Docstoc

10 Historic Archae Resources

Document Sample
10 Historic Archae Resources Powered By Docstoc
					MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Chapter 10

Historic/Archaeological Resources

10.1 IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This chapter summarizes the findings of an intensive archaeological survey conducted for the DEIR/EA. The complete report is contained in Appendix J and copies have been forwarded to the MA Historical Commission and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah for review and comment.1 10.1.1 Scope and Authority As requested by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and subsequently by the Secretary in her Certificate on the ENF, an intensive archaeological survey (950 CMR 70) was conducted for project impact areas in order to identify any historic or archaeological resources that may be affected by the proposed airport improvements.2 The survey was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800) and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C, as amended by chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 (950 CMR 71). The survey protocols utilized were in accordance with State Archaeologist’s Permit #2593 issued by the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC). All archaeological survey work was undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, September 29, 1983); the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s handbook, Treatment of Archaeological Properties (1980); and the MHC’s handbook, Public Planning and Environmental Review: Archaeology and Historic Preservation (1985). The technical report follows guidelines established by the National Park Service in The Recovery of Scientific, Prehistoric, Historic and Archaeological Data (36 CFR Part 66 Appendix A) and the MHC. 10.1.2 Research Design and Fieldwork Methodologies The goal of the intensive (locational) archaeological survey was to locate and identify any significant Native American (prehistoric or historic) and Euro-American cultural
Letters dated March 2, 2004, from Deborah C. Cox to Brona Simon of the MA Historical Commission and Beverly Wright of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah. Letters contained in Appendix J. 2 MHC letter, Brona Simon to Richard Domas, May 6, 2003. 10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-1
1

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

resources that might be impacted by project construction activities. To accomplish this objective, three research strategies were used: Archival research, including a literature search, map research and local informant interviews; Field investigations, consisting of a walkover and subsurface testing; and Laboratory processing and analyses of cultural materials. The archival research and walkover survey provided the information needed to stratify the project area into zones of expected archaeological sensitivity. Archaeological sensitivity is defined as the likelihood for prehistoric and historic period resources to be present based on various categories of information. These categories include: Known locational, functional and temporal characteristics of identified prehistoric and historic sites in the project area or vicinity; and Project-specific, local and regional environmental data used in conjunction with existing project area conditions observed during the walkover. Subsurface testing was then conducted in areas ranked as having high and moderate potential to contain intact archaeological deposits and where construction impacts will occur. Laboratory processing and analysis of all recovered cultural materials were then used to interpret the nature of past human activities. This interpretation enables an evaluation of their potential significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 10.1.3 Archaeological Significance and Historic Contexts The different phases of archaeological investigation (reconnaissance, intensive survey, site examination and data recovery) reflect preservation planning standards for the identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of cultural resources developed by the National Park Service (NPS 1983). This planning structure pivots around the eligibility of cultural resources for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register is the official federal list of properties that have been studied and found worthy of preservation. The results of an intensive (locational) survey and site examination are used to make recommendations about the significance and eligibility of any resource. The standards used to determine the significance of cultural resources, a task required of federal agencies, have been the guidelines provided by the NPS (36 CFR 60): the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Four criteria are listed by which the “quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association:
10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-2

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

A. “That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. “That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. “That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. “That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.” (36 CFR 60) Most archaeological sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places have been determined eligible under Criteria A or D. For eligibility under these criteria a number of issues must be addressed, including the kind of data contained in the site, the relative importance of research topics that can be addressed by the data, whether these data are unique or redundant and the current state of knowledge relating to the research topic(s). (McManamon 1990:14–15) A defensible argument must establish that a site “has important legitimate associations and/or information value based upon existing knowledge and interpretations that have been made, evaluated and accepted.” (McManamon 1990:15) The criteria used to evaluate the significance of cultural resources are applied in relation to the historical contexts of the resources. A historical context is defined as follows:
At minimum, a historical context is a body of information about past events and historic processes organized by theme, place and time. In a broader sense, an historic context is a unit of organized information about our prehistory and history according to the stages of development occurring at various times and places. (NPS 1985)

Historical contexts provide an organizational format that groups information about related historical properties, based on a theme, geographic limits and chronological period. A historical context may be developed for Native American, historic and/or modern cultural resources. Each historical context is related to the developmental history of an area, region or theme (e.g., agriculture, transportation, waterpower) and it identifies the significant patterns that particular resource can represent.

10 Historic/Archaeological Resources

10-3

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Historical contexts are developed by: Identifying the concept, time period and geographic limits for the context; Collecting and assessing existing information about these limits; Identifying locational patterns and current conditions of the associated property types; Synthesizing the information in a written narrative; and Identifying information needs. “Property types” are groupings of individual sites or properties based on common physical and associative characteristics. They serve to link the concepts presented in the historical contexts with properties illustrating those ideas. (NPS 1983:44719) A summary of an area’s history can be developed by a set of historical contexts. This formulation of contexts is a logical first step in the design of any archaeological survey. It is also crucial to the evaluation of individual properties in the absence of a comprehensive survey of a region. (NPS 1983:9) The result is an approach that structures information collection and analyses. This approach further ties work tasks to the types and levels of information required to identify and evaluate potentially important cultural resources. The following research contexts have been developed to organize the data relating to the Native American and Euro-American cultural resources identified within the proposed project area: Native American Land Use and Settlement on Martha’s Vineyard, ca. 12,500 to 300 years before present (B.P.); and Historic Land Use and Settlement Patterns of Edgartown and Tisbury/West Tisbury, ca. A.D. 1650 to Present. These historical contexts, along with expected property types and locational patterns, are discussed in detail in Chapters 4 and 5 of the complete archaeological report (see Appendix J). The potential research value of the known and expected prehistoric and historic archaeological resources identified within the MVY project areas are evaluated in terms of these historical contexts. This evaluation, along with management recommendations, is presented in Chapter 6 in Appendix J. 10.1.4 Results and Recommendations 10.1.4.1 Results of the Intensive Survey Walkover Survey and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment. The first step in the fieldwork portion of the intensive survey was a walkover inspection of all project areas. This step was used to refine the initial sensitivity assessment and to select specific
10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-4

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

locations for the placement of subsurface testing units. Table 10-1 presents the results of the sensitivity assessment, along with descriptions of existing conditions.
Table 10-1 Archaeological Sensitivity of Airport Improvement Program Project Locations

Project No./Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 Taxiway A to FAA Standards Southeast Ramp Airline Road Fire Flow Capacity to Support Hangar Development in SE Ramp Connector Road and Improvements to Airport Access Road Terminal 2/ARFF including Site Work, Parking, Circulation and Curb Improvements to the Main Terminal Acquisition/Relocation of Hangars, Southwest Ramp Southwest Ramp

Existing Conditions Extensively disturbed by airport facilities, current paved runway area Some extensively disturbed areas from soil removal/dumping; some forested areas Extensively disturbed by construction/use of corporate park Extensively disturbed by construction/use of existing fire training facility Some extensively disturbed areas; some forested/undisturbed areas Extensively disturbed by airport facilities, current buildings, paved parking and landscaping Extensively disturbed by airport facilities, current buildings, paved parking and landscaping Extensively disturbed by airport facilities, current buildings, paved parking and landscaping Some disturbed areas from training, airport maintenance; some undisturbed/forested areas Some disturbed areas from soil removal/ dumping; some forested/undisturbed areas Extensively disturbed from soil removal/dumping Some disturbed areas from soil removal/ dumping; some forested/undisturbed areas Forested/undisturbed area Some disturbed areas from soil removal/ dumping; some forested/undisturbed areas

Archaeological Sensitivity Low Low and Moderate/High Low Low Low and Moderate/High Low

Subsurface Testing None Transects L, M, N None None Transect F None

7

Low

None

8

Low

None

9

Fire Fighting Training Facility

Low and Moderate/High Low and Moderate/High Low Low and Moderate/High Moderate/High Low and Moderate/High

Transects H, I, J, K Transect G None Transects D, E, O Transects A, B, C Transects D, E, O

10 11 12 13 14

Multimodal Center/Rental Car Consolidation Facility Remote Airport Parking Future, Related or Induced Growth Obstruction Removal at Approach to Runway 6 County Jail

10 Historic/Archaeological Resources

10-5

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Historic and archival research completed prior to the start of fieldwork determined that no previously documented archaeological sites were present within the airport property. A review of existing conditions maps and previously completed environmental studies determined that portions of the airport property have been subjected to extensive development and reuse as a military air installation in the mid-twentieth century and as a commercial air field and business park in the modern period. (Weston and Sampson 1974) The walkover survey determined that moderate to high sensitivity proposed impact areas included secondary scrub oak woodlands at the southwestern, northern, eastern and south-central portions of the airport. Proposed project impact areas assessed as having low archaeological sensitivity included the active runway corridor, the detention basin located on the northern edge of the proposed county jail parcel, the airport business park, the proposed corporate hangar area, areas of current airport buildings, parking lots and utilities and areas of extensive stripping and dumping (Table 10-1). The existing conditions within all proposed project impact areas were photo-documented using black-and-white and color film and digital imaging.3 Subsurface Testing. One hundred ten (110) 50-x-50-centimeter test pits were excavated in portions of the proposed project areas determined to have moderate/high archaeological sensitivity (Figure 10-1). The testing was completed along 15 linear transects (Transect A–O) with test pits placed at 10-meter intervals from one another. Areas investigated included the proposed obstruction removal area on the approach to Runway 6 (Transects A–C), the county jail airport access/connector road (Transects D– F, O), the rental car consolidation center (Transect G), the fire fighting training facility (Transect H–K) and the southeast ramp area (Transects L–N). No cultural materials were recovered during the intensive survey. Test pit soil profiles were generally uniform within wooded project areas, characterized by a natural light to dark gray silty sand A/podzol horizon and dark yellow-brown silty medium sand A/topsoil horizon to an average depth of 15 cm below the ground surface (cmbs), overlying strong brown silty sand B1 and yellow-brown silty coarse gravelly sand B2 subsoils. No evidence of a plow zone was noted in the tested areas. Subsurface disturbance was documented by stripped A/topsoil and B1/subsoils and by mixed A and B soils in several sections of the project area. Transect A through C (Obstruction Removal at Runway 6) [Project #13]. Transects A through C were placed in the wooded parcel along the southwest corner of the project area. These transects were oriented roughly south/north and staggered approximately 15 to 20 m apart (Figure 10-1). Transect A (10 test pits) was placed along the airport perimeter fence and Transect B (10 test pits) was placed at the end of Runway 6. Transect C (4 test pits) was located between A and B. Twenty-four test pits were excavated in this area.
3 Photos are not included in this summary chapter. See complete archaeological report in Appendix J for photos and other imagery. 10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-6

EXISTING 41° 23' 53.11" N 70° 37' 13.03" W

EL.67.34'
1

70

TRANSECT J
M
1

TRANSECT K
5 2
1

60

W E S E T D T G IS A R B T U O W RY N

60

T

5

TRANSECT I

6

1

TRANSECT H

N

7 0

50

R VO

CT URE S T RU

RE S T

RI C

T IO N

MAG. DECLINATION 16 W (1985)

LI

M

IT

NSTAR SUBSTATION

Y A IW X TA
T A XI W A Y E

- 75' X 3,297'

" "E

FUTURE TAXIWAY

S49°18'39"E

3297.32'

60

60

60

C 75' X 3302' RUNWAY L 15-33

WIND CONE EXISTING ARP

VOR

ACCESS ROAD TO NW RAMP

TRANSECT A
1

TRANSECT C
10
1

PR O PO SE D

R/W

0 6
D E D A LT T R G HA EN E D SP EM A AV

50

P

5

10

INTERNAL SHUTTLE ROAD

T A XI W A Y

41° 23' 09.66" N 70° 37' 12.27" W

E

EXISTING

GLIDE SLOPE

VASI

VASI

/RVR
60

EXISTING 41° 23' 50.93" N 70° 36' 25.19" W

1

EL.56.27'

LOCALIZER

PAPI

R/W 6-24 - 100' X 5,500'
TAXIWAY D

100' X 5500' RUNWAY
60

EL.63.03'

MALSR

TAXIWAY C

TAXIWAY B

TRANSECT B

50

TAXIWAY "B"

TAXIWAY "C"

TAXIWAY A

TAXIWAY "A" (EAST)
TAXIWAY A (EAST)

EQUIPMENT
SHED

FARM ACCESS ROADS

FREIGHT

TRANSECT N
1

TRANSECT L
7

B

FUEL

10

A

R

N

EL.57.43'

1

E

S

R

N W TO R A G ED T ES W Y R U SB TI

TURF TIEDOWNS

50

SHED

STUB TAXIWAYS

BASIN

70° 36' 40.11" W

O

10

TRANSECT M

A

EQUIPMENT

&

41° 23' 31.90" N

D

DETENTION

EXISITNG

D A O R

TRANSECT D
50

B A R N E S

20

,0

1
00 sq .ft.

R O A D

W E S T E D T G IS A B R U T O R W Y N

MVXH-004-FIG10-1 (jlc)

B

IC

Y

C

TRANSECT O

E

P

A

T

7

H

L

Figure 10-1. Location of intensive survey subsurface testing locations within the Martha's Vineyard Airport Improvement Program project area, MA.

TRANSITION ZONE

1

SEWAGE TREATMENT OPEN SAND PLANT BED
5 0
12

P A L
KEY:
PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS PROPOSED NEW PAVEMENT

50

TRANSECT G
4 0

50

DETENTION
1

50

BASIN
9

1

EXISTING BUILDINGS AREAS OF DISTURBANCE

99 LO 2.2,28 T A 8 8s ac q re .ft. s

Archaeological Testing:
50 x 50cm Test Pit: with no cultural material

50

Bld

g.

51 LO T 1.1,8 0 B 9 2 a c sq re .ft. s
3,7 50

50

7
sq .ft. Bld

g.

51 LO 1.1,8 0 TC 9 2 ac sq re .ft. s

TRANSECT E

400

0

400

1

Revisions / Modifications / Source

Date

PAL modified: Add

archaeological testing

12-8-03 10-15-03 12-02

Hoyle, Map data received from: Tanner and Associates, Inc.
1

Map source: Hoyle, Tanner and Associates, Inc.

5

TRANSECT F

The base information contained in this map was supplied to PAL as a professional courtesy for informational and illustrative purposes only. PAL makes no warranties, either express or implied, regarding the fitness or suitability of this map for any other purpose than to depict the location

and/or results of cultural resource investigations conducted by PAL.

Figure 10-1

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

This page left blank intentionally.

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Transect D through F, O (Connector Road/Airport Access Road and County Jail) [Projects #5 and 14]. Transects D and E were placed in an area of scrub oak and pine between an existing parking lot/gravel area and south of a large area of disturbance associated with a large detention basin within the proposed location of the county jail. Both transects were oriented east/west, with nine test pits excavated along Transect D and seven excavated along Transect E (Figure 10-1). Transect F (five test pits) was placed within the proposed connector road, approximately 250 m southeast of Transect E. The transect was excavated on the south side of an existing dirt road that opens into a wide area of disturbance and spoil piles to the east. Transect O (seven test pits) was placed along this road as well, 200 m west of TF-5. A total of 28 test pits was excavated in this area. Transect G (Multimodal Center/Rental Car Consolidation Facility) [Project #10]. This long transect was excavated along the south side of a paved road that connects Barnes Road with the light industrial park in the eastern portion of the project area (Figure 10-1). Twelve test pits were excavated along Transect 12 within low brush and scrub oak vegetation. Some small areas of modern disturbance associated with the industrial park were noted in this area (i.e., wells, drainages, etc.). The proposed remote employee parking and Steamship Authority parking lot areas are located just southeast of the proposed rental car consolidation facility. These parcels consist of large areas that have been stripped of top and subsoils and used as dumping grounds in the modern period. Transects H through K (Fire Fighting Training Facility) [Project #9]. These transects were placed in the northwest corner of the project area at the end of Runway 15 in an area currently used for fire training (Figure 10-1). Large portions of this area have been modified through stripping and controlled burns and there are large vehicles (i.e., bus, plane, etc.), present as well. However, areas immediately adjacent, particularly to the north and west, remained intact and suitable for testing. Transects H (six test pits) and I (five test pits) were placed north of the runway within low, extremely dense vegetation, suggesting that the area had been clearcut in the past. However, soil profiles revealed natural sandy soils (see above). Transects J (five test pits) and K (two test pits) were placed west of Transects H and I in a wooded area, revealing somewhat disturbed, compact soil horizons. Soils were compact and mottled and along Transect J contained fill to approximately 35 cmbs overlying natural soil horizons. A total of 19 test pits was excavated in this area. Transects L through N (Southeast Ramp) [Project #2]. These three transects were placed in a wooded area that is bounded by the industrial park to the south and Runway 6-24 to the north. Large portions of this area have been extensively disturbed, particularly to the west. Seven test pits were excavated along Transect L and 10 test pits were excavated along both Transect M and N (Figure 10-1). Twenty-seven test pits were excavated within this area.
10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-9

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

10.1.4.2 Recommendations The combined results of archival research, a walkover survey and subsurface testing did not identify any archaeological resources within the Martha’s Vineyard Airport Improvement Program project areas. Although the initial sensitivity assessment suggested that Native American groups might have utilized the general project area, the lack of fresh water sources probably would have made other nearby locations more attractive. The proposed project is unlikely to affect any significant archaeological deposits; therefore, no further archaeological investigation is recommended for the proposed Martha’s Vineyard Airport Improvement Program project areas. 10.2 IMPACTS TO NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES OR PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER 10.2.1 National Register Properties Procedures in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 are used to evaluate impacts to historic, archaeological, architectural and cultural resources. The following criteria are used as a guideline to assist in determining if there would be an adverse impact on a National Register-listed or -eligible property: Destruction or alteration of all or part of a property. Isolation from, or alteration of, its surrounding environment. Introduction of visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property and its setting. Transfer or sale of a Federally owned property without adequate conditions or restrictions regarding preservation, maintenance or use. Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction. National Register properties in Dukes County are listed in Table 10-2 and located in Figure 10-2. Properties listed on the State Register of Historic Places in Edgartown and West Tisbury, the two communities within which the airport lies, are noted in Table 10-3. As indicated in Figure 10-2, no listed property is in the vicinity of the airport. As the 65 DNL noise contour, the measure of noise impact on residential properties, remains on the airport proper, there are no airport noise impacts to the listed properties located at some distance from the airport.

10 Historic/Archaeological Resources

10-10

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

This page left blank intentionally.

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Similarly, airport-related traffic in the 2010 Build scenario differs by only 794 ADT from the traffic projected for the 2010 No-Build scenario, and this relatively small traffic increase is dispersed over the island roadway network. Accordingly, there are no perceived impacts due to airport-related traffic on listed National Register properties.
Table 10-2 National Register Properties, Dukes County Town Oak Bluffs Edgartown Oak Bluffs Edgartown Edgartown Oak Bluffs Aquinnah Aquinnah Oak Bluffs Address 134 Circuit Ave. Chappaquiddick Island Lighthouse Rd. Off N. Water St. Bounded by Water St. (N and S) and Pease’s Point Way (N and S) 33 Oak Bluffs Ave. South Rd. and Church St. Lighthouse Rd.
Roughly bounded by Cottage Park, Quequechan, Clinton, Dukes, County, Siloam, Lake and Central Aves.

Property The Arcade Cape Poge Light East Chop Light Edgartown Harbor Light Edgartown Flying Horses Gay Head — Aquinnah Town Center Historic District Gay Head Light Oak Bluffs

Date Listed 08/05/1994 09/28/1987 06/15/1987 06/15/1987 12/09/1983 08/27/1979 02/26/1999 06/15/1987 12/14/1987

West Tisbury Vineyard Haven Gosnold Oak Bluffs Oak Bluffs Tisbury Tisbury

Edgartown-West Tisbury Rd. Beach St. Naushon Island 42 Ocean Ave. Bounded by Circuit, Kennebec and Narragansett Aves. And Grove St. W. Chop Rd. Williams St. from Wood Lawn Ave. to 24 Williams St.

Old Mill Ritter House Tarpaulin Cove Light Tucker, Dr. Harrison A., Cottage Union Chapel West Chop Light Station Tisbury

03/29/1984 12/06/1977 06/15/1987 10/22/1990 06/07/1990 06/15/1987 01/27/1983

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior Web Page (www.doi.gov)

10 Historic/Archaeological Resources

10-13

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Table 10-3 State Register Properties in Edgartown and West Tisbury # of Properties 1 1 1 1 1 1 268 514 2

Town/Property Edgartown Cape Poge Light Edgartown Harbor Lighthouse

Designation NRTRA NRIND NRDIS LHD NRTRA NRIND LHD NRDIS NRTRA

Date Listed 9/28/1987 9/28/1987 12/09/1983 4/14/1987 6/15/1987 6/15/1987 4/14/1987 12/09/1983 6/15/1987

Edgartown Local Historic District Edgartown Village Historic District Lighthouses of Massachusetts, Thematic Group Nomination West Tisbury Martha’s Vineyard Agricultural Society
The Old Mill

LHD PR LHD NRIND LHD

11/30/1982 1/31/1997 11/30/1982 3/29/1984 4/11/2000

1 1 1 1 118

West Tisbury Historic District

Source: State Register of Historic Places, 2003 Edition, Massachusetts Historical Commission. Updates to State Register through April 2004 checked on-line at www.state.ma.us/sec/mhc.

10.2.2 Properties Eligible for the National Register 10.2.2.1 Off-Airport Properties Off-airport impacts of the proposed airport improvement program are limited to traffic impacts at several intersections located at some distance from the airport. No existing or properties eligible for the National Register were identified in proximity to the affected intersections.4 Therefore, there are no properties within the project impact area eligible for inclusion in the National Register. 10.2.2.2 On-Airport Properties Construction of the GA Terminal/ARFF complex (Project #6) will require the demolition of an existing garage. This garage structure dates to the origins of the airport and its early days as a U.S. military facility in World War II. Origins of the Airport. In 1941, the U.S. Navy initiated construction of a series of training facilities along the East and West Coasts, which included Martha’s Vineyard as one of the sites selected in Southeastern New England. Since the island’s only small
The Inventory of Historic Assets of the Commonwealth was examined at the Offices of the MA Historical Commission, 220 Morrissey Blvd, Boston MA. See References at end of chapter. 10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-14
4

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

airstrip, located in the outlying area Katama, was not suitable for expansion, the Navy acquired 685 acres by condemnation between 1944 and 1948 for construction of the Martha’s Vineyard Naval Auxiliary Air Station (NAAS), an auxiliary airfield for Quonset Naval Air Station in Rhode Island.5 Between 1942 and 1943, the NAAS built approximately 38 buildings, which included the garage structure in question, magazines, barracks, mess hall, administration buildings, an aircraft machine gun firing range and a large hangar (Figure 10-3). The NAAS was built to support the final phase of training for naval aviators and air crews prior to their deployment to aircraft carriers in the Pacific. A total of 21 squadrons – including torpedo, fighter and two Carrier Air Groups – and thousands of men completed intensive training for six weeks that included navigation, target practice, night air combat and simulated night carrier landings and takeoffs.

Generator Building (Existing ARFF Building)

Figure 10-3 Martha’s Vineyard Naval Auxiliary Air Station, c. 1943
Source: Office of the Airport Manager

This history of the airfield is from a Project Fact Sheet contained in the Restoration Information Management System – Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) dated October 1994/revised May 20, 1997. The database is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ordnance and Explosives Mandatory Center of Expertise (MCX) and Design Center. The fact sheet is at the following web site: (www.hnd.usace.army.mil/oew/factshts/factshts/marthav.pdf). 10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-15
5

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

In 1947, the land and aviation facilities were leased to Dukes County for use as a public airport, utilizing many of the wartime buildings and runways. The U.S. Navy declared the airport excess property in October 1957, and in August 1959, the Federal government transferred all of its interests in the airport to the County of Dukes County. Currently, MVY is the only airport in Massachusetts owned and operated by a county. The property remained largely unchanged until the late 1990’s, when the construction of a new passenger terminal building and airport business park were completed. For the new passenger terminal building and related parking and circulation roadways, approximately 12 buildings dating to the airport’s World War II days were demolished. [Note: Additional WWII buildings were demolished prior to this.] The garage structure remains as the largest building remaining from the airport’s early days as a military airfield. Other remaining buildings are a few isolated dilapidated storage sheds scheduled for demolition. Architectural/Historical/Cultural Significance of the Garage. The building, presently housing Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting Facility (ARFF) equipment and serving as the airport’s maintenance garage (as well as airport staff changing/locker rooms and lunchroom), housed the main power generator boilers for NAAS. Judging from the smokestack alongside the building, the boilers must have been coal- or diesel-fired. The boilers have long since been removed. In its evolution to its present multi use, the building structure itself has been altered considerably. An extension in the 1970’s added additional garage bays and altered the remaining structure in various Eastern façade of ARFF Building other ways. The building today exhibits a mish-mash of window styles: one-over-one (double-hung), one-over-one with lower casement and a number of bay windows. Various views of the building as it appears today accompany this narrative. A structural engineer examined the garage structure in the course of considering the future use of the structure in the airport master plan.6 The engineer noted the existing complex consists of three main areas, reflecting additions and use changes over time. The three identified areas are as follows:

6 Technical memorandum entitled “Field Visit & MSBC Code Review” and dated April 2001. Prepared by Chris Brennan of TAMS and forwarded to Jonathan McCredie of TAMS. TAMS was a member of the Hoyle, Tanner master plan study team. 10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-16

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

1. Snow Removal Equipment Storage/Shop Area. This is the original building structure which housed the boilers in the NAAS days and is approximately 2,200 square feet in area. Two 9-foot-by-14-foot overhead doors have been cut into the eastern façade of the building to allow access/egress of equipment. The basic condition of this structure is poor (concrete floor slab) to good (roof framing), depending on the building component considered. 2. Emergency/Air Operations Crew Office and Locker Room. This area occupies about 1,000 square feet and is located in the middle of the building complex. Constructed in the 1970’s, this area is used as offices and support facilities for airport operations personnel. The structural components were judged to be in good condition. 3. Emergency/Air Operations Vehicle Storage. This 2,100 square foot area is an addition on the western end of the building constructed at the same time as the adjacent office/locker room area (#2 above). These bays house rescue/ firefighting and air operations vehicles, as reflected by a roof eave height of approximately 16 feet above the finished floor. Structural components were judged to be in good condition.

Southern and western facades (airside) of ARFF Building

In keeping with the options being considered in the master plan for this structure, which ranged from renovation (Scheme I) to demolition (Scheme IV), the consultant considered the implications of modifying the building to conform to today’s Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC). The existing building complex (Scheme I) could be reused within the existing MSBC regulations but with the most use restrictions: airport management would be restricted to minimum program/structural modification
10 Historic/Archaeological Resources 10-17

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

options. Given the prominence of this structure in relation to the main terminal area and to the primary general aviation apron, and the desire of airport management to use this site for a future combined new GA terminal and ARFF building, Scheme IV was selected. Summary Finding. Given that the building has been altered significantly from its days as a power generation facility, that it offers little of architectural merit and that its setting within a military base complex has been destroyed, the project proponent is of the opinion that the existing ARFF building has little architectural/historical/ cultural significance or merit and can be demolished. Furthermore, given that the building has been so altered over time, the project proponent also is of the opinion that there is little remaining to justify extensive photo documentation of the garage complex. 10.3 MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Under Section 106 of the NHPA, the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), serving as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), is responsible for determining whether a proposed action will have any effect on historic, architectural, cultural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO received and reviewed the ENF filed April 15, 2003 (EOEA #13024) and subsequently filed a comment letter with the proponent and MEPA Unit.7 An intensive archaeological survey (950 CMR 70) was conducted at the request of the SHPO. The survey, as reported above, concludes that the proposed improvement program is unlikely to affect any significant archaeological deposits, and recommends no further archaeological investigations be undertaken. Similarly, additional assessments completed for the DEIR/EA find i) that no existing properties on or properties eligible for the National Register for Northern façade of ARFF Building Historic Places are impacted by the airport improvement program, and ii) that the existing ARFF building has little architectural/historical/cultural significance or merit and can be demolished.

MHC letter, op.cit. 10 Historic/Archaeological Resources
7

10-18

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

The DEIR/EA and its supporting technical appendices are being forwarded to the MHC/SHPO for concurrence with the findings of these analyses. Specifically, the SHPO will be requested to determine that the “proposed action,” defined as the release of Federal funds for elements of the Airport Improvement Program, will not have any effect on historic, architectural, cultural or archaeological resources listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

References
McManamon, Francis P. 1990 A Regional Perspective on Assessing the Significance of Historical Period Sites. Historical Archaeology 24(2): 14-22. National Park Service 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register 48(190). National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1985 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register Bulletin 24. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Weston and Sampson Engineers 1974 Report on Existing Facilities at Martha’s Vineyard Airport.

Inventory of Historic Assets of the Commonwealth Edgartown Quadrangle, Map/Folder 40 Oak Bluffs Folder 221 Tisbury Folder 296 West Tisbury Folder 327

10 Historic/Archaeological Resources

10-19

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

This page left blank intentionally.

10 Historic/Archaeological Resources

10-20


				
DOCUMENT INFO