Programmatic Section 4(f) - Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project EA/DEIR 

Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation 

Pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 USC 303 and 23 USC 138 

Replacement of John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge (A-07-016=N-11-017) 

Based upon the attached information: 

 

 

 

I have determined that the project meets the applicability criteria set forth in the PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION FOR FHWA PROJECTS THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES. 

I have determined that all alternatives set forth in the Findings section of the PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION FOR FHWA PROJECTS THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES have been evaluated and that there are 

no feasible and prudent alternatives to the replacement of John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge (A-07-016=N-11-017), which carries Interstate 95 over the Merrimack River between the City of Newburyport and the Town of Amesbury, Essex 

County, Massachusetts. 

I have determined that the project complies with the Measures to Minimize Harm section of the PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION FOR FHWA PROJECTS THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES and assure that these 

measures will be implemented. 

Pamela Stephenson 

Division Administrator 

Massachusetts Division 

Federal Highway Administration 

Date 

i


9.0 Programmatic Section 4(f) 

Evaluation 

9.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation – Highway Division 

(MassDOT) proposes to use federal funds to replace the John Greenleaf 

Whittier Memorial Bridge (A-07-016=N-11-017) (Whittier Bridge), which 

carries Interstate 95 (I-95) over the Merrimack River between the Town of 

Amesbury and the City of Newburyport, Massachusetts (Figure 9-1). The 

Whittier Bridge is a historic property that is eligible for individual listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as one of three 

bridges in Massachusetts identified on the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) “Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally 

Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System,” published 

in the Federal Register on December 19, 2006. 

9.1.1 Regional Context 

I-95 is the major north-south interstate highway on the U.S. eastern 

seaboard extending from Miami, Florida to the Canadian border at 

Houlton, Maine. It is the longest north-south highway in the interstate 

system (approximately 1,925 miles) and connects more states—15—than 

any other interstate highway. I-95 passes through and links several major 

metropolitan areas, including Miami, Florida; Washington, DC; Baltimore, 

Maryland; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; and Boston, 

Massachusetts. 

In New England, I-95 serves as a principal route directly linking five of the 

six New England states, and provides a connection to the maritime 

provinces of Canada, and the Trans-Canada Highway. 

In Massachusetts, I-95 serves as both a major commuter route to New 

Hampshire and Maine, and to Boston from the North Shore area of 

Massachusetts, and as a recreational gateway to New Hampshire and 

southern Maine. As such, traffic volumes reflect both weekday and 

weekend traffic patterns. Summer weekend volumes, northbound on 

Saturday mornings and southbound on Sunday evenings (or Monday 

evening on three-day holiday weekends), are higher than normal weekday 

commuting volumes. Weekday peak periods coincide with Boston 

commuter travel patterns – southbound in the morning and northbound in 

the afternoon. 

FIGURE 9-1: 

LOCUS MAP 

9.1.2 Regional Interstate Geometry 

The current six-lane cross section of I-95 from immediately south of 

Whittier Bridge north to Exit 57 does not match the eight-lane cross 

section existing immediately south and north of the project limits and does 

not meet the current American Association of State and Highway 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for consistency of the number 

of travel lanes. 

According to AASHTO’s Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, an 

important highway design principle is that the number of travel lanes 

should be consistent along any major route “... irrespective of changes in 

traffic volumes” to provide for safe travel conditions. The intent is that the 

basic number of lanes (in this case, eight lanes) should be established for a 

substantial length of freeway and should not be changed through pairs of 

interchanges irrespective of traffic volumes entering or leaving the 

highway at any one interchange. The latter situation does not provide for a 

consistent driving experience and does not provide for safe operating 

conditions. Figure 9-2 illustrates the general location of the six-lane 

segment of 1-95 in relation to the adjoining eight-lane sections. 

9.1.3 Congestion 

Existing (2007) weekend peak-hour traffic volumes show unacceptable 

operating conditions in segments of the project corridor, particularly at the 

Whittier Bridge and its approaches and in the segment in between I-495 

and Route 286 at the northern end of the corridor. 

By 2030, weekend peak-hour traffic volumes within the six-lane I-95 

project corridor are projected to result in unacceptable operating 

conditions and substandard levels of service (LOS) without additional 

capacity (widening to a consistent eight-lane cross section). Table 9-1 lists 

the segments of the project corridor and the existing (2007) and projected 

(2030) LOS. 

TABLE 9-1: 

EXISTING (2007) AND PROJECTED NO BUILD (2030) LEVEL OF 

SERVICE – CURRENT LANE CONFIGURATION 

I-95 (northbound) 

Saturday AM 

I-95 (southbound) 

Sunday PM 

Segment 

Existing 

(2007) 

No Build 

(2030) 

Existing 

(2007) 

No Build 

(2030) 

North of Route 113 B D B E 

Whittier Bridge D D D E 

Route 110 to I-495 C F C C 

I-495 to Route 286 D F D F 

I-95 in the project corridor is classified as a rural interstate highway, and 

LOS C is the minimum acceptable design standard for this classification. 

For segments of the project corridor north of Route 113, with the 

exception of the I-95 southbound segment between the I-95 off-ramp to 

I-495 southbound and the Route 110 interchange, LOS is projected to 

degrade to LOS D or LOS F by 2030 without capacity improvements such as 

an additional travel lane in each direction. 

Peak-hour traffic operations on the Whittier Bridge exhibit LOS D 

conditions and the existing highway geometry on the bridge fails to meet 

current FHWA Interstate Highway Standards. The existing shoulders on the 

Whittier Bridge and approaches are substandard (any shoulder less than 6 

feet wide degrades the performance of the roadway segment). The 

existing bridge shoulders are less than 2 feet wide and because of 

substandard outside shoulder widths, there is a high occurrence of 

vehicles losing control and striking bridge supports or guardrails in areas 

where there is no breakdown lane. 

9-1

4 Lanes Northbound 

and Southbound 

MERRIMAC 

AMESBURY 

SALISBURY 

Project Limits 



NEWBURYPORT 

WEST NEWBURY 

HAVERHILL 

NEWBURY 

GROVELAND 

GEORGETOWN 

ROWLEY 



BOXFORD 

IPSWICH 

NORTH ANDOVER 

TOPSFIELD 

ESSEX 

ANDOVER 

HAMILTON 

GLOUCESTER 

MIDDLETON 

WENHAM 

NORTH READING 

DANVERS 

BEVERLY 

MANCHESTER 

READING 

LYNNFIELD 

PEABODY 

SALEM 

[ 

WAKEFIELD 

SAUGUS 

LYNN 

MARBLEHEAD 

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project 

Newburyport/Amesbury/Salisbury 

0 2 

Miles 

Base Map: 

Bing Airphoto 

DOT Roadway Inventory 

Existing I-95 

Lane Configuration 

Figure 9-2


Chapter 9.0: Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation 

9.1.4 Accidents 

As seen on Table 9-2, the accident rate along I-95 within the project area is 

higher than the state average. In particular, there is a high occurrence of 

angle crashes along the project corridor. There are multiple locations on 

the corridor where vehicles entering and exiting the ramps for any 

destination must maneuver through multiple conflicting decision points in 

a short distance. Merging, weaving, and diverging occur at Route 286, 

I-495 and Route 110. The statewide average crash rate for 2007 (the most 

up-to-date data available from MassDOT) is 0.57 crashes per million 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for an urban interstate. Several sections of 

the I-95 corridor in the project area exhibit higher crash rates than the 

statewide average. The Whittier Bridge northbound is located on the 

section of 1-95 between Route 113 and Route 110. The crash rate for 

northbound traffic across the Whittier Bridge is 0.73 crashes per million 

VMT, which is 28 percent higher than the statewide average. Additionally, 

the crash rate for the merge and diverge section between Route 286 and 

1-495 on 1-95 is above average with rates of 0.71 and 0.70 crashes per 

million VMT for northbound and southbound travel, respectively. 

9.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The MassDOT has determined there is a need to replace the existing I-95 

six-lane Whittier Bridge over the Merrimack River to remedy the structural 

deficiencies and functional obsolescence of the existing bridge. It is not 

possible to rehabilitate or widen this bridge in compliance with the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) standards; therefore, MassDOT has pursued the total 

replacement of the bridge. 

9.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 

The Whittier Bridge carries I-95 over the Merrimack River between the City 

of Newburyport and the Town of Amesbury (see Figure 9-1). The proposed 

project would demolish and replace the Whittier Bridge (A-07-016=N-11- 

017) with a new bridge on a similar alignment within the existing interstate 

highway layout. 

The project also proposes to improve a 4.25 mile segment of the I-95 

corridor by constructing an additional lane travel lane in each direction 

beginning south of the bridge at a point just north of Interchange 57 in 

Newburyport and extending north across the bridge through Amesbury 

and Salisbury, terminating just south of the New Hampshire state line. The 

project would also replace or repair 10 additional, non-historic interstate 

highway bridges along that segment of I-95. 

TABLE 9-2: 

CRASH RATE SUMMARY 

9.3.1 Existing Conditions 

The 1951 Whittier Memorial Bridge is composed of a five-span, doublebarreled 

steel-riveted built-up truss superstructure with Warren-type truss 

webs. The main unit of the bridge is a double-barreled, three-span 

continuous steel truss whose arched through truss central span crosses the 

Army Corps of Engineers federal navigation channel of the Merrimack 

River. 

The Whittier Bridge was designed to carry two travel lanes in each 

direction with full breakdown lanes along the shoulders, matching the 

original configuration of the I-95 roadway. Between 1967 and 1969, 

however, I-95 was widened north of the bridge to provide three travel 

lanes in each direction to I-495 in Salisbury, and four travel lanes in each 

direction from I-495 north to the New Hampshire state line. Between 1973 

and 1977, I-95 was widened south of the bridge to provide four travel 

lanes in each direction from Route 113 in Newburyport to US Route 1 in 

Location 

Direction 

Length 

(miles) Average Daily Traffic Number of Crashes Crash Rate 

Percent Higher than 

State Average 

Route 113 to Route 110 (eastbound off-ramp) Northbound 1.70 33,717 76 0.73 28% 

I-495 to Route 286 Northbound 0.54 44,236 31 0.71 24% 

Route 286 to I-495 Southbound 0.54 44,770 31 0.70 22% 

The purpose of the Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project is to: 

 

 

 

 

Improve safety along I-95 and the Merrimack River bridge crossing by 

providing geometric features in keeping more with the Highway Design 

Standards; 

Provide the infrastructure to support alternative (or non-motorized) 

modes of transportation within the project area; 

Reduce congestion and improve the flow of traffic on I-95 through the 

project area; and 

Improve air quality by reducing congestion on I-95 and offering 

alternative (or non-motorized) modes of transportation. 

Existing Whittier Bridge 

9-3



Danvers. In 1977, the cast-in-place reinforced concrete deck on the bridge 

was completely replaced and the roadway on the bridge was reconfigured 

to create three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction sandwiched between 

the limits of the existing trusses. Breakdown lanes on the bridge were 

eliminated at that time and concrete barriers were installed along the 

outer shoulders and the center median to protect the trusses and 

suspender cables from collisions. 

Current Condition of the Whittier Bridge. The Whittier Bridge is a steelriveted 

built-up truss bridge built in 1951. Truss bridges comprise multiple 

non-redundant members. A failure of one member, in either tension or 

compression, could cause the bridge to collapse. As noted above, the 

bridge was originally designed to carry only two lanes of traffic in each 

direction with full breakdown lanes. 

In 1977, the bridge was reconfigured to three lanes without shoulders in 

each direction, and traffic volumes have increased the fatigue loading by 

50 percent. Steel members of the bridge already are exhibiting signs of 

distress that may be caused by fatigue. Numerous tack welds and 

associated cracks at several of the end connections of the floor beams to 

the main trusses appear to be fatigue related. The propagation of fatigue 

cracks in the webs of floor beams connections can be a serious matter, as 

the floor beams are considered fracture-critical non-redundant members. 

The presence of fatigue cracks on the interior faces of some gusset plates 

also is a major concern. 

MassDOT’s Bridge Inspection reports indicate that several gusset plates 

have also suffered corrosion loses. Disassembling riveted connections to 

replace gusset plates is a very difficult and expensive proposition which 

carries a great safety risk to construction crews. Pack rust that already has 

formed in gusset plate joints is difficult to arrest and can cause the plates 

to expand as they rust, leading to rivet failures. Gusset plate failure was 

cited as the cause of the catastrophic collapse of the I-35W Bridge over the 

Mississippi River in Minneapolis in August 2007. 

Significant corrosion has also occurred to structural elements of the 

bridge, including truss floor beams and stringers, bracing, wind chords, and 

gusset plates, with the most severe deterioration occurring to members 

exposed to deicing salts at the edges of the bridge and in the open 

medians between the northbound and southbound roadways. 

9.3.2 Proposed Project 

The project proposes to replace the existing Whittier Bridge with a new 

bridge on a parallel alignment. MassDOT evaluated four bridge types: 1) a 

network tied-arch bridge with girder approaches; 2) a steel cable-stayed 

bridge; and 3) a single-tower concrete extradosed bridge; and 4) a steel 

single- and multi-box girder structure (Figure 9-3). 

FIGURE 9-3: 

BRIDGE TYPES 

Each proposed new bridge type would require constructing three piers in 

the river, and would carry four travel lanes northbound and southbound, a 

10-foot outside breakdown lane, and a 4-foot inside shoulder to match the 

proposed cross section of the reconstructed I-95 approaches. 

MassDOT’s Bridge Type Study evaluated eight specific bridge design 

alternatives of the four general bridge types listed above. This evaluation 

included approximate estimates of construction costs as well as future 

inspection, maintenance, and life cycle costs. All design alternatives were 

developed and evaluated through a multi-disciplinary approach with due 

consideration to the existing condition, including safely maintaining the 

existing bridge structure while building the new bridges; roadway profiles 

and clearances; maintaining traffic and river navigation channels; river 

hydraulics; existing utilities; environmentally sensitive or cultural resource 

areas; presence of hazardous material; and right-of-way. The results of the 

evaluation of bridge designs concluded that the steel network tied arch 

with steel box girder approaches was the highest rated of the bridge types 

evaluated and has been selected as the preferred bridge type. 

The project would also improve a 4.25-mile segment of I-95 in 

Newburyport, Amesbury, and Salisbury by widening the interstate highway 

from its current six-lane configuration to eight lanes with full breakdown 

lanes, from immediately north of the I-95/Route 113 Interchange in 

Newburyport to just north of the 1-495 connector ramp in Salisbury, 

matching the cross section of I-95 north and south of the project area. 

Minor geometric improvements are proposed to the existing ramps within 

the highway layout at Interchange 58 (Route 110/Elm Street) in Amesbury. 

In addition, the new Whittier Bridge would include a Shared-Use Path, 

which would be 12-feet wide with two 2-foot shoulders. The path would 

be separated from the I-95 northbound breakdown lane by a barrier 

topped with chain link fencing to provide safe conditions for pedestrians 

and cyclists on the path. 

All other existing highway bridges along I-95 within the project area in 

Newburyport and Amesbury also would be replaced, reconstructed or 

modified to accommodate the proposed eight lanes of traffic on I-95 and 

to meet current design standards as much as practicable. All of these other 

bridges were constructed from 1967 to 1977 and comprise steel stringer 

superstructures supported on reinforced concrete abutments and piers. 

These bridges are not subject to consideration as historic properties under 

Section 106 according to the Interstate Highway Exemption issued by the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). As a result, these bridges 

are not potential Section 4(f) resources. 

All work associated with this project would be undertaken within the 

existing highway layout. No permanent property takings are required. 

9.4 PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) APPLICABILITY 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, as 

amended in 1983, specifies that: 

9-4

The Secretary of DOT may approve a transportation program or 

project requiring the use of publically owned land of a park, 

recreation area, of wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or land of a 

historic site of National, State, or local significance (as 

determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having 

jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or site) only if: 

1. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to using that 

land; and 

2. The program or project includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife or 

waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. 

As part of administering this act, the FHWA developed a Programmatic 

Section 4(f) Evaluation for certain federally assisted highway projects 

affecting bridges that are on or eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register. The criteria that must be met to apply this programmatic 

evaluation and the proposed project’s applicability are as follows: 

The bridge is to be replaced or rehabilitated with Federal 

funds. 

MassDOT proposes to use federal funds to replace the Whittier Bridge. 

The project will require the use of a historic bridge 

structure that is on or eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

The Whittier Bridge, constructed in 1951, is a historic property that is 

eligible for individual listing in the National Register as one of three bridges 

in Massachusetts identified on the FHWA’s “Final List of Nationally and 

Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway 

System,” as accepted by the ACHP and published in the Federal Register on 

December 19, 2006. 

The bridge is not a National Historic Landmark. 

Whittier Bridge is not listed as a National Historic Landmark. 

The FHWA District Administrator determines that the 

facts of the project match the sections of the 

Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for FHWA Projects 

that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges labeled 

Alternatives to Avoid Section 4(f) Property, Findings, and 

Mitigation. 

This document has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of 

the FHWA Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for FHWA Projects that 

Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges. Among other alternatives 

considered, MassDOT considered the following alternatives: 

 

 

 

No Build 

Build a New Structure at a Different Location without Affecting the 

Historic Integrity of the Old Bridge. 

Rehabilitate the Historic Bridge without Affecting the Historic Integrity 

of the Structure. 

Agreement among the FHWA, the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) has been reached through 

procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. 

During 2009 and 2010, FHWA conducted historic and archeological studies 

in the project area and prepared appropriate Section 106 documentation 

describing the project’s unavoidable Adverse Effect on the National 

Register-eligible John Greenleaf Whittier Memorial Bridge, pursuant to 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). On August 

27, 2010, the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)/ 

Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), in cooperation with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), concurred with FHWA’s 

finding of Adverse Effect on the John Greenleaf Whittier Memorial Bridge. 

On March 2, 2011, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was approved by 

Section 106 parties, including FHWA, MassDOT, ACHP, MHC, and 

representatives of the local governments of Amesbury, Newburyport, and 

Salisbury. 

The complete record of the Section 106 documentation is provided at the 

end of this chapter. Details of the MOA’s mitigation program are 

presented in Section 9.8, Measures to Minimize Harm. 

9.5 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES 

This section provides information on the recreational and historic 

Section 4(f) resources within the project area. Historic resources are 

depicted on Figure 9-4 and recreational resources are depicted on 

Figure 9-5A and Figure 9-5B. 

9.5.1 Historic Resources 

The Whittier Bridge (A-07-016=N-11-017) (AME.927, NWB.930) carries 

I-95 on a north-south axis over the Merrimack River in Amesbury and 

Newburyport. The bridge comprises a high-level, five-span, doublebarreled, 

steel-riveted built-up truss superstructure with Warren-type 



truss webs. The structure is approximately 1,346 feet in length and 94 feet 

wide to the outside of the trusses and the bridge’s clearance over the 

navigation channel is approximately 55 feet at high tide. The bridge was 

constructed between 1951 and 1954 as part of the planned relocation of 

US Route 1 away from downtown Newburyport, but was added to the 

Interstate Highway System in 1956 when this section of US Route 1 

became I-95. The main unit of the bridge is a double-barreled, five-span, 

continuous steel truss whose arched through-truss central span crosses 

the navigation channel of the Merrimack River. The arched through-truss 

transitions into deck trusses at the continuous-approach spans on either 

end of the arch. The highway decks on the central-arch span are 

suspended from the lower chords of the trusses by steel cables. Two, 

simple deck-truss approach spans link the main spans of the bridge to the 

southerly bank of the river 

The FHWA, Massachusetts SHPO, the ACHP, and MassDOT have 

determined the Whittier Bridge to be eligible for individual listing in the 

National Register as one of three bridges in Massachusetts on the FHWA’s 

“Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the 

Federal Interstate Highway System,” as published in the Federal Register 

on December 19, 2006. 

There are no historic properties within or immediately adjacent to the 

project limits. The following properties are located along the Merrimack 

River near the project: 

 

 

Lowell’s Boat Shop on Main Street in Amesbury received National Park 

Service designation as a National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1990. The 

boat shop consists of four attached buildings constructed in 1793, 

1806, 1860, and 1946. It is significant for its associations with Samuel 

Lowell who designed the dory type fishing boat and as an 18 th through 

20 th -century boat shop preserved on its waterfront site. The boat shop 

is located on the northern bank of the Merrimack River approximately 

0.5 mile upstream of the project area with panoramic views of the 

Merrimack River. 

The Salisbury Point Historic District (AME.C) located along Main Street 

on the northern bank of the Merrimack River between I-95 and I-495 

was determined eligible for the National Register by the SHPO in 1993. 

The historic district primarily comprises residential and some 

commercial and religious properties constructed between the 18th 

and early 20th centuries that were associated with the shipbuilding 

and waterfront development. 

9-5

Legend 


^_ 

^_ 

DOT Right of Way (Approx.) 

National Register-Eligible Properties 

FERN AVENUE 

CLINTON STREET 

BLACK RIVER ROAD 

Not Eligible for the National Register 

Approximate Location of Salisbury Point District 

Spofford Street Area 

CONGRE SS STRE ET 

LOCUST STREET 

UV 286 

LENA MAES WAY 

MAIN STREET 

TOLL ROAD 

JON STREET 

R STREET 

CE D AR STREET 

AMESBURY 

OAKLAND STREET 

OAK STREE T 

RIVER STREET 

PEARL STREET 

W ARREN AVENUE 

STOVERS COURT 

MADISON STREET 

COLLINS AVENUE 

BAY STREET 

AMIDON AVENUE 

MUNROE STREET 

GOSS AVE NUE 

MINGO ROAD 

JOY ROAD 

INTERSTATE 495 

MAIN STREET 

INTERSTATE 95 

RABBIT ROAD 

DELUCA DRIVE 


CHERRY 

HILL 

MACY STREET 

^_ 

Whittier 

Bridge 

Johnathan Eastman 

House 

^_ 

^_ 

Chain Bridge 

20 Spofford St. 

^_ 

UV 

§¨¦ 110 

495 Lowell's Boat Shop 

UV 113 

EVANS PLACE 

FERRY ROAD 

Smith's Chain Bridge 

Filling Station #3 

Tavern and 

Toll House 

^_ 

^_ 

^_ 

^_^_ 

MERRILL STREET 

Spofford Street Area 

19 Spofford St. 

MOSELEY AVENUE 

FERRY ROAD 

STOREY AVENUE 

MERRIMACK STREET 

ELM STREET 

BAKER ROAD 

HIGH STREET 

JAK-LEN DRIVE 

MERRIMAC STREET 

HOYT S LANE 

MAIN STREET 

C URZON MILL ROAD 

PINE HILL ROAD 

§¨¦ 95 


SPRING LANE 

§¨¦ 495 

LAUREL STREET 

CLARKES R O AD 

ELMIRA AVENUE 

NOBEL STREET 


OLD ELM STREET 

CUTTING DR IVE 

PLUMMER AVENUE 

MYRTLE AVEN UE 

JEFFERSON STREET 

ASHLAND STREET 

FORRESTER STREET 

PALIS DRIVE 

ELM STREET 

SALISBURY 

[ 

NEWBURYPORT 

0 1,500 

Feet 

Base Map: 

MassGIS April 2008 Airphoto 



National Register-Eligible Properties 

Located within the Area 

of Potential Effect 

Figure 9-4

Legend 



Existing Trails 

AMESBURY 

Open Space Lands 

DCR-State Parks & Recreation 

Municipal 

Land Trust 

LOMBA RD AVENUE 

KENDRICKS COURT 



MAIN S TREET 

ROCKY HILL ROAD 

LOWELL'S BOAT 

SHOP 

CLARKES ROA D 

MACY STREET 

Non-Profit 

Private 

Municipal-Water 

SWE TTS HILL 

MERRIMAC STREET 

CAPOLUPO 

9 SPRING LANE 

EVANS PLACE 



OLD MERRILL STREET 

SALISBURY 

BEA CON S T REET 

PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD 

NEWBURYPORT 

MAUDSLAY STATE PARK 

CURZON MILL RO AD 

CHASE FARM 

§¨¦ 495 UV 113 

FERRY ROAD EXTENSION 

PINE HILL ROAD 

HALLISEY DRIVE 

SPRING LN WELL SITE 


SPRING LAN E 

FERRY ROAD 

LAUREL STREET 

SPRING LN 

WELL SITE 

BRIGG AVENUE 

FERRY RD 

WELL SITE 

EVERGREEN VALLEY GOLF COURSE 

MOSELEY WOODS PARK 

SPOFFORD STREET 

HART ROAD 

ST MARYS CEMETERY 

DEER ISLAND 

MERRIMACK STREET 

MOSELEY AVENUE 

ELMIRA AVENUE 

HARDING AVENUE 

FERRY ROAD 

NOBEL STREET 

ERIE AVENUE 

BELLEVUE CEMETERY 

97 CURZON 

MILL RD. 

WELCH RECREATION LAND 

§¨¦ 495 §¨¦ 95 

SAWYERS HILL CEMETERY 

CHERRY 

HILL 

PHILIP S DRIVE 

RYAN ROAD 

CHERRY 

HILL 


STOREY AVENUE 

LOW STREET 

TOWN WELLFIELD 

WEST NEWBURY 

Woodman Park 

ARTICHOKE RIVER LAND 

[ 

ARTICHOKE RIVER WATERSHED 

North Pasture 

0 1,000 

Feet 

Note: Open Space from 

MassGIS 2009 & TTR 

Trails from CRC & MVPC 

Base Map: 




Open Space and Recreational 

Resources (Newburyport) 

Figure 9-5A

MINGO RO AD 

Legend 



Amesbury Open Space Lands 

Private 

Municipal 

BLACK RIVER ROAD 

ELMWOOD STREET 

Salisbury Well Site 

LENA MAES WAY 

NonProfit 

FERN AVEN 

UE 

CONGRE SS STRE E T 

SALISBURY 

WATER CO. 

LOCUST STREET 

UV 286 

CAPTIAN'S 

CORNER 

TOLL ROAD 

MAIN STREET 

HIGH STREET 

CLINTON STREET 

WARRE N AVENUE 

STOVERS COURT 

AMESBURY GOLF & 

COUNTRY CLUB 

MAIN STREET 

RABBIT ROAD 

JOY ROAD 

OAKLAND STREET 

OAK STREET 

RIVER STR EET 

PEARL STREET 

HUNTINGTON AVENUE 

COLLINS AVENUE 

BAY STREET 


MADISON STREET 

AMESBURY 

AMIDON AVENUE 

LAFAYETTE STREET EXT 

ROCKY HILL ROAD 

MACY STREET 

MUNROE STREET 

GOSS AVEN UE 

ELM STREET 

§¨¦ 495 §¨¦ 95 

PARCEL 

68-15 


SALISBURY 



BAKER ROAD 

DELUCA DRIVE 

MAIN STREET 

SALISBURY POINT CEMETERY 

PARCELS 

79-56 

79-58 

80-26 

80-27 

OLD ELM STREET 

§¨¦ 495 UV 110 

ELM STREET 

LOWELL'S BOAT 

SHOP 


PARCEL 

92-2 

PARCEL 

91-1 

PARCEL 

91-2 

PARCEL 

91-4 

AMESBURY VISITOR 

CENTER 

EVANS PLACE 

NEWBURYPORT 

FERRY ROAD EXTENSION 

[ 


0 1,200 

Feet 

Note: Open Space from 

MassGIS 2009 & Amesbury 

Base Map: 




Open Space and Recreational 

Resources (Amesbury) 

Figure 9-5B

The Essex-Merrimack Bridge, also known as the Chain Bridge (A-07- 

014=N-11-010), is a National Register-eligible property located 

approximately 1,400 feet downstream from the Whittier Bridge. 

Constructed in 1909 as a single-span steel wire cable suspension 

bridge with monumental reinforced concrete towers with arched 

openings, the Essex-Merrimack Bridge carries Main Street over the 

Merrimack River between Newburyport and Deer Island in Amesbury. 

Smith’s Chain Bridge Filling Station No. 3 (AME.537), located 

approximately 700 feet northeast of Whittier Bridge at 520 Main 

Street in Amesbury, was determined eligible for the National Register 

by the SHPO in 1997. The building is a one-story, Craftsman-style 

bungalow with a cross-gable roof and projecting covered porch 

supported by square wood columns set on brick piers. This former gas 

station was constructed in 1938 by Nelson Smith and is significant for 

its associations with automobile history and as the only extant 

example of a 1930s gas station in Amesbury. 

The identification of historic resources included an uninventoried area 

south of the Essex-Merrimack Bridge along Spofford Street that may be 

eligible for listing in the National Register as a historic district. The 

Spofford Street area consists of approximately 12 residential buildings 

dating from the early to late-19th century, including examples in the 

Second Empire and Greek Revival styles, and turn-of-the-20th-century infill 

buildings. Views of the Whittier Bridge are limited from the Spofford Street 

area. 

Two inventoried individual historic resources near the project area are not 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The Tavern and Toll 

House/Harriet Prescott Spofford House (AME.300) on Deer Island in 

Amesbury immediately north of the Essex-Merrimack Bridge has a full view 

of the Whittier Bridge. The Spofford House, reportedly constructed in 

1792, is a 2½-story gambrel-roof, center-hall house with numerous 

twentieth-century alterations. The house was previously determined by 

MassDOT and the SHPO not to be eligible for individual listing. The 

Jonathan Eastman House (AME.305) at 297 Elm Street in Amesbury 

approximately 200 feet west of the on-ramp at Exit 58 that carries traffic 

from Route 110 (Macy Street) to southbound I-95. The two-story, five-bay, 

central-entrance house has two interior chimneys and is set on a dressed 

granite foundation. Reportedly constructed circa 1830, the house has 

elements of both the Federal and Greek Revival styles. Extensive 20thcentury 

alternations and conversion to commercial use have caused a loss 

of architectural integrity and the house does not meet the criteria for 

individual listing in the National Register. 

The other 10 highway bridges to be affected by the proposed project are 

exempt from Section 106 and Section 4(f) review under the terms of the 

2006 Interstate Highway System exemption (see Historic Reconnaissance 

Survey, PAL, Inc. (October 2009). 

9.5.2 Recreational Resources 

Publicly-owned recreational resources subject to Section 4(f) within the 

project area include the Maudslay State Park, and the Moseley Woods 

Park (see Figure 9-5A and Figure 9-5C). 

Maudslay State Park 

Maudslay State Park is a state-owned recreational area managed by the 

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The 

park, located at 74 Curzon Mill Road, Newburyport, is the former Moseley 

family estate on the Merrimack River. This park features 19th century 

gardens and plantings, rolling meadows, towering pines, and one of the 

largest naturally-occurring stands of mountain laurel in Massachusetts. 

Most breathtaking are the ornamental trees and masses of azaleas and 

rhododendrons that bloom in May and June. The park is known as an 

exquisite place for walking, biking, horseback riding and informal picnics. 

Moseley Woods Park 

Moseley Woods Park is a city-owned park located on the banks of the 

Merrimack on Merrimack Street in Newburyport. This park contains hiking 

trails, children’s playground, picnic area, and a pavilion featuring concerts 

in the summer. 

Conclusion 

There would be no impact to these parks from the construction of the 

Preferred Alternative; therefore, there is no Section 4(f) requirement for 

impacts to the parks. 

9.6 IMPACT ON SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES 

The proposed project would have an unavoidable Adverse Effect on the 

John Greenleaf Whittier Bridge (A-07-016=N-11-017), which is eligible for 

individual listing in the National Register, through the complete removal 

and replacement of the historic property. 

The MassDOT and FHWA have determined that the removal of the 

Whittier Bridge would not adversely affect the viewshed along the 

Merrimack River of the following three historic properties: National 

Historic Landmark Lowell’s Boat Shop in Amesbury, the National Registereligible 

Salisbury Point Historic District in Amesbury, or the Essex- 

Merrimack Bridge between Amesbury and Newburyport. 



Archaeological studies conducted for the project identified three areas as 

having moderate to high potential for archaeological sites. Following an 

intensive level archeological survey of these three locations (utilizing the 

methodology approved by the Massachusetts State Archeologist under 

Permit #3144) MassDOT concluded that no potentially significant 

archaeological sites are present in the project area, and no further survey 

would be necessary. The SHPO concurred. 

9.7 ALTERNATIVES TO AVOID SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES 

In accordance with the Section 4(f) Programmatic Evaluation for FHWA 

Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridge, MassDOT examined 

alternatives that would avoid impacts to Section 4(f) resources. These 

alternatives included: 

 

 

 

 

The No Build Alternative; 

The Build a New Structure at a Different Location without Affecting the 

Historic Integrity of the Old Bridge Alternatives; 

The Rehabilitate the Historic Bridge without Affecting the Historic 

Integrity of the Structure Alternative; and 

The Bridge Replacement Alternative. 

The results of the analysis of each of these alternatives are presented 

below. 

9.7.1 The No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve limited maintenance rather than 

replacing or rehabilitating the Whittier Bridge without constructing 

additional travel lanes or breakdown shoulders. The No Build Alternative 

would not meet the project’s Purpose and Need because this alternative 

would not improve safety and reduce congestion by providing additional 

travel lanes for an eight-lane cross-section in the project area. This 

alternative would also not meet current Interstate Highway design 

standards, reduce peak hour congestion, or address existing safety 

deficiencies in the project corridor. This alternative was dismissed because 

it would not satisfy the Purpose and Need of the project. 

9.7.2 The Build a New Structure at a Different Location without 

Affecting the Historic Integrity of the Old Bridge Alternatives 

MassDOT examined several alternatives for building a new structure at a 

different location without affecting the historic integrity of the old bridge. 

These alternatives generally involved a substantial realignment of I-95 

(either east or west of the existing alignment) and a reconstruction of one 

9-9



or more highway interchanges within the project area to enable the 

construction of a new bridge at a new location. These alternatives would 

have satisfied the project Purpose and Need (as described in Section 9.2) 

and would have been feasible, (i.e., it could have been constructed as a 

matter of sound engineering judgment). 

The Build a New Structure at a Different Location without Affecting the 

Historic Integrity of the Old Bridge Alternatives were examined early in the 

planning process. At that time, these alternatives were determined to be 

not prudent because they would have caused severe social, economic, and 

environmental impacts, would have caused severe disruption to 

established communities, and would have resulted in construction and 

right-of-way costs of extraordinary magnitude. As such, these alternatives 

were dismissed early in the project development process and are not 

described in Chapter 3, Project Alternatives. 

A more specific description of these alternatives and their environmental 

impacts is provided below. 

I-95 Realignment to the East 

This alternative would have involved realigning I-95 to the east from a 

point immediately north of the I-95/Route 113 Interchange in 

Newburyport to the I-95/Route 110 Interchange in Amesbury. 

This new alignment would have required using several recreational and 

historic Section 4(f) properties and would have had a substantial impact on 

privately owned recreation areas, and residential and commercial 

properties (see Figure 9-5A and Figure 9-5C) 

South of the Merrimack River, a realignment of I-95 to the east in the 

project area would have required using land within the Moseley Woods 

Park (an active recreation area owned by the City of Newburyport). The 

alignment would also have required acquiring land from the Evergreen 

Valley Golf Course and numerous residential properties in the Laurel Street 

area of Newburyport. 

North of the Merrimack River, a realignment of the I-95 to the east could 

have affected the National Register-eligible Smith’s Chain Bridge Filling 

Station #3 and commercial properties adjacent to Merrill Street in 

Amesbury. A realignment of I-95 to the east could also have affected the 

adjacent Main Street Bridge over the Merrimack (Hines Memorial Bridge), 

which is undergoing a $31 million reconstruction. 

I-95 Realignment to the West 

This alternative would have involved realigning I-95 to the west from a 

point immediately north of the I-95/Route 113 Interchange in 

Newburyport to the I-95/I-495 Interchange in Amesbury. 

This alignment would have required using several recreational and historic 

Section 4(f) properties and would have substantially affected privatelyowned 

residential and commercial properties in Amesbury. 

South of the Merrimack River, a realignment of I-95 to the west in this area 

would have required using land within the Maudslay State Park (a stateowned 

recreation area managed by the Massachusetts Department of 

Conservation and Recreation). The alignment would have been proximate 

or traversed a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

Zone I area that surrounds an active drinking water supply well (Well #1) 

for the City of Newburyport. 

North of the Merrimack River, a realignment of the I-95 to the west could 

have affected the Lowell’s Boat Shop, a National Historic Landmark. A 

realignment of I-95 to the west would also have affected numerous 

residential properties in the Evens Street/Clarks Road area of Amesbury 

and numerous commercial properties at the I-95/Route 110 Interchange. 

Overall, the Build a New Structure at a Different Location without Affecting 

the Historic Integrity of the Old Bridge Alternatives were dismissed. 

9.7.3 The Rehabilitation of the Historic Bridge without Affecting the 

Historic Integrity of the Structure Alternative 

MassDOT explored the Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge without 

Affecting the Historic Integrity of the Structure Alternative in the I-95 Over 

the Merrimack River, Feasibility Study – Rehabilitation of the John 

Greenleaf Whittier Memorial Bridge (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010). 

This assessment examined the feasibility of replacing all of the structural 

elements supporting the roadway surfaces including wire rope hangers, 

floor beams, stringers, deck, bracing and bracing gusset plates, and 

expansion joints. Other truss members and connections would be replaced 

or strengthened as needed, and seismic retrofit would be required, 

potentially involving replacing the piers. More details concerning the 

Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives are provided in Chapter 3, Project 

Alternatives. 

MassDOT determined that, because of the extensive deterioration of the 

existing structure, the temporary nature of the near-term repairs, and the 

indeterminate nature of much of the structure, that a complete lifeextending 

rehabilitation would be neither practical nor prudent. The 

existing bridge cannot be rehabilitated because of its original design 

details, which continue to be susceptible to environmental corrosion, 

leading to extensive deterioration, and indeterminate but anticipated 

damage caused by pack rust within built up plates and gusseted plate 

connections. 

Based on review of the costs of similar recent bridge rehabilitation projects 

in New England, and considering the extent of the deteriorated structural 

bridge elements that would need replacement, the cost of rehabilitating 

Whittier Bridge (including construction and subsequent demolition of a 

temporary detour bridge) would exceed the cost of constructing a 

replacement bridge by at least 20 percent; moreover, the rehabilitated 

bridge would remain functionally obsolete from a traffic standpoint since it 

would carry only three travel lanes in each direction, with no breakdown 

lanes. 

The Rehabilitation of the Historic Bridge without Affecting the Historic 

Integrity of the Structure Alternative would not satisfy the Purpose and 

Need of the project (as described in Section 9.2) because it would not 

provide a consistent eight-lane cross section and improved shoulders in 

the project area, would not reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on 

I-95 through the project area, and would not provide a safe 

accommodation for alternative modes of transportation through and 

within the project area. Further, this alternative is not prudent because it 

would result in additional construction and maintenance costs of 

extraordinary magnitude. This alternative was dismissed. 

9.7.4 The Bridge Replacement Alternative 

MassDOT selected the Network Tied Arch for the structural type of the 

new permanent replacement bridge. The new eight-lane bridge would 

carry four travel lanes northbound and southbound and have a 10-foot 

outside breakdown lane and a 4-foot inside shoulder to match the 

proposed cross section of the reconstructed I-95 approaches. 

This alternative also would include the improvement of a 4.25-mile 

segment of I-95 in Newburyport, Amesbury, and Salisbury by widening the 

interstate highway from its current six-lane configuration to eight lanes 

with full breakdown lanes, from immediately north of the I-95/Route 113 

Interchange in Newburyport to just north of the 1-495 connector ramp in 

Salisbury, which would match the cross section of I-95 north and south of 

the project area. 

In addition, the new Whittier Bridge would include a shared-use path, 

which would be 12-feet wide with two 2-foot shoulders. The path would 

be separated from the I-95 northbound breakdown lane by a barrier 

9-10

topped with chain link fencing to provide safe conditions for pedestrians 

and cyclists on the path. 

This alternative would satisfy the Purpose and Need by providing an eightlane 

cross section through the project area, reducing congestion and 

improving traffic flow in the project area, and providing safe 

accommodation for alternative modes of transportation through and 

within the project area. 

While this alternative would require the demolition of the National 

Register-eligible Whittier Memorial Bridge, it is the only feasible and 

prudent alternative that would meet the Purpose and Need of the project. 

This alternative was selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

9.8 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 

MassDOT proposes to mitigate the adverse effect to the Whittier Bridge 

through implementation of the measures agreed to by the Section 106 

parties (FHWA, MassDOT, ACHP, MHC, and representatives from 

Amesbury, Newburyport, and Salisbury) as described in the March 2, 2011, 

Section 106 MOA. 

In compliance with the Programmatic Section 4(f) for the Use of Historic 

Bridges 1 , the NR-eligible Whittier Bridge will be advertised in local 

newspapers as available for an alternate use, provided a responsible party 

agrees to relocate and preserve the bridge. 

The mitigation measures contained in the Section 106 MOA are described 

below. 

Historic Recordation 

 

 

1 

MassDOT will prepare a written report similar to a Historic American 

Engineering Record “narrative format” report, describing the bridge 

and discussing its engineering, architectural, and historical significance 

at the local, state, and national levels. The report shall be copied onto 

archival-quality paper. 

MassDOT will prepare archival photographic documentation in the 

form of black and white prints made from medium format (2½" x 2½") 

and large format (4" x 5") negatives. All photographs shall be identified 

on the back in pencil, with no affixed labels, unmounted but sleeved in 

archival-quality, unbuffered envelopes, the contents of each envelope 

Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Projects that Necessitate 

the Use of Historic Bridges, FHWA, July 5, 1983. 

 

 

 

 

 

identified and numbered in pencil on the envelope. The negatives shall 

be sleeved in appropriate archival-quality negative holders, which shall 

be suitably labeled. All photographs shall be keyed by number to a site 

plan printed on archival-quality paper. A list of photographic views 

printed on archival-quality paper also shall be included. 

Photographs will include, but will not be limited to aerial views of the 

existing bridge and its surroundings, views of the bridge’s elevations, 

deck, abutments, piers, and plaques, and context views showing the 

bridge in relation to its setting. Black and white prints also will be 

provided showing individual exterior views of the following structures 

and buildings: the Essex-Merrimack Bridge between Amesbury and 

Newburyport, the National Historic Landmark Lowell’s Boat Shop in 

Amesbury, as well as at least one streetscape view of the National 

Register-eligible Salisbury Point area in Amesbury. Views also shall be 

provided of the Whittier Memorial Bridge from the Salisbury Point 

area in Amesbury and from Moseley Pines Park in Newburyport. 

All photographic documentation described above will be completed 

prior to the commencement of any construction associated with the 

proposed bridge replacement project. 

MassDOT will include photocopies of selected pages from the original 

1951 construction plans for the Whittier Memorial Bridge, including a 

site plan, elevations, and details. Photocopies will be printed on 

archival-quality 11" x 17" paper, which will be folded in half for 

storage. 

MassDOT will submit one original set of photographic documentation 

(with negatives) to the SHPO for subsequent transmittal to the 

Massachusetts State Archives and one original set of photos (without 

negatives) to each of the three local historical commissions for 

transmittal to appropriate local repositories. One set of all paper 

documentation described above will be enclosed in an archival-quality 

file folder and included with each set of photographic documentation. 

Each set of documentation, including photographs, will be enclosed in 

an archival-quality box. 

A reproducible compact disc containing all photographic and paper 

documentation shall be included with each set of archival 

documentation. 

Review of New Replacement Bridges 

FHWA and MassDOT will afford the local historical commissions, the 

Whittier Working Group (WWG), and the SHPO the opportunity to review 

and comment on the sketch plans for the new replacement bridges, as 

those plans are developed. 

Salvage 



FHWA and MassDOT will ensure that certain ornamental artifacts on the 

existing bridge are salvaged for reuse on the replacement bridges or along 

the shared-use path, specifically including the four porcelain state seals on 

the bridge portals, the four carved granite state seals on the bridge 

wingwalls, and the two bronze state seal medallions and the two bronze 

builder’s plaques on the bridge end posts. Other artifacts from the bridge 

also may be salvaged for reuse on the replacement bridge or along the 

shared-use path, as determined to be appropriate by FHWA and MassDOT 

in consultation with the SHPO, the local historical commissions, and the 

WWG. 

Interpretive Signage 

FHWA, with the assistance of MassDOT, shall ensure that interpretive 

signage shall be prepared, designed, fabricated, and installed at the 

overlooks along the shared-use path on the new bridge and abutments 

and at the trailheads and termini of the shared-use path. At a minimum, 

these signs shall address the following themes: 1) the life, works, and time 

of John Greenleaf Whittier; 2) a transportation history of the lower 

Merrimack River, including a discussion of the design of the existing John 

Greenleaf Whittier Memorial Bridge; and 3) the natural heritage of the 

crossing, including a discussion of native wildlife. The text, graphics, and 

design of the signs, additional thematic subjects, and the total number and 

locations of the signs shall be determined by FHWA and MassDOT in 

consultation with the local historical commissions, the WWG, and the 

SHPO. 

Paint Color 

FHWA and MassDOT will choose an appropriate paint color for the 

structural steel on the replacement bridge in consultation with the local 

historical commissions, the WWG, and the SHPO. 

Post-Review Discoveries 

If FHWA or MassDOT determines that the undertaking will affect a 

previously unidentified property that may be eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places, or will affect a known historic property 

in an unanticipated manner, the FHWA and MassDOT shall make 

reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to such 

properties and determine actions that they can take to resolve adverse 

effects following the procedures in 36 CFR 800.13(b). In the event that a 

post-review discovery involves a property or properties that may have 

traditional cultural and religious significance to federally-recognized Indian 

tribes, FHWA, in coordination with MassDOT, shall consult with the 

appropriate Indian tribe(s) in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 

9-11



800.13(b) and established procedures for Section 106 tribal consultation 

for Massachusetts. If pre-contact cultural resources are discovered or 

unanticipated effects on pre-contact period resources are found, FHWA, in 

coordination with MassDOT, will consult with the appropriate federallyrecognized 

Indian tribes in accordance with established procedures for 

Section 106 tribal consultation for Massachusetts. 

9.9 COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS 

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

MassDOT has coordinated with the FHWA, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), the Massachusetts SHPO/MHC, the Native American 

tribes, the local historical commissions, and the WWG. The Massachusetts 

SHPO/MHC received and commented on the project’s ENF. Notification 

letters were sent to the Amesbury, Newburyport, and Salisbury historical 

commissions (each dated June 15, 2009) and to the Executive Director of 

the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs, the Wampanoag Tribe of 

Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the Mashpee Tribe (each dated July 27, 2009). 

To date, only the Salisbury Historical Commission has provided any written 

comments or concerns. 

9.10 FINDINGS 

Based on the above considerations, there are no prudent and feasible 

alternatives to the use of the National Register-eligible John Greenleaf 

Whittier Memorial Bridge. The proposed action includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm to the bridge. 

MassDOT examined several avoidance alternatives, including the No Build 

Alternative, the Build a New Structure at a Different Location without 

Affecting the Historic Integrity of the Old Bridge Alternatives, and the 

Rehabilitate the Historic Bridge without Affecting the Historic Integrity of 

the Structure Alternative. 

The No Build Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need because it 

would also not meet current Interstate Highway design standards, reduce 

peak hour congestion, or address existing safety deficiencies in the project 

corridor. 

MassDOT determined that building a new structure at a different location 

without affecting the historic integrity of the old bridge would satisfy the 

project’s Purpose and Need. However, this alternative would not be 

prudent because it would cause severe social, economic, and 

environmental impacts; would cause severe disruption to established 

communities; and would result in construction and right-of-way costs of 

extraordinary magnitude. 

MassDOT determined that rehabilitating the existing bridge would not 

meet the Purpose and Need of the project and would not be prudent 

because this alternative would retain unacceptable safety and operations 

problems at the bridge crossing and would result in additional construction 

and maintenance costs of extraordinary magnitude. 

MassDOT selected the Bridge Replacement Alternative. This alternative 

would satisfy the Purpose and Need by providing an eight-lane cross 

section through the project area, reducing congestion and improving 

traffic flow in the project area, and providing safe accommodation for 

alternative modes of transportation through and within the project area. 

While this alternative would require the demolition of the National 

Register-eligible Whittier Memorial Bridge, it would be the only feasible 

and prudent alternative that would meet the Purpose and Need. 

MassDOT will minimize the adverse effect of the John Greenleaf Whittier 

Bridge (A-07-016=N-11-017) replacement through adherence with the 

mitigation measures outlined in the approved MOA between FHWA, 

MassDOT, ACHP, MHC, and the municipalities of Amesbury, Newburyport, 

and Salisbury. 

9-12

Programmatic Section 4(f) - Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?