DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER 4 Watersheds and Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHAPTER 4 Watersheds and Water Quality Vibrant. Green. Connected. Competitive. CHAPTER 4 Watersheds and Water Quality Statement of Purpose The availability and quality of water are critically important to community growth. The twin issues of water supply and water quality can enable or cripple any proposed residential or business development. The loss of water supply or diminished water quality can also threaten existing communities. It is therefore the goal of this Plan to encourage and support efforts that recognize the importance of water quality and quantity to the prosperity of the region. CHAPTER 4 43 REGIONAL PLAN of CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT Current Conditions Introduction Water resource planning is built upon the concept There are ten regional basins in the Capitol Region. of the watershed as the primary planning unit. A Eight of these basins, including most prominently watershed is simply defined as the area that drains to the Farmington River, drain into the Connecticut a common point, and can be established at numerous River. The Willimantic River Basin and a small area in scales. A watershed can be as small as a parking lot, Stafford in the Quinebaug River Basin, drain into the draining to a storm sewer, or the area from Montana Thames River Major Basin. to Louisiana, draining into the Mississippi River. The primary scale at which watersheds are defined Current Issues geographically is the “major basin,” Several water quantity and water quality problems which in turn is composed of are significant in the Capitol Region’s basins. Water A watershed can be as small as a “regional basins.” Because watershed quality is directly related to development and land parking lot, draining to a storm boundaries are not consistent with use characteristics, such as: type of land use; extent political boundaries, watershed of impervious surface; stormwater and sediment sewer, or the area from Montana management is an intermunicipal, controls; and condition of stormwater and sewer interregional, interstate, and infrastructure. The impact of such features in one to Louisiana, draining into the occasionally an international issue. municipality affects the quality of water in other Mississippi River. The Capitol Region is almost entirely municipalities in the watershed. Intervention requires within the Connecticut River Major a coordinated response across towns and states, and Basin, which extends from the among nonprofit organizations and agencies. Canadian border south to Long Island Sound. The portion of the Connecticut River in Connecticut and Long Island Sound is constantly affected not only by central Connecticut’s land use decisions and pollution, but also by those of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. 44 Capitol Region Council of Governments Vibrant. Green. Connected. Competitive. Water Quality Measures meets criteria for designated uses, more intensive efforts are required; such watersheds are considered Water quality measures are developed at the state in need of “restoration.” In the Capitol Region, the level. In Connecticut, the State Department of DEEP has designated the Farmington, Salmon, and Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Willimantic Rivers as being “in need of protection.” developed Water Quality Standards in conjunction The other six rivers are designated “in need of with the principles of the federal Clean Water Act. restoration.” Thus, the water quality of six watersheds The standards incorporate a range of data, and are in the Region does not meet DEEP goals for defined for surface and ground water. The Water designated uses. Currently all ten towns in the Salmon Quality Standards establish designated uses for River Watershed including Bolton, Glastonbury, surface and ground waters and identify the criteria Hebron and Marlborough are working with The necessary to support those uses. Each stream or Nature Conservancy (TNC) to develop stormwater water body has two classifications: one for existing management best management guidelines, land use use, and one for designated use. The designated use regulations and public works practices to maintain and classification is also known as the water quality goal, improve the quality of the Salmon River Watershed or what the water could be used for if programs are which is one of the most undisturbed watersheds in implemented and water quality goals are achieved. The the State of Connecticut. DEEP seeks to bring every water body in the state to a classification of “B” or better, which would not be suitable for human consumption without treatment, but could be suitable for recreational use, fish and wildlife habitat, agricultural and industrial supply, and other legitimate uses including navigation. A simpler method of assessing water quality involves compiling a range of indicators to assess whether a watershed is in need of protection or restoration. For watersheds that meet established water quality goals, the current water quality needs only to be maintained; such waters are considered in need of “protection.” For watersheds where the water quality no longer CHAPTER 4 45 REGIONAL PLAN of CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT Combined Sewer Overflows of untreated sewage into natural waterways. The MDC will expend more than $2 billion to improve Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) refers to the area’s water quality and help protect the health stormwater systems in which the stormwater flow and and safety of citizens during storm events. The sanitary sewer flow are carried in the same conduit Clean Water Project formally addresses a federal destined for a wastewater treatment facility. Such consent decree and a Connecticut DEEP consent systems cannot handle the water volume from large order to achieve Federal Clean Water Act Goals. storms, and the result is that a mix of stormwater In Massachusetts, the communities of Springfield, and sewage overflows the system directly into rivers Holyoke, and Chicopee are addressing the problem and streams. While it is difficult to measure the in conjunction with the Pioneer Valley Planning full impact of such flows, they are identified as the Commission (PVPC), but much work remains to single largest negative factor influencing the water be done. Nearly $400 million is needed to redress quality of the Connecticut River. Significant capital the problem there, and State funding has been well investment is required to separate such systems. In below the amount the communities need to address the Connecticut River Basin, overflows come from the problem expeditiously. The U.S. Environmental Enfield and Hartford, Connecticut; small towns Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued compliance in New Hampshire and Vermont; and Springfield, orders to the Massachusetts communities to submit Chicopee, and Holyoke, Massachusetts. The a long-term CSO plan in relation to the Clean Water overflows have substantial negative interstate impacts. Act. The Connecticut River Watershed Council and These impacts are obvious in the Capitol Region, Connecticut DEEP reviewed the plan and submitted where Suffield and Enfield experience degraded water responses. They agreed with some of the mitigation quality from sewer overflows originating in Springfield. strategies, but recommended a shorter time frame In addition, overflow from all these communities to than the proposed twenty-year schedule. the Connecticut River has a negative impact on the water quality of Long Island Sound. These interstate problems require a coordinated, interstate response. The greater Hartford area is making significant progress toward separating its combined sewer overflow system through the Hartford Metropolitan District (MDC) Clean Water Project, a 15-year plan designed to control and reduce the overflow 46 Capitol Region Council of Governments Vibrant. Green. Connected. Competitive. Nonpoint Source Pollution Development and Water Supply Nonpoint source pollution or “polluted runoff” is the As land in the region is converted from rural to other major contributor to declining water quality urban uses, water consumption increases. Whether in the Connecticut Major Basin. Nonpoint source the water is used for drinking, cooking, bathing, or pollution comes from rainwater that accumulates washing a car, more people mean higher total water contaminants and sediment from driveways, consumption. In urban, suburban, or other areas roads, agricultural tracts, and lawns (especially with public water and sewer lines, regulated aquifer heavily fertilized lawns); failing septic systems and protection areas and protected water utility-owned infrastructure; and poorly contained waste disposal lands help to maintain the necessary water supply sites. for the region. In smaller towns or developing areas, Nonpoint source pollution is more prevalent in urban however, centralized water supply wells or reservoirs and more developed communities, although there can may not be in place, and water is supplied by individual also be significant impacts from agricultural operations on-site wells. The construction of streets, driveways, in rural communities that have not implemented best parking lots, and other impervious surfaces, as well management practices. Less developed communities as the associated storm sewer systems, typically have an opportunity to implement best management impair an area’s water supply. By preventing rainwater practices to reduce the impact of future development from entering the soil and instead routing it directly on water quality. Best management practices can to a stream, groundwater recharge is reduced, thus also
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5 Watershed Modifications
    5 Watershed Modifications 5.1 Dams and Impoundments The North Branch Park River watershed includes a number of dams and reservoirs that were constructed for flood control, water supply, industrial power, and recreation. Some of the existing dams and reservoirs retain their original uses, while others now primarily provide recreation, habitat, and open space. The major flood control reservoirs in the watershed, several of which only impound water during large storms, are largely undeveloped and therefore provide valuable wildlife habitat and open space. Other impoundments in the watershed provide aquatic and wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities, but may also limit or impede fish migration. Table 5-1 lists the flood control reservoirs in the watershed, while Table 5-2 lists state-registered dams in the watershed. Figure 5-1 depicts the Monument at Blue Hills Reservoir (NEE, 2009). locations of the various dams and impoundments in the watershed. Table 5-1. Flood Control Reservoirs in the North Branch Park River Watershed Flood CTDEP Drainage Pool Control Name/ Flood Area Surface Location Pool Year Completed Control ID (square Area Volume No. miles) (acres) (acre-feet) Wintonbury Westerly branch of Reservoir/ Beamans Brook, 1.2 1 1.42 850 165 1963 miles northeast of *dam only Bloomfield Town Hall Easterly branch of Blue Hills Beamans Brook, 1.3 Reservoir/1964 2 1.9 700 175 miles northeast of *dam only Bloomfield Town Hall Wash Brook, 1.5 miles Bloomfield (Tunxis) north of Bloomfield Reservoir/1962 3 Town Hall, adjacent to 3.05
    [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]
  • Winter 2011 Volume 23 Number 4
    HE ABITAT TA newsletter of the Connecticut H Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, Inc. winter 2011 volume 23 number 4 VERNON CONSERVATION COMMISSION IMPLEMENTS TOWN-WIDE INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM by Thomas Ouellette, Vernon Conservation Commission he Town of Vernon, led by the Conservation the Town’s Water Pollution Treatment Facility, and Commission and the Department of Parks then flows more than four miles south to Manchester. Tand Recreation, has been engaged since 2008 Within Vernon, the Hockanum River, which transits in a program to proactively identify, monitor, and industrial, commercial, residential and natural control populations of non-native invasive aquatic environments, is designated by the Connecticut plants within two principal Department of Energy and watersheds, and to plan for their Environmental Protection (DEEP) removal. Concerns relate to as impaired for recreation and for the exclusion of native aquatic habitat for fish, other aquatic life vegetation by proliferating and wildlife. non-native species, and to the resulting oxygen depletion and The Tankerhoosen River is a elimination of fish and wildlife tributary of the Hockanum River, habitat in surface waters. with headwaters in Tolland. Impairment of recreational From Walker Reservoir East activities, i.e., swimming, near I-84 Exit 67 in Vernon, boating, and fishing, are the Tankerhoosen extends also of concern. The town’s approximately five miles to its coordinated effort, which confluence with the Hockanum includes both professional field River at the Manchester town investigations and volunteer line. It is fed by a number of surveys as described below, streams, including Railroad may be instructive to other Brook, which originates at Bolton communities striving to protect Notch Pond in Bolton and flows the health of their rivers Hockanum River and Tankerhoosen River Watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Large Woody Debris Fact Sheet
    Inland Fisheries Division Habitat Conservation and Enhancement Program Large Woody Debris Fact Sheet I. Introduction Trees that grow along a streamside can often fall into a watercourse due to floods, erosion, windthrow, disease, beaver activity or natural mortality. These materials, often referred to as Large Woody Debris (LWD) can include whole trees with a rootwad and limbs attached or portions of trees with or without rootwads or limbs. LWD is typically defined by biologists as logs with a minimum diameter of 4 inches and a minimum length of 6 feet that protrude or lay within a stream channel. Environmental and recreational groups have often removed LWD as part of river cleanup or river improvement projects. Although these groups have good intentions, LWD removal can be “very detrimental” to stream health and well being. In fact, during the last decade, the Inland Fisheries Division has been actively adding LWD to river systems as a component of individual stream restoration projects, particularly in streams that are LWD deficient. This fact sheet describes the vital importance of LWD to river ecosystems and provides guidance for its beneficial management. Example of various types of large woody debris in the Moosup River, Plainfield. DEP • Inland Fisheries Division • Habitat Conservation and Enhancement Program 1 II. Ecological Benefits of Large Woody Debris Research studies have shown that LWD is a vital and naturally occurring component of healthy stream ecosystems. Ecological benefits of LWD are described below. ¾ Fish Habitat LWD that falls completely across a stream causes water to be slightly impounded resulting in the formation of an upstream pool and a downstream plunge pool as water flows under and over the wood.
    [Show full text]
  • New Wellfield Along the Willimantic River
    10.0 EVALUATION OF NEW WELLFIELD(S) ALONG THE WILLIMANTIC RIVER 10.1 ASSESSMENT OF FEASIBILITY Unlike an interconnection with an established supply source, the development of a new groundwater source cannot be evaluated with respect to existing available water. Instead, the ability to develop a particular yield from a new groundwater source is dependent upon available historical information from borings, monitoring wells, and site-specific studies. This data has been complied for each of four potential wellfields along the Willimantic River, two near Mansfield Depot (MD-1 and MD-3) and two near Eagleville Preserve (EP-4 and EP-5). Included in this assessment is recent work undertaken by the Town of Mansfield to analyze a number of potential groundwater sources along the Willimantic River. As summary of locations follows: Alternative #6A is potential wellfield MD-1, located on private property south of Route 44. Most of this property is currently used for agriculture. Alternative #6B is potential wellfield MD-3 located in River Park. The site is owned by the Town of Mansfield and is currently used for recreation. Alternative #6C is potential wellfield EP-4, located in the State-owned northern portion of Eagleville Preserve. This area is currently forested wetland. Alternative #6D is potential wellfield EP-5, located in the southern portion of Eagleville Preserve owned by the Town of Mansfield. 10.1.1 POTENTIAL WELLFIELDS NEAR MANSFIELD DEPOT (MD-1 & MD-3) A number of historic and more recent publications have analyzed potential groundwater aquifers in the Mansfield Depot area. These are briefly summarized below.
    [Show full text]
  • YOUR SOURCE for CT Fishing Information
    Share the Experience—Take Someone Fishing • APRIL 14 Opening Day Trout Fishing 2018 CONNECTICUT ANGLER’S GUIDE INLAND & MARINE FISHING YOUR SOURCE For CT Fishing Information »New Trout & »New Inland »New Marine Salmon Stamp Regulations Regulations See page 8 & 20 for 2018 for 2018 See page 20 See page 58 Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection www.ct.gov/deep/fishing FISHING REGULATIONS GUIDE - GA TRIM: . 8˝ X 10-1/2˝ (AND VARIOUS OTHER STATES) BLEED: . 8-1/4˝ X 10-3/4˝ SAFETY: . 7˝ X 10˝ TRIM TRIM SAFETY TRIM BLEED BLEED SAFETY BLEED BLEED TRIM TRIM SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY TRIM TRIM BLEED BLEED TRIM TRIM TRIM BLEED BLEED SAFETY SAFETY Client: Progressive Job No: 16D00890 Created by: Dalon Wolford Applications: InDesign CC, Adobe Photoshop CC, Adobe Illustrator CC Job Description: Full Page, 4 Color Ad Document Name: Bass ad / Fishing Regulations Guide - GA and various other states Final Trim Size: 7-7/8˝ X 10-1/2˝ Final Bleed: 8-1/8˝ X 10-13/16˝ Safety: 7˝ X 10˝ Date Created: 11/7/16 FISHING REGULATIONS GUIDE - GA TRIM: . 8˝ X 10-1/2˝ (AND VARIOUS OTHER STATES) BLEED: . 8-1/4˝ X 10-3/4˝ SAFETY: . 7˝ X 10˝ TRIM TRIM SAFETY TRIM BLEED BLEED SAFETY BLEED BLEED TRIM TRIM SAFETY SAFETY 2018 CONNECTICUT ANGLER’S GUIDE INLAND REGULATIONS INLAND & MARINE FISHING Easy two-step process: 1. Check the REGULATION TABLE (page 21) for general statewide Contents regulations. General Fishing Information 2. Look up the waterbody in the LAKE AND PONDS Directory of Services Phone Numbers .............................2 (pages 32–41) or RIVERS AND STREAMS (pages 44–52) Licenses .........................................................................
    [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]
  • State of the Watershed Report the Hockanum River
    THE HOCKANUM RIVER STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT December 2005 Prepared for: North Central Conservation District, Inc. Prepared by: Funded in part by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection through a United States Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act Section 604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant. THE HOCKANUM RIVER STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT North Central Conservation District, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE................................................................................... 5 2.1 Geology............................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Population and Industry................................................................................... 5 2.3 Restoration Efforts........................................................................................... 7 3.0 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 9 3.1 Water Quantity................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Water Quality................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1 Classifications and Impairments........................................................ 12 3.2.2 Monitoring Data ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hockanum River Water Pollution Control Facility Upgrade
    Project Overview Hockanum River Originally constructed in the mid 1950s as a primary treatment facility, the Hockanum River WPCF was ex- Water Pollution Control panded in 1970 to provide for secondary treatment. The WPCF was further expanded in 1990 to reduce the Facility Upgrade seasonal discharge of ammonia to the Hockanum River. A smaller upgrade was completed in 2004 to replace the chlorine gas disinfection system with a much safer ultra violet disinfection process. The Hockanum River Manchester Water & Sewer Department WPCF currently treats on average 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of sewage, with a peak flow in excess of 125 Spring Street 15 mgd. Manchester, CT 06045-0191 Planning for Future Needs www.townofmanchester.org The Hockanum River WPCF is facing several issues that need to be addressed to meet the needs of the com- munity including: Contractor – Nitrogen Removal The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) established strict annual nitro- gen removal limits for all wastewater facilities in the state in order to improve the quality of Long Island Sound. To achieve these limits, the Hocka- 454 Boston Post Road num River WPCF must upgrade its treatment ca- Waterford, CT 06385 pabilities. www.carlincontracting.com – Phosphorus Removal The DEEP has also been working with the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish local water quality limits for phosphorus discharges from WPCFs to fresh water receiving streams such as the Hockanum. The DEEP informed Manchester that as part of the next renewal of the Town’s wastewater Project Engineer discharge permit, strict phosphorus limits would be included.
    [Show full text]
  • Pomperaug River Watershed Based Plan Table of Contents
    P omperaug River Watershed Based Plan prepared by SEPTEMBER 2018 Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their contributions of time and effort to develop this plan: Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition Land Use Committee Vince McDermott, Committee Co-Chair, PRWC Board Chairman Christopher Wood, Committee Co-Chair, PRWC Board of Directors Aaron Budris, Senior Regional Planner, Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Norma Carey, Land Use Coordinator, Town of Bethlehem Maryellen Edwards, Town Planner, Town of Woodbury DeLoris Curtis, Town Planner, Town of Southbury Ingrid Davis, Active Flanders Nature Center & Land Trust Volunteer Amy Fischer / Petra Volinski, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Dick Leavenworth, PRWC Board Member, Woodbury Conservation Commission Member Neal Lustig, Director of Public Health, Pomperaug District Department of Health Leslie Kane, Center Director, Audubon Center at Bent of the River, Board Chair, Southbury Land Trust Gail McTaggart, PRWC Board Vice Chair Arthur Milnor, Executive Director, Flanders Nature Center & Land Trust Susan Peterson, Watershed Manager, CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Kyle Turoczi, Soil and Wetland Scientist, Earth Tones Native Plant Nursery and Landscaping Curt Jones, PRWC Board Member Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition Staff Leendert (Len) T. DeJong, Executive Director Carol Haskins, Outreach Director Anne Urkawich, Manager of Administration & Development Consultant – Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. Erik Mas, P.E.; Stefan
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Fish Distribution Report2012
    Connecticut Fish Distribution Report 2012 Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources Inland Fisheries Division 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106 860-424-3474 www.ct.gov/deep/fishing www.facebook.com/ctfishandwildlife The Connecticut Fish Distribution Report is published annually by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Daniel C. Esty, Commissioner Susan Whalen, Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Natural Resources William A. Hyatt, Chief Inland Fisheries Division Peter Aarrestad, Director 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 860-424-FISH (3474) www.ct.gov/deep/fishing www.facebook.com/ctfishandwildlife Table of Contents Introduction 3 DEEP State Hatcheries 3 Connecticut’s Stocked Fish 4 Stocking Summary 2012 7 Fish Distribution Numbers 8 Catchable trout 8 Broodstock Atlantic salmon 18 Brown trout fry/fingerlings 18 Kokanee fry 18 Northern pike 19 Walleye 19 Channel catfish 19 Miscellaneous Diadromous Fish Stocking 20 (Atlantic salmon, brown trout, Shad, Alewife) Cover: Rearing tanks at the Quinebaug Valley State Trout Hatchery (top), a Seeforellen brown trout, from Kensington State Fish Hatchery being stocked (middle left-photo credit Bill Gerrish), channel catfish being unloaded and stocked (middle right-photo credit Neal Hagstrom), CT DEEP IFD trout stocking truck (lower left-photo credit Justin Wiggins), and a net of brown trout being removed from the rearing tank at the Burlington State Fish Hatchery and headed for the stocking truck (lower right-photo credit Bill Gerrish). The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer that is committed to complying with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Hartford, Connecticut's Capital City, Is an Urban Community Centrally
    Hartford Hartford, Connecticut’s capital city, is an urban community centrally located within the Region. It has a land area of 17.3 square miles and an estimated population of nearly 125,000. The elevation ranges from approximately 30 to 150 feet above sea level. Hartford drains to two watersheds – the Connecticut River to the east and the Park River to the west. In addition to the Connecticut and Park Rivers, other watercourses within the City include Cemetery and Gully Brooks. Interstates 91 and 84 intersect in Hartford. State routes 44, 187 and 189 also traverse the City. Hartford is home to the Capitol and numerous state office buildings and other facilities. Brainard Airport is located in the southeastern corner of the City. Numerous industries and businesses operate throughout Hartford, including many insurance companies. The City also houses three major hospitals: Hartford, Connecticut Children’s, and St. Francis. The City is also home to Trinity College and the University of Hartford. The University of Connecticut and University of St. Joseph has branches in the Downtown area. Finally, Hartford attracts many visitors throughout the year to its historic, arts and cultural venues including among others the Convention Center, XL Center, Riverfront Recapture, Comcast Music Theater, the Wadsworth Athenaeum, the Connecticut Science Center, the Old State House, Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe Houses, and the Bushnell Center for Performing Arts. Challenges Historically, Hartford has suffered significant losses from flooding and continues to be vulnerable to the risks posed by flooding. The Army Corps of Engineers built a dike in Hartford along the Connecticut River following historic floods in 1936 and 1938.
    [Show full text]