DOCSLIB.ORG

Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tactical Basin Plan Green River, Guilford December 2019 | Public Draft Tactical Basin Plan was prepared in accordance with 10 VSA § 1253(d), the Vermont Water Quality Standards1, the Federal Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 130.6, and the Vermont Surface Water Management Strategy. Approved: ----------------------------------------- ------------------------- Emily Boedecker, Commissioner Date Department of Environmental Conservation -------------------------------------- ------------------------- Julie Moore, Secretary Date Agency of Natural Resources Cover Photo: Green River in Guilford – Marie L. Caduto The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity agency and offers all persons the benefits of participating in each of its programs and competing in all areas of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual preference, or other non-merit factors. This document is available in alternative formats upon request. Call 802-828-1535 i Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 What is a Tactical Basin Plan ................................................................................................. 3 A. The Vermont Clean Water Act ........................................................................................... 4 B. Vermont Water Quality Standards ..................................................................................... 5 C. Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................. 6 Climate Change in Vermont ................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1 Basin Description and Condition ..................................................................... 9 Current Land Use ................................................................................................................... 9 Condition of Rivers .............................................................................................................. 12 Condition of Lakes and Ponds .............................................................................................. 14 Condition of Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 17 Condition of Fisheries .......................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2 Priority Surface Waters for Protection ........................................................... 23 Reclassification of Waters.................................................................................................... 26 Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) Designation ............................................................... 27 Class 1 Wetlands Designation .............................................................................................. 28 Identification of Existing Uses .............................................................................................. 28 Chapter 3 Priority Areas for Surface Water Restoration ................................................. 30 A. Impaired Waters and Priority Surface Waters .................................................................. 30 B. Basin Specific Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) ......................................................... 34 C. Targeted Waters for Restoration...................................................................................... 40 Chapter 4 Strategies to Address Pollution by Land Use Sector ........................................ 45 A. Agriculture 46 ii B. Developed Lands -- Stormwater ....................................................................................... 54 C. Developed Lands -- Roads ................................................................................................ 56 D. Wastewater .................................................................................................................... 62 E. Natural Resources Restoration ......................................................................................... 67 Chapter 5 Plan Implementation ..................................................................................... 76 Monitoring Priorities Table .................................................................................................. 81 Acronyms…….. ..................................................................................................................... 92 Glossary…………………….……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..…………95 Appendices……………….……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..……..………….99 Appendix A. 2014 Report Card ........................................................................................... 100 Appendix B. Existing Uses in Basin 12 ................................................................................. 121 Appendix C. Dams in Basin 12 ............................................................................................ 124 Appendix D. Fisheries Assessment of Basin 12 .................................................................... 127 Appendix E. Municipal Protectiveness Matrix for Basin 15 .................................................. 173 Appendix F. Responsiveness Summary ............................................................................... 174 List of Figures Figure 1. Deerfield River & Lower Connecticut River Tributaries Figure 2. Steps in the Tactical Basin Planning Process Figure 3. Volunteer Monitoring Figure 4. Land Cover Figure 5. Conserved Lands Figure 6. Macroinvertebrate Biological Conditions Figure 7. Fish Community Biological Conditions Figure 8. Use Conditions of Assessed Rivers and Streams iii Figure 9. Lake Score Card Conditions Figure 10. Use Conditions of Assessed Lakes Figure 11. Condition of Assessed Wetlands Figure 12. Protection Priorities Figure 13. Use Support of Assessed Rivers Figure 14. Remediation Priorities Map Figure 15. Remediation Priorities List Figure 16. Frequency of Hypoxia in Long Island Sound Figure 17. Example from the Connecticut River Basin of total maximum daily load applications of the results from the New England SPARROW model for total nitrogen.1 Figure 18. Agricultural Land Cover Figure 19. Acreage of NRCS and VAAFM Practices Implemented by Year Figure 20. State & Federal Agricultural Funding Since 2004 Figure 21. Hydrologically Connected Road Segments Figure 22. MRGP Implementation Timeline Figure 23. Active Channel Width Figure 24. High Risk Road Segments Figure 25. Geomorphic Conditions of Assessed Waters Figure 26. Windham County Harvest Summary List of Tables Table 1. Acid and Mercury Impaired Lakes Table 2. Criteria for Water Classes Table 3. Reclassification Proposed for A(1) Aquatic Biota Table 4. Reclassification Proposed for B(1) Aquatic Biota & Fishery Table 5. Proposed ORW Designation 1 Ibid. iv Table 6. Wetlands to Assess Table 7. TMDLs Table 8. Restoration Priorities Table 9. Great River Hydro Facilities Table 10. Road Erosion Inventory Assessment Table 11. Better Roads Grant Funding Table 12. Municipal Wastewater Discharge Permits Table 15. Stream Geomorphic Assessments Completed Table 16. Dam Status Table 17. Implementation Priorities Table 18. Basin priorities for monitoring and assessment v Basin 12 Towns Brattleboro Marlboro Sunderland* Dover Readsboro Vernon Dummerston* Searsburg Wardsboro* Glastenbury Somerset Whitingham Guilford Stamford* Wilmington Halifax Stratton Woodford Towns in Major Sub-watersheds Deerfield Watershed Green River Brattleboro Deerfield River Guilford Dover Halifax Glastenbury Marlboro Readsboro Wilmington Searsburg Somerset North River Stamford Halifax Stratton Marlboro Sunderland Whitingham Wardsboro Wilmington Whitingham Wilmington Woodford Connecticut River Watershed Connecticut River Fall River Brattleboro Guilford Dummerston Vernon Vernon Broad Brook Whetstone Brook Brattleboro Brattleboro Guilford Dummerston Vernon Marlboro * - towns with small areas in the Basin vi Figure 1. Executive Summary The Deerfield Tactical Basin Plan (TBP) provides an assessment of watershed condition and identifies current and future strategies to protect high quality waters and restore impaired water resources based on the approaches set forward in the Vermont Surface Water Management Strategy (VSWMS). The five chapters in this plan provide a framework for understanding Basin 12, including its unique characteristics and water quality issues, and where and how to carry out priority actions to protect, maintain, enhance, and restore water quality in the Basin. The Deerfield River descends from the towns of Glastenbury and Stratton in the southern Green Mountains of Vermont. It flows through south central Vermont and crosses the Vermont-Massachusetts border before it joins the Connecticut River. The Deerfield River in Vermont has four branches: North, South, East and West. Two more of the Deerfield’s main tributaries, the East Branch of the North River and the Green River, originate in Vermont and enter the Deerfield River in Massachusetts. The Deerfield River system drains 14 towns and 318 square miles in Vermont and 347 square miles in Massachusetts. Included in Basin 12 is a short reach of the Connecticut River mainstem, from the mouth of the West River in Brattleboro south to the Massachusetts border as well as Whetstone,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report
    DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED Assessment Report 2004-2008 Downstream of Fife Brook Dam The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114-2119 Mitt Romney GOVERNOR Kerry Healey LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Fax: (617) 626-1181 Ellen Roy Herzfelder or (617) 626-1180 SECRETARY http://www.state.ma.us/envir November 19, 2004 Dear Friends of the Deerfield River Watershed: It is with great pleasure that I present you with the Assessment Report for the Deerfield River Watershed. The report helped formulate the 5-year watershed action plan that will guide local and state environmental efforts within the Deerfield River Watershed over the next five years. The report expresses some of the overall goals of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, such as improving water quality, restoring natural flows to rivers, protecting and restoring biodiversity and habitats, improving public access and balanced resource use, improving local capacity, and promoting a shared responsibility for watershed protection and management. The Deerfield River Watershed Assessment Report was developed with input from the Deerfield River Watershed Team and multiple stakeholders including watershed groups, state and federal agencies, Regional Planning Agencies and, of course, the general public from across the Watershed. We appreciate the opportunity to engage such a wide group of expertise and experience as it allows the state to focus on the issues and challenges that might otherwise not be easily characterized. From your input we have identified the following priority issues: • Water Quantity • Water Quality • Fish Communities • Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat • Open Space • Recreation I commend everyone involved in this endeavor.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcanada Hydro Northeast Inc. Deerfield River Project (Lp 2323)
    TRANSCANADA HYDRO NORTHEAST INC. DEERFIELD RIVER PROJECT (LP 2323) LOW IMPACT HYDROPOWER CERTIFICATION APPLICATION ATTACHMENT C PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Overview TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. (the Company) owns and operates the Deerfield River Project (the Project) on the Deerfield River, a major tributary to the Connecticut River. The Project is located in Bennington and Windham Counties in Vermont, and in Berkshire and Franklin Counties in Massachusetts. It consists of eight developments: Somerset, Searsburg, Harriman, Sherman, Deerfield No. 5, Deerfield No. 4, Deerfield No. 3 and Deerfield No.2, having a total installed capacity of 86 megawatts (MW). All dam operations and generation operations are controlled remotely from the Deerfield River Control Center in Monroe Bridge Massachusetts, located near the Deerfield No. 5 Dam. The Project area encompasses about a 65-mile reach of the river, including reservoirs. Two other developments not owned by the company are also located within this area. They are Brookfield Renewable Power’s Bear Swamp Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 5 development; and Consolidated Edison’s Gardner Falls Project located downstream of the Deerfield No. 3 development. Exhibit 1 depicts the general Project area. Settlement Agreement The Deerfield River Project was one of the first FERC Projects to be relicensed under a comprehensive Settlement Agreement approach executed in 1994. A five-year cooperative consultation process involving state and federal resource agencies, various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the licensee (at that time New England Power Company) resulted in settlement by the parties. The process of reaching this agreement included examination of the power and non-power tradeoffs and effects of a wide variety of operational scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield and CT River Project History.Pmd
    HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS HISTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONNECTICUT AND DEERFIELD RIVERS INTRODUCTION increasingly complex. While the Depression limited further growth of the industry, a new era emerged In 1903, Malcolm Greene Chace (1875-1955) and after World War II, with streamlined management Henry Ingraham Harriman (1872-1950) established structures and increased regulations and Chace & Harriman, a company that, in its many government involvement (Cook 1991:4; Landry and incarnations over the course of the following Cruikshank 1996:2-5). The first of the 14 decades, grew into one of the largest electric utility hydroelectric facilities built on the Connecticut and companies in New England. The company built a Deerfield rivers by Chace & Harriman and its series of hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticut successors were developed in the early 1900s, and Deerfield rivers in Vermont, New Hampshire shortly after the potential of hydroelectric power and western Massachusetts, which were intended was realized on a large scale. Subsequent facilities to provide a reliable and less expensive alternative were constructed during the maturation of the to coal-produced steam power. Designed primarily industry in the 1920s, and two of the stations were to serve industrial centers in Massachusetts and completed in the post-World War II era. The history Rhode Island, the facilities also provided power to of the companies that built these stations is residential customers and municipalities in New intrinsically linked with broader trends in the history England. Chace & Harriman eventually evolved of electricity, hydropower technology, and industrial into the New England Power Association (NEPA) architecture in America.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Dam Safety Program Research Needs Workshop: Hydrologic Issues for Dams Preface
    The National Dam Safety Program Research Needs Workshop: Hydrologic Issues for Dams Preface One of the activities authorized by the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002 is research to enhance the Nation’s ability to assure that adequate dam safety programs and practices are in place throughout the United States. The Act of 2002 states that the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with the National Dam Safety Review Board (Review Board), shall carry out a program of technical and archival research to develop and support: • improved techniques, historical experience, and equipment for rapid and effective dam construction, rehabilitation, and inspection; • devices for continued monitoring of the safety of dams; • development and maintenance of information resources systems needed to support managing the safety of dams; and • initiatives to guide the formulation of effective policy and advance improvements in dam safety engineering, security, and management. With the funding authorized by the Congress, the goal of the Review Board and the Dam Safety Research Work Group (Work Group) is to encourage research in those areas expected to make significant contributions to improving the safety and security of dams throughout the United States. The Work Group (formerly the Research Subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety) met initially in February 1998. To identify and prioritize research needs, the Subcommittee sponsored a workshop on Research Needs in Dam Safety in Washington D.C. in April 1999. Representatives of state and federal agencies, academia, and private industry attended the workshop. Seventeen broad area topics related to the research needs of the dam safety community were identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Deerfield River Watershed Association
    A Watershed-Based Plan to Maintain the Health and Improve the Resiliency of the Deerfield River Watershed Franklin Regional Council of Governments Staff: Kimberly Noake MacPhee, P.G., CFM, Land Use and Natural Resources Program Manager Mary Chicoine, Senior Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Ryan Clary, Senior GIS Specialist Alyssa Larose, Land Use and Natural Resources Planner Megan Rhodes, AICP, Senior Transportation/Land Use Planner With technical assistance provided by: Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., Erik Mas, PE Field Geology Services, John Field, Ph.D., P.G. and Nicolas Miller Franklin Conservation District Deborah Shriver Consulting, Deborah M. Shriver Acknowledgements: Watershed stakeholders provided valuable comments and insight during the development of this plan. This plan also benefitted from the assistance and advice of the following organizations and individuals: Brian Yellen, Researcher, Department of Geosciences, UMass Amherst Andy Fisk, Executive Director, Connecticut River Conservancy Rita Thibodeau, District Conservationist, USDA, NRCS Carrie Banks, MA Division of Ecological Restoration, Dept. Fish & Game Erin Rodgers, Ph.D., Western New England Project Coordinator, Trout Unlimited Michael B. Cole, Ph.D., Cole Ecological Will Sloan Anderson, Franklin Land Trust Photographs: Cover Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com Pp. 2-3 Deerfield River landscape Matthew MacPherson http://mattmacpherson.com P. 11 Flooding in Deerfield Town of Greenfield P. 39 Crowningshield property Franklin Land Trust P. 45 Dam sites Erin Rodgers, Trout Unlimited Pp. 82-105 Maps, figures and photos Field Geology Services This project has been financed with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Massachusetts Depart- ment of Environmental Protection (the Department) under an s.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Deal Versus Yankee Independence: the Failure of Comprehensive Development on the Connecticut River, and Its Long-Term Consequences
    The New Deal versus Yankee independence: The failure of comprehensive development on the Connecticut River, and its long-term consequences Eve Vogel1 Department of Geosciences, UMass Amherst With assistance from Alexandra Lacy 2011 alumna (BS, Environmental Sciences), UMass Amherst Adapted from: Vogel, Eve and Alexandra Lacy. Forthcoming. The New Deal versus Yankee independence: The failure of comprehensive development on the Connecticut River, and its long-term consequences. The Northeastern Geographer 4 (2) Introduction For a person familiar with federal dams on major rivers in the American West or South, a visit to an Army Corps of Engineers dam in New England’s largest river basin, the Connecticut, can be a startling experience. Instead of an extended reservoir, one looks down from the empty heights and on both sides sees only a small river far below. Nor is there the fanfare – the visitors center, the historical information, the celebratory propaganda. Simply finding one of the Connecticut River’s federal dams can take some effort. None are on the mainstem. One must drive through the bucolic New England byways and forested hills to find a dam on a tributary (See Figure 1). For New Englanders, the near-invisibility of federal dams may not seem surprising. New England’s history and identity, including the Connecticut Valley’s, seem to rest with the small- to medium-scale development of rivers with mill dams during the 17th thru 19th centuries (e.g. Delaney 1983; Steinberg 1991). It might be more startling for many to learn that during the mid- twentieth century, the federal government did build a series of very large dams in the Connecticut Basin, which have had profound effect on the river.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Waters of Vermont
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 424 SURFACE WATERS OF VERMONT BY C. H. PIERCE Prepared in cooperation with the STATE OF VERMONT WASHINGTON GOVEENMENT PBINTING OFFICE 1917 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BK PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 25 CENTS PER COPY CONTENTS. Introduction.............................................................. 5 Cooperation................................................................ 8 Division of work.......................................................... 8 Definition of terms......................................................... 9 Explanation of data........................................................ 9 Accuracy of field data and computed results................................ 11 Gaging stations maintained in Vermont..................................... 12 St. Lawrence River basin................................................. 13 Lake Champlain drainage basin......................................... 13 General features................................................... 13 Gaging-station records.............................................. 14 Lake Champlain at Burlington, Vt.............................. 14 Lake Champlain outlet (Richelieu River) at Chambly, Province of Quebec.1................................................. 20 Poultney Eiver near Fair Haven, Vt............................ 25 Otter Creek at Middlebury,
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Population Sampling
    2005 Deerfield River Watershed Fish Population Assessment Robert J. Maietta Watershed Planning Program Worcester, MA January, 2007 CN: 223.4 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Arleen O’Donnell, Acting Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Glenn Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Introduction Fish population surveys were conducted in the Deerfield River Watershed during the late summer of 2005 using techniques similar to Rapid Bioassessment Protocol V as described originally by Plafkin et al.(1989) and later by Barbour et al. (1999). Standard Operating Procedures are described in MassDEP Method CN 075.1 Fish Population SOP. Surveys also included a habitat assessment component modified from that described in the aforementioned document (Barbour et al. 1999). Fish populations were sampled by electrofishing using a Smith Root Model 12 battery powered backpack electrofisher. A reach of between 80m and 100m was sampled by passing a pole mounted anode ring, side to side through the stream channel and in and around likely fish holding cover. All fish shocked were netted and held in buckets. Sampling proceeded from an obstruction or constriction, upstream to an endpoint at another obstruction or constriction such as a waterfall or shallow riffle. Following completion of a sampling run, all fish were identified to species, measured, and released. Results of the fish population surveys can be found in Table 1. It should be noted that young of the year (yoy) fish from most species, with the exception of salmonids are not targeted for collection. Young-of-the-year fishes which are collected, either on purpose or inadvertently, are noted in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Recreation Recreation Outdoor Massachusetts the Wildlife
    Photos by MassWildlife by Photos Photo © Kindra Clineff massvacation.com mass.gov/massgrown Office of Fishing & Boating Access * = Access to coastal waters A = General Access: Boats and trailer parking B = Fisherman Access: Smaller boats and trailers C = Cartop Access: Small boats, canoes, kayaks D = River Access: Canoes and kayaks Other Massachusetts Outdoor Information Outdoor Massachusetts Other E = Sportfishing Pier: Barrier free fishing area F = Shorefishing Area: Onshore fishing access mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/fba/ Western Massachusetts boundaries and access points. mass.gov/dfw/pond-maps points. access and boundaries BOAT ACCESS SITE TOWN SITE ACCESS then head outdoors with your friends and family! and friends your with outdoors head then publicly accessible ponds providing approximate depths, depths, approximate providing ponds accessible publicly ID# TYPE Conservation & Recreation websites. Make a plan and and plan a Make websites. Recreation & Conservation Ashmere Lake Hinsdale 202 B Pond Maps – Suitable for printing, this is a list of maps to to maps of list a is this printing, for Suitable – Maps Pond Benedict Pond Monterey 15 B Department of Fish & Game and the Department of of Department the and Game & Fish of Department Big Pond Otis 125 B properties and recreational activities, visit the the visit activities, recreational and properties customize and print maps. mass.gov/dfw/wildlife-lands maps. print and customize Center Pond Becket 147 C For interactive maps and information on other other on information and maps interactive For Cheshire Lake Cheshire 210 B displays all MassWildlife properties and allows you to to you allows and properties MassWildlife all displays Cheshire Lake-Farnams Causeway Cheshire 273 F Wildlife Lands Maps – The MassWildlife Lands Viewer Viewer Lands MassWildlife The – Maps Lands Wildlife Cranberry Pond West Stockbridge 233 C Commonwealth’s properties and recreation activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology of Massachusetts
    Hydrology of Massachusetts Part 1. Summary of stream flow and precipitation records By C. E. KNOX and R. M. SOULE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1105 Prepared in cooperation with Massachusetts Department of Public ff^orks This copy is, PI1R1rUDLIt If PROPERTYr nuri-i LI and is not to be removed from the official files. JJWMt^ 380, POSSESSION IS UNLAWFUL (* s ' Sup% * Sec. 749) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1949 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR J. A. Kruft, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. G. - Price 91.00 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Introduction........................................................ 1 Cooperation and acknowledgments..................................... 3 Explanation of data................................................. 3 Stream-flow data.................................................. 3 Duration tables................................................... 5 Precipitation data................................................ 6 Bibliography........................................................ 6 Index of stream-flow records........................................ 8 Stream-flow records................................................. 9 Merrimack River Basin............................................. 9 Merrimack River below. Concord River, at Lowell, Mass............ 9 Merrimack River at Lawrence, Mass............................... 10 North Nashua River near Leominster,
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT (Franklin County, Massachusetts)
    SOUTH RIVER WATERSHED 2006 MACROINVERTEBRATE ASSESSMENT (Franklin County, Massachusetts) MICHAEL B. COLE DEERFIELD RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 15 Bank Row, Suite A Greenfield, Massachusetts May 2007 DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • As part of the Deerfield River Watershed Association’s (DRWA) commitment to protecting the watershed’s resources, the DRWA has performed water quality monitoring to supplement the efforts of regulatory agencies to monitor the watershed’s condition. In recognizing the need to more thoroughly assess biological conditions in the Deerfield River watershed, the DRWA implemented in 2005 a long-term macroinvertebrate monitoring program. The objectives of the program are to 1) augment MA DEP/DWM biomonitoring efforts to assess surface waters in the watershed with respect to their aquatic-life-use status and 2) familiarize citizens of the watershed with biological monitoring to increase support for and participation in watershed enhancement and protection activities. The South River watershed was sampled in 2006 under this program. • Twelve river and stream reaches were selected in the South River watershed for sampling in 2006. Eight sites were selected on the South River ranging from within the town of Ashfield downriver to the confluence with the Deerfield River. The Bear River, a less developed and neighboring drainage to the north, was selected as the reference site against which to compare conditions in the mainstem South River below its confluence with Creamery Brook. Five tributaries to the South River were also sampled, including two reaches on the upper mainstem of the South River which are small enough to warrant comparison with other tributaries in the watershed. Lower Chapel Brook was selected as the reference reach for the tributaries in this assessment, as it occurs in a largely forested drainage.
    [Show full text]