PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

Transcription

1 PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS Volume 2 of 3 COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ABINGTON, TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF BROCKTON, CITY OF CARVER, TOWN OF DUXBURY, TOWN OF EAST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF HALIFAX, TOWN OF HANOVER, TOWN OF HANSON, TOWN OF HINGHAM, TOWN OF HULL, TOWN OF KINGSTON, TOWN OF LAKEVILLE, TOWN OF MARION, TOWN OF MARSHFIELD, TOWN OF MATTAPOISETT, TOWN OF MIDDLEBOROUGH, TOWN OF NORWELL, TOWN OF PEMBROKE, TOWN OF PLYMOUTH, TOWN OF PLYMPTON, TOWN OF ROCHESTER, TOWN OF ROCKLAND, TOWN OF SCITUATE, TOWN OF WAREHAM, TOWN OF WEST BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF WHITMAN, TOWN OF Effective: July 7, 202 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25023CV002A

2 NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for the community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone A through A30 V through V30 B C New Zone AE VE X X Part or all of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this Flood Insurance Study may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the Flood Insurance Study. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current Flood Insurance Study components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: July 7, 202

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME Page.0 INTRODUCTION. Purpose of Study.2 Authority and Acknowledgments.3 Coordination STUDIED 8 2. Scope of Study Community Description Principal Flood Problems Flood Protection Measures ENGINEERING METHODS Hydrologic Analyses Hydraulic Analyses Coastal Analyses Vertical Datum 23 FIGURES Figure Transect Schematic 23 TABLES Table CCO Meetings Dates for Pre-countywide FIS 7 Table 2 Flooding Sources Studied by Detailed Methods 8 Table 3 Scope of Revision 6 Table 4 - Flooding Sources Studied by Approximate Methods 7 Table 5 - Letters of Map Change 2 Table 6 - Population and Total Area by Community 22 Table 7 Summary of Discharges 40 Table 8 Manning s n Values 58 i

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME - continued Table 9 - High-Water Mark Elevations 6 Table 0 - February 978 Flood Elevations by Community 62 Table Summary of Pre-countywide Stillwater Elevations 67 Table 2 Pre-countywide Transect Descriptions 75 Table 3 Pre-countywide Transect Data 88 Table 4 Summary of Revised Stillwater Elevations 98 Table 5 Revised Transect Descriptions 0 Table 6 Revised Transect Data 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 25 Page 4. Floodplain Boundaries Floodways INSURANCE APPLICATIONS FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP OTHER STUDIES LOCATION OF DATA BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 202 FIGURES Figure 2 Floodway Schematic 29 TABLES Table 7 Floodway Data 30 Table 8 Community Map History 99 ii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 3 EXHIBITS Exhibit Flood Profiles Accord Brook Panel 0P Beaver Brook Panels 02P-03P Beaver Dam Brook Panel 04P Black Betty Brook Panel 05P Black Brook Panel 06P Black Pond Brook Panel 07P Bound Brook Panels 08P-09P Branch of Eel River Panel 0P Crane Brook Panels P-23P Crooked Meadow River Panels 24P-25P Drinkwater River Panels 26P-27P Drinkwater River Tributary Panels 28P-29P Eel River (Town of Hingham) Panels 30P-32P Eel River (Town of Plymouth) Panels 33P-34P First Herring Brook Panels 35P-37P French Stream Panels 38P-42P Halls Brook Panels 43P-46P Hannah Eames Brook Panels 47P Herring Brook Panels 48P-50P Hockomock River Panels 5P-53P Indian Brook Panels 54P-55P Indian Head Brook Panels 56P-57P Indian Head River Panels 58P-60P Jones River Panels 6P-64P Jones River Brook Panel 65P Longwater Brook Panel 66P Matfield River Panels 67P-68P Mattapoisett River Panels 69P-7P Meadow Brook Panels 72P-75P Meadow Brook Tributary Panels 76P-78P Mile Brook Panels 79P-80P Nemasket River Panels 8P-85P Northern Branch of Ben Mann Brook Panel 86P Palmer Mill Brook Panels 87P Plymouth River Panels 88P-92P Poor Meadow Brook Panels 93P-94P Rocky Meadow Brook Panels 95P-96P Salisbury Brook Panels 97P-98P Salisbury Plain River Panels 99P-02P Satucket River Lower Reach Panel 03P Satucket River Upper Reach Panel 04P Satuit Brook Panels 05P-06P Sawmill Brook Panels 07P-08P iii

6 Exhibit Flood Profiles continued TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 3 - continued Second Herring Brook Panels 09P-P Shinglemill Brook Panel 2P Shumatuscacant River Panels 3P-9P Shumatuscacant River North Tributary Panel 20P Shumatuscacant Tributary Panel 2P Smelt Brook Panels 22P-24P Snows Brook Panels 25P-26P South Brook Panels 27P-32P South Meadow Brook Panels 33P-35P Stream Channel To Unnamed Tributary To Third Herring Brook Panel 36P Stream River Panels 37P-39P Taunton River Panels 40P-50P Town Brook (Town of Hingham) Panels 5P-52P Town Brook (Town of Plymouth) Panels 53P-57P Town River Panels 58P-6P Tributary To Stream Channel To Unnamed Tributary To Third Herring Brook Panel 62P Tributary To Unnamed Tributary To Iron Mine Brook Panel 63P Tributary 2 To Stream Channel To Unnamed Tributary To Third Herring Brook Panel 64P Tributary 2 To Unnamed Tributary To Iron Mine Brook Panel 65P Tributary A Panel 66P Tributary A to Sawmill Brook Panel 67P Tributary to Meadow Brook Panel 68P Trout Book Panels 69P-70P Turkey Hill Run Panel 7P Unnamed Tributary 2 to Shinglemill Brook Panel 72P Unnamed Tributary 3 to Shinglemill Brook Panel 73P Weir River Panels 74P-76P West Meadow Brook Panels 77P-80P Weweantic River Panels 8P-84P Willow Brook Panel 85P Winnetuxet River Panels 86P-90P Exhibit 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map iv

7 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The NFIP encourages State and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management programs. To assist in this endeavor, each FIS report provides -percent-annual-chance floodplain data, which may include a combination of the following: 0-, 2-, -, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood elevations; delineations of the - and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains; and a -percent-annual-chance floodway. This information is presented on the FIRM and in many components of the FIS report, including Flood Profiles, Floodway Data tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevation tables. Users should reference the data presented in the FIS report as well as additional information that may be available at the local community map repository before making flood elevation and/or floodplain boundary determinations. 4. Floodplain Boundaries To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the -percent-annual-chance flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. The 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the community. For unrevised streams in Plymouth County, data was taken from previously printed FISs for each individual community and are compiled below. For each stream studied by detailed methods, the - and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section. In the City of Brockton, between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated using the following topographic maps: - CITY OF BROCKTON: :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet (Reference 90) - TOWN OF ABINGTON: :2,400 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet for detailed and :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet for approximate (References 9 and 92) - TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER: :24,000 scale and :25,000 scale for the revised FIS with a contour interval of 0 feet (Reference 90 and 93) - TOWN OF CARVER: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet for detailed and :25,000 with a contour interval of 0 feet for approximate (References 90, 93 and 94) - TOWN OF DUXBURY: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 4 feet, :20,000 with a contour interval of 00 feet for the original study, and in the revised FIS, :4,800 with a contour interval of 4 feet for detailed and :25,000 with a contour interval of 0 feet for approximate (References 90, 95 and 96) - TOWN OF EAST BRIDGEWATER: :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet (Reference 90) - TOWN OF HALIFAX: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet for detailed, :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet for approximate (References 97, 98) - TOWN OF HANOVER: :2,400 and :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet (References 99, 00, 0) - TOWN OF HANSON: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet and 0 feet (References 02, 03) - TOWN OF HINGHAM: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet for detailed, :7,200 scale, :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet for approximate (References 57, 60 and 0) 25

8 - TOWN OF HULL: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet and previous studies (Reference 04) - TOWN OF KINGSTON: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet and previous studies (Reference 05, 06 and 07) - TOWN OF LAKEVILLE: :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet (Reference 90) - TOWN OF MARION: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet for detailed and previous studies for approximate (Reference 08) - TOWN OF MARSHFIELD: :2,400 scale with a contour interval of 5 feet for the original study, :4,800, :20,000, :25,000 scale with contour intervals 4 feet, 0 feet and 3 meters respectively for the revision, and previous studies for approximate (References 09 and 0) - TOWN OF MATTAPOISETT: :4,800 scale with a contour interval of 2 feet for detailed and previous studies for approximate (References and 2) - TOWN OF MIDDLEBOROUGH: :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet (Reference 90) - TOWN OF NORWELL: :,200 scale with a contour interval of 2 feet for detailed and previous studies for approximate (References 6 and 3) - TOWN OF PEMBROKE: :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet (Reference 90) - TOWN OF PLYMOUTH: :4,800, with contour intervals 5 feet and 3 meters respectively for detailed, :24,000 and :25,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet for approximate (Reference 90, 4 and 5) - TOWN OF PLYMPTON: :4,800, with contour interval 5 feet for detailed and :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet for approximate (Reference 62 and 90) - TOWN OF ROCHESTER: :4,800, with contour interval 5 feet for detailed and previous studies for approximate (references 6 and 7) - TOWN OF ROCKLAND: :4,800, with contour interval 5 feet for detailed and previous studies for approximate (References 8, 9) - TOWN OF SCITUATE: :4,800, with contour interval 5 feet in the original study and with contour interval 4 feet in the revised FIS, previous studies for the approximate (References 20, 2) - TOWN OF WAREHAM: :4,800, with contour interval 5 feet for detailed and previous studies for approximate (References 22, 23) - TOWN OF WEST BRIDGEWATER: :24,000 scale with a contour interval of 0 feet (Reference 90 and 24) - TOWN OF WHITMAN: :4,800, with contour interval 5 feet for detailed and previous studies for approximate (References 25 and 26) For the tidal areas with wave action in the Towns of Hingham, Kingston, Marion, Mattapoisett and Wareham the flood boundaries were delineated using the elevations determined at each transect; between transects, the boundaries were interpolated using engineering judgment, land-cover data, and the topographic maps referenced above. The l-annual-percent-chance floodplain was divided into whole-foot elevation zones based on the average wave envelope elevation in that zone. Where the map scale did not permit these zones to be delineated at one foot intervals, larger increments were used. In the Town of Duxbury, Duxbury Beach area which is not newly studied, the flood boundaries were delineated using the elevations determined at each transect for the 986 Duxbury FIS. Between transects, the boundaries were interpolated using engineering judgment, land-cover data, and the topographic maps referenced above. In the revised 26

9 FIS, an area of flooding was added on Halls Brook at the cranberry bog to match the contiguous community of Kingston, using topographic maps at a scale of :25,000 with a contour interval of 0 feet. The - and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the FIRM. On this map, the -percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards Zones A, AE, and VE, and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of areas of moderate flood hazards. In cases where the - and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the -percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary has been shown. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations, but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data. For the streams studied by approximate methods, only the -percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary is shown on the FIRM. 4.2 Floodways Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces flood-carrying capacity, increases flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the -percent-annual-chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment so that the base flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies. The floodways presented in this FIS were computed for certain stream segments on the basis of equal-conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplain. Floodway widths were computed at cross sections. Between cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. The results of the floodway computations are tabulated for selected cross sections (see Table 7, Floodway Data). In cases where the floodway and -percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary is shown. The findings in the Town of Abington indicate that, because of the relatively narrow widths of the floodplain along the Shumatuscacant River, any future development in this area should be prohibited. The only area along this river that could conceivably be encroached upon and not have a detrimental effect on upstream flooding would be the swampy area south of Summer Street and east of Walnut Street. This area has been zoned as a wetlands area by the town zoning bylaws and any construction in this area should be avoided. Therefore, no floodway was calculated for the Shumatuscacant River and the "North Tributary" Shumatuscacant River. Additionally the cross section data (I through AC) for the Shumatuscacant River in the Town of Abington are not available on the Floodway Data Table. No floodways were computed for Tributary A to Sawmill Brook in the Town of Bridgewater. For some segments in Brockton along Salisbury and Trout Brooks, the -percent-annual-chance flood boundary is contained within the banks 27

10 of the waterway. In these situations, encroachment was not feasible and, therefore, no floodway was determined. Floodways were not computed in the Town of Duxbury. There have been no floodway calculations made for the North River in Hanover. Because the North River is tidal and the flood elevations are affected by tidal surges, any encroachments may produce hazardous velocities. Generally, a floodway is not appropriate in areas such as those that may be inundated by the floodwaters from tidal or lake flooding. Thus, no floodway was prepared for the lower reaches of the North River and the entire length of Robinson Creek, where flooding results from high levels of the tide, or for Furnace and Oldham Ponds, where flooding results from high pond levels rather than from high stream flow. No floodways were calculated for Assawompset Pond, Long Pond, Long Pond River, Great Quittacas Pond and Pocksha Pond in the Town of Lakeville since these areas are subject to ponding and a HEC-2 analysis was not performed (Reference 62). Portions of the floodway widths for the Nemasket River in Lakeville extend beyond the corporate limits. A floodway was not appropriate for Indian Head River upstream of Curtis Crossing, as the -percent-annual-chance boundary was determined to be nearly within the limit of the stream channel along almost the entire length of the detailed study area; therefore, the limits of the encroachment would be up to the bank and no more, as defined by the definition of a floodway. A floodway was also not determined for the portion of Herring Brook from a point downstream of Mill Pond, upstream to Furnace Pond. This portion of the brook is characterized by ponds and cranberry bogs, and, as such, should not be encroached upon. One aspect of floodway and floodplain encroachment is sometimes overlooked and more often neglected: the cumulative effect of encroachment on flood discharge magnitude. Generally, as encroachment occurs, temporary storage areas are lost, velocities increase, and the magnitude of the discharge increases. As floodwaters move downstream, that increase can become more significant. The combined effect of a narrower floodplain and greater discharge can, due to hydraulic effects alone, produce a flood stage that exceeds the anticipated -percent-annual-chance flood. For this reason, no floodway was computed or shown for portions of South Meadow Brook, Rocky Brook, and Crane Brook. FEMA does not encourage the filling in of the floodway fringe area. Local officials should be aware that even a -foot rise in the water-surface elevation can cause flooding in areas which would have received little or no flooding if such filling had not taken place. Careful consideration of the economic and human dislocation which will be caused by a rise in flood heights should be made before filling is allowed. Large quantities of fill in the fringe area could also disrupt the floodplain ecosystem, causing a major impact on local environmental resources. Communities are encouraged by the FEMA to adopt wider, more restrictive floodways and to minimize the amount of fill allowed in the fringe areas. Such actions also meet the intent of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 3, Section 40). Under the provisions of the act, the local conservation commission and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering have the authority to impose "orders of condition" regulating floodplain areas subject to flooding and wetland alterations. The orders normally require compensatory storage to replace any loss resulting from proposed floodplain alterations. In order to achieve a unified floodplain and wetlands management program, numerous Massachusetts communities have adopted local zoning by-laws, 28

11 ordinances, subdivision regulations, and local Board of Health regulations augmenting the minimum requirements of the Flood Insurance Program and the Wetlands Protection Act. FEMA encourages the use of this FIS as the technical basis for adoption of a broader, more encompassing local floodplain management program. Encroachment into areas subject to inundation by floodwaters having hazardous velocities aggravates the risk of flood damage, and heightens potential flood hazards by further increasing velocities. A listing of stream velocities at selected cross sections is provided in Table 7, Floodway Data. In order to reduce the risk of property damage in areas where the stream velocities are high, the community may wish to restrict development in areas outside the floodway. Near the mouths of streams studied in detail, floodway computations are made without regard to flood elevations on the receiving water body. Therefore, "Without Floodway" elevations presented in Table 7 for certain downstream cross sections of the Matfield River, Sawmill Brook, South Brook, Crane Brook, Winnetuxet River, Palmer Mill Brook, Drinkwater River Tributary, Indian Head Brook, Turkey Hill Run, Mile Brook, Nemasket River, Second Herring Brook, Eel River, Branch of Eel River, Tributary A, and Shumatuscacant Tributary are lower than the regulatory flood elevations in that area, which must take into account the -percent-annual-chance flooding due to backwater from other sources. Floodway widths shown on the map do not necessarily agree with the measured widths cited in the Floodway Data Table. The discrepancies are caused by changes in stream configurations and the map scale at which the original mapping was produced. The area between the floodway and -percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation (WSEL) of the base flood more than foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Floodway Schematic 29

12 A 6, B 6, C 7, D 8, E 8, F 9, G 20,64 405, H 2, I 22, J 23, K 24, L 26, M 26, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE PLYMOUTH RIVER TABLE 7 DATA ACCORD BROOK

13 A B C 3, D 4, E 6, F 8, FEET ABOVE ELM STREET TABLE 7 DATA BEAVER BROOK

14 A 2, B 4, C 4, , D 5, , E 5, F 6, G 7,00 62, H 8, , FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE CAPE COD BAY TABLE 7 DATA BEAVER DAM BROOK

15 A, B 2, C 3, D 4, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WEST MEADOW BROOK ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM WEST MEADOW BROOK TABLE 7 DATA BLACK BETTY BROOK

16 A B C, FEET ABOVE CENTRAL STREET TABLE 7 DATA BLACK BROOK

17 A B C, D, E, F, G 2, H 2, I 3, J 3, K 4, L 4, M 5, N 6, O 6, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE SECOND HERRING BROOK TABLE 7 DATA BLACK POND BROOK

18 A B 0 200, C D, E, F, G, , H 2, I 4, , J 5, K 6, FEET ABOVE MORDECAI LINCOLN ROAD TABLE 7 DATA BOUND BROOK

19 A B, C, , D, , E 2, F 2,80 223, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE EEL RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM EEL RIVER TABLE 7 DATA BRANCH OF EEL RIVER

20 A, B 4, C 6, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WEWEANTIC RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM WEWEANTIC RIVER TABLE 7 DATA CRANE BROOK

21 A B C, D 2, E 2, F 3, FEET ABOVE FREE STREET TABLE 7 DATA CROOKED MEADOW RIVER

22 A 5, B 6, C 7, D 8, E 8, , F 0, G 2, H 3, I 4, J 5, K 7, L 8, , M 9, N 20, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE INDIAN HEAD RIVER TABLE 7 DATA DRINKWATER RIVER

23 A B C D, E, F, G 2, H 3, I 3, J 3, K 4, L 4, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE DRINKWATER RIVER TABLE 7 DATA DRINKWATER RIVER TRIBUTARY

24 A B C D, E 2, F 3, G 3, H 4, I 4, J 5, K 5, L 5, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE PLYMOUTH RIVER TABLE 7 DATA EEL RIVER (TOWN OF HINGHAM)

25 A 9, B 9, C 0, D 0, E 0, F 0, G 0, H 0,940 36, I, , J 2, K 2, L 2, M 3, N 3, O 3, P 4, Q 4, R 4, , FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE PLYMOUTH HARBOR ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM PLYMOUTH HARBOR TABLE 7 DATA EEL RIVER (TOWN OF PLYMOUTH)

26 A B, , C 2, D 3, E 4, F 5, , G 6, H 7, I 8, J 9, K 0, L 2, M 2, N 4, O 5, P 5, FEET ABOVE THE NEW DRIFTWAY TABLE 7 DATA FIRST HERRING BROOK

27 A B, C 2, D 4, , E 5,30 40, F 6, G 8,420 * H 0,425 * I 2,540 * J 3,760 * K 4,800 * L 7,690 * M 8,420 * N 8, O 9,300 * P 2,630 * Q 22,740 * R 23, * FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE DRINKWATER RIVER COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA FRENCH STREAM

28 A 6 * B 00 49, C D E, F,404 * G,637 * H, I 2, J 3, K 5, , L 7, M 8, N 9, O 0, P, Q,558 * R,648 * S 2, , T 4, U 5, V 5, W 5, X 6,220 * Y 6,42 435, * FEET ABOVE DAM COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA HALLS BROOK

29 A 4,230 * * FEET ABOVE DAMONS POINT ROAD COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA HANNAH EAMES BROOK

30 A, B, C 3, D 6, E 7, F 8, G 9, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE NORTH RIVER TABLE 7 DATA HERRING BROOK

31 A -3,5,643 9, B -,765,383 6, C -90,590 5, D,490,500 4, E 2,90,200 3, F 4, , G 5, , H 7, I 8,70 300, J 0, K, L 5, M 7, N 9, O 22, P 24, Q 24, FEET ABOVE MAPLE STREET BRIDGE IN WEST BRIDGEWATER TABLE 7 DATA HOCKOMOCK RIVER

32 A B C D, E, F 2, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE CAPE COD BAY TABLE 7 DATA INDIAN BROOK

33 A B, C 2, D 2, E 3, F 4, G 5, H 6, I 7, J 8, K 0, L, M 2, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE INDIAN HEAD RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM INDIAN HEAD RIVER TABLE 7 DATA INDIAN HEAD BROOK

34 A 5, B 6, C 7, D 7,700 79, E 8,690 26, F 9, G, H 2, I 3, , J 4, FEET ABOVE ELM STREET DAM TABLE 7 DATA INDIAN HEAD RIVER

35 A B C , D, E 3, , F 4, G 4, H 4, I 5, J 5, K 5, L 7, M 9, N, O 3, P 4, Q 5, R 5, S 6, T 7, U 9, V 20, W 2, X 2, Y 23, Z 24,840 * AA 25, * FEET ABOVE DAM COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA JONES RIVER

36 AB 25, FEET ABOVE DAM TABLE 7 DATA JONES RIVER

37 A B, C 2, D 3,04 * E 3, F 4, * FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE JONES RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM JONES RIVER COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA JONES RIVER BROOK

38 A B, C 2, D 2, E 3, F 5, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE DRINKWATER RIVER TABLE 7 DATA LONGWATER BROOK

39 A 2,560 29, B 6,670 90, C 7, , FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE TAUNTON RIVER TABLE 7 DATA MATFIELD RIVER

40 A -95 * B C, D 3, E 5, F 6, G 8, H 0, I, J 3, K 5, L 6, M 7, N 9, O 20,95 * P 22, Q 22, R 24, S 25, T 28,05 * U 28,995 * V 29,985 * W 30,805 * X 32,645 * Y 33,735 * * FEET ABOVE WOLF ISLAND ROAD COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA MATTAPOISETT RIVER

41 A B, C 2, D 2, E 3, F 4, G 6, H 8, I 9, J 0, K 2, L 3,989 57, M 5, , N 6, O 7, P 7, Q 8, R 9, S 20, T 20, U 2, V 22, W 23, FEET ABOVE CENTRAL STREET TABLE 7 DATA MEADOW BROOK

42 A B, C 2, D 3, E 4, F 5, G 7, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE MEADOW BROOK TABLE 7 DATA MEADOW BROOK TRIBUTARY

43 A 0 * B 602 * C 803 * D,220 * E,779 * F 2,66 * G 3,263 * H 3,60 * I 3,70 * J 4,03 * K 4, * FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE HALLS BROOK ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM HALLS BROOK COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA MILE BROOK

44 A 3, B 6, C 8, D, E 3, F 4, G 5, H 7, I 8, J 20, K 2, , L 23,47 95, M 24, , N 26, O 27, P 28,798 25, Q 29, R 32, , S 33, T 34, U 35, V 37, W 40, X 4, Y 42, Z 43, AA 45, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE TAUNTON RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM TAUNTON RIVER TABLE 7 DATA NEMASKET RIVER

45 AB 46, AC 47, AD 49, , AE 5, , AF 53,435 44, AG 56, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE TAUNTON RIVER TABLE 7 DATA NEMASKET RIVER

46 A B 2, C 3, D 3, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE THE WINNETUXET RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF COINCIDENT FLOW THE WINNETUXET RIVER TABLE 7 DATA PALMER MILL BROOK

47 A B C 2, D 3, E 5,064 75, F 5, G 6, H 7, I 7, J 8, K 9, L 0, M 0, N, O, P 2, FEET ABOVE CUSHING POND DAM TABLE 7 DATA PLYMOUTH RIVER

48 A -7, B -6, C -4, D -3, , E F G 2, H 5, I 5, J 8, K 9, L, M, N 4, O 5, P 5, FEET ABOVE MAIN STREET TABLE 7 DATA POOR MEADOW BROOK

49 A B, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WEWEANTIC RIVER TABLE 7 DATA ROCKY MEADOW BROOK

50 A 2, B 2, C 3, D 3, E 6, F 7, G 7, H 8, I 9, FEET ABOVE PERKINS STREET BRIDGE TABLE 7 DATA SALISBURY BROOK

51 A B C D, E 3, F 4, G 5, H 8, I 9, J, K, L 2, M 2, N 2, O 3, P 4, Q 5, R 5, S 6, T 7, , U 8,522 40, V 9,56 5, FEET ABOVE BELMONT STREET TABLE 7 DATA SALISBURY PLAIN RIVER

52 A B C D,003 90, FEET FROM PLYMOUTH STREET TABLE 7 DATA SATUCKET RIVER (LOWER REACH)

53 A B, C 2,720,245 4, D 4,320,33 2, E 4, F 6, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE OF BLACK BROOK TABLE 7 DATA SATUCKET RIVER (UPPER REACH)

54 A, B 2, C 2, D 3, E 4, F 5, G 6, H 7, I 8, J 9, K 0, FEET ABOVE FRONT STREET TABLE 7 DATA SATUIT BROOK

55 A B 4, C 4, , D 9, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE TAUNTON RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM TAUNTON RIVER TABLE 7 DATA SAWMILL BROOK

56 A B C D, E, F, , G, , H 2, I 2, J 2, K 2, , L 3, M 3, N 4, O 4, , P 4, Q 5, R 5, S 5, T 5, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE NORTH RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM MASSACHUSETTS BAY TABLE 7 DATA SECOND HERRING BROOK

57 A B, C 2, D 2, E 3, F 3, G 6, H 6, I-AC * * * * * * * * * FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE OF SHUMATUSCACANT TRIBUTARY DATA NOT AVAILABLE TABLE 7 DATA SHUMATUSCACANT RIVER

58 A B 2, C 3, D 3, E 4, F 4, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE SHUMATUSCACANT RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM SHUMATUSCACANT RIVER TABLE 7 DATA SHUMATUSCACANT TRIBUTARY

59 A 30 * B 30 * C 440 * D 600 * E 780 * F , G 2,0 246, H 2,980 * I 4,200 * J 4,780 * K 5,030 * L 5,270 * M 5,370 * * FEET ABOVE STATE ROUTE 3A COINCIDENT CHANNEL BANKS TABLE 7 DATA SMELT BROOK

60 A B, C 3, D 4, E 6, F 7, G 9, H 0, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE TAUNTON RIVER TABLE 7 DATA SNOWS BROOK

61 A, B 2, C 3, D 4, E 4, F 6, G 7, H 8, I 9, J 3, K 4, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE TOWN RIVER ELEVATION COMPUTED CONSIDERATION OF BACKWATER EFFECTS FROM TOWN RIVER TABLE 7 DATA SOUTH BROOK

62 A, B 4, C 6, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WEWEANTIC RIVER TABLE 7 DATA SOUTH MEADOW BROOK

63 A, B 2, C 4, D 5, E 7, , FEET ABOVE WALNUT STREET TABLE 7 DATA STREAM RIVER

64 A , B, , C 2, , D 4, , E 6, , F 8, , G 9, , H 0, , I 2, , J 4, , K 6, , L 7, , M 8, , N 9, , O 20, , P 22, , Q 24, , R 25, , S 26, , T 29, , U 30, , V 33, , W 35, , X 36, , Y 38, , Z 40, , AA 4, , FEET ABOVE PLYMOUTH / BRISTOL COUNTY BOUNDARY TABLE 7 DATA TAUNTON RIVER

65 AB 42, , AC 44, , AD 45, , AE 47, , AF 49, , AG 5, , AH 5, , AI 53, , AJ 55, , AK 56, AL 57,840 53, AM 59, , AN 60, , AO 6, , AP 63, , AQ 63, , AR 66, , AS 67, , AT 69, , AU 69,458 3, AV 70, , FEET ABOVE PLYMOUTH / BRISTOL COUNTY BOUNDARY TABLE 7 DATA TAUNTON RIVER

66 A B C D, E, F, G, H, I 2, J 2, , K 2,84 270, L 3, M 3, N 3, O 3, P 4, Q 4, FEET ABOVE CULVERT TO HINGAM HARBOR TABLE 7 DATA TOWN BROOK (TOWN OF HINGHAM)

67 A, B, C 2, D 2, E 2, F 2, G 2, H 2,900 86, I 3, J 4, K 4, L 4, M 4, N 5, O 5, P 5, Q 5, R 6, S 6, T 6, U 6, V 7, , W 7, X 8, Y 8, Z 8, AA 8, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE PLYMOUTH HARBOR TABLE 7 DATA TOWN BROOK (TOWN OF PLYMOUTH)

68 AB 9, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE PLYMOUTH HARBOR TABLE 7 DATA TOWN BROOK (TOWN OF PLYMOUTH)

69 A , B 3, C 6,69 292, D 8,69 6, E 0, , F 2, G 3, , H 6, I 7, J 8,000 6, K 8, L 20, M 2, N 2, O 2, P 22,870 05, Q 23, , R 25, , S 26, , T 28, , U 30, , V 32, , W 33, X 35, Y 36, Z 37, AA 38, FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE TAUNTON RIVER TABLE 7 DATA TOWN RIVER