HomeMy WebLinkAboutEversource Station 961 Pole Replacement - Intensive Survey Report - July 2026Simon, MHC
January 31, 2025
Page | 1
September 24, 2025
Brona Simon
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Archaeologist and Executive Director
Massachusetts Historical Commission
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, Massachusetts 02125
Re: Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project – Hyannis, Massachusetts
PNF, Cultural Resource Due Diligence & Permit Application for Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey
PAL #4848.02
Dear Ms. Simon:
On behalf of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy (Eversource), enclosed please find a Project
Notification Form (PNF) and a Cultural Resource Due Diligence prepared by The Public Archaeology Laboratory,
Inc. (PAL) for the proposed Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project in Barnstable, Massachusetts.
The Project requires replacement of existing wooden distribution line poles along a right-of-way (ROW) that connects
with Station 961 (Hyannis Junction) in the Hyannis section of Barnstable, Massachusetts. The Project involves the
replacement of 11 existing wood structures with new steel structures, and the installation of 9 new steel mid-span
structures along the distribution line along the existing ROW between Station 961 and Station 958 (Barnstable
Substation). Also enclosed is an application for a permit to conduct an Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey.
The Project area is located on the Hyannis, MA USGS Topographic map.
Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. By copy of this letter, we are providing the enclosed
documentation to Native American Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for their concurrent review. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact John M. Kelly, Principal Investigator, or
Gregory R. Dubell, Senior Project Manager, at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Deborah C. Cox, RPA
President
Enclosures
cc: Nora O’Keefe, Eversource (w/encl. – via email)
Amanda Houle, Tighe & Bond, Inc. (w/encl. – via email)
Carla Davis, Tighe & Bond, Inc. (w/encl. – via email)
Bettina Washington, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (w/encl. – via email)
David Weeden, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (w/encl. – via email)
Nakia Hendricks, Jr., Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (w/encl. – via email)
John Brown, III, Narragansett Indian Tribe (w/encl. – via email)
Cora Peirce, Narragansett Indian Tribe (w/encl.)
Mark Andrews, Narragansett Indian Tribe (w/encl.)
Erica Brown, Barnstable Historical Commission (w/encl. – via email)
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
TECHNICAL REPORT
INTENSIVE (LOCATIONAL) ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
STATION 961 POLE REPLACEMENTS
AND RECONDUCTORING PROJECT
Hyannis, Barnstable, Massachusetts
John M. Kelly
Submitted to:
Tighe & Bond, Inc.
53 Southampton Road
Westfield, Massachusetts 01085
Submitted by:
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
26 Main Street
Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860
PAL Report No. 4848.02 July 2026
PAL PUBLICATIONS
AUTOCAD SPECIALIST/CARTOGRAPHER
DANA M. RICHARDI
GIS SPECIALIST
JANE MILLER
PRODUCTION MANAGER
GAIL M. VAN DYKE
i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL) has completed an intensive (locational) archaeological
survey for the proposed Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project (the Project) in the
Hyannis section of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts. The Project will involve reconductoring
work, the replacement of 10 existing wood structures with new steel structures, and the installation of 12
new steel mid-span structures along a distribution line within the existing right-of-way (ROW) between
Station 958 (Barnstable Substation) and Station 961. A total of 112, 50-x-50-centimeter test pits were
excavated in the impact areas along the Project ROW that had been assessed with high and moderate
archaeological sensitivity. No archaeological resources were identified during the survey, and no further
archaeological investigations are recommended for the Project.
iii
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ABSTRACT
An intensive (locational) archaeological survey conducted along a distribution line right-of-way in the
Hyannis section of Barnstable, Massachusetts, consisted of archival research, a walkover survey, and
subsurface archaeological testing. A total of 112, 50-x-50-centimeter test pits were excavated during the
survey. No archaeological resources were identified.
PAL Report No. 4848.02 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. i
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... iii
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
Project Description and Authority ..................................................................................................... 1
History of Cultural Resource Services ............................................................................................... 3
PAL Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Personnel .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Disposition of PAL Project Materials ................................................................................................ 3
2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ....................................................................................... 4
Definition of Archaeological Properties ............................................................................................. 4
Historic Contexts .............................................................................................................................. 5
Criteria for Significance and Listing in the National Register ............................................................. 5
Archival Research ............................................................................................................................. 6
State Site Files, Town Reconnaissance Surveys, and CRM Reports ............................................. 7
Histories and Maps ..................................................................................................................... 7
Environmental Studies ................................................................................................................ 7
Walkover Survey .............................................................................................................................. 7
Subsurface Testing ............................................................................................................................ 8
Curation ............................................................................................................................................ 8
3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 9
Physiographic Setting ........................................................................................................................ 9
Geomorphology and Bedrock Geology ............................................................................................ 10
Surficial Geology ............................................................................................................................ 10
Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Soils and Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 10
4. CULTURAL CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 12
Pre-Contact and Contact Period History of Cape Cod ...................................................................... 12
Post-Contact Settlement and Development of Barnstable and Hyannis ............................................. 14
5. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 16
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................. 16
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDICES
A. INTENSIVE SURVEY TESTING MAPS .................................................................................... 23
B. PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE ............................................................................................... 33
vi PAL Report No. 4848.02
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Map of Massachusetts showing the location of Barnstable .............................................. 1
Figure 1-2. Location of the Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project on the
Hyannis, MA, USGS topographic quadrangle, 7.5-minute series ..................................... 2
Figure 3-1. Physiographic zones of New England showing the approximate location of the
Project ROW .................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5-1. Representative test pit profiles from the Project ROW .................................................. 17
PAL Report No. 4848.02 1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an intensive (locational) archaeological survey conducted by The Public
Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL) for the proposed Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring
Project (the Project) in the Hyannis section of Barnstable, Barnstable County, Massachusetts (Figure 1-1).
The survey was completed under contract to Tighe & Bond, Inc. (Tighe & Bond).
Project Description and Authority
Eversource Energy Services Company (Eversource) is proposing structure replacements and installations
along its existing distribution line that connects with Station 961 (Hyannis Junction) in Hyannis (Figure 1-
2). The Project involves reconductoring work, the replacement of 10 existing wood structures with new
steel structures, and the installation of 12 new steel mid-span structures along the distribution line within
the existing right-of-way (ROW) between Station 958 (Barnstable Substation) and Station 961. The Project
Figure 1-1. Map of Massachusetts showing the location of Barnstable.
Chapter One
2 PAL Report No. 4848.02
Figure 1-2. Location of the Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project on the
Hyannis, MA, USGS topographic quadrangle, 7.5-minute series.
Introduction
PAL Report No. 4848.02 3
will require federal, state, and local authorizations and will be subject to review by federal and state
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC). The Project will require compliance with federal and state regulations pertaining to historic
preservation such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 USC
306108), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 9, Sections
26–27C; and regulations that guide MHC review of state funded, licensed, and permitted projects (950
CMR 70–71).
History of Cultural Resource Services
In September 2025, at the request of Tighe & Bond on behalf of Eversource, PAL completed a cultural
resources due diligence review and desktop archaeological sensitivity assessment for the Project. The due
diligence review and desktop archaeological sensitivity assessment indicated that portions of the Project
ROW are sensitive for archaeological resources, including 21 of the 22 structure replacement and
installation locations (PAL 2025). Given the results of the due diligence review and desktop archaeological
sensitivity assessment, Tighe & Bond and Eversource requested that PAL conduct an intensive (locational)
archaeological survey for the Project.
PAL Scope
The purpose of the intensive (locational) archaeological survey was to identify potentially significant
archaeological resources that may be affected by the Project and to provide recommendations regarding the
need for additional archaeological testing. PAL conducted the survey under State Archaeologist’s Permit
No. 4456, issued by the MHC on October 9, 2025. All tasks associated with the survey were conducted in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation (48 FR 44716–44742) and the MHC’s (1979) Public Planning and Environmental Review:
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Key PAL personnel involved in the survey meet the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Appendix A to Part 61) and the MHC’s
Professional Qualifications (950 CMR 70.10).
Personnel
Fieldwork for the intensive (locational) archaeological survey was conducted in October 2025 and March
2026. PAL personnel involved in the survey were Gregory R. Dubell (project manager); John M. Kelly
(principal investigator); Kristen Jeremiah and Nathan Orsi (project archaeologists); and Sam Marcucci,
Cheenulka Pocknett, David Pocknett, Andrew Polta, and Ryan Waxman (archaeologists). Tribal cultural
resource monitor Annawon Weeden of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe accompanied PAL staff during
some of the fieldwork.
Disposition of PAL Project Materials
All documentation associated with the archaeological survey, including field forms, maps, and photographs,
is in temporary curation at PAL, 26 Main Street, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, until a permanent repository is
designated.
4 PAL Report No. 4848.02
CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The goal of the intensive (locational) archaeological survey for the Project was to identify any pre-contact
and/or post-contact archaeological resources that may be potentially eligible for listing in the State and/or
National Registers of Historic Places (State/National Registers). The survey involved:
archival research, including a review of historical literature and maps; and
field investigations, consisting of a “walkover” assessment survey and subsurface archaeological
testing.
Subsurface archaeological testing was conducted in the Project impact areas (areas of proposed ground
disturbance) along the ROW that were assessed and field verified as having high and moderate
archaeological sensitivity, and the results of this and other field survey data were interpreted within the
environmental and historic contexts developed for the Project ROW.
Definition of Archaeological Properties
The different phases of archaeological investigation (reconnaissance survey, intensive [locational] survey,
site examination, and data recovery) reflect preservation planning standards for the identification,
evaluation, registration, and treatment of archaeological resources (National Park Service [NPS] 1983). An
essential component of this planning structure is the identification of archaeological properties and
traditional cultural places that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. An archaeological property
“can be a district, site, building, structure, or object,” but archaeological properties “are most often sites
and districts” (Little et al. 2000). A traditional cultural place is “a building, structure, object, site, or district
that may be listed or eligible for listing in the National Register for its significance to a living community
because of its association with cultural beliefs, customs, or practices that are rooted in the community’s
history and that are important in maintaining the community’s cultural identity” (NPS 2024). The results
of professional surveys and consultation with Native American or other ethnic communities are used to
make recommendations about the significance and eligibility of archaeological properties and traditional
cultural places.
An archaeological property may be pre-contact, post-contact, or contain components from both periods.
Pre-contact (or what is often termed “prehistoric”) archaeology focuses on the remains of indigenous
American societies as they existed before substantial contact with Europeans and the resulting written
records (Little et al. 2000). In accordance with the NPS guidelines, “pre-contact” is used, unless directly
quoting materials that use “prehistoric.” No single year marks the transition from pre-contact to post-
contact.
Post-contact (or what is often termed “historical”) archaeology is the archaeology of sites and structures
dating from time periods since significant contact between Native Americans and Europeans. Documentary
records and oral traditions can be used to better understand these properties and their inhabitants
(Little et al. 2000). Again, for reasons of consistency with the NPS guidelines, “post-contact” is used when
referring to archaeology of this period, unless directly quoting materials that use “historical.”
Research Design and Methods
PAL Report No. 4848.02 5
Historic Contexts
The formulation of historic contexts is a logical first step in the design of an archaeological investigation
and is crucial to the evaluation of archaeological properties and traditional cultural places in the absence of
a comprehensive survey of a region. Historic contexts provide an organizational framework that groups
information about related historic properties based on a theme, geographic limits, and chronological
periods. For an archaeological property, the historic context is the analytical framework within which the
property’s importance can be understood and to which an archaeological study is likely to contribute
important information (Little et al. 2000). It should identify gaps in data and knowledge to help determine
what significant information may be obtained from the resource. Each historic context is related to the
developmental history of an area, region, or theme (e.g., agriculture, transportation, and waterpower), and
identifies the significant patterns of which a particular resource may be an element. Only those contexts
important to understanding and justifying the significance of the property need be discussed. For traditional
cultural places, historic contexts refer to “those patterns or trends in history by which a place is understood
and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history can be demonstrated” and are “grounded in
the significance of the place from the unique cultural perspective of a community” (NPS 2024:46).
Historic contexts are developed by
identifying the concept, time period, and geographic limits for the context;
collecting and assessing existing information about these time periods;
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 historic contexts with properties illustrating
those ideas (NPS 1983, 48 FR 44719).
The following historic research contexts have been developed to organize data relating to any
archaeological resources identified within the Project ROW:
Pre-contact Native American land use and settlement on Cape Cod circa (ca.) 13,000 to 450 years
before present (BP1); and
Post-contact land use and settlement patterns in Barnstable, Massachusetts, ca. AD 1620 to present.
Criteria for Significance and Listing in the National Register
The NPS has established four criteria for listing significant cultural properties in the National Register
(36 CFR 60). The criteria are broadly defined to include the wide range of properties that are significant in
American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The quality of significance may be
present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The criteria (known by the letters A–D) allow for the
listing of properties
that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
1 Pre-Contact date ranges represent radiocarbon years before present (BP), with the present defined as AD 1950.
Chapter Two
6 PAL Report No. 4848.02
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
that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Archaeological properties and traditional cultural places can be determined eligible for listing in the
National Register under all four criteria but must meet at least one (Little et al. 2000; NPS 2024).
Archaeological properties listed under Criterion A or B must have a demonstrated ability to convey their
associations with events, persons, or patterns significant to our history. Criterion C is intended to recognize
properties that are significant expressions of culture or technology (especially architecture, artistic value,
landscape architecture, and engineering) (Little et al. 2000:26). Under Criterion C, an archaeological
property must have remains that are well-preserved and clearly illustrate the design and construction of a
building or structure (Little et al. 2000:27).
For Criterion D, under which most archaeological properties are determined eligible for listing in the
National Register, only the potential to yield important information is required (Little et al. 2000:22).
However, it is important to consider whether the data derived from a site are unique or redundant, and how
they relate to the current state of knowledge relating to the research topic(s). A defensible argument must
establish that a property “has important legitimate associations and/or information value based on existing
knowledge and interpretations that have been made, evaluated, and accepted” (McManamon 1990:15).
Another critical component in assessing the significance of a historic property is an evaluation of its
integrity. Historic properties either retain integrity (i.e., convey their significance) or they do not. The
National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define
integrity:
location, the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event
occurred;
design, the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property;
setting, the physical environment of a historic property;
materials, the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time
and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property;
workmanship, the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory;
feeling, a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and
association, the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these qualities. The
retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining
which of these aspects or qualities are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where,
and when the property is significant (NPS 1997).
Archival Research
PAL supplemented the archival research conducted during the cultural resources due diligence review for
the Project ROW with information from a review of state site files, cultural resources management (CRM)
reports, local and regional histories, historical maps and atlases, and relevant environmental studies.
Research Design and Methods
PAL Report No. 4848.02 7
State Site Files, Town Reconnaissance Surveys, and CRM Reports
PAL reviewed information about all previously recorded cultural resources in the vicinity of the Project
ROW using the GIS-based Massachusetts Cultural Resources Information System (MACRIS) online
mapping application maintained by the MHC. Resource records in MACRIS consist of digitized paper
records on file at the MHC, including archaeological site inventory forms and National Register nomination
forms. Associated attribute data for each record include locational information, temporal and cultural
affiliation, and National Register status. PAL also reviewed the MHC’s town reconnaissance survey report
for Barnstable (MHC 1984); the regional historic and archaeological resources report for Cape Cod and the
Islands (MHC 1987); and reports documenting previous CRM investigations in the vicinity of the Project
ROW (Binzen and Chapman 2002; Chartier and Carvino 2014; Doucette et al. 1990; Ritchie 2019).
Histories and Maps
Primary and secondary histories and historical maps and atlases were examined to assess changes in land
use, to locate any documented structures, and to trace the development of transportation networks (an
important variable in the location of post-contact archaeological sites). Town, county, state, and regional
histories (e.g., Barber 1839; Deyo 1890) and historical maps and atlases (e.g., Hales 1831; Walker 1880;
Walling 1858) were consulted to locate possible post-contact sites within and close to the Project ROW.
Environmental Studies
Bedrock and surficial geological studies (e.g., Fenneman 1938; Zen et al. 1983) provided information about
the region’s physical structure and about geological resources near the Project ROW. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS) web soil survey (2026) provided
information about soil types and surficial deposits within the Project ROW and the general categories of
flora and fauna that these soil types support. In addition, studies of past environmental settings of New
England were consulted.
Walkover Survey
PAL conducted a walkover survey of the Project ROW to document and assess present environmental
conditions and to ground-truth and refine the desktop archaeological sensitivity assessment. Environmental
information documented on Project maps included the presence, types, and extent of fresh water; drainage
characteristics; presence of bedrock outcrops and level terraces; and the angle of any slopes. Areas
previously assessed with low archaeological sensitivity but that were reclassified with high or moderate
archaeological sensitivity in the field were added to the planned subsurface testing locations. Areas
previously assessed with high or moderate archaeological sensitivity but that were reclassified with low
archaeological sensitivity due to disturbances, the presence of perennially wet conditions, or the presence
of steep slopes were documented and removed from the planned testing locations.
The current physical condition of an area is defined by the absence or degree of natural or human
disturbances to the landscape. Typically encountered disturbances within a given area may include those
resulting from agricultural plowing, gravel or soil mining, or previous construction and site preparation
activities. Extensive survey experience indicates that such disturbances can reduce the probability for
encountering contextually intact archaeological sites. However, plowing (which can move artifacts from
their primary vertical and horizontal contexts and is the most common type of disturbance in New England)
does not necessarily compromise the physical integrity of all cultural deposits.
Another purpose of the walkover survey was to document surface indications of archaeological sites.
Although pre-contact sites in New England are most often found belowground, artifact scatters are
Chapter Two
8 PAL Report No. 4848.02
sometimes exposed on the surface through cultural agents such as pedestrian and vehicular traffic and by
natural processes such as erosion. Post-contact archaeological site types that might be visible include stone
foundations, stone walls, and trash deposits. If the remains of a built resource such as a farmstead are present
within a given area, it is likely that a cellar hole and associated landscape features such as stone walls,
overgrown orchards and fields, and ornamental plantings may be visible on or above the ground’s surface.
Subsurface Testing
Subsurface testing was conducted in the Project impact areas along the ROW that had been assessed and
field verified as having high and moderate archaeological sensitivity. These areas consisted of the 50-x-50-
foot (ft) work pads at 21 of the locations where single-pole structures will be replaced and installed, and
the 50-x-50-ft work pad for the replacement of the three-pole Structure 9135/239. A total of 112, 50-x-50-
centimeter (cm) test pits were excavated within the Project impact areas as 24 testing arrays, as 1 testing
block, and as 14 judgmentally placed test pits (JTPs). The testing arrays in the 50-x-50-ft work pads
consisted of four test pits placed at 5-meter (m) intervals in cardinal directions around the locations of the
existing/proposed structures. The testing block in the work pad for the three-pole Structure 9135/239
contained 8 test pits that were configured to form a staggered, 10-m grid pattern.
All test pits were excavated by shovel in 10-cm increments to a maximum of 100 cm below surface (cmbs)
or to sterile subsoils, whichever came first, unless impeded by natural obstructions (e.g., large rocks).
Excavated soil was hand-screened through ¼-inch hardware cloth. All cultural materials remaining in the
screen were bagged and tagged by level within each test pit, and the count and type of all recovered cultural
materials were noted on standard PAL Test Pit Profile forms. Soil profiles, including depths of soil horizons,
colors, and textures, were recorded for each test pit. All test pits were filled and the ground surface was
restored to its original contour following excavation.
Digital photographs were taken to document the general Project ROW and representative test pit profiles.
A record of digital images was maintained on standard PAL Photograph Log forms. A daily record of
observations and procedures was maintained by the project archaeologist.
Because subsurface testing did not yield any cultural materials, no laboratory processing, cataloging, or
analyses were necessary.
Curation
Following the completion of the survey, all Project documentation was placed in storage at PAL, 26 Main
Street, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Curation of Federally-
Owned and Administered Archeological Collections (36 CFR 79) and the MHC’s State Archaeologist’s
Permit Regulations (950 CMR 70) until a permanent repository is designated.
PAL Report No. 4848.02 9
CHAPTER THREE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The natural environment was a critical factor affecting pre-contact and post-contact settlement patterns,
subsistence strategies, and resource utilization throughout New England. Bedrock geology, soils,
vegetation, and coastal and riverine systems all influenced where and to what extent human populations
occupied any given geographic area. Knowledge of past environmental conditions–-and historic and
modern disturbances to those conditions–-allows archaeologists to assess the potential for an area to contain
archaeological sites and a context to interpret their cultural, functional, and temporal affiliation.
Physiographic Setting
Barnstable is within the Coastal Plain
physiographic zone, which encompasses all of
Cape Cod and most of the southern New
England coastline (Figure 3-1). The Coastal
Plain is characterized by level or gently rolling
terrain known as “knob and kettle” topography
and many ponds, swamps, small rivers, and
wetlands (Fenneman 1938). Barnstable is
within the Mid Cape portion of the Cape Cod
peninsula. The Mid Cape features low rolling
hills that rise 100–140 ft above mean sea level
(amsl), and these hills cradle a multitude of
large and small kettle hole ponds. These kettle
hole ponds were created by remnant blocks of
ice partially or completely buried by glacial
outwash deposits, which slumped to form
depressions after the ice melted (Oldale 1992).
The rivers in the area are all minor waterways
that generally flow from inland lakes and
ponds to Cape Cod Bay and Nantucket Sound
(Bickford and Dymon 1990).
Hyannis is one of the seven villages within
Barnstable and encompasses the southeastern
portion of the town, roughly extending from
Route 6 south to Hyannis Harbor and Lewis
Bay. The Project ROW is near the northern
boundary of Hyannis, within a largely
undeveloped area between the Cape Cod
Gateway Airport and the Hyannis Ponds
Wildlife Management Area. Elevations along
the Project ROW range from 30 to 70 ft amsl.
Figure 3-1. Physiographic zones of New England
showing the approximate location of the Project ROW
(adapted from Fenneman 1938).
Chapter Three
10 PAL Report No. 4848.02
Geomorphology and Bedrock Geology
The final recession of glacial ice approximately 16,000 years ago resulted in the deposition of massive
amounts of materials on the land surface. A terminal moraine created by the eastern portion of the glacier
known as the Cape Cod Bay Lobe was once 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) north of the Cape Cod peninsula in
what is now Cape Cod Bay. The outwash from this moraine created the landscape; as the ice melted, soils,
rocks, and other particles were released and deposited as hills and valleys (Oldale 1992). Glaciofluvial
deposits from meltwaters deeply buried the natural bedrock of the area. The underlying bedrock of the
entire Cape Cod peninsula consists of Proterozoic Age granite, which is made up of plutonic and
metamorphosed granite, gneiss, and schist (Zen et al. 1993).
One of the most important differences between the ancient and modern environments is that the shoreline
of 12,000 years ago was 100 meters (328 ft) lower and tens of kilometers farther south and east of its current
position. The Cape Cod shoreline did not exist in its current form until approximately 3,000 years ago.
Since about 12,000 years ago, land surfaces adjacent to and below the extent of high tide have been
influenced by the ocean. Erosion, redeposition, and inundation are natural processes that continue to shape
the shoreline of Cape Cod (Strahler 1966). The present-day vegetation across most of the Cape is the result
of deforestation, which exposed the region’s loose sandy soils to wind and weather. By 1860, an estimated
80% of the Cape had been cleared of trees (Johnson 1997:14; Snow and Valiela 1979).
Surficial Geology
Mineral deposits left behind by the Wisconsin glacier are the parent material of the soils in the region. The
landscape includes features of glacial deposition and erosion from the advance and retreat of past
continental ice sheets. The direction of ice movement, as discerned from bedrock striations and drumlin
orientations, was generally from northwest to southeast (Oldale 1992; USDA–NRCS 2026).
As the ice progressed, it scoured the bedrock surface in the region, leaving deepened and widened valleys.
When the ice melted, it left exposed bedrock in some places in the highlands and blanketed other areas with
glacial till as much as 280 ft deep. Valleys were left filled and veneered with till deposits or stratified
glaciofluvial material laid down by meltwater streams. The coarsest gravel and cobbles were deposited
closest to the head of the outwash, where stream velocities were greatest. The texture of deposits became
progressively finer as the glacial meltwaters flowed away from the ice margin (Oldale 1992; USDA–NRCS
2026). The glacial deposits can be divided into glacial till and glaciofluvial deposits. Glaciofluvial or glacial
outwash deposits, typically containing stratified sand and gravel nearly free of silt and clay, were deposited
over most of Cape Cod.
Hydrology
Barnstable is within the Cape Cod drainage basin, which covers all of the Cape Cod peninsula plus Martha’s
Vineyard, Nantucket, and the Elizabeth islands. Cape Cod contains 353 lakes and ponds, many of which
are kettle hole ponds that fluctuate with changing groundwater (Simcox 1992). The Project ROW is near
Small Pond, Israel Pond, Flintrock Pond, and Mary Dunn Pond. The seasonally inundated Little Israel Pond
and its associated wetlands also extend across the ROW approximately 250 ft north of South Flint Rock
Road.
Soils and Vegetation
Mapped soils within the Project ROW consist of Carver loamy coarse sand and Plymouth-Barnstable
complex soils. Carver series soils are very deep, excessively well-drained soils formed in sandy
glaciofluvial deposits. Most areas with Carver soils are forested with scrub oak, pitch pine, and eastern
Research Design and Methods
PAL Report No. 4848.02 11
white pine, though some areas have been cleared and used for cultivation. Barnstable series soils typically
form in loamy till over loose, sandy outwash and are associated with glacial moraines. Areas with these
soils are usually wooded with white, scarlet, and black oak and pitch pine, but the trees tend to grow poorly.
Plymouth series soils are very deep, excessively drained, strongly sloping soils found on small hills and
ridges in areas of glacial lake and ice-contact deposits and on ground moraines. When forested, areas with
Plymouth soils typically contain white and black oak, pitch pine, and scrub oak (USDA–NRCS 2026).
12 PAL Report No. 4848.02
CHAPTER FOUR
CULTURAL CONTEXT
Pre-Contact and Contact Period History of Cape Cod
The earliest known archaeological sites in New England date to the PaleoIndian Period (ca. 13,000–
10,000 Years Before Present BP). Few PaleoIndian sites or artifacts have been identified on the Cape Cod
peninsula. Many researchers have theorized that early sites may have been in areas that were inundated by
the postglacial sea level rise and coastal erosion. Evidence of PaleoIndian occupation of the Mid Cape has
largely been limited to surface finds from interior riverine locations (MHC 1987). The Hathaway Pond I
Site (19-BN-623), which contained one of the first in situ PaleoIndian finds on the Cape, was identified
adjacent to an interior kettle hole and yielded a probable Eden projectile point and associated debitage
(Davin and Gallagher 1989). A cache of Eden-like points was also discovered in Barnstable underneath an
uprooted tree, and several multicomponent sites along the Herring River in Harwich contained possible
PaleoIndian components (Davin and Gallagher 1989; Dunford 1987; Seufert 1994). A fluted felsite
projectile point was also reportedly recovered at the multicomponent Blue Rock Site (19-BN-562) in
Yarmouth (Mahlstedt 1985).
The Early Archaic Period (10,000–8000 BP) was also characterized by changing environmental
landscapes as sea levels rose and inundated coastal plain areas that may once have been occupied. The
climate was becoming warmer and drier, and the region was dominated by a mixed pine-hardwood forest.
Like PaleoIndian depositions, sites dating to the Early Archaic Period are also very rare in southern New
England, and the social and technological adaptations devised by the indigenous populations at the time are
not well understood. Research indicates that Early Archaic social groups moved within established
territories, practicing an increasingly generalized subsistence strategy based on river and lake systems and
other physiographic zones (Nicholas 1987; Tuck 1974). Portions of Cape Cod that originally were part of
the Continental Shelf may not have been used frequently by Native American groups during the period.
However, the Cape’s natural resources more likely would have been available to Native Americans, and
site locations that would have been adjacent to the coastline are now submerged as a result of rising sea
levels and eroding seashores.
The distribution and somewhat higher density of Middle Archaic Period (8000–5000 BP) sites in
southeastern New England (compared with sites dating to earlier periods) indicates that a multiseasonal
settlement system oriented around major rivers and streams was established by this time. Subsistence was
based upon the harvesting of anadromous fish, plant gathering, and hunting. A concentration of Middle
Archaic deposits has been identified in Dennis along the Bass River, including multicomponent sites such
as the Narrows River 2 and 4, Mayfair Narrows, Bass River Lane, and Nickerson/Bush sites (Mahlstedt
1985). The Kelly’s Bay and Sea Street Beach sites along Dennis’s southern shoreline also contained Middle
Archaic deposits.
The period was characterized by Neville, Stark, Merrimack, and Snappit projectile point types (Dincauze
1976; Doucette 2003). A preference for locally available lithic raw materials for a variety of bifacial and
unifacial stone tools is also evident at many sites. Ground-stone technology introduced a variety of tool
types into lithic toolkits, including net sinkers, plummets, grooved adzes, axes, gouges, whetstones, and
atlatl weights (Carlson 1964; Dincauze 1976; Fowler 1950).
Cultural Context
PAL Report No. 4848.02 13
Late Archaic Period (5000–3000 BP) land-use patterns appear to reflect population increases and
environmental changes; sites have been identified in almost every type of ecological niche, including
adjacent to swamps, marshes, tidal flats, brooks and streams, and major rivers in coastal and upland areas.
Small, special-purpose sites found along the edges of streams, bogs, and kettle hole swamps suggest the
use of a wide variety of plant and animal resources. However, environmental stressors, including a long-
term, regional drought during the Late Archaic Period, may have forced Late Archaic groups to exploit a
wider range of resources over a larger area (Thorbahn et al. 1980) and to use more marginal locations, such
as marsh and wetland peripheries (MHC 1982).
The period is grouped into three major archaeological traditions (Laurentian, Small Stemmed, and
Susquehanna), and the Small Stemmed and the Susquehanna traditions overlap with the Woodland Period.
Quartz is frequently associated with the Small Stemmed tradition, especially in southeastern Massachusetts
and on Cape Cod. The results of regional studies suggest that many of the smaller sites in the area consist
of quartz debitage and biface fragments and lack diagnostic tool types that date to the Late Archaic Period.
The Transitional Archaic Period (3600–2500 BP) marked the interim between the Archaic and Woodland
periods. Special purpose, ritual activity areas and complex burials are associated with the period (Kremp
1961). New technologies and settlement patterns may have been developed by local populations or
introduced by groups migrating into New England from distant areas. Susquehanna tradition projectile
points became prevalent along with the continuing use of Small Stemmed styles. Transitional Archaic sites
from the Mid Cape and Outer Cape document the use of a wide variety of interior pond and riverine as well
as coastal habitats. These sites consist of both small and large habitations along with cremation burials and
lithic manufacturing areas (Loparto 1985; MHC 1987). Transitional Archaic occupation along the Bass
River is indicated by the recovery of Orient Fishtail projectile points and steatite (soapstone) bowl
fragments at the Nickerson/Bush Site (19-BN-563) in Dennis (Mahlstedt 1985).
The Early Woodland Period (3000–2000 BP) is underrepresented in southern New England. Some
archaeologists have speculated that a population decline occurred (e.g., Dincauze 1974; Fiedel 2001; Lavin
1988), but the similarities in projectile point types and raw material preferences linking Early Woodland
cultures in the region with Small Stemmed tradition antecedents suggest that some Late Archaic sites could
be unrecognized Early Woodland occupations. The period was characterized by the earliest local
manufacture of ceramics, by diagnostic Meadowood and Rossville projectile points (Mahlstedt and Johnson
1982), and by the presence of shell midden deposits. Many of the Late Archaic sites identified along the
coastline on the Cape and Islands initially were identified by shell middens, which are often highly visible
along exposed sandy cliffs and ground surfaces (MHC 1987). Native American burials are also sometimes
associated with shell-bearing features and have been identified in some places as shell-lined pits near the
shoreline.
The Middle Woodland Period (2000–1000 BP) included an increase in population, greater social
complexity, evidence for regional trade, and a higher level of sedentism. Recovered materials and identified
features indicate that hunting, fishing, and collecting activities continued to dominate the subsistence
strategy, but an increased emphasis on shellfish harvesting is reflected in the numerous shell midden sites
attributed to the period (MHC 1987). Technological diversification expanded with a proliferation of
ceramic styles and the emergence of several types of projectile points. Native American groups obtained
extra-regional lithic materials, including Pennsylvania jasper and New York cherts, through long-distance
trade networks. Diagnostic artifacts include Greene, Jack’s Reef, and Fox Creek points and ceramic styles
displaying increasing variety in form and decoration.
The Late Woodland Period (1000–450 BP) on Cape Cod is best represented by coastal shell midden sites,
which indicate that shellfish were a very important part of the subsistence strategy. this time. The diversity
and density of materials found within the shell middens indicate the presence of sedentary and longer
Chapter Four
14 PAL Report No. 4848.02
occupations (McManamon 1984). Horticulture was also introduced and may have influenced settlement
patterns as food storage became more important. Diagnostic artifacts include Levanna projectile points and
decorated pottery. Late Woodland sites on Cape Cod vary considerably in size and composition and have
been identified in Chatham, Eastham, Wellfleet, and Yarmouth. The Nickerson/Bush Site, which also
yielded Early and Middle Woodland diagnostic artifacts, appears to have been the location of a village site
by the end of the Late Woodland Period, if not before (Mahlstedt 1985).
Early seventeenth-century European accounts of journeys to Cape Cod during the Contact Period (450–
300 BP/AD 1500–ca. 1620) indicate that Native American groups were present at Sandy Neck and in the
Buzzards Bay and Falmouth areas. However, not many Contact Period sites are known on the Cape; of the
known sites, at least five are burials and six are refuse deposits. One Contact Period site has been identified
on Sandy Neck in Barnstable (19-BN-81), and another may have been identified to the south at Hathaway
Pond (19-BN-623) around a kettle hole (Davin and Gallagher 1989).
During the Contact Period, the Wampanoag people (also known as the Pokanoket) living in the area were
organized into regional groups. The three Wampanoag groups that resided in the northern portion of
present-day Hyannis were known to European explorers as the Mattacheesett, the Chequaket, and the South
Sea Indians (Deyo 1890). These Wampanoag groups likely occupied villages or large habitation sites
organized into extended family groups. They subsisted on wild and domestic food resources such as shelled
clams, quahogs, and mussels, as well as various fish species and turtles that were abundant along the coastal
areas of Cape Cod Bay. Hunting for mammals such as wolves, mink, otter, and deer could have also
occurred in inland areas (MHC 1987).
Post-Contact Settlement and Development of Barnstable and Hyannis
At the start of the Plantation Period (1620–1675), the first European settlement in Barnstable was in 1637
by the Reverend Stephen Bachiler who, along with six people, set up a church in the northeastern portion
of the town. In 1639, the area was officially established as a town by the Reverend John Lothrop (MHC
1987). Between 1644 and 1680, the sachems of both the Mattacheesett and South Sea Indian groups allowed
the colonists to make five successive land purchases, thereby expanding the town to its present boundaries
in the Colonial Period (1675–1775).
By 1717, West Barnstable had been set off from Barnstable Village, and the settlements in the southern
part of the town began to develop their own social, economic, and religious institutions. Agriculture
continued to be the principal source of subsistence needs, supplying food resources of pork, poultry, rye,
barley, wheat, Indian corn, and a variety of vegetables. By the mid-eighteenth century, local merchants
were common in the Barnstable Village area, with the establishment of taverns, warehouses, and wharfs
along County Road. The Barnstable and Mid-Cape coastal areas also experienced a significant phase of
development during the eighteenth century, as coastal trade flourished between Boston and the Cape. Small-
scale industrial activity took hold in the southern portion of Barnstable where a locus of mill activity
developed along the Marston Mills River (MHC 1984).
In the Federal Period (1775–1830), the American Revolution and the War of 1812 temporarily disrupted
maritime activities on Cape Cod. Eventually, these disruptions enhanced the Cape by forcing self-reliance
on the towns. This produced an unprecedented economic boom and a concurrent doubling of the population
in most towns. The Cape Cod landscape was transformed by an increasingly large and diverse citizenry
with greater wealth and mobility, and more sophisticated technology. Dispersed settlement with small
subsistence farmsteads continued in the areas outside Marston Mills and Hyannis centers. The amount of
cultivated land increased during this period, and the fishing industries in Barnstable reached their peak
productivity, providing employment for a large portion of the towns’ male working population (MHC
1984).
Cultural Context
PAL Report No. 4848.02 15
During the Early Industrial Period (1830–1870), settlement intensified in established population centers
within the northern and southern sections of Barnstable. A railroad connection in 1854 linked Barnstable
to Boston and other Cape Cod communities, facilitating growth in population and in maritime and
agricultural activities. During the late 1830s, there were 13 vessels employed in the cod and mackerel
industries (Barber 1839:58). By the 1880s, however, population levels declined when the cod and mackerel
fisheries became less productive and whaling had been completely abandoned (MHC 1984).
By the Late Industrial Period (1870–1915), Barnstable's population had grown considerably and
diversified in the sectors of agriculture, maritime trade, commercial businesses, and small industries. The
town's proportion of foreign immigrants had also increased considerably by 1900. Agriculture pursuits,
particularly in West Barnstable, attracted the Finns, Portuguese and others. Consequently, numerous new
religious organizations and voluntary associations were established in the community to serve both year-
round and seasonal residents. In the outlying eastern and western sections of Barnstable, major period
developments took place as resort communities grew along coastal areas, provoking a subsequent rise in
the community's summer-resort business. Barnstable was also the largest agricultural town in the north-
central section of the Cape, leading in dairy goods production, poultry, and fruits (cranberries). A local
businessman, Abel D. Makepeace, entered the cranberry business in the 1870s and through a series of early-
twentieth-century bog purchases made his firm the largest global cranberry producer (MHC 1984).
In the early twentieth century, extensive marshlands along Cape Cod’s north side began to attract increasing
numbers of recreational sportsman. After maritime industries collapsed on the Cape in the late nineteenth
century, use of their shoreline locations gradually shifted to a variety of resort and recreational uses. As the
twentieth century progressed, former ship landings, saltworks, and fish weirs were replaced by bathing
beaches, hotels, and colonies of summer cabins (MHC 1984, 1987).
The Cape Cod Railroad, which provided reliable connections to the rest of the state and nation, encouraged
regional growth as a summer resort destination, but it was quickly eclipsed by private automobile travel.
Barnstable’s population grew by more than 50 percent in the first half of the twentieth century, especially
in Hyannis which became a popular automobile tourist destination. Cranberry production and shellfishing
dominated the local economy and were gradually replaced by tourist and related support industries (MHC
1984).
During World War II, the Barnstable Airport (now the Cape Cod Gateway Airport) was also known
as Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Hyannis, and the United States Navy and Army Air Force used it as a base
for anti-submarine patrols. The portion of Hyannis surrounding the airport was crossed by Routes 28 and
132 and Yarmouth Road/Willow Street, and residential and commercial development occurred south of the
airport. Small clusters of side streets were near shoreline and beach areas in Craigville, Hyannisport,
Colonial Acres, and Englewood. In the Late Modern Period (1940–1970), dense zones of commercial
development, primarily for summer tourism, formed along Routes 28 and 132. Route 6 was built in the
1950s, replacing the older highway (present-day Route 6A) running through the center of Barnstable.
Barnstable Harbor continued to be a center for the local fishing fleet in addition to recreational and tourist
boating with seasonal use of beach cottages at Beach Pont on Sandy Neck (MHC 1984).
At the start of the Contemporary Period (1970–Present), strip mall development spread along Routes 28
and 132, and the center of Hyannis was no longer the focus of commercial activity (MHC 1984). Over the
last 30 years, Hyannis has become the center of financial, medical, and governmental services on Cape
Cod. An area zoned for commercial and light industrial development is near the Cape Cod Gateway Airport.
Hyannis Harbor continues to serve as a regional port for a commercial fishing fleet; however, most activities
are related to transporting passengers and freight to Nantucket. Boat building, yacht services, docking and
mooring facilities, and marine services for recreational boaters are also active in the area.
16 PAL Report No. 4848.02
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Results
PAL excavated 112, 50-x-50-cm test pits within the Project ROW in areas assessed and field verified as
having high and moderate archaeological sensitivity. These areas include the 50-x-50-ft work pads at 21 of
the locations where single-pole structures will be replaced and installed, and the 50-x-50-ft work pad for
the replacement of the three-pole Structure 9135/239. The test pits were excavated as 24 testing arrays (AR-
01 to AR-24), as 1 testing block (STR-9135/239), and as 24 JTPs (JTP-01 to JTP-14). Maps showing the
intensive survey testing locations are included as Appendix A. No archaeological resources were identified
during the survey.
At the beginning of PAL’s fieldwork for the survey, the proposed new mid-span structures along the ROW
had not been staked. As result, the PAL crew tested the proposed mid-span structure locations as they were
depicted on maps provided by Eversource and Tighe & Bond. After PAL’s fieldwork had started,
Eversource personnel arrived on site and began staking the proposed mid-span structure locations. Due to
changes made to Project plans, the staked locations did not match the locations of the structures as they had
been depicted on the maps. From that point, PAL tested the staked locations of these structures and then
circled back to review the staked locations of the mid-span structures that had already been tested.
In areas where the proposed mid-span structure locations and work pads had been shifted slightly
(approximately 5 m) from their locations as originally mapped, PAL supplemented the initial array testing
with the excavation of JTPs to cover the shifted work pads. In areas where the proposed mid-span structure
locations and work pads had been significantly shifted, PAL excavated a complete four-pit testing array at
the staked location. PAL did not conduct any additional testing at the proposed mid-span structure locations
and work pads that had only been shifted 2 m or less from their mapped locations.
Most of the test pits contained undisturbed natural soils. A typical soil profile consisted of dark brown
(10YR 3/3) silty fine sand A1 topsoil overlaying yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) silty fine sand B1 subsoil,
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) silty fine to medium sand B2 subsoil, and light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3)
fine to medium sand C subsoil (Figure 5-1). In 26 of the test pits, a layer of light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)
medium sand podzol (Ae) was present instead of or underlying the A1 topsoil.
Disturbed and redeposited soils were present above variably truncated natural soils in 28 of the test pits,
and redeposited soils had capped the natural soils in another 14 test pits (see Figure 5-1). The disturbances
to the area had likely occurred during previous construction along the ROW and along Independence Drive.
Modern refuse such as plastic and bottle glass was noted but not collected from the redeposited soils.
Conclusions and Recommendations
No archaeological resources were identified in the Project impact areas during the intensive (locational)
archaeological survey. No further archaeological investigations are recommended for the Project.
Results and Recommendations
PAL Report No. 4848.02 17
Figure 5-1. Representative test pit profiles from the Project ROW.
PAL Report No. 4848.02 19
REFERENCES
Barber, John Warner
1839 Historical Collections Relating to the History and Antiquities of Every Town in
Massachusetts. Dorr, Howland and Company, Worcester, MA.
Bickford, Walter E., and Ute Janik Dymon (editors)
1990 An Atlas of Massachusetts River Systems: Environmental Designs for the Future.
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement.
University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
Binzen, Timothy, and Ann Chapman
2002 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Intensive (Locational) Survey for the North Central
Terminal Alternative at the Barnstable Municipal Airport, Barnstable, Massachusetts. On
file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Carlson, R. W.
1964 The Washakumaug Site. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 25:29–35.
Chartier, Craig, and Frank Carvino
2014 Intensive Survey Fieldwork at the Proposed Breeds Hill Road Solar Farm, Barnstable,
Massachusetts. On file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Davin, Ann K., and Joan Gallagher
1989 Archaeological Investigations, Hathaway Pond Project Area, Barnstable, Massachusetts.
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report No. 190. Submitted to Schofield
Company, Plymouth, MA.
Deyo, Simeon L. (editor)
1890 History of Barnstable County, Massachusetts. H. W. Blake and Co., New York, NY.
Dincauze, Dena F.
1974 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Greater Boston Area. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 2(1):39–67.
1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire. Peabody
Museum Monographs 4. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Doucette, Dianna
2003 Unraveling Middle Archaic Expressions: A Multidisciplinary Approach Towards Feature
and Material Culture Recognition in Southeastern New England. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Doucette, Dianna, Edna Feighner, and Ann K. Davin
1990 Intensive Archaeological Survey, Independence Park Project Area, Barnstable,
Massachusetts. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report No. 342. Submitted to
Independence Park, Inc., Hyannis, MA.
References
20 PAL Report No. 4848.02
Dunford, Frederick J.
1987 An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Pleasant Bay, Massachusetts. On file,
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Fenneman, N. M.
1938 Physiography of the Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Fiedel, Stuart J.
2001 What Happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:101–
142.
Fowler, William S.
1950 The Heard Pond Site. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 12.
Hales, John G.
1831 Plan of the Town of Barnstable in the County of Barnstable. On file, Massachusetts State
Archives, Boston, MA.
Johnson, Eric S.
1997 Archaeological Overview and Assessment of the Cape Cod National Seashore,
Massachusetts. On file, Cape Cod National Seashore Salt Pond Visitor Center, Eastham,
MA.
Kremp, Frank
1961 The Coburn Site: A Burial Complex on Cape Cod. Bulletin of the Massachusetts
Archaeological Society 23(3 and 4):45–46.
Lavin, Lucianne
1988 Coastal Adaptation in Southern New England and Southern New York. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 16:101–120.
Little, Barbara, Erika Martin Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. National Register
Bulletin No. 36. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C.
Loparto, Leonard W.
1985 A Clearance Memorandum for the Oak Ridge Prehistoric Site (19-BN-490), Orleans,
Massachusetts. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report No. 70. Submitted to
Linenthal, Eisenberg Anderson, Inc., Boston, MA.
Mahlstedt, Thomas F.
1985 The Massachusetts Historical Commission Prehistoric Survey: Artifact Collections from
Cape Cod. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Mahlstedt, Thomas F., and Eric S. Johnson
1982 An Analysis and Assessment of the Roy Athearn Archaeological Collection, Fall River,
Massachusetts. On file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
References
PAL Report No. 4848.02 21
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)
1979 Public Planning and Environmental Review: Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
1982 Historic and Archaeological Resources of Southeast Massachusetts. Massachusetts
Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
1984 Town Reconnaissance Survey Report: Barnstable. Massachusetts Historical Commission,
Boston, MA.
1987 Historic and Archaeological Resources of Cape Cod and the Islands. Massachusetts
Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
McManamon, Francis P.
1990 A Regional Perspective on Assessing the Significance of Historic Period Sites. Historical
Archaeology 24(2):14–22.
McManamon, Francis P. (editor)
1984 Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape Cod I: Results of the Cape Cod National Seashore
Archaeological Survey 1979–1981. Division of Cultural Resources, National Park
Service, Boston, MA.
National Park Service (NPS)
1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation (48 FR 44716–44742). National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin
No. 15. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
2024 Identifying, Evaluating, and Documenting Traditional Cultural Places. National Register
Bulletin No. 38. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C.
Nicholas, George P.
1987 Rethinking the Early Archaic. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:99–123.
Oldale, Robert N.
1992 Cape Cod and the Islands: The Geologic Story. Parnassus Imprints, Orleans, MA.
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL)
2025 Station 961 Pole Replacements Project, Hyannis, Massachusetts: Cultural Resources
Due Diligence and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment. Submitted to Tighe & Bond,
Westfield, MA.
Ritchie, Duncan
2019 Intensive Archaeological Survey, Proposed Substation, Vineyard Wind Upland Cabling
Project, Barnstable, Massachusetts. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report No.
3384. Submitted to Epsilon Associates, Inc., Maynard, MA.
References
22 PAL Report No. 4848.02
Seufert, Christopher Kelly
1994 A Predictive Archaeological Model: Chatham, Massachusetts (12,000 BP–450 BP). On
file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Simcox, Alison C.
1992 Water Resources of Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigation Report No. 90-4144. U.S. Department of the Interior and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Boston,
MA.
Snow, Allison, and Ivan Valiela
1979 Vegetation. In Cape Cod Environmental Atlas, edited by Arthur H. Brownlow, pp. 25–
36. Department of Geology, Boston University, Boston, MA.
Strahler, Arthur N.
1966 A Geologist’s View of Cape Cod. Parnassus Imprints, Orleans, MA.
Thorbahn, Peter, F., Leonard Loparto, Deborah Cox, and Brona Simon
1980 Prehistoric Settlement Processes in Southern New England: A Unified Approach to
Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Research. Public Archaeology
Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Brown University Report. On file,
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Tuck, James A.
1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 2(1): 72–80.
United States Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS)
2026 Web Soil Survey, Barnstable County, Massachusetts. Electronic document,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/websoilsurvey.aspx, accessed March 2026.
Walker, George H.
1880 Atlas of Barnstable County, Massachusetts. Geo. H. Walker & Co., Boston, MA.
Walling, Henry F.
1858 Map of the Counties of Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket, Massachusetts. D. R. Smith &
Co., Boston, MA.
Zen, E., Richard Goldsmith, Nicholas Ratcliffe, Peter Robinson, Rolfe Stanley, Norman Hatch, Andrew
Shride, Elaine Weed, and David Wones.
1983 A Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Department of Public Works, Boston, MA.
PAL Report No. 4848.02 23
APPENDIX A
INTENSIVE SURVEY TESTING MAPS
J£!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!!!!98'
88'
78'
68'
78'
68'
59'49'68'
78'68'68'78'
68'68'ARRAY 17
ARRAY 19 ARRAY 18
INDEPENDENCE DRIVEINDEPENDENCE DRIVE10 9
8
7
147
148
149
9177/66
LINE 123
LINE 124
9135/232
9 180
38180
3
4
2
1
G:\Projects\4848.02 Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements\Production\Mapping\Maps GIS\484802 AGP.aprx | Last saved: 7/17/2026
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
2023Base: MassGIS
10/2025PAL: archaeological testing
0 50 100
FEET
0 10 20
METERS
Scale:1:1,100
Appendix A-1. Location of subsurface testing within the Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project area.
No Cultural Material
50-x-50cm test pit with:
Archaeological Survey:
Delineated Wetland Boundary
Delineated Wetland
GateJ£
Fence66
Well%%
Existing Access
Overhead Line
Eversource Property
ROW
Work Pad
Existing Structure to be Removed!!!
Existing Structure!!(
Proposed Structure!!
Tighe & Bond, Inc.: project data 1/2026 ÜEversource Station 961 Pole Replacements
and Reconductoring Project
Hyannis, MA
Index Map
MAP CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
PAL makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, regarding the fitness or suitability of this
map for any other purpose than to depict the results of cultural resource investigations
conducted by PAL.
Desktop Archaeological Assessment:
High Sensitivity
Moderate Sensitivity
Low Sensitivity
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%J£J£J£!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5
9
'
4
9
'39'29'39'29'39'
29'59'
49'49'39'39'ARRAY 16 ARRAY 15 ARRAY 14 ARRAY 13 ARRAY 12ARRAY 24 ARRAY 23 ARRAY 22 SOUTH FLINT ROCK ROAD6
5
150 152
9177/67 9177/68 9177/69
LINE 123
LINE 124
9135/233 9135/234 9135/235
1
234567822 360
9090
180
40 JTP-07
JTP-08JTP-09
360
JTP-10
JTP-11
360
JTP-12
360
JTP-13
JTP-14
3
4
2
1
G:\Projects\4848.02 Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements\Production\Mapping\Maps GIS\484802 AGP.aprx | Last saved: 7/17/2026
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
2023Base: MassGIS
10/2025PAL: archaeological testing
0 50 100
FEET
0 10 20
METERS
Scale:1:1,100
Appendix A-2. Location of subsurface testing within the Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project area.
No Cultural Material
50-x-50cm test pit with:
Archaeological Survey:
Delineated Wetland Boundary
Delineated Wetland
GateJ£
Fence66
Well%%
Existing Access
Overhead Line
Eversource Property
ROW
Work Pad
Existing Structure to be Removed!!!
Existing Structure!!(
Proposed Structure!!
Tighe & Bond, Inc.: project data 1/2026 ÜEversource Station 961 Pole Replacements
and Reconductoring Project
Hyannis, MA
Index Map
MAP CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
PAL makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, regarding the fitness or suitability of this
map for any other purpose than to depict the results of cultural resource investigations
conducted by PAL.
Desktop Archaeological Assessment:
High Sensitivity
Moderate Sensitivity
Low Sensitivity
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%J£J£!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!59'49'39'
59
'49'49'
39'39'
ARRAY 06ARRAY 07ARRAY 08ARRAY 09ARRAY 10ARRAY 11ARRAY 11B ARRAY 21SOUTH FLINT ROCK ROAD5 4
3
153 154
9177/70
Unknown
Number
9177/729177/71
LINE 123
LINE 124
9135/236 9135/237
9135/2381011121314 15 16360360360
90
180 180360 180
JTP-05
JTP-06
3
4
2
1
G:\Projects\4848.02 Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements\Production\Mapping\Maps GIS\484802 AGP.aprx | Last saved: 7/17/2026
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
2023Base: MassGIS
10/2025PAL: archaeological testing
0 50 100
FEET
0 10 20
METERS
Scale:1:1,100
Appendix A-3. Location of subsurface testing within the Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project area.
No Cultural Material
50-x-50cm test pit with:
Archaeological Survey:
Delineated Wetland Boundary
Delineated Wetland
GateJ£
Fence66
Well%%
Existing Access
Overhead Line
Eversource Property
ROW
Work Pad
Existing Structure to be Removed!!!
Existing Structure!!(
Proposed Structure!!
Tighe & Bond, Inc.: project data 1/2026 ÜEversource Station 961 Pole Replacements
and Reconductoring Project
Hyannis, MA
Index Map
MAP CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
PAL makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, regarding the fitness or suitability of this
map for any other purpose than to depict the results of cultural resource investigations
conducted by PAL.
Desktop Archaeological Assessment:
High Sensitivity
Moderate Sensitivity
Low Sensitivity
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66666666666666666666666
6666666666666666 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666 6 6666%%
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(
!!(!!(!!(
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
49'
39'
49'
39'
49'
39'
5
9
'39
'
49'
ARRAY 01ARRAY 02ARRAY 03ARRAY 04 ARRAY 05ARRAY 20
MA
R
Y
D
U
N
N
R
O
A
D
2
1/123
159
155
157
158/124
9177/75
9177/749177/73
LINE 123
LINE 124
SUBSTATION 961
9135/239 9135/241
9135/240
17 18 19 20 21JTP-01
JTP-02
JTP-04
JTP-03
180
D
E
B
A
C
G
H 270180
360
180180
3
4
2
1
G:\Projects\4848.02 Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements\Production\Mapping\Maps GIS\484802 AGP.aprx | Last saved: 7/17/2026
THIS MAP IS INTENDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
2023Base: MassGIS
10/2025PAL: archaeological testing
0 50 100
FEET
0 10 20
METERS
Scale:1:1,100
Appendix A-4. Location of subsurface testing within the Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project area.
No Cultural Material
50-x-50cm test pit with:
Archaeological Survey:
Delineated Wetland Boundary
Delineated Wetland
GateJ£
Fence66
Well%%
Existing Access
Overhead Line
Eversource Property
ROW
Work Pad
Existing Structure to be Removed!!!
Existing Structure!!(
Proposed Structure!!
Tighe & Bond, Inc.: project data 1/2026
Ü
Eversource Station 961 Pole Replacements
and Reconductoring Project
Hyannis, MA
Index Map
MAP CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
PAL makes no warranties, either expressed or implied, regarding the fitness or suitability of this
map for any other purpose than to depict the results of cultural resource investigations
conducted by PAL.
Desktop Archaeological Assessment:
High Sensitivity
Moderate Sensitivity
Low Sensitivity
PAL Report No. 4848.02 24
APPENDIX B
PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE
950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
APPENDIX A (continued)
7/1/93 950 CMR - 276
APPENDIX A
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD
BOSTON, MASS 02125
617-727-8470, FAX: 617-727-5128
PROJECT NOTIFICATION FORM
Project Name: Eversource Energy Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project
Location / Address: Existing Eversource cross country right-of-way
City / Town: Barnstable, Massachusetts
Project Proponent
Name: NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy Services Company
Address: 247 Station Drive
City/Town/Zip/Telephone: Westwood, MA 02090
Agency license or funding for the project (list all licenses, permits, approvals, grants or other entitlements being sought from state
and federal agencies).
Agency Name: Type of License or funding (specify)
U.S. EPA NPDES Construction General Permit for Stormwater
MA Historical Commission Chapter 26-27C (950 CMR 71)
Project Description (narrative):
Eversource is planning to replace existing electrical transmission line structures and perform reconductoring work between
Station 961 (Hyannis Junction) and Station 958 (Barnstable Substation) in the Hyannis section of Barnstable (the Project).
The project will involve the replacement of 11 existing wood structures with new steel monopoles on corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) direct embed foundations and the installation of 9 new steel mid-span structures along the existing distribution line
right-of-way (ROW). The distance of the distribution line is approximately 0.7 miles (mi) long, entirely within
Eversource’s right-of-way (ROW). PAL understands that Eversource will not require any upgrades to use existing access
roads for the Project. Eversource will also clear vegetation along the existing ROW prior to the installation of any
construction matting and structure work.
Does the project include demolition? If so, specify nature of demolition and describe the building(s) which
are proposed for demolition.
The Project will involve the removal of existing electrical transmission line structures along an existing ROW.
Does the project include rehabilitation of any existing building? If so, specify nature of rehabilitation
and describe the building(s) which are proposed for rehabilitation.
No rehabilitation of existing buildings is proposed as part of the Project.
Does the project include new construction? If so, describe (attach plans and elevations if necessary).
The Project will involve the maintenance of an existing distribution line, involving the replacement of existing wood pole
structures with direct-embedded steel monopole structures within the existing cross-country ROW.
950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
APPENDIX A (continued)
7/1/93 950 CMR - 276
To the best of your knowledge, are any historic or archaeological properties known to exist within the
project’s area of potential impact? If so, specify.
Review of files maintained at MHC and PAL indicate that there are multiple recorded archaeological resources and historic
architectural properties within and adjacent to the proposed Project ROW. See attached Cultural Resources Due Diligence
report and Geotechnical Soil Boring Cultural Resource Assessment prepared by The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
(PAL).
What is the total acreage of the project area?
Woodland acres Productive Resources:
Wetland acres Agriculture acres
Floodplain acres Forestry acres
Open Space acres Mining acres
Developed acres Total Project Acreage acres
What is the acreage of the proposed new construction? TBD acres
What is the present land use of the project area?
Existing electrical distribution line within a cross-country ROW.
Please attach a copy of the section of the USGS quadrangle map which clearly marks the project location.
See attached.
This Project Notification Form has been submitted to the MHC in compliance with 950 CMR 71.00.
Signature of Person submitting this form Date: 9/24/2025
Name: The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
Address: 26 Main Street
City / Town: Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860
Telephone: 401-728-8780
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
930CMR 71.00: M.G.L. c. 9, §§ 26-27C as amended by St.1988, c.254.
Service Layer Credits: USA_Topo_Maps:
Station 961 Distribution Line
Figure 1. Location of the Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project on the
Hyannis USGS topographic quadrangle, 7.5 minute series.
°0 1,000 2,000
Feet
1:24,000
September 1, 2026
Brona Simon
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Archaeologist
Executive Director
Massachusetts Historical Commission
220 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, Massachusetts 02125
Re: Station 961 Pole Replacements and Reconductoring Project, Hyannis, MA
Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey
PAL #4848.02
Dear Ms. Simon:
On behalf of NSTAR Electric Company d/b/a Eversource Energy (Eversource), enclosed please find the
technical report entitled Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey, Station 961 Pole Replacements
and Reconductoring Project, Hyannis, Barnstable, Massachusetts for your review and comment.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact John M. Kelly,
Principal Investigator, or me, at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Gregory R. Dubell, RPA
Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Nora O’Keefe, Eversource (w/encl. – via email)
Amanda Houle, Tighe & Bond, Inc. (w/encl. – via email)
Bettina Washington, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah (w/encl. – via email)
Adahy Gonsalves, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah (w/encl. – via email)
David Weeden, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (w/encl. – via email)
John Brown, III, Narragansett Indian Tribe (w/encl. – via email)
Cora Peirce, Narragansett Indian Tribe (w/encl.)
Mark Andrews, Narragansett Indian Tribe (w/encl.)
Muckquashim Hopkins, Narragansett Indian Tribe, (w/encl. – via email)
Erica Brown, Barnstable Historical Commission (w/encl. – via email)