Holistic Watershed Management for Existing and Future Land
Use Development Activities: Opportunities for Action for Local
Decision Makers: PHASE 2 - FDC APPLICATION MODELING
(FDC2A PROJECT)
SUPPORT FOR SOUTHEAST NEW ENGLAND PROGRAM (SNEP)
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Task 4 Technical Memo on the Development of Future Land
Cover Data for Taunton River Sub-Watershed Modeling
and Hydrologic Response Unit Analyses
February 17,2022
Prepared for:
U.S. EPA Region 1
Prepared by:
Paradigm Environmental Great Lakes Environmental Center
GleC
PARADIGM
ENVIRONMENTAL
Blanket Purchase Agreement: BPA-68HE0118A0001-0003
Requisition Number: PR-R1-20-00322
Order: 68HE0121F0001
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. GIS Data Review for Taunton River Watershed 5
2.1. Baseline Tand Use Tand Cover Data 6
2.2. Future Tand Cover Data 8
2.3. Municipalities 9
2.4. Buildings 10
2.5. Baseline HRUs Tayer 11
3. Development of Future HRU Tayer Based on Projected Tand Cover Data 17
3.1. Tand Cover Change Between 2010 and 2060 NETF Dataset 18
3.2. Mapping Between Opti-Tool and NETF Tand Use Classification 18
3.3. Percent Imperviousness for Developed Tand Use Classification 21
3.4. Developed Tand Use Distribution by Municipality in Taunton River Watershed 22
3.5. Future HRU Tayer for Taunton River Watershed 25
4. Selection of Future Climate Conditions 30
5. Comparison of Existing and Future Conditions in Taunton River Watershed 31
5.1. Impervious Cover by Municipality in the Taunton River Watershed 31
5.2. Surface Runoff, Groundwater Recharge, Evapotranspiration, and Nutrient Toads in the Taunton
River Watershed 33
5.3. Summary 38
6. Appendix 41
6.1. Impervious Cover by Municipality within the Taunton River Watershed 41
6.2. Surface Runoff, Groundwater Recharge, Evapotranspiration, and Nutrient Toads by Municipality
within the Taunton River Watershed 44
7. References 57
i
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Figures
Figure 2-1. A map showing 2016 land use - land cover for the Taunton River watershed 7
Figure 2-2. A historical land use trend for the year 2010 (left) and projected future land use trend for the year
2060 (right) for the Taunton River watershed 8
Figure 2-3. A map showing the municipal boundaries in the Taunton River watershed 9
Figure 2-4. A map showing the building footprints in the Taunton River watershed 10
Figure 2-5. Baseline HRUs spatial overlay process (from top to bottom: land use - land cover, soil, and slope
layers) 12
Figure 2-6. A map showing the 2016 baseline HRU raster layer for the Taunton River watershed 16
Figure 3-1. Mapped future HRU spatial overlay process (from top to bottom: NELF 2060 land cover,
baseline HRUs, municipalities, and final future HRU layer) 26
Figure 3-2. A map showing the 2060 future HRU raster layer for the Taunton River watershed 28
Figure 3-3. A map showing the comparison between the 30-m resolution 2060 future NELF layer (left) and
1-m resolution 2060 future HRU layer (right) for the Upper Hodges Brook sub-watershed 29
Figure 4-1. Percent change in annual average precipitation and temperature from baseline conditions for the
FDC Phase 1 selected models presented in Table 4-1 30
Figure 5-1. Comparison of changes in hydrology (runoff, groundwater recharge GW, and evapotranspiration
ET) and water quality parameters (total nitrogen TN and total phosphorous TP) between the baseline and
future land use/climate conditions across the entire Taunton River watershed 38
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Tables
Table 2-1. Tandscape GIS data 5
Table 2-2. Land use - land cover reclassification 13
Table 2-3. Soil - HSG reclassification 14
Table 2-4. Percent slope reclassification 14
Table 2-5. Summary of final HRU categories 14
Table 3-1. NELF recent trend 2010 and 2060 land cover comparison 18
Table 3-2. Reclassification Scheme for CCDC and NLCD Data for NELF Land Cover (Thompson et al.,
2017) 18
Table 3-3. Mapping table between NELF and Opti-Tool land use classification 21
Table 3-4. Summary of percent imperviousness for developed land use classification 22
Table 3-5. Summary of high-density development land use area distribution by municipality in the Taunton
River watershed 22
Table 3-6. Summary of low-density development land use area distribution by municipality in Taunton River
watershed 23
Table 3-7. Comparison ofHRU area distribution between theMassGIS 2016 baseline and NELF 2060 future
conditions in Taunton River watershed 27
Table 4-1. FDC Phase 1 selected models from ensemble results for future climate projections (2079-2099)
30
Table 4-2. Summary of ecosurpluses and ecodeficits (millions of gallons per year) within the Upper Hodges
Brook watershed for RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios 31
Table 5-1. Summary of increase in impervious cover by municipality in Taunton River watershed 31
Table 5-2. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2000 - Sep 2020) runoff volume, groundwater
(GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the
modeled HRU types in the Wading River watershed (FDC Phase 1) 33
Table 5-3. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2079 - Sep 2099) runoff volume, groundwater
(GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the
modeled HRU types in the Wading River watershed (Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry) 34
Table 5-4. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2079 - Sep 2099) runoff volume, groundwater
(GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the
modeled HRU types in the Wading River watershed (Ecodeficit 8.5 Median) 35
Table 5-5. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2079 - Sep 2099) runoff volume, groundwater
(GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the
modeled HRU types in the Wading River watershed (Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet) 36
Table 5-6. Summary of change in major land use area distribution between 2016 baseline and 2060 future
conditions in Taunton River watershed 39
Table 5-7. Summary of changes between baseline land use and historic climate model results and the future
land use and climate scenarios for annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge,
evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by major land use in
Taunton River watershed 40
Table 6-1. Summary of 2016 baseline impervious cover by the municipality in the Taunton River watershed
41
Table 6-2. Summary of 2060 future impervious cover by municipality in Taunton River watershed 42
Table 6-3. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for 2016 baseline condition by the municipality in
Taunton River watershed 44
Table 6-4. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for 2060 future condition by municipality in
Taunton River watershed 45
T able 6-5. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the 2060 future condition and the Ecodeficit
8.5 Dry climate scenario by municipality in Taunton River watershed 46
iii
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 6-6. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the 2060 future condition and the Ecodeficit
8.5 Median climate scenario by municipality in Taunton River watershed 48
T able 6-7. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the 2060 future condition and the Ecodeficit
8.5 Wet climate scenario by municipality in Taunton River watershed 49
Table 6-8. Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition and 2016 Baseline Condition in
annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN)
load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by municipality in Taunton River watershed 50
Table 6-9. Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry and 2016
Baseline Condition in annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by the municipality in Taunton River watershed
52
Table 6-10. Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Median and 2016
Baseline Condition in annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by the municipality in Taunton River watershed
53
Table 6-11.Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet and 2016
Baseline Condition in annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET),
total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by the municipality in Taunton River watershed
55
iv
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
1. INTRODUCTION
This technical memo presents the data and methodology used to develop the Hydrological Response Units
(HRUs) layer for 2060 projected new development conditions within the Taunton River watershed in
support of Phase 2 of the EPA's flow duration curve (FDC) project. The future development land use and
land cover data sets are reflective of projected watershed conditions in the year 2060 and are used to develop
HRUs categories consistent with those used for the Opti-Tool in Phase 1. Two main outcomes of this task
are the development of the HRUs layer for the projected 2060 future land use condition based on recent
trends used in the New England Landscape Futures (NELF) dataset (Thompson et al., 2017) and comparing
the estimates of unattenuated average annual runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge,
evapotranspiration (ET), and nutrient (Total Nitrogen [TN] and Total Phosphorus [TP]) load export for
both existing and future land use conditions. Three General Circulation Models (GCMs) are selected from
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 to represent the greatest increase in both precipitation and
temperature, as well as the modeled ecodeficits and ecosurpluses for the Upper Hodges Brook watershed.
The unattenuated and uncontrolled flow and pollutant loadings at the HRUs level are also compared for the
projected future land use conditions using the projected meteorological data for the selected GCMs in the
Taunton River watershed. The flow and loading analyses were performed for the municipal boundaries
within the Taunton River watershed.
The following sections describe:
• A data review of the Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial layers for this analysis.
• A methodology for developing a future land use condition HRUs layer using the GIS layers
described in the data review section. It includes the mapping rules for the conversion of coarse
resolution (30-m) future land cover data to a fine resolution (1-m) land use and land cover data.
• An approach to select three GCMs based on the dry/wet/median conditions of precipitation,
temperature, ecodeficit, and ecosurplus in the Taunton River watershed.
• A comparison between the baseline HRUs area distribution developed during Phase 1 of the FDC
project and the projected HRUs area distribution at the municipality level within the Taunton River
watershed. Also, an average annual runoff volume, GW recharge, ET, and nutrients (TN and TP)
load were estimated for the 2016 baseline and 2060 projected land use conditions along with future
climate conditions using three GCMs from RCP 8.5 projections. These comparisons show the
percent increase in impervious cover (IC) and change in the hydrology and water quality due to the
future development and future climate change conditions within each municipality in the Taunton
River watershed.
2. GIS DATA REVIEW FOR TAUNTON RIVER WATERSHED
The Phase 2 methodology uses previously acquired data from MassGIS (Bureau of Geographic Information)
during Phase 1, as well as new sources of future land use - land cover data from the NELF project. The
subset of data used for Phase 2 is shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Landscape GIS data
Description
Dataset
Resolution
Source
Baseline Land Use-Land Cover
LULC_2016
polygon
2016
-
MassGIS
Future Land Cover
Recent_Trends_2010
raster
1990-2010
30m
NELF
Recent_T rends_2060
raster
2010-2060
30m
NELF
Municipalities
Towns
polygon
2020
-
MassGIS
Buildings
Structures
polygon
2019
-
MassGIS
5
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Description
Dataset
Data Type
Period
Resolution
Source
Baseline HRUs
Baseline_HRUs_2016
raster
2016
lm
FDC Phase 1
2.1. Baseline Land Use Land Cover Data
MassGIS 2016 land use - land cover layer contains a combination of land cover mapping from 2016 aerial
imagery and land use derived from standardized assessor parcel information for Massachusetts. It contains
both land use and land cover information as separate attributes and can be accessed independently or in a
useful combination with one another. For example, it is possible to measure the portions of pervious and
impervious surfaces for a commercial parcel. Figure 2-1 shows the land use - land cover map for the Taunton
River watershed.
6
-------
FDC 2A Project Task 4
Residential - Single Family
Mixed Use - Primarily Commercial
Developed Open Space
in
Forested Wetland
Residential - Multi-Family
Mixed Use - Other
| Deciduous Forest
SUS
Non-forested Wetland
Residential - Other
| Other Impervious
| Evergreen Forest
BB
Saltwater Wetland
Commercial
| Right-of-way
Grassland
V\feter
Industrial
Cultivated
Scrub/Shrub
sn
Unconsolidated Shore
Sill
Mixed Use - Primarily Residential
Pasture/Hay
Bare Land
M
Aquatic Bed
Figure 2-1. A map showing 2016 land use - land cover for the Taunton River watershed.
7
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
2.2. Future Land Cover Data
NETF is a multi-institutional project with the overarching goal of building and evaluating scenarios that
show how land use choices could shape the landscape over the next 50 years. The NETF project envisions
potential trends and impacts of landscape change in New England based on community collaboration and
expert analysis (NETF, n.d.). Future land cover data representing historical and projected trends was
acquired from the NETF project data repository (available on request at:
https://databasin.org/groups/26ceb6c7ece64bQd9872ell8bae80d41/'). These datasets were created with a
cellular land-cover change model using satellite imagery from 1990-2010 (Thompson et al., 2017). The
historical data represents obseived trends over 1990-2010; the statistical relationships of land cover change
rate and spatial patterns were then linearly projected to the year 2060 as a baseline business-as-usual scenario
(Figure 2-2). Major land cover changes over the 1990-2010 period include forest loss to low- and high-density
development, as well as new land conservation (Thompson et al,, 2017). Over 50 years between 2010 and
2060, the largest changes in land use across all of New England (not just the Taunton River watershed) were
a 37% increase in developed area and a 123% increase in conserved area (Thompson et al., 2020). However,
the conserved area is concentrated in core forest areas in northern New England (e.g., Maine and Vermont),
while the more developed southern areas saw lower land conservation. At 30-m resolution, both of these
datasets are consistent with the National Tand Cover Databases (NLCD), however, they are limited to land
cover projections of seven lumped categories and do not directly estimate the percent imperviousness within
the land cover category. Both the Recent Trends 2010 and 2060 datasets, as well as other NETF future
scenarios, can be explored on their web viewer.
Recent Trends 2010
A
value
| High Density Development
| Low Density Development
J Unprotected Fores
I Conserved Fotesl
J Agriculture
I Cther
Recent Trends 2060
A
Value
High Oensty Development
Hj Low Density Development
]' "B Unprotected Foms
Conserved Porta
[ ! Aflntultixe
[ 1 Ofter
Vtoter
Figure 2-2. A historical land use trend for the year 2010 (left) and projected future land use trend for the year 2060
(right) for the Taunton River watershed.
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
2.3. Municipalities
MassGIS 2020 municipal boundaries were created by MassGIS by adjusting older USGS topo map town
boundaries to connect the survey points of a community. In many areas, boundary creation was simply a
matter of "connecting the dots" from one boundary point to the next. Where boundaries follow a
stream/river or road right-of-way (ROW) the boundary was approximately delineated using the 2001 Aerial
Imagery as a base. Figure 2-3 shows the municipal boundaries within the Taunton River watershed.
Figure 2-3. A map showing the municipal boundaries in the Taunton River watershed.
9
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
2.4. Buildings
MassGIS 2021 buildings dataset consists of 2-dimensional roof outlines ("roof-prints") for all buildings larger
than 150 square feet for all of Massachusetts. In 2019, MassGIS refreshed the data to abaseline of2016 and
continues to update features using newer aerial imagery that allows MassGIS staff to remove, modify and
add structures to keep up with more current ground conditions. In March 2021, the layer was updated with
2017 and 2018 structure review edits along with the first data edits compiled atop spring 2019 imagery. In
July 2021, MassGIS completed the statewide update based on 2019 imagery. Figure 2-4 shows the building
boundaries within the Taunton River watershed.
Figure 2-4. A map showing the building footprints in the Taunton River watershed.
10
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
2.5. Baseline HRUs Layer
Baseline HRUs layer representing the land use, land cover, soil, and slope characteristics in the Taunton
River watershed was developed during Phase 1 of the FDC project. Each HRU represents areas of similar
physical characteristics attributable to core processes identified through GIS overlays. The baseline HRUs
layer for the Taunton River watershed combines spatial information into a single raster layer with 36 unique
categories. The unit-area HRUs time series for the baseline conditions were developed using the most recent
20-year period of observed meteorological boundary conditions and calibrating the rainfall-runoff response
on each HRU along with reach routing processes in the LSPC model under Phase 1 of the FDC project.
Figure 2-5 shows the spatial overlay process used to develop the baseline HRUs categories. During the HRUs
development process, raw spatial data were reclassified into relevant categories. Table 2-2 shows the
reclassification of Mass GIS 2016 land use and land cover data to derive the modeled land use categories in
the Opti-Tool. Table 2-3 shows the reclassification of the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database and
the State Soil Geographic (STATSG02) database to derive the modeled Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)
categories in the Opti-Tool. Table 2-4 shows the reclassification of the percent slope attribute to derive the
modeled slope categories in the Opti-Tool. Table 2-5 shows the final 36 HRUs categories developed for the
Taunton River watershed. Figure 2-6 shows the spatial location of the baseline HRUs in the Taunton River
watershed.
11
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Figure 2-5. Baseline HRUs spatial overlay process (from top to bottom: land use - land cover, soil, and slope layers)
12
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 2-2. Land use - land cover reclassification
Land Cover
Code
Land Cover
Description
Land Use
Code
Land Use
Description
Land Use
Reclassification
Cover Type
2
Impervious
0
Unknown
Paved Open Land
Impervious
2
Impervious
2
Open land
Paved Open Land
Impervious
2
Impervious
3
Commercial
Paved Commercial
Impervious
2
Impervious
4
Industrial
Paved Industrial
Impervious
2
Impervious
6
Forest
Paved Forest
Impervious
2
Impervious
7
Agriculture
Paved Agriculture
Impervious
2
Impervious
8
Recreation
Paved Open Land
Impervious
2
Impervious
9
Tax exempt
Paved Open Land
Impervious
2
Impervious
10
Mixed use, primarily
residential
Paved Medium
Density Residential
Impervious
2
Impervious
11
Residential - single
family
Paved Low Density
Residential
Impervious
2
Impervious
12
Residential - multi-
family
Paved High Density
Residential
Impervious
2
Impervious
13
Residential - other
Paved Medium
Density Residential
Impervious
2
Impervious
20
Mixed use, other
Paved Open Land
Impervious
2
Impervious
30
Mixed use, primarily
commercial
Paved Commercial
Impervious
2
Impervious
55
Right-of-way
Paved Transportation
Impervious
2
Impervious
88
Water
Paved Open Land
Impervious
5
Developed Open
Space
N/A
N/A
Developed Open
Space
Pervious
6
Cultivated
N/A
N/A
Agriculture
Pervious
7
Pasture/Hay
N/A
N/A
Agriculture
Pervious
8
Grassland
N/A
N/A
Agriculture
Pervious
9
Deciduous Forest
N/A
N/A
Forest
Pervious
10
Evergreen Forest
N/A
N/A
Forest
Pervious
12
Scrub/Shrub
N/A
N/A
Agriculture
Pervious
13
Palustrine Forested
Wetland
N/A
N/A
Forested Wetland
Pervious
14
Palustrine
Scrub/Shrub Wetland
N/A
N/A
Non-Forested
Wetland
Pervious
15
Palustrine Emergent
Wetland
N/A
N/A
Non-Forested
Wetland
Pervious
18
Estuarine Emergent
Wetland
N/A
N/A
Water
Pervious
19
Unconsolidated Shore
N/A
N/A
Water
Pervious
20
Bare Land
N/A
N/A
Developed Open
Space
Pervious
21
Water
N/A
N/A
Water
Pervious
22
Palustrine Aquatic Bed
N/A
N/A
Water
Pervious
13
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 2-3. Soil - HSG reclassification
HSG -
SSURGO
HSG -
STATSG02
HSG
Reclassification
Justification
No Data
A
A
When no other information was available, the STATSG02
data layer was used to fill the gaps.
No Data
B
B
No Data
C
C
No Data
D
D
A
N/A
A
A/D
N/A
D
Dual HSGs were represented, and their undrained condition
('D') was selected as a conservative choice.
B
N/A
B
-
B/D
N/A
D
Dual HSGs were represented, and their undrained condition
('D') was selected as a conservative choice.
C
N/A
C
-
C/D
N/A
D
Dual HSGs were represented, and their undrained condition
('D') was selected as a conservative choice.
D
N/A
D
-
Table 2-4. Percent slope reclassification
Percent Slope
Slope Reclassification
<5%
Low
5% -15%
Medium
>15%
High
Table 2-5. Summary of final HRU categories
HRU Code
HRU Description
Land Use
Soil
Slope
Land Cover
1000
Paved Forest
Paved Forest
N/A
N/A
Impervious
2000
Paved Agriculture
Paved Agriculture
N/A
N/A
Impervious
3000
Paved Commercial
Paved Commercial
N/A
N/A
Impervious
4000
Paved Industrial
Paved Industrial
N/A
N/A
Impervious
5000
Paved Low Density Residential
Paved Low Density Residential
N/A
N/A
Impervious
6000
Paved Medium Density
Residential
Paved Medium Density
Residential
N/A
N/A
Impervious
7000
Paved High Density Residential
Paved High Density Residential
N/A
N/A
Impervious
8000
Paved Transportation
Paved Transportation
N/A
N/A
Impervious
9000
Paved Open Land
Paved Open Land
N/A
N/A
Impervious
10110
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
Developed OpenSpace
A
Low
Pervious
10120
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
Developed OpenSpace
A
Med
Pervious
10210
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
Developed OpenSpace
B
Low
Pervious
10220
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
Developed OpenSpace
B
Med
Pervious
10310
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
Developed OpenSpace
C
Low
Pervious
10320
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
Developed OpenSpace
C
Med
Pervious
10410
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
Developed OpenSpace
D
Low
Pervious
10420
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
Developed OpenSpace
D
Med
Pervious
14
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
HRU Code
HRU Description
Land Use
Soil
Slope
Land Cover
11000
Forested Wetland
Forested Wetland
N/A
N/A
Pervious
12000
Non-Forested Wetland
Non-Forested Wetland
N/A
N/A
Pervious
13110
Forest-A-Low
Forest
A
Low
Pervious
13120
Forest-A-Med
Forest
A
Med
Pervious
13210
Forest-B-Low
Forest
B
Low
Pervious
13220
Forest-B-Med
Forest
B
Med
Pervious
13310
Forest-C-Low
Forest
C
Low
Pervious
13320
Forest-C-Med
Forest
C
Med
Pervious
13410
Forest-D-Low
Forest
D
Low
Pervious
13420
Forest-D-Med
Forest
D
Med
Pervious
14110
Agr
culture-A-Low
Agr
culture
A
Low
Pervious
14120
Agr
culture-A-Med
Agr
culture
A
Med
Pervious
14210
Agr
culture-B-Low
Agr
culture
B
Low
Pervious
14220
Agr
culture-B-Med
Agr
culture
B
Med
Pervious
14310
Agr
culture-C-Low
Agr
culture
C
Low
Pervious
14320
Agr
iculture-C-Med
Agr
iculture
C
Med
Pervious
14410
Agr
iculture-D-Low
Agr
iculture
D
Low
Pervious
14420
Agr
iculture-D-Med
Agr
iculture
D
Med
Pervious
15000
Water
Water
N/A
N/A
Pervious
15
-------
FDC 2A Project Task 4
HRU Classification
Agriculture-A-Low
Agriculture-A-Med
Agriculture-B-Low
Agriculture-B-Med
Agriculture-C-Low
Agriculture-C-Med
Agriculture-D-Low
Agriculture-D-Med
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
Forest-A-Low
Forest-A-M ed
Forest-B-Low
Forest-B-Med
Forest-C-Low
Forest-C-Med
Forest-D-Low |
Forest-D-M ed
Forested Wetland
Non-Forested Wetland
Paved Agriculture
Paved Commercial
Paved Forest
| Paved High Density Residential
| Paved Industrial
Paved Low Density Residential
Paved Medium Density Residential
Paved Open Land
| Paved Transportation
| V\foter
0 1.5 3 6
12
¦ Miles
Figure 2-6. A map showing the 2016 baseline HRU raster layer for the Taunton River watershed.
16
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
3. DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE HRU LAYER BASED ON
PROJECTED LAND COVER DATA
To simulate future hydrological conditions within the Taunton River watershed, the NELF projected 2060
land cover datasets were analyzed and processed to update the 2016 baseline HRUs layer. The baseline
HRUs were built with high-resolution (1-m) impervious cover data across the Taunton River watershed.
However, the projected 2060 land cover data is at 30-m; this coarser-resolution also does not provide the
percent imperviousness associated with the given land use classification, needed to develop HRUs.
Additionally, the land use classification is much coarser and does not differentiate between commercial,
industrial, residential, and open space but instead is lumped into just two developed categories: high-density
and low-density development. The methodology to develop a 1-m resolution future HRU layer consistent
with the baseline HRUs layer includes five main steps:
1. Compare the land cover change between the recent trends 2010 and 2060 NELF datasets and preserve
the spatial footprints for the developed areas presented in the 2060 NELF dataset for developing the
future HRUs layer for the Taunton River watershed.
2. Establish mapping rules between the major land use categories used in the Opti-Tool and the land use
categories used in the NELF dataset. These rules define how to disaggregate the two developed land
use (high-density and low-density) classifications from the NELF dataset into 7 major developed land
use (commercial, industrial, high-density residential, medium-density residential, low-density
residential, open land, and transportation) classifications for the Opti-Tool.
3. Estimate the percent imperviousness rules for the 7 major developed land use categories established in
step 2 by using the MassGIS 2016 land use - land cover dataset for the Taunton River watershed.
These rules are assumed to remain the same at different spatial extents. For example, the percent
imperviousness for commercial land use remains the same for future development areas regardless of
where they are located in the watershed. The projected future commercial areas in any municipal
boundary will have the same percent imperviousness as it is overall in the Taunton River watershed
based on the MassGIS 2016 land use - land cover dataset.
4. Estimate the area distribution rules between the 7 major developed land use categories (i.e.,
commercial, industrial, high-density residential, medium-density residential, low-density residential,
open space, and transportation) by the municipality within the Taunton River watershed. Apply these
rules to new development areas to break down the two developed NELF categories (high-density and
low-density) into 7 developed Opti-Tool categories at the municipal level. These rules are derived at
the municipality level and remain the same within the given municipal boundary but can vary from
one municipality to another. It is assumed that area distribution between developed land use categories
follows the same trend for the projected 2060 future land use - land cover classification.
5. Identify the undeveloped areas from the baseline HRUs layer that are subject to future development
based on an overlay with the 2060 NELF dataset and apply the rules established in steps 3 and 4 at the
municipality level. Apply the peppered raster method developed in Phase 1 of the FDC project to
convert one-to-many HRUs categories using the probabilistic raster reclassification algorithm. For
example, if there are 100 acres of forest category within a given municipality that is subject to high-
density development, then those acres are split into paved commercial, paved industrial, paved high-
density residential, paved transportation, and developed open space based on the established area
distribution rules of those developed categories within the same municipal boundary. The underlying
soil (i.e., HSG) and slope classifications remain the same as in the baseline HRUs layer.
17
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
The following sections provide more detail on the process of developing the future HRUs raster layer and
summarize the change in the baseline HRUs due to the projected future development in the Taunton River
watershed.
3.1. Land Cover Change Between 2010 and 2060 NELF Dataset
Within the Taunton River watershed, both low- and high-density development increased between the NELF
2010 and 2060 recent trend datasets (Table 3-1). This is generally due to the conversion of unprotected forest
areas to developed areas. However, the recent trends underpinning the NELF datasets also indicate an
increase in the conserved forest. The baseline HRUs developed under Phase 1 of the FDC project use higher
resolution MassGIS 2016 land use - land cover data, so NELF 2060 projected future dataset was overlayed
with the baseline HRUs layer to identify the areas subject to projected future development.
Table 3-1. NELF recent trend 2010 and 2060 land cover comparison
NELF Land Use Classification
Recent Trend 2010 (acre)
Recent Trend 2060 (acre)
Change (%)
Agriculture
23,735
24,568
4%
Conserved Forest
44,372
79,238
79%
High Density Development
14,889
20,906
40%
Low Density Development
79,795
112,477
41%
Other
32,758
32,758
0%
Unprotected Forest
129,871
55,474
-57%
Water
16,032
16,032
0%
3.2. Mapping Between Opti-Tool and NELF Land Use Classification
Table 3-2 shows a mapping table between NELF, Continuous Change Detection and Classification (CCDC),
and National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) datasets. These datasets were used in the NELF project and
where CCDC data was not available, NLCD data was used to fill the gaps. The CCDC and NLCD maps
were reclassified to a common legend consisting of High-Density Development, Low-Density Development,
Forest, Agriculture, Water, and a composite "Other" class for developing the NELF datasets (Thompson et
al., 2017). Based on the land use description shown in Table 3-2, new mapping rules were developed to
disaggregate the NELF classification into the Opti-Tool land use classification as shown in Table 3-3. These
mapping rules are assumed to remain the same across any municipal boundary within the Taunton River
watershed.
Table 3-2. Reclassification Scheme for CCDC and NLCD Data for NELF Land Cover (Thompson et al., 2017)
NELF
Classification
CCDC Class
CCDC Class
Description
NLCD 2001/2011
Class
NLCD 2001/2011 Class
Description
High Density
Developed
Commercial/
Industrial
Area of urban
development;
impervious surface
area target 80-100%
Developed High
Intensity
Highly developed areas where
people reside or work in high
numbers. Examples include
apartment complexes,
rowhouses, and commercial
/industrial. Impervious surfaces
account for 80% to 100% of the
total cover.
18
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
NELF
Classification
CCDC Class
CCDC Class
Description
NLCD 2001/2011
Class
NLCD 2001/2011 Class
Description
High Density
Residential
Area of residential
urban development
with some
vegetation;
impervious surface
area target 50-80%
Developed,
Medium
Intensity
Areas with a mixture of
constructed materials and
vegetation. Impervious surfaces
account for 50% to 79% of the
total cover. These areas most
commonly include single-family
housing units.
Low Density
Developed
Low Density
Residential
Area of residential
urban development
with significant
vegetation;
impervious surface
area target 0-50%
Developed, Low
Intensity
Areas with a mixture of
constructed materials and
vegetation. Impervious surfaces
account for 20% to 49% percent
of total cover. These areas most
commonly include single-family
housing units.
Developed,
Open Space
Areas with a mixture of some
constructed materials, but
mostly vegetation in the form of
lawn grasses. Impervious
surfaces account for less than
20% of total cover. These areas
most commonly include large-lot
single-family housing units,
parks, golf courses, and
vegetation planted in developed
settings for recreation, erosion
control, or aesthetic purposes.
Agriculture
Agriculture
Non-woody
cultivated plants;
includes cereal and
broadleaf crops
Pasture/Hay
Areas of grasses, legumes, or
grass-legume mixtures planted
for livestock grazing or the
production of seed or hay crops,
typically on a perennial cycle.
Pasture/hay vegetation accounts
for greater than 20% of total
vegetation.
Cultivated Crops
Areas used for the production of
annual crops, such as corn,
soybeans, vegetables, tobacco,
and cotton, and also perennial
woody crops such as orchards
and vineyards. Crop vegetation
accounts for greater than 20%
of total vegetation. This class
also includes all land being
actively tilled.
19
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
NELF
Classification
CCDC Class
CCDC Class
Description
NLCD 2001/2011
Class
NLCD 2001/2011 Class
Description
Forest
Mixed
Forest
Forested land with at
least 40% tree
canopy cover
comprising no more
than 80% of either
evergreen needle
leaf or deciduous
broadleaf cover
Mixed Forest
Areas dominated by trees are
generally greater than 5 meters
tall, and greater than 20% of
total vegetation cover. Neither
deciduous nor evergreen species
are greater than 75% of total
tree cover.
Deciduous
Broadleaf
Forest
Forested land with at
least 40% tree
canopy cover
comprising more
than 80% deciduous
broadleaf cover
Deciduous
Forest
Areas dominated by trees are
generally greater than 5 meters
tall, and greater than 20% of
total vegetation cover. More
than 75% of the tree species
shed foliage simultaneously in
response to seasonal change.
Evergreen
Needleleaf
Forest
Forested land with at
least 40% tree
canopy cover
comprising more
than 80% evergreen
needle leaf cover
Evergreen Forest
Areas dominated by trees are
generally greater than 5 meters
tall, and greater than 20% of
total vegetation cover. More
than 75% of the tree species
maintain their leaves all year.
Canopy is never without green
foliage.
Woody
Wetland
An additional class of
wetland that tries to
separate wetlands
with considerable
biomass from mainly
herbaceous wetlands
Woody
Wetlands
Areas where forest or shrubland
vegetation accounts for greater
than 20% of vegetative cover
and the soil or substrate is
periodically saturated with or
covered with water.
Shrub/Scrub
Areas dominated by shrubs; less
than 5 meters tall with shrub
canopy typically greater than
20% of total vegetation. This
class includes true shrubs, young
trees in an early successional
stage, or trees stunted from
environmental conditions.
Other
Wetland
Vegetated land
(woody and non-
woody) with
inundation from high
water table; includes
swamps, salt, and
freshwater marshes
and tidal
rivers/mudflats
Emergent
Herbaceous
Wetlands
Areas where perennial
herbaceous vegetation accounts
for greater than 80% of
vegetative cover and the soil or
substrate is periodically
saturated with or covered with
water.
20
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
NELF
Classification
CCDC Class
CCDC Class
Description
NLCD 2001/2011
Class
NLCD 2001/2011 Class
Description
Herbaceous
/ Grassland
Non-woody naturally
occurring or slightly
managed plants;
includes pastures
Barren Land
(Rock/Sand/Clay)
Areas of bedrock, desert
pavement, scarps, talus, slides,
volcanic material, glacial debris,
dunes, strip mines, gravel pits,
and other accumulations of
earthen material. Generally,
vegetation accounts for less
than 15% of total cover.
Bare
Non-vegetated land
comprised of above
60% rock, sand, or
soil
Water
Water
Lakes, ponds, rivers,
and ocean
Open Water
Areas of open water, generally
with less than 25% cover of
vegetation or soil.
Table 3-3. Mapping table between NELF and Opti-Tool land use classification
NELF ID
NELF Land Use Classification
Opti-Tool Land Use Classification
Commercial
1
High Density Development
Industrial
High-Density Residential
Transportation
Low-Density Residential
2
Low Density Development
Medium-Density Residential
Open Land
Transportation
3
Unprotected Forest
Forest
4
Conserved Forest
5
Agriculture
Agriculture
6
Other
Wetland
7
Water
Water
3.3. Percent Imperviousness for Developed Land Use Classification
Using the MassGIS 2016 land use - land cover dataset, the percent imperviousness was estimated for the 7
developed land use categories used in the Opti-Tool (Table 3-4). As well as the total percentage of IC, the
percent of IC from buildings (i.e., roof-area) was calculated for each developed land use classification. These
rules were developed at the Taunton River watershed scale and are assumed to hold at any spatial scale
within the Taunton River watershed. For example, the projected future commercial land use in any
municipality within the Taunton River watershed will have 67.4% paved areas and 23.8% of paved areas
will be the building rooftops.
21
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 3-4. Summary of percent imperviousness for developed land use classification
Developed Land Use Classification
Total Impervious Cover (%)
Buildings (% of Total IC)
Commercial
66.8%
23.8%
Industrial
75.3%
38.2%
High-Density Residential
51.4%
35.4%
Transportation
80.6%
0.0%
Low-Density Residential
31.5%
40.1%
Medium-Density Residential
43.0%
29.5%
Open Land
30.0%
19.9%
3.4. Developed Land Use Distribution by Municipality in Taunton River Watershed
For each municipality within the Taunton River watershed, the breakdown of developed land use area was
calculated from the MassGIS 2016 land use - land cover data. This will allow conversion between the NELF
and Opti-Tool classes (as shown in Table 3-3). Table 3-5 summarizes high-density developed areas into
commercial, industrial, high-density residential, and transportation categories. Table 3-6 summarizes the
breakdown of low-density developed areas into low-density residential, medium-density residential, open
space, and transportation categories. These rules were developed at the municipality level that allows
different development patterns across different municipalities based on the baseline development trends. It
was assumed that the area distribution between the developed land use categories shown in Table 3-5 and
Table 3-6 holds for the projected future development within the same municipal boundary.
Table 3-5. Summary of high-density development land use area distribution by municipality in the Taunton River
watershed
Municipality
High-Density Development (MassGIS 2016)
ID
Name
Commercial
Industrial
High Density
Residential
Transportation
1
ABINGTON
40.5%
0.7%
34.4%
24.4%
16
ATTLEBORO
10.3%
43.8%
16.3% 29.6%
18
AVON
28.8%
38.0%
5.3% 27.9%
27
BERKLEY
31.6%
4.7%
27.7% 36.0%
42
BRIDGEWATER
22.9%
11.7%
40.7% 24.7%
44
BROCKTON
34.8%
8.9%
31.8% 24.5%
52
CARVER
43.2%
7.3%
6.0% 43.6%
72
DARTMOUTH
32.3%
16.2%
24.8% 26.7%
76
DIGHTON
35.8%
20.6%
16.1% 27.5%
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
27.2%
19.3%
26.1% 27.4%
88
E ASTON
32.4%
15.2%
26.8% 25.7%
95
FALL RIVER
16.3%
28.0%
30.2% 25.5%
99
FOXBOROUGH
39.4%
8.1%
20.1% 32.4%
102
FREETOWN
23.9%
38.0%
6.4% 31.6%
118
HALIFAX
34.7%
6.9%
35.0% 23.4%
123
HANSON
28.4%
24.7%
20.1%
26.8%
22
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality High-Density Development (MassGIS 2016)
ID
Name
Commercial
Industrial
High Density
Residential
Transportation
133
HOLBROOK
36.2%
14.3%
18.7%
30.8%
145
KINGSTON
0.0%
0.0%
62.7%
37.3%
146
LAKEVILLE
37.0%
21.7%
15.7%
25.6%
167
MANSFIELD
25.1%
31.6%
15.2%
28.2%
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
38.8%
10.3%
19.1%
31.9%
201
NEW BEDFORD
33.9%
0.0%
30.3%
35.8%
208
NORFOLK
32.3%
16.2%
24.8%
26.7%
211
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
64.9%
0.0%
0.0%
35.1%
218
NORTON
21.2%
19.9%
32.2%
26.7%
231
PEMBROKE
20.6%
9.6%
41.5%
28.3%
238
PLAINVILLE
46.0%
8.1%
20.9%
25.0%
239
PLYMOUTH
61.0%
0.0%
24.4%
14.6%
240
PLYMPTON
54.1%
9.9%
8.6%
27.3%
245
RAYNHAM
46.5%
9.5%
15.0%
28.9%
247
REHOBOTH
31.5%
0.0%
37.9%
30.5%
250
ROCHESTER
0.0%
0.0%
63.3%
36.7%
251
ROCKLAND
53.3%
0.0%
20.1%
26.6%
266
SHARON
47.4%
0.3%
10.3%
42.0%
273
SOMERSET
36.5%
12.8%
23.7%
27.0%
285
STOUGHTON
29.4%
34.4%
8.1%
28.1%
292
SWANSEA
9.4%
0.0%
61.2%
29.5%
293
TAUNTON
32.1%
12.0%
32.7%
23.3%
307
WALPOLE
32.3%
16.2%
24.8%
26.7%
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
34.2%
26.6%
11.3%
27.8%
336
WEYMOUTH
0.1%
0.0%
65.9%
34.0%
338
WHITMAN
26.8%
12.5%
34.3%
26.3%
350
WRENTHAM
30.9%
5.6%
29.5%
34.0%
Table 3-6. Summary of low-density development land use area distribution by municipality in Taunton River
watershed
Municipality
Low-Density Development (MassGIS 2016)
ID
Name
Medium Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
Open Land
Transportation
1
ABINGTON
0.6%
64.6%
20.4%
14.4%
16
ATTLEBORO
0.0%
72.9%
10.9%
16.1%
18
AVON
0.2%
57.9%
27.3%
14.6%
27
BERKLEY
5.7%
58.5%
12.9%
22.9%
42
BRIDGEWATER
1.3%
51.4%
32.8%
14.6%
23
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
Low-Density Development (MassGIS 2016)
ID
Name
Medium Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
Open Land
Transportation
44
BROCKTON
0.6%
52.5%
32.8%
14.1%
52
CARVER
1.6%
59.2%
12.3%
26.8%
72
DARTMOUTH
2.1%
57.1%
24.9%
15.9%
76
DIGHTON
3.2%
53.5%
28.0%
15.3%
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
1.8%
61.0%
21.5%
15.7%
88
E ASTON
0.2%
58.4%
26.9%
14.6%
95
FALL RIVER
2.1%
41.6%
42.0%
14.3%
99
FOXBOROUGH
1.3%
54.8%
24.8%
19.1%
102
FREETOWN
6.2%
52.3%
24.1%
17.4%
118
HALIFAX
4.0%
66.3%
15.9%
13.8%
123
HANSON
1.9%
58.8%
24.3%
14.9%
133
HOLBROOK
1.2%
72.5%
8.4%
17.9%
145
KINGSTON
0.0%
31.0%
42.7%
26.3%
146
LAKEVILLE
0.7%
67.9%
17.3%
14.0%
167
MANSFIELD
0.5%
66.1%
17.9%
15.4%
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
10.7%
50.6%
19.4%
19.3%
201
NEW BEDFORD
0.9%
62.4%
14.1%
22.7%
208
NORFOLK
0.0%
89.4%
0.2%
10.4%
211
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
0.0%
70.4%
9.3%
20.2%
218
NORTON
3.1%
59.0%
22.3%
15.6%
231
PEMBROKE
1.2%
69.3%
12.1%
17.4%
238
PLAINVILLE
0.1%
54.4%
31.4%
14.0%
239
PLYMOUTH
0.0%
81.3%
10.8%
7.9%
240
PLYMPTON
6.4%
62.3%
16.0%
15.4%
245
RAYNHAM
1.4%
56.9%
25.3%
16.4%
247
REHOBOTH
0.5%
73.5%
6.9%
19.2%
250
ROCHESTER
2.9%
52.1%
18.6%
26.4%
251
ROCKLAND
0.0%
84.0%
0.6%
15.4%
266
SHARON
0.0%
67.3%
6.6%
26.1%
273
SOMERSET
0.3%
68.2%
16.0%
15.5%
285
STOUGHTON
1.4%
66.8%
16.7%
15.1%
292
SWANSEA
0.3%
66.2%
13.8%
19.7%
293
TAUNTON
0.5%
52.9%
33.3%
13.3%
307
WALPOLE
0.0%
76.0%
0.1%
23.9%
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
5.0%
50.2%
29.5%
15.3%
336
WEYMOUTH
0.0%
73.3%
2.7%
24.1%
338
WHITMAN
1.7%
60.6%
22.2%
15.5%
350
WRENTHAM
0.9%
43.0%
35.3%
20.9%
24
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
3.5. Future HRU Layer for Taunton River Watershed
Based on the relationships established between the MassGIS 2016 baseline and NELF future datasets, the
future mapped HRU area distribution is estimated for each municipality based on the change from baseline
undeveloped areas (e.g., agriculture and forest) to the developed areas in the projected NELF data. The
spatial overlay process shown in Figure 3-1 illustrates how the relevant layers are aligned. Any areas that are
undeveloped in the projected future NELF data layer maintain their baseline HRU values; areas that are
undeveloped in the baseline but subject to development in the future layer are reclassified to the appropriate
class from the baseline HRU layer. As an example, parcels of unprotected forest within a municipality
boundary that are subject to projected future development are converted to developed parcels; the percentage
distribution rules for the detailed developed land use categories (Table 3-5 and Table 3-6) and the
corresponding imperviousness rules (Table 3-4) are used to predict the future HRUs. Table 3-7 summarizes
the change in each HRU category between the baseline and future HRUs; Figure 3-2 shows the spatial
distribution of future HRUs. Figure 3-3 shows the comparison between coarse resolution 2060 NELF
classification and high resolution 2060 Future HRUs for the Upper Hodges Brook sub-watershed.
25
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Figure 3-1. Mapped future HRU spatial overlay process (from top to bottom: NELF 2060 land cover, baseline HRUs,
municipalities, and final future HRU layer).
26
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 3-7. Comparison of HRU area distribution between the MassGIS 2016 baseline and NELF 2060 future conditions
in Taunton River watershed
HRU
Code
Land Use Classification
Land Cover
Soil
Slope
Baseline
(acre)
Future
(acre)
mtM
1,000
Paved Forest
Impervious
N/A
N/A
9
9
0.0%
2,000
Paved Agriculture
Impervious
N/A
N/A
128
158
23.0%
3,000
Paved Commercial
Impervious
N/A
N/A
4,858
6,873
41.5%
4,000
Paved Industrial
Impervious
N/A
N/A
2,745
3,892
41.8%
5,000
Paved Low Density Residential
Impervious
N/A
N/A
9,951
20,717
108.2%
6,000
Paved Medium Density
Residential
Impervious
N/A
N/A
489
1,133
131.7%
7,000
Paved High Density Residential
Impervious
N/A
N/A
2,856
4,041
41.5%
8,000
Paved Transportation
Impervious
N/A
N/A
11,852
21,709
83.2%
9,000
Paved Open Land
Impervious
N/A
N/A
4,138
8,377
102.4%
10,110
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
A
Low
13,210
18,203
37.8%
10,120
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
A
Med
5,864
14,785
152.1%
10,210
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
B
Low
3,621
5,792
59.9%
10,220
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
B
Med
1,897
4,483
136.3%
10,310
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
C
Low
4,326
7,243
67.4%
10,320
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
C
Med
2,488
4,809
93.3%
10,410
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
D
Low
7,944
17,328
118.1%
10,420
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious
D
Med
1,604
3,478
116.9%
11,000
Forested Wetland
Pervious
N/A
N/A
66,463
66,463
0.0%
12,000
Non-Forested Wetland
Pervious
N/A
N/A
9,734
9,734
0.0%
13,110
Forest
Pervious
A
Low
17,071
7,615
-55.4%
13,120
Forest
Pervious
A
Med
33,959
17,511
-48.4%
13,210
Forest
Pervious
B
Low
7,649
3,553
-53.6%
13,220
Forest
Pervious
B
Med
10,948
6,320
-42.3%
13,310
Forest
Pervious
C
Low
12,123
6,470
-46.6%
13,320
Forest
Pervious
C
Med
9,548
4,954
-48.1%
13,410
Forest
Pervious
D
Low
43,764
26,559
-39.3%
13,420
Forest
Pervious
D
Med
9,331
5,850
-37.3%
14,110
Agr
culture
Pervious
A
Low
4,780
4,426
-7.4%
14,120
Agr
culture
Pervious
A
Med
3,095
3,590
16.0%
14,210
Agr
culture
Pervious
B
Low
1,204
1,187
-1.4%
14,220
Agr
culture
Pervious
B
Med
1,106
1,090
-1.4%
14,310
Agr
iculture
Pervious
C
Low
1,925
1,966
2.1%
14,320
Agr
iculture
Pervious
C
Med
1,092
1,178
7.9%
14,410
Agr
iculture
Pervious
D
Low
10,907
11,157
2.3%
14,420
Agr
iculture
Pervious
D
Med
1,146
1,173
2.4%
15,000
Water
N/A
N/A
N/A
17,628
17,628
0.0%
27
-------
FDC 2A Project Task 4
HRU Classification
Ag ri c u Itu re-A- Low
Agriculture-A-Med
Agriculture-B-Low
Agriculture-B-Med
Agriculture-C-Low
Agriculture-C-Med
Agriculture-D-Low
Agriculture-D-Med
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
Forest-A-Low
Forest-A-Med
Forest-B-Low
Forest-B-Med
Forest-C-Low
Forest-C-Med
Forest-D-Low
Forest-D-Med
Forested Wetland
Non-Forested Wetland
Paved Agriculture
Paved Commercial
Paved Forest
Paved High-Density Residential
Paved Industrial
Paved Low-Density Residential
Paved Medium-Density Residential
Paved Open Land
| Paved Transportation
Vteter
0 1.5 3 6
12
h Miles
Figure 3-2, A map showing the 2060 future HRU raster layer for the Taunton River watershed,
28
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Recent Trend 2060
j High Density Development
Low Density Development
Unprotected Forest
Conserved Forest
Agriculture
~ Other
Water
HRU Classification
Agriculture-A-Low
Agriculture-A-Med
Agriculture-B-Low
Agriculture-B-Med
Agriculture-C-Low
Agriculture-C-Med
Agriculture-D-Low
Agriculture-D-Med
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
i ^
| Forest-A-Low
| Forest-A-Med
Forest-B-Low
Forest-B-Med
| Forest-C-Low
| Forest-C-Med
Forest-D-Low |
Forest-D-Med
Forested Wetland
Non-Forested Wetland
Paved Agriculture
Paved Commercial
Paved Forest
Paved High-Density Residential
/
Paved Industrial
V _.| tr- f'
Paved Low-Density Residential
Paved Medium-Density Residential
Paved Open Land
Paved Transportation
Vteter
0 0.175 0.35 0.7
1.4
¦ Miles
Figure 3-3. A map showing the comparison between the 30-m resolution 2060 future NELF layer (left) and 1-m
resolution 2060 future HRU layer (right) for the Upper Hodges Brook sub-watershed.
29
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
4. SELECTION OF FUTURE CLIMATE CONDITIONS
To simulate future climate conditions, meteorological time series from three GCMs are selected from those
used in FDC Phase 1 (Table 4-1) (Paradigm Environmental and Great Lakes Environmental Center, 2021).
The GCMs for use in Phase 2 were selected to represent the greatest increase in both precipitation and
temperature, as well as the modeled ecodeficits and ecosurpluses for the Upper Hodges Brook watershed
from FDC Phase 1 (Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2). As shown in Table 4-1, these climate projections are from
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, which represents a scenario in which carbon emissions
continue to climb at historical rates (in contrast, RCP 4.5 predicts a stabilization of carbon emissions by
2100). Using these models in conjunction with the projected future land cover conditions should provide
"bookends" within which to evaluate innovative stormwater control measures and protective ordinances.
The downscaled meteorological data for the selected GCMs will be used to drive the LSPC hydrology model
in FDC Phase 2.
Table 4-1. FDC Phase 1 selected models from ensemble results for future climate projections (2079-2099)
RCP
Scenario1
Ecosuplus Model
Ecodeficit Model
RCP 4.5
Dry
hadgem2-cc-l
mpi-esm-mr-1
Median
bcc-csml-l-m-1
bcc-csml-l-m-1
Wet
bcc-csm 1-1-1
miroc-esm-chem-1
RCP 8.5
Dry
inmcm4-l
miroc-esm-1
Median
cesml-cam5-l
cesml-cam5-l
Wet
cesml-bgc-1
mri-cgcm3-l
1: Dry, Median, and Wet correspond to the 20th, 50th, and 80th percentile hydrological responses.
Models chosen for FDC Phase 2 are highlighted in yellow.
12
C
¦B ^
n:
m
=- 0
m
M
C
ro
u _4
-8
-12
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
X WA
O Wet
i
i
--!
1
1
1 Mean
Dry
l
Oi Wet
' Mean
!
i
i
Vledian
(5
Dry
s) Med©nDry
; Median
1
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
O Ecosurplus4.5
X Ecodeficit 4.5
O Ecosurplus8.5
X Ecodeficit 8.5
-18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6
% change in temperature
12
15
18
Figure 4-1. Percent change in annual average precipitation and temperature from baseline conditions for the FDC
Phase 1 selected models presented in Table 4-1.
30
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 4-2. Summary of ecosurpluses and ecodeficits (millions of gallons per year) within the Upper Hodges Brook
watershed for RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios
Ecodeficit models
Scenario
Ecodeficits
Ecosurplus
Dry
Median
Wet
Dry
Median
Wet
RCP 4.5
98.1
78.8
36.1
19.0
43.1
31.8
RCP 8.5
121.4
91.1
49.2
7.1
14.6
90.8
Ecosurplus models
Scenario
Ecodeficits
Ecosurplus
Dry
Median
Wet
Dry
Median
Wet
RCP 4.5
122.0
78.8
52.1
7.6
43.1
60.3
RCP 8.5
112.2
91.1
44.1
14.7
14.6
57.6
5. COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS IN
TAUNTON RIVER WATERSHED
This section compares the results between the 2016 baseline, projected 2060 future land use - land cover
conditions, and the three selected future climate scenarios. These comparisons include future estimates of
IC (assuming conventional development patterns) and estimates of unattenuated average annual run-off
volume, groundwater recharge, evapotranspiration, and nutrients (TN and TP) load export for both existing
and future land cover and climate conditions for each municipality within the Taunton River watershed.
5.1. Impervious Cover by Municipality in the Taunton River Watershed
The change in impervious areas between the 2016 baseline and 2060 future conditions for 7 major land use
categories, transportation (TRANS), commercial (COM), industrial (IND), high-density residential (HDR),
medium-density residential (MDR), low-density residential (LDR), and open land (OPEN), are summarized
by the municipality in Table 5-1. The change in IC reflects the increase in impervious cover due to the NELF
2060 projected future development in the Taunton River watershed. The impervious cover area for each
municipality for the 2016 baseline and 2060 future conditions is given in the appendix (Table 6-1 and Table
6-2, respectively).
Table 5-1. Summary of increase in impervious cover by municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality Increase in Impervious Cover (acre)
ID
Name
TRANS
COM
IND
HDR
MDR
LDR
OPEN
1
ABINGTON
198.9
85.8
1.5
55.6
3.3
241.6
72.6
16
ATTLEBORO
125.4
4.1
19.4
4.9
0.0
197.9
28.3
18
AVON
95.4
29.9
44.3
4.2
0.4
94.3
42.4
27
BERKLEY
374.9
15.3
2.5
10.2
46.6
355.5
74.9
42
BRIDGEWATER
501.5
90.6
52.0
122.7
17.8
531.5
323.2
44
BROCKTON
506.2
218.2
63.0
152.4
6.8
470.6
280.0
52
CARVER
194.4
27.8
5.3
2.9
5.1
139.4
27.7
72
DARTMOUTH
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
76
DIGHTON
287.3
14.4
9.3
4.9
29.6
375.7
187.0
31
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality Increase in Impervious Cover (acre)
ID
Name
TRANS
COM
IND
HDR
MDR
LDR
OPEN
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
409.4
81.9
65.3
60.1
19.0
472.3
158.6
88
E ASTON
517.0
43.2
22.8
27.3
2.7
750.1
329.4
95
FALL RIVER
125.1
30.8
59.5
43.8
5.1
76.5
73.6
99
FOXBOROUGH
434.2
54.1
12.5
21.0
13.6
429.0
185.5
102
FREETOWN
438.9
30.8
55.1
6.3
72.8
461.1
202.1
118
HALIFAX
146.5
14.7
3.3
11.3
20.5
254.4
58.3
123
HANSON
130.9
11.2
11.0
6.1
7.8
182.8
72.1
133
HOLBROOK
60.8
26.2
11.6
10.3
1.2
54.4
6.0
145
KINGSTON
83.7
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
36.1
47.4
146
LAKEVILLE
386.6
36.8
24.2
12.0
9.1
676.5
164.6
167
MANSFIELD
466.5
125.5
177.2
57.9
4.9
501.0
129.5
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
926.7
133.1
39.7
50.1
232.9
820.6
299.7
201
NEW BEDFORD
27.3
7.2
0.0
4.9
0.4
19.7
4.2
208
NORFOLK
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
2.0
0.0
211
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
6.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
1.0
218
NORTON
517.1
59.6
62.6
69.0
44.3
637.2
229.6
231
PEMBROKE
29.4
1.5
0.8
2.3
0.9
42.2
7.0
238
PLAINVILLE
116.0
72.9
14.4
25.2
0.3
104.6
57.6
239
PLYMOUTH
4.4
8.4
0.0
2.6
0.0
8.0
1.0
240
PLYMPTON
123.2
10.4
2.2
1.3
25.4
186.0
45.6
245
RAYNHAM
503.9
204.8
47.2
50.5
15.4
479.2
202.8
247
REHOBOTH
37.4
1.1
0.0
1.0
0.5
54.4
4.8
250
ROCHESTER
31.2
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
23.0
7.8
251
ROCKLAND
1.8
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.4
0.0
266
SHARON
259.0
7.4
0.0
1.2
0.0
254.1
23.8
273
SOMERSET
144.3
50.5
19.9
25.0
1.2
172.7
38.6
285
STOUGHTON
229.8
89.3
117.3
18.7
6.2
221.9
52.9
292
SWANSEA
49.9
0.3
0.0
1.5
0.4
64.3
12.8
293
TAUNTON
838.2
322.2
134.8
250.9
11.9
874.7
524.2
307
WALPOLE
2.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.0
2.6
0.0
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
209.9
54.3
47.5
13.7
27.1
202.1
113.2
336
WEYMOUTH
3.1
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
2.3
0.1
338
WHITMAN
147.4
32.8
17.2
32.1
6.2
166.9
58.4
350
WRENTHAM
163.4
15.8
3.2
11.5
3.2
115.4
90.2
Total
9,857
2,015
1,147
1,186
644
10,766
4,239
Land cover classes: TRANS - transportation, COM - commercial, IND - industrial, HDR - high-density residential,
MDR - medium-density residential, LDR - low-density residential, OPEN - open land
32
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
5.2. Surface Runoff, Groundwater Recharge, Evapotranspiration, and Nutrient Loads
in the Taunton River Watershed
Hydrology and water quality were calibrated for the modeled HRU categories during Phase 1 of the FDC
project. The pollutant build-up and wash-off parameters from the Opti-Tool SWMM models were used as a
starting point and were adjusted to calibrate the long-term annual average loading rates reported in the Opti-
Tool. The model was simulated for 20 years (Oct 2000 - Sep 2020) and annual average loading rates from
the model prediction were compared against the pollutant export rates for the similar HRU type in the Opti-
Tool. Table 5-2 presents the summary of unit-area annual average runoff, groundwater recharge (GW),
evapotranspiration (ET), and nutrients (TN and TP) loading rates by HRU from the calibrated watershed
model in Phase 1 of the FDC project. Table 5-3 to Table 5-5 presents the same summaries for the Ecodeficit
8.5 Dry, Median, and Wet climate change scenarios (Oct 2079 - Sep 2099), respectively.
Table 5-2. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2000 - Sep 2020) runoff volume, groundwater (GW)
recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the modeled
HRU types in the Wading River watershed (FDC Phase 1)
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
1000
Paved Forest
1.234
0.000
0.126
11.480
1.502
2000
Paved Agriculture
1.234
0.000
0.126
11.480
1.502
3000
Paved Commercial
1.234
0.000
0.126
15.240
1.794
4000
Paved Industrial
1.234
0.000
0.126
15.240
1.794
5000
Paved Low Density Residential
1.234
0.000
0.126
14.270
1.503
6000
Paved Medium Density Residential
1.234
0.000
0.126
14.270
1.970
7000
Paved High Density Residential
1.234
0.000
0.126
14.260
2.381
8000
Paved Transportation
1.234
0.000
0.126
10.260
1.532
9000
Paved Open Land
1.234
0.000
0.126
11.480
1.568
10110
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
0.218
0.686
0.455
0.230
0.020
10120
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
0.218
0.686
0.455
0.250
0.022
10210
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
0.380
0.514
0.464
0.930
0.097
10220
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
0.378
0.516
0.464
1.210
0.126
10310
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
0.493
0.396
0.469
2.260
0.209
10320
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
0.495
0.395
0.469
2.390
0.220
10410
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
0.592
0.294
0.472
3.300
0.305
10420
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
0.590
0.296
0.472
4.040
0.374
11000
Forested Wetland
0.331
0.159
0.876
0.520
0.109
12000
Non-Forested Wetland
0.333
0.160
0.874
0.520
0.109
13110
Forest-A-Low
0.077
0.614
0.673
0.120
0.023
13120
Forest-A-Med
0.077
0.614
0.673
0.120
0.025
13210
Forest-B-Low
0.170
0.513
0.681
0.520
0.102
13220
Forest-B-Med
0.170
0.514
0.681
0.550
0.109
13310
Forest-C-Low
0.259
0.421
0.684
1.100
0.204
13320
Forest-C-Med
0.258
0.422
0.684
1.170
0.217
13410
Forest-D-Low
0.453
0.223
0.689
1.780
0.360
33
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
13420
Forest-D-Med
0.451
0.224
0.689
1.840
0.373
14110
Agriculture-A-Low
0.125
0.661
0.577
0.510
0.088
14120
Agriculture-A-Med
0.124
0.661
0.577
0.540
0.093
14210
Agriculture-B-Low
0.244
0.529
0.589
2.320
0.409
14220
Agriculture-B-Med
0.244
0.530
0.589
2.490
0.439
14310
Agriculture-C-Low
0.346
0.422
0.595
5.040
0.773
14320
Agriculture-C-Med
0.345
0.423
0.595
5.410
0.829
14410
Agriculture-D-Low
0.437
0.326
0.599
8.020
1.366
14420
Agriculture-D-Med
0.436
0.328
0.599
8.490
1.447
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, ac - acre, yr - year
Table 5-3. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2079 - Sep 2099) runoff volume, groundwater (GW)
recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the
modeled HRU types in the Wading River watershed (Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry)
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
1000
Paved Forest
1.245
0.000
0.120
10.806
1.425
2000
Paved Agriculture
1.245
0.000
0.120
10.806
1.425
3000
Paved Commercial
1.245
0.000
0.120
14.351
1.631
4000
Paved Industrial
1.245
0.000
0.120
14.351
1.631
5000
Paved Low Density Residential
1.245
0.000
0.120
13.430
1.366
6000
Paved Medium Density Residential
1.245
0.000
0.120
13.430
1.840
7000
Paved High Density Residential
1.245
0.000
0.120
13.424
2.175
8000
Paved Transportation
1.245
0.000
0.120
9.661
1.391
9000
Paved Open Land
1.245
0.000
0.120
10.806
1.425
10110
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
0.175
0.656
0.519
0.237
0.021
10120
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
0.175
0.664
0.518
0.259
0.023
10210
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
0.308
0.509
0.531
0.896
0.094
10220
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
0.305
0.504
0.531
1.126
0.118
10310
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
0.404
0.398
0.539
1.968
0.182
10320
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
0.405
0.399
0.538
2.071
0.191
10410
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
0.495
0.303
0.544
2.827
0.261
10420
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
0.491
0.303
0.544
3.422
0.316
11000
Forested Wetland
0.264
0.107
0.994
0.418
0.087
12000
Non-Forested Wetland
0.263
0.105
0.992
0.414
0.086
13110
Forest-A-Low
0.058
0.537
0.776
0.100
0.020
13120
Forest-A-Med
0.057
0.535
0.775
0.105
0.021
13210
Forest-B-Low
0.132
0.446
0.787
0.452
0.089
13220
Forest-B-Med
0.131
0.444
0.787
0.476
0.094
13310
Forest-C-Low
0.204
0.363
0.793
0.908
0.168
34
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
13320
Forest-C-Med
0.203
0.362
0.793
0.963
0.178
13410
Forest-D-Low
0.370
0.186
0.801
1.438
0.291
13420
Forest-D-Med
0.369
0.186
0.801
1.490
0.302
14110
Agriculture-A-Low
0.099
0.605
0.653
0.508
0.087
14120
Agriculture-A-Med
0.098
0.604
0.653
0.536
0.092
14210
Agriculture-B-Low
0.197
0.488
0.668
2.165
0.381
14220
Agriculture-B-Med
0.196
0.488
0.668
2.305
0.406
14310
Agriculture-C-Low
0.282
0.391
0.677
4.436
0.680
14320
Agriculture-C-Med
0.281
0.391
0.677
4.730
0.725
14410
Agriculture-D-Low
0.361
0.303
0.684
6.842
1.165
14420
Agriculture-D-Med
0.359
0.304
0.684
7.237
1.233
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, ac - acre, yr - year
Table 5-4. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2079 - Sep 2099) runoff volume, groundwater (GW)
recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the
modeled HRU types in the Wading River watershed (Ecodeficit 8.5 Median)
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
1000
Paved Forest
1.251
0.000
0.126
11.147
1.477
2000
Paved Agriculture
1.251
0.000
0.126
11.147
1.477
3000
Paved Commercial
1.251
0.000
0.126
14.805
1.691
4000
Paved Industrial
1.251
0.000
0.126
14.805
1.691
5000
Paved Low Density Residential
1.251
0.000
0.126
13.854
1.416
6000
Paved Medium Density Residential
1.251
0.000
0.126
13.854
1.906
7000
Paved High Density Residential
1.251
0.000
0.126
13.848
2.254
8000
Paved Transportation
1.251
0.000
0.126
9.966
1.442
9000
Paved Open Land
1.251
0.000
0.126
11.147
1.477
10110
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
0.185
0.674
0.498
0.209
0.019
10120
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
0.185
0.682
0.498
0.232
0.021
10210
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
0.327
0.520
0.508
0.901
0.094
10220
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
0.323
0.516
0.508
1.144
0.120
10310
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
0.428
0.405
0.515
1.999
0.184
10320
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
0.429
0.406
0.515
2.108
0.194
10410
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
0.522
0.307
0.519
2.893
0.267
10420
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
0.518
0.308
0.519
3.525
0.326
11000
Forested Wetland
0.293
0.119
0.960
0.442
0.092
12000
Non-Forested Wetland
0.292
0.117
0.957
0.439
0.092
13110
Forest-A-Low
0.062
0.572
0.743
0.089
0.018
13120
Forest-A-Med
0.062
0.570
0.743
0.093
0.018
13210
Forest-B-Low
0.144
0.474
0.753
0.460
0.091
35
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
13220
Forest-B-Med
0.143
0.473
0.753
0.490
0.097
13310
Forest-C-Low
0.224
0.385
0.758
0.977
0.181
13320
Forest-C-Med
0.223
0.384
0.758
1.035
0.192
13410
Forest-D-Low
0.401
0.198
0.765
1.504
0.305
13420
Forest-D-Med
0.399
0.197
0.765
1.558
0.315
14110
Agriculture-A-Low
0.106
0.628
0.630
0.431
0.074
14120
Agriculture-A-Med
0.106
0.627
0.630
0.458
0.079
14210
Agriculture-B-Low
0.214
0.503
0.644
2.267
0.399
14220
Agriculture-B-Med
0.213
0.503
0.644
2.426
0.427
14310
Agriculture-C-Low
0.305
0.402
0.651
4.658
0.714
14320
Agriculture-C-Med
0.303
0.402
0.651
4.966
0.761
14410
Agriculture-D-Low
0.388
0.312
0.657
7.102
1.210
14420
Agriculture-D-Med
0.386
0.312
0.657
7.502
1.278
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, ac - acre, yr - year
Table 5-5. Summary of unit-acre based annual average (Oct 2079 - Sep 2099) runoff volume, groundwater (GW)
recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the
modeled HRU types in the Wading River watershed (Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet)
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
1000
Paved Forest
1.336
0.000
0.119
11.761
1.551
2000
Paved Agriculture
1.336
0.000
0.119
11.761
1.551
3000
Paved Commercial
1.336
0.000
0.119
15.623
1.777
4000
Paved Industrial
1.336
0.000
0.119
15.623
1.777
5000
Paved Low Density Residential
1.336
0.000
0.119
14.617
1.488
6000
Paved Medium Density Residential
1.336
0.000
0.119
14.617
2.056
7000
Paved High Density Residential
1.336
0.000
0.119
14.614
2.377
8000
Paved Transportation
1.336
0.000
0.119
10.517
1.514
9000
Paved Open Land
1.336
0.000
0.119
11.761
1.551
10110
Developed OpenSpace-A-Low
0.206
0.742
0.489
0.205
0.018
10120
Developed OpenSpace-A-Med
0.206
0.750
0.489
0.230
0.021
10210
Developed OpenSpace-B-Low
0.364
0.573
0.498
0.863
0.090
10220
Developed OpenSpace-B-Med
0.361
0.568
0.498
1.102
0.115
10310
Developed OpenSpace-C-Low
0.479
0.445
0.504
2.000
0.185
10320
Developed OpenSpace-C-Med
0.480
0.446
0.504
2.120
0.196
10410
Developed OpenSpace-D-Low
0.584
0.337
0.507
3.152
0.291
10420
Developed OpenSpace-D-Med
0.580
0.339
0.507
3.903
0.361
11000
Forested Wetland
0.368
0.147
0.939
0.575
0.120
12000
Non-Forested Wetland
0.367
0.146
0.936
0.573
0.119
13110
Forest-A-Low
0.079
0.640
0.740
0.092
0.018
36
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
HRU
HRU Category
Runoff
(MG/ac/yr)
GW
(MG/ac/yr)
ET
(MG/ac/yr)
TN
(lb/ac/yr)
TP
(lb/ac/yr)
13120
Forest-A-Med
0.079
0.638
0.740
0.097
0.019
13210
Forest-B-Low
0.177
0.531
0.747
0.463
0.092
13220
Forest-B-Med
0.176
0.529
0.747
0.493
0.098
13310
Forest-C-Low
0.271
0.428
0.751
1.031
0.191
13320
Forest-C-Med
0.270
0.427
0.751
1.101
0.204
13410
Forest-D-Low
0.478
0.216
0.755
1.788
0.362
13420
Forest-D-Med
0.476
0.215
0.755
1.859
0.376
14110
Agriculture-A-Low
0.126
0.699
0.618
0.426
0.073
14120
Agriculture-A-Med
0.126
0.698
0.618
0.453
0.078
14210
Agriculture-B-Low
0.250
0.561
0.630
2.231
0.393
14220
Agriculture-B-Med
0.249
0.561
0.630
2.387
0.420
14310
Agriculture-C-Low
0.356
0.447
0.636
4.805
0.737
14320
Agriculture-C-Med
0.355
0.447
0.636
5.161
0.791
14410
Agriculture-D-Low
0.452
0.344
0.641
7.890
1.344
14420
Agriculture-D-Med
0.450
0.344
0.641
8.395
1.430
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, ac - acre, yr - year
The unit-acre unattenuated values were applied to the baseline and future development HRUs areas to
estimate the net change in hydrology and water quality for the Taunton River watershed. As expected, with
the same historic climate data and increased IC from the 2060 land use, runoff and pollutant loads increased,
while groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration decreased (Figure 5-1, blue). The selected future climate
scenarios had increased precipitation and temperature compared to the baseline. Of the future scenarios, the
2060 land use Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry combination had the smallest change in the runoff, TN, and TP compared
to the 2016 baseline with historic climate, but the greatest decrease in groundwater recharge (Figure 5-1,
orange). While the Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry scenario has a 5% increase in annual average precipitation, it also has
a 16% increase in annual average temperature (Figure 4-1). The increase in temperature increased ET by
18MG/yr compared to the 2016 baseline with historic climate and drove the reduced runoff and
groundwater recharge, and subsequently the lower changes in TN and TP. At the other extreme, the
Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet scenario had the greatest changes in runoff, groundwater recharge, and TN (Figure 5-1,
red). The 8% increase in temperature for this scenario did lead to a lower reduction in ET compared to the
2060 land use-historic climate scenario, however, the 10% increase in precipitation still drove the increases
in the other parameters. Results for the Ecodeficit 8.5 Median climate scenario fell between the Wet and
Dry extremes with a consistent pattern across all of the parameters (Figure 5-1, green).
The trends seen at the Taunton River watershed scale are also reflected at the municipality level (annual
average runoff and loadings and the change between baseline and future conditions by the municipality are
shown in the appendix (Table 6-3 through Table 6-11). As an example (Table 6-8), IC in the Taunton
Municipality increased by nearly 3,000 acres. This led to an increase in runoff of nearly 3,600 million
gallons/year and an additional 38,000 pounds and 4,500 pounds of TN and TP per year on average for the
2060 land use-historic climate scenario. Correspondingly, groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration
decreased by 1,300 and 2,300 million gallons/year.
37
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
>-
,
CT>
_o
o
L_
"O
>,
X
OJ
CT
c
H3
40000
30000
20000 -
10000 -
U -10000 -
-20000 -
2060
2060
2060
2060
400000
350000
L_
300000 S
250000 ro
D
o
200000 2
(13
150000 -
(U
en
c
A3
- 100000
u
Runoff
Landuse,
Landuse,
Landuse,
Landuse,
- 50000
GW ET TN TP
Historic Climate - 2016 Baseline Condition, Historic Climate
Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry - 2016 Baseline Condition, Historic Climate
Ecodeficit 8,5 Median - 2016 Baseline Condition, Historic Climate
Ecodeficit 8,5 Wet - 2016 Baseline Condition, Historic Climate
Figure 5-1. Comparison of changes in hydrology (runoff, groundwater recharge GW, and evapotranspiration ET) and
water quality parameters (total nitrogen TN and total phosphorous TP) between the baseline and future
land use/climate conditions across the entire Taunton River watershed.
5.3. Summary
Through the methodology detailed in this technical memo, a new HRUs layer was created that represents
potential future development conditions in the Taunton River watershed. This new configuration of HRUs
reflects increased development due to the conversion of unprotected forest areas into land uses with greater
impervious cover (Table 5-6). The loss of vegetative cover (forests) shifts the water balance towards higher
runoff. As impervious surfaces increase, baseflows may fall due to more water being conveyed immediately
to receiving waters with fewer opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration. When the future
distribution of HRUs is applied to the unattenuated modeling results from FDC Phase 1 (e.g., using historic
climate data), net increases in runoff (35,674 million gallons/year) and nutrient loadings (383,765 lbs and
42,545 lbs of TN and TP per year on average) are observed across the entire Taunton River watershed while
groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration decreased by 11,734 and 24,240 million gallons per year,
respectively (Table 5-7). Simulating future climate conditions increases the variability of these results, with
differences between the scenarios being driven by the amount of increase in precipitation and temperature
compared to the historic climate data.
A standard water tower can hold 1 million gallons of water and a typical large dump truck can carry about
28,000 pounds. Using the 2060 land use and historic climate results as an example, these numbers can be
38
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
visualized as 11.7 thousand water towers of groundwater recharge as the annual loss, 13.7 large dump trucks
of TN and 1.5 large dump trucks of TP as the average annual increase in nutrients load in the entire Taunton
River watershed.
The outputs of this technical memo are the building blocks to model future land use scenarios and optimize
innovative stormwater control measures and protective ordinances that will be established in collaboration
with local stakeholders and practitioners.
Table 5-6. Summary of change in major land use area distribution between 2016 baseline and 2060 future conditions
in Taunton River watershed
Major Land Use Classification
Land Cover
2016 Baseline
(acre)
2060 Future
(acre)
Change (%)
Paved Forest
Impervious
9
9
0%
Paved Agriculture
Impervious 128
158
23%
Paved Commercial
Impervious 4,858
6,873
41%
Paved Industrial
Impervious 2,745
3,892
42%
Paved Low Density Residential
Impervious 9,951
20,717
108%
Paved Medium Density Residential
Impervious 489
1,133
132%
Paved High Density Residential
Impervious 2,856
4,041
42%
Paved Transportation
Impervious 11,852
21,709
83%
Paved Open Land
Impervious 4,138
8,377
102%
Developed OpenSpace
Pervious 40,955
76,120
86%
Forested Wetland
Pervious 66,463
66,463
0%
Non-Forested Wetland
Pervious 9,734
9,734
0%
Forest
Pervious 144,393
78,832
-45%
Agriculture
Pervious 25,255
25,768
2%
39
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 5-7. Summary of changes between baseline land use and historic climate model results and the future land use and climate scenarios for annual average
runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by major land use in
Taunton River watershed
Runoff (MG/yr)
GW Recharge (MG/yr)
ET (MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
Classification
2060
FLULC
Ecodef.
8.5 Dry
Ecodef.
8.5 Med.
Ecodef.
8.5 Wet
2060
FLULC
Ecodef.
8.5 Dry
Ecodef.
8.5 Med.
Ecodef.
8.5 Wet
2060
FLULC
Ecodef.
8.5 Dry
Ecodef.
8.5 Med.
Ecodef.
8.5 Wet
2060
FLULC
Ecodef.
8.5 Dry
Ecodef.
8.5 Med.
Ecodef.
8.5 Wet
2060
FLULC
Ecodef.
8.5 Dry
Ecodef.
8.5 Med.
Ecodef.
8.5 Wet
Paved Forest
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-6
-3
3
0
-1
0
0
Paved
Agriculture
36
38
39
53
0
0
0
0
4
3
4
3
339
233
287
384
44
32
40
52
Paved
Commercial
2,486
2,559
2,601
3,185
0
0
0
0
254
212
256
202
30,707
24,599
27,714
33,340
3,615
2,494
2,905
3,495
Paved
Industrial
1,416
1,457
1,480
1,811
0
0
0
0
145
121
146
115
17,484
14,025
15,789
18,975
2,058
1,424
1,656
1,990
Paved Low
Density
Residential
13,285
13,503
13,630
15,390
0
0
0
0
1,357
1,230
1,364
1,201
153,634
136,222
145,011
160,824
16,182
13,352
14,390
15,878
Paved Medium
Density
Residential
795
807
814
910
0
0
0
0
81
74
82
73
9,192
8,239
8,720
9,585
1,269
1,122
1,196
1,367
Paved High
Density
Residential
1,463
1,505
1,530
1,874
0
0
0
0
149
125
151
119
16,905
13,528
15,241
18,335
2,823
1,992
2,311
2,807
Paved
Transportation
12,164
12,392
12,525
14,369
0
0
0
0
1,242
1,110
1,250
1,079
101,133
88,134
94,758
106,720
15,101
12,042
13,152
14,720
Paved Open
Land
5,231
5,319
5,370
6,080
0
0
0
0
534
483
537
471
48,661
43,020
45,875
51,011
6,646
5,447
5,884
6,506
Developed
OpenSpace
14,083
8,832
10,186
13,169
17,380
16,647
17,524
21,417
16,308
21,417
19,698
18,925
59,202
44,899
45,999
51,368
5,516
4,203
4,309
4,801
Forested
Wetland
0
-4,420
-2,529
2,444
0
-3,463
-2,631
-767
0
7,816
5,554
4,199
0
-6,797
-5,163
3,631
0
-1,459
-1,118
715
Non-Forested
Wetland
0
-683
-403
330
0
-540
-418
-141
0
1,145
810
602
0
-1,027
-785
511
0
-220
-170
100
Forest
-15,491
-19,672
-18,225
-14,457
-29,320
-33,833
-32,054
-28,694
-44,636
-36,120
-38,835
-39,411
-56,406
-70,920
-68,137
-58,062
-11,193
-14,100
-13,549
-11,522
Agriculture
174
-1,287
-785
416
220
-707
-355
891
304
2,402
1,738
1,374
2,916
-14,091
-10,533
-301
485
-2,386
-1,791
-58
TOTAL
35,642
20,349
26,233
45,576
-11,720
-21,895
-17,933
-7,295
-24,259
18
-7,245
-11,046
383,765
280,057
314,774
396,321
42,545
23,943
29,216
40,850
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
40
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
6. APPENDIX
6.1. Impervious Cover by Municipality within the Taunton River Watershed
Table 6-1. Summary of 2016 baseline impervious cover by the municipality in the Taunton River watershed
Municipality 2016 Baseline Impervious Cover (acre)
ID
Name
TRANS
COM
IND
HDR
MDR
LDR
OPEN
1
ABINGTON
277.6
153.7
2.8
99.7
4.0
294.1
88.4
16
ATTLEBORO
117.0
10.8
51.4
13.0
0.0
142.2
20.3
18
AVON
185.1
109.2
161.8
15.4
0.4
90.8
40.9
27
BERKLEY
259.5
22.0
3.6
14.7
30.3
230.6
48.6
42
BRIDGEWATER
594.6
144.3
82.8
195.4
18.8
564.3
343.1
44
BROCKTON
1,427.7
788.8
227.9
550.9
16.1
1,113.1
662.4
52
CARVER
145.8
47.8
9.1
5.0
2.8
76.3
15.1
72
DARTMOUTH
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
76
DIGHTON
227.0
77.7
50.1
26.6
16.8
213.2
106.2
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
360.2
89.8
71.6
65.8
15.4
382.8
128.6
88
E ASTON
564.4
179.6
94.6
113.6
2.2
620.8
272.6
95
FALL RIVER
350.8
120.0
231.9
170.6
9.6
142.3
137.0
99
FOXBOROUGH
512.8
220.8
51.1
85.7
10.6
333.1
144.1
102
FREETOWN
399.8
98.6
176.2
20.2
45.5
287.9
126.2
118
HALIFAX
186.2
72.1
16.1
55.5
19.5
241.9
55.5
123
HANSON
142.1
38.1
37.2
20.6
6.6
153.1
60.3
133
HOLBROOK
46.6
13.5
6.0
5.3
1.2
52.4
5.8
145
KINGSTON
41.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
19.1
25.1
146
LAKEVILLE
369.8
126.6
83.3
41.2
6.7
502.8
122.3
167
MANSFIELD
643.4
256.3
362.0
118.2
4.9
502.6
129.9
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
830.7
287.4
85.6
108.1
160.3
565.0
206.3
201
NEW BEDFORD
44.4
7.7
0.0
5.3
0.7
37.4
8.0
208
NORFOLK
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
211
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
3.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.6
218
NORTON
471.6
133.2
140.0
154.4
28.1
404.0
145.6
231
PEMBROKE
34.3
2.7
1.4
4.2
1.0
46.7
7.8
238
PLAINVILLE
141.3
139.7
27.6
48.4
0.2
76.7
42.2
239
PLYMOUTH
18.1
59.4
0.0
18.2
0.0
4.5
0.6
240
PLYMPTON
100.8
65.8
13.6
8.0
13.3
97.1
23.8
245
RAYNHAM
534.9
355.5
81.9
87.6
11.8
368.5
156.0
247
REHOBOTH
23.1
3.7
0.0
3.4
0.3
28.3
2.5
250
ROCHESTER
27.2
0.0
0.0
2.6
1.4
19.3
6.6
251
ROCKLAND
3.4
3.6
0.0
1.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
41
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality 2016 Baseline Impervious Cover (acre)
ID
Name
TRANS
COM
IND
HDR
MDR
LDR
OPEN
266
SHARON
193.9
14.4
0.1
2.4
0.0
180.7
16.9
273
SOMERSET
314.1
88.6
34.9
43.9
2.8
408.8
91.5
285
STOUGHTON
240.8
95.4
125.3
20.0
6.4
228.9
54.5
292
SWANSEA
36.8
0.6
0.0
2.9
0.3
45.6
9.1
293
TAUNTON
1,215.3
729.9
305.4
568.3
12.3
910.5
545.6
307
WALPOLE
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
326.5
176.0
153.9
44.5
26.8
199.5
111.7
336
WEYMOUTH
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
3.9
0.1
338
WHITMAN
278.7
93.5
49.2
91.5
9.6
258.6
90.4
350
WRENTHAM
154.9
31.1
6.3
22.7
2.5
92.1
72.0
Total
11,852
4,858
2,745
2,856
489
9,951
4,124
Land cover classes: TRANS - transportation, COM - commercial, IND - industrial, HDR - high-density residential,
MDR - medium-density residential, LDR - low-density residential, OPEN - open land
Table 6-2. Summary of 2060 future impervious cover by municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality 2060 Future Impervious Cover (acre)
ID
Name
TRANS
COM
IND
HDR
MDR
LDR
OPEN
1
ABINGTON
476.4
239.4
4.3
155.3
7.2
535.7
160.9
16
ATTLEBORO
242.4
14.8
70.8
18.0
0.0
340.1
48.7
18
AVON
280.4
139.1
206.1
19.6
0.8
185.0
83.3
27
BERKLEY
634.4
37.2
6.2
24.9
76.9
586.1
123.4
42
BRIDGEWATER
1,096.1
234.9
134.8
318.1
36.6
1,095.8
666.3
44
BROCKTON
1,933.9
1,007.0
290.9
703.3
23.0
1,583.7
942.4
52
CARVER
340.2
75.7
14.4
8.0
7.9
215.8
42.8
72
DARTMOUTH
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
76
DIGHTON
514.3
92.1
59.3
31.6
46.4
588.9
293.2
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
769.6
171.6
136.9
125.9
34.4
855.1
287.1
88
E ASTON
1,081.4
222.8
117.4
140.9
4.9
1,371.0
602.0
95
FALL RIVER
475.9
150.8
291.4
214.4
14.7
218.8
210.5
99
FOXBOROUGH
947.0
275.0
63.7
106.7
24.2
762.2
329.6
102
FREETOWN
838.7
129.4
231.3
26.5
118.2
749.0
328.3
118
HALIFAX
332.7
86.7
19.4
66.8
40.0
496.2
113.8
123
HANSON
272.9
49.3
48.2
26.7
14.4
335.9
132.4
133
HOLBROOK
107.4
39.6
17.6
15.6
2.4
106.8
11.8
145
KINGSTON
125.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
55.3
72.5
146
LAKEVILLE
756.4
163.3
107.5
53.2
15.8
1,179.3
287.0
167
MANSFIELD
1,109.9
381.8
539.2
176.0
9.9
1,003.6
259.4
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
1,757.4
420.5
125.3
158.2
393.2
1,385.6
506.0
201
NEW BEDFORD
71.7
14.9
0.0
10.2
1.1
57.1
12.3
42
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2060 Future Impervious Cover (acre)
ID
Name
TRANS
COM
IND
HDR
MDR
LDR
OPEN
208
NORFOLK
1.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
3.5
0.0
211
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
9.7
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.5
1.6
218
NORTON
988.8
192.8
202.5
223.5
72.3
1,041.2
375.2
231
PEMBROKE
63.7
4.2
2.2
6.4
2.0
88.9
14.8
238
PLAINVILLE
257.4
212.6
42.0
73.6
0.4
181.3
99.8
239
PLYMOUTH
22.5
67.8
0.0
20.7
0.0
12.5
1.6
240
PLYMPTON
224.0
76.3
15.7
9.3
38.6
283.1
69.4
245
RAYNHAM
1,038.7
560.2
129.1
138.1
27.2
847.7
358.7
247
REHOBOTH
60.5
4.8
0.0
4.4
0.7
82.7
7.4
250
ROCHESTER
58.4
0.0
0.0
4.3
3.1
42.3
14.4
251
ROCKLAND
5.3
4.1
0.0
1.2
0.0
6.0
0.0
266
SHARON
452.9
21.8
0.1
3.6
0.0
434.8
40.7
273
SOMERSET
458.4
139.2
54.9
68.9
4.0
581.5
130.1
285
STOUGHTON
470.6
184.7
242.5
38.7
12.6
450.8
107.4
292
SWANSEA
86.7
0.9
0.0
4.4
0.6
109.8
21.9
293
TAUNTON
2,053.5
1,052.2
440.3
819.1
24.2
1,785.2
1,069.9
307
WALPOLE
4.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.0
4.9
0.0
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
536.4
230.3
201.5
58.2
53.9
401.5
225.0
336
WEYMOUTH
6.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
6.2
0.2
338
WHITMAN
426.1
126.2
66.4
123.6
15.7
425.5
148.8
350
WRENTHAM
318.3
47.0
9.6
34.3
5.7
207.5
162.2
Total
21,709
6,873
3,892
4,041
1,133
20,717
8,363
Land cover classes: TRANS - transportation, COM - commercial, IND - industrial, HDR - high-density residential,
MDR - medium-density residential, LDR - low-density residential, OPEN - open land
43
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
6.2. Surface Runoff, Groundwater Recharge, Evapotranspiration, and Nutrient Loads
by Municipality within the Taunton River Watershed
Table 6-3. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for 2016 baseline condition by the municipality in
Taunton River watershed
Municipality 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC
(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN
(lb/yr)
TP
(lb/yr)
1
ABINGTON
920
2,726
1,546
3,243
18,195
2,542
16
ATTLEBORO
355
1,631
1,417
2,995
8,482
1,268
18
AVON
603
1,158
626
1,071
9,495
1,240
27
BERKLEY
609
3,799
3,587
6,791
20,446
3,218
42
BRIDGEWATER
1,943
7,372
5,522
11,025
48,960
7,333
44
BROCKTON
4,787
8,591
3,752
6,125
71,987
9,585
52
CARVER
302
1,238
1,623
2,446
9,849
1,522
72
DARTMOUTH
0
1
2
3
6
1
76
DIGHTON
718
4,455
3,470
7,474
25,278
3,991
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
1,114
4,800
3,249
6,955
30,073
4,486
88
E ASTON
1,848
7,227
5,891
12,015
40,785
6,031
95
FALL RIVER
1,162
2,714
1,545
2,867
21,233
3,006
99
FOXBOROUGH
1,358
3,934
3,894
6,261
24,670
3,537
102
FREETOWN
1,154
6,474
6,652
12,528
34,845
5,446
118
HALIFAX
647
3,730
3,130
6,700
26,500
4,183
123
HANSON
458
2,300
1,595
3,804
13,406
2,056
133
HOLBROOK
131
495
291
660
2,997
434
145
KINGSTON
86
284
654
811
1,499
223
146
LAKEVILLE
1,253
6,440
6,762
12,240
37,043
5,645
167
MANSFIELD
2,017
5,311
4,296
7,401
35,360
4,883
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
2,244
12,026
11,076
22,048
72,474
11,413
201
NEW BEDFORD
104
237
142
259
1,667
222
208
NORFOLK
2
6
6
9
41
5
211
NORTH
ATTLEBOROUGH
9
47
55
93
278
42
218
NORTON
1,477
6,269
6,376
11,759
33,113
4,972
231
PEMBROKE
98
261
324
435
2,296
334
238
PLAINVILLE
476
1,233
1,091
1,726
8,820
1,245
239
PLYMOUTH
101
154
126
123
1,464
191
240
PLYMPTON
322
2,513
2,155
4,778
15,786
2,570
245
RAYNHAM
1,596
5,287
4,360
8,256
32,710
4,717
247
REHOBOTH
61
412
379
779
2,257
363
250
ROCHESTER
57
402
639
1,071
1,701
279
44
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC
(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN
(lb/yr)
TP
(lb/yr)
251
ROCKLAND
11
26
15
30
188
25
266
SHARON
408
1,658
2,194 3,511
8,621
1,291
273
SOMERSET
985
2,163
993 1,676
17,565
2,259
285
STOUGHTON
771
2,345
1,744 3,205
15,386
2,142
292
SWANSEA
95
504
288 677
3,316
491
293
TAUNTON
4,287
12,032
10,605 18,125
78,324
11,208
307
WALPOLE
4
14
8 16
93
13
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
1,039
4,491
2,484 6,522
29,716
4,499
336
WEYMOUTH
8
50
33 106
183
29
338
WHITMAN
871
2,523
875 2,524
17,449
2,439
350
WRENTHAM
382
1,416
1,571 2,504
7,869
1,201
Total
36,874
130,750
107,047
203,647
832,428
122,579
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
Table 6-4. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for 2060 future condition by municipality in Taunton
River watershed
Municipality
2060 Future Condition, Historic Climate
ID
Name
IC(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
1
ABINGTON
1,579
3,454
1,342
2,712
26,709
3,439
16
ATTLEBORO
735
2,100 1,264
2,674
13,348
1,775
18
AVON
914
1,524 496
832
13,451
1,677
27
BERKLEY
1,489
4,842 3,258
6,067
31,592
4,426
42
BRIDGEWATER
3,582
9,316 4,911
9,672
69,842
9,654
44
BROCKTON
6,484
10,559 3,056
4,836
93,426
12,065
52
CARVER
705
1,742 1,418
2,144
14,407
2,060
72
DARTMOUTH
1
2 1
3
15
2
76
DIGHTON
1,626
5,539 3,174
6,674
37,246
5,196
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
2,381
6,204 2,858
5,927
45,588
6,047
88
E ASTON
3,540
9,344 5,227
10,539
62,633
8,340
95
FALL RIVER
1,577
3,174 1,372
2,577
26,310
3,604
99
FOXBOROUGH
2,508
5,364 3,400
5,313
39,155
5,173
102
FREETOWN
2,421
8,037 6,107
11,495
50,541
7,171
118
HALIFAX
1,156
4,368 2,929
6,256
32,996
4,874
123
HANSON
880
2,800 1,459
3,435
19,116
2,649
133
HOLBROOK
301
674 238
533
5,138
660
145
KINGSTON
259
511 563
673
3,501
484
146
LAKEVILLE
2,562
8,098
6,242
11,084
54,582
7,511
45
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2060 Future Condition, Historic Climate
ID
Name
IC(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
167
MANSFIELD
3,480
7,051
3,657
6,286
54,354
7,066
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
4,746
15,034
10,146
19,941
107,423
15,483
201
NEW BEDFORD
167
312
114
212
2,460
316
208
NORFOLK
5
10
5
6
89
10
211
NORTH
ATTLEBOROUGH
25
67
48
81
463
60
218
NORTON
3,096
8,265
5,705
10,415
53,583
7,265
231
PEMBROKE
182
371
284
364
3,314
450
238
PLAINVILLE
867
1,691
916
1,439
13,670
1,797
239
PLYMOUTH
125
184
112
107
1,798
232
240
PLYMPTON
716
2,991
2,027
4,422
21,571
3,201
245
RAYNHAM
3,100
7,068
3,746
7,073
51,933
6,881
247
REHOBOTH
161
531
341
697
3,401
473
250
ROCHESTER
123
484
611
1,017
2,555
383
251
ROCKLAND
17
33
13
25
263
33
266
SHARON
954
2,353
1,935
3,069
15,329
2,061
273
SOMERSET
1,437
2,683
815
1,330
23,430
2,885
285
STOUGHTON
1,507
3,175
1,458
2,655
24,833
3,177
292
SWANSEA
224
648
252
567
4,924
640
293
TAUNTON
7,244
15,600
9,323
15,809
116,482
15,689
307
WALPOLE
11
21
6
11
178
21
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
1,707
5,219
2,283
5,987
38,203
5,383
336
WEYMOUTH
15
58
30
101
268
40
338
WHITMAN
1,332
2,981
785
2,150
23,301
3,004
350
WRENTHAM
784
1,911
1,398
2,178
12,774
1,770
Total
66,727
166,393
95,326
179,388
1,216,193
165,124
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
Table 6-5. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the 2060 future condition and the Ecodeficit 8.5
Dry climate scenario by municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality
2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry
ID
Name
IC (acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
1
ABINGTON
1,579
3,193
1,221
3,068
24,600
3,076
16
ATTLEBORO
735
1,877
1,106
3,040
12,184
1,567
18
AVON
914
1,459
458
930
12,560
1,515
27
BERKLEY
1,489
4,289
2,908
6,920
28,520
3,885
42
BRIDGEWATER
3,582
8,432
4,419
10,970
63,586
8,544
46
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry
ID
Name
IC (acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
44
BROCKTON
6,484
10,156
2,883
5,376
87,262
10,922
52
CARVER
705
1,582
1,282
2,429
13,104
1,822
72
DARTMOUTH
1
2
1
3
13
2
76
DIGHTON
1,626
4,892
2,815
7,618
33,500
4,548
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
2,381
5,626
2,583
6,725
41,552
5,357
88
E ASTON
3,540
8,431
4,640
11,971
57,398
7,404
95
FALL RIVER
1,577
2,954
1,228
2,922
24,233
3,220
99
FOXBOROUGH
2,508
4,950
3,065
6,031
36,197
4,629
102
FREETOWN
2,421
7,081
5,366
13,127
45,640
6,282
118
HALIFAX
1,156
3,823
2,573
7,113
29,431
4,245
123
HANSON
880
2,487
1,276
3,904
17,251
2,322
133
HOLBROOK
301
621
214
604
4,714
587
145
KINGSTON
259
474
508
765
3,274
437
146
LAKEVILLE
2,562
7,177
5,554
12,625
49,453
6,602
167
MANSFIELD
3,480
6,557
3,299
7,106
50,446
6,342
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
4,746
13,335
8,958
22,696
96,812
13,594
201
NEW BEDFORD
167
294
104
238
2,284
284
208
NORFOLK
5
10
4
7
83
9
211
NORTH
ATTLEBOROUGH
25
60
43
92
424
54
218
NORTON
3,096
7,438
5,060
11,837
49,139
6,450
231
PEMBROKE
182
345
261
412
3,039
400
238
PLAINVILLE
867
1,580
831
1,628
12,688
1,615
239
PLYMOUTH
125
179
105
119
1,695
211
240
PLYMPTON
716
2,601
1,773
5,034
19,171
2,779
245
RAYNHAM
3,100
6,481
3,357
8,008
47,793
6,133
247
REHOBOTH
161
469
301
794
3,075
415
250
ROCHESTER
123
418
531
1,161
2,301
334
251
ROCKLAND
17
31
12
28
244
29
266
SHARON
954
2,130
1,722
3,493
14,112
1,832
273
SOMERSET
1,437
2,533
786
1,489
21,682
2,597
285
STOUGHTON
1,507
2,942
1,318
3,008
22,918
2,838
292
SWANSEA
224
583
232
644
4,448
564
293
TAUNTON
7,244
14,388
8,373
17,894
107,753
14,051
307
WALPOLE
11
20
6
12
163
19
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
1,707
4,656
1,985
6,798
34,421
4,719
336
WEYMOUTH
15
51
24
114
243
34
338
WHITMAN
1,332
2,755
711
2,427
21,354
2,677
47
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry
ID
Name
IC (acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
350
WRENTHAM
784
1,736
1,256
2,481
11,729
1,572
Total
66,727
151,099
85,151
203,665
1,112,485
146,521
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
Table 6-6. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the 2060 future condition and the Ecodeficit 8.5
Median climate scenario by municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality
2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Median
ID
Name
IC (acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
1
ABINGTON
1,579
3,293
1,272
2,962
25,361
3,186
16
ATTLEBORO
735
1,964
1,162
2,931
12,567
1,624
18
AVON
914
1,487
476
903
12,942
1,569
27
BERKLEY
1,489
4,494
3,043
6,659
29,410
4,024
42
BRIDGEWATER
3,582
8,770
4,610
10,582
65,605
8,855
44
BROCKTON
6,484
10,336
2,977
5,231
89,915
11,310
52
CARVER
705
1,642
1,338
2,344
13,494
1,884
72
DARTMOUTH
1
2
1
3
14
2
76
DIGHTON
1,626
5,133
2,949
7,329
34,626
4,722
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
2,381
5,845
2,692
6,486
42,861
5,551
88
E ASTON
3,540
8,782
4,863
11,543
59,181
7,671
95
FALL RIVER
1,577
3,043
1,286
2,820
25,028
3,342
99
FOXBOROUGH
2,508
5,107
3,207
5,816
37,288
4,792
102
FREETOWN
2,421
7,440
5,646
12,629
47,145
6,520
118
HALIFAX
1,156
4,032
2,698
6,855
30,413
4,402
123
HANSON
880
2,608
1,340
3,763
17,811
2,409
133
HOLBROOK
301
642
224
583
4,863
609
145
KINGSTON
259
487
533
738
3,362
451
146
LAKEVILLE
2,562
7,519
5,821
12,157
50,984
6,836
167
MANSFIELD
3,480
6,756
3,445
6,866
51,968
6,566
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
4,746
13,980
9,399
21,863
99,943
14,090
201
NEW BEDFORD
167
301
108
230
2,353
294
208
NORFOLK
5
10
5
7
85
10
211
NORTH
ATTLEBOROUGH
25
62
45
88
438
56
218
NORTON
3,096
7,754
5,309
11,412
50,603
6,675
231
PEMBROKE
182
355
271
398
3,130
414
238
PLAINVILLE
867
1,624
868
1,572
13,072
1,672
239
PLYMOUTH
125
182
109
116
1,743
218
48
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Median
ID
Name
IC (acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
240
PLYMPTON
716
2,750
1,862
4,849
19,805
2,881
245
RAYNHAM
3,100
6,713
3,508
7,732
49,250
6,351
247
REHOBOTH
161
493
315
765
3,172
430
250
ROCHESTER
123
442
562
1,117
2,366
345
251
ROCKLAND
17
32
13
27
251
30
266
SHARON
954
2,215
1,807
3,365
14,532
1,896
273
SOMERSET
1,437
2,590
807
1,443
22,346
2,689
285
STOUGHTON
1,507
3,033
1,377
2,904
23,628
2,941
292
SWANSEA
224
607
240
621
4,593
585
293
TAUNTON
7,244
14,866
8,754
17,280
110,968
14,541
307
WALPOLE
11
20
6
12
168
20
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
1,707
4,877
2,084
6,556
35,559
4,896
336
WEYMOUTH
15
54
25
110
251
36
338
WHITMAN
1,332
2,844
740
2,346
22,025
2,774
350
WRENTHAM
784
1,801
1,315
2,389
12,084
1,628
Total
66,727
156,984
89,113
196,401
1,147,202
151,795
Units: MG - million gallons, lb -
pounds, yr -
year
Table 6-7. Summary of annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load for the 2060 future condition and the Ecodeficit 8.5
Wet climate scenario by municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality
2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet
ID
Name
IC (acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
1
ABINGTON
1,579
3,649
1,422
2,900
27,024
3,400
16
ATTLEBORO
735
2,234
1,308
2,874
13,509
1,761
18
AVON
914
1,620
531
883
13,680
1,655
27
BERKLEY
1,489
5,105
3,398
6,538
31,701
4,374
42
BRIDGEWATER
3,582
9,855
5,160
10,363
70,447
9,557
44
BROCKTON
6,484
11,217
3,302
5,098
95,009
11,925
52
CARVER
705
1,845
1,495
2,298
14,529
2,036
72
DARTMOUTH
1
2
1
3
15
2
76
DIGHTON
1,626
5,840
3,297
7,193
37,291
5,127
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
2,381
6,551
3,010
6,351
46,003
5,988
88
E ASTON
3,540
9,903
5,458
11,319
63,306
8,256
95
FALL RIVER
1,577
3,369
1,434
2,767
26,530
3,548
99
FOXBOROUGH
2,508
5,675
3,576
5,713
39,641
5,106
102
FREETOWN
2,421
8,511
6,322
12,416
50,774
7,085
118
HALIFAX
1,156
4,639
3,036
6,718
33,163
4,841
49
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2060 Future Condition,
Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet
ID
Name
IC (acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
123
HANSON
880
2,972
1,510
3,688
19,292
2,632
133
HOLBROOK
301
713
250
571
5,203
654
145
KINGSTON
259
540
594
727
3,549
476
146
LAKEVILLE
2,562
8,559
6,515
11,938
54,965
7,428
167
MANSFIELD
3,480
7,491
3,849
6,729
55,230
6,993
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
4,746
15,936
10,544
21,452
108,057
15,358
201
NEW BEDFORD
167
331
121
225
2,490
311
208
NORFOLK
5
11
5
7
90
10
211
NORTH
ATTLEBOROUGH
25
70
50
87
462
59
218
NORTON
3,096
8,770
5,953
11,202
54,310
7,216
231
PEMBROKE
182
392
302
390
3,351
444
238
PLAINVILLE
867
1,793
968
1,542
13,858
1,773
239
PLYMOUTH
125
196
121
113
1,838
229
240
PLYMPTON
716
3,175
2,095
4,754
21,656
3,180
245
RAYNHAM
3,100
7,506
3,930
7,576
52,619
6,815
247
REHOBOTH
161
563
354
751
3,434
470
250
ROCHESTER
123
515
632
1,100
2,577
379
251
ROCKLAND
17
35
14
27
267
32
266
SHARON
954
2,495
2,021
3,309
15,508
2,033
273
SOMERSET
1,437
2,822
893
1,407
23,542
2,829
285
STOUGHTON
1,507
3,362
1,535
2,847
25,145
3,138
292
SWANSEA
224
679
268
608
4,912
629
293
TAUNTON
7,244
16,572
9,793
16,943
118,229
15,538
307
WALPOLE
11
22
7
12
179
21
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
1,707
5,550
2,353
6,417
38,585
5,355
336
WEYMOUTH
15
63
30
108
276
40
338
WHITMAN
1,332
3,156
831
2,291
23,575
2,976
350
WRENTHAM
784
2,018
1,465
2,348
12,931
1,749
Total
66,727
176,326
99,752
192,601
1,228,749
163,429
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
Table 6-8. Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition and 2016 Baseline Condition in annual
average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total nitrogen (TN) load, and
total phosphorus (TP) load by municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality
2060 Future Condition - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
1
ABINGTON
659
728
-205
-531
8,514
897
50
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2060 Future Condition - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
16
ATTLEBORO
380
469
-153
-321
4,866
507
18
AVON
311
365
-130
-238
3,956
436
27
BERKLEY
880
1,043
-329
-724
11,146
1,208
42
BRIDGEWATER
1,639
1,944
-611
-1,352
20,881
2,321
44
BROCKTON
1,697
1,968
-696
-1,289
21,439
2,480
52
CARVER
403
504
-205
-303
4,558
538
72
DARTMOUTH
1
1
0
-1
9
1
76
DIGHTON
908
1,083
-296
-800
11,968
1,205
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
1,267
1,404
-391
-1,028
15,515
1,561
88
E ASTON
1,693
2,118
-664
-1,476
21,848
2,309
95
FALL RIVER
414
460
-173
-290
5,077
598
99
FOXBOROUGH
1,150
1,429
-494
-948
14,485
1,637
102
FREETOWN
1,267
1,563
-544
-1,033
15,696
1,725
118
HALIFAX
509
639
-201
-444
6,496
691
123
HANSON
422
499
-136
-369
5,709
593
133
HOLBROOK
171
179
-54
-127
2,141
227
145
KINGSTON
174
227
-91
-138
2,002
261
146
LAKEVILLE
1,310
1,658
-520
-1,156
17,539
1,866
167
MANSFIELD
1,462
1,740
-639
-1,115
18,995
2,183
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
2,503
3,007
-930
-2,107
34,949
4,070
201
NEW BEDFORD
64
75
-29
-47
793
94
208
NORFOLK
3
4
-1
-3
48
5
211
NORTH
ATTLEBOROUGH
16
20
-7
-13
185
18
218
NORTON
1,619
1,996
-671
-1,344
20,470
2,293
231
PEMBROKE
84
110
-41
-71
1,018
115
238
PLAINVILLE
391
458
-175
-287
4,851
552
239
PLYMOUTH
24
30
-14
-16
334
41
240
PLYMPTON
394
478
-128
-356
5,785
631
245
RAYNHAM
1,504
1,781
-614
-1,183
19,223
2,164
247
REHOBOTH
99
119
-38
-82
1,145
111
250
ROCHESTER
65
81
-28
-54
854
104
251
ROCKLAND
6
7
-2
-5
75
8
266
SHARON
546
696
-259
-442
6,709
769
273
SOMERSET
452
520
-178
-346
5,865
626
285
STOUGHTON
736
829
-286
-550
9,446
1,034
292
SWANSEA
129
144
-36
-110
1,608
149
293
TAUNTON
2,957
3,568
-1,282
-2,316
38,158
4,481
51
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2060 Future Condition - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
307
WALPOLE
6
7
-2
-5
84
9
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
668
728
-200
-535
8,487
884
336
WEYMOUTH
7
8
-3
-5
85
11
338
WHITMAN
461
458
-90
-374
5,852
565
350
WRENTHAM
403
495
-173
-326
4,905
569
Total
29,854
35,642
-11,720
-24,259
383,765
42,545
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
Table 6-9. Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry and 2016 Baseline
Condition in annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by the municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC
(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
1
ABINGTON
659
467
-326
-175
6,404
534
16
ATTLEBORO
380
246
-311
45
3,702 298
18
AVON
311
300
-168
-140
3,065 275
27
BERKLEY
880
490
-679
129
8,075 667
42
BRIDGEWATER
1,639
1,060
-1,103
-54
14,626 1,211
44
BROCKTON
1,697
1,564
-869
-749
15,274 1,337
52
CARVER
403
345
-342
-17
3,255 300
72
DARTMOUTH
1
1
0
0
7 1
76
DIGHTON
908
437
-656
144
8,222 557
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
1,267
826
-666
-230
11,479 871
88
E ASTON
1,693
1,204
-1,251
-43
16,613 1,373
95
FALL RIVER
414
240
-317
56
3,000 214
99
FOXBOROUGH
1,150
1,016
-828
-229
11,527 1,092
102
FREETOWN
1,267
606
-1,285
599
10,795 836
118
HALIFAX
509
93
-557
414
2,931 62
123
HANSON
422
187
-318
101
3,844 267
133
HOLBROOK
171
127
-77
-56
1,717 154
145
KINGSTON
174
190
-146
-46
1,775 215
146
LAKEVILLE
1,310
737
-1,208
385
12,410 957
167
MANSFIELD
1,462
1,246
-997
-295
15,086 1,459
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
2,503
1,308
-2,118
648
24,338 2,182
201
NEW BEDFORD
64
57
-38
-21
617 62
208
NORFOLK
3
4
-2
-2
42 4
211
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
16
13
-12
-1
146 12
218
NORTON
1,619
1,169
-1,316
78
16,026 1,478
52
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Dry - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC
(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
231
PEMBROKE
84
84
-63
-23
743
66
238
PLAINVILLE
391
347
-260
-99
3,869 371
239
PLYMOUTH
24
25
-21
-4
231 20
240
PLYMPTON
394
89
-382
257
3,384 209
245
RAYNHAM
1,504
1,194
-1,003
-248
15,083 1,416
247
REHOBOTH
99
58
-79
15
818 52
250
ROCHESTER
65
15
-108
90
601 55
251
ROCKLAND
6
5
-3
-2
56 4
266
SHARON
546
473
-472
-18
5,491 541
273
SOMERSET
452
370
-207
-187
4,117 337
285
STOUGHTON
736
597
-426
-197
7,531 696
292
SWANSEA
129
80
-56
-33
1,132 73
293
TAUNTON
2,957
2,357
-2,231
-231
29,429 2,843
307
WALPOLE
6
6
-2
-4
70 6
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
668
165
-498
276
4,705 220
336
WEYMOUTH
7
1
-9
8
60 6
338
WHITMAN
461
232
-164
-97
3,905 238
350
WRENTHAM
403
320
-315
-23
3,859 371
Total
29,854
20,349
-21,895
18
280,057
23,943
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
Table 6-10. Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Median and 2016 Baseline
Condition in annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by the municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Median - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
1
ABINGTON
659
567
-274
-281
7,165
644
16
ATTLEBORO
380
333
-255
-64
4,085
356
18
AVON
311
329
-150
-167
3,448
329
27
BERKLEY
880
694
-544
-132
8,964
806
42
BRIDGEWATER
1,639
1,397
-912
-443
16,645
1,522
44
BROCKTON
1,697
1,744
-776
-893
17,928
1,725
52
CARVER
403
405
-286
-103
3,645
361
72
DARTMOUTH
1
1
0
0
8
1
76
DIGHTON
908
677
-521
-145
9,348
732
83
EAST BRIDGEWATER
1,267
1,045
-557
-469
12,788
1,065
88
E ASTON
1,693
1,555
-1,028
-472
18,396
1,640
95
FALL RIVER
414
329
-259
-47
3,795
336
53
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Median - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
99
FOXBOROUGH
1,150
1,173
-687
-445
12,618
1,255
102
FREETOWN
1,267
965
-1,005
101
12,299
1,074
118
HALIFAX
509
302
-432
155
3,913
220
123
HANSON
422
307
-254
-40
4,405
353
133
HOLBROOK
171
147
-68
-77
1,866
175
145
KINGSTON
174
203
-121
-74
1,863
228
146
LAKEVILLE
1,310
1,079
-941
-83
13,941
1,191
167
MANSFIELD
1,462
1,445
-851
-535
16,608
1,682
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
2,503
1,954
-1,678
-184
27,469
2,677
201
NEW BEDFORD
64
65
-34
-29
687
72
208
NORFOLK
3
4
-2
-2
44
4
211
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH
16
15
-10
-5
159
14
218
NORTON
1,619
1,485
-1,067
-348
17,489
1,703
231
PEMBROKE
84
94
-53
-37
834
79
238
PLAINVILLE
391
391
-223
-154
4,253
427
239
PLYMOUTH
24
27
-17
-7
279
27
240
PLYMPTON
394
237
-293
71
4,018
311
245
RAYNHAM
1,504
1,426
-851
-524
16,541
1,634
247
REHOBOTH
99
81
-64
-14
915
67
250
ROCHESTER
65
40
-78
46
665
66
251
ROCKLAND
6
6
-3
-3
63
5
266
SHARON
546
557
-387
-146
5,911
604
273
SOMERSET
452
427
-186
-233
4,781
430
285
STOUGHTON
736
687
-368
-302
8,242
798
292
SWANSEA
129
103
-48
-56
1,277
94
293
TAUNTON
2,957
2,835
-1,851
-845
32,644
3,333
307
WALPOLE
6
6
-2
-4
75
7
322
WEST BRIDGEWATER
668
386
-400
34
5,843
397
336
WEYMOUTH
7
4
-8
5
68
7
338
WHITMAN
461
321
-135
-178
4,577
336
350
WRENTHAM
403
385
-256
-115
4,214
427
Total
29,854
26,233
-17,933
-7,245
314,774
29,216
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
54
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Table 6-11.Summary of net increase between the 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet and 2016 Baseline
Condition in annual average runoff volume, groundwater (GW) recharge, evapotranspiration (ET), total
nitrogen (TN) load, and total phosphorus (TP) load by the municipality in Taunton River watershed
Municipality 2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC
(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
1
ABINGTON
659
923
-125
-343
8,829
858
16
ATTLEBORO
380
603
-109
-120
5,027
493
18
AVON
311
462
-96
-188
4,185
415
27
BERKLEY
880
1,306
-189
-253
11,255
1,156
42
BRIDGEWATER
1,639
2,483
-362
-661
21,487
2,225
44
BROCKTON
1,697
2,626
-451
-1,027
23,022
2,340
52
CARVER
403
607
-129
-148
4,680
514
72
DARTMOUTH
1
1
0
0
9
1
76
DIGHTON
908
1,384
-173
-281
12,013
1,136
83
EAST
BRIDGEWATER
1,267
1,751
-239
-605
15,930
1,502
88
E ASTON
1,693
2,676
-433
-696
22,521
2,225
95
FALL RIVER
414
655
-111
-100
5,297
542
99
FOXBOROUGH
1,150
1,740
-318
-548
14,971
1,569
102
FREETOWN
1,267
2,037
-330
-112
15,928
1,639
118
HALIFAX
509
910
-94
18
6,663
658
123
HANSON
422
671
-84
-116
5,886
576
133
HOLBROOK
171
219
-42
-89
2,206
220
145
KINGSTON
174
255
-60
-84
2,050
253
146
LAKEVILLE
1,310
2,120
-247
-302
17,921
1,784
167
MANSFIELD
1,462
2,180
-446
-672
19,870
2,110
182
MIDDLEBOROUGH
2,503
3,910
-533
-595
35,583
3,945
201
NEW BEDFORD
64
95
-21
-34
824
89
208
NORFOLK
3
5
-1
-3
49
5
211
NORTH
ATTLEBOROUGH
16
23
-5
-6
184
17
218
NORTON
1,619
2,501
-423
-557
21,197
2,244
231
PEMBROKE
84
131
-23
-45
1,054
110
238
PLAINVILLE
391
560
-123
-184
5,038
528
239
PLYMOUTH
24
41
-5
-9
373
38
240
PLYMPTON
394
662
-60
-23
5,869
610
245
RAYNHAM
1,504
2,219
-430
-680
19,909
2,098
247
REHOBOTH
99
151
-26
-29
1,177
107
250
ROCHESTER
65
113
-7
29
876
101
251
ROCKLAND
6
9
-1
-3
79
7
266
SHARON
546
838
-174
-202
6,887
741
55
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
Municipality
2060 Future Condition, Ecodeficit 8.5 Wet - 2016 Baseline Condition
ID
Name
IC
(acre)
Runoff
(MG/yr)
GW
(MG/yr)
ET
(MG/yr)
TN (lb/yr)
TP (lb/yr)
273
SOMERSET
452
659
-101
-270
5,977
570
285
STOUGHTON
736
1,016
-209
-359
9,759
996
292
SWANSEA
129
176
-20
-69
1,596
138
293
TAUNTON
2,957
4,541
-811
-1,182
39,905
4,330
307
WALPOLE
6
8
-1
-4
86
8
322
WEST
BRIDGEWATER
668
1,059
-130
-105
8,868
856
336
WEYMOUTH
7
13
-4
2
92
11
338
WHITMAN
461
634
-44
-232
6,126
537
350
WRENTHAM
403
602
-107
-156
5,061
549
Total
29,854
45,576
-7,295
-11,046
396,321
40,850
Units: MG - million gallons, lb - pounds, yr - year
56
-------
FDC 2A Project
Task 4
7. REFERENCES
NELF, n.d. New England Landscape Futures Project [WWW Document], URL
https://newenglandlandscapes.org/story/ (accessed 12.31.21).
Paradigm Environmental and Great Lakes Environmental Center, 2021. Holistic Watershed Management
For Existing And Future Land Use Development Activities: Opportunities For Action For Local
Decision Makers: Phase 1 - Modeling And Development Of Flow Duration Curves (FDC 1 Project).
Thompson, J.R., Plisinski, J.S., Lambert, K.F., Duveneck, M.J., Morreale, L., McBride, M., MacLean,
M.G., Weiss, M., Lee, L., 2020. Spatial Simulation of Codesigned Land Cover Change Scenarios in
New England: Alternative Futures and Their Consequences for Conservation Priorities. Earth's
Futur. 8, 23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001348
Thompson, J.R., Plisinski, J.S., Olofsson, P., Holden, C.E., Duveneck, M.J., 2017. Forest loss in New
England: A projection of recent trends. PLoS One 12.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189636
57
------- |