MISC CORRESPONDENCE WSHC i
1
Page 1 of 1
Jane Guy
From: Lynn Duncan
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:48 PM
To: David Hart; Doug Desrocher; Hannah Diozzi; Jessica Herbert; Kathy Harper, Larry Spang; Laurie
Bellin; Laurie Bellin
Cc: Jane Guy
Subject: 1A Bridge Street plans
To: Historical Commission
I have just learned that MHD has approved brick sidewalks on 1A Bridge Street from Howard Street Extension to
Webb Street on both sides of the roadway. We are in discussions about the crosswalk material. The City of
Salem is proposing the thermal imprint material that is used in downtown Salem that has the look of brick and is
referenced in the Commission's letter dated February 7, 2007.
Lynn
Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP
Director
Department of Planning & Community Development
City of Salem
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
T: 978-619-5685
F. 978-740-0404
8/4/2009
f
RECEMED
OTETRATECH RIZZO JAN U 2 20D9
DEPT.OF PLANNHI G&
OOM?:UPT`f DEVELOPI�'NT
December 30, 2008
Salem Historical Commission
City of Salem
Department of Planning and Community Development
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
ATTN: Jane A. Guy
Re: Bike Path and Bridge Street Reconstruction
Salem, Massachusetts
(MHD Project No. 601017)
Section 106 Review
Dear Reviewer:
The Massachusetts Highway Department(MassHighway) and the City of Salem are
proposing to construct a bike path connection from the Bridge Street Bypass to Bridge
Street within an abandoned former railroad right of way now owned by the
Commonwealth. On behalf of MHD and the City, Tetra Tech Rizzo is initiating early
environmental coordination with appropriate agencies for this work. Previous
correspondence was submitted in 2006 regarding the Bridge Street Reconstruction
Project to which this bike path connection is being added.
The project is located within a former 400 foot long railroad cut section that has been
partially filled with stone and earth. Proposed work will include placement of additional
fill between Cross Street and the Bridge Street Bypass bike path and construction of a 10
foot wide paved surface with drainage swales to the side and loam and seed to the edges
of the former railroad right of way. It is anticipated that this project will be supported in
part with federal funds and will require review, therefore, under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (36 CFR 800). The attached
Figure 1 —Site Locus Map depicts the project location.
MassHighway and the City of Salem request that the Salem Historical Commission
review the proposed project at its earliest convenience and provide any comments that the
Commission wishes to make regarding this project. Written comments should be
One Grant Street
Framingham,MA 01701
Tel 508.903.2000 Fax 508.903.2001
® TETRATECH RIZZO
submitted to: Frank Tramontozzi, P.E., Chief Engineer, Massachusetts Highway
Department, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116, ATTN: Geoffrey Fulgione.
If you have any questions concerning this project please feel free to contact Steve
McLaughlin(617) 973-7245 of MassHighway's Project Management Section. If you
have any questions concerning the Section 106 process, please feel free to contact
Geoffrey Fulgione (617) 973-8253) of MassHighway's Cultural Resources Unit.
Sincerely,
C
Brian Ackley, P.E.
Tetra Tech Rizzo
Copy: David Knowlton, City of Salem
Lynn Duncan, City of Salem
Steve McLaughlin, PM, MHD
Geoffrey Fulgione, CRU, MHD
Brona Simon, SHPO
Attach. Site Locus Map
PTP FY2WM4W0 4985Bik0aNt nvimnmentaMai=Hietotic Let dm -
2
49A5 lows
`,`�� � J- ' ,,:.' ' f � 75 ��' /F t t ']3 =;.� A ' �i,n,°# ��� • � `� �?'YiQX6
4 i+� l '.•� � � P apt. �S. iii ,J81C.} F yr T� 1 O
''" ` ��7f4Y1 •�� f : 4 � , �,M pix r. , r
uo.
„K„it yfl 1
6�. �•--�-d..;-1`1• { � ..�Ld sir � s f � i �l
BRIDGE STREET
:� SITE �a •. . •.�
(NO CHANGES IN LIMITS)
BIKE PATH `.] _ . ;: yj .ate• •::;,
SITE = 4
Nau '
(NEW LIMITS) ° hr { ♦.t, f '
'(y e 1. / 1 vI 4 �`r'fvd ^r� ✓ • : o_'
a �` 'fit , .•
e,'.L 'M M •'111 � � '""/ 4.a Q.
yA.�,��� � ��� ,�� .till /♦y��.L �• x `k� � ,� �t / Y�y ..j q � ��... -
y. '� -i,& s':CC+.� *er G�q ' w`" •a'` ' O'' • 1581 m ,.efmintai.
14
in
t
' �Y. � '�„ Y� .. _ `• n � v ��_., . ten_-rv�1«'s.--. a,�. ��r ti
r
i
aoo o ,00 zoo aoo Bridge Street Reconstruction
Salem, Massachusetts
Approximate Scale
TETRA TECH RIZZO
❑
Site Locus Map Figure 1
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS PLANNERS
One Grant Street
3 4�^ �"'@ Framingham, MA 01701-9005
Ez Gy II (508) 903-2000
R I Z Z O DEI; 2 1 1006 (5o8) 903-2001 fOX
A S S O C I A T E S www.rizzo.com
A TETRA TECH COMPANY DEPT. OF PLANNING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
November 14,2006
t
Hannah Diozzi, Chairperson
Salem Historical Commission
120 Washington Street
3rd Floor
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Bridge Street Reconstruction
Salem, MA
Section 106 Review
Dear Ms. Diozzi:
Rizzo Associates,Inc. is under contract with the City of Salem for the proposed Bridge Street
reconstruction project and we are initiating early environmental coordination with appropriate agencies.
Construction of the project may be supported, in part, with federal funding through the Massachusetts
Highway Department and will,therefore,require review under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 as amended(36 CFR 800).
The proposed project involves the reconstruction of a portion of the Bridge Street corridor,beginning at
the southern end of the Beverly—Salem Bridge and extending in a southerly direction to Howard Street(a
distance of approximately 1,200 meters). This project includes full depth roadway and sidewalk
reconstruction,pedestrian and traffic safety improvements,parking improvements for the abutting
businesses, landscape and streetscape improvements, street lighting and drainage improvements. We are
aware that a portion of the project is located within a historic district and there are historic buildings
within the project limits. A locus of the project is enclosed.
Please provide any comments that the Commission may wish to make regarding this project. We request
that all comments be submitted within 45 days.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions concerning this project,please contact me at
(508) 903-2341.
Very truly yours,
Matthew Shute,P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
encl.
copy: MassHighway Cultural Resources Unit
Massachusetts State Historical Preservation Officer
PA4000\4985\EnvironmentaAEarly Environmental Coordination\Historlcal_Commission_Lettecdoc
CITY OF SALEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANLEY J.USOVICZ,JR.
MAYOR 120 WASHINGTON STREET•SALFM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
JOSEPH P.WALSH.JR. TEL:978-745-9595•FAX:978-740-0404
DIRECTOR
June 7, 2004
Lance Kasparian, Chair
Salem Historical Commission
120 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: MassHighway Final Plans for Salem's Bridge Street By-Pass Project
Dear Mr. Kasparian,
The Department of Planning and Community Development recently received several copies of the
final plans for the Bridge Street By-Pass project from MassHighway,and I wanted to forward a copy
along to your Commission.
The Historic Commission provided significant ongoing and continual input throughout the design
to improve these plans. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your efforts and
please feel free to contact me at the Department of Planning and Community Development at 978-
745-9595, extension 311 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
&AA310
Denise S. McClure, AICP
Deputy Director
no I' �:I \f!_LJ
0 MCC%n '
1HIS I M 2: P5
Re
SF,LEi P.O. Box 865
PLANNIHNJG1970
incorporated Salem, M4 00799
Telephone: (978) 745-0799
April 10, 2002
Mr. Lance Kasparian
Chairman
Salem Historical Commission
120 Washington Street
Salem,MA 01970
Dear Lance:
We appreciated the opportunity to speak with the Historical Commission at your regular meeting on April 3
regarding the 106 review process for the`By pass Road". As you know, we were directed to the Salem
Historical Commission by MHC.
At your request,we are forwarding very preliminary comments on the proposed project. (As you also know, we
were first made aware that you and MHC were reviewing the project the week of April 1, 2002, and have not yet
had the opportunity to physically view and review the plans.) These comments are in addition to those included
in our letter, attached,to the Federal Highway Administration, other signatories and consulting parties, regarding
this project, in which we request the opportunity to participate in the on-going Section 106 consultation process.
Thank you for your review and comments, and for any help the Commission can provide in addressing this
important issue.
i
ere
L/
n V Goff Margaret S. wohey
Executive Director Presiden
Enclosures: Letter dated April 10, 2002 to the Federal Highway Administration
Preliminary Comments
Fax: (978) 744-4536 ' Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.historicsalem.org/
Preliminary Comments on the 75%Design Documents of the changed alignment of the Boston Bridge
Street"By-Pass Road", made without benefit of viewing the documents before the Historical Commission
Historic Salem,Inc,April 10,2002
1. The new alignment(c- 1998)brings the roadway very close to three National Register properties -the
First Universalist Church,the Old Salem Jail and Jailers House, and the granite retaining wall of the Howard
Street Burying ground along with the Burying Ground itself—as well as the Salem Common Historic District.
The new alignment is six and five lanes wide. This width most likely will produce negative visual impacts (albeit,
we have not seen the particulars of the design and there may be ways of mitigating it. Vibrations and snow
removal caused by traffic on this wide roadway,with National Register properties which appear to be within 5
feet of the traveled way, are likely to cause severe negative impact, particularly on the Church.
2. The new alignment also is quite close to, and actually touches at several points, the North River Historic
Neighborhood, which was determined to be National Register eligible after the 1992 MOA. The potential adverse
effect should be subject to the Chapter 106 consultation process.
3. Also,the new alignment is close to the Salem Common (Local) Historic District, also enlarged since the
1992 MOA, and directs traffic up St. Peter Street toward the Common. This new alignment will also have an
impact on historic resources on St. Peter's Street. The pedestrian access issues noted below apply here.
4. The new alignment will separate two major nodes from the National Register Courthouse District. These
nodes are the MBTA Salem Depot Commuter Rail Station and the soon-to-be completed J.P1 Jefferson -at-Salem
residential development of about 470 units, which is expected to house about 600 new residents. Pedestrian
access across the existing 3 -4 lanes at the west end of Washington Street between the rail station and the court
area-as well as the rest of downtown and the City at large- is minimal at present. It should be improved by the
new roadway project, perhaps by an underground or overhead pedestrian passage, or other method if the crossing
still has to be made at grade.
5. Pedestrian access across the existing two-lane Route 107 Bridge Street at the new JPI development,which
is almost directly across the street from the Universalist Church and the Salem Jail, is currently controlled by a
walk light. The newly constructed JPI complex is expected to be pedestrian-connected to the vital and vibrant
historic Salem downtown, which is also part of a Downtown Salem Multiple Resource Area. Downtown Salem is
currently the focus of a five-year National Trust for Historic Preservation"Main Streets"effort. The proposed
new road projectwould replace the existing two lanes at this location with six lanes. We would suggest that
significant lane reduction and other mitigation actions need to be considered to minimize the impact of these
changes on historic resources.
/2uo2 TUE 19:02 FAX 978 970 3121 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1@002
Downtown. Salem Neighborhood Association
Lance Kasparian
Chair,
Salem Historical Commission. 7 April,200
1,Arbella Street,
Salem
Dear Lance,
Bride Street By-Pass
Following last Wednesday's meeting of the Commission and your request for a synopsis of our
concerns in writing,the following are the issues which I,as a member of the Downtown Association,
feel need to be addressed.
A)The Process
We would like to receive advice as to how"interested parties" are meant to find out about occasions
on which items that they may have an interest in,are being considered;and how they may have the
opportunity to participate and make their feelings known.
The Mayor has indicated his determination to allow for greater participation and consultation with
residents in local affairs.
While I accept that it is unreasonable in most eases to expect City boards to notify individuals
directly,publication of an accurate Agenda would at least bell►to take as beyond the rhetoric.
It would also defuse any implication of covert activities'.
B)The By-Pass
1)Having been advised by Masa Highway that issues we had raised relating to Historic
preservation should be taken up with Salem and Mass Historic bodies,it seemed reasonable that we
should take an interest In the news of your meeting with Mass Highway to discuss the latest plans.
I,personally,find it incredible that Salem Historical Commission did not feel it necessary to seek
some mitigation of a design that drives a 3 and 6 late Highway through the center of an historic
City,and within an arms length of a building on the National Register.
The noise,vibration and noxious pollutants from traffic forced into a stop/go pattern immediately
alongside the Universalist Church and close to the Jail and burial ground,MUST have an adverse
e&d on the fabric of these edifices and the people who visit them.(I imagine the impact on the
residents of the adjacent homes for the elderly is not strictly a matter of historic preservation.)
The Road Working Group you attended certainly seemed to recognize the danger.
I hope the Commission may be persuaded to give the matter a serious re-think,even if your role is
purely advisory,
Yours,
Iain Maclean 28 B Federal Street
Secretary Salem
�e�Jars.Jla�u ..Oc+alcuz ,ll.S� 02776-99 79
WILLIAM F.WELD
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
RICHARD L.TAYLOR December 5, 1991
SECRETARY
JAMES J.KERASIOTES
COMMISSIONER
Salem-Beverly Transportation Project
Annie Clay Harris
Chairman RECEIVED
Salem Historical Commission
One Salem Green DEC 1 U 1991
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Ms Harris: SALEM PLANNING DEPT.
Since our last letter to you (June 28, 1991) regarding the Section
106 Documentation for the Salem-Beverly Transportation project
there has been additional correspondence. The Federal Highway
Administration has asked the Department to provide copies of the
following correspondence to you for your files.
11/19/91 FHWA to Advisory Council re. effect findings
11/18/91 MDPW to FHWA re. effect findings
11/21/91 MDPW/FHWA to Keeper re. North River Canal
11/15/91 MDPW/FHWA to Keeper re. Salem Tower
10/21/91 MHC to FHWA re. clarification of effect findings
10/17/91 Council to FHWA re. North River Canal
09/19/91 FHWA to Council re. North River Canal
08/05/91 Council to FHWA re. project effects; No.Rr. Canal
07/31/91 FHWA to MHC re. clarification of effect findings
07/25/91 MDPW to FHWA re. clarification of effect findings
06/28/91 MHC to FHWA re. effect findings
Thank you for your interest in the Salem-Beverly Transportation
Project.
Sincerely,
?
ICHAE SWAN.-SON, P.E.
Chief Engineer
je/do
attach.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1W A FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION E GV,
E �``
REGION ONE 7
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTER �J aR 25 1991
55 BROADWAY, 10TH FLOOR ggaa �
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02142 SALEP619tl6d�dtl7 LB !Ig��!q
.
IN REPLY REFER TO:
HB-MA
BR-F-54 (085)
Beverly-Salem
March 19, 1991
Ms. Annie Clay Harris, Chairman
Salem Historical Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
a
Dear Ms. Harris:
I have received your letter providing comments on the Section 106
historical review documentation for the above project. I note that
you have forwarded a copy directly to the Massachusetts Department
of Public Works. This action was most appropriate and will ensure
your comments are considered as the project advances.
Thank you for your interest in this proposal to improve
transportation facilities in this area.
Sincerely yours,
Anthony J. Fusco
Division Administrator
9 19
By: A. R. Churchill
District Engineer
pc: Mr. G. R. Turner
Chief Engineer, M.D.P.W.
u w�V
HARRIS
Frederic It. Harris, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Long Wharf, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 617-7234700
May 2, 1973
08-467-01
Salem Historic Commission
c/o Mr. Robert Scagliotti
Anderson-Nichols
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Dear Mr. Scagliotti :
Frederic R. Harris, Inc. has been contracted by the
Mass. Dept. of Public Works to study the Salem/Peabody
Connector Facility and prepare an Environmental Impact/
4(f) Statement for the project.
Our planning to date indicates that in order to link
the Connector to the Salem Central Business District , con-
necting ramps may cause a slight relocation of the Revolu-
tionary War Plaque located on North Street .
By law, any Federally financed transportation project
which requires the use of public or private historic sites
must undergo a review procedure, provided the properties af-
fected are significant in the opinion of the officials hav-
ing jurisdiction thereof.
This review procedure is known as the "Section 4(f) Re-
view, " and was instituted by Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended. (The requirements
of the statute as found in the Federal Highway Administration
Policy and Procedure Memorandum 90-1 (FHWA PPM 90-1 ) are at-
tached for your reference. ) It is important to note that
the decision as to whether or not a project actually reaches
the construction stage depends partly on the results of this
review.
In order to initiate the formal review procedure, F. R.
Harris , Inc. is required to obtain a determination of signi-
ficance of the Section 4(f) lands from the officials having
jurisdiction. Accordingly, we are requesting a letter from
you covering the following points :
(1) A statement that you are in fact the officials
having jurisdiction over the Revolutionary War Plaque.
r
UL
HARRIS Page two
08-467-01
(2) A determination whether, in your opinion, the
land is significant for the purposes of Section
4(f) ;
(3) A brief statement of the reasons supporting your
determination;
(4) A statement in your opinion as to why the Plaque
should not be relocated and/or any suggestions
as to where the monument could best be relocated
if it is so decided. (Please find attached a
Preliminary Sketch of the proposed alignment for
your review. )
We are required, at a minimum, to include your de-
termination of significance in the Environmental Impact/4(f)
Statement . At your option, we will include verbatim, your
statement.
Should you have any questions , please feel free to con-
tact our office. We will be happy to provide you with what-
ever further explanations or assistance you may require.
We would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest
possible convenience as your input is an important part of
the review process.
Sincerely,
FREDERIC R. HARRIS, INC.
6&'� /),/, 'G�wv'
Robert H. Demer
Environmental Engineer
RHD:mdh
i
Attach (2)
- V.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - Transmittal 257
FEDERAL
WAY
1' POLICYt�AND PRO";EDURE MEMORANDUM 90- 1 :
ISen
September 7 972
ENVIRONMENTAL IDIPACT AND RELATED STATEMENTS
'Par.- 1, Purpose - (it) any adverse,environmental
2- Authority -- - . effects which cannot be avoided should the
3. Definitions _ proposal be implemented,
4', Policy - (iii) alternatives to the proposed
5, Application - .. action,'
6. Procedures . - - (iv) the relationship between local - _
'short-term uses of man's environment and - -
. Appendix A Procedures on Historicthe maintenance and enhancement of long-
. - Preservation - ' term productivity, and -
Appendix B -Example of Design Con- (A any irreversible and irretriev-
currence Letter - - able commitments of-resources which would
Appendix C -.Location Stage Flow Chartbe involved in the proposed action should it
Appendix D - Design Stage Flow Chart be.implemented.
Appendix E Environmental Statements -
Contents and Format - Prior to making any detailed statement; the
Appendix F - Evaluating Highway Section - responsible Federal official shall consult
Environmental Effects .' with and obtain the comments of any Federal _
-Appendix G - Inter-Agency-Review of agency which has jurisdiction by law or spe-
Draft Environmental Statements cial expertise with respect to any environ-
Appendix H - Selections from PPM 20-8, mental impact involved- Copies of such
for Use in Preparing Environmental - statement and the comments and views of the
Statements - - - appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies
Appendix I - Purchasing Copies of which are authorized to develop and enforce
- Environmental Statements ' environmental standards,- shall accompany
the proposal through the existing agency
review processes.
1,, PURPOSE b Section_ 1653(£), Title 49, United
States Coce 1T Sectlon_138,-5'itle 2nited.
To provide guidelines to highway depart- - States Code, (hereafter referred to-as Sec-
ments and Federal Highway Administration tion 4(f)") permits the Secretary of Trans- -
-(FIIWA) field offices to assure that the human purtation to approve a program or project
environment is carefully considered and - which requires the use of publicly owned land
national environmental goals are met when - from a park, recreation area, or Wildlife
develdping federally financed highway and waterfowl refuge of national, Slate, or
improvements. local significance as determined by the Fed-
eral, State or local officials having jurisdic-
2. AUTHORITY - - tion thereof, or land from an historic site of
national, State, or local significance as so
a. Section 4332(2)(C), Title 42', United - determined by, such officials (hereafter "See-
-e ----- -- ---asSe ---_. .
States Code (popularly known_as Section 102 _ tion,4(f) land') only if:
t2T(C) of the i\ahonil Fm ironmen_tal Polite - -
Act of 19b9 P, L 91 1"�) states in part that - (1).' there is no feasible and prudent
all agencies of the Federal Government shall:_ alternative to the use of such land, and _ 't
"include in every recommendationor (2) such program includes all oos-
'report on proposals for legislation and other sible planning to minimize harm to the Sec-
major Federal actions significantly affecting,- tion 4(f) land resulting from such use.
the quality of the human environment, a -
detailed statement by the responsible officials
on --- 1/ Section 1653(f), Title 49, United States
Code, is identical to Sections 138,. Title 23,
(i) the environmental impact of.the United States Code, and 4(1) of the Depart-
proposed action, - ment of Transportation Act as amended by
# _ Section 18 of theFederal-AidHighway Act
17 r
2719+2
_ rc-,J RAL Alf?
PROGRAM SEC
,
G
--� � �1 , � "� � I ~ �'_ It � > 5•s' .. t i 1
{ X�STIJ�
l � y
y .
R-STAURAN ,
� a
\� \