DOCSLIB.ORG

Alternatives Evaluation Report: Penobscot River Phase III

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alternatives Evaluation Report: Penobscot River Phase III ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT Penobscot River Phase III Engineering Study Penobscot River Estuary, Maine Prepared for: United States District Court District of Maine Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 511 Congress Street, Suite 200 Portland, Maine 04101 Project No. 3616166052 September 2018 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION REPORT Penobscot River Phase III Engineering Study Penobscot River Estuary, Maine Prepared for: United States District Court District of Maine Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 511 Congress Street, Suite 200 Portland, Maine 04101 Project No. 3616166052 September 2018 _____________________ __________________ Nelson Walter, P.E. Eugene Shephard, P.E. Principal Project Manager Associate Engineer US District Court – District of Maine Alternatives Evaluation Report Penobscot River Phase III Engineering Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Maine (the Court) selected Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) to conduct the Penobscot River Phase III Engineering Study (Phase III Engineering Study), to identify and evaluate feasible, effective and cost-effective measures to remediate mercury in the Penobscot River Estuary (the Estuary). The geographic area to be addressed within the Phase III Engineering Study is described by the Court as “the region from the site of the former Veazie Dam south to Upper Penobscot Bay, including Mendall Marsh and the Orland River." Beginning in 1967, a chlor-alkali facility located in Orrington, Maine released mercury into the Estuary. Releases of mercury at overall declining concentrations continued throughout facility operation and ceased with facility closure in 2000. In 2002, the Court ordered an independent scientific study, the Penobscot River Mercury Study, to assess the spatial distribution and impact of mercury discharge in the Penobscot River. As of 2017, two phases of the study have been completed: Phase I in 2008 (PRMSP 2008) and Phase II in 2013 (PRMSP 2013). The Phase I Report (PRMSP 2008) concluded that there was enough scientific evidence to conclude that the Penobscot River is contaminated with mercury to an extent that poses risks to some wildlife species, and possibly some limited risk for human consumers of fish and shellfish. The Penobscot River Mercury Study Panel recommended that the study proceed to a second phase (Phase II). The Phase II Study estimated that although the Estuary has recovered significantly since the period of peak mercury discharge, it will take over 100 years for mercury concentrations in Estuary sediment to decrease to a level consistent with regional background concentrations in sediment at the current rate of system recovery (PRMSP 2013). The slow rate of decline of mercury concentrations in the Estuary is attributable, in part, to the presence of a large pool of mercury- affected mobile sediment in the Estuary. This mobile sediment is retained in the Estuary by natural processes that result in the landward flow of both bottom water and associated sediment under the influence of tides. This large volume of contaminated sediment is referred to in the Phase II Study as “the mobile pool” (PRMSP 2013). With these studies as background, and following additional sampling and analysis conducted by Amec Foster Wheeler in 2016–2017, this Alternatives Evaluation Report presents the results of the development, evaluation, and comparison of remedial alternatives that could be implemented to reduce ecological and human health risks resulting from the discharge and subsequent accumulation of mercury in the sediments and biota of the Estuary. Alternatives were developed, evaluated, and compared based on six evaluation criteria as established by the Court Order and the Phase III Engineering Study process. These criteria are: (1) viability of remedy; (2) whether the proposed solution has been successfully attempted previously or is innovative; (3) the likely Project No.: 3616166052 September 2018 ES-i US District Court – District of Maine Alternatives Evaluation Report Penobscot River Phase III Engineering Study cost of the solution; (4) the length of time to complete the recommendations; (5) the likely effectiveness of the solution; and (6) any potential environmental harm that may be caused by the proposed solution. The remedial strategy recommended as the result of the alternatives assessment presented in this report is presented in the Phase III Engineering Study Report (Amec Foster Wheeler 2018a). As a component of the evaluation process, bench-scale treatability studies were conducted to provide data for the development and evaluation of alternatives. Data generated from the bench- scale treatability studies were used to support selection of process options and technologies; refine engineering assumptions used as the basis for the detailed evaluation of alternatives; support cost estimation; and assess feasibility, limiting conditions and/or aspects of uncertainty associated with the implementing various remedial technologies. These studies included evaluation of: (1) the physical properties of sediments to determine whether physical separation techniques can be used to reduce the volume of sediment requiring treatment or removal; (2) the chemical properties of sediments, to assess the need for sediment treatment, removal, and containment, and subsequent material handling, dewatering, and water treatment or disposal requirements following removal (if applied); and (3) the toxicity of carbon-based amendments under consideration for application on marsh platforms. Regarding the current site understanding and material transport in the Estuary, the processes that control the internal cycling of sediment within estuaries will significantly influence the recovery time of the system. For estuaries like the Penobscot River Estuary that have been historically impacted by chlor-alkali discharge, recovery times have been documented to vary from years to decades, depending on how recovery is defined. Modelling of 2017 geochronology data and calculation of apparent recovery half times for the Estuary suggest that the apparent natural recovery rate is slowing relative to what was calculated in 2009 during the Phase II Study. The term ‘apparent’ is used herein consistent with its use in the Phase II Study in which the calculation of recovery rates is dependent on data extrapolation and assumptions regarding temporal mixing and redistribution of mercury in the Estuary. Increasing apparent recovery half times calculated in 2017 relative to the apparent recovery half time calculated in 2009 indicate that the rate of change in sediment mercury profiles over the 21-year interval from 1996–2017 is decreasing relative to the rate of change in sediment mercury profiles over the 21-year interval from 1988– 2009 used in the Phase II modeling. For cores collected in 2009 from locations defined as reflecting representative physical mixing and chemical attenuation within the Estuary (i.e., cores from locations in communication with the larger system), surface sediment concentrations in 2009 appeared to be converging toward 600–700 nanograms per gram (ng/g). For cores collected in 2017 from similarly defined locations, surface sediment total mercury concentrations do not Project No.: 3616166052 September 2018 ES-ii US District Court – District of Maine Alternatives Evaluation Report Penobscot River Phase III Engineering Study appear to have changed significantly from this average, and in some reaches of the Estuary remain higher than 700 ng/g. For data used in this report in the assessment of remedial alternatives, the general consistency in calculated average total mercury concentrations over much of the Estuary supports a hypothesis that the Estuary is achieving some level of homogenization or equilibrium redistribution of mobile mercury-affected sediment and wood waste. In attempting to evaluate or predict system- wide ecological recovery, the extent to which mobile sediments are a mixture of mineral sediment and wood waste—two distinct phases with differing particle sizes and densities, mercury concentrations, and transport properties—impacts the ability to accurately project recovery rates for the Estuary. Likewise, if sediment mercury concentrations in those portions of the system that are not in communication with the larger system are elevated relative to a homogeneously mixed concentration for other parts of the system, then changes to the hydrodynamic processes controlling sediment mixing or erosion (e.g., increases in wind/wave action, changes to flow regime) will also impact projections for system-wide recovery. The remedial evaluation presented in this report includes the delineation of the Estuary into reaches and hydrodynamic zones, and calculation of area weighted average total mercury concentrations within each reach/zone unit. Calculation of area weighted average total mercury concentrations included all total mercury data in the project database from 2000–2017, with the exception of data for which either the analytical laboratory, the analytical method, or sampling details were unclear. Data were grouped into discrete depth increments using an interval participation weighted concentration approach. This approach allows for the integration of data from a project database that includes a range of sampling types (e.g., grab samples and sediment cores) that may have been collected for differing objectives and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Penobscot Rivershed with Licensed Dischargers and Critical Salmon
    0# North West Branch St John T11 R15 WELS T11 R17 WELS T11 R16 WELS T11 R14 WELS T11 R13 WELS T11 R12 WELS T11 R11 WELS T11 R10 WELS T11 R9 WELS T11 R8 WELS Aroostook River Oxbow Smith Farm DamXW St John River T11 R7 WELS Garfield Plt T11 R4 WELS Chapman Ashland Machias River Stream Carry Brook Chemquasabamticook Stream Squa Pan Stream XW Daaquam River XW Whitney Bk Dam Mars Hill Squa Pan Dam Burntland Stream DamXW Westfield Prestile Stream Presque Isle Stream FRESH WAY, INC Allagash River South Branch Machias River Big Ten Twp T10 R16 WELS T10 R15 WELS T10 R14 WELS T10 R13 WELS T10 R12 WELS T10 R11 WELS T10 R10 WELS T10 R9 WELS T10 R8 WELS 0# MARS HILL UTILITY DISTRICT T10 R3 WELS Water District Resevoir Dam T10 R7 WELS T10 R6 WELS Masardis Squapan Twp XW Mars Hill DamXW Mule Brook Penobscot RiverYosungs Lakeh DamXWed0# Southwest Branch St John Blackwater River West Branch Presque Isle Strea Allagash River North Branch Blackwater River East Branch Presque Isle Strea Blaine Churchill Lake DamXW Southwest Branch St John E Twp XW Robinson Dam Prestile Stream S Otter Brook L Saint Croix Stream Cox Patent E with Licensed Dischargers and W Snare Brook T9 R8 WELS 8 T9 R17 WELS T9 R16 WELS T9 R15 WELS T9 R14 WELS 1 T9 R12 WELS T9 R11 WELS T9 R10 WELS T9 R9 WELS Mooseleuk Stream Oxbow Plt R T9 R13 WELS Houlton Brook T9 R7 WELS Aroostook River T9 R4 WELS T9 R3 WELS 9 Chandler Stream Bridgewater T T9 R5 WELS TD R2 WELS Baker Branch Critical UmScolcus Stream lmon Habitat Overlay South Branch Russell Brook Aikens Brook West Branch Umcolcus Steam LaPomkeag Stream West Branch Umcolcus Stream Tie Camp Brook Soper Brook Beaver Brook Munsungan Stream S L T8 R18 WELS T8 R17 WELS T8 R16 WELS T8 R15 WELS T8 R14 WELS Eagle Lake Twp T8 R10 WELS East Branch Howe Brook E Soper Mountain Twp T8 R11 WELS T8 R9 WELS T8 R8 WELS Bloody Brook Saint Croix Stream North Branch Meduxnekeag River W 9 Turner Brook Allagash Stream Millinocket Stream T8 R7 WELS T8 R6 WELS T8 R5 WELS Saint Croix Twp T8 R3 WELS 1 Monticello R Desolation Brook 8 St Francis Brook TC R2 WELS MONTICELLO HOUSING CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal
    A Research Paper by Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 <Year> Dam Removal: Case Studies on the Fiscal, Economic, Social, and Environmental Benefits of Dam Removal October 2016 PUBLISHED ONLINE: http://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/local-studies/dam-removal-case-studies ABOUT HEADWATERS ECONOMICS Headwaters Economics is an independent, nonprofit research group whose mission is to improve community development and land management decisions in the West. CONTACT INFORMATION Megan Lawson, Ph.D.| [email protected] | 406-570-7475 P.O. Box 7059 Bozeman, MT 59771 http://headwaterseconomics.org Cover Photo: Whittenton Pond Dam, Mill River, Massachusetts. American Rivers. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 MEASURING THE BENEFITS OF DAM REMOVAL ........................................................................................... 2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 5 CASE STUDIES WHITTENTON POND DAM, MILL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS ........................................................................ 11 ELWHA AND GLINES CANYON DAMS, ELWHA RIVER, WASHINGTON ........................................................ 14 EDWARDS DAM, KENNEBEC RIVER, MAINE ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar)
    Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) November, 2005 Prepared by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Silver Spring, Maryland and Northeastern Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hadley, Massachusetts Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) November, 2005 Prepared by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Silver Spring, Maryland and Northeastern Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Hadley, Massachusetts Approved: Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Date NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate actions that are thought to be necessary to recover andlor protect endangered species. Recovery plans are prepared by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies and others. This Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine (GOM) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) was prepared by the staff of the Northeast Regional Offices of NMFS with the assistance of the FWS and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (ASC). While the State of Maine provided recommendations for this plan, it was developed using federal guidelines and policies pertaining to recovery plans for federally listed species. Recovery plans are not regulatory or decision documents. The recommendations in a recovery plan are not considered final decisions unless and until they are actually proposed for implementation. Objectives will only be attained and hnds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities and other budgetary constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • Penobscot Bay Watch
    PENOBSCOTBAY Maine National Estuary Program Nomination STATE OF MAINE OFFICEOF THE GOVERNOR AUGUSTA. MAINE 04333 ANGUS S. KING, JR. GOVERNOR March 6, 1995 Administrator Carol Browner US. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M. Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Ms. Browner: 1 am pleased to submit a State of Maine Conference Agreement that nominates Penobscot Bay for designation in the National Estuary Program. The Agreement describes the Bay's key issues and actions to respond to them, how we will continue to involve the public in developing and implementing solutions to these most pressing issues, and how we propose to finance this estuary project. Our nomination for Penobscot Bay is consistent with EPA's December; 1994 guidance that calls for considerable initiative by a state before requesting designation. Public and private entities have worked cooperatively since 1992 and made remarkable progress. Two major conferences have brought together all levels of government, the nonprofit community, Bay businesses and the public to talk openly about key issues and possible solutions. These and other activities described in the attached document have laid a solid foundation for a successful national estuaq project. I believe our estuary project will be successfully implemented because of the active participation of five state agencies over the past three years. These agencies (the Departments of Environmental Protection, Marine Resources, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Economic and Community Developmenf and the State Planning Office) are committed to this project and I am confident that in concert with our nonprofit, municipal and business partners we will m&e important strides to protect and restore Penobscot Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Penobscot River 2007 Data Report July 2008
    Penobscot River 2007 Data Report July 2008 Prepared by Donald Albert, P. E. Bureau of Land and Water Quality Division of Environmental Assessment DEPLW-0882 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1 Technical Design of Study ....................................................................................................1 Hydrologic Data ....................................................................................................................4 Ambient Chemical Data ........................................................................................................4 -DO, Temperature and Salinity .............................................................................................5 -Ultimate BOD ......................................................................................................................8 -Phosphorus Series ................................................................................................................11 -Nitrogen Series.....................................................................................................................13 -Chlorophyll-a .......................................................................................................................15 -Secchi disk transparency......................................................................................................17 Effluent Chemical Data .........................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • YDPHC Physical Activity Guide 1.2019
    ──── Acton Alfred Arundel Berwick Biddeford Buxton Cornish Dayton Eliot Hollis Kennebunk Kennebunkport Kittery Lebanon Limerick Limington Lyman YORK COUNTY Newfield North Berwick PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Ogunquit Old Orchard Beach RESOURCE GUIDE Parsonsfield Saco Sanford Brought to you by: Shapleigh South Berwick Waterboro Wells York ──── The York District Public Health Council (YDPHC) is excited to present a Physical Activity Resource guide that includes all 29 communities of York County. This guide has been updated from the former York County Physical Activity Resource Guide from 2015. YDPHC is a representative, district-wide body formed in partnership with the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (MeCDC) to engage in collaborative planning and decision-making for the delivery of the Ten Essential Public Health Services in the York Public Health District. The York Public Health District includes all communities in York County. Our mission is to promote, improve, sustain, and advocate for the delivery of the essential public health services in York County. We recognize that this guide does not represent ALL the activities available to residents of York County. We aim to highlight free and public resources available to all. Many other options are available for your wellness needs. We encourage you to let us know if there is something that we missed. Our hope is that this resource guide will be useful to you and encourage physical activity among all members of your family. Use this guide only as intended - as a guide. As with any physical activity, there may be risks associated. Work within your own limits. It is your responsibility to determine if a new activity is right for you and your family.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC Orono Project (FERC No. 2710)
    November 12, 2020 Orono Project (FERC No. 2710) Stillwater Project (FERC No. 2712) Ms. Shannon Ames, Executive Director Low Impact Hydropower Institute 329 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 2 Lexington, MA 02420 Subject: Low Impact Hydropower Institute Application for the Orono Project (FERC No. 2710) and Stillwater Project (FERC No. 2712) Dear Ms. Ames: On behalf of Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC, Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC, and Black Bear SO, LLC (collectively, “Black Bear”), owners and licensees of the Orono and Stillwater Hydroelectric Projects (“Projects”) (FERC Nos. 2710 and 2712, respectively) and affiliates of Brookfield Renewable, please find attached a revised application for recertification of the Projects, which are located on the Stillwater Branch of the Penobscot River in Maine. Black Bear is requesting recertification of these facilities, which are currently certified through November 30, 2020 per LIHI correspondence dated June 1, 2020. Black Bear submitted an initial certification application to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) on July 6, 2020. LIHI completed the initial Intake Review on August 5, 2020. The current application includes the following required submittals as revised in response to the LIHI Intake Review: • Introduction • Project Description and LIHI Table B-1 • Zones of Effect descriptions and overview maps and images • Matrix of Alternative Standards for each Zone of Effect identified evaluating the LIHI certification standards for each requisite criterion, including water quality, fish passage and recreation • Sworn Statement and Waiver Form • Facility Contacts Form including pertinent NGOs, as appropriate. • List of hyperlinks and supplemental documentation for pertinent FERC and regulatory documents for the Projects Please call me at (207) 755-5606 or email me at [email protected] if you have any questions or need additional information regarding this submittal.
    [Show full text]
  • Penobscot River Research Newsletter
    Penobscot River Research Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 1 Summer 2010 Inside this issue: Welcome From the Editor Welcome to the first edition and academic institutions. Fund- (DSRRN), a five-year, NSF- Welcome From the 1 of the Penobscot River Annual ing, status, and contact informa- Editor funded collaborative research Research Newsletter! tion are given for all projects so effort to advance the science of The primary purpose of this that you can easily follow up diadromous fish restoration. Message from the 1 newsletter is to share research with any researcher. For information about the Ex- Penobscot Trust from the Penobscot River with At 8,570 square miles, the change or DSRRN, please visit agencies, organizations, and Penobscot is Maine’s largest our website (www.umaine.edu/ academic institutions in order to watershed and New England’s Shortnose Sturgeon 2 searunfish) or contact the Edi- strengthen partnerships and second largest. This newsletter Spawning Habitat tor at barbara.s.arter opportunities among the originated from the Penobscot @umit.maine.edu broader fisheries and river res- Science Exchange which meets We hope you enjoy toration community. twice annually to discuss river Dam Removal Effects 2 the newsletter ! Inside you will find abstracts research plans and results. The on Fish Assemblages ~Barbara S. Arter, from a variety of sources includ- Exchange is a collaboration with Editor and Science ing state agencies, federal agen- the Diadromous Species Resto- Restoration Impacts 3 Information Coordinator on Bird Assemblages cies, conservation organizations ration Research Network Monitoring Sea Lam- 3 prey in Tributaries Message from the Penobscot River Restoration Trust Iron Ore Impacts on 4 Water Quality The Penobscot River Restora- the National Oceanic and At- erating investigators from the tion Project is a collaborative mospheric Administration University of Maine, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase II Report Chapter 14. Temporal and Geographic Trends in Mercury
    PENOBSCOT RIVER MERCURY STUDY Chapter 14 Temporal and geographic trends in mercury in biota in the Penobscot estuary Submitted to Judge John Woodcock United States District Court (District of Maine) April 2013 By A.D. Kopec1 and R.A. Bodaly1 1. Penobscot River Mercury Study Fish and Shellfish Collections Kimberley Payne, Rick Simmons, Marcia Bowen, Corey Francis, Chuck Porembski, Ethan Sobo, Steve Lee, Sheila and Mike Dassatt Normandeau Associates, Inc. 8 Fundy Road Falmouth, Maine 04105 Bird and Mammal Collections Oksana Lane, David Evers, Lucas Savoy, Wing Goodale, David Yates Biodiversity Research Institute 652 Maine Street Gorham, Maine 04038 Black Duck Collections Kelsey Sullivan, Brad Allen, Houston Cady Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Bangor Research Office 650 State Street Bangor, Maine 04401 1 SUMMARY Mercury (Hg) concentrations in fish, birds and bats were monitored between 2006 and 2010 in the lower Penobscot River, upper Penobscot Bay and in upstream and coastal reference sites. The monitoring study was designed to examine trends in Hg concentrations over time, the geographic pattern of Hg contamination in relation to the HoltraChem site, health threats created by the Hg contamination, and the severity of the contamination in comparison to other sites sampled throughout the world. Note that the current four to five-year monitoring period is insufficient to determine long-term trends in the region. The presence or absence of significant trends in Hg concentrations over time is relevant only for the current monitoring period. Between 2006 and 2010 we found significant variation in Hg concentrations at a few sites, but no overall trends in most species of biota, including fish (American eels, tomcod, rainbow smelt, winter flounder), lobster, and birds (Nelson’s sparrow, song sparrow, swamp sparrow, red-winged blackbird, Virginia rail).
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Estuaries Project
    Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Slocum’s and Little River Estuaries, Dartmouth, MA University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Massachusetts Department of School of Marine Science and Technology Environmental Protection FINAL REPORT – December 2008 Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Slocum’s and Little River Estuaries, Dartmouth, MA FINAL REPORT – December 2008 Brian Howes Tony Millham Roland Samimy David Schlezinger John Ramsey Trey Ruthven Ed Eichner Contributors: US Geological Survey Don Walters and John Masterson Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Elizabeth Hunt and Sean W. Kelley Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Charles Costello and Brian Dudley SMAST Coastal Systems Program Jennifer Benson, Michael Bartlett, Sara Sampieri, and Elizabeth White Lloyd Center for the Environment Mark Mello Cape Cod Commission Xiaotong Wu © [2007] University of Massachusetts All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Massachusetts Estuaries Project Technical Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of the many individuals who have worked tirelessly for the restoration and protection of the critical coastal resources of the Slocum's and Little River Estuaries and supported the application of the Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for these systems. Without these stewards and their efforts, this project would not have been possible. First and foremost we would like to recognize and applaud the significant time and effort in data collection and discussion spent by members of the Coalition for Buzzards Bay's BayWatcher, Water Quality Monitoring Program. These individuals gave of their time to consistent and sound nutrient related water quality from this system for over a decade.
    [Show full text]
  • The Archaeology of Merryspring Nature Center: the Asa Hosmer Farm (ME 073.014) and the Lt. Benjamin Burton Militia Encampment
    The Archaeology of Merryspring Nature Center: The Asa Hosmer Farm (ME 073.014) and The Lt. Benjamin Burton Militia Encampment (ME 073.015) Part 4 Harbour Mitchell, III November, 2020 This Report In light of the overall amount of information gathered in two years of testing, and in an effort to make it as reader-friendly as possible, this report is comprised of five parts, Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each being a separate volume. Each part represents a stand-alone section of the whole, with its own Table of Contents, Table of Figures, and Introduction. Part 1 includes: Executive Summary; Acknowledgements; Table of Contents; Table of Figures; Introduction; Geographical and Geological Context; Historic Background; Historic Ownership of Lot 71; and Regional Archaeological Context. Part 2 includes: Executive Summary; Table of Contents; Table of Figure; Introduction; Archaeological Rationale, Context, and Protocol . Part 3 includes: Executive Summary; Table of Contents; Table of Figures; Introduction; Soil Stratigraphy; Archaeological Stratigraphy; Features; Cultural Materials. Part 4 includes: Executive Summary; Table of Contents; Table of Figures; Introduction; Cultural Material Spatial Distribution; Conclusions; and References Cited. Part 5 includes: Executive Summary; Table of Contents; Table of Figures; and Appendices A-D. In its content, this report is primarily a descriptive effort – the what, where, and when of two years of archaeological testing. That said, given 1) an “umbilical” relationship between ME 073.015, ME 073.014, and the long forgotten trans- regional Warren Road, and 2) an identical relationship between the Warren Road and the Thorndike-Conway House (ME 373.017), and all of their temporal interconnectedness, it is near impossible to avoid introducing some interpretation, at least as it relates to site location and relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • The Yellow-Headed Spruce Sawfly in Maine
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 1953 The Yellow-headed Spruce Sawfly in Maine. Edward John Duda University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses Duda, Edward John, "The Yellow-headed Spruce Sawfly in Maine." (1953). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 2871. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/2871 This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i']■])'■: Y MID W-HEADED SPRUCE I) 0 D A -19 5 3 IMORR -LD 3234 iM268 1953 D344 ✓ A**-*- The Yellow-headed Spruce Sawfly in Maine Edward J. Dnda l?-1‘I^ x~ I'M ; Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Degree of Master of Science. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts June, 1953* To Mother < This thesis is dedicated in memory of Jennie E. Duds beloved mother and very dear friend, who has always been my inspiration. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is greatly indebted to H. B. Peirson, State Entomol¬ ogist of Maine who made the development of this problem possible* It was through hie generous efforts that the writer was permitted to use informa¬ tion that had been obtained while under the employ of the Maine Forest Service* Indebtedness is also expressed to The F. A* Bartlett Tree Expert Company of Stamford, Connecticut who so generously granted the author leave from his present duties to complete this work* The writer also wishes to make acknowledgements to J* F* Hanson, Assistant Professor of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, under whose direction this work was done) to W* B* Becker and R* P* Holdsworth who also, as members of the thesis committee, critically read this thesis and offered helpful suggestions) to R* W* Nash and A* E.
    [Show full text]