Loading...
SECTION 106 COMMENT Sc TI oio CvMrA�T 1 o W /'1 Q + O 1 f 00 O r PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM ARS ARCHITECTURE CULTURE RECEIvF JUN 14 2W jumeeu,2001 MASS. FAST. COMM arona Simon Deputy Statue I isionc roma,State&aaeologisi ubmimicommision Massachusetts;K Massadusefts A[U4Rs ppy8®t Boston,Massac61Lseas 02125-1053 s,.sr a rola SQUARE Dear Stuaa, "LOW.tussaLKOVITg 01970.M3 I" Iwaratothank M-97&95-%w YOu forYonrletter of May29,which i received onj„ne 6*.Im responw, RM RMv please allow tr ee the voicemail targe I left on F6&r. WWW .opc The PeabodyEssa Museum is happyso oonsnit wxltyou regardaigyaw cones.vwe it maynot be evident in the drawings,we and our architeaund team have,in fact, endeavored to avoid any false sense of history in the azrhaecsucal yeah a number of fiscures•including itaetpteuive installations,are imended to dearly communicate to vititots the knowledge that the new femues are not original building fabric N we have some add'uiooal ideas,indixhiog revised wording for the SecondCorps Ca dets sign,which we bdwve would alleviate your conoaas. In addition,I meed to advise you that the current design also saves to correct significant stnlavtai issues with the drill shed wad This is essentrel to ensum pubhc safay q,r conAdmW analysis indicates rhaz the ermew deign,developed in oonauhnitioa with the N>Denal Pa>k Service,n the Q*ptacuW soJauion. The per y permitted and mobilized,and we we obligated to proceed espedi m*to fWQ our to the city,de Vamme savloes and otgamzariostt,the New IF LISQ National Gmard.National Park Survive,historical societies,and others. Tape has been wuv*md regulatlyinvolved;athe manomlparkp)aming. Iceclosing,Isme nitame this this pwim does not av olve Section I%review,sire the National Park Service has detamuned that this is not a federal undertal erg,and there is no state Pig requiremem bur oaumad at Goodwin Procter strongly concurs in this assessmem Having said this,the Museum,as a matter of good faith,does wish to take all reasonaw steps to alleviate your concerns. In reviewing our sehedole,we are avail"to weer wahyou cryour staff any daythis week err neat.please call meat W"90-7253 when you have had a chance to nwusvyont schedule. ohn R Genes Deputy Director for*ad propcis �• 99E4 ON '01007 16':11�dnic.ru •ceuui tAijnr•r I 'll •n •r.. 'L'? 1, — i t : 5? The Commonwealth of Massachusetts :i/-'Filii�m Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth PLANNING Di MMassachusetts Historical Commission May 29, 2001 John Grimes Deputy Director, Special Projects Peabody Essex Museum East India Square Salem, MA 01970 RE: Drill Shed at Armory Park, Peabody Essex Museum Complex, Salem, MA; MHC#28552 Dear Mr. Grimes: Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the information you submitted concerning the proposed project referenced above. The Second Corps of Cadets Armory Drill Shed is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a building which contributes to the significance of the Salem Common Historic District. After a review of the information submitted,MHC staff have the following comments. The proposal involves the creation of five new segmentally arched openings, the removal of brick piers, and removal/infill of the existing window on the wall of the Drill Shed. After a review of the materials submitted, I have determined that the proposed project will have an adverse effect on the Second Corps of Cadets Drill Shed(36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(i)and (ii) and 950 CMR 71.05(a)and (c)) through the demolition of portions of the historic Drill Shed wall for the introduction of five new openings. The project thus meets the criteria of adverse effect for the demolition or destruction of part of the historic property and the introduction of visual elements that are out of character with the historic fabric of the Drill Shed wall, which was historically secondary. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties states that "Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken." With regard to the proposed signage, the MHC is concerned that the replication of the Second Corps of Cadets lettering will create confusion regarding the importance of the fagade which faces Essex Street. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.6 and 950 CMR 71.07(3),the MHC requests the opportunity to consult with the Peabody Essex Museum in order to seek ways to avoid,minimize,or mitigate the adverse effect of the proposed project. In addition,the MHC requests the opportunity to review the proposed specifications for the proposed repointing of the exterior and interior walls, and the specifications for the proposed abrasive blasting of the interior wall for the removal of paint, in order to determine whether the specifications meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.. 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727-8470•Fax: (617) 727-5128 w,v^v.state.ma.us/sec/mhc Additionally, the MHC requests that project plans to the Salem Historical Commission, an interested party under 36 CFR 800.3(f)(1) and 950 CMR 71.02(2)(b), for their review and comment. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as amended (36 CFR 800) and M.G.L. Chapter 9, Section 26-27C, as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 (950 CMR 71.00). Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brona Simon Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer State Archaeologist Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Salem National Maritime Historic Site, National Park Service Salem Historical Commission Historic Salem,Inc. Bonnie Smith E Ei X 29 The,,9!#Mgi wealth of Massachusetts William Franci"Gar1vin;Secretary of the Commonwealth Massachusetts Historical Commission June 25,2001 T.William Smith First Universalist Society of Salem 211 Bridge Street . Salem,MA 01970 Re: First Universalist Church,211 Bridge Street,Salem,MA,MHC#29015 Dear Mr. Smith: Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission has reviewed the information you submitted,received June 19,2001,concerning the proposed project referenced above. The First Universalist Church is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributing resource in the Salem Multiple Resource Area. The proposed project consists of the replacement of the roof on the church tower,repair and restoration of the tower balustrade, stabilization and rebuilding of the chimneys in the church tower,and restoration and painting of the tower woodwork including louvered openings and woodwork associated with the tower roof overhang. If the proposed project is funded,the MHC requests the opportunity to review detailed plans and specifications for the proposed project. These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as amended (36 CFR 800). Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sinceee'rr�ell��y,, TayaDixoon Preservation Planner Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Salem Historical Commission Essex National Heritage Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727-8470•Fax: (617) 727-5128 vnvw.statc.ma.us/scc/mhc mm Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX(978) 740-0404 April 5, 2007 David Kayser, Museum Curator Salem Maritime National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Pedrick Store House Project Dear Mr. Kayser, Thank you for your submission of plans and other materials for the Pedrick Store House project on Derby Wharf. The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the submission and offers the following comments. It appears that there are site utilities (transformer, generator and/or meter) proposed for the facade facing Derby Street. We strongly recommended that this unit be placed inside the structure or, if not feasible, be covered by a simple attached wood shed with doors for access. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Hannah Diozzi Chair Cc: Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission QppSK,EWr OF TSP United States Department of the Interior v P ryl Q NATIONAL PARK SERVICE _ Salem Maritime National Historic Site M4q�H s0p9 Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970-5136 IN REPLY REPERTO: RECEIVED March 28, 2007 APR 2007 DEPT.OF PLANNING& Ms. Jane Guy COMMUNIIy DEVELOPMENT Department of Planning and Community Development 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Ms. Guy: Enclosed are plans and other material for the Pedrick Store House project on Derby Wharf to be reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission. If you have any questions, you may contact me by email at dave kayserOnps.eov or by phone at 978-740-1690. Sincerely,, "�Ow e7,� David Kayser Museum Curator y .v s S uk}ad� r, CAS w ''L it e : � y` q��a'✓kv y-S�`�i"�w�"��{ '/i � i � e �� fie. � ti>iF ;r i � r= � a .w:SY'c x�' I r te"Y - cT �v_-=cam ,46 = T e.r F— � Exterior Materials Description Preservation of the Pedrick Store House Salem Maritime National Historic Park Based upon physical evidence from the original structure, the following materials will be reinstated to the exterior envelope of the Pedrick Store House: Roof and wall sheathing: Pine plank, flat-sawn random widths, 1" nominal thickness. Roof cladding: Cedar shingles, vertical grain, IS" long. Wall cladding: Pine or spruce clapboards, vertical grain, +/- 4" exposure. Trim: Pine or similar, flat-sawn. Window and door frames: Pine or similar, plank-type. Window sashes: Pine or similar, 6/6 double-hung, single-glazed. Doors: Pine or similar, plank and batten configuration. Shutters: Pine or similar, plank and batten configuration. Hardware: Iron strap and pintle. Pilings: Timber, species to be determined. Chimney: Brick masonry. Foundations: Split field stone masonry (where visible above-grade). s � y` i NT OF °t >tiFym United States Department of the Interior P O n NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Salem Maritime National Historic Site y4gCHaa 1e^9 Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970-5136 IN REPLY REFER TO: March 28, 2007 Ms. Brona Simon, Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, Massachusetts 02125 RE: Pedrick Store House MHC #RC.23690, PEPC #15933 Dear Ms. Simon: In October 2003, Salem Maritime NHS completed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer concerning the dismantling and subsequent reconstruction of the Pedrick Store House on Derby Wharf in Salem. In the MOA, we agreed to evaluate the significance of archeological resources at the building's intended location. This letter will discuss the impact of the project on archeological resources and bring you up to date on our progress in completing the overall project. Shortly after the building was acquired by the National Park Service, the structure was documented by NPS Historical Architect David Bittermann, after which the frame was disassembled and removed to the Saugus Iron Works NHS, where it was placed in storage. In 2005, all components were removed to the NPS Preservation Lab in Lowell, MA for repair and cleaning, where they remain today awaiting reassembly. Details of the disassembly operation can be found in the attachments. Last year, applications were filed with the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the City of Salem Conservation Commission, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, the Narragansett Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and the Wampanoag Historic Preservation Officer. Approvals have been granted by all these agencies. The Chapter 91 permit is pending while the application site plans are being reviewed and stamped by a registered land surveyor so that final approval can be granted. The Historic Derby Street Neighborhood Association has been consulted on the project, and information on the project has been sent to the Salem Historical Commission for comment. s' At the same time, the National Park Service has been formulating construction plans for the building. After careful consideration, a location just to the north of Friendship on the west side of Derby Wharf was chosen for the building. This location has many advantages over others considered, including the east side of Derby Wharf, near Derby Street at the head of the wharf, and Central Wharf. By placing it on the west side of the wharf, the building will be protected from storm surges, no archeological resources will be impacted, the building will not encroach upon the path, and the handicapped accessible ramp to the ship will be shielded from the street view. In addition, a similar building was in this location as early as 1890. Photo mockups of the building as it will appear in its intended location are enclosed. The east side of Derby Wharf offers little protection from storm surges, and the footprint of the building would encroach upon the path that runs down the center of wharf, which historically has remained unencumbered by structures and is a designated National Recreation Trail. Locating the building on this side of the wharf could also jeopardize archeological resources discovered during 1992 archeological investigations. Locating the building along Derby Street would remove it from its historical waterfront association. A Central Wharf location was also considered, but park and regional NPS staff agreed it was too far removed from Friendship if the building were to be used as a support structure for the ship. Plans for the building's foundations have been completed, with strict attention paid to protecting underground resources. Footings will not exceed 4 feet in depth, which is above the existing fill line. Digging will be minimized by disturbing only in the area of the individual footings. The seven support pilings for the deck will be pile driven per Salem Conservation Commission guidelines, which will minimize disturbance to the sea bed. Construction drawings are enclosed. Archeological testing of the proposed site has been extensive. In December 2002, archeological investigations were undertaken on Derby Wharf to determine if archeological resources were present along a proposed utility corridor to serve the site's replica merchant ship, Friendship. Trenches 1, 2 and 13, dug to a depth of 5 feet and in close proximity to the intended building site, were found to contain no resources. A complete discussion of the findings can be found in Phase IB Archeological Reconnaissance Report, Derby Wharf Utility Corridor, Salem Maritime NHS by Scott Stull. An earlier investigation, conducted in 1992 by the University of Massachusetts, found early wharf timbers in various trenches in the vicinity of the project area, but at depths much greater than the footings will be for the Store House. An almost uniform level of fill, exceeding 5 feet, was found to have been placed along the wharf during repair work in 193 8. Results of these tests can be found in Archeological Investigation at Derby and Central Wharves, Salem Maritime NHS', by Garman, Shaw, Barker,.and Mulholland. A terrestrial and marine remote sensing and archeological ground truthing survey was undertaken at the site in 1990 and 1992 to identify intact archeological resources within the park. Three underwater anomalies were found, but none were near the area where the seven pilings will be driven to support the deck on the west side of the warehouse. More information on these tests is in Salem Maritime NHS, Terrestrial and Marine Archeological Remote Sensing and Archeological Monitoring by Alterman, Bevan, and Cox. The above studies show that no archeological resources will be impacted by the project. Documentation is being prepared for the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places to determine the building's National Register status. We welcome your comments, and we will continue to consult with you on this ongoing project. If you have questions, please contact Dave Kayser, our Museum Curator, at 978- 740-1690. ,- v Pa ricia S. Trap /� Superintendent Enclosures Existing Conditions Disassembly Methodology Archeology test areas Mock-up photos Construction plan-foundations/S+ite plan Exterior Materials Description _4 Pedrick's Store House-Existing Conditions(2003) The following describes the condition of the structure as acquired by the National Park Service in August of 2003. Form and Orientation: The 2-1/2 story wood-framed gabled structure was oriented with its long front fagade facing the harbor, looking southeast(called south for purposes of this report). Its original 25' x 44' footprint had survived intact on its original site, even though both envelope and form had evolved substantially. The gabled roof was removed in 1906 and replaced with a flat roof. A 25' x 9' lean- to was added at the west end of the Figure 1—Building as acquired in 2003 building in 1950,which was in turn rebuilt to cover approximately 25' x 16' by 1973 (fig. 1). � j Y is S Site/Foundations: r Although originally constructed on wood pilings driven to a ledge descending into w7 4Z,,moi the harbor,the store house had been _ surrounded by timber and stone masonry wharf construction by at least 1864 (fig. 2). The wharf bulkhead was situated y roughly 16' south of and parallel to the Figure 2—Early bulkhead construction front wall of the store house, returning to the descending ledge roughly 12' west of and parallel to the gabled end wall. The wharf was decked with wood planking, ®_ ' t although at an elevation substantially lower than the floor of the store house. This left the store house structure to K project above on its pilings,with an open f`' T crawlspace beneath(fig. 3). In 1904,the wharf bulkhead received a concrete facing and cap(fig. 4). Figure 3-Open crawlspace visible beneath By 1950 any surviving plank wharf structure on left decking had been removed, and the wharf 1 filled to an elevation of approximately + F-8"below the level of the store house 1 aea L_ ' first floor. To enclose the crawlspace II 1p " ® beneath the building and prevent the Pp ' wharf fill from entering, loose masonry rubble(mortared only above grade)was laid beneath the sills along the southerly, easterly, and westerly elevations of the building, completely encompassing its Figure 4—Bulkhead concrete facing and cap outermost row of supporting timber 1 `'r pilings. In the southeast comer of the foundation a concrete footing was j poured,measuring approximately 7' square,to support a first floor walk-in ice box(fig. 5). In 1973, a concrete foundation was poured along the north building I elevation,bearing directly on the descending ledge (fig. 6). A new Figure 5—Concrete footing in southeast corner concrete floor slab was poured abutting the westerly wall of the original building, expanding the footprint of the earlier 1950 lean-to (fig. 7). In the crawlspace, five 36" square concrete footings were added to provide bearing for modern auxiliary supports (fig. 6). The wharf fill was eventually capped by a bituminous pavement, and a brick stoop was added 5 at the single doorway remaining on the south elevation of the original structure (fig. 5). Figure 6—1973 concrete foundation on ledge Throughout these alterations,at least and footings for auxiliary supports fourteen pilings had survived in-situ, although none were serviceable for reuse (fig. 8, dwg. FF-5). 00 Timber Frame. The principal members of the original timber frame (posts,girts,beams, and sills)have survived substantially intact, except those members removed in 1906 to create a flat roof. The surviving heavy Figure 7—Floor slab of 1973 lean-to framing elements include sixteen wall 2 posts, eighteen wall girts, fifteen —' transverse floor beams, and three sills (dwgs. FFl-FF9). The 1973 renovations y entailed removal of the north sill(and the northerly 14" of the east and west sills respectively, along with the bottom 21" of the corresponding north wall posts)to 1 install the concrete foundation(fig. 9). These renovations also saw removal of �< all but one original diagonal brace. Floor Joists,Structural and Finish Figure 8—Wood pilings remaining in-situ with Flooring. 1973 auxiliary support between All but two surviving original floor joists were removed during the 1973 renovations, and replaced with modem dimension lumber(fig. 10). All surviving original floor planking was removed during the 1973 renovations. On the fust story,new materials > consisted of plywood sub-flooring, underlayment, and resilient tiles;while on the second, modern tongue and groove floor planking supported a plywood underlayment and wall-to-wall carpeting (figs. 11-14). Exterior Wall Studding,Sheathing, and Figure 9—1973 northerly foundation and Cladding: sill replacing original lowermost structure All exterior wall studs,wall sheathing, and exterior cladding were removed during the 1973 renovations. Exterior walls were henceforth framed with modem dimension lumber, sheathed with plywood, and clad with new wood shingles(figs. 11, 12). Roof Rafters,Sheathing, and Cladding: The entire roof was reframed and sheathed during the 1973 renovations. fflgw'�d � '' New framing was of dimension lumber that was in turn sheathed with plywood Figure 10—One of two surviving original floor joists 3 and clad with a built-up bituminous roofing membrane(figs. 11, 12). �j Windows,Doors, and Exterior Trim: YI All windows, doors, and exterior trim were replaced with new materials during 5 the 1973 renovations(fig. 1). Interior Partitions: All interior partitions were replaced with new materials in new locations during the Figure 11-1973 roof,wall,and floor framing 1973 renovations(fig. 13). elements engaging original timber frame Miscellaneous Elements: Numerous historic materials removed during or prior to the 1973 renovations, were found on the premises. Many of . these had been reused in various capacities, including repairs to principal framing members, as concrete forming materials, or as ad-hoc structural i supports. Others we re left to accumulate - in the 14 crawls ace(fig. . Examples of P ( S ) these historic materials include fragments of original roof purlins, rafter plates, Figure 12-Original framing elements rafters,wall sheathing, clapboards, supporting 1973 construction window casings, door and scuttle frames, and floor planking. a IR I Y^ v4 a Figure 13—1973 second floor interior Figure 14—Early building debris left to partitions and finishes accumulate in crawlspace 4 T A6 AS A4 A3 A2 Al SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY NPS Northeast Regbn PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE 0 31 6• lx' FF 1 Dealm,canstwcuan,and FacMty Management FRAMING & FENESTRATION Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ELEMENTS Scale: �¢" 1'-0, SHEET 1 or, In iohn Street,Lnwell,Massachusetts 01852 17A seed Street Salem,74 Def S" 01970 28 APRIL 2006 Al Bl C1 ctu au 4 � 4YU C3IB LJ EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY NPS NONheaR Regbn PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE0 3' 6' 12' �F 2 Design,Cauimmuon,and FatllRy Management FRAMING & FENESTRATION Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARMME MnONAL HISTORIC SITE ELEMENTS Sole: )§"�1'-0" SHEET20F9 115]ohn Street,Lowell,MassacTuset� 01852 174 Derby Meet Salem,Massachusetts 01970 28 APRIL 2006 T C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 a x e x a 6iG (SC GY.Nc 5 7 cic NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY NPS NMNeAQ Regbn PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE0 3' 6' 12' FF 3 Design,corstuetlon,and Fatlaty Management FRAMING & FENESTRATION Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARIIWENATIONAL HISTORICSITE ELEMENTS Scale: )C' SHEEr3OF9 115 john Street,lav0,Maswchusetts 01852174 Derby Street Salem,Masarhuselts D1970 29 APRIL 2006 C7 B7 A7 Ci.R Gf)A a � g WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY 1�9R Cer6tN�nd aRtlllry Management PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE FRAMING & FENESTRATION ° '' 6' 12' FF 4 Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARMME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITEAPRIL 2006 ELEMENTS Scale: )("m 1'-0° SHEET4 OF 115]ohn Street,Laved,Massaanset6 01852 174 Derby Street Salem,Masaechuse2s 01970 20 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PILING PLAN EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY NPS Normeast Regbn PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE 0 3• v 12 FF 5 Design,construction,and FadWManagement FRAMING & FENESTRATION Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC STIE ELEMENTS sale: W, V-0" SHEETSOF9 115 John Sheet,Lowe9,Masachux4fs 01852 174 Ruby Street Salem,74 Dectwsehs 01970 28 APRIL 2006 6 3 7 5 T4 2 1 rJ�---- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �j FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY NPS NaNheast Reghm PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE - 0 r s 12, FF 6 Deagn,Cansburtlon,and FaWty Managemem FRAMING & FENESTRATION Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SM ELEMENTS Soler"-P-0° SHEET6Of9 et, 115 John StreLowell,Masachu H 01852 179 Derby Street Salem,Massechuseb s 0197D 28 APRIL 2D06 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY NPS NortlreaS[Reglon PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE FRAMING & FENESTRATION D 3' 6' IT FF 7 Design,Conan ton,and Fadgty Management Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARITMENATIONALHISTORIC ST"E ELEMENTS see: S("-1'-0" StEET7�e 115 John Street,Loved,Mass'aclwsINls 01852 174 Derby Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 28 APRIL 2006 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 O O ATTIC FLOOR PLAN EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY O�yn cNPS�a �Ma a9emeM PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE FRAMING & FENESTRATION 0 3' s 12' FF 8 Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARITIME NATIWL HISTORIC SITE 174 Derby Street ELEMENTS 5®e: ^1-0" SHE lewd, ETBOF9 115 John Street, Massachusetts 01852 Salem,Massrdwseltt 01970 �APRR 2008 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ROOF PLAN EXTANT AT TIME OF DISASSEMBLY NPS NmMMeak Re IW PEDRICK'S STORE HOUSE FRAMING & FENESTRATION D ;' 6 12. FF 9 Design,Construction,and Fatlllry Manirt ageme Architectural Preservation Division SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITEELEMENTS SHEET 9 OF 174 Derby Street Scale: W'a 1'-0" 115IOM Street,Lowell,Mama adiusebs o1R52 Salem 01970 28 APRIL 2006 Pedrick Store House—Disassembly Methodology Introduction: This document outlines the specific process by which the National Park Service disassembled,documented,removed, and stored the Pedrick Store House, formerly located on Tucker's Wharf,Ferry Lane, in Marblehead,Massachusetts. For further information regarding existing conditions immediately prior to disassembly, refer to the Physical Description of Building incorporated into the 2006 Historic Structure Report. Documentation and removal of the Pedrick Store House,per the terms of acquisition from the Town of Marblehead,needed to occur within an extremely compressed time frame. Accordingly,the NPS began formal contract solicitation for removal immediately after obtaining title to the structure on August 13, 2003. Negotiation through the Small Business Administration with a Section 8A contractor was the only procurement option that could ensure an award and completion by the Town-imposed October 1 deadline for vacating the premises. In effect,this foreclosed the possibility of transporting the structure intact via barge, as an agreeable price for that method could not be reached within the allotted time-frame. However by September 2,the NPS was able to negotiate a contract for incremental disassembly and land-based transport with Lumus Construction,Inc. of Woburn,MA. The structure as acquired had received several extensive remodelings over its life;theiiii accumulated effect of which had left little fabric exceeding fiftyyears of age,except the principal structural framing members. It was thus determined that all fabric post-dating 1953 (fifty years prior to the date of disassembly)would be documented in only a cursory manner(i.e.by a series of general exterior and interior digital photographs),and disposed of after Figure 1.Exterior looking northwest. removal from the structure. An initial series of 22 images was recorded on May 14,2003,at the outset of discussions concerning the potential feasibility of NPS acquisition(figs. 1-3). These were supplemented on September 2 by 153 additional interior digital images,providing evidence of the most recent uses(figs.4-5). These also show the extent of earlier removals and investigations performed under the auspices of the Town, in making its own determination as to whether adaptive use or demolition would be pursued. I r �d YS 1 a y�R VV f Figure 1.Exterior looking west. Figure 3.Lean-to entry. Hazardous Material Mitigation: During contract negotiation,a hazardous material survey was procured. The report of August 28 revealed that one of the layers of modern resilient tile flooring tested positive for asbestos, along with the shingles on the lean-to roof, and various other sealants and roofing materials. These all required mitigation prior to the commencement of any disassembly Figure 4.Interior first floor looking west, with modern work. Remediation of asbestos- linishes partially intact. containing materials began on September 5, and the site was II . cleared by September 9 for l disassembly operations. 1" Mobilization: While access to the building for other purposes was barred during the hazardous material remediation, Lumus Construction was able to utilize this time to install the harbor front run-off control measures Figure S. Interior second floor looking east, with stipulated within the Marblehead modern finishes partially intact. 2 Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions,and to erect protective barricades and otherwise mobilize for the site work. Interior Removals: Removal of modem interior finish materials and systems commenced September 11, 2003, and concluded on September 15. These included interior gypsum board partitions, suspended acoustical ceilings, floor carpeting,mechanical and electrical equipment, and plumbing. Component Identification and In-situ Documentation: Following removal of modem finishes, existing condition drawings were prepared to show all components surviving in-situ from the historic period(fig. 6). Based on these drawings, coded designations were assigned to each respective framing element, Figure 6.Example of existing condition drawing showing historic framing surviving in-situ at time of disassembly. according to type, specific location, and orientation in the building. Coded designations were written with heavy dry marker on 3" x 4"manila tags,which were in tum completely encapsulated with 2"transparent packing tape(fig. 7). Tags were then fastened to individual members with two drywall screws each,in protected locations where possible(for example,in empty mortises). To ensure against the possibility of tag 3 loss during disassembly, each component was redundantly tagged,in at least two widely separated locations. Prior to disassembly, all accessible surfaces of all framing components were digitally photographed so that relationships between adjacent members could be determined in the event that tags were lost or incorrectly affixed. These images are included among the 463 digital photographs recorded of the disassembly Figure 7. Example of temporary manila identification tags a Lxed to process (figs. 8-9). each historic framing member prior to disassembly. a k i N to y Figure 8.Example ofphotographic series Figure 9.Example ofsame photographic covering accessible surfaces ofhistoric series showing next adjacent surface(with elements prior to disassembly. overlap)to that depicted in Figure 8. Structural Disassembly: All disassembly work was carried out by Lumus Construction,Inc. of Woburn, Massachusetts, and continuously supervised by NPS personnel. The work commenced on September 15,2003 with removal of the modern windows and doors. Modem building envelope components were then removed in large panels. This was accomplished in methodical progression(bay by bay from east to west)beginning with the roof,then continuing in the same order with the exterior walls. Panels were detached by chain- 4 sawing around defined perimeters, generally keeping a clearance of approximately 6 inches from any adjacent surviving historic framing element. Prior to final severance, each respective panel was supported by chains from the extended boom of a telescopic fork lift; then lifted away by the fork lift and stacked for inspection and subsequent disposal(figs. 10-15). i syn i Figure 10.Removing a modern roofpanel to Figure 11. Chainsawing modern wall access historic framing elements. framingfor removal. E. GC*�T Y PA As original framing was gradually kdisengaged from the modem construction, trunnels were driven or drilled out, and � individual framing components were then lifted out with the same telescopic fork lift using canvas slings. This method allowed removal of each respective historic framing element fully intact,without cutting or other damage(figs. 16-18). Thus,after removal of a number of roof Figure 12.Removing modern wall framing panels,the easterly wall was disassembled panel.Note temporary shoring offloor. by first disengaging and removing the girts (from top to bottom), and then the a( i respective posts. During this process,the section of modem second floor framing ` immediately adjacent to the west would be temporarily supported by shoring,until the original short second floor girts on the north and south ends of the respective framed floor panels could be disengaged and removed. Following removal of these, the modem framed floor panels themselves could be further disengaged and removed, in turn fully exposing the next structural framing bent to the east;and allowing the Figure 13. Disposal of removed modern order of removals to begin again. .framing elements. 5 Figure 14. Shored historic post and girt Figure 15.Historic posts and girts carrying awaiting final disengagement and removal. remnants of modern roof and wall framing. Figure17. Laying out an historic girt for inspection Figure 16.Removal of disengaged prior to stacking. historic post using a canvas sling. 3^ CI ` Figure 18. Removal of disengaged historic Figure 19.Historic sills and first floor girts girt using a canvas sling. awaiting removal. 6 The process was repeated,bent by bent from east to west, until the western-most framing bent(comprising the original west wall)could be disengaged from the modem lean-to adjacent to the west of that. Once the last original framing bent had been removed,the lean-to was sawn into panels and similarly removed. This left only the first floor deck, with its supporting original girts, sills, and pilings. The floor deck itself,comprised of modem materials,was removed using the same method employed on the roof(fig. 19). Crawlspace Debris Removals: Contract work stopped after removal of floor panels to allow a detailed examination of the crawlspace. Through years of being open to the flood tides,the crawlspace had accumulated a quantity of flotsam and haphazardly stored materials, which became trapped when the bulkhead was reconstructed and the wharf filled to the level of the sills. Moreover, the crawlspace had Figure 20. Crawlspace debris prior to commencement accumulated discarded building ofdisassembly. elements through the various subsequent remodelings of the structure(figs.20-21). .y n, 1J r ii f � d I " s r.r y lki Figure 21. Crawlspace debris exposed by Figure 22. Crawlspace cleared ofdebris, removal of modernfloor structure. and pilings readv for removal. The crawlspace was thoroughly combed on October 1,2003, and all non-buried materials were removed for future evaluation. One truck and one van were filled by end of day, which transported the materials to Saugus Ironworks NHS for temporary storage. By October 6,2003, the remaining sills and girts had been disengaged at their respective joints and removed; again in progression from east to west. The surviving original pilings were pulled out immediately thereafter(fig. 22). 7 Clean-up,Transport, and Storage: Throughout the disassembly process,NPS personnel examined all removed elements to verify that all surviving historic fabric had been suitably documented and retained for future use. At the same time, non-historic materials were loaded into 30-yard dumpsters and hauled away as construction waste. A total of seven dumpsters were employed for this purpose. Loading of the historic framing materials onto flat bed semi-trailer trucks for transport to Saugus Iron Works NHS commenced on October 6, 2003. As the transport vehicles were too large to back down Ferry Lane to the wharf, each individual component to be loaded was carried by the telescopic fork lift up to Front Street,where the transport vehicles were queued. The quantity of salvaged framing materials required three track loads in all,and hauling was completed Figure 23. Stacked historic timbers and by the close of October 7, 2003 (fig. 23). pilings ready for carrying to Front Street. Re-tagging and Detailed Documentation: While in storage at Saugus Ironworks, each individual framing component was stripped of any residual fragments of modem building fabric,then thoroughly measured, sketched, evaluated, and photographed. The purpose of the documentation was to retrieve any :$ ttxs e , information relevant to current Y _ ? a or prior configurations(by the s. c,.s %""' study of mortises,tenons, framer's markings,trunnel and x � M nail holes miscellaneous »0 hardware, ghosting from finishes wear marks and abrasions, and any other surface N �r anomalies); and to determine the a t' �4 �xax tt " f nature of any conservation treatment required. The art documentation effort resulted in r v cs< a set of over 40 sheets of field r sYr w notes and 370 digital images of the individual structural components(fig. 24). i F� c cA y .`c q O i7ti. Y } - Y. +� _ „n As each respective member was evaluated,more durable Figure 24. Example offield notes generated during evaluation of each removed historic timber. 8 identification tags were added. These ,t were comprised of I"-x 2-3/4"x 0.025"aluminum blanks into which the existing tag information was replicated using alphanumeric marking dies. The completed aluminum tags were affixed to readily accessible faces of the respective members,and will remain in place until completion of the restoration. No special effort will be made to remove the surviving manila t tags until this time also (fig. 25). Figure 25.Historic girt laid outfor evaluation. Note new aluminum identification tag. Documentation and Disposition of Crawlspace Debris: The salvaged crawlspace debris included a wide assortment of materials related to the marine usage of the site,as well as materials originating from the building itself. All however were in very poor condition owing to the circumstances of their having been oil - 0 Sas Figure 26.Example ofbuilding-related Figure 27.Example of marine-related artifacts salvaged from crawlspace. artifacts salvaged from crawlspace. 0" deposited there,and to the environment in which they existed. After transport to Saugus,the materials were laid out and sorted according to type, and digitally photographed(amounting to 125 images) within their respective groupings. Those determined to be building-related were further evaluated,and replaced into temporary storage to await transport to Lowell(figs.26-28). Those that were marine related were reviewed by Salem Maritime Figure 28. Additional marine-related NHS staff to verify whether any should be artifacts salvaged from crawlspace. 9 accessioned into the Park's collections. However due to their uncertain provenance and lack of specific association with the mission of the Park itself, it was mutually determined to offer them instead to the Marblehead Historical Commission. In keeping,these were transported back to Marblehead,and made available to that organization. Transport to Lowell for Conservation and Storage: By October 2004, all framing components had been evaluated and documented. Shortly thereafter,IMPS personnel began incremental transport of these to their Lowell shops for conservation. Based on the original in-situ measurements and the subsequent field evaluations, reconstruction framing drawings were developed to guide the conservation efforts(figs. 29-31). The bulk of the conservation work involved installing pieced-in repairs utilizing identical species, secured with epoxy adhesives,to reinstate the original dimensions and structural integrity of the respective members. Because of limited layout space in the shop,repairs were configured to allow for final finishing and adjustment in the field,where the frame will be completely laid out and dry-fitted prior to raising. All conserved framing elements have since remained in storage in the shop, awaiting future shipment to Salem for reassembly. I T T T T T T T J. f11A I' E F i �,�,rmatvnnax i f �c€vvwcumrcaoa�samr.00an�rt®xcm+vr�e,� 1 r:s.w�. ze c.��ea� au+nw c>ax n:m-.,ncacve PEDRUX$STOM HOUSE FPAM=&fENeS=nON • -.1 Na"kuve ne�iv"�ao..oam+e. ...aw..:.-i.cwz i �yi"pyo. EtEMEPP5 «w..+ .aa:s. Figure 29.Example of reconstruction framing drawings;South Exterior Elevation. 10 ai at a I i i r. 01 d E. EAST IXtBWR HEYATMN �'.i9YN tf Y WSPRAIBieK9M�89yY pXtptlJ(fryH.1M14W.NS9lE #G4n::>i";Yd O".V�.GtxM1 'i$.».�t7v.tacW'HS.ES"�GE H t IMMatexFs MMON FF 2 Figure 30.Example of reconstruction framing drawings;East Exterior Elevation. T T T T T m sFmio FLOW RM [.^.Tru flf¢xclric-✓Eu �c,irm�uas •:oa�xr�ga�pr�sstlle�a�Ca. rt9€2Yw.ci t�:YCS �`-arw"�*ns,�PcrR3h+.v:.'-Y{�vti �•-:. vEau«ssoae wse aaAa,M&FMe5TMnoa FF 7 Figure 31.Example of reconstruction framing drawings;Second Floor Plan. 11 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (978) 740-0404 October 9, 2008 Rachel Marino Environmental Branch Chief U.S. Coast Guard 300 Metro Center Blvd. Warwick, RI 02886 RE: Baker's Island Light, Salem, MA Lead Soil Remediation Project& Intensive Archaeological Survey Dear Ms. Marino: The Salem Historical Commission is requesting Consulting Party status with regard to the above referenced project. It is our understanding that the project involves lead paint removal at the Assistant Keepers Dwelling, which was signed off by Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)as having No Adverse Effect on July 31, 2007. However, the project further includes an intensive(locational)archaeological survey of the soil remediation project area prior to the soil remediation portion of the project. Conversation with Ed Bell of MHC has confirmed that MHC has NOT commented or signed off on the soil remediation portion of the project. Our understanding is that Public Archaeology Laboratory is conducting the archaeological survey and that the report will likely be completed within the next few weeks. We respectfully request a copy of the PAL archaeological report when it becomes available, so that we may provide comment. Through a copy of this letter to the Salem Conservation Commission, we respectfully request that the review of the Notice of Intent and the issuance of an Order of Conditions be continued until Massachusetts Historical Commission and the Salem Historical Commission have provided written comment on the results of PAL report. Thank you for your consideration. ere Y. _ �G25 al nah DIOZ21, Chair Cc: Al Stambler, U.S. Coast Guard Ed Bell. Massachusetts Historical Commission Kevin Cornachio, Chair, Salem Conservation Commission Y {i Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (978)740-0404 13 September 2006 Mr. Paul Holtz Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125-3314 Salem Jail Redevelopment Review of Design Development Drawings Dear Mr. Holtz: On behalf of the Salem Historical Commission, I am writing to respond to your courtesy request for the Commission's comment on the proposed renovations of the Salem Jail Complex. As you know, Hannah Diozzi and Larry Spang were delegated by the Commission to participate on the ad-hoc review team for the old Salem Jail to assist in the historic review. The team has met numerous times over the past two years to provide ongoing input on the development of the project from an historic perspective. As a representative of the Historical Commission, Mr. Spang recently reviewed, drawings C-3, A2.01 thru A2.05, and an unnumbered elevation of Building D, all from the Design Development drawings dated 5-26-06 prepared by Finegold Alexander&Associates, Inc. for New Boston Ventures. In general, the Commission is pleased with the extent to which the Development Team has proposed to retain the historical fabric of the existing Jail and Jail Keeper's House and to compliment those buildings with the new structure. While we understand the drawings represent Design Development and much work remains to be completed, we appreciate the Team's commitment to preserving these historic landmarks. Our specific comments are as follows: 1. Layout Plan C-3 a. We note that there is no indication of proposed work on the granite retaining walls along the west and north sides of the property. We urge the Development Team to maintain as much of the existing walls as possible. b. There is no indication of the proposed fencing around the site. We urge the Development Team to maintain and repair as much of the existing wrought iron fence along St. Peter Street as possible. c. The Layout Plan indicates a concrete sidewalk along the parking lot on the south side of the site. We recommend landscaping of both the parking lot and the service drive on the north side of the site to screen parking areas from public ways and abutting properties. 2. Exterior Elevations—General Comments a. The Commission has not seen detailed drawings of the proposed windows so we are unable to comment on the potential impact on the existing building elevations. However, the mullion pattern of the infill windows on the Jail are inconsistent and generally out of scale with the monumental scale of the granite facades. We recommend further studies of both the large window subdivisions as well as the mullion patterns. b. We are concerned that the Development Team may haves underestimated the extent of repairs necessary to both the ventilation towers and ventilators, currently shown to be scraped and painted. We recommend further study to determine the full extent of repairs and/or replacement necessary for the long term preservation of these important historic elements. 3. Sheet A2.01 Building A Exterior Elevations—South and North a. The elevations indicate that the existing, later addition masonry towers on the west pavilion of the Jail (between column lines 8 and 10) will be removed and replaced with windows. The proportions of these openings appear inconsistent with the masonry openings on the east pavilion, and we suggest further development of the details of the existing openings in.the granite wall and the proposed window infill. b. Door opening changes at the new main entrance -without further details, we would be concerned with attempts to move portions of the existing granite facade to lower the door opening. We also recommend that the proposed door more closely relate to the scale and period of the building. c. We recommend the new windows on the North Elevation (between Col. Lines 2 and 4 on the brick wing) align with the windows on the east and west elevations of the building. d. We understand the Development Team has proposed to remove the existing chimney near the eastern ventilation tower(between column lines 3 and 4). While we concur that the chimney detracts from the tower, we do not have information on file to substantiate their position that the chimney is a later addition to the building. 4. Sheet A2.02 Building A Exterior Elevations— East and West a. There is a new door shown on the West Elevation facing St. Peter Street Oust north of column line D). While we do not have the building plans that illustrate the need for a door at this location, we recommend the Development Team further study ways to eliminate this door opening. b. The skylights shown on the East Elevation (between column lines C and D) do not match the historic fabric of the building and we recommend elimination. c. On the East Elevation, the existing chimney (shown incorrectly to the north of column line D) aligns with the proposed new windows and door openings. We Mr. Paul Holtz—MassHistorical Commission 6 September 2006—Draft recommend the Development Team further study this condition to determine what work will be required for the new openings. 5. Sheet A-2.03 Building B Exterior Elevations — North and West a. There is a new masonry chimney shown on the North Elevation which does not appear on the West Elevation. As shown on the North Elevation, this new chimney would significantly detract from the main elevation of the building and should be reconsidered. b. The drawings do not indicate roof accessories such as plumbing stacks, vents, etc. To the fullest extent practicable, we recommend these elements not be placed on the west side of the main roof. c. The door on the north elevation appears to be new. We recommend the door be provided with a lintel to match the windows above. d. The existing asphalt roof was constructed after the fire to stabilize the remaining masonry structure. We are surprised, therefore, that the roof is currently shown to remain following completion of the renovations and are concerned if the roof and structure are sufficient for the permanent restoration of the building. e. To the fullest extent practicable, we recommend the portico and front entry door be restored to the original design by Samuel Maclntire. We also recommend the cornice and fascia details also be restored to the fullest extent practicable. f. The new basement windows (type B4) detract from the historical integrity of the building, particularly on either side of the front door. We recommend elimination of these windows. g. As currently shown, the proposed new portico at the side entry door appears incomplete (only one column) and competes with the main entrance. We recommend elimination of the portico or additional design studies. h. Proposed wood framed addition on the south end of the building -As currently shown, the balcony railing, fascia and other trim details are not sympathetic to the historic fabric of the existing building and we suggest further design study. 6. Sheet A-2.04 Building B Exterior Elevations—South and East a. The lintels for the new doors on the South and East Elevations do not match the masonry openings. b. As currently indicated, the proposed basement door (type K) on the southern addition interrupts the treatment of the wood clapboards. We recommend this condition be reviewed with further design studies. 7. Sheet A-2.05 Building C Exterior Elevation Mr. Paul Holtz—MassHistorical Commission 6 September 2006—Draft a. The sliding doors on the North and East Elevation are not sympathetic to the historic fabric of the existing structure. The Commission recommends additional design studies for this location. b. The windows on the West Elevation appear randomly located and the overhead door appears out of scale with the facade. We recommend additional design studies. c. We recommend additional studies of the proportions of the fascia and corner boards to provide a more historically appropriate fagade treatment. 8. Building D Exterior Elevations a. The Commission is generally in support of the planning and massing of the new building and believes it will compliment both the Jail and the Jail Keeper's House. b. The Development Team should review the proportions of the openings and window treatment of the North Elevation. If the goal is to mimic the Jail, then the proportions of the masonry openings and the mullion patterns of the windows and doors should match or at least be sympathetic to each other. c. The proposed granite veneer panels on the North Elevation can potentially compliment the Jail; however we would be concerned if less durable materials, such as exterior insulated finish systems (EIFS), are substituted as value engineering modifications. Plan drawings for the buildings and specific detail drawings have not been reviewed. Therefore, there is no comment at this time on the layout of the existing and proposed buildings, the impact of the new plans on the exterior of the buildings, nor specific details. We would appreciate the opportunity to review further details as they become available, including: • Proposed fencing to separate the Jail Complex from the Howard Street Burial Ground, as well as any proposed gates, particularly as part of the St. Peter Street fencing; • Extent and types of landscaping proposed for the property; • Fencing, if any, that will surround the embossed concrete patios associated with the units patios; • Gateway or vehicular access control gate at the entrance to the parking lot or the service drive; • Placement of overhead electric lines and utility poles, electrical transformers, gas meters, fire hydrants and/or Siamese connections, or other similar utility requirements; • Configuration of both the windows and the window surrounds; • Railing design and materials; Mr. Paul Holtz—MassHistorical Commission 6 September 2006— Draft • Repairs or replacement of the existing roofing, including materials. • Proposed steel mesh grillage at the existing ventilation monitor; • Treatment of that side entry; • South and East Elevation doors and masonry openings; and • Railing at the new basement areaway on the East Elevation. The Commission understands that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)will retain a deed restriction on the facades of the existing buildings following completion of this project. We also anticipate that individual condominium owners and/or the condominium association will likely seek changes to the buildings in the future. To minimize potential confusion, we recommend the Development Team integrate the deed restrictions into the marketing information and condominium documents for the project. We also recommend further discussions between the City and MHC to establish a permitting process for future homeowners seeking to enact changes to the buildings. The Commission appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the drawings at this stage of the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, � qjyw oCt7�L) /et� SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Hannah Diozzi, Chair Cc: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development Finegold Alexander&Associates New Boston Ventures City of Salem Design Review Board ua ooa 6 a it Historic" ' 05 Salem, MA 01970 41:�M P.O. Box 865 incorporated Telephone (9 8) 745-0799 August 31, 2006 Mr. Paul Holtz Historical Architect Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 Dear Mr. Holtz: Thank you for asking for Historic Salem Inc.'s comments on the current plans for the Salem Jail property. These are our comments on the Design Development set dated May 26, 2006. Jail We believe that the proposed additional window openings and door openings are appropriate. We would like to review the actual window materials and profiles in greater detail. Our initial reaction to the size and arrangement of the divisions in the windows in the granite sections of the jail is that they may be a bit too small in scale and in detail. The new windows in the brick sections of the jail should replicate as much as possible the existing windows. We would like to review to review the plans for masonry cleaning and repair prior to plans being finalized. While we are comfortable with the revised location for the jail exhibit, we would like to see the more detailed plans for replication and reconstruction of the jail cell. Fax (978) 744-4356 • Email: hsi@nii.net • Web: http://www.histaricsalem.org { i Massachusetts Historical Commission, page 2 Jailkeepers House We would like to review the replacement windows in greater detail. We would like to review to review the plans for masonry cleaning and repair prior to plans being finalized. We suggest that the architects take another look at the design of the portico over the secondary doorway. We would like to consider more carefully the treatment of the circular stairway to ensure that it retains as much as possible of its original appearance. Carriage House While we recognize the need for additional openings, we feel that the treatment of the main fagade should be revised to be more reminiscent of typical carriage house design,. It would be helpful to know the location of the original openings when the interior of the building can be examined. We question the appropriateness of the wood veneer panel on the rear elevation. New Building The treatment of the end facades is an improvement over the previous design. We are concerned about the use of"granite like materials" and would like to review the actual materials before they are finalized. The following items require further detail and review: Window materials and detail; Garage doors; Substitution of titanium zinc for copper roof. Site Plan We would like to see additional detail of the materials used in the courtyard and the screening and materials at the edge along the south side of the site. Y i Massachusetts Historical Commission, page 3 Landscape Elements related to Adjacent Bypass Road At a recent meeting of the Salem Design Review Board, there was considerable discussion about the vehicular and pedestrian access being created by the new Bypass highway project as well as the requirement in the 106 Memorandum requiring repair of the Burying Ground wall. While not technically covered by MHC's Preservation Restriction, we wonder if MHC, in its 106 review role, might comment on these aspects of the plan. If so, we would be happy to share further thoughts with you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this most important project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Historic Salem office at 978-745-0799. Sincerely, Barbara A. Cleary President Cc: Salem Historical Commission Lynn Duncan, Salem City Planner Salem Design Review Board Cindy Giugliano,Finegold Alexander Fax (g7R) 744-41rr, , Finail- hcina nii_nat • N/ah[ httn•.//www.hictnrirsalnm.nrn Page I of 1 Jane Guy From: Jane Guy Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:38 PM To: David Hart (E-mail); Doug Desrocher(E-mail); Hannah Diozzi (E-mail 2); Hannah Diozzi (E-mail); Jessica Herbert (E-mail 2); Kathy Harper(E-mail); Larry Spang (E-mail); Laurie Weisman (E-mail) Subject: Salem Jail Thank you Larry, for all the time you took to put together this letter. Before I comment, let me bring everyone up to speed. Paul Holtz from Mass. Historic telephoned Lary to get comment on the Jail plans being developed by Finegold Alexander for the developer,New Boston Ventures. It turns out that there is no formal Section 106 review and Paul's call was not official,just a courtesy. Larry was correct to bring this to the entire Commission, since no one member should speak for the Commission. That being said, the Commission did delegate Larry and Hannah to represent the Commission on the ad-hoc historic review team for the old Salem Jail redevelopment. The purpose of this team was to have all interested parties (HisCom& HSI)meet with the developer together in a coordinated approach. Each representative would then report back to their respective group. There will only be a presentation before the Historic Commission if a Demolition Delay waiver is necessary at some point in the process. If however, any other members would like to get more involved, the plans are going before the Planning Board (scheduled for 9/21 at 7:00 pm) and before the Design Review Board(DRB scheduled for 9/27 at 6:00 pm). Detailed drawings, further clarifications, landscape plans, etc. will all be available as the Planning Board and DRB meetings get underway and Commission members may certainly attend those meetings and comment on those submissions when they are before those boards. I will bring a copy of what we have on file with me to our meeting tomorrow, in case you want to review them with Larry's letter. In addition, Paul Holtz will becoming to Salem at some time in the next month or so to tour the site and Commission members will be welcome to attend. I have tweaked Larry's letter a little....see draft attached. I did not remove any of Larry's specific comments, only pushed all the requests for further information to the end and changed a little bit of the wording. Once the Commission has okayed the letter, I will cc it to the DRB, Finegold Alexander,New Boston& Lynn Duncan. Jane A. Guy Asst. Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 (978) 745-9595, Ext. 311 Fax: (978) 740-0404 iguy@salem.com www.salem.com 9/6/2006 6 September 2006 Mr. Paul Holtz Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125-3314 Salem Jail Redevelopment Review of Design Development Drawings Dear Mr. Holtz: On behalf of the Salem Historical Commission, I am writing to respond to your courtesy request for the Commission's comment on the proposed renovations of the Salem Jail Complex. As you know, Hannah Diozzi and Larry Spang were delegated by the Commission to participate on the ad-hoc review team for the old Salem Jail to assist in the historic review. The team has met numerous times over the past two years to provide ongoing input on the development of the project from an historic perspective. As a representative of the Historical Commission, Mr. Spang recently reviewed drawings C-3, A2.01 thru A2.05, and an unnumbered elevation of Building D, all from the Design Development drawings dated 5-26-06 prepared by Finegold Alexander&Associates, Inc. for New Boston Ventures. In general, the Commission is pleased with the extent to which the Development Team has proposed to retain the historical fabric of the existing Jail and Jail Keeper's House and to compliment those buildings with the new structure. While we understand the drawings represent Design Development and much work remains to be completed, we appreciate the Team's commitment to preserving these historic landmarks. Our specific comments are as follows: 1. Layout Plan C-3 a. We note that there is no indication of proposed work on the granite retaining walls along the west and north sides of the property. We urge the Development Team to maintain as much of the existing walls as possible. b. There is no indication of the proposed fencing around the site. We urge the Development Team to maintain and repair as much of the existing wrought iron fence along St. Peter Street as possible. c. The Layout Plan indicates a concrete sidewalk along the parking lot on the south side of the site. We recommend landscaping of both the parking lot and the service drive on the north side of the site to screen parking areas from public ways and abutting properties. 2. Exterior Elevations—General Comments a. The Commission has not seen detailed drawings of the proposed windows so we are unable to comment on the potential impact on the existing building elevations. However, the mullion pattern of the infill windows on the Jail are inconsistent and generally out of scale with the monumental scale of the granite facades. We recommend further studies of both the large window subdivisions as well as the mullion patterns. b. We are concerned that the Development Team may haves underestimated the extent of repairs necessary to both the ventilation towers and ventilators, currently shown to be scraped and painted. We recommend further study to determine the full extent of repairs and/or replacement necessary for the long term preservation of these important historic elements. 3. Sheet A2.01 Building A Exterior Elevations—South and North a. The elevations indicate that the existing, later addition masonry towers on the west pavilion of the Jail (between column lines 8 and 10) will be removed and replaced with windows. The proportions of these openings appear inconsistent with the masonry openings on the east pavilion, and we suggest further development of the details of the existing openings in the granite wall and the proposed window infill. b. Door opening changes at the new main entrance -without further details, we would be concerned with attempts to move portions of the existing granite fagade to lower the door opening. We also recommend that the proposed door more closely relate to the scale and period of the building. c. We recommend the new windows on the North Elevation (between Col. Lines 2 and 4 on the brick wing) align with the windows on the east and west elevations of the building. d. We understand the Development Team has proposed to remove the existing chimney near the eastern ventilation tower (between column lines 3 and 4). While we concur that the chimney detracts from the tower, we do not have information on file to substantiate their position that the chimney is a later addition to the building. 4. Sheet A2.02 Building A Exterior Elevations— East and West a. There is a new door shown on the West Elevation facing St. Peter Street Oust north of column line D). While we do not have the building plans that illustrate the need for a door at this location, we recommend the Development Team further study ways to eliminate this door opening. b. The skylights shown on the East Elevation (between column lines C and D) do not match the historic fabric of the building and we recommend elimination. c. On the East Elevation, the existing chimney (shown incorrectly to the north of column line D) aligns with the proposed new windows and door openings. We Mr. Paul Holtz—MassHistorical Commission 6 September 2006— Draft recommend the Development Team further study this condition to determine what work will be required for the new openings. 5. Sheet A-2.03 Building B Exterior Elevations — North and West a. There is a new masonry chimney shown on the North Elevation which does not appear on the West Elevation. As shown on the North Elevation, this new chimney would significantly detract from the main elevation of the building and should be reconsidered. b. The drawings do not indicate roof accessories such as plumbing stacks, vents, etc. To the fullest extent practicable, we recommend these elements not be placed on the west side of the main roof. c. The door on the north elevation appears to be new. We recommend the door be provided with a lintel to match the windows above. d. The existing asphalt roof was constructed after the fire to stabilize the remaining masonry structure. We are surprised, therefore, that the roof is currently shown to remain following completion of the renovations and are concerned if the roof and structure are sufficient for the permanent restoration of the building. e. To the fullest extent practicable, we recommend the portico and front entry door be restored to the original design by Samuel Maclntire. We also recommend the cornice and fascia details also be restored to the fullest extent practicable. f. The new basement windows (type B4) detract from the historical integrity of the building, particularly on either side of the front door. We recommend elimination of these windows. g. As currently shown, the proposed new portico at the side entry door appears incomplete (only one column) and competes with the main entrance. We recommend elimination of the portico or additional design studies. h. Proposed wood framed addition on the south end of the building -As currently shown, the balcony railing, fascia and other trim details are not sympathetic to the historic fabric of the existing building and we suggest further design study. 6. Sheet A-2.04 Building B Exterior Elevations— South and East a. The lintels for the new doors on the South and East Elevations do not match the masonry openings. b. As currently indicated, the proposed basement door (type K) on the southern addition interrupts the treatment of the wood clapboards. We recommend this condition be reviewed with further design studies. 7. Sheet A-2.05 Building C Exterior Elevation Mr. Paul Holtz—MassHistorical Commission 6 September 2006— Draft a. The sliding doors on the North and East Elevation are not sympathetic to the historic fabric of the existing structure. The Commission recommends additional design studies for this location. b. The windows on the West Elevation appear randomly located and the overhead door appears out of scale with the facade. We recommend additional design studies. c. We recommend additional studies of the proportions of the fascia and corner boards to provide a more historically appropriate fagade treatment. 8. Building D Exterior Elevations a. The Commission is generally in support of the planning and massing of the new building and believes it will compliment both the Jail and the Jail Keeper's House. b. The Development Team should review the proportions of the openings and window treatment of the North Elevation. If the goal is to mimic the Jail, then the proportions of the masonry openings and the mullion patterns of the windows and doors should match or at least be sympathetic to each other. c. The proposed granite veneer panels on the North Elevation can potentially compliment the Jail; however we would be concerned if less durable materials, such as exterior insulated finish systems (EIFS), are substituted as value engineering modifications. Plan drawings for the buildings and specific detail drawings have not been reviewed. Therefore, there is no comment at this time on the layout of the existing and proposed buildings, the impact of the new plans on the exterior of the buildings, nor specific details. We would appreciate the opportunity to review further details as they become available, including: • Proposed fencing to separate the Jail Complex from the Howard Street Burial Ground, as well as any proposed gates, particularly as part of the St. Peter Street fencing; • Extent and types of landscaping proposed for the property; • Fencing, if any, that will surround the embossed concrete patios associated with the units patios; • Gateway or vehicular access control gate at the entrance to the parking lot or the service drive; • Placement of overhead electric lines and utility poles, electrical transformers, gas meters, fire hydrants and/or Siamese connections, or other similar utility requirements; • Configuration of both the windows and the window surrounds; • Railing design and materials; Mr. Paul Holtz—MassHistorical Commission 6 September 2006—Draft • Repairs or replacement of the existing roofing, including materials. • Proposed steel mesh grillage at the existing ventilation monitor; • Treatment of that side entry; • South and East Elevation doors and masonry openings; and • Railing at the new basement areaway on the East Elevation. The Commission understands that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)will retain a deed restriction on the facades of the existing buildings following completion of this project. We also anticipate that individual condominium owners and/or the condominium association will likely seek changes to the buildings in the future. To minimize potential confusion, we recommend the Development Team integrate the deed restrictions into the marketing information and condominium documents for the project. We also recommend further discussions between the City and MHC to establish a permitting process for future homeowners seeking to enact changes to the buildings. The Commission appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the drawings at this stage of the project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Hannah Diozzi, Chair Cc: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development Finegold Alexander&Associates New Boston Ventures City of Salem Design Review Board Jane Guy From: Larry Spang [spang@arrowstreet.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:22 AM To: hannandd@msn.com; Jane Guy; hannandd@verizon.net Subject: Re: Jail Review Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged HoltzLetter.doc Hannah and Jane: Per our discussion at the hearing a couple of weeks ago, I've prepared the attached draft review letter for the Jail drawings. I've tried to be fairly detailed with 'our' comments but I 'm open to further discussions with the rest of the Commission prior to finalizing the letter. Note also that I have not heard whether Finegold Alexander will be making a presentation next week, which may impact how we preface our comments. I am not sure whether the comments should be addressed to Paul Holtz at MHC, to Lynn Duncan, or to Finegold Alexander. Your thoughts would be appreciated. I am at the beach in NJ for the rest of the week (weather is lousy! ) but am checking my email on a somewhat haphazard basis, so feel free to send along comments. Otherwise, Jane I'll leave to you to distribute to the rest of the Commissionas appropriate. cheers on a dreary day, L Arrowstreet Inc 212 Elm Street Somerville, MA 02144 (617) 623-5555 (617) 625-4646 fax spang@arrowstreet.com www.arrrcwstreet.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Jane Guy From: Larry Spang [Spang@arrowstreet.com] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:59 PM To: Jane Guy Cc: hannandd@msn.com Subject: Salem Jail Greetings Jane: I know you're on vacation until Weds. but thought I'd let you know that I received a call from Paul Holtz at MHC looking for the Commission's input on the latest design drawings for the Jail. He's met with Finegold Alexander and would like our input prior to giving his comments on the proposed design. Just so you're aware, I told him we (the Commission) has not had a presentation from F&A but that I personally had spent some time looking through the drawings as requested by HSI. I told Paul that we'd discuss it at our next hearing on Weds. and you'd likely get back to him with the follow-up. Give a call if you want to talk on Weds. Otherwise I assume we'll talk on Weds. evening at the end of the hearing. L 8/16/2006 �$��ormlr o, Salem Historical Commissi®n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 February 24, 2014 (978)619-5685 FAX(978)740-0404 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20426 RE: Salem Lateral Pipeline FERC PF14-5 Dear Ms. Bose: The Salem Historical Commission (Commission) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Salem Lateral Pipeline. In accordance with the Section 106 permitting process, the Commission has reviewed the proposed pipeline route and project information included in the Notice of Intent to Prepare and Environmental Assessment. Both the proposed and alternate routes for the Salem Lateral Pipeline will impact the City of Salem's Derby Street local historic district and have the potential to affect many more historic resources. In addition to historic resources that may be directly impacted by the construction of the pipeline, the Commission is also concerned with vibrations resulting from excavation activities and their impact the historic structures in the area. The Commission respectfully requests receipt of additional details on the proposed plans to mitigate potential damage to surrounding historic structures, particularly during the drilling and excavation processes, as it becomes available. The Commission looks forward to remaining involved in the consultation process as the project planning proceeds. Respectfully Submitted, ✓- fin� ALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Jessica Herbert, Chair Cc: Brona Simon, MHC Robert Shea, MA EFSB Lynn Duncan, City of Salem THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BO ONE SOUTH STATION £ BOSTON, MA 02110 Q �� (617)305-3525 FEB ,9 20;4 Y DEVAL L.PATRICK GOVERNOR February 13, 2014 Historical Commission 120 Washington St. 3`d FL Salem, MA 01970 Re: FERC PF14-5 Salem Lateral Pipeline Dear Sir/Madam: As you may be aware, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC ("Algonquin"or "Company") has begun its pre-filing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") for authorization to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline and a metering and regulation station (the "Facilities") in the City of Salem. The Facilities will serve the Footprint energy generating facility, which was recently approved by the Energy Facilities Siting Board ("Siting Board"). The proposed pipeline route is described in more detail in the enclosed notice. In addition, a map of the proposed pipeline route and the noticed alternative route is also enclosed. Although the Siting Board does not have the authority to approve or disapprove proposals made by companies such as Algonquin, the Siting Board traditionally participates as appropriate in FERC proceedings to preserve the rights of interested citizens of the Commonwealth. We are seeking comments on the Company's proposed Facilities as set forth in its pre-filing documents with FERC to assist us in determining what response to make. Deadlines for the comments can be found in the attached notice. We also will be conducting a public hearing on Thursday, March 6, 2014, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at the Bentley Elementary School Cafetorium, 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, to receive comments on the Algonquin proposal. The public hearing will be held jointly with a public scoping meeting conducted by FERC. FAX:(617)443-1116 - w .mass.gov/dpu FERC PF14-5 Page 2 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via my direct telephone line, (617) 305-3514, or by email at robert.i.sheakstate.ma.us. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert J. Shea Hearing Officer FAX:(617)443-1116 www.mass.eov/dnu - LEGAL NOTICE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NATURAL GAS PIPELINE IN SALEM, MA Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No.: PF14-5-000 Notice is hereby given that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has entered into a Pre-Filing Process review of Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC's ("Algonquin")proposed Salem Lateral Project ("Project"). The purpose of the FERC's Pre-Filing Process, which was established in FERC Docket No. RM05-31-000 and Order No. 665, is to encourage the early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with FERC. FERC will prepare an Environmental Assessment ("EA") and will prepare the EA to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). The EA will be used by FERC to consider the environmental impacts that could result if it authorizes the Project by issuing a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under the Natural Gas Act. The Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board ("EFSB") will begin its environmental review of the proposed Project and provide input to FERC in conjunction with the Pre-Filing Process. Algonquin plans to construct and operate 1.2 miles of new 16-inch diameter lateral pipeline and a new metering and regulation station in Salem,Massachusetts in order to supply 115,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to the 630 megawatt natural gas-fired, quick-start, combined-cycle facility to be constructed by or on behalf of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP at the present location of the Salem Harbor Station in Salem,Massachusetts. The Salem Lateral will begin at a new subsea tap connection with the HubLine Pipeline. From this new tap location, the Salem Lateral will be routed to the southwest across Beverly Harbor towards the City of Salem shoreline,making landfall on an industrial property at the end of Pierce Avenue that is currently operated as a liquefied natural gas storage facility by National Grid. Once onshore,the Salem Lateral route travels for approximately 1,000 feet south along the western edge of the National Grid property near Waite Street and then east beneath Collins Cove using a horizontal directional drill ("HDD")technique to install the Salem Lateral. The length of the HDD across Collins Cove is approximately 2,100 feet. At the HDD exit location on the east side of Collins Cove,the Salem Lateral will be installed across properties owned by the City of Salem for a distance of approximately 850 feet, crossing Fort Avenue and Derby Street before entering Footprint's Salem Harbor Station facility. Upon entering Footprint's property, the lateral pipeline will extend for another 700 feet to the east before terminating at the new metering and regulation station site. Additional information about the Project is available from FERC's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-3372 or on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov). Once you have accessed the FERC website,click on"Documents and Filing";from the menu of options presented click on"eLibrary,"then click on"general search,"and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., P1714-5). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY contact(202) 502-8659. The EFSB and FERC will hold ajoint public hearing about the Project at the following time and location: Thursday,March 6,2014,7:00 p.m. Bentley Elementary School Cafetorimn 25 Memorial Drive Salem,MA 01970 Interested persons are invited to attend the hearing. Starting at 6 p.m., Project personnel from Algonquin will be available and to answer questions in advance of the public hearing. Written comments will be accepted at the public hearing or may be mailed to the EFSB at the address below. Robert J. Shea,Presiding Officer Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station Boston,MA 02110 The deadline for the EFSB to receive written comments is March 13,2014. The EFSB will participate in the FERC process pursuant to its responsibilities articulated in 980 Code of Massachusetts Regulations section 7.07(9)(a). Based on its environmental review, including public input, the EFSB will provide its comments and transmit the public comments to FERC. ' U rxMovin Zjl 4 {� '11 �ifS m + .✓ f. /�` Y t�� + �� CA v � � �' {i` �, t;�' es3 tlf� + F+a+i fjt Ai th.{ � ... •'�W�+ %?' 1 f - Kti �.,1,•`y; I '� r qct O i y Gia '`�/ / + r✓ PTI-7.�N�rM�'�, � �\ `sl',1 ¢'t3y1¢/ � �t/.w m ` , *ler. ��0 ;`v>/i1''+ i ✓P" i �U m Z ` `, ` i:., + dYn "/ '�d '•, `f`"t+�,{+'tri r" "c`�'.• 3 m 5�� ��-� 'S"�.1 s �l"rly \ { F'f �{a � , Sr SIN aff { A yI +3 rr + 4 � N I �� l��lt�r � S�r� �+' y,/ ±./ �� r +�•+.;F b� " /-r�,r,"'�(�q +;��'r�`�'�e�'n�...�,.---- � - , a a ✓v ���a tr ..� +.s��+9,� �,����/J� � � /ys>y.�� r�QE s� ���lr� +�:�ia#�j'^�,„�.. x„�,__.. __._- • -- "I m AV4 ..:�^�zri ca + 7,F � r m m N + pa���ts�x� '-e/���lM��/° ,r��;�.� - -' rs r �ra9'�� Y• O m r ..! • , 1 '11> °is •�x+ _gni,+ _ January 30,2014 FES03 ' 314 The Commonwealth of MassachusettgcPr Kimberly D.Bose William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the CommonwOMth!,. , Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Massachusetts Historical Commission SA 888 First St NE Room IA Washington,DC 20426 Attn: David Hanobic RE: Algonquin Gas Transmission,LLC Salem Lateral Pipeline, Salem,MA.MHC#RC.55170.FERC No.PF14-5-000. CNAE-2014-114. Dear Ms. Bose: Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the letter from the US Army Corps of Engineers(ACOS)to FERC dated Januay 23,2014,received January 27,2014, for the project referenced above. The project consists of the construction of 1.2 miles of 16-inch gas pipeline using horizontal directional drilling underneath the waters of Collins Cove and construction of a new metering and regulating station in Salem. The MHC has also received an initial consultation letter from the Public Archaeology Laboratory(PAL)on behalf of Algonquin Gas Transmission,LLC/Spectra Energy that includes preliminary project information. The MHC notes that ACOE has designated FERC as the lead federal agency for the project(36 CFR 800.2(a)(2)). The MHC looks forward to consultation with FERC and other interested and consulting parties for the project as project planning proceeds. As the preferred project alternative is refined, additional project information,including scaled existing and proposed conditions plans, should be submitted to the MHC for review and comment. The proposed research design and methodology for the archaeological reconnaissance survey noted in the PAL letter should be submitted to the MHC for review and comment(36 CFR 800.4(a))as it is developed.A permit from the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources(MBUAR)is required for the marine reconnaissance portion of the archaeological survey(301 CMR 2).MHC should be provided a copy of the MBUAR permit application when it is filed. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800)and 301 CMR 2. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact Jonathan K.Patton at this office. Sincerely, , Brona Simon State Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director State Archaeologist Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Sabrina K. Hepburn, Spectra Energy Richard T.Paquette, TRC Environmental Corporation Kathleen Winn, City of Salem,Dept. of Planning&Community Development Karen Kirk Adams,USACOE-New England District,Attn: Kevin R.Kotelly Kate Atwood,USACOE-New England District Bettina Washington, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head(Aquinnah) Ramona Peters,Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe DEP-NERO,Waterways Victor Mastone,MBUAR Bob Boeri,MA Office of Coastal Zone Management Salem Historical Commission Gregory Dubell, PAL 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727-8470 • Fax: (617) 727-5128 www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc tk.6 P0STAGE>>prNEyBOWES lid y FEDERAL ENERGYIWll t4°j{.lt jti i�il'`1 iI ZIPs of Nc p oz ,t~_ $ 001.19° WASNI L ""`�PJ7-'1.4 - . . 00013.71363-FEB. 07. 2014. OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 �)aiem Historical commission Natalie Lovett, f 120 Washington Street 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC Docket No. PF 14-5-000 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PLANNED SALEM LATERAL PROJECT, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING (February 7, 2014) The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Salem Lateral Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) in Salem, Massachusetts. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity. This notice announces the a opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will "help the Commissio tiff detdririine-what-issues-they-trieed-to,evaluate in the A lease note that the scoptrig period will close ori March 10,2014.�"`""'� You may submit comments in written form. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled as follows: Date and Time Location Thursday, March 6, 2014 Bentley Elementary School Cafetorium ---b:60 pm�Iocal time 25 Memorial Drive, Salem, MA 01970 This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern. Docket No. PFI 4-5-000 - 2 - If 2 -If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities.. Algonquin would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law. A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled "An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?" is available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.govl. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. y Summary of the Planned Project Algonquin plans to construct and operate 1.2 miles of new 16-inch-diameter lateral pipeline and a new metering and regulation station in Salem, Massachusetts in order to supply 115,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to the Salem Harbor Station facility for power generation'. The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.2 Land Requirements for Construction Construction of the planned facilities would involve conventional onshore construction and use of horizontal directional drills (HDD). Onshore construction would disturb approximately 11 acres of land for the pipeline and meter station. Following construction, Algonquin would maintain about 0.5 acre for permanent operation of the meter station and approximately 4 acres for the permanent onshore easement. About 7 percent of the planned lateral route parallels an existing electric transmission right-of- way. Two HDDs would be utilized to cross Collins Cove (for approximately 0.4 mile) and Beverly Harbor (for approximately 0.2 mile), up to a tie-in location with Algonquin's 'The Salem Harbor Station facility is being redeveloped from an existing coal burning electric generation plant to a new natural gas-fired electric generation facility by Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development, LP. 2 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Re ister. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called "eLibrary" or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502- 8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the Additional Information section at the end of this notice. Docket No. PF 14-5-000 - 3 - existing 3 -existing Hubline Pipeline. In-water work would be limited to the area immediately surrounding the new subsea tie-in within Beverly Harbor. The EA Process The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA. In the EA we will discuss impacts that-could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings: • geology and soils; • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands; • vegetation and wildlife; • endangered and threatened species; • cultural resources; • land use; • air quality and noise; • reliability and safety; and • cumulative environmental impacts. We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA. 3 "We," "us," and "our" refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects. Docket No. PF14-5-000 - 4 - Our 4 -Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. The EA will be available in the public record through the Commission's eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during scoping, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice. With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA4. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has expressed its intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this project. Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit its views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.5 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right- of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106. 4 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6. 5 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Docket No. PF 14-5-000 - 5 - Currently 5 -Currently Identified Environmental Issues We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Algonquin. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis. • impact on aquatic resources; • contaminated soils; • cumulative impacts on air quality; and • construction in residential areas. Public Participation You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 10, 2014. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (PF 14-5-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or efiling_@ferc.gov. (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project; (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on "eRe ig sten" You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select "Comment on a Filing"; or Docket No. PF 14-5-000 - 6 - (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D.Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE, Room I Washington, DC 20426 Environmental Mailing List The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations)who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project. If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2). Becoming an Intervenor Once Algonquin files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an "intervenor" which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the "e- filing" link on the Commission's website. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project. Docket No. PF14-5-000 - 7 - Additional 7 -Additional Information Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (mym.ferc.eov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on "General Search" and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF14- 5). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FercOnlineSupportl2ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of timeyou spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.amx along with other related information. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Appendix 1 g z k-' t J )! y,�� ,p-J °�o+m' F ) ,� S >.,o�,.Y , _ r 2•` �} l' • 1us ,, S 2 \ to Y w ! ° °'-6ererlvt e' y, fl •� ��? e R. �y �4 +ur1N,i leer' r4o ` as , 2 >y�d�� v � -3'y m' • d q Nre •• �<�.P. � •f FFFFFF ��rrpp� ±¢A�l a'a,•r••rr.r r.•�;.r\•�.. i"8everly }6r r .. t ? r•r �•.� ,I' Harbor - Proposed Lateral Algonquin „1 " SalemlemLateral Pipelurele 1 r< ✓ y It; 'r"`tet •i J� k_ Collins R _ North & � a. ^ rrs,,c River cP, Y' Cove �4 r ° } / .. K M q `ll LWIP,.z �t2'P.'Ai j+•�sy„- nr. `Y' a3 .'�.� nW''�E� t Rm �' aay ^._ �$'t��♦ /�!" R�s.• 11 � real 1� j :A L� \ � v -_�: Salem Harbor •� -r� r _... '�"+ +�� � ` kyr r fFmS go �,y Ye"'�"s✓ � � A ir— ,�� 1 A ���,�V ,'\,. �\ ', r000 zano ry [gg{{[ a�t t Feet� K ' Legend Salem Lateral r , Proposed Algonquin Salem Lateral Pipeline is+ t� ;off Project . a+ Busting Algonquin HubLine Pipeline a +S��: 1 ■■ aExisting Maritimes&Northeast Phase III Pipeline Salem, MA Town Boundary t,,,,, , � • +3« y t :. 1 • Tie-in with Existing Algonquin HubLine Pipeline - Docket No. "tP �.•� f R � „ ■ Existing Maritimes&Northeast Salem M&R Station PF14-5-000 6�tt ` EJ Proposed Algonquin Salem Lateral M&R Station Appendix 2 INFORMATION REQUEST Salem Lateral Project Name Agency Address City State Zip Code l ❑ Please send me a paper copy of the published NEPA document ❑ Please remove my name from the mailing list FROM ATTN: OEP - Gas Branch 4, PJ11.4 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE R Washington, DC 20426 (Docket No. PF14-5-000 Salem Lateral Project) I Staple or Tape Here SALEM MARITIME - - s NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE LEGEND a O SALEM PARK BOUNDARY y 2 HO. PARK HEADOUARTERS LYNN � O B P O INFORMATION CENTER ® 8 ARLINGTON LIGHTHOUSE ..22.... RESTROOM$ ATLANTIC^^' """""` ® PICNIC AREA . ^' iO BONDED WAREHOUSE Ps y SS�pfS / ;.fo ..__ -. •.._. ., .. � .00EAN .._" O2 CUSTOM HOUSE ORIENTATION OE�O 0 P�� BOSTO BOSTON O SCALE HOUSE CENTER O _.�....,`='HAR6OR 4O WEST INDIA GOODS STORE Q �µ BEACH .^_ 5O DERBY HOUSE © HAWKES HOUSEEASTERN x o x ^ (PARK HEADQUARTERS) THIS PROJECT O NARBONNE-HALE HOUSE MASSACHUSETTS SCALE OF MILES7 o FORRESTER WAREHOUSE FOUNDATION n�� CONSTRUCT NEW FOUNDATIONS AND 9O POLISH CLUB - 10 SHIPBUILDING EXHIBIT £; ~ SALEM - - INSTALL SITE UTILITIES FOR PEDRICK TOUR f DRO STORE HOUSE BOAT F SOUTH LIST OF DRAWINGS HARBOR Al COVER SHEET 2z Sl FOUNDATION PLAN, DETAILS AND NOTES ` oeaeY. El ELECTRICAL LEGEND AND NOTES ^AWHARF,,.._ .. ^ E2 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN AND DETAILS DERBY' —,-WHARF' ZZ SCALE OF FEET 140 0 140 280 SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE SCALE OFS METERso S 7 TITLE OF DRA51 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCT NEW FOUNDATION WSYSTEM AND INSTALL ING ORA307 NO. SITE UTILITIES FOR PEDRICK STORE HOUSE 373 UNITED STATES LOCATION WITHIN PARK DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - DERBY WHARF PONO SHEET NAME OF PARK NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SALEM MARITIME N.H.S. LE MSIC DATA 373/41.014 6/90: 373/20.015 8/90: REVISED k REDRAWN 11/93, UPDATED 11/98. SGS SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE REGION COUNTY NATE. NORTHEAST ESSEX MASSACHUSETTS OF 4 — r E NEW DOCK WAREHOUSE BUILDING /j — "NEPAL II J.CAIN BRG A yyy- •� - ••T 1 EXIST I ILL .. ! I CUT EXIST ELECTRIC k GRADE SILL Ai BVu WATER LINES AS REO'0 i° r r AI THE WAS54HU5ETTS STATE BUILDING CODE(]8°CMR)GOVERNS IS PROJECT. EXIST 12:12 BM A2 INVESTIGATE SITE FOR PRESENCE OF ELECTRIC AND GKS LINES ANO MANGE i0 _ INSTALL FOUNDATION WALL. TIMBER PIER INVE THESE SERVICES TURNED OFF DURING EXCAVATION AND FOUNDATION WORK. Q —""—" SLEEVE WALL k RECOxXECi FIELDSTONE MTN WALL — LINE$TIRWGN SLEEVED 8 ABWE GRADE,SET STONE$ A3 TYREAL DETAILS AND NOTES MPLY ip ALL PMTS OF THE SiflVCNPAL WORK. (I I OPENINGS (TYP) SI v/NMFOW,CLEW AMID I =-- —. AA SUBMIT PND SECTIONS APPLY i0 ALL SIMILL COS OIF TH 51 D OPEN EXPOSED JOINTS. 8Vi AS SUBMIT COMPLETE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL PARTS Of THE WORK. ASSUMED LOCATIONS OF 51 SET STONES ON INTERIOR, I EXISTING ELECTRIC AND I / TIMBER PIER HIDDEN MORTAR BEDS z — 8 FOUNDATIONS WATER ONES - FIELD VERIFY EXIST GRADE 3 81 FOUNDATIONS CONSIST OF SPREAD FOOTINGS AND CONTINUUMS STRIP WALL p I NEW TIME flER �`�� 8 MIN CLEARANCE FOOTINGS. CONTIMIOLS WATER k 82 ASSUMED DESIGN BEARING PRESSURE IS 1.5 TONS PER 50. R(],DDD PSE). (TVP Of 21) CONTI WALL ELECTRIC 83 PULE FWNpA➢ONS ON FILL OR NATURAL SOIL AT LEAST !-0"BELOW EXTERIOR PROVIDE I•AIR SPACE LyYpE Q NEW}0•,30112•R) LINES AT ENDS k SIDE OF Bi PROVIDE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SUPPORTS.SHEETING.SHORING OR BRACING. (TYP°P]) STONE BVLKXEPD— TIMBER i0 PREVENT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SETTLEMENTS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES OR PRESSURE TREATED SHIN EXMATE AS REO'0 UTILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT EXCAVATION. /A\ _ BS REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIALS LYING BELOW WALL AND PIER FOOTINGS AND B1WN STONE k ALL S1 I ' 6a CRIBBING TIMBER BRG SURFACE"(TYP) BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED( 95% DENSITY,MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST,ASTM 0155]) Q ... - % CONTROL SITHFACE AND AL TILL IN 8•LIFTS, ..... /A016CTID.SO THAI EA WAY, B6 FOUNDATION WORK 5 DOMEH DRY AND UNDIFACI�WATER STURBED SUBLRADE MATERIAL. FA FACE B] TRIM M°FINISH BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION WITH HAND SHOVEL. WHERE STONE NEW b1<2112•FTG 2/5 CONT BULKHEAD IS ENCOUNTERED, REMOVE ALL SOIL AND LOOSE. BROKEN k WEATHERED (T"°F]) S E C T I O N A LIQ STONE FRAGMENTS BEFORE PLACING CONCRETE ON°R AGAINST STONEWORK. BIT PROTE(I ( UCTU NEW CONC FROST •'A• 1-o• S• tr FROSTGUNTIL OUNDATIONS ME FULLY ENCLOSED BY D SUBGRADE AND ANY TH!CALLED STRBACKFIL�L.ELEMENTS FROM WALL Q I I C CAST-N-0._E CONCRETE ❑ If EXISTING TIMBER CRIBBING k STONE BULKNVD Cl MITI Q II 1 C2 115E NS PCF CONCRETE WID PLACE CONCRETE TH FRO MUM 2BNLY WEN TING AGENCY NT STRENGTH WATER, IS.000 PRESENT, CS DO NOT PUCE CONCRETE°N FROZEN GFWxp OR IN WAtER. I N 115E NR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE FOR CONCRETE TO BE EXPOSED TO WEATHER. NEW PILES FOO COCK - SEE —'FOR DETAILS 6' I'-0" 6' EMMPNPNESS OR FREEZE-THAW TEMPERATURE CYCLES PROVIDE IA TO 6E MR (TYP OF 5) 2'-0' III ( p p- I E (.` T I N B 01 115E ASTM"IS GRADE 60 REINFORCING BANS. 02 PROVIDE AND SCHEDULE ON SHOP DRAWINGS NECESSARY ACCESSORIES TO HOLD FOUNDATION PLAN 03 ENTERO AREINFORN DEUNPNSRENFOLRCEMENY IN NTT MOUTH)CORNERS OF WALLS OR HOOK AT EN -,2._,.-°. DISCONTINUOUS DS. N DO HOT TACK WELD REINFORCEMENT. COLUMN PLOORIN MOLE k FLAG 2:12 BEAM TENON E TIMBER PIERS IN FLOORING FOR FUTURE MCE55 i0 BOLT I E1 USE NEW, NO. 2 OR BETTER GRACE. H TO 11 INCH AMMETER NORTHERN WHITE EXIST IprJ SILL CEDAR OR BLACK LOCUST. __ E2 CUT BOTICATSEATS. SOMME MO FIAT i0 50 UNIFORMLY ON CONCRETE FOOTINGS. EXIST I202 8M I — E] THIS WORK. ACCESS MIF}AND LHREADEp SUFFICIENT LE ROLES O NOT INCLUDED K 1^.I �- LOIS WORK. BIN PROVIDE PIERS IN CTIONOR LENGTHS TO PERMIT THIS WORK • "LLLYYY V _____ _ TOP OF PIER CONFIGURATION i0 PROCEED IN THE NEXT CONSTRUCTION WORK CONTRACT. VARIES MO MAY INCLUDE F PRWIDE J iFEi-MIWMW CMPACTEO (951 DENSITY.MO06TED PROCTOR TEST, CNAIR°ACN SEATS,Mi SEATS 11/2 X04 gSiM 0155>)STRUCTURAL FILL IN B"UFT}TIGHTLY'i0 AND SURROUNDING EACH 1'DM iNRFpOED RGO II COORDINATE ETWFENOAND ELDGTION PIPE " ________ HER. DRGAIM BRACING i0 STABILIZE PIERS TIGHTLY NCAND SU ROUNDINGOPERATIONSE SET INTO CENTER Of WIN CONTRACT DffKER PIER COUNTERSINK BOLT HEAD --- F Tlup[R PV Fe GRADE UNDER ROOPoNO 1'DA OUT ED EXIST 6,6 CRIBING ROD AT PIER k ——— 11 USE DflE55URE TREATED SOUTHERN PINE W. 2 GRADE. SURFACE GREEN. PILE - SEE DET C .. i+ CONFORMING TO ASTM D25'SLMpVtD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUND TIMBER THIS SXEEi (2) ]/6•oM EXISTING 12',12'BEAM - PILES'. ACCESS ROLE FROM r SRKES INTO II (2) i'DM THREADED F2 USE PILES HAVING MINIMUM 8-DIAMETER AL THE TP AND 12'AT THE BUTT. ONE SIDE IA•-16'DA TIMBER SIOE OF BN f� R00 TOP 8 BOTTOM F] USE PRESSURE TREATMENT SUITABLE FOR SALT WATER ENVIRONMENT, DIED i L_ FA USE PILE SHOES WHEN DRIVING PILES. DM TIMBER PIEfl PS PILE DRIVING HAMMER: SINGLE ACTING STEAM OR COMPRESSED NR WITH la'-16"DIA TIMBER PIER MUMMUM RATED ENERGY • 15.000 FT-LBS. 1f-16' DM TIMBER pEMWE CRIBBING Ai PIER NEW TIMBER PIERS 8 ELEVATION G ..D [Mx[ 4NN[• - .I FLUTINGS w o w w -C PIER s -P-Nb l--819-8' GI THE EXPOSED STONE FOUNDATIN ON P-WADS ME INTENDED TO APPEAR AS STABLE.DRV-LAID WALLS, 1E1WN G2 USE THE PoLUMINC MATERIALS FOR EXPOSED STONE FOUNDATION CM-WALLS: LS: STONE UNITS'. RANDOMLY SIZED GRANITE FIELDSTONES •a� — B MORTAR: MIM C27W TYPE N C3 SET STONE UNITS WITH DEE EP, E UN-IgRLMED f%DCIEO JOINTS. W SET STONE UNITS IN MORTAR BEDS GET BACK FROM THE EXPOSED SURFACES. C5 STONE UNITS MAY BE CHIPPED TO CREATE MT, HIDDEN SETTING SURFACES. L6 FILL NPS BETWEEN URGE VANS SMBE WE DARN ROUNDED DS AND Mi WASTE. 1 ALL UNITS REGARDLESS OF 512E SHALL MTN SET MD/OR WECGED SOLIDLY AND RIGIDLY. G] CLEAN AM MORTAR DRIPPINGS FROM UNIT SURFACES 8 FF04 EXPOSED JDIN15, EXIST STONE BULKHEAD 1� 1 1/2 161 PIPE (T 9'OD.. 1 NOW LO) 21-6'SIB FTC NOTE;SEATS CONFILVRATIT BOLT HOLES PLANE 8 BOLL ED w MAT BE RECESSED HE ./o REINF AND ACCESS HOLES ME NOT PMT OF THIS CONTRACT. PLAN VIEW S E C T I O N C S E C T I O ND S E C TI 1 O N E SECOND FLOOR BEAM to COLUMN N .:r-o- St -s•.1•-0• St -:-1'-0• S7 REINFORCEMENT DETAIL y n § ow o CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS zr,ETo Ex— �Stp FIRM VEMY ¢ SE MCGINLEY KALSOW&ASSOCIATES LLP '^^^" — wExwnrmewaowa nisroncvrt rw¢arwH cx .mele rat SOMERVILLE,MA - W_P ITW:rt of mErxre— zA mancvJs '8 ww[uwan A¢Yx oK...En5 « 4 ABBREVIATIONS POWER LEGEND GENERAL NOTES EMATIGN THE AMPERE L MC CABLE SHALL NOT BE USED IN EXPOSED -N07 it wN A H rIID/206 VO Li PANEL OR SURFACE MOUNTED APPLICATIONS. MC AC ALTERNATING CURRENT CABLE SHALL BE USED IN CONCEALED AREAS AT ARL-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER BRANCH CIRCUIT OR FEEDER CONCEALED IN ONLY, SEE SPECIFICATIONS. i LONSTRUC TION FINISHED AREAS, EXPOSED IN —KAT ARE gBOVE FINISHED FLOOR UNFINISHED AREAS 2. EMT SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED 16 F n ARCH ARCHITECT ---- EXISTING BRANCH CIRCVD OR FEEDER TO REMAIN SURFACE MOUNTED IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS; I ATS AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH A. GET PACE AREAS I FAR] �y FAMOUS TO PANEL HPI,CIRCUIT 3 B. STORAGE ROOMS RECO BOSTON EDISOry COMPANY REAS HPI-3 (]-/12k1 XG-1/3'C. ONO) p. OTHERIC AREAS PEAS WHERE EXPOSED C CONDOR CB CIRCUIT BREAKER H~ H-ff NU.I2& TO PANEL HPI, NO 1, ], & 5 3,ALL COCOON SHALL HAVE A PROPER 512E PI-t,3.5 (}-Nl lhl-dl]L-1/2"C, LINO) GROUNDING CONDUCTOR. �o--rmLs CO CONDUIT ONLY,WITH PULL STRING CL CURRENT TRANSFORMER Q Q JUNCTION BOX _ ALL RACEWAYS LWIRE STILL BE INSTALLED CONCEALED IN ALL FINISHED SPACES DISC DISCONNECT SWITCH JUNCTION BOX WITH EQUIPMENT CONNECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED DWG GROWING .._-.. xm[x1—xmc a wl[x s k a 05COun[[I SWII[x,TWA DISCONNECT N NFLI ] S[ S R SHALL PAINT NEW CONDUIT i0 MATCH _ _ E ELECTRIC �100/]O SU ROVN DINGS. A-,,.-,u AT/HA.i[a xo�E ar is /xc j EC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR �100/NF DISC ON NECi SWITCH, IDEA, NON FUSED 6, SPACES FOR ELECTRICAL PAN EL BOARDS AND P —ul 11 DO a xLc PER EXISTING i0 REMAIN AND BE REWIRED SWITCHBOARDS SHALL INCLUDE AN EXCLUSNELY MAN D L 1-I RE E% EXISTING DEVICE TO REMAIN ® MAGNETIC STARTER, BY MC DEDICATED SPACE EXTENDING FROM THE FLOOR TO THE STRUCTURAL CEILING WITH A WIDTH THAT % L/T, EWC ELECTRIC WATER COOLER wl THERMAL SWITCH ( ) �cFpw @� RE OF THE EQUIPMENT }p INCHES MINIMUM)AND FA FIRE PLPM MOTOR AS NOTED A DEPTH OF 36 INCHES. NO PIPING.ELECTRICAL RN x 121/2 'DLT 3 �' OR EQUIPMENT FOREIGN i0 THE ELECTRICAL o EACH AKIN FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL GROUND ESTALL'U, SHALL BE PE RMITS EO TO G uH�sC LA EX SPACE LL Ep IN. ENTER OR PASS THROUGH ROU GH SUCH iii G GROUND UTILITY COMPANY Kw-HR/DEMAND METER SPACE. o� xOrt 0 GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR OF GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER DUPLEX RECEPTACLE ALL PAN SHALL BE MOUNTED SO 300A IO T a[x[utoe HAi THE DISTANCE FROM THE TOP CIRCUIT ]P �^"� GRC JUNCTION 0 RIGID CONDUIT DUPLEX RECEPTACLE WI1H GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER BREAKER TEXCEED OPERATING HANDLE TO THE FLOOR xGl[ JB JUNCTION COX DUPLE%RECEPTACLE WI1H GROUND FAULT NTERRUPTER SMALL NOT ENL EEO 6'-6: wueW DEC MECHANDAL CONTRACTOR MOUNTED ABOVE COUNTER MCO MAIN CIRCUIT BREAKER ENCLOSED CIRCUIT BREAKER A / TELEPHONE waewaD 0W Ss RVI ON - IN DIAGRAM MECO MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY """ L.ut MLO MAIN LUGS ONLY MOTOR WITH THERMAL OVERLOAD MOUNTED Iw< �CAFLU I..I.O NOTES MT MOUNT ADJACENT TO MOTOR TIN x'AIW-1 1.ED SHALL.PROVIDE ELM FRATUT GINTRALSO OR 11-1 .. NEC NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE TO EXISYNG sxm Iroww RECEPTOR"OR US'-DO OF NON FUSED FFFYI TRANSFORMER WINDING MID TO STRUCTURAL IL EDEA NIC NOT IN CONTRACT a� SrtLL ux THAT s5 uILL AS aol .wo EFER R[uwL coxollc'IOM. P NTS NOT TO SFALE CIRCUIT BREAKER GVH PRO TIE EXISTRAT MN P ROLE "p., UTIUtt POLE s xEW of Swlewn OF MAN COMMIT PC PLUMBING CONTRACTOR - "I HART la F PH PHASEFROM PAR NOTES TO EASHNG I -THERE wCOCONDUIT MIT MUSEFx ROOM MID SHIP PVC POLY INCL CHLORIDE LNR 5 PRAIRE PLOEStAL TO MM EPA COME. RE REMOVE CAUSING DEICE ADD RL ..-IS'<wPo-nic uo W.A.PROAT ALL ASSOCIATED CONDUIT ADD LL Ispps F IRS IM METER ART WIRE BACK TO NEXT ACTIVE OUTLET x' Fw oA.x�LONo ON MIT.'.nrzagn x twC x /- xoux AS x . RECP RECEPTACLE 7 ED STRA L AD fINTRAW SPAIN mrow wo mcxN RR EXISTING DEVICE TO BE REMOVED r raw utcR uzAnoxED SHALL PROMARE ALL EXPOSED TEMPORARY WAY. AND REINSTALLED IN NEW LOCATION PAN GETHEARDS TO FA¢tmG NFLIFFLE AND wnnAM EXTEND BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING HALF A TO SHIv. TO NEW LOCATION AS SHOWN ARMS OR METERON THALL LOOP SHIP FEEDER NEUTRAL SP SPARE FOX TO ALL FOR RUPTURE LUSTERS'TO P.wH xmw POSED i TELEPHONE vRoRI'D- TYP TYPICAL LOU UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED FEE VARIABLE FREQUENCY DEVICE WIRE WP WEATHERPROOF _ ___ •wfo- OJ A/E FIRM, CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS COURwsiFUR;l SITE FOUNDATION N AMERM NO MCGINLEY KALSOW& ASSOCIATES ic: `^"'^"' ` FOR PEOPLES STORE HOUSE R E� SOMERVILLE, MA UNITED STATES 1 DERBY WHARF EKG FLGET DTFUSAL A FRPRODUCTIONx 01 w � DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS NO JOHNSON 50N ENG LIEF RING&DESIGN.INC.O Y E IF FIAT 5 ELM STREET.SUITE 14 p NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 3 JEDI DELVERS, MA(I SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE REGION COIIN DIY STATE TEL. 9J6-646-9006A%'9)6-fi46-9DOx APPRO VEOOF JE-1192 EMAIL JaAnaonOanversOool.<Nm QA 100E DESIGN SUBMISSION NORTHEAST ESSEX MASSACHUSETTS 4 NOTERS -.1--------------------- --- ------------ 0 TIES ----- ------------------------------ED ANE 7 - ------------At--------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------ED ----------------------------------- ------ CL f NOTES I WERE ITT INSTRA PROAD CI11 NERNE. MARC. IF GM To AN A IME.AD FRITTED --------------- 'ENDEMIC 2 FRIENDSHIP /2, MANCEMT SITE ELECTRIC PLA PARARE I--A.-. I 'I I—ANCEPARE..'I—STEREAREAR'1.11 M."1.IFTE RECTE REAR IS28 CAPPAI W I,-PARTATURRE, I ::CARM�1—U-N. MA..I'AMC SAM SPEED ANSERAIR MARC RNME PAR DOOR MUNA M DISTRAIT''IN I—POSPIR CAN-A-PRE REACRART �AtC MALL RESTRICT ROPER AT MARC ATED CAPPESEATTLE COMMENT KNOW SESTAR OFTERNMENTER.'�R�l FRAFTER ELIETICA.I D IS"AM.-AND AMEN TO MCA NERFACE MOUSTRA SIR ONT-TRE PARTNER I El 1.1 IFIEND TERMIND IIIATAREALC IIrIMPACT TRADER NERS—WAS INIFER ERIC A MAtCAUATE AND ENSURE CORP STERVINCE RE TAT RANGE NEW CONEDUCTION FROM NEAR SE TV NN 1.1.11 OPECARIET, * OF NITRATE GRAT, 1/2 CC MIT AND TRUE TO FIRM TELEPARRIC PROACE PEALL A. DOME RARM POPE TO MATMERSED * TO REELL FINNADE AUNTENATE MAE TO MAINE EXISTREA CARRAMPANI SUCTARITS.—D REPEATED ISS SEP POSTER FACEPEASTE AND NONE TO NEW ONE POW TO SCALL EAPPtY NSA CONMETE PARAT ON SURALI ASTSID IFFIRSERNAT AND ITEDENT AS IMO[O AND MOR DOW REACREA AKAAR�TO PERMIT SUPPERT AND ETWITICARD SEC ONET I OREPARM MR PENER AND CONCLAT 5111 F4'ED OF WHO SEED A-LOAM ANO SEED RAFFY,-IDIIIIII—1 CORIEFORTA A Al BE RED F AS SPEC FRED rc.RETI RED CABLE I TAPE 0 0 CO THUD S RED CABLE j TAPE MRING U 30'MIN EX TRA A A MUCH —SUITABLE BA ON. IN }RENALI IH SUITABLE BACKFILL PLAN VIE A TAIL l�F��I�TT�MAATECIANL (ORDI-AW "C" (ORDINARY BORROW)MATERIAL PEDESTAL PLAN VIEW COMPACTED SCOMPACTED IN 6 PAPERS (2) 2 1/2'�C CORI SPACE, 1 ACTIVE '%2 112S ERIC COTHDRUITS R ON, INCI A INCE MGM RACE ME BECOME HOT RISEN .a:4:.: ACTIVE I ABANDONED I 77� REARE'll AND CATURP'A CONCE 11 SPACERS,8 FIF 7-W,I: U CONDUIT ITAI 8 FIT ON CENTER ON CENTER V STEEL CHANNEL ANSI RE STEEL CRAPPRIEL ARM Ill.SCREENED SAND 'AL j 1� A WA WAGON T SCREENED SAND • —1VA1A-A SUMS I —1 EARM RAPPIR PAREPARANT MARINE EXISTING DUCT SYSTEM DUCT SYSTEM WAIT PARAMA SECTION A—A SECTION B-8 SCALE C=1-.- SCALE 1-=l-0- CAREER M CAR POWER— — DIANE FARM STREET 4'LOPPRECT AND SEED 4" LOAN AND IEEO ACTINT, I— — FAS SPECIFIED I ITEC 1 1 2 CONTINUOUS RED CABLE 1,71 CONTINUOUS RED CABLE I 7GENUME A CAPE FAIN LEAR, �NWAAAI /I C—A WARNING TAPE CONTINUOUS 'All A ED— _Z1 —U, —NG 30-MIN TREN 31 MI. T1111" SPECA,NAME TREND.1 EPCONFINION SUITABLE BACKFILL MATERIAL ARE EXCAVATIONSUITABLE BACKFILL MATERIAL AERAM,STAR (GROCERY BORROW) (ORDINARY BORROW) COMPACTED IN C" COMPACTED IN 6 LAYERS EXISTING SHIP POWER BACKBOARD z (1)2 1/, AC COMETS TGEPH /2-PRI MODULES ELECTRIC - ELEVATION VIEW ELEVATION VIEW N,&�F/I AREA L < ASND AG_2�[�MENT A IMPTINT ADSAI B 1 12- PDOLI At I COM®RE,s ON CENTER ON CENTER WASTES SCREENED CARD RACHEL SCREENED SAND DUCT SYSTEM DUCT SYSTEM SECTION C—C SECTION D—D SCALE 1-=I-0- SCALE --I 1 11 OF I.AXILI I Al"'RATIM CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS CAT NEW FOUNDATION NIANNING NO E FIRM 11 W INSTALL SHE UTILITIES E2 COLEY KALSOW? & ASSOCIATES I Wr APARS A— WMWWWI FOR PEDACE TILDE HOUSE KERVILLE. TAA UNITED STATES DERBY WHARF PIG. SHEET TREGIF&FIRE PREDICTION PREDICTING COCONUTS ARM 1— MAN DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS E. JOHNSON ENGINEERING& DESIGN. INC.® NAME Of MAGO D1 GAEL A STREET,SUITE 14 NATIONAL PARK SERFAGE SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC S17 — UVERG. MA DIEGO Ajk, SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC CITY GCAJN1y STATE - 01 4 TEL:SIR-.C-ANCROULD. GFG-C4C-NN0G IONIC DIODE, WNI APPROVED NORTHEAST ESSEX MASSACHUSETTS — — JE-1192 E.AIL ITERT'D.-A'....,-PER —E- .-STBAHS2 rc 4 y F e p. jl - p fin/ SITE PLAN a SCALE QA 40 0 40 80 SCALE OF FEET a 3Y3 S M a 3 _ _ e a 0 u OESiGNfD: SUB SHEET NO. TIRE OF SHEET DRAWING NO. PIS rvI PEDRICK'S WAREHOUSE - � SITE PLAN culs,wcG N0. DERBY WHARF PEDRICK'S WAREHOUSE SHEET 5/9/2006 SALEM MARITIME NHP 1 OR G rI�TnN9�N 9M0„Y'6 G ��a AO 3�rvYw S�3Znd G3is3L ��oN30 St�2�b IRS 9 N�Stia`3Q r All a x 111 s A r w 413xvar1313 p iy yv'a�w ....... �_ _._ _ _'."F Jnr+ •s. .w' ., r � n s '_' une •. iz as 3 t t! isixa put m, n } I t n c 3 n n K