DOCSLIB.ORG

Coginchaug River Watershed Based Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coginchaug River Watershed Based Plan Coginchaug River Watershed Based Plan Prepared by the USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service July 2008 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of the Advisory Committee for their contribution of time and effort to the development of this plan: Jane Brawerman, Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District Linda Charpentier, Xavier High School Educator/Town of Durham Marianne Corona, Town of Middlefield George Frick, Town of Durham Jim Gibbons, Connecticut Cooperative Extension Melissa Greenbacker, Town of Durham John Hall, Jonah Center Meagan Hearne, Connecticut River Watershed Council John Lyman, Town of Middlefield, Lyman Orchards Ron Matyjas, Town of Middlefield Bob Melvin, Town of Durham Kate Miller, Conservation Commission, City of Middletown Adam Moore, Town of Durham/CT. Forest and Parks Tim Myjak, Middlesex Chamber of Commerce I would like to thank the following NRCS Staff and others for their invaluable assistance: All of the Streamwalk Volunteers and participants in outreach activities Todd Bobowick, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Carol Donzella, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Jule Dybdahl, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut MaryAnn Haverstock, CT Department of Environmental Protection Carol Jaworowski, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Leslie Kane, Environmental Planner, Town of Guilford Lisa Krall, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Kip Kolesinskas, State Soil Scientist, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Richard Kszystyniak, District Conservationist, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Tom Ladny, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Joe Neafsey, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Tom Nigosanti, City of Middletown Phil Renn, USDA -Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut (Retired) Ben Smith, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Walter Smith, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut (Retired) Sally Snyder, CT Department of Environmental Protection Lesley Sweeney, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut Lee Vito, Town of Middlefield Margo Wallace, State Conservationist, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Connecticut (Retired) Stan Zaremba, CT Department of Environmental Protection This project was funded through a partnership between the USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service in Connecticut, and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Section 319 Clean Water Act funds. For additional information about this plan, or the watershed based planning process, please contact: Seth Lerman, Resource Conservationist USDA-NRCS 344 Merrow Road, Suite A Tolland, CT 06084 860.871.4065 [email protected] TABLE OF C0NTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 PURPOSE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 SCOPE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 METHODOLOGY----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25 LAND USE/LAND COVER GIS DATA SET -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27 SOIL BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -------------------------------------------------34 WETLAND EVALUATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41 PERVIOUS / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ANALYSIS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------49 MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS REVIEW -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------58 STREAMWALK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------59 LEVEL 1 GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------66 FISHERIES RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------73 DAM/IMPOUNDMENT ASSESSMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------77 DISCUSSION OF WATERSHED COMPONENTS - THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND ------------------------------------------81 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------87 OVERALL EFFICIENCIES OF BMPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------89 WATERSHED WIDE BMP RECOMMENDATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------95 ANALYSIS AREA PLACE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS:------------------------------------------------------------------- 110 ANALYSIS AREA 1 (AA-1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111 ANALYSIS AREA 2 (AA-2)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 124 ANALYSIS AREA 3 (AA-3)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134 ANALYSIS AREA 4 (AA-4)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140 NEXT STEPS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 145 FUNDING SOURCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 151 INTERIM MILESTONES----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 155 REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 158 APPENDICES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 160 APPENDIX A: LAND USE/ LAND COVER-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 160 APPENDIX B: SOIL BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -------------------------------- 168 APPENDIX C: WETLAND EVALUATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 170 APPENDIX D: PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS ANALYSIS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 173 APPENDIX E: MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS REVIEW ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 176 APPENDIX F: STREAMWALK DATA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 179 APPENDIX G: LEVEL I GEOMORPHIC STREAM ASSESSMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 203 APPENDIX H: FISHERIES RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 207 APPENDIX I: GENERAL BMP COSTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 215 List of Maps Map 1: Location of Coginchaug River Watershed 11 Map 2: Surface and Ground Water Quality 15 Map 3: Analysis Areas and Water Quality Monitoring Points 19 Map 4: Broad Land Use/Land Cover 29 Map 5: Detailed Land Use/Land Cover 31 Map 6: Stormwater Runoff Management: Soil Suitability for Stormwater Basins 35 Map 7: Stormwater Runoff Management: Soil Suitability for Stormwater Infiltration Systems 37 Map 8: Stormwater Runoff Management: Soil Suitability for Stormwater Wetland Systems 39 Map 9: Wetland Evaluation – Inflow rating 43 Map 10: Wetland Evaluation – Capacity Rating 45 Map 11: Inset Map -Durham Meadows Wetland System 42 Map 12: Inset Map - Lyman Meadow Brook Wetland System 47 Map 13: Inset Map - Ellen
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 .
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Strea
    Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Streambed Sediment in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, 1992-94 By Robert F. Breault and Sandra L. Harris Abstract exceed sediment-quality guidelines over a wider geographical area, although usually by lower Streambed-sediment samples were collected ratios of contaminant concentration to sediment- in 1992-94 at selected sites in the Connecticut, quality guideline than the organic compounds. Housatonic, and Thames River Basins to determine the geographical distribution of trace elements and organic compounds and their INTRODUCTION potential for adverse biological effects on aquatic organisms. Chromium, copper, lead, mercury, The Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins study unit is one of 59 National Water-Quality nickel, zinc, chlordane, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs Assessment (NAWQA) study units nationwide. The were detected in samples from throughout the study unit drainage basin comprises an area of almost basins, but concentrations of these constituents 16,000 mi2 and extends through parts of the Province of generally were lowest in the northern forested Quebec, Canada, eastern Vermont, western New Hamp- drainage basins and highest in the southern shire, west-central Massachusetts, nearly all of Connect- urbanized drainage basins of Springfield, icut, and small parts of New York and Rhode Island. Massachusetts, and Hartford, New Haven and The study unit is entirely within the New Bridgeport, Connecticut. Possible anthropogenic England Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938), a sources of these contaminants include industrial plateau-like upland that rises gradually from the sea but effluent; municipal wastewater; runoff from includes numerous mountain ranges and individual agricultural, urban and forested areas; and peaks.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: City of Middletown Water Quality and Stormwater Summary
    79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Factsheet: City of Middletown Water Quality and Stormwater Summary This document was created for each town that has submitted monitoring data under the current Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit. What follows is information on how stormwater can affect water quality in streams and rivers and a summary of data submitted by your town. This factsheet is intended to help you interpret your monitoring results and assist you in compliance with the MS4 program. Water Quality in Connecticut Surface waters are important resources that support numerous uses, including water supply, recreation, fishing, shellfishing and sustaining aquatic life. Water quality conditions needed to support these uses are identified within the Connecticut Water Quality Standards (WQS). In order to protect and restore these uses, we need acceptable environmental conditions (physical, chemical and biological) to be present within surface waters. To assess and track water quality conditions, CT DEEP conducts monitoring across the State. The data is synthesized into a biennial state water quality report called the Integrated Water Quality Report. Currently, specific water quality monitoring in the state encompasses about 50% of rivers, 47% of lakes, and 100% of estuary/coastline. In addition, CT DEEP may have information about certain land uses or discharges which could indicate a potential for water quality to be impacted, even if the waterbody has not been fully monitored and assessed. To find more detailed information on water quality in your town, please see the Integrated Water Quality Report (IWQR) on the CT DEEP website at www.ct.gov/deep/iwqr.
    [Show full text]
  • Howard B. Field Forest
    Howard B. Field Forest Forest Stewardship Plan Connecticut Forest and Park Association November 2014 Update Edited by Dan Donahue, Forester & Chairman, Forest & Trails Conservation Committee & Lindsay Suhr, Land Conservation Director Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... 5 I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6 II. Landscape Context ................................................................................................................................ 6 III. Management Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 7 IV. Forest Resource Inventory .................................................................................................................... 7 a. Physical Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 7 1. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................... 7 2. Topography .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AQUIFERPROTECTIONAREA SC Romwell , CONNECTICUT
    !n M W C d R I S o L v d Mill Brook P M a r e R p u i u y E n Dr r n Par V t R r D r d J S l n a d n n s M n l ! L l ry Newington High School o L d nd R i m c ipsic Rd ru o St R a o i n n t Ne a L D y s d t p B a e S un g n lls m rd d o l m a r e m i e g ba l r d r e D d l H p E W o r S b n d u l r d r n e C d H Ln r n s D i o R n Gideon Welles School S a e n l e m w t y l S S ar D e el s e ly P t a M ! l e r n y W s S m t e a Exit 29 D e t s A v Pulaski Middle School o w o b t r s a R i t e t t a S R t s e i d B l 2 D t C h R o i e r F R o rt d o s u b l H w X r r sw l I er S u l d D w l D c r d T r E t l e R r e n t d l u r y D D e i n ly h y l Rams Pond h d l D b s B 2 o e e H m r l o t p d D R t ! R d T n m r rm u o a a a u a w D H t o O D b F l H R S e ar ld r N C l d L L B O t r n n e e e r e S v K p R l W o d Nipsic Bog r w t c i Webb Kindergarten Center R R Wickham Brook a H o n o a t i l n t a e C o r l e D 175 n r i i s R H L l ni d T d H n i e n en d R Rd o R w s a D S e d l g e R V a a y s g a C n H s y l t d n w 2 p g g S z d d v e W d i y d d R ! l t e R R O o d w u e d y P a R u ld l e t n n fie fie t M r a t l d n t m S o R n a i e T R e r 9 n m n d t i d l N arl St R C B S g p R a e S M n r S o a c d u d r d le 9 i t u e l D R D k t C lonia a d h q Co d e o r l D r e S e e d e e d l D d 5 t n a e R 7 e i R B R 1 l k f l e y n i l r l d r g L S il y i i a n d v n y d w m r n ia o r i H H M H r J R F r r L L a n ke le te Nathaniel D B is y ar ! d a u e a L d a r l P e t rr l r C B R ad S Mill Pond a e u e e G S l r n t
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River Hydrilla Control Project Five-Year Management Plan
    Connecticut River Hydrilla Control Project Five-Year Management Plan Salmon Cove, Haddam/East Haddam, CT (M. Burns, RiverCOG) Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel April 2020 1 Executive Summary The federally listed noxious weed Hydrilla verticillata (monoecious biotype) was first discovered in the Connecticut River in 2016 near Keeney Cove and Glastonbury. In 2017 it was found in Enfield, Wethersfield Cove, and Crow Point Cove and the Mattabesset River. Surveys conducted in 2018-2019 indicate that the that infestation extends from Agawam, Massachusetts southward to Old Lyme, Connecticut within five miles of Long Island Sound. in scattered coves, creeks, and shoreline areas. Without a concerted multi-state control effort Vermont and New Hampshire may also be at risk of hydrilla infestation in their portion of the Connecticut River via transient boaters navigating upstream through the river system, or by visiting multiple launch sites along the river, or by the natural flow of water currents. Hydrilla is a high-priority species for prevention and early detection efforts for many New England states because once it becomes established it alters native habitats, impacts fisheries, prohibits water recreation, affects local economies and is extremely difficult and expensive to remove. Hydrilla is also found in Coventry Lake, several small private ponds, and Silvermine River in Connecticut and ten other waterbodies in Massachusetts (Coachlace Pond, Hobomock Pond, Long Pond, Lower Woburn Street Pond, Magoun Pond, Oakman Pond, Mossy Pond, Mystic
    [Show full text]
  • CT DEEP 2017 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 27 10/12/2017 Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar)
    CT DEEP 2017 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 27 10/12/2017 Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) 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 Fall TROUT and ATLANTIC SALMON Stockings- This week we began our 2017 stockings of broodstock Atlantic Salmon. Mount Tom Pond (115 fish) and Crystal Lake (Ellington) (115 fish) on Wednesday, 10/11, and the Shetucket River (230 fish) was stocked on Thursday, October 12. The upper Nauguatuck River broodstock area is scheduled to be stocked on Friday, 10/13. Trout stockings continued this week (see Lakes & Ponds and Rivers & Streams sections below for locations). (Hamden) TMA, Hockanum River TMA, Highland Lake, East Twin Lake, Stay up to date with our daily stocking post on Facebook, our interactive trout stocking map, and our stocking report. TROUT-LAKES & PONDS – Improving quickly with re-start of fall stocking. Here is this week’s stocking list: Highland Lake and East Twin Lake, both in the west. TROUT- RIVERS & STREAMS. Conditions for trout fishing are improving out of the poor conditions earlier this fall. Flows are variable across the State- see stream flow graphic on page 4). This week the Hockanum River TMA, Shetucket River, Sleeping Giant TMA, and the Naugatuck River TMA were stocked. For the latest information on what has been stocked, follow our daily posts on Facebook Page or Twitter Page, view our current stocking report, or check out the interactive trout stocking map. Farmington River – Fishing remains very good.
    [Show full text]
  • A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for the Mattabesset River Regional Basin
    A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for the Mattabesset River Regional Basin Final – May 19, 2005 This document has been established pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act JANE K. STAHL 6/1/05 ___________________________ ________ Jane Stahl, Deputy Commissioner Date Air, Waste & Water Programs YVONNE BOLTON 5/31/05 __________________________ ________ Yvonne Bolton, Chief Date Bureau of Water Management STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3020 Gina McCarthy, Commissioner TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Priority Ranking 2 Description of Waterbody 3 Pollutant of Concern and Pollutant Sources 3 Applicable Surface Water Quality Standards 4 Numeric Water Quality Target 5 Total Maximum Daily Load Waste Load Allocation to Point Sources Load Allocation to Nonpoint Sources Margin of Safety 6 Seasonal Analysis 7 TMDL Implementation Plan 7 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 8 Reasonable Assurance 10 Provisions for Revising the TMDL 10 Public Participation 11 References 11 TABLES Table 1 The status of impairment for each of the subject waterbodies based on the 2004 List Table 2 Potential sources of bacteria for each of the subject waterbodies Table 3 Applicable indicator bacteria criteria for the subject waterbodies Table 4 Summary of the TMDL analysis FIGURES Figure 1 Basin Location Map Figure 2 Designated MS4 Areas Map Figure 3 Basin Land Use and TMDL Percent Reductions Map APPENDICIES Appendix A Site Specific Information and TMDL Calculations Appendix B Technical Support Document for the Cumulative Distribution Function Method Final E.coli TMDL i Mattabesset River Regional Basin May 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis was completed for indicator bacteria in the Mattabesset River Regional Basin (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut River American Shad Management Plan
    CONNECTICUT RIVER AMERICAN SHAD MANAGEMENT PLAN Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission 103 East Plumtree Road Sunderland, Massachusetts 01375 Management Plan Approved June 9, 2017 Addendum on Fish Passage Performance Approved February 28, 2020 INTRODUCTION The Connecticut River population of American Shad has been cooperatively managed by the basin state and federal fishery agencies since 1967. In that year the “Policy Committee for Fishery Management of the Connecticut River Basin” was formed in response to the passage of the 1965 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (Public Law 89-304) by the U.S. Congress. This committee was replaced by the more formal “Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission” (CRASC), which was created by act of Congress (P.L. 98-138) in 1983 (Gephard and McMenemy 2004) and coordinates restoration and management activities with American Shad (http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/). The CRASC American Shad Management Plan had a stated objective of 1.5 to 2.0 million fish entering the river mouth annually (CRASC 1992). Diverse legislative authorities for the basin state and federal fish and wildlife agencies, including formal agreements to restore and manage American Shad, have been approved over time and are listed in Appendix A. The following Plan updates the existing CRASC Management Plan for American Shad in the Connecticut River Basin (1992), in order to reflect current restoration and management priorities and new information. An overview of American Shad life history and biology is provided in Appendix B. Annual estimates of adult returns to the river mouth for the period 1966-2015 have ranged from 226,000 to 1,628,000, with an annual mean of 638,504 fish (Appendix C).
    [Show full text]
  • Curtis Woodlands and Friendly Acres Farm Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team Report
    Curtis Woodlands and Friendly Acres Farm Natural Resource Inventories Durham Connecticut Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team Report Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation & Development Area, Inc. Curtis Woodlands and Friendly Acres Farm Natural Resource Inventories Durham, Connecticut Environmental Review Team Report Prepared by the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team Of the Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation & Development Area, Inc. For the Conservation Commission Durham, Connecticut Report # 592 January 2006 CT Environmental Review Teams 1066 Saybrook Road, PO Box 70 Haddam, CT 06438 (860) 345-3977 www.CTERT.ORG 2 Acknowledgments This report is an outgrowth of a request from the Durham Conservation Commission to the Connecticut River and Coastal Conservation District (CRCCD) and the Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Area (RC&D) Council for their consideration and approval. The request was approved and the measure reviewed by the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team (ERT). The Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team Coordinator, Elaine Sych, would like to thank and gratefully acknowledge the following Team members whose professionalism and expertise were invaluable to the completion of this report. The field review took place on, Tuesday, May 24, 2005. Nicholas Bellantoni State Archaeologist Office of State Archaeology UCONN – CT Museum of Natural History (860) 486-4460 Robin Blum Wildlife Biologist DEP – Eastern District Headquarters (860) 295-9523 Jenny Dickson Wildlife
    [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]