DOCSLIB.ORG

Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan the next opportunity Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan Green River, Guilford May 2020 Tactical Basin Plan was prepared in accordance with 10 VSA § 1253(d), the Vermont Water Quality Standards1, the Federal Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 130.6, and the Vermont Surface Water Management Strategy. i Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 What is a Tactical Basin Plan ................................................................................................. 3 A. Vermont’s Clean Water Acts .............................................................................................. 4 B. Vermont Water Quality Standards ..................................................................................... 5 C. Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................. 6 Climate Change in Vermont ................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1 Basin Description and Condition ................................................................... 11 Current Land Use ................................................................................................................. 11 Condition of Rivers .............................................................................................................. 14 Condition of Lakes and Ponds .............................................................................................. 16 Condition of Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 19 Condition of Fisheries .......................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2 Priority Surface Waters for Protection ........................................................... 26 Reclassification of Waters.................................................................................................... 29 Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) Designation ............................................................... 30 Class 1 Wetlands Designation .............................................................................................. 31 Identification of Existing Uses .............................................................................................. 32 Chapter 3 Priority Areas for Surface Water Restoration ................................................. 34 A. Impaired Waters and Priority Surface Waters .................................................................. 34 B. Basin Specific Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ......................................................... 38 C. Targeted Waters for Restoration...................................................................................... 45 Chapter 4 Strategies to Address Pollution by Land Use Sector ........................................ 49 A. Agriculture ..................................................................................................................... 50 ii B. Developed Lands -- Stormwater ....................................................................................... 58 C. Developed Lands -- Roads ................................................................................................ 60 D. Wastewater .................................................................................................................... 67 E. Natural Resources Restoration ......................................................................................... 72 Chapter 5 Plan Implementation ..................................................................................... 86 Monitoring Priorities Table .................................................................................................. 91 Acronyms …… ................................................................................................................... 102 Glossary…………… ............................................................................................................... 105 Appendices…… .................................................................................................................. 109 Appendix A. 2014 Report Card ........................................................................................... 110 Appendix B. Existing Uses in Basin 12 ................................................................................. 131 Appendix C. Dams in Basin 12 ............................................................................................ 134 Appendix D. Fisheries Assessment of Basin 12 .................................................................... 137 Appendix E. Municipal Protectiveness Matrix ..................................................................... 183 Appendix F. Partnering Organizations ................................................................................ 184 Appendix G. Responsiveness Summary .............................................................................. 185 List of Figures Figure 1. Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tributaries……….……..………..vii Figure 2. Steps in the Tactical Basin Planning Process………………………….…..……….3 Figure 3. Volunteer Monitoring………………………………..………………….…..……….8 Figure 4. Land Cover………………………………..………………….…..………………….12 Figure 5. Conserved Lands………………………………..…………...………….…..………13 Figure 6. Macroinvertebrate Biological Conditions…………………………….…..………14 Figure 7. Fish Community Biological Conditions………………………………..…………15 iii Figure 8. Use Conditions of Assessed Rivers and Streams……………….………………..16 Figure 9. Lake Score Card Conditions………………………………..………………….…..17 Figure 10. Use Conditions of Assessed Lakes………………………..………….….……….18 Figure 11. Condition of Assessed Wetlands………………………...…..………….….……21 Figure 12. Protection Priorities……………………..………………………………...….……28 Figure 13. Use Support of Assessed Rivers……………………..………….……….….……35 Figure 14. Remediation Priorities Map……………………..………….….…………………36 Figure 15. Remediation Priorities List……………………..………….….…………………..37 Figure 16. Frequency of Hypoxia in Long Island Sound……………………..……………40 Figure 17. Nitrogen Loading to Long Island Sound by State …………..………….….….41 Figure 18. Nitrogen Loading to Long Island Sound from VT by Source ………………..41 Figure 19. Nitrogen Loading to Long Island Sound from Basin 12 by Source ..…...…....42 Figure 20. Agricultural Land Cover……………………..………….….…………………….51 Figure 21. Acreage of NRCS and VAAFM Practices Implemented by Year……………..55 Figure 22. State & Federal Agricultural Funding Since 2004………………………………57 Figure 23. Hydrologically Connected Road Segments……………………..………………61 Figure 24. MRGP Implementation Timeline……………………..………….….…………...61 Figure 25. Active Channel Width……………………..………….……………………..……62 Figure 26. High Risk Road Segments……………………..………….….…………………...63 Figure 27. Geomorphic Conditions of Assessed Waters……………………..…………….73 Figure 28. Windham County Harvest Summary……………………..……………….……79 Figure 29. Emergency Relief and Assistance Fund Cost Share……………………...…….84 List of Tables Table 1. Acid and Mercury Impaired Lakes……………………..………….….……………18 Table 2. Criteria for Water Classes……………………..………….….……………………...26 Table 3. Reclassification Proposed for A(1) Aquatic Biota……………………..……….….29 Table 4. Reclassification Proposed for B(1) Aquatic Biota & Fishery………………….….29 Table 5. Proposed ORW Designation……………………..………….….……………….…..31 iv Table 6. Wetlands to Assess……………………..………….….……………………………...32 Table 7. TMDLs ……………………..………….….…………………………………………..39 Table 8. Restoration Priorities……………………..………….….…………………………...46 Table 9. Hydroelectric Facilities……………………..………….….…………………………47 Table 10. Distribution of Farm Operations by HUC12 Watershed……………………..…52 Table 11. Road Erosion Inventory Assessment ……………………..………….….………..64 Table 12. Better Roads Grant Funding……………………..………….….………………….65 Table 13. Municipal Wastewater Discharge Permits……………………..………….……..68 Table 14. Stream Geomorphic Assessments Completed……………………..…………….73 Table 15. Dam Status……………………..………….….……………………………………..74 Table 16. Summary of Implementation Actions……………………..………….….……….86 Table 17. Basin Priorities for Monitoring and Assessment……………………..………….93 v Basin 12 Towns Brattleboro Marlboro Sunderland* Dover Readsboro Vernon Dummerston* Searsburg Wardsboro* Glastenbury Somerset Whitingham Guilford Stamford* Wilmington Halifax Stratton Woodford Towns in Major Sub-watersheds Deerfield Watershed Green River Brattleboro Deerfield River Guilford Dover Halifax Glastenbury Marlboro Readsboro Wilmington Searsburg Somerset North River Stamford Halifax Stratton Marlboro Sunderland Whitingham Wardsboro Wilmington Whitingham Wilmington Woodford Connecticut River Watershed Connecticut River Fall River Brattleboro Guilford Dummerston Vernon Vernon Broad Brook Whetstone Brook Brattleboro Brattleboro Guilford Dummerston Vernon Marlboro * - towns with small areas in the Basin vi Figure 1. vii viii Executive Summary The Deerfield Tactical Basin Plan (TBP) provides an assessment of watershed condition and identifies current and future strategies to protect high quality waters and restore impaired water resources based on the approaches set forward in the Vermont Surface Water Management Strategy (VSWMS). The five chapters in this plan provide a framework for understanding Basin 12, including its unique characteristics and water quality issues, and where and how to carry out priority
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pierce Mills Hydroelectric Generating Station (FERC No. 2396 VT) Arnold Falls Hydroelectric Generating Station (FERC No
    20091208-5022 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/8/2009 1:26:23 AM Pierce Mills hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2396 VT) Arnold Falls hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2399 VT) Gage hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2397 VT) Passumpsic hydroelectric generating station (FERC No. 2400 VT) St. Johnsbury, Waterford and Barnet, Caledonia County, Vermont 2009 Annual CRMP Report November 30, 2009 This letter report is provided on behalf of the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS) in fulfillment of its obligations regarding the Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for the Pierce Mills, Arnold Falls, Gage and Passumpsic hydroelectric generating stations, collectively referred to as the Project.1 Articles 408, 408, 410, and 408 of the licenses for the Pierce Mills, Arnolds Falls, Gage and Passumpsic generating stations2, respectively, require implementation of the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement (PA) executed on November 4, 1994.3 Under federal law, the FERC is required to consider the effects of hydroelectric projects that it licenses on historic properties. The PA requires the filing of an annual report on activities conducted under the CRMP on the anniversary date of issuance of the license. Monitoring Action to Protect Archaeological Historic Properties Section 3.2.3. of the CRMP describes that the Project will be monitored annually to limit or prevent bank erosion and protect historic properties in conjunction with other resources. Charity Baker, an archaeologist qualified under 36 CFR 61, and Beth Eliason, CVPS Environmental Engineer, conducted the annual monitoring of Project shorelines on October 10 and 29, 2009. The inspection was conducted via canoe to document existing conditions using a handheld Magellan GPS 320 unit, a Canon PowerShot A85 digital camera, and manual notes.
    [Show full text]
  • DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report
    DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report 2004-2008 Downstream of Fife Brook Dam The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114-2119 Mitt Romney GOVERNOR Kerry Healey LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Fax: (617) 626-1181 Ellen Roy Herzfelder or (617) 626-1180 SECRETARY http://www.state.ma.us/envir November 19, 2004 Dear Friends of the Deerfield River Watershed: It is with great pleasure that I present you with the Assessment Report for the Deerfield River Watershed. The report helped formulate the 5-year watershed action plan that will guide local and state environmental efforts within the Deerfield River Watershed over the next five years. The report expresses some of the overall goals of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, such as improving water quality, restoring natural flows to rivers, protecting and restoring biodiversity and habitats, improving public access and balanced resource use, improving local capacity, and promoting a shared responsibility for watershed protection and management. The Deerfield River Watershed Assessment Report was developed with input from the Deerfield River Watershed Team and multiple stakeholders including watershed groups, state and federal agencies, Regional Planning Agencies and, of course, the general public from across the Watershed. We appreciate the opportunity to engage such a wide group of expertise and experience as it allows the state to focus on the issues and challenges that might otherwise not be easily characterized. From your input we have identified the following priority issues: • Water Quantity • Water Quality • Fish Communities • Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat • Open Space • Recreation I commend everyone involved in this endeavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcanada Hydro Northeast Inc. Deerfield River Project (Lp 2323)
    TRANSCANADA HYDRO NORTHEAST INC. DEERFIELD RIVER PROJECT (LP 2323) LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION APPLICATION ATTACHMENT C PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Overview TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. (the Company) owns and operates the Deerfield River Project (the Project) on the Deerfield River, a major tributary to the Connecticut River. The Project is located in Bennington and Windham Counties in Vermont, and in Berkshire and Franklin Counties in Massachusetts. It consists of eight developments: Somerset, Searsburg, Harriman, Sherman, Deerfield No. 5, Deerfield No. 4, Deerfield No. 3 and Deerfield No.2, having a total installed capacity of 86 megawatts (MW). All dam operations and generation operations are controlled remotely from the Deerfield River Control Center in Monroe Bridge Massachusetts, located near the Deerfield No. 5 Dam. The Project area encompasses about a 65-mile reach of the river, including reservoirs. Two other developments not owned by the company are also located within this area. They are Brookfield Renewable Power’s Bear Swamp Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 5 development; and Consolidated Edison’s Gardner Falls Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 3 development. Exhibit 1 depicts the general Project area. Settlement Agreement The Deerfield River Project was one of the first FERC Projects to be relicensed under a comprehensive Settlement Agreement approach executed in 1994. A five-year cooperative consultation process involving state and federal resource agencies, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the licensee (at that time New England Power Company) resulted in settlement by the parties. The process of reaching this agreement included examination of the power and non-power tradeoffs and effects of a wide variety of operational scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • MMI 53 River Street Dam.Pdf
    TOWN OF ACTON JUNE 7, 2019 | ACTON, MA PROPOSAL Studies Related to the Dam Located at 53 River Street June 7, 2019 Mr. John Mangiaratti, Town Manager Town of Acton Town Manager’s Office 472 Main Street Acton, MA 01720 RE: River Street Dam Removal and Fort Pond Brook Restoration Acton, Massachusetts MMI #4458-02 Dear Mr. Mangiaratti: The Milone & MacBroom team of structural engineers, bridge scour experts, geotechnical engineers, and hydraulic engineers are uniquely qualified to design the dam removal, and evaluate the potential upstream and downstream infrastructure impacts associated with the removal of the Dam at River Street to improve ecological functions of the Fort Pond Brook. When reviewing our proposal, we ask that you consider the following: Our team brings expertise and a proven track record of success in dam removal projects throughout New England. Milone & MacBroom professionals have backgrounds in hydrology and hydraulics, engineering design, fisheries expertise, and wetland biology. Our staff also includes invasive species experts, fisheries biologists, and permitting specialists. We also integrate the creative innovation of our extensive in-house team of landscape architects and frequently include passive recreational park features at our dam removal sites. We have the ability to integrate dam removal with the natural site opportunities through careful analysis and planning so that your project is technically sound, environmentally sensitive, and aesthetically pleasing. Our team of experts has performed many dam removal projects throughout New England and the Northeast. Milone and MacBroom are pioneers in the field, having completed our first dam removals in the 1990s. With over 40 constructed dam removal projects, we have completed more than any other design firm in the Northeast.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018
    The Vermont Management Plan for Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department January 2018 Prepared by: Rich Kirn, Fisheries Program Manager Reviewed by: Brian Chipman, Will Eldridge, Jud Kratzer, Bret Ladago, Chet MacKenzie, Adam Miller, Pete McHugh, Lee Simard, Monty Walker, Lael Will ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This project was made possible by fishing license sales and matching Dingell- Johnson/Wallop-Breaux funds available through the Federal Sportfish Restoration Act. Table of Contents I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 II. Life History and Ecology ................................................................... 2 III. Management History ......................................................................... 7 IV. Status of Existing Fisheries ............................................................. 13 V. Management of Trout Habitat .......................................................... 17 VI. Management of Wild Trout............................................................. 34 VII. Management of Cultured Trout ..................................................... 37 VIII. Management of Angler Harvest ................................................... 66 IX. Trout Management Plan Goals, Objectives and Strategies .............. 82 X. Summary of Laws and Regulations .................................................. 87 XI. Literature Cited ............................................................................... 92 I. Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Vtrans TS4 NOI, Question D.1 List of First Waters to Which Designated MS4 Areas Discharge, Impairment Status, and Pollutants for Impaired Waters November 17, 2017
    Notice of Intent (NOI) For Stormwater Discharges from the State Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) General Permit 3-9007 Submission of this Notice of Intent (NOI) constitutes notice that the entity in Section A intends to be authorized to discharge pollutants to waters of the State under Vermont’s State Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) permit. Submission of the NOI also constitutes notice that the party identified in Section A of this form has read, understands and meets the eligibility conditions; agrees to comply with all applicable terms and conditions; and understands that continued authorization under the TS4 General Permit is contingent on maintaining eligibility for coverage. In order to be granted coverage, all information required on this form must be completed and a complete Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) Plan must be submitted. A. Permittee Information 1a. Mailing Address: 1b. Town: 1c. State: 1d. Zip: 2 . Phone: 3. Email: B. Primary contact responsible for overall coordination of SWMP, if different than PEO 1. Name: 2a. Mailing Address: 2b. Town: 2c. State: 2d. Zip: 3. Phone: 4. Email: 5. Additional Contact Name: 6 . Additional Contact Email: C. Partnering organization responsible for Minimum Control Measure (MCM) implementation (if applicable) 1. If you are participating in the Chittenden County Reginal Planning Commission Memorandum Of Understanding to implement MCM1 & MCM2, check here: If you are relying on another entity to implement a MCM, please complete the following: 2. Organization: 3. Contact Name: 4. Minimum Control Measure being implemented: 5a. Mailing Address 5b. Town: 5c. State: 5d. Zip: 6. Phone: 7. Email: 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield and CT River Project History.Pmd
    HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS INTRODUCTION increasingly complex. While the Depression limited further growth of the industry, a new era emerged In 1903, Malcolm Greene Chace (1875-1955) and after World War II, with streamlined management Henry Ingraham Harriman (1872-1950) established structures and increased regulations and Chace & Harriman, a company that, in its many government involvement (Cook 1991:4; Landry and incarnations over the course of the following Cruikshank 1996:2-5). The first of the 14 decades, grew into one of the largest electric utility hydroelectric facilities built on the Connecticut and companies in New England. The company built a Deerfield rivers by Chace & Harriman and its series of hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticut successors were developed in the early 1900s, and Deerfield rivers in Vermont, New Hampshire shortly after the potential of hydroelectric power and western Massachusetts, which were intended was realized on a large scale. Subsequent facilities to provide a reliable and less expensive alternative were constructed during the maturation of the to coal-produced steam power. Designed primarily industry in the 1920s, and two of the stations were to serve industrial centers in Massachusetts and completed in the post-World War II era. The history Rhode Island, the facilities also provided power to of the companies that built these stations is residential customers and municipalities in New intrinsically linked with broader trends in the history England. Chace & Harriman eventually evolved of electricity, hydropower technology, and industrial into the New England Power Association (NEPA) architecture in America.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams in the Passumpsic River Watershed
    Table of Contents General Description of the Passumpsic River Watershed .................................................. 1 Uses, Values, Special Features of the Passumpsic Watershed ......................................... 2 Waterfalls, Cascades, Gorges, and Swimming Holes ..................................................... 2 Significant Natural Communities...................................................................................... 2 Public Lands and Private Conservation Land in the Basin .............................................. 2 Water Quality/Aquatic Habitat Assessment Basinwide ....................................................... 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 Overall Assessment of Lake, Pond, River, Stream Uses ................................................ 4 Assessment of Cause and Sources affecting River, Stream, Lake, Pond Uses .............. 5 Passumpsic River up to the Branches and some tributaries ............................................... 7 Description ....................................................................................................................... 7 Sampling Results and Assessment Information .............................................................. 8 River and Stream Assessment Summary ...................................................................... 12 Lakes and Ponds ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield River Watershed Association
    A Watershed-Based Plan to Maintain the Health and Improve the Resiliency of the Deerfield River Watershed Franklin Regional Council of Governments Staff: Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., CFM, Land Use and Natural Resources Program Manager Mary Chicoine, Senior Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Alyssa Larose, Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Megan Rhodes, AICP, Senior Transportation/Land Use Planner With technical assistance provided by: Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Erik Mas, PE Field Geology Services, John Field, Ph.D., P.G. and Nicolas Miller Franklin Conservation District Deborah Shriver Consulting, Deborah M. Shriver Acknowledgements: Watershed stakeholders provided valuable comments and insight during the development of this plan. This plan also benefitted from the assistance and advice of the following organizations and individuals: Brian Yellen, Researcher, Department of Geosciences, UMass Amherst Andy Fisk, Executive Director, Connecticut River Conservancy Rita Thibodeau, District Conservationist, USDA, NRCS Carrie Banks, MA Division of Ecological Restoration, Dept. Fish & Game Erin Rodgers, Ph.D., Western New England Project Coordinator, Trout Unlimited Michael B. Cole, Ph.D., Cole Ecological Will Sloan Anderson, Franklin Land Trust Photographs: Cover Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com Pp. 2-3 Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com P. 11 Flooding in Deerfield Town of Greenfield P. 39 Crowningshield property Franklin Land Trust P. 45 Dam sites Erin Rodgers, Trout Unlimited Pp. 82-105 Maps, figures and photos Field Geology Services This project has been financed with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Depart- ment of Environmental Protection (the Department) under an s.
    [Show full text]
  • Passumpsic Certification Review Report
    APPLICATION REVIEW FOR LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER INSTITUTE CERTIFICATION of the PASSUMPSIC PROJECT NO. 2400 July 27, 2012 Application Reviewer: Patricia McIlvaine APPLICATION REVIEW FOR LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER INSTITUTE CERTIFICATION PASSUMPSIC PROJECT - FERC PROJECT NO. 2400 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE I INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................. 1 II PROJECT’S GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION....................................... 1 III PROJECT AND IMMMEDIATE SITE CHARACTERISTICS....... 2 IV REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE STATUS............................ 4 V PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BY LIHI ................................. 5 VI SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WTH CRITERIA AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED ........................................................................ 5 VII GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND REVIEWER RECOMMENDATION 6 VIII DETAILED CRITERIA REVIEW.................................................... 7 A. Flows ........................................................................ 7 B. Water Quality ........................................................................ 8 C. Fish Passage and Protection.......................................................... 9 D. Watershed Protection.................................................................... 12 E. Threatened and Endangered Species Protection............................ 13 F. Cultural Resource Protection......................................................... 13 G. Recreation ........................................................................ 14 H. Facilities
    [Show full text]
  • The Geology of the Lyndonville Area, Vermont
    THE GEOLOGY OF THE LYNDONVILLE AREA, VERMONT By JOHN G. DENNIS VERMONT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. DOLL, Stale Geologist Published by VERMONT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MONTPELIER, VERMONT BULLETIN NO. 8 1956 Lake Willoughby, seen from its north shore. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................... 7 INTRODUCTION 8 Location 8 Geologic Setting ..................... 8 Previous Work ...................... 8 Purpose of Study ..................... 9 Method of Study 10 Acknowledgments . 11 Physiography ...................... 11 STRATIGRAPHY ....................... 16 Lithologic Descriptions .................. 16 Waits River Formation ................. 16 General Statement .................. 16 Distribution ..................... 16 Age 17 Lithological Detail .................. 17 Gile Mountain Formation ................ 19 General Statement .................. 19 Distribution ..................... 20 Lithologic Detail ................... 20 The Waits River /Gile Mountain Contact ........ 22 Age........................... 23 Preliminary Remarks .................. 23 Early Work ...................... 23 Richardson's Work in Eastern Vermont .......... 25 Recent Detailed Mapping in the Waits River Formation. 26 Detailed Work in Canada ................ 28 Relationships in the Connecticut River Valley, Vermont and New Hampshire ................... 30 Summary of Presently Held Opinions ........... 32 Discussion ....................... 32 Conclusions ...................... 33 STRUCTURE 34 Introduction and Structural Setting 34 Terminology ......................
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report
    Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study STUDY REPORT A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation Katie Kennedy, The Nature Conservancy Kim Lutz, The Nature Conservancy Christopher Hatfield, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Leanna Martin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Townsend Barker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Palmer, University of Massachusetts Amherst Luke Detwiler, University of Massachusetts Amherst Jocelyn Anleitner, University of Massachusetts Amherst John Hickey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kennedy, K., K. Lutz, C. Hatfield, L. Martin, T. Barker, R. Palmer, L. Detwiler, J. Anleitner, J. Hickey. 2018. The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study: A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation. The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Northampton, MA. Available: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed For a quick, easy-to-read overview of the Connecticut River Watershed Study, see our companion “Study Overview” document, available at: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed June 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]