DOCSLIB.ORG

NHDES TFC Presentation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NHDES TFC Presentation STATEWIDE TARGET FISH COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Public Information Meeting – August 27, 2018 Prepared for: Presented by: 1 MEETING AGENDA • Background on Target Fish Community (TFC) Models • Overview of the Phases of the Process • Examples • River-Specific Discussions 2 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT • Method derived from Bain and Meixler (2000) and (2005) methods • Meant to characterize the relative abundance (percentage) of species in a river based on data from similar rivers • Reference river data are not from “pristine” or “unimpacted” conditions, but should be from riverine areas that are considered good quality and are not severely degraded • NHDES has used these methods previously for the Souhegan and lower Lamprey River. This project developed TFC models for 22 Designated River systems 3 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT PHASES • Delineation of Designated River segments • Current fish community shifts that change along the river • Physical characteristics that change along the river • Selection of Reference Rivers with similar characteristics to the Designated River segments • GIS – Physical characteristics • Selection of Reference River Fish Community Data • Processing to remove stocked fish and non-native species • Evaluation of Data Sufficiency – Do we have Reference River Data to provide strong/accurate models? • Development of TFC Model for each Designated River segment 4 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – APPLIED TO EACH DELINEATED SEGMENT Physical Characteristics of a River GIS Initial Final Exercise All Fish Data Data GIS Final Fish Community Fish Screening Reference Exercise Screening Community Data from All Community River Reference River Data from Segments River Segments Reference with Similar Dataset with Similar Rivers Characteristics Characteristics Analyze Dataset Target Fish Community Model 5 DELINEATION OF DESIGNATED RIVERS • Goal: Delineate NH Designated Rivers into segments, if appropriate, based on where fish community shifts are predicted to occur • Datasets • Fish Sample Data – Do fish community shifts currently occur? • Physical Characteristic Data – Are there locations where the river changes character dramatically, where fish communities could also shift? 6 DETERMINING GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RIVER SECTIONS THAT DRIVE FISH COMMUNITY STRUCTURE • Fish communities in a river can shift due to changes in river character • Though some changes in character may be more likely to cause a fish community shift, primarily we are looking for a combination of potential factors that would result in a fish community change • Stream Order • Water Chemistry • Watershed Area • Thermal Regime • Gradient • Predicted Fish Community Types • Geology • Ecoregion • We can look at this by overlaying data in a “Geographic Information System” (GIS) 7 DELINEATION OF DESIGNATED RIVERS • 37 Delineated Segments 8 REFERENCE RIVER AND FISH COMMUNITY DATA SELECTION • Goals: Select Reference Rivers with similar characteristics to Designated River segments, and from those rivers, select fish community data • Datasets • Physical Characteristic Data – Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification (TNC); Ecoregion • Quality Characteristics – National Fish Habitat Disturbance Index – used low/very low disturbance index • Fish sample data from NH, ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY • Electrofishing only, 1990-Present • When sufficient data were available, data were selected from within the greater watershed or nearby watershed areas 9 REFERENCE RIVER AND FISH COMMUNITY DATA SELECTION • Reference River Fish Community Data Processing • Stocked fish were removed – methods depended on information available by State • Non-native fish were not included in the model – Native species list were developed by major basin (Collaborative effort by GSE, NHDES, and NHFG Biologists) 10 REFERENCE RIVER AND FISH COMMUNITY DATA SELECTION • We need to make sure that we have enough data for each delineated segment to develop the TFC models • Evaluation of Sufficiency • Within-River (for each reference river) – are there enough sites along a reference river to accurately characterize the community? • Among-River (for each TFC model) – are there enough reference rivers to develop an accurate model? • Statistical Tool – MultSE • Way of visualizing that, if we added more information, would the fish community change? • Look for low values, flattening out, and/or low variability (more detail in examples) 11 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT • Finalized dataset was used to calculate TFC model for each Designated River segment using Bain and Meixler (2005) methods • Final table and barplot figure developed with expected percentages of species 12 EXAMPLE 1 – AMMONOOSUC RIVER (MIDDLE SEGMENT) 13 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – DESIGNATED RIVER DELINEATION • Ammonoosuc River delineated into 3 segments • Shifts in physical characteristics • Shifts in current fish community 14 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER SELECTION Physical Characteristics of a River GIS Exercise Reference River Segments with Similar Characteristics • Characteristics from the Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification Layer (TNC) – Dataset spans the entire Northeast Characteristic Class Description Size Class 2 Small River Elevation Class 3 800 - 1,700 feet Gradient Class 4 Moderate-High Chemical Class 1 Low Buffered (Acidic) Temperature Class 1 Cold 15 Level III Ecoregion 58 Northeastern Highlands TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Physical Characteristics of a River GIS Exercise GIS All Fish Community Reference Exercise Data from All River River Segments Segments with Similar with Similar Characteristics Characteristics 16 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics • Initial Data Screening • Low/Very Low Cumulative Disturbance Index (National Fish Habitat Disturbance Index Layer) • Watershed (HUC4) if possible, to narrow geographic range – In this case, the CT River watershed was the selection area • Sufficient sample data (n>50 fish/sample, more than one sample/river) • Data collected 1990 and later 17 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics • Initial Data Screening • Are there enough data from each reference river for adequate characterization of that reference river community? • Johns River and Israel River had few (3 sites), and this was not ideal. However, they remained in the analyses to examine in the overall model multSE. If these rivers were removed, the geographic range would need to be expanded to other major watersheds (i.e. Hudson), which may have different species/niches 18 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Initial All Fish Data Community Screening Fish Data from All Community River Data from Segments Reference with Similar Rivers Characteristics • Initial Data Screening • Are there enough reference rivers for developing the TFC model? • Overall multSE looks good (adding rivers would not provide considerably different results 19 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data • Final Fish Final Data Screening Fish Screening • Removal of stocked fish (All of the Community Community Reference Atlantic Salmon and some of the Brook Data from Trout) Reference River Dataset • Inclusion of only species that are native Rivers to the greater basin Upper Ammonoosuc Israel Nash Species Johns River Ammonoosuc River River Stream River Longnose Dace 203 392 47 235 93 Blacknose Dace 206 292 225 189 63 Slimy Sculpin 22 0 61 612 72 Longnose Sucker 61 9 199 7 33 Spottail Shiner 0 0 456 0 0 Atlantic Salmon 159 0 1 23 0 Brook Trout 22 7 21 56 5 Burbot 0 42 10 16 15 Fallfish 0 28 100 0 0 Tessellated Darter 2 87 2 0 0 Common Shiner 1 22 58 26 0 White Sucker 27 23 23 0 0 Brown Trout 0 0 3 3 5 Rainbow Trout 4 1 0 0 0 Largemouth Bass 0 0 5 0 0 Lepomis Sp 0 0 1 1 0 Northern Redbelly Dace 0 0 0 1 0 20 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLES Final Data Final Fish • Final Data Screening Fish Screening Community Community • Removal of stocked fish Data from Reference • Inclusion of only species that are native Reference River to the greater basin Rivers Dataset Upper Ammonoosuc Israel Johns Nash Ammonoosuc Species River River River Stream River Longnose Dace 203 392 47 235 93 Blacknose Dace 206 292 225 189 63 Slimy Sculpin 22 0 61 612 72 Longnose Sucker 61 9 199 7 33 Spottail Shiner 0 0 456 0 0 Burbot 0 42 10 16 15 Fallfish 0 28 100 0 0 Tessellated Darter 2 87 2 0 0 Common Shiner 1 22 58 26 0 White Sucker 27 23 23 0 0 Brook Trout 21 0 4 26 0 Northern Redbelly Dace 0 0 0 1 0 21 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – MODEL CALCULATIONS • Apply Bain and Meixler (2005) Target Fish Community method to final dataset Model Upper Israel Johns Nash Ammonoosuc Mean Rank of Mean Expected Species Ammonoosuc River River River Stream River Proportion Proportion Percentage Longnose Dace 203 392 47 235 93 0.27996 1 32.2% Blacknose Dace 206 292 225 189 63 0.25875 2 16.1% Slimy Sculpin 22 0 61 612 72 0.18064 3 10.7% Longnose Sucker 61 9 199 7 33 0.08324 4 8.1% Spottail Shiner 0 0 456 0 0 0.07696 5 6.4% Burbot 0 42 10 16 15 0.02482 6 5.4% Fallfish 0 28 100 0 0 0.02313 7 4.6% Tessellated Darter 2 87 2 0 0 0.02052 8 4.0% Common Shiner 1 22 58 26 0 0.01975 9 3.6% White Sucker 27 23 23 0 0 0.01897 10 3.2% Brook Trout 21 0 4 26 0 0.01309 11 2.9% Northern Redbelly 0 0 0 1 0 0.00018 12 2.7% Dace 22 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – FINAL RESULT Target Fish Community Model 23 EXAMPLE 2 – CONTOOCOOK RIVER (LOWER SEGMENT) 24 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – DESIGNATED RIVER DELINEATION • Contoocook River delineated into 3 segments • Shifts in physical characteristics • Shifts in current fish community 25 TFC MODEL DEVELOPMENT – REFERENCE RIVER SELECTION Physical Characteristics of a River Characteristic Class Description GIS Size Class 3a Medium Tributary River Exercise Elevation Class 2 20 - 800 feet Gradient Class 1-3 Very Low to Low-Moderate Reference River Chemical Class 0 Assume Mod.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Connecticut River Canals Projected but Never Finished
    Connecticut River Canals Projected But Never Finished Besides the six canals that were built on the Connecticut River, there were, during the period of navigation, a number of other canals strongly discussed and some chartered at different places but not built until the bubble of river navigation burst. In 1825, the War Department had sent an engineer to Barnet who had surveyed three different routes from there to Canada. At large expense, and resulting from mass meetings of citizens held in different localities, surveys were made for a system of canals from Wells River over the Green Mountains to Montpelier, thence down the Winooski to Lake Champlain; from the Merrimac, near Concord, up the Pemigewassett to Wentworth, N. H., and then across to the Connecticut in the town of Haverhill, N. H.; from Concord to Claremont, via the Contocook and Sugar Rivers; from the mouth of Millers River, near Greenfield, to Boston; up the Deerfield Valley to the present Hoosac Tunnel, where the mountain was to be cut through and Troy, reached via the Hoosac River, there to connect with the arteries of canals then being constructed, and thus reaching all parts of the country. A canal was already being constructed northward from New Haven, Conn., to Northampton, Mass. A Canal At Brattleboro In the office of the Secretary of State of New Hampshire is to be seen an act of incorporation for a dam and canal near Brattleboro, evidently intended to avoid the rapid water just below the bridge, which, it is needless to say, was never constructed. The act chartered "The Connecticut River Canal Company," the incorporators being Richard Kimball, Elias Lyman, Amos A.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Identification and Fish Exposure for Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Congener Analysis from Passive Water Samplers in the Millers River Basin, Massachusetts
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Source Identification and Fish Exposure for Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Congener Analysis from Passive Water Samplers in the Millers River Basin, Massachusetts Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4250 Department of Environmental Protection Cover photos: Upper photo shows the confluence of the Millers River and the Otter River in the low-gradient reach upstream from the Birch Hill Dam taken 12/6/00 by John A. Colman.The other, taken 12/18/00 is the Millers River in the steep-gradient reach one mile downstream from the USGS surface-water discharge station at South Royalston, Massachusetts (01164000). Photo by Britt Stock. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Source Identification and Fish Exposure for Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Congener Analysis from Passive Water Samplers in the Millers River Basin, Massachusetts By JOHN A. COLMAN Water-Resources Investigations Report 004250 Prepared in cooperation with the MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and the MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Northborough, Massachusetts 2001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of trade or product names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: Chief, Massachusetts-Rhode Island District U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 10 Bear-foot Road Denver, CO 802250286 Northborough, MA 01532 or visit our web site at http://ma.water.usgs.gov CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Samplepalo Ooza 201 4
    Samplepalooza 2014 Compiled by Andrea Donlon & Ryan O’Donnell Connecticut River Watershed Council 0 Samplepalooza 2014 Acknowledgements: CRWC would like thank the following staff people and volunteers who collected samples and/or participated in planning meetings: CRWC staff Peggy Brownell Andrea Donlon David Deen Andrew Fisk Ron Rhodes VT Department of Environmental Conservation Marie Caduto Tim Clear Ben Copans Blaine Hastings Jim Ryan Dan Needham NH Department of Environmental Services Amanda Bridge Barona DiNapoli Tanya Dyson Margaret (Peg) Foss Andrea Hansen David Neils Vicki Quiram Ted Walsh Watershed organizations: Black River Action Team – Kelly Stettner Ottaqueechee River Group – Shawn Kelley Southeast Vermont Watershed Alliance – Phoebe Gooding, Peter Bergstrom, Laurie Callahan, Cris White White River Partnership – Emily Miller CRWC volunteers: Greg Berry Marcey Carver Glenn English Jim Holmes Liberty Foster Paul Friedman Paul Hogan Sean Lawson Mark Lembke Dianne Rochford 1 Samplepalooza 2014 Table of Contents Acknowledgements: ............................................................................................................................................. 1 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Pollution in Massachusetts' Waters
    Photo: Supe87, Under license from Shutterstock.com from Supe87, Under license Photo: ToXIC WATERWAYS Mercury Pollution in Massachusetts’ Waters Lauren Randall Environment Massachusetts Research & Policy Center December 2011 Executive Summary Coal-fired power plants are the single larg- Human Services advises that all chil- est source of mercury pollution in the Unit- dren under twelve, pregnant women, ed States. Emissions from these plants even- women who may become pregnant, tually make their way into Massachusetts’ and nursing mothers not consume any waterways, contaminating fish and wildlife. fish from Massachusetts’ waterways. Many of Massachusetts’ waterways are un- der advisory because of mercury contami- Mercury pollution threatens public nation. Eating contaminated fish is the main health source of human exposure to mercury. • Eating contaminated fish is the main Mercury pollution poses enormous public source of human exposure to mercury. health threats. Mercury exposure during • Mercury is a potent neurotoxicant. In critical periods of brain development can the first two years of a child’s life, mer- contribute to irreversible deficits in verbal cury exposure can lead to irreversible skills, damage to attention and motor con- deficits in attention and motor control, trol, and reduced IQ. damage to verbal skills, and reduced IQ. • While adults are at lower risk of neu- In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection rological impairment than children, Agency (EPA) developed and proposed the evidence shows that a low-level dose first national standards limiting mercury and of mercury from fish consumption in other toxic air pollution from existing coal- adults can lead to defects similar to and oil-fired power plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Erving
    Design Alternatives for the Reuse of USHER MILLS Prepared for Town of Erving 12 East Main Street Index Erving, MA 01344 INTRODUCTION AND GOALS 1 CONTEXT 2 CONTEXT-HISTORY 3 BROWNFIELD DESIGNATION 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS CROSS SECTION 6 ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND RARE SPECIES 7 LEGAL ANALYSIS 8 SUMMARY ANALYSIS 9 COMMON ELEMENTS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1 11 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2 12 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3 13 DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #4 14 DESIGN PRECEDENTS ALTERNATIVES #1 & #2 15 DESIGN PRECEDENTS ALTERNATIVES #3 & #4 16 PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE 17 RECOMMENDATIONS 18 Design Alternatives for the Reuse of Karen H. Dunn FALL 2010 Karen H. Dunn, FALL 2010 USHER MILLS Conway School of Landscape Design1 Conway School of Landscape Design Town of Erving 332 South Deerfield Road, Conway, MA 01341 12 E Main Street, Erving, MA 01344 332 South Deerfield Road, Conway, MA 1801341 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THIS DRAWING IS PART OF A STUDENT PROJECT AND IS NOT BASED ON A LEGAL SURVEY. All of the Usher Mills project goals are in harmony with the goals and objectives of the Town of Erving 2002 Master Plan and the 2010 Open Space and Recreation Plan. These guides provide a framework for decisions dealing with land uses that may impact valuable natural resources and the lands that contain unique historical, recreational, and scenic values. Goals and objectives of the two plans that relate to the Usher Mills site include • Prioritize Town-sponsored land protection projects that conserve forestland, drinking water, streams and ponds, open fields, scenic views, wildlife habitat, river access and wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology of Massachusetts
    Hydrology of Massachusetts Part 1. Summary of stream flow and precipitation records By C. E. KNOX and R. M. SOULE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1105 Prepared in cooperation with Massachusetts Department of Public ff^orks This copy is, PI1R1rUDLIt If PROPERTYr nuri-i LI and is not to be removed from the official files. JJWMt^ 380, POSSESSION IS UNLAWFUL (* s ' Sup% * Sec. 749) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1949 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR J. A. Kruft, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. G. - Price 91.00 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Introduction........................................................ 1 Cooperation and acknowledgments..................................... 3 Explanation of data................................................. 3 Stream-flow data.................................................. 3 Duration tables................................................... 5 Precipitation data................................................ 6 Bibliography........................................................ 6 Index of stream-flow records........................................ 8 Stream-flow records................................................. 9 Merrimack River Basin............................................. 9 Merrimack River below. Concord River, at Lowell, Mass............ 9 Merrimack River at Lawrence, Mass............................... 10 North Nashua River near Leominster,
    [Show full text]
  • Burlington Admission to the MWRA Waterworks System
    THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION 100 CAMBRIDGE STREET, BOSTON MA 02114 REPORT OF THE FINDINGS, JUSTIFICATIONS, AND DECISION OF THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION Relating to the Approval of the Town of Burlington’s Request for an Interbasin Transfer Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 21 § 8C DECISION On November 12, 2020, by a ten to one (10-1) vote, the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission (WRC) approved the Town of Burlington’s request for an Interbasin Transfer to join the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Water Works System. This vote was taken after review of the facts provided by the Town of Burlington, analysis of the associated data, and consideration of comments received concerning this request. INTRODUCTION On November 26, 2019, the WRC received a request from the Town of Burlington for approval of an action to increase the present rate of interbasin transfer under the Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) (M.G.L. Chapter 21 §§ 8B-8D) as part of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office. The DEIR proposed a water supply transfer through an interconnection to MWRA. Additional information was requested by the WRC and received in the Final EIR, submitted in February 2020. The Secretary’s Certificate on the FEIR was issued on April 17, 2020. The WRC accepted Burlington’s application as complete at its May 14, 2020 meeting. Burlington is proposing to purchase a maximum of 6.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of water from MWRA to supplement its existing water supply source, the Mill Pond Reservoir (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Suggested Hikes, Rides and Paddles!
    Suggested Hikes, Rides and Paddles! Otter River State Forest 86 Winchendon Road, Baldwinville, MA 01436, (978) 939-8962 To help you plan your visit to DCR’s Otter River State Forest, we offer the following suggested experiences that we think you might enjoy. • “Introductory” are short and appropriate for most users, including families with children. • “Signature” are recommended trail experiences. These may be longer or more difficult but highlight some of the best park features. For a safe and enjoyable park experience please review the Things to Know Before You Go section at the end of this document. Download a map before you go: https://www.mass.gov/doc/otter-river-sf-trail-map/download Introductory Hike Wilder-Mckenzie Nature Trail Trailhead: Beaman Pond campgroud OR Lake Dennison (42.63909, -72.08413) Lat/Long: 42.62152, -72.07550 Distance: 2.5 miles RT Difficulty: Easy Brief Description: Park at the main entrance and follow the nature trail from the back of Beaman Pond Campground and return. Or begin near the entrance of the parking area at the Lake Dennison day use area. Either way, it’s back and forth over a distinct habitat "sandwich" trail! The two ends are moist forest with wetlands whereas the larger middle section is a dry upland area, warm and interesting. Signature Paddle Otter River Paddle Trailhead: Maple St ballfields, Baldwinville Lat/Long: 42.60669, -72.08344 Distance: 5.5 mi Difficulty: Moderate Brief Description: The launch is across from the ball fields down Maple St, in Baldwinville, follow the path. The Otter River winds through a marsh area full of wildlife and quiet.
    [Show full text]
  • T Ro U T Sto C K E D Wat E Rs
    2021 MASSACHUSETTS TROUT STOCKED WATERS CONNECTICUT VALLEY DISTRICT Daily stocking updates can be viewed at Mass.gov/Trout. All listed waters are stocked in the spring. Bold waters are stocked in spring and fall. AGAWAM: Westfield River GILL: Fall River AMHERST: Adams Brook, Amethyst Brook, GRANBY: Bachelor Brook, Dufresne Farm Pond Cushman Brook, Fort River, Mill River, Puffers Pond GREENFIELD: Fall River, Green River (Factory Hollow Pond) HADLEY: Fort River, Harts Brook, Mill River, USFW BELCHERTOWN: Jabish Brook, Metacomet Lake, Pond Quabbin Reservoir, Scarboro Brook, Swift River HAMPDEN: Scantic River, South Branch Mill River BERNARDSTON: Fall River, Shattuck Brook HATFIELD: Mill River BRIMFIELD: Dean Pond, Foskett Mill Stream,Little Alum Pond, Mill Brook, Quaboag River, Quinebaug HOLLAND: Hamilton Reservoir, Holland Pond, River, Sherman Pond Quinebaug River CHICOPEE: Chicopee Reservoir HOLYOKE: Broad Brook COLRAIN: East Branch North River, Green River, LEVERETT: Doolittle Brook, Roaring Brook, Sawmill North River, West Branch North River River CONWAY: Bear River, Deerfield River, Poland Brook, LEYDEN: Green River, Shattuck Brook South River LUDLOW: Broad Brook, Chapin (Haviland) Pond, DEERFIELD: Deerfield River, Mill River Chicopee River EAST LONGMEADOW: South Branch Mill River MONSON: Chicopee Brook, Chicopee Brook Reservoir, Conant Brook, Quaboag River, Scantic EASTHAMPTON: Broad Brook, Hannum Brook, River Manhan River, Nashawannuck Pond, North Branch Manhan River MONTAGUE: Goddard Brook, Millers River, Sawmill River ERVING: Keyup
    [Show full text]
  • Belchertown, MA Waterbody Assessment, 305(B)/303(D), And
    MA34-27_2008 CaldwellCaldwell Brook Brook Fort River (5) MA36-29_2008 Fort River Cadwell Creek (2) New Salem Knights 202 Pelham ThurstonThurston Brook Brook Pond 9 MA36077_2008 Cadwell Creek Knights Pond (2) ScarboroScarboro BrookBrook JabishBrook JabishBrook MontagueBrook MontagueBrook Quabbin Reservoir PlumPlum BrookBrook Hop Brook Baby Carriage Brook Baby Carriage Brook MA34035_2008 Amherst Lake Holland (4c) Arcadia Lake MA34005_2008 Metacomet Arcadia Lake (5) Lake MA34051_2008 Ware Metacomet Lake (5) Jarish Brook Batchelor Brook Peppers Mill MA34-06_2008 Pond Lampson Brook (5) MA34-07_2008 Bachelor Brook (4a) MA36121_2008 Peppers Mill Pond (3) MA34-07_2008 Bachelor Brook (4a) MA34024_2008 Lampson Brook MA36129_2008 Forge Forge Pond (5) Quabbin Reservoir (4a) (TMDL) Pond Weston Brook 9 MA36-09_2008 Swift River (2) MA34-23_2008 Belchertown Beaver Granby Weston Brook (5) Brook 202 MA34037_2008 MA36010_2008 Ingraham Brook Pond (4c) Beaver Lake (4c) JabishJabish CanalCanal Turkey Hill Brook Turkey Hill Brook 21 Swift River MA36-09_2008 Swift River (2) Swift River Roaring Brook StonyBrook StonyBrook Jabish Brook MA36-06_2008 Ware River (5) Swift MA34-19_2008 River Galusza Stream MuddyMuddy BrookBrook Stony Brook (5) Broad Brook Broad Brook 181 Ware River Ware River 32 BroadBroad BrookBrook CanalCanal MA36117_2008 Pattaquattic Pond (2) Muddy MA36-10_2008 Brook Swift River (3) MA36145_2008 Springfield Forest Springfield Reservoir (2) Reservoir Lake Stony MA36014_2008 Brook Bennett Street Pond (3) Second PondBrook Second PondBrook Higher Brook MA36043_2008 MA36063_2008 Forest Lake (4c) Ludlow MA36-10_2008 Swift River (3) Crystal Lake (2) MA36003_2008 HarrisHarris BrookBrook Ware Alden Pond (5) River Notes: MA36-07_2008 Ware River (2) Palmer 1) Adapted from Final Massachusetts Year 2008 Integrated List of Waters; M A 36 -06_ 2008 available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/08list2.pdf M A 36 -22_ 2008 M A 36 -07_ 2008 2) Waterbodies shown without an identified category are assigned as Category 3 by definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Route 122 Lost Villages Scenic Byway H V R D CO a a N O P a R N U
    ROUTE 122 ~ LOST VILLAGES SCENIC BYWAY Welcome to Oakham Home of the Lost Village of Coldbrook Springs A History of Oakham Pre-1675 The present town of Oakham was virgin forest occupied by Nipmuck Indians who made seasonal camps in the area for hunting, About Historic Coldbrook Springs Village fishing, and farming. 1675 During the King Philip War (167 5–1676) a 150 square mile area known as Naquag became the stronghold for Indian activity. This MAP INDEX included what is now Barre, Rutland, Hubbardston, parts of Princeton 27 Evander Parker and Paxton. Menamesit, just west of Naquag and Mount Wachusett, 28 Thomas Kennedy in present day Princeton, served as gathering places for the Nipmuck, Narragansett, and Wampanoag tribes. Many of the surviving Native 29 Nellie Potter Americans left the region looking for new homes. Those that remained 30 Nellie Potter were forced to live in four “Indian Towns” under close supervision by 30A Potter Pond Dam the colonists. This left the area of Naquag open for colonial expansion. 30B Potter Pond Dam 1686 In 1686, five Nashaway Indians, who claimed ownership of 31 Enrico Perticarari Coldbrook House in Coldbrook Springs Village The once bustling village of Coldbrook Springs is now Naquag, sold this territory to a group of land speculators from 32 Oren Carpenter Lancaster for “25 pounds hard cash.” a scenic byway with no evidence of its past history 33 Frank Izzi 1722 Scotch-Irish immigrants began to buy lots in this area; the except for the stone monument erected in 2005 by 34 Samuel Bruno town of Rutland was incorporated as a Congregational community.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report New Hampshire Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
    Final Report New Hampshire Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Bacteria Impaired Waters Final Report September, 2010 Final Report New Hampshire Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Bacteria Impaired Waters State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services P.O. Box 95 29 Hazen Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 Prepared by: FB Environmental Associates, Inc. 97A Exchange Street, Suite 305 Portland, Maine 04101 Final Report New Hampshire Statewide TMDL for Bacteria Impaired Waters September 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Purpose of Report ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. Report Format ............................................................................................................................ 5 2. Water Quality Standards for Bacteria ..............................................................................................13 2.1. Overview of Pathogens and Indicator Bacteria ..........................................................................13 2.2. Water Quality Standards for Bacteria in New Hampshire Waters ..............................................14 2.2.1. Classification and Designated Uses
    [Show full text]