Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
REPORTS
r✓9✓11 gibe (Dommonwealtq of Assonebusetts No. 3146 lug Whereas, Massachusetts Highway Department of -- Boston, -- in the County of -- Suffolk -- and Commonwealth aforesaid, has applied to the Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter the "Department") for license to - ) relocate a portion of the North RiverCanal-and to construct-and- maintain the Bridge Street By-pass ----- -- -- i and has submitted plans of the same; and whereas due notice of said application, and of the time and place fixed for a hearing , thereon, has been given, as required by law, to the -- Mayor and City Council -- of the Cities of -- Salem -- and -- Beverly ---- NOW, said Department, having heard all parties desiring. to be heard, and having fully considered said application, hereby, subject to the approval of the Governor, authorizes and the said ----- ---------- -- -' Massachusetts Highway Department -- subject to the provisions of the ninety-first chapter of the General Laws, and of all laws which are or may be in force applicable thereto, to -- relocate a portion of the North River Canal, construct and maintain the Bridge Street By-pass- and public open spaces including waterfront walkways, widen and maintain Bridge Street, and 'relocate a-rail - yard and railroad tracks in and over the waters and filled tidelands of the -- North River, in the -- City -- of. --Salem -- and the -- Danvers River -- in the -- City -- of -- Beverly -- 'in accordance with the locations shown and details indicated on the accompanying DEP^--^ License Plan No. 3146, (14 sheets) . i MNIED DN RECYCLED PAPER License No. 3146 Page 2 The structures hereby authorized shall be limited to the following uses: vehicular and rail traffic, utilities, conveyance of storm water, pedestrian access, and public access to waterfront open space for passive recreational purposes. The historic high water line is approximately 400 feet landward of that shown on the license plans immediately west of North Street in Salem. The temporary relocation of utilities in the vicinity' of the relocated Salem-Beverly Bridge may precede after review and approval by the Department of Environmental Protection. This Waterways license is made subject to the following special conditions: Com. I1'^ f30�fw rliwf Sr owt Z1 ^� SF }O �kn" - S' - &'Hk01�,u-k Soecial Condition 1: The Licensee shall provide two sets of plans to the Department for prior review and approval encompassing the project alignment from Boston Street to North Street in Salem which clearly delineate the present location of the North River Canal, Bridge Street, and rail ways, and the proposed modifications to said canal, street, and rail ways. Said plans shall include plan and 'cross sectional views of existing and proposed conditions and shall indicate any culverts to be replaced or removed, their sizes, and proposed replacements. Said plans shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval prior to the start of relocating the canal. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. These plans may be combined with the plans required by Special Conditions 2 and 3. Y F l t�Cno gnec'a� Condition 2: The Licensee shall use granite block material to face the walls of the relocated canal between Boston Street and North Street, if structurally feasible. Plans for said construction shall be submitted to the Department for review and approval prior to the start of relocating the canal. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. V3,.� ?1 t Spec is Condition 3: The Licensee shall provide the Department with plans of the proposed replacement for the Flint Street Crossing of the North River Canal. Said plans shall include plan and cross sectional views of the crossing. Said crossing shall be designed in such a manner so as to be compatible with the proposed public park specified in Special Condition 6. Said plans shall be submitted to the Department for review. and approval prior to the start of reconstructing the Flint Street Crossing. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. c„a ;_i al Condition 4: The Licensee shall remove and properly, dispose of all debris and trash located along the banks on the North River Canal within the project alignment from Boston to North Streets. Said work Shall be completed within five years from the date of this license or t other time period pursuant to Special Condition 29. License No. 7146 Ul �� Page 1 soec{al Conditl.4 The Licensee shall ensure that the nonfunctioning tidegate located under North Street in Salem is locked in the open position and made secure from being closed by either intentional or accidental means: a +-+ C U4" 2D 1: The Licensee shall construct, landscape, and maintain in good repair a public park and passive recreational area on the southerly and northerly edges of the shoreline of the relocated North Canal generally between Flint and North Streets in Salem in substantial accordance with. the plans entitled "Phase 1, North River Canal, Figure 5, " contained in Volume 1 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project. The referenced public park shall include the following amenities: a handicapped accessible walkway on both sides of the canal with a minimum width of 10 feet, landscaping, a pedestrian bridge across the canal, benches, appropriate lighting, and trash receptacles. Substitution for these amenities may be at: (a)allowed, after view and municipalpagency roval in Salem Department, the provided that: (a) submits a request in writing providing good cause for the substitution; and (b) the substitution is of comparable benefit and function and is consistent with the requirements of c. 91 and its associated regulations. Said park shall be designed by a Registered Landscape Architect. The Licensee shall prepare plans for said park in consultation with the appropriate City of Salem municipal agencies. , The Licensee. shall submit two sets of plans to the Department for review and comment upon completion of the design at the draft 25% and 758 levels, with the understanding that these plans will contain the customary detail appropriate to those design levels and will submit two sets of plans to the Department at the draft loot level for review and approval. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 7o days of their receipt. Said park shall be completed within five years from the date of this license or other time period pursuant to Special Condition 29. The Licensee shall allow the handicapped accessible walkways authorized by this conditionto be by connected wiers of abutting properties any future waterfront walkways that may be proposed in the future, such as any waterfront walkways the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority may propose in the future at its site located to the east of North Street. Snecial Condition 7: The Licensee s al demolish and remove the bridge identified on the draft license plans as the t,earsting fromRoute dateBofdthis Said bridge shall be removed within five (5) y license or other time period pursuant to Special Condition 29. Snecial Condition 8: 'The Licensee shall construct, landscape and maintain in good repair a public park and passive recreational area at the causeway of the existing Route lA Bridge in Salem. The referenced public park shall include the following amenities: a pedestrian fishing area, handicapped accessible ;walkway with a minimum width of fa10 feet, and landscaping, benches, appropriatelighting, t Substitution for these amenities may be allowed, after prior review and Page 4 License No. 3146 approval by the Department, provided that:` (a) the appropriate municipal agency in Salem submits a request in writing providing good cause for the substitution; and (b) the substitution is of comparable benefit and function and is consistent with the requirements of C. 91 and its associated regulations. In addition, the Licensee shall explore all reasonable opportunities to include a parking area for park users. Said park shall be designed by a Registered Landscape Architect. Plans for said park shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City of Salem municipal agencies. The Licensee shall submit two sets of plans to the Department for review and comment, upon completion of the design at the draft 258 and 758 levels, with the understanding that these plans will contain the customary detail appropriate to those design levels and will submit two sets of plans to the Department at the draft 1008 level for review and approval. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 3o days of their receipt. Said park shall be completed within five years from the date of this license or other time period pursuant to Special Condition 29. special Condition 9: The Licensee shall construct, landscape and maintain in good repair harborfront access improvements on 'the westerly edge of the Beverly waterfront near the Salem-Beverly Bridge in accordance with the plans entitled "Proposed Beverly Harborfront Access Improvements, Figure 18," contained in Volume 1 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR for the Salem-Beverly Transportation ) � Project. The referenced harborfront access improvements shall include the following amenities: a handicapped accessible walkway along the harbor with a minimum width of 10 feet, landscaping, handicapped and accessible restroom, suitable parkinbenches, appropriate lighting, , trash receptacles. Substitution for these amenities may be allowed, after prior review and approval by the Department, provided that: (a) the appropriate municipal agency in Beverly submits a request in writing providing good cause for the substitution; and (b) the .substitution is of comparable benefit and function and is .consistent with the requirements of c. 91 and its associated regulations. Said restrooms may -not be required, if after prior review and approval by the Department, the Licensee or the City of Beverly demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that said restroom will interfere with harborfront operations. To provide suitable parking, .the Licensee shall repave and restripe the parking lot adjacent to the Beverly Harbor Authority Building,and shall construct additional parking spaces either under the bridge or in close proximity to the existing Beverly harborfront parking area. The design of the Beverly Harborfront Access improvements shall not preclude the provision of ice lockers and refuse sheds for the commercial fishermen. Plans for said harborfront access improvements shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City of Beverly municipal agencies, including the Beverly Harbor Authority. The Licensee shall submit two sets of plans to the Department for review and comment upon completion at the draft 258 and 758 design levels, with the understanding' that these plans will contain the customary detail those design levels and will submit two sets of• plans- to appropriate to the Department at the draft 1008 level for review and approval.. The License No. 3146 Page 5 Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. Said harborfront access improvements shall be completed within five years from the,date ,of this license or other time period pursuant to Special Condition 29. Spe The Licensee shall transfer ownership of the Beverly Harbor Authority building to the City of Beverly Harbor Authority subject to the condition that the building be used to house offices for the harbormaster and harbor authority and contain an associated meeting room. Said transfer of ownership shall occur by completion of the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project. S : -� Condition 11: The public parks, open spaces, and harborfront improvements specified in Special Conditions 6, 8, and 9, shall be available to the general public, free of charge, subject to reasonable rules as described in Special Condition 12. These facilities shall .be accessible 24 hours a day unless the Department approves other hours of operation in accordance with Special Condition 12, below. In no case shall these facilities be open less than dawn to dusk. Special Condition 12: The Licensee or its designee may adopt. rules governing the Publicly' accessible areas of the site, subject to review and written approval by the Department, as are ,necessary for the protection of public health and safety and private property,. and to ensure public use and enjoyment by minimizing conflicts between user groups. No amendment to said rules shall be made without written approval by the Department. . SpecialCondition 19: Upon completion of the public parks, open spaces, and harborfront improvements specified in Special Conditions 6, 8, and 9, the Licensee shall place and maintain in good repair appropriate signage of an adequate size to be clearly visible to passing motorists and pedestrians. Said signage shall be placed at all entryways, encourage public patronage of the facilities, state the hours of public access and any reasonable rules for their use in accordance with Special Condition 12 . At least one sign shall be placed in a prominent location stating the waterways license number of the project and the location within the municipality where a copy of the license may be inspected by the public. Special Condit on 14: The Department may authorize the Licensee to transfer the responsibility for maintenance of the parks, open spaces, and harborfront improvements specified in Special Conditions 6, 8, and 9 to a party other than the Licensee. To apply for a transfer of said maintenance responsibility, the Licensee shall submit to the Department m the in writing for prior review and approval within five (5) years date of this license or other time period pursuant to Special Condition Y9, a draft agreement reached between the Licensee and other party. Said y the area to be maintained, state that the draft agreement shall identif maintenance shall be in perpetuity, that failure to maintain said area will result in a violation of c. 91 requirements which are enforceable by the Department, and any structural License No. 3146 Page 6 alterations r change in use rto said area'are subject to the requirements Of C. �i i Condition 15: The Licensee shall not repair, construct, or maintain any structures seaward of the present mean high water (MHW) along the route- of the proposed Bridge Street by-pass in Salem as shown on the draft license plans. Such structures that may not be constructed seaward of NHW include seawalls, bulkheads, railways, railway emb ts,oribbiny.: roadways,._fences, and noise barriers._i5uch ructures shall not include stormw'ater outfalls-an---any associated ' armorin Should'the Licensee wish to construct structures seaward of ong. the route of the by-pass, the Licensee shall contact the Department in writing; prior to 'conducting the activity, to request a determination as to whether a waterways authorization will be required. Spgcal Condition 16: The Licensee shall design the shoulder of the by- pass road identified on the draft license plans to accommodate bicycle traffic. Prior to the opening of ,said by-pass to automobile traffic, the Licensee shall designate the shoulder of the by-pass as a bicycle route and shall place and maintain in good repair appropriate signage along the by-pass of enshallubeeplacedtatbintervals deemed toobeaappropriatelbytthe Said signag Licensee along the by-pass. �q --:si condition 17: The Licensee shah conductpublic meeting or series of meetings in Salem to review potential noise barrier and street lighting designs. The purpose of said meeting(s). shall be to seek community input regarding designs to best mitigate noise and street lighting impacts. Said meeting(s) shall be advertised in a local paper for at least one day, not less than 48 hours in advance of said meeting and a copy of the meeting notice shall be sent by the Licensee to the Department, Mayor, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and City . Clerk of Salem. Said ,meeting(s) shall be held prior to completion of the 25% design for the noise barrier and street lighting. ecia� Condition a8: At a minimum, the Licensee shall evaluate mitigation for any noise impacts in accordance with Federal Highway AdS ministration (FHWA) standards and guidelines. �n�ial Cond+'tion 19: The Licensee shall design and construct any noise barriers incorporated into the project with an absorptive material on the highwayside to absorb sound. The intent of said condition is to provide noise protection for those residing adjacent to the project alignment and for those residing in North Salem, across the North River. In the course of designing said barrier, the Licensee shall explore all reasonable opportunities to retain views of the North River from public ways and to evaluate whether any portions of said barrier are located within the 100- year floodplain. Such reasonable opportunities to retain views may include offset walls or elevated observation platforms. If portions of the barrier are located within the 100-year floodplain, the Licensee shall evaluate, in consultation with the Department, whether there is the License No. 3146 Page 7 potential for increased flooding due to constriction of floodwaters by the barrier. Results of said evaluation shall be provided to the Department for review. If it is determined that increased flooding may result or that the barrier will hold flood waters landward of it, the Licensee shall evaluate alternative designs for noise barriers or other means to absorb roadway sound along the by-pass. Upon completion of the noise barrier plans at the draft 25% and 75% design levels, two sets of said plans shall be submitted to the Department for review and comment, withthe understanding that these plans will contain the customary detail levels and will submit two sets of plans to appropriate to those design the Department at the draft 100% level for review and approval. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. Said plans shall clearly indicate general design detail, elevation, and location of the noise barriers. Special Condition 20: The Licensee shall design all street lights within the areas subject to C. 91 jurisdiction to the extent feasible given state and federal roadway standards in such a manner so as to not direct the light towards nearby residences. Soeci-� ConditQII The Licensee shall identify all outfalls to the North River and canal along the route of the proposed project alignment and evaluate whether said outfalls have received the appropriate local, state, and federal water quality authorizations. Should any outfalls be encountered which do not appear to have received the appropriate authorization, the Licensee shall submit the information in writing to the appropriate local, state, or federal agency,and request to know whether said outfall shall be eliminated. The Licensee shall submit to. the Department for review and approval two sets of plans showing all proposed project outfalls flowing into the North River and canal prior to the construction of said project outfalls. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. Said plan showing all outfalls may be combined with the plan required by Special Condition 22. Soso ei�ition 22: The Licensee shall manage storm water along the project alignment generally in accordance with the document entitled IlSalem-Beverly Transportation Project, Best Management Practices for Storm Water Management and Construction Erosion/Sediment Control," prepared by the Massachusetts Highway Department, dated June, 1992, and on file with the Department. The Licensee shall construct and maintain a storm drainage system along the project alignment which includes 3 foot deep sumps and separation of oil and grease. The Licensee shall submit plans to the Department for review and reaseapproval which clearly prior tindicate the the location of catch basins and oil/g construction of said catch basins. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. The ' Licensee or its designee shall check all sumps and oil/grease separators at least once per year and clean, as appropriate. f � '1 License No. 3146 Page 8 apeGiB� andition z3: The Licensee shall"install and maintain erosion and sedimentation controls along the shoreline of all waterways and around all catch basins to minimize sedimentation and turbidity effects to the North River and canal, and the Danvers River. Said plans shall be in accordance with the document entitled "Salem-Beverly Transportation Project, Best Management Practices for Storm Water Management and Construction Erosion/Sediment Control," prepared by the Massachusetts Highway Department, dated June, 1992, and on file with the Department. �p�cial Condition 24 : " �'he Licensee shall recalculate the flooding potential of the North River and Canal. Said recalculation shall take into account the existing tide gates, canal relocation, increased flood storage in the canal, and all structures constructed as part of the project which are located within the 100-year floodplain. Said recalculation shall utilize the same methods as were employed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its most recent analysis. The results shall be provided to the Department, FEMA, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management office of Water Resources, and the City of Salem. The intent of this condition is solely to redetermine the loo-year floodplain boundary based upon the final design of the project. Rnori'•7 Gondit�on 25: 'No dredging shall take place during springtime spawning periods of winter flounder and anaitromous $ ecies, which occi;r. between March }st and June 30t Brat LLto of N aril Wcu �c P ca aye hh '.-1 9 ""7 Wim`. Lir° 4cw-al . r`}IIw9t1e wt11 QLwr 1n(��`-�r•-1 ��Iwb7J�� �`�� � { Special Condition 26: The Licensee shall providelthe Department with two sets 'of plans showing all locations proposed to be dredged by said project, with the exception of those elements exempt from c. 91 pursuant to c. 33 S 3 (k) of the Acts of 1991 and c. 15 S 3(0) of the Acts of 1988, quantities of materials to be dredged, pre-dredge contours, proposed post-dredge contours, and place of dredge disposal. Said plans for•, eaeh different dredge area shall be provided to the Department for review and approval prior to commencement of dredging within said area. The Department will issue written findings regarding the plans within 30 days of their receipt. >> condition 27: ��he Wr tten Determination issued hereto, shall__) / remain valid for up(to one yea after issuance. Said --term-may be---- o extended by the Department—Bone or more one'-y'ear periods, provided that the Applicant submits to the Department, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of said term a written 'request to extend the term and provides an adequate justification for said extension. nec. Cd'tion IS: The structures and uses authorized by this license. are valid for an unlimited term from the date of license issuance pursuant to 310 CMR 9.15(1) (c) of the Waterways Regulations. �p al Condition 29: All work authorized herein shall be completed within five (5) years of the date of license issuance. Said construction period may be extended by the Department for one or more one year periods License No. 3146 Page 9 without public notice, provided that the Applicant submits to the Department, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of said construction period, a written. request to extend the period and provides an adequate justification for said extension. Please see page ten for additional conditions to this license. --------- a Duplicate of said plan, number 3146 is on file in the office of said Department, and original of said plan accompanies this License, and is to be referred to as a part hereof. f i License No. 3146 Page 10 STANDARD WATERWAYS LICENSE CONDITIONS 1. Acceptance of this Waterways License shall constitute an agreement by the Licensee to conform with all terms and conditions stated herein. 2. This License is granted upon the express condition that any and all other applicable authorizations necessitated due to the provisions hereof shall be secured by the Licensee prior to the commencement of any activity or use authorized pursuant to this License. 3, Any change in use or any substantial structural alteration of any structure or fill authorized herein shall require the issuance by the Department of a new Waterways License in accordance with the provisions and procedures established in chapter 91 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Any unauthorized substantial change in use or unauthorized substantial structural alteration of any structure or fill authorized herein shall render this waterways License void. 4. This Waterways License shall be revocable by the Department for noncompliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. This license may be revoked after the Department has given written notice of the alleged noncompliance to the Licensee and those persona who have filed a written request for such notice with the Department and afforded them a reasonable opportunity to correct said noncompliance. Failute to correct said noncompliance after the issuance of a written notice by the Department shall render this Waterways License void and the commonwealth may proceed to remove or cause removal of any structure or fill authorized herein at the expense of the Licensee, its successors and assigns as an unauthorized and unlawful structure and/or fill. 5. The structures and/or fill authorized herein shall be maintained in good repair and in accordance with the terms and conditions stated heroin and the details indicated on the accompanying license plans. 6. Nothing in this waterways License shall be construed as authorizing encroachment in, on or over property not owned or controlled by the Licensee, except with the written consent of the owner or owners thereof. 7. This Waterways License is granted subject to all applicable Federal, State, County, and Municipal laws, ordinances and regulations including but not limited to a valid final order of conditions issued pursuant to the wetlands Protection _ Act, G.L. Chapter 131, 9.40. S. This Waterways License is granted upon the express condition that the use of the structures and/or fill authorized,hereby shall be in strict conformance with all applicable requirements and authorizations of the DEP, Division of Nater Pollution Control. , 9. in accordance with the publ#c easement that exists by law on private tidelands, the licensee shall allow the public to use and to pass freely upon the area of the subject property lying between the high:and low water marks, for the purposes of fishing fowling, navigation, and the natural derivatives thereof. No restriction on the exercise of such public rights within the intertidal area shall be imposed unless otherwise expressly provided in this license. . 10. unless otherwise expressly provided by this licence, the licensee shall not limit the hours of availability of any areas of the subject property designated for public passage, nor place any gates, fences, or other structures on such areas -in a manner that would impede or discourage the free flow of pedestrian movement thereon. License No. 3146 Page 11 The work hereb ed beenamount of ascertaineddbywsaid Department, and ecompensation thereof zhas has been made by the said -- Massachusetts Highway Department -- by paying into the treasury of the Commonwealth -- zero dollars and zero cents ($0.00) -- for each cubic yard so displaced, being the amount-- hereby assessed by the said Department. ---------------- Nothing in this License shall be construed as to impair the legal rightsof any person ----------------------------------------------- This License shall be void unless the same and the accompanying plans are recorded within 60 days from the date hereof, in the Registry of Deeds for the -- Southern -- District of the County of -- Essex. ---- IN WITNESS WHEREAS, said Department of Environmental Protection have hereunto set their hands this first day of December in the year nineteen hundred and ninety-two. Commissioner Department of �� i )tom . Environmental Director Protection Section Chief THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS This License is approved in consideration_ of the payment into the treasury of the Commonwealth by the said -- Massachusetts Highway Department ---- -------------------------------------------- of the further sum of -- zero dollars and zero cents ($0.00) -------- the amount determined by the Governor as a just and equitable charge for rights and privileges hereby granted in the land of the Commonwealth. BOSTON Approved by the Governor Governor �- U ,per �\ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON, MA 02108 617-202.8600 MITT ROMNEY ELLEN ROY BEIM ELDEE Governor - Semtary KERKY HKALEY ROBERT W.GOLLEDGE,Jr. Lieutenant Oovaroor OOmmiaeioaer Ms.Diane Madden MAR 16 2W Massachusetts Highway Department Ten Park Plaza A44 Boston,MA 02116 RE: ISSUANCE OF CHAPTER 91 WATERWAYS LICENSE Waterways License Application No.W02-0440-N License No. 10165 Filled tidelands of the North River,Salem,Essex County Dear Ms.Madden, The Department of Environmental Protection hereby issues the above-referenced Waterways license,enclosed,authorizing you to perform certain activities pursuant to M.G.L.c.91,the Public Waterfront Act and its regulations 310 CMR 9.00. Any change in use or alteration of am structure or fill not authorized by this license shall render this license void. RECORDING OF THE LICENSE This License must be recorded at your County Registry of Deeds or,if registered land,with the Land Registration Office within sixty(60)days from the date of license issuance. Failure to record this license within sIxty(60)days of the date of Issuance will render this license void pursuant to 310 CMR 9.18. I have enclosed a list of MASSACHUSETTS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS to assist you in identifying the County Registry of Deeds for your project. A Waterways License Recordation Notice Form has been enclosed for your use in notifying the Department of the recording information for this License, Failure to notify the Department of the recordine of this license is a violation of 310 CMR 9.00 and is sublect to enforcement action by thebepartmeut REQUEST CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to 310 CMR 9.19,once the proposed project is completed you must file a Request for a Certificate of Compliance form,BRP W W05,within sixty(60)days of completion but in no event later than five(5)years from the License's issuance date. The license for any project for which such a request isnot filed and certificate issued may be revoked pursuant to 310 CMR 9.26. - 74b lafornwd=h ava0ahk In dtb=ft farmaL Cru Dowd K Game;ADA Coord ntor,at 1417-656-1057.ran anAo-L800-1W2207. DEP w to Wadd Me WelK htlpJhv dda.ma.ueldap . . �PddW on RecAW Papa r Ben Lynch,Program Chief Waterways Regulation Program Department of Environmental Protection 1 Winter Street,6th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 RE: NOTIFICATION OF WATERWAYS LICENSE RECORDATION Waterways License No._10165 Waterway North River Town Salem County Essex Dear Mr. Lynch: ( This is to notify you that the above referenced Waterways license was recorded with the appropriate Registry . —' of Deeds/ Land Court for, this project location and to provide your office with the following recordation information. Date of Recordation: County Registry of Deeds/Land Court: _ Book number and page number(s) 1 Sincerely, Chapter 91 Amnesty Interim Waterways Licensee . License Is void if not recorded within sbdy(60)days of Issuance. r � ' ° ItIIIII�IIIIIUIIIIIUU�uuuunuunull & 1005040600130 804146 Pj;530 0910E12005 09:2"0 OTHER B Ila at a UIourmnnurettltEl of Mussaihusetts No. 10165 hxrtas, Massachusetts Highway Department of--- Boston --- in the County of—Suffolk--- has applied to the Department of Environmental Protection to --- amend license 3146 ---to construct and maintain 2,100 +/- linear feet of the Bridge Street By-pass in a new alignment, a 2,400 +/- linear foot landscaped linear park with a 10 foot wide pedestrian and bicycle path, and a 120 +/- linear foot ballast retaining wall ------------=-------------- —-----------------—----,---------------_--- and has submitted plans of the same; and whereas due notice of said application, and of the time and place fixed for a hearing thereon, as required by law, has been given to the—Mayor and City Council—of the -- City-- of— Salem. ---------------------------------------- NOW, said Department, having heard all parties desiring to be heard, and having fully considered said application, hereby, subject to the approval of the Governor, authorizes 'and licenses the said ---------------------------------------------—--------------—------------------------- --- Massachusetts Highway Department --- subject to the provisions of the ninety-first chapter of the General Laws, and of all laws which are or may be in force applicable thereto, to --- construct and maintain 2,100 +/- linear feet of the Bridge Street By-pass, a 2,400 +/- linear foot landscaped linear park with a 10 foot wide pedestrian and bicycle path, and a 120 +/- linear foot ballast retaining wall -----------------------------------------------, in the-- City -- of— Salem -- in accordance with the locations shown and details indicated on the accompanying DEP License Amendment Plans No. 10165 (10 sheets), I he structures au ooze ere y snail a limited to trie tollowing uses: nonwa er- dependent infrastructure for vehicular movement and public access to the waterfront. This License Amendment is valid for an unlimited term from the date of issuance of License 3146 (December 1, 102). PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER t�Jte (limamonwe�itq of �aesls�cqu�r�el No. 10165 glhtteso. Massachusetts Highway Department of-- Boston —in the County of–Suffolk---has applied to the Department of Environmental Protection to — amend license 3146—to construct and maintain 2,100 +/- linear feet of the Bridge Street By-pass in a new alignment, a 2,400+/- linear foot landscaped linear park with a 10 foot wide pedestrian and bicycle path, and a 120 +/ linear foot ballast retaining wall-•----------_—__.—__—____________—___._.._—__ and has submitted plans of the same; and whereas due notice of said application, and of the time and place fixed for a hearing thereon, as required by law, has been given to the–Mayor and City Council–of the – City–of–Salem. NOW, said Department, having heard all parties desiring to be heard, and having fully considered said application, hereby, subject to the approval of the Governor, authorizes and licenses the said –__.�_---_---..____---------_-_- - Massachusetts Highway Department --subject to the provisions of the ninety-first chapter of the General Laws, and of all laws which are or may be in force applicable thereto,to—construct and maintain 2,100+/ linear feet of the Bridge Street By-pass, a 2,400+/-linear foot landscaped linear park with a 10 foot wide pedestrian and bicycle path, and a 120+/-linear foot ballast retaining wall in the-- City–of–Salem--in accordance with the locations shown and details Indicated on the accompanying DEP License Amendment Plans No. 10165 (10 sheets). The structures authorized hereby shall be limited to the following uses: nonwater- dependent infrastructure for vehicular movement and public access to the waterfront. This License Amendment is valid for an unlimited term from the date of issuance of License 3146 (December 1, 1992). FRMWoNFWMMPOM i License 10165 Page 2 of 6 This License Amendment is subject to the following Special and Standard Conditions. 1. License 3146: All authorizations and conditions of License 3146 shall remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified in this decision. 2. Amended License Construction Term This Amended License shall expire as to all work authorized which is not completed within a maximum of 5 years from the date this amended license is issued. a. Also,the construction period for certain structures authorized by License 3146 but not yet constructed shall be extended for an additional four(4)years from date of this amended license is issued.Those structures include Bridge Street from Flint to Washington Streets described in Special Condition#1 of License 3146,the Salem Causeway Park described in Special Condition#8,the Beverly Harbor walkway described in Special Condition#9 and transfer of ownership of the Beverly Harbor Authority Building described in Special Condition#10. b. Said construction period may be extended by the Department for one or more one year periods,without public notice,provided that the Applicant submits to the Department, thirty(30)days prior to the expiration of said construction period,a written request to extend the period and provides an adequate justification for said extension. 3. Feld Compliance Inspections: The Licensee shall allow agents of the Department to enter the project sites to verify compliance with the conditions of the Chapter 91 License prior to completion of this portion of the project. 4. Certificate of Compliance: The Licensee shall request in writing that the Department issue a Certificate of Compliance in accordance with 310 CMR 9.19. a. The request shall be accompanied by a certification by a registered professional engineer licensed to•do business in the Commonwealth that the project authorized by License 3146 as amended was completed in accordance with the Licenses. b. The Department finds that the following special conditions of License 3146 have been satisfactorily completed:Special Conditions numbered 2-7, 15-18,24 and 27.Given that dredging is no longer proposed,Special Conditions 25 and 26 no longer apply. 5. Bikeway: Thedesignated bike route described in License 3146 Special Condition#16 has been redesigned in par:as a landscaped pathway for bicycles and pedestrians separated from the By- pass road for greater safety and enjoyment of the public. No later than 6 months following the By-pass road being open for general use,the Licensee shall construct a 20 to 30 foot wide landscaped linear park,as described herein,extending for approximately 2,400 feet from the new intersection with existing Bridge Street(near Station 247+00)northeast,to Skerry Street at Station 271+00. 1 a. The 10 foot wide bikeway shall include lighting and a planting area generally Meet in width. It shall be constructed as further described on Sheets 30-35 and 111-118 of the 100%Design Submission dated February 26,2004 on file with the Department. b. The Licensee shall install and maintain in good repair boulders and pavers at the end of the following six streets to prevent vehicular access to the bikeway in accordance with Sheets 33,34, 118 and 1'19 of the 100%Design Submission dated February 26,2004 on License 10165 Page 3 of 6 file with the Department.Said sheets are named:Lemon,Saunders,Pearl,Conant,Skerry and Burnside. c. In addition to the bikeway within the linear park,bicyclists will be able to use the 8-foot shoulders on the new By-Pass road. 6. Sidewalks:No later than 6 months following the opening of the Bypass road to vehicular traffic, the Licensee shall construct and maintain sidewalks of concrete on both sides or Bypass Road from Station 234+00 to 247+35 as located and described on the Sheets 30 and 31 of the 100% Design Submission dated February 26,2004 on file with the Department. These sidewalks will provide smooth connections between the bikeway and the META Salem Commuter Railroad Station. 7. Stormwater. The Licensee shall use best management practices to treat stormwater along the project alignment in accordance with license 3146 Special Conditions 15 and 22,which includes the use of oil&grease separators.No later than the opening of the By-pass road to vehicular traffic,the licensee shall undertake the following actions. a. Drainage inb structure shall be constructed in substantial accordance with Sheets 7 through 9 of the License Plans and Sheets 53 through 58 of the 100%Design Submission dated February 26,2004 on file with the Department. b. The Licensee shall plug and abandon an existing 12"cast iron pipe discharging into the salt marsh of the North River at approximately Station 272+55.The existing pipe shall be replaced with an 18"reinforced concrete outlet with a riprap erosion pad at the same location and entirely landward of the salt marsh.All construction shall take place from {„ the,railroad embankment to ensure the salt marsh will not be impacted. c.. An 18"reinforced concrete pipe shall be installed as the outlet from the detention basin. The pipe shall discharge onto the existing ripmp slope above Mean High Water at Station 260+93. 8. Noise Barriers: The licensee shall install and maintain in good repair noise barriers on either side of the Bypass Road northerly of March Street Bridge abutment prior to the By-pass being opened for general use. Noise Barrier 1 will be constructed between Station 277+55 and Station 284+85. It will be approximately 12 feet in height and provide reduced noise for residents of Rice Street and Thorndike Street. Noise Barrier 2 will be constructed between Station 277+59 and Station 283+07. This barrier will be approximately 11 feet in height and will be provided along March Street Court. Landscaping will be employed to minimize any visual impact of these barriers. The installation shall be in substantial accordance with Sheet-9 of the License Plans and Sheets 101 and 102 of the 100%Design Submission dated February 26,2004 on file with the Department. 9. Histork Prooetty Impacts: The Licensee shall take all reasonable measures to minimize effects on the adjacent historic districts,specifically related to the use of light fixtures and fencing,in accordance with Stipulation I of the 1992 Memqrandum of Agreement as may be amended. No later than the 6 months following the opening of the By-pass road to vehicular traffic undertake the following actions. a. The Licensee shall install and maintain City of Salem standard ornamental light poles, colored black and in two sizes in those portions of both the highway and bikeway that are adjacent to the downtown area or the Bridge Sheet Neck Historic District,The light sources shall be metal halide in the lowest wattage necessary to light the bypass road or License 10165 Page 4 of 6 pathway without spilling over into the adjacent properties.The ornamental lights shall be placed along the roadway between Station 237+70 and Station 276+10;along the bikeway between Station 253+50 and Station 270+50 as further located and described on Sheet 110 of the 100%Design Submission dated February 26,2004 on file with the Department b. The Licensee shall install and maintain black-vinyl clad chain link fence on top of retaining wall#2 located between the Bypass Road and the MBTA right of way between Station 264+84 and 285+78. c. The Licensee shall install and maintain an ornamental metal safety railing,colored black, and similar in design to that used on the 1996 Veterans Memorial Bridge between the By- pass and the bikeway. 10. Ballast Retaining Wall: The Licensee shall construct and maintain in good repair a ballast wall landward of the salt marsh bordering the North River that is offset approximately 54 feet from Station 272+30 to Station 273+50. The wall shall have a maximum height of 4 feet and be constructed in substantial accordance with Sheet 8 and 10 of the License Plans and Sheet 100 of the 100%Design Submission dated February 26,2004 on file with the Department. All construction shall take place from the railroad embankment to ensure the salt marsh will not be impacted. 11. Transfer of Maintenance Responsibility: All structures,facilities,and landscaping to be licensed pursuant hereto shall be maintained in good repair for the unlimited term of the License authorizing the structures,facilities,and landscaping. Notwithstanding the above,the obligation to maintain such structures and facilities may be assigned to another responsible party following license issuance with the prior written approval of the Department. To apply for a transfer of said maintenance responsibility,the Licensee shall submit to the Department a written request and a legal agreement between the Licensee and the other party(ies). Said agreement shall clearly identify the area to be maintained and the associated Waterways License Number,state that the 'maintenance responsibility shall run with the term of the license,that failure to maintain said area will result in a violation of this amended waterways license,and any structural alterations or change in use to said area are subject to prior Department review and approval. Please see following Standard Waterways License Conditions. Duplicate of said License Amendment Plan, number 10165, is on file in the office of said Department, and original of said plan will accompany the Amended License, and is to be referred to as a part hereof. License 10165 Page 5 of 6 STANDARD WATERWAYS LICENSE CONDITIONS 1.Acceptance of this Waterways License shall constitute an agreement by the Licensee to conform with all terms and conditions stated herein. 2.This License is granted upon the express condition that any and all other applicable authorizations necessitated due to the provisions hereof shall be secured by the Licensee odor to the commencement of any activity or use authorized pursuant to this License. 3.Any change in use or any substantial structural alteration of any structure or fill authorized herein shall require the issuance by the Department of a new Waterways License in accordance with the provisions and procedures established In Chapter 81 of the Massachusetts General Laws. Any unauthorized substantial change in use or unauthorized substantial structural alteration of any structure or fill authorized herein shall render this Waterways License void. 4.This Waterways License shall be revocable by the Department for noncompliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. This License may be revoked after the Department has given written notice of the alleged noncompliance to the Licensee and those persons who have filed a written request for such notice with the Department and afforded them a reasonable opportunity to correct said noncompliance. Failure to correct said noncompliance atter the Issuance of a written notice by the Department shall render this Waterways License void and the Commonwealth may proceed to remove or cause removal of any structure or fill authorized herein at the expense of the Licensee,its successors and assigns as an unauthorized and unlawful structure and/or fill. S.The structures and/or fill authorized herein shall be maintained in good repair and In accordance with the terms and conditions stated herein and the details indicated on the accompanying license plans. 6.Nothing in this Waterways License shall be construed as authorizing encroachment in,on or over property not owned or controlled by the Licensee,except with the written consent of the owner or owners thereof. 7.This Waterways License is granted subject to all applicable Federal,State,County,and Municipal laws, ordinances and regulations including but not Un*W to a valid final Order of Conditions issued pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act,G.L.Chapter 131,s.40. S.This Waterways License is granted upon the express condition that the use of the structures and/or fill authorized hereby shall be In strict conformance with ail applicable requirements and authorizations of the DEP. This Lirrerse authorizes structure(s_)_and/or fill on: _Private Tidelands. In accordance with the public easement that exists by law on private tidelands,the Licensee shall allow the public to use and to pass freely upon the area of the subject property lying between the high and low water marks,for the purposes of fishing,fowling,navigation,and the natural derivatives thereof. X Commonwealth Tidelands. The Licensee shall not restrict the public's right to use and to pass freely,for any lawful purpose,upon lands lying seaward of the low water mads. Said lands are held in trust by the Commonwealth for the benefit of the public. a Great Pond of the Commonwealth. The licensee shall not restrict the public's right to use and to pass freely upon lands lying seaward of the high water mark for any lawful purpose No restriction on the exercise of these public rights shall be Imposed unless otherwise expressly provided in this License. Unless otherwise expressly provided by this License,the Licensee shall not limit the hours of availability of any areas of the subject property designated for public passage,nor place any gates,fences,or other structures on {: such areas in a manner that would impede or discourage the free flow of pedestrian movement thereon. License 10165 Page 6 of 6 The amount of tidewater displaced by the work hereby authorized has been ascertained by said Department,and compensation thereof has been made by the said—Massachusetts highway Department—by paying into the treasury of the Commonwealth--two dollars and zero cents ($2.00)--for each cubic yard so displaced,being the amount hereby assessed by said Department. (0 c.y:) Nothing in this License shall be so construed as to impair the legal rights of any person. This License shall be void unless the same and the accompanying plan are recorded within sixty (60)days from the date,hereof,in the Essex County South Registry of Deeds. IN WITNESS WTHMEAS,said Department of Environmental Protection have hereunto set their hands this 16th day of March in the year two thousand fam Five. - Program Chief Department of Program Director Environmental ` Protection Commissioner w t. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS This heense is approved in consideration of the payment into the treasury of the Commonwealth bythe said—Massachusetts Highway Department-------------------------------- --- of the further sum of—ZERO dollars and zero cents-- — -- the amount determined by the Governor as a just and equitable charge for rights and privileges hereby granted in the land of the Commonwealth. BOSTON Approved by the Governor. Governor h ✓en Jas.E A�f2, -40414,z . 9.1 0-116-.Y9 7.? WILLIAM F.WELD GOVERNOR ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR RICHARD L.TAYLOR November 21, 1991 SECRETARY JAMES J.KERASIOTES COMMISSIONER li SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA Carol D. Shull Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P. O. Box 37127 Washington, D. C. 20013-7127 Dear Ms. Shull: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, under 36 CFR Part 800. 6 (e) (3) of the Council's Regulations, has requested that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) contact you for an evaluation of the significance of the North River Canal in Salem, Massachusetts. The canal, as it is called locally, lies within the proposed .Salem-Beverly Transportation Project area. LAccordingly, at FHWA's request, we have attached documentation on the historic and existing North River Canal for your evaluation and comment regarding the canal' s National Register eligibility. It is the opinion of FHWA and the Massachusetts Department of . Public Works (MDPW) that the North River Canal is not eligible for ` listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Our opinion is based on the documentary research carried out by MDPW's Cultural Resources Section for the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation . Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800) . Our opinion is supported by the conclusions of the research into the canal's significance previously carried out by the City of Salem's private historic consultant (Form F attached) . Moreover, . the Masssachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with our opinion that the canal is not National Register eligible in her letter of May 30, 1991 to FHWA (copy attached) , based on ' the Section 106 Documentation. Finally, the Salem Historical Commission, based on the report of the City's consultant and on the Department's research, has also concurred that the North River Canal is not k 3j National Register eligible in their letter of July 17 , 1990 to the • Department (copy attached) . If you should have any questions, please contact Anne Booth of the Department's Cultural Resources Section at (617) 973-7497 . Sincerely, MICHAEL SWANSON, P. E. CHIEF ENGINEER AB/m Att. • NORTH RIMER CANAL AND BLUBBER HOLLOW, SALEM • NORTH RIVER CANAL AND BLUBBER HOLLOW, SALEM Salem-Beverly Transportation Project Under the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project as currently proposed, Bridge Street in Salem will be widened from two lanes to four lanes between Boston and Flint Streets. This portion of the project area falls within a larger area known historically as "Blubber Hollow, " Salem's tannery district during the nineteenth century. To widen Bridge Street from Boston Street east to Flint Street, the channelized North River, called the North River "Canal, " will first be relocated approximately 30 feet to the north of its existing location for a distance of approximately 1, 050 feet (plan attached) . North River Canal and Blubber Hollow• Historical Background North River Canal. The North River Canal never was, properly speaking, a canal. A canal, by definition, is a manmade waterway intended to be used for power, irrigation, shipping, or travel. The North River "Canal" is, instead, a channelization of the North River carried out in two phases during the 1880s in an early attempt to solve the problem of tannery wastes in the river. In response to deteriorating health. conditions caused by decades of tannery and other waste disposal in the North River, the City of Salem was forced to construct a sewerage system of which the dredging, filling and channelization of the river was an essential. part. The North River Canal was therefore built as a sewage or drainage ditch. The North River Canal was also never, historically speaking, a "waterway" as the National Park Service calls it in their 1989 publication, The Salem Project: Study of Alternatives• Public Summary (page 30) . Perhaps the existing channelized river has much more of the feeling of a waterway now, long divorced from its historic surroundings and use, and from the effluent and stench of the tanneries. The channel hardly resembled a waterway during its period of historic use when it served to drain the offensive wastes from an extensive tannery area. The 1880s channelization of the North River in fact culminated the progressive filling of the once wide and scenic North River basin that took place during Salem's later nineteenth century industrial expansion . (see attached copies of maps and atlases) . Bridge Street, between Boston Street and the North Street Bridge, was laid out in about 1880 on filled land, along what had been the • 1 • edge of the North River. Thus the lot lines .of Federal Street properties that had previously run down to the edge of the North River now ended at Bridge Street (see 1845 map; 1890 atlas, plates 26 and 32, attached) . Early Tanneries. In Salem, the tannery business evidently began during the seventeenth century on the north and east sides of Salem Common. The common, laid out in 1714 and named Washington Square in 1802 , was bounded by Newbury, Brown, Pleasant, and Forrester Streets. The bounding streets have since been renamed Washington Square North, South, and East, and Hawthorne Boulevard. Evidence of tanneries (rotten boards from vats, tan bark, cattle horns) turned up at various times during the late nineteenth century as, for instance, in an 1878 sewer project in the lower end of Forrester Street which is east of the common toward Collins Cove. Blubber Hollow. Salem's tanneries relocated to the North River, west of Flint Street, in about 1800, then extended up towards Peabody, along the line of the water-course, turning the valley into a prosperous, and odorous, tanning district which soon came to be called "Blubber Hollow, " a name derived from the tanning process. The name Blubber Hollow had nothing whatever to do with whaling as it might imply to those unfamiliar with its proper context. According to a late nineteenth century historian, "all attempts to divert it [the tannery business) to other places have • failed to divert its increase in this original habitat" (Standard History of Essex County, Massachusetts; Boston: C. F. Jewett & Company, 1878, Chapter VI, page 389) . All of the tanneries emptied their odorous and noxious wastes into the North River. By 1880 Blubber Hollow was considered the most offensive area of the city. The following account of the development of Blubber Hollow and Salem's tannery business is given in D. Hamilton Hurd's 1888 History of Essex County. Massachusetts (Vol. I, Chapter VIII, pp. 154-155) . "LEATHER MANUFACTURE. The leather business of Salem has had a slow but steady growth, and with but few checks. Philemon Dickinson is the first recorded tanner; he flourished in 1639 . The' early tanneries were probably on land now bordered by the northern side of Washington Square and by Forrester Street, -- the excavation for a cellar for a house built by Charles W. Whipple on the latter street, in 1886, having revealed the rotten boards of vats with an accumulation of tan bark, the deposit going to some depth, causing an inconvenience in placing the foundation. Other excavations in the same vicinity have revealed traces of ground bark. The same substance, together with the horns of cattle, has been found at the foot of Liberty Street, and it is believed that a tannery was established there at an even earlier date than those on Forrester Street. " . "One, or perhaps two, tanneries sufficed the primitive demands 2 • of the early settlers for leather, and even in 1768 there were only four tanneries established in Salem. Just previous to the above date Joseph Southwick, a preacher-tanner of Danvers, introduced the first-recorded improvement in the process by putting his old horse at work grinding the bark in a stone mill . . . [we see] the evolution of his slow stones with their capacity of a slab of bark in half an hour, to the whirring bark mill of today that devours a car load in an equal time. " "From the last part of the eighteenth century the tanneries deserted their location in the lower part of the town and began to make their habitat along the course of the then clear and stenchless North River. In 1801 there were seven tanneries situated in the valley that soon came to be called "Blubber Hollow, " and the number of these gradually increased, extending up the stream and along Boston Street till, in 1850, there were eighty-three establishments, of which thirty-four were tanneries; as many currying shops, fifteen shops which carried on both trades; and two morocco dressers. " "About this time there was a great depression in the leather trade in Salem that continued several years. It [the depression] eventually was removed (i.e. ended] , and the American Civil War, with the wars of the Crimea, that followed the first years of its [the leather trade's] recuperation, gave it an impetus it had never before had, and its progress has never since been checked to any material degree while its present prospects, with improved railroad facilities and an improved process of manufacture, are brighter • than ever before. " "There are at present [1888] in Salem fifty-four firms engaged in the manufacture of leather, - twelve tanners, fifteen curriers, twenty-one tanners and curriers, and six morocco dressers. . . . " "The leather manufactories lie, for the most part, in a well- defined district, well compacted and lying on the following streets: Boston, both sides, from Essex to Goodhue; Goodhue, northern [eastern] side; Grove, western side, to Harmony Grove Cemetery; Mason, eastern side, to oil works; South Mason and Franklin. There are also a number of scattered shops on the short streets leading up to "Gallows Hill" . Notwithstanding the optimism expressed in the Hurd account, the tanning industry in Salem was hit by two severe strikes from which it never really recovered, first in 1880 and then again in 1886-1887. Then on June 25, 1914 the Great Salem Fire began with a warehouse explosion in Blubber Hollow. One thousand buildings are said to have burned from that point across south Salem to the harbor. New industries subsequently replaced a few of the tanneries, an example being the Sylvania plant at Bridge and Boston Streets which opened in 1916. Today, many of the mill and tannery buildings along the North River, in Blubber Hollow, are gone or substantially altered, and thus the structural and visual integrity of the North River industrial area in Salem has been lost (see photo nos. 1-20) . As 3 • the National Park Service writes in The Salem Project (page 16) , "Many of Salem's significant industrial resources have been lost, making it difficult to comprehensively interpret this very different (from the maritime] period in the city's history" . National Register Eligibility It is the opinion of FHWA and MDPW, as well as of the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer and the Salem Historical Commission, that the North River Canal is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because, first, the channel was not built for, nor was it ever used as, a canal; and, second and most important, the significant, historic tannery setting and context of the North River Canal is gone. Many of the mill and tannery buildings that were original to this industrial area have been demolished or substantially altered (see photo nos. 1-20) . If one travels upstream along the channelized river toward Peabody today, one sees numerous empty or derelict sites where once tanneries stood, marked occasionally by a brick smokestack among building rubble, rising up from the undergrowth. The area bounded by Bridge and Flint Streets and the North River Canal has remained largely undeveloped since it was filled in about 1880, contributing further to a feeling of emptiness and dereliction in the once active Blubber Hollow area. • With much landscaping care, stringent security measures, and careful attention to the probable presence of in-ground hazardous wastes left from the tanneries, the North River Canal and its immediate surroundings might be developed into a linear park running upriver to the Peabody line. The National Park Sevice has apparently proposed such a linear park in a limited area along Bridge Street. With the aid of many interpretative signs and the descriptive narrative of National Park Service interpreters, park visitors might get some idea of the tannery industry that once dominated the Blubber Hollow area, despite the lack both of existing tannery structures and of the compelling presence of that industry's stench and effluent. However, as far as National Register eligibility is concerned, the existing North River Canal lacks integrity of feeling and association with the historic tanneries to which it once related and which it once served. The historic, setting and context of the North River Canal, even the historic appearance and smell of its contents, are gone. The Massachusetts SHPO has concurred with the opinion of the Federal Highway Administration and of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works that the North River Canal is not National Register eligible in her letter of May 30, 1991 to FHWA (copy attached) ." The Salem Historical Commission has also concurred with FHWA/MDPW that the canal is not eligible in their letter of July 17, 1990 to the Department (copy attached) . • 4 CORRESPONDENCE • • StI T S J lI �' • C -7 �`ifAlISSX0 �cC Gry'""OnWealth "' May 30, 1991 Anthony Fusco Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 55 Broadway, 10th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 ATTN: Arthur Churchill RE: Beverly - Salem Transportation Project Dear Mr. Fusco: Thank you for submitting additional information on the history and • architecture of the See-Side Eye Clinic in Beverly. The additional materials you submitted were sufficient for MHC to evaluate the significance and integrity of the building and to apply the National Register criteria. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with MHC's opinion concerning the National Register eligibility of the See-Side Eye Clinic and Rantoul Street district in Beverly and the Signal Tower and North River Canal in Salem. See-Side Eye Clinic, 15 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA The See-Side Eye Clinic, formerly the office of John Girdler's coal and wood business, is a remnant of a once-significant industry along Beverly's waterfront. At one time, the complex also included several sheds, large and small , for the storage of wood and coal . This was one of two complexes owned by Girdler in Beverly in the late 19th and early 20th century, and one of a number of similar enterprises within the city limits. The building appears composed of fragments that predate its ca. 1898 construction date. While the Girdler family business apparently existed here between the late 1880s and 1968, the level of information provided does not suggest it was exceptionally significant in the context of Girdler's other operations or of the coal/fuel industry generally in Beverly. This is not the only industrial structure remaining in the waterfront area (see Rantoul St.) . The See-Side Eye Clinic does not retain integrity of setting workmanship, setting, or association; integrity of design and materials are also questionable. As a fragment of what was formerly a larger complex of related coal and wood sheds and structures, the See-Side Eye Clinic does not meet the criteria for listing in • the National Register of Historic Places. F6o_'ai Massachusetts Historical Comn,missioe`�- ',-.�:... , cuiive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617)727.8470 Office of the Secretary of State,Michael].Connolly,Secretary • Rantoul Street District, Beverly, MA The lower portion of Rantoul Street, between Caoot and School Streets, appears to retain integrity as a mid-19th century workers' housing area, the area includes at least 8 single and multifamily residences, built between ca . 1855 and 1892. At least five of them were built on speculation in the 1850s by developer john Greene. At the foot of the street stood a Rubber Factory by 1852, replaced in the 1870s' by E .N. Tuttle woodenware manufactory (which survives and could contribute to a National Register Historic District). Survey for this area is incomplete and it is unclear what other resources exist in the area. Hose House #2 (corner of School and Rantoul ) was previous listed in National Register. Rantoul Street was platted by the 1850's and its growth and development appears directly related to the 1839 arrival of the E 8 M RR (to the west) and mid-19th century industry to the south and east. A potential historic district could extend north from School Street but further inventory information would be necessary to determine the full extent of the district in the Goat Hill area. Signal Tower, Salem, MA The Signal Tower was built in 1927 to house the signal systems for the Boston and Maine railroad. The Salem Signal Tower is similar in design to all 8 8 M signal towers - two stories, brick, overhung tiled hipped roof, copper cornice, metal sash windows and brick corbelling. In 1950, the tower was • moved to a new foundation adjacent to the track, 48 feet away from its original site. The fact that the tower has been moved and its machinery replaced has not seriously affected its integrity. In industrial and engineering facilities, replacement of machinery is a normal course of the development of technological advances in industry and engineering. The current location of the signal tower retains its historic association with the railroad track. The Salem Signal Tower is one of the only four surviving towers in the B B M system and retains sufficient integrity of workmanship, materials, setting and association, to be eligible for listing in the National Register under criteria A, C and D at the local level . North River Canal , Salem, MA The North River "Canal " is a misnomer. The North River Canal was built in the 1880s as a river channelization project to help the flow of waste and sewerage from the tanneries in the Blubber Hollow area. The channel was not built for, nor was it used as, a canal . The Blubber Hollow area no longer retains its historic tanneries to which the channel was related. Due to lack of historical significance of the channel and lack of integrity of association with the former tanneries, the North River Canal does not meet the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register. The MHC hopes this information will be helpful in your development of the necessary documentation for the Beverly - Salem Transportation project in compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (36 LFR 800). 0 The MHC looks forward to receiving the results of the archaeological survey of the Beverly portion of the project in the vicinity of the Ferry Landing area, in order to determine whether the project will have an effect on significant archaeological resources. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Brona • Simon, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, at this office. Sincerely, a ith B. McDonough Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission JBM/cd xc: Michael Swanson, MDPW Don Klima, ACHP William Finch, Beverly HDC Anne Harris, Salem HC Jane Guy, Salem Planning Dept. • J4��: • Salem ,-?istoricai Commission G^nHN.SALE.'., MASSACHUSETTS C;9?0 , 141 71 -45-9595.:EX-, . . July 17, 1990 Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer 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: The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EOEA No. 0756 ) which was sent to us on June 22 , 1990. Members of the Commission also attended, the public hearing held on July 9, 1990. We have the following comments to submit at this time. • The concept of this project is supported by the Commission because this project has the potential of removing substantial traffic from two very important historic areas ( 1) Federal/Essex/Chestnut Streets and ( 2 ) Bridge Street/Salem Common area. This reduction in the numbers of cars and their noise and pollution is seen as a very positive benefit to Salem' s historic resources . However, there are several areas of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report which do not appear to address the impact of the widening of Bridge Street in sufficient detail. Our concerns are as follows: 1. District Boundaries - The boundaries of the McIntire Local Historic District are incorrectly drawn on the graphic materials (both the handout and the wall mounted plans) supplied at the public hearing. The local McIntire Historic District is not shown on any of the plans included in the draft Environmental Impact Report. The statement, "The rear yards of 4 of these (properties in the Chestnut Street/McIntire districts ) back up to Bridge Street" (page 4-30) is i • r f Page 2 incorrect . There are approximatley 16 properties in • the McIntire Local Historic District which directly abut Bridge Street and the areas of proposed reconstruction. There are 8 properties in the Chestnut Street National Register District and 3 properties in the Federal Street National Register District which abut Bridge Street . 2 . Bridge Street from Flint to North Streets - we are not in disagreeement with the need to widen Bridge Street, but the statement "Because the proposed project does not encroach into the Historic Districts, the proposed project will have no effect on the Historic District . " is erroneous. This area of Bridge Street is an important, northern boundary to two National Register Districts, to one National Landmark property and to the largest and most ' important of Salem' s local historic districts . There are over 400 structures in the McIntire Local Historic District of which 5 are National Register Properties and 2 are National Landmarks. Before the North River was channelled, it was much wider in this area and all of the properties along the north side of Federal Street and the adjacent streets abutted the river. In fact, 300 years ago the North River in this area was known as the Blue Danube because of its great beauty. The DPW' s removal of . the old factories and other buildings to clear for the widening of Bridge Street does make this area more open and, therefore, it begins to have some of the visual characteristics of the 1790 ' s. However, a four lane, high speed road with break down lanes and guard rails is not visually in character with this small scale, residential neighborhood. The edges of historic districts are very important, and this north edge is particularly siginificant because it is highly visible to almost all visitors to Salem. Therefore, it is important that careful consideration be given to landscaping and providing a generous buffer/transition area between the new modern road and this 18th century, residential neighborhood. Section 4 .18 states, "For the portion of the project corridor between North Street and Boston Street, the overwhelming visual image is of the generally rundown and neglected appearance of the railyard and the North River Canal. " is no longer correct. Since the 1970 ' s, a number of residential properties along the southern boundary of Bridge Street have been extensively renovated. This includes the F(' *ce Nichols House, a National Landmark, which abut Bridge Street. The entire district has seen millions of dollars in private . investment during the past 15 years. There has been a tremendous amount of perservation and restoration i Page 3 in this district . Therefore, the Commission feels that sensitve expansion of Bridge Street is very important . The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address the issues of landscaping, traffic noise buffering or other issues which would assist in making a four lane highway compatible with the historic district. The Commission requests a detailed plan of proposed improvements to determine how the above concerns are addressed. 3 . The canal - The removal of the canal seems regretable . However, its historic significance has been reviewed by a private consultant and concurred with by Massachusetts Historical Commission. The conclusion appears to be that it is not eligible for the National Register and its local significance is not great enough to warrant its preservation. Based on the advise of the City' s consultant, the Commission concurs with the decision to move the canal. 4 . Archaeological resources - Section 5. 19 states that after extensive field surveys. . . it was determined that there are no significant resources in the project corridor. " Since the Commission has not • been provided a final report ( s ) which includes the entire project area (Bridge, By-Pass Road 6 Bridge Street reconstruction) , we cannot concur with the finding that there are no archaeological resources . 5. Land taking - It has come to the attention of the Commission that the DPW is proposing to take a portion of land at 1 Harrington Court ( located in the McIntire Historic District) for road widening. We could not find any reference of such taking in the report, yet the property owner has stated they had been notified. . The Commission requires the opportunity to review this and any other proposed land takings as any land takings in an historic district appear to be inappropriate. 6. The Federal Street National Register District - We understand that this section of the proposed project has not been designed yet, therefore, we cannot comment at this time. However, landscaping and buffering should be considered here as well. 7 . The Bridge - Although the Commission feels that" a lower bridge would be more in keeping with the scale of the historic Beverly Harbor, we do not see that • the proposed bridge will have a negative impact on Salem's historic districts. Page 4 • Based on the above remarks, the Commission feels that the Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Report is incomplete and that there are outstanding issues that require further information for our review and comment . Again, these include a detailed plan of landscaping, buffering and other improvements to lessen the impact on the historic districts and properties, a final archaeological report (s ) for the entire project area and a plan of any proposed land takings in historic districts . i Thank you for your consideration of Salem' s historic and archaeological resources . Sincerely, THE SALEM HISTORI/CAL COMMISSION Annie C. Harris Chairman cc : Secretary John DeVillars Brona Simon, MHC Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW Jane Garvey, MPDW James Hoyte, EOEA J3719 SALEM MAPS AND ATLASES IEpE m _ aN�C 4DISC YLY'I�'jRD. -4 Ay>tlbD3>\ a .+,m. D`(E`a 2 n CS pa .r. E0<q �a4 ea�•o m �omo f � -•✓ph,�$�^�3�yp9 _ ` '/_. . e d,p�q�C�,+� /// a o �'o E �/d c $ 1✓19' o 0O1 �D F OE RD BagC�, <n I m f N GREENj.EpG \RD o�'O O'� NY °U CF• -c dO EOMFHt N o O9 a1N \y rte( M°ffr, O` °N4U�\M�N ar 1 LW'r✓?e��a a'.V SO,y �n "i'k 11 �kMERE?F'�a S` avls °OgpUGN n -i' O vd NER-RjpY O,tl /)Q .YO v�4 j4 m / m p ; <yMph, In\y ib q0 DO \y ONE RD o 9O'DUT SCE IDf / W - Y 4 NDOW hdd"\s n enAa \/ M,3N �r '✓r a l <I q m�pW�/J� MER4I0 (�4V ; - ��nV I i y31 M3 .�< m �\) 'e o ll� >5No1� 41 4tl( QSy ° S5Q3�'Wt- (�CpilU i °9A v��. ( <•<IED4 RMII N IIJbJ z ND o.w Y <.;• \.�i+tC 53a Y ��r 4=3tl1v; 7 �. vSi^9Y � 3 of a BV v� b /�( NOlI tltl4> k' �� ItlINOIO> 1. 'j, � S��^` �Sl�m�. 1 1 ����0 W Yr" and u°d Sc V <(�W tl0� \ m rt D i HJ tl303HS,311 ? �/ 1S\ v. �',- < �Ir S� �, ( OF '4ASE Oq�Y , RIONE <Y y S1 / � ✓� p� \ �H•�5��� Z v�•�C pr- . \ 'y` �SOES 3 .vN ��y�O� . 15 0�+. n *aj < ' b 3Mpd/.jW`�> �� `y�.stl l♦ � N:,o O 1SYP �d „ \\ \`a --1 ' .JJCUTIER—y ° Jp6csl �� '(M w7 3yitl <p3,,,'rrrJ111\�n d��da4eo s• a01�' <rNE to Ad ° ``BO1{ I ND O f �� 3 �OS�a 1N ✓3�hoO� .r 6tloY 'N/ o p S ONJ� V-1i\ eE4v�C0� ILVER �Cp ao /9 9,(��^M eu� o��`�-=`v�u✓ �➢-9i a tiry/m✓�LI }�° .°b 3NOtl`J-ANOWtl4H � y1 $ o Nle �lv y +<<°��YO►wa� n�/ nl y.`2 ; �w Pulp, t C p\ a3• 't dry. / n FI s y �v� O _ v _ fl 9 c 5 / (BpF OB lOWC��9CClAVETi Sp•2° it COy P rUq r�41�•K� .. 4,aQ s St yo/c o�= a �E /y�S• ���itE Ch'a. +.�� C+ML a s U� \r aml�L9W1" �'_- 4// II" r!• plE4 c,,3mfo m/.s 41 ami SrE Gm\ISa\ •� Ion = m a s o ENGLISN_ i��d a s tfY +l 2 0.APyOomaWaL�l E�pl.\o �C , mIL E J\-ym (1.; `fin RoosE soon NI-O9C \ O Atltl a) �O y 0 n �:•-` D(S D y - mzl'I�M �DIGNtl N pF per' '9CE , � � . n N Sp LH>Nvw O 'a mal . ■ SMI Oa IC 4(31Ntlld ; y o Atl>t33 y arp Nm ■ \\/fie � ■ rw 32'30„ AINvetei Point lj �+ � xern ooa Park I �, LOWste, Tuck Go C01r�ro�VAA si_ rz_ 6- / 4711 BEVEREY 5° �� �, re•or! ri /1/'1)I I� reenlawn � � e, •• .�l-• NOW _ m f€/te / A • S T Tks''. rr' / bo_/>^/ IIf1 �G! rr a t.L�.,r as $ ❑ o a ��-�• ¢ so .'€ fiVatlt ' `' 4/10 1 o Yda1 / BT L �\ ` 'r� �'am.mY \\ 1 q r� I• PO �t /f Y/�� '/ ox I C 1� l \ a �3�f1 7 _ ) i o � '^,e y / r•••v.,�_. Ter 1 nai �e 9• •r � /// �� \ y os ti s sal � •C Whir M11aLLl -� Aa[.atat Fhs rk'5iSB _ A Q ✓ 4709 Derby wnarr 19� / r > Lt a �� '� ✓r ( ( -v l n AnYzn L V: ���c�. —�'3n I �Ll 1` Long Pt r Qr !\� i t� y � � : r �"� 474 `` I , z✓-< 3aipA+�'if-Pl+.a,�una1 v 1��� v- r T o � IQ\4 Ltt j „n� oNs �� �`�0➢lE� �r %,� -�� N - ..•� 5ubria L r t Hos t �\ • X��'� � �:, t (v pot A• as 0 4t f EA ( almer 4708 �� SiIV � �. ( .h�a uue ( C ��/��' N �('`�'�, � .. '$ A� :� v `I :a_rp -w`��'1 � '._ oc AN v8 x ♦ L � W �� Jl _ J • �7 �'ill`a �\ For t R \5a F 1 ' ickeri�g a, W 7C� Comse' 1 HLA � RK "�S' "� O � �'v /,s antl - e107000r,R �I', \ � �• --. �`_ ~F7� � o �" � `I ��t .1 b+sR� psi �\ � 41 LYNN 2.5 Mr. 55' 743 I 344 • rea,o._cEo�oc<.L c,,. . .. „._,,,, - 7 420 30' SWAMPSCOTT 2.3 M/. 34C'w01 E.o 70o 52' 30" 000 9 I MILE ROAD CLASSIFICATION . V\_ Primary highway, Light-duty road, hard or p 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET � �� hard surface . ._.. improved surface.._ ` I KILOMETER Secondary highway, �e hard surface ._._ Unimproved road. --------- 10 FEET --------- -•L DATUM OF 1929 w /l Interstate Route O U. S. Route OState Route —DATUM 15 MEAN LOW WATER V MA55. A0 DATUMS O MEAN MEAN LE HI -MATE LINE OF HIGH WATER 'PRO%IMATELT 9 FEET � O CCURACY STANDARDS QUADRANGLE LOCATION SALEM, MASS. 2V , ESTON,VIRGINIA 22092 N4230—V,/052.5/7.5 ID SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST Revisions shown in purple Compiled in cooperation with State of Massachusetts agencies from aerial photographs taken 1977 and other 1970 Source data. This information not field checked. Map edited 1979 PHOTOREVISED 1979 AMS 6869 III SW—SERIES V814 AMi Joseph B . Felt ?! t Annals of Salem, Vol . I i o � � s ' • Salem: W. and S . B . Ives e / It 1845 ' ° / Facing page 311 . . up•au " 71 SJ • . �`1 �M���i��tl '':i�e�•A•nay .. �r b�`��a�`'V��s�•� r.�,Ry vvrw nak • ,jjj 4 M0 M PFi N w w m w ' tD "' C w^ m Oa o^ ayy H c B. � p g w e �a. X 0• m m.°o�' 9 ^ .: o �.�••a. �, o: m ti 8 0 ^ w a tr 41. N m P N w 5".4 P m a 8 H o w m o a o m B P' Cr rr c: • k':.' m o m W ? m o P W P Pro P •., � aqFP�• ae.1OwD.. H.Qmma�:.^^G �A Oa$N . � wwSr wm o � 00 � ' 0B x L ' o 'KI w i p: 2 P• o- Pm ComO R2�. 0" � Pr Gr w p o ^ o Cr e c _^m p' �• as ,a m ro m p OM E. S r.� m .w. ,w., y �• ^ Pdo ^ 8 Xr. 13 m O' •P•� p P B G .. m m w W P m y ro a A B � Y .r rtwwew •rl. . ... ir _�� ���� ��,•\ wl, ,ill i At/tT n°on).' j��N urc' CCt.rcu ' 1 ter ORD, q�•q n dl. Salem 1884 (a) J���L.•iwsr I :� I L• cwfwAl_lI°[, ,4+ !4t JlI �j. '•u�ew "(___ •r t=�� Pi� •II _e� t fwV l: -• • s�._.- � 6AL aws.-��__.$$;.. /-1, .I 7 aul kli, MI •/ "a!'r,;,<i.. ��, MI LLI 31I ter! /�I�• 'I� !l �/ : lI`Sd ': +d �It" 'p � _� W \ (�\,rlt Vl •�l --^l 1.as - til h •[ /V','�i • \ /l rl �-�-�_���J)NICM LAND '%�,l <•�� .w4iw �'_\ �.1 •1 \ .` // ��_ %% ..,.;ems .�,, \\\arr�'"1\ .� \ �\\ / �/�•��i-� ,. \wig�i �ta \ !!/ \C nw•r.�i t�a- j ff � 4 ^ w/ e° r f+ y s'. 1C. \ s_V �e to ✓ •,:1,"+: I :, o,i 3i�\ \,r / 3'a v lis ark. ,iA . _ + � •`,"•. d9' J. ' J( // /,e �t•r 4r�/.ef>'-�'`.`�/ e to ./' r' t `� ` Y p t. r! .✓a��-J-.. J�." / .. .). y1w�M i�e.pr`p.p• ot tr 'fie � � r� �^. •Yo / r ,,, •�1i ji\�. �." t rety"'i.7 i�r,\?Y+Tty � . T L F• \r- \c u '�,5 %� - +>•. 7"4 y� !.`, s t < 'p• s , .p � LL 1 L L / �'`�i \ s \\+tt> fy, s +o �� \ qtr •$) v, ,•`.!;�. �6oAj ��%,! \Y'✓�� ""+ `�/may,�',t<'",.c��'\ ��q p ``` Or G 1, � _�,..,�°.;�/�.DL.�":'/��.,. •:� `- -- '' � �' • t r ' Salem 1884 (b) �I Ca6haLla v wq TTTT t J ' r e 6' N ff / \ 1P. Lo ` Nilel� �G\ i+rr�����F ', wn 4.p� � 1� C�� � ����,� i •� �•• °t y L--' /"�izatp\` < . 0, `. � tir ll +,L. s'1iil a l/1 �i• f \ \`\v C✓,\ y �•ae L, r� '� \•� i0.°..4'.' . z / vl�" •� . jL��1'�t"i°c lc���. \\.�1 � R F.' 1' F. ��;/V'sG. cl��i':•.`-"�.. �e z ._<r, z V/ �� •<l�a vl '.1': d1 •o,. 2 , tic�.•iy �. _ i/�r- ..,.� i `tiu..- �1, ®s� uu�U�� 1� A A /1 Ovt R +: mss,;:. � c;,.�°'�`�� ,�y a;�aii': � r ,�'� _ •�, ��, \� 1 '�e,,�-¢,� �,! :i`�s_yJ��L9i a (�ems'• � •� ��- - ' ,Y ,. •1,�� ' \�:� .fie, is<. ...� \ w,, Viµ✓;:,��:�:�—�" � ..L...;e • ` � ;EssEx i��QSS. � .p • sa.weiro..mJe _ 117 Ne�..tragt a�� - . � y•- `lt2ar�� f$�0 ��: •j. RISA. •'. .. es.e�aV T L p .n.p WJi _ .. 3 . JY. •• •ly.l P.. fa I .l L.�he..4.4.�� ......... N4 I�O.Y�1 e ............ O .r• " m AWA .r �� �"�� W�T .�w• nw.mt� .. .. it ns• ...l Lw - :: - .._.. _... . � .... •e....w 1rla....�a ............ I I _....., .Wa 1_a s�1! s _ L Ll. .. ....� .»» K W a al ? I s..� m` bw ti d!^" b» 114 •» .... I .�.., _. _ �L •.. am. - I H�o.y -a • ... _� I .. . - ... .� YTsr rr es�M�i>\ K. i e q r� p,Y rrrt • .�• w+na °fin• •. o.-.n. .. j • ._ • �„ I a r... Y� J:u..s:m. I:.TT».°i'a.`lw�.~i.°�'"; • 1 o, _ts'c,��s�'r amu.y-::v..mak:Y�-x�,.•.�.,.,�3 �:` ;a�VLsk :tom.x.� "s Y,.�,"�`�'f y �,2�� � �%S`�.4•�..�r-;• .s .4.e[�. t JAC- I� y e[i i ! I{ • al /J/ I I � 2 VLIN ♦ 4v i , s A 33 D 1 ^ • I a � tt • I ,ti v 'r � �� •su Prue. I pL y�y V � 44 —a' 38 46 . ,. _ 1 0 a MWE A - �i LII �`# 1 • , ' � � C3 33 ii I cia• O 1' • � ; i e 1 '�. AY W @E----------- 13 ill as i�• bI 11 ' F�•j4 I IQ"]�,I W � . � �' . ___ ca LI�CI � � �• I I !� I 1 . � U I I. IIIIJJUII"" Y 31 - -------R•---------- ,y a 1 .wn 17 1890 p e lua ja y*cam. �. i IifJ I 17 Nz is lY f'YN .r�,� ���, .••A �) / IEP+' A � P1 \� � .1 '1z-lifA \_ .� `v,`� •. � '• h r plop IMF J � , ' IeSo ,..'?'i' 4 �re y 5 ya AAKK� ' II E tv 1 a F�. .y Y A d ® o f : o , 1 t , Ink �'�1�� , I / ` \ • oar` �� 36 } xx. GROVE 16 ts /! J f r � � dI ♦ ` i .A.r \ l r. � ,• �f ,1 I r X51, ��� .r �� . � ,� � , �_ % Y\�• © .. T S.t [ - +0� tea::,`-�«� pv � �r'+� ,rp•:.'y _ • - ___ ___-ate{� t�� __Ri ��_ _ .�, • � _�+ {� �, �e . Y IL "Q W _ 1 n37 ae 'a'< ,•tea 35 N I , 1' "11 1 • • � 1 b 1 / I I IF F MIMIC 'c T A r Y JTZ r IL p N�0.TM p yN T,� Z C PLATE B Oro o 1 i p M � 1 (� Atlas of the City of Salem, Mass. i� A 6. F• P ` o Richards Map Co. , Springfield, Mass. 49t tJ 1897 Sp Plate 7 150' = 1 v t p .r v C V 00 cr IaAa TQ/ a. -rcL vAtlas of the City of Salem, Mass. Richards Map Co. , Springfield, Mass. Z 1897 Plate 8 150' = i" f' ,n T-- d O t �,5 G � Al c R 4 L. t B. R• R • Cc - t / V �y sscT`H Rr�c/L. , 00 tMUMMEE MOPS. {. :. °< M MflSSflC9iUSETTS III M ` 3r JW 312 3M � e 1Wia1I1.AM11� �U� r— 116RGOMY.ONaE pt �tA�gd 445.++.11 M.av�. •. -T7r - r 2 r i. _w ' i a p .... ...n. r I 'Iu I a a_ w xlr 14,1 .. a.... - a.. _ . r _ ,1 _ I • /r i= a• I i - O \✓ " r�l BRIDGE .., � .. 41 rz 0 ca kk I n = , fir r' k-'_�'' '•' • FEDERALTA jf,.r...c..-...- 42 I �I Y=rj I 111MYf°� i 21 Cr. � I v ' ....._ ... . ...-.....-1506..- ' " V II ISI I� , id _ O a Ai �,I IiI'I II l YI . �� 62 o ; u. 42 +'+ Ul y ➢ �I I II II�. I:I � a •I SII II�'iIIIII � moi. � I i I a 4pC a l t o kooR� e 19 ? c g 45 b. 1 -- F �� ��4Pa � I "A • a � ..a eFC� 42 I O I • e P a l f �A ems. -,j O li M�l �e j ow ROE 'a ."r.,•y� % �� ' y • CARPENTER r • f- ° O X11, I s • aFLINT . 50 p 53 . . .... ,. . . .. .. .. .. _ - Viol, 49 56 Cl 15 e•' \ _ v t a Y 4 z Ix 1 m =a .rfrr • — - 50 - i 1 1,nr 'b f D f i ® � a [ .f. • 1 51 ae � Z-1 \ 0 f V�e ♦° . - 01 n� n _ 52 � Dy-c FEDERAL • m .q....... . � � � 53 • y. Mu", • Ou s +t a Q IL a go Y + h l LZ_�11 J • Q 7 4 12 -lky y C. : flA a �+ I i I f.g 4; � w7 ' 22 *FEDERAL c t � sfLven54 a1� i • �,�-�-..—per ® T� I e 1 Y �11. _........ A'r L 0 56� � . I I ! • Z I 5 . � DQE I s+,.ter..,. �• � n:�Ir� IIiI d rw. f5o6 f1 • 1r ir ...• .: 'GHUROHM'l lk a ------------ - �I I' a • IIS • � 61 i s SYLVAN .♦ M1 x: 2 • ) a J • O L W O F • n 2 a , 52 ........ MASOPI .(( • •, V / w MiN 50 e O j IF i 11 I T, 1106 �I .. .. . - . . CNA •. ' � � •• X._• �k RSL.. �y '. ,P. T , a r. T I �• 11 I I a s i a BUfFUM i *....,. S• MASON 41 BARR PI NLAP F sw.�rp w.. I �M1x �. . _- Vi' ISo6 71 i -.e WALTER i x e � D n n w �. ^.P ^e. YG.PT Ori Z P. a r, . i W 1 W r�"in. LL r OIA ° UT ®�� � � a.r�••� • coLr reureron m � �w • c � a � n � n SA 1 w �� � � ¢��y.i,•�:rw. NORTH •p s - 62 • �•._ �- -" ---- � _.. ..rdOsi9,er:�'-�-^tet•.-,....,:.«M+o I ar rn t. _.. . ' N t ^_ i a: �•, ilk z i S C a n • / _ — ^• f ------------ BRIDGE _BRIDGE N •\ ry 11 - Hi`fp• , i �� � �� �� ^� .R'� _ _ i --_. ._lam. �O { �....� R i p� 41 4 a..�... .. .+n.tai.71 NORTH .._r.... I cz D i w 5.9UFFU .. 6 s i t o p _ ;P,bD r 41 SAPR I V � • SARSTOw ::11LJJ � ti-�li Pj D I � �i /Ynt�C iyya .. ..r.Y1n.. DU LAP 9 044 "Y42 I Q O • a � fit• � a + O Ir i �o- t moi+ ��� �� ems• � � Q . a Q! .._ \ • `¢ •�• _ I 4 6'Wpmm) x \ � I •� N \` T -: ;•CARPENTER ® t FLI 53 ,1 �II �� I �8 -' I ' • 6 � x i.' li � •I n x : . �I�� 4l^ r,�d n., � •„ � I -. - - -- // 0. .y L ' y 1. skSb 044 • ' b , • SS , ,z ... , all i • a IW _ FRIEND 49 _ 6- • V BRIpGE• i i 2 j rr1 -FEDERAL 4 _ 53 +� - i 60 L �Ua 044 5 CHURCHAL !� i 61 SYLVAN o f �I ! W 'O 1 I , Q 62 1 ON L-' 50 w i 0 044 56 54' a... • 50 •' - Cl Lit • JYIYA I...- Lr� "t r . ..• .. '.. • 52 '9._. FEDERAL............ .- .N...»�q '3 It v '•� T W 54 —SILVER ` � I c .m . r . .Y. 70 � u ..•n._ br.MI, I L � �� � SIA I' \ C/ •1!!l. 1. J \ PO - Iii .•, lal-`��, e +�', / t Ln ' - I �• ( II \\\ `N:� /gyp .�,+' .�` .Y: 0 0� E oao�� ®i I o �' _ I, I I 1€ � '� � � •ia.� ® �� ' sw d na • L M I N I O I P 1 City of alem, Mass. i i 1903 (a / / 1 r -------J� I ,♦ ,1, I CATHOLIC CEMETERY 1 .i 1 HARi ONT GROVE CEMETERY ) ➢LJ I � / 1O a 1 •� ��`y /;\\ �yJ p GREENLAwN CEMETERYLj - _ : 1 � � �O LCD • PA 4L R. 27, It v .f' . COMMON I _ I � L I ) N S ' �0� g• M N O P i Q R 5 I � CATHOLIC CEMETERY • \v�� Z,` /� C. CREEN LNWN CEMETERY e City of Salem Mass. I��'�7, 1963 (b) IL oo Jam_/IGU - �. �`4 p Ila f —vu•• li I L L N $ 4 • FORM F : NORTH RIVER CANAL FORM P - STRUCTURE AREA PORK NO. I MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 0 BOYLSTON STREET STON, KA 02116 Torn SALEM Address Between North & Grove ata. Name North River Canal Ownership: City of Salem Public Private Photo (3"x3' or 3'x5• black & white) Indicate address on back of photo. Type of Structure (check one) : Staple to left side of form. bridge pound canal xx powder house dam street fort tower gate tunnel kiln wall lighthouse windmill other ' Sketch Kap: Draw map showing structure's loc- ation in relation to nearest cross streets, DESCRIPTION buildings, and/or geographical features. Wdicate all buildings between inventoried Date 1881 , 1885 perty and nearest intersection. Indicate north. Source City Annual Reports Architect/Engineer/Designer (if known): Engineer: Charles A. Putnam Construction material stone, wood Alterations (with dates) Condition Fair-Poor Moved No. Date (N/A) Acreage .6 acres Setting The channelized river forms the core of a deteriorating linear industrial corridor UTM REFERENCE 19.343930.4709570 Recorded by Peter H. Stott 19.343000.4709220 SSGS QUADRANGLE SALEM, MA Organisation Salem Planning Dept. SCALE 1 :25 000, Date September 1988 NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA STATEKENT (if applicable) • ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE (Describe important design features and evaluate in teras of other structures within the community.) The North River Canal is a channelized river, approximately six tenths of a mile in length, between Grove Street and its opening to the harbor at North Street. At its widest, below Flint Street, it measures approximately 60 feet, while the upper stretch averages 25-30 feet in width. It is crossed by the former Essex Railroad (a branch of the main line Eastern Railroad to Peabody and North Andover) on a pile structure, and by Flint and Grove streets on reinforced concrete slab bridges bridge built the 1950s (DPW Bridge Bs 5-1-2 and 5-1-3) . Much of the lower end of the canal nearest North Street is lined with a timber bulkhead -- oak piles driven into the mud channel and backed with planking to retain the fill behind. The wood has seriously deteriorated, and the channel has experienced considerable silting. From the vicinity of the railroad bridge,, near Flint Street, northward, the canal banks are lined in stone, much of it in rough-cut, semi-coursed ashlar. At the north end the canal the waterway is closely lined on both sides by 20th-century one and two-story industrial buildings. North of Grove Street, the North River continues to the Peabody line, another 2000 feet distant. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE (Explain historical importance of structure and how structure relates to the development of the community.) �e North River Canal was constructed in the 1880s in two phases in an early attempt to solve ie problem of tannery wastes in the North River. Until the middle of the 19th century, the North River had been an open, smoothly flowing natural waterway, opening into a broad cove or tidal basin below Flint Street. Mills established at Grove Street were quickly followed in the third quarter of the century by numerous tanneries, all of which emptied their odorous and noxious wastes into the river. By 1880 it was widely considered the most offensive area of the city; successive mayors called for correction of the problem in their annual addressee: The first portion of the canal to be constructed, between "Frye's Mills" (at Grove St) and Dean St. (now Flint St.) was inaugurated in 1881 , after Mayor Samuel Calley called for the removal of obstructions at Fryers Mills, dressing of the shores and coves of the river below the mills, and the extension of all sewers to the channel. Evidently this included the purchase and removal of Frye's Mills (documented in city expenditures) as well as filling the nearby basins to a uniform bulkhead line. Engineer Charles A. Putnam was paid $96.00 for his role in this work, while Joseph M. Parsons (listed in the Salem directory as a "mason and builder") was paid $21 ,144 for this work, nearly completed by January 1882. The election of a new mayor slowed the project. Mayor William M. Hill urged caution: "all projected schemes," he said in January 1883, "should be considered with due regard to our most important leather interests." A year later he proposed a scheme to preserve the basin between Flint and North Streets with the dredging of the basin, deposit of the offensive dredged matters on the flats below the bridge ( 1) , and the construction of a temporary plank sewer. Because the tide deposited the North River wastes on the flats at the lower end of the basin, Hill recommended that city-owned flats on the west side of North Street be partially filled. A new mayor, Arthur Huntington, took up the cause in January 1885. Huntington recommended continuation of the canal to North Bridge, and, as a temporary relief, emptying the canal upon the flats below the bridge for a short time. Tb this end, $125,000 were appropriated to the Joint Special Committee on North River. Charles A. Putnam was again engaged as engineer. The �rk was awarded to Joseph Ross (c.1822-1903) , a well-known Ipswich contractor. [Note: Ross was est known as a bridge builder, constructing many railroad bridges. In 1844 he patented the INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET _ Comenmity: Form No: MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION SALEM Office of the Secretary, Boston • Property Name: North River Canal Indicate each item on inventory form vhich is being continued below. Historical Significance, cont. jack knife drawbridge, one of the earliest types of moveable railroad bridges.] Ross began dredging the channel and driving piles in April 1885, completing the work the following December. The Special Committee reported that in construction, Ross used 164 spruce piles driven for sewers, 1626 oak piles driven for bulkhead, 110,000 cubic yards of gravel used for filling, and 14,775 cubic yards of dredging, put on the flats as fill. Engineer responsible for both parts of the work, Charles A. Putnam ( 1828-1899) , was a native of Salem and educated in the Salem public schools. After early experience as a surveyor for the Eastern Railroad, and its Essex Branch to Lawrence, he set up in business for himself. For fifty years he was Salem0s unofficial surveyor and civil engineer, being constantly employed by both the city and the Essex County Commissioners. The issue of sewage, only postponed by the construction of the North River Canal, was not resolved for another twenty years, when a report of the State Board of Health, an act of the legislature, and a joint Committee on Sewage between Salem and Peabody forced the eventual construction of a trunk sewer intercepting tannery and other wastes. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES "Report of Committee on North River," City Document No. 26 in Salem City Documents for 1885 ( Salem: the Salem Press, 1886) , pp. 204-212. 4 Inaugural addresses of the mayors, printed in Salem City Documents 1880-1885. "Shock to Community: News of Mr. Putnamis Suicide," Salem Evening News 26 May 1899, p. 1 . • ff; J/ r PHOTOGRAPHS • • r • PHOTOGRAPHS: BLUBBER HOLLOW/NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM 1. Looking east. Shows North River Canal paralleling Bridge Street, then turning north toward Peabody. 2 . Looking southwest. Flint Street crosses North River Canal and Bridge Street in center of picture. 3 . Looking northwest.. 4 . Looking west. North River crossed by North Street with North River Canal beyond. 5. Looking northwest from North Street overpass. Line of canal is visible in Middle ground. 6. Looking west from North Street overpass. Canal is to right, not visible in picture. 7 . Intersection of Bridge and Goddhue Streets looking east toward former Blubber Hollow area to left. Interpretive sign in . foreground stands in Dunkin Donuts parking lot at intersection of Boston and Bridge Streets. 8 . Looking north from Bridge Street, to area where canal turns north toward Peabody. 9. Looking northwest along canal where it turns north toward Peabody. 10. Looking southeast along canal toward intersection of Bridge and Flint Streets. Bridge Street is to right of canal. 11. Looking southeast toward intersection of Bridge and Flint Streets. Bridge Street is to right of canal. 12 . Looking southwest from Flint Street along canal. Bridge Street is to left beside canal. 13 . Looking east from Flint Street to canal (left) and Bridge Street (right) . 14 . Looking east across canal to Bridge Street. 15. Looking northeast, canal with railroad crossing just northeast of Flint Street. r16. Looking east along canal from railroad crossing just northeast of Flint Street. r _ • Photographs: Blubber Hollow/North River Canal (cont. ) 17. Looking east along Bridge Street from vacant lot just east of canal/Flint Street intersection. Canal is out of picture to left. 18 . Looking east along Bridge Street and vacant land between canal and Bridge Street. Line of canal is just visible to left. 19. Looking east along Bridge Street. Canal is to left, not visible in picture. 20. Looking east along Bridge Street toward North Street overpass. Canal is to left, not visible in picture. i F" l >r� °� _'� y �5 ',• OSx' �} 'iT d , taAYs.s .a'' �a , p?y�yt� AV,j � �.j� nJ :.Rt W i�*i * " . f' �j} . , \I�, +�'''�✓ri-' ` '4�` 'y1 '�` Y" ,'�J k \ ~�tl' '�; �'tt�^"L�� „T ,', h:fq of{t�fy-a•�! $ a�r1y�-j a �,�'+� � +:. '+���'1� �i {`a�di • �' � -k.w;z � f,� S' e��e�.�y��%.✓' g u' \j'xM` } 5. k e�. '4�'e�s4 ":�;'" l a ',p lFli"^aF ✓r� Fi ; AI Rik Rq { �A' i. .� 5 { . j J `w. *t' fi16Ri T� y ^yid -. g��Ql �t t-: � '" n{��*.", �ui�•j �1"it�;�'e r �A�ff f €4h x� �3,3s�Yx ��c 3 �'�°�s '� r 14 O �aa hi ' iiStiACI �y� �sisr ^ „y ` A4 w' F, I t�..,'. Z ` �11�153� �� r .�.f: .,,'S r<➢�t �.�' ., `P „. 1f�s" ypr•a Lwg�Ay`� 5e'}j�y, + � LddFv � .. g r ° z. 0 7 immi'91 1, � j�y - c'•+` ,x ��� � � i? A' Ry �ry'', .. '-�F 'fit 1\ ++�� `'. ,:,a "" a��• x t,`,$_ s rH �a�.` f•t li��r G'Stis' „y' I'rk a '3%: �4,'. J4 71,'.(d ^�. �"/ �� �•� {{ Y ., 4'. � � xS+ �ALvA+�Q.Y� H �j yj.i .Yjt� •{ IRS �i� e v+� C Hyl j `.� �, 4}Yy• a�5 'H"� M.1yt�� �l�n•Y y.R Y�� �T� 1 �,.�f ¢� iii 4L� ? , 'i#� ♦'�" ` . ' ,��{ y iTl � :...k'< , *� "I�i� .." r ^it 5: M1t,4� s �P x " I�JC�t.i�l�3!y�!y- �" i-d •� � �` �,#f �"Y� �`^�,'?�,,���''�g.'�h`�j 3?S�"€'`�+-� ' Fw R `JY�ti-1 '� raga g�! ��' z..• 1"&I,AM VG.'�'"S"'' �q-y ,@ •.�Y "'F+ y' r - � dR j� �99i�y���y••�t�`�♦♦� _ a" �i f2 73y3�y: �, d _�.� _ ' F� } .rt�ii� ' { al X-•4"��.l�.i a°/�, rt- eYi y,m" � to°` � l•r+C� N y . P ti - A5 . k* '+" ,..xAZ x*k,� a� ' v{ f '��drri " ' �r�,�1 ..eh� p n3 `� �`�►'ir� C, '�-�- $ •� `t,•�T�&K,e44s'STM'i+t� `I► g `" .e -.e�y� s "pp� Ca1.6�!'� ���{' '$' Av' "�'� r t'.'�Fr� s S ie'", .•+j " �w4F �1��•'�> �� ��"•1.a. �f.c�l��n `+T i a a Tj .f{lagg i"s + �.� '�ns.�Y t+: y kr;9 - . 3 4.d ' syr 5 ,r1'{t '! � y F4RE.�til� a ��1 .� •R x'• ern\� � �J�'' �1" 6 _'.hy F•t', �-4C�1\L� ''. Ytsi J, \4 .�' �F: ,. �.c. ;Aq_ �+_ 41 &p�ytE Fn 1ty a h�.'i'�� �.'(� �.�1vC�y'p}��'���+�_�a ♦K _S'`L y �� y � '�' 01„�,¢ Well is"�fV k�`jl'i ��� s a.;{s �^c s\° f{}'��? :? . � d -s..•#''�' 4• ,,.-x.1f,-4 tf�� .�.r�'$t t,gE�,,+�. � s'i.� a'a �.:f3• ; ' _ �. a.., r Via' S t �dw y46 a r • ��a s � � r."a � �t'4t{ � 4 4{t r Y°y� �., Y, Kf�,y }�5' •, e�.,� �i�3:' ��'' c �;^lf �zE x i; h: agA �.`:>� [� I{a.'�rli`? 4�di±.,.*. x i:. 'K; � �• .E�t:S`� `�' .�-, � M1 � �"�«. '� � 111 _<C a• - P' aVnrrn f 1 r # ( i c �I �lr ..a.µN �'xa`trlE.,•X'4 . °�_ �� $�`� �� y7i 4 ? ` ��. � ��� ! i`'at.� EM `fie �r ���•t �' �x• e*c� � x 3 i. � t % [ • �°1��' } I� s'. � �� �'�y�` ,�,±.. irk � ".r �. Av �b? J., ��V ) 4,� a�'✓'#t,,i..`k(es 'r&} . j .;i1, `+'fE�! T'�E\•��i��t,• s 4 }"Ltta.a�-?.yr3 :R� .w�`t*�n i , sY 47A 7 '% � .'`rp< b t f a Y:��r�� A�.rV"St.•�! tV �d'.'LW (�, °�-r � 48q+c�.����r� i��<"�� ����•q,.* ��t���p,�6 '^7•�TYsw� 37 k—=lJ,�.+'%`� �e 5 � . • - c �� �.r 1:-' �C l,.• 't' �Yr � � 'a �, i 4'3� ^� a5`3 x Y' h tl G V}'dry � AT qy e<�• "I. N S Y 4A 9 9 Y' .�y �R r•P� ' > ���,apl�•�T< Y .�s ,Cd 't'ta Vt! � r�iA�`�2 ^ e'if �., a a;pk_ 35 . �%�������°aVi�". .i�'�,"��•�� ��f c��}iy��`� � �t";P��"`�'�05 . 'c'. ` ���sf. �* 'z _ r` ; � A; 2� •pT l: �♦rr6 'J. r ���. .. :xef a.sL .1. i e .'` moi iy,� n.,. .a a- +, 'y-� �i,�:j4 "�`. a ✓ �t t,��` x• '$ "r; �y7t i'z- h`S F , '�1 ,/' 7155�.�"t3# rF .i�•kr�, <k E t�k t nr 7.t 9'ts§• r & 1.30ii,<` &� .'�'� ' �.. r `rN�r�i ,, �t� �R"''�'�4�' �'•e ^3T.' �'��. `,">� ,� *'k`k' ice:- `fir 4j iMir,L' 34 ika r♦ s.�,�[j +�, r ���' }* 9r Oji �`i1� .rn � �r t�"��da , 0. I#y..• Sa'. �, g"'"� 't c g a .;; /'�� f ° � ��� 1 l'� �'�:: YF1l 7�' Y $'� ti't -i t L 5 F� tt� - "szr4sk 4 r 8�s b,1 i 5� �f tJ•1of1:#��+L' fir` • � S 11 a � + � � � _ fib' S r� (�e�� �L! �� 1 Y }♦ � JI� f1� � r l4� ,♦ 4 t-i,•���*� $� I~ ! ri rS_ � 4LtkF�� ' j j ! `��x J piJ Si WWI 41 AM 44' r� �t y L � ♦ ,l,V•y i�'.4}�5�.S�hS/� ' ' �' �„ ♦;a y` V Y rb 1jpA ,,:yc1f/� �++. .d.� ay!•'r,y '� '��� • +q' �' . � . fXi 7Ci�i}M1�Yn�{S�.a 1i� (• - )43�.�w, t s tim t• fin, R .T wT! .'°'r P'� '. r(�'r{� �.�.�� Yt�$� fiL'w'c�✓"y Ji T � k�♦N� 'mak �e 4 � � qpp 'ice-'"r.Rt1.LY. - •q��" 1 L'f b ♦ M �.. 4 rjY*6/$ ek�. , �<h F j g r� i J..=f [`.� z,.r ''�'-'"'•�i n� t a �. -� ,� t� r s'}/rt�" � 3 ` i4�r is $r «.Tg'TS. cwvS ^g� � ti _ x �a Y '�'S' i .:`'' _ 'lr� .l��+�� • �'`. hal • 5 ill ... :,- •. � ♦ ,� _ M,�' a� sajtCS,F'��Si��^,�'.f .s,s1� 1,fyt��� I '. ��k�li♦ ._ � �� • 3yy�r�z�� t�E �}��`.�.-X k ,YIY: hJ�1 > �k '- S4� _ � •�' gIIt �Q�'aT swift- {k Lt S�W 4• i. <° R'��4 4 �tt ffc� `syr `�. t ��' ��1�4 � �.�" ,•-, � ,t '. � Sit rtlE, FpA yx � " a ,r ,G µ 4 5� �� � � �� t � ♦ i, mer � � i 3 0 'Ff 4 r � Am r Yt�f9 ..R, .ppyy�� �-��.. all ''� �� `li �` ➢�x� � 4.9'�'raYgt,!' c r'?"` pW a�[ $CpY1`y' vi r An 1 x 4 . v t cad: -- _a r 1 rte. . .k ti d a ,y _ T iM t y�hYn 1 t , fit. { } � x n I + Y t �I { y 1p t • 4 _ rvst l yam.= Y •� '.4'. k a "• ny. � � S aY M y n .f 4 .1 Hurt h � �Ly r y X 1., Syj E, 4 v r.' '•>a{ k Zk . iE �. � is ��.. fi 4 A� ,r ra 1 i U 4 ,`Z�'(�3r/ jt�(" '•�t � .p � bei- ------------- I�.s�3�k{{ iii+ `. �fy �:- f r h,,,s �,a� )r�'1 fo. E, li= � .yam-'«Y iii• 1r'ti.>y3�� ��,',i����'. �-{ fit C$tiS�"t t 'a � -r. � Iv? i�"��fl«'`_ .• ��{a � '�ivz �.Atlx k"`��. pw # ,r /' All"11 - ` i �' fr ` 'f spa.ix! a•aS y 4 - v: �Y�� f�f'�'Y�`��sw-,,, �.: +YAK f >v .•ie�k y,.i PAU �'9�11y plc j? S ��d?�,,,� �, �J ��� hp��.-py �J ..i.d t•�s^f•..f � fj� -s. " All t -45 5 I 1 t 4• rs' IV I q .x w . i� •1Y w.1V . dd IF q Sq c' 7 yy "f x ATgi ; f a/!4a4'yYis r .•. (di 4 Jf 44424 .p s MW pli 9 4d AN z � y ���"�".. � � v:� t `...1' z �#Y�F'L �.�is ��ifL�af"�Y��•> x..; t t r yt �ry i'V' yf fL�\ +S 2�r , i k�ySY� � �YY � rM • 6� �Y t� 'i*{, � s 1 to '�� � �� ..� < n .-s��} ,4 ���:`fir•`'a ,� r 'nom ,� x _� �'v ♦ 4' t � a Z. sl j! � ' A• r k 'Ep. J�l .( �t�G\�'SR��¢•a. "3r�5. €€�.:F� +, � 4r t'�,��4. 4 �'\. Y " :�•�,R �,"#" .,+��� 4 y�y1 , M F r , 1 apn f vi -�,�• .j{\l�, 1. 4� 4 3 yq ' t � �1• f TR v S,\7• i,��s �},'�.,nt'r' � di {� _ I b "�yM'C w��t»' � � S�- ik �"��j��a���y��i•'�`t .F�F't .'�,��� ��� ..µms � �� T♦ � ..iA._4� �e i�xy b a��.-``�'biP•f i�'„- \S�K1 '_�.�'t�.rtc �.-.., :.�.�.§ a'Y -.\�. .'M� ar/'.'B4a'�L.rrn.p"•rr : v�^ri.� a..lI���V7P } P"� NY yx"��F..;�.�q}'•��frt -�I_. pl��+. •�,�G �r;; r�ice' ... .. ��b�°`ti"¢"3rt 4�t��,�{,�ti� ��"��`'�. 1 �� r�� E a � ��4 K•Tw. +x fKI, rt RC. a t y1 �i ♦ _ a ,jiff�S���yJ bS � 'J,�1�Y•� �V���y k �I y(y' 1t � .. /� }r�y,yT1r �^ .1""�-...�.wY>a+P^ '+ � .q* *ir . "".+"' 4✓�'°�"�tY at:�°-y,,, u''- �� r ilu WN } P' tf:• � ���� -ti fit#'. ea' I 1 ti �k #fin i f�g JSq � �iM� i f ti •�Y �.. +'�t�y L t ttyy ar y . 1 d.4'• x ([\C Y 1� • .315 yr;i ���. _ ^•�� YYSS fi t� 4 `n 1 _ i h ����yyyyGGGG r ^1 r �s 12 . `r r . T ?�v.�t't Sktw•ti AR "MISr � NO AW 4 �� n J v�j�" x A t f•� r h a lY N-a "S Y +L a ..a` is f/ r y § {�'.i , i�y'�'e , r`"'j r'��,�+� j� •x� §I` � i%��. e ill t 1; 3k �.- 1.�Ky�ia'�3' t €Lll: ifi -Ai 3r �194, Al s FlryhLp+Jr�' SII `§x' Ygf � -'.���xJ P(•' ix�F.{3% s' .� sv �'�i��r- , 'Fir rll-�'4 l�`•-cSC[ -z '•��.c�'•i�/'f�h�i i - '� •�a+s.575 K"'`i : r'J e�y� �`'� � , v?5 r� �. .q� ;(i 1 dry I f I �*zd.. y r ♦ r if rti. .F } .t q ,� �� Rv --VA, ( f r t• 6 1 r. -YF- }Z g`.'.^V�,�`�� �`- � 'r�i �1 a9.y�',�w•�r�g # k�4s� t�� ,}.'.'+. % rn .B • � . � g � int 4 w: Vv e ' f A / l � M p t ♦ ', s;rR rs� T +iA W,` s�+x yiP.p r;s' f '�' " �" Fi _ Qb 46 °<FY- � t ..��5a5 ��w � ����t��`w � �:.;'� 4-t a •'�S'rl�>x`!.>' i 1, ' A , Y � n , lets S'� yr •�. '' ,� yrs r e i � � • AY�j '' 3�Ki�.• -< z / ` �9 r .Ail +<<� A � .�' 15 . �_ .'hs8 ti'.�k�� � ` �yy{C"r@:{'S°�.off` '.3i 1� •r� 1°f P, 't{t . t �/.� '+. tt?d'e G.Yd eal� �� .e.�'' -Suu� r '?a�-.�+`.i [•.�.7 a h. MIA K�.e `T' qp- y� A K. •y ,-.+Fi.4t'-%, Nil ly -57 WON U M 1 17 1. r � ���t�'xE "i,�Y++� 'P�a:�.�" �'.eV`S��W+IOi �r.Y�� � �59�^e rc#• � '+ �A.i e:3'�.^ �Yf l�. WQ+� ed34p, �<` n �' ism a�tlrK�' n 'ri• cs��.� _ � - -:. w*� ,t 2-4 na 1-3 IXA F;M 1115 l3 �.t� 4 4 � ♦ �� f'i'r" ����j1"' �ci"v'✓+ ' fb i Ts bk�r {-•'� n a�t;"� '�c?:j�Cf" " :s rlr 6 � c '� pys� x,11 3 Jti 4 x �t+ Ali m etF� Chi � 554`r �M' P t y .t f SY 'pq tai ♦� � a.�.� �f TTr�r,pp�T�,,i• Y y � .1.Tycr'� y�t, x p 4 •('4k ~�. SY `1d �+V J *K +M .�� �.t� v,s+i n 'a "{`o-S.e"e� r" ��;y-r�^+n`S; k -"af4$ olx � P Y 8'.'�`'q' �J''} If ${y�{�,+"j$yyd II;kyr rid. LkTTT�y^� ! y�F 6 '•,' 1 y 1' ;a 8x .,r� z e•- l xa y� 'zr�w, k ,� a �rgsyYy� • A +a-��'`�* �T�-:7"A` �1�'p 'y�t3ic�...�txi" ,fi,��.w'K .. � ,fd __1�4 i 4s a 4� X f .r � :... %•' ?rip,+. a,.jay i iT♦ C4 x-Fyy`i� ,s � f tit f• 4a ,�. .. � X z i" IMP NiM ME '3iT7JR. Aa '�''�<� z��+ � xr� a�rTH�1wi�F�.iy�✓r,TS &,� ?�i•�yA S�,e k�,i yT�yYR j ^L'� �'� a k4 sr'8«",�aCa„k'c �` Y rs�Mpa r_9yC.,•.u� l ,. :4 t ;(�f en°` .mifc �;.+V N�'.t�''F�+...a�.`:yt.��£ P•_i � a� ;,� 'a ��,e °�+��•'% +t�a'h4 .� r+ � �1q'it;,`�yTl+„p, �y�z,� � Fi > c-rP�w sL�'lE-rye � a "�`' �"•.� 'N,�£st i ¢ �ys'�i ���'�x"mr �p.z •r�r�.i Ty�,�+�y 'a-*- C� �,t �`�•!� R i3 •K"�-'c'�F�£• �id11R' a's+,eL�s�..'"�'a""{ .e�#+�ai�''r�'T$�`��Rnj..��a`+•';'•'.�1��yc a`r« x + \ f > (`Yy\ • ze'� �,.I""k yfi�.fi rw x�1e7 4 �R`'' '�'JA.cr y��f _ � Yi �. •t� K K X` �Y R�i Ty�y IS nN {g VVIi ffl"'¢hkg "Y 's�"-,._':"s; A.v.S:c.s.-s .. 't' ^'t .-� � '`~wlr4 +F?''}' iS +�.t'��:--,• 'Rr �k \% .. �r 5. � •sy.� l �'4s'z `.,,.-t+"a,.�ayVs`.:i ^i -. �ti �` Y-•-'�Z *F,.�Sr `1 v,4 A`.r� • T' �,F`^ + ''n +' �� � �t �u^ � .na.�i� 2�+>•f�"i xr ,+,i +7> a. ��33.,a,�.s, 34 ym4 �i ��Y, G75'+ `IT�t'4fy''4 �iiLS^ � t� �t�, �=.�3 j ��}��� i`thR+'x� �."y�•i' '��"�er%c" ��'r�-"'a q1 .. }3X '}s3n. y1 }t '1 IC } 1 �r 's'�kh`a� �ti i ,�ir��a�"� p.rx r��e� `S�,^L r.��y�•�+'�' LgL'y����5�55s '� "° 1 � { �(.•8�7l �t 'e"R+C �'�'a1r� e�kk� 6 ��s A 7 -'' �n SZ tljkE Z '4tSF4 .' C•*����s a�,��� res. .Cn �4j}'�""3, i ���N �.Y1'`'a � BIa i �.�i.w rw L. Lmw n�04i,ApeLL 4>BB <' SEE MAG 0 ! � 9F. ` LK-s7-47 mbbp�+l bL LOAxi Lred kM.Lw 4.' 'L:e® r..s.ra+m••o�4v i KEY --- Li cA• _ 5— ® 24 AP Y I W A VOL SEE i zzaea,A 0/ and CeoVd�� ✓� �Qe lLs� orss6-s.97.f WILLIAM F.WELD GOVERNOR ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR _ RICHARD L.TAYLOR November 15, 1991 SECRETARY JAMES J.KERASIOTES - COMMISSIONER SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SALEM TOWER, SALEM, MA Ms. Carol D. Shull Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P. O. Box 37127 Washington, D. C. 20013-7127 Dear Ms. Shull: The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, in correspondence with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (copies attached) has determined that Salem Tower, a railroad signal tower located within the - Salem-Beverly Transportation Project area, is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) and FHWA agree to the tower's eligibility under National Register Criteria A and C (36 CFR Part 60. 4) , but not under Criterion D as we state herein. It is also our opinion that the tower does not retain integrity of location or setting. Therefore, at the request of FHWA and in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 (c) (4) of the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, we are submitting the appropriate documentation (attached) on Salem Tower and request your evaluation. Documentary research carried out by MDPW's Cultural Resources Section has shown that Salem Tower was constructed in 1928 as part of the Boston & Maine Railroad's system-wide signal system and track improvement project. The tower was then moved from its original location at the northern portal of the Salem Tunnel (1839) in 1949 when a new, longer tunnel was constructed beneath Washington Street along the west side of the first one, which -was then filled. Salem Tower's original setting was a busy mid- to late-nineteenth century train switching and coaling yard containing spur tracks, a locomotive roundhouse, a coaling tower, and all of the other structures and equipment characteristic of such a t trainyard. This setting has now been reduced to a paved parking ' lot with the tower at its edge. All that remains of the tower's original setting is the MBTA's Eastern Route Main Line track and w commuter rail stop. Moreover, the tower is visually and physically eclipsed by the adjacent Bridge Street overpass, constructed in 1954 in conjunction with the new Salem. Tunnel project. Before the signal tower was moved and the overpass built, the tower had also housed the crossing guard, or flagman, who controlled the adjacent ' Bridge and Washington Streets intersection. 1 The tower's original design has been compromised by the alteration of its entrance and the removal of its interior stairway. The tower has instead been disfigured by the addition of an exterior steel stairway to the second floor. Moreover, the electronic signal board now on the tower's second floor blocks the view out of its many windows, negating an. important purpose behind , the tower's original design - to provide visual contact with the trainyard below. Our conclusion is that Salem Tower is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D because the interlocking signal machinery for which the tower would have been significant, and which the tower was designed to house, had been removed from it and discarded by 1949 . Thus, the significant technological information that the tower might once have yielded, under Criterion D, no longer exists. Furthermore, under the MBTA's ongoing Eastern Route Signal and Communication project, all of their train signal . functions will be moved to Boston after December; 1991. After , that, Salem Tower will no longer serve the historic engineering use for which the building was specifically designed. If you should have any questions, please contact Anne Booth of the Department's Cultural Resources Section at (617) 973-7497. Sincerely, MICHAEL W. SWANSON, P. E. CHIEF ENGINEER AB/m Att. Y ` a ITS r y tr , 10 * June 28, 1991 OnWealth Anthony Fusco Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 55 Broadway, 10th floor Cambridge, MA 02142 ATTN: Arthur Churchill RE: Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass Project Dear Mr. Fusco: Thank you for submitting additional information on the Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass project, which was received at this office on June 17, 1991. Staff of the MHC have reviewed the materials you submitted and have the following comments. The MHC disagrees with a number of your findings concerning the effects of the proposed Beverly-Salem transportation project will have on significant historic resources. The MHC has reviewed the project information you submitted, as well as observations made on site visits and the scaled model of the proposed bridge over the Danvers River, and has concluded the following: Bridge Street Widening, Salem The proposed widening of Bridge Street is located adjacent to the McIntire/ Chestnut Street and Federal Street Historic Districts .and the Peirce-Nichols House, properties which are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register (see enclosed Summary Sheet) . The proposed modification of the project design to locate the widened Bridge Street 30 feet to the North of the McIntire District has helped to reduce the visual effects that the new roadway will have on the character and setting of this historic district. However, the increase in width of Bridge Street from two lanes to four lanes, might tend to islolate the historic district unless the "buffer area" proposed between the roadway and the district is suitably landscaped. Thus, I have determined that the proposed widening of Bridge Street will have "no adverse effect" on the McIntire/Chestnut Street District provided that the following condition is met: Landscape plans and proposed configurations of streetlights and traffic signals are submitted to the MHC and the Salem Historical Commission for review and approval , as they become more fully developed. The MHC recommends that mature trees and other vegetation be planted which will serve as "living" screen to visually obscure the views of the new roadway from Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727.8470 Office of the Secretary of State,Michael j. Connolly,Secretary i i r c - I the historic district and that streetlights and traffic signals are designed to be compatible with the adjacent historic district. The proposed roadwork along Bridge Street adjacent to the Federal Street Historic District will have "no effect" on this National Register district. The proposed roadwork along Bridge Street in the vicinity of Blubber Hollow is unlikely to affect significant, intact archaeological deposits associated with the "Blubber Hollow" area of Salem. Review of the project design plans indicates that only a small area of ground will be impacted by roadwork and that this impact area has been previously disturbed by prior roadwork and buried utilities. Thus, the degree of subsurface disturbance and the highly localized nature of the project impact area (the principal core of "Blubber Hollow" is located at a considerable distance to the north of the project area) precludes the likelihood that any signifcant, intact archaeological v deposits are present. The MHC has determined that the Salem Signal Tower possesses sufficient integrity of workmanship, materials, setting, and association to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criteria A, C and D at the local level of significance (see MHC's comments of May 30, 1991 and July 25, 1990) . Since you disagree with MHC 's"opinion on the applicable criteria of significance of the Signal Tower, you should now seek a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register at the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. (36 CFR 800.4(c)(4)) . The MHC has determined that the proposed moving of the Signal Tower would constitute an "adverse effect" since the moving of the structure will result in damage and alteration of the property and its setting (36 CFR 800.9(b)(1 ) 8 (3)). I agree that the proposed new location for the structure, alongside the railroad tracks is appropriate to the historical significance and association of the Tower, and, thus, the adverse effect is acceptable. The fact the the Tower has already been moved in the past further strengthens this determination. A Memorandum of Agreement should be drafted, which should include stipulations which would mitigate the adverse effect of moving the structure. The stipulations should include the following : that a detailed reuse plan be developed for the structure which will insure its continued viability and active use; that the moving be conducted by a team qualified to move historic buildings; that the moving meet the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for moving historic buildings; that rehabilitation of the Tower for its reuse meet the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. I agree that the project will have no effect on the Peirce-Nichols House, since there are no changes proposed in the project area which abuts this National Historic Landmark. Finally, the MHC has determined that the North Canal is not eligible for listing in the National Register, due to its lack of historical significance (see MHC's 5/30/91 comments). New Beverly-Salem Bridge Review of the materials submitted to the MHC as well as observations made of the project model and during site visits indicates that the proposed new bridge and approach roadway on the Beverly side of the project will have an adverse Effect on Fish Flake Hill Historic District by isolating the historic , district from its setting and by introducing visual elements which are out of character with the district and its setting (36 CFR 800.9(b)(2 8 3). Since the time the project EIS was filed, the boundaries of the Fish Flake Hill Historic District have been enlarged. Currently, Fish Flake Hill Historic District, a property which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, directly abuts the project area at the location of the approach roadway to the bridge. 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 conditions. Thus, the approach will create a wide expanse of blacktop on the immediate edge of the historic district as well as introducing an elevated roadway leading up to the bridge, which will be very visible from the district (especially along Cabot and Water Streets) and inconsistent with the scale and configuration of the existing roadways and bridges adjacent to the district. The proposed new bridge, 63 feet high and 90 feet wide, with several massive concrete supports, will be very visible from major overlooks within the Fish Flake Hill district as well from views outside the-district, e.g. , from Salem, the harbor and the Danvers River, looking towards the district. The large size, scale and massing of the bridge will appear out of scale with the historic characteristics of the setting of Fish Flake Hill which are characterized by small , low-scale buildings, structures, roadways, and bridges. . The MHC requests that FHWA and MDPW explore prudent and feasible project alternatives which would avoid, reduce, minimize or mitigate the adverse visual effects of the size and scale of the bridge and the approach roadway on the Fish Flake Hill Historic District. A number of alternatives were briefly described in the project's Final Supplemental EIR. However, lacking in these descriptions was an analysis of the feasibility of project alternatives. Specifically, the feasibility of reconfiguring the approach roadway to reduce the expanse of pavement to minimize or avoid its intrusion on the edge of Fish Flake Hill Historic District should be carefully.considered. In addition, alternatives which would reduce the height of the new bridge but still service both land and marine traffic should be evaluated for their feasibility. I understand that the proposal for a fixed bridge span was selected in order to allow both cars and boats to travel without stopping. The use of a moveable bridge, which would not require such a high clearance above water, should be more carefully studied. It may be prudent and feasible to design a combination bridge which would be of sufficient clearance to allow the majority of watercraft to pass under unheeded, but be low enough to not have such an adverse visual effect on the Fish Flake Hill historic district. The lower bridge could then include a moveable bridge which would service the minority of sailboats with tall masts and thus have minimal effects on automobile traffic. A lowered bridge elevation would also help alleviate the adverse visual effect of the elevated portion of the approach roadway on Fish Flake Hill . Review of the project plans and model indicates that minor modifications to the Cabot and Rantoul Street intersection are proposed. It appears that these roadway changes and the new bridge will have no adverse effect on the character and setting of the Rantoul Street district, a property which is eligible for listing in the National Register. ` p The MHC is currently awaiting the results of the archaeological survey of the approach roadway area in order to determine whether any significant archaeological resources will be impacted by the project. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. You should now seeek the comments of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. , NW, #BO9, Washington, D.C. 20004. A copy of these comments should accompany the - documaentation you submit to the Council . 6 -If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to contact Brona Simon, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer. Sincerelyj� Judith B. McDonough State Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission Enclosure xc: Michael Swanson, MDPW Don Klima, ACHP Beverly Historic District Commission Salem Historical Commission Salem Planning Dept. 4 Beverly-Salem Transportation Project Summary of MHC 's Comments Project section Historic Properties NR Status Effect Bridge St. McIntire Hist Dist/ NRELG/ CNAE ` widening, Chestnut St Hist Dist NR 91 Salem Peirce-Nichols Hse NHL NOEF Federal St Hist Dist NR NAE Salem Tower NRELG AE Blubber Hollow ---- NSR North Canal INE ---- New Bridge Existing Bridge INE ---- Beverly-Salem Fish Flake Hill Hist Dist NR AE 8 - 26 Rantoul St NRELG NAE See-Side Eye Clinic INE ---- Archaeological Resources More Info needed Key to Abbreviations: NRELG National Register Eligible (MHC opinion) NHL National Historic Landmark (NR) NR Listed in National Register of Historic Places INE Not eligible for listing in National Register (MHC opinion) CNAE Conditional No Adverse Effect NOEF No Effect AE Adverse Effect NSR No significant historic or archaeological resources in the project impact area 6/28/91 Stir TS * ti tr F . Cr E * CD ` O� AI I S SN QQ� °nonitiealtb ion May 30, 1991 Anthony Fusco Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 55 Broadway, 10th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 ATTN: Arthur Churchill RE: Beverly - Salem Transportation Project Dear Mr. Fusco: Thank you for submitting additional information on the history and architecture of the See-Side Eye Clinic in Beverly. The additional materials you submitted were sufficient for MHC to evaluate the significance and integrity of the building and to apply the National Register criteria. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with MHC's opinion concerning the National Register eligibility of the See-Side Eye Clinic and Rantoul Street district in Beverly and the Signal Tower and North River Canal in Salem. See-Side Eye Clinic, 15 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA a The See-Side Eye Clinic, formerly the office of John Girdler's coal and wood business, is a remnant of a once-significant industry along Beverly's waterfront. At one time, the complex also included several sheds, large and small , for the storage of wood and coal . This was one of two complexes owned by Girdler in Beverly in the late 19th and early 20th century, and one of a number of similar enterprises within the city limits. The building appears composed of fragments that predate its ca. 1898 construction date. While the Girdler family business apparently existed here between the late 1880s and 1968, the level of information provided does not suggest it was exceptionally significant in the context of Girdler's other operations or of the coal/fuel industry generally in Beverly. This is not the only industrial structure remaining in the waterfront area (see Rantoul St.) . The See-Side Eye Clinic does not retain integrity of setting workmanship, setting, or association; integrity of design and materials are also questionable. As a fragment of what was formerly a larger complex of related coal and wood sheds and structures, the See-Side Eye Clinic does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Massachusetts Historical Commission, :sage, cutive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617)727-8470 Office of the Secretary of State,Michael J.Connolly,Secretary f k Rantoul Street District, Beverly, MA The lower portion of Rantoul Street, between Cabot and School Streets, appears to retain integrity as a mid-19th century workers' housing area. the area includes at least 8 single and multifamily residences, built between ca. 1855 and 1892. At least five of them were built on speculation in the 1850s by developer John. Greene. At the foot of the street stood a Rubber Factory by 1852, replaced in the 1870s' by E.N. Tuttle woodenware manufactory (which survives and could contribute to a National Register Historic District) . Survey for this area is incomplete and it is unclear what other resources exist in the area. Hose House #2 (corner of School and Rantoul ) was previous listed in National Register. Rantoul Street was platted by the 1850's and its growth and development appears directly related to the 1839 arrival of the B & M RR (to• the west) and mid-19th century industry to the south and east. A potential historic district could extend north from School Street but further inventory information would be necessary to determine the full extent of the district in the Goat Hill area. Signal Tower, Salem, MA The Signal Tower was built in 1927 to house the signal systems for the Boston and Maine railroad. The Salem Signal Tower is similar in design to all B & M signal towers - two stories, brick, overhung tiled hipped roof, copper cornice, metal sash windows and brick corbelling. In 1950, the tower was moved to a new foundation adjacent to the track, 48 feet away from its original site. The fact that the tower has been moved and its machinery replaced has not seriously affected its integrity. In industrial and engineering facilities, replacement of machinery is a normal course of the development of technological advances in industry and engineering. The current location of the signal tower retains its historic association with the railroad track. The Salem Signal Tower is one of the only four surviving towers in the B & M system and retains sufficient integrity of workmanship, materials, setting and association, to be eligible for listing in the National Register under criteria A, C and D at the local level . North River Canal , Salem, MA The North River "Canal " is a misnomer. The North River Canal was built in the 1880s as a river channelization project to help the flow of waste and sewerage from the tanneries in the Blubber Hollow area. The channel was not built for, nor was it used as, a canal . The Blubber Hollow area no longer retains its historic tanneries to which the channel was related. Due to lack of historical significance of the channel and lack of integrity of association with the former tanneries, the North River Canal does not meet the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register. The MHC hopes this information will be helpful in your development of the necessary documentation for the Beverly - Salem Transportation project in compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). . The MHC looks forward to receiving the results of the archaeological survey of the Beverly. portion of the project in the vicinity of the Ferry Landing area, in order to determine whether the project will have an effect on significant archaeological resources. P If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Brona Simon, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, at this office. Sincerely, ith B. McDonough Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission JBM/cd xc: Michael Swanson, MDPW Don Klima, ACHP William Finch, Beverly NDC Anne Harris, Salem HC Jane Guy, Salem Planning Dept. 6 t tTTS 61/ �1 it July 25, 1990 * �O`� ` 9c �ll SS�� let O-%," b Secretary John DeVillars �Onti'ealth to a Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge St. Boston, MA 02202 ATTN: MEPA Unit RE: Salem-Beverly Bridge/Bridge St. Bypass Project EOEA 40756 Dear Secretary DeVillars: Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the Draft SEIR for the proposed project referenced above and offer the following comments. The MHC previously reviewed and commented on this project in the past in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) . However, recent modifications to the project design have been proposed, which might have an effect upon significant historic and archaeological properties. The MHC is presently unable to concur with the 'no effect" determinations made in Section 5.20 of the DSEIR without further information than that which was included in the DSEIR. The DSEIR describes the proposed project changes 'on pages 2-6 and 2-8 of the DSEIR. It would be helpful if an overall project map were included which highlights these changes, for comparison with Figure 4, and as a reference marker for the detailed Phase maps. For the purpose of reviewing the effects that these project changes will have on historic and archaeological properties, a project map showing the locations of historically significant buildings, districts and sites would be helpful , with reference to the existing and proposed conditions. Examination of the information describing the proposed Salem-Beverly Bridge (page 4-30 and Figure 12) indicates that the new configuration is likely to have an effect on the adjacent Fish Flake Hill Historic District. Likewise, it appears that the widening of Bridge Street along the Chestnut Street Historic District (McIntire District) and the Federal Street Historic District will have an effect on the character and settings of these districts. The visual analysis section of the DSEIR does not contains sufficient information to evaluate these effects. Visual depictions, through a project model and Photographs of existing conditions from a number of prominent views from - within and looking towards the historic districts should be matched with illustrations of the same view of the proposed conditions. In addition, ' visual analysis of the proposed noise barrier should be made in relation to nearby historic properties. Massachusetts Historical Commission,Valerie A.Talmage,Fxecutive Director,S1wHistoric Preservation officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617)7278470 Office of the Secretary of State. Michael J.Connolly,Secretary L The section concerning the potential project impacts to archaeological resources should include a listing of the archaeological surveys conducted on this project in the past, with maps of the previously surveyed areas compared to the changes made in the project design. An assessment of the archaeological sensitivity of any segments of the new project area which have not previously been surveyed should be made (e.g. , the redesign of the Salem-Beverly bridge in Beverly) . The MHC has _gKa ,' U _r ''a—"� -M o s determined the the i t. _S gnat_ Tower:in�Salem�lselagblerfor listing in the National Register of Historic Places�(page 5-T2;7 TT:` 'i` fact that the e Tower has been moved and its machinery • c ry replaced not seriously affected P y c ted the its integrity. The Tower retains sufficient integrity of workmanship, materials and association to be eligible for listing in the National Register under criteria A, C and D of the Register. The MHC requests additional information on the 'See-Side Eye Clinic" building on Water Street in Beverly be submitted in order to determine whether it is eligible for listing in the National Register. In summary, the MHC has welcomed receipt of the DSEIR for this project. However, in order to comment fruitfully on the effects that the project might have on significant historic and archaeological properties, additional information is needed. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to 3 contact me. cerely, Brona Simon Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer , State Archaeologist Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: .Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Frank Bracaglia, MDPW Anthony Fusco, FHWA Anne Harris, Salem Historical Commission Jane Guy, Salem Planning Dept. William Finch, Beverly Historic District Commission rwe f�.,onto ova b raa"Mo tra.-►w United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form Is for use In nominating or requesting determinations of allglblilty for Individual properties or districts.Baa Instructions In 0uftorfoe for CompNdng National Register forma(National Register Bulletin 18). Complete each hem by meriting"x" In the appropriate box or by entering the requested Information.If an hem dose not apply to the property being documented,carter"N/A"for"not applicable."For functbra,styles,materials, and area of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed In the Instructions. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10.900x). Type all entries. 1. Name of Property historic name Salem Tower other names/site number 3, location street 6 number Bride & Washington Streets not }or ubitetlon city, town Salem vicinity state NA code 027 county Essex code 009 alp code 01970 9. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property ❑private X❑building(*) Contributing Noncontributing - ❑public-local ❑district 1 building* ®public-State ❑site alta ❑publlc-Federal ❑structure structures ❑object objects 1 Tots) Name of related multiple property listing: Number of contributing resources previously listed In the National Register 4. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1988, as amended, I hereby certify that this ❑nomination❑request for determination or eligibility meets the documentation standards for`reglatering properties In the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirement* set forth In 38 CFR Part 80. In my opinion, the property❑meets❑does not meet the National Register criteria. ❑Sae continuation sheet. " ( Signature of certifying official 'Date State or Federal agency and bureau In myo ini.9 th p rty Rmeets[3 does not meet the National Register criteria. ©See continuation chest. 11/15/91 SI re of co n g or other official Date Massae etts Department of Public Works ate or Federal agency and bureau S. National Park Service Certification 1, hereby, certify that this property is: ❑entered in the National Register. _ F-1 See continuation sheet. ❑determined eligible for the National Register. ❑See continuation sheet. ❑determined not eligible for the National Register. ❑removed from the National Register. ❑other, (explain.) Signature of the Keeper Date of Action l Ijntted States Detriment of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number 4 Page 1 The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, in correspondence with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that Salem Tower, a railroad signal tower located within the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project area, is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) and FHWA agree to the tower's eligibility under National Register Criteria A and C (36 CFR Part 60.4) , but not under Criterion D as we state herein. It is also our opinion that the tower does not retain integrity of location or setting. Therefore, at the request of FHWA and in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 4 (c) (4) of the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, we are submitting the attached documentation on Salem Tower for evaluation. Documentary research carried out by MDPW's Cultural Resources Section has shown that Salem Tower was constructed in 1928 as part of the Boston & Maine Railroad's system-wide signal system and track improvement project. The tower was then moved from its original location at the northern portal of the Salem Tunnel (1839) - in 1949 when a new, longer tunnel was constructed beneath Washington Street along the west side of the first one, which was then filled. Salem Tower's original setting was a busy mid to late-nineteenth century train switching and coaling yard containing spur tracks, a locomotive roundhouse, a coaling tower, and all of the other structures and equipment characteristic of such a trainyard. This setting has now been reduced to a paved parking lot with the tower at its edge. All that remains of the tower's original setting is the MBTA's Eastern Route Main Line track and commuter rail stop. Moreover, the tower is visually and physically eclipsed by the adjacent Bridge Street overpass, constructed in 1954 in conjunction with the new Salem Tunnel project. Before the signal tower was moved and the overpass built, the tower had also housed the crossing guard, or flagman, who controlled the adjacent Bridge and Washington Streets intersection. . The tower's original design has been compromised by the alteration of its entrance and the removal of its interior stairway. The tower has instead been disfigured by the addition of an exterior steel stairway to the second floor. Moreover, the electronic signal board now on the tower's second floor blocks the view out of its many windows, negating an important purpose behind the tower's original design - to provide visual contact with the • trainyard below. our conclusion is that Salem Tower is not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D because the interlocking signal machinery for which the tower would have been significant, and which the tower was designed to house, had been removed from it F Untted States DepzAnwnt of the Interior National Park Sernce National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number 4 Page 2 and discarded by 1949 . Thus, the significant technological information that the tower might once have yielded, under Criterion D, no longer exists. Furthermore, under the MBTA's ongoing Eastern Route Signal and Communication project, all of their train signal functions will be moved to Boston after December, 1991. After that, Salem Tower will no longer serve the historic engineering use for which the building was specifically designed. i L I s l t 1 6. Function or Use Historic Functions (enter categories from Instructions) Current Functions(enter categories from inatructions) Transportation Railroad Signal Tower 7. Description Architectural Classification Materials (enter categories from instructions) (enter categories from instructions) foundation Concrete walls Brick roof Ceramic Tile other Describe present and historic physical appearance. Salem Tower (1928) is a two-story brick structure, 19' T' long by 13' 9" wide, with paneled brick walls elaborated by raised brick string courses and corbelling. Set on a raised concrete foundation, the tower has an overhung, tiled hipped roof, copper cornices, and metal sash windows with concrete sills and lintels. There is a narrow window on both the east and the west side of the first floor, while each face of the second floor is, or was, occupied entirely by windows. The original entrance to the tower is a narrow, wooden door on the first floor of the building's south side. In 1949, Salem Tower was moved northwest 90' from its original location to its existing raised concrete foundation. The tower originally stood on the north side of at-grade Bridge Street between the Eastern Division Main Line and the Peabody-Danvers Branch tracks. Facing the tower across Bridge Street was the north portal of the first Salem Tunnel, constructed by the Eastern Railroad (inc. 1836) beneath Washington Street in 1939. The tunnel emerged at the intersection of Bridge and Washington Streets. The tower was moved out of the path of the Bridge Street overpass, constructed in 1949 as the first phase of the Boston 6 Maine Railroad's grade crossing elimination project in downtown Salem. In the final phase of that project, the B S M, in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, constructed a new, longer Salem Tunnel between 1954 and 1957 and ran the existing streets over it. Salem Tower now stands close to the north portal of the 1950s tunnel, built directly to the west of, and beside, the first tunnel which was then filled. In 1956, the tower's original, concrete interior stairway was removed from the, south side of the building as a result of equipment changes inside the building. It was replaced by the existing exterior metal stairway which leads to a second story entrance cut into a window on the west face of the building. The tower's original entrance now gives access only to the first floor. .. The existing setting of the Salem Tower consists of a 1984, paved Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBIA) Commuter Rail parking lot to its north and west, the MBTA's Eastern Route Main Line tracks to the east, and the 1949 Bridge Street overpass to the south. ®See continuation sheet United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number 7 Pa 1 9e Salem Tower's original setting was a busy switching and coaling yard built by the Boston 6 Maine Railroad (inc. 1835), Eastern Division, formerly the Eastern Railroad, on land filled into the North River during the later nineteenth century. The trainyard contained spur tracks, a locomotive roundhouse, and a coaling tower, along with all the other structures and equipment characteristic of such a facility. Demolition of those trainyard structures began in the 1950s as the Boston 8 Maine phased out the last of its steam locomotives, and continued through the 1970s. By 1980 the area functioned as an unpaved parking lot. In 1984 the historic setting of Salem Tower was formally reduced to the existing paved MBTA commuter parking lot and train stop when the downtown Salem railroad station was closed. 8. Statement of SlenMieance Certifying official has considered the significance of this property In relation to other properties: ❑nationally ❑statewide ❑k tarty Applicable National Register Criteria [EA ❑B Mc ❑D Criteria Considerations(Exceptions) [-]A ❑B [-]C ❑D ❑E ❑F [-]G Areas of Significance(enter categories from instructions) Period of Significance Significant Dates Transportation 1928 - 1949 Guttural Affiliation Significant Person Architect/Builder State significance of property, and justify criteria, criteria considerations, and areas and periods of significance noted above. Salem Tower (1927-1928) appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criteria A and C. The tower is associated with a critical period in advance railroad signal technology, and it embodies a distinctive type of building specifically . designed to house both the new signal machinery and the operators of that machinery. Salem Tower went into operation on July 9, 1928. Over the years there had been 'several successive signal systems for protecting operations through Salem Tunnel, and the existing tower replaced two earlier towers in use at this location. The existing Salem Tower was originally a control point for all train movement between Salem Station eastbound through the single track Salem Tunnel to Beverly Junction, a distance of 2.25 miles. Within that territory were the junctions of the Salem-Danvers and Gloucester branches, Phillips Wharf spur, the engine house turnouts, the drawbridge between Salem and Beverly, the crossovers to Beverly freight yards and the United Shoe Machinery Corporation, as well as many other sidings with hand switches. Salem Tower was part of a Boston 6 Maine Railroad program to upgrade their tracks, signal system and the Boston Engine Terminal. Between 1926 and 1930 the B b M built six electro- pneumatically equipped signal towers in a similar design with slight variations to fit each site: Tower H (Somerville, 1927); Ayer Tower (Ayer, 1926); Waltham Tower (Waltham, 1930); Tower A (Charlestown, 1931); and East Deerfield Tower (East Deerfield, ca. 1930). Mechanical and electrical equipment was housed on the first floor of each tower, while switching and signal equipment and operators were on the second floor, which usually had large banks of windows on all sides. Four of the six are still functioning as railroad signal towers; two are now used as yard offices. See continuation sheet United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number 8 Page I Salem Tower was originally fitted with a combination of electrical signalling and mechanical switching machinery that made it one of the most up—to—date facilities of its size when built. The second—story levers for the electromechanical, pipe—connected, Armstrong interlocking switching machine rendered the switches and signals easily controllable by one tower man. The interlocking machine had 12 levers and handled five switches, one derail and 13 signals. Control rods ran on ground level pulleys from the tower to each switch. The openings for the control rods are still visible at the foot of the tower's east wall, though the rods are long gone and the openings cemented in. Though the interlocking switch levers were thrown mechanically by hand they were then locked automatically by an electrical device as all switches and signals fell into line in unison. The levers could not be unlocked or thrown again until the train had passed outside the tunnel and switch zone. Thus no conflicting routes or signals could be given. The new tower did away with the old system which involved the exchange of signals between the two earlier Salem towers. Unlike most railroad signal towers, Salem Tower also served the dual purpose of a gate tender's shanty for .the operator of the Bridge Street grade crossing gates. The gate tender occupied a three by four foot space in the tower facing the street. He could therefore not only see the crossing for which he was responsible, but he also know first hand from the tower man when a train was due. Although it appears eligible for National Register listing under Criteria A and C, Salem Tower is no longer eligible under Criterion D because the machinery for which it was significant, and which it was specifically designed to house, is gone. The technological information that the interlocking signal machinery might have yielded in situ is therefore no longer available. ' Salem Tower's Armstrong interlocking signal machine was slowly phased out over the years and by 1941 only a few of its functions remained active, the others having been replaced by a remote machine set along the east wall of the tower's second floor. The remote machine was made up of a row of metal switch and signal control boxes with a•lever on the end face. In 1949, the original interlocking signal machinery was removed altogether from the tower's first and second floors and discarded. An electric machine was put in its place. Banks of electrically powered signal relay switches were installed on the tower's first floor, %any of which are still there. The remote signal machine was likewise replaced in 1956: It was in conjunction with this machinery replacement that the tower's interior stairway was removed and the existing exterior stairway was added. The B & M reused available scrap metal to construct the stairway, the stair treads being grids from the tops of railroad cars. During the 1960s through the 1980s, the area of track controlled by the Salem Tower significantly diminished as control of signals and switches was increasingly centralized in Boston. Today Salem Tower controls track only from Castle Hill (Ipswich) to North Point (Salem), a distance of slightly under two miles. Under the MBTA's ongoing Eastern Route Signal and Communication Project, the existing control will also be removed from Salem Tower to Boston by December, 1991, at which time Salem Tower will altogether cease its historic function. . s i , 9. Major Bibliographical References Bernard, Vincent H. "Signal Systems on the B 6 M," B & N Bulletin, Volume XV, No. 2, July 1986, pp. 7-24. Boothroyd, Howard W. "Salem Tower —1941," B 6 M Bulletin, Volume X, Number 4, Summer 1981, pp. 26-29. Shepherd, Frank C. "Recent Terminal. Improvements of the Boston b Maine Railroad," Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Volume XVII , No. 1 , January 1930, pp. 1-31 . Symmes, Richard W. and Munroe, Russell F., Jr. "The Great Salem Tunnel Relocation Project.," B & M Bulletin, Volume V, Number 1, Fall 1975, pp. 4-11. ❑See continuation $hest Previous documentation on file (NPS): []preliminary determination of Individual listing (36 CFR 67) Primary location of additional data: has been requested ❑State historic preservation office ❑previously listed In the National Register ❑Other State agency ❑previously determined eligible by the National Register ❑Federal agency ❑designated a National Historic Landmark ❑Local government ❑recorded by Historic American Buildings ❑University Survey N ®Other El recorded by Historic American Engineering Specify repository: MBTA Historical Record N Property Survey. Phase II 10 Geographical Data Acreage of property UTM References A L.Lsj 1314j4ji2ioI 1417IOt915igio B I , I I I I I I I I I I Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing CW l l l l l l l l DW ❑see continuation shoot Verbal Boundary Description The boundary of the property is the footprint of the Signal Tower itself, which consists of the outer walls of the building, measuring 19'7" long (north—south) and 1319" wide (east—west), plus the exterior metal stairway on the west side of the building. ❑See continuation sheet Boundary Justification The footprint of the Signal Tower is considered to be the property boundary because the tower has been moved from its original location and its original setting is now gone. ❑See continuation sheet 11. Form Prepared B namehitie Anne Booth Historic Preservation Specialist organization Mass Dept. of Public Works date August 28, 1991 street 8 number 10 Park Plaza telephone (617) 973-7497 city or town Roston state MA Zip Code 02116 .v.s opo"'8'0,223916 �i-I.r�( )�♦(�..P \r" E } 9 tl^ f nL '_'n •Y +tlyf. l :" �; � „� -, - - ate• •�.y- A '� S� <`� -. u r'`. � :'ate+^ r• � . ,pi.' �: ..� � I •'QYi`cs!�.,d<�y�'<'w Sr p L� -. pt .7 ,ra` .s'�- 1 ���`- �°`• � .•, "� it I �•.1' - .� � 6 ` fi��(� v t..• Jam^(. { 1,�-.• A�� In f.B` A tom• r t} Y'l ^'�..�, ..y; #.fix{ .�' �r�'�a�r ; t•_ a rd's t� � !:' V�N ✓ AFn' - rte t t 4 � 1Tl I.} :.. I�1.6V1•_.JJ6•'.. wi Fv'i.W.l�1••���Ci rr(:� 2Lf►� w_ ^ .,•\. E i FfN � •.R ¢i� y �_ r ni kw NO ' rr�• b 3• � ¢ ° •.fa• O sr rr! �' `: „A s'ai rrr®ifa'wt.'�'• "` t •7.. ,'�r•'q,�S " r � � � •y'=% /y P�{�r��f quh' � kip �:;� � 1 2 {nre� •' 3 �� ^t �~+v _. `S'�ly�`�a+tet•; k._.L 7t' r # �' �`:•YT.0 ter`,. °°� � r ,. t g` S y x'Fi +i1 ' r 4}: a x � tY r� 4 t A � t I . F . ylt4 j, Ly J jjl � rn �•1�t. •t i.�t � �{�� ���.� 2. I a 1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION I SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT BEVERLY AND SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX COUNTY RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY CONSULTING PARTIES ON SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED JANUARY, 1991 Submitted Pursuant to: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (30 Stat. 915, 16 U. S.C. 470) `. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April, 1991 I Response to the 106 Documentation Comments by Massachusetts Historical Commission, Beverly Historic District Commission, Salem Historical Commission and Interested Parties. Response to the Comments of the M.H.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 "See-Side Eye Clinic" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Response to the Comments of the Beverly Historic District Commission . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. IDENTIFICATION OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. WATERFRONT (2); B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERNS (3); C. "SEE-SIDE" EYE CLINIC (4); D. RANTOUL STREET AREA (4) 11. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Specific Comments . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Other Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Response to the Comments of the Salem Historical Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Response to the Comments of the M.H.C. "See-Side Eye Clinic" The M.H.C. requested additional information on the building at No. 15 Cabot Street, Beverly, known as the See-Side Eye Clinic building. Specifically, M.H.C. requested additional information about changes to the building and in its use from the date of its construction ca. 1880-1890 to 1941. They also asked if there were any other buildings associated with the clinic building during this period. Photographs of the exterior and interior of the building are attached. John Girdler bought the wharf on which the clinic building is located in 1888 in order to expand his existing coal and wood business, established in 1861, which was located on a wharf off Water Street in the vicinity of Bartlett Street. There were no structures on or near the site of the clinic building in 1879, according to Bailey's birdseye View of Beverly. Mass., or in 1880, according to the Hopkins Atlas of the Town of Beverly. Massachusetts. The building at 15 Cabot Street was constructed using fragments of earlier structures and served as the wharf office of Girdler's coal and wood business, which continued to occupy the Water Street wharf as well. This use of the clinic building continued from ca. 1888-1890 until 1968 when the company that Girdler started went out of business. His company, one of at least a haledozen of its type in Beverly over this period, is listed as "John Girdler, Coal and Wood. Wharves: 15 Cabot Street, 78 (sometimes listed as 81) Water Street; Uptown office, 162 (later 174) Cabot Street" until 1922 when the listing changes to "John Girdler Co." Girdler's son, John H., took over the business in 1916, managing it until his death in 1927. In 1930 John H. Girdler's sister, Elizabeth L. Girdler, became president and treasurer of the John Girdler Co., in which position she remained until her death in 1945. She was the last family member in the Girdler business which, by the 1960s, was called the Girdler Fuel Corp. In 1969 the company is no longer listed in the Beverly Directory and its most recent manager has gone on to manage a rival business. Thus the building's use as a Girdler company office remained essentially the same from ca. 1888-1890 until 1968. Because the clinic building was constructed ca. 1880-1890 using fragments of other structures, and was then moved to a new foundation ca. 1890, it was considerably modified from the beginning. The back 20 feet +/- of the building has a ca. 1830 upper frame, while the front 15 feet +/- dates to the co. 1890s (see Photographs 18-28). The whole first floor frame seems too tall for a 0. 1830 building; the earlier part of it appears to have been raised up when joined to the newer, 1890s portion (see Photographs 13-17). First floor modifications to the earlier part of the building include the insertion of a door and window, for which a falling brace was cut off, on its west side. A paint line indicates that the cellar steps were replaced and their angle changed, perhaps when the building was moved to its new foundation ca. 1890. During the 1980s, the first floor interior of the building at 15 Cabot Street was adapted to serve as an office and eye examination rooms for the See-Side Eye Clinic. The 1980s 1 modifications include partitions, drywall sheathing, and a dropped ceiling of acoustical tile. The second, or attic, floor appears to have been left essentially as it was when the Girdler company moved out (see Photographs 13, 14, 18). With respect to other buildings associated with 15 Cabot Street, there was a small shed close to it to the west and another close to it on the south, or back, side during the earlier twentieth century. There was also a large shed, presumably for coal and/or wood storage, near the southerly end of the wharf. The advent of the Civil War had fueled Beverly's industrial base while curtailing maritime activity, leading to a swift downturn in the fortunes of its waterfront. During this period, Beverly's fishing and shipping industries began a steady decline. The limitations imposed by the town's relatively small, shallow harbor meant that Beverly was unable to compete with the other, prominent Essex County ports, such as Salem, Gloucester, and Newburyport. With the decline of Beverly's harbor, the adjacent Fish Flake Hill neighborhood also saw a decline as coal sheds, storing coal for domestic and industrial use, soon occupied many of the wharves. Soot and coal dust were said to be everywhere. At the intersection of Cabot and Rantoul Streets, to the northwest, the city's rubber manufactories had their beginnings oa. 1852. Then, during the early 1900s, the wharves and piers between John Girdler's Water Street wharf and Maple Street on Tucks Point were filled and occupied by the petroleum tanks of the J. M. Geffey Oil Petroleum Company. All of these structures are now gone, and with them has been lost the industrial setting of Girdler's modest office building. Other comments by the M.H.C. are addressed in responses to Beverly and Salem below. Response to the Comments of the Beverly Historic District Commission The Beverly Historic District Commission and interested parties have provided the Department with a number of thoughtful comments concerning the Section 106 documentation for the Beverly Salem Transportation Project. In turn the Department has prepared the following responses. The intent these comments is to amplify and clarify the observation included in the original documentation, and to respond to specific points raised by BHDC. This information has also been prepared in response to the comments and concerns expressed by interested parties. I. IDENTIFICATION OF RESOURCES A. WATERFRONT The existing Fish Flake Hill Historic District, as expanded includes the complete inventory of significant historic properties in the project area. The first district, comprised of twenty-two properties, was entered into the National Register on October 26, 1971. The district was found significant as a related assemblage of residential structures associated with the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth centuries maritime history of Beverly. The District boundary 2 did not include waterfront or wharf properties, owing to the high degree of alteration along the waterfront and absence of surviving structures. The initial district was expanded to one-hundred and fifty-one properties by an amendment entered into the Register on June 26, 1986. This amendment included some maritime related properties but the majority of additional structures date from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries. The addition occurs to the north and east, away from the waterfront. This period is characterized by the industrialization of Beverly and the migration of the business to the traditional city center to the north. This migration is summarized by the mid-19th century relocation of the railroad depot from the waterfront area to the new commercial and industrial center to the north and northwest. The majority of properties in the expanded district date from the industrial period. The district expansion also included the north side of Water Street to encompass the two surviving maritime properties. These are the only survivors of the solid row of commercial and warehouse structures that previously characterized the area. The expansion did not include the harbor side of Water Street since none of the early wharfs or other maritime related properties remained. B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERNS Based on our knowledge of this portion of the project area through a preliminary review of town histories and maps, it is unlikely that remnants of 17th and 18th century roadways can be identified within the proposed project area. Any roadways during these periods would have skirted the east side of present day Cabot Street which was moved westerly from its former alignment during the late 19th century. Not only can old roadbeds be dismissed as a potential resource-type on the basis of their location relative to the project area, but they may also be questioned on the basis of their likelihood to be discerned archaeologically within the harborside fills. As shown on the utility/drainage plans, a large number of electrical conduits and water, sewer and drainage facilities crosscut the project area and its vicinity along Cabot and Water Streets. Electrical conduits and drainage pipes extend through the area of Ferry Way Park, which was largely filled in 1984. Gas tanks may lie beneath the island remnants of a former gas station facility at the corner of the Essex Bridge and Cabot Street. However, pockets of fill may be interspersed between these underground drainage facilities and utilities which contain remnants of 17th and 18th century wharfs and structural/cultural remains associated with commercial storehouses and shops. While it is possible that these resources are buried within the fills, we feel that the probability for retrieving them, intact, is low. In regard to BHDC comments on the geotechnical data, the project's boring logs were 3 inspected to acquire information on soil content and to delineate the extent of fill. Due to their size, boring samples generally are of limited value in locating and recovering archaeological remains. They are, however, useful in discriminating between natural soils and fill deposits for the purpose of evaluating subsurface disturbance. The utility and drainage plans together with the geotechnical information available for this portion of the project were supplied through the FHWA to the State Archaeologist for review. We are currently waiting for the State Archaeologist's comments. C. "SEE-SIDE" EYE CLINIC The Department has investigated and documented the physical character of the See-side" Eye Clinic building. The structure incorporates elements of an early 19th Century structure, but these elements have no physical integrity or established historical significance. The structure is essentially an 1890s two room, one story office shed with a full attic.. The presence of a structure on the current site on an 1852 map is not definitive. No structure is present in the 1879 "bird's eye" view or the 1890 atlas. Wharfs were traditionally occupied by a non-permanent sheds, office blocks and similar structures. Historically, the late 19th Century configuration of the building is associated with the a wood and coal dealer, one of many similar, contemporary retail fuel dealers in Beverly. No historical distinction can be established for the John Girdler Company. The building has sustained substantial alterations including changes to the storefront, roofing materials and exterior cladding. Further, the location of the structure has been substantially altered and the surroundings bear no relationship to late 19th or early 20th Century period. In summary, "See- side" Eye Clinic is a remnant without integrity of setting, location materials or associations for a non-significant commercial enterprise. D. RANTOUL STREET AREA The Rantoul Street area includes eleven properties surveyed by the Beverly Historical Commission in 1977 and included in the Inventory of Historic Assets of the Commonwealth. The current level of information for these properties was available and evaluated when the Beverly-Salem Bridge Project was cleared for 106 review in 1980. They were not identified as significant in subsequent documents or public comments including the Draft and Final EIRs and Supplemental Draft EIR. Development of the Rantoul Street area follows the circa 1850 layout of Rantoul Street. The development is characterized by one cottage house, five speculative worker tenements 4 constructed in the 1850s, four additional houses individually constructed in 1870 and 1892 and a 20th Century Fire Station. There is no documented link between these properties and nearby industries, although it is possible to assume that individuals housed here may have been employed in nearby industry. Overall these properties have a loose association with 19th Century industrialization of Beverly. They offer no specific insights into the historical process of industrialization, nor are they associated with events or individuals significant to that process. Judged on the basis of alterations and change sustained by the individual properties, they are not good or representative examples of typical 19th Century worker housing. Physical separation from the Fish Flake Hill Historic District by location and non-contributing properties along Cabot Street, in conjunction with distinct and non-significant historic development, would not qualify this area for consideration as an addition to the current, expanded historic district. H. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS Having undertaken a thorough investigation of historic resources in the project area in Beverly, it is determined that only the Fish Flake Hill Historic District is significant. Under the Advisory Council Criteria of Effect, 36 CFR 800.9(a), the Beverly/Salem Transportation Project will not have an effect on the Fish Flake Hill Historic District because the project will not alter any of the characteristics that caused the District to be listed in the National Register. The project will have no effect to the setting of the historic district because, as discussed in Item I (A) above, the setting of the district is not intact, and thus not a contributing feature. The Fish Flake Hill Historic District retains integrity of location because the majority of contributing and character defining properties maintain original locations. The setting of the District is not intact. The intimate relationship between district residential and commercial structures and waterfront that once characterized the maritime phase of the District's history is no longer extant. Typical "finger" piers that once enhanced the visual relationship between houses and harbor have disappeared. They were lost through conversion for coal storage and oil tanks depots during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The estrangement of the district from the waterfront has continued with the location of considerable non-waterfront located activities in recent years such as the fast food restaurant, service businesses, and automobile body shops. This alienation was furthered in recent decades by demise of marginally maritime related uses and consolidation of wharfs for recreational boating and as locations for residential condominiums. The Department has prepared a series of photographs of the view from the current bridge in the 5 direction of the district. (photos 29 - 43) Taken in approaching succession, the photos document that the often attractive view is nonetheless not historic. Photos document the extent of modem change and the isolation of historic buildings from the water's edge. At various points aspects of two district buildings are visible, but the context is completely dominated by modern construction. This condition is properly noted in a 1985 city-sponsored Waterfront revitalization plan which correctly observed, "(the waterfront) is characterized by underutilized land, including marginal marine related uses, auto-related uses and warehouses. " and "At present, there is very little visual access to the harborfront. " Since preparation of that document, substantial new development, particularly in the form or residential condominium development has occurred along the water's edge continuing the alteration of the harborfront character. This new development visually dominates the perspective of the area. Thus, while the waterfront location is a defining feature for one of the two major historic periods of the district, setting is not intact. It is not a character defining feature which caused the district or its expansion to be included in the National Register of Historic Places. The now altered setting of the historic district had a distinct definition: the limits of the deep water channel. The current bridge and proposed replacement are located outside the former historic setting. The setting of the historic area was the active harbor. The current bridge is located approximately one-hundred yards west of the end of the channel that defines the harbor. The location of crossing features over time, whether ferry or bridge, was selected to minimize or avoid impact to the harbor. The initial ferry way was located towards the shallow end for ease of passage. The 1788 bridge location was also chosen to facilitate construction and not to interfere with harbor activities. The lack of significant maritime activities in the area of the bridge and to the west is documented in the argument over the location of the Eastern Railroad crossing in 1837. This debate is recorded by Edwin Stone in his 1843, History of Beverly. August 20th, a town meeting was held, at which a series of resolutions were adopted, and a committee appointed to endeavor to obtain a change of the location of the Eastern Rail- road, from the east to the west side of Essex bridge. The objections to the former location, as urged in the resolutions, were, substantially, that the construction of a bridge there would materially injure the anchorage accommodations of the harbor, incommode citizens engaged in the cod fishery, expose the town to fire from the engines, endanger the lives of numerous school children who must cross the road in going to and from school, and permanently injure the business, prosperity and growth of the place; '. Maguire, C. E. et al; Beverly Harborfront Public Improvements, A Study...City of Beverly, October 1985. 6 all of which evils the location of the road west of the bridge would obviate...This object was obtained in 1837. The absence of direct economic or occupational associations between the waterfront and the bridge area is further evinced by the orientation of the district's street pattern to the southeast, away from Cabot Street and the bridge crossing. This orientation facilitated views and communications between the district and the adjoining wharfs. Views to the west were unnecessary and likely undesirable judging by the concentration of uses found in the vicinity of the bridge and railroad including the poor house and india rubber works. A contemporary view published with the Stone history (Appendix B) further documents that the district and its wharfs commenced considerably to the east of the Beverly landing of the bridge. Specific Comments 1. Additional photographs have been prepared by the Department; these photos are taken in sequence from the bridge and along the approach to Rantoul Street. They accurately demonstrates that degree of change and alteration to the waterfront area and the setting of the district. 2. The verbal description is an accurate and fair depiction of the setting. It properly identifies the major physical elements that dominate the visual character of the area. It presumes that the reader is familiar with the attributes of the historic district, which are discussed earlier in the document. The description should however document the amount of change and alteration that has occurred along the waterfront including the total transformation to recreational boating, significant change in the configurations of wharfs, and modern marina related structures. This is not offered as a rationale for effects but to document the lack of integrity of the setting of the Historic District. Detailed review of specific project features such as signs, lighting, curbing etc. is not possible because they are not yet developed. Detail review is not pertinent at this point in project development because the Department has determined that the project in its entirety will have no effect and these aspects of the project will occur in a non-significant area. However, future opportunities will be provided in the project development process for review and comments on specific design features. 3. The bridge and approaches are designed for existing traffic circulation patterns. No further changes are necessary or anticipated. The Department can not foresee future actions on the part of the City of Beverly. However as noted, alterations to eixsting traffic patterns are required for the project as designed. A complete copy of the CIPS Memorandum will be supplied. It is regretted that the incomplete copy was not brought to the Department's attention prior to preparation of the BHDC 7 comments so that the oversight could have been rectified. 4. The noise from traffic climbing and descending the proposed fixed-span bridge was considered by using the STAMINA 11 noise prediction model. The model incorporates the grade of the incline and appropriately adjusts the noise emission level for predicting noise. The future noise levels were predicted for both the proposed fixed-span bridge and a lower moveable-span bridge. A 6% grade was used for the fixed-span bridge whereas the moveable -span was modeled with a 0% grade. The difference in noise levels between the two bridges are negligible at less than one decibel. The speed used for noise prediction of the Bridge and Bridge Street By-Pass was the design speed of 40 mph. The design speed is the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the roadway limit the speed of the traffic. The posted speed is usually lower than the design speed because actual driving conditions prevail over geometric design in determining travel speeds. the traffic will generally travel below 40mph so using a speed of 40mph for predicting future noise levels is a conservative approach. Again, the model incorporates the grade of the bridge and adjusts predicted noise emmissions accordingly. The FSEIR need to include train noise in the noise impact evaluation because it is part of the noise environment. The Leq noise levels that were used in the evaluation include traffic noise as well as background noise (i.e. train noise). Train noise was included in both the existing and future Leq noise levels so that an equitable comparison could be made. 5. Without increase in traffic, additional atmospheric effects willnot occur. 6. As BHDC comments attest, the cumulative effect of changes to the project since 1981 has been to substantially diminish the size and scope of the project. Following this line of reasoning would result in a lesser finding than "No Effect". This line of reasoning is spurious; in its re-evaluation of the project, the Department maintains a finding of "No Effect" for the diminished project. Earlier project documentation did consider the Skerry House and plans anticipated moving the structure on its site, however its advanced state of deterioration precluded its moving. Changes in the condition of the property, not the project, resulted in changed treatment of the property. the unavoidable demolition, not the Beverly-Salem Transportation Project, resulted in a finding of "No Adverse Effect." The addition to the Fish Flake Hill Historic District occurs to the north and east away from the project area. Other Concerns 1. Additional correspondence from the BHDC is attached. 8 3. The Fish Flake Historic District is characterized by mixed use; it is not exclusively residential. The revival of residential interest and rehabilitation in the District first occurred at a time when the character of the district surroundings was substantially less attractive than now. Since this project occurs beyond the District, makes a positive contribution to area traffic flow and has no noise or atmospheric effects, it is unlikely that the project will directly or indirectly affect the residential or other uses of the District. 5. The purpose of the January 31st meeting was not to review materials but to meet with interested parties and review an outline of documentation previously distributed. At the meeting, all parties agreed to a thirty day period to review the documentation and prepare comments. It was the consensus that this was a fair and ample time period. The Department by policy distributes all information in a timely manner and provides reasonable periods for review and comment. Response to the Comments of the Salem Historical Commission The following information is a response to the comments of the Salem Historical Commission. It is also a response to comments of interested parties whose concerns parallel those of the Commission. In assessing the impacts of the Beverly-Salem Transportation Project upon National Register properties in Salem, the Department made a finding of "no effect" for the project. The Salem Historical Commission has expressed concern that relocation and widening of Bridge Street and alterations to the North Street/Bridge Street intersection might affect the Chestnut Street Historic District, the Peirce-Nichols House, the Bessie Monroe House, First Universalist Church and the Federal Street Historic District. In considering the potential for effect to the Chestnut Street Historic District, the Department weighed the location of Bridge Street relocation and the significant characteristics of the District. The relocated Bridge Street will be situated between five and thirty feet away from the District's western boundary, and the current location of the roadway. The setting of the district on this edge has been altered and changed over time and is no longer character defining. The Chestnut Street District commenced development in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries. Initially, this area was a district of substantial homes of wealthy families built on high ground along Chestnut, Federal, Essex and Broad Streets. It also included more modest homes of craftsmen and artisans located on lower grade bordering the North River. Until the mid-19th Century, this area of the river was marsh and part of the tidal estuary. Bridge Street was not yet established in this area. The natural environment of the North River began significant change in 1840 with the 9 construction of the Lowell and Salem Railroad. This change coincided with the completion of substantial historic development of the district. Over the course of the century, this area became a major transportation corridor and rail yard. With the rail corridor came intensive industrialization of the surroundings by tanneries and related businesses. Filling, industrial dumping and improper sewerage lead to a complete environmental degradation of the area. Health Board investigations and sewer proposals of the late century graphically describe the high incidence of diphtheria, inadequate cess pools and sinks and surface drainage of sewerage from houses along River Street. Following sewer construction, the North River itself was transformed. It was channelized to increase drainage, as the so-called "North River Canal." A tidal flap gate prevented backflow of tidal waters, changing the ecology of the River in this vicinity from tidal to brackish. By the mid 20th Century, most of the industrial development had been destroyed by fire or had been abandoned. Similarly, the rail lines and yards were largely abandoned. The physical character of the area holds no integrity to the natural environment of the early 19th Century nor the industrialized quality of the late century. Relocating Bridge Street away from the district in conjunction with wetlands mitigation reconstructs a sense of the historic setting of the district. Similarly, the setting of the Federal Street Historic District has undergone drastic alteration over time and the northern edge can not be considered character defining. The most significant change in this vicinity is the 1954 construction of the North Street Overpass. Similarly, the 1975 construction of an addition to the Superior Court has completely altered this edge of the district. When viewed from Bridge or North Streets, the appearance of this edge of the district itself is nearly, completely mid 20th Century. National Register documentation for the Federal Street District cites as its major architectural character the interplay across Federal Street between monumental County buildings and more modest 19th Century residential properties. The Bridge Street side is not identified as a significant feature. The Peirce-Nichols House shares the same setting as the Federal Street District. Retention of a portion of its gardens behind a fence screening part of the North Street Overpass, preserves aspects of its original setting, although the modem urban environment is clearly visible beyond its confines. the presence of the Overpass did not preclude designation of the House as a National Historic Landmark. The proposed project in the vicinity of these two properties relocates a portion of the reconstructed Bridge Street further away from the two historic properties. It also requires modifications to the existing intersection and overpass. These changes occur at the lowest grade, considerably below the grade of Federal Street. A ramp between Bridge Street and North Street, northbound will also be removed. 10 In the vicinity of the Bessie Monroe House and First Universalist Church, the project entails modifications to the existing intersection of Bridge and Washington Streets. The proposed Bridge Street By-Pass will enter the intersection on the northern side, in the location of the current rail line. The setting of the Church and House was substantially altered by 1960s Urban Renewal sponsored demolition and subsequent new construction. The Salem Commission has expressed concern that the project will result in air, traffic and noise impacts. The study of potential air quality included in the DSEIR projects that air quality will improve with the alternative. This improvement is due largely to anticipated increases in emission standards. Similarly the noise component of the DSEIR finds that at one location, on the western end of the Chestnut Street District, the project will result in noise levels at the threshold of the unacceptable. This level of 66 dba will in fact be less than the 72 dba recorded at the site at the time of the study. The higher level was attributed to the presence of a pothole which was deemed an extraordinary circumstance. In terms of historic impacts however, this serves to establish the presence of noise already. The project can not be found to introduce noise as a new element to the historic district. The DSEIR projects that the proposal will result in a decrease in traffic in the Chestnut Street District, principally along Federal Street. Relocation of Bridge Street serves to move traffic further away from the district. The Salem Historical Commission has also expressed an opinion that adjoining parcels created by the relocation of Bridge Street to the north should be developed as part of a greenbelt and not be joined to existing commercial properties. The parcels occur in the city lay-out of Bridge Street and are the property of the City. Their eventual disposition is the responsibility of the City and not the Department. Landscaping of this area would be desirable and the Commission is encouraged to pursue this option further with the City. The Salem Commission has also expressed a desire to review design elements of the project including materials, lighting, landscaping and signs. The project has not proceeded to this level of design but the Salem Commission will be consulted and its comments solicited on these aspects of the project when developed. 11 TS * y .01 _��- r ti• -7 o ��.iy.1f1S5��_ t��* t- January 18, 1991 Anthony Fusco Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 55 Broadway, 10th floor Cambridge, MA 02142 RE: Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass Project Dear Mr, Fusco: Thank you for submitting additional information on the Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass project, which were received on January 8, 1991 . Staff of the MHC have reviewed the materials you submitted and have the following comments. As you are aware, the cities of Salem and Beverly, the Beverly Historic District Commission, the Salem Historical Commission, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, among others, have expressed an interest in participating in the "Section 106" consultation for this project, Tne MHC recommends that a copy of the documentation you submitted be sent to the consulting and interested parties for review and comment. In reviewing the information you submitted, the MHC ois unable to concur with the "no effect" finding you have made without the fo information: llwing additional 1 ) The MHC is not able to evaluate the National Register eligibility of the See-Side Eye Clinic in Beverly without information on the post-1890 changes to the building and its usage. Despite having been moved historically, the building may have significance in the 1890-1941 eriod. Were here o buildings associated with it during this period that no longertstand? How was the building modified during this period and what were its uses? The MHC requests that a MHC Inventory Building Form be completed that addresses these questions and that photograph(s)iits main elevation(s) be included. 2) The description of effects to the Fish Flake Hill Historic District does not clearly evaluate the effects of the proposed bridge to the enlarged National Register district, The effects of the proposal on the enlarged historic district should be more fully described, e.g. , the distance of the proposed bridge approach to the district; how the bridge and its approach will visually affect the character and setting of the district. While the illustrations you submitted present an overview perpective, additional Massachusetts Historical Commission.Judith B.McDonough,Ex cutitx DireCtor Stare Historic Preservation O�cer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617)727.8970 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J.Connolht Secretory Photographs showing existing and proposed project conditions from key vantage Points within and adjacent to the Fisn Flake Hill from District would oe very helpful. age 3) The discussions of the potential of the Ferry Landing Blubber Hollow area in Salem to contain intact resources are generally lacking area in Beverly and Subsurface conditions. Examinatiodescription andiassessmentant aofhthe lexisal ting geotechnical data might be helpful in assessinn Of any �lable soil boring to s as illustrations showing the locations of modern g °r other documented disturbances. r subsurface integrity as well utilities and other 4) The modifications to the widening Bridge Street will be relocated at smefdistanceStoethe�north eO indicate that the McIntire District, which will act as a "buffer' nature of this 'buffer" should be more full of the edge of use, landscaping or treesplantings are contemdescribed the district, The y described. What types of land The comments of the consulting and interested parties should be provided to the MHC. to These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). Staff of the MHC would be ha ppy reviewing the documentation you wbmettedet �th you and the interested require further assistance, If You have an Parties in State Historic Preservation Officer,eat el fres tffioetact BronauSimonns or Deputy Sincerely, 6. J ith B. McDonough Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: George Turner, MDPW Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW Don Klima, ACHP Beverly Historic District Commission Salem Historical Commission Salem Planning Dept. Salem Historical Commission DNE SALEM GREEN,SALEM. VASSACMCSE TTS 01970 :6171 745-9595. EXT. 31 '. March 7, 1991 Mr. Anthony J. Fusco Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region One 55 Broadway, 10th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Project: Beverly-Salem Transportation Project (Salem-Beverly Bridge, Bridge Street By-Pass, Bridge Street Reconstruction) Reference: Mass. Project BR-F-54 (005) Beverly-Salem HB-MA Subject: Section 106 Documentation Review Comments pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Dear Mr. Fusco: We appreciate the opportunity ¢o review the latest plans for the Salem Beverly Transportation project, as part of the continuing 106 Review Process. As it has always been, our first and foremost concern is the extent to which the proposed Bridge Street by-pass road will adversely effect the adjacent eighteenth and nineteenth century residential neighborhood between North and Flint Streets, which is both a federal and state historic district, and includes several properties individually listed on the National Register. Inasmuch as the proposed project represents increasing Bridge Street from two to four lanes and changing the character of the street to an intra-city four lane by-pass road, the danger is that if it is not done right, the project will significantly increase the existing levels of traffic, noise, air pollution, vibration, and other intrusive elements, which are already at or above tolerable levels, even for a two lane street. You may recall that the plan that was first unveiled in the Summer of 1990 was (and is) totally unacceptable because it called for locating the new four lane undivided road on the site of the existing Bridge Street, i.e. at the very edge of the historic district, thereby maximizing the adverse effect of the proposed new roadway, while at the same time, precluding any meaningful measures to mitigate those adverse effects. Since then, the m Histo Li�C mission (SHS) has worked closely with the Massachusetts De rt en' of Pub or (MDPW), the Mayor's office, the Massachusetts Hist ria mission (MHC), and various neighborhood groups in an attempt to arrive at cceptable design that would not only address Salem's need for improved vehicular access but, as important, one which would minimize the adverse consequences caused to the adjacent historic district by the project. We feel we have gone a long way toward meeting that goal. While we are confident that we will be able to resolve the remaining issues, it should be stressed that unless those issues are satisfactorily resolved, we would not be able to concur with the MDPW's assessment that the project has "no effect" on the adjacent historic district. The major improvement in the present plan, over the previous two plans since last summer, is the extent to which the enlarged roadway is being moved away from the historic district. Basically, the present plan calls for the-new four lane road to curve away from the neighborhood beginning at Flint Street (heading east) and return to the present Bridge Street more or less where it presently intersects with the overpass off-ramp. This effectively creates the potential for a buffer zone varying in width between five and thirty feet. Also, instead of an undivided roadway, the present plan now calls for a fifteen foot median strip dividing the two twelve foot wide eastbound and westbound traveling lanes. The practical effect of all of this is that the existing two lanes which are currently at the edge of the historic district are being moved out between five and thirty feet, and the two new lanes are being located sixty-nine feet away from the existing southerly curb of Bridge Street (i.e. thirty foot buffer, at its widest point, plus two eastbound traveling lanes at twelve feet each plus fifteen foot median strip). Further, the plan calls for the two new lanes to be screened by plantings in the median strip. Obviously, our first preferenceiis that the by-pass road be moved even further to the north, in order to provide the widest possible distance between it an the adjacent neighborhood,since that is the most effective way of minimizing the adverse effects of the enlarged roadway. However, we are told by the MDPW that that would involve realigning the railroad tracks even further to the north, which would not be possible without building a new railroad bridge over the canal, which the state cannot afford. Obviously, we lack the means to judge the track relocation issue for ourselves. Nevertheless, we are willing to accept the proposed roadway as it is presently sited provided that the remaining details are satisfactorily resolved. Unfortunately, the present plans are completely unfinished regarding those remaining details which concern us the most, and about which the ultimate success or failure of the project (in terms of how it will ultimately impact the historic district) will depend. As noted above, the median strip and buffer are absolutely key to the mitigation of the project. If they are to work at all, they must be thickly planted with mature trees and shrubs which can simultaneously serve as a year-round visual screen, a noise barrier, and (in the case of the buffer) a transition between the neighborhood and the roadway. All of these goals would be defeated if the planting were sparce, or if significant gaps were allowed in either the buffer or the median strip. In short, it is imperative that the median strip and buffer constitute a consistent green corridor with as few breaks or gaps as possible, ideally none with respect to the median strip and only those which are absolutely necessary with respect to the buffer. Given that the roadway is intended to serve as a major gateway to Salem's downtown, this will also have the effect of balancing and integrating the new four- lane roadway with the new waterfront park to the north, and the buffer to the south, thereby further "softening" the impact of the overall project. In short, what looks best, actually works best. In this regard, we want to emphasize that the most troubling aspect of the new plans is the extent to which they are unfinished with respect-" the areas in front of the commercial establishments on the southerly side of Bridge Street, i.e. Alphas Auto Sales, Magariari s Carpets, the Gulf Station and Universal Trading. It is imperative that there be a green buffer in front of these establishments, and that it tie in with the rest of the green corridor. (We feel this can be accomplished without unduly limiting legitimate commercial visibility of their businesses.) The one thing we do not want to see happen, however, is the expansion of these businesses or their activities into the newly-created open space in front, which would completely destroy the whole visual and functional objectives of the buffer. Similarly, before we can join in a "no effect" determination, we will need to see similar details regarding the following points: A. Lighting - This must be of a style and scale compatible with the context of the adjacent neighborhood. We would want to see proposed locations and numbers of proposed lamps, their footcandle levels, the extent to which any pedestrian lighting is contemplated, and the specifics of same. Clearly we would want the lighting to be directed toward the road and not "spill over" into the adjacent neighborhood. B. Pedestrian Walkways - We would want to see the location, materials, dimensions, and colors of any proposed walkways, including the specifics of any amenities such as benches. Pedestrian walkways must not be at the expense of the planting buffer, however. C. Curbcuts and Curbin - We would want to see specifics on these as well, particularly as noted above with respect to the areas in front of Alpha Auto Sales, the Gulf Station, Magarian's Carpets, and Universal Wrecking, and the bottom of Lynn and Carpenter Streets. You may also want to consult with the residents of Carpenter, Lynn and River Streets to explore the feasibility and appropriateness of closing off said streets and, in such event, how best to integrate the resulting new space into the project. There should be no curb cuts in the median strip, not only for safety reasons, but also because of the erosion that will cause to the function of the median strip as a noise and visual barrier. Curbing should be granite, and should have the appropriate dimensions. D. Planting Materials - As noted above, the plantings should be substantial and should be chosen to provide year-round noise and visual screening. We will want to see specifics of plant types, size and proposed locations, and how they are intended to accomplish the foregoing goals. E. Traffic Signals - We want to see locations and style (i.e. no mastarms), and information with respect to how they will control the speed and flow of traffic, which will have a direct impact on the resulting noise levels caused to the adjacent neighborhood. F. Roadway Design - The present plans omit any details with respect to the number of lanes, their width, etc. (We have obtained the information recited above from previous meetings with MDPW officials, but we are unable to confirm their previous representations from the latest plans.) Obviously, we would have to have precise information on this as well. G. We would also like to see similar specificity regarding the proposed waterfront park, which we regard as an integral part of the projeety inasmuch as it will have the effect of further "softening' the project's overall impact. We have been told that the park will be basically bounded by the (reconfigured) canal to the north, the overpass to the east, the new roadway and tracks to the south, and Flint Street to the west, and that there will be no light or office industrial park, which would otherwise undermine the mitigation goals that we are attempting to accomplish. We are relying upon those representations. H. We would also like additional specificity concerning the following major traffic interchanges adjacent to the historic district and other nearby historic properties, including the dimensions, set backs to historic buildings and property lines, overall roadway widths, number of lanes, relative locations of existing and proposed curb lines, and the height and details of construction for the by-pass viaduct; 1. The Bridge Street/North Street interchange abutting the Peirce Nichols House, the Federal Street National Register District, and the McIntire Historic District; and 2. The Bridge Street, Washington Street and by-pass road intersection abutting the Federal Street National Register District, the Bessie Monroe House and the First Universalist Church (both National Register Properties). Finally, we concur with the MHC's findings in its January 18, 1991 letter that it cannot agree with the MDPW's "no effect" determination until it receives the information requested in said letter. Again, the necessity of the above-described information and documentation should not obscure the fact that considerable progress has been made to date, and that what remains to be done is relatively easy by comparison. Considerable credit for this belongs to all of the parties enumerated at the beginning of this letter, who have worked so hard for the last nine months participating in the 106 Review process. Still, because the ultimate success or failure of the plan depends on how the remaining details are handled, we must warn that we would not be able to "sign off" on the project until we are convinced that the foregoing questions are satisfactorily answered. We have every confidence that that will be possible, however. Thank you again for your continuing consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to receiving the above information as soon as possible, and we promise to expeditiously respond to same following its receipt. ctfully, THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie Clay Harris, Chairman John H. Car, Jr., Vice Chairman Walter H. Cook Russell Slam Richard Oedel Daniel Hubbard Pierce Roger Hedstrom Kevin Stanton cc: Mr. James Elliott, MDPW Mr. George R. Turner, Jr., MDPW Ms. Judith B. McDonough, MHC Mr. Don L. Klima, ACHP Beverly Historic District Commission The Salem Planning Department Mr. James R. Treadwell M15WP l` Robert C. Neilcy City of Beverly Massachusetts WilChaliam F ! illimt Finch Historic District Commission Vice Chairman Cit Hall 1 1 Cabot Street Beverly, MA o1 1 lames th F. Y r 9 r Y. 9 5 Elizabeth F. Clark John Condon John Rates Carole Schaeffer Members Margaret A. Albee Larry 1. 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 800.4(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 rpay also be considered eligible in their own right. The speck 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 16th 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 Beverlys 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 r 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 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 s _� r� x structure. The toss 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 c s 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 - i `l� V o 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. b"`tel 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 N 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 2191 - 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 fight 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 aftemate plans where signafzation 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 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 channelizalion 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, N any,queue jumping because the current one and two way system discourages it. 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 2191 - 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 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 with 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 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 rote 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 lime 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 1 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 1/18/91 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 i its approach roadway,will have an"Adverse Effect'on the Fishflake 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 {{� rey.' z S,m R %€,te cm,-'!c�i�w �,ro .A, _ 5 f., i3 S rr` J a .. � `�i � `AIP`x.C' ` � xE"„.",� G, x.i 5 r r4Di k..., 4,t�cr'� x`.`.o-r '=2'k P& 7' 'e � 1"t ` 3. z-'a'tt,"e ":^' `°a Y' .�' t,"�a ` "�..,a. kH' N'VF"V rrS 'k1F,,< 2- gt"�r'��."^ ''•'r. n "•. k r, v'c, CYC p x3hk al."r� lir's;.'?.. . ...g..4,kW :a.. trsz*, ,xf .F^•', ��y - � �.i � ,:yic €,'y,�d 'fS * + 1 Yx w.l �� +� iiNag � �p' g 'k' a' bi, �P`• ! h� ^x GI' la�`r �¢ +uJy��r'' z FEEy` 2>sP i t%o-H.5'u IuAS x F !F T+' , +� e{ ,1., v4 - b""9k5r'``z' i"re& x'aw S« +.,+� "v+s�: s �++��+ x'7x�ua S' xr•Yft ...a }yrk .,y p a}i' .:.2 w`.✓, t k t� a3'°:4 A .'.t'F �c^i. £ !A'�t 4 `+0�. Y�%Y t ..Y�l�� if ' V' in: �4.3.:.ii`# � y3 Y' 'P ' n' .' b'M� C h� rt. (V�yA�stc +c..J•zt ?. 'S.b'� NP�` "k '4,�r SI 7��$.� i F m�a]�.xi�j� k,"v es r s 3s `�� y ?.'LLL b'•K r. {, to w fl,. � 5� l�2" ' .,,yds'�jRC.,�. t.3 �' ry• 1 'fn. '"$' 'M 1 .. '.,�b f 1'i 5 C'ti P^1 } '4 t Yel V9' 4 ? SS §4�. �Tt Ait aG�+�TN. � {!h'n✓'N �/' _ !"f� �� yW J�,n �},�1 �y �I�F�Y^ t,.( r � �' •5.15 �„" 'Xty2` r{g f y / �� 1:"''. .. M1 ,x '� -.fi! fhA iLA %ty^ ''{F: Fl 4 �.i�! �y+fy ,y4.'.�rl eV � l 6� 'N`•Y. 1\''� 9r4 . e S tv ''.. : �'i c+L r .rN�"A�wi+l yS'.rr s r�,r�; 33•7A— -Ni l t s R :... #� 1 T�i.rs a` Y ;lt 1�,s� ✓ _ rk :. s � ^- 'r '..i^.� a. 5K ,� &xjr'.. f c- .' ' ' , x tlq` ��,r ' .Yn f`�i + i„ 65 N :r 4 � � � � � `^,-�� y,. , `��M������� �.�->x.,. , t�NEW 63� HIG'HaBRIDG,E AY'' N*pfi �Ln«4 E 3 f s' r :.✓'` .Y' ....in {..��'"�A i A` 11-Y}�R'} f.r!_'3. *�^ r k .,+w °6AjF �'. �, :kr'S. #rYSs e`tt<. cA a i ; a '+A y14w✓^d = ,J��' 4f ,1y.`5y6ian, wri ''t ,Fs 4,y� �yV } �4. 6 f i' d Rr+' t 3 W'., ajar Y JI`y ' f fl F'F f•, r .: 'Y L :'?P2 A m� � .,�� .ww�e' ...n s yf � 6 x w$E''.w.i•+.,. �G.. '�u • 1 /ti..• 5 m s`i1 " y�A I y'ho z �.; ^� x �.4en t*.t EXISTINGBRaf� Jag! n ,,�* r�'.0"7' ,,,M�►,.m _.:�,'ab �+ �r^. jt��Y t! �� nRF.� J4 x �n Sys... & 3#t rP• '+ht`y"..4etoa°m.P'*X + • 1n4f'w3 rK.t $ t r T"v`a'Z2 rt' tlla..r • 'S` rt li'rx. £1 n^- ✓ i_ e -v f .s- ef Y •"FE��t'HZ,r 3 t• it !'�w�ie x .�- < z ro..1�+ "�n-D� .we4'ni �i.rt+# .:.�'Fdk so � ����y. cam.�s'r n. �.a-.ice w`3kt«�. r y y fy 'EY M, �+� .` VFY' x "t �n^,Pfy.''}' ''• y f `� $" yt�r c- i. i 5 YA F4 i,y.• i?.,`, .•b x`y MCI ! k � r�i. 7q AN �.1^i+W✓ /�f�s� AS ... ,.S^$"..•✓r t x'r.,j` x Y, 1±.3cT+3w , a., ark '. r lei �,A IN y�k '�`>n+, Wt-r.' r!� —"F J 'S�,sfy; n `V;sR�r �'�,4i,, r kx "".S°�..w�x'§'1a 'tttlil. ,Yr,'ax '.r'+•., r ���.i..r� x aim sty �, r ,f Rl iQ ,�+ t a l� v liY S �r.9i 5+ 4n°� ''�� Q`$.•..F' r rq�„#�'F�i Y 11� t., ea(' p � sr. r s d J H �e\ k . Yt' r;f✓ ( ;' r w'kf.. rr✓.7t,r, Fa '.i^'". t� s r.wR..T., l�.ai"',t. r- 'ym�l,5•` (ll ' ♦ ji '�'Di It"�,`1tj Ys .y+�t"�'� =} r s<p..' T^ •n*�' t fiz Xs ;sw ':T ' 1 ..1 r Ir Tiiv„ r BOLMDAR k° i �„°,•��.a5S .S.s' s�T''x.'$+RA,nr°Pw j.4#Y' }1',m�M14c;1i,.0,y i JIa�y.re•.:.TS,,Ye^:h'-rti-'rr�Yaa-F,,k'�r3t�o�Y{._�-"�"y,?�F;Fi y"b�+•`�"i�'P,'-��n+W#zY,iFl�. '.�,._'1�.h.+.sf:, .t' aj-�: 3`aiu'wp`W� ',"Jf]ig�b�'��bi,'L�<,1:,r,�..-...��+sSa4'i+ra A." � . LV;' SPS+- "�:` % 1 -.:.� 3 '� *, .•_ , ` r e ax"�: j ����' W � —`w} ,r,� � 51^ � �� , 3 .�.,> ' "� i' ' `_!� At':� "�s�ka.,. t �s °x Mrd 111111111rllllllllllli1111 i s ++ 4ro ft r�� ''• T+, '6` .�. .r^ `P'� �'` a;.: r r�E 4;,.. fi M {"t rr^SF" ,�r a'1 d 3•` q x$ ? f 1 6 °"Mw Y$p,f `a•rA "T!. ,k `d a "rsf' f I 7�1'ryr3Y ,�.. A ,K. R -: g�, - r•s x..e � 4•t o-�c g.a=w�A,y`�xl:}�• ,� ., .:� .� ;.,,"a:kn r v{-tii't'"ta �PY+'", x'4� � r�r .P � E,1. q°- i y'"#, :• : •• • • • • • •• • 4. ir.�, p ��t Fri ' µv.,C�k , wVt�rx` e�' a° .?a J`. x Robert C. Neiley City of Beverly, Massachusetts Charman William Finch Historic District Commission Vice Chairman City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915 James ElizabethbethF.F. Clark John Condon John Puts Carole Schaeffer July 25, 1990 Members Mr. John P. DeVillars, Secretary MuguetA. Albee Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Larry J. Simpson 20th Floor Ntar:,aru 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 Attention: MEPA Unit Subject: Salem-Beverly Transportation Project: EAEO File No. 0756 Dear Mr. DeVillars: At a Special Meeting on July 24, 1990, The Beverly Historic District Commission voted unanimously to submit the attached Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project to your office relative to the MEPA review process. - These Comments consist of two separate documents. The first, titled STATEMENT REGARDING SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, 1s intended to provide an overview of the Commission's views on the subject project, and was read during the July 9, 1990 Public Meeting held by the MOPW at the Salem High School . The second, titled DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, presents a detailed response to the specific assertions and analysis presented in. the Draft SEIR that the Commission considers relevant to its interests. We trust you will give these comments serious considerations in making your ruling as to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR for the subject project. We request that you infom the Commission of your ruling, and that we be kept informed of the status of this project during the remainder of the MEPA process. 4TankYou n, h Willia B. Finch Chairman, Beverly Historic District Commission. cc: Commissioner Jane Garvey, MDPW Federal Highway Administration Brona Simon, Review Director, MHC (See second page) Mayor John F. Monahan, Beverly Board of Alderman, Beverly Harbor Management Authority, Beverly Hon. Nicholas Mavroulous Rep. Frances Alexander U.S. Coast Guard Don Klima, President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation National Trust for Historic Preservation, Boston Office BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 2 Robert C. Neiley City of Beverly, Massachusetts Chair=- William Finch Historic District Commission Vice Chwnwa City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915 James °ai1e► Elizabeth F. Clark John Coram John Prate Cook sehaeker _ Yembea Maquet A. Albee lard J simpm Ahernmea DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: EOEA # 0756 BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION JULY 24, 1990 INTRODUCTION The following Detailed Comments are intended to augment the Statement - presented by the Beverly Historic District Commission (BHDC) at the Public Meeting of July 9, 1990 regarding the Beverly-Salem Transportation Project pursuent to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review process. The July 9 Statement presents an overview of the BHDC's comments regarding the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR): The Detailed Comments respond to the specific assertions and analysis presented in the SEIR that the BHDC considers relevant to its interests on a page by page basis. A summary of the major issues discussed is provided below to facilitate review of the detailed comments. SUMMARY OF ISSUES 1. Historic Prooerti e: The BHDC contends the Project will have substantial adverse effects on the Fishn ake Hill Historic District due to changes in -setting, and impacts of traffic and noise. (See pp. 3-5) 2. 4lfl Properties: Two individual properties and the Fishflake Hill Historic District should be considered in Beverly. (See pp. 14-15) 3, 106 Review and Consultation: The BHDC has not been consulted by the MDPN in making the finding of No Effect for the Fish flake Hill Historic District. The supporting data for the finding of No Effect in the SEIR is inadequate. (See p. 15) 4. Archaeological Sit e: The section is incomplete, lacking final reports on the Old Planter's Site, and containing no information in regards to possible sites in Beverly. (See p. 14) SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 S. Changes to the Historic District: Since 1981 the District has been increased from 5 to 35 acres, and has experienced a wide range of substantial public and private improvements. The BHDC is concerned the project will have a blighting influence on this resurgence of the District and adjacent waterfront. (See pp. 3-4) 6• Changes to the Project- Since 1981 the proposed Bridge has increased 22% in height, 11% in width, 20% in steepness of grade, while the By- Pass has decreased 50% in scale. The larger cross section and scale of the Bridge is now inconsistent with the scaled down By-Pass road connected to it in Salem. (See p. 7) 7. Visualsis; The visual analysis is incomplete and misleading regarding both the existing environment and the impacts of the proposed Bridge. (See pp. 12-14) 8. PrO.iect Boundary: The statements in the SEIR regarding the proximity of major project actions to the Historic District are misleading. (See p. 4) 9. Traffic Safety: Higher traffic speed and capacity of proposed bridge will increase congestion and decrease safety at Cabot/Rantoul/Water/Front intersection. This will cause the installation of traffic signals or institution of one way system on Cabot and Rantoul Streets. and negatively affect the Historic District by diverting traffic onto local streets. (See pp. 10-11) 10. Traffic Flow: There is no data in SEIR on existing traffic movements and volumes in the Historic District, and no plan indicating proposed movements off the approach road onto local streets. (See pp. 7-8) 11. Oise: Noise testing on quiet streets within the Historic District has not been carried out, and the assertion that there will be no noise impacts on historic properties is therefore inadequate. (See pp. 9-10) 12. Pedestrian Safety: The project will discourage pedestrian usage of waterfront amenities and decrease pedestrian safety due to increased traffic speeds and congestion, and the unsafe underpass access to the Public Pier. (See pp. 8-9) 13. Mitigation: The fundamental issues of scale and visual setting cannot be adequately mitigated by plant materials and paving details. To be adequate, the resolution of mitigation issues must consider alternatives to reduce the overall scale of the Bridge. (See pp. 6- 7) 14. Alternatives: The discussion of alternatives is inadequate, presenting only negative aspects of rejected alternatives. Issues that should be discussed in a full cost/benefit analysis are enumerated. (See pp. 5-6) BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 2 ULEN BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 HISTORIC PROPERTIES/SITES (4.20, 5.20) The Beverly Historic District Commission strongly disagrees with the SEIR's finding of No Effect for the Fishflake Hill Historic District, and contends that the proposed Bridge will have substantial adverse effects due to major changes both 1n the District's setting, and in traffic and noise. The BHDC is dismayed at the summary treatment in the Draft SEIR of impacts of the proposed bridge on the the Fishflake Hill Historic District and related waterfront. To cite the Determination of No Effect by the Massachusetts Historical Commission dated May 21, 1980 as a basis for the SEIR's current finding of No Effect for Fishflake Hill is to blatantly ignore major changes to the district, changes in regulatory practices by the Commonwealth relative to historic preservation, substantial changes to the proposed bridge design and roadways, and the fact that the Section 106 process has been reopened for the entire project, as acknowledged by both the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A. Significant positive changes within or adjacent to the District that have occurred since 1980 include the following: 1. The expansion of the district from 5 acres to 35 acres. The expanded District extends from the north side of Cabot Street - down to Water Street for virtually the full length of the harbor (See attached Figure 12 from the SEIR). About half of the traffic using the bridge passes directly through or along side the expanded District. 2. The removal of the chemical tank farm immediately adjacent to the District at Tuck Point, and the redevelopment of this site into approximately 200 housing units and a new marina including public access along the property's waterfront. 3. The removal of railroad tracks from Water Street and lower Cabot Street. 4. The removal of two auto body repair shops from within the District on Water St. through the use of public funds, and the development of 13 new housing units on the site of one of them. S. The construction of approximately 20 new dwelling units on the site of a burnt out former school building (the Old South School) in the District. 6. The restoration of numerous privately owned historic residential structures in the District, including the Herrick House on Water Street, and the reconstruction of an eighteenth century house on Front Street that had burnt down in the 1970's. The Herrick House is associated with the early use of the Beverly Waterfront in the Revolution by the U.S Navy, and BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 3 SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: NEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 had been abandoned and derelict for many years prior to its recent restoration. 7. The expansion of the various marina facilities along the waterfront. 8. The construction of a new Public Pier by the City of Beverly adjacent to the Proposed Bridge. 9. The landscaping of the Old Ferry Landing Park next to the Public Pier. Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 above removed major blighting influences on the district and facilitated the revitalization that has been occurring over the past ten years. The BHOC is concerned that due to its violation of the District's setting and the effects of its noise and traffic impacts, the proposed Bridge will become a significant new blighting influence and cause a total reversal in the ongoing private restoration efforts that are necessary to maintain Fishflake Hill as a stable historic residential neighborhood. B. There have been substantial changes in the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Historical Commission through new legislation over the past ten years to more fully review and protect historic properties. These changes reflect a clear shift in state goals towards fuller protection of historic resources relative to government funded actions. The consideration of historic preservation issues in the SEIR should respond to these shifts in state goals, but instead relies on decade old documents and old standards of evaluation. C. The statements in the SEIR regarding the proximity of major project actions to the Historic District boundary are misleading and inaccurate. The location of the northerly bridge abutment does not define the limit of substantial project actions that may impact the District because at this point the roadway is still about 24' above MHW. The approach road does not reach existing grade until the easterly boundary of Macdonald's. This point is only about 200' from the District boundary, and for all practical purposes should be considered to be contiguous to it. This point is substantially closer than the 650' cited in the- SEIR and much closer than the touchdown point of the existing bridge. The visual appearance of the massive approach road so close to the District boundary has a substantial adverse impact on the visual setting of the District that is not acknowledged by the SEIR. D. The visual analysis is misleading as to existing conditions and fails to fully and accurately describe the impacts of the proposed Bridge and its approach roadway as viewed from various locations within the District, and as part of the setting of the historic harbor and the District when viewed from outside the District. The SEIR fails to even acknowledge the large number of residents on Fishflake Hill and the harbor who will have the bridge in their views. BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 4 i, .SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 20, 1990 E. Changes to the geometry and flow of the Cabot/Rantoul/Front/Water Street intersections to control the higher speed and potentially higher volume of traffic exiting off the bridge are contiguous to the district. Three of these streets pass through the District or along its edges. The BHDC has repeatedly stated concerns that these changes will cause additional traffic to flow through the currently quiet residential streets of the District, but the SEIR fails to fully address this issue. ALTERNATIVES (3.0, 3.1, 3.2) The SEIR provides only a limited discussion of alternatives in response to public requests that a low or mid rise draw bridge should be considered. This discussion presents only negative aspects of the rejected alternatives, and is presented in a very simplistic manner. For instance, draw bridges of all heights are rejected because im interruption of vehicular traffic flow is considered unacceptable. Cost data is given for one alternative, but no information is provided concerning design details, and whether alterations in width might reduce the cost. Cost data on draw and fixed span bridges provided in the 1975 Draft EIR is substantially different with the selected 40' fixed span costing about 1% more than a 20' high draw span. There is no discussion explaining why a 25' high draw span should now cost 28% more than a 48.7' fixed span. It is stated that a draw bridge must be manned 24 hours, yet the existing bridge is manned on a 16 hour basis. There is no analysis regarding frequency and duration of opening as a function of bridge height in relation to existing marine traffic. The BNDC believes that a moderate height 'quick draw' type bridge resolves the various conflicting interests and goals better than the proposed fixed span bridge, and that this alternative should be seriously considered through the presentation of a sophisticated analysis of both positive and negtheative 1975 Draft tEIR,s. Tand he BnotesathatvsuchdatfullranalysislofHhs reiewehe pevious ERdthis ocumealternative (or any others) has never been presented in a public document. A full cost/benefit analysis should include at least the following: 1. Determination of an optimal draw bridge height (or possibly several options) through analysis of the mast heights of the existing marine traffic 2. An analysis regarding frequency and duration of bridge opening as a function of bridge height(s) in relation to existing marine traffic mast heights and frequency of transit by day week and month of year. 3. A discussion of the impact of projected frequency and duration of bridge openings for various heights on vehicular traffic flow by day week and month of year. BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 5 SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 4. A discussion of the impact of various heights on roadway grades. S. A discussion of cross section (i .e. width and lane configuration) options in relation to existing connecting streets and the proposed two lane by-pass, grades, traffic volumes, and traffic speed. It should be noted that as the total length of new roadway is only about 2 miles, and is largely integrated into the existing street systems, designing for speeds greater than those permitted on the adjacent streets is pointless. 6. An undistorted discussion of the design and visual scale implications of the various heights and cross sections, both in relation to the harbor, the City of Beverly, and the Fishflake Hill Historic District. 7. A discussion of the cost implications of the various heights and cross sections. 8. A discussion of the implications for pedestrian, bicycle, and other recreational uses of the various heights and cross sections. 9. A discussion of the implications for marine traffic and related economic interests of the various heights and cross sections. It should be noted that while much of the raw data needed for the above evaluations is present in the 1988 toast Guard Navigational Study, substantial additional data is necessary for a meaningful presentation of the alternatives. MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS The SEIR proposes landscaping along the approach roadway on the Beverly side as the principal mitigation for the adverse visual impacts caused by the large scale of the bridge. The BHDC does not think such fundamental questions of scale and overall visual setting can be adequately mitigated by plant materials. Appropriate landscaping should be a part of any Bridge Project, but the very limited material in the SEIR has insufficient detail to enable any judgement of its usefulness. The only effective measures are to reduce the scale of the structure to a level that can fit into the visual setting without generating adverse impacts. This is essentially what has occurred with the By-pass roadway in Salem. The out of scale four lane limited access highway has been reduced in scale to a two lane roadway (the By-Pass section) coupled to a four lane city street (Bridge St.). This has reduced the adverse impacts due to the scale issues, and provided additional benefits due to a more functional integration Into Salem's local street system. In the context of the scale issue we consider it within the purview of the MEPA process to require the serious consideration of alternatives as part BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 6 P SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 of the process of reviewing and incorporating appropriate mitigation . measures into the proposed project. We therefore request that MEPA require consideration of smaller scale alternatives, as discussed in the section above, 'Alternatives,' as mitigation for the adverse impacts caused by the large scale of the bridge as currently proposed before the draft SEIR is accepted. Further, if the analysis shows clear positive benefits in relation to costs and adverse impacts, then that alternative should be adopted by the project. CONSISTENCY ISSUES AND PROJECT CHANGES The project that started out as the Beverly-Salem 128 Connector has now been totally Changed. The Bridge Street By-Pass and Bridge Street Reconstruction components have been dramatically scaled down from the four lane limited access highway described in the FEIS/EIR, while the Bridge component has been substantially increased in scale to be 22% higher, 11% wider, and 20% steeper in grade. The FEIS/EIR justified the four lane divided highway configuration of the Bridge Street By-Pass and the Beverly-Salem Bridge as being necessary to be consistent with the cross section- of the portion linking Salem to Route 128. Now that the Connector isnot a part of the Project, the consistency argument is no longer valid. Consequently, the section from Washington Street to Boston Street has been completely changed to be simply a widening- of the existing two lane street to four lanes, and the Bridge Street By- Pass has been reduced to a two lane roadway without a median barrier. Yet the Bridge is still being proposed as a highway structure having five travel (including the 1200' long southbound left turn lane) plus two breakdown lanes and concrete median strip. The Bridge is now completely inconsistent with the design concept, roadway configurations, and overall scale of the rest of the project. Downsizing the cross section to be consistent with the By-Pass road and the projected traffic volumes should considerably reduce the cost of the Bridge. A reduction in roadway width would also have a substantial impact on the projected costs of the draw span alternatives to the extent that these should be re-evaluated as a solution to make the bridge more consistent with the rest of the project and the existing connecting streets, and reduce or eliminate many of the adverse impacts that the BHDC believes the proposed bridge design will have on the City of Beverly. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC (4.9, 5.9) The SEIR provides no data on the existing level and distribution pattern of traffic within and adjacent to the Fishflake Hill Historic District. Such data is essential to enable review of the conclusions of the SEIR regarding traffic impacts of the bridge. We note that currently some streets carry very high volumes, while other carry extremely low ones. Experience with past experimental changes in traffic flow patterns within the District has BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 7 I SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 shown that seemingly minor changes can generate major changes in streets currently carrying low volumes. In regard to traffic impacts on Fishflake Hill , the SEIR states that 'no substantial traffic diversions in this area are anticipated as a result of the proposed project,' but there is no hard data in the report to substantiate this conclusion. In a previous paragraph the report stated that 'Even with little change in total traffic, a new roadway project has the potential to divert or modify existing traffic patterns,' and then goes on to cite projected improvements in some areas of Salem to illustrate this. The report does not, however, apply this principle to Beverly, and to the possibility of negative modifications stemming from changes in the existing road layout (in technical terms, road geometry) . There is no specific data or drawings showing how the approach roads are to be integrated to local streets in terms of direction of flow and signalization or signage at key intersections. Nor is there any data on projected traffic volumes in relation to various turning movements at the intersections. Based on the complete lack of information presented by the SEIR we disagree with the finding that there will be no diversions within the area, and request that appropriate detailed data and analysis be presented for review and comment before the Draft SEIR is accepted by MEPA. Regarding projected traffic volumes, there has been substantial testimony presented by business interests and politicians that the project is necessary to stimulate local growth by improving vehicular access. Yet the traffic projections provided in the SEIR are predicated on very low growth for the area. Is this anticipated growth due to the project included in the traffic modeling program? Has the possibility been included in the traffic model that some Salem residents may use the bridge and bypass to go to Rt 128 via Bridge St. in Beverly instead of Rt 114 in Salem and Peabody? What are the actual numbers of cars expected to shift from the Kernwood Bridge? Finally, real life experience shows that traffic invariably increases to meet capacity on new roadways regardless of scientific traffic forecasts. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS (4.10, 5.10) There is no information about levels of use in the project corridor, and on the bridge and its approach roadways. The characterization that 'travel by bicycle on these roads is difficult because of the heavy traffic and poor condition of the pavement surface' does not convey an adequate picture of the extent of usage or conditions. The project area is a densely built up, older urban area, and conditions for pedestrian and bicycle movements are typical for such areas. In part due to the wealth of historic and waterfront recourses in this area, pedestrian and bicycle movements over the bridge are in fact quite heavy. The SEIR does not provide any evaluation of the impacts of the Project on pedestrians and bicyclists. It simply notes the grades and states they are within accepted design criteria. There is no evaluation of the effect of BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 8 *SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 the proposed new grades on pedestrian and bicyclist use. It is noted that existing movements will be altered, but there is again no assessment of this. The proposed access to the waterfront under the bridge from Goat Hill is described as being 'well lighted to provide a safe inviting pedestrian access point.' In most cases, such underpasses have proven to be chronic problem areas for pedestrian safety and for general maintenance. The old Salem railroad station is a local example of the problems caused by this type of space. These safety and maintenance issues are one reason why large bridge structures such as the proposed project frequently become significant blighting influences when located in urban areas. The Landscape Plan presented in Figure 18 is very sketchy, and provides no clear data on how pedestrian and bicycle access to the Old Ferry Landing Park and the Public Pier will be provided from the sidewalk coming off the bridge. No information on grades is provided to make clear that the Park will remain Handicapped accessible from the sidewalk. It does, however, show clearly that the proposed pedestrian boardwalk extension will be sandwiched between a concrete bridge pier and several boat slips, and will not be visible from adjacent more open areas. This is hardly a configuration to make a pedestrian feel safe. MARINE TRAFFIC (4.11, 5.11) This section does not synthesize data on the actual numbers of power boat transits vs. sailboat transits, nor provide an analysis of mast heights in relation to number of transits for both power and sail boats. Such information is critical to evaluating the effect of different potential bridge clearance heights and types on the flow of vehicular traffic. NOISE ENVIRONMENT (4.14, 5.11) There are no noise recording sites located within the Fishflake Hill Historic District. There is therefore no basis to conclude that there are no noise impacts on the District as a result of the proposed bridge. Like Goat Hill, the existing noise levels on Fishflake hill vary substantially at different locations. Cabot Street and nearby sites are obviously fairly noisy, while Front Street is extremely quiet. Existing noise should be monitored on Front Street and used to determine if traffic noise projected across the water from the proposed bridge will increase existing levels. The 8HDC is concerned there will be increases despite the distance from the bridge because of the height of the source, the direct line of travel over open water, the substantially increased speed of travel on the new bridge, and the steep intersections grades sn endstodivertthe reven small tamounts he gof trafficaOnto streets in the district currently having very low traffic levels, the additional traffic will cause significant increases in noise. As most historic properties are sited directly on narrow streets with no front yards even BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 9 SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 moderate increases in such traffic noise can significantly impact the livability of an affected street. The result of decreased livability is disinvestment by individuals, and a decrease in maintenance of Historic resources. Historic properties on both Front and Water Streets will also be impacted by increased noise if additional traffic is diverted down Water Street and/or Front Street. The increased speed of travel off the bridge approach road coupled with the geometric and possible signalization changes at the Cabot/Rantoul/Front/Mater Streets intersections is likely to cause congestion or delays that would cause traffic to short cut via Water Street and/or Front Street. Site 15 on Goat Hill is not similar to Front Street or other quiet locations on both Fishflake Hill and Goat Hill because the substantial through traffic using Wellman Street already generates a high level of ambient noise. We also question the use of 40 MPH as the design speed for the computer model . Regardless of posted speeds, the long, straight, well engineered by-pass highway and bridge will cause many users to travel at 50 MPH or more. SAFETY (4.15, 5.15) The SEIR does not sufficiently analyze the safety issues on the existing bridge and the intersections of the approach roadway on the Beverly side. The Givemostthe glaring ety issue vsafrate istheabrupt rtionin travellanes fhicular educton the nggdon� the southbound side from two to one at the swing span. This problem would be corrected by any replacement design for the bridge. The lack of physical separation between lanes is no different than the streets that feed the bridge, and the report provides no hard accident rate data to demonstrate a problem exists due to the lack of separation. The data on the accidents at the Cabot/Rantoul/Front/Water Streets intersections provides insufficient information on severity of the reported accidents and no analysis of the rate of accidents in relation to the traffic volume. We suspect that this accident rate may be fairly normal when reviewed in relation to the high volume of traffic passing through this complex intersection. The on at this heavily tivel saferissthathtraffic currently renters'itoateatslown rateeofispeed andatreats it with due caution. Any increase in traffic speed approaching this intersection will likely result in an increase in the accident rate as well as more congestion. The proposed roadway configuration of the bridge will encourage higher vehicular speeds regardless of posted limits. The addition of breakdown lanes further encourages speed by widening the roadway and giving drivers BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 10 SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 an illusion of safety. The elimination of the existing sharp turn at Congress St. will allow cars to maintain higher rates of speed onto the approach road right up to the Cabot/Rantoul intersection. With its two twelve foot travel lanes the proposed bridge will be able to deliver substantially greater peak flows of traffic at higher speeds into the intersection than currently occurs. The resulting impact will be a decrease in safety coupled with an increase in congestion at the intersection. The installation of signals, if carried out, would facilitate turns, but would not guarantee a decrease in the accident rate. The delays perceived by drivers due to signalization would encourage short cutting through the Historic District to avoid the lights. The increase of the grade to 6%, which is 20% steeper than the grade in the FEIS/EIR, coupled with the curve at the base of the bridge also present potential safety issues, particularly in relation to icing that occurs on bridges, that the Draft SEIR does not respond to in a substantive manner. Simply stating that 6% is within FHWA and DPW standards is not an evaluation of potential safety problems. The examples cited as having 6% grades do not combine these grades with curves. The Draft SEIR acknowledges that "concerns have been raised" about the issues discussed above, but provides no substantive discussion or evaluation. It has been suggested in past planning studies, including previous documents related to this project, that problems at the Cabot/Rantoul and Water/Front Street intersections could be reduced by introducing one way traffic patterns. A one way system for Cabot and Rantoul Streets would improve traffic flow and safety at the Cabot/Rantoul intersection. However, it would have devastatingly negative impacts on retail merchants on these streets, and would result in substantial traffic diversions onto adjacent neighborhood streets including the Historic District. Similarly, changes to Front and Water Streets would result in substantial detrimental changes in both the volume and speed of traffic on the residential streets of the Fishflake Hill Historic District. As noted in the section on Traffic, The Draft SEIR does not address these issues in any substantive way. LAND USE (4.10, 5.10) The SEIR correctly notes there have been substantial increases in both residential and recreational waterfront usage, and residential property improvement since the 1981 FEIS/EIR in the Fishflake Hill area. The SEIR should also contain statistical data on the numbers added to the area in terms of residential units, buildings added to the Historic District, and the increase in boat slips. All of these represent additional parties who may be affected by the proposed bridge that were not taken into consideration in the 1981 FEIS/EIR. BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 11 -SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: NEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 The BHOC does take issue with the singling out of the new boat storage facility and characterizing it as having "the appearance of an industrial rather than a recreational land use activity.' This type of building is typical of recreational boat storage buildings associated with marinas, and in its setting is clearly not 'industrial'. The building has been the subject of substantial public outrage since it was constructed because it is clearly out of scale with the rest of the waterfront. Its construction at this scale was not encouraged by the Beverly's land use regulations or any other City public policy. Rather, its construction occurred because the owner legally interpreted the Zoning Ordinance in a way not envisioned when it was enacted to construct the building at this size as of Right. We note that the proposed bridge will be approximately 50% higher than this building is from its base. WATERFRONT ACCESS (4.17, 5.17) Statements in this section regarding public access to the waterfront are not accurate. There are substantial additional points of public access to the waterfront in addition the new Public Pier and the Old Ferry Landing. The parcel on which the boat storage facility was constructed some 500' east of the bridge is accessible to the public over its full length of water frontage. Further to the east, the Tuck Point Condominium complex also provides Public access along its harbor frontage. The discussion regarding Macdonald's does not acknowledge the unlikelihood of its remaining after the completion of the project, nor the fact that it provides substantial visual access to the waterfront for many because of its low prices. VISUAL ENVIRONMENT (4.18, 5.18) The description of the visual environment is inaccurate and slanted both in carefullywords and in predominantly industritaken aland atoaolarger scale hs to nthanaactuallytexists. This section should be entirely rewritten to more accurately convey a sense of the visual environment of the entire area including the Fishflake Hill Historic District, and illustrated with substantially more photographs that convey the full range of visual elements that make up the area in an unbiased manner. The description of the Beverly side of the bridge should be separate from the Salem side. There are more than 'a few residential structures' on both Cabot and Rantoul Streets. As stated in the BHDC'S testimony at the July 9 Public Meetingusing such isolated objects as the Ventron chimney stack and the electrical transmission towers to define the scale of the area is misleading. The description of the visual environment as seen from the existing bridge is equally inaccurate. To characterize the waterfront as 'heavily developed' is incorrect. The predominant image is of boat slips with a backdrop of residential structures and a few commercial marine oriented BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 12 SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: NEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 buildings. Examination of photographic views and drawings of the harbor made over the last 150 years shows a remarkably consistent image and scale. In discussing views from the bridge, the report fails to acknowledge that there are clear views of the Salem, Danvers, and Beverly shoreline. The report suggests that residents having a view of the existing bridge, and by implication the proposed bridge, are limited to some houses on Goat Hill . Residents on the edge of Fishflake Hill in the Historic District as well as many residents of the Tuck Point Condominiums would have a clear view of the new bridge. The description of the existing bridge as a solid visual wall that blocks views to the water beyond it is again both misleading and very incomplete. The bridge is only perceived as a wall when viewed from boats in near proximity to it. The visual character of that •wall' is in fact quite textured due to the multiplicity of wood pilings, and is entirely characteristic of historic marine settings. The utility lines along the bridge cited 1n the SEIR are on the westerly side of the bridge in a position that is not readily seen from most vistas except on the railroad bridge. When viewed from the edge of theharbor or in the Historic District, the present bridge simply reads as a line in the middle ground of an overall vista that includes elements of foreground, middleground , and background. The bridge in no way provides a visual closure to this vista. One sees - over it and the Danvers River to the predominantly green far shoreline and the horizon beyond. The SEIR states that from the vantage point of a photograph simulating the view from the Fishflake Hill Historic District (page 5-64), the proposed bridge 'will clearly be visible but will provide no more of a visual barrier than the existing bridge. The principal difference will be the elevation of the visual barrier. The proposed bridge will enable views of the water under the bridge.' This is a very incomplete and misleading analysis. The new bridge will become a major element of closure in the harbor landscape because its height will cut off the view to the far shore and horizon beyond the Danvers River. The views of the water under the bridge will be very short as they will be abruptly blocked by the existing railroad bridge. In essence the bridge will completely titer the historical landscape and views of the harbor with its large mass and height. As noted above, there are substantial numbers of properties including many in the Historic District whose views will be impacted that are not acknowledged by the SEIR. The BHDC believes that a full , unbiased, visual analysis would clearly show that the proposed bridge does substantially alter the visual environment of the area including the historic harbor vistas and the Historic District. BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 13 SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 The effectiveness of the proposed mitigation is also strongly questioned as noted above. The BHDC requests that these issues be fully addressed with a complete visual analysis, and that this be reviewed by the BHDC before the Draft SEiR is accepted by MEPA. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (4.19, 5.19) The BHDC has a peripheral interest in the Old Planters Site in that many of the individuals who settled at this site went on to settle in and found Beverly. We note that the SEIR does not contain the completed reports from the testing in the Appendix, and that the BHDC has not received copies of these. We request that these materials be included in the SEIR and forwarded to the BHDC before the SEIR is approved, and that the summary in section 4.19 be rewritten to distinguish between recourses significant to the Old Planters Site, and other resources that may have been identified as being of a later period. . Resources of of later periods should be evaluated in their own right. There is no discussion regarding potential archaeological sites on the Beverly side of the Project in the Draft SEIR, nor in the FEIS/EIR. There is clear documentary evidence provided by Perley in his ca. 1900 Essex Institute publications that the general vicinity of the project corridor was settled in the late seventeenth century, and at that time included such - important community features the Ferry Landing and the road leading from the landing up to what was then Essex Street. The BHOC presumes that a study of this area was done in preparation for the FEIS/EIR, and requests that this study be made available to the BHDC and included in the SEIR. If no such study was done, the Commission requests that the Project Corridor in Beverly be evaluated according to current applicable regulations, and the results be incorporated into the SEIR. REGULATORY ISSUES= SECTION 106 AND SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES (5.210 6.10) The BHDC disagrees with the SEIR's finding that there are no 4(f) properties in Beverly. The Ferry Landing Park was omitted from the FEIS/EIR because it was not a public park at that time. Since then it has been acquired by the City of Beverly and improved with landscaping and pathways to function as a passive recreation park in conjunction with the Public Landing. Plans show that over 1/4 of this park will be occupied by the proposed approach roadway, and as such constitutes a taking under Section 4(f) that should be fully analyzed under the requirements of that Statute. The Building known as the Seaside Eye Clinic was cited in the BHDC's July 9, 1990 Statement as being a potentially sign#fitan year o istoric structure affected by the Project that is located outside of th ishflake Hill Historic District Boundary and is not recognized or eval ted by the BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 'S "�1 so" 2 ��°� PAGE 14 ` -SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 SEIR. The fact that the City of Beverly indicated to the MDPW that it was unable to provide a location or means to move the building off its original site does not to any way relieve the MDPW of its obligation to evaluate the historic significance of this structure. The BHDC requests that the Seaside Eye Clinic building be evaluated by the MDPW, that the BHDC be consulted before the conclusions of the evaluation are finalized, and the evaluation be included in the SEIR. If the property is found to be significant,the BHDC requests that it be analyzed under Section 4(f) . The BHDC also requests that appropriate steps be taken to preserve the integrity of this historic resource, and that no action to move it off the site or to demolish it be taken until the construction contract for the bridge is put out to bid. The BHDC contends that the Fishflake Hill National Register Historic District will be significantly and adversely affected by the proposed project. Accordingly it is judged to be a Section 4(f) property and therefore should be analyzed appropriately. The SEIR states that concurrence in the Determination of Effect for the Fishflake Hill Historic District is being sought under Section 106 and that the 'new 106 issues` are being addressed with the local Historical Commissions as well as the MHC and FHWA. This is incorrect. The BHDC has not been consulted in relation to making the Determination of No Effect for 1 historic properties beyond attending a meeting called by the MHC (Massachusetts Historical Commission) that was primarily concerned with the- Skerry House and the Old Planter's Site in Salem. The BHDC emphasizes that v the continuing 106 process applies to the entire project as cited in the February 9, 1990 letter of the Advisory Council to FHDA, not ,just the so �y called *new" issues referred to in the SEIR. The BHDC continues to find, contrary to MDPW opinion, that the project as currently conceived, particularly in terms of scale and overall concept, will have an adverse impact on the Fishflake Hill National Register Historic District. SUMMARY The BHDC does not consider that the SEIR adequately demonstrates that there will be no effects on Historic Sites and Properties in Beverly, including the Fishflake Hill Historic District. The reasons for this opinion have been set forth in detail in the preceding comments. The analysis and information presented by the SEIR is carefully selected and crafted to present a specific point of view in support of the proposed Project rather than to provide a disinterested statement of existing conditions, project 'impacts, and mitigation of adverse impacts for review and evaluation by the Public under the MEPA process. In many areas the SEIR is significantly deficient in specific information needed to properly evaluate impacts, and in some cases erroneous. BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 15 F `SALEM BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT: MEPA COMMENTS JULY 24, 1990 The BHDC therefore requests the Secretary to find that the SEIR is inadequate in the areas set forth above, and to require full and in depth further response herreqproponent requested tatthe tissueso the proponentbe required toeconsult se ewith the BHDC in the preparation of their response to the above issues. //A &' (;5e:� William B. Finch Chairman, Beverly Historic District Commission i 1 i �I 1 I BEVERLY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION PAGE 16 . � «tel ,•j. v / ♦ �a � •..��y / � d VA "Al I1' `` 'a'�t• ` ;A4Dim '► - • - • • • o �'+ 1 ►� 6. • rte^ Robert G. Ne Chairman City of Beverly, Massachusetts William Finch Historic District Commission vacs Cha;rmar James Bailey . City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 01915 Elizabeth F. CL John Condon Kathleen O'Don Cuole Schaeffer Members John Frates Alternate AUL IS 1988 RE: New Route 1-A Bridge across Danvers River MASS "'ST' COM between Salem s Beverly,MA Ms . Valerie Talmage Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston St Boston ,MA 02116 Dear Ms . Talmage: After careful review of the project noted above, this Commission has decided to seek reduction of it in scale and over- all concept in order to minimize adverse effects on Beverly' s historic resources . We hope that your Commission, recognizing the changes that have occurred since 1980, will re-consider the 'sign off" statements made by Elizabeth Amadon on June 15, 1976 and by Patricia Weslowski on March 27 , 1980 and re-open the matter for comment under the Section 106 Review procedures. Sincerely yours , RGN/jmf Robert G. Neiley Chairman - Robert G. Neiley City of Beverly! Massachusetts Chairman William Finch Historic District Commission Vice Chairman City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA 0191lames Bailey 9 � Elizabeth F. Clark John Condon ' Kathleen O'Donoghue Carole Schaeffer Members John Frates Alternate RE: New Route 1-A Bridge across Danvers River between Salem & Beverly,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 on 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 our historic waterfront. We are concerned also about the effect 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 winding pattern of streets. The present bridge design appears to be a Super Highway solution to a local traffic problem and as such it is an inappropriate solution. Although the Massachusetts Historical Commission "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 the bridge arrival area in Beverly, has been a Local Historic District since 1971. It is now also listed in expanded form in the National Register of Historic Places . In addition, the City of Beverly in recent years has made great efforts to recover and restore its 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 MBTA bridge, would eliminate the present automobile bridge bottleneck, and we urge that this type of solution be given favorable consideration. Si�nccereelly� yours, RGN/jmf Robert G. Neiley Chairman cc: Federal Highway Admr.Mass.Div. Hon. Nicholas Mavroules Rep. Frances Alexander Valerie Talmage,MHC SHPO Mayor John E. Monahan Beverly Board of Aldermen Beverly Harbor Authority The Beverly Times f PRELIMINARY MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT SUBSURFACE ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING OF THE BEVERLY SALEM BYPASS PROJECT MARCH STREET BRIDGE DETOUR (AREA 2 ) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Presented to: Mr Robert Johnson Chief Engineer Massachusetts Department of Public Works Ten Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 Presented by: University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services The Environmental Institute Blaisdell House University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 - May 25, 1989 Principal Investigator Dr. Mitchell T. Mulholland Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Arthur S. Keene 1 Introduction. An archaeological site locational survey was conducted by UMass Archaeological Services for the March Street Bridge Detour in Salem, MA. The project was conducted under contract for the Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW) were under Permit No. 1009 from the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Subsurface Testing. Testing was conducted in nine lots along March Street (Figure 1 - see slashed areas) . The lots are all within the project limits. This area was recorded as the location of the first European settlement in Salem, first occupied in 1626. The subsurface testing was conducted to evaluate whether any evidence of the seventeenth century occupation exists within the proposed project. During subsurface testing prehistoric deposits were also sought. The methodology that was used included shovel test pits (STPs) , hand-excavated trenches and backhoe trenches. The STPs were excavated to identify the presence of historic fill deposits and to determine if undisturbed deposits remained below the fill. The trenches were to be used to allow for deep hand excavation in the event that deep fill deposits were found and to allow for greater exposure of anomalies or features. The backhoe trenches provided long profiles and deep excavation to help identify land alterations that may have occurred during the early occupations. Lots 13, 25 and 27. These three lots are located southwest of March Street and northwest of the railroad tracks (Figures 1 and 2) . Houses and outbuildings have been removed from lots 25 and 27 within the past two years. The land is generally level and is located roughly 35 meters from the North River. Subsurface testing began with the excavation of STPs to identify areas of disturbance and fill. The location of STPs and trenches is shown in Figure 2. In all, 18 STPs were placed in these lots. STPs 1-19 (excluding STPs 7 and 15) had relatively undisturbed profiles with a plowzone reaching a depth of approximately 45 cm with a B horizon of finely sorted orange sand below. Artifacts recovered were largely nineteenth and early twentieth century materials. STPs 7 and 15 and Trench 13 all had disturbances which appear to be associated with the house and garage that previously stood on Lot 25. STP 19 had a deeper brown disturbed layer and a higher frequency of historic artifacts, but they' dated predominantly to the late nineteenth century. Trench 25 was positioned near STP 19 to further evaluate this area, but no indications of seventeenth century deposits were encountered. Two backhoe trenches (104 and 105) were excavated in the southwest end of Lots 13 and 25 (Figure 2) because this was the least disturbed area. The observed profile was very regular (Figure 3 ) , as observed in the STPs, and only a twentieth century pit with iron fragments and brick was noted in Trench 104 (Figure 4) . Lots 32 and 33. These two lots are located northeast of March Street and northwest of the railroad tracks (Figures 1 and 5) . They appeared to be very disturbed on the surface and five STPs excavated in these lots generally confirmed that observation. STPs 20, 21 and 24 all had disturbed profiles and contained very few artifacts. STPs 22 and 23 had relatively undisturbed profiles with evidence of possible plowing. Fragments of pearlware ceramics (1780-1840) were found and were probably associated with a nineteenth century house that once stood in Lot 32. No indications of seventeenth century f 2 occupation were encountered. Lot 24. This small lot between March Street Court and the railroad tracks (Figure 1) appeared to be very disturbed on the surface. Two small backhoe trenches were dug to confirm this observation (Figure 6) . Both trenches ( 106 and 107) encountered late nineteenth and twentieth century construction debris and there were no indications of undis�urbed deposits. The profile of Trench 107 is shown in Figure 7. Lots 11 , 16. This larye area is situated southeast of the railroad and southwest of March Street (Figure 1 ) . The area tested includes Curtis Park in Lut 11 (a small neighborhood park ) and a portion of Lot 16. Most of Lot 11 appeared to be undisturbed on the surface, whereas considerable recent dumping was observed in Lot 11 obscuring the original ground surface. The testing in these two lots included 20 STPs and two hand excavated trenches (Figure 8 ) . STPs 43, 45, 47 and 49 and Trench 41 contained a large amount of construction rubble (window glass, nails, wood) and some domestic trash. Local residents claim that the debris came from the cleanup of the Salem fire (early twentieth century) but the recovery of a 1953 licence plate during the survey indicated more recent dumping as well . The soil profile in backhoe Trench 103 revealed a depression south of Trench 41 and was probably a small drainage. This drainage was filled in with the twentieth century fill to create a level surface. The remainder of Lot 11 exhibited minimal disturbance. Three backhoe trenches were excavated and trench 102 and 103 had a generally undisturbed profile. All disturbances noted were determined to be late nineteenth or twentieth century in age. Artifact density was low in the undisturbed areas. The small size of artifacts (ceramics, kaolin pipe stems) is typical of "sheet refuse" and suggest this area was probably plowed with some dumping of domestic garbage. Lot 17. This house lot, located directly east of Curtis Park (Lot 11) , was very disturbed in the half located near March Street but appeared to be relatively undisturbed toward the North River. Six STPs and one backnoe trench were placed in Lot 17. There were several localized areas of disturbance but all were determined to be recent. The backhoe trench ( 100) had a relatively undisturbed profile. Results of Preliminary Laboratory Analysis. A preliminary analysis of artifacts has been conducted for the Salem project. No concentrations of seventeenth or eighteenth century materials were recovered. One small fragment of plain delftware (appx. 1640-1800) and a clay pipestem with a 7/64 inch diameter bore hole were recovered. In a seventeenth century context, such a pipe stem would date from 1650 to 1680. However, this material was found in association with twentieth century material in a disturbed context. Ceramics included yelloware (1827-1900) , pearlware ( 1780-1840) , hard paste porcelain, redware, whiteware (1820-1900) (one sherd of which was had annular decoration) and Albany slip salt-glazed stoneware ( 1800-1900) . While these are clearly eighteenth and nineteenth century materials, the salt-glazed ceramic sherd was found associated with plastic and a 1968 penny. All other materials were found in a mixed context. Other artifacts included nineteenth century proprietary medicine bottles and vials, one wrought nail, one hand-cut nail, coal clinker, milk glass, one "Coca Cola" bottle, a toy cap pistol and a gold wedding band were also found. 3 A European flint nodule was tound in association with a 5/64 inch pipe stem, coarse redware, ironstone ( 1830-1900) , pearlware (1780-1840) and whiteware, clearly in a nineteenth century context. Green glass fragments, possibly of eighteenth century manufacture Were also found mixed with twentieth century material . j Recommendations. It is concluded that while some early materials are present, they are few in number and occur in a disturbed context which probably results from the construction of residences in this area. No features related to the First Period settlement of Salem were encountered in the project area during subsurface testing. Few fragments of seventeenth century ceramics were found. No prehistoric evidence was recovered. On the basis of our survey, it is unlikely that an intact seventeenth or eighteenth century site exists within the March Street bridge detour (Area 2 ) . No sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places were observed in this disturbed area. No further archaeological or historical survey is recommended for Area 2 (March Street bridge detour ) . Continuing Research. At this time, detailed descriptions of the artifacts are being prepared for inclusion in the final report. A resistivity survey is being conducted in Area 1 ( the Skerry property) . Subsurface testing will be conducted in this area, and in Area 3 following analysis of the results from the resistivity survey. 21/2 ST SHED. BOYSO 2S WFF 8 . . NJ G 29 r— 75 LL z33 /36 I�2 I ` -� OM. H. SMI EP .48'--"ROW' Bi Conc. " i 21/2 ST. CONC. a3i IOR. R.] FA,RREL EA EME T LINE HED. Bi N A0 "I " URK LINO : / �` L'. 26 =rcOc B . � F S�OPt= 89 / /001 '9 3-a2rT 49' / •oc• .44.L /VG ViigLL Co . D ' � m / GAR. V 13 z - 41,74 CfY F �_- - 9/4 _ n /NO N / - �oo 3-� ( NO ACCESS ) — � _ _ (aLCy;:gTrt�pd"L�NE SIAT! ATION AUTHORITYBRiDGE�vo S-'-9 — 1 Rog`nn And Main Roilroci PRO10 P-.Fo --- _— 76 *277 6 _ _� 'WD.Fence Sign" ,"eC. _ - _ 4' C.L F6307 - ° ' I ST. W.F. - - � as L. F it I -W_ 14 /S -�a - '- _��„�-- L„/-�J/f.7,• _ „✓D-l6-Cq r- onC. 55' P 1 + II `3- 6 Q I� 2 ST. W.F. ITMAN �T CIT O ALEM 3 IS h EASE MEN INET IC ci 5T c _ 7' Z 4 Playground NI a U ROP. WA I O.H. m I%2 ST. W. I I ie 16 I e P P. OF LOP 1 I I B t:Conc H dl W _ Roff- 5 noRalS rt N U 2S wDS sr C M.H. Q w EAS1 F T INc ply s 0 3 Rut E JF M_N v ireplpce f\ N I A 3-P, v 43 �9P _EDT OF SLOPE I �_ 3 L6c�� �? 6 cfvel Ive 3T, r-- X35, ' ' C c • 2ST. W.F 65 ' D qe' 2ST. ' V ti h `4 rd nC 3-ATTS 2 GAR.' SHE' MOPPI W.F. � I S P R 0 0 m mLn w WIU) 3 � #5Z.Gj COQ caul I L) O c _ 66 �p ,,.d'Wd� 4: s 12 1 TS-E 13 PR, M.13 l3-C /' C OWGOG G i TM.H _ Unpaved—T -�Yd—^. --7 MARCH ' �. 2 A m - o._ 3- ? EM��RI ; v D on o . eoorq r 3' CF LDCA—; ^ - # _-19°58 03 E��2;W' F^ d. - — r / CfTY Owl SAL.EM — Gravel �� r ` )G, TOP—Z!)P 5LQPE,/ 1, If ' q _ i eti Conc. E� � Fns. 3 ss �� _ �.... r. 'OO I 'CONC. BLK. 'ON LI ,✓ K \ TJ C Z20 ti 21/2ST.WF. T- I ARUNDEL1op ent H. X62'= - 21/ ST. ° m 420 P4 ST. 2 MH. /Pool , . m0 2 KI AN e� g J apt. onc. _ 7- ri9�k� W G. 21/2 ST W.F. . /02' � _ G I�o B t. nc. D/ e W. /zi' it i8 CEM. 3 I i 21/2 S . PROP. Tvo 't7r ELQP °Dirt Or. CONC. 97_ h W.F IS J h 11/2 ST o 3k 16 CROWLEY to W.F. ul6 11� r-- IG rave 11 Q ^ ' kLai,(1( C[F1cnT si s J f �b L 1 I�;Mqq f •11 - � �'A_wcL�6cc� i i 1 1 i - DIST Jf bcD . .. will .. 1'lDJ 5"e / - 1 � 1 DIS�vrbo.�cs, P _ - t-ktPcH ST CeeT. 1 _ tC' (-- �.....->- ' Ll V i 1 1 z _ 1 2� 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1£ 7 i N 24 kp -14 97 21 y is L I 6 - y 1 2 3 t 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 — --- ----- _ r - - __ - - - � -- — — -- � Z � � -- — _ . _ ,___ ---- -- — — —. es `1 \ N 0 .._. _ : _ _ A � s ll _ '_ _ -- --- R ._ - \ _ _. ��` \ S ^1 �� _. _ .. --- --._ . . . .. _ .. n_... _ . _ . .... ... .� 9 I S ,� � m .y '� r�' � ` _ � � � n '� l , , \ J � \ �. � I \ \,` \�� \� a �� ,\ � ;� %,. � ,\ � . .\ � \� �o \� � �o � ��,\ � � \ \ �` r1 ti r o f 11' 7 v � J � 1 f \/ l ter) � J 1 •• ��\``���� 1 �r � � - � i � J \ N �• 6 hc-, ,. o a 22 r I I I =3 77i --'-- f. 71 I : � 1 r- R i �_- -- -- IY- Z- 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 1r 15 --- d i x .2M 74 -11 - -- I ' -i I .. a _.i-- — - i 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lc SUMMARY f UMass Archaeological Testing Preliminary Management Summary Report May 25, 1989 MDPW contracted UMass to perform an archaeological site locational survey for the March Street Bridge Detour. The area was recorded as the location of the first European settlement in Salem, first occupied in 1626. Purpose: To evaluate whether any evidence of the seventeenth century occupation exists within the proposed project. During subsurface testing prehistoric deposits were also sought. Nine lots within the project limits were tested. Method: Shovel test pits, hand-excavated trenches and backhoe trenches. Attached maps show locations of shovel test pits and trenches. Results: The report provided a summary of the fill deposits, soil profiles and debris found for each of the nine lots tested. Analysis: No concentrations of seventeenth or eighteenth century materials were recovered. The report provides a summary of the items recovered and their approximate age (some dated as far back as 1640) . Reconmendations: While some early materials are present, they are few in number and occur in a disturbed context. "No features related to the First Period settlement of Salem were encountered in the project area during subsurface testing. Few fragments of seventeenth century ceramics were found. No prehistoric evidence was recovered. On the basis of our survey, it is unlikely that an intact seventeenth or eighteenth century site exists within the March Street bridge detour. No sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places were observed in this disturbed area. No further archaeological or historical survey is recommended. . ." " Continuing Research: Detailed descriptions of the artifacts are being prepared for inclusion in the final report. A resistivity survey is being conducted in Area 1 (the Skerry property) . Subsurface testing will be conducted in this area, and in Area 3 following analysis of the results from the resistivity survey. J3205 r To; John Rempelakis METHODOLOGY AND SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON THE OLD PLANTERS " SETTLEMENT , SALEM , MASSACHU •ETTS Introduction Background reeearcYi has been completed for the portions of the Beverly-Salem Bypass project that, extend from Pearl Street north to the end of the March Street peninsula . The study was conducted by OMASS Archaeological Services for the MassacPl.laett;s llr_part.metlt Or PUUl.IC wuih• . Tho study £ooua.• i on the - - believed to have been the settlement of the seventeenth c.entuzy '01d- P1aI1L�_-ca" located along the North River . At- the uuta,>_t of the project secondary documentary aource;� rugge5ted that 111111.6 "First Per.i.od•• settlement is s.ituatad within the project area , specifically on ti-,e March Street peni.naula and in the vi(,inity of the seventeenth century Skerry Huu +e . Background research Of primary ztre...ngthCno thc, informati��n fre'.1 the seci,ndary _ sources , and provides evidence that; Native American Bites, may also be uresellt in the area . UndisturUed portione of the- area also have a high potential to contain prehistoric archaeul.ugi,:ai sites . Following the early residential use of the az'ea, the-- project heproject area was in use tiuouohout the eighteenth and ninetN('nth centuries as agricultural laud . In the 19th century , the ralli-O, was, conatrucLed t_nrough the area . During the late 1-9th ar-d 2C1th _ residential sett.len,ent intensifi.e_d .- - Howc.v-e , the proposed -highway corridor ps ses ti rough lariie areas that have not. apparently been impacted by -residential or - rai.lz•oad cc',ll action . Un file L^alis of Llte-avirle',.uc reacnrelled dur1nq t.h' .t.u-ay . then are-undisturbed portions of the pro je:,t area that have a _hi.s11 potential L6 contain evidence of the uld Planters settlement , and prehiatoric aitea . It ie, recommended that several areae will require eubeurface arohaeoli,glcal teating . These include 11he arra zurrounding the Skerry house , the area t,? be impacted along the March Street perli.nesula , which included a ;.1'etour ext:eriding east and west Of, the railroad tracks . A meeting is scheduled for March 9-1 , 11988 to discuss the areae that require nuU urface tenting. At that meeting areae for LE2tiiig will be shown On u4e.j,ailed project plans . Results of Background, 12coearclt The purpose of the 1-esearc1r c,:.r:ductad sae to at;certa.in wh: t ;lucuu;cutaz"Y avidenco , if ans' , ezist.� for the location of the original settlement of Salem by the Vlo Planters , 102%5-110 , on l.h rmtt bank of the North iiiver ! hr,t'.siren mod] :., n-day i,,:�Illun Street and t.1-ie Essex Bridge • west of Bridge Streat. j . AI: exhvlEst.ive „e;ur. cil of the literature and cid records was conducted utilizing the faC11i6iea i)f the usaex institute in Salem ;,,mi the ENsex I'our:ty Registry of Deeds . Upon the demise of the plantitlrsn at Capc Ani; , ra-lab I !rio,i by 1 c,pTg ljaona(j aq1 uo pue j 30 iueaP e Cl ) penciw psL{ aT{ 1.69T Rg "�•tac'T;;n uM,:'� atl`l .40 ai:0 3Q c9l"<r{a�11 =Tt{1 ,e 1!1,?, ,EM ( 1C[PsUOJ .I2;d03 ) „'tU011l! �) . •I ru.. 30t+c''i{t 'SLI�:II,C ed it l'UI O� =+LIM C11� C+L{� [-,IIi=' J E�rj lU(,' f { { '.c, .a :. •� i u- � . a[Ue4 al U0 c`�iJT pLIQ7P aila0=` . i 2a:,Q jeL Lfe C:^aa aPnc.�tj 3:if e1,IU0� .i Ui„ jt?i.{� p?.I2p.T0 9EM '}T v Inna.I CCT liltlow l,,g 21{'i 30 'T'�TZ yTl{i �tIil W c,uM _'L 4 .. � - ` ( ap. jeuTqT.1' ) O�LIE,x;i +n Yc,!z� waTEs ai{1 0'4 PUT paoc,oy zanrw aix`l. _.Qau aar,oL{ E `7TTnq 2L{ aaayM ( 1aa'T lana}{g 30 Qa ze e'}EritTrO,i C;,I E" 2C{; Li'i ) .I2nTt1 L113 nfj 2j{[) t9UT';',IC)Jj elm? TO dTJ4V F tJaAT mf{+n nor q. )Ts?g [II{OL ueuo ay{ ° a .r ,ap ,oM u,.{ol oaTe ye ' WnTeO 1e 4TTnq sasnoy A.Ipu:;s aey A?tiYl '4gRTug -'e' IPM FuE UZ4TTV wE TTTTM -! rl t l r,P. f;TiT pU>;' ii'QULIO{y llP(ppnor) PTO ' .c9t.lzaALj pUn03 22M a.Lai{M „• aaM {} p2�ao3aa - S.Ta: gua;jot .IQ Att retw ;;; ..a+ a,{o..oQ eye jc+ oaypL.7 {l Inn p2t-{ i{OTt{ht „Ra?itIa";'.E•� ca � a,'nl{neP:=u F.'y,{„ ='+I{1 9UT 11I c,H=+ada.I aOUa?AOi'1 PF. 9Z9T t T Pee}{wrteN lE p'nT.IxE' ay uat{M '1�oc,aplld uyo(' p2T usdWo-.,or' oi.{M A.z:1=�C{U<,)('?F'.I� p.I`'T{Ci:l illp.I,} lta}it;'j, eL'h3 L10-'1Z a(�;T?F plin:Jga -,C{f• . c:aTWatta .TTau� Woa3 »tta;ap s oPjc r,ue rur'M Aag4 li=+1{M tuayl of 3atTa.I ;o t11c,g at1e2w �. cl =CTTm a;l2tt Pulaq ano eaneneq AT; Ied pus ' 3o a::n a}{eW an saassod +otiury' ra,{'i aEti� F,lmo.I� o aoueptmge aT a.Iat{`t acne- q fT+-t`•"d aaaL{ �uT}uaTd pue ai:Twozi .Ino"So TTaM a},T_T oI r.,sa�oad lTTe.zaua:P C,p loL{y . " fi�9t -'••^.IIIA �a Ctal ?ny 0Mr '4.n0c{C, _ :+npl; jd e Aq -aagwllll UT Pa,,r,paa -Rjoaan2 uaaa, P[etj 'liven _ptt j8u� MaN a,.{� �uoTs PtteTpuT ?L{7 ' u'"'T�E1ueTd_ PUI&!T�Elug r,a{y sTt} UT uoeuT2RT{y P_Touuag �o •Tsl{, +t1 n'"'7.%E CA C)t. �Llyp.TOOn� „ spll e'(- dn LIa)jet 2Al?i� ?M r•IayM 1tisTct pTTnc{ 04 ana.-,,T aa.zJ aTat{ t pet{ 2M A ` sn 01 FaI3 4a'4'4 uat{t, wet{1 aa'}Tal{s pqp aM : Aa li[7c?J a'.{'+ [Tn _,.1eTpul ieWau� zTot{ y 3o pTea;e aaaM 12y-4 �LITls4 ' aalTet{s an; Ari o; aweo saWT1 ua+3o g ` sn xv2it pa';tleTd y a;uEn a ' !ct dwo; zno ao pxTa F.zan 2a,nTaaW2l{ t panat{c1 ;nq_ laza<,,y i74111 {0 PapTs AT.tanaµ a-, waTeg uo .zat{2Ta auMnp HUTT11 ,c, ,tp +u= w2no.zdwT ano uT On p2la -'I ow llai{� .zan2u susTpuT. " 2yl PaT`:+os- aM L[ayM,• het{1 pawTeTo al{ 21tIOT.s .xe;ipan,q „ • UUV adeO y tat{ sT,pTy g w:.,jti is W?1{+ .Io3 aUlict{ zat{�otte _1TTnq pey '-1u5d1uoO aalPayo.io,1 c,L{l 01 alar n,z2s aa2M A;1U4 pTPV Tei{'T QUosa2d Te:t2naa punoa M gZ�T 3o t{�}uoul ay } -4noge ao uT waTeS T)P I �o Mom aaeTd 2y1 ?Q,, panT.T.ze .Iay�ea c'Tid pue ay ual{M UoTie�a7ETd Mau •aq luosa.zda.I n'} PasTPUg of 4uaP aQM a2y:}e; s,y 'het{3 pue • - w2jug paT je: puej ;o t{oau e o panorua.T w )fp y, ealoP spaeM.za�3e„ Mot{ ' Uu`j 2CIeO ae luBdiun'J .I:-,';?c t{0.I0(I at{''4 y'.1TM VC)T'}JaUTI00 f�j z2y1K'3 sTy 3 Sao}PTt{ )aoyn x ane9 � ..Iydumµ • Zlooapug Ut(O j' 3o TeAT.z.zP 4u1 a• CJJeq OM"* -XC' t{luow n ' g ,3t tlT taLIo4UJ s+YT[ ygTM Pea}{wnwq o'i awet� oyM ' langpooM 1.11101' .121UeTd PTO a'('y 3o UOP . A•Ingpcwm Ao+ 11{4wng ulcer,; 11e]t8q LILM r.uo�TP aap aC{`i Jr, au() W2Te; IIT pueT jO O{ [ul .' i 1J,"lf-vw oy"I LjgTM 1.x0T300011c,:, UT ()Rol UT *.t:J}{t1 � aoT {Ts+oetap llaoMP OM{ lq p0PTAoad OT P.za'4ttsTd PTO a1{'} _ - I(q. '.l ti2[Ua T'1`taF 1P2TTa "? �T[{ c9UTtx.I a'•,LIO. aoil2pT n2 2o.InnP ,S.IBWT.I] ucaTs5.. pawel.Iaa .za1PT .. ' Pea},wneN., ;o ewatl ueTPUT ay•+ Rei unauli �.tn`ITnrT.T�R .TCT ajnr',IOAVI eanw ea.Ta tip ()-4 _9'L3T . uT p2noW "TurrUoO aaPoy Jo dT1rn.T2E,eaj ?,.('t .Iapun ' (Ue.IPTTt{a pus 'aanTM PuTpnTauj ) s,t2j��aP auk 3n T s.t2n2s ' { 7. 3T (I? tuectwnO aa�a2yoaoq at{q Another primary source ofevidenceis a report by Dr . William Bentley of Salem , in a diary entry dated March 17 , 1801 , that: Cant . J . Osgood , while digging Buil from a lot ho owned _ near Horton ' s point ( at the foot of .Miaruh Street �n .he North Pivan , found -ocveral Loads of Fioakg bed,:nd in Clay as was usual in the cottages made by the first foUGl.er:s . Upon this hearth he found coals from oak wood , &`cinders from for it noaQ , ePe.:_imene fit WhiOn I Look VWtly A VI. U"WI'VCii . . `,noun& fl::_iJn nuine the aRn A,x probably accumulated , a, the Clay & rocks were Lidded in the _ -natural- Boil , - in a chapter on the -topography of the Salem area in The History of- Salam , Sidney Perley mention$ the presence of a layer of clay coventy-two feet- thick on Bridge Street . On the cast side of Bridge street , scar the I eeex nrid9w , -i6 a ma"11 !!nown as the uld F'lanter6 Marsh . LL_ saw id have 'Dean a nearby 000L ,_c i.f roofing tha,wh ar• "till nz i'r,ddnr Pop ton wat.tit brouaht- by the Old Planters from Cape Ann . Early on at Leant some of the land .in this arca was reserved for cattle gn'azing . According -to the Town Records of Salem for the ' i.2L]i wvucth 1&34" it wao "agrowd that the townoc nock of - Laud 6haibe preserved to feed the Catle _on the Lords days and thVISfULU articular mr_n ohall <Otl feed theirp gant'.n there at other tymes , but brine them to the ( ] that grasse may grow against the Lords dans-_ There in evidence- traced o_lt by ,Sidney nrleY , qac _irgc phippe'n , and W . i' . Upham. from teetimany `worn in registry ideeda and the Records of the Salem Commoner, 171.3- 1734 that there were at least twenty cottages along the bank of the. Ninth :-river between Lemon Street and the Esse:: Bridge prior to 1661 , - the year of the Cottagers hat which gave s right to the flee ua.e cf grazing fields to tho8e owning cottages in Salem con6truct;ed prior to that year . Perley indicat d this approximate Position Uf thns,e twenty cottages on a map accompanying his rtp`Jrt tracing property ownership along the bank of the North Fiver . *,. cvidenoe from In addition , other extant, documentary , owplorern and historians of the ! 2. ,e1vd given g wgrap a reasons for the east bank of the North River Uri-ng a : Uitahl [ Oi e fur settlement by the 01d Planters (Planters Flea ; (R?v , Kht; r7Pitej ; History of New England , Wm HubLard , Dnnoripti,n of tiaera, `.ir_'ct's , Wm. Wood ) . Aichough the documentary cvidenct Ac" ..ct allow as t : id9ontify specific lowavicn3 for the coutage;; of the g.arli..F_t settlera , the Old Planters , it 1000 confirm that, they had constructed "Sundry hQwse (Bracket berry s dr_p nit_._.. , by 1628 and the presence of at !rapt twen'.Y first -Per1Od .-._ "a8cs vlon,, the east bank of the North lover . Prehistoric potential The project area has a high potential to contain Prahistor'c r_itee . Given the well-drained sandy soil , abutting the North Giver , thy- area is a Prime location for prehistoric habitation cites and fishing camps . At least eight: prehistoric site' are recorded in the vicinity of the North/Danvers River estuary . Little is recorded abncerring the contents of the sitee . Most appear to have- been occupied during the Woodland period ( the Pact- 3 , 000 years ) and at least one contained- Late Archaic period materials including a Jro"nd Stolle gowne . Four of the 1tes have . shell midden deposits , two of which contained oyster shells Pt"ggnSting a w'a'rmer and more bracl iah marine environment than - Lodny ( Draua 19.74 ; Mronownki of al . 19871. one a. ita ( 19-ES-409 ) r _e.tsindd faunal rcmnivs auggeet.tvo of gnod yirec rvation of - organic mal.Crlain in the Geta . A humin burl-al C,sliaveH 10 he - Native American was discovered at the southern end of crridga Street in the nineteenth century and a reported Native American village is also reported 'in the area Ort the opposite gide of the river (MHC numbers ?: �e yeassigned for these sitea ) Documentary sources (diGcuoned in the historical section above) also suggest that historic period Native Americans lived in the Immediate vicinity, - and- inhabited the Old Planter ' s settlement: _ for protection from -their snem.i-ea -