People Working Together for Cleaner Rivers

people working together for cleaner rivers Thanks to the following people, who contributed research, writing, editorial and artistic talents to the writing and production of this report: George Brawerman, Vivian Felten, Alison Guinness, Guy Hoffman, Tom Maloney, Tom ODell, Danielle Piraino, Ernest Pizzuto, Joyce Powzyk, Pat Rasch, Stephanie Shakofsky, Leslie Starr, and Brian Stewart. Thanks also to George Constanz, who provided a copy of a report he co-authored, Greenbrier: A Scientific Portrait of a West Virginia River, after which this report was modeled.

Printed through the generosity of Northeast Utilities. Photo: Pat Rasch The Mattabesset River in Cromwell.

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction and Overview ...... 4 An Historical Perspective of the Mattabesset River ...... 5 The Mattabesset River Today ...... 7 How the Study Was Conducted...... 12 Findings and Conclusions ...... 16 Recommendations for Local Action ...... 27 Acknowledgements...... 28 References ...... 29

The Mattabesset River – A Study of Water Quality and Stream Health By Jane L. Brawerman, Connecticut River Watch Program Director Published by: Middlesex County Soil and Water Conservation District P.O. Box 70 Haddam, Connecticut 06438 860/345-3219

Illustrations: Joyce Powzyk Design: Pat Rasch Cover photo: Ann Hadley

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 1 USDA Photo The Mattabesset River is joined by the Coginchaug River in Cromwell Meadows, near its confluence with the Connecticut River.

2THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Executive Summary

From 1992 to 1998, the Connecticut River Watch Program conducted a study of water quality and stream health in the Mattabesset River watershed. Located in Central Connecticut in a relatively urbanized area, the river is currently the target of efforts to improve its health. This study was undertaken to document the river’s water quality, and through public involvement, interest the local community in the river and its future. As part of the study, water samples were collected and analyzed for a number of indicators of water quality, including water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity, turbidity, total phosphorus, and bacteria; benthic macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects and other organisms) were collected and identified; and physical characteristics of streams were documented through visual surveys. All mon-

itoring activities were conducted with the help of Photo: Ann Hadley trained volunteers. Strict quality control procedures One of several dams on the Mattabesset River, here where ensured the scientific credibility of results. the river forms the border between Berlin and Cromwell.

Key Findings Recommendations ◗ High levels of bacteria and the nutrient phosphorus ◗ Decrease bacterial contamination by locating sources are the major water quality problems in the and correcting problems. This will involve conducting Mattabesset River watershed. more intensive water quality studies. ◗ Both chronic and runoff-related sources seem to con- ◗ Continue monitoring water quality to document tribute to increased levels of bacteria, as evidenced by changes in conditions. high levels during periods of low flow, and even higher Educate streamside property owners of the impor- levels during and after storm events. ◗ tance of maintaining naturally vegetated riparian ◗ Water temperature, levels of pH and alkalinity, dis- (stream bank) buffers, and about the detrimental solved oxygen and turbidity are generally not a effects of putting yard waste in streams. concern for rivers and streams in the watershed. ◗ Investigate areas of concern identified through the ◗ The benthic macroinvertebrate community in the physical survey to determine the extent of problems Mattabesset River is lacking in diversity and organisms and to plan improvements. that are sensitive to pollution. The types and numbers Implement a stream segment adoption program, of organisms found indicate that the river is moder- ◗ whereby community members adopt segments of ately to severely impaired. streams, make periodic visual observations at key sites ◗ Streams in the Mattabesset watershed appear to be to check on status, and report suspected problems. impacted adversely by human activity, as evidenced Incorporate protection and improvement of the by observations such as inadequate stream buffers, ◗ Mattabesset River and its tributaries into municipal adjacent development, yard waste, algae growth, plans, regulations and management practices. eroding stream banks, sedimentation and many discharge pipes. ◗ Support the advocacy, education and improvement efforts of the Mattabesset River Watershed Association.

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 3 Introduction and Overview

Why Study Rivers? The Mattabesset River Study

Rivers are more than swimming areas, boating corri- The Middlesex County Soil and Water Conservation dors, places to go fishing, waste disposal areas, and District initiated this study in 1992 to learn more about sources of energy, sand and gravel, and water to make the health of the Mattabesset River and its tributaries and snow and irrigate crops. They are “home” to an inter- to raise public awareness of the river and encourage an connected web of creatures, many of which we never see active interest in its stewardship. Monitoring activities or think about. Yet, many of the ways we use our rivers were conducted as part of the Connecticut River Watch and their surrounding lands have tremendous impacts on Program (CRWP), a volunteer water quality monitoring, rivers and the life that they support. We must not only protection and improvement program for the understand rivers and human impacts on them, but also Connecticut River and its tributaries, also sponsored by be aware of the things we can do to protect and improve the Conservation District. their health. Responsibility for the health of our rivers The Mattabesset River is a major tributary of the lies in our hands (Brawerman and Dates, 1997). Connecticut River in central Connecticut. Areas of its watershed are highly urbanized, and the river faces problems associated with land development, agricultural and urban runoff, and removal of vegetation from riparian, or streamside, areas. It has been targeted by the State River Health— Department of Environmental Protection as a priority for improved management. The river, often hidden from A National Perspective public view, also suffers from neglect due to lack of pub- Since passage of the Federal Clean Water Act in 1972, we lic awareness and access. have made tremendous progress in cleaning up our rivers, From 1992 to 1998, volunteers collected information lakes and coastal waters. However, despite this progress, on physical, chemical and biological indicators of water 40% of the nation’s waterways assessed by states are still quality under the direction of River Watch Program staff. unsafe for fishing and swimming. Pollution from factories and sewage treatment plants, soil erosion and wetland loss A team of advisors, including representatives of local, have been dramatically reduced. But runoff from city streets, state and federal agencies, educational institutions, pro- rural areas, and other sources continues to degrade the envi- fessional laboratories, and river groups, helped to design ronment and puts drinking water at risk (US EPA, 1998). the water quality study, interpret information and provide direction to this seven-year study. This report presents major findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the study, and provides some historical and present-day context for the Mattabesset River and its watershed. It is meant to educate people about the river’s current health and future prospects, and inspire actions toward protecting and improving this significant, yet undervalued resource.

What is a Watershed? A watershed is an area of land that drains to a single river. The Mattabesset River receives water

Photo: Ann Hadley from a 68,000-acre area, including the water- Loss of streamside vegetation and nearby development are common shed of the Coginchaug River, a major tributary. problems in the Mattabesset watershed.

4THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH An Historical Perspective of the Mattabesset River

The Mattabesset River and its tributaries flow ments deposited by the glacier, including “glacial till” and through the Central Valley, or Central Lowlands,1 of “stratified drift.” Glacial till blankets most of Connecticut Connecticut, an area characterized by large meandering and consists of a mixture of different size particles – silt, rivers and generally flat land, interrupted occasionally by sand, and gravel – that was transported and deposited by rolling hills and divided lengthwise by a distinctive the glacial ice. Stratified drift occurs in the present river north-south ridge. The landscapes and patterns of land valleys, and consists of sorted layers of sand and gravel use in the Lowlands derive from the geological history carried by the streams and lakes that formed during the and make-up of the area (Bell, 1985). melting of glacial ice. Often referred to as Connecticut’s Central Park, this Beginning about10,000 years ago, as the last glacial ice area began formation about 225 million years ago, dur- retreated from New England, Native American popula- ing the early Mesozoic Era, when the super-continent tions settled Connecticut and the areas along the Pangaea began to break apart into the separate conti- Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers. When Europeans nents we know today. Connecticut was located near the arrived, the Mattabesseck and Wangunk Indian tribes center of Pangaea close to the equator, creating a hot, inhabited this area, and have been nicknamed the “River often wet, climate. A “great crack,” (Bell, 1985) or rift, Indians” due to their reliance on the rivers for subsis- formed a long, narrow and deep valley through the mid- tence (Guillette, 1979). The main staple for the River dle of our state. This depression filled with sediments Indians was corn, and the Indians planted their corn- from the eroding hills to the east and west and with lava fields along the fertile river floodplains of the flows that rose from the earth’s interior. The sediments Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers. In addition to agri- were compacted into soft, easily eroded, red and brown culture, the tribes used the land within the watershed for sandstones, while the lava flows solidified into very hard hunting, gathering, and fishing. They led a semi- traprock (basalt). These deposits were tipped to the east sedentary lifestyle, moving their villages to the forests and later faulted and eroded to create the highly visible during the winter months for hunting, and returning to traprock ridge (the Metacomet) of the Central Valley, the rivers in the spring for fishing and agriculture. part of which forms the drainage divide of the Once Europeans began to settle Connecticut, the land Mattabesset watershed (Bell, 1985). use along the Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers Since its formation during the Mezozoic, drastic cli- changed. By1765, most of the Wangunk and Mattabesset mate change has occurred within the Connecticut valley. Above the bedrock lie extensive glacial deposits, which 1 This unusual region goes by several names, including Connecticut Valley, record the existence of large glaciers, the last of which Central Valley and Central Lowlands. Because the region is not actually one big valley, but a broad low-lying zone divided in two by a high ridge retreated from Connecticut about 18,000 years ago. The (the Metacomet) that runs its entire length, Central Lowlands is perhaps rivers and streams in the watershed flow through sedi- the most accurate of the three (Bell, 1985).

Western Metacomet Connecticut River Eastern Uplands Ridge Uplands

Central Valley

Brownstone After Bell, 1985

Gneiss & Traprock Traprock Lava Eastern Border Schist Intrusive Flow Fault

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 5 Photo: Brian Stewart Wadsworth Falls, once used for industrial power, is a popular scenic spot on the Coginchaug River in Wadsworth Falls State Park.

land had been sold to European settlers (DeForest,1851). force (Gibbons et al., 1992). Agriculture continued to be the dominant land use In general, the rivers in the Central Lowlands, such as through the Revolutionary War era. However, the avail- the Mattabesset, did not have enough slope for power ability of more fertile lands in western New York, generation or to power the 19th century mills (Bell, northern Ohio and Pennsylvania led to the mass aban- 1985). However, the central and northern sections of the donment and great migration of Connecticut farmers Coginchaug River have a unique and extensive history in during the1800s. Those who stayed worked in the many use for industrial power. This includes use of the natu- factories that were springing up along the rivers and rally occurring falls located in what is now Wadsworth streams, and manufacturing became a major economic Falls State Park (Gibbons et al., 1992).

Climate Today, Connecticut’s climate lies somewhere between the warm tropics of the Mezozoic and the frigid ice age that existed 18,000 years ago. Connecticut has a humid temperate climate, with cold, snowy winters and warm summers. Temperature varies according to season, with average minimum January temperatures between 7.5°F and 26°F, and average maximum July temperatures between 77°F and 88°F. Precipitation occurs throughout the year, with an average annual rainfall of 30 – 50 inches (NWDC website).

6THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH The Mattabesset River Today

The Mattabesset River is a well-kept secret not been resolved formally. today. Though much improved from the days From its headwaters in Merimere Reservoir, when it was used as an open sewer, the river’s val- the Mattabesset River flows eighteen (18) miles ues are little recognized by the many people who along a low gradient to its mouth at the live and work in its watershed. Even its identity is Connecticut River just north of the Arrigoni in question. While the U.S. Geological Survey Bridge in Middletown. Along the way, major maps and many others call the river the tributaries such as Belcher Brook, Willow Brook Mattabesset, and many believe its headwaters are (New Britain), Webster Brook, Sawmill Brook and in Southington in Wasel Reservoir, other sources the Coginchaug River contribute to the are in disagreement on both its name and origins. Mattabesset’s flow. Areas of Berlin, Cromwell, The river is also known as the Sebethe (meaning Meriden, Middlefield, Middletown, New Britain, Little River) and is named as such on a number of Newington, Plainville, Rocky Hill, and maps and on signs at numerous road crossings. Southington are within the Mattabesset water- Further, other sources indicate that the River’s shed, which includes a total of 45,000 acres. The origins are in Merimere Reservoir in Meriden and Coginchaug River is the Mattabesset’s largest trib- Berlin. An examination of the hydrology of the utary, and the better known of the two rivers. It watershed points toward the latter as being the flows a distance of fifteen (15) miles and drains a actual headwaters, although the controversy has 24,960 acre area from its headwaters near Myer Photo: Ann Hadley The Mattabesset River offers a quiet refuge from the nearby commercial area along Route 372 in Cromwell.

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 7 Watershed Population by Town (1998) 2 Huber Pond in North Guilford to its lations. As of 1998, the population of the Berlin 16,881 confluence with the Mattabesset at combined Mattabesset and Coginchaug Cromwell 8,168 Boggy Meadow in Middletown. The watersheds was estimated to be 110,311. Coginchaug River watershed includes Agricultural, residential, commercial, Durham 4,910 areas of Guilford, Durham, Middlefield and industrial activities all contribute to Guilford 2,408 and Middletown. the land use within the Mattabesset Meriden 5,356 The Mattabesset and Coginchaug watershed. Along its course, the Middlefield 3,895 rivers are situated in sections of Mattabesset River intersects housing, Middletown 23,850 Middlesex and Hartford counties that commercial, and industrial develop- support medium-density human popu- ments, as well as major highways (for New Britain 26,237

Newington 9,326 2Population for the Mattabesset Regional Basin was computed using estimates of the percentage of land area in Plainville 605 each town included in the basin, multiplied by town population statistics from Connecticut Town Profiles, 1998–1999, a publication of the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. Rocky Hill 5,565 Southington 3,110 TOTAL 110,311

The Mattabesset Regional Basin

8THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards example Route 9, I-91, and the Berlin Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards classify all the waters of the state, specify the designated uses and values that must be supported, and specify Turnpike). criteria that define the water quality necessary to support those uses. As of 1998, 18.35% of the existing Surface waters are designated as either Class AA, A, B, C or D. Uses include: land cover in the Mattabesset watershed was estimated to be impervious surface AA – Drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational (Veklund et al., 1998). Examples of (may be restricted), agricultural and industrial supply impervious surfaces are roads, roofs, and A – Potential drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, recre- parking lots – any surface that prevents ational use, agricultural supply, navigation rain and snow from percolating into the B – Recreational, fish and wildlife habitat, agricultural and industrial soil where it falls. The more impervious supply, navigation surface in a watershed, the greater the Surface waters designated as Class C or D are not attaining designated uses percent of rainfall that is forced to flow or meeting water quality criteria. above ground and transport pollutants directly into the river (as opposed to infil- Classifications are often expressed as an existing designation, with a water trate into the soil, where it can be filtered quality goal, for example as B/A. This means that the goal is “A”, but current conditions support a classification of “B”. naturally). Studies have shown that with imperviousness in the 11-25% range (where the Mattabesset imperviousness falls), streams are likely to be adversely impacted The flow rate of a river is important in deter- and can be expected to experience some degrada- mining its suitability for aquatic life as well as its tion with further development. With capacity to cleanse itself of pollutants. The U.S. imperviousness greater than 25%, streams are Geological Survey (USGS) has monitored flow most likely degraded and predevelopment stream rates in the Mattabesset River at one of two gaging form (its natural physical shape and size) and stations in East Berlin (Berlin Street, 1961to 1971, health cannot be maintained (NEMO, 1999). and Rte. 372,1995 to1997), and in the Coginchaug Although the Coginchaug watershed is also in Middlefield since 1961. River flow rates are fairly urban, with the impervious surfaces that go measured as “discharge rates,” or the volume of along with it, the extensive wetlands that border water that passes through the river over a given the river provide areas of water storage and pollu- unit of time, usually written as cubic feet per section filtration, possibly lowering the concentration ond (cfs). Discharge rates on these rivers vary of pollutants that enter the river (Gibbons et al., according to precipitation, evaporation, and 1992). In the southern and central portions of the snowmelt conditions. The fastest average dis- Coginchaug watershed, large tracts of woodland charge rates on the Mattabesset and Coginchaug and meadow are preserved, as land use in this area rivers occur in April (293 cfs and 284 cfs, respec- is limited to low-density residential development tively), when heavy precipitation combines with and agriculture. However, as the Coginchaug flows snowmelt and groundwater-thaw to raise river northward toward the Mattabesset, it encounters a stage. The lowest average flow rates on these rivers great deal of urban development, especially in the occur during the hot, dry weather of late summer; highly developed central area of Middletown. the Mattabesset averages 15.8 cfs in September,

What is Nonpoint Source Pollution? Nonpoint source pollution (vs. point source pollution, coming from sewage treatment plants or industrial facilities) is the major remaining source of pollution affecting our rivers and streams. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to control because it comes from everywhere – in runoff from roads, parking lots, lawns, farms and construction sites, from failing septic systems, and even from precipitation in the form of acid rain. The major pollutants in nonpoint source pollution are pathogens (in bacteria), nutrients (e.g. from fertilizers, yard and animal waste), sediment, toxic contaminants (e.g. heavy metals and pesticides), and debris or litter.

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 9 Some Fish Species of the Mattabesset while the Coginchaug averages only 2.07 Allyn Brook, north of Route 68 in Freshwater cfs in August (USGS,1997). Durham. Pollution in Allyn Brook low- Bluegill The Mattabesset River is considered a ers the water quality classification of the Brook lamprey low-flow, low-gradient river, and there- Coginchaug River to Bc4 through the (a state threatened fore is especially susceptible to remainder of its course. species) contamination. Nonpoint source pollu- Water quality studies undertaken by Brook trout tion, or polluted runoff, is the major type the CT DEP in the 1940s and late 1960s Brown bullhead of contamination affecting the documented dramatically high levels of Brown trout Mattabesset. It includes all pollution that fecal coliform bacteria in the Mattabesset Chain pickerel cannot be traced to a single source pipe River. Although high levels of bacteria Common shiner or discharge (see What Is Nonpoint still exist today, the elimination of direct Fallfish Source Pollution?, page 9). There are no sewage discharge into the river in 1968 Largemouth bass point-source discharges (e.g., from a when the Mattabesset Sewer Authority Pumpkinseed sewage treatment plant) to the was formed has improved its water qual- Redfin pickerel Mattabesset other than one industrial ity tremendously. Water quality White sucker cooling water discharge in East Berlin. monitoring in the Coginchaug River was In its upper reaches, the Mattabesset also conducted by the CT DEP from the Migratory3 River is classified as either a Class AA late 1960s to the early 70s. Prior to 1971, Alewife (Merimere, Hallmere, and Wasel levels of fecal coliform bacteria much American eel Reservoirs and Harts Ponds) or A river higher than present-day levels were American shad (on the main stem). At Paper Goods documented. The benthic macro- Blueback herring Ponds in Berlin, the river’s classification invertebrate community (aquatic insects Sea lamprey changes to B/A, and downstream of its and other organisms, see page 24) of the White perch confluence with Willow Brook in Berlin, Mattabesset has also been studied by the (Hagstrom et al, 1990) the classification changes to C/B. The CT DEP. Based on data from the most Mattabesset’s B/A classification signi- recent study, performed in the fall of fies that, at present, the river may not be 1996, DEP concluded that the commu- meeting some of the water quality crite- nity is moderately to severely impaired.5 ria or one or more designated uses for From 1995 to 1997, the USGS also moni- Class A surface waters. Its C/B classifi- tored water quality at a site on the cation signifies that it is not meeting Mattabesset River in East Berlin (see water quality criteria or one or more des- page 9). High levels of fecal coliform and ignated uses for Class B inland surface enterococcus group bacteria, and the waters (CT DEP,1992). nutrient phosphorus were documented While also susceptible to pollution (USGS,1996; USGS,1997). due to its low-flow and low-gradient The Mattabesset Regional Basin, nature, water quality in the Coginchaug which includes the Mattabesset and River is somewhat better than in the Coginchaug rivers, has been identified in Mattabesset River. The Coginchaug is Connecticut’s Unified Watershed designated a Class A watercourse from Assessment as a category 1 watershed – its headwaters to its confluence with in need of restoration. In addition, the

3 Migratory fish include anadromous and catadromous species. Anadromous fish migrate from the ocean to freshwater tidal streams to spawn, and catadromous fish migrate to the ocean from freshwater streams to spawn. 4 The small “c” designates that the river supports cold water fisheries.

5Personal communication with Guy Hoffman, CT DEP, 6/21/99

10 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Canoeists enjoy the wide flat sections of the Mattabesset River in its lower reaches. Photo: Pat Rasch

Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers are included freshwater tidal streams) spawn in the rivers; and on the state’s list of impaired waters, with impair- several rare plant species occur at this site (USFWS, ments identified as stream bank erosion, contact 1995). Further, the international environmental recreation/bacteria, aesthetics, and aquatic life community has recognized the lower Connecticut support (CT DEP,1998). The basin has also been River as having “Wetlands of International designated as a “water quality hotspot” by the Importance.” Situated within this internationally Connecticut River Forum due to the degradation acclaimed natural area, the Mattabesset River has it experiences from low flow rates, pesticide con- an important role to contribute to the health of the tamination, nutrient enrichment, bacteria Lower Connecticut River Watershed. concentration, sedimentation, and turbidity (CT Though it has the potential to be a significant River Forum, 1998). natural and recreational resource in the lower Unique features of the watershed include a large Connecticut River watershed, the Mattabesset freshwater tidal wetland, Cromwell Meadows, at River suffers from neglect due to a lack of public its confluence with the Connecticut River, near awareness and limited opportunities for public where the Coginchaug joins the Mattabesset. access. The river is used by some for boating and Cromwell Meadows, also known as Round and fishing; however no official boat launches exist on Boggy Meadows, is habitat for several state-listed the river and, as a result, access is difficult. plant and animal species. These include the state- Though several parks and open space areas are endangered American Bittern, and the state- located along the river and its tributary streams, threatened blue-winged teal (correspondence from they are under-utilized, with the exception of DEP Natural Resources Center Natural Diversity Wadsworth State Park, on the Coginchaug River. Database, and DEP Wildlife Division, March New public access and recreation areas that are in 1998). This area is a key conservation area within the planning stages, such as a multi-use trail along the Tidelands of the Connecticut River in the the Mattabesset in Middletown, will help draw lower Connecticut River watershed, designated as people to the river. one of the hemisphere’s Last Great Places by The The Mattabesset River Watershed Association Nature Conservancy. It is also a Special Focus Area (MRWA), a non-profit organization formed in with a high priority rank within the Silvio O. 1997, has been working to educate the public about Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, due to its the river and its values, and protect it from further special biological values. It provides important degradation. Through MRWA’s volunteer efforts, habitat for migrating wood ducks, black ducks and and public outreach and involvement activities teal, and nesting wood ducks; American shad, sponsored by the Middlesex County Soil and Water blueback herring, alewives and other anadromous Conservation District and the River Watch pro- fish species (fish that migrate from the ocean to gram, the river is becoming better known.

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 11 How the Study Was Conducted

From 1992 to 1998, the Middlesex County Soil Characteristics and pollutants known as water and Water Conservation District (the District) quality indicators were selected and analyzed to conducted a water quality study in the help answer these questions. A subset of the indi- Mattabesset and Coginchaug river watersheds as cators was measured at each of thirty (30) sites, part of its Connecticut River Watch Program (see map on page 15). Water quality indicators (CRWP). Volunteers performed a variety of moni- included in the study and discussed in this sum- toring activities under the direction of CRWP staff mary report are6: in an effort to assess the health of these two rivers •Water Temperature – influences the types of and build public awareness of local river resources aquatic life the stream can support and the and water quality issues. amount of oxygen in the water The study ties in with the Mattabesset • Dissolved Oxygen – a measure of the oxygen Watershed Management Project, a long-term ini- in water, which aquatic plants and animals tiative to correct nonpoint source pollution need to survive problems in the Mattabesset Regional Basin being conducted by the District. Objectives of the project are to: reduce erosion and sedimentation from 6 Certain indicators included in the study are not reported here. urban development sites; develop and implement Results were either inconclusive, or did not yield significant information. A complete summary of water quality results is water quality management programs for the included in the companion technical document (see page 14 for municipalities in the watershed; demonstrate the more information). use of Best Management Practices (a practice or structure designed to pre- vent or minimize pollution) at several degraded sites; initiate a comprehen- sive watershed management planning effort that will result in identification, prioritization and implementation of improvements by watershed towns and stakeholder groups; and develop a constituency for protection and improvement of the river. The study was designed to answer questions about the impacts of nonpoint pollution sources on selected water quality indicators; whether the rivers meet Connecticut Water Quality Standards; and whether the rivers are safe (from a human health standpoint) for water contact recreation. Additional questions for the Mattabesset River were intended to evaluate the effectiveness of Best Management Practices implemented as part of the watershed management project.

Collecting and analyzing benthic macroinvertebrate samples provided a good picture of overall stream health—these

organisms are affected by water quality and physical habitat. Photo: Ann Hadley

12 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Photo: Ann Hadley Water sampling and analysis performed during the summer, when flows are low and water temperatures high, provided a worst-case picture of water quality.

• pH – a measure of the acidity of the water, also macroinvertebrate collection and identification, important to the types of aquatic life that can and visual stream surveys. be supported Water samples were collected and analyzed in • Alkalinity – the capacity of the water to neu- the summer months. This activity was designed to tralize acidic pollution document worst-case water quality conditions; • Turbidity – a measure of the clarity of the summer is a high stress time for rivers due to water and an indicator of erosion higher temperatures and lower water flows. •Total Phosphorus – an essential plant and ani- Questions about impacts of nonpoint sources of mal nutrient, an excess of which can pollution, meeting water quality standards, and accelerate the “aging” process of a river by dra- safety of water contact were among those matically increasing aquatic plant growth answered by the water-sampling program. Water • Indicator Bacteria – including fecal coliform samples were collected at all sites (main stem and and enterococcus, measures of fecal contami- tributary) annually from1992–1998. The number nation from animal manure or human sewage, of sites monitored varied from year to year, as did which can indicate the presence of disease- the water quality indicators measured. Samples causing organisms, and measure the health were collected by volunteers, and analyzed either risk associated with water contact by volunteers in the CRWP lab, or in one of several • Benthic Macroinvertebrates – bottom- professional labs. dwelling aquatic organisms (aquatic insects, In the fall, benthic macroinvertebrates were mollusks, worms, crustaceans) that are good collected from a subset of sites and preserved for indicators of water quality because many are later identification in a lab. Questions about sensitive to pollution impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution and •Physical Characteristics – general stream cor- meeting water quality standards were answered ridor characteristics, like water depth and by this activity. Macroinvertebrate samples were width, stream bank cover, width of riparian collected each year from both Mattabesset River corridor, water color/clarity, aquatic vegeta- main stem and tributary sites. Benthic macroin- tion, composition of substrate, adjacent land vertebrate samples were both collected and uses, potential sources of pollution, and recre- analyzed by volunteers, with assistance from ational use resource professionals. Monitoring activities included three major Physical characteristics were documented activities: water sampling and analysis, benthic through a Stream Walk Survey – a visual survey of

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 13 pollution and areas of concern requiring improvement work. The visual survey was done only in Mattabesset watershed streams (not in the Coginchaug) in 1998, and was conducted almost entirely by volunteers. EPA standard methods were used in the collection and analysis of water quality data, with the exception of physical characteristics, for which no standard collection method exists. Volunteers were trained in both collection and analysis procedures for all three activities by program staff and other resource professionals. To ensure the quality of data, strict quality control and quality assurance procedures were built into the study. These procedures, as well as all collection and analysis procedures, are documented in an EPA-

Photo: Jane Brawerman approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The Stream Walk Survey provided a wealth of information on the physical In addition, a separate technical document condition of streams in the watershed – and provided volunteers with a new perspective on their local streams. describing materials, methods and procedures, and containing actual data summaries, is available from the Conservation District. streams – conducted in the late summer and early Data were compiled and statistical analyses fall. Stream surveys are designed to take place at were performed to provide a picture of overall this time, when water flows are low and slower, health and to establish trends for the Mattabesset making it both possible and safe to walk through and Coginchaug rivers over the seven-year period. streams to record observations. Water tempera- Results were evaluated based on compliance with tures also tend to be warmer and aquatic plant criteria listed in Connecticut’s Water Quality growth is at its most abundant. In addition, Standards for Class B waters. We used the criteria emergent plants are tall and trees and shrubs have for Class B waters because the river segments are, their leaves, important for estimating the types of for the most part Class B waters; the criteria for streamside vegetation. This activity was con- Class A are similar to those for Class B; and no ducted to help identify potential sources of numerical criteria exist for Class C, which is based

Statistics Statistics were used to reduce the multiple years of data collected for each indicator to some simple, easily understood numbers. They include: High – the highest value Low – the lowest value Mean – the average value Median – the middle value, or 50th Percentile * Lower Quartile – the value that 25% of samples fall below, or the 25th Percentile ** Upper Quartile – the value that 75% of samples fall below, or the 75th Percentile ** Geometric Mean – an average value that reduces the influence of very high and low values

* The Median is recommended for use over the Mean, as it is more representative of the data set when results include atypically high or low numbers. The Geometric Mean is used in a similar way, and is more commonly used to summarize bacteria data. ** The values between the Lower and Upper Quartiles are the Interquartile Range, which shows the spread of the data set. It is useful in determining trends over time. A narrow spread means that the data are consistent; a wide spread means that the data have a lot of variation (Behar, 1996).

14 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Connecticut River Watch Program Sites

k r

o e r v k

o B NEW o NEWINGTON g i 71A r in

B r 91 BRITAIN R r p

e S t d s l t

372 b o

e C

/ u W e illow B tl 3 W ro 9 t c ok i GLASTONBURY

L i

ROCKY HILL c SOUTHINGTON set iv e s R e n be r k M oo n

a k r k PORTLAND o B o a t t ro ok s oo B o le r y r o B r k B w C e o C o h o e l tc r l B k c k i a d o u o H e o r ro GILDERSLEEVE k r p W k o 5 S B CROMWELL ISLAND o o B o r y r e B C r l

l e d l k h 15 k

c a a o l k o 9 e r o

H o B o B ro r n r B h l B B l 3 Jo g i r BERLIN e n m WILCOX i w n a i k 91 S ISLAND C M on r necticu e Stoc t R v 66 i Middletown i

DART v R e ISLAND

g r MIDDLEFIELD u MIDDLETOWN a h c 9 in g 17

KEY o

C Brook 154 rzig Connecticut River watershed He

rivers / brooks 9

roads Allyn Brook HADDAM DURHAM town boundaries r lock B ook site location Hem

GUILFORD Adapted from Brawerman and Dates, 1997 Adapted from on not meeting Class B criteria. Where no Connecticut criteria exist for an indicator, results were evaluated based on criteria from another state, or other recognized guidelines established for that indicator. Comparisons with river flow data were also made for certain indicators to determine response to fluctuations in river stage, or level.7 The following pages summarize key findings from the analysis of each water quality indicator studied.

7 River level trends were identified for each sample day – either rising, peak (at a high), falling or low – based on a review of stream gaging data from the USGS gage in East Berlin. Results for

a particular indicator were grouped according to the river level Photo: Jane Brawerman trend on the day of sampling. Volunteers pick and sort organisms from a macroinvertebrate sample.

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 15 Findings and Conclusions

Water Temperature Mattabesset River Temperature Data Summary ◗ Mattabesset and Coginchaug river Many factors affect the temperature 1992–1998 water temperatures are similar and meet of water, including climate, groundwater the criterion in Connecticut’s Water inflows, storm water runoff, stream HIGH 30°C Quality Standards. Temperatures shading, and exposure to sunlight. LOW 9°C exceeded the criterion only on one occa- Temperatures also vary according to the sion in a Mattabesset River tributary site. width and depth of rivers. MEAN 20°C Human activities can result in Water temperature is important to the increased water temperatures. Removal MEDIAN 20°C aquatic life that a river supports. Because of streamside vegetation reduces shad- different organisms have different ranges ing; ponds and reservoirs slow water 25% SAMPLES BELOW 18°C of temperatures that are optimal to their flow and increase heat absorption; dis- health, the river’s temperature deter- charge of industrial cooling water 75% SAMPLES mines what can or cannot live there. warms receiving streams; and impervi- BELOW 22°C Temperature affects a number of ous surfaces, like roads and parking lots, processes important to aquatic life, most warm storm water as it flows over sur- TOTAL NUMBER notably the amount of oxygen that can faces. These impacts are most critical in OF SAMPLES 623 be dissolved in the water (warmer water the summer, when lower flows and contains less oxygen, decreasing the higher temperatures create more stress CONNECTICUT amount available for organisms to on aquatic life (Behar, 1996). STANDARD 29.4°C breathe). Certain fish, like brook trout Water temperature was measured and rainbow trout, are cold-water fish from 1992 to 1998. Connecticut’s Water and tolerate maximum temperatures of Quality Standards indicate that temper- about 24°C (75°F). Others, like catfish atures should not exceed 29.4°C. Coginchaug River and bass, are warm-water fish and toler- Despite the loss of streamside vegetation Temperature ate maximum temperatures of about 34 and high level of urbanization in these Data Summary to 35°C (93 to 95°F). Further, fish watersheds, water temperatures did not 1992–1998 have different temperature requirements seem to be adversely affected. for different stages of HIGH 28°C their life cycle. LOW 11°C Optimal temperatures for spawning are MEAN 19.8°C much cooler than the maximum tempera- MEDIAN 20°C tures given above, and 25% SAMPLES temperatures for sur- BELOW 18°C vival of fish embryos fall somewhere in 75% SAMPLES between. BELOW 22°C

TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES 285 Streamside vegetation has been removed CONNECTICUT from John Hall Brook STANDARD 29.4°C where it flows through

a golf course in Berlin. Photo: Ed Pawlak

16 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Dissolved Oxygen Mattabesset River Dissolved Oxygen Data Summary ◗ Dissolved Oxygen levels in the 1992–1996 Mattabesset River met the criterion in Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards, HIGH 10.5 mg/L with the exception of intermittently low LOW 3.1 mg/L levels measured at three long-term monitoring sites. MEAN 6.7 mg/L ◗ Dissolved Oxygen levels in the Coginchaug River met the criterion in MEDIAN 6.7 mg/L Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards, with the exception of consistently low 25% SAMPLES BELOW 5.9 mg/L levels measured at two long-term mon-

itoring sites. Photo: Ann Hadley 75% SAMPLES A volunteer measures dissolved oxygen in a Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a measure water sample. BELOW 7.6 mg/L of the amount of oxygen dissolved in the river water. It is an important indicator amount of oxygen in a liter of water rela- TOTAL NUMBER since most aquatic plants and animals tive to the amount of oxygen that the OF SAMPLES 419 need it to survive. The river system both water can hold. In general, the higher the CONNECTICUT produces and consumes oxygen. The DO, the more species of plants and ani- STANDARD 5 mg/L river gains oxygen from the atmosphere mals that can survive. Connecticut’s and from plants, and respiration by Water Quality Standards state that levels % NOT MEETING aquatic animals, decomposition, and should not drop below 5 mg/L. STANDARD 9% various chemical reactions consume Dissolved oxygen was analyzed from oxygen. If more oxygen is consumed 1992 to 1996. Samples were collected in than is produced, dissolved oxygen levels the early morning (before 8 a.m.) when decline and some sensitive animals may oxygen levels are near their lowest (see Coginchaug River disappear. Wastewater containing mate- above). The sites where levels of dis- Dissolved Oxygen rials that use oxygen to decompose or solved oxygen dropped below the 5 mg/L Data Summary undergo chemical changes consumes Connecticut criterion are located down- additional oxygen. stream of slow moving sections of the 1992–1996 DO levels vary with water tempera- river. Low levels measured at these sites HIGH 10.8 mg/L ture (cold water holds more oxygen than could be the result of overnight oxygen LOW 0.4 mg/L warm water). DO levels also vary with consumption exceeding production, typ- flow. Fast moving water dissolves more ical of nutrient-enriched slow moving MEAN 6.2 mg/L oxygen than still water, so levels are typ- water containing aquatic plants ically lower in pools and slow-moving (Brawerman and Dates, 1997). MEDIAN 6.8 mg/L stretches. Levels also fluctuate season- ally, due to temperature changes, and 25% SAMPLES BELOW 5.1 mg/L over a 24-hour period. The most critical Sites with Low Dissolved Oxygen time for many aquatic animals is early 75% SAMPLES morning on hot summer days, when Percent of Samples Not Meeting Standards BELOW 7.7 mg/L river flows are low, water temperatures Mattabesset sites are high, and plants have not been pro- TOTAL NUMBER Lower Lane crossing in Berlin 23% ducing oxygen since sunset (Brawerman OF SAMPLES 235 End of Kirby Road in Cromwell 19% and Dates, 1997). Willow Brook in Berlin 14% DO is measured in milligrams per liter CONNECTICUT or “percent saturation.” Milligrams per STANDARD 5 mg/L Coginchaug sites liter (mg/L) is the amount of oxygen in a Route 68 crossing in Durham 96% % NOT MEETING liter of water. Percent saturation is the Cider Mill Road crossing in Middlefield 72% STANDARD 24%

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 17 pH Mattabesset River pH Data Summary 1992–1996 ◗ pH levels in the Mattabesset and Coginchaug Rivers are slightly basic to HIGH 8.2 slightly acidic, and meet the criterion in LOW 6.1 Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards.

MEAN 7.6 pH is a measure of the acidity of the indicate that pH measurements should water. The term pH comes from the be between 6.5 and 8.0 pH units. In MEDIAN 7.6 Latin expression “potentia hydrogenii” 1992, six pH measurements were (hydrogen potential), or the concentra- slightly outside of the range. This was 25% SAMPLES tion of hydrogen ions. The denser the likely an anomaly, as in subsequent BELOW 7.4 hydrogen ions, the more acidic the years all pH levels were within the 75% SAMPLES solution. pH is measured on a scale from required range. BELOW 7.8 0 (most acidic) to 14 (most alkaline), with 7 considered “neutral.” Every pH TOTAL NUMBER change of 1 unit signifies a factor of 10 OF SAMPLES 150 increase in hydrogen ion concentration; The pH Scale a river with a pH of 5 is 100 times more ACIDIC CONNECTICUT acidic than a river with a pH of 7 (Behar, STANDARD 6.5 – 8.0 0 1996). % NOT MEETING pH affects many chemical and biolog- 1 Battery acid STANDARD 3% ical processes in the water, such as the availability and toxicity of nutrients, 2 metals and other important compounds. Lemon juice 3 Different organisms have different Coginchaug River ranges of pH within which they flourish. 4 Fish cannot survive pH For example, many bacteria begin to die below a pH of 5.0, while most fish can- 5 Data Summary Bacteria begin to die not survive a pH below 4.0 or above10.5. 1992-1996 Changes in pH can have a large impact 6 HIGH 8.1 on them. The optimal range for the 7 LOW 6.5 largest variety of aquatic animals is 6.5 – 8.0 pH units. pH outside of this range 8 MEAN 7.4 reduces the diversity in a stream. 9 Changes in acidity can be caused by Baking soda MEDIAN 7.4 atmospheric deposition (acid rain), 10 leachate from surrounding rock, and Fish cannot survive 25% SAMPLES wastewater discharges (Behar, 1996). 11 BELOW 7.2 pH levels vary on a twenty-four hour cycle, with the highest levels at mid-day, 12 75% SAMPLES and the lowest during darkness. BELOW 7.6 13 pH was measured from 1992 to 1996. Lye TOTAL NUMBER Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards 14 OF SAMPLES 93 BASIC

CONNECTICUT STANDARD 6.5 – 8.0

% NOT MEETING STANDARD 3%

18 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Alkalinity Mattabesset River Alkalinity Data Summary ◗ Levels of alkalinity in the 1992–1996 Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers are high, meaning that the HIGH 155 mg/L rivers are not sensitive to acid LOW 16 mg/L inputs. ◗ In the Mattabesset River, alkalinity MEAN 90 mg/L increased from upstream to downstream on the main stem. MEDIAN 88.5 mg/L ◗ In the Coginchaug, alkalinity was 25% SAMPLES

relatively stable upstream to Photo: Ann Hadley BELOW 71 mg/L downstream, though slightly A piped section of Willow Brook disappears higher in the most upstream site. under a New Britain street. 75% SAMPLES BELOW 111 mg/L Alkalinity is a measure of the capacity neutralize acid, alkalinity levels should of the water to neutralize or buffer acids be greater than 20 mg/L (Brawerman TOTAL NUMBER (see description of pH). It is caused pri- and Dates, 1997). Average alkalinity in OF SAMPLES 108 marily by the presence of certain North American rivers is 72 mg/L compounds in the water, such as bicar- (Berner & Berner). GUIDELINE >20 mg/L bonates, carbonates and hydroxides. Alkalinity was measured from 1992 Baking soda is a common alkaline com- to 1996. Levels of alkalinity demonstrate % NOT MEETING pound. Alkalinity comes from rocks and that acidic pollution is not a concern for GUIDELINE 1% soils, salts, certain plant activities, certain the Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers. industrial wastewater discharges, and Increasing levels of alkalinity from discharges from sewage treatment plants. upstream to downstream on the main A river’s natural alkalinity is depend- stem of the Mattabesset may be the Coginchaug River ent on the type of soil and bedrock that result of high alkalinity coming from Alkalinity make up the watershed through which it Willow Brook. After Willow Brook Data Summary flows. Rivers that flow through limestone enters the river, alkalinity increases con- regions have high alkalinity because lime- siderably in the main stem. High levels 1992-1996 stone is rich in calcium carbonate. Rivers of alkalinity in Willow Brook could be HIGH 107 mg/L that flow through granite regions typi- originating from the concrete channels LOW 31 mg/L cally have low alkalinity because granite that sections of the stream run through does not have minerals that contribute to where it is piped under the streets of MEAN 65 mg/L alkalinity (Behar, 1996). New Britain. Measuring alkalinity is impor- MEDIAN 64 mg/L tant to determining a river’s Alkalinity ability to neutralize acidic pollu- Mattabesset main stem sites 1992–1996 25% SAMPLES BELOW 46 mg/L tion (as measured by pH) from 140 rainfall and wastewater and Willow Brook enters here reduce the toxic effect of certain 120 75% SAMPLES BELOW 79 mg/L contaminants, especially heavy 100 metals, and thus support aquatic 80 TOTAL NUMBER life. Alkalinity is reported as mil- 60 OF SAMPLES 58 ligrams per liter (mg/L) of 40 calcium carbonate. According to GUIDELINE >20 mg/L guidelines from the University of 20 alkalinity (mg/L) median value Massachusetts Acid Rain Mon- 0 % NOT MEETING itoring Project, to effectively upstream to downstream sites GUIDELINE 0%

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 19 Turbidity Mattabesset River Turbidity Data Summary 1992–1998 ◗ Levels of turbidity in the Mattabesset Turbidity also reduces the aesthetic and Coginchaug rivers are generally low value of waterbodies. HIGH 149.0 NTU and meet the criteria in Connecticut’s Turbidity is reported in NTUs, or LOW 0.2 NTU Water Quality Standards. Nephelometric Turbidity Units, a meas- ◗ Large rainfall and surface runoff events ure of light scattering (Brawerman and MEAN 6.7 NTU result in elevated levels of turbidity in Dates, 1997). The higher the NTUs, the Mattabesset River main stem sites. cloudier the water. Connecticut’s Water MEDIAN 3.9 NTU Quality Standards state that turbidity Turbidity is a measure of the clarity should not exceed 5 NTUs over a river’s 25% SAMPLES of the water and an indicator of the natural or background level.8 BELOW 2.2 NTU amount of materials suspended in the Generally, levels of turbidity meas- water. Substances that create turbid ured under low flow conditions are not 75% SAMPLES BELOW 6.5 NTU waters include soil particles (clay and a concern in the Mattabesset and silt), algae, plankton, and microorgan- Coginchaug rivers. Elevated levels of tur- TOTAL NUMBER isms. They can get into the water as a bidity can be seen during and after storm OF SAMPLES 619 result of natural or human-induced ero- events, however, when river flows are sion of a river channel and surrounding high. The fine sediment deposits (silts STANDARD <9 NTU land, directly from pipes, or due to bio- and clays) prevalent in the watershed logical activity in the water. are easily suspended in the water col- % NOT MEETING All rivers have a background level of umn. Heavy rains and high flows STANDARD 15% turbidity related to natural processes. promote this process; in the Mattabesset Human activities that can increase tur- in particular, the river can look like bidity above background levels include “chocolate milk” after a storm. construction, agriculture, road drainage, Coginchaug River sand and gravel extraction, logging, and road sanding. In addition, waste dis- 8 Estimates of background levels for the Mattabesset Turbidity and Coginchaug rivers were made with input from charges can result in increased turbidity Data Summary Ernest Pizzuto, CT DEP Bureau of Water due to nutrient enrichment, which Management, based on historical data from a clean 1992–1998 increases the amount of algae and plank- water reference site on the Salmon River and observations. A background level of 4 NTUs was HIGH 140 NTU ton in the water. Heavy rains and higher established for the Mattabesset and 2 NTUs for the LOW 0.1 NTU river flows can accelerate the process of Coginchaug. erosion and increase turbidity. MEAN 4.5 NTU Turbidity can cause higher water temperatures (because MEDIAN 2.6 NTU suspended particles absorb more heat), decreased levels Turbidity and River Level Trend 25% SAMPLES of dissolved oxygen, and can Mattabesset main stem sites 1995–1997 BELOW 1.5 NTU disrupt fish spawning and CT Water rising Quality breathing. Sediments can also Standard 75% SAMPLES carry toxic substances, nutri- BELOW 4.7 NTU ents and other substances peak harmful to both aquatic life TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES 296 and human health (a particu- falling

lar concern for drinking river level trend water). Particles that settle STANDARD <7 NTU low into the stream bottom can % NOT MEETING also degrade aquatic inverte- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 STANDARD 13% brate habitat (Behar, 1996). NTUs (median values)

20 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Total Phosphorus Mattabesset River Phosphorus Data Summary ◗ Levels of total phosphorus in the guidelines from the State of Vermont 1993–1997 Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers were used to evaluate results. According were high, meaning that impacts from to these guidelines, levels of P >0.05 HIGH 0.68 mg/L phosphorus loading are likely. mg/L should be considered a warning LOW 0.01 mg/L Levels of total phosphorus were higher flag as they will likely have an impact on ◗ MEAN 0.09 mg/L in the main stem sites than in the tribu- the river, and levels >0.10 mg/L are cer- taries in both rivers. tain to have an impact. MEDIAN 0.08 mg/L Phosphorus was measured from1993 Phosphorus is an essential plant and to 1997. A large majority of samples in 25% SAMPLES animal nutrient. In most freshwater sys- the Mattabesset and Coginchaug BELOW 0.06 mg/L tems, phosphorus is the limiting factor exceeded the “warning flag” levels for in aquatic plant growth since it occurs phosphorus. In main stem sites, levels 75% SAMPLES BELOW 0.11 mg/L naturally in very low concentrations. tended to be higher than in tributary When added to rivers due to human sites, with levels exceeding the “certain TOTAL NUMBER activity, even in small amounts, a large impact” levels much more frequently, OF SAMPLES 442 increase in the growth of aquatic vege- nearly 50% of the time. Higher concen- tation, like algae and submerged plants, trations in the main stem are likely the GUIDELINE can result. result of phosphorus from many sources >0.05 warning flag >0.10 impacts certain Natural sources of phosphate include throughout the watershed collecting in soil, certain rocks, animal wastes and the main stem. % >0.05 79% decomposing plants. There are many % >0.10 33% human sources of phosphate, including 9 Criteria for phosphorus are included in wastewater treatment plants, runoff Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards for lakes, from fertilized lawns and cropland, fail- where high levels of phosphorus can lead to exces- ing onsite septic systems, and runoff sive growth of algae and aquatic plants, and Coginchaug River from animal manure storage areas, dis- depletion of dissolved oxygen. Problems with phosphorus are usually related to retention time Phosphorus turbed land areas and drained wetlands (personal communication with Ernest Pizutto, CT Data Summary (Behar, 1996). Excess phosphorus can DEP, July 1999). accelerate the “aging” 1993–1997 process of a river by caus- HIGH 0.99 mg/L ing dramatic increases in LOW 0.00 mg/L aquatic plant growth and changes in the types of MEAN 0.11 mg/L animals and plants that MEDIAN 0.09 mg/L live in the river. These Phosphorus Impacts changes, in turn, affect Mattabesset main stem vs. Tributary sites 60% 25% SAMPLES dissolved oxygen, temper- BELOW 0.05 mg/L main stem ature and other indicators 50% tributary (Brawerman and Dates, 75% SAMPLES 1997). 40% BELOW 0.13 mg/L Phosphate is measured 30% TOTAL NUMBER as milligrams per liter OF SAMPLES 216 (mg/L), and reported as 20% percentage of samples percentage total phosphorus (P). No 10% GUIDELINE criteria for phosphorus >0.05 warning flag 0% >0.10 impacts certain are included for rivers in no impacts impacts likely impacts certain (< .05 mg/L) (.05–.10 mg/L) (> .10 mg/L) Connecticut’s Water % >0.05 75% 9 level of impact Quality Standards , so % >0.10 40%

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 21 Indicator Bacteria Mattabesset River Fecal Coliform Data Summary (colonies/100 mL) ◗ Indicator bacteria levels in the 1992 -1998 Mattabesset and Coginchaug rivers are Fecal Coliform Hot Spots high and do not meet the criteria in HIGH 36,200 Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards. Geometric LOW 0 ◗ At most sites bacteria levels are high Mattabesset Sites Mean even in low flow periods, and tend to be Willow Brook in Berlin 1601 MEAN 1,563 higher after rainfall and during periods Coles Brook in Cromwell 1215 of increased flow, indicating that both MEDIAN 600 chronic and surface runoff related Coginchaug Sites sources contribute to bacterial Creamery Rd. crossing in Durham 900 25% SAMPLES contamination. BELOW 290 Upper Wadsworth Falls in Middlefield 621 Indicator bacteria are bacteria that are 75% SAMPLES common in the intestines of animals. In during low-flow periods are indicative of BELOW 1,400 surface waters they are a sign of contam- chronic or steady sources (for example, ination from human sewage or animal failing septic systems); in periods of rain TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES 611 manure. While not harmful themselves, and high flow, these levels may even these bacteria indicate that other disease- decrease due to dilution (Behar, 1996). STANDARD 400 causing organisms (pathogens) may be Two types of indicator bacteria were present, and that coming in contact with measured as part of the study: fecal col- % NOT MEETING the water may pose a health risk. Their iform and enterococcus group bacteria. STANDARD 65% presence also means that sewage or ani- Fecal coliform was used as a general mal manure is present in quantities that indicator of sanitary conditions and a may cause problems for the river system, broad-based measure of possible fecal such as lower dissolved oxygen levels due contamination; enterococcus was used Coginchaug River to decomposition of fecal matter as an indicator of fecal specific contam- Fecal Coliform (Brawerman and Dates, 1997). ination and health risk associated with 10 Data Summary Sources of fecal contamination in sur- water contact. Bacteria results are face waters include wastewater reported as colonies per 100 milliliters (colonies/100 mL) treatment plants, failing onsite septic sys- (mL) of sample. 1992 -1998 tems, domestic and wild animal manure, Fecal coliform levels were measured HIGH 165,000 and urban runoff. Fecal matter can get from 1992 to 1998. Connecticut’s Water LOW 0 into rivers directly through pipes and Quality Standards include two criteria from excreting animals, or can be car- for fecal coliform bacteria: less than10% MEAN 1,594 ried by surface runoff during and after of the samples should exceed 400 rain. Levels of fecal indicator bacteria are colonies per 100 mL, and the geometric MEDIAN 300 affected differently by rainfall and mean for any group of samples should increases in river flow depending on the not exceed 200 colonies per 100 mL. 25% SAMPLES BELOW 110.5 source. If related to runoff events, levels Over the course of the study period, fecal tend to be higher with rainfall and coliform levels in the Mattabesset main 75% SAMPLES increases in flow. Consistently high levels stem and tributary streams were very BELOW 687.5

10 The use of fecal coliform as a human health risk indicator is not recommended because it contains some species TOTAL NUMBER that are non-fecal in origin. Further, EPA studies have shown no correlation with health risk. Fecal coliform OF SAMPLES 326 bacteria are used by the CT DEP in its water quality standards as a general indicator of sanitary conditions. The EPA recommends use of enterococcus as the most reliable indicator of human health risk, and the CT DEP uses STANDARD 400 enterococcus in its water quality standards specifically to evaluate risks at designated bathing areas (Brawerman and Dates, 1997). % NOT MEETING STANDARD 49%

22 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Mattabesset River Enterococcus Data Summary high. Only one Mattabesset site (out of a group of samples should not exceed 33 (colonies/100 mL) total of 22) met the geometric mean cri- colonies per 100 mL. 1992–1997 terion in the CT standards: the control Levels of enterococcus were high at site for the watershed, on John Hall all sites where it was measured, except HIGH 34,000 Brook near its headwaters in Berlin. In for the one designated bathing area – LOW 2 the Coginchaug, though fecal coliform the swimming pond at Wadsworth Falls levels were not as high as in the State Park. This was the only site of all MEAN 1,431 Mattabesset, again many sites exceeded Mattabesset and Coginchaug river sites MEDIAN 640 the geometric mean criterion in the CT that met the geometric mean criterion in standards. Three of the eight sites mon- CT’s water quality standards (though it 25% SAMPLES itored met the criterion, including the did exceed the single sample level BELOW 320 control site for the watershed on periodically). Hemlock Brook in North Guilford, and High levels of indicator bacteria in the 75% SAMPLES both the swimming pond and the Mattabesset and Coginchaug watersheds BELOW 1500 Coginchaug River in Wadsworth Falls are likely the result of a combination of TOTAL NUMBER State Park in Middletown. sources, including urban and agricultural OF SAMPLES 185 Enterococcus was measured from runoff, “point source” animal waste (e.g. 1992 to1997. It was measured only at sites waterfowl, pets, horses and cows), and STANDARD 61 where bathing was either a designated failing septic systems. While there are no use or was known to occur, and was also known point source sewage discharges % NOT MEETING used to evaluate the likelihood that high in the watershed, it is possible that leaky STANDARD 97% fecal coliform counts found at some sites sewer lines or illegal sewage connections were fecal in origin (Brawerman and exist. This likely combination of chronic Dates, 1997). As with fecal coliform, and runoff related sources can be seen in Connecticut’s Water Quality Standards the river level trend analysis, which Coginchaug River include two criteria for enterococcus bac- shows high bacteria levels even during Enterococcus teria (for designated bathing areas): no low flow periods, and even higher levels Data Summary sample should exceed 61colonies per100 when river flows are increased due to mL, and the geometric mean for any rainfall and runoff. (colonies/100 mL) 1992-1997

HIGH 44,000 LOW 0

MEAN 1,429 Fecal Coliform and River Level Trend Mattabesset main stem sites 1995–1997 MEDIAN 330 rising 25% SAMPLES BELOW 56 peak 75% SAMPLES BELOW 885 falling

river level trend TOTAL NUMBER low OF SAMPLES 120 CT Water Quality Standard (200) STANDARD 61 0 500 1000 1500 2000 bacteria colonies per 100 mL (geometric mean) % NOT MEETING STANDARD 73%

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 23 Benthic Macroinvertebrates

◗ The benthic macroinvertebrate community in the diverse community Mattabesset River is lacking in diversity and organ- of indigenous species; isms that are sensitive to pollution, and does not all functional feeding groups meet the criterion in Connecticut’s water quality and a wide variety of taxa shall be present though standards. one or more may be disproportionate in abun- ◗ The abundance and diversity of the Mattabesset dance; waters currently supporting a high quality River benthic macroinvertebrate community community shall be maintained as such; the pres- decreases from upstream to downstream, and the ence and productivity of stoneflies, mayflies and pollution tolerance of the organisms present pollution intolerant beetles and caddisflies may be increases from upstream to downstream. limited due to cultural activities (CT DEP,1992). A number of standard indices were used to ana- Benthic macroinvertebrates are bottom lyze benthic macroinvertebrate results, several of dwelling organisms – aquatic insects, mollusks, which are summarized in the report. They are: worms and crustaceans – that can be seen • Organism Density, the total number of organ- with the unaided eye. These organisms are isms in the sample. Different types of pollution good indicators of water quality for several affect density in different ways. Nutrient reasons: many are sensitive to pollution; enriched water tends to increase density while the composition of the community is a both toxicity and physical habitat degradation (e.g. from sedimentation) tend to decrease den- good reflection of long-term water quality sity. Healthy sites should have a minimum of since they live in the stream year-round; they 150 organisms per sample (Brawerman and cannot easily escape pollution; and they are Dates, 1997). relatively easy to collect. The types and numbers • EPT Richness, the number of different kinds of found can indicate current water quality condi- macroinvertebrates in each of three insect tions (Brawerman and Dates, 1997). orders: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera Connecticut’s criterion for benthic macroin- (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). vertebrates is a narrative criterion. It states that These three orders contain many families that water quality shall be sufficient to sustain a are sensitive to water quality changes. Generally, the more EPT families the better the water quality and habitat. There should be a minimum of 10 families in the sample (Brawerman and Dates, 1997).

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Analyses – Median Values of 1992–1998 Results (Upstream to Downstream Main Stem Sites and Willow Brook in Berlin)

MaR040 MaR035 MaR030 MaR020 MaR015 MaR010 WiB003 Organism Density/ Sample Unit 1072 948 992 1176 808 558 363

EPT Richness 6 5 4 2 3 2 1

% Contribution of Dominant Family 57% 41% 52% 50% 67% 72% 64%

Percent Model Affinity 57% 55% 54% 51% 51% 48% 41%

24 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH EPT Richness Mattabesset River sites 1992–1998 10 9 minimum value for a healthy site 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EPT Richness (median value) 0 upstream to downstream main stem sites and Willow Brook in Berlin Photo: Linda Charpentier Volunteers identify organisms from a benthic macroinvertebrate sample.

• % Contribution of Dominant Family, the per- main stem sites, and moderate impacts (34-49%) centage of the sample made up of the family in the downstream site and Willow Brook. containing the most organisms. In general, no Also of note is the fact that stoneflies were vir- one family should dominate the sample. tually absent from all Mattabesset sites monitored. Degrees of impairment are: <30%, non to As a group, or order, stoneflies contain the organ- slightly impaired; 30-50%, moderately isms that are most sensitive to pollution. In 1997, impaired; >50%, severely impaired for the only time, stoneflies were found in samples (Brawerman and Dates, 1997). from the most upstream site. A one-time occur- • Percent Model Affinity, the percent similarity rence like this is not uncommon. The 1997 between the composition of each sample col- finding could have been an anomaly; organisms lected and the composition of a reference can be swept downstream from an upstream site community.11 Impacts are: >64%, no impact; 50-64%, slight impact; 34-49%, moderate and found at sites where they would not normally 12 impact; <34%, severe impact (Brawerman exist. and Dates, 1997). 11 A reference or “ideal” community was developed by the CT DEP Analysis of selected indices demonstrates sev- based on data from the Salmon, Shepaug, Saugatuck, Eightmile eral upstream to downstream trends, including and Natchuag Rivers. The community consists of 38% mayflies, 5% stoneflies, 31% caddisflies, 8% midges, 10% beetles, 1% decreasing density, EPT Richness and % Model worms, and 7% other. Affinity, and increasing % Contribution of 12 Personal communication with Guy Hoffman, CT DEP, 3/3/99 Dominant Family. Density values are higher than the minimum of 150 for a healthy site and are not cause for concern. These values may indicate nutrient enrichment, and declining values may be the result of increasingly degraded habitat. The low values of EPT Richness, even in the most upstream site, indicate poor water quality and habitat overall; no sites meet the minimum of 10 families for a healthy site. Values for % Contribution of Dominant Family indicate that the river is moderately to severely impacted, with the most severe impacts in the most downstream main stem site. Percent Model Affinity values show slight impacts (50-64%) in the five upstream

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 25 Physical Characteristics

◗ Stream buffers of less than twenty-five (25) feet in width land uses, potential sources of pollution, recreational use, exist in many locations due to adjacent development. and areas of concern. Twenty-three (23) segments were ◗ Suburban development is the most common land use in walked as part of the Stream Walk Survey. Portions of the areas adjacent to streams, with some forest, agriculture following streams were walked: the main stem of the and commercial/industrial present. Mattabesset River, Belcher Brook, Crooked Brook, Hatchery Brook, John Hall Brook, Little (Cold Spring) ◗ Lawns are kept right up to the edge of streams in many areas, and yard waste was found in and near the streams. Brook, and Spruce Brook in Berlin; Coles Brook in Cromwell; Bradley Brook, Miner Brook, Sawmill Brook Stream banks are eroding in many locations. ◗ and West Swamp Brook in Middletown; and Willow ◗ Silt, clay and sand are the primary components of the Brook in New Britain. stream substrate in many areas. Stream Walk observations in the Mattabesset raise a ◗ Algae growth in streams is prevalent. number of issues related to water quality and watershed ◗ Discharge pipes were noted often as areas of concern, in management. In areas where stream buffers are less than addition to lawns to the edge of streams and eroding twenty-five (25) feet in width, and where mowed lawns stream banks. come right down to the stream, buffering from adjacent activities may not be adequate. In particular, if fertilizers, A physical survey is a systematic way to observe and pesticides or herbicides are applied to adjacent lawns, record information about the river channel (the actual these chemicals are likely to run off into streams and water and the stream bottom), the stream banks, and the impact aquatic habitat. Nutrient loading to streams is adjacent land (Behar,1996). The physical characteristics evident in the growth of algae in the stream; sources of streams are important to the aquatic life that a stream could include chemical fertilizers, decomposing yard supports. Physical changes can degrade habitat (where waste, pet and waterfowl waste, and manure from agri- a plant or animal lives naturally) and make the stream cultural sources. Evidence of erosion and sedimentation inhospitable to naturally occurring plants and animals. is likely where sand and silt comprise the majority of Documenting physical characteristics is useful in estab- materials in the stream substrate. Sources could include lishing a baseline of existing conditions. In addition, the road runoff, as well as the unstable, eroding stream banks information collected provides both evidence of physical noted often. Increased water flow (volume) and velocity impacts to the streams from human activities, and clues (speed) from impervious surface development (roads, about velocity of water flow, erosion and sedimentation, parking lots, buildings) increases the impacts to streams and possible sources of pollution. from road runoff (Bowers and Brawerman, 1999). The Mattabesset River Stream Walk Survey was conducted in 1998. The survey included questions about general stream corridor characteristics, e.g. water depth and width, stream bank cover, width of riparian corridor, water color/clarity, aquatic vegetation, materials that make up the substrate (stream bottom), adjacent

Increased stream flow from upstream development and removal of stream bank vegetation speeds the

process of erosion. Photo: Pat Watson

26 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH Recommendations for Local Action

The information generated by this study of the and near the river under natural conditions. Mattabesset River, while not all bad, portrays a river in There are many things that can and should be done to need of help. High levels of bacteria may indicate a threat improve the conditions of streams in the Mattabesset to public health. Nutrient loading, while not immedi- watershed. Identifying pollutants, physical impairments ately harmful to people, may reduce the aesthetic quality and potential sources of pollution was the first step; this of streams and decrease their value for recreation. study is intended to be a beginning, to inspire actions Bacteria, nutrients and physical changes may create a cli- that will result in water quality and watershed mate inhospitable to the plants and animals that live in improvements.

General recommendations include program, whereby volunteers adopt specific segments, ◗ Investigate bacterial contamination by performing more check on key sites at regular intervals, and file a written intensive water quality studies (e.g. sanitary surveys) and status report. correct problems. ◗ Incorporate protection and improvement of the ◗ Continue monitoring water quality to document changes Mattabesset River and its tributaries into municipal plans, in conditions. regulations and management practices. Revise municipal ◗ Keep the public informed of water quality monitoring plans of Conservation and Development to include pro- efforts. tection and improvement of the Mattabesset River ◗ Complete the collection of physical survey baseline infor- watershed. Adopt and enforce municipal land use regu- mation by walking stream segments that were not walked lations and management practices designed to keep in 1998. pollution sources away from rivers and streams and to control storm water runoff. ◗ Develop and implement a community education program to inform residents and streamside property owners of the ◗ Community members concerned with the conditions of importance of maintaining naturally vegetated riparian, or streams should stream bank, buffers, and about the detrimental effects of • contact their municipal government to urge identifica- putting yard waste in streams. tion of pollution sources and correction of problems, education of residents, and improvement of degraded Investigate areas of concern identified through the phys- ◗ areas ical survey to determine the extent of problems and to plan improvements. • support the efforts of the Mattabesset River Watershed Association, an advocacy and educational organization ◗ Make visual observations of streams periodically to check working to improve the conditions in the watershed. the status of degraded areas and general conditions. This could be accomplished through a stream segment adoption

For assistance and further information, please contact:

Middlesex County Soil and Water Conservation District P.O. Box 70 Haddam, CT 06438 860/345-3219

Mattabesset River Watershed Association P.O. Box 7174 Berlin, CT 06037 860/667-9233

To report suspected problems, please contact your town enforcement officer or the CT DEP Water Bureau’s Permitting, Enforcement and Remediation Division (860/424-3018).

THE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH 27 Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the Kate Powell, Paul Prior, Sally Prior, Jennifer Provost, Donna assistance of numerous volunteers and cooperating agen- Marie Quinn, Jim Rapisarda, Pat Rasch, Charlie Renshaw, cies. Our sincere thanks to all of the following who Connie Ripper, Jack Ritter, Kent Ritter, Denise Roberts, contributed time, in-kind services and funding to the Joseph Roberts, Mike Robinson, Amy Rose, Laurel Rudge, study. Special thanks to Geoff Dates, who helped us get Denise Savageau, Sister Damien Marie Savino, Crista started and provided his technical expertise and moral sup- Schaible, Beverly Schmidt, Dick Schmidt, Eric Schmidt, port over the years, and to Ann Hadley, for her leadership Jeff Schmidt, Jim Schneider, Steve Schiller, Daryl Scott, during the time when most of this work was carried out. David Selger, Heather Shabunia, Joanne Simmonds, Joe Simms, Alan Siniscalchi, Rachel Smith, Walter Smith*, Tim Abbey, Skip Alleman, David Augeri, Lynne Baikal, Jared Stabach, Paul Stacey, Leslie Starr*, Brian Stewart, Joe Barber, Ron and Deb Beaudoin, Bill Bennett, Sabrina Ben Sullivan, Lisa Sullivan, Jeanne Swadosh, Jay Berardozzi, Alison Beres-Nork, Marc Beroz, Kristina Thompson, Debby Tipton, Mary-Jo Torcello, Russ Beuning, Michaelle Biddle, Kara Bonsack, Eleanor Tuckerman, Emily Tyner, Christian Vaiciulis, Johann Borkowski, Ken Borkowski, Linda Bowers, John Bowers, Varekamp, Martin Vito, Jeff Walberg, Heidi Wallace, Liz Tom Bradbury, Jenna Busch, Robert Butler, Rob Walters, Sandi Wang, Ben Watson, Pat Watson, Peter Butterworth, Deborah Carlson, Larry Carrier, Linda Watson, Jason Weaver, Mike Weidler, Bill Welch, Michael Charpentier, Paula Ciastko, Katchen Coley, Joseph Welch, Cris Wibby, Bill Williams*, Michelle Wilson, Paul Connolly, Hannah Corbeil, Mel Cote*, Jim Creighton, Fred Woodworth, Eliza Worthley, Tom Worthley*, Travis Curtin, Eileen Curtis, Larry Cyrulik, Ed Dalton, Pat Worthley, Susan Young, Stan Zaremba Derosier, Mike Dooman, Barbara Dworetzky, Steven *CRWP Advisory Committee Member Dworetzky, Chris Dzialo-Evans, Aaron Edwards, Beth Emery, Cindy Fazendeiro, Vivian Felten*, Megan COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES Fennessey, Howie Field, Zach Fisk, Carol Flaim, Jeff Folger, AND MUNICIPALITIES Steven Fontarella, Dwight Fowler, Johanna Franzel, Christina Gacek, Peter Gacek, Melissa Gerolami, Tim Aetna/US Healthcare, Central Connecticut State Gerolami, Laurie Giannotti, Alyson Gibeau, Lisa Gibson, University, Connecticut Association of Conservation Ruthanne Gilbert, Frank Gilcreast, Kokwin Goh, Matthew Districts, Connecticut Department of Environmental Gore, Kate Guastella, Kathy Guastella, Steve Gudernatch, Protection, Connecticut Department of Public Health Alison Guinness*, Scott Hadley, Nancy Hart, Bob Hartman, Services (DHS), Environmental Science Corporation, Lauren Hicks, Stuart Hicks, Guy Hoffman*, Deb Holzinger, Mattabassett District Water Pollution Control Plant, Dave Howe, Anthony Irving, Ali Izadi, Jim Jackson, Mattabesset River Watershed Association, Middletown Cynthia Jensen, Barbara Jurczyszak, Ed Kalentkowski, High School, Midtown Photo, Municipalities of Berlin, Richard Kalentkowski, Janet Kapish, Marcy Klattenberg, Cromwell, Durham, Middlefield, Middletown and New Ron Klattenberg, Sarah Kucharczyk, Kasmir Kucharczyk, Britain, New London County Soil and Water Conservation Al Labickas, Michelle Labickas, Bill LaMachia, Susan District, River Watch Network, Tolland County Soil and Landau, Denise Laput, Mark Lefebvre, Seth Lerman, Water Conservation District, University of Connecticut Rachel Levine, Ellen Lukens, Jan Lund, Michael Lutz*, Cooperative Extension System, U.S. Environmental Matthew Lyman, Donna Magnano, Tom Maloney*, Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.D.A. Eduardo Marchi, Fiona Marciniak-Bisesi, George Marken, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wesleyan Joe Mazurek, Rick Mazzotta, Jennifer McCann, Pat University, Woodrow Wilson Middle School, Xavier McGrath, Cheryl McLaughlin, Paul McLaughlin, Tom High School Menditto, Paula Merrow, Alberto Mimo, John Myers, Steven Michaud, Elaine Mierzejewski, Greg Mierzejewski, FUNDERS Joanne Miles, Stephanie Moore & Family, Jonathon Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Morris*, Jon Morrison*, Kathleen Mozak, Maureen Long Island Sound Research Fund Murphy, Michele Murphy, Tim Myjak, Bill Nadeau, Jenn Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Nelson, Tom, Katie & Eric Nigosanti, Corinne Nord, Jack US EPA Clean Water Act §319 Nork, Crystal Noyes, Andrew O’Brien, Suzanne O’Connell, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, June OConnor, Tom ODell*, Alan Page, Gail Parks, Peter US EPA Clean Water Act §604B Patton, Ed Pawlak, John R. Pelto, Clayton Penniman*, Connecticut River Trust Patricia Perow, Nick Pisani, Ernest Pizzuto, Ann Potichko, The Great Connecticut River Raft Race

28 T HE MATTABESSET RIVER — A STUDY OF WATER QUALITY AND STREAM HEALTH References

Behar, S.1996. Testing the Waters. River Watch Network, Drainages. Connecticut Department of Environmental Montpelier, Vermont. Protection, Inland Fisheries, Hartford, Connecticut. Bell, M. 1985. The Face of Connecticut. State Geological NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials). and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin110. 1999. Do It Yourself! Impervious Surface Buildout Analysis. Hartford, Connecticut. Technical Paper #4. University of Connecticut Berner, E. K. and R. A. Berner. The Global Water Cycle. Cooperative Extension System, Haddam, Connecticut. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. NWDC (National Weather Data Center). Internet address: Bowers, L. and J. Brawerman. 1999. Mattabesset River http://www.nwdc.com Watershed Stream Walk Survey Final Report. Middlesex Rodgers, J. 1985. Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. County Soil and Water Conservation District, Haddam, State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. Connecticut. Connecticut Department of Environmental Brawerman, J. and G. Dates. 1997. Connecticut River Protection, Natural Resources Center, in cooperation Watch Program: 1995 Final Report – Lower Connecticut with U.S. Geological Survey, Hartford, Connecticut. River Study: Mattabesset River, Coginchaug River and US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Connecticut River. Middlesex County Soil and Water Agency). 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Conservation District, Haddam, Connecticut. Protecting America’s Waters. Washington, DC. CT DECD (Connecticut Department of Economic and USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Community Development). 1998. Connecticut Town Final Action Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Profiles, 1998-1999. Hartford, Connecticut. for Implementing the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Turners Falls, Massachusetts. CT DEP (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection). 1992. Water Quality Standards. Water USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1997. Water Management Bureau, Hartford, Connecticut. Resources Data, Connecticut, Water Year 1996. East ______. 1998. Connecticut Waterbodies Not Meeting Hartford, Connecticut. Water Quality Standards. Hartford, Connecticut. ______. 1998. Water Resources Data, Connecticut, Connecticut River Forum. 1998. The Health of the Water Year1997. East Hartford, Connecticut. Watershed: A Report of the Connecticut River Forum. Veklund et al.1998. Impervious Surface Buildout Analysis: Wilmington, Massachusetts. Mattabesset Watershed. Central Connecticut State DeForest, J. W.1851. History of the Indians of Connecticut University, New Britain, Connecticut. Unpublished from the Earliest Known Period to 1850. Hamersley. paper for Dr. John Harmon, GIS Design and Implementation Class. Fine, M.S.1971. Open Space in the Coginchaug and Mattabesset River Valleys. State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Gibbons, J. and G. Gibbons. 1992. The Coginchaug River Greenway – Proposed Management Plan. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System, Haddam, Connecticut. Gillies, W. Neil et al. 1998. Greenbrier: A Scientific Portrait of a West Virginia River. Cacapon Institute, High View, West Virgina. Guillette, M. 1979. American Indians in Connecticut: Past to Present. State of Connecticut Indian Affairs Council, Hartford, Connecticut. Hagstrom et al. 1990. A Survey of Connecticut Streams and Rivers –

Connecticut River Tributaries, Scantic River, Photo: Ann Hadley Mattabesset River, Salmon River, Volunteers make a velocity measurement while CRWP Coginchaug River and Eightmile River director, Jane Brawerman, records results.

T HE M ATTABESSET R IVER — A STUDY OF WATER Q UALITY AND S TREAM H EALTH 29 Photo: Brian Stewart The Coginchaug River in Wadsworth Falls State Park in Middlefield.

published by

Middlesex County Soil and Water Conservation District P.O. Box 70 Haddam, Connecticut 06438

Funded in part by the CT DEP through a US EPA Clean Water Act §319 nonpoint source grant

Printed on recycled paper using vegetable-based ink.