DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Rooster River Flood Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Rooster River Flood Control LOWER ROOSTER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL The following update to the previous study report of 2013 was funded by a state bond. It should be noted that while this study covers improving the capacity of the lower Rooster River and Ash Creek to for flood water flows it indirectly affects the upper river flooding as was experienced in September, 2018 due to severe, short duration rain storms Flood & Erosion Control Board March, 2019 Rooster River Flood Control Project Phase 3 Report Update March 15, 2019 Town of Fairfield Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1.1 2.0 ORIGINAL STUDY BACKGROUND ............................................................................2.1 2.1 ORIGINAL STUDY GOALS ..........................................................................................2.1 2.2 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC STUDY OVERVIEW...............................................2.1 2.3 ORIGINAL STUDY CONCLUSION ...............................................................................2.2 3.0 FLOOD STUDY UPDATE ............................................................................................ 3.1 3.1 WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ................................................................... 3.1 3.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYIS ................................................................................................. 3.2 3.3 FLOODPLAIN EVALUATION .......................................................................................3.4 3.4 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST .................................................................................3.5 4.0 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................4.1 LIST OF APPENDICES HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC BACKUP DATA.................................. A.1 HEC-RAS INFORMATION ......................................................................... B.1 ORIGINAL REPORT INFORMATION ........................................................ C.1 i 1.0 INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Services Inc. has been retained by the Town of Fairfield to update the Rooster River Flood Control Study - Phase 3 (including Addendum) report dated February 28, 2003 and updated July 10, 2006. This study was conducted in association with a contract provided by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). The updates include the following items which are detailed in this report: • Update all cross-section data in the hydraulic model with new surveyed data and include additional cross sections in the Feroleto Steel Bridge area. • Calculate peak flows based on the revised current rainfall data published by NOAA. • Update the starting water surface elevation downstream of the Brewster Street Bridge based on current tidal information. • Review the watershed for potential significant development which may affect the hydrology/hydraulics within the Rooster River watershed. • Review as-built drawings for scour countermeasures installed at the Metro North Bridge and update the hydraulic sections accordingly. • Update the previously submitted property impact matrix based on the model revisions noted above outlining the impacted properties for the revised existing conditions and the proposed conditions after the implementation of the Phase I and Phase II improvements. • Update the opinion of probable cost for the Phase I and Phase II improvements. 1.1 2.0 ORIGINAL STUDY BACKGROUND 2.1 ORIGINAL STUDY GOALS The Rooster River and its floodplain north of I-95 have been studied many times beginning in 1958 with the original construction of the highway. The prior Phase 3 study prepared by FGA on April 1990 was based, in part, on an earlier study completed by Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc. (ANCO) in 1980. Both previous studies included numerous measures to increase flood protection in the Town of Fairfield, with the FGA report progressing as far as contract plans and specifications. However, a lack of funding and public support served to undermine any significant implementation of either of the study’s recommendations. The intent of the original 2003 Rooster River Flood Control Study (by Stantec – formerly Vollmer Associates) was to develop flood mitigation alternatives which are cost effective and might be endorsed by the public. The goals of the study were summarized as follows: • Provide new insights to flooding factors through extensive field investigations and computer analysis so that realistic flood water flows and elevations can be determined; and • Evaluate alternative flood mitigation measures that are feasible, economical and likely to gain public support. Since the purpose of the study was to provide new flood mitigation alternatives which have not been previously proposed, any measures which have been found to be infeasible from previous studies were not reexamined. This included the raising of King’s Highway (Route 1) to act as a dike and the construction of a pressure relief conduit in Coolidge Avenue. The basis of the original study was to evaluate the hydraulics and hydrology of the watershed including improvements for the 100-year flood based on to the funding source and direction from DEEP at that time. 2.2 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC STUDY OVERVIEW For the original Stantec hydrologic study, drainage boundaries were determined from existing USGS maps, existing Town storm drainage maps, and extensive field investigation. For purposes of evaluation, the drainage basin was divided into four major sub-basins as follows: Sub-basin A: Upper watershed flows which converge at King’s Highway East (Route 1) where the river flow gauge is located. Sub-basin B: Local flows in the area of immediate concern which outlet into the Rooster River between Route 1 and I-95. Sub-basin C: Local flows from Bridgeport which outlet directly upstream of I-95. 2.1 Sub-basin D: Lower watershed flows which outlet south of I-95 at Brewster Street. Hydrographs were developed in HEC-HMS using standard Soil Conservation Service (SCS) methods as outlined in TR-55 for computing run-off and time of concentration. Time of concentration was computed at a flow depth equal to 25% of conduit height. Curve numbers were based on existing development within each drainage sub-area as determined from field investigations, and from soil types as determined from the SCS Soil Survey for Fairfield County. Weighted curve numbers were derived for each subarea and were taken as the average of the Type I and Type II Antecedent Moisture Condition value. Storm events were based on 24-hour rainfall depths as noted in “Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States” Technical Paper No. 40 by U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. Rainfall distribution was assumed to be a ‘Type III’ hypothetical storm as determined by SCS. A hydraulic study of the Rooster River was performed between Brewster Street and Route 1 to determine water surface profiles for the various storm events with emphasis on the 100-year flood. Using the flow rates determined from the hydrologic study, the hydraulic model takes into account various channel characteristics such as channel size, slope and roughness, overbank flow, bridges and other constrictions to determine depth of flow along the river. Thirty-six (36) cross sections of the Rooster River were surveyed between Brewster Street and Route 1 for use in the hydraulic study. Existing bridge openings were measured, and parapet heights recorded for use in bridge modeling. Channel bank and overbank characteristics were noted for use in selecting channel roughness coefficients. The U.S. Army Corps HEC-RAS program (v. 3.0.1) was used to create a hydraulic model of the river and to determine the resulting water surface profiles. Channel roughness coefficients for in-bank and overbank flow were taken as 0.035 and 0.06 respectively. Where overbank flow occurred in a parking lot or other paved area, a coefficient of 0.015 was used. Ineffective flows areas were assumed at building walls or other obstructions to flow. Bridge railings were assumed to be solid (no openings) as they are likely to clog with debris during high flows. Water surface profiles were first created for the existing conditions and ‘natural’ conditions for the river. The natural conditions model removed any artificial constrictions to river flows such as bridges and channel filling. Subsequent profiles were then created for various proposed changes to the river, such as the removal of bridges, channel improvements and storm water pumping so as to evaluate the impact of each feature separately on channel hydraulics. Appendix C contains the original matrix of the models that were produced along with the reduction in water surface elevations upstream of I-95. 2.3 ORIGINAL STUDY CONCLUSION The recommendations outlined in the preliminary edition of this report (dated October 7, 2002) were presented by CT DEP officials to the public at a public informational meeting held at Sherman Elementary School in Fairfield on October 10, 2002 and were generally well received by the attending public. Subsequent to the public meeting, the Owner of the Feroleto Steel Company expressed concern that removal of the steel bridge in front of his property (a study recommendation) would severely impact his ability to conduct business, and that he is only able to use the adjacent Scofield Avenue bridge during emergency cases. The final recommendation in the addendum for the original report was divided
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Department of Environmental Protection Inland Waters And
    Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies TITLE 26. Fisheries & Game Agency Department of Environmental Protection Subject Inland Waters and Marine District Defined Section § 26-108-1 CONTENTS Sec. 26-108-1. Inland waters and marine district defined Revised: 2015-3-6 R.C.S.A. § 26-108-1 - I- Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies TITLE 26. Fisheries & Game Department of Environmental Protection §26-108-1 Inland Waters and Marine District Defined Sec. 26-108-1. Inland waters and marine district defined The following lines across streams flowing into Long Island Sound, Fisher’s Island Sound, Little Narragansett Bay and tributaries thereof shall be known as the inland-marine demarcation lines above which lines such water shall be known as the “inland district” and below which lines such water shall be known as the “marine district”: FAIRFIELD COUNTY Byram River, Greenwich marine district—up to and including the railroad crossing inland district—all waters above Horse Neck Brook, Greenwich marine district—none inland district—above junction with mouth of harbor Indian Harbor, Greenwich marine district—up to and including the first railroad crossing inland district—all waters above Mianus River, Greenwich marine district—below dam just above Boston Post Road inland district—all waters above Rippowam River, Stamford marine district—up to and including the first railroad crossing inland district—all waters above Noroton River, Stamford-Darien marine district—up to and including Boston Post Road inland district—all waters above Goodwives River,
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Strea
    Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Streambed Sediment in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, 1992-94 By Robert F. Breault and Sandra L. Harris Abstract exceed sediment-quality guidelines over a wider geographical area, although usually by lower Streambed-sediment samples were collected ratios of contaminant concentration to sediment- in 1992-94 at selected sites in the Connecticut, quality guideline than the organic compounds. Housatonic, and Thames River Basins to determine the geographical distribution of trace elements and organic compounds and their INTRODUCTION potential for adverse biological effects on aquatic organisms. Chromium, copper, lead, mercury, The Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins study unit is one of 59 National Water-Quality nickel, zinc, chlordane, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs Assessment (NAWQA) study units nationwide. The were detected in samples from throughout the study unit drainage basin comprises an area of almost basins, but concentrations of these constituents 16,000 mi2 and extends through parts of the Province of generally were lowest in the northern forested Quebec, Canada, eastern Vermont, western New Hamp- drainage basins and highest in the southern shire, west-central Massachusetts, nearly all of Connect- urbanized drainage basins of Springfield, icut, and small parts of New York and Rhode Island. Massachusetts, and Hartford, New Haven and The study unit is entirely within the New Bridgeport, Connecticut. Possible anthropogenic England Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938), a sources of these contaminants include industrial plateau-like upland that rises gradually from the sea but effluent; municipal wastewater; runoff from includes numerous mountain ranges and individual agricultural, urban and forested areas; and peaks.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications
    Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Waterbody Type Segment ID Waterbody Index Number (WIN) Streams 0202-0047 Pa-63-30 Streams 0202-0048 Pa-63-33 Streams 0801-0419 Ont 19- 94- 1-P922- Streams 0201-0034 Pa-53-21 Streams 0801-0422 Ont 19- 98 Streams 0801-0423 Ont 19- 99 Streams 0801-0424 Ont 19-103 Streams 0801-0429 Ont 19-104- 3 Streams 0801-0442 Ont 19-105 thru 112 Streams 0801-0445 Ont 19-114 Streams 0801-0447 Ont 19-119 Streams 0801-0452 Ont 19-P1007- Streams 1001-0017 C- 86 Streams 1001-0018 C- 5 thru 13 Streams 1001-0019 C- 14 Streams 1001-0022 C- 57 thru 95 (selected) Streams 1001-0023 C- 73 Streams 1001-0024 C- 80 Streams 1001-0025 C- 86-3 Streams 1001-0026 C- 86-5 Page 1 of 464 09/28/2021 Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Name Description Clear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Mud Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to Long Lake total length of all tribs to lake Little Valley Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Elkdale Kents Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Crystal Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Forestport Alder Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Bear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Minor Tribs to Kayuta Lake total length of select tribs to the lake Little Black Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Wheelertown Twin Lakes Stream and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to North Lake total length of all tribs to lake Mill Brook and minor tribs entire stream and selected tribs Riley Brook
    [Show full text]
  • UI CL P Proposed Final Decision
    OFFICE OF ADJUDICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF : APPLICATION NO. 200402101-MG UNITED ILLUMINATING/ CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. : DECEMBER 15, 2006 PROPOSED FINAL DECISION I SUMMARY The Connecticut Light and Power Company and United Illuminating Company (applicant/companies) have applied to the DEP Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) for a permit to conduct activities located waterward of the high tide line and in tidal wetlands.1 General Statutes §§22a-32 and 22a-361. Specifically, the applicant proposes to conduct work that would affect wetlands and watercourses in association with the construction of approximately sixty-nine miles of overhead and underground 345-kV electric transmission lines extending from Middletown to Norwalk (the project). The parties in this matter are the applicant, the DEP (OLISP staff) and, three intervenors, the City of Bridgeport, the Town of Fairfield and a group comprised of the Ash Creek Conservation Association, Fairfielders Protecting Land and Neighbors, Inc., and Jane Talamani. The activities related to this application involve installation of the transmission lines across the Housatonic River, Pequonnock River, Saugatuck River, Mill River, Sasco Creek, Yellow Mill Creek, Ash Creek, and Turney’s Creek (the crossings). 1 The companies have also applied for a certification that any discharge related to its activities into navigable waters will comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act. 33 USCS §§1341. The certification is not governed by these proceedings, however, the permit issued to the companies would include references, terms and conditions related to the water quality certification. 1 At the start of this proceeding, the applicant proposed the use of freestanding, independent, utility bridges at the Mill River, Ash Creek and Sasco Creek crossings.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix
    Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix - September 2018 Year Open/Posted/Cl Rank Town Facility Carried Features Intersected Location Lanes ADT Deck Superstructure Substructure Built osed Hartford County Ranked by Lowest Score 1 Bloomfield ROUTE 189 WASH BROOK 0.4 MILE NORTH OF RTE 178 1916 2 9,800 Open 6 2 7 2 South Windsor MAIN STREET PODUNK RIVER 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF I-291 1907 2 1,510 Posted 5 3 6 3 Bloomfield ROUTE 178 BEAMAN BROOK 1.2 MI EAST OF ROUTE 189 1915 2 12,000 Open 6 3 7 4 Bristol MELLEN STREET PEQUABUCK RIVER 300 FT SOUTH OF ROUTE 72 1956 2 2,920 Open 3 6 7 5 Southington SPRING STREET QUINNIPIAC RIVER 0.6 MI W. OF ROUTE 10 1960 2 3,866 Open 3 7 6 6 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 MARKET STREET & I-91 NB EAST END I-91 & I-84 INT 1961 4 125,700 Open 5 4 4 7 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING EASTBOUND 1965 3 66,450 Open 6 4 4 8 Hartford INTERSTATE-91 NB PARK RIVER & CSO RR AT EXIT 29A 1964 2 48,200 Open 5 4 4 9 New Britain SR 555 (WEST MAIN PAN AM SOUTHERN RAILROAD 0.4 MILE EAST OF RTE 372 1930 3 10,600 Open 4 5 4 10 West Hartford NORTH MAIN STREET WEST BRANCH TROUT BROOK 0.3 MILE NORTH OF FERN ST 1901 4 10,280 Open N 4 4 11 Manchester HARTFORD ROAD SOUTH FORK HOCKANUM RIV 2000 FT EAST OF SR 502 1875 2 5,610 Open N 4 4 12 Avon OLD FARMS ROAD FARMINGTON RIVER 500 FEET WEST OF ROUTE 10 1950 2 4,999 Open 4 4 6 13 Marlborough JONES HOLLOW ROAD BLACKLEDGE RIVER 3.6 MILES NORTH OF RTE 66 1929 2 1,255 Open 5 4 4 14 Enfield SOUTH RIVER STREET FRESHWATER BROOK 50 FT N OF ASNUNTUCK ST 1920 2 1,016 Open 5 4 4 15 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB BROAD ST, I-84 RAMP 191 1.17 MI S OF JCT US 44 WB 1966 3 71,450 Open 6 4 5 16 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EAST NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 1967 3 69,000 Open 6 4 5 17 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 WB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING .82 MI N OF JCT SR 504 SB 1965 4 66,150 Open 6 4 5 18 Hartford I-91 SB & TR 835 CONNECTICUT SOUTHERN RR AT EXIT 29A 1958 5 46,450 Open 6 5 4 19 Hartford SR 530 -AIRPORT RD ROUTE 15 422 FT E OF I-91 1964 5 27,200 Open 5 6 4 20 Bristol MEMORIAL BLVD.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Regulations and Boat Launches
    to boating in Connecticut! TheWelcome map with local ordinances, state boat launches, pumpout facilities, and Boating Infrastructure Grant funded transient facilities is back again. New this year is an alphabetical list of state boat launches located on Connecticut lakes, ponds, and rivers listed by the waterbody name. If you’re exploring a familiar waterbody or starting a new adventure, be sure to have the proper safety equipment by checking the list on page 32 or requesting a Vessel Safety Check by boating staff (see page 14 for additional information). Reference Reference Reference Name Town Number Name Town Number Name Town Number Amos Lake Preston P12 Dog Pond Goshen G2 Lake Zoar Southbury S9 Anderson Pond North Stonington N23 Dooley Pond Middletown M11 Lantern Hill Ledyard L2 Avery Pond Preston P13 Eagleville Lake Coventry C23 Leonard Pond Kent K3 Babcock Pond Colchester C13 East River Guilford G26 Lieutenant River Old Lyme O3 Baldwin Bridge Old Saybrook O6 Four Mile River Old Lyme O1 Lighthouse Point New Haven N7 Ball Pond New Fairfield N4 Gardner Lake Salem S1 Little Pond Thompson T1 Bantam Lake Morris M19 Glasgo Pond Griswold G11 Long Pond North Stonington N27 Barn Island Stonington S17 Gorton Pond East Lyme E9 Mamanasco Lake Ridgefield R2 Bashan Lake East Haddam E1 Grand Street East Lyme E13 Mansfield Hollow Lake Mansfield M3 Batterson Park Pond New Britain N2 Great Island Old Lyme O2 Mashapaug Lake Union U3 Bayberry Lane Groton G14 Green Falls Reservoir Voluntown V5 Messerschmidt Pond Westbrook W10 Beach Pond Voluntown V3 Guilford
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Connecticut Boater's Guide Rules and Resources
    2021 Connecticut Boater's Guide Rules and Resources In The Spotlight Updated Launch & Pumpout Directories CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HTTPS://PORTAL.CT.GOV/DEEP/BOATING/BOATING-AND-PADDLING YOUR FULL SERVICE YACHTING DESTINATION No Bridges, Direct Access New State of the Art Concrete Floating Fuel Dock Offering Diesel/Gas to Long Island Sound Docks for Vessels up to 250’ www.bridgeportharbormarina.com | 203-330-8787 BRIDGEPORT BOATWORKS 200 Ton Full Service Boatyard: Travel Lift Repair, Refit, Refurbish www.bridgeportboatworks.com | 860-536-9651 BOCA OYSTER BAR Stunning Water Views Professional Lunch & New England Fare 2 Courses - $14 www.bocaoysterbar.com | 203-612-4848 NOW OPEN 10 E Main Street - 1st Floor • Bridgeport CT 06608 [email protected] • 203-330-8787 • VHF CH 09 2 2021 Connecticut BOATERS GUIDE We Take Nervous Out of Breakdowns $159* for Unlimited Towing...JOIN TODAY! With an Unlimited Towing Membership, breakdowns, running out GET THE APP IT’S THE of fuel and soft ungroundings don’t have to be so stressful. For a FASTEST WAY TO GET A TOW year of worry-free boating, make TowBoatU.S. your backup plan. BoatUS.com/Towing or800-395-2628 *One year Saltwater Membership pricing. Details of services provided can be found online at BoatUS.com/Agree. TowBoatU.S. is not a rescue service. In an emergency situation, you must contact the Coast Guard or a government agency immediately. 2021 Connecticut BOATER’S GUIDE 2021 Connecticut A digest of boating laws and regulations Boater's Guide Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Rules and Resources State of Connecticut Boating Division Ned Lamont, Governor Peter B.
    [Show full text]
  • LISS 3.3.Qxd
    RestoringRestoring LongLong CONNECTICUT Connecticut Quinnipiac River River IslandIsland Thames Sound’s River Sound’s Housatonic River Stonington HabitatsHabitats Old Saybrook COMPLETED RESTORATION SITES IN PROGRESS RESTORATION SITES POTENTIAL RESTORATION SITES PROJECT BOUNDARY RIVER LONG ISLAND SOUND Greenwich 2002 RESTORATION SITES Southold BLUE INDICATES COMPLETED SITE – CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROJECT IS FINISHED, BUT MONITORING MAY BE ON-GOING GREEN INDICATES IN PROGRESS SITE– SOME PHASE OF THE PROJECT IS UNDERWAY, E.G. APPLYING FOR FUNDING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION BLACK INDICATES POTENTIAL SITE – A RESTORATION PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, NO ACTION TAKEN YET MOUNT VERNON RYE BOLDFACE IN ALL COLORS INDICATES HIGH-RANKED SITES Rye Glover Field (FW) Beaver Swamp Brook (FW) Beaver Swamp Brook/Cowperwood site (FW) Brookhaven NEW ROCHELLE Blind Brook (FW) Echo Bay (TW/SR/IF/RI) Edith G. Read Wildlife Sanctuary (TW/F/EE/FW) CONNECTICUT Former Dickerman’s Pond (FW) Marshlands Conservancy (TW/F/IF) Farm River (TW) EW ORK Nature Study Woods (F/FW) Farm River tributary/Edgemere Rd. (TW) N Y Pryer Manor Marsh (TW) SMITHTOWN BRANFORD Morris Creek/Sibley Lane (TW) Callahan’s Beach (CB) Branford River STP (TW) New Haven Airport (TW) Bronx BRONX NORTH HEMPSTEAD Fresh Pond (FW/F/BD) Branford R./Christopher Rd. (TW) Nissequogue Bronx Oyster Reefs (SR) Baxter Estates Pond (FW) Harrison Pond Town Park (FW/RMC/TW/F) Branford R./St. Agnes Cemetery (TW) EAST LYME NEW YORK Bronx River mouth (TW/F/RMC) Hempstead Harbor (EE/IF/TW) Landing Avenue Town Park (TW) Branford R./Hickory Rd. (TW) Brides Brook Culvert (RMC/TW) River Bronx River Trailway (TW/FW/F/RMC) Lake Success (FW) Long Beach (BD) Branford R.
    [Show full text]
  • Harbor Watch | 2016
    Harbor Watch | 2016 Fairfield County River Report: 2016 Sarah C. Crosby Nicole L. Cantatore Joshua R. Cooper Peter J. Fraboni Harbor Watch, Earthplace Inc., Westport, CT 06880 This report includes data on: Byram River, Farm Creek, Mianus River, Mill River, Noroton River, Norwalk River, Poplar Plains Brook, Rooster River, Sasco Brook, and Saugatuck River Acknowledgements The authors with to thank Jessica Ganim, Fiona Lunt, Alexandra Morrison, Ken Philipson, Keith Roche, Natalie Smith, and Corrine Vietorisz for their assistance with data collection and laboratory analysis. Funding for this research was generously provided by Jeniam Foundation, Social Venture Partners of Connecticut, Copps Island Oysters, Atlantic Clam Farms, 11th Hour Racing Foundation, City of Norwalk, Coastwise Boatworks, Environmental Professionals’ Organization of Connecticut, Fairfield County’s Community Foundation, General Reinsurance, Hillard Bloom Shellfish, Horizon Foundation, Insight Tutors, King Industries, Long Island Sound Futures Fund, McCance Family Foundation, New Canaan Community Foundation, Newman’s Own Foundation, Norwalk Cove Marina, Norwalk River Watershed Association, NRG – Devon, Palmer’s Market, Pramer Fuel, Resnick Advisors, Rex Marine Center, Soundsurfer Foundation, Town of Fairfield, Town of Ridgefield, Town of Westport, Town of Wilton, Trout Unlimited – Mianus Chapter. Additional support was provided by the generosity of individual donors. This report should be cited as: S.C. Crosby, N.L. Cantatore, J.R. Cooper, and P.J. Fraboni. 2016. Fairfield
    [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]
  • Fairfield County River Report: 2020
    Fairfield County River Report Harbor Watch | 2020 Fairfield County River Report: 2020 Sarah C. Crosby Mary K. Donato Peter J. Fraboni Devan S. Healy Nicole C. Spiller Kasey E. Tietz Harbor Watch, Earthplace Inc., Westport, CT 06880 This report includes data on: Ash Creek Watershed, Aspetuck River, Byram River, Comstock Brook, Deadman’s Brook, Little River, Noroton River, Norwalk River, Rippowam River, Saugatuck River, Silvermine River, and Stony Brook. This report should be cited as: S.C. Crosby, M.K. Donato, P.J. Fraboni, D.S. Healy, N.C. Spiller, and K.E. Tietz. 2020. Fairfield County River Report 2020. Harbor Watch, Earthplace, Inc. 1-52 p. Fairfield County River Report 2020, Harbor Watch | 1 About Harbor Watch The mission of Harbor Watch is to improve water quality and ecosystem health in Connecticut. Each day we strive to reach this goal through research in the lab and field, collaboration with our partners, and education of students and the public. Harbor Watch addresses pollution threats to Long Island Sound and educates the next generation of scientists through hands-on research and experiential learning. As part of the larger organization of Earthplace, the work performed by Harbor Watch also supports the mission of Earthplace to build a passion in our community for nature and the environment through education, experience, and action. Since its inception, Harbor Watch has trained over 1,000 high school students, college interns, and adult volunteers in the work of protecting and improving the biological integrity of Long Island Sound and has monitored hundreds of sites for a variety of physical and biological parameters.
    [Show full text]
  • 220 Rooster River Basin 01208873 Rooster River at Fairfield, Ct
    220 ROOSTER RIVER BASIN 01208873 ROOSTER RIVER AT FAIRFIELD, CT LOCATION.--Lat 41° 10'47", long 73° 13'10", Fairfield County, Hydrologic Unit 01100006, on left bank, on floodwall, at corner of Renwick Drive and Renwick Place, Bridgeport. DRAINAGE AREA.--10.6 mi2. PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1977 to current year. GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 5.44 ft above sea level. Prior to June 22, 1988, at site 1,300 ft downstream at datum 3.06 ft lower. REMARKS.--Records good except those for periods of estimated record, which are fair. Prior to June 22, 1988, stage sometimes affected by tide. EXTREMES FOR CURRENT YEAR.--Maximum discharge, 1,130 ft3/s, June 29, gage height, 8.59 ft; minimum discharge, 1.2 ft3/s, Aug. 3, Sept. 17, 30, gage height, 2.87 ft. DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND WATER YEAR OCTOBER 2004 TO SEPTEMBER 2005 DAILY MEAN VALUES DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 14 4.5 86 e6.0 e6.5 11 24 26 6.3 7.6 1.9 2.3 2 12 4.5 22 e5.7 e6.0 9.9 137 24 6.1 6.2 1.6 2.3 3 11 5.7 17 18 e5.5 9.3 58 19 6.0 5.0 1.4 2.3 4 9.9 28 15 37 14 8.7 34 15 7.1 4.6 1.4 2.3 5 8.9 14 14 16 12 8.6 29 14 5.9 4.3 1.9 2.3 6 8.3 6.6 13 26 11 8.5 25 13 5.7 4.2 1.4 2.3 7 7.9 6.1 25 20 11 10 24 14 5.7 4.0 1.4 1.9 8 7.4 6.0 24 64 11 20 41 13 5.5 107 1.3 1.7 9 7.3 5.5 16 26 11 13 22 12 5.1 15 1.3 1.7 10 6.9 5.8 36 21 19 10 20 11 5.0 7.6 1.3 1.7 11 6.5 6.0 21 20 13 10 18 11 4.8 6.1 1.3 1.7 12 6.3 20 16 30 11 14 16 11 4.8 5.3 8.2 1.7 13 6.1 19 15 29 11 10 15 10 4.5 5.1 2.5 1.8 14 6.0 7.5 14 84 48 9.7 14 9.6 4.5 4.8 41 1.7 15 30 6.8 e12.5 34
    [Show full text]