The URL can be used to link to this page

BEVERLY-SALEM DRAWBRIDGE t"Section i� Beverly-SalemDra'mUiidg Jt WEBS IDL s UNV-12113 MADE IN USA SUSTAINAFORESTRY MIN RECYCIID FORESTRY CQNfENf10% l c.mfi.d Aber INITIATPOSTCONSUMER sfiproAm-..,g wmv.SSeeming SF1U1190 - �,nCOWNT 4 m Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 March 6, 2014 (978)619-5685 FAX(978)740-0404 Holly Palmgren Manager of Environmental Construction Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Ten Park Plaza, Suite 3910 Boston,MA 02116 RE: MBTA Repair/Rehabilitation of 12 Bridges Systemwide, MBTA Contract No. B92PS08: Bridge No. B-11-015 (Beverly-Salem) Dear Ms. Palmgren: The Salem Historical Commission(Commission) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Historic and Archaeological Resources Assessment, completed,by PAL, with regards to the Beverly Draw Bridge Repair/Rehabilitation project. The assessment found that there was one historic resource potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places located within the Area of Potential Effect, The N. Bailey House, however this resource is located outside the construction limits of the project. In addition, while the Beverly Draw Bridge was originally construction in 1885, it is not eligible for listing in the National Register due to multiple alterations that have resulted in loss of design and workmanship integrity. Finally, impacts to historic properties outside of the project construction area are limited to temporary increased noise during construction and minor changes in the appearance of the bridge. Consequently, at its meeting on March 5, 2014, the Commission unanimously voted to concur with PAL's conclusion that the repair/rehabilitation project will have no adverse effect on any historic resources. Respectfully submitted, ALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Jessica Herbert, Chair Deval L. Patrick, Governor ■ ��®® Richard A. Davey, MassDOT Secretary S CEO Beverly A.Scott, Ph.D.. General Manager and Rail&Transit Administrator • MasfaNrrset�Depanment M hamportatlon Rail 6 iFansit.Division February 4, 2014v a , Salem Historic Commission 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 z.; Re: MBTA Repair/Rehabilitation of 12 Bridges Systemwide, MBTA Contract No. B92PS08: Bridge No. B-11-015 (Beverly-Salem) The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration, is proposing to repair/rehabilitate the Beverly Draw. As part of the review of the project, PAL conducted an historic and archaeological resource assessment (see attached). The MBTA would like the Commission's concurrence that the project will have no adverse effect on any historic resources. If you would like us to come and present this information at a meeting we would be more than happy to come in and meet with the Commission. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-222-1580 or haalmaren(&mbta.com if you should have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Holly Pa6n Manager of Environmental Construction Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Ten Park Plaza,Suite 3910,Boston,MA 02116 -Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence - www.mbta.corri 1 1 ' HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT MBTA SYSTEMWIDE BRIDGES REPAHUREHABILITATION: ' BEVERLY DRAW BRIDGE (BRIDGE B-11-015) Beverly and Salem, Massachusetts Virginia H:Adams ' MelissaAntonelli Jennifer Banister John J.Daly ' A. Peter Mair 11 Jenny Fields Scofield ' Submitted toi HNTB Corporation 31 St.James Avenue, Suite 300 Boston,Massachusetts 02116 ' Submitted by: PAL 210 Lonsdale Avenue APawtucket,Rhode Island 02860 June 2009 I ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 Revised August 2012 t i i i 1 ; I PAL Publications CARTOGRAPHERS Dana M.Richardi/Jane Miller GIS SPECIALIST ' Jane Miller GRAPHIC DESIGN/PAGE LAYOUT SPECIALISTS 1 Alytheia M.Laughlin/Gail M.Van Dyke ' EDITOR Ken Alber LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Map of Massachusetts showing the location of Beverly and Salem.......................1 Figure 1-2. Location of the Beverly Draw Bridge Project on the Salem,MA USGS cluadrangle, 7.5 minute series............. .........................................................:..............2 Figure 1-3. View southeast at the Beverly Draw Bridge,April 2009..........................................3 Figure 1-4. Beverly Draw Bridge Existing Conditions Plan (HNTB).........................................4 Figure 1-5. Beverly Draw Bridge Project Area of Potential Effect............................................7 Figure 2-1. 1795 map of Beverly, showing the approximate location of the Beverly DrawBridge Project....................................................................................................23 Figure 2-2. 1830 map of Beverly, showing the approximate location of the Beverly DrawBridge Project...................................................................................................25 Figure 2-3. 1872 map of Beverly, showing the approximate location of the Beverly DrawBridge Project.......................................................I...................... .....................26 Figure 2-4. 1907 map of Beverly, showing the approximate location of the Neponset RiverBridge Project...........................I........................................................................28 Figure 2-5. 1795 map of Salem, showing the approximate location of the Beverly DrawBridge Project............................................................................................ ......30 Figure 2-6. 1832 map of Salem, showing the approximate location of the Beverly DrawBridge Project........................................... .......................................................31 Figure 2-7. 1872 map of Salem, showing the approximate location of the Beverly DrawBridge Project...................................................................................................32 Figure 2-8. 1883 map of Salem, showing the approximate location of the Beverly DrawBridge Project...................................................................................................33 Figure 2-9. 1848 map of railroads north of Boston showing location of the Beverly DrawBridge................................................................................................................35 Figure 3-1a. Representative view of archaeological APE for Beverly Draw Bridge................38 PAL Report No. 2329-1 v List ofFigures Figure 3-Ib. Representative view of archaeological APE for Beverly Draw Bridge................39 Figure 3-1c. Representative view of archaeological APE for Beverly Draw Bridge................39 Figure 3-2. View looking west from end of Ames Street toward Essex and Beverly , Drawbridges................................ ...........................................................................41 Figure 3-3. View looking south on Agate Street, showing obstructed view toward the Beverly Draw Bridge ..42 ' Figure 3-4. View looking south on Porter Street toward Congress Street and the ' Beverly Draw and Essex bridges ...............:..............................................................42 Figure 3-5. Location of Historic Resources Surveyed within the Beverly Draw I' BridgeProject APE..................................................................... .............................45 4 Figure 3-6. Beverly Draw swing span,looking east............................::......................................47 ' Figure 3-7. Beverly Draw,Beverly Approach trestle built in 1985,looking northeast...........48 Figure 3-8. Beverly Draw, Salem Approach trestle built in 1985, looking southeast..............48 Figure 3-9. Deck of Beverly Draw swing span, looking north................... .............................49 ' Figure 3-10. South end of Beverly Draw swing span showing 1985 welded girder replacement.................................................................................................................49 Figure 3-11. North end of Beverly Draw swing span showing original riveted plate girder construction............................................................................................50 Figure 3-12. Beverly Draw swing span drum and pier ... .....................................................50 Figure 3-13. Beverly Draw swing span control house..................................................................51 Figure 3-14. Beverly Draw key plan and elevation.......................................................................52 i Figure 3-15. Beverly Draw swing span framing plan....................................................................53 ' Figure 3-16. View looking north at the N.Bailey House (Map No. 26).....................................54 1 t vi PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT .... :...............i 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 1 ' Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1 . ProjectDescription...........................................................................................................................3 Compliance with Historic Preservation and Environmental Laws and Regulations..........5 ' Study Area and Area of Potential Effect.................................................................................5 ProjectObjectives .....................................................................................................................5 Methodology............................................:........................................................................................6 t Research....:..................:..................:........................:...:..........:.....:....:...........:...:...:.............:......6 Fieldwork.............................:......................................................................................................9 CulturalContexts .......................................................................................................................9 j Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment..................................................................................10 1 National Register Criteria for Evaluation.................................................................. ....10 ProjectPersonnel.......................................................................................................................i.... 10 ' Disposition of Project Materials ................................................................................:.................. 11 i 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS.......................................... 12 ' Environmental Context..................................................................................................................12 i Geomorphology and Bedrock Geology.................................................................................12 Surficial Geology Soils ... ..................... ... .:.13 Drainages ................................. ... ..•.................• .. 13 Pre-Contact Period Context.......... ......:. .... .... .... ..:.....::13 ' PaleoIndian Period (12,500-10,000 B.P.) ..... ..... ..... ...........14 The Archaic Period (10,000-3000 B.P.) ....................................!...............................:.........:.75 The Woodland Period (30001450 B.P.) .:..:........ ........................19 ............................................ ' Contact Period (AD 1500-1620)...........................................................................................21 1 Historic Development of Beverly, Essex County.......................................................................22 j First Settlement Period (1620-1675).....................................................................................22 Colonial Period (1675-1775) .................................................................................................22 i Federal Period (1775-1830) ...................................................................................................24 I ' Early Industrial Period (1830-1870)......................................................................................24 Late Industrial Period (1870-1915) ...........................................:...........................................24 Modem Period (1915—present)...............................................................................................27 ' Historic Development of Salem, Essex County..........................................................................27 First Settlement Period (1620-1675).....................................................................................27 Colonial Period (1675-1775) .................................................................................................27 PAL Report No. 2329-1 iii ' I! f Table of Contents J FederalPeriod (1775-1830) ..........:........................................................................................29 I Early Industrial Period (1830-1870)......................................................................................29 ' Late Industrial Period (1870-1915) .......................................................................................29 i Modern Period (1915—present)...............................................................................................34 The MBIA Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line ........................................................34 3 RESULTS AND FINDINGS....................................................................................36 Terrestrial Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment ......................................................................36 ' SiteFile Review.....................................................................................::.................................36 Field Review....... ........................... .... ...............................38 , Archaeological Sensitivity Ranking....... ..... ................................40 Marine Archeological Sensitivity Assessment.......................................................................40 HistoricResources..........................................................................................:...............................41 ' ProjectArea Description.........................................................................................................41 Summary ............................................. ...............................................................43 �. BeverlyDraw Bridge............................... ............................................................... ....43 Properties Potentially Eligible for National Register Listing ...............................................54 Findings.... .......................... ' Archaeological Resources ... ....................................................................................55 Marine Archeological Resources ..................... ................................................55 HistoricResources..................................................................:................................................55 Summary ...................................................................................................................................55 REFERENCES......................... ....................57 . .... ..... ...... ..... APPENDICES E A LIST AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTIES SURVEYED ' WITHIN THE BEVERLY DRAW BRIDGE PROJECT APE FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS..........................................................63 �. B BEVERLY DRAW BRIDGE,MHC INVENTORY OF THE HISTORIC ' ASSETS OF THE COMMONWEALTH FORM NO. BEV.921 AND 1 SAL.953 AND PAL UPDATED MHC INVENTORY CONTINUATION SHEETS. ......... ......... ......... ..............................................................99 C SUMMARYREPORI,,MARINE ARCHAEOL 0GICALSENSITIVITY ' ASSESSMENT,MB TA BEVERL Y DRA WBRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT, BEVERLYAND SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS. SUBMITTED TO PAL, PAWTUCIMT, RI. PREPARED FOR HNTB,INC. AND THE 1 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, BOSTON, MA. PREPARED BY FATHOM RESEARCH,LLC 2009 ..................................... I11 I iv PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT I� The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA)has engaged HNTB Corporation(HNTB)for design and engineering services for the repair and rehabilitation of four rail bridges(Design and Engineering Services for the Repair/Rehabilitation of 12 Bridges Systemwide Project)located throughout the MBTA rapid transit and commuter rail systems. The Federal Transit Administration is the federal agency for the project. PAL prepared this technical report for the historical and archaeological(terrestrial and marine)resources assessment for the repair and rehabilitation ofthe Beverly Draw Bridge(Bridge B-11-015),a moveable bridge carrying the MBTANewburypoit commuter rail line over the Danvers River in Beverly and Salem,Massachusetts. This technical report includes the methodology,research framework,historic assessment results,archaeological predictive findings statements,and recommendations regarding potential effects for the Beverly Draw Bridge project. The research framework consists of brief environmental and cultural contexts for the project area. A marine archaeological sensitivity assessment was performed by Fathom Associates LLC and is included as an appendix in this report. The Area of Potential Effect(APE)was established as the bridge footprint and adjacent right-of-way for archaeological resources and extending outward between 300 feet and one-quarter mile for indirect(visual)impacts to historic resources. ' The cultural resources assessment found that there are no terrestrial archaeological sites or sensitive areas and one potentially National Register of Historic Places(National Register}eligible historic resource,the N.Bailey House built ca. 1780 on Congress Street,within the project APE. The potentially eligible historic property is ' located outside the construction limits ofthe project. No further historic properties identification is necessary. The Beverly Draw Bridge(MHC No.BEV.921 and SAL.953),built in 1885,is a two-track bridge with a moveable center span,measuring 905 feet overall,including its approaches in Beverly and Salem. The bridge was evaluated as not National Register eligible in 1988 due to its extensive alterations and rebuilding and confirmed as not eligible in this current survey. The proposed Beverly Draw Bridge project consists ofrepairs to the approaches,substructure,superstructure, and moveable span. All ofthis work will be completed within the MBTAright-of-way. It is anticipated that the project will not alter views from or significant characteristics of any surrounding properties and will,therefore, ' have no effect on terrestrial archaeological resources or historic properties. The marine archaeological sensitivity assessment found no visible evidence of National Register-eligible archaeological resources in the intertidal portion of the project area.However,the project area has moderate sensitivity for containing submerged pre-contact period and post-contact(historic)period archaeological deposits. Replacement ofthe existing submarine electrical cables will entail trenching and disturbance ofthe riverbottom: ' The work will be performed from a barge that will be anchored at various locations along the trench.The trenching will extend approximately 50 ft in distance;the exact depth and width ofthe trench will be determined as project design and permitting proceeds.The Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources ' (MBUAR)and Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)will be consulted regarding the potential need for a marine archaeological survey within the area ofproject impacts associated with the cable installation. ' Coordination and consultation with relevant federal and state agencies,including the MHC and the MBUAR, will occur to confirm the findings ofthis cultural resources assessment report. i j 1 ' 1 LIST OF TABLES 1 Table 3-1. Recorded archaeological sites,Beverly Draw, Beverly and Salem, MA................37 r f`` f r r r i i 1 � F i PAL Report No. 1329-1 vii 1 t CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBIA)has engaged HNTB Corporation.(HNTB) for design and engineering services for the repair and rehabilitation of four rail bridges(Design and ' Engineering Services for the Repair/Rehabilitation of 12 Bridges Systemwide Project)located throughout the MBTA rapid transit and commuter rail systems. PAL has prepared this technical report for the historical and archaeological resources assessment for the repair and rehabilitation of the Beverly Draw Bridge (Bridge B-I1-015; Milepost 17.66; MHC No. BEV.921 And SAL.953), a moveable bridge carrying the MBTA Rockpor-UNewburyport commuter rail line over the Danvers River in Beverly and Salem,Massachusetts(Figures I-1 and 1-2). This technical report presents the methodology, { ' research framework consisting of brief environmental and cultural contexts for the project area,results of the historic assessment and predictive statements for archaeological resources,and findings for the Beverly Draw Bridge project. A separate marine archaeological sensitivity assessment report has i 1 �Tw o ti�t�� .~ Beverly ke {..fir' �} --7'JJ / 13� f?4�� J W Salem �eleun�\,d: �� •y/ l` ] j`p �� "ti� �,. S.i�, �,t�, �•.� Irk ``�,�� n,`•�r �:�,�.�^ , !z-1 !Ym LMW WIU TI ROI etl.(mnn✓Omw.ellmsmM /• " •M 1 I "IkL M 10.\,nna YTAnIGFAfTllnelrtlM �'^�i r \ \ IPMAl1H IP1:fVhUID METHIIF]I WIRN9N1%4.XATFLTMq 1\}3TSWM4FlwDW � j)/ (,(3 (� () r.l� ��'} h ! , /�Iul T Iv n-IM1U 4. lt��j L.T1 T. rw,:ww.va vnn laal . r :� ron mTom Imlanmor.Xmww..,ntlWlm:lel Irmaaeu..,,..k,., p Z Figure 1-1. Map of Massachusetts showing the location of Beverly and Salem. PAL Report No. 2329-1 1 Chapter One t 'i1. �A � o. t r -tel � • � t - - !- -. . r3•t A �� {+ r �� ` � •r 1 ay$1'� � , it > � , � ��, � Js�.•- . dat t� r} } t. r-) C ''" •. . '• 'F- •,•� : . �•.1,�%t r�.e . ti r • rw �o} Re Ftp , ti . :.,. •. - ; w�:` t• ,j�� +� !5 ,y11 �1 TK��t , t �. � •. 'int- r ^�'��•. c �.-•z + L..44:'?iT tom,• `�• r • 'd Area � Project Z. �-.� 1j� < ••,...» v_ t• t 1 }. � "\_\�{,4 '' a /� r !{ r�•.r a•i 1 � � + t f � A_ 5 �y 51�, •.� �-1 :.�i 4 ,. t +� ••'�'-�-• i e'.- ° �rt �. ip •� _ , _ 1,•.•. N •t �. I r 3 1• � 1 7 JI r w r r o f 1 .t f.4• +5i4 • i 8 r Mepnelic Decllttelhn,' ! `?- .. •,•� i i .'� O * Sch 'i Subs V , d p 000 100 600 600 700 800 000 YRROS 103 a h 6. ga ._fir '3--='1_._ •-=C —1 i 0 1000 LOUD FEET . ♦o 100 0 000 aro 800' 600 800 ]00 000 MEI9teP 13 . i Cmo; --�--._— 1 , Figure 1-2. Location of the Beverly Draw Bridge Project on the Salem, MA USGS quadrangle, 7.5 minute series. 2 PAL Report No. 2329-1 Introduction and Methodology d been prepared by Fathom Research,LLC(Fathom),as subconsultants to PAL for proposed work in I the Danvers River(Fathom 2009). The findings are summarized in Chapter 3,Results and Findings,of f this report. ' Located on the right-of-way(ROW)ofthe original Eastern Railroad,the Beverly Draw Bridge is a two-track bridge measuring 905 feet overall including its approaches in Beverly and Salem(Figures 1-3 and 1-4). The {{{ bridge was built in 1885 by the Passaic Rolling Mill Co.of New Jersey. The Beverly Draw Bridge was surveyed and evaluated as not eligible for listing in the National Register of k ' Historic Places(National Register)in 1988. Although it is one of oldest rim-bearing type swing span bridges it in the region,Beverly Draw Bridge was evaluated as ineligible due to its extensive alterations and rebuilding (McGinley Hart&Associates 1988). _ � t .� � ., Figure 1-3. View southeast at the Beverly Draw Bridge,April 2009. Project. Description I The MBTA's proposed repair/rehabilitation project of the Beverly Draw Bridge calls for repairs to the approaches,substructure,superstructure,and moveable span. It is assumed that the work will be conducted within the MBTAROW,that ROW impacts due to the anticipated rehabilitation work on the existing structure ' will be minimal,and that land acquisitions will not be required.One temporary construction easement to be used for construction staging and contractor lay-down area is anticipated within the ROW. Replacement of . ' the existing submarine electrical cables will entail trenching and disturbance ofthe river bottom.The work will be performed from a barge that will be anchored at various locations along the trench.The trenching will extend approximately 50 ft in distance;the exact depth and width of the trench will be determined as project 1 design and permitting proceeds. Proposed improvements to the south abutmerim ill include riprap installation, 1. i ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 3 I A ________ ______ —_�_ _ oewvms rmhn W s , ----- -------------'------- • ,a,,.,, b _ It 195 ti ,�3`Pt _ �•�$ owaa+s wvn+ '��om�`w.:.`�� p . ®wrrtas w2q avocr/su'tv',wcv�usm an aw _ >'n-� mk cs a.'•7u w"m`rm na®:.n cmwc momma wx ..:wo au:.n41 anis,"wuvn.e.n Figure 14. Beverly Draw Bridge Existing Conditions Plan(HNTB). ' Introduction and Methodology pile repairs and replacement of fender boards. The scope ofwork includes a 15 percent Conceptual Design ' Submittal,a BridgeType Study with alternatives for repair/rehabilitation ofthe bridge,and Preliminary Design plans and specifications. These will be followed by design plans,cost estimates and specifications at the 60 percent Final Design level,and final bid documents. Environmental compliance documentation and permitting ' are also included in the scope of work. F ' Compliance with Historic Preservation and Environmental Laws and Regulations j The project is required to comply with Massachusetts G.L.Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C, as amended by f I Chapter 254 ofthe Acts of 1988(950 CMR 71.00),National Environmental PolicyAct(NEPA),Section 106 ofthe National Historic PreservationActof 1966 as amended and the implementing regulations ofthe Advisory, Council on Historic Preservation(36 CFR 800),and Section 4(f)ofthe Department ofTransportationAct of 1966. The assessment was conducted to assist the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)and MBTA in fulfilling their cultural resource obligations in accordance with Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)of 1966 as amended;Section 4(t),NEPA,and MGL Chapter 254(950 CMR 71). Under the ' Massachusetts Transportation Bond Bill(Chapter 86 Acts of 2008),META footprint bridges are exempted from certain laws ofthe Commonwealth(MEPA,Chapter 91,Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act). The project will require a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Programmatic General Permit Category 2. I I Study Area and Area of Potential Effect A project study area,as used in this assessment,is the area for which initial archival research and review is conducted in order to develop an appropriate context for identified cultural resources. AnArea ofPotenfial Effect(APE)of a project is more narrowly defined as"...the geographic area within which the undertaking may cause changes in the character of or use of historic properties,if any such properties exisf'[36 CFR 800.16(d)]. A historic property is defined as"...any prehistoric or historic district,site,building,structure, j or object included in,or eligible for inclusion in,the National Register ofHistoric Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior"[36CFR 800.16(1)]. The establishment of aprojectAPE is based on the potential for effect,which will differ for aboveground historicproperties(historic districts,buildings,objects,and structures) i and belowground historic properties(archaeological sites).The APE for historic resources considers the area where the project's construction and/or operation has the potential to result in a direct physical or indirect,such I as visual,effect on significant historic resources. For archaeological resources the primary impacts will be associated with construction impacts. Construction impacts are physical changes caused during and by project construction,as opposed to project operation,withthe potential to damage all or part of a historic property or } its setting. ' For the Beverly Draw Bridge,the study area for archaeological resources is one-half mile around the project site,and the APE for archaeological resources is confined to areas of direct ground surface i alterations and construction. The Beverly Draw Bridge study area for historic resources is one-quarter V mile around the bridge. The APE for historic resources was refined in the field based on observations i of potential viewsheds,taking into account topography,vegetation, and buildings or structures. The resulting historic resources APE is an irregularly shaped area that extends approximately 400 feet ' north of the project site, a maximum of 300 feet to the east, and up to one-quarter mile to the south and west(Figure 1-5). I ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 5 1 Chapter One _ --- ------ r Project Objectives The historic and archaeological resources assessment conducted for the Beverly Draw Bridge project ' and APE is intended to: • verify previously recorded historic properties,and those that have been evaluated as eligible, ' determined eligible, or listed in the State and National Registers; • identify unrecorded buildings,sites,structures,and objects 50 years old or older,and resources , that are less than 50 years old,but which may possess exceptional significance; ! • prepare an updated amendment to the existing Beverly Draw Bridge inventory form if appropriate ' and confirm the existing National Register eligibility determination of the bridge; r • review environmental and site file data to determine the presence of any known archaeological sites,the extent of past ground disturbance,and the existence of any locations of potential , archaeological sensitivity;and to resent findings regarding the need for additional survey and evaluation work and the • p g g g Y potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of historic and archaeological resources. Subsequent tasks may include the identification and evaluation of archaeological resources , for their National Register eligibility,under a State Archaeologist's permit. ' Methodology The methodology employed in conducting the cultural resources assessment follows the standards and r guidelines established in the National Park Service's(NPS)National Register Bulletin No. 24, Guidelines for Local Survey: A Basis for Preservation Planning (NPS 1985), and the NPS' National Register Bulletin No. 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation(NPS 1997).The cultural resource assessment was conducted in compliance with all applicable federal and state requirements under the statues and regulations cited in the above Project Scope and Authority section. Research Research was conducted to identify known historic properties within the APE and provide information ' for the development of historic contexts. Several sources of information in PAL's database relative to environmental and pre-and post-contact historical contexts for the Beverly and Salem area were r reviewed. Research focused on various inventories and databases of known resources,including the Massachusetts Cultural Resources Information System(MACRIS),Massachusetts Geographic Information r System(GIS)database,Inventory of the Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (Inventory),the State and National Register of Historic Places files maintained at the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC), and the National Register Information System(KRIS)of the NPS. , Research was also conducted at the Massachusetts State Archives,and other state and local repositories. Among the various sources reviewed were town histories, historical maps,and atlases,planning studies,and cultural resource management(CRM) survey reports,including a review of historical E 6 PAL Report No. 2329-1 r f t Introduction and Methodology Illi t maps and plans of Beverly and Salem for information relating to changes in the landscape and structures in the APE. ' Fieldwork PAL staff completed a drive/walkover of the APE to become familiar with the characteristics of the site, -' the Beverly Draw Bridge structure,and its setting,to confirm the location of historic resources identified during research, identify additional resources that may warrant consideration as significant properties potentially eligible for listing in the National Register,and to document and assess present environmental ' conditions within the project area.Notes and high-resolution digital photographs were taken to describe the bridge and its setting,and resources were located on the project base mapping. Data regarding the current condition and significant characteristics of each property was noted, and information on the inventory forms for previously recorded properties was verified., Cultural Contexts ' The formulation of cultural,or historic,contexts is crucial to the evaluation of cultural resources(NPS 1983:9).Historic contexts provide an organizational framework that groups information about related ' historic properties based on a theme, geographic limits, and chronological periods.A historic context f; should identify gaps in data and knowledge to help determine the significant information that is embodied in or may be obtained from the resource.Each historic context is related to the developmental history of } ' an area, region, or theme (e.g., agriculture, transportation, waterpower), and identifies the significant patterns of which a particular resource may be an element. Only those contexts important to understanding and justifying the significance of the property must be discussed. Cultural contexts are developed by: ' identifying the concept, time period, and geographic limits for the context; ' collecting and assessing existing information within these limits; • identifying locational patterns and current conditions of the associated property types; • synthesizing the information in a written narrative;and identifying information needs. "Property types"are groupings of individual sites or properties based on common physical and associative ' characteristics. They serve to link the concepts presented in the historic contexts with properties illustrating those ideas(NPS 1983; 48 FR 44719). ti ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 9 i Chapter One , Historic research contexts were developed to organize the data relating to the cultural resources identified withinthe project area in the following broad categories: ' pre-contact and contact period land use and settlement patterns in the North Coastal Drainage,circa (c&)12,500 to 450 years before present(B.P.); I' • post-contact period land use,settlement,and development patterns of Beverly and Salem,ca.A.D. ` 1650 to present;and '~ the original construction and development of the Eastern Railroad, 1836-1840,and subsequent operations of the line by the Boston & Maine Railroad, 1884-1976 and the MBTA, 1976— ' present. Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment ' Information collected during the archival research and walkover survey was used to develop a predictive ' model of potential site types and their cultural and temporal affiliation.The development of predictive ' models for locating archaeological resources has become an increasingly important aspect of CRM planning. The predictive model considers various criteria to rank the potential for the project area to ' contain archaeological sites. The criteria used to stratify the project area into zones of expected archaeological sensitivity are proximity of recorded and documented sites, local land use history, environmental data,and existing conditions. , National Register Criteria for Evaluation t The National Register criteria(36 CFR 60)are the standards for evaluating the significance of resources as established by the NPS, Department of the Interior. Properties can be significant at the local, state, or national level. The National Register criteria state that "the quality of significance in American ' history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures,and objects that possess integrity of location,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling, and association and: ' A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or , B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or \� C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period or method of construction,or that represent the work of a master,or that possess high artistic values,or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose component may lack individual distinction;or ' D. that have yielded,or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history." National Historic Landmarks(NHL)are historic properties of national significance that are designated by the ' U.S.Congress,and are also listed in the National Register. 10 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' f tIntroduction and Methodology ' Project Personnel PAL staff involved in the cultural resources assessment included Virginia H.Adams(project manager/senior ' architectural historian),A.Peter Mair,II(senior archaeologist),Jennifer Banister(project archaeologist),John J.Daly(industrial historian),Jenny Fields Scofield(preservation planner/architecturalhistorian)and Melissa Antonelli(assistant architectural historian).All project supervisorypersonnel meet the professional qualification ' standards as outlined in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines forArcheology and Historic Preservation(48 FR 44716). Disposition of Project Materials All project information (field recording forms, maps, photographs) is currently on file at PAL, 210 ' Lonsdale Avenue,Pawtucket,Rhode Island. PAL serves as a temporary curation facility until such time as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts designates a permanent state repository. { I i I ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 11 1 CHAPTER TWO ' ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS ' The development of environmental and cultural contexts is crucial to the evaluation of cultural resources ' identified within the project area,as well as assessing the archaeological sensitivity of the project area. These contexts provide an organizational framework that groups information about related historic properties based on a theme, geographic limits, and chronological periods. ' Environmental Context Environmental settings,conditions,and natural resources are important factors to consider when assessing the potential for the presence of NativeAmerican and Euro-American sites. Site locations have been associated with environmental characteristics such as level terrain,well-drained soils,and proximity offresh or salt water. The presence ofnatural resources can be used to help predict some Euro-American activities that might have taken place at a location. For example,fast-flowing streams could have provided waterpower for mills, wetlands could have been exploited for bog iron,and bedrock formations could have been exploited for building materials. i. Geomophology and Bedrock Geology ' Beverly and Salem are located in the east-centralportion of Essex County in northeastern Massachusetts, ! within the Seaboard Lowland physiographic zone(Fenneman 1938). The eastern part of Essex County ' consists ofa relatively smooth plain containing some isolated bills elevated approximately 100 ft above the plain(United States Department ofAgricuhure[USDA] 1984). Bedrock deposits underlying the project area are largely composed of igneous formations. Wenham Monzonite and Cherry Hill Granite are exposed in outcrops in the region. Limited occurrences of Salem gabbro-diorite are also present,primarily along the BeverlyDanvers town line. The igneous formations in thereion contain lithic region raw materialsthatwere exploited by NativeAmerican groups. These include Lynn Volcanics located alongthe northern rim ofthe Boston Basin, I' and theNewburyVolcanics in northeastEssex County. Access to these exploitable outcrops was possible in certain areas along the coast and along various rivers(e.g.,Saugus,Mystic and Parker). The project area is also underlain at varying depths of diorite and granite ledge. Some of the significant landscape features in this area include the Danvers/Bass/North River estuary and ' Wenham Swamp,an extensive wetland associated with the Ipswich River located to the northwest, Salem Neck and the much larger Marblehead peninsula form a series of protected harbors at Marblehead,Salem, Beverly and,to the northeast,Manchester-by-the-Sea. Elevations in the region range from sea level to ' approximately 200 ft. I 12 PAL Report No. 2329-1 I' ' Environmental and Cultural Contexts ' SurHcial Geology L The surficial geology ofeastemNew England is in large part either directly or indirectly attributable to glaciation. The final Pleistocene advance and retreat ofthe continental ice mass during the Wisconsin Period eroded and picked up bedrock,realigned drainages,and deposited till,erratics,and glacial moraine along its course. The retreat of the ice sheet left widespread glacial deposits and glacial erosional surfaces. The landscape was ' covered by glacial till,a"heterogeneous mixture of rock particles ranging in size from clay to fine silt to boulders"deposited directly by the ice,or by sand and gravel outwash,"sediments laid sown by meltwater streams"(Power 1957). The resulting regional landscape consisted of kame terraces,outwash plains,and ' ground moraine. Other glacially formed landscape features occur in localized areas. These include swamp (peat lands)deposits of partially decomposed organic material mixed with sands and gravels,and alluvium, �. sand,gravel,and silt deposited along principal streams(Power 1957). The underlying shield along the North ' Shore has revealed itself in rounded outcroppings and headlands above an irregular coastline with excellent harbors. Soils The soils in eastern Massachusetts have developed over a relatively short span oftime since the retreat ofthe f ' last glaciers.They originated from the weathering bedrock and glacial till and the sands and gravels in the ' glacial outwash areas. The project area spans the Danvers River and the landfalls at each end ofthe bridge are j characterized by Urban Land(USDA 1984). Urban Land is characterized as nearly level to moderately steep ' areas where soil types have been modified by disturbance of the natural layers through cutting and filling activities associated with urban works and structures. Buildings,industrial areas,paved areas,and railroad yards cover mire than 75 percent of the soil designation. Drainage Patterns' 1 ' The project area lies within the North Coastal Basin,spanning the Danvers River. Just west of the project area the Bass River,the primary drainage for Beverly and the North River from the south merge with the Danvers River which then flows into Beverly Harbor. Prior to Euro-American settlement,the areas around the harbor ' originally contained well-developed estuaries and tidal flats. Pre-Contact Period Context ' Native American occupation ofwhat is now Essex County has been of interest to avocational archaeologists for at least two centuries. The county's first recorded archaeological discovery occurred in 1790,when John ' Lord noted the presence ofa native burial during a construction project in Newburyport(Johnson and Mahlstedt 1982). Serious interest in the region's archaeology developed during the mid-nineteenth century. Museums j ' such as the Pcabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology at Harvard and the Peabody Essex Museum at !, Salem became repositories for collected artifacts. The majority of this early avocational interest focused on j coastal areas and shell midden sites. During the twentieth century a number ofindividuals concentrated their j. efforts on interior areas ofEssex County. William Eldridge acquired extensive collections in the Beverly and Danvers area. His collection is now curated at the Peabody Essex Museum at Salem. PAL Report No. 2329-1 13 j Chapter Two ; PaleoIndian Period (12,500-10,000 B.P.) { Southern New England was populated by bands of mobile people collectively referred to as Paleolndians following the retreat of glacial ice between 21,000 and 16,000 years ago. The timing of the initial population ofthe Eastern Seaboard is presently debated by archaeologists with the discovery ofcultural strata and artifacts apparently predating the PaleoIndian"Clovis Culture"or fluted point tradition in South Carolina, Virginia,and Pennsylvania.Nevertheless,the earliest unequivocal evidence for human occupation in New t England is associated with the Clovis Culture and dates to 11,120 t 180 radiocarbon years B.P.at the Vail Site in Maine(Gramly 1982). The presence of thick glacial ice in New England until roughly 16,000 years ago makes any discussion of a pre-Clovis occupation ofthe region largely academic. ' Archaeologists have traditionally interpreted PaleoIndian settlement systems as involving mobile hunters i exploiting large migratory game such as mastodon, caribou, bison, or elk (Dragoo 1976; Kelly and !' Todd 1988; Snow 1980). Some Western and Midwestern PaleoIndian sites,which have produced clear evidence for the exploitation of large, now extinct, animal species(mammoth/mastodon) by humans, have contributed to the acceptance of this specialized PaleoIndian subsistence model However, the ' absence of extinct animal remains and associated PaleoIndian artifacts in Northeastern archaeological contexts has caused some to question a specialized PaleoIndian subsistence model for southern New England (Dincauze 1993;Ogden 1977). For example, Dincauze (1990)argues that the southern New , England PaleoIndians were generalized in their subsistence regimes, opportunistically hunting and gathering available animal and plant species for consumption and use. Similarly, Jones and Forrest (2003)suggest the relatively higher regional occurrence of small PaleoIndian encampments as compared to larger base camps may be evidence for a PaleoIndian settlement system whereby mobile foragers adjusted to resource unpredictability. Following this line of thinking, small groups could and were better equipped to opportunistically exploit available resources, as opposed to larger groups. ; Alternatively,recent studies about PaleoIndian subsistence data(Waguespack and Surovell 2003), as well as available PaleoIndian settlement and subsistence information derived from the New England- Maritimes (Meltzer and Smith 1986; Spiess et al. 1998) and the Great Lakes regions (Stothers 1996), ' support the specialized subsistence hypothesis arguing that the Paleolndians did exploit large,migratory game, chiefly caribou. Resource-rich freshwater glacial ponds and wetlands,which were widely distributed across the recently deglaciated New England landscape and likely supported a diversity of plant and animal species available for human consumption, may have enticed transient Paleolndians to the southern New England area. , Documented Paleohidian materials from the Whipple(Curran 1984),Bull Brook, (Byers 1954;Grimes et al. 1984),and Memorial Park Locus 2(Waller and Ritchie 2003)sites in the lower Merrimack River Drainage and PaleoIndian loci at the Neponset/Wamsutta Site in Canton(Carty and Spiess 1992;Ritchie ' 1994) and Wapanucket Site in Middleborough (Robbins 1980) suggest that PaleoIndian settlement and/or exploitation was focused along postglacial wetlands, glacial lakes, and riverine settings. This 1 period is better documented in Essex County than anywhere else in New England(Johnson and Mahlstedt ' 1982). In addition to the Bull Brook(19-ES-80)in Ipswich,the Missile Site(19-ES-431)in Middleton, the North Ridge Site(19-ES-294),and the Saugus Quarry Site(19-ES-256) in Saugus have all yielded fluted projectile points characteristic of this period. Dates presented in the pre-contact period section of this chapter refer to radiocarbon years before present(B.P.)(A.D. 1950)unless stated otherwise. ' 14 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' Environmental and Cultural Contexts The Archaic Period (10,000-3000 B.P.) TheArchaic Period was a time of familiarization and settlement of the Eastern Woodlands and is subdivided ' into Early,Middle,and Late periods. Paleoenvironmental and archaeological evidence from the Archaic argues in favor of increased diversification of food resources,the generalized exploitation of faunal and floral species,and the establishment of tribal territories. In general,Archaic Period peoples are conceptualized as ' having a primarily hunting and gathering subsistence economy with a settlement pattern characterized by wandering or seasonal relocations within circumscribed territories. Early A rcbaic Period(10,000-7500B.n.) The Early Archaic Period coincided with the commencement of the Holocene epoch,ca. 10,000 years ago. The early Holocene was marked by warmer and drier conditions than the preceding Pleistocene epoch. Early Archaic peoples continued to generalize in their.subsistence base,hunting available game and harvesting available woodland and wetland vegetation and nuts(Dumont 1981;Forrest 1999,Kuehn 1998; Meltzer and Smith 1986;Nicholas 1987). Identifying Early Archaic archaeological deposits in Massachusetts has typically relied on the recovery of bifurcate-based lithic projectile points, and concentrations of Early Archaic bifurcate-based projectiles have been identified around the perimeters of ponds, marshes, and wooded wetlands and at the headwaters of major rivers in southeastern Massachusetts(Taylor 1976). Boston Basin(Blue Hills rhyolite and Sally Rock felsite)and North Shore Massachusetts(Lynn and Mattapan volcanics)lithic materials were commonly utilized in the manufacture of diagnostic bifurcate-based projectiles in the Taunton River drainage. I Recent archaeological data from Connecticut(Forrest 1999)and the Gulf of Maine region of northern ' New England(Robinson 1992)suggests that some southern New England early Holocene populations utilized a distinct quartz lithic technology producing quartz "microliths" for use in composite tools (Forrest 1999). The ubiquitous nature of quartz in regional artifact assemblages raises the possibility that some EarlyArchaic sites and materials may be difficult to differentiate from those of other periods. However,the settlement system associated with the microlith manufacturers appears markedly different ' from that of the bifurcate-based producers,consisting of"residential"base camps with subterranean pit houses occupied for extended periods of time (Forrest 1999; Jones and Forrest 2003). Small, short- duration sites resulting from logistical forays undoubtedly supplemented larger residential sites in the EarlyArchaic settlement system. Jones and Forrest(2003)interpret this EarlyArchaic semi-residential settlement pattern evidenced with the Pequot Cedar Swamp in southeastern Connecticut as an adaptive response to predictable,readily abundant resources. However,the identification of a semi-subterranean ' pit house associated with a LeCroy Bifurcate complex at the Weilnau Site in Ohio(Stothers 1996)may imply a previously unknown degree of sedentism for the Early Archaic bifurcate producers in portions of the Northeast and Great Lakes. The apparent difference in identifiable artifact assemblages(quartz ' microlith composite tools vs. bifurcate based projectile point) and settlement systems suggests the possibility that two distinct Early Archaic populations may have occupied the southern New England landscape during the early Holocene(Forrest 1999). Nevertheless,the proximity of Early Archaic sites ' to wetland locations implies that wetland resources became increasingly important during the Early Archaic Period(Forest 1999;Jones and Forrest 2003;Nicholas 1988). . ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 15 I Chapter Two Only a few sites in the region have yielded diagnostic Early Archaic stone tool assemblages. This may ' because of low population densities resulting from unfavorable environmental conditions such as rising sea levels,predominantly pine forests,and the extinction of large migratory game. Diagnostic artifacts ofthe Early Archaic Period include Kirk and bifurcate-base projectile points in addition to hearths,fire pits,and tools , indicative of food processing activities. EarlyArchaic diagnostic projectile points have been collected from approximately 15-20 multicomponentArchaic/Woodland Period sites on the combined Concord/Sudbury 4 Rivers drainage. An isolated find spot(19-ES-219)of an Early Archaic bifurcate-based projectile point was , located on an upper level terrace above the Merrimack River(Barber 1979). Most sites in the area have no definite EarlyArchaic components. The Heath Brook Site(19-MD-22)appears to be the only exception to j this pattern. This site in Tewksbury contained a deep pit feature that yielded a bifurcate-based projectile point. ' Two radiocarbon dates,8360180 B.P.and 8460 t 60 B.P.,also support an Early Archaic occupation at the Heath Brook Site(Glover and Doucette 1992). The locations of these finds seem to indicate that some kind I of regular,perhaps seasonally based settlement patterns were in place by 8500-8000 B.P.(Ritchie 1984). {' The Peabody Essex Museum in Salem has only four examples of the typical bifurcate-base point from this time period,including two from Bull Brook,and one each from the Pine Swamp Site(19-ES-306) , in Ipswich and Eastern Point (GLOL06) in Gloucester. No Early Archaic sites are documented in Beverly. Middle Archaic Period(7500-5000 B.P.) ' i An increase in the frequency and visibility of identified Middle Archaic sites in southern New England suggests that colonizing peoples were firmly established in the region by 7500 B.P. Resident populations continued to generalize in their subsistence regimes throughout the Middle Archaic. Regionally,Middle Archaic sites are common around waterfalls,river rapids,major river drainages,wetlands,and coastal , settings (Bunker 1992; Dincauze 1976; Maymon and Bolian 1992) with large base camps being established along extensive wetland systems(Doucette and Cross 1997;Jones 1999). Smaller logistical camps and exploitation sites supplemented base camps within the Middle Archaic settlement system. ' Subsistence activities reflected at these sites included the harvesting of anadromous fish, hunting and foraging,as well as fishing and shellfish collection. New 1 sites are typically identifiablethmu through presence ' Middle Archaic components at southern N w Eng ands s typ y g ofNeville,Neville-variant,Stark,and Merrimack style projectile points(Dincauze 1976;Dincauze and Mulholland 1977). Apreference for regionally available lithic raw materials is reflected in the collective archaeological site database. Local quartzite (Westboro formation)and mylonite as well as non-local ' rhyolites from sources in the Lynn volcanic complex were used for Neville points. Stark points were chipped mostly from distinct local materials such as quartzite, crystal tuff and amphibolite schist. A ' non-local argillite commonly used to manufacture these points was from sources in the northern Boston Basin area. The quartzite, mylonite, crystal tuff and amphibolite schist were quarried from bedrock ; outcrops in upland sections ofthe Sudbury/AssabetRivers drainage demonstrating that MiddleArchaic;groups were making extensive use of local resources(Ritchie 1979). The correlation of regional lithic material �. types and Middle Archaic site distributions has led Dincauze (1976)to theorize that Native American , band or tribal territories might have been established within maior river drainages by this time. The identification of Middle Archaic sites in the region argues for a settlement system that involved small, limited duration logistical camps contrasted with larger base camps. ' 16 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' i 1 ' Environmental and Cultural Contexts The distribution ofsites dating to the MiddleArchaic Period in the Concord River drainage shows that subsistence activities were focused on river meadow and adjacent wooded wetland environments. Middle Archaic sites are clustered along the margins of extensive wetlands in the Great Meadows section of the Concord River ' several miles upstream from the Chehnsford area However,activities were not restricted to the riverine zone and small resource extraction/collection camps are known from several upland settings(Ritchie 1980,1984). Investigations at the Heath Brook Site in Tewksbury(Shawsheen River)yielded MiddleArchaic Stark projectile ' points and drills in connection with living surfaces and a Ethic workshop. A fire-related pit feature associated with the lithic workshop produced a 5130 t 70 B.P.radiocarbon date. Data collected at the Heath Brook Site implies that pre-contact populations used this site for a variety ofdomestic subsistence-related activities(food ' procurement/processing and storage/disposal,stone tool making)during the Middle Archaic Period(Glover and Doucette 1992). Sites dating to this period have been identified from 35 Essex County locations,including the Batchelder Site (19-ES-344) along the southwestern edge of Wenham Lake in Beverly. Johnson and Mahlstedt (1982)assigned a collection of 15 stemmed points to the Middle Archaic Period from the North Shore, described as a cross between a Neville-like and a Neville-variant point. They noted that at many sites, these hybrid points are the sole evidence of Middle Archaic activity. LateArcbaic Period(5000-3000 B.P.) Numerous Late Archaic Period archaeological sites have been identified in eastern Massachusetts. The density of Late Archaic sites and the almost exclusive reliance on locally available lithic materials j (quartz and argillite)in the region suggests increased Native American residency for the period(Dincauze 1I 1975). Three archaeological traditions,Laurentian, Small or Narrow Stemmed,and the Susquehanna, ' are identifiable in the regional archaeological record for the period between 5000 and 3000 B.P. Each tradition is associated with specific periods of time, distinct lithic technologies, and/or ceremonial or cultural practices that can be discriminated archaeologically. Seasonal and multioccupation Late Archaic ' campsites were associated with procurement of multiple resources. For example,shellfish exploitation, first observed during the Middle Archaic, intensified as the rate of coastal inundation decreased and ' estuaries, salt marshes, and tidal mud flats were established (Braun 1974; Lavin 1988). The high density of Late Archaic sites in a wide range of habitats, coupled with the large number of artifacts attributed to the period is suggestive of a large population exploiting an extremely broad spectrum of resources (Dincauze 1975; McBride 1984). The database of Late Archaic sites in Massachusetts is quite extensive, consisting of thousands of Small Stemmed projectiles. The distribution of these points suggests that the Small Stemmed producers occupied an environmental niche focused on the region's interior wetlands (Dincauze 1975). The Small Stemmed tradition remnant settlement pattern is consistent with that described by McBride(1984) ' for Connecticut, with large base camps concentrated along the well-drained, resource-rich banks of streams,ponds,and interior wetlands,supplemented by task-oriented,short-duration sites that targeted specific resources. L.ateArchaic projectile points from more than 80 NativeAmerican sites are represented in collections housed at the Peabody Essex Museum(Johnson and Mahlstedt 1982).Archaeologists have noted a dramatie increase in social complexity during the Late Archaic Period,including burial ritual and long-distance trade networks. ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 17 Chapter Two ' i Population growth and the gradual stabilization of sea levels to present conditions have resulted in a high ' number ofsites surviving from the LateArchaic. pp Cultural traditions from the late Archaic include three distinctive patterns: the Laurentian tradition f (5000 to 2500 B.P.),the Susquehanna tradition(3900 to 3200 B.P.),and the Small Stemmed tradition, ' which spans the entire time period. Less than 6 percent of the 249 Late Archaic points at the Peabody Essex Museum are Laurentian tradition points,including Brewerton,Vosburg, and Otter Creek points , (Johnson and Mahlstedt 1982). Susquehanna tradition points,with thin,broad blades,and represented in similarly low proportions. Susquehanna tradition components appear to be frequent on coastal/ estuarine sites in the Beverly/Salem Harbor area. A few inland site locations near streams and ponds ' have also been found to contain evidence of early Susquehanna tradition (Atlantic phase) occupation (MHC files). By far the most common Late Archaic projectile point type found on the North Shore is the Small Stemmed point. Seventy percent of the points from this tradition in the Peabody Essex Museum are made of locally available volcanic material,indicating a preference for volcanics over the quartz assemblages prevalent in other regions. There is a Late Archaic site along the southwestern banks of Wenham Lake(MHC site file 19-ES-344). Two sites(19-ES-494 and 19-ES-527)in close proximity to the project area contained quartz projectile I points and may also be of Late Archaic Period affiliation. A survey conducted for the Beverly Airport Industrial Highway project identified the Fonzo Site that yielded several Susquehanna projectile points, '- features and chipping debris along the upper Bass River(Ritchie and Russo 1997). Transitional/Terminal Archaic Period(3600-2500 B.P.) The Transitional Archaic Period bridges the Archaic and Woodland periods and represents a time of ' changing culture dynamics. An extensive trade network, increased burial ceremonialism, and the development oftechnologies markedly different from the antecedent Late Archaic traditions characterized the Transitional Archaic. The Transitional Archaic settlement.pattern was essentially oriented toward coastal or riverine settings with a subsistence base focused on the acquisition of riverine or estuarine flora and fauna that included fish, nuts, and small- to medium-sized mammals (Pagoulatos 1988). Susquehanna tradition sites are markers of the Transitional Archaic Period and are best known from regional cremation cemetery complexes such as the Vincent,Watertown Arsenal,and Millbury III sites in Massachusetts (Dincauze 1968;Leveillee 2002),the Bliss and Griffin sites in Connecticut(Pfeiffer 1980),and the West Ferry Site in Rhode Island(Simmons 1970). I New technological developments associated with the Susquehanna tradition included the manufacture of steatite vessels and diagnostic tool forms(Atlantic, Susquehanna Broad,Coburn,and Orient Fishtail , projectile points or knives)that either developed out of the local populations or were introduced to the t region by peoples immigrating to New England. Susquehanna tradition chipped-stone tools were commonly manufactured from a variety of lithic materials that included rhyolite, quartzite, and non- local cherts. A reliance on readily available lithic materials such as quartz,argillite,and some rhyolites is apparent by the final Orient Phase of the Susquehanna tradition. The apparent hybridization of ' Orient projectile points with Small Stemmed basal attributes may represent a merging of Susquehanna and Small Stemmed lithic technologies in southern New England by the end ofthe TransitionalArchaic Period (Leveillee and Waller 1999). ' I 18 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' Introduction and Methodology st s lk, k r 31 �► t x '1W i 10 • ' �'M' )�` ♦ •'S• �. o� �•� B }••T� M to �! •.k. ,� '� Y�'1'1'�j f''� r n Fie tw • T. ..y v.,9P •'p :J, a .r. . ' r� . s T''• �' f vS �}. r~ ` r Ai ' �M > `� h" � 'fie wti"..y'�'°rs: ' � ¢ r �• r il'�-� '�� "•,.. ") �. a,:� lad rx a � " i�{u'�i ,�'" ��c`� '"`':_.a* + r :1,"7 n a, „x d �.=. w �+,. rm, .•&s v .' f ..�`r =r't "'r — r V V ' If L 'a Y • r .,� , ,r �' ejc k ." t srv. � ) r_ YY p. ., ., � I ' , '+,M T'S. ' f"'Y aw^:N'^p 3 S a +2 � y T�• )) I+T'rA � y Y •_ r " t7 r ,�.#s•,; �a ! v U =fir ..da'Nwi:;, ) •� ur ...'� ).' �. T 9 nd v • Y'4 � x 3'IL . " hfr e 'J."c:. sn?,i z - .�•.`�. ' t ?�•G•,$r .fi a'� .r'" :$T if )'* ' -:c .S ,o. *`" t.` . - } -k'. _ " ` fir'" y r xs a C• ' r' 12, • � M ae �,,�i°+ - .c>= `a�� 'n'r ry�.a. ,.. c '_'�'' '-�"K '.�'i "> N / a •< „ t Y .:, .Jaa ,#A`#�'�,;, � n'•. 'Y i :. $e { 9Y 4�'. a n� 'k+ c"L zY .� tl � �•� 'f ,I �� ,�� ro": � x P k a{.� �+t-_•.. .a w�" ,�..} � r " � #''"r ?� il`"L� �`.w � d ..z'" �.,.'' " '�',^�x�. � NM1 a +n Yr 'Z� 0 t �' � i ,eM . �"` y� tt�.>< "a�� " r1,.•d�, q"�` ,'. '� ' -P".�,'a• #�° C', �$ a 1 s a.'�%. E' _ �� M �Ll � *�`e ' +'�', k:+'Y"^•` taA "`r 3*�r' YsyY " >i F � ,:u .€. .;. ,r x. ". _ a -�.: "•if'�•' �,.+� � tri ��z rAM,a. 3 ii(( t : � A n:4 O .P'"`! - C!• 1 , d } 1 V I � • R - Figure 1-5. Beverly Draw Bridge Project Area of Potential Effect. ! PAL Report No. 2329-1 7-8 m Environmental and Cultural Contexts horticulture eventually led to changes inNativeAmerican subsistence base,population growth,the organization of labor,and even social stratification(Snow 1980). Others argue that increased sedentism and aggregated settlements could have occurred independently ofthe adoption ofhorticulture,especially in coastal or estuarine ' environments,which supported arich and reliable fish and shefffishbase(McBride and Dewar 1987). Bendremer (1993)argues that village formation and intensive maize horticulture were essentially riverine developments during the Late Woodland. Late Woodland artifacts represented in the regional archaeological record include triangular Madison and Levanna type projectile points and cord-wrapped,stick-impressed,and incised ceramics. Diagnostic Levanna projectile points were most often manufactured out of quartz, argillite, as well as rhyolites derived from the Lynn Volcanic Suite and Blue Hills Area of northeastern Massachusetts and the Boston Basin,respectively,or coastal cobbles. The distribution of Late Woodland Period archaeological deposits appears to be a continuation of the Middle Woodland pattern with Late Woodland archaeological deposits common within coastal environments,around interior freshwater ponds and wetlands, and adjacent to large tributary streams. Historical accounts made during Samuel de Champlain's visit to what is now Gloucester in the early { seventeenth century suggests that Native groups were living in established villages near horticultural ' fields. No such villages have been identified in Beverly, although the contact-era presence of Native Americans in the area is indisputable. A Woodland Period burying ground(19-ES-567 and 19-ES-696) has been reported to be east of the project area. There also appears to have been a Late Woodland/ contact period component at the West Beach Site (19-ES-503); where a number of"small triangular points andgunflints"were recovered from a garden on private estate MHC site file ' Contact Period (AD 1500-1620) Prior to European settlement,the Beverly area was inhabited by Native Americans variously referred to as Pawtucket or Penacook. Explorers had visited the North Atlantic waters as early as the late fifteenth century(John Cabot in 1497,Verrazano in 1524). Archaeological and documentary evidence(i.e.,the { ' writings of Capt.John Smith in 1614)testify to the presence of a sizeable,seasonal,indigenous population prior to European settlement in the 1620s(Hepler 1993). Native peoples were members of the Pawtucket, or Penacook group who lived along the coast from the north side of Massachusetts Bay,in the vicinity of Salem and Saugus,to York Village in Maine. Their subsistence patterns included a variety of seasonally regulated activities such as hunting,fishing and shellfishing,collection of wild plants,and horticulture. Trails are conjectured to have followed rivers and streams, such as the Bass and Danvers rivers. rApproximately 400 Native Americans were living in the Beverly/Danvers area prior to 1616. Epidemic disease, probably introduced by European explorers and fishermen, ravaged the Native Americans ' during 1616 and 1619. The"plague"or"pestilence sickness"significantly reduced the Native population (Vaughan 1965). Contact period sites have been located in Essex County at the Bessome's Pasture Grave Site(MARL 10),in Marblehead at the Revere Beach Graves Site(19-SU-1),and in Manchester- by-the-Sea,Ipswich and possibly Salem. Thus the large,indigenous population observed by Capt.Smith had virtually disappeared before the Plymouth landing in 1620(Hepler 1993). ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 21 1 Chapter Two ' Historic Development of Beverly, Essex County The City of Beverly, in Essex County, Massachusetts incorporated in 1668. Beverly contains 22.7 square miles,including 16.6 square miles of land and 6.1 square miles of water. The city is bordered by ' Manchester by-the-Sea to the east;Wenham to the north,Danvers to the west,and by Salem and Salem Sound to the south. The Beverly Draw Bridge project site is located at the southern tip of Beverly at the intersection of Beverly Harbor and the North,Danvers, and Bass rivers. First Settlement Period(1620-1675) The first attempt to settle in the Beverly Area occurred in 1623, and permanent European settlement began in 1630 as part of Salem. The north side of the Bass River,where Beverly is located,was called "the Cape Ann Side"of Salem.Aferry route established between Salem and the Cape Ann Side in 1636 contributed to the formation of a village there(Mair 2008). Beverly incorporated as a separate town in 1668 (Barber 1839). Fishing,and coastal and foreign commerce created the economic base during this period. Water routes and improved Native American trails served as the first transportation network (MHC 1986).Native Americans may have been present during this time;however,very little is known about their lifeways(MHC 1986). Colonial Period (1675-1775) , The population of Beverly increased by approximately 2,000 people during the Colonial Period and ' reached a total of 2,700 people by 1776 (MHC 1986). Beverly annexed a small portion of Salem in 1753 (Figure 2-1). Settlement remained primarily in south Beverly near the Bass River. Atown-owned t ferry landing,known as the Beverly Ferry Way,„was built a few hundred feet east of the project site and current Beverly-Salem Bridge road built in 1997 replacing earlier historic bridges air 2008). Agriculture and marine-related activities were equally important even as inland land was cleared. Other industries,such as shipbuilding,shoe manufacturing,and saltworks,along with the construction of saw and gristmills, expanded during this period(Mair 2008). C Federal Period (1775-1830) Beverly boomed during the Federal Period, increasing to a population of 4,000 by 1830(MHC 1986). Settlement expanded north, along the present-day routes of Cabot, Essex, Elliot, Colon, Water, and Bartlett streets(Figure 2-2). Fish Flake Hill, located to the northeast of the project area,developed as a maritime commercial center and served as Beverly's business center until the mid-nineteenth century. The majority of the land in the triangular area between Cabot, Central, Bartlett and Water streets was built out between the late-eighteenth-century to the mid-nineteenth-century,with wood-frame residences, commercial buildings,and brick factories.Other forms of commerce continued to develop as the fishing industry grew. Foreign and domestic trade increased as did the industries that supported fishing and sea-trading such as shipbuilding,barrel making,and sail making.The shoe manufacturing industry alsoprospered in Beverly during this period. However,the first site of factory-produced cotton products inAmerica was not successful,lasting less than 10 years in Beverly(MHC 1986). The first bridge connecting Beverly with Salem was built after an act in 1787 incorporated proprietors. It was located east of the project site and of today's Beverly-Salem Bridge of 1997. The act allowed proprietors to collect atoll for 70 years and then bridge ownership would be transferred to the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts(MHC 1986). I 22 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' qq �,y r �-fI ' ✓sv/dG7� Aq�uPG[� IB bv>• u`"rnH ?icon oJ' ar�n e ' Iwo $ 03w.yr 9+..:�Ce.:f,,.•:,, Yl su.u. 3Y nir � Project Area < z N .rybOl ti :,�, ,w✓ �x.a�_.:d.,F-. •.••'t•.9j::,-.FG .e�. scah:not know 0 0 w Figure 2-1. 1795 map of Beverly,showing the approximate location of the Beverly Draw Bridge Project(source: Smith 1795). N N �s vy{• - 41 w,_,_c-- •'�"p '�`s`; �r" �, r,. ;� ,.-s* , � Viz, � w i�, 4`ri �'�` � �'}'��`�` Y 3C � ' Y.F � € �;•' �t'Fk +t w.rC` as r � ac ts"o Aa Yi PE n��'�..7g� T�¢��4 t �� r"•-S�6 ^<.; l � �. 21 wt* �. � §+ + •�+ a 1 yp;'S ^`+.2 -i�.J cdk f .� x � .�.•k �+ ;Y.p� ��7.t t • a 4 '[.`>'.' �yei'�'k3"� E y` s mDTn� w an 8 C i �: �� i �.. � • ' . n..B ;rX 7u, stm�a ^r:.$EtL � tom. r r S� • 4" r s.,j. �* T` L.ni [m�nf� .. � 'Y:4ty f .Y�} .; I ...SA trPf ` � H. 3 al...a S •b i -'1a<� "t ©aryra.m. - wn^,a.. A's Y + �} sa•-N s!'va S�i:R� 't`: 1 �k �' "s'3'�4 �' ..�: + mss.- -tib a""y•5�� ..�° �`R rR �. +F^'. xt • y: .w' _ �s. As {' 1 F ,^31tit ct 1 Cz��i.x J 4,C, �Jl' } �``}ryit+".r^^•c��,tt �e R� p'"'''�tat¢fta, ...,� a *.bj1`. �. s S b ;�°i';, k ,'.p � +, y � r •'k' }.� �` .� . � x �YU .ISy„e. � Ht11. •T} cAn r gl t S :.. � �;,C�'F' <..• -n, 3.' C t •. z S d'°'&:e -..�r- .0 .� i •e-.a;.�F � fss'+•�"�, _ r ` F'tSr � ' _ . �n ;:r r K'�; a +: .ls�''�!1..�°�iF• 5 f '4��' ^R y'✓' •_4 L«6R. - Y, '- t y, S�+f?�.�- � RC ��t-.:'f `'�,:p' �” • '� '+• c _ i ter. tC ��" � _ t _{ ir.t 11'. ��flY ��R�rm�s"`��1 1 i ;�� -h 4s�y;'$nat 4R+.Y•. F ?°r .� �' T .w+c 'n` y. �` tT '` ' 4 1* y y.E4 .•� 4 Y ¢ p K t+ •J y<`Y '1"-,.< X3.- c _.^ S '+sf,�k r4` :F �f n ._ ` Project 1 ' 1�T.ea• a i__ *.'• ;i..`f{'�%'. `-.e-"' .'�'�^ ' " ! t- q �.n�,�.{r ,� 'Y+'++� � �,#r� t �_ �� _ � + vt� z.i 2ti+�*'Y' <,��1W y i.•^`�j• uFi i" 'YM1` 'r y�_.` .�. _ � VAJ i p" �✓ �jc:'a � " 5"x3'��+�`F��•��"''t�%t -hK�+�a`P _ �' %',r. •4' a. 'r"� Tsf+S 3 yy�r+C?rb•.s +t' S y*.ST.•°.:7 c, y F't t2 < .s � r.+L �--s+�- - swe"noC'IaiOIPn Figure 2-2. 1830 map of Beverly, showing the approximate location of the Beverly Draw Bridge Project(source:Flagg 1830). Environmental and Cultural Contexts Early Industrial Period (1830-1870) Beverly grew modestly during the mid-nineteenth century.The population increased by 1500 people by 1870 and diversification of the community led to the formation of new religious groups (MHC 1986). Other community and social changes included the rise in the number of volunteer associations and the practice of summer vacationing (MHC 1986). Construction of the Eastern Railroad line in 1839 may have in part sparked a mass remodeling of institutional buildings(Karr 1995). The decline of fishing 1 after 1850 resulted in an economic and commercial shift northward from Beverly's waterfront and further diversification of the town's industrial base (MHC 1986). The shoe and boot making (rubber) ' industry became increasingly significant accounting for 92 percent of the value of goods manufactured in Beverly by 1865 (Mair 2008). The road and railroad network in Beverly expanded, expanding the j number of trains running to Boston and more than quadrupling the number of streets in the downtown (Figure 2-3)(MHC 1986).Rantoul Street was laid out during the period and developed,with single and multi-family housing residential area constructed between 1855 and 1892. tLate Industrial Period(1870-1915) { Beverly incorporated.as a city by 1894,following a rapid population increase to 23,000 people(MHC 1986). By 1894, Beverly was incorporated as a city. The population also continued to diversify with nearly 7,000 foreign-bom residents from many different countries. Industry during the period developed j along the railroad corridor and commerce remained centered around Cabot Street.Numerous coal wharves j. occupied the waterfront within the project area,maintaining its industrial and commercial use. Trolley car lines expanded north and encouraged the construction of new middle-class commuter neighborhoods (MHC 1986). Irish immigrants settled in the Goat Hill neighborhood located north of Congress Street, I and Linden Avenue and Cliff Street were laid out after 1872. 1 Modern Period (1915—present) By 1940,the onset of the automobile allowed for further residential development in the north sections ' of Beverly(Mair 2008). Shoe manufacturing remained as Beverly's strongest local industry and served as a fuel and lumber depot during the early and mid-twentieth centuries. Beverly's wharves now serve as recreational boat docks. Commercial buildings and condominiums infilled the Fish Flake Hill neighborhood during the 1980s and by the close of the twentieth century,Beverly was home to nearly I 40,000 residents(Mair 2008). t 1 Historic Development of Salem,Essex County i i The City of Salem, in Essex County, Massachusetts was settled in 1626 and incorporated in 1630. j ' Salem contains 18.1 square miles, including 8.1 square miles of land and 9.9 square miles of water. The city is bordered by Marblehead to the east,Swampscott and Lynn to the south,Peabody to the west, ,? and Danvers and Beverly to the north. The Beverly Draw Bridge project area is located in the northern ' part of Salem at the intersection of North River, Danvers River, Bass River,and Beverly Harbor. e I ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 25 .Gcd•YJmJ.�bi/vLt/r '1i� S' •M' S`Y ` y t FRM•k O `>j I enq.Jw,rr` L L ,.•la,;•�ltur� � ,Sr -+ 4 rP NORTH Re tea. A I i .r• r !/fru...r 'ter -CPCPPY FYIwkY. .rNrw. • \ A �rir J!n•mI L••s _ � ��III > .. •�A .M�/Sep.WaIMMI �I YRwr•.O 14 fW.�.. \f J NrrrM _.•� N � "r7rCL' ♦ d j�rrr..n..r � R+rr/ - trJ \ yyrn Ji..r.. Nwnw.w eBaiAB,{{L6 ♦ 1W�� 1�1/ r, W'� PPT.L ♦4' a. \� `IrarrM• . rw {•uw_u_ _ _ _- .. RRlbgr�! w,.. L02T11113F�'�"L2.1" fro-' It\71 Jr....;y al v a nF n. ry+HeViw.Jlit e era4n .l.�i`,`�,apYay.,BRLp ILL. t '4 kiu,.y r1.rr16/. A/4dr/nr ry,aWn Yy nJ� ,f(J<i�/ r t Y' I � .W iY•.Y.. A� N`l/fe.rr IJR/r ��' !M1 Tm.. rll' 4 Y�AIVr M6 N4. rllYblr^ JYe n.rleo 4C K BE 21K,IJ s✓� / �Ct 3+ sf Ott r, w•ej•�4x�i��{ n.0 aT=_ aRocrar 4 n•' rtSae BiT.\R 211P�1'VLIiS xw:...�a ay..u- L 'd 11^ : F}� fv r • 1 n rnvaUr .`wk.Ei C` � L TLA\ ♦ Y fd a o" �F1121.0 ,r • a� ,gc�f � -4• J Prnjea Area G^�P U r:a� /lr.+nlil J � rrlr I}-N " .4r. 3r J'nnr '!E: '�NN ��. \ �`:r`4 .'�`+ � rrew/ J/� � - ' <xn.•.1.. r;1.! CCLuN',1A— �? Max R rir: r nrm a �.a�•' "r' lit ' .ns yy .Y✓N^! ` Yxme'sutad .+ JJ C yWk !, f T t C scale not known 1 2 iI Figure 2-3. 1872 map of Beverly,showing the approximate location of the Beverly Draw Bridge Project(source:Beers 1872). Environmental and Cultural Contexts ! First Settlement Period (1620-1675) The earliest attempt to settle the Salem area occurred in 1623, and permanent European settlement in Salem began in 1626 with 20 individuals(MHC 1985). The migration of English Colonists resulted in rapid population growth. By the end of the period, approximately 1,400 people lived in Salem, even after several towns seceded (MHC 1985). Salem Township originally included all of the land now F, ' contained within the towns of Beverly, Danvers, Manchester, Marblehead, Middleton,Peabody, and } parts of Topsfield, Wenham, and Lynn. Salem's commercial fishing and shipping businesses grew steadily during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The town was established as an official port ' of entry by 1658. As Salem developed as a town and commercial center,numerous other trades emerged including bakers,barbers,blacksmiths,bricklayers,carpenters,coopers,boot and shoe makers,curriers, cutlers,glassmakers,glovers,gunsmiths,hatmakers,ironworkers,and reasons. Grist,corn,and fulling mills were also important in Salem and were supplemented by a copperworks,a glass factory,a pottery works, an ironworks, and two tanneries by the late 1600s (MHC 1985). Native American trails were used for transportation at the beginning of the period as roads and bridges were generally not developed until the 1640s. Colonial Period(1675-1775) Salem's population rose from 1,400 individuals to 5,300 by the end of the period(MHC 1985). Settlement � continued along the North and South rivers and in the southern part of town along the coast. Fishing f and other maritime-related trades continued to flourish,along with inland agriculture and husbandry,to form a mixed economic base(MHC 1985). Numerous mills were also constructed during this period. The boundaries of Salem Township were further changed during this time period,with Danvers separating ' in 1752 and a part was annexed to Beverly in 1753 (MHC 1985). A ferry was established to facilitate travel and communication between North Point or Salem Neck and Cape Ann Side (Beverly). This ' ferry landing was located a few hundred feet east of the Essex(now Beverly-Salem)Bridge(Figure 2- 4) (Stone 1843). By 1775, agriculture grew to match the importance of the town's maritime-related activities as the inland lands were cleared. Saw and gristmills and other commercial trades such as ' ship-building, shoe manufacturing, and saltworks also developed during the period. Federal Period(1775-1830) i During the first half of the Federal Period,Salem was a flourishing port town stimulated by manufacturing and fishing industries,and perhaps most importantly,foreign trade(Figure 2-5)(MHC 1985). Between the fishing and maritime trade industries, Salem was a major point of distribution of foreign trade goods into the interior of the country (MHC 1985). The Bridge Street area was home to maritime supported rope-making industries.After 1807,foreign trade failed as a result of the Embargo Act against Great Britain and the ensuing War of 1812. In response to this economic downturn,privateering was undertaken and became profitable (Mrozowski et al. 1988). Manufacturing became more important after the essential collapse of the maritime trade industry and included a variety of endeavors including rum distillation,tanneries,and textile production. Movement of goods by rail began to supplant coastal shipping(Mrozowski et al. 1988). A bridge connecting Beverly with Salem,located approximately at the site of today's Beverly-Salem Bridge,was built after an act in 1787 incorporated proprietors. The r ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 27 Chapter Two , Bpulalian.(�100./hvai/inf riin6t Nrn. i .vdr ryawrS/9RttA fNfl Oh ul.hr N1 rir✓ro- b r."W �n_ ✓1y,�tb r � t S N � � FdyrFq.Y.M4Tn May.n�r/Rdrr4 NI A � .-.J H.x Mw5 N^'..YL...VUO'/Mrr tbv..r.rinv%hnaf.✓MruU m(aa _ � _ j :'j _ f � w f "" MH fp d Project Area ♦` � IIYRY/ �R xx scale:not knoam Ar Figure 2-4. 1907 map of Beverly, showing the approximate location of the Neponset River Bridge Project(source: Sanborn 1907). i 28 PAL Report No. 2329-1 , -i Project Area ° k"s � 1 J - tt 1 � v ,1, r 1,11 r r.: as fid: A' o. .r CL as .t1yv \ . •.'c� �� bG _. -� WO, s r+K w ..bW,tAPQ •� .. scale:not known o m ous 1795). Figure 2-5. 1795 map of Salem,showing the approximate location of the Beverly Draw Bridge Project(source:AnonymR N Chapter Two act allowed proprietors to collect a toll for 70 years and then bridge ownership would be transferred to ' the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MHC 1985). G Early Industrial Period(1830-1870) ' During the 1830s,Salem's manufacturing sector expanded,giving the town amore diversified economic base that could sustain the local population through regional and international fluctuations in the maritime and trade networks. More than half of the population worked in commercial occupations,with a slightly lesser percentage in manufacturing, and about three percent in agriculture (MHC 1985). Salem did have several active whaling vessels during this period,although the town could not compete with larger ' regional whaling ports. Settlement in the town remained focused in the areas around Salem Harbor where the maritime commerce had been established a century earlier. The transportation network was greatly improved during the early nineteenth century. The Eastern Railroad was built from Boston to Ipswich through Salem and opened in 1839(Figure 2-6)(Karr 1995). In 1845,the Beverly to Gloucester Branch line was authorized. The northern and western parts of town retained a dispersed settlement pattern through the nineteenth century,based on a primarily agricultural economy. No streets existed north of March and Osgood streets except for Bridge Street, which connected Beverly to downtown Salem.Hay,grain and apples were grown,cattle pastured,and quantities of butter and cheese produced. Late Industrial Period (1870-1915) ' By 1870 Salem had the third largest population in Essex County,with 24,117 residents(MHC 1985). , Development expanded to nearly all sections of the town during this period,and included the construction of March Street Court;and Thorndike,Planters and Hubon streets at the northwest edge of the city for ; residential use(Figure 2-7). The Salem Gas Light Company also occupied waterfront land on the north tip of the city off Pierce Avenue by 1883(Figure 2-8).This sizeable population base was due largely to an influx of immigrants including Irish and Canadian groups to work in the growing manufacturing sectors. Maritime commerce had become mostly limited to vessels carrying coal (MHC 1985). The value of manufacturing goods, on the other hand, rose to $7.7 million in 1875 and $12.2 million by 1905 MHC 1985 . Products included cotton goods,shoes and leather,as well as lead and iron products, which together accounted for 72 percent of the 1875 total value of goods produced. Other products , manufactured in the town during this period included carriages and wagons, typewriters, machines, cigars, and clothing(MHC 1985). Modern Period (1915—present) j Salem's economy in the first half of the twentieth century. Shoe Manufacturing continued t�dominate Sa y mTY and leather manufacturing led the local industries in production. By the mid-century,shoes and leather were still important products, but electrical machinery and equipment assumed the lead role (MHC 1985). In 1952 the 7,070 manufacturing employees in the town represented more than 50 percent of the local workforce(MHC 1985). The next largest sector was wholesale and retail trade followed by the i service, transportation, and construction industries. Today, Salem is primarily a local tourist center dominated by retail-service businesses in the harbor district. Most of the outlying areas serve as residential suburbs for Boston-area business people and professionals. The town is also home to Salem State College, the North Shore Medical Center, the Essex County District Superior and Probate Courts and 30 PAL Report No. 2329-1 , y Project Area ls3d .ems fit � S Y n F F a i 11 � l A< i. a ',rya "..,, .,y, . . •ql y eF_ _ .d. O '•V - .. ' O 182{ffi I� Yov/.o 4tlY QYCX41a1a... O �1unod/vw o 2t., nndu/a/ln�uef'�unudu ro+.v1/.a/e _ �0 - Figure 2-6. 1832 map of Salem,showing the approximate location of the Beverly Draw Bridge Project(source: Saunders 1832). x 1 Chapter Two k�V� , S`+, �� \ N'NZO L / Y 417, ri 01 r \\��)1i3O!/.:�^ � f r�tt ✓+ \\l�,'-_.s' �� ! 1 y:'y!r O - .I N ��Lv r � 7 �♦ ++ `!' Vii. I} i- r c . F a+ r�. . 'a • �' ST. � b d O , 6,➢ ,4 y .r',�� 3. a � q, � ,y r v I , S?r �r�`: ` �� { r ,.- ,'fit ' ��. � ;�� ,\_. • a �, .� � 'a � 4' v i sir � • ..kk .° `...n�di �N. ^ •+li' /♦�?..vl, yP7�I-,If. +,• \�'t �. rA ea0 .01 i2l P11 fill p i1b4$� d ��F(!•p 33gg�3`7 3 �♦¢3 aa�a�.��By� $}'in �Y�-i'��y�-"� °. ; � r_'+ Yp � ; 3'Al�pZ ��i'i. + w r 32 PAL Report No. 2329-1 n� yr.�'' ,�✓rl.�n ^�,, v.na _t'F'f�ai � - °^.4r �xr ��yy iY � '�� n tr a e sr.,f.r rte\`mer 4 e PY]`4r Tr`•-mac pp ]' ] 1 '��" A �Y �✓`) V �tl }�j C Q�y �� y V�� r.^' .'/- tl v) a "�'i f'IC .un S\. )1- h v �'Lr r � Rr�,�rN� 'dtr^✓If+'T �7 sd� .y ��:�Ct.a.�.r� L^N� o�' �� )"-'Tai �� j.;�`h > rr°' .3, �-.fie�r 'm,<r.ru�m sass-�• �• Q��'`,.x..�v� ,�n q.. � .n_•S+s1�.'t I� �9�F l.c__ae) Z' `t�"P � n'�T`t i�"'T�� I � -n�a�.+� �".Sr< h-'�t �:r�.y'�'+a1� �r a!P � t ��,,�y- °��v,�,�,,av h: "`4 >sy4 n�-�k�� <' z� -.•.l'w"'cls�,. -E v i l• ` A'" n ' ?'(?Y'.� �,^ Y'�v h � r a_�.�*e< _ i `,'� v ^an "rd F ,(vt��.f- ]'�'"ll iw LLL �G i�iw�)F6�. i .i + ')c' .Lv1 �a t^�t ,S ��R f`p y. •. 5 Mi TO -•. `m��'.,Y+��+1_u.j� ��1� ��v`i �h 3.+.'• '°Ft r � :�h� �df'M`5��_. �E, 'alv q 3.Y per•L�e� -) E4 :Lt-:4. w,r� {rt+o �� [+ ��"`�{.— �' P z i ."ad` '�1+�' n.,�,r�� -�a i � �,��.„��-r X'iz•-w_:d's- "p f� ,� g. -°'%4f Posy a Imo` i `^ '�'bR p° 4 x. 2•_k) 6 'z..� Tl NkK 3s t` pr M v. J 0 i- v�3y L' .��..��'"�3M't•� �1+�°"�Aa�-}-ef�a3r1., .t. �w-- _-yxq� �.: 'J� �: nju� S a �}f� q� .a'€ i�s',?u! U� u—Sly, -Py '-'u'&�'hy'jCY^ ' ,�' 1 ly' 0, P. . ray xw/. °� r °_ �+.,• 'e!�'° �{Ss „"'ZS,��'�.��'�✓ �1�ys��+4)`'N�'r�, *...,5'oe f�� i�- Fqi� �t-y3'` ��`�r as ,re°i'x`- £'��t.: � � � )spa--.. ��,�a. '� ti v ers.rr � w�v. �- � �n i.5.,�-.r,"�• h'' � T.r3 �LP{,.�� k tc �.✓✓� _,.. K�'_uM1��' '<rgt2`��`� "T�S'[. �� P �i� a`�'i`� yt nr �y VY�t'� .. MM-1- M j )-1 /�+' �e ) -..e€ c..�— 4 f 3 Y4?i'• � ,.K1ti S� �- �$ t Ut - '* 4PJY-183rg 8 l •�-0 unr.> rm.v •s Chapter Two Registry of Deeds,the Peabody and Essex Museum,and a host of banks and other financial institutions. These local institutions make Salem the educational, medical, legal, cultural, and banking modern period hub of the North Shore. By the close of the twentieth century, Salem's population reached 40,000. The MBTA Newbutyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line The Beverly Draw Bridge is located on the MBTA's Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line. This railroad ROW was originally the main line of the Eastern Railroad(the Eastern),which was one of the earliest railroads to be chartered in Massachusetts(Figure 2-9). Land speculators proposed the Eastern in 1836 just after the first three railroads in the state;the Boston& Lowell, Boston &Worcester, and Boston&Providence;were chartered. The line opened from East Boston to Salem in 1838 and crossed the Danvers River into Beverly in 1839. The entire line to Portsmouth,New Hampshire was opened in 1840. The Eastern inaugurated Boston to Portland,Maine service in 1842(Karr 1995:257-263). Between 1843 and 1875,the Eastern battled its rival,the Boston&Maine Railroad(the B&M,founded in 1842),for market share in the lucrative North Shore Massachusetts and Downcast Maine transportation regions. The Eastern ultimately overreached in its efforts to expand its rail infrastructure and declared bankruptcy in 1875. The B&M leased the Eastern's network in 1884 and operated the line through Salem and Beverly until 1970,when it declared bankruptcy in the face of competition from automobiles and trucks. The MBTA purchased the Eastern ROW along with other Boston & Maine routes in Massachusetts in 1976. In MBTA operations,the line is referred to as the MBTANewburypordRockport Commuter Rail Line (Adams et al. 2008; Karr 1995). I i i i i 1 1 34 PAL Report No. 2329-1 j _ Environmental and Cultural Contexts .axil •\ Lulydull� • - aCt,vtup, .-.- - in y. i1 rAlis °. urQdiw lLfnr 1Sx V,d] Arutyb, .. R'r 1 I!fl! , l4 �rrtriNrrn s.Frrr?• t u,dulll"" / 1'l aixln,>: ! 7" �.r�✓' v. a 1 •l i�ur,lt llivr.• e l 1 II § I Ila OR �� \ i� (,1 'nl' nl 87 ♦ff 1 ,5�1(',•, �NAltHU.11 Sy. 0Pr F,'•/�V pit ~ rr'l,. rO ,�,•.nZv r,r,Y, ((�� 7 •„ \1�rfLµ /�- bKy JAI III J 4 •' %Yrl r ,niig7; rt�iy`!, C,U.. !i js A ` n5 Il un a liu - 75 Irk. ,yA �; fnlr7i; Il n K Lomu, , .pa Er ' ,A� � n i Protect urea 1• � 7F k"imth., . .j Ihn t NVW ✓'T1 (]iulkl:.ti 9i1pn11°Ifl Ee '•� tr i 49. 11„a, dru y rr(lrrrY. A Lnd °1 Niru uu Fxa.•t, 11 1 ur1ICN�_ 1 Q < a �.• ,.rr {1 r dll It na 11 Pt I'll • ` T nr,rirn hrp• .t Icr1.J, 4 1,r: NTI � i� .Ifryc r , F,y i K -�,�- - r�ls„s{ m , :. a -� •�e sur ur•rur,. 4,n1 G a1bT , C A llulrx r r b • '••!IG/ �q +r i ci tai �tin r eo. 5d,l.n1, yw° n•a♦ , t �1. G'.TMWELUING ROUVU i IC?:,rtVY y, , l X14 51111 q1 "Q• +fl]t �i 1 .\OI`t 1.111• t ,r _ o -• �• ,;Ili 7 n rl � . l � p8'1lenCll � B08 s Nrl n' �AI,als.l• •r Ulf,-11 V r7IJ1 lb}q • d a1, _� v I ruin li ISI• t ii IL tihm.i tL/ With •P1SMN111'1 U,-.duu 6lrri¢il:xx: .+.� 9 J• . . aun b �++A•�\ IYtilh Il,a1.citr. I rutilf. .8-1}1 uu, 9 ..• , 1•. - (rl II, ' •"� "`�'��' ,./ r l' u _ �lr,�t .Slxo 111Y.WXI'k1UA11 C1,.1CY.B.wild` •ni ✓'' ..•�'�ingLmil �� i plal:cA of xRllt)1Ml1iP'JIO®'. Uu•1Luruu}i'h ° - OR `yCa.. , •(. yrlll: l +Ij scale:not known Figure 2-9. 1848 map of railroads north of Boston showing location of the Beverly Draw Bridge (source: Williams 1848). i I i I , � I a PAL Report No. 2329-1 35 f CHAPTER THREE RESULTS AND FINDINGS �. Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment The primary task of an archaeological assessment is to review several categories of information to construct a chronological sequence of settlement and land use within the project area.The categories of information reviewed during archival research included documentary and cartographic sources and the results of prior surveys conducted in the general area. Field investigations consisted of a walkover to assess the existing conditions and identify any aboveground indications of potentially significant archaeological resources. The information obtained through these efforts was reviewed and provides the basis for the following assessments about the archaeological sensitivity of the project area. i Site File Review ' G' A review of the archaeological site files at the MHC identified nine archaeological sites within one-half mile of the Beverly Draw Bridge(Table 3-1). The majority of known sites are the result of early avocational collecting activities and survey. Much of the information for these sites was assembled by the MHC from files and collections held at the Peabody Museum of Salem. For many of these sites the information is scanty, limited to general locational data. One exception is the Kemwood/Kemwood. Knoll("Kernwood") Site(19-ES-408). The Kernwood Site was first identified and surface collected in 1974, and excavated in 1975 by the ' Peabody Museum of Salem(Talmadge 1977). Diagnostic materials included Green, Pentagonal, and Madison projectile points,and a glass bead,suggesting a Middle Woodland through contact time period. ' A more recent survey in advance of the Maritimes Phase III Project confirmed the early interpretations of the site(Pasquariello et,al.2002). A site examination of the Kernwood Site yielded more than 2,500 pieces of cultural material,both pre and post-contact. Diagnostic materials included Small-Stemmed, Jacks-Reef Pentagonal,and Squibnocket Triangle points and 23 pieces of pre-contact pottery. A large stone feature with high densities of pre-contact materials and post-contact period materials was also identified. The Kernwood Site appears to have been a large(14,000 sq m)base camp during the Late Archaic to Woodland Periods. Discrete areas of food processing and lithic material collection and processing are evident. The stone feature, though problematic, also suggests that the site may have been occupied into the post-contact period. The Kernwood Site is considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and D (36 CFR 60.4). ff i A review of historical mapping also provided important information from which to draw conclusions about the archaeological sensitivity ofthe project area. The fust of a number of bridges to span from Salem to Beverly was in place as early as 1795. The Essex Bridge depicted on early historical maps appears to closely follow 36 PAL Report No. 2329-1 Table 3-1. Recorded archaeological sites,Beverly Draw Beverly and Sale MA. Site-No. I Site Name Location MaterialOStructures Temporal Affiliation NR.Status Notes Beverly 19-ES-421 - Lothrop Street Lothmp Street Chipping debris and Unknown Not Eligible Foster collection at Peabody shell. Museum of Salem 19-E5�23 Lovett Street Lovett Street I Unknown Unknown Not Eligible Clark collection at Peabody Museum of Salem 197ES-496 Tuck's Point Sand dredged from Unknown Unknown Not Eligible Site destroyed channel destroying AppleIsland BEV-HA-7 .Wharfand. Salem Beverly Wharves andseawalls 18 through 20 Unknown Site located east of Essex Seawall Site Bridge to Cabot associated with century Bridge,outside of APE. Stfbridge to Cox maritime activities St. trade&commerce) Salem 19-ES-394 Jewitt's Point -North and Danvers Chipping debris Unknown Not Eligible Eldredgecollection at Site Rivers Peabody Museum of Salem 19-ES-402 Hospital Point Westbankof Shell heap,projectile Unknown Not Eligible Eldredge collection at North River points Peabody Museum of Salem 19-ES-408 - Kemwood Site Kemwood Street Chipping debris, Late Archaic through Pot.Eligible Large camp site,possible Small-Stemmed, Late Woodland post-contact occupation. Jack's Reef, Squibnocket points, bifaces,potteg. 19-ES-478 Sb ell Heap Jewitt's.Point and Shell Unknown Not Eligible Orig.file at Peabody Hospitalp Point - - Museum of Salem 19-ES-643 Beverly Bridge Bridge Street Burial Site -Unknown Not Eligible Wm.Bentley's Diary(1805). r' .Site o ------------- n c N N b ti, R d Chapter Three the route of the current Essex Bridge that carries Route IA. By 1872 the rail line is also in place,and the alignment has not changed �II Field Review 1 Following the review of available archival materials, a field review consisting of a walkover of the project area was conducted. The field review as performed to evaluate environmental conditions and physical integrity of the project area for the purpose of assigning archaeological sensitivity. The Beverly Draw is located mid channel of the Danvers River where is meets Beverly Harbor. The surrounding land uses in both Salem and Beverly are characterized by dense residential, commercial, and transportation land uses and the amount of disturbance that has taken place in the area has most likely compromised the integrity of any potential archaeological sites(Figure 3-1). n� Figure Ma. Representative view of archaeological APE for Beverly Draw Bridge. I I 38 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ` Results and Findings r¢ _ 1 f f Y 4 �'7 Figure 3-lb. Representative view of archaeological APE for Beverly Draw Bridge. w i I( 1. �� .� � ��' �� • kir'. ✓fix tt.. �•1� .{, , Figure 3-1c. Representative view of archaeological APE for Beverly Draw Bridge. ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 39 I i Chapter Three i Archaeological Sensitivity Ranking Information collected during the archival research and walkover survey was used to predict the locations and types of archaeological sites that could be expected within the project area.The criteria are proximity of recorded and documented sites,local land use history, environmental data, and existing conditions. The project area was ranked according to the potential for the presence of archaeological resources !! based on information collected during the archival research and walkover survey. Subsurface testing is i typically planned for areas assigned high sensitivity rankings and where project impacts will occur. !� The current constructionAPE for the Beverly Draw Bridge is assessed as having no archaeological sensitivity I for terrestrial archaeological sites due to past disturbances associated with construction and maintenance ofthe railroad. The surrounding area is also assessed as having no to low archaeological sensitivity because of disturbance associated with industrial,residential,and transportation development ofthe area that has most likely destroyed the integrity of any pre-contact period archaeological deposits and/or early post-contact period archaeological deposits. Marine Archeological Sensitivity Assessment ' A briefsummary ofthe results ofthe marine archaeological sensitivity assessment ofthe Beverly Draw Bridge project area performed by Fathom is provided below. The full Fathom document is included as Appendix C of this report(Fathom 2009). j The marine archaeological sensitivity assessment walkover survey provided an identification and preliminary assessment ofarchaeological deposits in the shallow marine and intertidal portions of project study area only t and did not include archaeological deposits in the submerged portions of the project study area. Combined with the archival research effort,the field inspection servedto finalize the sensitivity assessment ofthe investigated portion ofthe project study area.No visible evidence suggesting the presence ofNational Register eligible pre- or post-contact archaeological deposits was observed on the surface ofthe seafloor in the intertidal portion of the Project study area examined during the walkover field investigation(Fathom 2009:26). I Background research indicates that from about 7500 to 5000 B.P.,a portion of the project study area was a subaerially exposed landscape that,because ofits location near both fresh and salt water andthe resource-rich coast,may have been an attractive locale for human habitation prior to its inundation Therefore,based on the available information reviewed during this study and the relatively high number of documented pre-contact period terrestrial archaeological sites in the project study area's vicinity,the submerged portion of the project study area is characterized as having moderate archaeological sensitivity for containing submerged pre-contact period archaeological deposits(Fathom 2009:27). Archival and field research indicates that the project study area has a long history of intensive post-contact period maritime activity,including substantial vessel traffic. While the potential for encountering intact submerged archaeological deposits related to the area's maritime infrastructure(i.e.,wharves,landings,etc.)is influenced by extensive disturbances to the former location of the historic shoreline and waterfront,the project study area exhibits moderate sensitivity for containing the remains ofpost-contact period archaeological deposits(Fathom 2009:27). i i 40 PAL Report No.2329-I . ' Results and Findings Historic Resources ' .Project Area Description The project study area consists of dense urban development along the Danvers River waterfront in Beverly and Salem.Neighborhoods ofmodest,mid-nineteenth-through early-twentieth-century wood-frame housing i ' comprise the majority of the area,but a mix of commercial and contemporary concerns line the banks of the river.The Beverly waterfront includes public wharves,and the Salem waterfront is occupied by commercial strip infill and a gas company.Commercial infill in Salem continues alongthe north end of Bridge Sheet.Cabot and Bridge streets form the primary north-south thoroughfare in the area.The Essex Bridge carries Cabot Street from Beverly overthe Danvers River,immediately east ofthe Beverly Draw Bridge and railroad corridor, where it continues as Bridge Street in Salem.With the exception of the March Street Court peninsula,the ' Salem portion ofthe railroad corridor forms the west side of the north Salem Coast,The Essex Bridge in Beverly and Salem and a concrete barrier located along the railroad corridor in Salem obstruct most views toward the bridge from neighborhoods to the west(Figure 3-2).In Beverly,the sloping topography and ' intervening buildings obstruct views from many properties in the north end of the study area looking south toward the bridge(Figure 3-3).The bridge is visible from streets located along the waterfront to the northwest and from the tops of hills on Porter and Wellman streets(Figure 3-4). �. Yi•`F, � / f , Figure 3.2. View looldng west from end of Ames Street toward Essex and Beverly Draw bridges. 1 ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 41 1 Chapter Three 1 y t r i Figure 3-3. View looking south on Agate Street,showing obstructed view toward the t Beverly Draw Bridge. C F. §4W?rs";+ ,A.� ,.a�� . @�W" YYYY ✓�'' II��II�p��""�.'.�YP ,» 9'�: d 4rR t Y lk�i � e.ii Figure 3-4. View looking south on Porter Street toward Congress Street and the , Beverly Draw and Essex bridges. 42 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' Results and Findings Two National Register listed historic districts that encompass historic commercial centers in Beverly and Salem { ' were within the project study area investigated during the architectural survey,but are not within the APE that t was determined during fieldwork based on visual observations.These historic districts include Fish Flake Hill (MHC No.BEV.B)in Beverly and the Bridge Street Neck Historic District(MHC No.SAL.IV)in Salem. ' The Fish Flake Hill Historic District(NR listed in 197 1)is located approximately 600 feet northeast from the Beverly Draw Bridge and encompasses approximately 35 acres with 152 properties north of Water Street. j ' The Bridge Street Neck Historic District(NR listed in 2002)is located approximately 800 feet south and 100 feet west ofthe APE,and extends south from March and Osgood streets into Salem Center.It encompasses. 80 acres with 382 contributing resources and 1 contributing site.A discrepancy exists between the National Register form and the MHC Inventory regarding the district boundary on March Street.TheNational Register boundary as shown in the nomination form was used for the purposes ofthis survey. Summary Atotal offive areas and 50 individual properties were identified within the APE for historic resources.Ofthese, ' one individual property is recommended as potentially eligible for National Register listing.One previously j surveyed property within the APE,the March Street Bridge(MHC No.8AL.950),has been demolished.No k! historic resources within the APE are listed in or have been determined eligible for listing in the State or ' National Registers.The low number ofpotentially National Register eligible properties within the APE is due to the common,vernacular type of architecture extant,lack of known historical associations,alterations that I. undermine the architectural integrity ofmany ofthe buildings,and the presence ofnearby historic districts that ' encompass well-preserved examples of architectural styles from the eighteenth through twentieth centuries. The Beverly Draw Bridge,which is not recommended as eligible,and the one potentially eligible property are described below.All of the historic resources included in the survey are located on Figure 3-5.Appendix A ' contains a list and photographs ofeach historic resource in the architectural survey,including areas and individual properties. ' Beverly Draw Bridge j The Beverly DrawBridge(Bridge No.B-11-.015,Milepost[MP] 17.66,MHC no.BEV.921/SAL.953)is a ' two-track girder swing bridge with concrete trestle approaches. The bridge carries the MBTRs Newburyport/ . Rockport Commuter Rail Line(a/k/a the East Line,formerly the Eastern Railroad)across the Danvers River (formerly known as the Essex Branch)in Beverly and Salem,Massachusetts(Figures 3-6 to 3-15). Trains approach the bridge from the south via a 600 foot-long riprap causeway that extends across the tidal flats and navigation channel ofthe Danvers River(see Figure 3-1 b)(MBTA 1985-1986). ' The draw span is a deck girder rim-bearing swing bridge with an open timber deck. The two navigation channels cleared by the draw span are each 40 feet (ft) wide. The bridge superstructure is assembled from four built-up,riveted and bolted.plate girders 102 ft long, 5 ft tall,and spaced 6 ft on center. The ' girders are connected with diagonal and vertical cross-bracing. The southern 34 ft of each girder has been retrofitted with a welded steel plate girder replacement assembly dating to a 1985 rehabilitation of ' the bridge. The swing span rests.on a built-up,riveted drum girder with a 15 ft diameter,which in turn ' rests on a nest oftapered iron rollers. The bridge is rotated by an electric motor and drive train located within the drum.girder that operates aring and pinion mounted on the pier below the drum. Rail alignment between ' the swing span and the approaches is achieved through the use of Conley Joints,movable rail segments that ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 43 b i 1 Chapter Three rotate in a vertical plane to allow clearance during bridge movements. The bridge is locked closed with motor ' driven span locks below the tracks at both ends ofthe span. Both the Conley and span lock mechanisms are from 1985(HNTB Corporation 2006). The draw span pivot pier is concrete below the drum and armored with a steel encasement. Wood fender piers with concrete decks extend east and west of the pivot pier. A flat-roofed plywood generator shack is located on the west fender pier. ' The bridge's approach spans are concrete ballast deck trestles — the Salem Approach Trestle (south ' approach) and the Beverly Approach Trestle (north approach) —built in 1985. The Salem Approach Trestle is a 523 ft-long substructure with 16 pre-cast concrete bents supported on pre-cast concrete piles. The Beverly Approach Trestle is 278 ft long with 9 bents on identical piles(MBTA 1985-1986). The bents support deck structure of precast concrete box girders. Narrow concrete walkways and ' welded galvanized steel railways line the approach decks. Lighting consists of bronzed aluminum 1 light fixtures. Trestle abutments are concrete on the Salem Approach and mortared split-faced rubble ' stone on the Beverly Approach. The trestles are flanked to the east by concrete piers supporting electrical transmission towers. The draw span control house is located at the southwest comer of the Beverly Approach. This two- story structure has ' a flat rubber membrane roof and concrete block walls with aluminum sash windows. The control tower rests on a concrete slab supported.by concrete piers. The Beverly Draw Bridge is an 1885 swing span with 1985 approach spans and alterations. The Eastern � Railroad first spanned the Danvers River in 1839 when it extended its ROW from Salem to Beverly in ' that year. Alternately known as the Essex Bridge (the former name for the Danvers River) and the ; Eastern Railroad Bridge;it not known what if,any draw span was provided for marine navigation in this original wood structure. The bridge was replaced in the 1860s with a new wood draw span(Bradlee ' 1922:73). In 1884, the Eastern Railroad, which was then under lease to the B&M, erected the current Beverly Draw. The swing span was fabricated by the Passaic Rolling Mill Company of Passaic,New Jersey. Originally the bridge operated on a taller drum mounted in a machinery pit that extended below the ' mean high water line. The bridge,which was originally manually operated by hand,was given an electric operating system by 1915(Eastern Railroad 1884;McGinley Hart&Associates 1988). In 1921, the B&M undertook the first of two bridge rehabilitations. The railroad replaced the timber ' trestle approaches with new wood approaches and replaced the ends of all four girders in the swing span with new web plates and flanges(Boston&Maine Railroad 1923). Other work completed by the ' B&M on the bridge included the reconstruction of the swing span pivot pier in 1964 and the replacement of the drum and rollers with a new, shorter drum in 1972 (Boston& Main Railroad 1964; McGinley Hart&Associates 1988). ' The second rehabilitation ofthe bridge occurred in 1985. A year previously,a fire destroyed the wood trestle approaches and buckled the girders of the movable span. The damaged ends ofthe girders were replaced ' with new welded steel segments bolted to the surviving portions ofthe original girders. Portions ofthe bridge's mechanical operating system were replaced at this time;including the motor,drive train,ring gear,bridge locks, and Conley Joints. New concrete approach trestles and abutments were constructed. The control house also , 44 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ! , Results and Recommendations i 1 S �ti k x'Yl.v .i" ?y;:. ru- h et e t 17 • _ . f 1 � ._ - �• yid�t 1�# 1 t _ 3; t , 'v,.a, /rsfr �'` s � SSS. S` _. f„ ' � l ��7 )�, 8 $ x�+N l' .,� ,�Y' ;f a; 's '�3a'�.' '�t' �Fe:»a � 3�gZi ,aa,,•. a��• . � � ��. � R � _ ' tij,' •. , ti�' �'4, `� n `� hk" * �r � b� k y�y�+ �t m • '�i �.,''�'` �`,�p. �� .j.+" D *s y} 'Y,y,G '�� } AA � ,! .K..�.rti.� - � >.E T"Yt i—•,.� �r � ,4� . p r ry ,' A i Nk meq• 1•Y�;.iiy.T'.:�,f .rcyi.5 *� � � t� .. QT - `_yk'.kk �1�YI�+' U �, +, — 1�k't N� .. Y� �.�� y� xr r�J � �4 �z 7 o•t Y+1 sf e ro �{ �� 1 � �i n � �r•!r�JF - „ � 'f�' 7 s,' ,�j , it ,:r,. ' v �� i � � � bl � ♦y� � 77 � v . T a n s t r� �.`'•� ..� wax# ��,d.b��'M�w` '� �.:.S h� � �' i.:ul�� i�� w.i�..-3 �y$� tnm ; .�' * Y �' � . . - - . j{ �' t��v� � '�x.�» "'w # �� R �� ,mow", �• � 1 Figure 3-5. Location of Historic Resources Surveyed within the Beverly Draw Bridge Project APE. PAL Report No. 2329-1 45-46 Results and Findings ' appears to date from this period of construction(HNTB Corporation 2002;MBTA 1985-1986;McGinley Hart&Associates 1988). E McGinley Hart&Associates surveyed the Beverly Draw Bridge in1988. The bridge was not recommended 8. 1' as eligible for the National Register at that time. Based on the current evaluation,the bridge is not National Register eligible. The bridge is one ofthe earliest examples ofrim-bearing swing span structures in the state and is an example of first-generation steel movable railroad bridge technology. However,successive rehabilitations ofthe structure have severely impacted the bridge's integrity of design and workmanship and rendered the structure unable to convey this significance(McGinley Hart&Associates 1988). t Figure 3-6. Bevedy Draw swing span,looking east. ' r f ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 47 i Chapter Three *y t 5 h n� Figure 3-7. Beverly Draw, Beverly Approach trestle built in 1985,looking northeast. i i A I -- g F:. _ - .. �'�—'.�$ _ • r-a r*- a ._. w :.eq `w • ' Figure 3-8. Beverly Draw, Salem Approach trestle built in 1985, loolong southeast. 48 PAL Report No. 2329-I ! ' Results and Findings - 1 � ` ILLF c AV d a i rr�f�3.[r+'rrff�'rll'l. 11 � ��f � - .. „ • �4�' �y arr. ./�js r,, �.�Ir f'i[ y`.., 6 4 p ♦ a'a�.. h't.�z.fr�i °'' • r �+ . � r 4�� Figure 3-9. Deck of Beverly Draw swing span, looking north. t 71 I A ' :4 f MMMt _ Figure 3-10. South end of Beverly Draw swing span showing 1965 welded girder replacement. PAL Report No.2329-1 49 1 Chapter Three i i IL CIII t:' E � r> M Figure 3-11. North end of Beverly Draw swing span showing original riveted plate ' girder construction. 44 SS Ij 0 4 R / 1 t a q,. ro o gom 0 . ieehrT�Z r Figure 3-12. Beverly Draw.swing span drum and pier. 1 i 50 PAL Report No. 232971 Results and Findings 1 gel l �r p Figure 3-13. Beverly Draw swing span control house. 1 1 PAL Report No. 2329-1 51 jJ m - - YLNVEflB RIVER ease gplq `I " u rernen.v,a w.rt w wv T� M uSrL6 ��GMFiY%a!9[M."N1 M � � ¢anru¢tn.h u> G x a"�ea a fun W[enewuf%.?S !W 01(LNSTg1ci RV w - oi 7= w - — — 1 -4-- PLAN - \ row - r�,�.•w-^.-=_ _ _""_ _ ' ' e`�wfea w,P:A.No QY'i"A! o Q I��--lttY141 em2v cwt [Wf m nM a :PO_ ur I R.3P0 WVJnEMT STRULTIIRG %ALEMDALEM A.IAp� TRESTLETRESTLE KR M% DEV cRIY APPApALH TREST 1E ELEVATION � .W:.m H �1_�— 4. IrOKtlara, d KEY PLAN AND ELEVATION - my�. •''� n � `� ` SITE PLAN PP O �e ms�e Figure 3-14. Beverly Draw trey plan and elevation (sooure: MBTA 1985-1986). ' Results and Findings of 9 to ${•v y � Ii gi °{$ �� "pli-�f �P�§ �fl� �• �i°v !• i-e §§§§§ee � vi F^ 7e 3p f$$ 5 y i 6.e°n °-$ it , a o ' 15 mEe} 55Ii � s¢ En°E Fff y4•�j°e 3i�� yf�i.°Y �5 • d. � m £•� -Qr• '7-.e �. � �l q IZ4.3 3a ya$j3. ay v e� a �E $ei� ; E � y4 vy �.-n=gEtl • !� $I °Ic 'SR A'9$v � E , P.ni?y i{v:�n. 58: �a !MIN Pgg & zY ll ' N E cies_ !� BI y y sy'e da �$ ° s Gyp•e. f@ � fI�O d�d1ln�� 3a=a BiR� E �f 5 I $ y4 y !@- yS Sae• °f Pea3°. 6'�� •e° y�I5' y - P Ey @`.'�c �f !}, lia a f^! 3 • €'2 ,i y�. faa gg3; E9s C Ayd hi"I 1 6e 'il ' .€eIy y�fl$y 1211d lvla5f�5i g:g i5fP ei' 41a69 $ II Ys a C}:. 6 i .g e • Iia \ Jig IN kip Ell a of • i' a C10 1 _ g• IIf .. b p . • �e gg.� � ; } iyEEfE ai a�y —1--1 n flaeFo r, _ 3 � li�a�•na A $i °e32yyP �i' _ M PAL Report No. 2329-1 53 1 Chapter Three ' 1 Properties Potentially Eligible for National Register Listing N.Bailey House(Map No.26) The N.Bailey House(MHC No.BEV.546)is a Colonial residence located approximately 400 feet northwest ' ofthe project site,at 13 Congress Street.The house is a two-and-one-half-story;five-bay by two-baywood- frame building constructed ca. 1780(Figure 3-16).It has a side gable roof with a center chimney,clapboard siding,and a foundation that appears to be covered in concrete parging on the exterior.The house has been moderately expanded by a one-and-one-half-story side ell on the east(side)elevation,a one-and-one-half- p story addition across the north(rear)elevation,and an enclosed entrance porch.It retains is original siting and massing,and the majority of its historic materials.The windows have been replaced.The N.Bailey House is the oldest extant building in the Goat Hill neighborhood of Beverly,a name that refers to Irish immigrants' agricultural use ofthe land in the area in the nineteenth century.Joshua Ellingwood owned the property during the Colonial Period,until blacksmith Nathaniel Wallis acquired it in 1785.Mariner N.Bailey occupied the property as of 1839.The Beverly Historic District Commission surveyed the N.Bailey House in 1993,but did f eligible r !' notmakeaNahonalRegister recommendauonatthe tune.The house tspotenpotentially gtbe1fo NatronalRegtste ' listing at the local level under CriteriaA and C for its associations with the late-eighteenth-through nineteenth- century development of Beverly's waterfront and as an intact example of Colonial domestic architecture north i of Boston. ' I i l ti } '! �' - ori I, Figure 3-16. View looldng north at the N. Bailey House (Map No. 26). 54 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ; 1 , Results and Findings Findings ' Terrestrial Archaeological Resources ' Based on review ofavailable materials,thcAPE has no terrestrial archaeological sensitivity and no potential for containing intact terrestrial archaeological deposits because ofpast disturbances associated with construction and maintenance ofthe railroad. Limiting construction activities to the existing railroad right-of-way will result ' in no impact on terrestrial archaeological resources and no further archaeological survey work is necessary. Marine Archeological Resources A MarineArchaeological SensitivityAssessment ofthe Beverly Draw Bridge project area was performed due to the potential for a new cable to be located in a previously undisturbed area(Fathom 2009;see Appendix Q. Installation of new cabling,including trenching and barge anchor points,will result in impacts to the river bottom within areas of archaeological sensitivity.The MBUAR and MHC will be consulted regarding the potential need for a marine archaeological survey within the area ofproject impacts associated with the cable installation. Historic Resources I Although its age and bridge type are notable,the Beverly Draw Bridge is not eligible for listing in the National Register due to multiple alterations thathave resulted in loss ofdesign and workmanship integrity Oneindividual property within the Beverly Draw Bridge project APE is potentially eligible for National Register listing.This { property,the ca. 1780 N.Bailey House at 13 Congress Street in Beverly.(Map No.26),is located outside of ((( i the known construction limits of the project,which will be confined to the rail ROW. Impacts to historic properties outside ofthe project construction area are limited to temporary increased noise during construction and minor changes in the appearance of the bridge. The project will not change the viewshed or setting of aboveground historic properties or affect the characteristics ofthe properties that qualify them for National Registereligibility. ' Summary The cultural resources assessment found that there are no terrestrial archaeological sites or sensitive areas and one potentially National Register eligible historic property within the Beverly Draw Bridge projectAPE. The project will not affect the one historic aboveground property that is located in the project APE,but outside the t construction impact area,the potentially National Register eligible N.Bailey House at 13 Congress Street in ' Beverly(Map No.26). Provided that the marine cable is installed within or immediately adjacent to existing conduit,there will be no effect to any areas of moderate underwater archaeological sensitivity. The analyses completed and presented in this report indicate that the Beverly Draw Bridge project will have no effect on ' terrestrial and marine archaeological resources and no effect on historic aboveground properties. i Based on the findings of the MBTXs cultural resources assessment,the FTA will make a determination of ' eligibility and a finding of effect for the project.The FTA wi 11 seek the comments ofthe MHC regarding the i l ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 55 `I i Chapter Three historicresourcesidentification,the potentiallyNationalRegistereligiblehistoricpropertyoutside the construction limits,and on project effects. Ifthe FTA and the MHC concur that the project will have no effect on historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register,no further consultation will be necessary to consider alternatives and measures that would avoid,minimize,or mitigate any adverse effects ofthe project I on significant historic properties. ' t 1 4 I y' y i, i i I 1 t i 56 PAL Report No. 2329-I 1 1 ! REFERENCES 1 Adams,Virginia H.,Suzanne Cherau,Jennifer Banister,John 1964 Pier Repairs:Boston and Maine Railroad,Bridge J.Daly,Jenny R.Fields,and Quinn Stuart No. 17.66(32),Beverly,Mass. Office of the Chief 2008 MBTA Green Line Extension Project Historic and Engineer,Boston and Maine Railroad,Boston,MA. Archaeological Resources Reconnaissance Survey, Volume I, Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville Bradlee,Francis B.C. Massachusetts. PAL Report No.2156. Submitted 1922 The Eastern Railroad:AHistoricalAccountofEarly to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.,Watertown,MA, Railroading in Eastern New England The Essex and Executive Office of Transportation, Boston, Institute,Salem,MA. MA. Braun,David P. Anonymous 1974 Explanatory Models for the Evolution of Coastal ' 1795 Town of Salem, Massachusetts. On file, Adaptation in Prehistoric Eastern New England. Massachusetts State Archives, No. 1099, Boston, American Antiquity 39(4):582-596. MA. Bunker,Victoria 1883 Salem,Massachusetts. D.Mason&Co.:Syracuse, 1992 Stratified Components ofthe Gulf ofMaine Archaic i NY. Reproduced by Historic Urban Plans: Ithaca, Tradition at the Eddy Site,Amoskeag Falls. In Early NY. Holocene Occupation in Northern New England, edited by BrianRobinson,James Peterson,andArm ' Barber,John Warner Robinson,pp. 135-148. Occasional Publications 1839 Historical Collections Relating to the History and in Maine Archaeology, No. 9, Maine Historic Antiquities of Every Town in Massachusetts. Don, Preservation Commission,Augusta,ME. Howland and Company,Worcester,MA. j ' Byers,Douglas S. i Barber,Russell,J. 1954 Bull Brook: A Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, 1979 Human Ecology and the Estuarine Ecosystem: Massachusetts. American Antiquity 19:233-256. Prehistoric Exploitation in the Merrimack Valley. ' Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Carty,Frederick,and Arthur Spiess j Anthropology, Harvard Universi-ty, Cambridge, 1992 The Neponset Paleolndian Site in Massachusetts. MA. Archaeology of Eastern North America 20:19-37. Beers,D.G. Curran,Mary Lou 1872 Atlas of Essex County,Massachusetts. D.G.Beers 1984 The Whipple Site andPaleolndianToolAssemblage &Co.,Philadelphia,PA. Variation:A Comparison of Intrasite Structuring. i Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:5-45. Bendremer,Jeffrey C.M. j 1993 Late Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in Dincauze,Dena F. 4 Eastern Connecticut. Unpublished Ph.D. 1968 Cremation Cemeteries in Eastern Massachusetts. dissertation,on file at the University of Connecticut, Papers ofthe Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and 1 ' Storrs,CT. Ethnology 59(1). Peabody Museum, Harvard University,Cambridge,MA. Bendremer,Jeffrey C.M.,and R.Dewar . L 1993 The Advent ofMaize Horticulture inNew England. 1974 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the reater i In Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World, Boston Area. Archaeology of Eastern North i edited by C.Hastorf and S.Johannssen.Westview America 2(l):39-67. Press,Boulder,CO. j 1975 The LateArchaic Period in Southern New England. Boston&Maine Railroad. Arctic Anthropology 12(2):23-34. 1923 Boston and Maine Railroad,Bridge No.32,Beverly Bridge. Office of the Chief Engineer,Boston and 1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Maine Railroad,Boston,MA. Manchester, New Hampshire. Peabody Museum Monographs 4. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 57 i References ' 1990 A Capsule Prehistory of Southern New England. Flagg,T.Wilson The Pequots in Southern New England: The Fall 1830 Map of Beverly.Unknown publisher. , and Rise ofan American Nation,edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and James D. Wherry, pp. 19-32. Forrest,Daniel T. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman,OK. 1999 Recent Excavations at Sandy Hill, and Early Holocene Site in Southeastern Connecticut. Paper 1993 Fluted Points in the Eastern Forest. In From presented at the annual meeting ofthe Northeastern KostenkitoClovis:UpperPaleolithic-Paleolndian Anthropological Association,Providence,RL Adaptations,chapter 20,edited by Olga Soffer and N.D. Praslov, pp. 279-292. Plenum Press, New Glover,Suzanne,and Dianna Doucette York,NY. 1992 Archaeological Investigations: Site Examination and Data Recovery Program, The Heath Brook Site Dincauze,Dena,and Mitchell Mulholland (19-MO-22),Tewksbury,Massachusetts. The Public 1977 Early and Middle Archaic Site Distributions and Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report No. 378. Habitats in Southern New England.In Annals ofthe Submitted to Quincy and Company,Boston,MA. New York Academy of Science 288:439-456. Gran*Richard Doucette,Dianna,and John R.Cross 1982 The Vail Site. Bulletin of Buffalo Museum of 1997 Annasnappet Pond Archaeological District,North Sciences 30. Carver Massachusetts. An Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The Public Archaeology Grimes, John, W. Eldridge, B.G. Grimes, A. Vaccaro, F. Laboratory,Inc.Report No.580. Prepared for US Vaccaro,J.Vaccaro,N.Vaccaro,and A.Orsini Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 1984 Bull Brook I1.New Experiments upon the Record Administration and Massachusetts Highway of Eastern Paleolndian Cultures. Archaeology of Department,Boston,MA. Eastern North America 12:159-183. E Dragoo,Don W. Hepler,Margaret 1976 Some Aspects of Eastern North American 1993 Final Report. Beverly:Historic Cultural Resources Prehistory: A Review 1975. American Antiquity Survey, 1992-1993. Submitted to the Beverly �. 41:3-27. Historic District Commission and the Massachusetts , Historical Commission,Boston,MA. Dumont,John 1981 The PaleoIndian-Early Archaic Continuum: An HNTB Environmental Approach ArchaeologyofEastern 2002 Massachusetts Bay Ransportation Authority Bridge North America 9:18-37. Inspection:East Line over Danvers River, Beverly Draw, Beverly. Bridge No. B-11-015, HNTB Eastern Railroad Corporation,Boston,MA. 1884 Proposed Location of Draw for Beverly Bridge. Eastern Railroad. 2006 MassachusettsBay Transportation AuthorityBridge ' Inspection and Recommendation Report:East Line Fathom Research,LLC over Danvers River,Beverly Draw,Beverly. Bridge 1 2009 Summary Report,MarineArchaeological Sensitivity No.B-11-015. HNTB Corporation,Boston,MA. Assessment, META Beverly Drawbridge Repair Project, Beverly and Salem, Massachusetts. Johnson,Eric S.,and Thomas F.Mahlstedt Submitted to PAL, Pawtucket, RI. Prepared for 1982 Prehistoric Archaeological Collections from HNTB, Inc. and the Massachusetts Bay Massachusetts:A Report on the Peabody Museum ' Transportation Authority,Boston,MA. of Salem. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Office of the Secretary of State,Boston,MA. Fenneman,N.E. i 1938 Physiography of the Eastern United States. Jones,Brian D. ' McGraw-Hill,New York,NY. 1999 The Middle Archaic Period in Connecticut: The view from Mashantucket. Bulletin of the Fiedel,Stuart L Archaeological Society ofConneetieut 62:101-124. 2001 What Happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology ofEastern NorthAmerica 29:101-142. Jones,Brian D.,and Daniel T.Forrest 2003 Life in a Postglacial Landscape: Settlement- Fitting,James Subsistence Change during the Pleistocene- i 1978 Regional Cultural Development,300 B.C.to A.D. Holocene Transition in Southern New England. In 1000. In Northeast,edited by Bruce G.Trigger,pp. Geoarchaeology of Landscapes in the Glaciated , 44-57. Handbook of North American Indians,Vol. Northeast. Edited by David L.Cremeens and John 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, P.Hart. University ofthe State ofNew York,Albany, ; Smithsonian Institution,Washington,D.C. NY. 58 PAL Report No. 2329-1 ' References Juli,Harold D.,and KevinA.McBride 1986 Town Reconnaissance Survey Report: Beverly. - 1984 The Early and Middle Woodland Periods of Massachusetts Historical Commission,Office of the Connecticut Prehistory: Focus on the Lower Secretary of State,Boston,MA. Connecticut River Valley. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut,47:89-98. Maymon,Jeffrey,and Charles Bolian ' 1992 The Wadleigh Falls Site: An Early and Middle Karr,Ronald D. Archaic Period Site in Southeastern New 1995 The Rail Lines of Southern New England. Branch Hampshire. In Early Holocene Occupation in Line Press,Pepperell,MA. Northern New England,edited by Brian Robinson, James Peterson, and Ann Robinson,pp. 117-134. Kelly,Robert L.,and Lawrence C.Todd Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology,No. 1988 Coming Into The Country: -Early PaleoIndian 9, Maine Historic Preservation Commission, { Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity Augusta,ME. 53(2):231-244. McBride,Kevin A. Kostiw,Scott F. 1984 Middle and Late Archaic Periods in the Connecticut 1995 A Fresh New Look at the Middle Woodland Period River Valley: A Re-Examination. Connecticut in Northeastern North America.Bulletin ofthe New Archaeological Society Bulletin 47:55-71. York Archaeological Association 110:38-45. McBride,Kevin A.,and Robert E.Dewar Kuehn,Steven R. 1987 Agriculture and Cultural Evolution: Causes and 1998 New Evidence for Late PaleoIndian-Early Archaic Effects in the Lower Connecticut River Valley. In Subsistence Behavior in the Western Great Lakes. Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern American Antiquity 63(3):457-476. Woodlands,edited by William F.Keegan,pp.305- 328. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Lavin,Lucianne Occasional Papers No. 7, Southern Illinois 1988 Coastal Adaptation in Southern New England and University,Carbondale,IL. SouthernNew York. ArchaeologyofEasternNorth j America 16:101-120. McGinley Hart&Associates { ' 1988 Beverly Draw Bridge, Beverly and Salem, MA, j Leveillee,Alan Historic Structure Inventory Form,MBTAHistoncal 2002 An Old Place, Safe and Quiet:A Blackstone River Property Survey, Phase ll. MHC#BEV.921. On Valley Cremation Burial Site. Bergin & Garvey, file Massachusetts Historical Commission, Office Westport,CT. of the Secretary of State,Boston,MA. Leveillee,Alan,and Joseph N.Waller Meltzer,David J.,and Bruce D.Smith 1999 A Hybrid Point Type in the Narragansett Basin: 1986 PaleoIndian and Early Archaic Subsistence ' Orient Stemmed. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging, Archaeological Society 60(1):30-34. Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Luedtke,Barbara E. Woodlands, edited by Sarah W. Neusius. Center ' 1987 The Pennsylvania Connection: Jasper in forArchaeological Investigations Occasional Papers Massachusetts Archaeological Sites. Bulletin ofthe No.6,Southern Illinois University,Carbondale,IL. Massachusetts Archaeological Society 48(1). Mrozowski,Stephen A.,Leslie Shaw,Martha Holland,and Mair,II,A.Peter Janet M.Zisk .2008 Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey, 1988 Salem, Massachusetts:An Archaeological Survey MassHighway Assignment 39, Brimbal Avenue ofthe City.Report on file,Massachusetts Historical Interchange Improvements. Beverly, MA. PAL Commission, Office of the Secretary of State, Report No. 2168. Submitted to Massachusetts Boston,MA, Highway Department,Boston,MA. Mulholland,Mitchell T. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 1988 Territoriality and Horticulture: A Perspective for 1985-1986 Reconstruction q(Bridge Pestles,Beverly/ Prehistoric Southern New England. In Holocene Salem, MBTA Contract No. C9CN06. Parsons, Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, Brinkerhoff,Quade&Douglas Inc.,Boston,MA. edited by George P.Nicholas,pp. 137-164.Plenum Press,New York,NY. 1 Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC) 1985 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Report: Salem. On file,Massachusetts Historical Commission,Office of the Secretary of State,Boston,MA. PAL Report No. 2329-1 59 References Mulholland,Mitchell T.,and George Stillson Power,Alexis l 1988 Archaeological Site Examination ofSix Prehistoric 1957 Geologic Map ofthe Slocum Quadrangle,Surficial ' Sites in Middlesex County, Massachusetts:A Site Geology. United States Geological Survey,Reston, Examination for the Route 3 Add-A-Lane Project. VA. University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services Report. Submitted to Massachusetts Ritchie,Duncan ' Department of Public Works,Boston,MA. 1979 MiddleArchaic Lithic Technology from Eastern and Southeastern Massachusetts. Paper presented at the National Park Service(NPS) Conference for Northeast Archaeology, Amherst, 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary MA. ' of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register 48(190). National Park Service, 1980 Prehistoric Cultural Resources in the Suburban Department of the Interior,Washington,D.C. Fringe:A Preliminary Assessment of the Sudbury/ I' Assabet Drainage. In Widening Horizons, edited 1985 National Register Bulletin No. 24, Guidelines for by C. Hoffman. Massachusetts Archaeological Local Survey:A Basis for Preservation Planning. Society,Attleboro,MA. National Park Service,Department of the Interior, Washington,D.C. 1984 Musketaquid,8000.B.P.:Early Archaic Settlement ' and Resource Use in the Sudbury/Concord River 1997 National Register Bulletin No. 15,How to Apply Drainage. Paper presented at the 24th Annual the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological National Park Service,Department of the Interior, Association,Hartford,CT. Washington,D.C. 1994 New Neponset Valley Relief Sewer.System, Data Nicholas,George P. Recovery Program for Locus D of the Neponsetl 1987 Rethinking the Early Archaic. Archaeology of Wamsutta Site(19-NF-70). The PublicArchaeology Eastern North America 15:99-123. - Laboratory,Inc.Report No.498. Submitted to Fay, Spofford,and Thorndike,Inc.,Lexington,MA. 1988 Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North � America. Plenum Press,New York,NY. Ritchie,Duncan,and Richard A.Gould 1985 Back to the Source:A Preliminary Account of the Ogden,J.Gordon Massachusetts Hill Quarry Complex. In Stone Tool 1977 The Late Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Record Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, of the Northeastern North America. Annals of the edited by M:Pavesic,J.Woods,and M.Plew,pp. New York Academy of Sciences. 288:16-34. 35-53. University of Now Mexico Press, Albuquerque,NM. Pagoulatos,Peter 1988 Terminal Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the Ritchie,Duncan,and Paul Russo Connecticut River Valley. Man in the Northeast 1997 Site Examination of the Fonzo Site within the 35:71-94. Beverly Airport Industrial Roadway Project Area, Beverly, Massachusetts. The Public Archaeology Pasquariello, Raymond D., Anna K. Graves, Jennifer Laboratory, Inc. Report No. 867. Submitted to Macpherson,and Kirk Van Dyke Alexander,Perrino and Lauranzano,Beverly,MA,. 2002 Cultural Resource Investigations, Maritimes & and Fonzo Realty Trust,Danvers,MA. Northeast Phase IIIProject, Massachusetts, ArchaeologlcalSiteExamination,Summary Report. Robbins,Maurice ' FERC Docket No. CP01-4-000' Submitted to 1980 Wapanucket. Massachusetts Archaeological Maritimes&Northeast Pipeline,LLC,Boston,MA. Society,Attleboro,MA. Pfeiffer,John Robinson,Brian S. 1980 The Griffin Site:A Susquehanna Cremation Burial 1992 Early and MiddleArchaic Period Occupation in the in Southern Connecticut. Man in the Northeast GulfofMaineRegion;Mortuary and Technological 19:129-133. Patterning. In Early Holocene Occupation in Northern New England, edited by Brian S. Phillips,James D. Robinson,James B.Petersen,andAnn K.Robinson, 1933 Salem in the Seventeenth Century. Houghton pp. 63-116. Occasional Publications in Maine Mifflin Company,Boston,MA. Archaeology No.9,Augusta,ME. j Sanborn Map Company 1907 Sanborn Insurance Maps, Beverly, MA. Sanborn Map Co:;New York,NY. 60 PAL Report No. 2329-1 References Sassaman,Kenneth E. Vaughan,Alden T. ' 1999 A Southeastern Perspective on Soapstone Vessel 1965 New England Frontier:Puritansandlndians, 1620- Technology in the Northeast. The Archaeological 1675. Little,Brown&Co.,Boston,MA. Northeast,edited by Mary Ann Levine,Kenneth E. Sassaman, and Michael S. Nassaney, pp. 75-95. Waguespack,Nicole M.,and Todd A. Surovell 1 Bergin&Garvey,Westport,CT. 2003 Clovis Hunting Strategies,or How to Make.Out on Plentiful Resources.American Antiquity 68(2):333- Saunders,Jonathon R 352. 1832 Salem. On file,Massachusetts State Archives,No. 1930,Boston,MA. Waller,Joseph N.,and Duncan Ritchie 2003 Archaeological Site Examination, Memorial Park Simmons,William S. Locus 2 Site,New Lawrence High School Project, 1970 Cautantoww0 House:An Indian Burial Ground Lawrence, Massachusetts. PAL Report No . on the Island of Conanicut in Narragansett Bay. 1262.01. Submitted to FlansburghAssociates,Inc., Brown University Press,Providence,RI. Boston, MA, and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Watertown,MA. Smith,Jonathon R 1795 A Plan of the Town of Beverly. On file, Williams,W Massachusetts State Archives, No. 1083, Boston, 1848 Appleton sRailroadand&eamboatCompanion. D. MA. Appleton&Co.,New York,NY. Snow,Dean 1980 The Archaeology ofNew England. Academic Press, New York,NY. Spiess,Arthur,Deborah Wilson,and James Bradley 1998 PaleoIndian Occupation in the New England- Maritimes Region: Beyond Cultural Ecology. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica26:201-264. j Stone,Edwin M. j 1843 History of Beverly,Civil and Ecclesiastical,From f Its Settlement in 1630 to 1842. James Munroe and Company,Boston,MA, Stothers,David M. 1996 Resource Procurement and Band Territories: A Model forLower GreatLakes PaleoIndianand Early I Archaic Settlement Systems. Archaeology of Eastern North America 24:173-216. Talmage,Valerie j 1977 Phase I/Reconnaissance Cultural Impact Study, Kernwood Park Salem, Massachusetts. Institute i of Conservation Archaeology (WA), Harvard y University, Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA. Submitted to Robert Charles Engineering Associates,Inc.,Boston,MA. i Taylor,William B. 1976 A Bifurcate Point Concentration. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 37(3-4):36- 44. United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) 1984 Soil Survey of Essex County, Massachusetts, Southern Part. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. ' Goverment Printing Office,Washington,D.C. ' ' PAL Report No. 2329-1 61 i 1 Appendix A LIST AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTIES SURVEYED ' WITHIN THE BEVERLY DRAW BRIDGE PROJECT APE FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES PHOTOGRAPHS 1 f I i I I r i I r i `I I 1 } ' PAL Report No.2329-1 63 I' List of Historic Resources in the Beverly Draw Bridge Area of Potential Effect. mo. Address Town Property°Name StylU ype Esf Date MHC'No. Stataas' photo Note:There are no areas in Beverly within the APE. } Ol 1 1 Danvers River Beverly IBeverly Draw Bridge Two-track girder swing bridge 1885, 1985 BEV.921, NE 101 Salem with concrete trestle approaches ISAL.953 02 119 1 lWellman Street Beverly lResidence Italianate 11870 n/a NE [02 03 15 1 Wellman Street Beverly Residence Vemacular 1870 n/a 03 0411 -13 Wellman Street Beverly Residence ]Worker Housing 1870 n/a NE 04 05 120 1 Wellman Street Beverly lResidence [Vernacular 1860 n/a INE 105 1 06 16 1 Wellman Street Beverly Residence- Greek Revival 1860 n/a - NE 06 1 07 14 1 Wellman Street Beverly Residence ltalianate 1870 n/a 07 1 iO8 _ 18__I_ Wellman Street Beverly Residence jt_ alianate 1870 Na 08 _ __ . 109 :4 1 Linden Street - Beverly Residence Italianate 11860 n/a INE 109-1 1 LO 16 1 Linden Street Beverly Residence Greek Revival 1860 n/a NE 10 f 11 16 1/2 ILinden Street lBeverly lResidence IVemacular 11900 n/a INE I I k 12 8 Linden Street Beverly Residence Italianate 1870 a 12 13 18 1 Porter Street Beverly lResidence/Commercial Italianate 1890 n/a NE 13 1 Building 14 16 1 Porter Street Beverly Residence Vemacular1900 n/a 14 j 15 12 1 rter Street - Beverly Residence Bungalow _ 1920 n/a 15 16 18 .-10 IPorter Street Beverly Residence ]Vernacular 11900 n/a INE 116 1 17 7 1 Porter Street Beverly Residence Vernacular 1870 n/a NE 17 18 5 1 Porter Street Beverly Residence Greek Revival 1860 n/a NE 18 19 24 1 Cabot Street Beverly 'Residence/Commercial Italianate 1870 n/a NE 19 Building 20 20 1 Cabot Street Beverly Anchor's Way Restaurant Vemaculaz 1950 n/a NE 20 1 arb 21 11 Cabot Street Beverly or Master Office Ranch 1960 n!a 21 22 off I Cabot Street Beverly IlIeverly Harbor Sea Wall Dry-laid granite block wall 1900 n/a NE 22 I t 23 8 1 Cabot Street Beverly -Bridgeside Cycles Colonial Revival 1950 n/a - [NE 23 124 12 1 Congress Street Beverly 11ndustrial Building Warehouse 1940 n/a 24 25 11 1 Congress Street Beverly Residence Vernacular 1900 n/a 25 6 13 1 Congress Street lBeverly N.Bailey House Colonial 1780 BEV.546 JRNRE 126 Page 1 of 3 List of Historic Resources in the Beverly Draw Bridge Area of Potential Effect MaQ _ .P1R PLoto' NOAddress Town Property,Name StYIWT)rp'e Est;Date- MHCNo ;States* No: 27 15 1 lCongress Street IBeverly iResidence Greek Revival1860 Na 27 _. 28 12 1 10orter Street IBeverly IResidence Itafianate 11870 n/a NE 28 29 12 14 Cliff Street IBeverly .Residence Vernacular 1930 n/a 14E 29 30 16 1 JCIiff Street IBeverly Residence lQueen Anne 11890 n/a INE 0 1 131 9 1 Cliff Street Beverly Residence Vernacular 1940 n/a NE 31 32 12 1 Cliff Street everly Residence Bungalow 1920 n a 32 _ 1 33 13 1 Cliff Street Beverly Residence Queen Anne 1890 n/a NE33 1 34 115 1 Cliff Street IBeverly Residence Two-Decker 1900 n/a INE 134 35 118 1 ICliff Street IBeverly lResidence t Victorian Eclectic 11890 n/a INE 135 36 PO I Cliff Street IBeverly Residence Victorian Eclectic 11890 Na INE 136 I 37 123 1 ICliff Street Beverly Residence Queen Anne 1890 n/a :37 1 _ - - - f 38 '25 C1iffStreet Beverly Residence `Queen Anne 1890 n/a INE 138 t 39 26 1 ICliff Street Beverly Residence lVictorian Eclectic 1890 n/a INE 39 1 40 28 j jCliffStreet IBeverly Residence IShingle 1900 n/a 40 1 — — A 11 -10 jAmes Street ISalem jAmes Streetscape jQaeen Anne 11896 SAL.DE INE 41-42 1 B 10 -20 Bridge Street Salem Bridge Streetscape Queen Anne,Vernacular 1870- SAL.DI 43-44 1920 C 9 -17 March Street Court Salem March Street Court Streetscape.Italianate,Vernacular 1815- SAL.FR NE 45-46 1907 D 19 -33 March Street Salem March Streetscape II Italianate,Queen Anne, 1860- SAL.DP 47.48 emacular 1920 FE--T351-45 IMarch Street lWern IMarch Streetseape I lGreek Revival,Italianate 11860 JSAL.DO 49-50 FF—F8 'Bridge Street Salem Residence Bungalow .1920 J SAL.3207 NE 5.1 1 42 8 1 Hubon Street Salem Residence Iftalianate 1870 n/a 52 1 43 10 1 Hubon Street Salem IResidence Italianate 1870 n/a NE 53 1 44 14 1 Hubon Street jifubori Aluminum Foundry Vernacular 11950 ISAL.3833__IKE 154 i 145 15 1 Hubon Street Salem IResidence 11talianate 11870 n/a INE 155 46 117 1 1Hubon Street ISalem IResidnece 11talianate 11870 :nIa INE 156 47 19 Hubon Street Salem esidence ;1talianate 1870 n/a 1NE 57 Page 2 of 3 M M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M %.est of Historic Resources in the Beverly Draw Bridge Area of Potential Effect � p Address Town Property Name Style/Type Est Date MHC.No. S�14RRs Photo No.. 78-7 March Street Court Salem I Gwinn-Stephen Hagerty n/a 1851 SAL.2990 NE 58 House 49 5 1 March Street Court March Street Salem Richard Fifield-Flora Na 1851 SAL.2989 NE 59 Court McGregor House 50 140 1 IMarch Street Salem lResidence InIa INE 160 *National Register Status Key RNRE Recommended Eligible for National Register Listing NE Not Eligible for National Register Listing Page 3 of 3 i 3z �t "Y \ R � 4° 'lE '✓ IMF Photo 01,Map 01 �... ..... 1 i w t,I �9 J T5 1 i " r • n� ' Photo 02,Map 02 t 1Lv11 i - * - i me I i Photo 03,Map 03 , i - z lue 7. 4 T4 I Photo 04,Map 04 I i I I 1 if't� tC s CJ w� 7{p Photo 05,Map 05 t ✓ ---------------- lot I Photo 06,Map 06 i i i j. tt }j t Ali Photo 07,Map 07 _ s, Al k� b „t Wit' in. 2 Photo 08,Map 08 i i 1 I I I i OT dun`Oi ofo9d ' y. ,. ._ f I ll I j 60 deyq`60 NOW A 1 71 `4yct kA$4i sr. 0'• IN d�� Qu+iY,il1�"F�l"�� uslAiI T"o g('1FmZZA :n20,1 R�v ">aae>• ' , � f fs�1�X4 11 '+5��'�'` � ``""li�^•'A1 �fx� ``(8+a S� r,��:,I gv \ry i�S iT ik Aid la0ly.+ly rp�c�q�p 1�` 7 E IV gh °3 LS 4 1 o��r a �)�`, " ,y'thwJ , � „ •t,p} kf� 9® 40�% r4 ��Ki y{x %9�t.,.� ,fit>�' Myt ` h R u • � ft 6 R \ r111 11 s� Al gq ffi �.aaAw '.P(•JD/e_ \ '! MVS ,� fes"` i n'FiA -fi `�. STM' trAg MOO 7 cad t a m P 1 ; 1 i JI Photo 13,Map 13 1 1 � f .,,b a {5rH� nh f 11,M1♦ ♦♦•..♦♦,�♦ •1♦1s1�1♦�W�^� L �:. ti J<y h�Y+.•%�fy y J y •♦ ..♦,.C}.}.10♦.} .�.7,�.}11 �k Y.� j e 3!y-I.SV d�,i♦♦♦♦e ♦111/1,. rPhoto 14,Map 14 1 1 F y ir FRI 51 air r rr � 1 i Photo 15,Map 15 ' Am O z � , ' �rM1 3e" Photo 16,Map 16 i I Vn av NO I Photo 17,Map 17 1� 1 Photo 18,Map 18 M 1 I a i 1 I *04 l Photo 19,Map 19 ry t Y' 4 p, 63 ;F NO WA _ i Photo 20,Map 20 1 WAY '-lip r - f Photo 21,Map 21 1 1 i ED. ,a 1 Y Y ✓t v � w a ♦ < g �. Photo 22,Map 22 i 1 I i at k r _ r 0"41! r ° t L .'cetosEstyciu' woo m fit „ vp{ t� p Photo 23,Map 23 NN ! Rif I T 4 ' � � a j IF $z",nom Photo 24,Map 24 V ' i 1 r � 1 k a 4,44 Y 4 {{ (f�1111 �4..i1N11t 111IIL.-f� �� ' w� �!�i 11ttGi _ 9' 1 { I! Photo 25,Map 25 jnm i. JA [a Q ¢ ry ' Photo 26,Map 26 r r S s Rl I!�,r r 1 Photo 27,Map 27 e rn y zji Photo 28,Map 28 1 r 1 1 Y � ; i € 1�4 IF Photo 29,Map 29 ski 13 `l, o iPhoto 30,Map 30 P 1 i 1 s :µ.ms lung '' • . Ih ` _ �1Tu W✓ •fyv"•_' 4Jy Ryx XA Yjl % � �. Y ^tu Photo 31,Map 31 ®fes • r Photo 32,Map 32 ' , l LLL ,t Poly 1 i Li 1 Ina yji 3 Photo 35,Map 35 i , i qr Photo 36,Map 36 1 - E 1 � 1 � 4 , S t 1 i Photo 37,Map 37 i 't 1 Photo 38,Map 38 1 1 _ i i 1 e F (YJ z • tl( ^0 �� Photo 39,Map 39 ,r�III 1 x Photo 40,Map 40 i 1 t ! y 99T k Photo 41,Map A i I z I ' Photo 42,Map A i 1 1 Rti 7 .� i, -^:Bb •?iii � ��.` - �__..� �p1iNk[f j. 7. 1 Photo 43,Map B* 5 N Ge- .-*--„4. cmi T• r may- . Photo 44,Map B* 1 1 i I 1 i a y,� I VA ' y.sA± f yy� f.. � s,.;syyy��♦� '°e. YI �•rRr[L.yF.:.. Photo 45,Map C* �. i I 1 � _ �r Photo 46,Map C 3 1 I 1 14 1 OPnyr- I v7 ay�� 'P '•^fir' / 116.0 '� � A�Sr t sem'""•;i ? v 1 i a-1• � d ani �.St -� • h Y Photo 47,Map D* .{meq V\ i .{� e.�p• R �... - �'� S {F ` L •'�49. a NAN Photo 48,Map D 1 1 1 r I T+.0 1 T 40, Photo 49,Map E* 44 -1 -013 t z ' Photo 50,Map E i i. 1 I i K, IN Photo 51,Map 41 �+ i Ail �a _ m Photo 52,Map 42 { M 1 tl ,�G Photo 53,Map 43 r? y � l � � I 1 Photo 54,Map 44 i i i 1 M 1 1 t r s —Wit, i t Photo 55,Map 45 {1 1 1 J Photo 56,Map 46 1 t i It � " Ar nik III , yg� , i Photo 57,Map 47 lz In # 1 +Yjy Y 1 w Pr «1 SF Photo 58,Map 48" r �{ i i 1 6 1 I 1 i . r r T Tf[1�{1t' �p -bb-tt b N 1 � �1 ` t Photo 59,Map 49 I k { 1 Y Y �• u Photo 60,Map 50 r Key * Image retrieved from http:/Avww.bing.com r 1 ' Appendix B BEVERLY DRAW BRIDGE,MHC INVENTORY OF THE HISTORIC ASSETS OF THE COMMONWEALTH FORM NO. BEV.921 AND SAL.953 AND PAL UPDATED MHC INVENTORY CONTINUATION SHEETS D h G i i i I i PAL Report No.2329-1 99 i McGinley Hart & Assoc iatesCr.-e— Architects & Planners Historic Structure Inventory ]Folds A.G.Lichtenstein&Associates MBTA Historical Property Survey, Phase 11 ' DMC Engineering Jane Carolan MBTA ContractNo, X2PS26 ' LOCATION Railroad route Ipswich Milepost 8 17.66 Val plan 8 V3M/SL 16 Location Danvers River Town/City Bovatly/Salem ' USGS quad SALEM UTM Ref. 19.344910.4711.140 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ' Structure type Rim-bowing swing span Bridge typology 'code 12Q 2 3 0 4 35 Overall length 905.0 Width 19.2 Spans 1 Span lengths 102-0 B.D./O.q. OD Tracks 2 Skew 0 Materials Iron Condition In Service . Height 6-0 HISTORICAL SUMMARY Date 1888 Date(a),rebuilt 1985 Builder PassaicRo9ing MiILCompany Common Name (if any) BeveryDraw Designer Unknown CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATIONS ' National Register statue Local landmark designation HAER Doc.'A Type and date of HAER docurnentatlon MDPW S MHC finding Date of finding National Register recommendation. Not Eligible. Ahhough'constnx tted in 1885 and ranking as one of the oldest rim-bearing swing span railroad bridges. ' In the reglon, Beverly Draw has been ext6nsivey reworked Newburypon Draw,also a rim-bearing swing span constructed in 1886, is a better and more complete example of the bridge type. I ' GRAPHICS 1'p • 1 O. ;1•.;..r�. ' �S :�.,.�n"4''�6 .'$sins - Ft�ot2. .� X BM ' C i Y 1 O ai�aNi — . :PI y _ ` E VERZ' , Tt I I ' I McGinley Hart & Associates Historic toric StlC`ucture Inventory my 1Fo>rm Architects & Planners A.G.Lichtenstein&Associates MBTA historical Property Survey, Phase 11 DMC Engineering MBTA Contract No.X2PS26 , Jane Carolan . Historic railroad name Eastern Railroad ' HISTORY & DESCRIPTION The dm•bearing, central pivot swing span bridge at Beverly harbor was built in 1885, and It, along with a similar ' span at Newburyport, rank among the earliest documented.examples of a center pivot.bridge`with a deck span In the stale. Beverly Draw, a 102' movable span Is a riveted, bul8rup, iron girder, was manufactured by the Passaic Rolling Mill Company (New Jersey) in 1884. By 1915 the bridge was operated by an electric motor with the capacity for emergency hand operation preserved.. Although the girder Itself is original to 1885, the bridge and operating ' mechanism has been extensively reworked. The span has been repaired several times. Approximately 16' at each end of the four, 5'-deep girders that carry two sets of track were severely buckled as the result of a fire 16 November 1984. The fire also destroyed the wood trestle:approach spans. The damaged, ends of the girders, including the lateral and sway bracing and first diaphragm, were rebuilt using high-strength bolts rather than rivets. The pivot pier was rebuilt In 1964, and.the original drum and rollers.were replaced in 1972. The new drum is shorter than the original which was actually In a pit that was below mean high water. The drum girder is 15'-84 In diameter and 2'-6' deep. The span turns 90 degrees in one direction only on a rack and pinion drive mechanism and clears a 40'-wide ' channel on each skis of the 20'-wide central pivot pier. The approach spans (524'-long on the.west and 279' on the east) were reconstructed in 1985 in precast concrete. They now have ballasted, fireproof decks. The 1886 Newburyport bridge has a 189-fong, pin-connected, Pratt deck truss that was strenghtened by the addition ' of a double system of Warren trusses connected to the original.Pratt truss by struts In 1922. It survives in a more complete state of preservation than the bridge at Beverly. The central pivot span represents first-generation .technology. It is a type well represented in the Boston area with all examples being through-truss vehicular bridges ) except for Beverly and Newburyport. I- Sources ' Boston&Maine Railroad,Valuation Survey Reports for Interstate Commerce Commission. V3M Valuation Plan Field - Notes Account 6. 1916. Boston and Maine Railroad Historical Society Archives. University of Lowell. Boston &Maine Railroad. Drawings; 1884,1892,1914,1940, 1985. MBTA Aperture Cards. , Boston and Main Railroad.Bridge File in Engine House.North Billerica, MA. MacDonald,Donald:Personal communication with Mary McCahon.17 November 1988. i Sur v or tdery ,INc eMQ 6 � R �ilewadx,AGLI' Survey photogrsPhs Su date 00100ert 1988, h� " Re Iew date. 12/A/Y 28:6-13;.',2878 32,34 Q4 ✓�li�r5 �k all% 'vpro ' r v $ "ter+"y) t� hl9> 1: N(itorlo American Englneerin✓I neootd: 11SG}q]��y� f ;S�yGgpotogk l urvsw�yadran8ls hep B D,/O.D Ballasted decWcipen deck y x.51 t nxq. „9, ti8'WJ'�4iIHry ' p-grld.reterentie ifc the Universal Transverse Mercator grid system. : A s rev. fal5ie> INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION BEVERLY/SALEM MBTA NEWBURYPORT/ ' MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING ROCKPORT LINE,MP 17.66 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD Aroa(s) Form No. BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 BEV.921/SAL.953 This Inventory Continuation Sheet updates the 1988 inventory form for the MBTA's Beverly Draw Bridge on the Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line. Descriptive information is based on a field survey of the bridge in May, 2009 conducted by Jahn Daly of PAL in Pawtucket,Rhode Island. ENGINEERING/DESIGN ASSESSMENT ' The Beverly Draw Bridge (Bridge No. B-11-015, Milepost [MP] 17.66, MHC no. BEV.921/SAL.953) is a two-trek girder swing bridge with concrete trestle approaches. The bridge carries the MBTA's Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line (a/k/a the East Line, formerly the Eastern Railroad) across the Danvers River (formerly known as the Essex Branch) in Beverly and Salem, Massachusetts. Trains approach the bridge from the south via a 600 foot-long riprap causeway that extends across the tidal flats and navigation channel of the Danvers River(MBTA 1985). The draw span is a deck girder rim-bearing swing bridge with an open timber deck. The two navigation channels cleared by the draw span are each 40 It wide. The bridge superstructure is assembled from four built-up,riveted and bolted plate girders 102 feet(ft)long, 5 ft tall, and spaced 6 ft on center. The girders are connected with diagonal and vertical cross- bracing. The southern 34 ft of each girder has been retrofitted with a welded steel plate girder replacement assembly ' dating to a 1985 rehabilitation of the bridge. The swing span rests on a built-up,riveted drum girder with a 15 ft diameter, which in tum rests on a nest of tapered iron rollers. The bridge is rotated by an electric motor and drive train located I within the drum girder that operates a ring and pinion mounted on the pier below the drum. Rail alignment between the swing span and the approaches is achieved through the use of Conley Joints,movable rail segments that rotate in a vertical plane to allow clearance during bridge movements. The bridge is locked closed with motor driven span locks below the tracks at both ends of the span. Both the Conley and span lock mechanisms are from 1985(HNTB Corporation 2006). I The draw span pivot pier is concrete below the drum and armored with a steel encasement. Wood fender piers with concrete decks extend east and west of the pivot pier. A flat-roofed plywood generator shack is located on the west fender pier. The bridge's approach spans are concrete ballast deck trestles — the Salem Approach Trestle (south approach) and the Beverly Approach Trestle (north approach) —built in 1985. The Salem Approach Trestle is a 523 ft-long substructure . I with 16 pre-cast concrete bents supported on pre-cast concrete piles. The Beverly Approach Trestle is 278 R long with 9 bents on identical piles(MBTA 1985). The bents support deck structure of precast concrete box girders. Narrow concrete walkways and welded galvanized steel railways line the approach decks. Lighting consists of bronzed aluminum light fixtures. Trestle abutments are concrete on the Salem Approach and mortared split-faced nibble stone on the Beverly Approach. The trestles are flanked to the east by concrete piers supporting electrical transmission towers. I The draw span control house is located at the southwest corner of the Beverly Approach. This two-story structure has a ' flat rubber membrane roof and concrete block walls with aluminum sash windows. The control tower rests on a concrete j slab supported by concrete piers. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE The Beverly Draw Bridge is an 1885 swing span with 1985 approach spans and alterations. The Eastern Railroad first { spanned the Danvers River in 1839.when it extended its right-of-way from Salem to Beverly in that year. Altemately known as the Essex Bridge(the former name For the Danvers River)and the Eastern Railroad Bridge,it is not known what if, any draw span was provided for marine navigation in this original wood structure. The bridge was replaced in the 1860s with a new wood draw span(Bradlee 1922:73). (continued) ' HISTORICAL NARRATIVE (cont.) I I INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address t MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION BEVERLY/SALEM MBTA NEWBURYPORT/ MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING ROCKPORT LINE,MP 17.66 ' 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD Areas) Form No. BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 BEV.921/SAL.953 In 1884, the Eastern Railroad, which was then under lease to the B&M, erected the current Beverly Draw. The swing span was fabricated by the Passaic.Rolling Mill Company of Passaic, New Jersey. Originally the bridge operated on a taller drum mounted in a machinery pit that extended below the mean high water line. The bridge,which was originally manually operated by hand, was given an electric operating system by 1915 (Eastern Railroad 1884; McGinley Hart & Associates 1988). In 1921, the B&M undertook the first of two bridge rehabilitations. The railroad replaced the timber trestle approaches ' with new wood approaches and replaced the ends of all four girders in the swing span with new web plates and flanges (Boston& Maine Railroad 1923). Other work completed by the,B&M on the bridge included the reconstruction of the 1 swing span pivot pier in 19634 and the replacement of the drum and rollers with a new, shorter drum in 1972 (Boston& Main Railroad 1964;McGinley Hart&Associates 1988). The second rehabilitation of the bridge occurred in 1985. A year previously,a fire destroyed the wood trestle approaches and buckled the girders of the movable span. The damaged ends of the girders were replaced with new welded steel segments bolted to the surviving portions of the original girders. Portions of the bridge's mechanical operating system were replaced at this time, including the motor, drive train, ring gear, bridge locks, and Conley Joints. New concrete approach trestles and abutments were constructed. The control house also appears to date from this period of construction ' (HNTB Corporation 2002; MBTA 1985; (McGinley Hart&Associates 1988). Architectural Preservation Associates surveyed the Beverly Draw Bridge in 1988. The bridge was not recommended as eligible for the National Register at that time. PAL concurs with this recommendation. The bridge is one of the earliest ' examples of rim-bearing swing span structures in the state and is an example of first-generation steel movable railroad bridge technology in the United States. However, successive rehabilitations of the structure have severely impacted the bridge's integrity of design and workmanship and rendered the structure unable to convey this significance(Architectural Preservation Associates 1984;McVarish 2008:28). i REFERENCES ' Adams,Virginia H.,Suzanne Cherau,Jennifer Banister,John J. Daly,Jenny R.Fields,and Quinn Stuart. MBTA Green Line Extension Project,Historic and Archaeological Resources Reconnaissance Survey, Volume I, Cambridge, Medford, and Somerville Massachusetts. PAL Report No. 2156. Submitted to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc.,Watertown,MA,and Executive Office of Transportation,Boston,MA,2008. Boston & Maine Railroad. Boston and Maine Railroad, Bridge No. 32, Beverly Bridge. Boston: Office of the Chief Engineer,Boston and Maine Railroad,1923. i Boston&Maine Railroad. Pier Repairs:Boston and Maine Railroad,Bridge No. 17.66(32),Beverly,Mass. Boston: Office of the Chief Engineer,Boston and Maine Railroad, 1964. Bradlee,Francis B.C. The Eastern Railroad.A Historical Account of Early Railroading in Eastern New England. Salem: The Essex Institute, 1922. Eastern Railroad. Proposed Location ofDrawfor Beverly Bridge, Eastern Railroad, 1884. (continued) 1 HNTB. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Bridge Inspection: East Line over Danvers River, Beverly Draw, ' Beverly. Bridge No.B-11-015. Boston,HNTB Corporation,2002.(continued) REFERENCES(cont.) HNTB. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Bridge Inspection and Recommendation Report:East Line over , ! I ! INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Town Property Address MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION BEVERLY/SALEM MBTA NEWBURYPORT/ ! MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING ROCKPORT LINE,MP 17.66 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD Area(s) Form No. ! BOSTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02125 BEV.921/SAL.953 Danvers River,Beverly Draw,Beverly. Bridge No.B-11-015. Boston:HNTB Corporation,2006. Karr Ronald Dale. The Rail Lines of Southern New England. Pepperell: Branch Line Press, 1995. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Reconstruction of Bridge Trestles, Beverly/Salem, MBTA Contract No. 1 C9CN06. Boston: Parsons,Brinkerhoff,Quade&Douglas Inc., 1985-1986. McGinley Hart&Associates. Beverly Draw Bridge,Beverly and Salem,MA,Historic Structure Inventory Form,MBTA Historical Property Survey,Phase H. MHC#BEV.921. 1988. On file Massachusetts Historical Commission,Office of 1 the Secretary of State,Boston,MA. ! i 1 i ! 1 ! i i ! 1 i r 1 INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION 5HEO'r Community: Properly Address: , Heverly/sOCIII M11` A Ncwburyporl/Rockpori Massachusetts Historical Commission Linc, Milepost IT66 Massachusetts Archives Facility Area(s) Farm No. 220 Morrissey Boulevard BU.92 USAJ-953 Boston,Massachusetts 02 t2$ PHOTOGRAPH& Photograph 1: i Boyerly Draw swing span, looking , 4 east. it t t t Photograph 2: 13uverly Draw, Beverly Approach tressle built in 1985, looking " `"� nnrtlieagl. 1 � i I 7 t t 1 INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHUT Community: Property Address: Deverly/Salem MBTANewhwypoitlt8ockporl I Massachusetts Historical Commission Line,Milepost 17.6G Massachusetts Archivcs Facility Area(s) Form No. 220 Morrissey'Boulevard BEV.921/SAL 953 Boston,Massachusetts 02125 PHOTOGRAPHS, coal. Photograph 3c Beverly Draw, Salem Approach trestle built in 1985, looking southeast. 1 M moi'"�`�i��-{ r • ...r e , � .: � ",K f Photograph dt Deck of Beverly Draw srghlg span. { looking north, } ]y J 0 x per+ Ab ^« 1 1 INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SHEET Community: Property Address: 13eve•rlyNSalcm MI)TAi�L.wburyiorflltiwl;piarl Massachusetts Historical Commission Line, Dl ilel,osr 17.66 Massachusetts Archives FacilityAreas) Form No 220 Morrissey Boulevard BCV.921/SAL.953 Boston,Mossnchusetls 02125 PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 5: North and of Beverly Draw swing ' span showing nriginnl riveted plate i �,• ,�� Y ` , girticrconsti•uclfnn. E � 4 � 3 � y i&t �• h btu J - fi Photograph 6: Soinh end o1' 13evi;fly Draw swing span showing 1985 Nvelded girder ` - replticemcnl. s f ' INVENTORY FORM CONTINUATION SIIEFT Community: Property Adr1rew Beve ly,_plem MBTANmIxorypon/Roekport t Massachusetts historical Commission Line,Milcl,osl 17,66 Massachusetts Archives Facility Area(s) Totroo No 220 Morrissey Boulevard 13 iz V.921/SA L•.953 Boston,Massachusetts 02125 ' PHOTOGRAPHS, cont. 9 t '�` `S�i7ct_ �`'i' t.. +•' 'n,� Photograph 7: _ . Beverly Draw swing,span drum wid � � 4h1A`qAC) pier. + P'X: .A � O i ks a W ,'smmmu�Euuut tlnl 1 1 { I yIy 1 } Appendix C SUMMARYREPORT,MARINEARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ' ASSESSMENT,MBIA BEVERLYDRAWBRIDGE REPAIR PROTECT, BEVERLYAND SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS. SUBMITTED TO PAL, PAWTUCKET,RI.PREPARED FOR HNTB, INC.AND THE ' MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,BOSTON,MA. PREPARED BY FATHOM RESEARCH,LLC 2009 t 1 a t i i ' 1 i i i k ,i ' PAL Report No.2329-1 111 1 I 1 Summary Report Marine Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment ' MBTA Beverly Drawbridge Repair Project Beverly and Salem,Massachusetts ' April 2009 f , ' Preparedfor:. The Public Archaeology Laboratory,Inc. ' 210 Lonsdale Avenue Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860 ' Prepared by: Fathom Research LLC. Quest Center,Suite 315 !' FATHOM RESEARCH, LLC. 1213 Purchase Street i New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 I� 1 ' INTRODUCTION This Summary Report presents the results of a marine archaeological sensitivity ' assessment performed by Fathom Research, LLC ("Fathom") for The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. ("PAL") concerning the proposed Metropolitan Bay Transit Authority's ("NOTA") Beverly Drawbridge Repair Project ("the Project") in Beverly and Salem,Massachusetts(Figure 1). The MBTA's proposed repair/rehabilitation project of the Beverly Drawbridge calls for ' repairs to the approaches, substructure, superstructure, and moveable span. It is assumed that: 1) the work will be conducted within the MBTA Right-of-Way ("ROW"); and 2) that ROW impacts due to the anticipated rehabilitation work on the existing structure will be minimal, and that land acquisitions will not be required. One temporary construction easement to be used for construction staging and contractor lay-down area is anticipated, but the location has not yet been identified. Replacement of the existing submarine ' electrical cables will entail trenching and disturbance of the river bottom. The work will be performed from a barge that will be anchored at various locations along the trench. The trenching will extend approximately 50 feet (ft) (15 meters [m]) in distance. The exact depth and width of the trench will be determined as project design and permitting proceeds. Proposed improvements to the south abutment will include riprap installation, pile repairs and replacement of fender boards. The approximate boundaries of the submerged portion of the Project study area are the Bass River in the northwest, Tuck's ' Point in the northeast,the entrance of Collins Cove, Salem in the southeast and the mouth of the North River in Salem in the southwest(Figure 2). ; i ' SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY f Archival Research Archival research consisted of a review of ' o Massachusetts Historical Commission .("MHC") and Massachusetts Board of ' Underwater Archaeological Resources' ("MBUAR")archaeological site files; ' G Cultural resource management reports and site files at the MHC and the MBUAR; o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ("NOAA") Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System Database("AWOIS"); G Northern Maritime Research's Northern Shipwreck Database (Version 2002); i to Environmental studies providing information on the geomorphological history of the Beverly Harbor region; o Historic maps; 1 { o Primary and secondary sources held at local libraries; and ' e Secondary published sources in Fathom's research library. The review was conducted to determine presence/absence of any National Register-listed , or eligible archaeological deposits located within the marine and intertidal portions of Project study area and to ascertain the history of land use within them. ' Field Investigation Visual inspection of the intertidal portion of the Project study area was performed at a ' period of low tide on March 18, 2009 by Fathom Principal& Director of Marine Archaeological Services, David Robinson and Fathom Senior Marine Archaeologist, ; David Trubey. They were accompanied in the field by Victor Mastone; Director of the MBUAR. The goals of the walkover survey were limited to identifying and preliminarily assessing archaeological deposits in the shallow marine and intertidal portions of Project study area only. Assessment of archaeological deposits in the submerged and terrestrial portions of the Project study area, as well as built resources on shore,was not an element of the field investigation. Combined with the archival research effort,the field inspection served to finalize the sensitivity assessment of the investigated.portion of the Project , study area. BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS , C Environmental Context The Project study area lies within the Seaboard Lowland physiographic zone located east of the confluence of the Bass, Danvers and North Rivers. Mean low water depths in the , Project study area range from approximately 0 to 25 ft(0 to 7.6 m). The area experiences a diurnal tidal range of approximately nine ft (2.7 m). The Wenham Lake/Bass River corridor, which empties into Beverly Harbor a short distance to the west of the Project study area, provides the primary drainage for the city of Beverly. Additional surface , drainage is provided by the Tan Yard.Brook and Job's Pond Brook, both of which flow into the Bass River, as well as the Cedar Stand, Swallow's, Sawmill and Thissel Brooks. I The area's varied topography, fresh and salt water resources, and abundant floral and , faunal species together comprise a wide range of onshore ecozones in the Beverly Harbor vicinity and would have extended offshore through the Project study area when it was subaerially exposed prior to the last marine transgression of the Holocene epoch. ' Bedrock formations in and around the Beverly Harbor area are characterized by igneous rocks of granitic and syenitic composition. Quincy granite comprises the majority of the bedrock deposits in the region; however, Beverly Syenite granite is also present in the area (Zen et al. 1983). Limited occurrences of Salem gabbro-diorite can also be found, particularly along the Beverly-Danvers border west of the Project study area (MHC ' 1986). I 2 ' The surficial geology of the Project study area is related to the Quaternary Period (circa ["ca.'] 2 million B.P. to present) in the geological history of Massachusetts. The period ' is characterized by a complex interplay of multiple episodes of glaciation, isostatic crustal movement, and eustatic changes in sea level. At about 2.3 million years ago, the climate of the Northern Hemisphere cooled enough to cause mountain valley glaciers to grow and combine with continental glaciers that were also forming. During the Pleistocene Epoch (ca. 2 million to 10,000 B.P.) of the early Quaternary Period, tremendous ice caps grew and coalesced with extensive ice fields in the mountain ranges, eventually melting away as the climatic conditions fluctuated between cold and warm (Waters 1992). The most recent of these periodic glacial episodes, the Wisconsin, began ca. 30,000 B.P., when large continental ice sheets developed in northern Europe and North America (i.e., the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in the northwest and the Laurentide Ice Sheet in the northeast) (Roberts 1996; Waters 1992). The Laurentide Ice Sheet spread outward from a point in eastern/central Canada and passed over the Beverly and North Shore area ca. 21,000 B.P. before reaching its terminal position on Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket ca. 18,000 B.P. (Brown 1997; Kriebel et al. 1992; Oldale 1988) (Figure 3). i Tons of"clastic" or fragmented stone debris embedded and transported in the Lauremide glacial ice sheet eroded and polished the underlying bedrock of the Beverly and North Shore area over which it passed, scouring valleys and flat plains before being eventually deposited as glacial "drift along the base, sides, and terminus of the glacier (Waters i 1992). This drift was composed of"till,"or "unstratified" drift, defined by geologists as sediment deposited directly by ice transport, as well as "stratified" drift, which is composed of deposits created by running water in contact with ice (Waters 1992). More specifically, till is comprised of the poorly sorted, unstratified deposits .of boulders, i cobbles, pebbles, sand, silt, and clay that were deposited directly from the ice; while stratified drift consists of morphologically differentiated, well-sorted, glacial deposits of sand and gravel that form geological features termed "eskers" and "kames" (or ' "drumlins") (Oldale et al. 1994). During the Pleistocene epoch, drift dating from two different ages was deposited into I ' Salem Sound east of the Project study area. An older "pre-Wisconsinan drift" sequence, known locally as "drumlin till," unconformably overlies most of the scoured and eroded bedrock in the area. This drumlin till sequence consists of deeply weathered stone and ' occasional boulders that form compact layers of surface-oxidized till with locally stratified deposits of gravel, sand, and silt. Overlying the older drumlin till pre- Wisconsinan drift sequence is a more recently deposited "post-Wisconsinan drift" sequenec composed primarily of till, sub-aqueous outwash, ice-contact sand, and gravel that varies greatly in degree of sorting and stratification. Soils in the vicinity of the Project study area represent a mixture of formations. The most ' common are those of the Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop association generally found south of the Centerville section of the city and in North Beverly. These soils are typically found in gently sloping to steep areas and are generally described as well drained and loamy. Soils of the Merrimac-Hinckley-Urban land association are also common in the vicinity of the Project study area, particularly in nearly level to steep terrains. They are 3 1 described as excessively drained loamy and sandy soils formed in outwash deposits or ' areas were soils have been disturbed by development. Soils belonging to the Paxton- Montauk-Urban land and Urban-Land Udorthents associations are also present, f particularly west of Route IA through Beverly Center. Canton-Woodbridge-Freetown t and Boxford-Scitico-Maybid association soils are also represented in the vicinity of the Project study area, but in lesser amounts. While the former association is generally found in glacial till and organic deposits,the later is exclusive to lacustrine or marine sediments (MHC 1986). Previous investigations indicate that a considerable portion of the Beverly Harbor waterfront consists of"made land" in the form of filled-in wharves(King 1992). During the Wisconsinan glaciation, water that evaporated from the ocean basins created t and nourished the massive ice sheets covering much of North America and Europe. The lowered temperatures resulted in reduced runoff to the ocean basins from melting snow ' and ice. Consequently, sea levels fell worldwide and extensive portions of the North American continental shelf (i.e., the low, sloping platform extending seaward from the present coastline) were exposed. The peak of the Wisconsinan glacial episode (ca. 18,000 B.P.) corresponds with a period of `low stand" in sea level along the Beverly coast that is interpreted to have been about 300 ft (91.4 m) below present sea level (Oldale 1985a, 1985b). j Following its apex ca. 18,000 B.P., the Wisconsinan glaciation began receding due to a ' climatic shift toward a cycle of global warming. As the ice front retreated northward, ice and morainal dams trapped glacial melt waters, large pro-glacial lakes formed throughout ' eastern Massachusetts. Principal among them were Glacial Lakes Taunton, Neponset, Bouve, Charles, Assabet, Concord, Nashua, and Shawsheen-Merrimack (Skehan 2001; Uchupi et al. 2001). As the moraine and ice dams collapsed or melted and the glacial lakes drained, marshes and wetlands formed in sediments trapped in swales and other poorly drained areas. These early wetland areas are thought to have supported a relatively diverse and stable array of natural resources that would have been attractive to ' the area's PaleoIndian Period(circa 12,500 to 10,000 B.P.)human inhabitants. i Meltwater from the shrinking ice sheets was funneled into rivers and returned to the world's ocean basins produced a rapid rise in global sea level. As the Laurentide Ice Sheet retreated northward across the Beverly area ca. 16,000 B.P., ice and sea were in { contact (i.e., the ice's retreat and marine submergence occurred simultaneously) as the area was inundated. Local relative sea level rose to a point of about 60 ft(18.2 m) above , present sea level ca. 14,000 B.P. (Kriebel et al. 1992). As the ice continued melting, large amounts of glacially pulverized rock fragments known as "rock-flour," were discharged into the sea. This glacial run-off produced deposits of a glacial-marine sedimentary unit composed primarily of stiff, bluish-gray to olive-gray silty clay known as "Boston Blue Clay" (PAL 2005). In many areas, the blue clay is oxidized near its upper surface { because of its subaerial exposure after the subsequent marine regression of the late ' Pleistocene and early Holocene epochs (PAL 2005). With the ice sheet removed, rapid isostatic rebound of the Earth's crust occurred in the area between about 14,000 and 12,000 B.P.; causing an equally rapid concomitant regression of local relative sea level (Oldale et al. 1993). As this rebound progressed, the 4 fI' I formerly inundated coastal areas and sea floor of Massachusetts Bay was exposed e horizontally at a rate of nearly 40 ft (12.2 m) per year before sea level reached a low- I stand of approximately 150 ft (46 m) below present sea level at around 1.2,000 B.P. ' (Oldale 1985a; Oldale 1985b; Oldale et al. 1993). During the regression sequence and low-stand period, heterogeneous, texturally diverse, fluvial and estuarine sediments (i.e., mud, sand, gravel, and peat) were deposited in and around small channels that cut into the subaerially exposed upper drift and glacio-marine sediments(Knebcl et al. 1992; Oldale et al. 1994). ' Within about 1,000 years of reaching its postglacial low stand, isostatic rebound of the land appears to have slowed relative to the rate of eustatic sea level rise, which peaked at around this time, causing the resubmergence of much of the Beverly Harbor area in the early Holocene Epoch (ca. 9000 to 8000 B.P.) (Knebel et al. 1992). initially, the late Wisconsinan and early Holocene local sea level rise in the area was rapid (an average of ' about 30 ft(9.1 m) per 1,000 years between ca. 12,000 and 4000 B.P.) before slowing to f its present rate of less than 3 ft (.91 m)per 1,000 years (Oldale et al. 1993). As the Beverly Harbor area was re-submerged during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene ' epochs,sediments were variably preserved or eroded and redistributed. t Cultural Context Understanding the regional long-term land use and settlement patterns of a project area is critical to predicting and assessing its archaeological record. The following discussion provides a brief overview of the cultural history of the Project study area and its vicinity ' from pre- through post-contact periods and provides a description of what types of archaeological deposits one could expect to encounter within it. ' Pre-Contact Period Culture History j Nearly 12,000 years of human settlement has been studied and documented in Southern New England, including coastal Massachusetts and the lands in and around Beverly Harbor. Although debate continues on how and to what extent broad patterns of settlement relate to each other, archaeologists and anthropologists have reached a ' consensus regarding the organization of settlement in Southern New England and divide it into three major cultural periods: the PaleoIndian Period (12,500-10,000 B.P.); the 4 Archaic Period (10,000-3000 B.P.); and the Woodland Period (3000-450 B.P.). These ' three periods are further divided based on the similarities in cultural adaptations and artifacts forms for particular regions. While this organizational scheme for settlement patterning is generally accepted, it was ' developed exclusively from terrestrial archaeological data and is, therefore, biased in favor of durable materials consisting primarily of stone artifacts recovered from inland sites that have resisted naturally- and culturally-derived degradation and disturbance. As ' a result, the available archaeological data comprise a material record that likely represents only a partial view of pre-contact Native American culture;particularly that of i 5 j f 1 r the earlier PaleoIndian and Archaic periods, whose populations could have utilized and , inhabited areas that are now submerged below present sea level. The systematic detection,documentation and analysis of submerged pre-contact period cultural resources offer a potential opportunity for researchers to acquire data sets that are not presently r available to archaeologists, anthropologists and historians working on land in the Northeast. Such data would be tremendously beneficial in refining or revising current perceptions regarding pre-contact settlement patterns. Recent research demonstrates that certain types of environmental settings and landscapes, particularly those that were abundant and diverse in resources on either a seasonally or r consistent basis, are strongly associated with the presence of pre-contact period archaeological deposits. Such landscapes include the interfaces of both salt and fresh water and land, especially riparian systems composed of rivers, streams, estuaries and bays,which support some of the most productive ecosystems in the world. It is just within the last decade that methodologies have been developed in southern New ; England for both the prediction and detection of intact submerged buried paleosols in which could be present contextually intact inundated pre-contact period archaeological sites (Robinson et al. 2003). Site preservation underwater is generally dependent on site burial in topographically protected terrestrial environments prior to their transgression by r rising ocean waters. Recognizing its aforementioned bias, the settlement pattern information that follows is r provided to establish a general context, or framework from which predictions regarding archaeological sensitivity can be made and within which archaeological data can be interpreted. Archaeological site file information, which is currently limited to just , terrestrial sites, is presented for the area immediately adjacent to the submerged portion of the Project study area and includes the waterfront of Beverly Harbor from approximately Tuck's Point west to the Bass River and the area comprising North Salem ' bordered by Collins Cove to the east and the North River to the west. PaleoIndian Period (12,500 to 10,000 B.P.) r The PaleoIndian Period represents the earliest period of archaeologically documented human occupation of southern New England. The Essex County area has been home to human populations for at least 10,000 years, beginning with the retreat of the ' Wisconsinan glaciation and the moderation.of climatic conditions (Robinson 2006). The environment during that period was capable of supporting small PaleoIndian bands; however, those groups lived in an environmental context far different, and harsher, than r that of today. The forest canopy was consisted primarily of birch, spruce, and alder, and as a consequence of the glacial scouring of the landscape, soils were thin and poorly developed. The marginal soil profile resulted in a marginal vegetative profile, a , condition which, it has been argued, forced a near exclusive subsistence reliance on megafauna populations such as mastodon and caribou (Ritchie 1980; Snow 1980). More recent studies concerning paleoenvironmental reconstructions however, suggest that , ecologically diverse wetlands and swamps may have been more extensive than 6 r i t previously believed, allowing for a more generalized subsistence strategy (Dent 1991; Dincauze and Curran 1983). ' Settlement strategies during the PaleoIndian Period in the Northeast are generally poorly understood. PaleoIndians are inferred to have been a highly mobile people who,travelled great distances to exploit floral and faunal resources. Due to the range of variability at ' identified sites, large base camps, small residential camps, and very small task-specific loci have been advanced as the primary settlement models. The Bull Brook I Site, located in Ipswich, Massachusetts, is a good example of a large PaleoIndian Period base camp site type. It covered several acres and yielded thousands of artifacts (Byers 1954). Dincauze(1993) has suggested that many of the large base camps, like Bull Brook I, may have served as colonization centers or "marshalling camps" for the initial influx of. PaleoIndian populations into the region, while the smaller camps represent exploratory forays from those more established settlements(Robinson 2006). ' PaleoIndian Period peoples are believed to have possessed a high level of lithic or stone tool making technology. Representative artifacts of this period include fluted Clovis projectile points, Eden points, drills, gravers and scraping tools. Cultural material . collected from PaleoIndian sites in the region suggests a marked preference for New York and Pennsylvania cherts in the manufacturing of tools. Due to their apparently high j mobility, small population density, and antiquity, as well as the significant changes that have occurred to the Southern New England landscape since the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene, preservation of terrestrial PaleoIndian deposits is very rare in New England. Although the Paleolndian Period is better documented in Essex County than in any other area of the region, the low number of excavated PaleoIndian sites in the area makes it f difficult to predict where these sites may be found. In general, they are often on high ground adjacent to major rivers or marine estuaries. Four projectile points diagnostic of the period and reportedly recovered in Essex County are part of the Peabody Essex ' Museum collection in Salem (Johnson and Mahlstedt 1982). Research for this study i found no documented PaleoIndian Period sites inundated by sea level rise in the intertidal or submerged portions of the Project study area; however, this absence is likely to be ' more reflective of the lack of research that has been done to date on submerged pre- contact sites than it is the likelihood for such sites to be present(Robinson 2006). Early Archaic Period (10,000 to 7500 B.P.) The Early Archaic Period in New England was a time of dramatic environmental change. These changes included a general trend of rising sea level that ultimately flooded the ' region's coastal plains, an increase in temperature, and a decrease in precipitation. ! During this period, Southern New England's landscape was predominantly a mix of pine j and hardwood forests. Such an environment would have provided abundant food ' resources on a seasonal basis, allowing for exploitation by native populations in a wide range of natural settings. These environmental changes likely precipitated a transition l from specialized hunting to more general hunting and gathering strategies. Research to date suggests that human populations at this time generally moved within established 7 territorial zones and performed increasingly generalized subsistence activities within lake and riparian systems where food sources were relatively abundant. The frequency of Early Archaic sites in New England is thought to be low, as known ' sites are poorly represented .in the archaeological record. This perception could exist because of the inherent difficulties in recognizing site components associated with the { period, due, in,part, to a lack of diagnostic materials (e.g., bifurcate-base point ' assemblages)and radiocarbon dates. Many Early Archaic sites may be buried under river sand or slope wash, or at former coastal locations that have been submerged by rising sea level. As a result, the present understanding of the social and technological adaptations of Early Archaic indigenous peoples is limited. No Early Archaic sites have been documented within the intertidal or submerged portions f of the Project study area or its immediate vicinity. However,two diagnostic bifurcate- base projectile points were found at Bull Brook and one was found at the Pine Swamp Site (19-ES-306) in Ipswich (MHC Site Files). Four bifurcate-base projectile points, reportedly recovered in Essex County, are part of the Peabody Essex Museum collection ' in Salem (Johnson and Mahlstedt 1982). Additionally, Barber (1978) reports the discovery of one such point in the lower Merrimack Valley. Middle Archaic Period (7500 to 5000 B.P.) A climatic warming trend in southern New England during the Early Archaic Period continued into the Middle Archaic Period and resulted in a broadening of ecosystems. Archaeological studies suggest this was a period in which settlement patterning consisted of seasonal movement around major riparian systems for the harvesting of anadromous fish, the gathering of edible plants,and hunting. Lithic artifacts representing the Middle Archaic Period in southern New England include Neville and Stark projectile points (often made of felsites from the Lynn volcanic complex in northeastern Massachusetts), Merrimack, Otter Creeks and Vosburg point types and new stone implements, such as net ' sinkers, gouges, atlad weights, and adzes (Dincauze 1976; MHC 1982). Although evidence of Middle Archaic occupation isnot extensive in southeastern New England, ' such sites do exist and their distribution suggests a multi-site seasonal settlement pattern. Middle Archaic site types range from small, temporary foraging stations to more intensively occupied multi-component camps at which a variety of subsistence-related activities were conducted. While no Middle Archaic archaeological deposits have been identified in the intertidal or submerged portions of the Project study area, Middle Archaic Period sites have been ' identified in more than 30 Essex County locations, including the Batchelder Site (l9-ES- 344)situated along the southwestern shore of Wenham Lake in North Beverly(M1-1C Site I Files). Other known Middle Archaic Period sites, identified from diagnostic projectile ; points found by avocational archaeologists,include Bull Brook and Muddy Run (19-ES- 103) in Ipswich (MHC Site Files). i 8 , 1 ; ' Late Archaic Period (5000 to 3000 B.P.) 1 Archaeological sites dating from the Late Archaic Period are more frequent than those of the preceding periods and are found in both interior and coastal sections of eastern Massachusetts. The greater number of surviving sites of this period could be the result of both population growth and the gradual stabilization of sea levels to present conditions. I ' For southern New England, the Late Archaic Period is generally represented by three cultural traditions: the Laurentian, the Small Stemmed, and the Susquehanna, distinguished primarily on the basis of their representative projectile points. The ' Laurentian tradition was active from about 5000 to 4000 B.P. From the limited amount of available information, the Essex County area does not appear to have been intensively . used by people associated with the Laurentian tradition. Less than six percent of the 249 Late Archaic points at the Peabody Essex Museum are Laurentian tradition types, including Brewerton, Vosburg and Otter Creek points (Johnson and Mahlstedt 1982). The Small Stemmed and Susquehanna Traditions were present from about 4000 to 3200 ' B.P. The most common Late Archaic projectile point type found on the North Shore is the Small Stemmed Point. Seventy percent of the points from this tradition in the Peabody Essex Museum are made of locally available rhyolite, indicating a preference I for volcanics over quartz as is prevalent in assemblages in other regions. Susquehanna Tradition components with diagnostic projectile points appear to be most frequent on coastal/estuarine sites,particularly in the Beverly/Salem Harbor area(Robinson 2006). A few inland site locations near streams and ponds have also been found to contain evidence of early Susquehanna Tradition (Atlantic Phase)occupation (MHC files). In general, the high density of Late Archaic sites and their occurrence in a wide range of ' habitats has been thought to indicate a dense population intensively exploiting a broad spectrum of resources through a wide range of subsistence-related activities (Ritchie 1985). Increase in occupation may correlate with a period of climatic warming beginning approximately 5000 B.P. (Funk 1972). Regular shellfish exploitation is first observed in i the Late Archaic Period with the predominant presence of all three traditions suggesting the indigenous peoples of the period began moving to locations within coastal and estuarine habitats. Sites associated with these traditions have been found near marshes i and other wetland areas where fish and shellfish were abundant and are often associated j with shell midden deposits. This contrasts significantly from the preceding Middle ' Archaic Period when the procurement of resources appears to have been concentrated on the region's inland freshwater sources such as rivers, lakes and ponds. This apparent transition to a coastal focus could be the result of the stabilization of sea levels and coastlines (relative to earlier periods) and a concomitant establishment of resource-rich 1 marshes and estuarine systems with extensive shellfish beds that were attractive to Late Archaic populations. Alternatively, it could be the result of a data filtering bias. This data filtering bias can be attributed to the preferential preservation of shell as compared to other resources,such as fish bone. It could also be attributed to.the current terrestrial bias in the archaeological data due to the comparative lack of archaeological research 4 conducted to date within the former coastal areas that were exposed during earlier cultural periods,but are now submerged(Westley and Dix 2006). 9 i i I Late Archaic Period components have been found on at least 80 archaeological sites ' throughout Essex County (Johnson and Malhstedt 1982). Though none are documented in the submerged portion of the Project study area, three Late Archaic sites were discovered in its vicinity. The BancrofPs Estate/Abbot Street Oyster Shell Heap (19-ES- ' 341), located between Lothrop and Lovett Streets in Beverly, contained a diagnostic Small Stemmed projectile point. The Kernwood Site (19-ES-408);near Kernwood Street in Salem, contained a Small-Stemmed and Squibnocket Triangle projectile point, two drills, ground stone tools, and pottery 'sherds, among other Native American cultural material. The Skerry House Site (19-ES-669), near the MBTA railroad tracks and 1 Conant Street in Salem, contained among other materials, 26 felsite flakes, an argillite i1 flake, a crystal quartz flake, a Wayland-Notched projectile point, fire-cracked rock, and a single cord/fabric impressed coarse mineral tempered ceramic sherd(MCH Site Files). Transitional Archaic Period (3600 to 2500 B.P.) At approximately 3000 B.P., sea level rise had slowed significantly and most sections of the coastal zone in southern New England contain archaeological evidence of increased , settlement by Native .American populations during the Transitional Archaic Period. While .subsistence-related activities from the Late Archaic Period continued, the Transitional Archaic Period is characterized by the development of technologies that are markedly different from the preceding periods. New technologies, such as the use of steatite, which is an easy to carve soft soapstone, may have been developed by local populations or by others who had migrated into the New England region. Steatite vessel forms and smoking pipes were used during the period domestically, ceremonially and possibly for trade. The use of steatite is considered a transitional step towards the manufacture and use of ceramic vessels, the earliest evidence of which in southern New England is seen during the period (Thorbahn et al. 1980). The use of steatite ends prior to the Early Woodland Period, when it appears to have been replaced widely by ceramics. The growing production and use of heavy vessels suggests the local populations were ' becoming increasingly sedentary. Transitional Archaic Period sites are associated with rivers, large ponds and lakes, and are linked to the Susquehanna Tradition, as well as to a continuation of the Small Stemmed Tradition. In New England,sites associated with the Susquehanna Tradition are best known from secondary cremation burial complexes and as lesser elements of multi-component occupations (Dincauze 1974; Leveillee 1994). The Susquehanna , Tradition has been further divided.to create a cultural chronology of the 'Transitional Archaic Period consisting of four phases: the Atlantic Phase(ca. 4100 to 2800 B.P.); the + li Watertown Phase(ca.3600 to 3000 B.P.);the Colburn Phase(ca. 3300 to 3000 B.P.); and the Orient Phase (ca. 300 to 2500 B.P.). The progression through these phases is characterized by increasingly.large cremation burial sites with more elaborate grave j offerings. The Atlantic Phase is represented in these offerings by Atlantic type projectile ' points, but they are typically outnumbered by Watertown and Dudley varieties of Mansion Inn blades (Leveillee 1994). Colborn Phase interments are characterized by the inclusion of steatite bowls and Colburn variety Mansion Inn blades. The Orient Phase r 10 I represents the final stage of the Susquehanna Tradition and marks the end of elaborate burial ceremony(Dincauze 1974). ' While no Transitional Archaic Period archaeological sites have been documented within the intertidal or submerged portions of the Project study area,the Bancroft's Estate/Abbot Street Oyster Shell Heap site in Beverly contained what could be interpreted as a Transitional Archaic component, due to the presence of Atlantic-like and Orient Fishtail points(MHC Site Files). ' Early Woodland Period (3000.to 1600 B.P.) Known pre-contact period sites with Early Woodland components are relatively scarce in ' comparison to the number of Transitional, Late, and Middle Archaic sites. Most of the known Early Woodland Period sites in the region occur in coastal or estuarine zones, and are less frequently found along major rivers and lakes. This suggests that coastal resources became an increasingly significant part of the subsistence collecting activities and diets of the region's indigenous peoples around this time period. It is likely that j locations in areas such as Beverly Harbor and the termini of its tributaries were used by I Early Woodland populations. The apparent increased dependence on shellfish and other marine resources is suggested by the greater number of documented shell middens that { are components of coastal occupation sites dating from the period. Early Woodland occupations are generally identified by the presence of Meadowood, Rossville, Adena and Lagoon projectile points as well as grit-tempered,cord-marked Vinette I ceramics. Although no archaeological deposits of this period have been identified within the intertidal or submerged portions of the Project study area, the Bancroft's Estate/Abbot Street Oyster Shell Heap site contained evidence of Early Woodland period occupation (MHC Site Files), Middle Woodland Period(1650 to 1000 B.P.) Archaeological evidence of Middle Woodland Period occupation in southern New j England indicates an increase in indigenous populations, a more sedentary settlement pattern, greater social complexity, and regional trade in Pennsylvania jasper and New ' York State cherts. Sites of human occupation from this period remain poorly documented in Essex County and elsewhere, although those that are know are characterized by the presence of Jack's Reef Corner-Notched and Pentagonal,Greene and Fox Creek stemmed projectile points. The archaeological record also indicates that while ' hunting, fishing and gathering were significant, there seems to have been a distinct shift in subsistence and settlement patterns from an inland to a coastal focus(Dincauze 1974). Sites containing Middle Woodland Period components, while found in a variety of ' settings, tend to be concentrated along the coast and are frequently characterized by the I presence of shell middens composed of lenses of dense black organic soil containing a variety of shells, artifacts; and, occasionally, burials. Shell types present in the region's i L middens typically include some combination of the remains of oyster, quahog, soft-shell clam, land snails,mussels, and whelk, i I ' I1 I i i it '1 Interior Middle Woodland sites are often found next to rivers and occasionally adjacent ' to small inland streams and wetlands. These sites tend to be small camps with limited activity areas containing pits/hearths, fragments of grit-tempered ceramics, and lithic workshops. The use of non-local lithic materials is evident in many assemblages, and is , characterized,particularly, by Boston Basin materials, such as hornfels. No Middle Woodland Period sites have been documented for the intertidal or submerged portions of the Project study area; however, the Kernwood Site in Salem produced artifacts of the period including it Jack's Reef pentagonal projectile point (MHC Site I Files). Late Woodland Period (1000 to 450 B.P.) For most of the northeastern United States, the Late Woodland Period was a time of growth and organization of indigenous populations into large, socially complex, fortified villages. The period is marked by an increase in ceramic production and improvements in Native American technologies. Archaeological evidence, including that for the presence of Native American cornfields on Cape Cod (Mrozowski 1994), indicates that horticulture was established during this period. Late Woodland Period sites are slightly more numerous than those of the Middle Woodland, and, again, are located primarily near or on the coast. Frequently, they are associated with large shell midden deposits, Owasso-like ceramics decorated with dentate stamping, cord marking (later smooth- bodied vessels with incision and notching) and the triangular Levanna and Madison type projectile point types. i Late Woodland projectile points have been recovered from most areas of Essex County. The Peabody Essex Museum collection includes 59 diagnostic Levanna points from 38 sites. These triangular points were used to tip arrows,rather than spears, and, as Johnson and Mahlstedt (1982) note, although fairly common, the Levanna point has rarely occurred in great quantities on individual archaeological sites. Although no archaeological deposits representative of the Late Woodland Period are documented in the intertidal or submerged portions of the Project study area, the Golf Course Site (19- ES-567) in Beverly, northwest of the Project study area, exhibited evidence of a Late Woodland component, as did the Kernwood Site in Salem (MHC Site Files). I In addition to these archaeological sites, other less documented Native American sites in the vicinity of the Project study area, for which specific occupation periods have not been determined, are worth noting. The site files of the MHC indicate the presence of nine I archaeological sites in Beverly and Salem for which temporal affiliations are designated , as"unknown." This category includes the Lothrop Street(19-ES-421);Lovett Street(19- ES-423); and Tuck's Point (19-ES-496) sites in Beverly and the Fort Lee (19-ES-382); Jewett's Point (19-ES-394); Hospital Point (19-ES-402); Osgood's Wharf (19-ES-641); and Beverly Bridge (19-ES-643) sites in Salem. Also listed is an unnamed shell midden site(19-ES-478) between Salem's Hospital Point and Jewett's Point. The Lothrop Street ' Site contained flakes, shell, gun flint, and a pine tree shilling. The Lovett Street Site, excavated in 1871 by the Peabody Museum in Salem, is described as possibly containing 12 t 1 � three graves. At the Tuck's Point Site, dredged sand re-deposited at the Point reportedly contained numerous artifacts, debitage and shells. The Fort Lee Site reportedly contained an unidentified projectile point, while the Jewett's Point Site, located between the confluence of Danvers and North Rivers, contained an unspecified number of lithic flakes. On the west bank of the North River, at the Hospital Point Site, a very large point base was reportedly recovered from an apparent shell midden. At the Osgood's Wharf Site, likely in the vicinity of Ferry Street and Osgood Street east of Bridge Street, unspecified Native American tools were discovered in 1814 (MHC Site Files; Bently 1915). The Beverly Bridge Site, at the north end of Bridge Street, is simply described as i i ' a burial (MHC Site Files; Bently 1915). No artifacts were reportedly found in the shell midden recorded between Hospital Point and Jewett's Point(MHC Site Files). Contact and Post-Contact Period Cultural History The Contact and Post-Contact Period cultural history of the Project study area is closely related to the settlement of Beverly's waterfront and the significance of Beverly Harbor to the Project study area's commerce and transportation. Although the Project study area extends south to the Salem side of Beverly Harbor, Salem's settlement and maritime history is primarily linked to its own harbor on the south side of Salem Neck. While i Beverly and Salem Harbors were administratively linked in 1683 and exhibit similar j developmental characteristics, the settlement of Salem appears to have been minimally influenced by activities within the intertidal and submerged portions of the Project study area. For this reason, the Contact and Post-Contact Period cultural history of Salem is j not included in this report. 1 Contact Period (A.D. 1500 to A.D. 1620) At the time Europeans explored New England, the area that is now within the town of Beverly was part of a large Native American settlement inhabited by the Pawtucket or Penacook tribe. The territory of this group extended along the north coast of Massachusetts Bay from the Saugus/Salem area to York Village, Maine. Locally referred 1 to as the Naumkeags and Agawams, their population in Beverly may have been close to j 200 individuals for most of the period, falling to fewer than 50, if any, following the epidemics of 1617 to 1619. The vast decline in Native American population meant that j many locales in the Beverly vicinity were readily available for settlement by emigrating Europeans(MHC 1986; Vaughan 1965). Sites utilized by the Naumkeag and Agawam people during this period likely included some of the same locations inhabited during the preceding Late Woodland Period, primarily those situated along the coast and near rivers. Site types would have included habitations, village type sites and special purpose sites (e.g., fishing sites, shell middens, and burials) that continued to be used by Native American groups. Particularly in the summer and late fall, a variety of resources that included extensive flats of clams, fish and waterfowl would have been available to the Native American population. Any fields ' used for maize horticulture were most likely located on low terraces or knolls of fine silty loam adjacent to local rivers, such as the Bass and Danvers, or on the periphery of major 13 1 water bodies, such as Wenham Lake. Native American transportation routes in the ' Beverly area likely emphasized water travel along the area's rivers and extensive coastline. While no Contact Period archaeological deposits are documented for the intertidal or submerged portion of the Project study area, such sites have been ' documented in Essex County. They include the Bessome's Pasture Grave Site (MARL 10) in Marblehead and the Revere Beach Graves Site(19-SU-1)(King 1992). Plantation Period (1620 to 1675) f The European settlement of Beverly likely began around 1628 with the arrival of fishermen from the abandoned Cape Ann settlement. It is believed that this group, lacking official land grants, settled in the vicinity of Tuck's Point northeast of the Project study area. Certainly by 1630, settlement of the area had begun in earnest. That year, John and William Woodbury, reportedly among the most prominent members of the first Salem settlement, moved across the Bass River from the south to north side (Barber 1839). Due to its location,the settlement was initially called Basse River(King 1992)or the Cape Ann side(MHC 1986). The majority of settlement in this period was east of the Bass River, where homes were built within the limits of the tidewater. Additionally, a 1635 grant divided the land extending from Wenham Lake to the Bass River into five I farms of 200 acres. With this and subsequent land divisions,Beverly's population began ' to grow steadily. The settlement's first meetinghouse was built on the southern corner of Cabot and Hale Streets in 1656. By the time of its incorporation in 1668, Beverly's population is estimated to have been approximately 600 individuals. It is likely that a Native American population resided in the Beverly area during this period,although little is known regarding its size and activities(MHC 1986). Fishing was the primary economic activity for the early settlers of Beverly with the areas t of Tuck's Point and Mackerel Cove offering abundant amounts of cod(MHC 1986). The most common coastal vessels utilized by fishermen of the period were small shallops, sloops, ketches and pinnaces (Lawson 1895). These coastal vessels generally measured 30 to 40 ft 9.1 to 12.2 m in length Bauer 1988 and possessed a quarterdeck, if an ( ) L ( ) t 1 Y deck at all. As vessel size increased, the Beverly fishing fleet engaged in longer voyages frequently to the coast of Labrador and George's Banks for cod, haddock, mackerel,and other species that were caught, dried and transported to the West Indies and European markets. Two to three such voyages were often made in one season (MHC 1986). In addition to fishing, the lumber trade was an important element of the area's economic I base. Abundant timber was readily accessible along the.banks of the region's numerous rivers that extended to the inland forests (Albion et al. 1994). This lumber was used ' locally to meet the needs of area shipbuilders and traded abroad. The oceangoing vessels of the period were generally ships, barks, and pinks. These vessels were small by today's standards, typically measuring 60 ft (18.3 m) or less from bow to stern with the largest seldom exceeding 100 ft (30.5 m) (Kemp 1976). As cargo capacity was more important to merchants of the period than speed, oceangoing ships tended to be wide across the 1' beam with length-to-breadth ratios of approximately 3:1. Vessels of this period were also typically ballasted with river-worn stone,although some, particularly those inbound from I i 14 , 1 Europe, carried brick or other materials as ballast that could be sold in the colonies at their journey's end. As piracy was a constant threat to ocean going vessels, they were typically armed with four-to six-pound guns. Water travel along the coast remained the fastest and most convenient mode of transportation between the early fishing stations and later settlements scattered throughout the Beverly, Salem and Marblehead areas and north to the shores of Cape Ann. In 1636, a ferry connecting Salem and Beverly was established and operated by John Stone (Stone 1843). Also during the period, many Native American trails, particularly those along the waterfront and the Bass River, were improved to . accommodate horses and carts(MHC 1986). Colonial Period (1675 to 1775) The settlement patterns of the Plantation Period continued in Beverly throughout most of the Colonial Period. The southern part of town, particularly areas east of the Bass River around the First Parish meetinghouse and along the waterfront near Hale and Elliot Streets, experienced the most growth. In 1668, the meetinghouse was sold and a new structure was built on the opposite side of Hale Street. Inland, settlement was concentrated along what is today Route IA north to Wenham Lake. In 1713,the Beverly I Second, or Upper Parish was established in this area. Population growth during the period was much more rapid than that of the previous period: From 1708 to 1753, 1 ' Beverly's population grew by nearly eighteen percent from 1,680 to 2,023 residents. By 1776, Beverly's population had increased to 2,754 residents representing more than five i percent of Essex County's population as a whole. Information regarding the number of I Native Americans living in the town is scarce; however, the first census conducted in Beverly in 1765 list this number as only one individual (MCH 1986). ! Beverly's economic development followed a pattern similar to that of other northern New England ports with fishing, lumber production and shipbuilding forming its foundation. i The increase in the Beverly fishery coincided with a New England-wide transition after 1675 from inshore "shallop fishing" to offshore "bank fishing" conducted in larger { vessels. In 1683, Beverly was designated as a lawful port of entry being annexed to the II port of Salem (MHC 1986). For the region as a whole, commercial trade prospered during this period. Following the Peace of Utrecht (1713), which ended the War of Spanish Succession and gave England dominance, trade thrived as the seas became a relatively safe place for merchant vessels (Weeden 1890). It was during this period that the infamous "Triangle Trade" network developed through which molasses and sugar, rum, and slaves were shipped between the North American colonies, the islands of the Caribbean and Africa. Increased differentiation in maritime trade during the period necessitated the development of more specialized vessel types. In 1713, the world's first schooner was launched in Gloucester and would remain a significant part of Beverly's and New England's commercial fleet well into the twentieth century. Vessels engaged in coastal commerce remained dimensionally similar during this period. The majority of these vessels continued to be 15 i i i 1 built 30 to 40 ft(9.1 to 12.2 m) in length and 10 to 15 ft(3.0 to 4.6 m) in breadth with a ' displacement of between 25 and 40 tons (Weeden 1890). 1 With the clearing of Beverly's interior lands, farming became significant part of the town's economy. Grain was the primary agricultural product with livestock consisting mainly of cows, swine,horses and oxen.. Transportation of these products throughout the area was still predominantly by water. The ferry between Salem and Beverly remained operational and a town landing was constructed east of and in close proximity to the modern day Veterans Memorial Bridge(Stone 1843). The majority of roads, increasingly 1 important to the town's transportation system, continued to be concentrated in the Bass River area and along the coast(MHC 1986). 4 Federal Period (1775 to 1830) ` Beverly's growth continued during the Federal Period,particularly east of the Bass River (Figure 4). The Fish Flake Hill area became the hub of maritime commercial activity and the seat of town government. By the start of the Revolutionary War, some 14 wharves, warehouses and merchant storehouses were constructed in this neighborhood from Tuck's Point east to the Veterans Memorial Bridge (Howe 1922). In 1798,the town hall and the Alms House (1803) were built in the same area. Additionally, a number of distilleries producing rum from West Indies molasses were located along Beverly's waterfront (King 1992). Front Street, with its commanding view of the harbor, became one of the more elite residential sections of town, as did Cabot and Hale Streets to the north. The town also experience considerable population growth during the period, increasing by 48 percent from 2,754 to 4,073. By 1830, the town of Beverly was the ninth largest in the region(MHC 1986), The Revolutionary War years took a toll on most of the region's port towns as maritime commerce was interrupted. Many of the region's merchants turned to privateering in an attempt to recoup their losses. Morison (1979) states that more than 600 letters of marquee, the official government commission authorizing reprisal against enemy merchant vessels, were issued by the Continental Congress to vessel owners in the years leading up to and during the War. Beverly was no exception. In 1775, the fishing schooner Hannah, owned by John Glover,was fitted out as America's first commissioned warship at Glover's Wharf. While its harbor provided safe anchorage for privateers, docks were constructed along Beverly's waterfront and in the Bass River to supply these vessels and accommodate their prizes(Howe 1922). I In the decade following the Revolutionary War, with the restoration of the West Indies market, Beverly developed into a prosperous fishing port despite its relative small size. In fact, Beverly was the only fishing port which by 1790 had increased both its catch and vessel tonnage over that of pre-Revolutionary war amounts. In 1785, the Beverly fleet included 30 schooners and a sloop ranging from 20 to 50 tons. These vessels caught fish in the summer and traded in the winter with southern ports, the West Indies and the Cape Verde Islands(Morison 1979). I 16 ' Despite the gains of the 1790s, Beverly's maritime economy experienced numerous fluctuations as the nineteenth century began. Financial losses suffered under the Embargo Act (1807), and the War of 1812 (1812-1815) affected the region as whole. New England's share of America's export trade, which had reached a high of$24 million in 1807, dropped to less than $6 million in 1808 before climbing back up to just $14 million by 1811 (Albion et al. 1994). Although these losses resulted in.economic hardships, they were generally sporadic, and are viewed by some historians as having j encouraged merchants to be more self-reliant and to pursue alternative trade and other opportunities, which ultimately contributed to the subsequent growth of New England's maritime economy (Adams and Jenkins 1995). For Beverly, such alternatives included i the small scale manufacturing of shoes and boots, cabinetry, chairs, bricks, soap and candles (MHC 1986). Morison (1979) reports that during this period, many Beverly fisherman engaged in shoemaking and farming to supplement their incomes. r This tumultuous period also gave rise to significant changes in ship design. Speed took i precedence over cargo capacity as the threat of seizure by enemy vessels increased. Steam engines also emerged from their experimental stage at this time, when in 1790, j John Fitch introduced commercial steam navigation on the Delaware River. It would not t be until well into the next period, however, that this important innovation would be gg applied to a significant degree in Beverly's waters(Gould 2000). t While shipyards in New York and Philadelphia were producing the country's largest ships, and yards on the Chesapeake were launching vessels earning a reputation for speed, locally-built vessels retained more traditional lines with broad beams and bluff or full bows. Prior to 1830, it was uncommon to see in Massachusetts shipyards vessels larger than 500 tons,as this was long believed to be the upper limit for seaworthiness. As a result,most ships of the region were still less than 300 tons and ranged from 90 to 125 i ft(27.4 to 38.1 m)in length(Morison 1979). Transportation in Beverly during the Federal Period continued to rely heavily on water although improvements were made to the town's colonial road system. The most significant improvement was the construction of the Essex Bridge connecting the southern part of Beverly with Salem in 1788. The bridge measured 1,484 ft(452.3 m) long, 34 ft(10.4 m)wide, was supported by 93 wooden pilings and was equipped with a 1 draw (Barber 1839). The Essex Bridge was modified and replaced several times before its final reconstruction in 1896(http://www.mhd.state.ma.us). I Early Industrial Period (1830 to 1870) The Early Industrial Period was a time of marked expansion for Beverly in both population and settlement. From 1830 to 1870, the town's population increased 60 percent from 4,073 to 6,507 making it the eighth most populated town or city in the region. This rapid population increase, spurred in part by an expanding industrial base, resulted in a shift in development towards the north from the patter of the previous period. While the civic focus of the town remained on Cabot and Hale Streets,residential development, having filled the waterfront area, moved along the Cabot Street corridor. 17 Although the Cabot and Hale Streets area remained the premier neighborhood for ' Beverly's affluent, Washington Street emerged as a new area for elite house construction. With the,growth of a small scale tanning industry inland along the Bass River, home construction for the industrial worker population began to cluster on the cross streets , connecting Cabot Street with the river(MHC 1986). Fishing, particularly for cod and mackerel remained the mainstay of Beverly's economy in the early years of the period. In 1837, the town's fishing fleet employed approximately 400 men on 50 vessels and caught close to 2.8 million pounds (1.27 million kilograms) of cod worth an estimated $150,000 (King 1992; MHC 1986). Beverly also experienced the growth of several industries ancillary to fishing. The 1843 waterfront was home to shipbuilders,carpenters, a steam sawmill, two sail makers and a ropewalk (MHC 1986). With the arrival of rail service in Beverly in 1838, fish curing emerged as a new, but short-lived, industry as many North Shore and Cape Cod fishermen brought their catches to the port for processing and transport to Boston (MHC 1986; Morison 1979). By the middle of the century, Beverly entered the whaling industry with three brigs, three barks and a schooner operating out of the harbor between 1849 and 1873. These seven whalers made 35 voyages to the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean whaling grounds(Starbuck 1989). In the open waters off Beverly, steam-powered vessels did not surpass those powered by sail until the 1880s; however, the competition they represented forced significant design changes for sailing ships and ushered in the golden age of sailing (Gould 2000). The modern concept of time developed during this period as a consequence of the rapid growth of the railroad and its maintenance of regularly scheduled travel. Although less costly to build and operate, wind-driven vessels could not compete in the maintenance of regular shipping schedules with shipping lines of steam vessels. This made sailing ships a less desirable means of transporting passengers and high-priced and perishable cargoes. With trade routes from the East Coast ports reaching the West Coast and Asia, large and fast ships were increasingly in demand. From approximately 1846 to 1859, the American-designed "clipper ship" met this demand. Clipper ships, such as the Flying Cloud(229 ft [69.8 m] long on deck and 41 ft [12.5 m] broad), built by the Boston yard of Donald McKay, combined the characteristics of a sharp bow, a long, fine hull, and a three-masted square rig. The result was a ship capable of record-setting speed, including the Flying Cloud's celebrated 89-day run from New York to San Francisco in 1851. The drawback of.the clipper design, however, was that their speed came at the cost of capacity. The sleek design of the clipper ship hull-form below the water-line sacrificed approximately one-third of their potential cargo space relative to their length than if they I had been designed with a fuller hull-form. Additionally, their expansive rigging required a large crew to sail it, which further added to their operational costs (Albion et al. 1994). Within a period of less than ten years, the need for and popularity of the clipper ship dropped off dramatically, as the U.S. economy faltered during the Panic of 1857, the ' Gold Kush era ended, and steam-power became a more practical mode of vessel propulsion. 18 4 1 tBesides the clipper ship, sailing vessels of this period, both those constructed of wood and the growing number fabricated of iron, increasingly exhibited greater hull length-to- breadth ratios, which made them more efficient than their predecessors. In the early years of the period, wooden-hulled freighters typically had a beam less than one-quarter of their length and were generally less than 150 ft(45.7 m)long(Morison 1979). ' Increasingly, both wooden and iron vessels from this period were incorporating steam engines. Side-paddle wheel steamers were the most common steamship type in the region's coastal waters, while screw-propelled steamships were gaining in popularity since their introduction to the United States in the early 1840s. The hull design of the early steamers was similar to those of sailing vessels, but the steamers' decks were wider amidships to accommodate the paddle wheels on both the port and starboard sides (Bauer ' 1988;Robinson 1999). For Beverly's coastal trade and fishing, sloops and schooners continued to be employed. . Coastal fishing vessels of the period, like their predecessors, exhibited comparatively low freeboard to facilitate hauling catches onboard. This design trait is seen throughout subsequent periods as well. Regional coastal commerce of the Early Industrial Period was increasingly shared with the region's expanding railroad and steamship lines (PAL, Inc. 2006). Following a decline of the fisheries after 1850, Beverly's economic focus shifted away from the waterfront. Although maritime related activities continued on a reduced scale, i they were gradually superseded by unrelated industrial activities, including leather tanning, chair and cabinet manufacturing and brick-making. By 1865, shoemaking ' became Beverly's primary manufacturing activity and would soon replace fishing as the mainstay of the town's economy (King 1992). At the close of the period, Beverly was the smallest port of entry in Massachusetts in terms of tonnage owned (MHC 1986). 1 In the Early Industrial Period, advancements in Beverly's transportation infrastructure were closely related to the town's population and industrial expansion. In addition to a ' network of new roads, the Eastern Railroad was extended through Beverly from Salem to Ipswich. In 1837, a railroad bridge was constructed over Beverly Harbor just west of the { Essex Bridge (Ober 1888) (Figure 5). The line opened in 1839 with a depot located on ' Park Street north of the Project study area(MRC 1986) and was followed by a Beverly to Gloucester line in 1845 (King 1992). ' Late Industrial Period (1870 to 1915) Beverly experienced a remarkable 252.8 percent jump in population during the Late Industrial Period when it increased from 6,507 to 22,959 residents. It was also a period of unprecedented industrial growth as manufacturing shifted away from the Bass River area and clustered near the railroad, forming a closely packed industrial zone between Park Street and the waterfront (Figures 6 and 7). This zone extended north of Elliot I. ' Street to the massive United Shoe Machinery Plant at Cabot Street. To accommodate the rapidly growing industrial workforce, housing construction intensified in the vicinity of a 19 1 the plant where vast neighborhoods of three-decker homes were erected. Cabot Street ' became the unofficial line separating multifamily-worker housing to the west toward the Bass River from the more elite single family houses on the east towards Beverly's scenic waterfront (MHC 1986). In 1894, the town voted to incorporate as the City of Beverly ' (King 1992). . i The economic pattern established in the Early Industrial Period continued into the Late ' Industrial Period with fishing and other maritime related activities declining as shoe manufacturing and other industrial activities grew at a rapid pace. During the twenty years from 1885 to 1905, the number of workers employed in Beverly's shoe factories climbed from 636 to more than 1,200. As early in the period as 1875; the shoe industry represented 93 percent of the town's manufacturing output. The remaining six percent I was represented by the small-scale production of such items as furniture, bricks, steam engines and candles (MHC 1986). Although still present, maritime activity on Beverly's waterfront had subsided significantly, much of it being sacrificed to area towns with larger harbors. By 1878, only three of the town's wharves were operating (King 1992). ' The decline of waterfront commercial activity lasted until approximately 1905 when the area became the home of several lumber, coal and other fuel storage companies. In the same year, the United Shoe Machinery Company was established. At the time one of the largest manufacturing facilities in the United States, the company provided shoe manufacturing machinery for the nation's shoe industry(MHC 1986). i Beverly's transportation system continued to expand during the period primarily with the ' construction of a trolley line across the Essex Bridge in 1884, which was extended to Chapman's Corner and Wenham in 1886 (King 1992). A stylish railroad station was built in Beverly's Montserrat neighborhood in 1874, which was connected by trolley lines to Essex Street in 1907(MHC 1986).. Despite the popularity of rail service and Beverly's expanding network of roads, the waterways continued to provide transportation of both goods and passengers. By the ' beginning of the twentieth century, Boston steamboat lines were offering regular excursions to Beverly (Albion et at. 1994). In 1871, the federal government constructed a lighthouse at Hospital Point on the north side of the channel to Salem Harbor (http://www.lighthouse.ce/hospitalpoint/hist,ory.html). Wooden shipbuilding of small- and medium-sized vessels continued during this period. The use of commercial sail continued into the twentieth century, although the adoption of steam-powered screw-propulsion on coastal and oceanic waters was becoming more ' widespread (Bass 1988; Bauer 1988) (Figures 8 and 9). The period also experienced the , establishment of Beverly Harbor as a recreation boating center with the founding of the Jubilee Yacht Club in 1896(http://www.jubileeyc.net/about°/`20jyc.htm). i 1 I 20 t Modern Period (1915 to present) i The Modern Period of Beverly's history is characterized by continued growth in ' population and industrial development. During the first three decades of the twentieth century, the city's population increased by 81 percent to 25,537 residents in 1940. Like most cities in the region, Beverly experienced another jump in population immediately ' following World War II. From 1950 to 1960, the number of residents increased 25 percent to 36,108 and by 1970, it had reached close to 40,000 (King 1992). Beverly's current population is listed as 38,195 residents(http://www.mass.gov). The residential settlement pattern of the previous period continued well in the Modern Period. More modest housing construction occurred west of Cabot Street while more middle class to affluent homes were built on the east side, particularly along the town's eastern waterfront. Commercial and industrial development remained focused in the area west of Cabot Street from Railroad Avenue north to Charnock Street(MHC 1986). ' In the early years of the period, the shoe industry continued to serve as the foundation of Beverly's economy. In 1915, 70 percent of the city's workforce was involved in the manufacturing of shoes. In addition to the United Shoe Machine Company, Beverly's ' largest employer, at least 15 significant shoe companies operated in the city in 1922. Despite a downward turn during the Great Depression of the 1930s, Beverly's industrial 1 base remained strong. In 1952, manufacturing still accounted for 68.7 percent of the I ' city's employment base. Later in the period,manufacturers unrelated to the shoe industry made significant contributions to Beverly's economy. Such industries included a major electronics producer, fabricated metal firms, lumber companies and a number of textile and apparel firms(MHC 1986). In the early years of the Modern Period, several fuel and lumber distributers established (i facilities for the offloading of oil, coal and lumber. Chief among these companies were the Gulf Refining Company and the New England Fuel and Transportation Company (MHC 1986) (Figure 10). In 1926, Beverly Harbor accommodated 56 steamers loaded ' with oil and 12 delivering coal and lumber from foreign ports (King 1992). Shipping activity on Beverly's waterfront declined steadily during the remainder of the period. By 1952, the percentage of Beverly's workforce engaged in waterfront trade had dropped to ' 15.2 percent(MHC 1986). i In Beverly Harbor, the period is characterized by the eventual disappearance of the large, wooden, commercial sailing vessels. Large vessels of the period were primarily built of ' iron and steel and were assembled'initially with rivets, and later, with welded joints or seams (Bauer 4988). These large ships were initially propelled by reciprocating steam ' engines, which by World War I1, were replaced by steam turbines and diesel engines. ' Additionally, in the middle part of the century, some turbo-electric and diesel-electric engines were in use in large vessels with varying levels of success (Bauer 1988). An increasing number of merchant vessels of the period were built for specific cargos and can be identified by hull shape, position of the superstructure; and the types and placement of cargo handling machinery(Basnight 1996). I' ' I 21 I Developments in design and construction during this period also affected small vessels. ' Steel, wood and fiberglass hulls became prevalent in small commercial and recreational vessels during the second half of the twentieth century. By the late twentieth century, 90 percent of small craft including dinghies, yachts and other vessels up to 75 ft(22.9 m) in length that were fabricated from wood and fiberglass (Kemp 1976). Although diesel ' engines were available to the civilian market during the 1920s, their use did not become widespread until after World War H. Both gasoline and diesel were used to fuel the ' engines of wooden, steel and fiberglass commercial and recreational craft. The use of sails has continued through the period, but was increasingly limited to their present exclusive use on private recreational craft and commercial charter operations. The use of barges has continued through the period. Most were constructed of heavy ' timbers until the 1920s,or were converted from obsolete schooners. By the end of World G War 11, however, steel-hulled barges were commonly in use. Other local working boats ' of this period are recognizable by distinct design elements. For example, many of the region's fishing fleet are characterized by their open transoms and low freeboard, as well i as their resource-specific hull shapes and superstructure types(Basnight 1996). ' Over the past 50 years, Beverly has shifted from a major manufacturing center to primarily a. bedroom suburb of Boston. Although a number of streets in Beverly's ; northern interior deteriorated and fell into disuse during the period, the construction of Route 128 across the northern portion,of the city serves a significant number of Beverly to Boston commuters. During the 1980s, much of the city's waterfront, particularly near ' Fish Flake Hill experienced large scale residential and commercial condominium development. Today, the city is approximately 85 percent. residential (King 1992). While a small fishing and lobstering fleet has remained in Beverly, the waterfront is currently dominated by recreational boating served by at least six active marinas and yacht clubs: ARCHIVAL RESEARCH RESULTS Pre-Contact Period Marine Archaeological Sensitivity The development of predictive models for locating pre-contact period cultural resources onshore may be applicable to locating those that are submerged as well. Archaeological ' research has repeatedly demonstrated that pre-contact period Native Americans in North America sought the most productive areas within their landscape, especially those areas I that offered diverse resources available on a seasonally consistent or year-round basis. ' Coastal zones, including the bays, marshes and rivers comprising the Beverly Harbor ' area, are particularly productive environments as they contain a wide range of habitat for plant and animal life to be harvested or hunted. Consequently, the land surrounding the ' submerged portions of the Project study area would likely have been a desirable locale for pre-contact habitation and settlement. Such land includes the banks of the Bass, Danvers and North Rivers, the intertidal zone and submerged portions of the harbor, as ' i 22 I ' well as other the coastal areas inundated by rising sea level that were once subaerially ` exposed. t ' Archaeologically sensitive areas where pre-contact sites are often present include river terraces and mouths and the perimeters of protected embayments. Submerged geological features such as these can be observed in geophysical and geotechnical data, and, if ' desired and necessary,can be subjected to subsurface archaeological testing in a way that is analogous to shovel testing on land. Remote sensing survey in submerged project areas will reveal whether or not such inundated features are present. ' Generally, the prerequisite for preservation of inundated sites is burial in terrestrial or low-energy marine sediments prior to the transgression of the ocean's rising waters t (Waters 1992). in these cases, sites will be preserved if they remain below the depth of shoreface erosion during and after the marine transgression process and if they have not undergone substantial sediment reworking. Portions of the submerged Project study area ' not disturbed by dredging,particularly those located toward the western boundary, where protection from the open sea is strongest,may meet these criteria. I i Archaeological site file research performed at the MMC revealed no recorded pre-contact i period archaeological deposits within the intertidal or submerged portions of the Project study area; however, there are 12 pre-contact period archaeological deposits that have been identified and inventoried onshore in its vicinity. These sites include: 19-ES-341, 19-ES-421, 19-ES-423, 19-ES-496 in Beverly, and 19-ES-382, 19-ES-394, 19-ES-402, i 19-ES-408, 19-ES-478, 19-ES-641, 19-ES-643, and 19-ES-669 in Salem. ' Although archaeological evidence of human habitation from as early as the PaleoIndian Period has been found within Essex County, three sites listed above, the only ones for which temporal contexts have been determined, represent the Late Archaic to Woodland ' Periods. The presence of Late Archaic to Woodland Period sites in the vicinity of the intertidal and submerged portions of the Project Study area is characteristic of the region, reflecting extensive exploitation and habitation of the coastal plain. The remaining 75 ' percent of the sites listed above could represent earlier pre-contact period settlement and land use. Pre-contact archaeological deposits in the submerged portions of the Project study area would most likely be related to fishing activities (e.g., shell middens, fishing gear, log boats, etc.) or pre-inundation human habitation sites. Review of available environmental data and sea level rise curves for the western Gulf of Maine and the northeastern Massachusetts coastal region indicates that the submerged portion of the ' Project study area was exposed land available for human occupation from the beginning j of the Paleohrdian Period until sometime during the Middle Archaic Period, at which point the area was inundated by rising sea level. Based on these estimates, the submerged portions Project study area only have potential for containing formerly ' terrestrial pre-contact archaeological sites dating earlier than ca. 5000 B.P. The high frequency of pre-contact period archaeological deposits onshore in the vicinity of the submerged portion of the Project study, and extant environmental characteristics of this ' area that suggest a high potential for intact paleosols suggest that areas within the submerged portion of the Project study area may contain pre-contact period 23 I i , tI s it I' e archaeological deposits. Disturbances to the seafloor related to dredging and construction activities limit the potential for such sites to be encountered cast of the MBTA's Beverly Drawbridge. N Post-Contact Period Marine Archaeological Sensitivity ' Data from the sources described above in the methodology section of this assessment , were used to inventory previously identified post-contact period archaeological resources located within the submerged portions of the Project study area. Such resources would j include existing, remnant, or inundated structures located in the intertidal zone related to Beverly's maritime commerce,and the remains of lost or abandoned vessels. Historic maps and navigational charts provided the principal information for identifying historic structures within the intertidal zone. Inventorying of known shipwrecks was ' accomplished primarily through queries of the NOAA-AWOIS and Northern Maritime Research's CD-ROM Northern Shipwreck databases; consultation with the MBUAR staff; review of previous CRM studies of the area; and an examination of the current NOAA navigation chart, number 13276 ("Salem, Marblehead and Beverly Harbors") for , reported vessel casualties and charted shipwrecks. Inventorying of potential shipwrecks (those that are referenced in the historical record, but have not yet been located) was accomplished through the use of reliable primary and secondary publications. ' Archaeological site file research performed at the MHC revealed that there is one documented post-contact period archaeological site in the vicinity of the submerged portion of the Project study area. The Wharf and Seawall Site (BEV-HA-7) located in Beverly, northeast of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, contained evidence of four wharves and three seawalls,as well as archaeological evidence related to the coal industry. The ; site is dated as ranging from pre-1794 to mid twentieth century. The results of the literature research completed for this marine archaeological sensitivity assessment indicate that the intertidal and submerged portion of the Project study area have a long history of intensive maritime activity, beginning with its initial settlement in the late 1620s to early 1630s. By the start of the Revolutionary War, some 14 wharves, warehouses and merchant storehouses had been constructed in the area from Tuck's Point east to the modern day Veterans Memorial Bridge. By 1785, Beverly's fishing fleet included 30 schooners, and by 1837, the town's fishing fleet employed approximately ; 400 men working onboard 50 different vessels. Maps from this period show an extensive maritime infrastructure along Water Street on the northern shoreline of the harbor. While it is possible that traces of this historic infrastructure exist within the intertidal zone of the { Project study area, previous archaeological investigations (King 1992) indicate that the ' waterfront in this area has been extensively disturbed by continuous filling activity that began in the Colonial Period and has continued to the present. Research for this report indicates that Beverly Harbor has experienced more than three ' centuries of commercial, military and recreational vessel traffic. Analysis of shipwreck occurrences in the region suggests a direct correlation between heavily traveled waterways and shipwreck frequency. Based on the submerged portion of the .Project , i 24 i r r I I study area's extensive history of maritime activity alone, there is a high probably for this area to contain post-contact period archaeological deposits. t r A review of the MBUAR site files, published shipwreck lists for the region, and results from a query of Northern Maritime Research's Northern Shipwreck Database indicates eight vessel casualties occurred within Beverly Harbor (Table 1). These casualties range in date from 1835 to 1954 and consist of three schooners, a sloop, a yacht, a gas screw- propelled vessel and two vessels of unknown types. In addition to these potential i shipwrecks, the submerged portion of the Project study area could contain the remains of smaller coastal vessels, abandoned, derelict or intentionally scuttled coastal and ocean- going vessels, steamships and barges, all of which are generally not well-represented in the documentary record. These shipwrecks could include virtually any of the multiple vessel types that are associated with the different eras of the region's post-contact period maritime history. r The NOAA-AWOIS on-line database (http://anchor.ncd.noaa.gov/awois/searchsub.cfm) accessed and queried by Fathom on March 17, 2009 listed no wrecks or obstructions in the submerged portion of the Project study area. One possible explanation for this is that i r the NOAA-AWOIS focuses primarily on identifying and locating man-made and natural objects that represent coastal and offshore hazards to navigation. Shipwrecks located outside Beverly Harbor's maintained federal navigation channel, which posed a minimal i hazard to navigation,consequently,may be undocumented. rModern navigation charts depict two shipwrecks south of the submerged portion of the Project study area on the east bank of the North River. These shipwrecks may represent. r the remains of two modern vessels that reportedly wrecked during the "no name storm" of 1991 and have since been removed (Daniel McPherson, Beverly Harbormaster, personal communication with David Trubey[Fathom] March 2009). The potential for the submerged portion of the Project study area to contain shipwrecks is moderated by the area's dredging history, and by impacts from the construction of the i r Veterans Memorial Bridge. Information provided by the USACE indicates that the 18 ft (5,5 m) deep federal navigation channel (Figure II) was extensively dredged in 1909 when it was widened to 250 ft(76.2 m)from Tuck's Point to Lobster Rocks and to 200 It ' (70 m) to the draw span of the Essex Bridge. The most recent dredging activity in the area involved the removal of ledge in several locations within the channel in 1927 (Ed O'Donnell, Chief, Navigation Section, USACE, New England District, personal communication with David Trubey [Fathom], March 2009). This dredging history limits j r the potential for shipwrecks occurring prior to 1909 to be present in the dredged portions j of the federal navigation channel; however, shipwrecks occurring after the 1927 work could be present. The dredging history of the Project study area does not affect locations ' outside of the channel. Additional disturbance of the submerged portion of the Project study area occurred in 1997 when concrete support piers were installed across the harbor to support the seven spans of the Veterans Memorial Bridge. r r25 w r 1 i FIELD INVESTIGATION RESULTS ' Field investigation of the intertidal portion of the Project study area revealed that the 1 intertidal and marine Project study area east of the Veterans Memorial Bridge is bound to ' the north by a series of interconnected bulkheads which form the landward extent of the intertidal zone (Figure 12). These bulkheads extend to the northeastern limit of the t submerged portion of the Project study area at Tuck's Point. The land north of these , bulkheads is occupied by a series of modern marina-related facilities that include boat slips and fuel docks,as well as residential structures. Seaward from the aforementioned bulkheads, a series of wooden pilings is visible ' extending for a distance of approximately 70 ft (21.3 m) east of the Veterans Memorial Bridge. The pilings are approximately 6 to 8 in (15.2 to 20.3 cm) in diameter and appear to have been cut at a height of approximately one-and-a-half to two ft (4.6 to 6.1 cm) above the intertidal seafloor (Figure 13). The seaward extent of these pilings could not be determined from shore. Based on the alignment of these pilings to a similar series of pilings on the opposite(Salem) shore near the footing of the former Essex Bridge(Figure 14), it is likely the pilings are remnants of that structure,which was built in 1896. West of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, a cluster of quarried granite blocks forms the ' northern base of the MBTA's Beverly Drawbridge at the landward extent of the intertidal zone (Figure 15). These blocks show evidence of spike cutting and drill marks for black j powder charges, typical of early nineteenth century,quarrying techniques, and are likely , related to the original bridge construction in 1837. West of the railroad bridge, a second series of wooden pilings is visible extending seaward from the shore. These pilings are i of similar diameter and height as those observed on the east side of the Veterans Memorial Bridge and appear to be the remains of a wharf(Figure 16). Extending to the western terminus of the submerged portion of the Project study area near the mouth of the i Bass River, the intertidal zone consists primarily of silty,muddy soil,small cobble and an area of grassy vegetation. The Salem side of the submerged portion of the Project study area extends west into the North River. In this area, a steeply grated shoreline, apparently composed of crushed ' stone and other fill, abuts the railroad tracks. On the eastern side of the tracks, a small tidal cove is present,the western shoreline of which also appears to be predominantly fill East of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, the base of the former Essex Bridge is visible. ' The structure contains a combination of steel, cement, and wood and is covered on the landward side by gravel and pavement. East of this structure, an outcropping of large boulders extends northeast for a distance of approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) (Figure 17). ' The outcropping contains an area of peat on its landward side and appears to contain a mixture of natural stone and eroding rip rap related to the former bridge. The areas comprising the east and west boundaries of the submerged portion of the ' Project study area were not accessible for visual inspection, as they are not exposed at low tide. Cultural material observed within the inspected areas of the Project study area , was limited to small amounts of late nineteenth to early twentieth century ceramic and 26 ' t ti i glass sherds, small fragments of iron railroad debris, coal slag, the remains of two small, t modern, wooden boats (Figure 18), and other scattered modern debris. No visible evidence suggesting the presence of National Register eligible pre- or post-contact archaeological deposits was observed on the surface of the seafloor in the intertidal portion of the Project study area examined during the walkover field investigation. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Background research conducted for this marine archaeological assessment produced information about the environmental and cultural settings of the area and region, as well as the known submerged cultural resources located within or.proximal to the submerged portion of the Project study area. This research indicates that from about 7500 to 5000 B.P., a portion of the Project study area was a subaerially exposed landscape that, because of its location near both fresh and salt water and the resource-rich coast, may have been an attractive locale for human habitation prior to its inundation. Based on the available information reviewed during this study and the relatively high number of documented pre-contact period terrestrial archaeological sites in the Project study area's vicinity, the submerged portion of the Project study area is characterized as M having moderate archaeological sensitivity for containing submerged pre-contact f period archaeological deposits. f44 Archival and field research conducted for this study also indicates that the Project study ItI t area has a long history of intensive post-contact period maritime activity, including f substantial vessel traffic. While the potential for encountering intact submerged j ' archaeological deposits related to the area's maritime infrastructure (i.e. wharves, landings, etc.) is influenced by extensive disturbances to the former location of the historic shoreline and waterfront, the Project study area exhibits moderate sensitivity for containing the remains of post-contact period archaeological deposits. Based on the Project study area's moderate archaeological sensitivity, a marine t archaeological remote sensing reconnaissance survey of the submerged, undisturbed portion of the proposed Project's Area of Potential Effect("APE") (i.e., the portion of the APE that extends outside the limits of the dredged federal navigation channel) is recommended to locate, identify, and evaluate archaeological resources related to documented and undocumented Native American and Euro-American land uses within it.. The proposed scope of this survey would be determined in consultation with the MBTA, ' the MHC, the BUAR, and other federal and tribal project reviewers, and the survey conducted under a BUAR Special Use Permit. The primary purpose of the remote sensing survey is to accurately document harbor floor ' conditions and precisely locate submerged and buried archaeological features in the project area that are not exposed and visible at low tide. The survey should be conducted at high tide using a track line spacing of 50 to 25 ft and the following instruments; I 27 j i l o DGPS utilizing U.S. Coast Guard-beacon derived differentially-corrected ' positions accurate to within approximately 3 ft(I m) or less; o Coastal Oceanographics' HYPACK hydrographic survey software; o a marine magnetometer capable of detecting variations in the Earth's ambient magnetic field of as little as 0.2 gammas; ' o a high-frequency (e.g., 500 kHz) digital side scan sonar system operated at a 50 to 25-meter range setting • a high-resolution sub-bottom profiling system capable of providing acoustic penetration of the harbor floor's substrate to a depth of 50 ft ' a a precision single-beam echosounder. Sub-surface geotechnical sampling, consisting of the recovery of three to five, 4-in (10 ' cin) diameter-x-20-ft (6 m) throw vibratory cores, should be conducted to fully characterize the stratigraphy within the submerged and intertidal portions of the project area and determine the degree of disturbance of sediments within the dredged and undredgcd areas as well as the presence/absence of buried paleosols and/or deposits of ancient Native American archaeological materials inundated by post-glacial sea level ; rise. Archaeological diver-based probing and mapping would be conducted using a surface- supplied air diving mode with a helmet-mounted real-time underwater audio/video feed to a topside monitor and recorder, a video-hydro-probe to video-document buried contacts, and a combination of hand-mensuration, GPS, and total station measurement and mapping of submerged archaeological features (buried and exposed) associated with ' maritime industry-related infrastructure and activities in the submerged portions of the project area. i f' I i 28 r r r ' REFERENCES i Adams,Virginia H.,and Candace Jenkins 1995 Route 6A, Cape Cod, Resource Protection Cultural Landscape Survey. Bourne, Sandwich, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Brewster, and Orleans,. Massachusetts. Volume 1. Submitted to the Cape Cod Commission; ' Barnstable,MA. Prepared by PAL,Pawtucket, RL Albion,Robert G., William A. Baker and Benjamin W.Labaree 1994 New England and the Sea. Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc.,Mystic,CT. Barber,John Warner ' 1839 Historical Collections. Derr,Howland and Company, Worcester,MA. i Barber,Russel r 1978 A Quantitative Assessment of the Reliability of Archaeological Site Records in Massachusetts. Survey and Planning Project Completion Report. Institute for Conservation Archaeology,Harvard University, Cambridge,MA. ' Basnight, Bob 1996 What Ship is That?: A Field Guide to Boats and Ships. Lyons Press, New i York,NY. Bass, George F. (ed.) 1988 Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas: A History Based on Underwater Archaeology, Thames and Hudson,New York,NY. Bates,Raymond H.,Jr. ' 2000 Shipwrecks North of Boston. Commonwealth Editions,Beverly,MA. Bauer,K. Jack 1 r 1988 A Maritime History of the United States: The Role of America's Seas and i Waterways. University of South Carolina Press,Columbia, SC. I Bentley, William 1914 The Diary of William Bentley, D.D.; Pastor of the East Church, Salem, MA. The Bulletin of the Essex Institute,Vol. 4. i I ' Brown,A. G. 1997 Floodplain Archaeology and Environmental Change. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge,UK. rByers, D.A. 1954 "Bull Brook: A Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachusetts." American i ' Antiquity 19(4):343-351. t t r29 1 r i Dent,R. J. 1991 Deep Time in the Potomac River Valley: Thoughts on PaleoIndian Lifeways and Revisionist Archaeology. Archaeology of Eastern North America 19:23- 41. Dincauze, Dena F. j 1974 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Greater Boston Area. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2(1):39-67. i Dincauze,D.F., and M.L. Curran ; 1983 PaleoIndian as Generalists: An Ecological Perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Pittsburgh,PA. Funk,Robert E. ' 1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast.4:7-39. Howe,Octavius Thorndike 1922 Beverly Privateers in the American Revolution. John Wilson and Son, Cambridge,MA. ' Johnson,Eric S. and Thomas F. Mahlstedt 1982 Prehistoric Archaeological Collection from Massachusetts: A Report on the , Peabody Museum of Salem. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Kemp,Peter(ed.) I 1976 The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea. Oxford University Press, New York,NY. ' King,Marsha K. 1992 Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation/Phase II Site Examination, Beverly-Salem Bridge Transportation Project, Beverly, Massachusetts. Voll. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Report No. 417, Submitted to Massachusetts Department of Public Works,Boston,MA. Knebel,H.R.,J. Rendigs,R.N. Oldale,and M.H.Bothner ' 1992 Sedimentary Framework of Boston Harbor Massachusetts, SEPM Special Publications No. 48, Quaternary Coasts in the United States: Marine and ' Lacustrine Systems. I 1 Leveillee, Alan ' 1994 A Program of Archaeological Data Recovery: The Millbury III Cremation Complex, Millbury, MA. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Report No. 396. Submitted to New England Power Service Company, Westborough, MA. 30 0 9 Massachusetts Historical Commission 1986 Massachusetts Historical Commission Reconnaissance Survey Report: Beverly. Massachusetts Historical Commission,Boston. Morison, Samuel Eliot 1979 The Maritime History of Massachusetts: 1783-1860. Northeastern University ' Press,Boston,MA. Mrozowski, Stephen A. ' 1993 The Discovery of a Native American Cornfield on Cape Cod. Archaeology of Eastern North America 22:47-62. Ober,Frederick A. 1888 History of Essex County, Massachusetts. Vol. I. D. Hamilton Hurd, comp. J.W. Lewis and Company,Philadelphia. M Oldale,Robert N. 1985a Late Quaternary Sea-Level History of New England: A Review of the Published Sea-Level Data. Northeastern Geology 7:192-200. j 1985b Rapid Postglacial Shoreline Changes in the Western Gulf of Maine and the PaleoIndian Environment. American Antiquity(50)1:145-150. 1988 A Late Wisconsinian Marine Incursion into Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. Quaternary Research 30:30:237-250. i Oldale,Robert N., Steven M. Colman, and Glenn.A.Jones 1993 Radiocarbon Ages from Two Submerged Strandline Features in the Western Gulf of Maine and a Sea-Level Curve for the Northeastern Massachusetts Coastal Region. Quaternary Research 40:38-45. i i Oldale,Robert N.,Harlcy J. Knebel, and Michael H. Bothner 1994 Submerged and Eroded Drumlins off Northeastern Massachusetts. Geomorphology 9:301-309. PAL 2005 Appendix 4F Marine Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Northeast Gateway Pipeline Lateral. Prepared for Duke Energy, Algonquin Gas I ' Transmission, LLC, Waltham, MA. Prepared by PAL, Pawtucket, RI, with contributions fiom Ocean Surveys, Inc., Old Saybrook, CT, and Fathom Research,LLC,Newport,RI. j ' Ritchie,Duncan 1985 Archaeological Investigations of a Maintenance Building Site, Weir Hill Tract, Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Sudbury, Massachusetts. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Report No. 75-1. Submitted to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife,Service,Newton Corner, MA. 31 I i. f Ritchie, William A. ' 1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Harbor Hills Books,Harrison,NY. f Roberts,David C. 1996 A Field Guide to Geology: Eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin Company,New York,NY. Robinson,David S. , 1999 Indiana: The History and Archaeology of an Early Great bakes Propeller. Unpubl. masters thesis. Nautical Archaeology Program, Department of ' Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station,TX. i 2006 Remote Sensing Archaeological Survey, Annisquam River Dredged Materials Disposal Site, for Annisquam River Maintenance Dredging, Gloucester, Massachusetts. PAL Report No. 1918. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,New England District. j Robinson,David S.,Ben Ford,Holly Herbster,and Joseph N.Waller,Jr. ' 2003 Marine Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment, Cape Wind Project, Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. Prepared for Cape Wind Associates, Inc., Boston, MA. PAL Report No. 1485. Public Archaeology Laboratory,Pawtucket,RI. 1 Skehan,James W. 2001 Roadside Geology of Massachusetts. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula,MT. Snow,Dean , 1980 The Archaeology of New England.Academic Press,New York,NY. i Starbuck,Alexander ' 1989 History of the American Whale Fishery. Castle Books, Secaucus,NJ. Stone,Edwin M. ' 1843 History of Beverly; Civil and Ecclesiastical, From its Settlement in 1630 to 1842. James Munroe and Company, Boston. Thorbahn,Peter,F.,Leonard Loparto,Deborah Cox,and Brona Simon 1980 Prehistoric Settlement Processes in Southern New England: A Unified Approach to Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research. Public Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Brown University Report. -Report on file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Office of the Secretary of State,Boston,MA. l 1 32 1 1 Uchupi,E.,N.Driscoll, R. D. Ballard, S. T. Bolmer 2001 Drainage of Late Wisconsin Glacial Lakes and the Morphology and Late Quaternary Stratigraphy of the New Jersey—Southern New England 1 Continental Shelf and Slope. Marine Geology 172:117-145. Vaughan,Alden T. 1965 New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675. Little, Brown and Company,Boston. Waters,Michael R. 1992 Principals of Geoarchaeology• A North American Perspective. University of i Arizona Press,Tucson,AZ. 1 Weeden,William B. 1890 Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789 (2 vols.). The Riverside Press, Cambridge,MA. 1 Westley,Kieran,and Justin Dix 2006 Coastal Environments and Their Role in Prehistoric Migration. Journal of 1 Maritime Archaeology l(l):9-28. Zen, E.,G.R. Goldsmith,N.L. Ratcliffe,P.Robinson,and R.S. Stanley 1 1983 Bedrock geologic map of Massachusetts. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologic Survey,Washington,DC. 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 33 r I I I 1 FIGURES 1 t 1 1 I 1 34 ' M ' 1 1 } \ ,..1 „_ S� _ •:� .,�- �-- Project Study 7f. _ , ' &a" Figure 1. General location of the Project study area within the Commonwealth of ' Massachusetts. 1 1 1 � 1 i 1 II r r r ✓ i tiRON ,yy1 I h 01 Ra b f Study Area 'e�'� !�^ . '�' � i L �` l •r � � ��{�y': �/ �fifrJ�i`•r � f¢1 '. .€ `( `,(. R k� a /♦r ! ^. / )' V}�, 4�/ • '/ �j r t f �'�� V`�'rr .` � ��,`r/ �f�'r r t ) + � 1 r F I V � t: g h Vit, '��`i + ,_._ ..✓j�° .i:tb''� 4'l :• � � Q � ,pry' � 1 t +.Ir. • .� .�.• 1 Ms ne6c De0111fallan ry ` ) � .•.� i .� 5ubs507 i a o +W M M 4 M W )W Ws BW xnxos )000 ROW FEET �' V ♦ .' 0 1W 21q ]Ip GW 6W NO )W BOO METERa Figure 2. MBTA Beverly Drawbridge Repair Project: marine archaeological assessment study area. c 5 �� X11' I OAFFIiy syF i , IND Iflu r`N 11)t lcG9`�r�' J l o l l ilk��J/i n tk Project Study �l Area i i 0`�l Figure 3. Extent of the Laurentide Glacial Ice Sheet during the last glacial I maximum circa 23,000-18,000 B.P.(source: Skehan 2001). i 1 i i i 1 i t e �7/"' ��iN- t .�l Jfl'rf f :/r/lEr��..i r/�i '/h n".•�xA xt �•1 'i] J' n�,w 9,toys 17 77`7Ti ...... N\ I) q .� , � � l'.%L., / f:.,:/,fir. ✓.�::%A i/'...(y:.^ Figure 4. Map of Beverly (1795) shows widespread industrial activity and extent of ' road system(source: MHC). i i i 1 r. i t F Q Iii tily' 4� sof a �PFjr+ i = y `a ♦ uk 4'¢ Figure 5. Undated photograph taken from the Salem side of.Beverly Harbor showing the railroad bridge running parallel to the Essex Bridge (source: Beverly Public Library). s i f l f ii f ip f 1 1 1872 c . .rAy:JJWy. Jy/+ •� 9y �Jnso.r �` nrr�+ewde1 • ,� lute..f.r n� H.C1nnLY ` . .y oarl 3sur IRW f� eY y e ...rBW. Ye/Yed J' p !r +fAmn Gha f' t Ry Awn, lei Cant U JJaIill a" fr ttll 1'�e IQT .F'+P TArrIrT ti _ e r ! drry .�- � Figure 6. Map of Beverly (1872) showing extensive development around railroad the tracks and network of wharves along waterfront(inset) (source: Atlas of Essex County, 1872). r e t + t . y r t uuu 1 ' Figure 7. "Bird's Eye"view of Beverly(1886)(source: Library of Congress). I i i a w L o �s j i Figure 8. Undated photograph showing steam and sailing vessels traversing Beverly Harbor(source: Beverly Public Library). . , F i i 1 1 n�r, s t �. �_. 1 ...",«"'C� .►� 'r:. re a ..$'`„d 'y Y y17 A'y. - 'I Figure 9. Photograph of the Beverly Harbor waterfront circa 1893 showing both ' steam and sailing vessels at the town's piers (source: Beverly Public Library). 1 I i i i I t 1 '1 } i yW Aq a(� t r Ewen+o-1771 " •-•,; ',p�'Z��} P � raw L ° i `jr �# j it . \p0y CMS X P A moi/ Y Ce rH^"—• rl legeAP, S \ `'✓4j( ^'•' tIT ke go 0 08 Figure 10. Excerpt of the North Shore Atlas (1919) showing the locations of fuel ' company wharves along Beverly Harbor's waterfront (source: http://www.salemdeeds.com). 1 1 1 a i i A •.� t u�.ae%aeu Tl' S•n.. � i.c " `sr .. � •M° eC'.Yi4.0/wnpQH q�d9: h..IH9.AlaN4/PMM/. ' Figure 11. Chart of Beverly Harbor depicting the extent of the federal navigation channel(inset) (source: USACE). 1 i 1 1 �v .JL• Mf _ `v ��. �„j, ,♦` a s i Figure 12. Cut-stone bulkhead forming the landward extent of the intertidal zone along the northern boundary of the submerged portion of the Project study area from the approximate location of the Veterans Memorial Bridge east to Tuck's Point(source: Fathom). I I 1 i `S '.r i A � l.• Va> Or 4 r��x'rFy�,�S .,x 2.��t. � t F�7}1. r • ft,.. 'i �qt >�.{-�! _ ;tier > r;. L'.t s, ' }~ •�^�\{�+. ^m x, �?''� � t'.�ri' •Q � r.„ear\ "C ♦ �. ':�x"t. .�y kf f' Orn '�` � "`y7e. S r+L1 l'. � r�" $">t*Fe �`d�3 ',§- f,Y,.r•Ei #• }i. ,k ^1 yy ' S.Y>,r {�rY"•' iL YNa � �'�'9 l.•F +��i�" a •,•�', �CF`a_.F } r ' ryq�R'ts. � vWT.2 P .,� � �.. . tys dy,•�'��,, w s` t f• r r 1 1I1 I ,1 1 I i 1 Figure 14. Wooden piling remnants on the Salem side of Beverly Harbor near the base of the former Essex Bridge(source: Fathom). 1 1 i i 1 i 1 i 1 I . - 1 I ' 1 41 ��q: ��y " ' �1 �a i 34 r ilia ` u� Y ' Figure 15. Cut-stone base (and modern concrete support piles [foreground]) of the MBTA Beverly Drawbridge on the north side of Beverly Harbor(source: Fathom). i 1 1 Figure 16. Wooden piling remains on the north side of Beverly Harbor,west of the i MBTA Beverly Drawbridge(source: Fathom). t 4 i t {t { i 1 , 1 1 r . jk y.:� � ,.� s. {�. x. Ufa-�4.�•MF',y' ';'.. 4 yy�y ti ' Figure 17. Rock outcropping on the Salem side of Beverly Harbor, east of the former Essex Bridge(source: Fathom). i r i i r i 1 1 I t F M a "F Ile Figure 18. Remains of a small, modern wooden boat located on the Salem side of Beverly Harbor,east of the Veterans Memorial Bridge(source: Fathom). { J i 1 i Table 1. Reported Vessel Casualties in the Vicinity of the Project Study Area 1 ' Reported Vessel General Location of Casualty Casualty Vessel Name Type Casualty �,pe. Cargo Source Date {I ' 8-29-1835 Common Bates Chance sloop Lobster Rock,Beverly unknown unknown 2000; ({ MBUAR Bates 12-27-1839 Sl. George schooner near bridge,Beverly unknown oil 2000; MBUAR Northern 1871 Prince unknown Beverly Harbor Fire unknown Shipwreck - ' Database Bates 6-7-1871 Prime schooner Beverly Harbor unknown wood 2000; ' MBUAR Northern 1899 Avalon unknown Beverly I-Iarbor stranded unknown Shipwreck ' Database .j Bates 12-4-1900 E and nes W. schooner Beverly Harbor unknown wood 2000; MBUAR l ' 5-29-1903 Mena yacht Beverly Harbor unknown unknown Bates 2000 8-31-1954 Evelyn Ruth sew Beverly Harbor unknown unknown 2000 r � M