DOCSLIB.ORG

Strengthening the Resilience of the Taunton River Watershed: a Tool to Prioritize Local Action

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strengthening the Resilience of the Taunton River Watershed: a Tool to Prioritize Local Action Strengthening the Resilience of the Taunton River Watershed: A Tool to Prioritize Local Action June 2014 Strengthening the Resilience of the Taunton River Watershed: A Tool to Prioritize Local Action June 2014 EP-C-12-054 Prepared by RTI International for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Support for this project was provided by the EPA Healthy Watersheds Program (http://www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds) Disclaimer The information presented in this document is intended to support screening-level assessments of watershed protection priorities and is based on modeled and aggregated data that may have been collected or generated for other purposes. Results should be considered in that context and do not supplant site-specific evidence of watershed health or vulnerability. At times, this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions, which contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, authorized tribes, or the public and may not apply to a particular situation based on the circumstances. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. June 2014 Strengthening the Resilience of the Taunton River Watershed: A Tool to Prioritize Local Action 1 Acknowledgements This document was prepared by RTI International under contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. EPA initiated this project under a different contract by the Cadmus Group, Inc. Introductory and background material (including the content of Appendix C) in this report is based on materials prepared by Cadmus; however, technical approach and resulting findings were developed and implemented by RTI International. The following individuals are acknowledged for their contributions to project planning, data acquisition, and review of draft materials: • Nancy Arazan, U.S. EPA Office of Water • Cathy Bozek, The Nature Conservancy • Laura Gabanski, U.S. EPA Office of Water • Trish Garrigan, U.S. EPA Region 1 • Anne Kuhn, U.S. EPA Region 1 • Margherita Pryor, U.S. EPA Region 1 June 2014 Strengthening the Resilience of the Taunton River Watershed: A Tool to Prioritize Local Action 2 Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 10 1.1 Taunton River Watershed Overview .......................................................................................... 11 1.2 Healthy Watersheds Program .................................................................................................... 13 1.3 The Nature Conservancy ............................................................................................................ 13 1.4 Watershed Resilience and Ecosystem Services .......................................................................... 14 2. Study Overview ................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Analytical Approach .................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.1 Processing of ES Scoring Factors ..................................................................................... 26 2.2.2 Weighting and Enhancement Factors for Overall Scores................................................ 26 2.3 Interactive Database Product ..................................................................................................... 26 3. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 35 3.1 Natural Lands .............................................................................................................................. 35 3.1.1 Riparian Freshwater Wetlands ........................................................................................ 35 3.1.2 Upland Freshwater Wetlands ......................................................................................... 42 3.1.3 Riparian Saltwater Wetlands ........................................................................................... 47 3.1.4 Riparian Forests ............................................................................................................... 52 3.1.5 Upland Forests ................................................................................................................ 58 3.2 Instream ...................................................................................................................................... 63 4. Customizing and Applying the Assessment Framework ..................................................................... 69 4.1 Designing Your Own “Top 10” .................................................................................................... 69 4.2 Connecting to GIS and Using this Analysis .................................................................................. 70 4.3 An Illustrative Example ............................................................................................................... 71 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 74 References ................................................................................................................................................. 76 Appendices A Resources, Data, and Methods ........................................................................................................... 79 B Decision Support Tool Database User Guide ...................................................................................... 89 C Inventory of Taunton River Watershed Assessments and Data ....................................................... 100 June 2014 Strengthening the Resilience of the Taunton River Watershed: A Tool to Prioritize Local Action 3 List of Figures Figure ES-1. Example of Mapped Results Using Output from the Decision Support Tool: Overall Top- Ranked Riparian Freshwater Wetlands (Assuming Equal Weighting Across Scoring Factors and Ecosystem Service Categories) ............................................................................. 8 Figure 1-1. Taunton River Watershed in Southeastern Massachusetts .................................................. 12 Figure 1-2. 2005 Land Cover in the Taunton River Watershed ................................................................ 12 Figure 3-1. Overall Top-Ranked Riparian Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed ......... 36 Figure 3-2. Top-Ranked Extreme Event Protection Riparian Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed .................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3-3. Top-Ranked Water Quality Protection Riparian Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed .................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 3-4. Top-Ranked Habitat/Biodiversity Protection Riparian Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed ...................................................................................................... 39 Figure 3-5. Top-Ranked Open Space Protection Riparian Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed ............................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 3-6. Top-Ranked Air Quality Protection Riparian Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed ............................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 3-7. Overall Top-Ranked Upland Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed ........... 42 Figure 3-8. Highest-Ranked Water Quality Protection Upland Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed .................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 3-9. Highest-Ranked Habitat/Biodiversity Protection Upland Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed ...................................................................................................... 44 Figure 3-10. Highest-Ranked Open Space Protection Upland Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed .................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 3-11. Highest-Ranked Air Quality Protection Upland Freshwater Wetlands in the Taunton River Watershed ...................................................................................................................
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]
  • Integrated Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plan Was Added As a Requirement in the Latest Amendment of the Federal Court Order
    Executive Summary ES.1 Background ES.1 Background ES.2 Purpose ES.1.1 City of Fall River ES.3 Integrated Planning The City of Fall River (Fall River/City) is located in Bristol County, Approach in southeastern Massachusetts. As shown in Figure ES-1, the City ES.4 Project Issues and is located along the Taunton River and Mount Hope Bay shoreline. Goals Interstate 195 crosses through the City and provides access to Providence, Rhode Island to the west and Cape Cod to the east. ES.5 Problem Similarly, Route 24 provides access to the Boston area in the Identification and north. Several local routes (Routes 6, 79, 81 and 138) also pass Resolution Processes through the city, linking Fall River with its neighboring ES.6 Resolution Concepts communities. ES.7 Resolution Concept Fall River was founded in 1803 and incorporated as a city in Assessment 1854. The City is approximately 40.2 square miles in size, with a ES.8 Financial population of over 88,000 people. It is one of the ten largest cities Considerations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ES.9 Recommended Plan ES.10 Conclusions Figure ES-1: Locus Map ES-1 Executive Summary • DRAFT Fall River played an important role in the textile industry, utilizing the Quequechan River for water power and cooling water. During the 19th century, the City experienced significant economic growth with the development of numerous textile mills. Many of these mills were located along the Quequechan River. In 1876, Fall River was the largest textile producing city in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Taunton "Quadrangle, Bristol and Plymouth Counties Massachusetts
    Geology of the Taunton "Quadrangle, Bristol and Plymouth Counties Massachusetts By JOSEPH H. HARTSHORN GEOLOGY OF SELECTED QUADRANGLES IN MASSACHUSETTS v -GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1163-D Prepared in cooperation with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ' Department of Public ff^orks ,UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1967 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS ' Page Abstract__ ____-_____-_---___________----__---_----___-------_--- Dl Introduction._ ___-___----____________---_----_------_-------______ 1 Acknowledgments. __.._________,.______-_-_-___-___--______-___ 2 General setting.._.---_____________-_-___'__________-.__________ 2 Pre-Pleistocene geology and history._________________________________ 2 Stratigraphy._______________________----_--------_---_-.______ 3 Structure._______-----____________---------_-----_----____.___ 6 Geologic history._-_-_--__________----_-----_-----_--_-________ 7 Pleistocene geology____-_-_____-_______--__------___-__---_-_______ 8 Glacial erosion._______________________________________________ 8 Glacial deposits.__-_-_.-_______-___---------_---_-_------_.____ 9 Till..---------------------------------------------------- 9 Field and laboratory data..____________________________ 11 * Ground moraine.-.-----------^-------------------- 12 Flowtill. _-______-.-.---------.--------.....-...-_ 19 Textural data.____________________________________
    [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]
  • Bristol County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 2 OF 4 BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) Bristol County COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ACUSHNET, TOWN OF 250048 ATTLEBORO, CITY OF 250049 BERKLEY, TOWN OF 250050 DARTMOUTH, TOWN OF 250051 DIGHTON, TOWN OF 250052 EASTON, TOWN OF 250053 FAIRHAVEN, TOWN OF 250054 FALL RIVER, CITY OF 250055 FREETOWN, TOWN OF 250056 MANSFIELD, TOWN OF 250057 NEW BEDFORD, CITY OF 255216 NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250059 NORTON, TOWN OF 250060 RAYNHAM, TOWN OF 250061 REHOBOTH, TOWN OF 250062 SEEKONK, TOWN OF 250063 SOMERSET, TOWN OF 255220 SWANSEA, TOWN OF 255221 TAUTON, CITY OF 250066 WESTPORT, TOWN OF 255224 REVISED JULY 16, 2014 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25005CV002B 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. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for the community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone New Zone A1 through A30 AE V1 through V30 VE (shaded) B X C X Part or all of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the Flood Insurance Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Taunton-Small-River
    128 Taunton River Watershed River and Stream Water Quality Status Massachusetts Based on the 2010 assessment by MA DEP for aquatic life, recreation, and fish consumption Walpole Rockland Stoughton Holbrook Avon Abington S T Hanvoer Sharon r h o u L u m Norfolk Ames o t v B a Long k t e r o u t . Locus Water t S o s Pond a r c B li a sb B c r u . ry r a B e n Locus Land Wrentham S . v t a a Whitman R Hanson 3 Leach Q l e u . e i i Pembroke s r v Pond e s B e t b B r Brockton u B C r . R w Foxborough r o y r o o Abington w u Beaver B. o P B d Robinson Br. m East e C18E49 C k l a Stoughton a w e f a i e o s n n R o CCB672 e Bridge- r . M d d o t a West e M Beaver B. B H e R R water Stetson 1F72B5 r o a i M i . tuc v t a c k W v w Bridge- e Easton f S t R r Pond k e e o i . a r e o r o d d l o a d i m water n P e R Monponsett g Mansfield o i v c M R e Pond Plainville k R r k i y i Kingston v r o R v e r e o .
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]