DOCSLIB.ORG

Forge River Final Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forge River Final Environmental Impact Statement Forge River Watershed Sewer Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York June 2018 Prepared pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act SEQRA Lead Agency: NY Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery 25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 This page intentionally left blank. Forge River Watershed Sewer Project TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Prepared by Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR), an office of the New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation Cooperating Agencies Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Executive’s Office Federal, State and Local Involved and Interested Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) New York State Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation: State Historic Preservation Office (OPRHP / NYSHPO) New York State Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services (NYSDHSES) Suffolk County Department of Health Services Town of Brookhaven United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) The State of New York Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR), operating under the auspices of the New York State Homes and Community Renewal’s Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC), a public benefit corporation and subsidiary of the New York State Housing Finance Agency, 99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1224, Albany, New York 12260, is the Grantee of Community Development Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds appropriated by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Pub. L. 113-2, approved January 29, 2013) related to disaster relief, long-term recover, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacts and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (Stafford Act) in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. GOSR implements the State’s obligations, as they pertain to CDBG-DR funding, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) through duly authorized Certifying Officers, and is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). On December 23, 2015, GOSR issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (NOI EIS) pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (New York State Environmental Conservation Law Sections 3-0301(1)(b), 3-0301(2)(m) and 8-0113). This EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action, which would establish a Mastic- Shirley Sewer District, and construct and operate a collection system connected to approximately 3,400 parcels. The system would include a combination of gravity sewers and low-pressure sewers, a conveyance system consisting of multiple pump stations and force mains, and an Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWTF) on the Brookhaven Calabro Airport site. Or, based on detailed design, an all low-pressure system could be implemented. The AWTF would use either a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) or Sequencing Batch Reactor treatment process. The Proposed Action would result in combined average daily flows of approximately 1.4 million gallons per day, which, after treatment, would flow to subsurface leaching fields. Once the parcels are connected to the sewer district and the system is operating, existing OWTS would be removed or abandoned in accordance with Section 740-14 of the Suffolk County Code. The FEIS presents the alternatives that are being considered for implementing the Proposed Action and to examine and compare the social and environmental impacts of those alternatives. Public viewing of the DEIS is available online at: http://www.stormrecovery.ny.gov/environmental-docs and is also available in person at: • Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery: 25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004. Further information may be requested by writing to the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery at 25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004 or by emailing [email protected] or by calling (212) 480-6265. This document is the Final EIS for the Proposed Action. This Final EIS incorporates, by references, the Draft EIS, dated May 2018. The above-referenced Draft EIS was the subject of a public hearing on May 22, 2018, and written comments on the Draft EIS were accepted for 30 days through June 1, 2018. The Written Correspondence and Public Hearing Transcript are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively, of this Final EIS. Questions or comments regarding this FEIS should be submitted via email, in the proper format, on or before July 9, 2018, at [email protected]. Written comments may also be submitted at the following address, or by mail, in the proper format, to be received on or before July 9, 2018: Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery: 25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004. For further information concerning this document, contact: Matt Accardi, Certifying Officer New York State Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery 25 Beaver Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 June 25, 2018_____ ___________________________________ Date of Acceptance Matt Accardi, Certifying Officer Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery Final Environmental Impact Statement Forge River Watershed Sewer Project, Town of Brookhaven, NY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Suffolk County Coastal Resiliency Initiative ........................................................... 1 1.2 Forge River Watershed Sewer Project Environmental Review Process .................. 2 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................... 3 3.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................ 3 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 7 4.1 Combination of Gravity and Low-Pressure Sewers Collection System ................. 14 4.1.1 Collection .................................................................................................. 14 4.1.2 Conveyance ............................................................................................... 15 4.2 Exclusively Low-Pressure Sewers Collection System ........................................... 16 4.3 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility ............................................................. 16 4.3.1 Treatment Method ..................................................................................... 16 4.3.2 Facility Sizing ........................................................................................... 19 4.4 Implementation and Construction .......................................................................... 19 4.4.1 Sewer District............................................................................................ 19 4.4.2 Removal of Existing OWTS ..................................................................... 20 5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ................................ 21 5.1 Environmental Analysis Framework ...................................................................... 21 5.1.1 Resource Topics Carried forward for Detailed Analysis .......................... 22 5.1.2 Resource Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ................................ 23 5.2 Topography and Soils ............................................................................................. 24 5.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 24 5.2.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 24 5.2.3 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .............................................. 30 5.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 31 5.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 31 5.3.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 32 5.3.3 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .............................................. 33 5.4 Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 36 5.4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 36 5.4.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 38 5.4.3 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .............................................. 47 5.5 Wetlands and Coastal Resources ............................................................................ 58 5.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 58 5.5.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 59 5.5.3 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .............................................. 61 i Final Environmental Impact Statement Forge River Watershed Sewer Project, Town of Brookhaven, NY
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Open PDF File, 1.14 MB, for Taunton River Watershed 2001
    APPENDIX A TAUNTON RIVER WATERSHED DWM YEAR 2001 WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA Technical Memorandum TM-62-6 DWM Control Number: 94.1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE JR., COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GLENN HAAS, DIRECTOR Taunton River Watershed 2001 Water Quality Assessment Report Appendix A A1 62wqar.doc DWM CN 94.0 Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................A3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................................A3 Field and Analytical Methods .............................................................................................................A4 Survey Conditions...........................................................................................................................A12 Water Quality Data .........................................................................................................................A17 References Cited ............................................................................................................................A34 Appendix 1 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data Validation .......................................................A35 Appendix 2 - 2001 Data Symbols and Qualifiers ..............................................................................A42
    [Show full text]
  • Taunton, MA Waterbody Assessment, 305(B)/303(D)
    MA62-10_2008 MA62-22_2008 MA62-32_2008 Matfield River (5) Satucket River (2) Coweeset Brook (3) 106 West 28 123 MA62-13_2008 Bridgewater Town River (3) Mansfield Easton MA62106_2008 MA62-12_2008 MA62-13_2008 Hockomock River Little Cedar Swamp (3) Town River (3) Town River (3) MA62203_2008 Town Black Brook River Fuller Hammond Ward Pond (3) MA62-35_2008 TownTown RiverRiver Pond Hockomock River (3) MA62134_2008 MA62158_2008 MA62-11_2008 Norton Reservoir (5) Reservoir (3) Town River (3) MA62-27_2008 South Brook 138 South Brook Canoe River (2) MA62-31_2008 Mulberry Meadow Brook (3) Carver Canoe River Pond MA62033_2008 Norton MA62213_2008 Carver Pond (4c) Reservoir Winnecunnet Pond (4c) MA62131_2008 Norton Lake Nippenicket (4c) (TMDL) 140 Bridgewater Winnecunnet MA62-28_2008 Lake 18 Pond Nippenicket MA62-40_2008 Snake River (3) 495 Rumford River Rumford River Rumford River (2) Watson Sawmill Brook SnowsBrook 104 SnowsBrook Pond MA62007_2008 MA62-56_2008 MA62-36_2008 Barrowsville Pond (3) Three Mile River (5) MA62166_2008 MA62088_2008 Sawmill Brook (3) Barrowsville MA62084_2008 MA62205_2008 Lake Sabbatia (5) Hewitt Pond (3) Gushee PondMA62-49_2008 Pond Gushee Pond (4c) Watson Pond (5) Otis Pratt Brook Wading River (5) Meadow Sabbatia Lake Kings Brook Pond Prospect Hill MA62101_2008 Pond Pond MA62228_2008 Mill Kings Pond (3) 24 MA62113_2008 River Johnson Bassett Brook Whittenton Impoundment (4c) Pond Meadow Brook Pond (3) MA62149_2008 Birch Brook Prospect Hill Pond (3) MA62097_2008 Middleborough MA62-56_2008 Three Mile River (5) MA62136_2008
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Appendix D
    Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York February 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers Suffolk County, NY New York District APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Duck Farm Industry and Impacts Report prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building - 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 DeWitt S. Davies, Ph.D. Chief Environmental Analyst Duck Farm Industry Impacts on the Environment Introduction As documented in the historical overview section, the duck farm industry in Suffolk County was an extremely intensive land use along stream and bay shorelines. Inventory work by the Department of Planning indicates that approximately 2,000 acres of upland property and almost 20 miles of shoreline along freshwater creeks/rivers and estuary tributaries – primarily in the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton – were utilized during the last century in Suffolk County for duck production. The impacts of duck farming were dramatic, both on-site and off-site. Extensive landform alterations were made to construct animal pens, feed lots and swim ponds, which were often located in or directly adjacent to streams/coves of the bays. Waste effluent discharges from the farms created thick organic matter deposits, degraded water quality and altered phytoplankton and benthic population in near-by surface waters. Duck Farms – An Intensive Land Use The significance of the impacts is reflected by the magnitude of the industry and the waste load generated. Effluent waste loadings from the farms in the form of suspended solids, nutrients and coliform bacteria were huge, especially prior to the required use of treatment technology under water pollution control laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 106-318 106Th Congress An
    114 STAT. 1278 PUBLIC LAW 106-318—OCT. 19, 2000 Public Law 106-318 106th Congress An Act n f IQ 9nnn "^^ amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton — ' — River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential addition [H.R. 2778] to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of Taunton River the United States of America in Congress assembled. Wild and Scenic River Study Act SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 16 use 1271 This Act may be cited as the "Taunton River Wild and Scenic note. River study Act of 2000". SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that— (1) the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachu­ setts possesses important resource values (including wildlife, ecological, and scenic values), historic sites, and a cultural past important to the heritage of the United States; (2) there is strong support among State and local officials, area residents, and river users for a cooperative wild and scenic river study of the area; and (3) there is a longstanding interest among State and local officials, area residents, and river users in undertaking a con­ certed cooperative effort to manage the river in a productive and meaningful way. SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY. Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended— (1) by designating the undesignated paragraph following (135) as paragraph (136); and (2) by adding at the end the following: "(137) TAUNTON RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—^The segment down­ stream from the headwaters, from the confluence of the Town River and the Matfield River in Bridgewater to the confluence with the Forge River in Rajniham, Massachusetts.".
    [Show full text]
  • Forge River, Problem Identification
    The Forge River, Problem Identification A report prepared for the Town of Brookhaven Long Island, New York by R.L. Swanson, B. Brownawell, and C. O’Connell School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University September 2009 The Forge River, Problem Identification The Problem The Forge River is a small, partially mixed estuary discharging into Moriches Bay, a part of the Long Island south shore lagoonal system. The tidal portion of the river is 4 K (3.2 nautical mile) long that ends abruptly at Montauk Highway which serves as a dam. Two freshwater ponds (East Pond and West Pond) continuously discharge to the tidal Forge at this location. The surface watershed of the river is 43.06 km2 (10.641 acres). About 20 percent of the watershed is in the deep groundwater recharge zone (Zone III). During the summer months, the water in the Forge has experienced polluted1 conditions as evidenced by fish and crab kills, foul odors, rotting algal debris in the water, and sections of the river have sporadically turned milky white. These symptoms were especially severe during the summer of 2005 and the river has remained in a deteriorated state ever since. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Suffolk County, and the Town of Brookhaven have set an agenda to determine the causes of pollution and to identify potential remediation measures in the Forge River. Investigators at Stony Brook University’s School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) were initially charged with ________________________________________________ 1 Marine pollution – “the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy to the marine environment resulting in deleterious effects such as: hazards to humans, health; hindrance of marine activities, including fishing, .
    [Show full text]
  • Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York
    Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York February 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers Suffolk County, NY New York District Table of Contents Section Page Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ 1 List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 History of Duck Farming on Long Island................................................................................ 1 4.0 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 2 4.1 Duck Waste Statistics ....................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Off-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation........................................................................ 3 4.2.1 Duck Sludge Deposits.................................................................................................... 4 4.3 On-site Impacts of Duck Farm Operation......................................................................... 5 5.0
    [Show full text]
  • Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Draft Report and Environmental Assessment June 2007
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Draft Report and Environmental Assessment June 2007 National Park Service 1 Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Draft Report and Environmental Assessment 2007 Prepared by National Park Service, Northeast Region In Cooperation with: » Southeast Region Planning and Economic Development District » Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Committee Project Manager: Jamie Fosburgh, Rivers Program Manager, NER-Boston Poject Team: Bill Napolitano Project Leader, SRPEDD Rachel Calabro Principal Author, Taunton River Stewardship Plan, SRPEDD/ MA Riverways Nancy Durfee Outreach & Volunteers, SRPEDD Karen Porter & Maisy McDarby-Stanovich Mapping & Web Page, SRPEDD Special Thanks: Jim Ross Chair, Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study Committee Comments on this Draft Report can be sent to: Jamie Fosburgh National Park Service 15 State Street Boston MA 02109 (617) 223-5191 [email protected] Please visit www.tauntonriver.org for more information and links related to the Wild and Scenic River Study, Wild and Scenic River Study Committee, Taunton River Stewardship Plan, and the Taunton River. Companion Document: Taunton River Stewardship Plan, July 2005 Cover Photo: Rachel Calabro. Broad Cove, Dighton. Table of Contents Taunton Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Draft Report and Environmental Assessment 2-4 Summary of Findings 5-7 Chapter I. 5 Background and Need 8-14 Chapter II. 8 Eligibility and Classification Findings (The Affected Environment) 15-19 Chapter III. 15 Suitability Findings (Management Context) 20-25 Chapter IV. 20 Identification and Comparison of Alternatives 27-35 Maps 28-29 Study Area Map 30-31 Eligibility and Classification Findings 32-33 Alternative B: Full Designation 34-35 Alternative C: Designation to Steep Brook (N.
    [Show full text]
  • PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Volume 1 of 4
    PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Volume 1 of 4 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ABINGTON, TOWN OF 250259 BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250260 BROCKTON, CITY OF 250261 CARVER, TOWN OF 250262 DUXBURY, TOWN OF 250263 EAST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250264 HALIFAX, TOWN OF 250265 HANOVER, TOWN OF 250266 HANSON, TOWN OF 250267 HINGHAM, TOWN OF 250268 HULL, TOWN OF 250269 KINGSTON, TOWN OF 250270 LAKEVILLE, TOWN OF 250271 MARION, TOWN OF 255213 MARSHFIELD, TOWN OF 250273 MATTAPOISETT, TOWN OF 255214 MIDDLEBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250275 NORWELL, TOWN OF 250276 PEMBROKE, TOWN OF 250277 PLYMOUTH, TOWN OF 250278 PLYMPTON, TOWN OF 250279 ROCHESTER, TOWN OF 250280 ROCKLAND, TOWN OF 250281 SCITUATE, TOWN OF 250282 WAREHAM, TOWN OF 255223 WEST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 250284 WHITMAN, TOWN OF 250285 REVISED NOVEMBER 4, 2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25023CV001C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this Preliminary FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Continuity Assessment in the Taunton River Watershed
    Stream Continuity Assessment in the Taunton Watershed June 2017 Stream Continuity Assessment in the Taunton River Watershed Table of Contents Executive Summary p. 5 1. The Importance of Stream Continuity p. 8 2. The Taunton River, its Tributaries and Watershed p. 12 3. Regulatory Standards to Protect Streams p. 18 4. Programs to Identify Priorities for Crossing Upgrade/Replacement p. 19 in Massachusetts A. Geographic Roadway Runoff Inventory Program B. BioMap2 C. Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS) D. Critical Linkages Project E. River and Stream Continuity Project/NAACC 5. Stream Crossing Assessment Procedure p. 24 6. Overview of Findings of the Taunton River Watershed Stream Crossing p. 27 Surveys 7. Taunton River Watershed Sites with Significant Potential for Ecological p. 35 Restoration 8. Stream Crossing Success Story p. 45 9. What Cities and Towns Can Do p. 47 Appendix A: Stream Crossings Listed by Town Appendix B: Stream Crossings Listed by Sub-watershed Appendix C: Additional Tables: Table 9. Crossings in Poor or Damaged Condition Table 10. Crossings with Severe Constriction Table 11. Crossings with Skewed Alignment Table 12. Crossings with Inlet and Outlet Drops Table 13. Unassessed Sites Ranked as Tier 1 or 2 1 List of Tables1 Table 1. Number of Sites Surveyed by Municipality with Barrier Evaluation p. 28 Table 2. Crossings Identified as Severe or Significant Barriers to Aquatic p. 29 Passage Table 3. Number of Crossings Surveyed and Barrier Evaluation by p. 31 Sub-watershed Table 4. Example of Information from Database p. 34 Table 5. Highest Priority Sites for Ecological Restoration p. 35 Table 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 05/10/2019 Review of the Proposed Capital Program 2020-2022 Capital Budget 2020
    SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE Robert Lipp BUDGET REVIEW OFFICE Director May 10, 2019 DuWayne Gregory, Presiding Officer and Members of the Suffolk County Legislature Dear Legislators: Accompanying this letter is the Budget Review Office Review of the Proposed 2020-2022 Capital Program and 2020 Capital Budget. On a personal note, I would like to thank the entire staff of the Budget Review Office for their hard work and long hours in preparation of this report. I am confident you will find the quality of this report up to Budget Review Office standards. The credit for our work effort goes to each and every member of the Budget Review Office. My staff and I remain ready to provide whatever assistance the Legislature may require during the capital program and budget evaluation and amending process. Sincerely, Robert Lipp, Director Mailing Address: P. O. Box 6100, Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 (631) 853-4100 FAX: (631) 853-5496 e-mail: [email protected] SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE DuWayne Gregory, Presiding Officer Robert Calarco, Deputy Presiding Officer District 1 Al Krupski 2 Bridget Fleming 3 Rudy A. Sunderman 4 Thomas Muratore 5 Kara Hahn 6 Sarah S. Anker 7 Robert Calarco 8 William J. Lindsay, III 9 Samuel Gonzalez 10 Thomas Cilmi 11 Steven J. Flotteron 12 Leslie Kennedy 13 Robert Trotta 14 Kevin J. McCaffrey 15 DuWayne Gregory 16 Susan A. Berland 17 Tom Donnelly 18 William Spencer Clerk of the Legislature Jason Richberg Counsel to the Legislature Sarah Simpson SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE The Budget Review Office Robert Lipp, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Sixth Congress of the United States of America
    H. R. 2778 One Hundred Sixth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand An Act To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Taunton River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds thatÐ (1) the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachu- setts possesses important resource values (including wildlife, ecological, and scenic values), historic sites, and a cultural past important to the heritage of the United States; (2) there is strong support among State and local officials, area residents, and river users for a cooperative wild and scenic river study of the area; and (3) there is a longstanding interest among State and local officials, area residents, and river users in undertaking a con- certed cooperative effort to manage the river in a productive and meaningful way. SEC. 3. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY. Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amendedÐ (1) by designating the undesignated paragraph following (135) as paragraph (136); and (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(137) TAUNTON RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.ÐThe segment down- stream from the headwaters, from the confluence of the Town River and the Matfield River in Bridgewater to the confluence with the Forge River in Raynham, Massachusetts.''.
    [Show full text]
  • Taunton River Watershed 2001 Water Quality Assessment Report I 62Wqar.Doc DWM CN 94.0 Snake River (Segment MA62-28)
    62-AC-1 TAUNTON RIVER WATERSHED 2001 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS STEPHEN R. PRITCHARD, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ROBERT GOLLEDGE JR., COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION GLENN HAAS, ACTING COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GLENN HAAS, DIRECTOR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY LIMITED COPIES OF THIS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE AT NO COST BY WRITTEN REQUEST TO: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 627 MAIN STREET WORCESTER, MA 01608 This report is also available from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP’s) home page on the World Wide Web at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/wqassess.htm Furthermore, at the time of first printing, eight copies of each report published by this office are submitted to the State Library at the State House in Boston; these copies are subsequently distributed as follows: · On shelf; retained at the State Library (two copies); · Microfilmed retained at the State Library; · Delivered to the Boston Public Library at Copley Square; · Delivered to the Worcester Public Library; · Delivered to the Springfield Public Library; · Delivered to the University Library at UMass, Amherst; · Delivered to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Moreover, this wide circulation is augmented by inter-library loans from the above-listed libraries. For example a resident in Bridgewater can apply at their local library for loan of any MA DEP/Division of Watershed Management (DWM) report from the Worcester Public Library. A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This report, entitled, “Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management – Watershed Planning Program, 1963-(current year)”, is also available by writing to the DWM in Worcester.
    [Show full text]