DOCSLIB.ORG

Sharon GCS Progress Report 30 June 2012 Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sharon GCS Progress Report 30 June 2012 Table of Contents Restoration and Revitalization Of the Sharon Great Cedar Swamp Progress Report Requested by: Sharon Conservation Commission Prepared by: Peter C. Fletcher, Aimlee D. Laderman, and Pamela T. Polloni June 2012 Sharon GCS Progress Report 30 June 2012 Table of Contents I. Preface: ...............................................................................................................................................................3 II. Introduction: .......................................................................................................................................................4 III. Personnel and Partnerships............................................................................................................................7 IV. Significance of this Project: ............................................................................................................................9 A. Importance of the protected and restored Cedar Swamp to the residents of Sharon9 B. Importance of the GCS to neighboring towns and the State ......................................................... 12 V. Overview of completed and ongoing projects ................................................................................................ 15 A. Vegetation and wildlife studies ...................................................................................................... 15 B. Soil Investigations ........................................................................................................................... 17 1. Soil Conditions within Section 1 of the GCS: ........................................................................................... 17 2. Soil Conditions within Sections 2 and 3 of the GCS ................................................................................. 18 3. Soil Transect Measuring the Depth of Organic Material ......................................................................... 18 C. Groundwater Monitoring Program ................................................................................................ 19 D. Ongoing Groundwater Monitoring of Well Transects Along Ditch: ............................................... 19 E. Monitoring of flows within the drainage ditch .............................................................................. 20 F. Ongoing mosquito monitoring and investigation .......................................................................... 23 G. Horsley Witten Group Study/Report .............................................................................................. 25 H. Groundwater Quality Analysis ........................................................................................................ 35 VI. Recommended Actions Needed by the Town of Sharon ............................................................................ 37 A. Develop and implement a maintenance plan for the drainage ditch: ........................................... 37 B. Reduce groundwater discharge into the ditch and rehydrate portions of the Swamp: ................ 38 C. Evaluation of three options: ........................................................................................................... 38 1. Stone rip rap check dam: ......................................................................................................................... 38 2. Water Control Structure: ......................................................................................................................... 41 3. Buried Culvert: ......................................................................................................................................... 42 D. Collect Baseline Data and Continue Groundwater Monitoring:..................................................... 44 VII. References ................................................................................................................................................... 46 VIII. Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 47 A. Purinton, T. MA Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) Project Participation ............................ 47 B. Summary of Groundwater Mapping for the Sharon Great Cedar Swamp Restoration Project ..... 48 1 Sharon GCS Progress Report 30 June 2012 List of Figures Figure 1. Sharon Great Cedar Swamp and surrounding streets, aerial view. .............................................................4 Figure 2. Ditch at the western edge of GCS, in wooded area . ...................................................................................5 Figure 3. Healthy Atlantic White Cedar swamp (left); drained/degraded Atlantic White Cedar swamp (right). ......6 Figure 4. Federal, State and regional partners at a GCS site visit conducted by the Technical Team. ......................8 Figure 5. April 7, 2010 Groundwater flow directions from Sharon GCS. .............................................................. 10 Figure 6. August 10, 2010 Groundwater flow directions from Sharon GCS. ......................................................... 10 Figure 7. Groundwater flow from the Sharon GCS to Lake Massapoag ..................................................................12 Figure 8. Groundwater flow from the Sharon GCS to the Taunton River and Neponset River watersheds ........... 12 Figure 9. Sharon GCS and Sub-basins of the Taunton River (west) and Neponset River (east) watersheds. ......... 13 Figure 10. Sharon GCS and vicinity, USGS Topo. Map showing Sections 1,2 and 3. ........................................ 14 Figure 11. Fallen AWC in drained area east of Sunset Drive (Section 1). ...............................................................15 Figure 12. Late spring view of AWC swamp with normal groundwater elevation (Section 2). ............................. 15 Figure 13. Regenerating AWC and blossoming leatherleaf (foreground, Section 3). ............................................. 16 Figure 14. Exposed AWC roots indicate severe soil subsidence near the ditch. ..................................................... 17 Figure 15. Depth of organic matter in Sharon GCS on transect along east side of RR bed. ................................... 18 Figure 16. Groundwater monitoring wells established in Sharon GCS and Sharon Heights. ................................ 19 Figure 17. Normal flow within the ditch. ................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 18. Stormwater flow within the ditch, March 2010 ..................................................................................... 20 Figure 19. Wolomolopoag Street RIFLS Monitoring Site. ..................................................................................... 21 Figure 20. Precipitation and Wolomolopoag St. discharge measurements 2008 - 2011 ......................................... 22 Figure 21. Gravid Trap for adult mosquitoes. ......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 22. Typical crypt monitored for C. melanura larvae.................................................................................... 22 Figure 23. Norfolk County Mosquito Control District (NCMCD) 2012 monitoring sites in GCS. ........................ 22 Figure 24. Monitoring Well locations in western Sharon Great Cedar Swamp. ..................................................... 31 Figure 25. Ground elevations in Sharon GCS ......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 26. Groundwater elevations 7 April 2010. ................................................................................................... 33 Figure 27. Groundwater elevations 10 August 2010. ............................................................................................. 34 Figure 28. Monitoring wells sampled for groundwater analysis. ............................................................................ 36 Figure 29. Undermined banks and trees collapsed into the ditch. ........................................................................... 37 Figure 30. Cross section of ditch showing direction of groundwater discharge through sands and gravels into the deepened drainage ditch. ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 31. Drainage ditch as excavated and deepened. ........................................................................................... 39 Figure 32. Stone rip rap check dam placed within the ditch ................................................................................... 39 Figure 33. Close-up view showing effect of stone rip rap check dam. ................................................................... 39 Figure 34. Series of check dams slowing flow with stepped effect. ........................................................................ 40 Figure 35 Aluminum water control structure .......................................................................................................... 41 Figure 36. Water control structure placed in the ditch. ........................................................................................... 42 Figure 37. Buried water-tight culvert placed within deepened portion of the ditch. ............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Mansfield, MA
    Mansfield, MA Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) and Community Resilience Building Workshop Summary of Findings January 2019 Submitted by: Overview Mansfield is a town of over 23,000 residents in northwestern Bristol County, MA. Its neighboring towns include Easton to the east, Sharon to the northeast, Foxboro to the north, North Attleboro to the west, Attleboro to the southwest, and Norton to the south (see map from Mansfield’s 2017 Open Space Plan). It is located about 28 miles south of Boston, 14 miles from Brockton, and 19 miles from Providence, Rhode Island. This inland community has collaborated with neighboring towns to steward shared natural resources, namely through the Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee (CRAAC). Much of Mansfield is low‐lying, and its proximity to critical water bodies like the Canoe River and Rumford River makes effective household and municipal water management systems important. The increasing severity of the regional flood‐drought cycle is noted as a top concern to many residents. Regionally unique ecosystems like the Great Woods offer multiple benefits to the surrounding community and must be actively preserved against climate hazards. In addition to the flood‐drought cycle, heavy precipitation, high winds, and extreme temperatures have severely impacted Mansfield’s various assets. The town sees collaborative planning as the most effective way to ensure the future safety of town residents, and the protection of critical shared resources. This value of collaboration is seen in Mansfield’s leadership as part of an emerging regional group of open space experts working to coordinate conservation efforts. To help the town consider and prioritize actions to improve its climate resilience, the Town of Mansfield applied for and received a grant from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to become a Designated Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) Community.
    [Show full text]
  • Srpedd Annual Report
    SRPEDD 2021ANNUAL REPORT The Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District plans for the future of our region - for efficient transportation networks, wise land use and housing choices, expansion of economic opportunity, protection of natural and historic resources, and development of excellent physical and cultural amenities. ANNUAL REPORT 2021 Contents 03 Letters to the Region 04 Transportation Planning 12 Comprehensive Planning 16 Technical Assistance Overview 18 Economic Development 20 Environmental Planning 26 Homeland Security 29 Treasurer’s Report 30 The SRPEDD Commission 31 The Staff Cover image: Padanaram Bridge, Dartmouth by Kevin Ham It is the policy of the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) to uphold and assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 13166, Executive Order 12898, and related federal and state statutes and regulations. SRPEDD also upholds the Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law, M.G.L. c 272 §§92a, 98, 98a, and the Governor’s Executive Order 526, section 4. For a complete policy statement, please visit http://www.srpedd.org/title-vi-compliance. 2 ANNUAL REPORT 2021 Letters to the Region Chair’s Report Alan Slavin, Commission Chair This has been a Zoom year with virtually no in-person gatherings. I am, nevertheless, amazed at how much SPREDD has been able to accomplish. The organization has continued to grow during the pandemic, adding further highly qualified staff, expanding its core services, and addressing area needs. I have once again felt very privileged to work with such a great group of people: staff and Commissioners; local, state, and federal officials, across the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Habitat Evaluation of the Canoe River in Norton MA 2006-2008
    Wildlife Habitat Evaluation of the Canoe River in Norton MA 2006-2008 Introduction The purpose of the wildlife habitat evaluation is to provide the Town of Norton with a tool for obtaining grant funding to purchase land along the Canoe River as part of the Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee’s (CRAAC) Greenbelt project. A secondary objective is to provide information that will be useful during permit review to encourage cluster development and conservation restrictions for projects within the proposed Greenbelt area. A third objective is to provide residents with educational opportunities to learn about local ecosystems. In 2004, CRAAC solicited bids for a wildlife habitat evaluation of the entire Canoe River through Sharon, Foxborough, Mansfield, Easton and Norton. CRAAC does not have an operating budget and attempts to obtain grant funding have been unsuccessful. The lack of funds to hire a consultant for the work is the main reason the Norton Open Space Committee is undertaking this project in Norton. Methodology Background data was collected from the previous biodiversity day events held at protected properties along the Canoe River. Additional information was compiled from rapid resource surveys done by staff at the Wildlands Trust for three of Norton’s Self-Help Grant applications. On-line research was conducted on the MassGIS website, Manomet Center for Conservation Services ConservationMapper program and the DEP Wetland Loss project of 2004 (CD-Town of Norton). Site-specific information and maps were received from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). Several field days were conducted in canoes/kayaks to investigate portions of the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Yield and Quality of Ground Water from Stratified-Drift Aquifers, Taunton River Basin, Massachusetts: Executive Summary
    YIELD AND QUALITY OF GROUND WATER FROM STRATIFIED-DRIFT AQUIFERS, TAUNTON RIVER BASIN, MASSACHUSETTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By Wayne W. Lapham and Julio C. Olimpio U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4053A Prepared in cooperation with COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Boston, Massachusetts 1989 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information, write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey 10 Causeway Street, Suite 926 Box 25425, Federal Center Boston, MA 02222-1040 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 1 Physical setting and hydrogeology of the basin................................................................... 2 Aquifer yields............................................................................................................................... 2 Estimates from model simulations.................................................................................. 2 Appraisal of yield estimates.............................................................................................. 5 Quality of ground water............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Habitat Evaluation of the Canoe River in Norton MA
    Wildlife Habitat Evaluation of the Canoe River in Norton MA Corridors and connections Call of the Wild biologist C. Diane Boretos conducted a wildlife habitat evaluation for the Friends of Wheaton Farm on the property along the Mulberry Meadow Brook. Ms. Boretos’ investigations conclude that there are significant wildlife corridors between the Canoe River, Mulberry Meadow Brook, and portions of the Hockomock Swamp. Maintenance of these corridors is extremely important for genetic diversity and dispersal of young of various species including fox, coyote, deer, fisher, muskrat, mink, turkey, painted turtles, snapping turtles, spotted turtles and many of the amphibian/reptile species. Otter tracks were observed moving from the Canoe River across North Washington St. These tracks could show that the otter migrate from the Canoe River to the Rumford River and the extensive conservation restriction land adjacent to it. Other signs of mammal movement along the Canoe River documented during this investigation include fisher, deer and fox/coyote. 1/25/2010 Page 1 of 4 Wildlife Habitat Evaluation of the Canoe River in Norton MA Invasive plant inventory and maps Purple loosestrife and fanwort are the major invasive plants of the river system. Purple loosestrife has overtaken large portions of the marsh while the fanwort has become established in small to medium sized patches in the center of the river within the sandbars. Smaller stands of Phragmites can be seen in some of the wetlands. Winnecunnet Pond is infested with fanwort and variable water mil-foil. Upland species that are known to be exotic, invasive plants include oriental bittersweet, buckthorn and Japanese barberry.
    [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]
  • Section 4 – E Nvironmental Inventory and Analysis
    SECTION 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS A. Geology, Soils and Topography 1. General Description Foxborough is located in Norfolk County in eastern Massachusetts. It shares many characteristics with other New England towns, including varying soils, abundant forest land and wetlands, and a system of rivers and streams. Soils are typically shallow, stony, and dry on hillsides, richer and deeper in drainage areas, with wetlands and the fertile flatlands toward the south. To the northwest, the topography is more rugged, with hilltop elevations reaching 430 feet. From the top of High Rocks in the State Forest, you can see Boston and Southeastern Massachusetts. Throughout the town, the highest elevations are no more than 100 feet above surrounding areas. The Town lies on the divide between two major watersheds, the Neponset River to the north and the Taunton River to the south. Topographic extremes are found at either end of a line between High Rock and Beaumont’s Pond. The land grades from 430 feet at the fire tower to 150 feet where Canoe River enters Mansfield; this line passes across Foolish Hill, which is prominent more because of its isolation than its height. The land from east of the South Street/Mechanic Street line is for the most part flat or gently rolling interspersed with numerous wetlands and vernal pools. It appears to be a transitional plateau between the more irregular uplands and the broad flat plan which characterizes the Mansfield/Easton area. a. Bedrock Geology - Foxborough is located in the Eastern Plateau of Massachusetts. The majority of this area is characterized by glacial deposits that overlay a flat, well-dissected bedrock plateau which slopes gently eastward with summit altitudes generally less than 500 feet.
    [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]
  • MASSACHUSETTS AREAS of CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN September 2008
    MASSACHUSETTS AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN September 2008 Total Approximate Acreage: 255,275 acres Approximate acreage and designation date follow ACEC Neponset River Estuary names below. (1,300 acres, 1995) Boston, Milton, and Quincy Bourne Back River Parker River/Essex Bay (1,850 acres, 1989) Bourne (25,500 acres, 1979) Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury, and Rowley Canoe River Aquifer and Associated Areas (17,200 acres, 1991) Easton, Foxborough, Petapawag Mansfield, Norton, Sharon, and Taunton (25,630 acres, 2002) Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, Tyngsborough Central Nashua River Valley (12,900 acres,1996) Bolton, Harvard, Lancaster, Pleasant Bay and Leominster (9,050 acres, 1987) Brewster, Chatham, Harwich, and Orleans Cranberry Brook Watershed (1,050 acres, 1983) Braintree and Holbrook Pocasset River (150 acres, 1980) Bourne Ellisville Harbor (600 acres, 1980) Plymouth Rumney Marshes (2,800 acres, 1988) Boston, Lynn, Revere, Saugus, Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog and Winthrop (8,350 acres, 1992) Boston, Canton, Dedham, Milton, Norwood, Randolph, Sharon, and Westwood Sandy Neck/Barnstable Harbor (8,850 acres, 1978) Barnstable and Sandwich Golden Hills (500 acres, 1987) Melrose, Saugus, and Wakefield Schenob Brook Drainage Basin (13,750 acres, 1990) Mount Washington and Herring River Watershed Sheffield (4,450 acres, 1991) Bourne and Plymouth Squannassit Hinsdale Flats Watershed (37,450 acres, 2002) Ashby, Ayer, Groton, Harvard, (14,500 acres, 1992) Dalton, Hinsdale, Peru, and Lancaster, Lunenburg, Pepperell, Shirley,
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space Section 4A
    SECTION 4 Environmental, Inventory, and Analysis Geology, Soils, Topography Norton is located within the Northeastern Coastal Zone ecoregion and the Narragansett/Bristol Lowland sub-ecoregion. The Narragansett/Bristol Lowlands are characterized by thick glacial till and outwash deposits. The topography is flat and gently rolling with very little elevations greater than 200 feet. Surface water is usually acidic. The vegetation is mostly central hardwoods. Underlying bedrock material of the Narragansett Basin formed during the Triassic-Jurassic period consists of sandstone, graywacke, shale and conglomerate; minor beds of meta-anthracite and fossil fuels. These descriptions were taken from Water Resources of the Taunton River Basin, Southeastern Massachusetts by J.R. Williams, D.F. Farrell and R.E. Willey, hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-460, Published by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1973. The vast majority of Norton consists of stratified drift (Geology of the Taunton Quadrangle, Bristol and Plymouth Counties Massachusetts, Joseph H. Hartshorn). These areas are described as stratified beds and lenses of well-sorted fine to coarse sands, including some beds and lenses of gravel, silt and clay. Norton contains several smaller isolated pockets of drift consisting mainly of well-sorted fine to coarse sandy gravel with numerous beds and lenses of sand, silt and clay. Larger regional pockets of glacial till are scattered throughout the town. The largest areas are concentrated in the western portion of the town extending from Mansfield and extending into Rehoboth. Bedrock outcrops are fairly evenly spread throughout town. Geology contributed by Frances Shirley in an interview with professor Daniel Murray, study of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Yield and Quality of Ground Water from Stratified-Drift Aquifers, Taunton River Basin, Massachusetts
    YIELD AND QUALITY OF GROUND WATER FROM STRATIFIED-DRIFT AQUIFERS, TAUNTON RIVER BASIN, MASSACHUSETTS By Wayne W. Lapham U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4053 Prepared in cooperation with the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Boston, Massachusetts 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information, write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey 150 Causeway Street, Suite 1309 Box 25425, Federal Center Boston, MA 02114-1384 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract - - - - 1 Introduction - 1 Background - - - - - 1 Purpose and scope -- - 2 Previous investigations 2 Geographic setting - - - - 2 Generalized hydrogeologic setting - - - 3 Acknowledgments - 6 Hydrogeologic characteristics of the stratified-drift aquifers 6 Location, areal extent, and hydraulic properties - 6 Water-level fluctuations -- - - - - 6 Ground-water discharge 6 Stream discharge - - 13 Yields of the stratified-drift aquifers - 20 Methods of study - - . ............... ..._........ 20 Use of ground-water-flow models - 25 Model input 27 Short-term yields from storage 27 Long-term yields from ground-water discharge, induced infiltration, and storage - 27 Simulated yields from induced infiltration and storage 29 Estimated yields from ground-water discharge, induced infiltration, and storage 29 Effect
    [Show full text]