Loading...
174 DERBY STREET - DISTRICT FILES 174 Derby St x - r The Commonwealth of Massachusetts November 29,2002 William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Massachusetts Historical Commission Dave Kayser Section 106 Coordinator Salem Maritime National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: Derby Wharf Utilities Project, Salem,MA.MHC#RC.6984. Dear Mr. Kayser: Thank you for providing the Massachusetts Historical Commission the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed archaeological research design and methodology prepared by Hartgen Archeological Associates,Inc. for the Derby Wharf utilities project. Derby Wharf is listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and is within the Derby Street Local Historic District.The project involves the below-ground installation of water and electrical lines to service the Friendship. The SAMA proposes to undertake archaeological testing and documentation along the utilities corridor, as well as to investigate the locations of the former Derby Counting House and three 19th-century sheds, all once located on Derby Wharf. Although the utilities project has been carefully designed to avoid the documented locations of these former structures, limited archaeological testing to ascertain the precise locations of these structures will assist in the avoidance effort,as well as provide archaeological data that may be useful in SAMA's interpretive programs. Once the results of the archaeological investigations have been reviewed, I look forward to receiving your effect finding for this project. My staff have consulted with William A. Griswold of the NPS Cultural Resource Center, and offer the following comments on the archaeological research design and methodology: Page 2-3: The archaeological remains of the Derby Counting House and the sheds may have very limited archaeological visibility. MHC recommends that hand testing precede mechanically assisted excavation for these features, which may consist of soil stains from sill-on,or post-in-ground structures, and/or dry- laid or even mortared stone that may have been partially demolished or otherwise impacted, making it difficult to discern the expected features. Interesting finds may also be expected within the former structures(such"small finds"may have fallen through the floor boards of these structures, or been cached by scavenging animals) and outside former structure openings(doors, windows,etc.). Undocumented ancillary structures,such as privies,etc.could also be present.Any such features and deposits will require careful hand excavation and screening to be located and sampled appropriately. Screening is not included in the description of the field strategy. A sample of the excavated deposits should be screened through an appropriately sized mesh. Because of the nature of these deposits,and the proposed timing of the excavations, it may be necessary to water screen these soils. 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727-8470•Fax: (617) 727-5128 www.state.ma.us/sec/mhc Soils samples are proposed to be collected,but the goal of collecting ttre samples is not indicated.The specific goal may be,e.g.,for pollen studies,for soil chemistry,or for flotation of feature contents to recover plant and animal remains or small artifacts. Soil samples should be collected using an efficient yet reliable sampling strategy,but the strategy and sample size will differ depending on what goal is proposed to be met.The research design proposes that the NPS will process the samples. However, it will be important that the investigators to have the results of the processed soil samples available for the analysis and interpretation of the archaeological findings,and to include the results in the report.Please consult with the Principal Investigator to agree to a schedule to provide the soil sample data so that it can be taken into account for the analysis and interpretation of the results. Page 4:The original archaeological documentation should also be transferred with the artifacts.A copy of the archaeological documentation should be kept by Hartgen. Page 4:The appropriate federal guidelines to follow in preparing the report are the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation(48 Fed.Reg. 190(1983)).The Massachusetts Standards for Reports are at 950 CMR 70.14. MHC recommends that project planners take into account the results of the archaeological investigations to finalize the proposed location of the utilities corridor to avoid or minimize impact to any significant historic or archaeological resources. MHC requests that NPS provide to MHC a copy of the draft report fo-review and comment,and,two(2) copies of the final report;a computer diskette containing a word processing file listing the report authors, title,and abstract; and, an updated MHC historical archaeological site form Guidelines for preparing useful archaeological report abstracts,and blank MHC site forms and instructions are available from the MHC upon request. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended(36 CFR 800). Please contact Edward L.Bell of my staff if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Brona Simon State Archaeologist Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: William A. Griswold,NPS Scott D. Stull,Hartgen Archeological Associates,Inc. Salem Historical Commission Historic Salem,Inc. pSMENT OF QIP -Zm United States Department of the Interior " s OCT 1 8 1994 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE North Adaptic R,, ion + ^ g 1;; �.V•t.lt1 'bq —+"0eA 15 Sate S[reet T}' /;C c,� ,r,i�J 1 RON 3 Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3572 I IN REPLY REFER TO: October 12 , 1994 H42 ( (NAR-RCR) RECEIVED OCT 2 41994 Ms . Judith McDonough Salem Pl af7 twU (Dept. Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street, Suite 310 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Dear Ms . McDonough: The National Park Service proposes to construct a temporary brick pad, measuring approximately 9 x 12 feet, at Salem Maritime National Historic Site . The pad is needed as a base for a newly acquired bobcat . The equipment is too large to be stored in the present maintenance facilitt (Sae tom- attached "Arse - t f - JJ.I:�.-ll V Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources" form for the proposed location and further project description . ) In accordance with the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, we have applied the criteria of effect . The construction of a temporary brick pad will have no effect on the qualities for which Salem Maritime National Historic Site was listed on the the National Register of Historic Places . The pad will be located behind the park restrooms to the rear of the historic buildings at the park (see attached site maps and photographs) . No known significant archeological resources will be affected. The area was backfilled during the landscaping of the site in 1939 and excavation depth will not exceed 6 inches . Enclosed please find the following documentation: a . "Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources" form, including site maps and photographs Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800 . 5 (a) , if there are interested persons we should notify, please let us know. We would appreciate your response on this matter as soon as possible . If you concur with our determination of effect , please sign on the space provided and return this letter to this office within 15 days . A copy of this letter is enclosed for your files . Should you have any questions regarding this undertaking, please contact Regional Historian Paul O. Weinbaum at (617) 223-5057 . Sincerely, Marie R st Regional Director Enclosures I concur with the above-stated determination of no effect . Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer Date Auer review of MHC files and the materials a Wui_-:r; hed, it ,;as hasn determined that Yv LI t4 a =t significant eo"cgical resources. va IKo��2a^ s/ gy Date 1 ICZE'IrOr 'ArC,l�"001'?glSt Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Richard Oedel, Chairperson, Salem Historical Commission QPQSMENT of TNP a� sm United States Department of the Interior A x° NATIONAL PARK SERVICE _ N,vth Ad.tic Rgmn �qRo��sa°j IS State Street N 3 N"T. -.. \iasnchusett,02109-3572 IN RFM RFFFP M Sip o 6 1994 August 11 , 1994 Sate + V,W00119 uepl- H42 (NAR-RCR) CERTIFIED MAIL Ms . Judith McDonough Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street, Suite 310 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Dear Ms . McDonough: The National Park Service proposes to install new exhibits on the first and second floors of the Bonded Warehouse, Salem Maritime National Historic Site in order to upgrade existing educational programs taking place in the building. (See the attached documentation for a detailed description of the project . ) In accordance with the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, we have applied the criteria of effect . The installation of new exhibits in the Bonded Warehouse will have no effect on the qualities for which Salem Maritime National Historic Site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places . The exhibits continue an existing adaptive use and have been designed to minimize the impact on historic fabric (see "Assessment of Actions" form, item 6 ) . Enclosed please find the following documentation: a . "Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural Resources" form b. Salem Maritime National Historic Site Final [Exhibit] Plan c . Four (4) photographs of the exhibit space We would appreciate your response on this matter as soon as possible . If you concur with our determination of effect, please sign on the space provided and return this letter to this office within 15 days . A copy of this letter is enclosed for your files . Should you have any questions regarding this undertaking, please contact Regional Historian Paul 0. Weinbaum at (617) 223-5057 . Sincerely, 6V__ - ai� Marie R st Regional Director Enclosures I concur with the above-stated determination of no effe t . ,Hio-hn u 3 MOs achusetts State His is Preservation Officer Date o�p�tMENT OF 'im TAKES � PRIDEIN f% p United States Department of the Interior AMERICA 6 a NATIONAL PARE SERVICE SgCH 3 �e North Atlantic Region i'p E C E 1 @J E D IN REPLY REFER TO: 15 State Street Boston,Massachusetts 02109-8572 AuG 1 1 1993 August 2, 1993 H30 (NAR—PC) 10ASSS. HST. COMM. RECEIVED Ms. Judith B. McDonough SEP 0 8 1993 State Historic Preservation Officer "em r,liyt�t,,,l Executive Director , 1j u0pl. Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street, Suite 310 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Dear Ms. McDonough: Thank you for your letter of June 23 regarding the Wharf design proposal at Salem Maritime National Historic Site (NHS) , Essex County, Massachusetts (MHC #6987) , and the accompanying letter outlining the concerns of the Salem Historical Commission (SHC) . Three of those concerns appear to require a response: First, item number 5 concerns access between Pickering Wharf and the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. This was an entrance used mostly in the evening by people parking in the Site parking area and frequenting the neighboring drinking establishment at Pickering Wharf. This parking area is being replaced with a rest room, shower facility, and picnic area. Once the parking area is gone, there will be little need for access from Pickering Wharf at this location. Two other reasons also figured in the decision to gate this entry. One is a security reason--the fewer entrances into the park, the less difficulty park staff have in patrolling the site. Unauthorized access and vandalism are currently issues here. The second reason is an interpretive one--all visitors should enter the park at a central location so the park staff can provide information regarding, and orientation to, the site to each visitor. The gate, as designed, will be a wooden one, and could, if the park so desires, be left open. We do not agree with the SHC that this gate will impact visitors' views of the national historic site, Salem Harbor, or views from the park or sidewalk in front of the park. The location is an obscure corner of the park. The gate will be seen as an extension of a restaurant structure and would not be readily noticeable. Item number 7 concerns the possible construction of the wharfinger's building. The National Park Service (NPS) concurs with the SHC and has decided not to build another building on the wharfinger's building footprint. If accurate data on its size and approximate location can be found, it will be outlined on the ground as an interpretive feature. a ' Item number 8 reflects the SHC's concern about the design of the wharf struc- tures. National Park Service policy does not allow conjectural reconstructions when adequate data is unavailable. However, policy does allow construction of clearly modern buildings that invite comparisons with historic structures (i.e., size, shape, fenestration, roof pitch, etc.) when such structures are integral to the interpretive mission of the site, as is the case at Salem NHS. We note that the SHC's letter does not label any of the proposed actions "adverse." In light of the additional information provided above, we, once again, request your written concurrence in a determination of "no adverse effect." Should you have further questions, please call Paul Weinbaum at 617y223-5057 or Craig Cellar at 303%969-2417. Sincerely/, rle Rust Regional Director I concur with the above-stated determination of effect. � 3 ssachusetts State Historic P servation Officer Do t< cc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation _ _ _ 1 O ]FL hl. Iar• r. j „ c�•wrl �•�QL1 p, E Salem Historical Commission CNE SALEM GREEN.SALEM,MASSACHUSET'S 01970 (508(745.9595 E)7. 311 June 17 , 1993 Paul A. Holtz Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston St. Boston MA 02116 Dear Paul, The Salem Historical Commission has carefully reviewed the drawings and plan description for the Salem Maritime Visitor Facilities development and thanks MHC for organizing the meeting held on May 26th in Salem where the project was discussed at length. As a result of our discussions, we have the following general comments: 1. The development of the wooden sailing vessel is exciting and could be a significant factor contributing to the emergence of the site as a highly respected site. As such, we are fully in agreement with the interpretive and design aspects of this part of the project. 2. The visitors shower/restroom facility is in keeping with the general site and will have little adverse impact with the plantings and other structures (i.e. deck and ramps) proposed. 3. The outlines of the old wharfs is an innovative idea, and one which will have no adverse impact on the area. 4. The lighting and utilities proposed will meld with the other utilities in the area and will have no adverse impact on the area. 5. The elimination of the access between the Pickering Wharf area and the National Park Service Site and the erection of a solid fence is not desirable and should be reviewed. It has impact from the area of Pickering Wharf and its view of the Park, as well as affecting the view from the park and the sidewalk in front of the park. 4 r 6. The construction work on the wharves themselves and the resulting massing and structure of the wharves (not including the warehouse buildings) will have a positive impact on the site. 7. The warehouse buildings are more of a dilemma. The wharfinger's building should not be part of the structures on the wharf as designed. The design of the building is not known with certainty and would detract from the other buildings as designed. 8. The other warehouse buildings will have the effect of changing the wharf into a completely contemporary site, with little to add to the area other than the appropriate massing of the structures which are complete. The ghosted buildings will have the effect of towering iron trusses, more like a bridge or television tower than the original buildings, but in general, the commission cannot say that the warehouse structures as designed would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or historical character of the area. We hope the above comments are of help in the process, and look forward to progress reports on other site issues. Regards, �a4,V Richard H. Oedel Chairman, Salem Historical Commission SETTS * � Q, J O MISS 10 �y1` 9r, June 23, 1993 -0 Marie Rus[ m"?OnWealth to Regional Director United States Department of the Interior National Park Service North Atlantic Region 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109 RE: Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Salem, MA COE-NE-D-R-File No. 1990-12540 (MHC #6987) Dear Ms. Rust: Thank you for the meeting held May 26, 1993 at the National Park Service Orientation Center for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. This meeting was attended by my staff, by representatives from the Salem Historical Commission and by the National Park Service including their project design team. The project area includes the Derby Waterfront Historic District which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The MHC recognizes the Salem Historical Commission, as an important interested party under the Section 106 review process. The Salem Historical Commission has provided the MHC with written comments, received June 18, 1993, concerning the most recent Salem Maritime National Historic Site project proposal. These comments reflect discussions from the May 26, 1993 meeting, a review of project plans, as well as discussion within the Salem Historical Comission. Enclosed please find a copy of the Salem Historical Commission's comments for your response. These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800). If you should have any questions, please contact Paul Holtz at this office. Sincerely, �- RECEIVED Ju ith B. McDonough JUN ecutive Director 28 1993 State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission Salem l'f6lr11t1119 Ug pt. Enclosure cc: Salem Historical Commission ACHP Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727 8470 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J.Connolly..Secrelary Reply to Mass Historic June 16, 1993 Re: Section 106 review National Park Service Plan Dear , The Salem Historical Commission has carefully reviewed the drawings and plan description for the Salem Maritime Visitor Facilities development and thanks MHC for organizing the meeting held on May 26th in Salem where the project was discussed at length. As a result of our discussions, we have the following general comments: 1. The development of the wooden sailing vessel is exciting and could be a significant factor contributing to the emergence of the site as a highly respected site. As such, we are fully in agreement with the interpretive and design aspects of this part of the project. 2. The visitors shower/restroom facility is in keeping with the general site and will have little adverse impact with the plantings and other structures (is: deck and ramps) proposed. 3. The outlines of the old wharfs is an inovative idea, and one which will have no adverse impact on the area. 4. The lighting and utilities proposed will meld with the other utilities in the area and will have no adverse impact on the area. 5. The elimination of the access between the Pickering Wharf area and the National Park Service Site and the erection of a solid fence is not desirable and should be reviewed. It has impact from the area of Pickering Wharf and its view of the Park, as well as affecting the view from the park and the sidewalk in front of the park. 6. The construction work on the wharves themselves and the resulting massing and structure of the wharves (not including the warehouse buildings) will have a positive impact on the site. 7. The warehouse buildings are more of a dilemma. The wharfinger's building should not be part of the structures on the wharf as designed. The design of the building is not known with certainty and would detract from the other buildings as designed. It would have minimal impact if it were alone on the wharf. S. The other warehouse buildings will have the effect of changing the wharf into a completely contemporary site, with little to add to the area other than the appropriate massing of the structures which are complete. The ghosted buildings will have the effect of towering iron trusses, more like a bridge or television tower than the orginal buildings, but in general, the commission cannot say that the warehouse structures as designed would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or historical character of the area. We hope the above comments are of help in the process, and look forward to progress reports on other site issues. S-�,'TTS *� G4 May 4, 1993ILI [j h Marie Rust CQ r M e Regional Director Af I S S o e � �Q United States Department of the Interi 1pllt0 National Park Service "zpnWealtll North Atlantic Region 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109 RE: Salem Maritime Historic Site, Salem, MA COE-NE-D-R-File No. 1990-012540 (MHC #6987) Dear Ms. Rust: Thank you for submitting the Section 106 Report including design development drawings (dated November 1992) concerning the second phase of the proposed work as described in the Salem Maritime National Historic Site Plan and Environmental Assessment. MHC received these materials on April 5, 1993. The project area includes the Derby Waterfront Historic District which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. MHC previously concurred to a "no adverse effect" finding on May 4, 1992 for the stabilization phase of this overall project. MHC staff have reviewed the most recent materials submitted involving the second phase of the Salem Maritime National Historic Site Project. Before MHC can determine what effect these proposed actions may have on historic resources we will need to receive comment from the Salem Historical Commission as an interested party. We have recently forwarded an excerpted copy of the second phase materials to the Salem Historical Commission for their review. MHC requests a meeting between the Salem Historical Commission, an MHC representative, and NPS representatives to discuss the project in more detail. The MHC looks forward to this meeting and will be in contact with both the National Park Service and the Salem Historical Commission to establish a mutually agreeable time and location for this meeting. These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CMR 800). If you have any questions, please contact Paul A. Holtz at this office. Sincerely, Ju ' B. McDonough �'Qr�h, Executive Director b State Historic Preservation Officer d� cc: Salem Historical Commission NPS/Salem Maritime National Historic Site Advisory Council on Historic Preservation JBM/PH/hl Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B. McDonough,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation O/icer 80 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 7278470 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael j.Connolly. Secretar Q�pPtMENT OF Tti�/ym PWD INS h o United States Department of the Interior AMEN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE _ M4RCH 33 �ap9 North Atlantic Region 15 State Street IN REPLY REFER TO: Boston,Massachusetts 02109-3572 April 30, 1993 RECE1VEC. CE !� /rr H42 (NAR-PC) ` I V C MAY 17-1993 f 31L i 0"IT1 riwillialu uepl. MAY 5 1993 Ms. Judith B. McDonough SASS. HIST. COMM. Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director, Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street, Suite 310 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Reference: Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Package 188;`, Park General, Project Type 21, Restoration of Historic Wharves Dear Ms. McDonough: Enclosed is an amended Section 106 Case Report describing work to be undertaken at Salem Maritime National historic Site, Essex County, Massachusetts. This amendment proposes changing the method of rehabilitation of Derby Wharf previously described in an earlier submittal dated December 16, 1991, from a sheet pile cell system to a lagging panel and tie-back system. The proposed change was brought about as the result of a value engineering proposal (VEP) made by the contractor in charge of construction. It appears to solve most of the cultural resources concerns that both of our offices have had, particularly the disturbance of archeological resources within the wharf. We have determined, in preliminary consultation with your staff in February, 1993 , that this amended action will not change the "no adverse effect" determination of the original proposal. Accordingly, we are submitting the revised proposal for your concurrence under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's "Regulations for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties. " You may concur with our determination of "no adverse effect" by signing the signature line provided below and returning this letter to this office (attention: Paul Weinbaum) , or you may comment separately. If you need additional information, please contact Cultural Resources Management Specialist Craig Cellar of the Denver Service Center at (303) 969-2417 or Paul Weinbaum at (617-223-5057 . The continuing advice, support, and cooperation of your office is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 46&1Z41 jkdrie Rust Regional Director Enclosure cc: Advisory Couhcil on Historic Preservation I concur with the above-stated determination of no adverse effect. 5 ►1 q3 rs achusetts State Hi toric Preservation Officer )Date xc: Salem Historical Commission Salem Maritime National Historic Site Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Agency official Section 106 Report National Park Service North Atlantic Region I. Proiect Title Visitor Facilities Development II . Name and Address of Immediate Property Superintendent Salem Maritime National Historic Site Custom House, Derby Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 III. Description and Purpose of Work to be Implemented Salem Maritime NHS consists of several historic structures on the north side of Derby Street dating from the maritime era in Salem (roughly 1760-1830) and a set of three historic wharves on the south side. The later period structures that occupied the wharves at the time of National Park Service acquisition in 1938 were removed in anticipation of reconstructing the structures that existed there during the height of maritime. However, for various reasons, no structures were ever constructed and the wharves remain today as grassy open spaces that evoke no feeling for, or understanding of, their historic past. The Salem Maritime National Historic Site Site Plan and Environmental Assessment, completed in 1991, outlines a program designed to provide the visitor with an understanding of the workings of a wharf, how the wharf warehouses functioned in relation to the Custom House and Bonded Warehouse, as well as what a ship looked like, how it functioned, how it was loaded and unloaded, what its living conditions were like, and where the goods it carried came from. The work proposed below is designed to further implementation of the Salem Maritime National Historic Site Site Plan and Environmental Assessment. Without this work, the plan cannot be implemented because the actions proposed are the heart of the plan. The actions proposed for the site are described below. North Area (North of Derby Street) 1 . The boardwalk on the south and west sides of the Narbonne House is deteriorating and will be reconstructed. 2 2 . The existing stone dust and brick pavement in the back yard of the Narbonne House will be replaced with a boardwalk from the front gate to the back gate to make access for the disabled easier. y 3 . Archeological gical features in the back yard of the Narbonne House will be outlined in granite pavers and planted (they are currently delineated in stonedust) . 4. Not enough historic data exists to reconstruct the landscape of the historic maritime era. A decision was made to utilize a 1939 landscape plan that was partially implemented (the Narbonne property was not in NPS ownership at that time and was not an integral part of that plan) . Plants in this area would be similar to types used in the 1939 plan but not necessarily similar to those used historically on the site. A new landscape plan has been developed that utilizes materials that could have been available during the maritime period but in a distinctly modern way. 5. During construction, tree protectors will be installed as necessary. 6. An existing brick walk installed in the 1970's in the yard of the bonded warehouse will be removed and replaced with grass. The brick walkway and wooden platform connecting to the Scale House will be replaced with boardwalk for greater accessibility and will be extended to the scale house. 7 . A stone threshold separating the boardwalk behind the Bonded Warehouse from Custom House Cpurt will be reset as will areas of beach stone behind the Bonded- Warehouse as a means of providing greater accessibility. 8 . A portion of the sidewalk on the north side of Derby Street between the Hawkes House and the Derby House must be removed in order to make an accessible curb cut for a designated street crossing. 9. The existing restroom building will become storage when new restrooms are constructed on Central Wharf. Derby Street 1. The existing crosswalks will be removed and replaced with brick and cobblestones. 2 . On either side of Derby Street, approximately four feet of bituminous concrete pavement will be removed and new cobblestone gutters constructed. Cobblestones removed with the pavement will be reused. Work will occur only between the east and west boundaries of the park. 3 3 . Granite curbing will be reset or replaced where needed and new curb cuts installed where necessary for accessibility. South Area (South of Derby Street) 1. The utility poles along the south side of Derby Street will be removed and utilities undergrounded. 2. The brick sidewalk along the south side of Derby Street will be removed and repaved with a wider promenade of brick pavers edged in granite. 3 . The wood bollards and connecting steel chain along the existing sidewalk will be removed. 4 . New street lighting will be installed. 5. The existing granite pavers at the north end of the Derby Wharf trail will be removed to allow construction of the new sidewalk. 6. The beach area will be regraded as necessary. 7 . New gas, water, telephone, and electric utilities and sanitary and storm sewers will be installed from Derby Street to Derby, Hatch's, and Central wharves. Derby Wharf 1. The wharf will be regraded and the lawn areas reseeded. 2. Four areas of brick pavem6nt along the Derby Wharf Trail that no longer have a purpose will be removed. 3 . All wood bollards on the wharf will be removed. 4 . Steel edging along both sides of the Derby Wharf Trail will be removed and new edging installed. 5. All benches, interpretive signs, and one large granite block on Derby Wharf will be removed. Waysides and interpretive signs will be reinstalled during the final site improvements. 6. Flush granite pavers will be installed as a means of outlining an historic counting house that existed at the Derby Street end of the wharf . 7. A timber edge for visitor seating will be installed along the east and west side of Derby Wharf for approximately the first seven hundred feet. 8 . The historic wharf configuration will be outlined with flush granite pavers as an interpretive device. 4 9 . The public walkway and Derby Wharf Trail will be paved with stonedust. 10. Six structures reminiscent of wharf warehouses and the wharfinger's office will be constructed and several other historic structures on the wharf outlined with granite cornerstones. 11. Interpretive props such as wood barrels, wood boxes, and stone piles will be permanently installed. 12 . A compass rose will be installed in the Derby Wharf Trail just north of the lighthouse as a means of orienting the visitor to the site. 13 . Mooring and access facilities will be installed to allow docking of the proposed reconstructed ship "Friendship" . Hatch's Wharf 1. The wharf will be regraded as necessary and the lawn areas replanted. 2 . The historic wharf configuration will be outlined using flush granite pavers as an interpretive device. 3 . The public walkways will be paved with stonedust. Central Wharf 1. The wharf will be regraded as necessary and the lawn areas seeded. 2 . The public walkways will be paved with stonedust. 3 . The historic wharf configurations will be outlined with granite pavers. 4. A new restroom/shower facility will be constructed on the wharf south of the Central Wharf visitor contact station. 5. A new picnic area will be constructed where the present parking area exists south of the visitor contact station. 6 . A wood deck will be constructed to connect the visitor contact station with the new restroom/shower facility. 7 . Granite seating blocks will be installed along the docking area south of the visitor contact station and a wooden gate will be placed to allow emergency access to Pickering Wharf. 5 8 . A granite wharf edge will be installed at the south end of Central Wharf to show the size and configuration of an earlier wharf and to act as an interpretive area. 9 . A planter on the west side of the Forrester Warehouse foundation will be removed. 10. Granite curb surrounding the existing Central Wharf parking area will be removed and stockpiled for reuse. 11. Bituminous concrete pavement and curb in the Central Wharf parking area will be removed. 12 . The parking area gate, wood bollards and steel chain within and surrounding the Central Wharf parking area will be removed. 13 . Granite blocks protecting trees will be removed and stockpiled for reuse. 14 . The concrete ramp on the front of the visitor contact station will be removed. 15 . Some plants and planters around the visitor contact station will be removed. 16 . The entrance sign will be removed and a new sign installed. 17 . Brick pavers will be installed in the area in front of the visitor contact station. 18 . One tree behind the visitor contact station will be removed, three will be saved, and five others planted. 19 . The steel guardrail on the south side of the Central Wharf parking area will be removed. 20 . The steel edging along both sides of the Central Wharf Trail will be removed and a new steel edge installed. 21 . A vessel mooring and access system on the west side of the wharf will be installed. 22 . Some miscellaneous landscape plantings will be installed. IV. Historic Properties That May be Affected Salem Maritime National Historic Site is a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Derby, Central , and Hatch' s wharves will be directly impacted by the proposal as will the back yards of the Narbonne House, the Hawkes House, and the Custom House. Several historic properties not included in the Salem 6 Maritime National Historic Site will have some temporary visual impact due to construction. They include the Forrester house, the J. Crowninshield House, the Brookhouse Home, and two properties at 69 and 71 Essex Street. V. Property Description A. Maior Physical Components Historic features extant include: Central Wharf, Hatch's Wharf, Derby Wharf, the Custom House, Derby House, Hawkes House, West India Goods Store, Narbonne-Hale House, Central Wharf Warehouse (visitor contact station) , U.S. Government Bcnded Warehouse, Scale House, and the st. Joseph's Polish Club. B. Historical Significance Salem Maritime National Historic Site was the country's first national historic site. Situated along the harbor in Salem, Massachusetts, it is the best remaining representation of early American maritime activities and their significant contributions to the founding and development of the United States. More specifically, the significance of the site to the nation's history relates to the impact of Salem's privateering and the maritime trade, which reached its height at the strategic time when the United States was emerging as a nation. During the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 , Salem privateers sorely harassed enemy shipping and kept critical supply routes open, and after, the lucrative global trade conducted by Salem merchants brought vitally important revenues into the federal treasury. Indeed, without these revenues it is hard to imagine how the new government could have survived financially. Through their contact with foreign ports and peoples, the merchants of Salem and her sister ports brought an international prestige zo the fledgling nation. C. Architectural/Engineering History See attached data from the "architectural Data Section of the Historic Structure Report Derby Wharf, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1982 and Historic Structure Report Central Wharf" . D. Archeological Resources CENTRAL WHARF Archeological work undertaken in support of the Historic Structures Report, Central Wharf, dated June, 1980, indicates that the 1896-97 reconstruction of the wharf removed the top 6-7 feet of the original cobb wharf. In its place, a bulkhead of closely spaced pilings was built two to three feet outside the old cobb wharf bulkhead. Tie-rods were used to keep these new bulkheads from collapsing outward under the pressure of the wharf fill. The wharf was then filled with garbage, rubble, and soils of all kinds. Only 7 the bottom four-foot high remnant of cribwork and ballast floor rising above the mud of the South River remains of the 1820 cobb wharf. DERBY WHARF Historical and archeological testing research has been undertaken into past construction methods utilized on Derby Wharf and the extent of repair work undertaken through the years. This research indicates that portions of the original 1762-1771 timber wharf remain behind the existing east and possibly the existing west stone facing. Archeological tests also turned up portions of foundations of wharf structures. Extensive archeological excavations have been undertaken to determine how wharf repairs and strengthening and the construction of visitor facilities will affect archeological resources and to mitigate those impacts. NARBONNE-HALE HOUSE Extensive archeological investigations have been undertaken in the yard of the Narbonne-Hale House and are described in Archeological Investigations at the Narbonne House, 1982, National Park Service. Three field seasons of work identified a first period lean-to foundation, a cobblestone driveway, a dairy, a well, privies, and trash pits. The site is especially notable for the quantity of artifacts and the range of its fine late 18th century English ceramics and Chinese porcelain. VI. Consideration of Alternatives The alternatives for development are described in the Salem Maritime National Historic Site Site Plan and Environmental Assessment. The proposal was chosen because it met the park's interpretive goals while preserving the site's historic significance and resources. That plan is an approved document under the 1990 Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement signed by the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Park Service. VII. Effect Analysis A. No effect: not applicable B. Effect: 1. Short-term effect CENTRAL, HATCH'S, AND DERBY WHARVES There will be short-term disruption of visitor use of the wharves and the visitor contact station during construction of new facilities. There will also be elevated levels of dust, noise, and construction vehicle exhaust during construction. Some views of the harbor will be marred during construction. The wharf will be closed to visitors during the construction. 8 1. Short-term effect NORTH AREA There will be short-term closures of areas under construction, however, the North Area will remain open to visitation. There will be elevated levels of dust, noise, and construction vehicle exhaust during construction and landscape work. 2 . Long-term Effect CENTRAL WHARF When the work is completed, Central Wharf will be the first area visitors will see. It will be substantially changed from its present, somewhat shabby appearance. A new restroom/shower facility and picnic area will replace the existing nonhistoric parking area. New landscaping will be implemented as will landscape features that enhance the interpretation of, and understanding of, the evolution of Central Wharf. There will likely be more people using the wharf as a result of picnic facilities and proposed temporary boat docking and proposed tour boats. Visiting vessels will also increase visitor use of the wharf when a vessel is available for boarding. Better wharf surfaces will be installed to handle larger numbers of visitors and lessen any impact to the wharf surface. Although the work is not designed to restore the wharf to its historic appearance at some earlier date, the proposed work should be a long-term visual improvement over the present. DERBY WHARF ..Derby Wharf will be substantially changed by this proposal. There will, be six buildings constructed representing the five warehouses and 'the wharfingers offer. enly the first two buildings and the whar_F�inger's office will be completed, the others being ghosted or merely frames of buildings that provide the visitor a sense of the size and scale of development historically on the wharves. A reconstructed east indiaman, the Friendship, will be constructed onsite and moored beside the warehouses. The two completed warehouses will become exhibition space that, along with the Friendship, will draw visitors out onto the wharf. Proposed work will clearly be modern but will be evocative of historic buildings that once occupied their locations. New landscape features will enhance the understanding of the evolution of Derby Wharf. Because no buildings currently exist on the wharf, there will be a significant visual alteration from the present for those traveling along Derby Street and for those living in structures adjacent to the wharves. Visitor use of the wharf will increase dramatically but should not impact the wharf directly as new wharf surfaces are designed to handle them. DERBY STREET, SOUTH AREA, BEACH Derby Street, the area south of Derby Street not a part of Central or Derby wharves, and the beach area will undergo a substantial change in appearance. Derby Street and the sidewalk on the south 9 side will be upgraded with new sidewalks, walkways, lighting, signs, and interpretive features that will give the visitor a clear understanding that he/she is within the park. The historic 1764 and 1783 wharves and the counting house that were on the site during the period 1764-1830 will be outlined in granite. Street furniture, and plantings will also change the site's appearance. The Friendship will be constructed on the lawn above the beach and will be a longterm exhibit during construction. However, no attempt will be made to restore the area to a more historic appearance. NORTH AREA Changes to the north area will be longterm. They consist mainly of new boardwalk that replaces the existing walkways as a means of improving accessibility. There will be some removal of shrubs and planting of additional trees and shrubs. There will be some outlining of historic features in the Narbonne backyard in keeping with the treatment of non-extant wharves south of Derby Street. However, these yards do not retain the appearance they had during the historic maritime era and no attempt is being made to restore them to this period of significance. Not enough information exists at present to accomplish this. Work to be done will be in character with the plan developed in 1939 for the landscape of the north area. (The Narbonne property was not a part of the park in 1939; and a schematic design only was done for the Narbonne property at that time. ) 3 . Effect on historic values CENTRAL WHARF Central Wharf does not now refrect its appearance during the height of maritime, nor does it refl6ct its appearance of even 50 years ago when the National Park Service took it over. Repairs made have also changed the appearance of the wharf structure itself. The proposed work does not attempt to restore the historic appearance of the wharf structure or of its historic surface appearance. Central Wharf will provide the visitor contact facility, the restroom/shower facility, docking for historic vessels and for day use by park visitors. It will graphically depict the configuration of the Central Wharf during the period 1764-1830 and will have interpretive markers. Its purpose is seen as more utilitarian with the visitor interpretation focused more on Derby Wharf and the reconstructed period vessel. DERBY WHARF Although Derby Wharf has been expanded since the height of Salem's maritime influence, the wharf structure has essentially kept its historic appearance. All structures on top of the wharf except for the lighthouse have been removed leaving the wharf top a green lawn. The wharf historically would have been a working facility with many structures and no lawn area. The wharf's significance lies in the wharf structure itself and the possible archeological remnants of earlier wharves contained within. That structure is 10 currently undergoing reconstruction specifically designed to allow for construction of the warehouses (described in a previously submitted case report) . Construction of the five warehouses and the wharfinger's office will provide the visitor with some degree of understanding of what a wharf looked like during the 1764-1830 period but will in no respect be an attempt to restore the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century appearance. The earlier wharf structure and later 19th century warehouses will be outlined on the ground to further interpretat=on of the wharf's evolution. The wharf structure addition made after 1830 will be left essentially as it appears today but with some upgrading of the walkway, a compass rose, and outlining of the later wharf warehouse corners. As with Central Wharf, no attempt is being made to restore the historic appearance of the wharf but to make it easier for the visitor to imagine the hustle and bustle of the wharf during the historic period. DERBY STREET, SOUTH AREA, BEACH None of these areas bear any resemblance to their appearance during the height of maritime (1790-1830) . A more unified design approach will be taken for the street and sidewalk areas that ties it's design to that of the wharves and the north area. No attempt will be made to create a more "historic" appearance or to reconstruct features from the historic period although the 1764 wharf location will be outlined. NORTH AREA The gardens and yards of the north area are not historic and do not provide the park visitor with an accurate depiction of the historic appearance of the site. No attempt is being made to reconstruct the historic backyards as not enough data is available to accurately restore them rather an existing 1939 landscape plan for all of the north area except the Narbonne property will be implemented. Through use of materials, the north area will be unified with the south area. 4 . Architectural Values CENTRAL WHARF Currently, the only structure on Central wharf is an historic warehouse (visitor contact station) that was moved to the site from elsewhere in Salem but which has no historic connection to the National Historic Site. A new entrance plaza in the front of the building will be installed as will a wooden deck connecting the warehouse to the new restroom/shower facility. Some minor changes on the warehouse interior will be undertaken but since the warehouse has been adaptively rehabilitated inside, it is not expected that historic fabric will be affected. DERBY WHARF There are currently no structures on the Derby Wharf except the lighthouse which will not be directly affected by the development. 11 DERBY STREET, SOUTH .AREA, BEACH AREA There are currently no structures on these areas. NORTH AREA Work proposed for the north area (removal of stonedust paving and replacement of boardwalk) will not directly affect the Narbonne House. The Scale House will be affected only where new boardwalk is constructed from the Bonded Warehouse. The Bonded Warehouse will not be directly affected by resetting of existing beach stone between it and the new boardwalk. It will be minimally affected where the boardwalk connects to the granite steps of the Bonded Warehouse. 5. Effect on Archeological Values Extensive archeological work has occurred at Salem Maritime National Historic Site over the years. The Narbonne House and backyard were the subject of exhaustive study throughout three field seasons (Moran, Archeological Investigations at the Narbonne House) . Various other excavation work has occurred at the National Historic Site over the years (such as Morgan, Excavations at Central Wharf; Marie, Archeological Salva a-Front Street) . Work is on-going with regard to the proposed developments on Derby and Central wharves. The Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Office is aware of this ongoing work. CENTRAL WHARF The reconstruction of Central Wharf carried out in 1896-97 appears to have destroyed much of the gpper 6-7 feet of the 1820 cobb wharf construction system leaving approximately 4 feet of that early system intact. Trash was used-to fill in the 1896-97 bulkheads and is of little value archeologically. Recently, a warehouse foundation from the period 1820-1850 was discovered during routine excavation and further disturbance to it will be avoided by rerouting utilities or utilizing the archeological trenches to minimize further disturbance. Utilities installation elsewhere on the wharf and construction of the restroom/shower facilities could affect other presently unidentified resources. However, any ground disturbance will be preceded by archeological testing and evaluation to insure that this is the case. DERBY WHARF An extensive engineering effort was required to devise a system that would allow docking of the Friendship. Considerable archeological evaluation has been undertaken in association with this effort. These excavations have resulted in the discovery of the east and west bulkhead walls of the original wharf previously thought to have been destroyed. Any additional ground disturbance will require prior evaluation by a professional archeologist to determine the level of archeological investigation necessary. DERBY STREET, SOUTH AREA, BEACH AREA 12 Prior to any ground disturbance in these areas, the level of archeological evaluation necessary will be determined. There will be new utilities, new street lights, excavation for new curb, sidewalk, crosswalks, etc. , all of which could require archeological evaluation. Some testing or remote sensing has been undertaken in these areas. NORTH AREA Extensive archeological excavations have been undertaken in the back yard of the Narbonne House. Excavation within sensitive areas of the back yard will be closely monitored. Areas proposed for new boardwalk, tree and shrub planting, and for removal and replacement of granite threshold and beach stone will be carefully evaluated to determine the level of archeological evaluation necessary prior to or during construction. In applying the "Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect" (36 CFR part 800) , the National Park Service has determined that the effect of the proposal will not be adverse because: 1. The integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship; feeling, or association will not change. 2 . There will be no physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property. In the north area, only those landscape features that are designed for modern site use will be affected. The same is true of the Derby Street improvements. The area south of Derby Street has been significantly altered and site improvements and exhibits will not greatly change its appearance. Physically, the- three wharves will be unchanged despite the fact that several- structures will be constructed on them. 3 . None of the improvements will introduce visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting. 4 . The proposal will not result in the deterioration or destruction of historic features or in the transfer, lease, or sale of the property. 5. Previous archeological research and historical records indicate that past wharf rehabilitation has obliterated a large portion of the archeological context of the site although pockets of undisturbed resources may exist. Further archeological testing and monitoring of ground disturbance will occur prior to and during ground disturbing actions as a means of insuring that presently unidentified archeological resources are not lost or damaged due to construction activities. 6. All work will be carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines. " 13 VIII . Mitigating Measures for Adverse Effect: not applicable IX. Documentation Moran, Geoffrey P. , Edward F. Zimmer, Anne E. Yentsch, 1982 _Archeological Investigations at the Narbonne House Salem Maritime National Historic Site Massachusetts Cultural Resources Management Study No 6, National Park Service, North Atlantic Regional Office, Division of Cultural Resources, Boston. Wilson, Merrill Ann, Geoffrey P. Moran, 1980 "Historic Structures Report Architectural Data Archeological Data"; National Park Service, Denver Service Center. Garman, James C. , Leslie C. Shaw, 1992 "Management Report. Archeological Investigations at Derby and Central Wharves Salem Maritime National Historic Site Salem Massachusetts : " University of Massachusetts. X. conclusion The proposed work continues the effort to implement the Salem Maritime National Historic Site Site Plan and Environmental Assessment, an approved document under the Programmatic Agreement. It continues the work begun with wharf restoration/rehabilitation which was the subject of a previous NPS agency official Section 106 case report. The proposal will not adversely affect historic fabric or archeological resources. It will, however, make the evolution and history of the site more understandable to the visitor through outlining of historic features on the ground and the construction of structures on the Derby Wharf. Those structures will be designed to allow the visitor to visualize what Derby Wharf must have looked like during the height of the maritime period. When the work is completed, Salem Maritime National Historic Site will have a unified interpretive experience that will help the visitor to understand the significance of Salem in American history while not adversely affecting the remaining historical and archeological resources. Saiemd 1-�i�tareal 'ommission 'SNE SALEPA GnEEN.SALEM.MASSACHU:=- 01970 ;081 745-9595 EXT " - April 26 , 1993 Colleen Bruce National Park Service Salem Maritime National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms . Bruce: The Salem Historical Commission is writing to request a copy of the final plans for improvements to the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. While the Commission is in disagreement with the memo from Anthony R. Conte, Regional Solicitor, dated February 27, 1992 concerning the authority of the Salem Historical Commission, since that time, the Commission has chosen not to pursue the matter further. However, the Commission, in February, 1992 , requested to be a consulting and interested party for such improvements and to receive copies of all correspondence concerning the project. In this regard, the Commission would like ample time to review the final plans and provide comment. If you would prefer to make a presentation at an upcoming Commission meeting, please contact our staff person, Jane Guy, at the Salem Planning Department. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Richard Oedel Chairman cc : Massachusetts Historical Commission Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Plans for Derby wharf site to be displayed Tuesday SALEM — Final plans for im- about the proposal. tive exhibits and other site She added that the en provements to the Salem Mari- Plans for the site include the improvements. exhibit will present "t time National Historic Site will construction of replica ware- o u in a Salem, the be on view Tuesday from 2 to 5 houses on Derby Wharf; a res- "With this final design, the Sic our international p.m.and from 5 to 8:30 p.m.at the troom facility and picnic area on tem Maritime National Historic rich heritage of S site's orientation center on Cen- Central Wharf; the construction Site takes pride in the implemen- portance of tral Wharf. of a vessle, a replica East India- tation of the goals established in The m man, the Friendship, which will previous master plans,"acting su- Derby Members of the park staff'and be berthed at the site;docking fa- perintendent Elizabeth Marcus Nat' the design and planning team will cilities for visiting vessels at Cen- said in a release announcing the be on hand to answer questions tral Wharf; and various interpre- viewing. DISTRICT COURT SALEM I Bible, $50 assessment and $30 f ter spension of victim witness fund. S anver 1 r,... to , r lie Works has had to call po- thenewspapers,hesaid. telli saidhewoula not support Battistlli said with the current n numerous occasions to "But people can see the storm. that idea. contract dispute between the pa- 'ehicles towed so they could They will know 24 hours later "Perhaps we might have to look trol officers' union and the city, e streets,he said. they can now park,"he said. at the whole ordinance. We have he believes police officers are humanly impossible to "I know I'm going to get some a lot of irate citizens,"he said. "taking every order literally"and w all the vehicles lett flak on that," he said, about his "I think it needs a little fine ticketing cars when it is not nec- during a snow/ice proposal. turning,"he said,but does not fa- essary. 4 Cutting Beverly's deficit: occurs e IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT REDUCTION FISCAL FISCAL FISCAL 1993 1994 1995 inate'reserve account In city budget $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 tioolbudget $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 project^ $500,000 csnn nnn _ .. __.di A PSN,r. FTy� TAKES 'm United States Department of the Interior P,IDE A� 9 N x NATIONAL PARK SERVICE s9 Salem Maritime National Historic Site 9 CH 3 18 - 174 Derby Street IN REPLY REFER To: Salem,Massachusetts 01970 February 28, 1992 Salem Historical Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Attention: Annie C. Harris MAR 3 1992 S LU, PLANNING QEPT. Dear Ms. Harris: In response to correspondence received February 21, 1992 reference the request of the Salem Historical Commission for the National Park Service, Salem Maritime National Historic Site to submit application for review and approval to the Commission, please be advised of the attached memorandum prepared by the Regional Solicitor which clearly defines jurisdiction of authority. It has always been the intent and desire of the National Park Service to voluntarily present to the Salem Historical Commission and other interests the approved design schematic for the Site Plan. We anticipate this presentation to occur within the next 30 days. Your continued interest and support of the implementation of site improvements for Salem Maritime National Historical Site is greatly appreciated. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Cynthia G. Pollack Superintendent, Salem Maritime NHS ' Af e United States Department of the Interior o OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR One Gateway Center—Suite 612 Newton Corner.MA 02158-2868 (617) 965-5100.ext.258 IN REPLY REFER TO: February 27 , 1992 FTS:829-9258 MEMORANDUM TO: Superintendent, Salem Maritime NHS Attn: Colleen Bruce FROM: Regional Solicitor SUBJECT: Authority of Salem Historical Commission This memo is in response to your recent inquiry in which you asked whether the National Park Service in its operation of the Salem Maritime NHS is subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Salem' s Historical Commission. Please be advised that it has been established from the earliest days of the Republic that, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, instrumentalities of the Federal Government are not subject to the state or local government regulation. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 ( 1819) ; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1899) ; Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 ( 1931 ) . Federal agencies/facilities are subject to state regulations only when Congress by law clearly authorizes such regulation. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 714 (1988) . In the instant case I am unaware of any statutory provision which would subject the NPS to the jurisdiction of the Salem Historical Commission. However, should the NPS voluntarily desire to consult with the Commission as a matter of comity, there is no legal prohibition against such consultation. I trust that the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry, but if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact this office. aj R.� ANTHONY R. CONTE ARC/awp e CIO � H May 4 1992 Marie Rust C MISS Acting �e°� North AtlanticrRegion om"zOnWealth to AUG 17 1992 National Park Service SALEM 15 State Street ��1t11fiPLANNING DEPT" Boston, MA 02109-3572 RE: Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Central and Derby Wharves Rehabilitation Plan, Salem, MA. COE-NE-D-R-File No. : 1990-01254C Dear Ms. Rust: My staff have reviewed the additional materials received April 17, 1992, which you submitted describing the proposed project referenced above. MHC understands that the project will involve the following: the rehabilitation of Central Wharf; the dredging berween Central and Derby Wharves; the stone wall repairs to both Derby and Hatch's Wharves; and the modifications of Derby Wharf for accomodating the permanent docking of a sailing vessel. The project area includes the Derby Waterfront Historic District which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. After review of the materials submitted, I concur to a finding of no adverse effect for this action (36 CFR 8005(d)) provided the following conditions are met: (1) The project will be conducted in accordance with the "Agency Official Section 106 Report" as amended on April 15, 1992, to which is appended the plans and specifications dated February 20, 1992, and all rehabilitation and/or new construction shall meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (2) The National Park Service will continue to consult with the MHC and interested and consulting parties on the development of plans and specifications for the proposed wharf warehouse buildings, reproduction sailing vessel, and other portions of the overall Salem Maritime National Historic Site Master Plan. A copy of these comments should accompany material submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, #809, NW, Washington, DC 20004. If you should have any questions, please contact Paul Holtz or Edward L. Bell at this office. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, u 'th B. McDonough five Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission Karen Kirk Adams, USACOE 8/14/92 xc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation NPS/Salem Maritime National Historic Site Salem Historical Commission Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727.8470 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J. Connolly,Secretary Wr i June 2, 1992 1 Dear 2 The Salem Historical Commission is writing to support the National Park Service's Salem Project and to request your approval of its funding. The Salem Historical Commission is a volunteer board of Salem residents appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. We are responsible for the review and approval of all proposed exterior alterations to properties located in local historic districts. The reviews conducted at meetings, which are open to the public and where the public is encouraged to speak. The Commission has held several public meetings to review the site development plans for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site - which is the nucleus of the Salem Project. At these meetings, not one person has spoken in opposition to this project. While there may be 2 or 3 property owners from nearby Pickering Wharf Condominiums who are now making minor objections, these persons were not present at any of the Commission's meetings to speak in opposition to the project. As a result of these and other public meetings, the Commission has concluded that the vast majority of Salem residents are in 100% support of this project because it will generate much needed tourist dollars to our city and will help revitalize our regional economy. The Commission has had a cooperative relationship with the National Park Service since our creation in the early 1970'x. We look forward to the educational benefits that the National Park Service will create through this project as well as to the physical improvements to the waterfront site. We feel that the National Park Service's Salem Project is worthy of your utmost consideration. We hope you will look favorably upon funding for the Salem Project which will promote the cultural resources of several communities, will provide education and thematic interpretation to all who live in or visit these communities and will also bring essential economic vitality to these communities. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie C. Harris Chairman SiG�ae -Yates Chester G. Atkins _ ,c; li I�;m<,�. YtF :irsirnf O-W u cAtvcus- Sta Dieu Ikran _cn'mc 1949.02. Ya5 !lagan s mw: _YRS 'i ':rp R�ybvm 17uuu 123 Canaoo Hunse „rr.:e 9vifdul Ir INTERIOR AND RELATED AUNCIESwaJuaR m Dc2m1s2:3 B-308 Rayburn House Office Building fWash!ngtoa, DC 20515 -�,(241) 225-3081 x.l_o2• .s-)593 (202) 2253411 Iarfsakdoe (1)Depwimcnt of the Interior (cuept Bureau John P. 14u fila Ralph ,Regula of Reclamatiook (2)Department of Energy (Economic Reg- -- i- _ __ 3b-----____ ulatary Um nistratiM; FFne W tnforManOn AdIDrflt4tMWO; 4- D-P a yirama, 1216 Dutrice Strsln Petroleum Reacvq Emergency Preparedness.(N ! Bgan Sturm: 1924 i;- R+71,o ;de Disv,a ncpn, vc. i923 rice of Hear{Ap and Appeals;-Naval petrolenm nod oil shale 2423 Rayburn Home weave.; ;ta1 wady tsureh a�development Eneagy Mm BvimmstLye�arwd,H.o..e w„6c,a,v. c. )aess 3at2 SOC DC. ittaavatte7o; Alternative fuels production u7d :dated mai- _ I s les rml technology). %f ev A=cics; (3)Pna tFoa roses-351 _munty ?:!rave(h�uty):(4)Commawx.of re .krtx "' (202) 2253876 (202) 2252065 w 13)POrest 4-rvice (USDA); I Franklin Dclano Rase>dt Fw.lt: (20¢)225-3059 Me,m8)Innnal Commission; of))olocaun an Heals S,-mce Norman D. Dicks Joseph M. McDade lg)Indian EdlxnCt7o(DoFd.}, (9)Indian Health Savtoes and Facilities fHHS); (10)Institute of Amcni Aa :rn.an and Alaskan Native Cuiture and Arts Development, (1 !1 '•nsu- D Nva aria- n;ym=: ft-.Ptimsi+•eu :ora Dw, Tule +% .Vusmm Servix_ ii2)Advisnry Conncii ca ;Jv.-on[ H`Q":""`�' Began Sorin: 7963 x^ ?rest-vn:ion; (13)Na6nma; Glprtai P!ru7rtTg Ccnzx-!ssiov; :429 risybvra ;t, J70 RarOarn Hoax OTa Bu;,di. i ''141 Naticnal Foundation an rue Arts azul t.;e tfb:ningim � sv�• .$ orv:e 3QJdi i 51*latirynal vallcry Art, (I Nava)o e7 d r3T t lodiaa I t s"� f w .wngw..Dnca2osu-inn: F.d*-anon 1:anattsion: (l;)Pennsylvania Avenne Dcvdop- (202)2153731 1 moltCa*ronlht2n; 03)Simon W7irsemtlu Coer ttIDOFA); '.': (202) 2155926 r (19)Smit,mnian Insptduon; l2l))Woodrow W;15mt In(tma- FAX:(202)225-9394 bona! Cer-ter for Scholars; (21)Fedem Insotor the Lis j eynCain Bili Lowery Alaska Gss ?ip.-lira s9.U,31YY IIEIlB[RS :/IMO8ILY 1REIl8E8Slk 9avr�c Dn5Ptt 1 R-Caldon• 41st Duu.0 5}dee7 a Yates ?slyh Regain S� 1925 Began sur I41t W �.. Ravbura home dfr92S7 :7(94'1!18 i 2433 Rayburn H.= Sr•tn P. ?Yurt.Sa ). 3L 1rfcDaa!e I A '>R Huddin; ( Ofia Broid:eg `, !Fh 'NaTh:.igtaa Dl:20515-3`01 -:crtean D. Dicks gill Lowery i �hx �a4vlmatoa DC 20W-0641 Les Awro1a Loc Skeen s .:�,r ; (202)225.0955 'Tom Ber!i e1i e ::`,.'!"'�: , FAX(b)2) 2.2,2?C7 "c (202) 225-3201 l�7te51ea(i. Ath,-es 7EY STAFF AIDES Toni aevill � Joe ''sheen �tatf A�3+1nb f-Ajoan.a, ata i)etnr. I - R-Ner Me fntenrx. `_�reralI. Neal Signing yv' .wo snin. 19n7 � Thai 5ery 19317 lharnu ^.Cf7N !lob ICn m*y-- e'er - �i,,�.",- v+: L hr^r rt:u.e 1't '� t'.t W . . . ?,J."ctta L�!'311mnnl 1' j 3'.r"R-' ... rte 2a-t7 ltayburs Hw,r Kathy Jnson ;, r± BuJduy QPP`ME 4T OF �- 0 "a United States Department of the Interior VI Q - � a - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MACH ] North Atlantic Region N 15 State Street IN REPLY REFER M Boston,Massachusetts 02109-3572 April 15, 1992 H42(NAR—PC) Ms. Annie C. Harris Chairman Salem Historical Commission One Salem Green Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Ms. Harris: We are in receipt of your letter of February 18 to the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) requesting that the Salem Historical Commission be considered a consulting and interested party during the Section 106 review process with respect to the proposed work at Salem Maritime National Historic Site. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.5, the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties, we are forwarding to you for your information a copy of the agency case report submitted to the SHPO on December 16, 1991, including plans, and the addendum submitted on April 15, 1992. We would like to clarify that the proposal which the SHPO is currently reviewing pertains to the restoration of the historic wharves at Salem and is separate from and unaffected by the National Park Service proposal for structures on the wharf. Compliance for that project will be separately undertaken. cerely, Nl^e P--� Marie Rust Acting Regional Director Enclosures CC: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer MTIOML PARR SERVICE W, ■ 1916-1991 ■ Agency Official Section 106 Report National Park Service North Atlantic Region Addendum Project title: Restoration of Historic Wharves, Park General Agency Official Section 106 Report Addendum to be attached to Agency Official Section 106 Report. VII, H. 5. Effect on archeological values All archeological work proposed will be conducted in accordance with: *Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Documentation" All such work will take into consideration: *Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's "Treatment of Archeological Properties: A Handbook" (1980) *Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's "Consulting About Archeology Under Section 106" Following each phase of archeological work, the National Park Service will submit an "Archeological Requirements Memorandum" and "Archeological Management Report" for Massachusetts Historical Commission's review and comment prior to commencement of the next phase of work. The draft archeological report completed at the end of the investigation will likewise be provided to the MHC for review and comment. Two (2) copies of the final archeological report will be provided to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. l_ ! becesnber 16, 1991 943(:9AR—p_I rts. Judith B, pS^_oonough State historic preservation officer rvtecutive Director ya33acFjasetts :mato:ical Camaitsion 80 Boylston Street, suite 310 3o3tor., ��swachueot' 02111 Osar iu. `lc.Y�^OU^:. The Mptioral Park Servine proposes to impleafsnt the first %hare of W"arf rehabilitation: at Salem Maritime Rational historic Site, Because the proper Gy is a National giatosic Site listed on the National Register of gistoric Places, we request yocr cor.correnee in the findings of the enclosed Sffect Tkeport, as required by the Program-aatic Agreement between the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the A9visory Council on uistorie Preaervation, and the National Park service in fulfillment of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The proposed development is described in the enclosed Lf£ect Report and is essentially as deseribe9 in the Salem yaritime National Historic Site Site Plan ani pnvironmenta: kgxessxnt reviewe9 and coT"eotod on by your office or. July 31, 1931. It is our determination, that the actions proposed for Central and Derby wharves will have no adverse effect on the National Register qualities of the ,rational Historic Site. If you concur in our determination of no a4veree effect, please sign Lhe signature block provided below and retarn this letter to this office (Attnj Paul taeinb"*) , or you say comment separately, A copy of this letter is enclosed for your files. Sbould you regvire additional information, please contact Craig Cellar of the Denver service Center, at (303) 569-2417, or Paul 'ieinSalm at (61Ti 223-5057. Your continuing interest ir. "evelopaer,t at Salem Maritime National Historic Site is a wreclatad. Sincerely, r, ontten snelosures cot Advisory Council on riistorie Preservation I concurs Dues ,A.,%98ac'lJBetta stats SiBLO-:iO Tr@SRrV At)Or Of�iC^.L bcc: L$C-TFa r-_ ^ellar Ww SAMA, Supt. W/att. CRC, H. Harrison DCR reading file ACR file POWeinbaum:ld 3076h 223-5057 12-16-91 Agency Official Section 106 Report National Park. Service North Atlantic Region I , Project title Restoration of Historic Wharves . Park General II . NAne and Address of immediate Property Suoerintendent Salem Maritime National Historic Site Custom House , Derby Street Salem. Massachusetts 01970 Ill . Description and purpose of work to be Implemented Salem )Maritime NHS consists of several historic structures from the maritime era ( roughly 1760-1830 in Salem) on the north side of Derby street and a set of three historic wharves on the south side . The later period structures that occupied the wharves at the time of National Park Service acquisition in 1938 were removed in anticipation of reconstructing the structures that existed there during the height of maritime . However, for various reasons . no structures were ever constructed and the wharves remain as grassy open spaces that evoke no feeling for. or understanding of their historic past. The Salem Maritime National Historic Site Site Plan and Environmental Assessment completed in 1991 outlines a program designed to provide the visitor with an understanding of the workings of a wharf , how the wharf warehouses functioned in relation to the Custom House and bonded warehouse. as well as what a ship looked like , how it functioned, how it was loaded and unloaded , what its living conditions were like . and where the goods it carried came from. The work proposed below is designed to further implementation of the Salem Maritime National Historic Site Site Plan and Environmental Assessment, without this work the plan cannot be implemented because the actions proposed are the heart of the plan. The actions proposed for the site are: CENTRAL WHARF A. Reconstruct the eastern and southern walls using a system of steel king piles at 10 feet o. c. , faced with wooden piles at S feet o. c. . and separated by timber stop logs down to mean low water with sheet piling below mean low water. Tie the king piles to the existing steel deadman at the center of the wharf with steel tie rods . B. Dredge a slip adjacent to the east side of Central Wharf . creating a basin to a depth of 13 feet below mean low water. This slip would allow historic sailing vessels to visit Salem Maritime . 1 DERBY WHARF A. Dismantle a maximum 300 foot section ( including 10 feet of staggered joints on either end) of the granite block wall surrounding Derby Wharf . B , Excavate the fill within the wharf down to mean low coater , C . Install a series of sheet pile cells designed to underpin the wharf , D . Reconstruct the 300 feet of granite block wall dismantled in A above, E . Dredge a slip along the 300 foot section of Derby Wharf to a depth of 13 feet below mean low water in order to dock a reconstructed period vessel. F . Install grout filled packs between the stones of the wharf face to seal areas along the wharf wall where subsidence and loss of fill has occurred. Grout will be at least 12 inches behind the face so as not to alter the dry laid stone appearance . This method was tested on the actual wall and approved by both the Park and Region . G. Replace 200 foot section of deteriorated timber bulkhead on the eastern face . H. Replace deteriorated fender piles and steel collars as necessary. Hatch ' s wharf : A. Grout between the stones of the wharf face utilizing grout packs to seal areas along the wharf wall where subsidence and loss of fill has occurred. Grout will be at least 12 inches behind the face so as not to alter the dry laid stone appearance . Iv. Historic Properties that may be Affected Salem Maritime National Historic Site is a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Derby, Central , and Hatch' s wharves will be directly impacted by the proposal. Several historic properties not included in the Salem Maritime National Historic Site will have some temporary visual impact due to construction . They include the Forrester house , the J. Crowninshield house , and the Brookhouse Home . V. Property Description A. Major physical components Historic features extant include : Central Wharf , Hatch ' s wharf , Derby Wharf , the Custom House, Derby House , Hawkes House , West India Goods Store , Narbonne-Hale House, Central Wharf Warehouse , U . S . Government Bonded Warehouse, Scale House , Polish Club. B . Historical Significance Salem Maritime National Historic Site was the country' s first national historic site. Situated along the harbor in Salem. Massachusetts , it is the best remaining representation of early American maritime activities and their significant contributions to the founding and development of the United States . More specifically, the significance of the site to the nation' s history relates to the impact of Salem' s privateering and the 2 maritime trade, which reached its height at the strategic time when the United States was emerging as a nation. During the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812 , Salem privateers sorely harassed enemy shipping and kept critical supply routes open, greatly aiding the cause of independence . Between the two wars and after, the lucrative global trade conducted by Salem merchants brought vitally important revenues into the federal treasury, Indeed , without these revenues it is hard to imagine how the new government could have survived financially. Through their contact with foreign ports and peoples, the merchants of Salem and her sister ports brought an international prestige to the fledgling nation . C. Architectural/Engineering History See attached data from the "Architectural Data section of the Historic Structure Report, Derby wharf, National Park Service Denver Service Center. 1982 . D. Archeological Resources CENTRAL WHARF Archeological work undertaken in support of the Historic Structures Report, Central wharf dated June 1980 indicates that the 1896-97 reconstruction of the wharf removed the top 6-7 feet of the original cobb wharf. In its place a bulkhead of closely spaced pilings was built two to three feet outside the old cobb wharf bulkhead. Tie-rods were used to keep these new bulkheads from collapsing outward under the pressure of the wharf fill . The wharf was then filled with garbage , rubble , and soils of all kinds . only the bottom four-foot high remnant of cribwork and ballast floor rising above the mud of the South River remains of the 1820 cobb wharf , DERBY WHARF Historical research has been undertaken into past construction methods utilized on Derby wharf and the extent of repair work undertaken through the years. This research indicates that portions of the original 1762-1771 timber wharf remain behind both the east and west stone facing. Photographs taken immediately before and during the massive 1938 rebuilding and restoration, when compared to the 1938 as-built drawings. illustrate that over half of the original 1800 facing of the west wall may remain at the head (Derby Street end) of the wharf . The area presently proposed for cell placement may include up to 150 feet of this undisturbed facing. Most of the other stone work on the western wall and the entire eastern face was repaired or replaced with new material at that time . Behind the stone facing that was reconstructed in 1938 an undetermined amount of the original cribbing was destroyed. it is this cribbing and the fill materials that are of most concern to the archeologists and which will be the subject of archeological excavations prior to reconstruction . All structural remnants of early wharf systems exposed during archeological investigations and subsequent monitoring during construction will be recorded and samples preserved. Archeological investigations will also be conducted to determine whether or not remnants of early warehouse foundations remain in 3 the upper two to three feet of wharf soils. If they are found to remain, such foundations will be fully recorded and mitigation measures implemented ... This archeological excavation program is planned for the spring of 1992 . VI . Consideration of Alternatives CENTRAL WHARF No alternatives were looked at for Central Wharf because the proposal is essentially preservation in its present state . it will be designed to retain the wharf ' s existing appearance and allow wharfside mooring of visiting vessels requiring up to a 13- foot water depth at mean low water. The west side steel bulkhead will remain as is. DERBY WHARF Three alternatives were considered, the "no action" alternative . a sheet pile and tie-back scheme, and the preferred cell proposal . No action The "no action" alternative would result in no impact to the Derby wharf . Maintenance would continue as at present . The wharf would not undergo archeological investigations nor would it require any dismantling of the stone wharf walls . No dredging would be necessary because no vessel would be reconstructed for docking here . The interpretation of Derby Wharf would continue to occur through the park handbook. interpretive talks , and through the park film, none of which is satisfactory as a means of bringing a sense of the spirit and life that these wharves had during the historic period. The wharves would also continue to be devoid of structures as they have since 1938. Until that date Derby wharf had many buildings on it. The wharf would remain a lifeless green space that visitors would see upon entering the park but which they would continue to skip over in favor of other structures onsite and elsewhere in Salem. The "no action" alternative was not responsive to the park ' s needs as outlined in the Salem Site Plan for a place to dock a reconstructed historic vessel in close proximity to proposed exhibit structures designed to show the relationship of sailing vessels to a port city. Without a place to dock such a vessel , the heart of the Salem Site Plan is removed. Sheet pile and tie-back: The second alternative , a sheet pile and tie-back scheme , serves the same function as the proposal but is a less satisfactory solution in several ways. In this alternative . a 300 foot length of Derby Wharf would be underpinned by a system of king piles drilled into bedrock. The king piles would be connected to a tieback system and sheetpile bulkhead anchored into the underlying bedrock. A slip would be dredged along that 300 foot segment, as in the proposal . The wharf would not require archeological excavation as the king piles would be drilled ca. 4 . . .. .. ...,.- .•�•- -------- r.Gtl ie-1s feet in front of , but not touching , the wharf . :40 dismantling of Derby wharf would be required. Tiebacks would be drilled below the granite walls and would not affect any remnants of early wharf construction that might remain above Mean Low Water. This alternative was rejected for the following reasons : 1 ) Driving sheet piling and drilling king piles into bedrock will necessitate the use of vibratory and impact hammers , the operation of which will cause ground vibrations. The effect of these vibrations on the stability or displacement of the stone facing of the wharf is not readily quantifiable . It is possible that the existing historic granite bulkhead could move . The ground vibrations may also affect adjacent areas of wharf wall not associated with the needed 300 foot section causing potential movement and damage . Because soil quality is so poor. it would be difficult to engineer a shoring system to prevent this movement during the bulkhead construction. 2 ) The sheet piling will need to be placed up to the elevation of !lean Low water to support the existing wall foundation at this elevation. Thus , at extreme low water ( 1 1/2 feet below ;lean Low Water) a section of the underpinning wall will be visible . This submerged bulkhead would also present a possible danger to docking vessels since it would not be visible most of the time . 3 ) Placement of the wall to underpin Derby Wharf allows creation of the dredged slip adjacent to Derby Wharf but would require that the vessel be held off of the wharf by at least 10 feet. a distance that is too far to allow demonstration of off- loading the vessel . It also gives the visitor the impression that ships docked as much as 10 feet away from the wharf when. historically, they docked right up next to the wharf . even leaning against the wharf during low water. 4 ) shorter service life than cell alternative . Additional tie- backs may have to be installed to extend life . 5 ) High tech construction technique which may restrict number of bidders and cost. 6 ) The System is more expensive to construct than the cell system. The proposal : Alternative three , the cell proposal, allows implementation of the Salem Site Plan without alteration of its basic assumptions. A reconstructed historic vessel can be placed near the wharf as it would have been historically. Xt allows the historic vessel to be in close proximity to two exhibit structures that will represent , but not be restorations of. warehouses that historically lined Derby wharf. These structures will work in harmony with the reconstructed vessel to give visitors an understanding of the relationships between ship, wharf , and warehouse . At the same time, there will be no change in the appearance of the granite wharf walls after the work is completed . The sheet pile cells will not be visible even when the water level is at its lowest. It will provide the best possible support for the dredged section in front of Derby Wharf because it will sit directly under, and carry the load of , the 3 ,.r, • . .� ��c w �., 11� vnI rn ocry CMDicMv iCM'I Iu tld�3bV9c2 h'.by granite bulkhead . This system offers a longer service life with lower construction and maintenance costs. There is no submerged structure for docking, vessels to hit. The archeological mitigation plan proposed before the work would begin offers an opportunity to study the historic cribbing and make it part of the site interpretation. There are several drawbacks to this alternative : 1 ) The granite wall must be dismantled and sheet pile cells installed below. This will necessitate extensive recordation of the portion of wall to be dismantled through large format photography and numbering of granite blocks removed so as to be able to reconstruct the wall . Precisely detailed specifications and drawings will be required and vigilant project supervision necessary to insure accurate reconstruction. 2 ) Archeological resources may exist behind the Granite wall . Extensive archeological excavation is planned to maximize through retrieval and recordation of the resources uncovered. 3) Historic fabric may be removed or destroyed even after archeological excavation because Derby Wharf was originally a timber wharf that was later faced with granite . It appears that timber cribbing may remain in areas not reconstructed in 1938. It would have to be removed in order to install the new sheet pile cells. The Archeological Research Plan addresses procedures the NPS would follow to insure proper archeology and documentation before the area is disturbed for installation of the sheetpile cells . VII . Effect Anal sis A. No a ect: not applicable B . Effect: 1 . Short-term effect CENTRAL WHARF There will be some short-term disruption of visitor use of Central Wharf during construction of the new bulkheads . However , there should be no visible difference in appearance of the wharf once work is complete . DERBY WHARF There will be considerable disruption of the use of Derby Wharf beginning with the archeological excavation program and continuing through placement of the sheet pile cells and reconstruction of the stone walls. The wharf will be closed to visitors during the work. 2 . Long-term effect CENTRAL WHARF When completed, and after sufficient weathering, the visitor will not be aware that new bulkheads have been installed . Not only will the wharf be preserved for future visitor use, it will be able to dock visiting historic vessels, a possible harbor cruise vessel , and day-use visitor vessels . The wharf cannot presently accommodate these uses ( except for day-use dockage on the west side ) . DERBY WHARF Once completed the visitor should not be aware that the sheet pile cells were installed or that the walls were reconstructed . The archeological data recovered should be valuable in the 6 vrx vu 1vac uv•c.� rrtLiI Ivn L 11 DCRV CMDIGRIN ICHIT IU CSGG.]JbCd P:1� understanding of early wharf systems in the United States and allow better interpretation of the site . The proposed work will then allow construction of the exhibit structures and placement of the reconstructed historic vessel which were integral to the implementation of the Salem Site Plan. HATCH ' S and DERBY WHARF Once grout packing has been accomplished , there should be no visible change in wall appearance. However, there should be a noticeable drop in the amount of soil seepage through the walls . 3. Effect on historic values CENTRAL WHARF Central Wharf ' s appearance will remain as it does today with the exception of the west side where a steel bulkhead will be covered with wood to match the rest of the wharf. However, Central Wharf will not be returned to a historic appearance . Rather, it will be rehabilitated to serve needs outlined in the Salem Site Plan such as day-use dockage , and the visiting vessel program. DERBY WHARr There will be a considerable impact on the historic values of the site. At present there are no structures on the wharf , as there were historically. It is used by visitors as a means to get out into the harbor without renting a boat, a place for local residents of Salem to walk their dog or watch a sunset. It has much in common with a city park. It does not evoke a sense of the maritime past of Salem nor does it give the visitor any understanding of how a wharf was constructed , what it was intended to do, how it was used, or even what it looked like during the historic period. The proposal will allow a reconstructed historic vessel to dock next to the wharf and. in conjunction with the exhibit buildings to be constructed on the wharf, allow the visitor to imagine what Salem wharves were like when privateers and merchant ships roamed the seas. The ship will be an authentic sailing vessel based on the Friendship. a ship built in, and whose home port was, Salem. While the Salem site Plan does not call for restoring the wharf to a historic time period with all of its structures, sites . and sounds, this development is the first phase of a plan designed to give the visitor a glimpse of what formerly existed. It should give him/her an incentive to walk out on the wharf and to learn about sailing ships, the merchants and crews of the vessels that opened up the ports of the world to American enterprise , and to imagine what Salem ' s wharves looked like during the height of Salem ' s maritime past. 4 . Effect on architectural values Central wharf should look essentially as it does today. Should data be available in the future and should it be desirable, Central Wharf could be restored to a more historic appearance . This work should not affect that possibility. There should be no effect on the architectural values associated with the Derby wharf . Once work is completed, there should be no visual change from the present appearance of the wharf . The wharf should not be any less stable . 7 S . Effect on archeological values CENTRAL WHARF Reconstruction of Central Wharf carried out in 1896-97 destroyed the upper 6-7 feet of the 1820 cobb wharf construction system. Although 4 feet of that early system remain, the proposed work Will not affect it. Trash was used to fill in the 1896-97 bulkheads and is of little value archaeologically. Installation of new steel tie rods is not expected to result in any further loss of archeological data because the tie rods will not affect the remnants of the 1820 system. DERBY WHARF It is very important that adequate archeological excavation work be performed prior to any dismantling of the seawall or placement of the sheet pile cells. Although there are sources in the historic record that describe in a general way how the various types of wharves were constructed, and some data about the construction techniques used on various sections of Derby Wharf . there is still a considerable amount of data specific to Derby Wharf that should be retrieved , if possible. Some question remains regarding how much of the wharf was disturbed by the 1938 reconstruction and whether or not any valuable data remains buried within the wharf . As long as that question exists , the National Park Service will undertake adequate archeological measures to insure that any significant data is not lost or destroyed by construction on the wharf. See attached Archeological Work Plan. Dredging Archeological testing of the area to be dredged was undertaken by the National Park Service on May 17 . 1991 . No significant resources were uncovered and the potential that such resources remain appears to be low ( see attached Archeological Requirements memo ) . Previously, the National Park Service undertook a remote sensing survey of areas to be dredged ( see attached) . That survey located no potentially significant features. In applying the "Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect" ( -'6CFR part 800 ) , the National Park Service has determined that the effect of the proposal will not be adverse because : CENTRAL WHARF 1 . Previous archeological research and historical records indicate that past wharf rehabilitation has obliterated the archeological context of the site. 2 . The proposal is mainly replacement in-kind - DERBY WHARF 1 . The granite walls to be dismantled and reconstructed (a maximum of 300 linear feet) , are only a small portion of the entire wharf (ca. 2045 feet from Derby Street to its tip , approximately 34 , 400 square feet of wall ) and contain only 200 linear feet ( it percent) of wall not previously dismantled in 1938 and reconstructed. The granite walls have periodically 8 .. .. .,., ----- Ana UM11 iMr I iu Ccc}b10dd N.11 required restoration or heavy maintenance ( stone replacement, chinking , or resetting ) in the past due to the nature of the environment in which' they exist and will continue to require such care in the future . 2 . Once reconstructed, the wharf will retain its present size , shape , and appearance and will not be visibly different from the rest of the granite walls. 3 . The proposed project will not result in the isolation o! the historic property from its surrounding environment. Once completed . there should be no change in appearance from the present scene . 4 . The proposed project will not add visual or audible elements that are out of character with the historic significance of the area. Once the work is complete, there will be no change in appearance from the present scene and no noise whatever. VIII . Mitigating Measures for Adverse Effect: not applicable IX. Documentation Hart, David M. ; "Salem Maritime National Historic Site Derby Wharf Examination . " a report for Lane Frenchman Associates; November , 1991 . "Archeological Work Plan for Archeological Investigations on Derby Wharf; ' National Park Service , Denver Service Center, November , 1991 . Site Plan and Environmental Assessment Salem Maritime National Historic Site . National Park Service. Denver Service Center, 1991 . Historic Structure Report. Architectural Data Section. Derby Wharf, Salem Maritime National Historic Sit- , National Park Service , Denver Service Center, August 1982 . Archeological Requirements lfemo dated May 31 , 1991 from the Chief, Eastern Applied Archeology Center to the Manager, Eastern Team, Denver Service Center. !Jist r ' c Structuge; Report, Architectural Data and Archeoloa_ica_l Data Sections , National Park Service , Denver Service Center , ,lune 1980. X. Conclusion The proposed rehabilitation of Central Wharf and the dismantling and reconstruction of a 300 foot section of Derby wharf will not adversely affect the qualities for which Salem Maritime National Historic Site is significant. The project has been designed to allow private vessels to use Central Wharf both as a part of the visiting vessel program and for day-use dockage . It also allows a reconstructed historic vessel to dock at Derby Wharf in furtherance of the interpretive goals outlined in the Salem Site Plan and Environmental Assessment, while not visually altering the appearance of the wharf , itself. Any archeological data 9 •� . .,., c,� .�. ,n rn acnv cnaicrtw i=HI I iu tl�G35b1d N. 13 recovered Will be utilized to further the ,park' s interpretive goalt and to add to the understanding of historic wharf systems . 10 TOTAL F. 13 70 CE9 9 MAY 1 1 1992 May 4, 1992 *C �* stt' Marie Rust Acting Director 0hz to r North Atlantic Region �>ZW[ (1)th National Park Service 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109-3572 RE: Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Central and Derby Wharves Rehabilitation Plan, Salem, MA. Dear Ms. Rust: My staff have reviewed the additional materials received April 17, 1992, which you submitted describing the proposed project referenced above. MHC understands that the project will involve the following: the rehabilitation of Central Wharf; the dredging berween Central and Derby Wharves; the stone wall repairs to both Derby and Hatch's Wharves; and the modifications of Derby Wharf for accomodating the permanent docking of a sailing vessel. The project area includes the Derby Waterfront Historic District which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. After review of the materials submitted, I concur to a fording of no adverse effect for this action (36 CFR 8005(d)) provided the following conditions are met: (1) The project will be conducted in accordance with the "Agency Official Section 106 Report" as amended on April 15, 1992, to which is appended the plans and specifications dated February 20, 1992, and all rehabilitation and/or new construction shall meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (2) The National Park Service will continue to consult with the MHC and interested and consulting parties on the development of plans and specifications for the proposed wharf warehouse buildings, reproduction sailing vessel, and other portions of the overall Salem Maritime National Historic Site Master Plan. A copy of these comments should accompany material submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, #809, NW, Washington, DC 20004. If you should have any questions, please contact Paul Holtz or Edward L. Bell at this office. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, �, 6'�, u '[h B. McDonough utive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission xc Advisory Council on Historic Preservation NPS/Salem Maritime National Historic Site Salem Historical Commission Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617)727.8470 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J. Connolly,Secretary LTy Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (508)745-9595 EXT.311 April 21, 1992 Paul Holtz Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 RE : Salem Maritime National Historic Site Phase 1 - Wharf Reconstruction Dear Mr. Holtz : At its regular meeting of April 15, 1992, the Salem Historical Commission received a presentation by Colleen Bruce of the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. Ms. Bruce summarized the planned reconstruction work to be completed under Phase 1 of the proposed site improvements . Members of the Salem Historical Commission did not express any concerns with the area or method of work for the reconstruction and voted unanimously to endorse the plans for Phase 1 . This review was limited to the wharf reconstruction at Derby and Central Wharves only. Comment on the Phase II improvements will be provided after the Commission has received plans for review. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 6';wc (1-4ey�/- THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie C. Harris Chairman JG\JG\HOLTZNPSb h March 4, 1992 a Annie C. Harris * ° * e1 1 Chairman * CD �`�y @9 P RE Salem Historical Commisson -7 �jjSS1O Co�pyQ MAR 9 ��92 One Salem Green o Salem, MA 01970 "`On Wealth t RE: Salem Maritime National Historic Site SALEM PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms. Harris: Thank you for your letter of February 18, 1992, requesting to be considered a consulting and interested party during the 106 review process for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site project. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to the National Park Service/North Atlantic Regional Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. MHC will take the comments of the Salem Historical Commission into consideration. For your information, MHC has had several opportunities to meet with and comment on the results of preliminary research and proposed strategies to ensure that the significant historic and archaeological characteristics of Derby and Central Wharf are adequately considered during the planning process. Currently, MHC is awaiting receipt of revised project documentation which will clearly indicate the nature of the proposed Derby and Central Wharves rehabilitation project, and detail steps to be taken to mitigate any effects of the project on significant characteristics of the properties. This documentation currently being prepared by the NPS is intended to enable the MHC and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the Salem Maritime National Historic Site and the Derby Waterfront Historic District. It would be most effective, therefore, for the NPS to have your input as well as they prepare this documentation for review by the MHC and the ACNP. Review of the draft documentation indicates that it is not likely that, in the area to be dredged, significant archaeological resources will be affected by the dredging activities. A remote sensing survey and archaeological testing were conducted in the area to be dredged, and no significant resources were identified. Documentary research on Derby Wharf, however, suggests the strong likelihood that historic wharf remains will be impacted by the rehabilitation work, and the NPS has developed an approach to locate, evaluate, document, and mitigate the impacts of the project on these resources. This approach is outlined in attachments to the documentation, which MHC will be reviewing. MHC recommends that the Salem Historical Commission and the National Park Service meet as soon as possible to discuss mutual concerns regarding the potential effects of the proposed Derby and Central Wharves rehabilitiation project, and the strategies to be taken by the NPS to identify, evaluate, and preserve or mitigate significant elements of the property. Staff of the MHC would be interested in attending this meeting as well, in order to take your comments into consideration. The wharves Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director,Stale Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470 Office of the Secretary of State, Michael j. Connolly,Secretary rehabilitation project is the fust element of the overall Master Plan currently being formulated by the NPS. In addition, it would be helpful for the Salem Historical Commission to review concurrently the revised project documentation. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (36 CFR 800). Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please feel free to contact Paul Holtz, Historical Architect, or Edward L. Bell, Archaeologist, of my staff. Sincerely, J4tt B. McDonough Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission xc w/encl: Marie Rust, NPS/NARO Advisory Council on Historic Preservation � o � -k �c MIS5_0 February 26, 1992 0m'nonWeatth to Marie Rust R E Acting Regional Director North Atlantic Region MAR 9 1992 National Park Service 15 State Street $ALE14 PLANNING DEPT. Boston, MA 02109-3572 RE: Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Derby Wharf Rehabilitation Archaeology, Salem, MA. Dear Ms. Rust: Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission have reviewed the draft "Archeological Work Plan for Archeological Investigations on Derby Wharf," received by the MHC on February 6, 1992. This information was requested in our letter of December 31, 1991, when we recommended that the archaeological work plan, other archaeological memoranda referenced, and general project information be incorporated as appendices to the "Agency Official 106 Report" documentation. This documentation currently being revised by the NPS is intended to enable the MHC and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the Salem Maritime National Historic Site and the Derby Waterfront Historic District. When complete, the full documentation should be submitted to the MHC and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for review. MHC believes that the work plan adequately outlines an approach to locate and identify, evaluate, document, and mitigate any significant archaeological deposits that may be affected by the proposed Derby Wharf rehabilitation project. MHC understands that as the subsequent phases of the archaeological investigation proceed, that the methodology will be more fully developed and applied To ensure that MHC has the opportunity to fully comment on appropriate treatment of the archaeological deposits, MHC requests that the "Agency Official 106 Report" be amended to: (1) indicate that the archaeological investigation will be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archeological-Documentation' (48 Fed. Reg. 44734-44737 (1983)) and take into consideration the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's publications, "Treatment of Archeological Properties: A Handbook" (1980), and "Consulting About Archaeology Under .Section 106" (199(1); and, (2) indicate that the MHC will have the opportunity to review and comment on the results of the archaeological investigations following each phase of the archaeological fieldwork, through submittal of the "Archeological Requirements Memoranda" and "Archeological Management'Report" following each of the phases of the archaeological investigation and prior to commencing the next phase. MHC would also like the opportunity to review and comment on the draft archaeological report to be completed at the end of the investigation, and would like to receive two (2) copies of the final archaeological report. Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727.8470 Office of the Secretary of State,Michael J. Connolly,Secretary These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (36 CFR 800). Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please feel free to contact Edward L. Bell of my staff. Sincerely, 0).—'VI a)o-ri>aM th B. McDonough Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Salem Historical Commission H?E 14Y' 92 13 : 01 FF' -!i PAGE L0 April 7, 1992 �aleA4 'il9t.)rS<:a� :ci,n:.r1B6i^.P': One Salem Green Salem, l+azsacnusects Li1970 Xaritire Nltional Hiatcr.ir Site P_•opoa,ed Site Tmprovements Attenti r.: ?T RiL C . Fa'.ris This lr•tte,- _ rc:`arr • ?E to cc•rA:espondernce received February 21, improvement. for ,Derby, Central ;;;,r,i. il.,,tCr, " j r,ir•.;-� ..� ;;:„ Maritime National Historic Site., and :• _ ru _r,r.- v_ tae1 t �, tb1a PKPA Unit of Lxec',ztive Office of The purpr'ap ,_c y C' * r S 1.0 Clarify the different pllasL?s of the SalE-,71 Ma: tl ikm� N , implementation. plan. The ;tat iol.a =._ },. as 'U(^tures ti!e site improvements for F}•dse I include: the rehabilitation a.',G° fi:CJl']�.':ILi :,:' � :��:"}."�', ".t'.P�,rdl and HA..f.(:}) ';i +rnarves. This wcrk i1,L'i udes rc''zo +c< -'; : t?pl?t:c':'^:i':, of damaged portions of � •-:,teal Wh}rf , at-v;l atrucZural "cel1SA' t0 r"" : . crce tc' :%os yf '. c ., , - f by Wharf . The work of Derby wharf tiISO i�':;-10le < ;:r ;.2 ; 1�.���1;iy r-3 accurate reconstruction of the exi S't - nq !'t - n.e foot sactlon of the wharf. T}Alt ilndSr. ,+] ,•.. ,:l' an ex' -;ting timber bulkhead along the wee "=rn KI- +rf and the installation of grout packs deep c: the P.T: Leh _n:f str;re wall . Phase I involvE3 t` s, 4 bntral hSh.irf, In the arp,•a as noted on thk r -t Ta, :gid plan. 'r reference tc t_l)a d, adzing ops,-ation proposed under this phase, extenzlve e•ii-en-:e thiougr, n:.stori^ rec::rds and photugrapas indicate= `tat t.ne a-ee p::opn;,e;9 ;or dredging i)as repeatedly been dredged in t,- recent. and M .;torfc past. A testing program was can..lucted ^11 tyle west %%de of Dc,rby wharf, in the area to be d'.'i?dged, wh vI —ii th,-- lack of ss.�llnifit:ant: artifacts in this zone. �4PP tI)I^I .r;LEhI FITIpIE t I H cc =ASS- . •- - - Upcn compietion of the Phase I construction, no visible changes to the wharves will be noted. The bulk of the work under this phase is internal to the individual wharf structures. Phase 11 of :,he approved site plan includes the proposed warehouse exhibit structures, the reconiA ructed historic vessel and the site interpretive exhibits:. Ptsase 11 also includes the addition of visitor facilities thr�)ugholtt the entire park complex. Your February la, 11X92 ;,omments to the TEPA office, in response to EOEA#8903 , refererned this site plan and the development regarding interpretive exxti.bi' s and exhibit structures. It remains the intenric-: ct t" National Park, Service to present to the Salem Histo! +.cal. ^omm+s io ;, the approved design schematic for the site Flan in the neat. future. Tf ycu t.-Ave my rR,3ardin_y the above, feel free to contact me at (508) 744--4323. Sincerely, Colleen Bruce PrOct Con*dinator, Salem Maritime NHS • cc: Supt . SARA NARO-Mackey NARo-WEe i nbaum DSC-Cellar USC-Gridley SAMA-Proj . Files t + TOTHL PHGE . 00-3 � + FPS I'1 SmLE i9 i'r F' I ' if1E IJ H S r�iic . 001 MA��MA T'�M/u �AIIK 1� i",-" S:.LE.'1. biAhiilME !r A':IGNAL HISTOP:C :i1'i, .r� 174 becby Street i� Salem, MA 01970 rot 2 tt1 50R 744-4323 FAX 508 745-0GC8 +r ^ ti ffIS'TCO, :4el � DATE : TIME: N . :tSer .I °�, ; `ax- I di1�2 Date ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIPl Q TO: (Name,office symbol,room number, Initials Date building,Agency/Post) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Action File Note and Return Approval For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Information See Me Comment Investigate Signature Coordination Justify REMARKS G��y�/ 7, DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances,and similar actions FROM:(Name,org.symbol,Agency/Post) Room No.—Bldg. /) l� Phone No. l/ o2 5041--102 / OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev.7.76) vmcrfeea by GSA FPMR(41 CFR)101-11.206 ATTACHMENT B arc _ r• � RegrDtdirfg and I =. a _ / Block Rep�facemeTHF��-�' - _Timber Bulkhe�4l . Re emen p�c av r � t u / t�rltlerpl�Ig � � __._�iW++u""r....;_; 'b�A� IdlayliiuV�� Structure .: ./ �— mr6u .............._ .auilnlHt4N�f1Al11Ma Il••'u.0 �E� .:%o' MI/u.M u1M�1lA1r .:4¢w+Y':n.VwF - '1 • ��— �-� f AYEP~A /"�_ m 6 m �� 1tI�11 N • Timber Platform - M 1 ^ALF 3`�'Y✓�:�CJ � �_ ..r .tea... �____�,�� /__ :. c t Bulkhead Refacing r Marine Railway Reconstruction -8 WATER DEPTH BELOW MEAN LOW WATER uu.nn GROUT OPENINGS W GRANITE BLOCK BULKHEAD>2 INCHES AND REPLACE MISSING BLOCKS PROPOSED SITE WORK ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVALS � IN-KIND REPLACEMENT OF TIMBER BULKHEAD 11.1.. BULKHEAD REFACING D SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE � SHEET STEEL PILE BULKHEAD WITH TWEE FACIA OTHER LAND AREAS ® DREDGE SLIP TO 43+MLW ® STEEL SHEET PILE CELL UNDERPINNING ))) SWiiCE' Na.mal PaM1 Semen 119901 ,l' SALEM MARITIME SCALE FIGURE 2Mkl ,� NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE �- NATIONAL PARK SERVICE o• Ia' 140' SALEM(ESSEX COUNTY).MA f—��1 - \- VIVIkO A February 18 , 1992 Jacki Wilkins MEPA Unit Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 RE: Maritime National Historic Site EOEA#8903 Dear Ms . Wilkins : A representatives of the Salem Historical Commission recently attended a consultation meeting regarding the submission of an Environmental Notification Form for the proposed modifications to the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. The Commission had also received a presentation on the proposed project by a representative of the National Park Service last May. The Salem Historical Commission enthusiastically endorses the concepts proposed for this site and supports the recreation of the idea that there were once buildings along the wharf. The construction of warehouses and vessels will help focus attention toward Salem' s maritime history and will recreate a visual environment that will positively impact this area of Salem's waterfront. In this regard, the Commission feels that it is important that the images that are created through the construction of the warehouses and "ghosted" warehouses are sympathetic to this historic site and its surrounding neighborhood. The Commission is of the opinion that the warehouse designs should be recreations whose images reflect what can be historically documented or reasonably assumed. The structures should clearly be reproductions on the original sites with the features and details of the now vanished warehouses. The exhibit should not appear to be old, but should be designed in the same manner as it would have been designed during the maritime era. Therefore, the structures should not be of modern materials. Post and beam wood structures are preferred and warehouse facades should not be too uniform. The Commission would like to discourage any significant loss of grassy area for the introduction of additional paving materials . These materials could negatively impact the visual environment and historic integrity of the site. The Commission is also concerned over the loss of possible archaeological artifacts during dredging. The Commission would like to encourage extensive underwater archaeology prior to the project commencement as well as an on-going planning effort to rescue and curate any artifacts that might be discovered as the dredging and wharf reconstruction progresses . Finally, the Commission respectfully requests the receipt of copies of all correspondence concerning the MEPA and other public processes . Thank you for your consideration. Sin ely, THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie C. Harris Chairman cc: D. Hilbert, NPS J. McDonough, MHC JG\JG\MEPANPS h i ion -^IEEALEh1GREEN. '_.n LcP.' February 18, 1992 Cynthia G. Pollack Superintendent Salem Maritime National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem, MA 01970 Attention: Debra Hilbert Dear Ms . Pollack: The Salem Historical Commission has been informed that a letter sent to you from the Commission last June regarding the Draft Site Plan for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site was never received. Because we have been unsuccessful in locating a copy of that letter, we have enclosed a copy of the minutes of the May 15, 1991 meeting along with a copy of a letter that is being sent to the MEPA unit of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs concerning the project. These should summarize the reactions of the Commission on the proposed project. The Commission is in disagreement on the point of Federal pre- emption and does not feel that the Federal law emasculates the jurisdiction of the Commission from this property. We, therefore, respectfully request that the Salem Maritime National Historic Site submit the appropriate applications for the Commission' s design review. Finally, the Commission feels that the wharves should not be restricted to only large masted sailing ships. The Salem Historical Commission enthusiastically supports this important endeavor and we are hopeful that all phases of the approved scheme will be able to proceed over the next few years . We look forward to working with you and your staff over the course of this project and would like to thank you, once again, for the presentation by Debra Hilbert at our meeting of May 15, 1991 . If we can be of any assistance at any time, please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincy, _ i THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie C . Harris Chairman JG\JG\NPSSITE wa Ilk If 0 n February 18, 1992 Judith B. McDonough State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 RE: Salem Maritime National Historic Site Dear Ms . McDonough: The Salem Historical Commission respectfully requests to be considered a consulting and interested party throughout the Section 106 review process for the proposed modifications to the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. The Commission is particularly concerned with the potential effect that the proposed design of the warehouses, "ghosted" warehouses and other proposed structures will have on the historic landmark, the Derby Waterfront National Register District and the Derby Street local historic district. The Commission would like to thank you for recently submitting copies of correspondence concerning this project and respectfully requests that we continue to receive copies of all correspondence regarding this project during this process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, L )Q h)v— THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Annie C. Harris Chairman JG\JG\MHCNP9 % gooY '2 , og'Pag WILLIAM F.WELD GOVERNOR ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI MEETING NOTICE (617)727-9800 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR j SUSAN F.TIERNEY SECRETARY TO: Distribution J� FROM: Jacki Wilkins, MEPA Unit DATE: December 27 , 1991 ` ; SUBJECT: Maritime National Historic Site EOEA,# 8903 ----------------------------------------------------------------- An Environmental Notification Form has been submitted for this project. According to M. G. L. Chapter 30, Section 62, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs must issue a determination regarding the significance of the potential environmental impacts of this project, and must determine whether an Environmental Impact Report should be required to document these impacts and all feasible means to reduce damage to the environment. Therefore, a consultation meeting will be held to receive advice and comment from agencies, officials, and citizens regarding which environmental issues, if any, are significant for this project. Opinions as to the extent of significance of possible environmental impact will be welcome. The meeting is scheduled as follows: DATE: January 8 , 1992 TIME: 10 AM LOCATION: onsite - 174 Derby Street, Salem The meeting will include a brief presentation of the MEPA process by the staff, a brief presentation of the project by the proponent, with periods for questions, answers, and open comment and a discussion of environmental issues. Additional comments will be welcome in writing prior to January 13 , 1991. Questions on the meeting may be answered by contacting Jacki Wilkins of the MEPA staff at (617) 727-5830 ext. 307 . 100% RECYCLED PAPER June 6, 1991 Cynthia G . Pollack Superintendent Salem Maritime National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms . Pollack : The Salem Historical Commission would like to thank the National Park Service for the recent presentation by Debra Hilbert of the Draft Site Plan/Environmental Assessment prepared for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site . After the presentation, the Commission unanimously voted to enthusiastically endorse the concept described in Alternative #2of the plan . The Commission felt the remaining alternatives were much less attractive and not worth considering . Alternative #2 will recreate the idea that there were once buildings along the wharf . Particular comments that the Commission would like to note are: 1 . While the Commission understands that the National Park Service does not want to "restore Williamsburg" , we feel that the proposed warehouses (and ghosts ) should not be of modern materials . Post and beam wood structures are preferred. Warehouse facades should not be too uniform. 2 . The Commission would encourage an on-site marine biology lab and any possible underwater archaeology . The Commission feels the concept proposed in Alternative #2 with warehouses and vessels will help focus attention toward Salem' s maritime history and we are hopeful that the project will proceed. In this regard, the Commission would like to continue to be a consulting party in the ongoing design review of the site ' s development, particularly with regard to the design of the warehouses and ghost warehouses . Thank you for your consideration . Sincerely, THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION John Carr Vice Chairman J4118 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM E LUSTER Q City Planner ONE SALEM GREEN 01970 (508)745-9595,EXT. 31 1 FAX(508) 744-5918 January 7 , 1992 Honorable Susan F. Tierney, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Unit 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 Dear Secretary Tierney: This letter is in response to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council ' s request for comments regarding the Salem Maritime National Historic Site ' s proposal of implementation of portions of their Master Plan. As you know, Salem is a city rich in history. Inclusive in this history is the Maritime National Historic Site, a leader in preserving our past and enhancing our future. Due to this fact , thousands of tourists visit and embrace our maritime history vehemently. For this reason, the proposed modifications to revitalize this site are of utmost importance and concern, not only for stabilization of the wharves , but also for the safety of the tourists . In addition, the environmental impact in regard to the dredging of sedimentation and the removal of earth from the parking lot , in short term as well as long term, appears to be minimal and will greatly benefit this site. It is for the aforementioned reasons that I wholeheartedly support and endorse the proposal by the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. If you have any questions regarding my position, please do not hesitate to contact me at ( 508 ) 745-9595 ext . 311 . S' cerey, W lliam E. Luster City Planner cc: Debra Hilbert , NPS EX\DH\NPSMEPA TS StT�* yf.� Q. O C0 A 9c MISSN JAN 7 199? - December 31, 1991 SA ��II PLANNING DE!'T. Gerald D. Patten Regional Director North Atlantic Region National Park Service 15 State Street Boston, MA 02109-3572 RE: Central and Derby Wharves, Salem Maritime Historic Site, Salem, MA. Dear Mr. Patten: Thank you for submitting documentation regarding the proposed rehabilitation project at Central and Derby Wharves, received by the Massachusetts Historical Commission on December 18, 1991. MHC is presently unable to concur with the finding that the proposed project will have no adverse effect on the National Historic Landmark because the documentation needs further information specified below. The material provided in the Environmental Notification Form, December, 1991 should give the level of detail (site plans, mapping, elevations, etc.) that the Advisory Council will need to conclude this portion of the review. MHC also suggests that this 106 documentation clarify what portion of the overall Salem Site Master Plan is covered; it appears to MHC that only the rehabilitation of the wharves themselves is being implemented at this time and therefore is addressed in the 106 documentation. The 106 documentation should characterize and provide sufficient information about other and later steps to be implemented (wharf buildings construction, site improvements, visitor amenities, etc.) . 1) Archaeological Research Design and Methodology. While the MHC has had the opportunity to offer comments on a draft research design for the archaeological investigation, we have not received the revised information for review as discussed at the November 20, 1991 meeting between our staffs. The archaeological work/research plan for Derby Wharf must be sufficiently detailed to evaluate whether the proposed scope is adequate to locate, evaluate, document, and curate significant components that will be impacted by the proposed rehabilitation project. The Archaeological Work/Research Plan and Requirement Memo referenced in the Agency Official 106 Report should be appended to the 106 Report. 2) Project plans and elevations for the proposed rehabilitation project as mentioned above. Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617)727.8470 Office of the Secretary of State,Michael J.Connolly,Secretary Compiliation of this information will assist the NPS in preparing the documentation (36 CFR 800.8(a)) necessary for submission to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 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 the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 190). Should you have any questions concerning these comments or require further assistance, please feel free to contact Paul Holtz or Edward L. Bell of my staff. Sincerely, J th B. McDonough Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Salem Historical Commission SETTS 0 Cna July 31 , 1991 -7 04AfrSS10 °m"°OnWeallh Craig Cellar, Archaeologist National Park Service Denver Service Center A U G U'1 1991 12795 W. Alameda Parkway P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 RE: Salem Maritime National Historic Site Salem, MA Dear Mr. Cellar: My staff has reviewed the Draft Site Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. The Massachusetts Historical Commission received this document on May 20, 1991 and have subsequently attended meetings with National Park Service staff on May 28 and July 2 to review the proposed alternative site development plans. The Salem Maritime National Historic Site is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is also a National Historic Landmark. Previously, in November of 1990, the MHC reviewed a preliminary outline proposal submitted by the NPS and determined the proposal constituted a no adverse effect (36 CFR 800, 5(d)) . This most recent submission presents a very similar but more elaborate set of alternative schemes for the same site. In general , the proposal is thorough and appears to be based upon a sound interpretation of this important historical site. Of the four alternative schemes presented, Alternative 2 contains the strongest overall set of concepts for the site. In particular, the development of a reconstructed period vessel in combination with warehouse structures and a shipbuilding exhibit should provide visitors with a strong link to the historical development of the site. The scheme provides ample open space while controlling traffic at the site. Once a preferred alternative is selected, an archaeological survey should be undertaken of areas which are prepared for excavation or land modification, as early as possible in the planning stage of the project. Staff of the MHC are willing to assist in developing an appropriate scope of work for the archaeological investigation. The MHC looks forward to continuing consultation with the NPS on all aspects of the project as outlined to in Appendix C of the Environmental Assessment. Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer 80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617)727-8470 Office of the Secretary of State,Michael J.Connolly,Secretary These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800) . If you should have any questions, please contact Paul Holtz at this office. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, i pith McDonough (J Executive Director State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission cc: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Salem Historical Commission JM/hl �Historc en4,:e incop r orated 7 CAMBRIDGE STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 / PHONE (508) 745-0799 June 10, 1991 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Cynthia Pollack, Superintendent Salem Maritime National Historic Site 174 Derby Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Salem Maritime National Historic Draft Site Plan Dear Ms. Pollack: First, Historic Salem Incorporated ("HSI") would like to take this opportunity to thank the National Park Service for all of the time and effort that went into drafting the Site Plan. The Salem Maritime site is an important historic resource for the entire country, as well as an important asset for Salem. We are pleased to see that appropriate attention will be focused on the first national historic site under the direction of the National Park Service. The Board of Directors of HSI has reviewed the four alternatives proposed for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site and has voted unanimously to support alternative number 2 which includes the use of three dimensional interpretive forms. falt that a; 2 *'�rce nted the 2 i�JSr ....o.. alterna�_v_ rumb�r i.. e..__,. t... hoct option for the interpretation of maritime history and its link to the economic development of Salem as an important maritime harbor during the late 18th and early 19th century. The Board is especially supportive of the reconstruction of the Friendship sailing vessel which will provide the most dramatic addition to the Park and assist the visitor in understanding maritime history and the impact of Salem maritime trade and privateering activities on Salem and the Nation. The National Park Service site is not only important in itself but the plan will act as a catalyst for the rejuvenation of Salem' s waterfront and will bring back some of the boating activity similar to what existed in the 14th c-entury_. We hope that every possible step will be taken td. maxim�ze accesp from 9.1 Vr/ i Ms. Cynthia Pollack, Superintendent June 10, 1991 Page 2 the water and we, therefore, are particularly supportive of the plans for Central Wharf. HSI is both supportive and enthusiastic about alternative number 2 , but we would like to take this opportunity to express some concerns which may be addressed in the final plan. Furthermore, the Board requests that HSI be consulted, along with other Salem preservation organizations, throughout the design process. Reconstruction of all buildings should be of materials and construction techniques authentic to the period and sensitive to their location in a National Register Historic District. This includes warehouses, restrooms, maintenance facilities etc. While the issue of ghosting was discussed by the Board, there were mixed opinions expressed on the concept of ghosting and whether it can be done successfully at the Salem Maritime site. We trust the issue is not yet resolved and that the National Park Service will review the concept carefully before the final site plan is developed. - No provision has been made in the plan for the development of new visitor parking facilities. Therefore, the shuttle bus route should be expanded to include other historic sites in Salem and the MBTA train station. The expanded shuttle bus route will guarantee utilization and reduce surface street traffic during the peek tourist seasons. A buffer zone should be provided between the ship building exhibit and the residential/business district adjacent to the park. The buffer zone will proviac both a physical and visual barrier between the National Park activities and the surrounding neighborhood. Reconsider the possible use of a National Register Historic District site on Essex Street for the location of an off-site maintenance facility. The Blaney Street location appears to be the most appropriate location for a maintenance facility. Reconsider the provision of a tour bus drop-off location at Pickering Wharf. Buses that drop-off tourists will proceed through the historic waterfront site and into the adjacent neighborhoods. This proposal is inconsistent with the National Park Service Ms. Cynthia Pollack, Superintendent June 10, 1991 Page 3 goal of reducing surface street traffic in and around the Park. Historic Salem is pleased to submit this letter of support and looks forward to working with the National Park Service in the development of the final design plan for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. ncerely, (i Carol Dupont Hedstrom On behalf of the Board of Directors cc: Michael Spratt, Planning Director Debbie Hilbert Mayor Neil Harrington Planning Department, City of Salem The Salem Partnership PRIM\CDH\80RSINPS.01 cj l SENT Or °P United States Department of the Interior o NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Salem Maritime National Historic Site IN REPLY REFER TO: 174 Derby Street . Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Friends: On behalf of the National Park Service we encourage your review and comment on the draft Site Plan/Environmental Assessment for Salem Maritime National Historic Site. Please note that this is a draft and your comments are especially important to generating the final plan for revitalizing Salem Maritime NHS. The draft Site Plan includes four alternatives for resource management, visitor use, and operation of Salem Maritime NHS . A year of thought, numerous meetings, and in-depth research have gone into preparation of this document. Please fill out and return this Public Response Sheet. We would appreciate your prompt response to allow us time to incorporate your comments into our review. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at Salem Maritime NHS, (508) 744-4323 . We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, 7 ' Cynthia Pollack Michael r t�f t Superintendent, Salem Maritime NHS Planning Director, The Project Director, The Salem Project Salem Project PUBLIC RESPONSE SHEET Which alternative or combinations of alternatives do you prefer? Please tell us why you made this recommendation. What appeals to you and what concerns you about the alternative(s). Please be specific. A -•---..-...-•---------------------------------------------------(fold here) Name Organization Address I. Fold in thirds and mail back to: •---•------••--------- .......................................... here) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NO POSTAGE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 11111 NECESSARt' SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE IF MAILED IN THE ' 174 DERBY STREET UNITED STATES SALEM, MA 01970 -- OFFICIAL BUSINESS BUSINESS REPLY MAIL PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 FIRST CLASS Permit No. 12651 '.VASHINGTON,D.C. - POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE - Ms. Cynthia Pollack, Superintendent Salem Maritime National Historic Site 174 Derby St. Salem, MA 01970 I ENT OF Q�T� Ttif United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Salem Maritime National Historic Site IN REPLY REFER TO: 174 Derby Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 May 6, 1991 Ms. Jane Guy Salem Planning Department One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Guy: Enclosed for your review is a copy of the draft Site Plan/Environmental Assessment prepared for Salem Maritime National Historic Site. Please note that this is a draft. Your comments are especially important to generating the final plan for revitalizing our park. The Site Plan includes four alternatives for historic preservation, resource management, visitor use, and operation of Salem Maritime NHS. A year of thought, numerous meetings, and detailed research have gone into the preparation of this plan. To allow for more in-depth public review and comment, the Park Service will hold a series of three public meetings on the following dates: Wednesday, May 29, 1991, 7:00 am. - 2:00 p.m. Presentation at 7:30 am. with open house until 2:00. Location: Central Wharf Orientation Center, Salem Maritime NHS, Derby Street, Salem. Thursday, May 30, 1991, 12:00 noon - 5:00 p.m. Presentation at 12:00 noon with open house until 5:00. Location: Central Wharf Orientation Center, Salem Maritime NHS, Derby Street, Salem. Thursday, May 30, 1991, 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Presentation at 7:00 p.m. with questions and discussion until 9:00. Location: St. Joseph's Polish Club, 162 Derby Street, Salem. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at Salem Maritime NHS, (508) 744-4323. Comments must be received no later than June 10, 1991. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Cynthia G. Pollack Michael J. Spratt Superintendent, Salem Maritime NHS Planning Director, Project Director, The Salem Project The Salem Project I Ni OF 4��f FhF Ai�� �. T United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE w° Salem Maritime National Historic Site IN REPLY REFER TO: 174 Derby Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 May 3 , 1991 Mr. Annie Harris 28 Chestnut St. Salem, MA 01970 Dear Ms. Harris: Shortly you and the members of the Historical Commission will receive copies of the Draft Site Plan/Environmental Assessment prepared for Salem Maritime National Historic Site. This plan is being released for public review with comments due by June 10th. Contained in the document are four alternatives for the development of the park from no action to the construction of warehouses and a historic ship. In addition to the park' s physical appearance, the plan also deals with resource management, visitor use, park operations and the environmental consequences of any of the proposed actions. Comments from the public will be critical to developing a final plan. Public meetings will be held on May 29th & 30th. The schedule of times and locations is included in the cover letter sent with the plan. If, before these meetings, the Historical Commission would like a special briefing or more information about the proposals, please call me at 744-4323 . We look forward to your comments and participation. Sincerely, Michael J� S ratt Planning Director The Salem ProjectJ i. cc: Jane Guy, Salem Planning Dept. YT o A United States Department of the Interior •- NATIONAL PARK SERVICE North Adantic Region i IN REPLY REFER TO 15 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109-5572 March 14, 1991 H42(NAR-PC) C.EdIR/ D MAR *c 19yt Ms. Judith McDonough N;,.iT CCi1wIA{. Executive Director MASS. Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Dear Ms. McDonough: The National Park Service proposes to test the feasibility of repairing Derby Wharf, Salem Maritime National Historic Site, by sealing large voids between granite blocks of the Derby Wharf bulkhead with small bags of portland cement grout mixture. In accordance with the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, we have applied the criteria of effect. The repair of Derby Wharf (the Derby Wharf repair demonstration project) will have no effect on the qualities for which the Salem Maritime National Historic Site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If you concur with this determination, the mixture will be placed in mesh bags and pushed 12 inches into the wall cavities. Sea water will activate the cement to create a grout plug. The procedure will be tested at three locations at the north end of the wharf for a combined distance of 24 lineal feet. The project is needed to evaluate whether or not the proposed grouting method will effectively arrest the loss of fine fill material from behind the bulkheads. Currently tide and wave action on the wharf results in considerable amounts of fill being lost through bulkhead voids. The project, if successful and subsequently implemented, is expected to sub- stantially reduce maintenance costs associated with the ongoing problems of subsidence correction and bulkhead repair. We would appreciate your response on this matter as soon as possible. If you concur with our determination of effect, please sign on the space provided and return this letter to this office within 15 days. A copy of this letter is enclosed for your files. Also enclosed is a site map. . .e Should you have any questions regarding this undertaking, please contact Regional Historian Paul 0. Weinbaum at (617) 223-5057. Sincerely, �d C Ge \\ d D. Patten R ional Director Enclosures I concur with the above-stated determination of no effect. M s chusetts State Historic Meeservation Officer 4Rae_ cc: Salem Historical CCnmission ,A Date ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP e T _ o'? Y r TO: (Name, office symbol, room number, Initials Date building.Agency/Post) ]. L L lV H G/A ToAJ 2 9. 4. a ion File Note and Return roval For Clearance Per Conversation X s Reryuested For Correction Prepare Reply irculate For Your InfoRnation See Me mment Investigate Signature Coordination Justify REMARKS A TT144:14E t) is f,6C Tt OA) 104 c-l.-oAW-AkxE XXx. FUR.M Hula A,c4_ATL'D AOG jMEAJ Tq T1 OrJ Vole +ZE�AIIZ O� CHIMkity5 Ap 114G �UsrO an HoCsc . /Gu DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency/Post) Room No.—Bldg. foFlu Frtq Lc� C�f�1ATO� , _ Phone No. y � / $Ali✓/h mAt 1Tla1c 7Y'1 - S/-32 6041-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) Pmacribedb GSA it GPO : 1983 0 - 381-529 (317) FPMR(41 101-11.206 �IsreM }lnVSC CNit.nl .y5 =; ./�• c i `Ot N1 Or r United States Department of the Interi SR1ITi�iE N NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NAT ONA HISTORIC SITE North Atlantic Region R F. C D I V i". D 15 State Stmt IN REPLY REFER TO Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (larch 13, 1984 SUP'7•, Lnt_e 1142kNAR-PC) ADM. UK Is rtEr 3 i4emorandum Maln•'re ,' To: Superintendent, Salem i;aritime National Historic e i From: Associate Regional Director, Planning & Resource ueggrvation, North Atlantic Region Subject: Section 106 Compliance The enclosed XXX form concerning the proposal to rebuild/repair three chimneys at the Custom Hoose has been reviewed and approved by this office. The Section 106 review is now complete. Charles P. Cla er Enclosure Rebuild/.:epair Three Custom ?louse =- Chimneys lr XXX FORM„ ASS'SSN.ENT OF ACTIONS HAVING AM EFFECT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES (Al:aCh continuation sheets as necessary) This form is required for all actions that have the potential to affect historic properties. A. Orioinalino Office .t. Park: Salem Maritime 14HS - 2. Description of proposed action: Ix ) Implemeniino anion Included in plar, under PMMA. ( ) Other PfdOA action ] Action not under PMOA. ' Explain why the anion is nreded:The Custom House chimneys leak to the point of destroying the galls and ceilings of the adjacent �ooms� < Cultural resources affected by proposed action (name ano LC.. num lir, if applicable): Salem Custom House LCSr- 01257 E. The proposed action will (check as many as apply): X De<-lrot h-Sloric fabric. X oemcvt historic fabric. X RED:a Le h:slor,c fabric in kind, r%e;,;act ni*Sing historic fabric. Add nOnhisloric eiements to a historic structure. ;lrmDve nc-1h,Sloric elements from a historic sl,uclure. Ahe- h•SICr, terrain, orounocover, or ve oelaticr_ Int-ep uCf nDnn!slor,c elements (vis itOL, 2odiblt, O- almpsphErrc) IML a historic X E ilinc O' environment. _ nei',SleoOU:e h•storic eiemelll5 In a historic seil!n_o Or envir0.-,menl. _ ;EMmDve h-slor!c elements from a hislorl( environment. _ nemove nDnh!slor!c elements from a historic environment. Disturb, cesiroy, impair, or render inaccessible archeological (surface or subsurface) resources. rcisibly e,slurb currently un,dentif,ec archeoiogical resources or historic fabric. In:u, crap.;al deterioration of hislorlc fabric, terrain, or setting. Oilier (Describe briefly): Describe the indicated effect(s) conciselyThls project entails replacing the components of three chimneys in kind as regpired.. and making such modificatio..ns as necessary to eliminate the leakage, E. Iceniil% svppo-tin_ appreveC p:an(s), comment and/or action thereon b% Adv!Sor) Council or. H,sioric rreservailon, dates of ACHP action and NPS approvai, and eecl,Dn(s) OS 1hE p,an(s) pertain,nD to the action. If nonE, so stale: This action is supported by the Master Plan, 1977, I r e eese NO. ? De,ember 198-1 7. Idenlifl any imipprtanl relationships between Int Droposeo acLOn as It allectt cultural resources and pertinent NpS manooemeN pollties, standarci. and ouldelines: This project is consistant with all SAIdli management documents, and it is our intent to see that the quality of the work is to standard. If done by contract labor, legal assistance to enforce quality work mJy be required, E. Describe any measures planned to minimize or lessen the loss or impairment o historic fabric, setting, inleority, or data: Work must be done by proven competent work- men to avoid negating the intent of the repairs ri} �fi?5 p 9. Identify supportino study data and oate(s) of prep alion �a11�2tt l� SS�bI supervision. One HSR Custom House, by Orville Carroll 197 10. Prepared by: johnt� FIle: —�ra `��-er ec clan/-Site Curator 11. Sionalure of Part. Superintendent: Cate: fi Reoional Cultural Resource: Staff Revie. and Certification I. The foreooin_ aesessmenl Ie aciecivale, the propcseg action is consistent with all applicable Nps maraceir.enl policies, standards, an[ guidelines reviewed and concurred in by the Acvisory Council, and the prcpesal Incorporates all feasible measures to Mlnimile aoverse effects to cultural resources. 2. The p-cpesed action is aulhorped by a planning document or prooram reviewed ano concurred in b, Int Aevlsory Council (NFD"alive certifications 1 W<J I must be )ustified on 2 I✓I I 1 I J ? / attachments.) ectional Arc ologlst le I Enercy Ccnsv::atign [ - 'elc L7, CiC-ial Hislonao Cate IX] I ] I ] Reoional Energy Cafe 2 IX] Coordinator IOnal Historical Architect 3a17 Acdniona' reouirem,ents 1 1 1 ] I ] gf fne prcpesed action. 2 ( ] I J I ] Reoional Curator Date ( Reotonal D.-ector Cep-c.'e' - Rrc7csec Action inclucJnc Aodalpnal ReO.uirements I j The proposed action, includinc an% addillor.a! reouirements stated above, meets all conditions in E.1 anc 2. Cale 11y1 Reo.o-.al Director wASC Recore f/y"-" .0ssetsme-,; receives and nolec Associate Direc LOr, Da;a Cultural Resources Management cnLU - olz � . iW O `— cI� W OIL - Vi -77- r�i 34► Ado _ .I vy IW . ! .•..: - ---... �- -=..>� - is _>' ,. 5;71 c �tration 38. Custom H0113e73onded SVareF.ouse: Ease Elevation ( 19541 . � I i me �f l q W c ' : c 13CL O .la g• j� I Y .s I ci is< o S -al V ..a. �• Custom House-30nded Warehouse: West Elevation (1958) , 164-174 Derby St. LEGEND WTIORAL HISTORICAL SITE BOUNDARtl Ciii TTR[ET eRLHGTOR __ ESS SP�,S' O'ti Q VISITORS PARKING EIJ 54LEM MARITIME " E -H47 L HIST 5/TE \ yA o < \ 1197 OF DRAWINGS _ f"CHMANA AD ASSOCIATE&SIO. SOW STAN& TIM d SM" y TE, LAS+ . ^ f £ Y.. AeIE�AAdA TATE&12K. AM S:APE _ - - �< r �' x Lo.t IArttlerapa SAE SR.�' BosToee " - _ YAMS CMATp END, a iLCN9eVdeNLi E SftmPIat _ 5 L3 E I.1V C«IaiDorla A SRa DsrcAlWr Plan -: 0.0 VNR701Wgpp�epS�1E�,avC. 8 La Ed.51ty COd bSee OWr�m PKI" _- S` F, - MrlrruE Mlpe60]d1rAl E2r9Rtee'E g LB Edadt9 Canti1bre85Ae OsneAev+Ron EAST-CENTRAL 2 1 O 2 VAA' _ SCALE OE MILES' ® .. 9 L] Ed]t2y°° "•A�°a't�D"�" MASSACHUSETTS CHM1W[ll�Cdr. 10 LB LAYOte a Materiels Ren y — M„.r��e 11 LB LeydR 12 L 1 O LByv.A a Met>ida Pbt F; 13 LII Lryat b MererWe Plsn to L12 Laymx B Maaels Pbr _ p ♦ ✓' ;_ _ --- 18 L13 LryaA a Meoerbb PIE, 18 L11 LayorA a Melabls Plat ♦ - \ _ _ V ��'— -_ - _ 1] LIS Grerf+9 Rar b P K, � y � 18 LIB OrallP�b IenB'y Pte. �t 19 L17 Gmd-V Ren a P*Ykg Plsl 71 S.1 Gerler"NdM b Typc�I De1ab '+\ e - _7 / _ _ d] LIS Oredrq Ran b RSNn9 Plon 72 S.2 lii D"DA*V 1.fa��Ort a Semnd Fbor FrenvS Rens \ 'C, 21 1-19 O1eDfn9 Plan A PUl"Ren M S3 E,Qye gully t-Turd Fbo A ROd Frmvq Rsm ♦ ; _ \ T _ -...._ A — 22 L20 Gr=Pbn A PW7W 9 )1 SA Edi»Bu1619 2.Fartlelbn b Serd'4 Fbor Frame+9 Rare __ _ •rl _ _ M L21 Ge6't9 Rsl b PlsnEry FL' )5 S.5 EIQvDiI Bltldry 2-Thid Fbor a Roof Fran''ry Plele __ 2e L22 DeteL ]8 5.8 E�drLi1 BLAIN 3.Fun b Fronty Rare .. CtF't' ♦ \ T_^ 28 Loi De1W DatIft T! S.] EIt"Bridiry e-Fantl"i0n b Fr Plerro �, \ _- =_ :: 27 Ln Detai 79 S9 EdvD[BuiTn9e182-BrorJrybEJevan ,P - ry� ..:.. 28 L28 DOtNa so BID Edti< 3.1.85-Sully Els+edore .q \ ♦ 29 L27 DeraL 8/ S.11 N'nak`9er _Fau+dabr b F..V Rare -\ \ _ "'---"'^ L28 Datnie 82 S S.13 Oeteea /Shows rlfy-Fau+deeon b Pod FrarlWy Rero ♦ \ — — 32 L30 KEY QI NARBONNE HOUSE _ E L IND AND ACCESS Uv.ur�r Q WEST INDIA GOODS STORE �- 99� v _-�" VESSEL MOORING RD"Wnaf-vex"MoOrty a ACtesa Tee M.1 E,met BVedy t-HVAC FM Fl=&Romor Plat © DERBY MOUSE -� .'t - 9� :: - 31 V.2 Carmel W'Ivd-veeaal MoorryaA®ee t# M.z EdtatS#yt-HVAC TtWd FlooraR001 Rat Q COMFORT STATION - } ^' - - 87 Mi Restroan/� a2HNACFairy HVAC R°^ © �� -- _ - UIRIIlES HAWKES HOUSE - � \ """'�"=- =_—:, - P,UMBING Mn FIRE PROTECTION © CUSTOM HOUSE = -'\ _ T m U.1 L/DFOes Rat-I Q SCALE HOUSE _ R v _ _- . _ 38 U3 i Part-l"x P.� ='eea'°0e"�' QB BONDED WAREHOUSE -_ __ - ER- ♦==--- - ...... 38 u.e UEliex Deteie-I Edtza B.is'q t-F.e Praaabn:FtoL 6 sxorw Floor Plan N __.' _ - - _ C 39 US UUNke COMAS Q9 FOUNDATION REMAINS OF FORRESTER WAREHOUSE SOV-( �; y ~"'"_• - 90 P3 E+mLR BMldyt Fn PlOadbrl.Fl Room Rod Plan . --'"%-^-V� Fie Prorecvan Rar ® CENTRAL WHARF WAREHOUSE _ ---, .. . s1 P. EdrW&i6rp2 Fn Proeectim:Fent 8,,II Fbar Plert __ •• 92 P.5 Reebaan/Shows Facility lublrt06 DERBY WHARF LIGHTHOUSE __ _ - - - - ��CT-t-� .__ ST. JOSEPH HALL `- `� e0H wi Btidyi- bad ROor Plere FI CCTnICaL cSy =y99�♦ SO F1 L . ^= _ e2 A3 E&jbd gt kil g 1'Eb etre 9e E,2 F: SdedJes a d Ga we Nds ::.-_ .3 Ae Edtae Bully 1 sellar. 95 E3 See PI.,-E*Cuicw F - = .. -._:._--------- _ ee AB EdJCe SAdt91.Meana 9e E�} SbPen =�•� - es A.B EdabR Bully 2-FF"65emNFbor Rero ES Site PIdR-CdMnldlion pdcumant PNaee a8 AT Edt"8uedy 2-Tr b Rmf Plea 97 E.8 EdtaK BriCa91-1,91,1N a Pows:Frsl6 Sewtd Fbdr Ren - _ e] AS Ed-"Sddy 2.Ebvedora 98 E) El"Silty 1.LghWl end Powers Ttvd Fbw b Rod PINI r 7 Q Ai0 Edubt W✓ V 3- S�P Pw's aaiy IQID^9 \_._.^..... 50 At1 E4,b-Buldt93- :Of f're 101 E10 Orwrla,on CS etd Rxaaoore/&RowerF era Pows 51 At2 EY !IUE SIdy3 - 99 E.8 Edtbic B_i V2-L gIwQ t W E 9 Ed1IDR BJdy 2�Llymy as \ 52 A13 E#rIDE&ritliry 3-Seaona --� ----------------- M Ale EhbK Bully a-Fkal ARaaf Rea ..... ♦ - 51 A B EdxDR Bu"N e-Fevabs .♦ _ 55 A 18 Edtipe Bu10tt9 5-Fret 6 Rod Prrr j `�.' :d At] EJtiW1&id+p 5-Ebp1w,, a; - : 5) AIB C,*ft Ye Sddrtp Plae atd EieveB'/ta .. "---" 58 A t9 Oriareeaon Carts era M".00m/Sl FecAry-FM FRAx Rau 59 A.20 Orbrrteoon Cerrta as Rxbuorn/Shower Fe�lry-Elrreaore Bo All Ra>D�Dn/sHow-F8C&Y E>...a..nd9eDD«le REDUCED SIZE REPRODUCTION fir`' _ 81 An WY SedM /— �� ® ':4 _ .. A,`t! �{�[`j ^- Be A25 WN SwYbn Secdon 63 Ate W62 k23 a Seam SCALE OF FEET as AM Wel SecOOn 100 0 100 200 TOO APR 5 1993 — — 88 A27 D" E/ Am Celeea 90 O ]0 f0 w _ BS A.29 Detab xJL[ M BETE" BB A.30 DetaY Er- / i HISTORICAL Sl ]o A3t 9oIalls �r�LrJ�il j\iJARl71jiJ� 1 1r�1'l0J lr�_ P,,,„,, ,eEanPtiaK.w2n DESIDHED TITLE OF ORAWINfi ORAwIHG Hd. chodda MASS. HIST. COMA,!. T °'° "° PRELIMINARY DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 373 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT LOCATION WITHIN PARK 41018A � 2 , ORAVN: $ , UNITED O STATES DRAFTING BR. PARK GENERAL P O SHEET / DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NAM[ t>F PARK NO O T[a. REVIn: SALEM MARITIME NATIONI NOVEMBER 1992 L HISTORICAL SITE IBB& I NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DENVER SERVICE CENTER DATE. REGION ' _ 3fAi[ 101 AFPRO+fD ora ► � NORTH ATI. ESSEX MASS. e vc DAT. DRvc. 52]Iez,aw cw[R REV.101!00`rW 101" uETNI F _ tORY 2 BEWWLW�— 1 _5(ORY FENCE PO S aWOODSTS zr� rsi Gam.�' w , ) Y��OM G"� -2 G8� P Al2 W1e II OOD FRAME LLQ' W 8BAME BUILDING UIiDING O's 01 �P 01 Yx3 'r BNICX AND 9 BR CW© 1 1 d i G m 5 12 FIRE r A N O J N O m GRIM E BLIXX l 1 POLISH 25TOLRIE rOm no f DRDRI_ WAY_ 1 ppLR` 1 CLUB ESCAPE _ RY 1� 3 ; B• O GRANITE D 1 (1909) 0 o n WOOD FR. WOOD FRA 10� - A 1 BUILDING DECK _ RETAWMG HALL _ 1 t� T' CDS g a a BUILDING mo - 2 1 6'CY SHE cONG EW HE tp vCONCRE NTN r = y It r, TWO-STORY WOOD YEW /'- E0. / CONCRETE ' z _ P 411 m E� 5N m N A i FRAME BUILDING Wg•M 9 L H A BRICW S.W- CY ATNS — y♦''lj� -1Y STEP 4 NOTE FENCE ' J �l BJ �T- 4 G ODS WEST INDIA 0. Js5.J0 OM p O Jgs ; J oaF DAN" u li AO RGOODS STORE N J0 ... 2.O O (c. 1800) L mT o �( S�1 0� 1 a a O TONE- ` PXTER 1 PROPOSED GAS LINE ST _ O ' G— w CELAR PROPOSED WATER LI NE ENTRY I BEA p PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER .a 1 —_-- S EA i-STORY DERBY ea1cW s.w.. v � —ST--- PROPOSED STORM SEWER \ BRICK HOUSE ,t (1762) O YB PROPOSED MANHOLE \ I PROPOSED CURB STOP It I-cmO 1 P —� PROPOSED CLEAN OUT GRASS coOLPEXIST. LIGHT POLE RO STONE GPUNTER SEA O H UwN P TER BUT, EXIST. UTILITY POLE S DG m ' PROPERTY LINE FIRE PROTECTI p m � I �- -�--� DOMESTIC $ERVI ( ) 1£ 1 .,mSIDEWALK z SHRUB F INiFAP. fJ8 2'HO 1 5?O D �1 SNS A m tL O fJss?GO F flEM N;_ - -- im. ___-- N HAWK NIER A 5300 pLA x ES 1� `/ )Dlsc sc.T.IBIT HOUSE I� 5 ; /� MA y EJD+ (1780) %^ (SEE urour ANOD MATERIALS PLAN) 1 LL a �O V.8 3 N• 10.00 Oa �0 P 'ITER 2, ATER SEFMCE STONE* DERBY WHARF I- I UHa 1 INTERP. HOUS COU T �_B a STORE S" . — MTERP. W 4H GT`ERS OVER GRANITE POST G DRI 9DEWAL ® S E POST MAUI U.G. NEL STORAC ITE PAD , D GAS RING w BEND -- IN e e STONE SEAWALL W11H TRUER GRIPBN 20!00 1 G \ WOOD ` HAJ+ORAK OS 0 @ ]() [ B wl GATE 05 1 R1M 1]os R I GRANITE : ..._.. ... _. . _K ) HOSE BIB CONNECTIONL _.. W W 0 1 1 1 TOM g I ^ CIRO .�" TIMBER SEAT WALL I T7 1 CHOOSE c 1 Axl NN o SERV 3 tl+ p ........... (SEE LAYOUT AND.WTFjLIAIS PLAN) 1 P s GO`ERNMENt 1 (1819) 's < = ON CTI N 1 B n pl "TERpt . I m INHOUSE 1 N PI ES EJBS 7 STA 1 80. L 0 1 .a MARE (1819) 1 BENGNM AO E A19 a 2' 00 GRAN.. T w vPj fJs 1 PL TO S pP AO EJB I O POST 1 .. A.32.67 STA LAWN II IRON 11 13929) D am' N o 20"50 `Sl _2L11'... I S'?00 I 1 HAN IRON RG1O ` SANE`ST E TS ' �o"CAST IROR y °l' --17 MATCH LINE T�eOs p FIRE L I P ORNN'-IHY..I.9' : i ysYPIAN III 20 p 20 w I it BRI fR IRLfl4MS- SCALE OF FEET N ASH SWW GATE OGW DRAWN lltT1� 1,1'2^M. 4 NO.S OF SHEET nllE SALEM GL/$$ S2. SERVK)E DESIGNED SUB HARBORSHALL BE DUCTILE IRON' ,. co SHALL BE TYPE K soa , pVC. DRAWN Xis UTILITIES PLAN UNE SHALL BE iU Y ARF } GRAS SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE COATED TSE TECH REVIEW. SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ."A 40, � PIPE. 4. SCHEDULE STORM N PIPE SHALL BE B0 PVC. T DATE-.NOV 92 n+AL '�� KEY MAP �• 9(N[: 1•.300' O 1. ,qa) w SALEM HARBOR z - J S a SALEM HARBOR s 76S.Soo 111 1 -- ' .600 �........._....._................... 0 1111. ... . _....._.. XI).. 2(2) 111__1 ....1111... N .._xl) ..... .. ... 1111 1111. N ... ) ..........' ( 1111... ...1111... _1111..... .,._. ... •),_ 11..... ... _ ._. - .. _•A.. -2(2) . STA. {9{....1. . — — — .. .. C ...TA,A e 1111 . \... .- _ ... i T _ 00. J i TIMBER SEAT WALL VMARFlNGIICS BLDG_ .. (SEE LAYOUT AND WaTERIALS,PIe 8 .-1111 sow ,1111. A A • ... T ®83 • 1111...- — TWA% 50' STAPONWO'�. 1111 ... _. p({) ..... .. __ I(5) � _.............. .. _ St ONE DUST MARK (TYPICAL) I(5) ... .. f7 UWR O.(ARF e 00 a BLDG r ExHiBITLAWN —9 — -_-SO STARdfINB'� BLDG }2 — ODNOAA. ' tAWW Disc SET• .._µ5) .. . . MARK (TYPICAL),. op IN ERP. pRE AN%TE STON - 111 1 . RI AD 2g BENCH 25�QO -202) B '. ..I 8. 1 ZB BLOCK .. S(I)_. .. x... GRANITE STEPS CAP WATER LINE STONE DUST WALx • BOLLARO(TNP-) p(•1 - . FOR FUTURE USE ..... 99T2 9-9- STA. 24-1960 - _ .. eaLLARD , UWN _ SOUTH RIVER CHANNEL W STONE SEAWALL WITN TIMBER piIFJ&NC ......... 1111 -3(1)" .. .._. .._ - STA 23+96 84 1111.. 1111 ... _. ... ... .. (SEE LE OUr TDGE MA -•(0) ... (SEE LAYOUT ANO MATERIALS PLAN) QO O Op O o f765,U00h. F765�0p 2 \ f76g U00 may/ i/ 2� o 2/ h 20 20 W V SCALE s FEET 1P1EM .y�TC DE9GNEO "W ARBOR UB HEE N0PPE OF SICET 9. SEE NOTES LOCATED ON SHEET U1 PERTTANING TO TAMS 41. oP- 1 Wn RF mLnY PIPES dAWN KJS I I UTILITIES PLAN - II a TECH REME'A! l J 88A TAMSSALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITEKEY MAP YAIL I•-sr GATE: NOV 92 I Go LAW s 12- S TRE T SIGN SPRALT S""vDE W x 12 SD 4 e ? HATCH'S CEL Ceto o WHARF MNDOw WELLS EN £N. A. 15+ . .. ... ... m 1 �ST le`56 n 1 STA 14+68. 5 . RELIEF OF o 6 x p BREAK IN TIO DlsC�T ' ASSOCIATION FOR THE END 13+9 1 A. 11197.58 RAILWAY WOMEN y AGED AND DESTITUTE � 0 46 :'15*� �5,� ��� -�" ' 1 DPNN - PIPE INv..L.57 'ySi e �� .. ..MAINE R 15.a0 a ... F.G. ELEV �� 17.6.1 BRICK a R TWAW;' 3 Ea I BT4® - :::_. .. PIPE UNE = SEWER HOLE wv,z7e � _ _ � —ER OR .. . ..... ......... .. w i RIM EL- 13.0 S.w. v 6 ( Ess INV />(A2- 8.75 e P�5TAT1f61"....__......'2(1 .--..... 1.�. ASPHALT0 INV (Bi- 6. MST 6 L L SLL�. { _6"W HYDS" 7 0 e e ' LL LL F-AEiN4LLL- .L-L' 0 6 4 D ❑ LI 1 I o a ' W. '1 IN ET CRANRE WHARF EDGE (] ROUND DEGRADED - CON 01•C(IN �MV. 7s I (SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS RAN)CDRc,PADS w' p5 BT39 RIA N 1R ( $S1MES ONnUDE 6' W N D ig NEPC o DI INLET LINK FENCE f Z 11N RIM 7.95. CNA�N ��. WHARF f I FORREF�NO TION W si E DUST W a r 9 L. _ CENTRAL f c z MODIFY I H TERP. G,,jaTE CAP CONC. BOUN \ ( /553C (FN ) ON FOUNDATION \\\a E I 595. o PL TEP � ELEC- ISRNG a BDx Up LL 11 e gyA•RD t CH IN FE CE ASPHALT P.,gKING LOT A� StA 91YlA6 I'm N ATE F,,OAT N '4 �sY p RI NC HC a a 1 N N (D �• I ANt Bl aIN J f \ ^ SLOTS A\ \�� II"BULKHEAD . „pJ SIGN w UE r 1 ,Nye IN BULKNEAD x/ CRO55 `YTA�_ e .� y / w Mfg / t R ?MM,2 O B ASPNAI " t STEEL BDLKN A TIMBER CAP o s B•w " .. RFF.••SAdu HOD--'S CO RT ci UE n (CENTRAL 9M 1805) p sTw o.06 REM r P IAREHOUSE AN INV. -SL d1P m�Ti i ORIENTATION 2qe AIR OOLED .-EN R.C.P.TA ON GDFIC- 001 25, BIM1K N 5 1! "� ' CENTER °��Co DENSING UNIT END sTEEL/BE GJ �]iREE a W n A iTIXR A 4 6D4tANllE PE . W V TAPPINGS, DOMESTIC SERVICE TWO-STORY m DRM6/E w NVA NIT 4- FIRE PROTECTION WOOD FRAME CONC. BOUND- GONC. PAD BUILDING > 0 DISC (FND) SEWER MANHOLE CA N (ESS 2) RIM EL- 12.35 to IAO INV (A)- 7.95 BF1CK POSE E R.C.P.BRAIN S1DNE . N• c INV (B)- 7.85 AND w000 x 12 )62 1 9 4 FRp E OO �rvE)s�e R BENLa1 V. WGgUIL01NG _iZ 00 s LAWN NOTES: 1. SEE NOTES ON SHEET U9 PERTAINING TO UTILITY PIPES 20 w ZO O SGAEE of FEET SMLEM HARBOR DPAMG S TITLE 7TUEE SNEET 1U wNAaF TAMS 41 Olt ❑ T DRAWN: KSS RAW i I3 UTILITIES PIAN - III IPNoAL IECN RENEM. lJ SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITEKEY MAPTAMSoAre:NOV 92 R.N �i ON I , �.. 1 A. 8 I I i n 2 f N EMISIT I I 11A I I toe I EXHIBIT I A I I mV- S COND OOR PLAN: E HIBIT BUI DING 1 ,1 A A I sB'-r 1 9e'-s — —_ STORAGE � -EY I - - - --- -----i - IIrr r1 -- RETURN NR WALL — I -_--_----- � Q REGISTER - - --- ---------- I---- - UP A.1ti - —UP— E76 IBIT 5 EXHIBIT IA. 8 i .I A_ &I A.4 0 i A.1 A.4 DIA. D A.1 A. 9 I A. D 4 \ A 1;20 RAMP DOWN A.1 4 0 4 8 B2 SCALE OF FEET TRUE NOR- 1 A C OESCNM JBM SUB 99V No. TiIE a SHEET jDft� 3 A 4 oluw Ko 1ST k 2ND FLOOR PLANS~� DRA KO , 1 EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN: EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 ,� SALEM MARITIME NATONAL HISTORIC 9TE slu °Nov1 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1 •LL4bYlYH AI/IE�wN•� I i 7:,2 O R�OF PLAN: EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 A A.1 A 58.-6" 19._6" __----___---i i i ► m I 1 ` i i B WALL REGISTER MECH. t. i AIR INTAKE B B LOUVER OPEN TO BELOW ► Al A. A.1 A. i j ELEV. ELEC. ► 1 p D MECH. Ru. 1 A. i 1 A. i I -- ----------- ______ ______ ____ 6 gBLDG SCALE OF FEET TRUE NORTF nlli a 91EET DRAWH9*a OF9plD: JBu 5t1! T Na 773 3RD FLOOR & ROOF PLANS 41018A 1 2 A 3 4 °R"`"e Ko A. 2 EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 reo� REVxx SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE t 41 NL DALE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT alol THIRD FLOOR PLAN: EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 NOV 1992 ..mom.�.�.�.�a,.. I - 11._ -__L�------_� iii► �. . ,. _ =� e � e � �7 •II �' SII, - - —�� ls� - — =' � _III fi�k1 Ililkki _ -��I�I�I II•i�� I 0 ■ NEE 0 0 i O1B O O O O 1AA O O 11 A. 2 TANDINDASED STAJNUESS BOOP S� Nib �l I I TUBE STEEL ROOF FRAMEI (ERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL I ' WRAPPED STL CHANNEL I I I iI - - -- - - IXa 7-7141 K73 11 iff L TIMBER FRAMING I I I I I MECH. ROOM I I I I HANGING PENDANT FIXTUREit I I I I I ❑ ❑ I I SMOOTH FINISH ERSHIPLAP BEA S SIDING �� ❑� 12X14 EKa TIMBER BEAMS ` I T WOOD DECKING I axe Wo FLOOR aD15Ts AT a•—a• D.C. � ��� ELEv. I I I STAINLESS STEEL STANCHON AND I SUPPORT WITH STAINLESS STEL CABLE j RECESSED CAN LIGHT FIXTURE I `� i I CONCRETE BASE EtF/ I I EXHIBIT EXHIBIT t EXHIBIT I RETURN AIR TRENCH SEE MECH. AND STRUCTURAL DNOS l ___________ ______ ____________________________ _______________ 1B lA SECTION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 A SECTION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 JB1 1 A4 1 A.b 460 4 B SCALE OF FEET OESONED: .IBM Sul BEET NM TITLE OF SEET DRAM NIX BUILDING SECTIONS / 'T-' punt KO 4101eA A. 4 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS PK �T TECK REMEIR EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 a3 HL SAI DI MARITIME NATIONAL NISTMC SITE NOV. 1992 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT dloL •Y.LOOIFf AI�IIIL T10.11FIO i D � I 8 O _/Q2 TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL STANDING SEAM ROOF Ell TUBE STEEL ROOF FRAME TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL WRAPPED STL CHANNEL , � `� I I I r � ❑ ❑ ME] =drip�r � r � ERIO nEM FRAMING ❑ a ' 12X14 ET00 TIMBER BEAMS MEGH. Room— RM� , I I � ♦ � SMOOTH FN99 SHIPI.AP WO SIDING / ♦ / ♦ ❑❑ , , I r' Waco oEaDNc Lu 4%8 WD FLOOR J01575 AT I-0" Or- Be ♦\ // ♦\ // ❑� I i I I I ' I i i I I i I � i I EXHIBIT i I I EXHIBIT \ / \ / EXHIBIT \ / D .1 A. A A. SECTION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 SECTION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 D I A.5 1 A.B 4 iio0 4 8 SCALE OF FEET DESGI[D: SUB SHEET NO. nK OF SHEET DRAWING NO. ''Bu BUILDING SECTIONS /ORAWW 4173 Ko A. 5 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS n SHEET TEOL REN'x EXHIBIT BUILDING 1 NL SALEM MARITIME NATfONAL HISMMC SITE I � OV. 1992 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Dr101 4 6A B +6'-3 5/6' k 12 OPE T i � n B EXHIBIT I +T-2 1/2" S COND FLOOR PLAN: EXHIBIT" BUILDING 2 A.6 A. I i A 58'-6" 19'-6• 1 ------ -------- _____ ________________________ 11 I___ __ _________ MEpE. I 5 2 I +1'-0 34' 18' P I I I / t 2'-T I 1 I 4 1 1 I B A I I STORAGE I I I I I F a 0 JI I I I AB / -O 20'-0x 1:20 30PE 4 0 4 6 BLDG SIM. SCALE OF FEET TRUE NORTH D7% mm SLB 941T NO. THTLE Or SHEET DRAWING NO. 1ST 4 2ND FLOOR PLANS JTs 5 6 4901BA 6 e 7 8 TE TEM �i A. 6 EXHIBIT BUILDING 2ft? BEET Fl_ RST" FLOOR FLAN: EXHIBIT' BUILDING ' H� SALEM MAPonME NAMONAL HSTORIC STE 188 45 6N"vc 1982 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT crIol .Y...RWdI IOMF.V.IOrt,}� i � I O i NoId! I --- --�- Q Q ■■■■ In ■■ ■■ ■ • a W• • A • • m (.SDESIGN DEVELOPMENT �� i TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL STANDING SEAM ROOF �N TUBE STEEL ROOF FRAME EL 3B_tp' TOP CF STEEL TERNEID COATED STAINLESS SL . REVEAL L IYKI TIMBER FRAMING w2w TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL REVEAL HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING \ (ERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL AT HOISTWAY OPENINGS PAINTED STEEL CONNECTIONS ❑ `• • / Z AI CONCRETE BASE EL tt•_0• FINISH Fl EL 10'-8 J!5NORTH ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 3 �n1 FINISH GRADE WEST ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 3 �1 10 A. 0w2 O LEI STAINLESS STEEL STANCHION AND SUPPORT MTN STAINLESS STEEL CABLE 4 0 4 B SCALE OF FEET DES04M RIB SHEET"NO. TITLE OF SHEET ORAMIKI NM jem DRA*` A a 12 ELEVATIONS 4 01 Ko 9A EXHIBIT BUILDING 3 Nampa sE�T °L aETCR SALEM MAM71W NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE t SI EAST ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 3 rc1 SOUTH ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 333 HL NW.t0 w� 1992 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OF101 e+..w wens wsons TUBE STEEL ROOF FRAME EL �._IG. TOP OF STEEL 12 EKKI TIMBER FRAMING PAINTED STEEL CONNECTIONS FABRIC STRUCTURE LLTEJRINE COATED STAINLESS STEEL HOISTWAY OPENINGS CRETE BASE EL 1Vo. FlNISH FL NORTH ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 4 FL to-B q FINISH GRADE WEST ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 4 a A14A5 14 A STAINLESS STEEL STANCHION AND SUPPORT MATH STAINLESS STEEL CABLE 4 44_B SCALE OF FEET OE90ED. ALB SKEET I'm nTLE OF SHEET DRAY" NM JBM 375 DRAW � 1 ELEVATIONS 41011O18A FM - A.Ko EXHIBIT BUILDING 4 ,a 4 A ° saT EAST ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 4 C SOUTH ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 4 p SALEM MARITIME NAMNAL HISTORIC SITE 1 sa 1 4~ oNOV. 1992 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT aFP l r TUBE STEEL ROOF FRAME EL 36'-10" TOP CF STEEL EKKI TIMBER FRAMING —� PAINTED STEEL CONNECTIONS FABRIC STRUCTURE CONCRETE BASE EL tY-0" FlNISH R EL10'-6" NORTH ELEVATION: EXHIE311BUILDING 5 A Fl..SH GRADE WEST ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 5 �1 6A 78A STAINLESS STEEL STANCHION AND SUPPORT NTH STAINLESS STEEL CABLE 4 D 4 B SCALE OF FEET IX9Gf@ 91B SHEET Na nTE OF SNRT DRA Na BM 373 DRAW! /� a —7 ELEVATIONS 41018A Ko /-i ! EXHIBIT BUILDING 5 110, SHEETREMM SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC STE t EAST ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 5 c SOUTH ELEVATION: EXHIBIT BUILDING 5 16 A7 16~ DA4. 1892 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OF101 - - O ! A.2 17 18 c TERNS COATED STAINLESS STEEL. I - STANDING SEAM ROOF B PAINTED TUBE STEEL TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL REVEAL TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL TRIM EKKI TIMBER FRAMING HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING CONCRETE BASE ROOF PIAN: WHARRNGERS BUIIIDING 0 NORTH ELEVATION• WHARFlNGERS BUILDING �1 WEST ELEVATION: WHARFINGERS BUILDING �1 I 8 A_ 18 A. 18 A 1S•_D•• 14'-4' A.2 � 18 17 I , I A ' I i 1 ' A.2 o-�— t A. A 1:20 RAMP �O 117 Ale 18 2a FLOOR PIAN: YMARFlNGERS BUILDING 4 0 4 8 BLDG EAST ELEVATION: WHARFlNGERS BUILDING �c� SOUTH ELEVATION: WHARFINGERS BUILDING ,�� SCALE OF FEET TRUE NORTH 8 A. DRAA 18 A. DEyp� •Sy SU8 91EET Na nTIE a SHEET Na 373 PLANS & ELEVATIONS 41018ADRAre Ko A. 18 WHARFINGERS BUILDING SHEET TEO1. RE'•E! SALEM MAFtjTW NATMAL HSMFtIC SITE t 57 NL DAA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT OFLC NOV. 1992 TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL STANDING SEAM ROOF TUBE STEEL ROOF FRAME ■..■ ��.■ . REVEAL TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEELu.■ u.■ HORIZONTAL .• SIDING _�FEL 22.m. OPERABLE ALUM VANDOW WITH EKKI TIMBER FRAMING ■� � �I FENOOi— fddl OO p C ILESS STEEL CABLE ELEVATION:EL 12.35- .- . Q • SHOWEDRESTROOM0 l�.■ •..■ I i I ®WEST ELEVATION� ORIENTATION CENTER WEST ELEVATION: SHOWER RESTROOM FACILITY �B� SCALE 4 a --. NIL SALEM MARITIME RESTROOM HISTORIC --- -----------= LT______________________________________________1 I I I I I I I I TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL I STANDING SEAM ROOF I I I I I TUBE STEEL ROOF FRAME EL 2285 I TERNE COATED STAINLESS STEEL i1NISN FL I REVEAL IXIO TIMBER FRAMING T OPERABLE ALUM WINDOW KITH A21 WOOD TRIM I HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING / I �— P.T. WOOD STANCHION AND MULTIPURPOSE LOBBY SUPPORT WITH STL PIPERAIL AND _ STAINLESS STEEL CABLE R00M I 12.35 FlNISH FL I SOUTH ELEVATION: SHOWER / RESTROOM FACILITY �1 SECTION: SHOWER / RESTROOM FACILITY 19 A. 1 A19 A 1 SCALE0 SCALE OA } I STEEL PIPE RAIL o !o'. RAIL SUPPORT THRU BOLTED TO DOUBLE 2X4 NO. STANCHION STAINLESS STEEL CABLE LOWER RAIL AT RAMP ONLY J, ' • P.T. WOOD 57ANCJOS THRU— BOLTED 7D DECK JOIST ... --------------i-i i•l__. 1Fi=F3 i l J_L JI T rrr-1 l ; Il r I r I I. I p.v 12 8 0 �2 SCALE BO SCALE OF INCHES SCALE OA i SCALE OF FEET I o' TITLE OF SHEET WAY"N0. • P ;i-S JBY Su! 9EET NSI 373 ELEVATIONS: 111D1BA pIAWI! Ko A. 21 ORIENTATION CENTER AND SHOWER / RESTROOM FACILITY °a 9`ET NORTH ELEVATION: SHOWER RESTROOM FACILITY DETAIL SECTION / ELEVATION O RAIL �1 EaL REQ 188A 60 / D NL SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE — A19 A I SCALE n8 s ~ I °�,� 1992 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT aFP