DOCSLIB.ORG

Use of Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring to Evaluate Phosphorus Loading in Connecticut Streams, 2015–18

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Use of Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring to Evaluate Phosphorus Loading in Connecticut Streams, 2015–18 Prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Use of Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring to Evaluate Phosphorus Loading in Connecticut Streams, 2015–18 Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5024 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Photograph showing continuous water-quality monitor taken at Salmon River near East Hampton, Connecticut, on August 3, 2017, by Brittney Izbicki, U.S. Geological Survey. Use of Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring to Evaluate Phosphorus Loading in Connecticut Streams, 2015–18 By Brittney Izbicki and Jonathan Morrison Prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5024 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2021 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Izbicki, B., and Morrison, J., 2021, Use of dissolved oxygen monitoring to evaluate phosphorus loading in Connecticut streams, 2015–18: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2021–5024, 25 p., https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ sir20215024. Associated data for this publication: Izbicki, B.J., and Morrison, J., 2021, Stream metabolism estimated from dissolved oxygen data in Connecticut streams, 2015–18: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9HW6IP1. U.S. Geological Survey, 2020, USGS water data for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System database, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7P55KJN. ISSN 2328-0328 (online) iii Acknowledgments The authors would like the thank the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. We also would like to thank the following dedicated U.S. Geological Survey employees: Guy Holzer, Michael Colombo, Joseph Martin, Colin Sweeney, Kaitlin Laabs, and Theresa Armijo for data collection, analysis, and approval; John Mullaney for assistance with data processing in streamMetabolizer; and Caroline Mazo for geographic information system mapping. v Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................iii Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3 Description of Study Area and Data-Collection Sites ....................................................................3 Methods...........................................................................................................................................................3 Characterization of Study Sites ..........................................................................................................3 Continuous Monitoring Data Collection and Analysis ....................................................................3 Discrete Sampling Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................7 Stream Metabolism Computations ....................................................................................................7 Model Input Variables .................................................................................................................7 Model Outputs ..............................................................................................................................8 Model Validation ..........................................................................................................................8 Analysis of Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations .........................................................................................8 Analysis of Stream Metabolism Outputs .................................................................................................16 Discussion .....................................................................................................................................................22 References Cited..........................................................................................................................................23 Figures 1. Map showing monitoring stations for the study, major streams, and drainage basins in Connecticut ...................................................................................................................4 2. Box plots showing daily ranges in study sites in Connecticut across the 4 years ..........12 3. Graph showing daily fluctuations of dissolved oxygen and pH in response to stream metabolism for North Branch Park River at Hartford, Connecticut ......................13 4. Box plot showing total phosphorus concentrations at selected sites in Connecticut with discrete sampling during the study for June–September ....................14 5. Scatter plots showing total phosphorus concentrations (in milligrams per liter) against discharge (in cubic feet per second) for selected sites in Connecticut .............14 6. Graph showing average annual summertime maximum daily dissolved oxygen range and average annual summertime total phosphorus concentrations for study sites in Connecticut for June–September ...................................................................15 7. Scatter plots showing daily estimates of gross primary productivity and ecosystem respiration for each study site in Connecticut and year it was active ..........17 8. Scatter plot showing average annual summertime gross primary productivity estimates and average annual summertime total phosphorus concentrations for study sites in Connecticut for June–September .............................................................20 9. Scatter plot showing average annual summertime gross primary productivity estimates (in grams of oxygen per meter squared per day) and average annual summertime maximum daily dissolved oxygen ranges (in milligrams per liter) for study sites in Connecticut for June–September .............................................................21 vi Tables 1. Summary of continuous monitoring, discrete phosphorus sampling, and streamMetabolizer modeling for study sites in Connecticut �������������������������������������������������5 2. Site characterization including the physical and environmental characteristics of study sites in Connecticut .......................................................................................................6 3. StreamMetabolizer outputs and model diagnostics for study sites in Connecticut .........9 4. Summary of daily dissolved oxygen minimum value, dissolved oxygen maximum value, and maximum daily dissolved oxygen range for every Connecticut site each year it was active ..............................................................................................................11 Conversion Factors U.S. customary units to International System of Units Multiply By To obtain Length foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) Area square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha) square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) International System of Units to U.S. customary units Multiply By To obtain Mass gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz) Transmissivity meter squared per day (m2/d) 10.76 foot squared per day (ft2/d) Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F = (1.8 ×°C) + 32. Datum Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum. vii Supplemental Information Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (µS/cm at 25 °C). Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in either milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (µg/L). A water year is the period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated by the year in which it ends; for example, water year 2016 was from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016. Abbreviations CT DEEP Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection CV coefficient of variation DO dissolved oxygen EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ER ecosystem respiration GPP gross primary productivity K600 gas exchange rate MLE maximum likelihood estimation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for the Quinnipiac River Regional
    A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for the Pequabuck River Sub-Regional Basin FINAL-September 29, 2009 This document has been established pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act _____________________________________ _________ Betsey Wingfield, Chief Date Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse _____________________________________ _________ Amey Marrella, Acting Commissioner Date STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Priority Ranking 3 Description of Waterbody 3 Pollutant of Concern and Pollutant Sources 3 Applicable Surface Water Quality Standards 4 Numeric Water Quality Target 5 Margin of Safety 7 Seasonal Analysis 7 TMDL Implementation 7 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 9 Reasonable Assurance 11 Provisions for Revising the TMDL 11 Public Participation 12 References 13 TABLES Table 1 The status of impairment for each subject waterbody based on the 2008 List Table 2 Potential sources of bacteria for each of the subject waterbodies Table 3 Treatment Plant discharge NPDES #s and locations Table 4 Applicable indicator bacteria criteria for the subject waterbodies Table 5 Summary of the TMDL analysis FIGURES Figure 1 Basin Location Map 14 Figure 2 Designated MS4 Areas Map 15 Figure 3 All Documented Basins Land Use and TMDL Percent Reductions Map 16 Figure 4 Pequabuck Basin Land Use and TMDL % Reductions Map 17 Figure 5 Poland River Basin Land Use and TMDL % Reductions Map 18 Figure 6 Coppermine Brook Basin Land Use and TMDL % Reductions Map 19 APPENDICES Appendix A Site Specific Information and TMDL Calculations Appendix B Municipal Stormwater Alternative Monitoring Guidance Appendix C Cumulative Frequency Distribution Function Method FINAL E.coli TMDL i Pequabuck River Sub-Regional Basin September 29, 2009 INTRODUCTION A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis was completed for indicator bacteria in the Pequabuck River Sub-Regional Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Haven Harbor
    Curriculum Units by Fellows of the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute 1984 Volume VI: Geology and the Industrial History of Connecticut Gateway to New Haven: The New Haven Harbor Curriculum Unit 84.06.10 by Carolyn C. Smith There are many theories as to the origin of our vast universe. As we know, the earth has been around for billions of years. Looking around us we can’t help but question how this creation of our planet came to be as it is today. Through experience and past knowledge it has been brought out that there are three major forces which are responsible for our land formations: 1) glaciers, 2) volcanoes, and 3) water. The purpose of this unit is to show how the geographical location of the New Haven Harbor has affected the lives of the people living in New Haven by focusing our attention on the phenomena of nature which has been prevailing for millions of years. When this unit is completed the students will: 1. Know how the early settlers made use of the New Haven Harbor. 2. Know the three main geographical divisions of the state of Connecticut and how they came to be. 3. Be able to discuss the Triassic fault and what effect it has on the New Haven Harbor. 4. Know how the channel of the New Haven Harbor has changed in the last two centuries and how these changes are affecting our social and economic growth today. 5. Know what proposals the city of New Haven has made to protect the New Haven Harbor for future use.
    [Show full text]
  • Mill River Watershed Management Plan
    Mill River Watershed Based Plan prepared by SEPTEMBER 2018 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their contributions of time and effort to the development of this plan: Project Steering Committee Carl Amento, South Central Region Council of Governments Rebecca Andreucci, South Central Region Council of Governments Mark Austin, Hamden Town Engineer Bill Brown, Eli Whitney Museum Aaron Budris, Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Kim Digiovanni, Quinnipiac University Sean Duffy, Quinnipiac University/Albert Schweitzer Institute Alex Felson, Director, Yale Urban Ecology & Design Mark Foran, Whitneyville Civic Association Dawn Henning, City of New Haven Engineering Daniel W. Kops, Hamden Town Planner Elsa Loehmann, Cheshire Land Trust JR Logan, Mill River Trail Advocates Chris Malik, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Connie Matheson, Whitneyville Civic Association Kevin McCarthy, Friends of East Rock Park/Mill River Trail Advocates Mary Mushinsky, River Advocates of South Central Connecticut Pamela Roach, Cheshire Land Trust Nancy Rosembalm, Hamden Land Trust Joy Vanderlek, Cheshire Land Trust Ron Walters, South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority Aicha Woods, New Haven City Planning Anthony Zemba, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Gary Zrelak, Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority Other Involved Stakeholders Gabe Benoit, Yale FES Professor, Hixon Center Director Rebecca Bombero, Director of New Haven Parks, Recreation, and Trees Lee Cruz, Community
    [Show full text]
  • Quinnipiac River State Park
    HISTORY… Directions and Parking: Quinnipiac River State Park (QRSP) was created in 1948 from surplus land acquired for The Quinnipiac State Park Trail is accessed Recreational Trails the construction of the Wilbur Cross Parkway. off Banton Street off State Street via Bishop South Central Connecticut The 1920’s saw a summertime recreational Street (Route 22). and riverside community established which eventually became year round homes. As a Permitted/Prohibited Activities: result of surrounding development, runoff Quinnipiac to the river increased and flooding events The Quinnipiac State Park allows canoeing became increasingly destructive and more and kayaking and hunting with a state-permit. frequent. In the mid-1970’s the State bought Leashed pets are allowed, please dispose of River the property and removed the homes. The any animal waste properly. QRSP is comprised of approximately 300 acres of land from Banton Street in the south to State Park Toelles Road in the north. TODAY… Hiking Fishing Pets on The North Haven Trail Association (NHTA) has Leash taken on the responsibility of maintaining the trail system which currently consists of a 1 mile section of dirt trail and a 1/2 mile section of paved roadway. Future plans would be Kayaking Hunting Canoeing to connect to the Wallingford trail at Toelles (with Permit) Road. NHTA has sponsored events throughout the seasons to view the bird population and marsh marigolds for example. Kayaks/canoes can enter the river at the Park entrance. The For more information about this location, permitted hunting season is posted on the contact: kiosk also located at the park entrance.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Classification
    t d S Simpson Lake R t d Cammerino Dam No 1 s d S s Exit 24 R g d C r g P R w g n R L o i r n A a a D o n ed d l l i Laurel Ledge School C y l Res No 3 o l o t R i R r n r r n J d i d i t d i r d d o ge R k C m n Rid r c o o p utum s r R A D t n a W H n R a i o Downs Road Pond r d u a g o ! L w e y s S C n i k a d D e e k r n n B T o Lander Pond Towantic Brook g s n Rd n o 9 H d e no m r R e a d i eb l a L W A L L I N G F O R D d A r a i r u B 6 L r L s o d R n T R r H a y D n D D L Butterworth Pond t C R y F r y k t w w a e a G r k u i m n e n a e l O y o in AA r e n r H lo g i o a o r t t b t m d on W y r A d r H M D D hitn u s e y o r e A y r u a t un Ct q R R s e Res No 2 w ta d h a D E M in S h t B ta t B d P t a R B r an erkins d r o Odd Pond S x m Rd d o o y n a S k k x e C P N n d sv e p o R A a e r d rr le E t o a c y d h w A v n r s P o R e U Chestnut Hill p R d o n pso n n D r r Ln L d R R e r n Butterworth Brook u d L a R d d e a n D C Fairwood Pond L W ATER Q UALITY CLAS S IFICATIONS a n Sheldon Dr n Mill River o o w s h e o D l d n W o l o l ilson R s p Dr d C a B Beacon Falls Station Hockanum Brook W n a i i rc B n w e N D W h s J i o l w B s R a o o r M u L o f n t F d n i so u o 4 D o A u n u r A n r 3 R r d r AA u d e a n s t e a T J ! h d e 6 r p à S M l R e Munson Road Pond s o n t F d M i e o To o A d Sanford Brook z y m r o v F s e t S r n o w d y d d L u a D am a e R x l P d o D w p r R e R w D R 67 Marian Ln E R d a iv C c n M e v H R d h O k l S A r r V R l z y l n R t etha d l i d Butterworth Dam B p i r A a
    [Show full text]
  • Streamflow in the Quinnipiac River Basin, Connecticut-Statistics and Trends, 1931-2000
    USGS science for a changing world Streamflow in the Quinnipiac River Basin, Connecticut-Statistics and Trends, 1931-2000 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4217 Prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Streamflow in the Quinnipiac River Basin, Connecticut-Statistics and Trends, 1931-2000 By Elizabeth A. Ahearn Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4217 Prepared in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection East Hartford, Connecticut 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 101 Pitkin Street Box 25286, Federal Center East Hartford, CT 06108 Denver, CO 80225 http://ct.water.usgs.gov CONTENTS Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose and scope
    [Show full text]
  • New Haven County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 10 NEW HAVEN COUNTY, CONNECTICUT (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER TOWN OF PROSPECT 090151 CITY OF ANSONIA 090071 TOWN OF SEYMOUR 090088 TOWN OF BEACON FALLS 090072 TOWN OF SOUTHBURY 090089 TOWN OF BETHANY 090144 TOWN OF WALLINGFORD 090090 TOWN OF BRANFORD 090073 CITY OF WATERBURY 090091 TOWN OF CHESHIRE 090074 CITY OF WEST HAVEN 090092 CITY OF DERBY 090075 TOWN OF WOLCOTT 090093 TOWN OF EAST HAVEN 090076 TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE 090153 TOWN OF GUILFORD 090077 BOROUGH OF WOODMONT 090168 TOWN OF HAMDEN 090078 TOWN OF MADISON 090079 CITY OF MERIDEN 090081 TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY 090080 CITY OF MILFORD 090082 BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK 090137 CITY OF NEW HAVEN 090084 TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORD 090085 TOWN OF NORTH HAVEN 090086 TOWN OF ORANGE 090087 TOWN OF OXFORD 090150 REVISED: MAY 16, 2017 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 09009CV001D Version Number 2.3.3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 – May 16, 2017 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 5 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 16 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 16 2.2 Floodways 16 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 32 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 32 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 32 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 32 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 34 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 35 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 36 SECTION
    [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]
  • Low Flow Rivers in Connecticut Compiled by Rivers Alliance of Connecticut
    Low Flow Rivers in Connecticut Compiled by Rivers Alliance of Connecticut The following water courses have been identified impaired or threatened by low flows in part or in their entirety. The list was first compiled in 2002, primarily from DEP documents. Subsequently, the DEP stopped reporting the “threatened” category, so these entries cannot be updated readily. The underlined entries have been listed as impaired. We are in the process of rechecking entries. More information available on request. Southeast Coastal Drainage Area: Copps Brook (2102)! ---- 303(d)2 list of 1996, 1998,2002, 2004 & 305(b) list 2008 Tributary to Copps Brook (2102), 305(b) list 2008. Williams Brook (2103) --- DEP report3 Whitford Brook (2104), Ledyard --- DEP report, 303(d) list of 2002 & 2004, 305(b) list 2008 Latimer Brook (2202) --- DEP report Patagansett River (2205) --- 303(d) list of 2002 Bride Brook (2206) --- 303(d) lists of 19984 2002 & 2004, DEP report, 305(d) list 2008 Thames River Watershed: Fenton River (3207) -- DEP report, 303(d) of 2002, 305(b) list 2008; candidate for removal Oxoboxo Brook and Rockland Pond (3004), Montville --- DEP report, 303(d) 1998 & 2002 Quinebaug River (3700), MA to Shetucket River --- 303(d) 1998 & 2002; 305(b) list 2006 & 2008 Shetucket River (3800), Scotland -- 303(d) 1998 & 2002 Connecticut River Watershed: Scantic River (4200), Enfield -- 303(d) 1998 Farmington River (4300) Sandy Brook to W. Branch Reservoir -- 303(d) of 2002 & 2008 Mad River (4302), Winchester -- 303(d) 2008 Farmington River, East Branch* (4308)
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for an Archaeological Assessment of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook
    1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE LOWER FARMINGTON RIVER AND SALMON BROOK Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, Ph.D., Central Connecticut State University Dr. Marc L. Banks, Marc L. Banks, Ph.D., LLC Additional material prepared by Dr. John Harmon, Ph.D. CCSU Prepared for: The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild & Scenic Study Committee 1 Table of Contents SUMMARY___________________________________________________________________________________________1 RESEARCH DESIGN _____________________________________________________________________________2 THE SITE INVENTORY: METHODOLOGY____________________________________________________3 SITE INVENTORY: RESULTS___________________________________________________________________4 CULTURE CHRONOLOGY__________________________________________________________________________5 CHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXTS ____________________________________________________________________8 NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE SITES__________________________________________________________9 THE LEWIS-WALPOLE SITE____________________________________________________________________9 INDIAN HILL SITE (11-2), BLOOMFIELD (PHOTOS 1, 2, & 3: ALL PHOTOGRAPHS APPEAR IN APPENDIX 2) _____________________________________________________________________ 10 ALSOP MEADOW (PHOTOS 4, 5, & 6) ______________________________________________________ 11 THE MEADOW PLAIN ROAD SITE (PHOTOS 7 & 8) _____________________________________ 12 THE OLD FARMS BROOK SITE (PHOTOS 9, 10 & 11)___________________________________ 13 THE BRIDGE SITE (PHOTOS 12 & 13) ______________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Eating Fish Safely
    This pamphlet will give you information that will help your If I Catch It, family avoid chemicals in fish and eat fish safely. Fish from Connecticut’s waters are a healthy, low-cost source of protein. Can I Eat It? Unfortunately, some fish take up chemicals such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These chemicals can build up in your body and increase health risks. The developing fetus and young children are most sensitive. Women who eat A Guide to Eating Fish Safely fish containing these chemicals before or during pregnancy or nursing may have 2017 Connecticut Fish Consumption Advisory children who are slow to develop and learn. Long term exposure to PCBs may increase cancer risk. What Does The Fish Consumption Advisory Say? The advisory tells you how often you can safely eat fish from Connecticut’s waters and from a store or restaurant. In many cases, separate advice is given for the High Risk and Low Risk Groups. You are in the High Risk Group if you are a pregnant woman, a woman who could become pregnant, a nursing mother, or a child under six. If you do not fit into the High Risk Group, you are in the Low Risk Group. Advice is given for three different types of fish consumption: 1. Statewide FRESHWATER Fish Advisory: Most freshwater fish in Connecticut contain enough mercury to cause some limit to consumption. The statewide freshwater advice is that: High Risk Group: eat no more than 1 meal per month Low Risk Group: eat no more than 1 meal per week 2.
    [Show full text]