DOCSLIB.ORG

Mill River Dams Feasibility Study River Restoration and Diadromous Fish Passage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mill River Dams Feasibility Study River Restoration and Diadromous Fish Passage Mill River Dams Feasibility Study River Restoration and Diadromous Fish Passage January 31st, 2008 Prepared for: Massachusetts Riverways Program Riverways Program, DFG 251 Causeway St., Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 3602 Atwood Avenue Suite 3 Madison, WI 53714 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 5 1.1. State Hospital Dam ................................................................................................ 5 1.2. West Britannia Dam............................................................................................... 8 1.3. Whittenton Pond .................................................................................................... 9 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 13 2.1. Project Team and Scope of Work ........................................................................ 15 2.2. Report Format...................................................................................................... 15 3. Data Collection............................................................................................................. 16 3.1. Existing data ........................................................................................................ 16 3.2. Field data.............................................................................................................. 16 4. Background Information............................................................................................... 20 4.1. Natural History .................................................................................................... 20 4.2. Fisheries History.................................................................................................. 20 4.3. Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 21 4.4. Geologic history................................................................................................... 27 4.5. Geomorphic History ............................................................................................ 28 5. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 30 5.1. Modern landuse.................................................................................................... 30 5.2. Existing Geomorphology..................................................................................... 31 5.3. Wetland Resources .............................................................................................. 32 5.4. Basis for projecting wetland resource alterations ................................................ 35 6. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis ............................................................................. 38 6.1. Hydrology ............................................................................................................ 38 6.2. Hydraulic Modeling and Flood Profile Analysis ................................................. 48 2008 Inter-Fluve Inc. 6.3. Fish Passage Hydraulic Design............................................................................ 58 7. Sediment Characterization............................................................................................ 65 7.1. Sediment volume estimation................................................................................ 65 7.2. Sediment Grain Size Analysis ............................................................................. 65 7.3. Due diligence ....................................................................................................... 66 7.4. Sediment quality – background information........................................................ 67 7.5. Sediment quality – State Hospital........................................................................ 69 7.6. Sediment quality – West Britannia ...................................................................... 70 7.7. Sediment quality – Whittenton Pond ................................................................... 72 7.8. Regulatory Perspectives on Quality Testing Results in Relation to Project Implementation .................................................................................................... 73 8. State Hospital Dam: Design Options............................................................................ 76 8.1. Existing Conditions (No action or minimal action alternative) ........................... 76 8.2. Full removal......................................................................................................... 80 8.3. Fish passage bypass channel................................................................................ 84 8.4. Conceptual Cost Estimates – State Hospital Dam ............................................... 87 9. West Britannia Dam: Design Options .......................................................................... 89 9.1. Existing Conditions (Do Nothing Option)........................................................... 89 9.2. Full removal......................................................................................................... 93 9.3. Rock ramp (with dam repair)............................................................................... 97 9.4. Fish bypass channel (with dam repair) ................................................................ 98 9.5. Fish ladder (with dam repair)............................................................................... 99 9.6. Conceptual Cost Estimates – West Britannia Dam............................................ 101 10. Whittenton Pond Dam: Design Options ..................................................................... 102 10.1. Existing Conditions (No action or minimal action alternative) ......................... 102 10.2. Full removal – Whittenton Dam ........................................................................ 107 2008 Inter-Fluve Inc. 10.3. Fish ladder (with dam reconstruction) ............................................................... 115 10.4. Fish bypass channel (with dam reconstruction)................................................. 116 10.5. Rock ramp (with dam reconstruction) ............................................................... 116 10.6. Conceptual Cost Estimates – Whittenton Pond Dam......................................... 119 11. Morey’s Bridge Dam: Recommendations .................................................................. 120 12. Citations...................................................................................................................... 121 Appendices Appendix A – Detailed cost estimates Appendix B - Due diligence summary Appendix C – Natural resources report Appendix D – HEC-RAS modeling results/summary tables Appendix E – Geolabs Report Appendix F – Infrastructure notes Appendix G – Fish Passage computations Principal authors: Martin Melchior, Michael Burke, and Michael Chelminski 2008 Inter-Fluve Inc. 1. Executive Summary This study examined the feasibility of various fish passage and river restoration options for the three downstream impoundments on the Mill River in Taunton, Massachusetts (Figure 1-1). We conclude that fish passage and river restoration are feasible, and we offer concept level design options for alternatives at each dam. 1.1. State Hospital Dam The State Hospital Dam is an earthen fill dam with a concrete spillway (8 ft head) impounding a pond area of approximately 5.2 acres. The impoundment contains a maximum of 30,000 cubic yards of deposited sediment consisting primarily of sand. No Action Alternative – As part of the study, we examined the implications of no action at each structure. No action at the State Hospital Dam would result in continued riverine habitat degradation through sediment deposition, organic material buildup, invasive plant proliferation, thermal pollution, and concentration of nutrients and pollutants. These negative effects of dams are well documented in numerous studies (Baxter 1977, Dauta et al. 1999, Petts 1984, Poole and Berman 2001, Schuman 1995, Stanley et al. 2002, Ward and Stanford 1979, 1987). No action also results in continued selective removal of fine material from the downstream reach, resulting in over-widening of the channel and homogenization of in-stream habitats (Gray and Ward 1982, Ligon et al. 1995, Ward and Stanford 1983). No action with regard to river restoration and fish passage will require continued dam inspection, maintenance and eventual repair or replacement to keep the dam in compliance with Massachusetts Department of Dam Safety standards. The cost of these activities is typically borne by the dam owner. All dams continue to degrade, and without regular maintenance and repair, the risk of flooding due to dam failure increases. No action results in continued liability risk to the dam owner and continued risk to public safety (Graber et al. 2001). Dam Removal Alternative – Removal of the State Hospital Dam is feasible and would fulfill the goals of the project. Dam removal would result in passage for diadramous fish (alewife, blueback herring) and other species (eg. American eel, amphibians), free flowing conditions, restored riparian and in-stream habitat, lower water temperatures, increased dissolved oxygen concentrations and the reestablishment of river dependent fish and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Open PDF File, 1.14 MB, for Taunton River Watershed 2001
    APPENDIX A TAUNTON RIVER WATERSHED DWM YEAR 2001 WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA Technical Memorandum TM-62-6 DWM Control Number: 94.1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE JR., COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GLENN HAAS, DIRECTOR Taunton River Watershed 2001 Water Quality Assessment Report Appendix A A1 62wqar.doc DWM CN 94.0 Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................A3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................................A3 Field and Analytical Methods .............................................................................................................A4 Survey Conditions...........................................................................................................................A12 Water Quality Data .........................................................................................................................A17 References Cited ............................................................................................................................A34 Appendix 1 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data Validation .......................................................A35 Appendix 2 - 2001 Data Symbols and Qualifiers ..............................................................................A42
    [Show full text]
  • Taunton, MA Waterbody Assessment, 305(B)/303(D)
    MA62-10_2008 MA62-22_2008 MA62-32_2008 Matfield River (5) Satucket River (2) Coweeset Brook (3) 106 West 28 123 MA62-13_2008 Bridgewater Town River (3) Mansfield Easton MA62106_2008 MA62-12_2008 MA62-13_2008 Hockomock River Little Cedar Swamp (3) Town River (3) Town River (3) MA62203_2008 Town Black Brook River Fuller Hammond Ward Pond (3) MA62-35_2008 TownTown RiverRiver Pond Hockomock River (3) MA62134_2008 MA62158_2008 MA62-11_2008 Norton Reservoir (5) Reservoir (3) Town River (3) MA62-27_2008 South Brook 138 South Brook Canoe River (2) MA62-31_2008 Mulberry Meadow Brook (3) Carver Canoe River Pond MA62033_2008 Norton MA62213_2008 Carver Pond (4c) Reservoir Winnecunnet Pond (4c) MA62131_2008 Norton Lake Nippenicket (4c) (TMDL) 140 Bridgewater Winnecunnet MA62-28_2008 Lake 18 Pond Nippenicket MA62-40_2008 Snake River (3) 495 Rumford River Rumford River Rumford River (2) Watson Sawmill Brook SnowsBrook 104 SnowsBrook Pond MA62007_2008 MA62-56_2008 MA62-36_2008 Barrowsville Pond (3) Three Mile River (5) MA62166_2008 MA62088_2008 Sawmill Brook (3) Barrowsville MA62084_2008 MA62205_2008 Lake Sabbatia (5) Hewitt Pond (3) Gushee PondMA62-49_2008 Pond Gushee Pond (4c) Watson Pond (5) Otis Pratt Brook Wading River (5) Meadow Sabbatia Lake Kings Brook Pond Prospect Hill MA62101_2008 Pond Pond MA62228_2008 Mill Kings Pond (3) 24 MA62113_2008 River Johnson Bassett Brook Whittenton Impoundment (4c) Pond Meadow Brook Pond (3) MA62149_2008 Birch Brook Prospect Hill Pond (3) MA62097_2008 Middleborough MA62-56_2008 Three Mile River (5) MA62136_2008
    [Show full text]
  • Fishway Ladder
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS A. Fishway B. Riverwalk C. DNR Compliance with NR 333 D. Dam Removal E. Property Issues F. Fish and Aquatic Life G. Wildlife H. Recreational Use A. Fishway 1. What is the estimated cost to build a fishway at Bridge Street dam? The engineering consultant, Bonestroo, has estimated the cost at $1.3 million per the NOAA grant. 2. If the fishway is constructed next year, will it have to be rebuilt when the dam needs to be removed and replaced? Essentially no. Most of the fishway is a separate upstream structure and will not be impacted by demolition and construction of a new dam. The fishway entrance area may need to be modified if a new dam is installed or if the dam abutments are altered. 3. Why is the fishway being constructed on the west bank of the river? The west bank allows land owned by the Village of Grafton to be used for a portion of the channel alignment. Furthermore, the heaviest construction will likely be in the area currently owned by the Village (penetration of the west dam abutment). Other advantages include the appeal to tourists able to view fish entering and ascending the fishway from the riverwalk, and the known presence of shallow bedrock helping assure good foundation characteristics. Furthermore, the historic mill race crosses the area, and a portion of the mill race alignment may assist with fishway construction. 4. How long will it take to complete the construction of the fishway? The fishway will be completed by late fall of 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria 2019
    FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA 2019 37.2’ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region June 2019 Fish and Aquatic Conservation, Fish Passage Engineering Ecological Services, Conservation Planning Assistance United States Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 FISH PASSAGE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA June 2019 This manual replaces all previous editions of the Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 Suggested citation: USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019. Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria. USFWS, Northeast Region R5, Hadley, Massachusetts. USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 USFWS R5 Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria June 2019 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x List of Equations ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii 1 Scope of this Document ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Role of the USFWS Region 5 Fish Passage Engineering ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report
    Potter Valley Project Ad Hoc Committee Fish Passage Profiles Evaluation Report December 2019 Developed by the Fish Passage Working Group Fish Passage Working Group Report Contributors Scenarios and Options Subgroup Scoring Subgroup Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Craig Addley (Consultant to PG&E) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Joshua Fuller (NMFS) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) Damon Goodman (USFWS) Jon Mann (CDFW) Paul Kubicek (PG&E) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Jon Mann (CDFW) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) David Manning (Sonoma Water) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Scott McBain (Consultant to RVIT) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Darren Mierau (CalTrout) Allen Renger (CDFW) Steve Thomas (NMFS) Larry Wise (PG&E) The scenarios subgroup developed the conceptual passage scenarios and options. The scoring subgroup developed and used a passage scoring matrix to evaluate the passage options. Facilitation Team Facilitators Gina Bartlett and Stephanie Horii of Consensus Building Institute assisted the subgroups to document the process and compile results into this final report. 2 Executive Summary Background and Purpose The Potter Valley Project on the Eel River is a set of hydroelectric facilities that includes two large dams (Scott and Cape Horn), water-diversion facilities, and a powerhouse. The project involves an inter-basin transfer that stores winter runoff from the upper Eel River and diverts much of that water to the Russian River to generate hydroelectric power and meet contract water demands. Scott Dam, which creates Lake Pillsbury, is a complete barrier to native fish species, preventing access to high value habitat for federally Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed anadromous salmonids. To balance diverse Potter Valley Project interests, Congressman Jared Huffman established an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of representative stakeholder groups across four counties, who have agreed to work collaboratively towards a two-basin solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Plymouth County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 3 OF 5 PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER ABINGTON, TOWN OF 250259 MARSHFIELD, TOWN OF 250273 BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250260 MATTAPOISETT, TOWN OF 255214 BROCKTON, CITY OF 250261 MIDDLEBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250275 CARVER, TOWN OF 250262 NORWELL, TOWN OF 250276 DUXBURY, TOWN OF 250263 PEMBROKE, TOWN OF 250277 EAST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250264 PLYMOUTH, TOWN OF 250278 HALIFAX, TOWN OF 250265 PLYMPTON, TOWN OF 250279 HANOVER, TOWN OF 250266 ROCHESTER, TOWN OF 250280 HANSON, TOWN OF 250267 ROCKLAND, TOWN OF 250281 HINGHAM, TOWN OF 250268 SCITUATE, TOWN OF 250282 HULL, TOWN OF 250269 WAREHAM, TOWN OF 255223 KINGSTON, TOWN OF 250270 WEST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250284 LAKEVILLE, TOWN OF 250271 WHITMAN, TOWN OF 250285 MARION, TOWN OF 255213 PRELIMINARY: APRIL 18, 2018 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25023CV003D Version Number 2.3.3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 5 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 17 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 17 2.2 Floodways 34 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 35 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 35 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 35 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 35 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 37 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 38 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 39 SECTION 3.0
    [Show full text]
  • Open House Summary Report
    Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report Open House Summary Report Rancho Cordova, California US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Game February 2011 Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ..............................................1 1.2 Description of the Public Involvement Process to Date ..............................2 2. Meeting Overview ..................................................................................................5 3. Comment Summary ...............................................................................................7 4. Future Steps ............................................................................................................9 4.1 Summary of Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ..............9 4.2 Contact Information .....................................................................................9 Table Page 3-1 Summary of Comments ...........................................................................................8 Appendix Draft EIS/EIR Public Involvement Materials Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project EIS/EIR February 2011 Open House Summary Report i Acronyms Acronym Full Phrase CCAO Central California Area Office CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis
    Fish Passage at Dams Strategic Analysis Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources February 5, 2018 Nature-like Fishway at Thiensville Dam on Milwaukee River in Ozaukee County, WI Table of Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1 History of Fish Passage at Dams Policy in Wisconsin ............................................................................ 7 2 Regulatory Framework and Department Procedures and Guidelines ................................................ 11 3 Types of Fish Passage .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Upstream Fish Passage Technologies ......................................................................................... 19 3.2.1 Fishways (Passive) ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Fish Lifts and Locks (Active) ................................................................................................ 26 3.2.3 Collection and Transport (Active) ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Chittenden Locks 47
    Seattle’s Aquatic Environments: Hiram M. Chittenden Locks Hiram M. Chittenden Locks The following write-up relies heavily on the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks/Salmon Bay Subarea Chapter by Fred Goetz in the Draft Reconnaissance Assessment – Habitat Factors that Contribute to the Decline of Salmonids by the Greater Lake Washington Technical Committee (2001). Overview The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks (Locks) were Operation of the navigational locks involves constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raising or lowering the water level within either (the Corps) in 1916 and commissioned in 1917. the large or small lock chamber so that vessels may The Locks were built as a navigation project to pass between the two waterbodies. The filling and allow boats to travel from the marine waters of emptying of the large lock chamber is achieved by Puget Sound to the protected freshwaters of Lake use of a system of two large conduits that can Union and Lake Washington. The Locks are either fill the entire lock or half of the lock. This comprised of two navigational lock chambers: a is achieved by using a miter gate that divides the large lock that accommodates both large and small large lock chamber into two sections. Water is vessels and a small lock used by smaller vessels. In taken into the conduits via two culvert intakes addition to the lock chambers, the Locks include a located immediately upstream of the structure. dam, 6 spillway bays, and a fish ladder. Water is conveyed through each conduit and is The Locks form a dam at the outlet of the Lake discharged into the lock chamber through outlet Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal system culverts on each side of the chamber.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Pond, Lakeville/Freetown
    Long Pond, Lakeville/Freetown General Information Useful Links: Long Pond is a huge, shallow, warmwater pond, covering 1,780 acres. It is the largest natural pond in Massachusetts. The pond is fed by numerous small Get your Fishing License streams and drains via Long Pond River (also known as the Snake River) into Assawompset Pond (a water supply for Taunton and New Bedford) which in Freshwater Fishing turn feeds into the Nemasket River. Average depth is six feet and the maximum depth is only 15 feet. Transparency is five feet. The 11 miles of Trout Stocking Information shoreline are heavily developed with year round homes. The water color is stained and aquatic vegetation is found in cove areas. Boaters should be Freshwater Sportfishing Awards cautioned that there are numerous submerged rocks. Program Recreational Access The town of Freetown manages an Office of Fishing and Boating Access concrete boat ramp and associated parking area with space for 47 trailers located off Route 18 in Freetown on the Southeast corner of the pond (70°55'45.9"W 41°46'59.2"N). Please contact town of Freetown for additional information and/or restrictions pertaining to public access of Long Pond. Learn more: Fish Populations Mass.gov/MassWildlife The following fish species were found during MassWildlife surveys: Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, Chain Pickerel, Yellow Perch, White Perch, Connect with us: Pumpkinseed, White Sucker, Alewife, Blueback Herring, Brown Bullhead, Facebook.com/MassWildlife Golden Shiner, Tessellated Darter, and Lake Chubsucker. A large population of invasive Asian clams (Corbicula sp.) has been found in the pond and anglers should take care to empty live wells and remove Your local aquatic plants from boats and trailers before leaving the pond.
    [Show full text]
  • Middleborough, MA Waterbody Assessment, 305(B)/303(D)
    MA62-12_2008 Town River (3) MA62-01_2008 Taunton River (2) TauntonTaunton RiverRiver Kingston 80 South Brook Monponsett Brook Carver Pond Jones River Brook 104 Halifax MA94133_2008 MA62033_2008 Spring Brook Colchester Brook Russell Pond (3) Carver Pond (4c) BartlettBartlett BrookBrook IndianIndian PondPond MA94072_2008 Cranberry Bogs Bridgewater MA62-24_2008 Indian Pond (3) Winnetuxet River (2) Plympton MA62233_2008 Winnetuxet River Winnetuxet River 58 Muddy Pond (3) BeaverBeaver Brook Brook RavenRaven Brook Brook MA62-26_2008 105 Sawmill Brook MA62-36_2008 Nemasket River (2) 44 Sawmill Brook (3) Plymouth Darby Snows Brook Snows Brook Pond MA62132_2008 MA62046_2008North Center Street Pond (3) Beaver Dam Brook MA62-01_2008 Taunton River (2) MA62167_2008 Cooper Pond (2) Wenham Savery Pond (4c) Pond MA62125_2008 Muddy MA95174_2008 Middleborough Pond Fresh Meadow Pond (4c) 18 Muddy Pond (4c) MA62-26_2008 Nemasket River (2) Saverys Pond Pogouy Brook MA62234_2008 MA62096_2008 44 Fuller Street Pond (4c) Johns Pond (2) Carver PuddingshearPuddingshear BrookBrook MA62220_2008 ShortsShorts Brook Brook 28 Woods Pond (5) MA95153_2008 Taunton River Pogouy Vaughn Pond (2) Brook Lake MA62147_2008 Woods SouthSouth MeadowMeadow Brook Brook Nemasket River Poquoy Pond (3) Nemasket River Pond StonyStony Brook Brook MA95139_2008 Raynham MA62148_2008 South Meadow Brook Pond (3) Lake Rico (4c) MA62-25_2008 WoodsWoods Brook Brook Lake Lake Nemasket River (2) Rico MA62115_2008 MA62041_2008 RockyRocky MeadowMeadow Brook Brook 58 Clear Pond (2) Middle Pond (4c)
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Vol. 66, No. 1 Massachusetts Archaeological Society
    Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Journals and Campus Publications Society Spring 2005 Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Vol. 66, No. 1 Massachusetts Archaeological Society Follow this and additional works at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/bmas Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Copyright © 2005 Massachusetts Archaeological Society This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 66 (1) Spring 2005 CONTENTS: Editor's Note. 1 Letter from the President . 2 An Update on Bifurcate-base Points from the Titicut Area William B. Taylor 3 The Whortleberry Hill Site: An Early Holocene Camp in Dracut, MA Martin G. Dudek 12 Reflections of the Middle Archaic: A View from Annasnappet Pond . Dianna L. Doucette 22 The Rubin Farm Site, Norton, MA JeffBoudreau 34 Contributors. 44 THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Inc. P. O. Box 700, Middleborough, Massachusetts 02346-0700 THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Inc. Robbins Museum of Archaeology http://webhost.bridgew.edu/mas Contact by phone: (508) 947-9005, or by email: [email protected] Officers: Michael Volmar, PO Box 625, Harvard, MA 01451 President Tonya Largy, 59 Moore Road, Wayland, MA 01778 Vice President Susan Jacobucci, 678 Chief Justice Cushing Highway, Scituate, MA 02066 Clerk Edwin C. Ballard, 26 Heritage Road, Rehoboth, MA 02769 Treasurer Eugene Winter, 54 Trull Lane, Lowell, MA 01852 Museum Coordinator James W. Bradley, 55 Park Street, Charlestown, MA 02129 Bulletin Editor Curtiss Hoffman, 58 Hilldale Road, Ashland, MA 01721 Corresponding Secretary Ronald Dalton, 100 Brookhaven Dr., Attleboro, MA 02703 Past President Trustees: Term Expires Elizabeth Chilton, Dept.
    [Show full text]