Duxbury Selectboard Decides Not to Appeal Bridge's Historic Designation
Agrees to Hire Consultant for MassDOT Collaboration
DUXBURY – September 15 - The Duxbury Selectboard voted unanimously Monday night to continue with the Powder Point Bridge replacement project while hiring a consultant to work alongside MassDOT, but declined to immediately appeal the bridge's non-historic designation under federal Section 106 review. The decision came after a lengthy joint meeting with the Powder Point Bridge Advisory Committee and MassDOT officials who offered unprecedented collaboration on bridge design.
The Full Story
The meeting centered on three critical decisions for the iconic wooden bridge: whether to cancel the $170 million state-funded replacement project, whether to appeal the federal non-historic designation, and whether to hire a Section 106 consultant. After nearly three hours of discussion with MassDOT representatives Marco Pereira and Kurt Jurgensen, along with extensive public input, the board chose a collaborative path forward.
MassDOT officials made an unusual offer to work closely with the town throughout the design process. "We are willing to work with a small group of town representatives at your all's discretion," said Pereira. "We'll bring on an architect. If you were to retain a historic professional, they can say whether we're being honest brokers." The state has already hired Urban Idea Labs and architect Etty Padmodiputro specifically for this project.
The federal Section 106 process became a central point of debate. Massachusetts Historical Commission had previously determined the bridge was not eligible for National Register of Historic Places listing, citing its construction with non-native wood species and its 2.5-foot width increase from the original. Historic Commission Chair Ed Mayo strongly advocated for appealing this determination, arguing it would provide legal protections and guaranteed public participation in any design changes.
However, MassDOT officials explained that pursuing the Section 106 appeal would create significant delays. "As soon as the Army Corps, the Coast Guard, all the other federal agencies know there's a pending historic determination, they won't look at it. It freezes the project until that gets resolved," Pereira warned. He estimated the appeal process could add six months to two years to the project timeline.
Perhaps more importantly, MassDOT officials clarified what a successful historic designation would actually provide. Kurt Jurgensen explained that even with historic designation, "Section 106 is a consultation process. It does not have prescribed outcomes." Federal Highway Administration regulations would still prohibit wood pilings below the waterline and make wood decking highly unlikely due to 75-100 year lifespan requirements.
Shellfish Advisory Committee member, and engineering consultant, Peter Dalton presented an alternative proposal to repair rather than replace the bridge. Drawing on his experience with similar structures nationwide, Dalton argued that pilings below the mudline remain in excellent condition and could serve as foundations for a hybrid repair approach. His plan would involve using existing underwater pilings as caissons, installing new synthetic pilings above the waterline, and maintaining the wooden deck structure.
However, DPW Director Sheila Sgarzi painted a stark picture of the bridge's current condition. The latest inspection identified 19 pilings requiring replacement by May 2025, but the town can only afford to address four this fall with its $300,000 annual repair budget. "The repairs cannot keep up with the rate the bridge is deteriorating," Sgarzi warned, adding that partial lane closures may be necessary in the near future.
MassDOT's Marco Pereira acknowledged Dalton's expertise but outlined significant regulatory hurdles for any repair approach. Environmental permitting would likely require cofferdams and dewatering, creating what he described as "brutal" environmental review requirements. Additionally, any repair solution would need approval from a Massachusetts-registered bridge engineer and the state bridge engineer – the same official who approved the current bridge 40 years ago.
Several residents spoke passionately about preserving the bridge's character. Christine Hill noted that private funding has been raised for the consultant and questioned the high costs of current pile repairs compared to private sector alternatives. Maureen Caruso criticized Town Manager René Read for initiating the state project without broader public input, calling for the town to maintain local control over repairs.
The meeting also addressed broader concerns about project cancellation. When asked directly about the cancellation process, Pereira responded that "as long as the state and the town wish to move forward with the project, the project moves forward, full stop." He clarified that while the town could withdraw its support, this would leave Duxbury solely responsible for all future bridge maintenance and eventual replacement at an estimated cost exceeding $180 million.
Board members expressed general support for continued collaboration while keeping options open. Selectwoman Amy MacNab emphasized the need to "work together and keep our options open and hear what our options are" rather than rushing into an adversarial approach. The board noted that MassDOT's offer to work collaboratively doesn't preclude filing a Section 106 appeal later if negotiations break down.
The decision to hire a consultant received strong support, with Board Chair Ed Mayo confirming that private donations will cover the full cost. The consultant will work alongside town representatives in the collaborative design process with MassDOT, potentially serving as both an advocate and technical advisor to ensure the town's interests are protected.
MassDOT has scheduled two community forums to gather public input on bridge design – the first in October for listening and the second in November to present preliminary designs reflecting community feedback. The state has committed to working with a small group of town representatives throughout this process, with no more than five people recommended for the working group.
Why It Matters
The Powder Point Bridge serves as the primary access route to Duxbury Beach for thousands of residents and visitors annually. The town collects significant revenue from beach parking stickers that helps fund beach maintenance and coastal protection efforts. A bridge closure would force all traffic through Marshfield, creating significant inconvenience for residents and potentially impacting emergency response times to the beach community. With the bridge's condition deteriorating faster than repairs can address and costs escalating, the MassDOT partnership may represent the town's best opportunity to maintain this critical infrastructure link while preserving as much historic character as possible.
Meeting Minutes
Key Motions & Votes
Motion: Continue with Powder Point Bridge replacement project in collaboration with MassDOT. Outcome: Approved by consensus. Vote: Unanimous.
Motion: Hire Section 106 consultant using private donations. Outcome: Approved by consensus. Vote: Unanimous.
Motion: Defer decision on Section 106 historic designation appeal pending collaborative design process. Outcome: Approved by consensus. Vote: Unanimous.
Motion: Continue utility pole petition for 17 Railroad Avenue to next meeting. Outcome: Approved by consensus. Vote: Unanimous.
Motion: Declare Fire Department surplus items for sale. Outcome: Approved. Vote: 5-0 by roll call.
Public Comment
Extensive public comment focused primarily on the Powder Point Bridge project. Peter Dalton presented detailed repair alternatives using existing underwater pilings as foundations. Residents Christine Hill and Maureen Caruso advocated for maintaining local control and questioned project costs and decision-making processes. Historic Commission Chair Ed Mayo strongly supported appealing the non-historic designation for legal protections. Multiple speakers emphasized the bridge's importance as a town landmark and expressed willingness to support preservation efforts financially.
What's Next
MassDOT will schedule October and November community forums for bridge design input. The Selectboard will establish a five-member working group to collaborate with MassDOT throughout the design process. Town staff will research conditions of the Railroad Avenue development permit before voting on the utility pole petition.