources of the North River and the Critics also point out that the current bridge assures that Bridge Street will historic resources of Salem and traumatized by the original I-95 east bank of the North River from Bridge the old bridge for use as a public pier. Winter Street up to the bridge itself- OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN estimates that ADT will rise to only design does little to improve flow for the continue to be used as a through street Beverly? connector plan, was well-organized to Street at the Flint Street intersection to 4) The by-pass will facilitate Proponents of the Beverly-Salem 31,250 by the year 2020. Measured bulk of Salem's Route 114 through and undermines the rationale for a four- Environmentalists, wetlands/tidal resist this new overture.The city delayed the"takeoff point"for the new Beverly- PROPONENTS OF THE PLAN substantially the through traffic flow Bridge/By-Pass are not the only people maximum two-way peak traffic traffic: lane highway by-pass. resource advocates, and historic and then defeated Salem's proposals,and Salem Bridge at the northwest end of Supporters of the Bridge and By-pass moving from Beverly south and west and vocal on this issue. Some community measured1,972 cars per hour in 1978and • Washington Street traffic going Consequently, critics claim that the preservationists have multiple concerns the"new"Salem connector was formally Thomdike Street, project, including Congressman from Peabody and Lynn to Beverly and groups and individual citizens from 1,971 cars per hour in 1985.This 2,000 north will no longer have access to Route by-pass would not provide sufficient about the negative impact of the project abandoned in 1982. 3) The construction of a four-lane Mavroules, and Representatives Ruane points north. If Boston Street is Beverly and Salem are deeply concerned 114 on the ramp, which will have been improved access or local traffic flow for on the shoreline and wetland areas of the p y p y peak cars-per-hour and 31,000 ADT limi n from r River and. on_.unt unique.. - Now, in 1989, federal and state approach viaduct on concrete pilings (D-Salem) and Alexander (D-Beverly) redesignated ds-Roue-114,.assome are---abouCwhat they perceive as-the negative level of traffic volume can be eliminated.. _.......... ..... .. _ ._.._craffic.[raxelling[oa d ro Salem,, e . q ,. ., funding is available for the"Salem only' over the tidal flats west of Stromberg's have been pressing for a speedy start for proposing,a new four-lane Bridge Street impact of the current design. These are accommodated on a well-designed four- • Route 114 traffic will be further that essentially the current plan is an resources such as the Planter's portion of the original I-95 Salem Restaurant to connectBridge Street to the construction. Reflecting widespread access to a by-pass would be a functional some of the questions they raise: lane signaled street if the flow is impeded by two new sets of traffic lights over-designed solution to speed traffic Archeological Site near March Street on connector and a new four-lane bridge new bridge. frustration over North Shore traffic jams, link between Route 128; Peabody, approximately equal in both directions. for the on and off ramps connecting the from Peabody to Beverly. the North River,which is considered the over the Danvers River. 4) The construction of a four-lane, they argue: Salem,and Beverly. 1)Is the by-pass really necessary? (It should be noted that in order to widen North Street overpass to the by-pass. first permanent settlement in concrete or steel,high,fixed span bridge Unstated but clearly central to the Critics agree that a new bridge may be Bridge Street to four lanes from Salem's - Route 114 traffic heading to Lynn 3) Is the scale of the project Massachusetts Bay. The site lies along THE CURRENT PLAN with a touchdown in Beverly at about 1) The old Beverly-Salem Bridge is logic used in support of the current plan required because of the current downtown to the current bridge, more and points south on Highland Avenue/ appropriate for the problems at hand the proposed by-pass route and will be The current design of the Beverly- the location of McDonald's with inadequate for traffic needs, tying up bysomeproponents is asense that theby- structure's limitations, and that property would have to be taken.) Route 107 will continue to use local and the area it affects? surveyed by law this year before any Salem Bridge/By-Pass Project has four intersections for Rantoul, Cabot, and traffic throughout the day and pass--as a major four-lane arterial road circulation and traffic planning will be Some critics suggest that a simple streets to reach Highland Avenue due to Critics in North Salem and Beverly work can be done.Decisions under state main components: Water Streets. particularly at rush hour. without immediate connection to needed for a new bridge. They note, redesign of Bridge Street lanes, lights, unresolved delays at the North Street/ complain with greatpassion thatthe scale and federal law on these issues balance 1)Thereconstruction and wideningof 5)In addition,two road sections will 2)The bridge is deteriorating and in comparable highways--will be a however, that the initial design for the and parking is all that is required to Bridge Street cloverleaf and the of the bridge and the by-pass is totally historic preservation and environmental Bridge Street to four lanes from Boston be eliminated. The current Bridge Street need of repair or replacement. "bootstrap"to areal Routel28 connector Salem connector was based on a handle almost all except the worst likelihood of increased traffic volume inappropriate. The bridge is too high; it protection with transportation Street at the Dunkin' Donuts/Sylvania ramp from Washington Street onto the 3) The by-pass will re-route traffic for Salem. At minimum, they would projection of 41,700 average daily traffic conditions;others would like to see a 35 and delays on Bridge Street/Route 107. would make walking and bike riding requirements. intersection to the Bridge and Flint Street North Street overpass will be removed, from local streets in Salem,easing traffic argue that the construction of the by-pass (ADT)volume for the year 1995,which mph two or four-lane boulevard along the Downtown Salem boosters make difficult,and it would destroy the visual intersection behind St.James Church- and the old Beverly-Salem Bridge will be conditions in residential neighborhoods would concentrate the regional focus on would require some type of limited North River bank to Salem's downtown several arguments: pleasure of the river and the vista of SUMMARY 2) The construction of a four-lane, taken down. The MDPW has proposed and in particular allowing arevitalization the need to improve Salem's access to access four-lane solution. Actual ADT with connections to a four-lane Bridge -Fundamentally,they are worried that Beverly Harbor and the rivers. The Beverly-Salem Bridge/By-Pass limited access,arterial by-pass along the that Salem considerretaining aportion of of the Bridge Street neighborhoods from Route 128. was 30,600 in 1987; the MDPW now Street from Washington to Boston Street the by-pass is in fact just that--a by-pass Salem critics raise the same concerns addresses real needs such as the 1 � t � Histolle Special Report: 'requirements for an improved bridge.It The By-Pass Project: Comments by Alfred Comments, cont ...Whatever course the approval above high water. The roadbed will be '. '5 �ll� The Beverly-Salem also raises compelling issues of design a would be somewhat surprising ifthestate process takes, Salem should be assertive three-quarters of th is height,and the light Bridge/By-Pass Project and quality, appropriate development, Howard, Planning and Transportation andFHWA did not decide on an SEIS,as but constructive in seeing that this poles will reach to the bottom of the t and preservation of natural and historic there is a combination of project considerable investment makes sense and wires. t Incorporated 7 CAMBRIDGE STREET resources. Consultant (Excerpts) changes, changed circumstances, and serves the city in an optimum manner. SALEM, MA 01970 At this point,the questions remain:Is new information which appear to make Views of the Bridge Model ( (617)745-0799 the Beverly-Salem Bridge/By-Pass a ...After at least two decades of the functioning of the project.To justify the last (1981) EIS14f Statement no The MDPW has built a model of the sound design?Does it,in fact,work as a planning and discussion, the proposed the investment, this by-pass, through a longer valid. Where to Get the Best bridge from about March Street to the Assessing the By-Pass Project by-pass? Does it facilitate access to new Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bridge combination of location, extent, ..Jf the SEIS is somehow considered Rantoul Street intersection in Beverly. Salem?Can it,or should it,be the"Trojan Street corridor modifications are configuration,and design,should attract unnecessary by MDPW andFHWA,then Views Currently,it is on view in Salem at the Horse" for a Route 128 connector? approaching possible implementation. traffic such that local congestion and involvement in the approval process by Old Town Hall. The Beverly-Salem Bridge/By-Pass President's Letter Wouldn't a tree-fined parkway be more The project is considered to have utility traffic through residential and historical Salem and interested parties should be There are several laces that offer good Project promises to be one of the most P P 8 appropriate for Salem access and by-pass apart from the overall connector (to azeasazereduced,while general access to accelerated and afull public review of views and a sen se of scale of the Beverly- Views of the By-Pass Highway important pubficworks projects toaffect This special Winter-Spring 1989 HSI Service.The city's study specifically is Salem in the next thin or fort ears. newsletter is presented to encourage a charged with reviewing the impact of routes? Route 128)concept;indeed,there are no points in Salem and Beverly is improved. S the environmental work now beim done Salem Bridge/By-Pass Pro ect. There are three good places to Beta sense Y Y Y gl further debate on the design of the the by-pass entrance and exit designs Further, how will the city and other known plans to reactivate the connector. ...The location and connectivity r by MDPW should6e insisted upon.Here, of the by-pass highway.The fust is from This $60 million plus infrastructure local governments handle their role in ...At this time,Salem should promote aspects of the by-pass do not 1 development plan will involve wideningBridge Street By-Pass while there is on the downtown and the neighboring g p pappear in more curtailed fashion, input and Views of the Bridge the March Street Bridge p P the still historic residential areas. developing the roadway? What design abetter understanding of the benefits and a powerful factor in changing trip questions should be introduced similar to Perhapsbest lace with an tracks on March Street. ace This place Bridge Street to four lanes from Boston and planning considerations are detriments ofthe project asitnow exists, patterns to full advantage. From the the concerns that would arise during an uninterrupted view of what the new excellent view of the by-pass route along � Street toFlint Street,and buIldingafour- We are at a critical juncture. HSI commissioned two reports for important to-the planning departments? and move to support those actions which south, traffic comes from Lynn, 1 SEIS process.It would be unfortunate if bridge will be like is from the back of the the bank of the North River. A second t lane arterial road along the North River Coast Guard approval remains to this special issue. We decided to limit How will they,and the local leadership, can make the sizable investment a boon Swampscott, and Marblehead via the SEIS route were not available,as the McDonald's waterfront parking lot in view is from the top of the stairway at the to a new,fixed span,high bridge across de obtained for the f-by-pass bridge ourth a Salem to the by-pass itself negotiate with the state planners? to the city.As negative as y separate roads and it does not MBTA railroad station on Washington the Danvers River to Beverly. design, but the `by-pass `project is generated the ted s side, since Beverly has g p y g pectsazefound, essential] p process would likely become more Beverly. The bridge, as designed, will g The Pass Projectwillbeim important 'Potentially very close to ..initiation. generated substantial discussion What are the possible federaland state constructive remedies should be sought, appear that the by-pass would cause contentious than cooperative. take off from the front of McDonald's Street. The roadbed of the viaduct will y po Phase / could be desi Hated or the ahead on the bridge design . One funding flexibilities?How will the issue lest the total investment be lost or much,if any,rerouting out of residential ...Our primary concern is the Bridge rise to a peak height of approximately 60 rise to approximately the height of Parker [o Salem and its residents, not only - g -. f y g. g a between Boston Street and the report by John Fifield s because of its scale and scope,of the Supplemental Environmental deferred indefinitely in these times of neighborhoods. Similarly, from the StreetBy-pass segment oftheproject and feet_ There will be 48 feet under the Brother's roof line. (Compare this with d pe'but also areummarizes North Street overpass. many of the arguments that are used in Impact Statement be handled? limited funding sources. north, failing a complete connector, the need for it, particularly in bridge at high tide; the roadbed height the height of the North Street overpass.) because of its effect on Salem's access to ` A final view of the b and from Route 128, on general Formal proceedings for additional favor of and in 'opposition to the Salem has a unique past and is now at ..In essence, the section proposed is traffic from Peabody,North Salem,and comparison with actions ofalesserscale. will beatapproximately 60feet,and light by-pass highway is g a unique time in its history. Salem and physically the same as when the Beverly would probably retain existing This point deserves particular attention poles will extend another 25 feet plus. from the North Street overpass. The t circulation patterns, and on downtown comment may still be available. The project. Opponents have tended to beori final ederal Environmentallm act more specific in their positions so the Essex Count could become the national connector to Route 128 finked the bride circulation patterns. 4 alignment of both Bridge Street and the traffic planning.The project will have an g f p . P Y g Pa since the future traffic forecasts have For a vertical reference,the lowest pointg center of this country's understanding of direct] to the expressway system, save ...The section of Bride Street from g by-pass to Bever] r y impact on the viability of Salem's Statement 1981 was of ll tonneedfor this concerns have received more trY� g Y P Y Y g been reduced relative to the 1981 EIS,it on the high tension wires that cross the Y-P Beverly ver visible. t p y in 1981 when a full connector coverage. The second report was the Federal Period,just as Williamsburg for minor adjustments unrelated to the Boston Street to Washington Street is a is understood. (Emphasis added) river in the same location are 85 feet --John Fifield downtown business district, the project f g p is of the Colonial Period. The National loss of the full connector.Since the scale key entry point to central Salem from i development of Salem tourism,the city's road to Route 128 was planned. The produced by Alfred Howard,a Boston ,��^,�%i•�^,' ' ` ``"i ' "3'"v`Y �� WlnterSL ! historic and Massachusetts Department of Public ...traffic and transportation consultant Park Service is ready to help. of the proposed work is the same as Peabody, North Salem, and the south, ° r -uFe K„f y; Salem, like Williamsburg, has before, it is to be assumed that the and the proposed new by-pass ,,,6: ;s naAd To comrnon&fttoric Saes the natural resources of the Danvers and Works is now undertaking a re- hired by HSI to review general issues ls ,r� t` ��� Bridge North River watersheds. evaluation ofthe originalEIS in lightof related to the by-pass. We have significant resources to share and independent requirements of the project configuration may reinforce this pattern. J >$ f 3r�y y(;: NNS �, changed circumstances as required by excerpted commentsfrom his report. expand,including an historic waterfront are coincidentally the same as for the The conditions of the street and parts of ( > -^s/:«rd/' < y:#,..,.. P The Massachusetts Department of and neighborhoods with some of the larger roect,orthedesi design the area T Public Works (MDPW) appears the Federal Highway Administration We hope these articles and maps gproject, g g ( � ` ' naTn Washington s1 committed to its designfor theproject, FHWA T pf finestarchitecture in the United States.It allow for the possible implementation of the facility as an attractive gateway toParking O whether a ede al Supplemental leime determine E/S is v formal position on the Hass as taken et has beautiful natural surroundin surroundings, the full connector sometimemthefuture, central Salem. Operational and ` '^^'�' 'l % TO Downtown and 45 houses and families, plus 19 f pp f p 6YP c g P �''2 's^�r necessary. A simultaneous and Theviewsex ressedintthetwoarticles substantial coreofdowntown institutions or both. appearance improvements to Bridge i 3' 1 t To Danvers businesses along the right-of-way have comparable review b the MDPW will are the authors'. We look forward to in good health. If the present design of the bridge Svcet are needed,related to the potential $i: ? �� ?yy2 . been relocated. The project is on the p y f %,'r<3>' a n'3$I s�F it MDPW priority list for federal funding. probably be submitted to the your,comments by letter and at the ,What Salem needs now is to realize and approaches is to explicitly allow for renewal of the surrounding properties. h? lb Nr„^ p ty _ Massachusetts Environmental forums which HSI will-sponsor. Your , the strength of these resources and build a connector all the way to Route 128,this Some plans for improving this section ,`i �¢x '� <K to ) Construction is scheduled to begin- protection Agency over the summer.” active participation i n the nal stages the technical and political resources should be made very clear. Given the of Bridge Street are under discussion and { fix r<; i ,fi3w,;te,;.!„ NN�GI.� NR.LI North St. shortly(perhaps in early 1990),possibly g ry p p fr g necessary to ensure that transportation rejection of the full connector,however, should be strongly encouraged,but in the j �� ; k s g E North Street N t on the western end of the project currentlynSalem t undewo rtakenffic ,by are of re ie forhis major project will be needs are met in concert with Salem's it is most important to determine how the context of serving the needs,present and s;<§ i 0 a a�s� y s (between Boston and North Sveets). h veryimportant. p project ) properties. w,may rs g k>s 3ra Lt.TNr L :cu.d- T. 7o Ma bleheatl of Salem and by the National Park --Bill Guenther,President interests and historic character and the resent ro ect from Boston Street to future,of adjacent historic character of the surrounding Beverly serves transportation, ...Although engineering work on the Mcinu„ THE POLITICAL PAST cities and towns. environmental, and development project is in an advanced stage, certain ''s'9i �Sd .<':r ! !!tt warortD The By-Pass Project and its I-95 extension from Boston to I-95 in the "old" connector intersection at p I �4%<%'sa 3: A 3%$' North Piver Dlstrkt a%'z/f:>'..sn:s':. :?:w�%; o " „ - progenitors have already suffered a long Danvers. This plan included a Salem- Boston and Bride Streets. This four- A full and public discussion of the objectives. permits and environmental documents npu;¢. , s - canal P S Y g p g issues raised both for and against the Now that the project issetforthasa have lapsed. MDPW is currentlygf � fy / and tumultuous past. The project has a Beverly "connector' and bridge lane road after various re-designs was to Bever] Salem Bridge/By-Pass Project, ma or arterial that begins and ends in a engaged in an environmental review to `ria ' 1 t twenty-year history of pitting town replacement. pass through Peabody along the Boston Y- 1 / 8 �.'. i'::x>t' a,.tf� , � y Fhnsc. . ti .s'.,,; :;rpt:: g g gains[ With the cancellation of the I-95 Ian, and Maine freight fine,through a tunnel as current! designed,will be critical to network o streets o lower arteria[ decide on the state Environmental �r, y ' ' � against town and neighbor a y g f f 1 :..,.� � �y �y'�'lly., rNn.0 . TO Essex SL p g g achieving this goal,as well as producing quality,its purposes must be found in the Impact Report requirements, and is neighbor. Despite all the time that has Salem officials,already concerned about at Peabody Square, then continue along consensus on a major public works following aspects (Emphasis added): evaluating with the Federal Highway . ";% He orysrWe DadheeSl. passed,feelings--both for and against the Salem's decline asacommercial center, Walnut Street and the North River Canal project that is little understood bymostof ...The four-lane Bridge Street By-Pass Administration (FHWA) whether or not r 's a. _1=rA ..d t project--still run strong. proposed a new connector from Route to the Boston Street/Bridge Street Fels its beneficiaries. from Flint Street[o the bride proper is a Supplementary Environmental Impact ,� ':'s a ' '' tt Some background may be helpful: 128 to Salem through downtown intersection,then along the North River g p Pe pp y r , 'n, ,, ",:gym To�aye St. In the winter of 1973-74, then Peabody. The new connector was to run bank to the Bever] Salem Bridge. --John Fi teld the pivotal segment upon which depends Statement SEIS will be necessary.f p g p pe (SEIS) ary. /[ �.0 ��.�s�s�':svq;.�a� eostonsL �� JJ� eostonsr � Governor Sargent cancelled the original from the North Shore Shopping Center to But itwas not tobe.Peabody, lready _Budge St.yll"yPass Road In Place N.rD�reeeW WDMJPtlNOn _ l ryt IO Lcn C Nca.p rru.:rt City of Beverly, Massachusetts Wdh,m Historic District Commission I:,u,c, uadc} City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915 r,,::;halt F. Clark I,d,n C,md(„t 6.i�hlccu 0'1 ru,...0',w (-.0 ulc sdtac a of b elm Prates ,1L cu,atc RE: New Route 1-A Bridge across Danvers River between Salem a Bcverly, MA July 14 , 1988 Commander First Coast Guard District Governors Island New York, NY 10004-5073 Dear Sir : This Commission has reviewed the current plans and location for the new bridge noted above and wishes to express and record its strong doubts about the appropriateness of this bridge as currently designed and about the environmental effects it will create on the adjacent Fish Flake Hill Historic District and oil the City of Beverly as a whole . Our concerns center on the height of the bridge , its great bulk and the damaging effects its connections will have on uur historic waterfront. we are concerned also about the e':fect of the enormous volume of traffic it is designed for , as this traffic would descend upon our small-scale community and its ancient. ,narrow and windingpattern of streets . The present bridge design appear:; to be a Super Highway solution to a local traffic problem and as such it is an inappropriate solution. Although the Massachusetts Historical Couunission "signed off ” on this project on March 27 , 1980 in terms of review required in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 , we are of the opinion that conditions in the area have so changed that this decision should now be re-considered . The Fish Flake Hill Historic District, immediately adjacent to tlic bridge arrival area in Beverly, has been a Local Historic District since 1971. It is now also listed in expanded form in the National recent yearshasmadegreat effortsto HoPdlrecover andyrestoreCits 111 New Route 1-A Bridge Slaem & Beverly,MA Page 2 . waterfront for public use and enjoyment . In our opinion the massive approach structure of the new bridge will seriously impede the City' s access to its historic waterfront. We are of the opinion that a low bridge with a rapid-operation swing opening would be the most effective and least distruptive solution to the present problems . Such a bridge, operated , (as it must be ) in conjunction with the MBIA bridge , would eliminate the present automobile bridge bottleneck , and we urge that this type of solution be given favorable consideration . Sincerely yours , RGN/jmf Robert G. Neiley Chairman cc: Federal Highway Admr.Mass .Di.v . Hon. Nicholas Mavroules Rep. Frances Alexander Valerie Talmage,MHC SHPO Mayor John E. Monahan Beverly Board of Aldermen Beverly Harbor Authority The Beverly Times