Magazine Hill: Still a work in progress

Downtown area is not yet a blast; cost is rising

By JIM HAGGERTY

Published: Thursday, December 31, 2009 WOBURN - The decade will end tonight for the Woburn Redevelopment Authority who have a regular, year-end meeting with a host of items on their agenda, including the perennial Magazine Hill parking issue.

Magazine Hill is a 1.4 acre parcel "with crescent-shaped bedrock prominence that occupies about 75% of the site," according to GEI Consultants Inc., a Unicorn Park consulting firm in East Woburn.

The WRA, the Mass. Historical Commission (MHC), local historical groups, along with the Woburn-based Allen & Major Engineering firm have been at the forefront of putting parking on the west side of Main Street in downtown Woburn near the old First Burial Grounds.

The issues have been ledge and disruption of the burial site of late.

The cost of the project could jump from $1.78 million to $2.25 million, according to expert reports.

The MBTA would be included in plans to develop the area as a park-and-ride and park facility with 92 parking places. The project will be funded by a $1.5 million SAFETEA-LU appropriation and a $376,000 matching contribution by the MBTA.

Last spring, the WRA was hopeful of going out on bids quite soon...but hasn’t happened.

Presently, the city of Woburn owns the site. The WRA is acting as the arm of the city in directing the project.

Still, it is an agonizing, step-by-step process by the WRA and its five-member board, who have the ledge and history as major concerns as it enters another decade. The idea, born in the 1970s, has plodded along over the years with residents in a no-man’s-land of "if it happens, it happens.

At its November meeting, Executive Director Donald Borchelt addressed the concerns of the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s review and its letter to the Federal Transit Administration regarding "the Magazine Hill Categorical Exclusion Checklist, executed by Brona Simon, MHC Executive Director, and dated June 30, 2009." "The MHC expressed concerns that the rock excavation and construction of the Magazine Hill Park & Ride Facility will have the potential to cause direct and adverse effects on the significant historic cemetery features, including but not limited to the 17th and 18th century slate gravemarkers that are highly susceptible to damage from vibration."

Based upon the geotechnical report prepared by GEI Consultants, Inc. in September, 2000, it was the WRA’s original position that the precautions which were to be taken to protect the many structures surrounding Magazine Hill from damage due to over-blast and vibration would also be sufficient to protect the historic artifacts in the burial ground, said GEI in their report to the WRA. "I provided you with a copies of the GEl report when we met on August 10th, and I trust that the report has been forwarded to MHC through the appropriate channels," reported GEI Project Manager Steve J. Sarandis, P.E.

GEI went on to say: "Given MHC’s extensive experience with other similar projects, the. agency’s concerns regarding the Magazine Hill project are well-taken. It was through the efforts of the WRA that the First Burial Ground was placed on the National Register of Historic Places, and we readily recognize the wisdom of erring on the side of caution in the protection of this vitally important historic asset."

The WRA’s Borchelt also reported that the board should be aware of the Leo Realty Trust’s ledge and excavation labors at the old 371 Main Street site of the WRA in the heart of downtown Woburn over the last several months.

Paper work...

The WRA’s paper work in getting into an implementation phase, however, could take longer than the blasting and drilling itself!

The Mass. Historical Commission specifically requested three items in its review letter.

These are outlined below, with a summary of the WRA’s proposed response.

I. Engineering Study: The MHC review letter states that "MHC requests that an engineering study be conducted to evaluate then potential effects of the project on the cemetery’s significant historic features."

The WRA, through its primary design consultant, Allen & Major Associates, did obtain the above referenced geotechnical report in September, 2000. Unfortunately, this report was not referenced in the Categorical Exclusion Checklist, and thus MHC was not aware of its conclusions and recommendations when the review letter was prepared. GEI presumes that this report has now been forwarded to MHC.

The report recommends that the rock removal first be attempted through "controlled blasting," with ongoing monitoring with a minimum of three seismographs for each blast. The report notes that blast vibrations and air overpressure must be maintained within the limits established by the Massachusetts Board of Fire Prevention Regulations (527 CMR 13), and if this proves impossible either through initial test blasts or during ongoing excavation, then more expensive, non-blasting techniques will have to be employed, including hoe-ramming, splitting with hydraulic wedges, or the use of expansive grouts. Should hoe-ramming be employed, GEI recommends that the resulting continuous vibrations "should be limited to 5mm/sec (0.2 in/sec) at existing buildings." Based upon the geology of the site, GEL estimated that these more conservative approaches would have to be employed within 15 meters of adjacent buildings, to prevent window breakage and other cosmetic or structural damage.

Given that the historic artifacts in the First Burial Ground were beyond this 15 meter setback, the GEI report did not specifically address the impact of rock excavation activities upon historic objects located in the cemetery. In order to address MHC’s concerns, the WRA solicited and approved a proposal from GEL to review the original report , taking into account the concerns raised by the Commission in the review letter. A copy of this proposal is attached. Based upon the results of that review, GEI will revise its recommendations if necessary, and will be cooperating with the Conservator recruited by the WRA in the preparation of the Survey and Protection Plan described below. All GEL additional recommendations regarding rock excavation will be incorporated into the project specifications.

2.Survey and Protection Plan: In the review letter, the MHC suggested that "a survey of gravestones by an experienced gravestone conservator and a plan to monitor to prevent damage and to conserve the fragile, historically significant cemetery features should be undertaken." GEI attached a proposal for a Survey and Protection Plan from Dario Fiorentini, the Conservator, who completed the conservation work on the Baldwin Monument several years ago. Note that Mr. Fiorentini’s proposal includes the implementation of some immediate emergency conservation measures during the survey process, which accounts for some of the cost. This proposal was approved by the WRA at its meeting of November 3rd.

3.Reconnaisance Archeological Survey: MHC also stated that a "reconnaissance archeological survey (950 CMR 70) should be conducted for the project impact area.

The goal of the investigation is to evaluate the complete project impact areas, and specifically identify any portions of the project area which may still retain significant integrity to require subsurface archaeological testing in advance of project related impacts."

Prior to receipt of the MHC letter, the WRA retained the services of James Bradley of Archlink, the archaeologist was retained by the WRA during the completion of improvements to the First Burial Ground in 2006. In May, 2009, Bradley reviewed the project plans, the GEI report, and walked the project site. In his opinion letter dated June 5, 2009, Bradley stated that due to the predominance of ledge on the site, that he was "confident that within the proposed project area, human burials will not be found.

A of Mr. Bradley’s letter was given to the WRA, and. Bradley does not believe that a full reconnaissance archeological survey under 950 CMR 70 is required in this instance. The WRA still believes that retaining the services of an archeologist to be on site during excavation activities, in the unlikely event that a subsurface historical resource is encountered, is the prudent way to proceed.