Lake Pocotopaug Lake and Watershed Restoration Evaluation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 19. Wet Weather Loading Summary for 2001 Data.Ad HocStationENSRStation LocationTotalArea(ac)Area Drained *%DevelopedDevelopedArea (ac)Median2001 TPConc.(mg/L)AnnualTP load 1(lbs/yr)Ad HocStudy(lbs/yr)Median2001 DPConc.(mg/L)AnnualDP load 1(lbs/yr)4 LP-3 Christopher Brook, upstream of Christopher Rd 466 36 169 0.069 171 109 0.010 249 LP-4 Storm drain at bottom of Clark Hill 18 100 18 0.196 19 12 0.070 711 LP-5 Hales Brook, at Lake Drive-upstream of Hales Pond 889 12 107 0.084 396 196 0.006 2815 LP-6 Candlewood Brook, upstream of Lake Drive 41 39 16 0.178 39 30 0.035 818 LP-7 Bay Road Brook, downstream of Bay Road 156 3 4 0.300 248 41 0.027 2221 LP-8 Hazen Brook, end of private drive 20 24 5 0.169 18 4 0.020 2LP-9 2 Storm drains at lake edge, between cottages at end 5 100 5 0.417 11 0.029 1of Hawthorne and Emerson Road23 LP-10 O'Neils Brook, upstream of Old Marlboro Road 53 44 23 0.706 199 22 0.024 726 LP-11 Day's Brook, downstream of Old Marlboro Road 55 15 8 0.140 41 46 0.024 722 LP-12 Storm drain at bottom of MohicanWangonk Trail 12 100 12 0.121 8 8 0.055 4(north side of beach)LP-13 3 Storm drainage swale, end of Park Street (next to 5 100 5 1.567 42 0.013 0house #5 with ornamental pond)LP-14 4 Storm drain at S. Wangonk Trail beach 3 100 3 0.159 3 0.062 1* areas obtained from Ad Hoc Lake Advisory Committee (1995) or WMC (1995) when indicated1 Median wet weather (first flush) concentration x area x runoff (0.495 x 1.20 m/yr)2 Assumed 5 acres3 area 28 on WMC report4 area 25 on WMC report - no area listed assumed 3 acTotal lbs/yr 1193 468 Total lbs/yr 110Total kg/yr 541 212 Total kg/yr 50Lake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluation 86May 2002
Table 20. Relative Wet Weather Total Phosphorus LoadingENSRStationLocationTotalArea(ac)Fractionof TotalArea(ac)WaterVolume(m 3 )2001 MedianTP Conc(mg/L)RelativeLoad*(kg/yr)PercentTotalLP-5 Hales Brook, at Lake Drive-upstream of Hales Pond 889 0.37 1306804 0.084 109.8 33.2LP-7 Bay Road Brook, downstream of Bay Road 156 0.07 229315 0.300 68.8 20.8LP-10 O'Neils Brook, upstream of Old Marlboro Road 53 0.02 77908 0.706 55.0 16.6LP-3 Christopher Brook, upstream of Christopher Road 466 0.20 685006 0.069 47.3 14.3LP-13 Storm drainage swale, end of Park Street (next to 5 0.00 7350 1.567 11.5 3.5house #5 with ornamental pond)LP-11 Day's Brook, downstream of Old Marlboro Road 55 0.02 80848 0.140 11.3 3.4LP-6 Candlewood Brook, upstream of Lake Drive 41 0.02 60269 0.178 10.7 3.2LP-4 Storm drain at bottom of Clark Hill 18 0.01 26459 0.196 5.2 1.6LP-8 Hazen Brook, end of private drive 20 0.01 29399 0.169 5.0 1.5LP-9 Storm drains at lake edge, between cottages at end 5 0.00 7350 0.417 3.1 0.9of Hawthorne and Emerson RoadLP-12 Storm drain at bottom of MohicanWangonk Trail 12 0.01 17640 0.121 2.1 0.6(north side of beach)LP-14 Storm drain at S. Wangonk Trail beach 3 0.00 4410 0.159 0.7 0.2*Loads based on estimated stormwater flows * median first flush concentrationTotal 330 1008.5 Loading SummaryTaking all methods described above into consideration, the range of likely loads to LakePocotopaug is somewhere between 280 and 859 kg/yr, and will vary depending on weatherpatterns. The watershed is the primary source of phosphorus, providing between 50 and 73%of the total load. Ground water and precipitation provided 9 – 17% of the total phosphorus loadcollectively. Waterfowl provides approximately 6 –11% and internal loading provides 12 – 22%of the TP load. The internal loading estimate is less than the load previously report but thisreduction not 100% attributable to the alum treatment. Initial internal loading was approximatedat 373 kg/yr, slightly lower than the 499 kg/yr estimated by Fugro (1993).Loading by sampling station produced values comparable to loading calculations presented inSection 8.1. Relative TP load was estimated at 330 kg/yr, slightly above the high range of thewet weather calculations. Relative loads were calculated based on first flush samples and arelikely to be the worst case scenario. In addition, best estimates allowed for the settling ofparticulate matter. Overall, all calculations of the TP load to Lake Pocotopaug presented hereare reasonable. Although the major tributaries comprise the bulk of the stormwater TP load,excessive stormwater phosphorus concentrations are present throughout the watershed.Lake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluation 87May 2002
Page 2 and 3:
LAKE POCOTOPAUGLAKE AND WATERSHEDRE
Page 4 and 5:
11.3 Prevent algal blooms from occu
Page 6 and 7:
LAYPERSON’S SYNOPSISLake Pocotopa
Page 8 and 9:
The stocking of walleye in Lake Poc
Page 10 and 11:
Lake Pocotopaug Restoration Evaluat
Page 12 and 13:
Period Covered 1988• Pollution fr
Page 14 and 15:
Recommendations included• Algacid
Page 16 and 17:
Major EventDecember 1999 - Fish kil
Page 18 and 19:
Table 5. Land Use from the CT DEP G
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Figure 4. Lake Pocotopaug Bathymetr
Page 24 and 25:
Table 6. QA/QC on Water Quality Dat
Page 26 and 27:
Soils - USDA at MAGIC UCONN Geograp
Page 28 and 29:
Table 8. Water Quality Variables Me
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Phytoplankton samples were collecte
Page 34 and 35:
where many measurements would have
Page 36 and 37:
Figure 7. 2001 Temperature and Diss
Page 38 and 39:
Table 10 continued. 2001 Lake Pocot
Page 40 and 41:
phytoplankton biomass (Wetzel 1983)
Page 42 and 43: Figure 9. Annual June, July and Aug
Page 44 and 45: elow 7:1 occurred on September 22,
Page 46 and 47: Table 12. 2001 Dry and Wet Weather
Page 48 and 49: Table 12 continued. 2001 Dry and We
Page 56 and 57: were identified to genus and enumer
Page 58 and 59: Table 13 continued. 2001 Phytoplank
Page 68 and 69: Figure 10. 2001 Phytoplankton Bioma
Page 70 and 71: The late summer bloom of blue-green
Page 72 and 73: Table 15. 2001 Zooplankton DensityZ
Page 74 and 75: Table 16. 2001 Zooplankton BiomassZ
Page 76 and 77: 7.0 RELATIONSHIPS AND TRENDS7.1 Pre
Page 78 and 79: Figure 13. 1991-2001 Surface Water
Page 80 and 81: Figure 15. 2001 Surface and Mid-dep
Page 82 and 83: Figure 16. 1991-2001 Chlorophyll a
Page 84 and 85: Figure 18. 2001 Chlorophyll a vs. S
Page 86 and 87: Figure 20. 1991-2001 July and Augus
Page 88 and 89: Table 17. Empirical Model Calculati
Page 90 and 91: Table 18. Total Phosphorus Loading
Page 94 and 95: With the best possible treatment of
Page 96 and 97: water quality should focus on input
Page 98 and 99: 10.0 MANAGEMENT NEEDS AND OBJECTIVE
Page 100 and 101: 11.2 Reducing Total Phosphorus and
Page 102 and 103: undeveloped forest land, an opportu
Page 104 and 105: Figure 22. Buffer Strips for Pollut
Page 106 and 107: Figure 23. Catch Basin with Sump an
Page 108 and 109: early spring to capture what appear
Page 110 and 111: Figure 26. Infiltration Systems.Lak
Page 112 and 113: Figure 27. Constructed Treatment We
Page 114 and 115: Chemical TreatmentIn-stream chemica
Page 116 and 117: TABLE 21. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CO
Page 118 and 119: TABLE 21 continued. MANAGEMENT OPTI
Page 130 and 131: 12.0 ADDITIONAL DATA NEEDSManagemen
Page 132 and 133: 13.0 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Page 134 and 135: this point, but as a rough guide, a
Page 136 and 137: 14.0 REFERENCESAd Hoc Lake Advisory
Page 138 and 139: Scheuler T.R., P.A. Kumble, & M.A.
Page 140 and 141: Appendix B:Supplemental Tables and
Page 142:
Appendix D:Educational MaterialsLak
show all

Lake Pocotopaug Lake and Watershed Restoration Evaluation ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?