DOCSLIB.ORG

Connecticut Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Connecticut Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Connecticut Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Bacteria-Impaired Waters Connecticut Statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Bacteria Impaired Waters Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 Prepared by: FB Environmental Associates, Inc. 97A Exchange Street, Suite 305 Portland, Maine 04101 Connecticut Statewide Bacteria TMDL – FINAL September 2012 Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Pathogens & Indicator Bacteria ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Bacteria Pollution Sources ................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Point Source Pollution .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.2 Non-Point Source Pollution ........................................................................................................ 14 3. Water Quality Standards for Bacteria .................................................................................................. 18 3.1 Classification and Designated Uses ................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria .................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Antidegradation Provisions ................................................................................................................ 22 3.4 Numeric Water Quality Target........................................................................................................... 23 4. Bacteria-Impaired Waters .................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Monitoring for Compliance with Water Quality Standards & Source Identification ........................ 24 4.2 Waterbody Descriptions and Priority Ranking .................................................................................. 25 5. TMDL .................................................................................................................................................. 36 5.1 TMDL Definition ............................................................................................................................... 36 5.2 Loading Capacity, MOS, and Allocations ......................................................................................... 36 5.2.1 Concentration TMDLs ................................................................................................................ 37 5.3 Seasonal Considerations .................................................................................................................... 44 5.4 Future TMDL Applicability ............................................................................................................... 44 5.5 NPDES Regulated stormwater discharges ......................................................................................... 44 5.5.1 MS4 GP discharges ..................................................................................................................... 44 5.5.2 Industrial GP discharges ............................................................................................................. 45 5.5.3 Commercial GP discharges ........................................................................................................ 45 5.5.4 Construction stormwater discharges .......................................................................................... 46 5.5.5 Non-regulated MS4 discharges .................................................................................................. 46 i Connecticut Statewide Bacteria TMDL – FINAL September 2012 5.6 Monitoring Plans ................................................................................................................................ 46 5.7 Reasonable Assurance ........................................................................................................................ 49 5.8 Public Participation ............................................................................................................................ 50 5.9 Response to TMDL goals................................................................................................................... 50 6. Implementation Plans ........................................................................................................................... 50 6.1 The Implementation and Restoration Process .................................................................................... 51 6.1.1 Watershed Management Plan Examples and Resources ............................................................. 55 6.2 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................................... 58 6.2.1 Developed Area Stormwater Runoff ........................................................................................... 59 6.2.2 Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems ........................................................................................ 65 6.2.3 Agriculture .................................................................................................................................. 69 6.2.4 Illicit Discharges ......................................................................................................................... 72 6.2.5 Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) .......................................................................................... 76 6.2.6 Pets .............................................................................................................................................. 78 6.2.7 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.8 Boats and Marinas ....................................................................................................................... 80 7. Funding and Community Resources .................................................................................................... 83 8. Connecticut’s Drainage Basins and Bacteria-Impaired Segments ....................................................... 92 8.1 Watershed-Specific Bacteria Data Summaries .................................................................................. 93 8.1.1 Wet/Dry Weather Analysis Methodology ................................................................................... 96 8.1.2 Estimated Bacteria Reduction Calculation Methodologies......................................................... 96 9. References .......................................................................................................................................... 110 List of Tables Table 2-1: Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Regulator Status. .................................................................. 7 Table 2-2: Description of system type and jurisdictions…………………………………………………..15 Table 3-1: Applicable Designated uses by Waterbody Class. ..................................................................... 20 Table 3-2: Numeric Criteria for Indicator Bacteria by Waterbody Class and Designated Use in Connecticut. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 ii Connecticut Statewide Bacteria TMDL – FINAL September 2012 Table 5-1: Bacteria (E. coli) TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs for Fresh Water (not drinking water supply). ...... 39 Table 5-2: Bacteria (Enterococcus) TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs for Estuarine and Marine Waters (non- shellfish harvesting areas). ........................................................................................................................... 40 Table 5-3: Bacteria (Fecal Coliform) TMDLs WLAs, and LAs for Shellfish Harvesting Areas. ............... 42 Table 5-4: Bacteria (Total Coliform) TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs for Drinking Water Supply. .................... 43 Table 8-1: Connecticut Major Watersheds and Long Island Sound Divisions with Number of Bacteria- Impaired Segments Indicated. ...................................................................................................................... 93 Table 8-2: Summary of Estimated Percent Reductions for Bacteria-Impaired Waterbodies. ..................... 99 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Relationship among Indicator Organisms (USEPA, 2001). ........................................................ 4 Figure 2-2: CSO Communities in Connecticut .............................................................................................. 7 Figure 4-1: of Bacteria-Impaired Waterbodies and Major Watersheds in Connecticut. .............................. 26 Figure 6-1: Steps in the Watershed Planning and Implementation Process (USEPA, 2008). ....................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Surface Water Supply of the United States 1915 Part I
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 401 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 1915 PART I. NORTH ATLANTIC SIOPE DRAINAGE BASINS NATHAN C. GROVES, Chief Hydraulic Engineer C. H. PIERCE, C. C. COVERT, and G. C. STEVENS. District Engineers Prepared in cooperation with the States of MAIXE, VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS, and NEW YORK WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE 1917 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 401 SURFACE WATER SUPPLY OF THE UNITED STATES 1915 PART I. NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE DRAINAGE BASINS NATHAN C. GROVER, Chief Hydraulic Engineer C. H. PIERCE, C. C. COVERT; and G. C. STEVENS, District Engineers Geological Prepared in cooperation with the States MAINE, VERMONT, MASSACHUSETTS^! N«\f Yd] WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1917 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPEBINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE "WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 15 CENTS PER COPY V CONTENTS. Authorization and scope of work........................................... 7 Definition of terms....................................................... 8 Convenient equivalents.................................................... 9 Explanation of data...................................................... 11 Accuracy of field data and computed results................................ 12 Cooperation..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NY Excluding Long Island 2017
    DISCONTINUED SURFACE-WATER DISCHARGE OR STAGE-ONLY STATIONS The following continuous-record surface-water discharge or stage-only stations (gaging stations) in eastern New York excluding Long Island have been discontinued. Daily streamflow or stage records were collected and published for the period of record, expressed in water years, shown for each station. Those stations with an asterisk (*) before the station number are currently operated as crest-stage partial-record station and those with a double asterisk (**) after the station name had revisions published after the site was discontinued. Those stations with a (‡) following the Period of Record have no winter record. [Letters after station name designate type of data collected: (d) discharge, (e) elevation, (g) gage height] Period of Station Drainage record Station name number area (mi2) (water years) HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN Tenmile River near Wassaic, NY (d) 01199420 120 1959-61 Swamp River near Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199490 46.6 1961-68 Tenmile River at Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199500 189 1901-04 BLIND BROOK BASIN Blind Brook at Rye, NY (d) 01300000 8.86 1944-89 BEAVER SWAMP BROOK BASIN Beaver Swamp Brook at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01300500 4.42 1944-89 MAMARONECK RIVER BASIN Mamaroneck River at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01301000 23.1 1944-89 BRONX RIVER BASIN Bronx River at Bronxville, NY (d) 01302000 26.5 1944-89 HUDSON RIVER BASIN Opalescent River near Tahawus, NY (d) 01311900 9.02 1921-23 Fishing Brook (County Line Flow Outlet) near Newcomb, NY (d) 0131199050 25.2 2007-10 Arbutus Pond Outlet
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 34891
    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 34891 Dates and name of news- State and county Location paper where notice was Chief executive officer of Effective date of Community published community modification No. Winnebago ........... Village of Machesney May 10, 1995, May 17, Mr. Steve Kuhn, President May 1, 1995 ........... 171009 A Park. 1995, The Park Journal. of the Village of Machesney Park, 300 Machesney Road, Machesney Park, Illinois 61111. Will County ........... Village of Romeoville ... Mar. 27, 1995, Apr. 3, Ms. Sandra Gulden, Presi- June 19, 1995 ........ 170711 B 1995, Joliet Herald dent of the Village of News. Romeoville, 13 Montrose Drive, Romeoville, Illi- nois 60441. Will County ........... Unincorporated Areas . Mar. 27, 1995, Apr. 3, Mr. Charles Adelman, Will June 19, 1995 ........ 170695 B 1995, Joliet Herald County Executive, 302 News. North Chicago Street, Joliet, Illinois 60431. New Jersey: Monmouth Township of Aberdeen Apr. 24, 1995, May 1, Mr. James M. Cox, Aber- Apr. 17, 1995 ......... 340312 A 1995, Asbury Park deen Township Man- & B Press. ager, 1 Aberdeen Drive, Aberdeen, New Jersey 07707. New York: Erie County .......... Town of Cheektowaga Mar. 16, 1995, Mar. 23, Mr. Dennis H. Gabryszak, Mar. 14, 1995 ......... 360231 E 1995, Cheektowaga Supervisor for the Town Times. of Cheektowaga, 3301 Broadway Street, Cheektowaga, New York 14227±1088. Monroe ................. Town of Greece ........... Apr. 17, 1995, May 4, Mr. Roger Boily, Super- Apr. 21, 1995 ......... 360417 E 1995, The Greece Post. visor of the Town of Greece, 2505 West Ridge Road, Rochester, New York 14626. North Carolina: Dare County ......... Unincorporated Areas . Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • SMPDC Region
    Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission Region Shelburne Batchelders Grant Twp Woodstock Sumner Hartford Mason Twp Beans Purchase Greenwood West Paris Miles Knob !! Miles Notch Number Eight Pond ! Albany Twp Shirley Brook ! Speckled Mountain ! Red Rock Brook Pine Mountain ! ! Lombard Pond ! Isaiah Mountain 3 ! 1 1 Hannah Brook E ! ! Ha T Stoneham ! y R R Sugarloaf Mountain d Willard Brook ! Goodwin Brook T Sugarloaf Mountain S ! B W Virginia Lake in Basin Brook ir Buckfield Brickett Place ! c B ! ! H h ! ro u Cecil Mountain w t A n R ! v R Bickford Brook d Co d d ld ! ! R Bro ok T rl B k Bartlett Brook o d a o R ! n r llen u C G B Beaver Brook ! d r r Mason Hill o Palmer Mountain M d o ! v f o d ! e u R k R r S n r c d i to t n a R e H A ld e R B o in u d k se Rattlesnake Mountain e d r i r Rd ! R Little Pond a f e a t d d m W e ! tl is R B l d t d s i d l n S L R A R l Rattlesnake Brook R n R il M A c ! I t ! a ! o B H in s ! d rs l e n e n r ! e l M S i a t e t d t Adams Mountain id e d u Shell Pond u l B n o l d h e Harding Hill o S o ! a y R R P G m d W d Stiles Mountain d d Great B!rook o Pine Hill R ! n n R ! R d ! y o n ! lle P Pine Hill d R a ee Cold B!rook d Pike's Peak V ll K n e c ! Foster Hill Little Deer HillDeer Hill ee h M Birch Island ! ! ! ! r S ! rg oe Mud Pond Upper Bay ve J Bradley Pond E ! Sheep Islan!d A ! ! nd Amos Mountain C Allen Mountain Paris re ! us ! n w Flat Hill h Rattlesnake Island L s m L ! Deer Hill Spring Harndon Hill Horseshoe Pond r n a Trout Pond ! ! ! e n W d P ! lm o ! Weymouth HillWeymouth
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Sid Emery Demonstration Forest, York County Tenmile River
    Last October, the Maine Association of Conservation Districts received the prestigious "Austin Wilkins Forest Stewardship Award" for the forestry activities ~f their districts. Named after one of Maine's largest contributing professional foresters, it is the only award in Maine that recognizes stewardship of the working forest. Read on to learn why the Maine ACD deserves this award. In Maine, demonstration forests located in York, pathogens after the fire left the soil in poor condition. Oxford, Somerset, and Piscataquis counties, depict In 2019, the district completed a cut-to-length timber best forestry management practices, active timber harvest as an option for forest landowners to consider. management, forest ecology, and responsible stew­ The Sid Emery Demonstration Forest incorporates ardship, while also providing educational tools for best forestry management practices for the produc­ students, private woodland owners, and professional tion of forest products, as well as putting in culverts, foresters. corduroys, using portable skidder bridges and infiltra­ By melding the past and present, demonstration tion trenches, and provides for other multiple uses of forests reveal stories of historical events and the indi­ the property including recreation and wildlife habitat. viduals whose inspiration and/or land donation led According to Brandt, the greatest value of the to their establishment. For some founders, the plan demonstration forest to the community is that it was to move a step beyond simply using sustainable provides a way to learn about the value of a forest forestry practices to providing proof of concept via management plan and what best forest management demonstration to other Maine forestland owners.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FLOODS of MARCH 1936 Part 1
    If you do jno*-Be <l this report after it has served your purpose, please return it to the Geolocical -"" Survey, using the official mailing label at the end UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR THE FLOODS OF MARCH 1936 Part 1. NEW ENGLAND RIVERS Prepared in cooperation withihe FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 798 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 798 THS^LOODS OF MARCH 1936 PART 1. NEW ENGLAND RIVERS NATHAN C. GROVER Chief Hydraulic Engineer Prepared in cooperation with the FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1937 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 70 cents CONTENTS Page Abstract............................................................. 1 Introduction......................................................... 2 Authorization........................................................ 5 Administration and personnel......................................... 5 Acknowledgments...................................................... 6 General features of the storms....................................... 7 Floods of the New England rivers....................................o 12 Meteorologic and hydrologic conditions............................... 25 Precipitation records............................................ 25 General f>!-................................................... 25 Distr<* '-utlon
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan 2020 with Goals and Appendix.Pdf
    Comprehensive Plan 2020 Prepared by the Denmark Comprehensive Plan Committee In Conjunction with the Southern Maine Planning & Development Commission Town of Denmark Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents 1. History of the Town of Denmark………………………………………… ……... 1 2. Population and Demographics…………………………………………...............15 3. Local Economy…………..………………………………………………...……....18 4. Housing………….………………………………………………………… ……... 22 5. Transportation……….……………………………………………………. ……... 31 6. Natural Resources…………..…………………………….………………. ……... 41 7. Government & Fiscal Capacity……………………………………………………65 8. Public Facilities and Services……………………………………….......... ……... 73 9. Land Use……….………….……………………………………………..... ……... 96 10. Future Land Use Plan……………………………………………………………...101 Vision and Purpose The Town of Denmark Comprehensive Plan is a reference document designed to guide the immediate and long-range protection, enhancement, and growth and development of the community. It reflects upon the town’s history and notes changes over time in land use, natural resources, community services, and population characteristics. The plan is a blueprint that identifies and describes goals, objectives and options for meeting current and future needs, thereby ensuring quality of life for all residents. History of The Town of Denmark, Maine Introduction Denmark is situated on the east bank of the Saco River in Oxford County, and is a hilly community replete with a mountain, lakes, ponds and streams within its boundaries. Earliest Settlers While there is no known documentation of settlement by indigenous peoples, nearby communities have a documented history of a community with homes and farming. There may have been trails for people to pass through the area to hunt, fish and travel to and from the coast to the western border. Land Titles, Boundary Changes and Settlement The town of Denmark is formed by various land grants - Fryeburg Academy Grant, Pleasant Mountain Gore and Foster’s Grant.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands Characterization
    An Approach to Conserving Maine's Natural Old Course Saco River-Saco River LEGEND Space for Plants, Animals, and People Drainage Cat Pond T his m a p depicts a ll wetla nds shown on Na tiona l W etla nd Inventory (NW I) m a ps, but www..begiinniingwiitthhabiittatt..org ca tegorized them ba sed on a subset of wetla nd functions. T his m a p a nd its depiction of wetla nd fea tures neither substitute for nor elim ina te the need to perform on-the- Supplementary Map 7 ground wetla nd delinea tion a nd functiona l a ssessm ent. In no wa y sha ll use of this m a p dim inish or a lter the regula tory protection tha t a ll wetla nds a re a ccorded under Kezar Pond a pplica ble S ta te a nd Federa l la ws. For m ore inform a tion a bout wetla nds cha ra cteriza tion, Drainage Wetlands Cha racterization conta ct Eliza beth H ertz a t the Ma ine Depa rtm ent of Conserva tion (207-287-8061, Wetlands Characterization eliza beth.hertz@m a ine.gov). B G l R K ac U k B R Brownfield A E B Y M This map is non-regulatory and is intended for planning purposes only 302 ro R N T he W etla nds Cha ra cteriza tion m odel is a pla nning tool intended to help identify likely ¤£ ok F E D wetla nd functions a ssocia ted with significa nt wetla nd resources a nd a dja cent upla nds.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine
    Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine Final Report 2008 A Publication from the Maine Department of Transportation’s Research Division Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No.08-04 2. 3. Recipient’s Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Comparison of Observed and Predicted Abutment 2008 Scour at Selected Bridges in Maine 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Pamela J. Lombard and Glenn A. Hodgkins SIR 2008-5099 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. U.S. Geological Survey, Maine Division 11. Contract © or Grant (G) No. 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Maine DOT 16 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0016 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract (Limit 200 words) Maximum abutment-scour depths predicted with five different methods were compared to maximum abutment-scour depths observed at 100 abutments at 50 bridge sites in Maine with a median bridge age of 66 years. Prediction methods included the Froehlich/Hire method, the Sturm method, and the Maryland method published in Federal Highway Administration Hydraulic Engineering Circular 18 (HEC-18); the Melville method; and envelope curves. No correlation was found between scour calculated using any of the prediction methods and observed scour. Abutment scour observed in the field ranged from 0 to 6.8 feet, with an average observed scour of less than 1.0 foot. Fifteen of the 50 bridge sites had no observable scour. Equations frequently overpredicted scour by an order of magnitude and in some cases by two orders of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • New Hampshire Statewide Target Fish Community Assessment: Lamprey
    NEW HAMPSHIRE STATEWIDE TARGET FISH COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT LAMPREY RIVER - FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Prepared by: July, 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Designated River Delineation ................................................................................................... 1 Delineation Methods ............................................................................................................................ 1 Delineation Results ............................................................................................................................... 7 III. Reference River Data Selection .............................................................................................. 14 Reference River Selection Methods .................................................................................................... 14 Reference River Selection Results ....................................................................................................... 18 IV. TFC Model Development ........................................................................................................... 28 TFC Model Development Methods ...................................................................................................... 28 TFC Model Results ............................................................................................................................... 29
    [Show full text]