DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix E. Watershed Rankings Raw Results from RPS Tool

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appendix E. Watershed Rankings Raw Results from RPS Tool Table 1. General Watershed Health Restoration Ranks Ecological Ecological Stressor Stressor Social Social RPI RPI Watershed ID Watershed Name Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Score Rank Stony Brook-Frontal Fishers Island 011000030303 Sound 64.6 1 27.864 147 34.592 2 57.109 1 011000010601 Upper Pachaug River 47.525 3 7.574 22 19.217 66 53.056 2 011000020203 Bigelow Brook 43.15 8 6.465 7 19.408 65 52.031 3 011000060102 Headwaters Saugatuck River 45.05 5 8.535 36 19.467 64 51.994 4 011000020303 Beaver Brook-Shetucket River 48.6 2 16.835 114 19.692 60 50.486 5 011000020206 Sawmill Brook-Natchaug River 34.625 33 8.148 30 24.7 16 50.392 6 011000010503 Lower Moosup River 44.4 6 12.177 79 18.933 69 50.385 7 010802050905 Joshua Creek-Connecticut River 45.525 4 12.481 83 17.325 94 50.123 8 011000010602 Lower Pachaug River 44.025 7 10.503 62 16.692 103 50.071 9 011000040203 East River-Frontal Guilford Harbor 42.55 10 13.664 99 21.258 47 50.048 10 010802070302 Valley Brook-East Branch Farmington 38.625 17 6.477 9 17.775 87 49.974 11 010802050903 Eightmile River 40.925 13 6.297 5 14.825 136 49.818 12 010802070301 Hubbard River 39.075 14 5.439 2 15.408 128 49.681 13 010802070501 West Branch Salmon Brook 37.825 18 6.671 12 17.817 84 49.657 14 011000050304 Hollenbeck River 42.9 9 10.116 58 16.1 113 49.628 15 011000020302 Little River 42.5 11 12.097 78 17.867 82 49.423 16 Hammonasset River-Frontal Clinton 011000040202 Harbor 35.75 27 9.526 49 21.55 40 49.258 17 010802050805 Dickinson Creek-Salmon River 37.4 20 7.594 23 17.575 90 49.127 18 010900050101 Upper Wood River 37.075 22 5.39 1 15.35 129 49.012 19 010802050504 Roaring Brook 35.075 29 8.739 41 20.667 52 49.001 20 011000060101 Aspetuck River 37.7 19 8.564 37 17.683 88 48.94 21 010802070401 Nepaug River 33.25 38 8.679 39 21.317 43 48.629 22 Ecological Ecological Stressor Stressor Social Social RPI RPI Watershed ID Watershed Name Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Score Rank 011000050306 Carse Brook-Housatonic River 36.125 25 8.703 40 17.817 84 48.413 23 Poquonock River-Frontal Fishers 011000030302 Island Sound 30.525 55 13.31 95 26.725 11 47.98 24 010802050902 East Branch Eightmile River 37.1 21 9.286 46 15.817 118 47.877 25 011000020205 Mount Hope River 30.575 54 6.629 11 19.517 63 47.821 26 011000050401 Macedonia Brook 36.175 23 7.01 17 13.9 158 47.688 27 Pattagansett River-Frontal Long 011000030306 Island Sound 39.025 15 15.087 108 18.617 76 47.518 28 Indian River-Frontal Long Island 011000040208 Sound 42.475 12 27.2 145 27.05 9 47.442 29 011000020204 Fenton River 30.025 59 7.455 21 19.658 62 47.409 30 011000050305 Salmon Creek 36.175 23 10.552 63 16.508 107 47.377 31 011000020202 Still River 32.925 41 5.771 3 14.733 138 47.296 32 010900050301 Ashaway River 31.85 44 7.316 19 17.342 93 47.292 33 011000050402 Furnace Brook-Housatonic River 34.625 33 7.807 26 14.7 140 47.173 34 010802070402 Cherry Brook-Farmington River 34.75 32 9.518 48 15.55 126 46.927 35 011000051101 West Branch Naugatuck River 36.125 25 13.816 101 17.892 81 46.734 36 011000060201 Silvermine River 30.75 50 16.093 111 25.3 15 46.652 37 010802050804 Moodus River 32.75 42 7.332 20 14.267 151 46.562 38 011000051003 Halfway River-Housatonic River 34.1 35 13.468 97 17.808 86 46.147 39 010802050901 Deep River-Connecticut River 31.175 47 10.732 64 17.867 82 46.103 40 010802070102 Sandy Brook 35.75 27 11.045 66 13.567 160 46.091 41 011000030201 Poquetanuck Brook 33.35 37 9.252 45 14.117 155 46.072 42 011000010301 Upper Fivemile River 30.675 53 6.839 15 14.317 149 46.051 43 011000040204 West River-Frontal Guilford Harbor 33.7 36 15.539 109 19.983 58 46.048 44 010802050801 Blackledge River 29.875 61 11.055 67 18.95 68 45.923 45 011000040201 Menunketesuck River 33.1 39 13.104 91 16.942 97 45.646 46 010802050701 Higganum Creek 29.15 66 6.394 6 14.167 153 45.641 47 Ecological Ecological Stressor Stressor Social Social RPI RPI Watershed ID Watershed Name Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Score Rank 010900050102 Lower Wood River 30.5 56 8.25 32 14.325 148 45.525 48 011000010704 Cory Brook-Quinebaug River 29.5 63 11.723 74 18.792 73 45.523 49 011000050701 Headwaters Shepaug River 31.625 46 10.032 57 14.767 137 45.453 50 011000020108 Nelson Brook-Willimantic River 24.75 102 14.368 104 25.65 13 45.344 51 011000010402 Mashamoquet River 29.025 68 9.782 50 16.492 108 45.245 52 011000050903 Pomperaug River 30.225 58 14.979 107 20.433 55 45.226 53 010802070204 Lower West Branch Farmington River 30.75 50 11.748 75 16.392 110 45.131 54 011000010701 Blackwell Brook 26.45 88 6.804 13 15.283 132 44.976 55 011000050603 West Aspetuck River 27.75 77 6.465 7 13.433 163 44.906 56 011000020106 Hop River 25.8 95 9.91 52 18.817 72 44.902 57 011000050303 Blackberry River 32.3 43 16.5 113 18.592 77 44.797 58 011000050803 Outlet Still River 30 60 12.584 85 16.95 96 44.789 59 010802050203 Lower Scantic River 27.7 78 24.865 137 31.483 3 44.773 60 011000020301 Merrick Brook 28.125 73 7.757 25 13.95 157 44.773 60 011000050702 Bantam River 28.9 69 13.348 96 18.725 74 44.759 62 010802050904 Falls River 29.5 63 9.797 51 14.475 145 44.726 63 011000020105 Skungamaug River 27.225 82 8.455 34 15.342 130 44.704 64 011000030304 Niantic River 29.75 62 11.935 77 15.583 124 44.466 65 011000030101 Deep River 27.1 84 8.048 29 14.275 150 44.442 66 011000040205 Branford River 38.75 16 26.681 143 21.125 50 44.398 67 010900050302 Shunock River 28.1 74 9.318 47 14.367 147 44.383 68 011000010703 Broad Brook 25.9 93 8.439 33 15.475 127 44.312 69 011000020104 Roaring Brook 27.95 75 9.989 56 14.4 146 44.12 70 011000010501 Upper Moosup River 26.8 86 5.886 4 11.383 179 44.099 71 Outlet Saugatuck River-Frontal Long 011000060103 Island Sound 31.725 45 19.864 126 20.208 57 44.023 72 011000051207 Bladens River-Naugatuck River 35 30 24.752 136 21.367 42 43.872 73 Ecological Ecological Stressor Stressor Social Social RPI RPI Watershed ID Watershed Name Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Score Rank 011000010401 Little River 21.05 136 11.003 65 21.442 41 43.83 74 011000050602 East Aspetuck River 24.175 111 8.829 42 16.1 113 43.815 75 Patchogue River-Frontal Westbrook 011000040207 Harbor 34.95 31 18.414 123 14.708 139 43.748 76 010802050802 Jeremy River 25.95 92 11.426 70 16.692 103 43.739 77 011000050703 Outlet Shepaug River 27.15 83 9.987 55 13.992 156 43.718 78 011000020107 Tenmile River 24.85 101 7.597 24 13.883 159 43.712 79 010802070405 Roaring Brook-Farmington River 26.1 90 18.196 121 23.225 24 43.71 80 011000010502 Quaduck Brook 27.8 76 9.957 54 12.95 166 43.598 81 011000010302 Lower Fivemile River 24.5 106 10.226 60 16.483 109 43.586 82 010802070502 Salmon Brook 23.325 116 10.211 59 17.6 89 43.571 83 011000050302 Whiting River 26.225 89 8.514 35 12.85 167 43.52 84 Mystic River-Frontal Fishers Island 011000030301 Sound 26.9 85 13.152 92 16.8 100 43.516 85 011000050203 Hubbard Brook 25.325 99 6.568 10 11.792 173 43.516 85 Norwalk River-Frontal Norwalk 011000060202 Harbor 29.125 67 26.268 140 27.667 8 43.508 87 020301010203 Middle East Branch Croton River 24.2 109 6.821 14 13.142 164 43.507 88 010802050506 Reservoir Brook-Connecticut River 27.3 81 17.389 116 20.533 53 43.481 89 010900050205 Tomaquag Brook-Pawcatuck River 25.525 98 6.844 16 11.742 174 43.474 90 011000040302 West River 30.7 52 25.877 139 25.592 14 43.472 91 011000050301 Konkapot River 26.7 87 8.029 28 11.608 178 43.426 92 011000010101 Mashapaug Pond 27.55 80 7.823 27 10.1 183 43.276 93 011000060402 Mianus River 25.775 96 12.603 86 16.617 105 43.263 94 010802070101 Mad River 28.9 69 14.435 105 15.25 133 43.238 95 010802050201 Upper Scantic River 22.7 121 10.387 61 17.367 92 43.227 96 011000020201 Bungee Brook 24.225 108 7.042 18 12.275 169 43.153 97 011000050902 Weekeepeemee River 22.525 124 8.948 43 14.675 142 42.751 98 Ecological Ecological Stressor Stressor Social Social RPI RPI Watershed ID Watershed Name Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Score Rank 011000010702 Mill Brook 24.575 104 13.196 93 16.75 101 42.71 99 011000030103 Pease Brook-Yantic River 21.825 129 14.352 103 20.508 54 42.66 100 020301010303 Cross River 21.4 132 9.186 44 15.758 120 42.657 101 011000020101 Edson Brook 24.55 105 8.165 31 10.975 180 42.453 102 011000050604 Great Brook-Housatonic River 30.875 49 20.077 128 16.525 106 42.441 103 010802050602 Coginchaug River 30.35 57 26.377 142 23.317 23 42.43 104 011000030102 Susquetonscut Brook 22.775 119 11.232 69 15.617 122 42.387 105 011000050204 Ironwork Brook-Housatonic River 22.675 123 11.427 71 15.775 119 42.341 106 011000051002 Eightmile Brook 24.65 103 11.565 72 13.508 162 42.198 107 011000051206 Little River 22.3 125 11.111 68 15.225 134 42.138 108 011000020102 Middle River 23.2 117 8.582 38 11.733 176 42.117 109 011000051001 Pootatuck River 21.375 134 13.519 98 18.033 79 41.963 110 011000040206 Farm River 33.05 40 30.357 151 22.758 30 41.817 111 011000050502 Mudge Pond Brook 22.225 126 12.813 89 16 116 41.804 112 011000040101 Eightmile River 25.6 97 19.725 125 19.167 67 41.681 113 010802050803 Pine Brook 24.35 107 14.013 102 14.675 142 41.671 114 010802070103 Still River 24.2 109 17.239 115 18.025 80 41.662 115 011000020103 Furnace Brook 22.7 121 9.946 53 12.175 170 41.643 116 011000030202 Stony Brook 22.8 118 12.682 87 14.558 144 41.559 117 011000051104 Branch Brook 28.6 71 24.416 134 19.967 59 41.384 118 011000050601 Candlewood Lake 20.25 142 11.923 76 15.558 125 41.295 119 011000050901 Nonewaug River 21.4 132 13.229 94 15.65 121 41.274 120 011000010204 Lower French River 21.6 130 12.287 80 14.217 152 41.177 121 010802050702 Mill Creek-Connecticut
Recommended publications
  • Thames River Basin Partnership Partners in Action Quarterly Report

    Thames River Basin Partnership Partners in Action Quarterly Report

    Thames River Basin Partnership Partners in Action Quarterly Report Summer 2018 Volume 47 The Thames River watershed includes the Five Mile, French, Moosup, Natchaug, Pachaug, Quinebaug, Shetucket, Willimantic, and Yantic Rivers and all their tributaries. We’re not just the "Thames main stem." Greetings from the Thames River Basin Partnership. Once again this quarter our partners have proven their ability to work cooperatively on projects compatible with the TRBP Workplan and in support of our common mission statement to share organizational resources and to develop a regional approach to natural resource protection. I hope you enjoy reading about these activities as much as I enjoy sharing information about them with you. For more information on any of these updates, just click on the blue website hyperlinks in this e-publication, but be sure to come back to finish reading the rest of the report. Jean Pillo, Watershed Conservation Project Manager Eastern Connecticut Conservation District And TRBP Coordinator Special Presentation If you missed the July 2018 meeting of the Thames River Basin Partnership, then you missed a presentation by Chuck Toal, Avalonia Land Conservancy’s development and programs director. Chuck gave a presentation on the 50 years of accomplishments of ALC as a regional land trust. ALC is focused on 22 towns in southeastern Connecticut. ALC, which oversees 4000 acres of preserved land, achieved accreditation in 2017. Their success has resulted from a working board of directors and the establishment of town committees to focus on smaller areas. Their current focus is to be more selective on land acquisition, particularly concentrating on building blocks of open space while also building an endowment fund land stewardship going forward.
  • Ffy 2019 Annual Listing of Obligated Projects Per 23 Cfr 450.334

    Ffy 2019 Annual Listing of Obligated Projects Per 23 Cfr 450.334

    FFY 2019 ANNUAL LISTING OF OBLIGATED PROJECTS PER 23 CFR 450.334 Agency ProjInfo_ID MassDOT _Project Description▼ Obligation FFY 2019 FFY 2019 Remaining Date Programmed Obligated Federal Advance Federal Fund Fund Construction Fund REGION : BERKSHIRE MassDOT 603255 PITTSFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, P-10-049, LAKEWAY DRIVE OVER ONOTA 10-Jul-19 $2,919,968.00 $2,825,199.25 Highway LAKE MassDOT 606462 LENOX- RECONSTRUCTION & MINOR WIDENING ON WALKER STREET 15-Apr-19 $2,286,543.00 $2,037,608.80 Highway MassDOT 606890 ADAMS- NORTH ADAMS- ASHUWILLTICOOK RAIL TRAIL EXTENSION TO ROUTE 21-Aug-19 $800,000.00 $561,003.06 Highway 8A (HODGES CROSS ROAD) MassDOT 607760 PITTSFIELD- INTERSECTION & SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT 9 LOCATIONS ALONG 11-Sep-19 $3,476,402.00 $3,473,966.52 Highway SR 8 & SR 9 MassDOT 608243 NEW MARLBOROUGH- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, N-08-010, UMPACHENE FALLS 25-Apr-19 $1,281,618.00 $1,428,691.48 Highway OVER KONKAPOT RIVER MassDOT 608263 SHEFFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, S-10-019, BERKSHIRE SCHOOL ROAD OVER 20-Feb-19 $2,783,446.00 $3,180,560.93 Highway SCHENOB BROOK MassDOT 608351 ADAMS- CHESHIRE- LANESBOROUGH- RESURFACING ON THE 25-Jun-19 $4,261,208.00 $4,222,366.48 Highway ASHUWILLTICOOK RAIL TRAIL, FROM THE PITTSFIELD T.L. TO THE ADAMS VISITOR CENTER MassDOT 608523 PITTSFIELD- BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, P-10-042, NEW ROAD OVER WEST 17-Jun-19 $2,243,952.00 $2,196,767.54 Highway BRANCH OF THE HOUSATONIC RIVER BERKSHIRE REGION TOTAL : $20,053,137.00 $19,926,164.06 Wednesday, November 6, 2019 Page 1 of 20 FFY 2019 ANNUAL LISTING OF OBLIGATED PROJECTS PER
  • LIS Impervious Surface Final Report

    LIS Impervious Surface Final Report

    PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Mapping and Monitoring Changes in Impervious Surfaces in the Long Island Sound Watershed March 2006 James D. Hurd, Research Associate Daniel L. Civco, Principal Investigator Sandy Prisloe, Co-Investigator Chester Arnold, Co-Investigator Center for Land use Education And Research (CLEAR) Department of Natural Resources Management & Engineering College of Agriculture and Natural Resources The University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Table of Contents Introduction . 4 Study Area and Data . 5 Land Cover Classification . 7 Sub-pixel Classification Overview . 8 Initial Sub-pixel Classification . 10 Post-classification Processing . 10 Validation . 13 Reseults and Discussion. 15 References . 18 Appendix A: Per Pixel Comparison of Planimetric and Estimated Percent Impervious Surfaces .. 21 Appendix B: Comparison of Planimetric and Estimated Percent Impervious Surfaces Summarized Over Grid Cells of Various Sizes. 34 Appendix C: Summary of Impervious Surfaces per Sub-regional Watershed . 46 Appendix D: Table of Deliverables . 56 i List of Figures Figure 1. Hydrologic impact of urbanization flowchart . 5 Figure 2. Study area . 6 Figure 3. Examples of land cover for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 . 8 Figure 4. IMAGINE Sub-pixel Classifier process . 9 Figure 5. Examples of raw impervious surface estimates for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 11 Figure 6. Examples of final impervious surface estimates for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 14 Figure A-1. 1990 West Hartford validation data (area 1) and difference graph . 22 Figure A-2. 1990 West Hartford validation data (area 2) and difference graph . 23 Figure A-3. 1995 Marlborough validation data and difference graph . 24 Figure A-4. 1995 Waterford validation data (area 1) and difference graph .
  • 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 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.
  • CT DEEP 2018 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 1 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus Punctatus) 4/26/2018 Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta)

    CT DEEP 2018 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 1 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus Punctatus) 4/26/2018 Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta)

    CT DEEP 2018 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 1 Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 4/26/2018 Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) YOU CAN FIND US DIRECTLY ON FACEBOOK. This page features a variety of information on fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching in Connecticut. The address is www.facebook.com/CTFishandWildlife. INLAND REPORT OPENING DAY – We had a short blast of warm air temperatures that gave anglers a comfortable Opening Day, however, water temperatures were very cold, possibly contributing to difficult catching for many. Fisheries staff were out at eight of the twelve Trout Parks were stocked on Opening Day and the many kids Connecticut’s Trout & Salmon Stamp: Connecticut present enjoyed helping us stock. Catch percentage has implemented a Trout and Salmon Stamp. 100% was from 60 to 80% at a number of the Trout Parks of the revenue from your investment comes to the including Stratton Brook, Black Rock, Kent Falls, DEEP Bureau of Natural Resources for Fisheries Chatfield Hollow, Valley Falls Park, Southford Falls, and programs. Great Hollow. Many other locations, both river and The Trout and Salmon Stamp is $5 for anyone age 18 stream as well as lake and pond did not give up their or older, including those 65 or older, and $3 for CT recently stocked trout so easily. residents age 16-17. The Stamp is required for the harvest (keeping) of Over 300,000 trout were stocked before Opening Day trout or salmon. into nearly 100 lakes and ponds and over 120 rivers The Stamp is required to FISH in one of these places: and streams located throughout Connecticut.
  • Final Amendment to the Restoration Plan

    Final Amendment to the Restoration Plan

    Final Amendment to the Housatonic River Basin Final Natural Resources Restoration Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Impact Evaluation for Connecticut May 2013 State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Proposed Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Power Line Marsh Restoration ...................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Long Beach West Tidal Marsh Restoration ................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Pin Shop Pond Dam Removal...................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Old Papermill Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Study ................................................. 15 2.2.5 Housatonic Watershed Habitat Continuity in Northwest Connecticut ........................ 18 2.2.6 Tingue Dam Fish Passage ...........................................................................................
  • 2014 Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of New York City Water Supply Reservoirs Within the Catskill/Delaware and Croton Watersheds

    2014 Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of New York City Water Supply Reservoirs Within the Catskill/Delaware and Croton Watersheds

    2014 aquatic invasive species surveys of New York City water supply reservoirs within the Catskill/Delaware and Croton Watersheds Megan Wilckens1, Holly Waterfield2 and Willard N. Harman3 INTRODUCTION The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) oversees the management and protection of the New York City water supply reservoirs, which are split between two major watershed systems, referred to as East of Hudson Watersheds (Figure 1) and Catskill/Delaware Watershed (Figure 2). The DEP is concerned about the presence of aquatic invasive species (AIS) in reservoirs because they can threaten water quality and water supply operations (intake pipes and filtration systems), degrade the aquatic ecosystem found there as well as reduce recreational opportunities for the community. Across the United States, AIS cause around $120 billion per year in environmental damages and other losses (Pimentel et al. 2005). The SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station was contracted by DEP to conduct AIS surveys on five reservoirs; the Ashokan, Rondout, West Branch, New Croton and Kensico reservoirs. Three of these reservoirs, as well as major tributary streams to all five reservoirs, were surveyed for AIS in 2014. This report details the survey results for the Ashokan, Rondout, and West Branch reservoirs, and Esopus Creek, Rondout Creek, West Branch Croton River, East Branch Croton River and Bear Gutter Creek. The intent of each survey was to determine the presence or absence of the twenty- three AIS on the NYC DEP’s AIS priority list (Table 1). This list was created by a subcommittee of the Invasive Species Working Group based on a water supply risk assessment.
  • Remediation General Permit Notice of Intent: Silver Lake High School, Kingston, MA: Signature Page, Plans, and Supporting Labora

    Remediation General Permit Notice of Intent: Silver Lake High School, Kingston, MA: Signature Page, Plans, and Supporting Labora

    S . Signature Requirements : the Notice of Intent must be signed by the operator in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR Section 122 .22. including the following certification : 1 cert,y tinder penalty of law that thus document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, I certify that the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete . I cert f, that I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and inrprisonnrentfor knowing violations . Facility /Site Name : StIvev L.P kc/ d.. p $e.Loo ~ ~, 1 Operator signature: 1 Title : -,CL ~~ 1 Date: ZS 12-vv b Remediation General Permit -Notice of Intent 21 ~YIS,06 ~r FI UN 41IE xtsDA~ CHECK VALVE HUNG PARTICILATE FILTER AIR/WATER SEPARATOR OIL SCAVENGE LINE KNOCKOUT TANK 2' DISCHARGE PRESSIRE GAUGE (0-3 PSI ) INLET (2' NPT) AIR/OIL SEPARATOR TANK - OIL GAUGE i 55 LOW LEVEL SWITCH 0 AIR COOLED HEAT EXCHANGER 0 0 Tuthill Vacu um Systems EOPX - 100 Im UIL DG No. DRAWN : TM 0 lw/03 B997-A100 :56 A APPROVED : ff4E MA CAD FILE W : 996-452A 9EEI I IF 2 a N o® ®®® ®~ R o 1 1111 F =n 0 0 0 0 0 Horiick Co . inc. y ~u~n~uba.+a 91 Pxpn Pok piK s.w.
  • Bedrock Geologic Map of the New Milford Quadrangle, Litchfield and Fairfield Counties, Connecticut

    Bedrock Geologic Map of the New Milford Quadrangle, Litchfield and Fairfield Counties, Connecticut

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Prepared in cooperation with the State of Connecticut, Geological and Natural History Survey BEDROCK GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE NEW MILFORD QUADRANGLE, LITCHFIELD AND FAIRFIELD COUNTIES, CONNECTICUT By Gregory J. Walsh1 Open-File Report 03-487 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ______________________________________________________________________________ 1U.S. Geological Survey P.O. Box 628 Montpelier, Vermont 05601 The map and database of this report are available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-487/ USGS Open File Report 03-487 On the cover: Photograph of Lake Candlewood from Hubbell Hill in Sherman. View is to the south. Green Island and Deer Island are visible in the center of the view. The Vaughns Neck peninsula is visible on the left side of the photograph. Bedrock Geologic Map of the New Milford Quadrangle, Litchfield and Fairfield Counties, Connecticut 2 USGS Open File Report 03-487 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 STRATIGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 6 MESOPROTEROZOIC GNEISS..............................................................................................
  • Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan June 2011 West Branch Salmon Brook Photo: Joyce Kennedy

    Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan June 2011 West Branch Salmon Brook Photo: Joyce Kennedy

    Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan June 2011 West Branch Salmon Brook Photo: Joyce Kennedy Front Cover: Farmington River upstream of Unionville, photo by Tom Cameron Though originally from the Midwest, Tom Cameron and his wife have adopted and are truly at home on the Farmington River near Collinsville. For the last 7 years his photography work has been almost entirely outdoors. Special interests include unique lighting conditions, water subjects such as reflections and captured motion, sunrises, and a variety of critters from heron to spiders. Back Cover: Painting by Bill Simpson, Artist/Fly Fisherman, wmsimpson.com When viewing Bill Simpson’s paintings there is the sensation of walking alongside him as he shares his favorite haunts with us. Together we search shoreline sandbars and rips where stripers and blues fight the tide with the safety of deep water near by, or he may lead us above a wooded stream where dappled light rakes the water camouflaging undisturbed trout. Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan June 2011 Lower Farmington and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Study C/o FRWA 749 Hopmeadow Street Simsbury, CT 06070 860 658 4442 http://www.lowerfarmingtonriver.org/ June 2011 i Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Management Plan June 2011 The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic Study Committee The Study Committee’s membership includes locally appointed representatives from each town in the Study Area, and representatives from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP), the National Park Service (NPS), the Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA), the Salmon Brook Watershed Association (SBWA), Stanley Black & Decker, the Tariffville Village Association (TVA), the Connecticut Forest and Park Association (CFPA), Whitewater Triple Crown, and the Pequabuck River Watershed Association (PRWA).
  • New Marlborough Open Space 2004

    New Marlborough Open Space 2004

    New Marlborough Open Space and Recreation Plan March, 2004 2 Table of Contents Section One: Plan Summary 5 Section Two: Statement of Purpose 7 Planning Process and Public Participation 7 Section Three: Community Se�ing 9 Section Four: Environmental Inventory and Analysis 15 A. Geology, Soils, and Topography 15 B. Landscape Character 18 C. Water Resources 18 D. Vegetation 21 E. Fisheries and Wildlife 26 F. Scenic Resources and Unique Environments 27 G. Environmental Challenges 29 Section Five: Inventory of Lands of Conservation 31 and Recreation Interest 31 A. Private Parcels With Permanent Protection 32 B. Private Parcels With Temporary Protection 35 C. Public and Nonprofit Protected Parcels 35 Section Six: Community Goals 39 A. Description of Process 39 B. Statement of Open Space and Recreation Goals 39 Section Seven: Analysis of Needs 41 A. Summary of Resource Protection Needs 41 B. Summary of Community’s Needs 43 C. Management Needs 44 Section Eight: Goals and Objectives 47 Section Nine: Five-Year Action Plan 49 Section Ten: Public Comments 59 Section Eleven: References 61 Appendix 64 3 4 Section One: Plan Summary Section One: Plan Summary Preserving rural character and protecting natural resources are the primary goals for the 2004 New Marlborough Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP). Situated in the most southern part of Berkshire County, New Marlborough is off the beaten path, roughly twenty miles from the nearest exit of the Massachuse�s Turnpike. The residents take pride in their sense of place and wish to maintain it. Recent decades of broad economic and demographic changes in New England are affecting the small, rural community of New Marlborough.
  • Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report

    Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study Report

    Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study STUDY REPORT A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation Katie Kennedy, The Nature Conservancy Kim Lutz, The Nature Conservancy Christopher Hatfield, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Leanna Martin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Townsend Barker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Richard Palmer, University of Massachusetts Amherst Luke Detwiler, University of Massachusetts Amherst Jocelyn Anleitner, University of Massachusetts Amherst John Hickey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kennedy, K., K. Lutz, C. Hatfield, L. Martin, T. Barker, R. Palmer, L. Detwiler, J. Anleitner, J. Hickey. 2018. The Connecticut River Flow Restoration Study: A watershed-scale assessment of the potential for flow restoration through dam re-operation. The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Northampton, MA. Available: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed For a quick, easy-to-read overview of the Connecticut River Watershed Study, see our companion “Study Overview” document, available at: http://nature.org/ctriverwatershed June 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................................................1