Watershed Field Assessment Report North Branch Park River Watershed - Ct

1y ago
11 Views
2 Downloads
2.02 MB
45 Pages
Last View : Today
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Sutton Moon
Transcription

Watershed Field Assessment ReportNorth Branch Park River WatershedConnecticut Department ofEnvironmental ProtectionJuly 2010146 Hartford RoadManchester, Connecticut 06040In Cooperation With:New England Environmental, Inc.Farmington River Watershed AssociationPark River Watershed Revitalization InitiativeProject No. 20071468.A10

Table of ContentsWatershed Field Assessment ReportNorth Branch Park River Watershed1Introduction . 12Watershed Field Inventories . 12.1Summary of Findings .42.2Stream Corridor Assessment .72.2.1 Blue Hills Reservoir.132.2.2 Beamans Brook East.142.2.3 Beamans Brook West.152.2.4 Filley Brook .152.2.5 Tumbledown Brook.162.2.6 Wash Brook North.172.2.7 Wash Brook South .192.2.8 Wintonbury Reservoir.212.2.9 North Branch Park River .222.3Upland Assessments .252.3.1 Neighborhood Source Assessment.252.4Hotspot Site Investigation . 312.5Streets and Storm Drain Assessment .363References. 39TablesPage2-1Field Inventory Nomenclature32-2Number of Reach Level Assessments Performed and Impact Conditions Identified 102-3Stream Reach Classifications102-4Stream Reach Assessment Scores and Classifications112-5Neighborhood Source Assessment Summary262-6Hotspot Site Investigation Summary32Figures2-1Priority Subwatersheds Targeted for Field Inventories2-2Stream Assessment Summary2-3Examples of Stream Reaches in Various Classification Categories2-4Streets and Storm Drain Assessment PhotographsAppendicesAField Inventory Subwatershed MapsBStream Corridor Assessment Field Data FormsCUpland Assessment Field Data FormsDPhotographs on CDF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.docPage291238End of Reporti

1 IntroductionThe Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) retained a project teamled by Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. and including the Farmington River Watershed Association, thePark River Watershed Revitalization Initiative, and New England Environmental, Inc. toprepare a Watershed Management Plan for the North Branch of the Park River in HartfordCounty, Connecticut. The Watershed Management Plan is being developed in cooperation withthe CTDEP, other governmental entities, stakeholder groups, and the general public. The Planwill identify action items to protect and improve the health of the North Branch Park Riverwatershed.Three separate watershed assessments were performed to guide the development of awatershed management plan for the North Branch Park River: 1) a Baseline WatershedAssessment, 2) a Watershed Field Assessment, and 3) a Land Use Regulatory Review. TheBaseline Watershed Assessment evaluates the existing environmental and land use conditions inthe watershed, while the Land Use Regulatory Review identifies potential land use regulatorymechanisms that can be implemented to better protect natural resources within the watershed.This document, the Watershed Field Assessment Report, describes stream corridor and uplandassessments conducted by the project team to identify targeted and site-specific opportunitiesfor watershed protection and restoration. This report is a companion document to the BaselineWatershed Assessment and Land Use Regulatory Review reports.2Watershed Field InventoriesField inventories were performed by the Fuss & O’Neill project team during fall 2009 tofurther assess existing watershed conditions and potential sources of pollution. The fieldinventories are a screening level tool for locating potential pollutant sources and environmentalproblems in a watershed along with possible locations where restoration opportunities andmitigation measures can be implemented.The field inventories included selected stream corridors and upland areas within prioritysubwatersheds, which were identified in the Baseline Watershed Assessment report based on acomparative subwatershed analysis that considered vulnerability to future development impactsand restoration potential to improve upon existing conditions. Field inventories wereperformed within the following priority subwatersheds (Figure 2-1):Filley Brook,Wash Brook North and South,Beamans Brook East and West,Tumbledown Brook,North Branch Park River,Blue Hills Reservoir, andWintonberry ReservoirF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc1

Figure 2-1. Priority Subwatersheds Targeted for Field InventoriesF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc2

The stream corridor assessment procedure used in this study is adapted from the U.S. EPARapid Bioassessment (RBA) protocol (EPA, 1999) and the Center for Watershed Protection’sUnified Stream Assessment (USA) method (Kitchell & Schueler, 2005). Upland areas andactivities that may impact stream quality were also assessed using methods adapted from theCenter for Watershed Protection’s Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance (USSR)techniques (Wright, Swann, Cappiella, & Schueler, 2005).The upland assessments included inventories of selected representative residentialneighborhoods, streets and storm drainage systems, and land uses with higher potentialpollutant loads (i.e., “hotspot” land uses). Field assessment efforts were targeted on streamsegments and upland areas with the greatest potential for direct impacts to the streams. Theseareas were identified through aerial and land use mapping. To the extent possible, efforts werealso focused on publicly-owned land, which typically offers greater opportunities for retrofitsand mitigation projects as opposed to privately-owned land.During the field inventories, crews assessed approximately thirteen miles of stream corridors,eight potential hotspot locations, ten representative residential neighborhoods, and streets andstorm drainage systems associated with the residential neighborhoods and hotspot land uses.Field inventory nomenclature used throughout this report is summarized in Table 2-1. Resultsof the field inventories are summarized graphically by subwatershed (Appendix A). Copies ofcompleted stream and upland assessment forms are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C,respectively. Photographs of specific or representative pollutant sources and problem areas areincluded throughout this document for illustrative purposes. All of the photographs takenduring the field inventories are included on a CD in Appendix D.Table 2-1. Field Inventory NomenclatureBeamans Brook EastBeamans Brook WestBlue Hills ReservoirFilley BrookNorth Branch Park RiverTumbledown BrookWash Brook NorthWash Brook SouthWintonbury ReservoirReach Level AssessmentChannel ModificationSevere Bank ErosionImpacted BufferStormwater OutfallStream CrossingTrash & DebrisUtilitiesHotspot InvestigationNeighborhood Site AssessmentStreets and Storm DrainsRetrofit Reconnaissance InventoryF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment TBUTHSINSASSDRRI3

2.1Summary of FindingsA variety of common issues and problems were identified during the field inventories. Someprevalent issues throughout the watershed are described below. These findings will be used toguide the development of recommendations for the Watershed Management Plan.Overall, in-stream habitat in the assessed reaches varies significantly. In some cases,adjacent reaches in the same general area, or even in series, are characterized bysharply-contrasting in-stream habitat quality. The level of riparian encroachmentappears to be directly related to the quality of the in-stream habitat for a given streamreach. For example, reaches NBP-10 and NBP-11 along the main stem of the NorthBranch Park River are rated marginal and poor, respectively, whereas NBP-14, which islocated less than a mile downstream, is the highest-rated reach in the overall watershed.The reasons for these differences vary, but in general, stream reaches in the watershedwith wider and more natural riparian corridors generally exhibit with more stablestream banks and higher-quality in-stream habitat.Several instances of recent, significant stream channel modifications were observed.Two did not appear to follow applicable best management practices, such as erosionand sediment controls, and appropriate planting and seeding following completion.The third appeared to involve unnecessary fill.o Reach WBS-04 appears to have been ‘landscaped’ in one section, withlandscape features placed directly in the stream channel and newly-planted grassareas down to the water’s edge. Heavy machinery tire tracks entering thestream suggest a recent sediment dredging operation. Soil stockpiles are locatedadjacent to the stream banks with no erosion and sediment controls. This siteis likely to be susceptible to significant bank erosion since vegetation has beenremoved and soils disturbed. Accumulation of sediment in the channel bottomis also likely since the channel hydraulics have been modified to slow flowvelocities.o The downstream end of Reach NBP-19 appears to have been recently modifiedthrough armoring the banks with riprap and concrete blocks and removingriparian vegetation. The work appears to have been performed to repair theentrance to a culvertized section of the stream. This site may be a goodcandidate for bank stabilization and riparian restoration.A recently constructed riprap bank was observed on the west side of the UniversityHigh School magnet school, along a side channel of the North Branch Park River. Thework was performed for flood storage mitigation to obtain a Flood ManagementCertification for the site, since floodplain fill was required elsewhere on site. This sitemay be a potential candidate for stream bank and riparian plantings.Dumping of trash and debris in and adjacent to the stream is a significant problem. Inmore urbanized areas of the watershed, widespread areas of trash and associated debriswere observed within the stream corridor, whereas in more suburban settings, trashand illegal dumping appears to be more isolated such as near hotspot locations withpoor visibility from roadways and buildings.F:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc4

Fairly long continuous stream reaches exist along the main stem of the North BranchPark River upstream of the entrance to the North Branch Park River conduit atFarmington Avenue. One reach, from the conduit entrance to the dam at theUniversity of Hartford is 3.6 miles in length with no significant obstructions to residentfish and aquatic organisms. The next reach begins at a small weir approximately 1/10thof a mile upstream of Sunny Reach Drive, and continues upstream through and beyondthe confluences of the North Branch Park River main stem with Filley Brook, WashBrook, and Beamanss Brook, providing approximately 3.1 miles of unobstructedstream. However, in other areas, obstructions such as road crossings, dams, and longculvertized reaches exist along the river that limit or prevent passage of fish and otheraquatic organisms. These obstructions could be modified to improve passage of eeland resident fish species. Additionally, several of the dams no longer serve a purpose,and removal could benefit in-stream habitat and fish passage.Segments of some streams in the watershed are buried in underground conduits,resulting from historical development and past storm drainage practices. A limitednumber of these reaches offer potential opportunities for daylighting and streamrestoration to enhance aquatic and wildlife habitat, improve aesthetics, and provideeducational opportunities. Potential candidates for daylighting include portions of areach between NBP-11 and NBP-19 near Weaver High School and Mark TwainElementary School.Stream buffer encroachments are prevalent along stream corridors in many areas of thewatershed and are most often associated with residential, commercial, institutional, andindustrial development and roads. Residential lawns and some commercial lawns extenddown to the banks of the stream in many areas, particularly in residential back yardsand golf courses. Yard waste such as grass clippings, leaves, and brush and wastematerials were also common occurrences in and near these areas where easy accessexists to the streams. Education, signage, stream buffer regulations, and streamcleanups are potential approaches for improving buffer management. Existingcommercial and institutional parking lots, which were often observed to beunderutilized, are also common within and adjacent to the riparian area and floodplainof the North Branch Park River.Lawn-care maintenance practices in some residential areas of the watershed are typicallyhigh. Manicured lawns are common in medium- to low-density residential areas,suggesting the prevalent use of fertilizer and other lawn care products, as well aspermanent irrigation systems. Opportunities exist to educate the public about theimpacts of lawn care practices on water quality and to encourage the use of residentiallawn care best management practices, with the objective of reducing excess fertilizerrunoff and the overall quantity of runoff from residential lawns.A large number of institutional facilities are located within the North Branch Park Riverwatershed (elementary schools, secondary schools and universities, corporate campusfacilities, hospitals, etc.), accounting for approximately 10 percent of the land area inthe watershed. These facilities are major land owners whose grounds managementF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc5

practices can have a significant impact on the water quality of the North Branch ParkRiver. Opportunities exist to educate these land owners about the impacts of groundsmanagement practices on water quality and to encourage the use of organic turfmanagement and land care techniques, integrated pest management, and recommendedpractices related to grass clippings management, leaf/brush waste management, parkinglot and road maintenance (deicing, snow management), and drainage systemmaintenance.Parking lots associated with existing commercial development, municipal andinstitutional land uses, as well as a commuter parking area in Bloomfield are potentialcandidates for stormwater retrofits to reduce site runoff and improve water qualitythrough the use of bioretention, water quality swales, buffer strips/level spreaders, andother small-scale Low Impact Development (LID) and green infrastructureapproaches. Candidate stormwater retrofit sites exist in virtually all of the assessedsubwatersheds but are most prevalent in the North Branch Park River, Wash BrookSouth, Filley Brook, and Tumbledown Brook subwatersheds.The field assessments identified few areas in the watershed where storm drains arestenciled or watershed stewardship signage exists. Storm drain stenciling and/orstewardship signage could be expanded to other areas of the watershed, targetingcommercial areas such as the Copaco shopping center and residential subdivisions,especially in the southern portions of the watershed. Interpretive educational signage isalso recommended in key public areas of the watershed.Residential roofs appear to contribute significant quantities of stormwater runoff to thestorm drainage system, particularly in higher-density residential neighborhoods withsmaller yards and lots with a high percentage of impervious cover. In the olderneighborhoods of Hartford and eastern portions of West Hartford, roof leaders ofmany residences appear to direct roof runoff into the internal plumbing of thestructure or into iron pipe bells protruding from the ground immediately adjacent tothe structure foundation, which are indicative of connections to the sanitary sewersystem. Opportunities exist to disconnect residential rooftop runoff from the sanitarysewer system and/or combined sewers, as well as from the storm drainage systemaltogether, by redirecting the runoff to pervious areas or through the use of rain barrelsor rain gardens.In mid-20th century residential neighborhoods, concentrated in West Hartford andBloomfield, most of the developed areas surveyed have inadequate stormwater qualitycontrols. Many of the residential developments were constructed prior to the advent ofmodern stormwater quality regulations and design requirements. Therefore, most of thedevelopment observed in the watershed employs traditional curb and gutter stormdrainage collection systems with little, if any, stormwater management beyond deepsump catch basins.Although conventional stormwater drainage systems are prevalent throughout thewatershed, there are also several examples of Low Impact Development practices inthe watershed. One example of a grassroots LID practice is a recently-installed rainF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc6

garden at the Greater Hartford Classical Magnet School. The rain garden receivesrunoff from an adjacent school parking lot. The rain garden is in a highly visiblelocation and, although its storage volume is limited, it appears to be capturing andremoving sediment. This rain garden provides educational opportunities as a local LIDdemonstration project. Several additional sites in the watershed with LID practicesinclude the Annie Fisher School and Mark Twain House & Museum in Hartford. Otherrecent development projects have implemented stormwater controls consistent withthe Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual, including the University High School alongMark Twain Drive and the Mark Twain Drive roadway extension, which incorporate acombination of wet stormwater detention basins with sediment forebays and waterquality swales.Areas of moderate to severe streambank erosion were observed in the North BranchPark River, Blue Hills Reservoir, Filley Brook, Wash Brook South, and WintonburyReservoir subwatersheds. Most of these areas are located at or downstream ofstormwater outfalls or in areas with riparian buffers that are severely compromised.Several of these reaches offer good opportunities for stream restoration projects.Access to some of these areas is limited; therefore, potential candidate sites for bankstabilization projects and other types of stream restoration should be evaluated furtherfor overall feasibility.Hotspot land uses and facilities were observed throughout the watershed, includingseveral commercial shopping centers, industrial facilities, the Town of Bloomfieldgarage facility, and large public and institutional commuter parking areas. Many of thesefacilities discharge stormwater directly to receiving waters with no treatment or peakflow control, and the level of maintenance of existing controls in some areas is poor.The following sections present a more detailed discussion of the stream corridor and uplandassessment methods and findings.2.2Stream Corridor AssessmentStream corridors within the North Branch Park River watershed were assessed on November23, 24, and 30, 2009 and December 1, 3, and 8, 2009. Weather on December 1 and 8 waspartly cloudy and cool (approximately 40 F); weather on November 23, 24, and 30 andDecember 3 was rainy and cool (approximately 40 F). Field crews consisted of staff from NewEngland Environmental, Inc., working in pairs. Stream corridors were assessed along selectedreaches within priority subwatersheds using methods adapted from the U.S. EPA RapidBioassessment (RBA) protocol (EPA, 1999) and the Center for Watershed Protection’s UnifiedStream Assessment (USA) (CWP, 2005).The stream assessments were used to evaluate stream reaches for impacted conditions. Themethod used in this study consisted of a continuous stream walk for each reach, generallymoving upstream within the channel or along the bank, to identify and evaluate the followingimpact conditions:F:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc7

Outfalls (OT), including stormwater and other manmade point discharges;Severe Bank Erosion (ER), such as bank sloughing, active widening, and incision;Impacted Buffer (IB), which is a narrowing or lack of natural vegetation;Utilities in the stream corridor (UT), such as leaking or exposed pipes;Trash and Debris (TR), such as drums, yard waste, and other illegal dumping;Stream Crossings (SC), which are hard objects, whether natural or artificial, that restrictor constrain the flow of water. These may include bridges, road crossings with thestream piped in a culvert, dams, and falls;Channel Modification (CM), where the stream bottom, banks, or direction have beenmodified;Miscellaneous (MI), other impacts or features not otherwise covered; andReach Level Assessment (RCH), the average characteristics of each reach.This stream assessment method also includes a semi-quantitative scoring system as part of thereach level assessment to evaluate the overall condition of the stream, riparian buffer, andfloodplain, based on a consideration of in-stream habitat, vegetative protection, bank erosion,floodplain connection, vegetated buffer width, floodplain vegetation and habitat, andfloodplain encroachment.Field data forms were completed for each stream reach assessed (Appendix B). Theinformation was compiled and used to quantify the overall condition of stream corridors in thewatershed, compare subwatersheds within the watershed to each other, and prioritize areas forrestoration, stormwater retrofits, land preservation, and other stewardship opportunities.Stream reaches were assigned a subwatershed abbreviation followed by a two-digit numericalidentifier. Reaches were generally numbered sequentially from upstream to downstream inseries by stream order. A reach was considered to be a stream segment with relativelyconsistent geomorphology and surrounding land use, and generally one-half mile in length.Features noted at reach junctions (e.g., culvert crossings) were associated with the downstreamreach. Impact conditions within each reach were numbered sequentially with an abbreviationfollowed by a two-digit number. For example, the second stream crossing in a reach wouldhave the identifier SC-02.Thirty-two stream reaches were evaluated in the North Branch Park River watershed using thisstream assessment protocol. The reaches assessed are shown in Figure 2-2. Table 2-2summarizes the number of impact conditions identified and reach level assessments that wereperformed within each subwatershed.F:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc8

Figure 2-2. Stream Assessment SummaryF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc9

Table 2-2. Number of Reach Level Assessments Performedand Impact Conditions IdentifiedSubwatershedBeamans Brook East (BBE)RCHCMERIBOTSCTRUT30001210Beamans Brook West (BBW)10022100Blue Hills Reservoir (BHR)20000000Filley Brook (FYB)302836420North Branch Park River (NBP)9111728821Tumbledown Brook (TDB)50000000Wash Brook North (WBN)20000000Wash Brook South (WBS)5131661120Wintonbury Reservoir (WTR)20000000Reach level assessment scores were assigned by field crews based upon the overall stream,buffer, and floodplain conditions. A subjective determination of eight criteria is assessed on ascale of 0 to 20; 0 indicating poor conditions and 20 being optimal conditions. The total ofthese scores provides a quantitative index of overall stream health and condition. Themaximum possible number of points that would be assigned for a fully optimal stream reach is160 points.Streams were assessed relative to a base condition, which for this study, is the highest scoringstream reach in the North Branch Park River watershed (141 points). All other assessed streamreaches were assigned a numerical score and categorized relative to the statistical percentiles(Table 2-3) of the obtained dataset. Reaches scoring greater than the 90th percentile (140 points)are considered “excellent”, between the 75th and 90th percentile are categorized as “good”,between the 50th and 75th percentile are categorized as “fair”, and between the 25th and 50thpercentile are categorized as “marginal.” Total reach scores of less than the 25th percentile (96points) are categorized as “poor”. Table 2-4 summarizes stream reach assessment scores andclassifications for the assessed stream reaches. The stream assessment results for the entirewatershed are also shown graphically in Figure 2-2. Appendix A contains maps depicting thestream assessment results in each subwatershed.Table 2-3. Stream Reach MarginalPoorF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc90%75%50%25% 25%PointThreshold14012711996 9610

Table 2-4. Stream Reach Assessment Scores and ClassificationsExcellentReach 156The North Branch Park River subwatershed contains stream reaches in all five of the assessedcategories, which underscores the high degree of variability in stream conditions along the mainstem of the North Branch Park River. As indicated in Table 2-4, North Branch Park (NBP-14)is the highest rated stream reach (“Excellent”) due to mature floodplain forest along a wideriparian corridor. NBP-13 also received a high score, but the floodplain is more impacted andthe banks somewhat eroded such that the reach is rated as slightly lower (“Good”). NBP-15 isconsidered “Moderate” since it has similar in-stream conditions to NMP-14 but with additionalencroachments due to parking lots and maintained lawns adjacent to the banks, as well as trash,stormwater outfalls, and invasive species within the riparian corridor. NBP-10 is rated “Fair”due to bank erosion and impacted riparian buffers. NBP-16 is the lowest-rated reach in theNorth Branch Park River subwatershed, as well as the overall watershed, since it suffers from arange of problems due to extensive suburban and urban development. The photographs inFigure 2-3 illustrate the sharp contrast in conditions within this subwatershed.The following sections summarize the major issues identified during the stream corridorassessments for each priority subwatershed. Specific locations are identified according to thestream reach and impact condition IDs described previously. Identification of “right” and“left” stream banks is from the observer’s perspective facing downstream.F:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc11

NBP-14: ExcellentNBP-13: GoodNBP-15: FairNBP-10: MarginalNBP-16: Poor overall condition, with little connectivity to the floodplain,modified bank habitat, and numerous outfallsFigure 2-3. Examples of Stream Reaches in Various Classification CategoriesF:\P2007\1468\A10\Field Work\Watershed Assessment Report.doc12

2.2.1 Blue Hills ReservoirBlue Hills Reservoir (BHR) reach BHR-01 is the northernmost in the subwatershed and flowsfrom north to south. It begins at a pond on the north side of Route 187/Blue Hills Avenue.Water flows from the pond through a clogged culvert under Blue Hills Avenue. The outflowforms a clearly-defined channel through a wooded area, flows under an old farm road and 24inch culvert, then becomes sinuous through an alder swamp and then a cattail marsh prior toits and terminus at a cattail pond.In general, the stream reach assessment score of BHR-01 is “Fair,” with optimal streamvegetative protection and floodplain buffer width, but with minor bank erosion and somefloodplain encroachment. The greatest concern is trash and debris scattered through the lowerpart of this reach. Materials observed included automobiles and auto parts, plastic andstyrofoam. A particularly bad area of dumping is located behind an Alvin & Company building(on the left bank of the stream), where the topography slopes steeply from the back of theparking lot. This slope contains trash, concrete, asphalt, appliances (including a washingmachine, air conditioners, etc.), metal pipe, styrofoam, telephone poles, and sheets of plastic.The trash and debris is present in the stream channel itself. Farther upstream, runoff from theback of a Dudley Town Road site has resulted in soil erosion adjacent to the right bank in themiddle of this reach, and sediment has filled wetlands and entered the stream channel.BHR-02 begins at a 24-inch diameter culvert which drains the above-mentioned cattail pondthrough a small earth-embankment dam. Gravel fill is located in the stream channel forapproximately 30 feet downstream of the culvert. The stream flows through red maple swampand a Phragmites stand on

Three separate watershed assessments were performed to guide the development of a watershed management plan for the North Branch Park River: 1) a Baseline Watershed Assessment, 2) a Watershed Field Assessment, and 3) a Land Use Regulatory Review. The Baseline Watershed Assessment evaluates the existing environmental and land use conditions in

Related Documents:

Baseline Watershed Assessment North Branch Park River Watershed Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection July 2010 146 Hartford Road Manchester, Connecticut 06040 In Cooperation With: Farmington River Watershed Association Park River Watershed Revitalization Initiative

Watershed, a watershed that flows toward the Columbia River. In this way, one watershed is artificially connected to several other watersheds at once. The watershed of surface flow, the watershed where domestic water originates, and the watershed where wastewater goes

Corte Madera Creek Watershed Infiltration and Storage Assessment (FOCMC 2m) Corte Madera Creek Watershed Sediment Control and Drinking Water Reliability Project (MMWD 1.2m) Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Barriers to Fish Passage in Sleepy Hollow Creek (San Anselmo 2m) Corte Madera Creek Watershed: Saunders Fish Barrier Removal(San Anselmo 2m)

2016 North Pond Watershed Survey iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of NPS sites in the North Pond watershed by land use and impact. . 15 Table 2. Prioritized list of NPS sites in the North Pond watershed.27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.

Part I: Upper & North Fork Big Hole River Watershed Page 11 Watershed Restoration Planning A Watershed Restoration Plan is a guiding document that outlines watershed restoration goals and needs to address non-point source pollution. The plan describes actions to occur over a 3 -5 year period. It is designed to be a working

Upper Allegany Watershed Upper Allegany Watershed North Branch Mill Creek Mud Run Cassadaga Creek Clear Creek Stillwater Creek MOUTH Little Conewango Creek Lake Erie CONEWANGO CREEK WATERSHED. NY PA . watershed plumbing time & space. Municipal Costs Rebuilt 5 times In 3 years: 15,000 Stabilized in 2005: 3,500 . Municipal Costs Benefits

I. Current Watershed Conditions/Potential Benefit to the Watershed a. Describe how the watershed encompasses forest lands with characteristics and indicators prioritized by the Forest Carbon Plan: The Yuba River watershed encompasses just over 1,300 square miles and includes the North, Middle, and South Yuba River sub-watersheds.

The Excellence Builder is based on the more detailed Baldrige Excellence Framework and its Criteria for Performance Excellence. Leadership Strategy Customers Workforce RESULTS Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management Integration C o r e Values an d C o n c e p t s Operations Organizational Profile Manufacturer Grew return on investment at a 23% compound annual rate; increased annual .