DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Resources of the Waterbury-Bristol Area Connecticut

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

U. 5. btULUGlUftL RESOURCES DIVISION Water Resources of the Waterbury-Bristol Area Connecticut GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1499-J Prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Water Resources Commission and the New Britain Board of Water Commissioners Water Resources of the Waterbury-Bristol Area Connecticut .By R. V. CUSHMAN, F. H. PAUSZEK, A. D. RANDALL and M. P. THOMAS Revised by H. L. BALDWIN VATER RESOURCES OF INDUSTRIAL AREAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1499-J Prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Water Resources Commission and the New Britain Board of Water Commissioners UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract. ________________________________________________________ Jl Acknowledgments___ _ ___________________________________________ 1 Purpose and scope of this report.___________________________________ 2 Description Of the area.____________________________________________ 2 Location _______________________________________:_____________ 2 Development of industry.______________________________________ 4 Sources of water._____________________________________________ 5 Significance of water quality__-__________-_--_-__----_-_-__-_-_- 7 Public water supply and use________________________________________ 11 Waterbury subarea-__________-_-____-__-___--__-_-__----__-_-_ 11 Bristol subarea.____________________________________________ 17 Rural subarea____.____--_-_-_--__-______-__--_-_-__----_--___ 22 Emergency water supplies__________________________________________ 23 A look at the future.__--___-__--____-__--_____-_-__-_--__-_-_--_-- 28 Inventory of water resources.______________________________________ 33 Records available__-_-___-___---_______-____-__-____-_-__--__- 34 Waterbury subarea.___________________________________________ 34 Naugatuck River__________-________________________-_____ 34 Leadmine Brook__________________________________________ 48 Sand and gravel aquifers.__________________________________ 53 Other sources of ground water.___________--_____-___-_---_- 60 Bristolsubarea_ ____ _ ________________________________________ 60 Pequabuck River__________________________________________ 60 Burlington Brook_________________________________________ 64 Sand and gravel aquifers-_-__-_-____-___-______-_-_____--__ 66 Sedimentary bedrock of Triassic age._______-__-_-____-__-__- 72 Other sources of ground water._____________________________ 76 Rural subarea._-_______-____-_________-__-____-_.__--_____--_ 76 Sand and gravel aquifers. __________________________________ 76 Ground moraine._________________________________________ 77 Crystalline bedrock.__-___________-_______-_-__----_----__- 78 References. -__-_________-__--_-_--______-____----___--__-__-_---_ 82 Index ____________________________________________________________ 85 ILLUSTRATIONS PLATE 1. Map of the Waterbury-Bristol area showing drainage basins, areal distribution of sand and gravel aquifers, contour of the bedrock surface, and location of wells and geologic sections--___-_--_-_--______-____--______-__--__-_In pocket FIGURE 1. Map showing location and extent of the Waterbury-Bristol Page area, major drainage basins, stream-gaging stations, and water-sampling sites._________________________________ J3 2. Water table and aquifer,._______________________________ 6 3. Flow chart of water-supply system, city of Waterbury ______ 11 IV CONTENTS Page FIGURE 4. Quantity of water distributed by Waterbury Water Depart­ ment, 1949-59____-__-------------------------------- J13 5. Percentage of average monthly demand for water supplied by Water Department of city of Waterbury, 1950-59------ 14 6. Use of water in the Waterbury subarea, 1959-------------- 16 7. Raw-water storage, Bristol water system__________________ 18 8. Use of water in the Bristol subarea, 1959._________________ 19 9. Source and use of water by industry in the Bristol subarea, 1959____-____ __-__ -_ _-- -- - ------ 19 10. Source and use of water distributed by public water systems in the Bristol subarea, 1959-___---_------------------ 20 11. Quantity of water distributed by public water systems in the Bristol subarea, 1949-59------------------------------ 21 12. Hydrograph of water levels in well Wb 176, 1944-59------ 31 13. Duration of records at gaging stations in the Waterbury- Bristol area and vicinity.________________--_-_--__---_ 34 14. Duration curve of daily flows, Naugatuck River below Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-59.----------- 37 15. Magnitude and frequency of annual low flows, Naugatuck River below Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-58-. 38 16. Maximum period of deficient discharge, Naugatuck River below Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-58-_-_-_ 39 17. Storage required to maintain flows, Naugatuck River below Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-59._____________ 39 18. Duration curve of daily flows, Naugatuck River at Beacon Falls, 1929-59 _-_-_---_---------------_------------ 40 19. Magnitude and frequency of annual low flows, Naugatuck River at Beacon Falls, 1929-58_---------------__---- 41 20. Maximum period of deficient discharge, Naugatuck River at Beacon Falls, 1929-58___-----_-----_--------------- 41 21. Storage required to maintain flows, Naugatuck River at Beacon Falls, 1929-59_____.___._.__.._._._____---_ 42 22. Magnitude and frequency of floods, Naugatuck River below Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1929-59._____________ 42 23. Magnitude and frequency of floods, Naugatuck River at Beacon Falls, 1928-59-------------------------------- 43 24. Specific conductance and daily mean discharge, Naugatuck River near Thomaston, 1957-58______________________ 45 25. Daily iron concentrations in Naugatuck River near Thomas- ton, 1958 water year____- ---_---__-------_----------- 46 26. Monthly average hardness as CaCOs in Naugatuck River near Thomaston, 1957-58-------_----_--------------------- 47 27. Frequency distribution of water temperatures, Naugatuck River near Thomaston, 1957-58-.-_____________________ 48 28. Duration curve of daily flows, Leadmine Brook near Thomas- ton, 1931-59--_--_--_----_-_----_----_---_---_---___- 49 29. Magnitude and frequency of annual low flows, Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-58_____--__-____-__---_-_ 50 30. Maximum period of deficient discharge, Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-58__--_--_.---------________---___ 51 31. Storage required to maintain flows, Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-59--_-_---_--________---__-.-_-_-_ 52 CONTENTS V Page FIGURE 32. Magnitude and frequency of floods, Leadmine Brook near Thomaston, 1931-59__-___-____________.________---_ J52 33. Duration curve of daily flows, Pequabuck River at Forestville, 1942-59____.-__._-___.____.__-__.-__.-__..__________ 61 34. Magnitude and frequency of annual low flows, Pequabuck River at Forestville, 1942-58-_____________________ 62 35. Maximum period of deficient discharge, Pequabuck River at Forestville, 1942-58---.-- _:___.___________________ 62 36. Storage required to maintain flows, Pequabuck River at Forestville, 1942-59_____-___.___.___._________________ 63 37. Magnitude and frequency of floods, Pequabuck River at Forestville, 1936-59_________________________________ 64 38. Duration curve of daily flows, Burlington Brook near Burling­ ton, 1932-59___________________._________________ 66 39. Magnitude and frequency of annual low flows, Burlington Brook near Burlington, 1932-58________________-___-__- 67 40. Maximum period of deficient discharge, Burlington Brook near Burlington, 1932-58-__----_--_-----_----_-------- 67 41. Storage required to maintain flows, Burlington Brook near Burlington, 1932-59__-____-___-__-___-_______________- 68 42. Magnitude and frequency of floods, Burlington Brook near Burlington, 1932-59__ ________________________________ 69 43. Variation in hardness of water from sand and gravel deposits in the Bristol subarea.________________________________ 73 44. Cumulative frequency curves of yield of wells finished in crystalline bedrock in the Waterbury-Bristol area_________ 80 45. Depths of wells finished in crystalline bedrock in the Water­ bury-Bristol area.____________________________________ 81 TABLES Page TABLE 1. Suggested water-quality tolerances.__________---__-_--_---_ J8 2. Classification of surface waters according to suitability of use __ 10 3. Public water-supply systems..___________________-_.._--_--- 12 4. Chemical analyses of water from public water-supply systems in the Waterbury-Bristol area__-_______________--__----_- 15 5. Average use of water in the Waterbury subarea, 1959_________ 15 6. Average use of water in the Bristol subarea, 1959_____________ 22 7. Records of wells selected as possible emergency supplies and other wells referred to in the text__________-____--__--____ 24 8. Summary of streamflow data, Waterbury-Bristol area_________ 35 9. Summary of chemical data, Naugatuck River near Thomaston, October 1957 to September 1958-_---------------_------- 44 10. Chemical analyses of water from wells in the Waterbury subarea. 59 11. Sulfate concentrations in water from well Wb lOa____________ 59 12. Chemical analyses of water from Pequabuck River at Forestville- 65 13. Analyses of water from sand and gravel and crystalline rock in the Bristol subarea.______-___-_________-___-_---_---_-- 73 14. Summary of records of domestic and farm wells finished in Triassic
Recommended publications
  • Pheasant Hunting in Connecticut Changes in 2017

    Pheasant Hunting in Connecticut Changes in 2017

    Pheasant Hunting in Connecticut Changes in 2017: This year, the DEEP will purchase a total of 15,000 adult pheasants. This year 7-8 areas will be stocked on Saturday morning and afternoon and will only be open to hunters with a Saturday a.m. (9 am -12 noon) or Saturday p.m. (1:30 pm - 4:30 pm) permit. These select areas will be stocked prior to the morning permit and during the afternoon break to assure hunters that birds will be available at these areas on the weekend. These areas will include: Cromwell Meadows WMA, Durham Meadows WMA, Housatonic WMA, Nathan Hale State Forest, Naugatuck State Forest (Hunter's Mountain Block only), Simsbury WMA and Skiff Mountain Coop WMA. All hunters wishing to use these areas on Saturdays must have a Saturday permit and will only be able to be present during the specified time on the daily permit. Saturday permits for these areas will only be available on the Online Sportsmen Licensing System the Monday preceding the Saturday hunts starting at 12:01 am. As in past years, the third week of November (13th - 18th) will be an abbreviated week. During that week birds will only be released in the beginning of the week at all areas except: Cromwell Meadows, Durham Meadows WMA, East Windsor/Enfield PR Area, Higganum Meadows WMA, Housatonic WMA, Mansfield Hollow, MDC New Hartford, Simsbury WMA, Suffield WMA and Thomaston Dam. CONNECTICUT RESIDENT GAME BIRD CONSERVATION STAMP: All pheasant hunters must purchase a Resident Game Bird Conservation Stamp, along with a hunting license.
  • Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Strea

    Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Strea

    Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Streambed Sediment in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, 1992-94 By Robert F. Breault and Sandra L. Harris Abstract exceed sediment-quality guidelines over a wider geographical area, although usually by lower Streambed-sediment samples were collected ratios of contaminant concentration to sediment- in 1992-94 at selected sites in the Connecticut, quality guideline than the organic compounds. Housatonic, and Thames River Basins to determine the geographical distribution of trace elements and organic compounds and their INTRODUCTION potential for adverse biological effects on aquatic organisms. Chromium, copper, lead, mercury, The Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins study unit is one of 59 National Water-Quality nickel, zinc, chlordane, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs Assessment (NAWQA) study units nationwide. The were detected in samples from throughout the study unit drainage basin comprises an area of almost basins, but concentrations of these constituents 16,000 mi2 and extends through parts of the Province of generally were lowest in the northern forested Quebec, Canada, eastern Vermont, western New Hamp- drainage basins and highest in the southern shire, west-central Massachusetts, nearly all of Connect- urbanized drainage basins of Springfield, icut, and small parts of New York and Rhode Island. Massachusetts, and Hartford, New Haven and The study unit is entirely within the New Bridgeport, Connecticut. Possible anthropogenic England Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938), a sources of these contaminants include industrial plateau-like upland that rises gradually from the sea but effluent; municipal wastewater; runoff from includes numerous mountain ranges and individual agricultural, urban and forested areas; and peaks.
  • Update of Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley Region

    Update of Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley Region

    Update of Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Naugatuck Valley Region Workshop: Victoria Brudz, CFM Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment David Murphy, PE, CFM Noah Slovin, CFM WORKSHOP LOGISTICS • 9:00 – Welcome & Logistics • 9:05 – Main Presentation • 9:50 to 10:05 – Breakout Sessions • Riverine and dam flood risks • Wind, snow, and power outages • Geologic hazards (landslides, earthquakes, Cheshire sinkholes) • Please comment in the chat back box which group you would like to be placed in • 10:05 to 10:15 – Report from Sessions & Wrap Up Agenda • Purpose and Need for Hazard Mitigation Planning • Review of Hazards to be Addressed • Effects of Climate Change • Report from Municipal Meetings- What Did We Hear? • Characterizing Hazard Loss Estimates • FEMA Map Updates (Diane Ifkovic, CT DEEP) • Next Steps PURPOSE AND NEED FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Authority • Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (amendments to Stafford Act of 1988) Goal of Disaster Mitigation Act • Promote disaster preparedness • Promote hazard mitigation actions to reduce losses Mitigation Grant Programs • Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) • Replaces Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) • Shift from pre-disaster spending to research-supported investment Graphic courtesy of FEMA PURPOSE AND NEED FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN PURPOSE AND NEED FOR HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN Status of Plans in Connecticut • Most initial plans developed 2005-2011 • Local plans updated every five years Status of
  • Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix

    Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix

    Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix - September 2018 Year Open/Posted/Cl Rank Town Facility Carried Features Intersected Location Lanes ADT Deck Superstructure Substructure Built osed Hartford County Ranked by Lowest Score 1 Bloomfield ROUTE 189 WASH BROOK 0.4 MILE NORTH OF RTE 178 1916 2 9,800 Open 6 2 7 2 South Windsor MAIN STREET PODUNK RIVER 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF I-291 1907 2 1,510 Posted 5 3 6 3 Bloomfield ROUTE 178 BEAMAN BROOK 1.2 MI EAST OF ROUTE 189 1915 2 12,000 Open 6 3 7 4 Bristol MELLEN STREET PEQUABUCK RIVER 300 FT SOUTH OF ROUTE 72 1956 2 2,920 Open 3 6 7 5 Southington SPRING STREET QUINNIPIAC RIVER 0.6 MI W. OF ROUTE 10 1960 2 3,866 Open 3 7 6 6 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 MARKET STREET & I-91 NB EAST END I-91 & I-84 INT 1961 4 125,700 Open 5 4 4 7 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING EASTBOUND 1965 3 66,450 Open 6 4 4 8 Hartford INTERSTATE-91 NB PARK RIVER & CSO RR AT EXIT 29A 1964 2 48,200 Open 5 4 4 9 New Britain SR 555 (WEST MAIN PAN AM SOUTHERN RAILROAD 0.4 MILE EAST OF RTE 372 1930 3 10,600 Open 4 5 4 10 West Hartford NORTH MAIN STREET WEST BRANCH TROUT BROOK 0.3 MILE NORTH OF FERN ST 1901 4 10,280 Open N 4 4 11 Manchester HARTFORD ROAD SOUTH FORK HOCKANUM RIV 2000 FT EAST OF SR 502 1875 2 5,610 Open N 4 4 12 Avon OLD FARMS ROAD FARMINGTON RIVER 500 FEET WEST OF ROUTE 10 1950 2 4,999 Open 4 4 6 13 Marlborough JONES HOLLOW ROAD BLACKLEDGE RIVER 3.6 MILES NORTH OF RTE 66 1929 2 1,255 Open 5 4 4 14 Enfield SOUTH RIVER STREET FRESHWATER BROOK 50 FT N OF ASNUNTUCK ST 1920 2 1,016 Open 5 4 4 15 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB BROAD ST, I-84 RAMP 191 1.17 MI S OF JCT US 44 WB 1966 3 71,450 Open 6 4 5 16 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EAST NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 1967 3 69,000 Open 6 4 5 17 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 WB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING .82 MI N OF JCT SR 504 SB 1965 4 66,150 Open 6 4 5 18 Hartford I-91 SB & TR 835 CONNECTICUT SOUTHERN RR AT EXIT 29A 1958 5 46,450 Open 6 5 4 19 Hartford SR 530 -AIRPORT RD ROUTE 15 422 FT E OF I-91 1964 5 27,200 Open 5 6 4 20 Bristol MEMORIAL BLVD.
  • Connecticut Watersheds

    Connecticut Watersheds

    Percent Impervious Surface Summaries for Watersheds CONNECTICUT WATERSHEDS Name Number Acres 1985 %IS 1990 %IS 1995 %IS 2002 %IS ABBEY BROOK 4204 4,927.62 2.32 2.64 2.76 3.02 ALLYN BROOK 4605 3,506.46 2.99 3.30 3.50 3.96 ANDRUS BROOK 6003 1,373.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.09 ANGUILLA BROOK 2101 7,891.33 3.13 3.50 3.78 4.29 ASH CREEK 7106 9,813.00 34.15 35.49 36.34 37.47 ASHAWAY RIVER 1003 3,283.88 3.89 4.17 4.41 4.96 ASPETUCK RIVER 7202 14,754.18 2.97 3.17 3.31 3.61 BALL POND BROOK 6402 4,850.50 3.98 4.67 4.87 5.10 BANTAM RIVER 6705 25,732.28 2.22 2.40 2.46 2.55 BARTLETT BROOK 3902 5,956.12 1.31 1.41 1.45 1.49 BASS BROOK 4401 6,659.35 19.10 20.97 21.72 22.77 BEACON HILL BROOK 6918 6,537.60 4.24 5.18 5.46 6.14 BEAVER BROOK 3802 5,008.24 1.13 1.22 1.24 1.27 BEAVER BROOK 3804 7,252.67 2.18 2.38 2.52 2.67 BEAVER BROOK 4803 5,343.77 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.95 BEAVER POND BROOK 6913 3,572.59 16.11 19.23 20.76 21.79 BELCHER BROOK 4601 5,305.22 6.74 8.05 8.39 9.36 BIGELOW BROOK 3203 18,734.99 1.40 1.46 1.51 1.54 BILLINGS BROOK 3605 3,790.12 1.33 1.48 1.51 1.56 BLACK HALL RIVER 4021 3,532.28 3.47 3.82 4.04 4.26 BLACKBERRY RIVER 6100 17,341.03 2.51 2.73 2.83 3.00 BLACKLEDGE RIVER 4707 16,680.11 2.82 3.02 3.16 3.34 BLACKWELL BROOK 3711 18,011.26 1.53 1.65 1.70 1.77 BLADENS RIVER 6919 6,874.43 4.70 5.57 5.79 6.32 BOG HOLLOW BROOK 6014 4,189.36 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.51 BOGGS POND BROOK 6602 4,184.91 7.22 7.78 8.41 8.89 BOOTH HILL BROOK 7104 3,257.81 8.54 9.36 10.02 10.55 BRANCH BROOK 6910 14,494.87 2.05 2.34 2.39 2.48 BRANFORD RIVER 5111 15,586.31 8.03 8.94 9.33 9.74
  • State of the Watershed Report the Hockanum River

    State of the Watershed Report the Hockanum River

    THE HOCKANUM RIVER STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT December 2005 Prepared for: North Central Conservation District, Inc. Prepared by: Funded in part by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection through a United States Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act Section 604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant. THE HOCKANUM RIVER STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT North Central Conservation District, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE................................................................................... 5 2.1 Geology............................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Population and Industry................................................................................... 5 2.3 Restoration Efforts........................................................................................... 7 3.0 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 9 3.1 Water Quantity................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Water Quality................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1 Classifications and Impairments........................................................ 12 3.2.2 Monitoring Data ...............................................................................
  • Newsletter 2003

    Newsletter 2003

    onservation Times onservation Times Newsletter of the Middlesex County Soil & Water Conservation District, Inc. January 2003 Conservation Districts Reorganize: Middlesex District to be the . Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District To better address natural resource concerns at the watershed level, Connecticut’s Soil and Water Conservation Districts are reorganizing from eight county-based districts to five regional districts. After many years of planning, a landmark change in state regulations formalized the reorganization in late December. The Middlesex District will become the Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District officially at a special meeting on February 26, 2003. Municipalities of the new Connecticut The reorganization will allow us to work in an extended area that includes all municipalities within the major regional basins of the lower Connecticut River watershed— the Salmon, Eightmile and Mattabesset—as well as several coastal watersheds within the South Central Eastern Complex. The result will be a more holistic approach to Connecticut River and coastal conservation efforts. Our watershed-based projects in the Salmon, Eightmile and the Mattabesset will be enhanced by our ability to provide a full suite of technical assistance to our customers throughout the watershed, including municipal staff, land use commissioners, and private residents. Eleven new municipalities will be added to our service area, including: Berlin, New Britain, Newington and Rocky Hill, in the Mattabesset River watershed; Madison, with a corner in the Mattabesset River watershed and in several coastal watersheds; Marlborough, Hebron and Colchester, in the Salmon River watershed; Salem and Lyme, in the Eightmile River watershed; and Old Lyme, in the Connecticut River main stem and coastal watersheds.
  • Connecticut Fish Distribution Report2012

    Connecticut Fish Distribution Report2012

    Connecticut Fish Distribution Report 2012 Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources Inland Fisheries Division 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106 860-424-3474 www.ct.gov/deep/fishing www.facebook.com/ctfishandwildlife The Connecticut Fish Distribution Report is published annually by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Daniel C. Esty, Commissioner Susan Whalen, Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Natural Resources William A. Hyatt, Chief Inland Fisheries Division Peter Aarrestad, Director 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 860-424-FISH (3474) www.ct.gov/deep/fishing www.facebook.com/ctfishandwildlife Table of Contents Introduction 3 DEEP State Hatcheries 3 Connecticut’s Stocked Fish 4 Stocking Summary 2012 7 Fish Distribution Numbers 8 Catchable trout 8 Broodstock Atlantic salmon 18 Brown trout fry/fingerlings 18 Kokanee fry 18 Northern pike 19 Walleye 19 Channel catfish 19 Miscellaneous Diadromous Fish Stocking 20 (Atlantic salmon, brown trout, Shad, Alewife) Cover: Rearing tanks at the Quinebaug Valley State Trout Hatchery (top), a Seeforellen brown trout, from Kensington State Fish Hatchery being stocked (middle left-photo credit Bill Gerrish), channel catfish being unloaded and stocked (middle right-photo credit Neal Hagstrom), CT DEEP IFD trout stocking truck (lower left-photo credit Justin Wiggins), and a net of brown trout being removed from the rearing tank at the Burlington State Fish Hatchery and headed for the stocking truck (lower right-photo credit Bill Gerrish). The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer that is committed to complying with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • Town of Winchester Low Impact

    Town of Winchester Low Impact

    TOWN OF WINCHESTER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL Funding Provided by The Farmington River Enhancement Grants Administered by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) MMI #3175-04 May 2, 2011 Prepared for: Town of Winchester 338 Main Street Winsted, Connecticut 06098 Prepared by: MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 (203) 271-1773 www.miloneandmacbroom.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose .....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Impacts of Uncontrolled Development ....................................................................2 1.3 Connecticut Rainfall and Stream Flow Patterns ......................................................3 2.0 OVERVIEW OF LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) ...............................................6 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................6 2.2 Application of LID in Winchester .........................................................................8 3.0 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY ..........................................................................9 3.1 Geology ....................................................................................................................9 3.1.1 Surficial Geology .....................................................................................9
  • Schenob Brook

    Schenob Brook

    Sages Ravine Brook Schenob BrookSchenob Brook Housatonic River Valley Brook Moore Brook Connecticut River North Canaan Watchaug Brook Scantic RiverScantic River Whiting River Doolittle Lake Brook Muddy Brook Quinebaug River Blackberry River Hartland East Branch Salmon Brook Somers Union Colebrook East Branch Salmon Brook Lebanon Brook Fivemile RiverRocky Brook Blackberry RiverBlackberry River English Neighborhood Brook Sandy BrookSandy Brook Muddy Brook Freshwater Brook Ellis Brook Spruce Swamp Creek Connecticut River Furnace Brook Freshwater Brook Furnace Brook Suffield Scantic RiverScantic River Roaring Brook Bigelow Brook Salisbury Housatonic River Scantic River Gulf Stream Bigelow Brook Norfolk East Branch Farmington RiverWest Branch Salmon Brook Enfield Stafford Muddy BrookMuddy Brook Factory Brook Hollenbeck River Abbey Brook Roaring Brook Woodstock Wangum Lake Brook Still River Granby Edson BrookEdson Brook Thompson Factory Brook Still River Stony Brook Stony Brook Stony Brook Crystal Lake Brook Wangum Lake Brook Middle RiverMiddle River Sucker BrookSalmon Creek Abbey Brook Salmon Creek Mad RiverMad River East Granby French RiverFrench River Hall Meadow Brook Willimantic River Barkhamsted Connecticut River Fenton River Mill Brook Salmon Creek West Branch Salmon Brook Connecticut River Still River Salmon BrookSalmon Brook Thompson Brook Still River Canaan Brown Brook Winchester Broad BrookBroad Brook Bigelow Brook Bungee Brook Little RiverLittle River Fivemile River West Branch Farmington River Windsor Locks Willimantic River First
  • Establishing Nitrogen Endpoints for Three Long Island Sound Watershed Groupings: Embayments, Large Riverine Systems, and Western Long Island Sound Open Water

    Establishing Nitrogen Endpoints for Three Long Island Sound Watershed Groupings: Embayments, Large Riverine Systems, and Western Long Island Sound Open Water

    Establishing Nitrogen Endpoints for Three Long Island Sound Watershed Groupings: Embayments, Large Riverine Systems, and Western Long Island Sound Open Water Subtask B. Regulated Point Source Discharges Submitted to: Submitted by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tetra Tech, Inc. Region 1 and Long Island Sound Office March 27, 2018 Establishing N Endpoints for LIS Watershed Groupings Subtask B. Regulated Point Source Discharges This Tetra Tech technical study was commissioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to synthesize and analyze water quality data to assess nitrogen-related water quality conditions in Long Island Sound and its embayments, based on the best scientific information reasonably available. This study is neither a proposed TMDL, nor proposed water quality criteria, nor recommended criteria. The study is not a regulation, and is not guidance, and cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, Tribes, or the regulated community, and might not apply to a particular situation or circumstance. Rather, it is intended as a source of relevant information to be used by water quality managers, at their discretion, in developing nitrogen reduction strategies. B-i Establishing N Endpoints for LIS Watershed Groupings Subtask B. Regulated Point Source Discharges Subtask B. Regulated Point Source Discharges Contents Introduction and Methods Overview .................................................................................................... B-1 Traditional Point Sources ..................................................................................................................
  • Low Flow Rivers in Connecticut Compiled by Rivers Alliance of Connecticut

    Low Flow Rivers in Connecticut Compiled by Rivers Alliance of Connecticut

    Low Flow Rivers in Connecticut Compiled by Rivers Alliance of Connecticut The following water courses have been identified impaired or threatened by low flows in part or in their entirety. The list was first compiled in 2002, primarily from DEP documents. Subsequently, the DEP stopped reporting the “threatened” category, so these entries cannot be updated readily. The underlined entries have been listed as impaired. We are in the process of rechecking entries. More information available on request. Southeast Coastal Drainage Area: Copps Brook (2102)! ---- 303(d)2 list of 1996, 1998,2002, 2004 & 305(b) list 2008 Tributary to Copps Brook (2102), 305(b) list 2008. Williams Brook (2103) --- DEP report3 Whitford Brook (2104), Ledyard --- DEP report, 303(d) list of 2002 & 2004, 305(b) list 2008 Latimer Brook (2202) --- DEP report Patagansett River (2205) --- 303(d) list of 2002 Bride Brook (2206) --- 303(d) lists of 19984 2002 & 2004, DEP report, 305(d) list 2008 Thames River Watershed: Fenton River (3207) -- DEP report, 303(d) of 2002, 305(b) list 2008; candidate for removal Oxoboxo Brook and Rockland Pond (3004), Montville --- DEP report, 303(d) 1998 & 2002 Quinebaug River (3700), MA to Shetucket River --- 303(d) 1998 & 2002; 305(b) list 2006 & 2008 Shetucket River (3800), Scotland -- 303(d) 1998 & 2002 Connecticut River Watershed: Scantic River (4200), Enfield -- 303(d) 1998 Farmington River (4300) Sandy Brook to W. Branch Reservoir -- 303(d) of 2002 & 2008 Mad River (4302), Winchester -- 303(d) 2008 Farmington River, East Branch* (4308)