The Powder Point Bridge is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places due to its age, design and construction methods, according to a recent determination by the Federal Highway Safety Administration.
On Monday at the Selectboard’s meeting at Town Hall, Duxbury Town Manager René Read read a Sept. 28 email from Noel Mehlo, Jr., the environmental program manager for the Massachusetts division of the Federal Highway Safety Administration/U. S. Department of Transportation, to Frank Geisel of the Save Powder Point Bridge organization about the historical status of the bridge.
Save Powder Point Bridge is a grassroots, registered non-profit organization made up of Duxbury citizens hoping to prevent the demolition and replacement of the 40-year-old, 2,200-foot-long timber bridge, which has multiple failed pilings underneath it and requires hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual repairs. The bridge connects the town to Duxbury Beach.
The topic was not listed on the Selectboard’s formal meeting agenda but the discussion took place during the Town Manager’s Report section of the meeting. Read said he wanted the board to see the email as soon as it came in.
In the message, Mehlo said that on July 23, Save Powder Point Bridge had applied to be named as a Section 106 Consulting Party and had been granted this status on Aug.18. Section 106 is part of the federal National Historic Preservation Act that mandates that any project receiving federal assistance, approval or funding must formally review the potential impact on historic structures and accommodate historic preservation of them.
Save Powder Point Bridge had also requested that the FHWA forward a request for a determination of historical eligibility for the existing bridge to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places.
Mehlo said that after reviewing the documentation from the group as well as information and plans for a new bridge from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the FHWA determined the current bridge was not eligible to be declared historical and declined to forward it to the Keeper.
“It is our determination that the existing Powder Point Bridge over Duxbury Bay is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,” stated Mehlo in the email. “This agrees with the Nov. 22, 2024 eligibility opinion letter between MassDOT and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The original bridge, built in 1891, was eligible to be listed on the NRHP. That original bridge was heavily damaged by fire on June 11, 1985. The damage incurred by the fire elicited an inspection that determined the bridge was damaged beyond repair. The 1891 bridge was then demolished and was replaced by a new timber bridge in 1986. The new existing (1986) bridge has a different design and construction methodology from the original (1891) structure. It is currently in exceedingly poor engineering condition and is load restricted. Additional alterations were made to the existing bridge over time, including wrapping piers, installing gusset plates, and replacing damaged piers.”
Mehlo also said that after reviewing information provided by Save Powder Point Bridge and by MassDOT, there was not enough documentation to prove that the existing bridge meets the definition of a “traditional cultural place” under U.S. Department of Interior standards.
“While the FHWA acknowledges that the bridge is important to the local community and serves as a local landmark, insufficient documentation has been provided to support that the bridge is associated with the cultural beliefs, customs or practices rooted in the community’s history or is important for maintaining the community’s cultural identity,” stated Mehlo in his email.
Save Powder Point Bridge is allowed to provide additional information that would “sufficiently satisfy” the definition of a traditional cultural place, which is laid out by the National Park Service. Mehlo said it should work with MassDOT under the Section 106 process to do this.
If the group can provide this evidence, Mehlo said the FHWA would be willing to reconsider and move the process forward to the Keeper of the National Historic Preservation.
“We ask that you see this as an opportunity to continue to voice your needs and desires regarding the project as it moves forward and thank you for bringing this to our attention,” stated Mehlo.
Read said he was unaware that the Save Powder Point Bridge had applied to be a Section 106 Consulting Party.
Chairwoman Amy MacNab wanted the Selectboard to send a letter supporting the bridge’s historical eligibility, but Read said that would be “a change in direction from where the board currently stands.”
Board member Cynthia Ladd-Fiorini said they had been waiting for a formal Section 106 determination to allow the board to have enough information to make a decision on the bridge’s future.
Read said he recently received a 12-page long list of questions from the town’s Powder Point Advisory Committee that he would send to the Selectboard. He added that he was “shocked at its length” and that “it went way beyond” the scope of the Powder Point Bridge Advisory Committee’s charge.
While Selectboard members said they would like to see the bridge get on the National Register of Historic Places and get a final determination from the Keeper, they acknowledged that they couldn’t discuss the topic that night as it wasn’t on their agenda.
“There are some things unsettled here,” said Selectboard member Michael McGee. “This isn’t on the agenda tonight. We need to put it on the agenda for further deliberation and allow the public to come in here as well.”
Selectboard member Brian Glennon said it was “a valid communication” to tell Read the information they would like provided to them when they meet on this topic again, possibly in two weeks.