draft, saugatucket river water quality ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation...

184
SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS: WATER QUALITY DATA REPORT Submitted to Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Submitted by Raymond M. Wright Ph.D., P.E. Mirko Kugler M. S. Mark Yeboah M. S. Candidate Quoc Nguyen M. S. Candidate Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881 Data in this Report is Draft July 28, 1998

Upload: others

Post on 21-Mar-2021

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS: WATER QUALITY DATA REPORT

Submitted to Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Submitted by

Raymond M. Wright Ph.D., P.E. Mirko Kugler M. S.

Mark Yeboah M. S. Candidate Quoc Nguyen M. S. Candidate

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Rhode Island

Kingston, RI 02881

Data in this Report is Draft

July 28, 1998

Page 2: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

The purpose of this project was to conduct a comprehensive field investigation of the water quality of the Saugatucket River in southern Rhode Island. Information gathered from this project will be used to calibrate and validate a water quality model that will be used to determine waste load allocations (WLA). The results of the WLA will be an integral part of the development of the NPDES permits.

The main tasks of the project were threefold, (i) To provide an accurate assessment of the water quality conditions existing in the drainage area of the Saugatucket River under both dry and wet weather conditions; (ii) To determine the approximate location of areas of concern under both dry and wet weather conditions; (iii) And to calibrate and validate the dissolved oxygen model, QUAL2E to the river.

Dry Weather Sampling Program

Water Quality Stations

A total of 9 stations were originally scheduled to be monitored. Prior to the first dry weather study, an additional station was added (RH01). A complete list of stations monitored is provided below. These stations include 6 locations on the Saugatucket River and 4 locations on major tributaries to the river.

Station River/Stream Location SR01 Saugatucket River Stoney Fort Road, South Kingstown SR02 Saugatucket River Broad Rock Road, South Kingstown SR03 Saugatucket River Saugatucket Road, South Kingstown SR04 Saugatucket River Rte 108 (Outlet of Saugatucket Pond), South

Kingstown SR05 Saugatucket River Church Street, South Kingstown SR06 Saugatucket River Main Street, Wakefield South Kingstown FM01 Fresh Meadow Brook Broad Rock Road, (Outlet of Indian Lake), South

Kingstown IR01 Indian Run Columbia Street, South Kingstown RB01 Rocky Brook Railroad Street, South Kingstown RH01 Mitchell Brook Rose Hill Road, South Kingstown

Water Quality Surveys

A total of 3 dry weather surveys (DWS) were scheduled for this study to cover 1 year with spring, summer and fall sampling. For each dry weather survey, samples were taken 4 times at each of the 10 stations over the course of 24 hours (0,6,12, 18, and 24). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured during each survey's last run. The 3 dry weather surveys were conducted on March 25,1996, July 10, 1996 and October 27 1996. The draft water quality data is presented in this report.

Page 3: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Flow Measurements

Also necessary for the interpretation of the data is the estimate of stream flow. Flow can be measured with a current meter similar to the Marsh McBirnie Model 20IF electromagnetic flow meter following the velocity/area method after ASTM and USGS. Flows were measured once at each station for all 3 DWS. Additional, stage measurements were taken for each run. The stage readings revealed unsteady stage conditions at SR05 and SR06 for the 2nd dry weather survey conducted on July 10, 1996. This was due to unexpected flow regulation at SR04 by the dam owner.

Due to the combination of uncertainties in the stage-discharge relationship and the fact that it was not possible to flow gauge at higher flows, no stage-discharge relationship for station SR04 was developed. As an alternative, flows for station SR04 were backcalculated by subtracting discharges in the tributaries Indian Run (IR01) and Rocky Brook (RB01) from the measured flow at station SR05.

Dye Study

A total of three dye studies were scheduled for this study. The purpose of the dye studies is to measure the time of travel between all water quality stations in the Saugatucket River mainstream. The results are utilized for modeling the dissolved oxygen dynamics and for data interpretations. All 3 dye studies have been completed. Further information is provided in the separate report titled "Steady State Modeling of Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in the Saugatucket River".

Sediment Oxygen Demand

Sediment oxygen demand (SOD) measurements were proposed at 5 sites within the Saugatucket River mainstream with 3 measurements taken per site. The chamber was constructed during the spring and summer of 1996 and successfully used in the river reach between SR05 and SR06. Further information is provided in the separate report titled "Steady State Modeling of Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in the Saugatucket River".

QUAL2E Model Calibration and Validation

A progressive calibration of the QUAL2E dissolved oxygen model has been completed. It was conducted for the first two dry weather surveys with consideration of the following sources and sinks of dissolved oxygen:

Reaeration Photosynthesis Carbonaceous Biochemical Demand Nitrogenous Biochemical Demand Sediment Oxygen Demand Plant Respiration

Page 4: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

The validation of the DO model has taken place with data from the third dry weather survey.

Wet Weather Sampling Program

Water Quality Surveys

A total of 3 wet weather surveys (WWS) were scheduled for this study. For the first two wet weather surveys (April 28, 1997 and August 21, 1997), samples were taken 11 times at each of the 10 stations. For the third wet weather survey (September 29, 1997), samples were taken 8 times at each of the 10 stations. The draft water quality data is presented in this report.

Flow Measurements

Since the time required to measure flow is often impossible during a WWS, stage/flow relationships are usually developed in advance of the sampling. These relationships were used at the tune of sampling to estimate flow.

To accomplish the tasks of the Saugatucket River Water Quality Investigations, the following four reports will be written.

(i) Water Quality Data Report (this report) (ii) Steady State Modeling of Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in the

Saugatucket River (Submitted with this report) (iii) Steady State Trace Metal Data Interpretation (under development by

Wright et. al.) (iv) Wet Weather Data Interpretation (under development by Wright et. al.)

Page 5: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SR01 FLOW GAGING

STAGE REBARDOWNSTREAM

STAGE REBARUPSTREAM

I •

A

I

0 5

U^ 10 15

Width (feet) 20

. 25 30 35 40

*

tjQ

­2

-3

Cross-Section: Station SR01

River Bottom

*-~m,*-""""*" -tZ / *f~*

Page 6: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SR03

FLOW CAGING

STAGE REBAR

STAGE AT CONCRETE CORNER BETWEEN THE PIPES

Width (feet) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

a -3 -fUver Bottom­

-4

Cross-Section: Station SR03

Station Water Body Accumulative Drainage Area

Page 7: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

STAGE AT MARKED STONE AT RIGHT SIDE OF CULVERT

10 15

Width (feet)

20 25 30 35 40

Cross-Section: Station SR02

•River Bottom

Page 8: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

I

SR04

STAGEREBAR •

STAGE AT CONCRETE WALL A

SAUGATUCKET POND

X

rGATE

HOUSE

Y

Page 9: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SR06

FLOW GAGING

t SAUGATUCICET

\ STAGE REBAR • RIVER 1 I i TIDAL) I STAGE AT CORNER Ai OF SLUICE GATE

ABUDMENT

Page 10: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

STAGE AT MARK OF TOP RIGHT SIDE OF CULVERT

Width (feet) 4 5 6 7 10

-3 -Ri\er Bottom

Cross-Section: Station RB01

Page 11: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

RH01

FLOW GAGING

STAGE REBAR •

STAGE AT M A R K AAT TOP OF PIPE

Width (feet) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lu

Cross-Section: Station RH01

Page 12: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

STAGE AT RAIL OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

Width (feet) 4 5 6 7

Cross-Section: Station FM01

Page 13: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

PLAY IR01 GROUND

FLOW GAGING 1 STAGEREBAR •

STAGE AT TOP ACORNER OF PLANK OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

Width (feet) 4 5

a •Ri\er Bottom

Cross-Section: Station IR01

Page 14: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

FLOW MEASUREMENT

Page 15: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge - Relationship

at Station SR01 Field Meas iurements Trans formed Measurer nents

Date of Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge *

Rebar (Upstr ) Observed (1 On -Rebar) Stage Measured Measurement

(ft) [cfsj mi (LOG ft] [LOG cfs]

08/16/96 1 12 0301 888 2948 1 479

07/22/96 107 0359 893 2.951 1 555

03 / 07 / 97 099 0609 901 2955 1 785

11/05/96 086 0457 914 2961 1 660

02/06/97 086 1 289 914 2961 2110

10/28/96 080 0605 920 2964 1 782

12/23/96 080 1 187 920 2964 2074

04/03/97 069 1 873 931 2.969 2273

I Prediction for higher stages using the stage - discharge relationship

066 - 934 2.970

0.55 - 9.45 2.975

• log (1 00 times original discharge) "Comparison of observed vs. predicted discharge using the stage-discharge relationship

Repression Parameters (last sauares method):

Number of Measurements n: 8 Slope of Regression Line b: 33 53

Intercept of Regression Line a. -97 38 Standard Error of Estimate: 0.170

Coefficient of Determination R2. 0.69

Student T-test for Regression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge):

Standard Error of Estimate for b: 9.093 T-statJstte: 3.688

Degrees of Freedom (n-2): 6 Critical Value T-test (at 95%) 2.447

The comparison of the computed t-stattstte with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-conMence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge.

Discharge

Predicted "

[cfs]

0304

0367

0495

0800

0800

0997

0997

1 484

It 1 654 II

|| 2449

Page 16: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station SR02 Log-Log Plot

Stage-Discharge values (confirmed) Prediction Interval

95% Confidence Limits

Regression Line

2.90 2.91 2.92 2.93 2.94 2.95 2.96

Log-Stage Culvert [ft]

Page 17: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge - Relationship

at Station SR03 Field Mea surements Trans

Date or Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge '

Bridge Observed (10n-Bnd) Stage Measured Measurement

(It) [cfs) («] [LOG ft] [LOG cfs)

07/30/97 427 2024 5.73 2758 2306

07/10/96 393 8984 607 2783 2953

07/10/96 391 7306 609 2785 2864

08/16/96 385 7291 615 2.789 2863

07/02/96 385 9750 615 2789 2989

05/31/96 364 18102 636 2803 3258

03 / 24 / 97 3.63 15376 6.37 2804 3187

11 /OS/96 359 11 990 641 2.807 3079

07/15/96 358 26309 642 2.808 3420

10/28/96 355 16586 645 2.810 3.220

03/25/96 354 19.294 646 2810 3285

02/09/96 349 23.934 651 2.814 3379

12/23/96 339 31 316 6.61 2.820 3496

12/12/96 335 45381 6.65 1 2823 3657

02/06/97 318 54.947 682 2.834 3740

I rieunuuii lui luyiwf Mdyea uwiiy UM waya - urauwyv leMuuranip

3.00 - 700 2.845

2.80 - 720 2.857 I log (100 times original discharge) Comparison of observed vs. predicted discharge using the stage-discharge relationship

Regression Parameters Iv

Number of Measurements n- 15

Slope of Regression Une b: 18.47 Intercept of Regression Line a: -48.59

Standard Error of Estimate: 0.091 Coefficient of Determination R2 0 94

Student T-test for Regression:

Testing if the slope of the regression fcw may be zero

(no correlation between stage and discharge):

Standard Error of Estimate for b: 1 283 T-statete: 14.403

Degrees of Freedom (n-2). 13

Critical Value T-test (at 95%) 2.16

The comparison of the computed t-statnte with the critical t-value indicates with

a 95%-confidence limit that there truly a a correlation between stage and discharge

Discharge

Predicted "

[cfs]

2304

6683

7 101

8511

8511

15826

16292

18289

18823

20516

21 112

24344

32262

36066

57492

93 027

156536

Page 18: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station SR03 Log-Log Plot

a ,0,

Stage-Discharge values (confirmed) Prediction Interval

? 95%-Confidence Limits ra u Regression Line

§ 01 o

2.0 2.74 2.76 2.78 2.80 2.82 2.84 2.86

Log-Stage Bridge [ft]

Page 19: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge - Relationship

at Station SR05 Field Meas lurements Trans formed Measure! rents

Date of Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge *

Measurement Bridge Observed (3181ft-Bnd) Stage Measured

(ft) [cfs] [ftl(MSL) [LOG ft] [LOG cfs]

10/04/95 585 4229 971 2987 2626

10/24/95 533 9627 1023 3010 2983

10/31 /95 531 7888 1025 3011 2897

07/10/96 21 52 7916 1029 3012 2899

06/10/97 21 50 14072 1031 3013 3 148

10/23/95 524 12869 1032 3014 3110

07/02/96 522 12518 1034 3015 3098

08/16/96 21 44 11025 1037 3016 3042

05/22/97 21 43 24530 1038 3016 3390

10/22/95 515 20354 1041 3017 3309

03 / 24 / 97 2137 25043 1044 3019 3399

03/25/96 511 28007 1045 3019 3447

10/28/96 2133 26723 1048 3020 3427

05/31/96 496 31858 1060 -1 3025 3503

11/03/95 494 32249 1062 3026 3509

02/09/96 493 43452 1063 3027 3638

07/15/96 21 17 38865 1064 3027 3590

12/23/96 21 17 42537 1064 3027 3629

12/12/96 2107 56839 1074 3031 3755

02/06/97 2089 86027 1092 3038 3935

04/03/97 2083 110182 1098 3041 4042

rreaicnon TOT nigner sage* using me sngv - aacnargv renraonsnip

I 20 70 - 11 11 3046

- 1121 3050 20?? , -, ^l—* Inn (4 rtfl !•»!•• nrlnbval •*'" ~ ""* •i

•Comparison of observed v» predicted discharge using the stage-discharge relationship

Discharge

Predicted"

[cfs]

-

7686

8563

10624

11 830

12483

13895

16313

20741

22491

24384

25049

27148

37375

39407

40462

41 544

41 544

54024

86153

100483

1 139838

179844

Page 20: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

3.0

2.5 91 ff 2.0 CO

U 1.5

O) 1.0

M

o 0.5

2.92

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station SR01

Stage-Discharge Values (confirmed)

Prediction Interval

- 95%-Confidence Limits

- Regression Line

2.93 2.94 2.95 2.96

Log-Stage Bridge [ft]

Log-Log Plot

= 33.53lx-97.381

R2 = 0.694

2.97 2.98

Page 21: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge - Relationship

at Station SR02 Field Mea surements Trans formed Measurer nents

Date of Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge *

Culvert Observed (10n-Culv) Stage Measured

(ft) [cfs] [«] [LOG ft) [LOG cfs]

08/16/96 1 68 2506 832 2920 2399

07/22/96 1 67 1891 833 2921 2277

07/10/96 162 1 844 838 2923 2266

07/02/96 1 61 2733 839 2924 2437

03 / 07 / 97 1 56 4317 844 2926 2635

07/15/96 1 53 3976 847 2928 2599

05/31/96 1 48 3873 852 2930 2588

11 /05/96 1 40 3236 860 2934 2510

03/25/96 1 40 5623 860 2934 2750

10/28/96 1 39 3932 861 2935 2595

02/06/97 136 6831 864 2937 2834

02/09/96 1 35 9286 865 2937 2968

12/23/96 129 7223 871 2940 2859

04/03/97 120 12778 880 2944 3106

Measurement

1 Prediction for higher stages using the stag* - discharge relationship

1 10 - 890 2949

1 00 - 900 2954

* log (100 times original discharge) "Comparison of observed vs predicted discharge using the stage-discharge relationship

Regression Parameters (using the least squares method).

Number of Measurements n 14 Slope of Regression Une b 29 72

Intercept of Regression Une • -84 49 Standard Error of Estimate 0116

Coefficient of Determination RJ 080

Student T-tMt for rtmifiuutkiii

Testing if the stop* of the regression Hrte may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 4278 T-statistic 6948

Degrees of Freedom (n-2) 12 Critical Value T-test (at 95%) 2179

The comparison of the computed t-statatac with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confldence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

Discharge

Predicted "

[cfs]

2023

2096

2504

2595

3096

3440

4098

5410

5410

5600

6210

6427

7893

10714

1 14991

20896

Page 22: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Regression Parameters for upper part of data (least squares method),

Slope of Regression Line b 28 08 Number of Measurements n 13 Intercept of Regression Line a -81 38 Standard Error of Estimate 0 049

Coefficient of Determination R2 0 95

Student T-test for Regression.

Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge) Standard Error of Estimate for b 1 854 11 Degrees of Freedom (n-2)

T-statsbc 15144 2201 Critical Value T-test (at 95%) The comparison of the computed t-statistic with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confidence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

Regression Parameters for tower part of data (using the least squares method)

Slope of Regression Line b 55 37 Number of Measurements n 12

Intercept of Regression Line a -163 77 Standard Error of Estimate 0 096 Coefficient of Determination R2 0 80

Student T-test for Regression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 8 657 10 Degrees of Freedom (n-2)

T-statabc 15144 2 228 Critical Value T-test (at 95%) The comparison of the computed t-statistw with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confidence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station SR05 Log-Log Plot y = 28079x-81 37jl 50

Stage-Discharge Values R2 = 0 9J42 I (upper part)

£ 45 Stage-Discharge Values (disregarded) Prediction Interval ? 40

n Stage-Discharge Values

<A 35 (lower part) -95% Confidence Limits

30

25 296 298 300 302 304 306

Log-Stage Bridge [ft]

Page 23: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge- Relationship

at Station SR06 Field Meas surements Trans formed Measure! nents

Date of Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge * Discharge

Measurement Sluice Gate Observed (11 9in-Gate) Stage Measured Predicted "

(ft) (cfs) (ft] (MSL) [LOG ft] [LOG cfs] [cfs]

10/04/95 314 3669 942 2974 2565 ­

07/31/96 298 8750 958 2981 2942 ­

09/26/95 286 8417 970 2987 2925 ­

10/31 /95 256 9387 998 2999 2973 ­

10/24/95 256 9783 1000 3000 2990 ­

07/10/96 190 9488 1001 3000 2977 10290

08/16/96 187 12061 1004 3002 3081 12906

10/23/95 251 14640 1005 3002 3166 13575

07/02/96 250 14238 1006 3003 3153 14278

10/22/95 244 21037 1012 3005 3323 19308

11/05/96 175 21236 1016 3007 3327 23588

05/31/96 240 33777 1016 3007 3529 23588

02/09/96 230 38131 1026 3011 3581 38779

1 1 / 03 / 95 230 40131 1026 3011 3603 38779

12/23/96 159 47355 1032 3014 3675 52135

12/12/96 158 58859 1033 3014 3770 54762

02/06/97 146 88354 1045 3019 3946 98418

Prediction for higher stages using the stage - discharge relationship

- 1051 3022 131606 . I ,«- 1061 3026 212823 I ,. 1

Page 24: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Regression Parameters for discharge over fishladder * dam (least squares method).

Slope of Regression Line b 5076 Number of Measurements n 13 Intercept of Regression Line a -14925 Standard Error of Estimate 0061

Coefficient of Determination RJ- 0 97

Student T-test for Repression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no con-elation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 2 891 11 Degrees of Freedom (n-2) T-statetoc 17555 2201 Critical Value T-test (at 95%)

The comparison of the computed (-statistic with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confidence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

Regression Parameters for discharge over fishladder only (least squares method)

Slope of Regression Line b 11 55 Number of Measurements n 6 Intercept of Regression Line a -31 63 Standard Error of Estimate 0112

Coefficient of Determination R2 0 63

Student T-test for Regression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 4 453 4 Degrees of Freedom (n-2) T-statistK- 2.593 2 776 Critical Value T-test (at 95%)

The comparison of the computed t-statistc with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confidence limit that there may be NO correlation between stage and discharge

for the fishladder discharge

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station SR06 Log-Log Plot

Log-

Dis

char

ge [

cfs]

* ro u

A

i

3

0

O

O

t

• Stage-Discharge Values (Discharge over Dam) ^A^i ;*

A Stage-Discharge Values ^J&P^ (Fishtadder Discharge only) A ^ m^ y-50756x-14925|

R2 = 0 9655 IPrediction Interval A

292 2.94 296 298 300 302

Log-Stage Bridge [n]

304

Page 25: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge - Relationship

at Station FM01 Field Mea surements Trans formed Measurer nents

Date of Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge * Discharge

Measurement Bridge Observed (10n-Bnd) Stage Measured Predicted "

(") [cfs] [«] [LOG ft] [LOG cfs] [cfs]

07/10/9 6 977 0537 023 1 362 1 730 -

08/16/9 6 976 1 863 024 1 380 2270 1 782

07/02/96 974 2054 026 1 415 2313 2011

05/31/96 956 3971 044 1643 2599 4442

03/25/96 940 6324 060 1778 2801 7087

10/28/96 942 6928 058 1 763 2841 6734

07/15/9 6 928 8613 072 1 857 2935 9327

02/09/96 927 11 991 073 1863 3079 9523

12/23/9 6 891 13110 109 2037 3118 17419

02/06/97 889 20446 1 11 2045 3311 17903

02/06/97 889 20446 1 11 2045 3311 17903

Prediction for higher stages using the stage - discharge relationship

I 840 - 1 60 2.204 31055

820 - 180 22S5 37084 1 • tog (100 times original discharge) "Comparison of observed vs predicted discharge using the stage-discharge retetionsftp

Regression Parameters fusing the toast squares method). Number of Measurements n 10 Slope of Regression Line b 1 51

Intercept of Regression Line a 017 Standard Error of Estimate 0 069

Coefficient of Determination R2 0 97

Student T-test for Repression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 0095 T-statWte 15832

Degrees of Freedom (n-2) 8 Critical Value T-test (at 95%) 2306

The comparison of the computed t-statistfc with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confidence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

Page 26: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station FM01 Log-Log Plot

4.0

J2 3.5 Stage-Discharge Values .u. (confirmed) 0} g> 3.0 Stage-Discharge Values (0 (disregarded)

u Prediction Interval W 2.5

9 y = 1.5064X + 0.1719 O) - Regression Line R2 = 0.9691 O 2.0

1.5 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Log-Stage Bridge [ft]

Page 27: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge- Relationship

at Station IR01 Field Meas surements Trans formed Measurer nents

Date of Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge * Discharge

Bridge Observed (162in-Bnd) Stage Measured Predicted "Measurement

(ft) [cfs] [ft] (MSL) [LOG tt] [LOG cfs] [cfs]

10/04/95 493 0151 1128 3052 1 179 ­

09/25/95 493 0279 11 28 3052 1 446 1 453

09/26/95 485 0597 11 36 3055 1 776 1 769

07/10/96 485 0664 11 36 3055 1 822 1 769

10/31 /95 478 0785 11 43 3058 1 895 2099

10/24/95 477 0693 11 44 3058 1 841 2151

08/16/96 476 0746 11 45 3059 1 873 2204

06/10/97 475 1 149 1146 3059 2060 2258

07/02/96 474 1 263 1147 3060 2101 2314

10/23/95 467 1 584 11 54 3062 2200 2741

05/22/97 459 2890 11 62 3065 2461 3324

03/24/97 457 2598 1164 3066 2415 3487

05/31/96 451 2996 11 70 3068 2477 4024

10/22/95 448 3569 11 73 J 3069 2553 4322

02/09/96 442 5346 11 79 3072 2728 4982

11/03/95 443 5850 1178 3071 2767 4866

12/23/96 435 5460 11 86 3074 2737 5876

12/12/96 417 9010 1204 3081 2955 8941

02/06/97 409 11260 1212 3084 3052 10753

04/03/97 392 15175 1229 3090 3181 15854

I Prediction for higher stages using the stage - discharge relationship

380 - 1241 3094 20 785

360 - 1261 3101 32454 I log (100 times original discharge)

•Comparison of observed vs predicted discharge using the stage-discharge relationship

Page 28: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Regression Parameters for upper part of data (least squares mcthodl.

Slope of Regression Line b 27 87 Number of Measurements n 8 Intercept of Regression Line a -82 91 Standard Error of Estimate 0 057

Coefficient of Determination R2 0 94

Student T-test for Regression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 0 020 6 Degrees of Freedom (n-2)

T-staOstc 1416 611 2 447 Critical Value T-test (at 95%)

The comparison of the computed t-statistic with the critical t-value indicates with

a 95%-confidence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

Regression Parameters for lower part of data fteast squares method).

Slope of Regression Line b 61 98 Number of Measurements n 14 Intercept of Regression Line a -187 64 Standard Error of Estimate 0 077

Coefficient of Determination R2 0 96

Student T-test for Regression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 3 666 12 Degrees of Freedom (n-2) T-statistic- 1416611 2179 Critical Value T-test (at 95%)

The comparison of the computed t-statstic with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confidence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station IR01 Log-Log Plot

Log-

Dis

char

ge [

cfs]

ro

o>

*.

( jj

O

O

O

O

<

• Stage-Discharge Values y-27871x-82.908| (upper part) R3 ­0 944 |

^ Stage-Discharge Values (disregarded) Prediction Interval

Mf^^^^^ X Stage-Discharge Values ^jW*

(tower part) 1W^' y ­ 61 9S3x- 1876381 Regression Line ^^*~ RJ ­0 960 I

O

02 304 306 308 310 312

Log-Stage Bridge [ft]

Page 29: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge - Relationship

at Station RB01 formed Measurer

Datum

Stage

(LOG ft)

2716

2716

2717

2717

2729

2730

2740

2741

2742

2744

2756

2761

2771

2778

nents

Discharge*

Measured

[LOG cfs]

2276

2385

2275

2329

2584

2595

2815

2717

2899

2705

3037

3130

I

Discharge

Predicted "

[cfs]

2083

2083

2157

2157

3604

3727

5745

5936

6134

6549

10959

13666

20 446

27708

Date of

Measurement

07/10/96

07/02/96

08/16/96

06/10/97

05/22/97

03 / 24 / 97

12/23/96

05/31/96

12/12/96

04/04/96

02/06/97

04/03/97

Field Mea

Stage from

Bridge

(ft)

480

480

479

479

464

463

450

449

448

446

430

423

surements

Discharge

Observed

[cfs]

1 886

2428

1882

2133

3835

3940

6530

5208

7920

5069

10886

13481

Trans

Datum Stage

(10n-Bnd)

[1]

520

520

521

521

536

537

550

551

552

554

570

577

Prediction for higher stages using the stage - discharge rettnnsrup

. 1 410 - 590

- 600 1 «•

tog (100 times original discharge) Comparison of observed v* predicted discharge using the stage-discharge relationship

Parameters fusma the least sou imethotfl Number of Measurements n 12 Slope of Regression Line b 1808

Intercept of Regression Line a -46 80 Standard Error of Estimate 0065

Coefficient of Detenrunation R2 0 96

Student T-test for Regression. Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge)

Standard Error of Estimate for b 1 241 T-statistic 14569

Degrees of Freedom (rt-2) 10 Critical Value T-test (at 95%) 2228

The comparison of the computed '-statistic with the critical t-vahw indicates with a 95%-confidence limit that there truly is a correlation between stage and discharge

85

Page 30: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station RB01 Log-Log Plot

40

• Stage-Discharge Values

fi 3.5 (confirmed)

<u Prediction Interval ? 3.0 ra a v> 25

- Regression Line

y = 18.083x-46.796

O) 20 R: = 0.955

1.5 2.68 2.70 2.72 2.74 2.76 2.78

Log-Stage Bridge (ft)

85

Page 31: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage - Discharge - Relationship

at Station RH01 Field Mea: surements Trans formed Measure! nents

Date of Stage from Discharge Datum Stage Datum Discharge *

Rebar Observed (10ft -Rebar) Stage Measured Measurement

(ft) [cfs] [ft] [LOG ft] [LOG cfs]

03/25/96 294 0102 706 2849 1 009

05/31/96 294 0.385 706 2849 1 585

07/02/96 288 0427 712 2852 1 630

07/10/96 264 1967 736 2.867 2294

07/15/96 2.63 2181 737 2.867 2339

08/16/96 256 2586 744 2872 2413

10/28/96 2.47 2.927 753 2877 2466

12/23/96 2.38 3621 762 2.882 2559

02/06/97 2.17 5968 783 2894 2776

04/03/97 1 85 12054 815 2911 3081

Prediction for higher stages using the stage - discharge relationship'

- I! 1 75 - 825 2916

- II 1.« - 835 2922

• log (100 times original discharge) "Comparison of observed vs predicted discharge using the stage-discharge relationship

Regression Parameters (using the least squares method): Number of Measurements n. 7 Slope of Regression Line b: 17 29

Intercept of Regression Line a: -47 27 Standard Error of Estimate. 0.017

Coefficient of Determination R2: 1 00

Student T-test for Regression: Testing if the slope of the regression line may be zero (no correlation between stage and discharge):

Standard Error of Estimate for b: 0.432 T-statistic. 39.991

Degrees of Freedom (n-2): 5 Critical Value T-test (at 95%) 2.571

The comparison of the computed t-stattstte with the critical t-value indicates with a 95%-confldence limit that there truly Is a correlation between stage and discharge.

Discharge

Predicted "

[cfs]

-

-

-

2044

2.092

2464

3033

3725

5962

11 918

1 14717

18126

Page 32: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

Stage-Discharge Relationship Station RH01 Log-Log Plot

M

0)Ol < o

O)o

3.5

3.0

2.5

20

1.5

1 U

O

Stage-Discharge Values

(confirmed)

Stage-Discharge Values(disregarded)

Predictiofi Interval

R»or»ceinn 1 inn

O^

^

^j*-^^ ~~~

J -*-*-*^*^^^^ ^4*6-***"

y = 1 7 2 9 5 x - 4 7 R! = °"7

.271

2.78 2.82 2.S6 2.90 2.94

Log-Stage Rebar [ft]

Page 33: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

DRY WEATHER WATER QUALITY SURVEY

DATA

Page 34: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1 (DWS1) March 25, 1996

Runs Schedule Runl - 0630 - March 25,1996 Run 2 - 1230 - March 25,1996 Run 3 - 1815 - March 25,1996 Run 4 - 2400 - March 25, 1996 Run 5 - 0630 - March 26, 1996

(DO Measurement-only)

Page 35: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

STATION RUN 1 RUN 2

SR01 2.40 1.80

SR02 0.60 0.80

SR03 1.00 0.60

SR04 1.60 1.40

SR05 1.60 1.20

SR06 1.40 0.80

FM01 1.00 0.60

IR01 1.68 2.02

RB01 1.80 1.20

RH01 0.80 0.20

ND = Not Detectable

Shaded areas represent data under review.

RUN 3

1.40

1.20

1.00

1.20

0.80

0.80

M 2.88

1.60

0.40

RUN 4

2.20

0.80

1.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.40

1.88

1.80

0.60

Page 36: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Fecal Coliform (FC/100 ml)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR01 <1 <1

SR02 10 <1 <1

SR03 <1

SR04 <1

SR05 25 17 23 39

SR06 31

FM01 <1

IR01 61 46 33 44

RB01

RH01

11

Page 37: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/L)

STATION RUN1

SR01 2.40

SR02 0.60

SR03 1.40

SR04 1.40

SR05 1.40

SR06 1.40

FM01 ; 0.80

IR01 0.80

RB01 j 1.20

RH01 0.60

ND = Not Detectable

Shaded areas represent data under review.

RUN 2

1.00

0.40

0.40

0.80

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.20

0.60

0.40

RUN 3 RUN 4

1.00 1.40

0.80 0.80

0.80 0.80

0.60 0.80

0.80 1.00

0.60 1.00

Bl 0.40

0.20

•B0.20 1.80

0.20 0.60

Page 38: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT:

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

BOD5(mg/L)

RUN1

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.45

0.00

0.25

0.20

0.30

0.25

0.10

RUN 2

0.20

0.25

0.70

0.65

0.85

1.05

0.85

0.30

0.3"5

0.20

RUN 3

1.35

1.40

1.05

1.25

1.30

1.50

1.70

1.20

1.30

1.00

RUN 4

0.75

0.70

0.85

1.00

1.10

0.95

1.40

1.40

1.80

1.05

Page 39: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Ammonia (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.013 0.014 0.008 0.017

SR02 0.010 0.018 0.007 0.021

SR03 0.470 0.456 0.504 0.524

SR04 0.283 0.295 0.308 0.293

SR05 0.177 0.193 0.211 0.225

SR06 0.157 0.157 0.173 0.173

FM01 0.016 0.023 0.024 0.060

IR01 0.014 0.013 0.006 0.021

RB01 0.022 0.015 0.013 0.029

RH01 0.007 0.017 ND 0.016

ND * Not Detectable (Detection Limit =» 0.005 mg/L)

Page 40: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Nitrates as N (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.370 0.336 0.348 0.329

SR02 0.246 0.230 0.239 0.219

SR03 0.301 0.336 0.312 0.232

SR04 0.246 0.375 0.295 0.295

SR05 0.439 0.527 0.459 0.459

SR06 0.481 0.590 0.573 0.495

FM01 0.122 0.177 0.168 0.148

IR01 0.412 0.548 0.459 0.459

RB01 0.660 0.745 0.659 0.677

RH01 0.094 0.081 0.103 0.112

Page 41: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Phosphate as P (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 ND ND ND ND

SR02 ND ND ND ND

SR03 ND ND ND ND

SR04 ND ND ND ND

SR05 ND ND ND ND

SR06 ND ND ND ND

FM01 ND ND ND ND

IR01 ND ND ND ND

RB01 ND ND ND ND

RH01 ND ND ND ND

ND = Not Detectable (Detection Limit = 0.010 mg/L)

Page 42: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: TKN (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR06 0.649 0.687 0.767 0.714

CONSTITUENT: TP (mg/L)

STATION ,' RUNl RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR06 0.065 0.059 0.076 0.065

Page 43: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Chloride (mg/L)

STATION RUN 1 RUN 2

SR01 18.3 17.9

SR02 17.8 17.9

SR03 22.7 23.2

SR04 23.0 24.1

SR05 30.8 31.9

SR06 33.1 : 31.7

FM01 25.1 25.2

IR01 55.0 53.8

RB01 3 8.8 3971

RH01 20.5 21.1

RUN 4

18.8

18.0

24.2

25.1

31.7

32.3

26.3

56.8

40.9

1 21.5

RUN 3

19

17

23

23

31

31

23

51

39 .8

20 .7

.3

.2

.8

.8

.1

.3

.6

.7

Page 44: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Sodium (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 8.63 i 8.75 8.34 9.06

SR02 7.71 7.63 7.78 8.22

SR03 10.3 10.4 10.2 10.4

SR04 10.5 10.3 10.6 10.3

SR05 13.8 14.0 13.7 13.9

SR06 13.6 14.5 14.3 16.4

FM01 11.2 11.2 11.7 11.3

IR01 24.8 25.2 25.0 25.2

RB01 18.1 18T3 18.2 19.1

RH01 9.66 10.1 10.0 9.73

Page 45: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Chlorophyll a (jig/L)

RUN 4

0.53

0.51

0.53

1.07

0.90

0.91

! 0.81

0.35

i °'37

, 0.22

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

0.39

0.28

0.24

1.10

0.62

0.85

0.54

0.42

0.52

0.22

RUN 2

0.50

0.72

0.61

1.63

1.71

1.26

0.62

0.51

0.4"!

0.14

RUN 3

0.28

0.39

0.44

0.74

0.61

0.92

0.52

0.29

0.40

0.21

Page 46: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: pH

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

6.44

6.33

6.44

6.62

6.54

6.41

5.39

6.22

6.61

6.00

RUN 2

6.38

6.35

6.48

6.63

6.54

6.47

5.31

6.19

6.69

5.94

RUN 3

6 39

6.35

6 51

6.68

6.58

6.55

5.39

6.22

6.67

6.02

RUN 4

6.36

6.31

6.46

6.68

6.55

6.49

5.33

6.17

6.76

5.92

Page 47: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 11.6 11.1 12.9 11.1

SR02 11.1 11.5 13.0 10.6

SR03 10.6 11.6 13.0 10.2

SR04 10.2 10.8 13.8 11.0

Above Dam

SR04 11.1 12.0 14.1 11.6

Below Dam

SR05 10.8 11.3 13.5 11.0

SR06 10.0 11.4 12.1 10.7 Above Dam

SR06 10.6 11.6 14.0 11.2 Below Dam

FM01 10.5 11.4 12.8 10.2

IR01 10.6 11.1 13.1 10.7

RB01 10.8 11.3 13.1 10.6

RH01 11.5 12.2 13.9 11.0

RUN 5

11.2

10.8

10.6

11.0

11.6

11.3

11.4

12.0

10.2

12.0

11.0

11.4

Page 48: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Temperature (°C)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5

SR01 4.15 10.5 8 00 8.00 7.80

SR02 5.20 9.75 10.5 9.00 9.00

SR03 5.10 8.65 9 10 9.00 8.50

SR04 6.50 7.50 7 60 8.00 8.20

SR05 6.75 8.65 8.10 8.00 8.50

SR06 7.00 9.25 9.05 8.50 8.20

FM01 5.00 9.05 9.00 8.00 8.00

IR01 5.90 8.80 ' 8.15 8.10 8.50 i

RB01 6.25 9.85 !- 9.45 9.30 9.20

RH01 4.40 8.95 1 9.00 8.00 7.80

Page 49: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Conductivity (umhos/cm)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

50

50

70

65

85

50

130

105

52

RUN 2

60

54

75

70

87

95

70

129

113

61

, RUN 3

60

59

72

71

90

95

70

137

113

61

RUN 4

60

55

75

71

85

95

69

140

108

50

RUN 5

58

54

76

74

91

93

71

140

113

60

Page 50: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Stage rebar (ft)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5

SR01 1.45 1.43 1.47 1.44 1.44

SR02 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.01

SR03 1.29 1.27 1.30 1.30 1.28

SR04 t t t t t

SR05 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.90 0.92

SR06 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.70 1.72

FM01 1.50 1.51 1.57 1.53 1.51

IR01 0.01 0.02 t t 0.02

RB01 2.00 2.05 "2.06 t 2.05

RH01 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.63

t Not taken on that run

Page 51: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Stage bridge (upstream) (ft)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05 1

SR06

FM01

IR01 !

RB01

RH01 I

t Not taken on that run

RUN1

t

1.40

3.55

9.69

21"4

1.72

9.40

4.61

4.63

5.41

RUN 2

t

1.41

3.54

9.71

21.4

1.72

9.41

4.61

4.63

5.41

RUN 3

t

t

3.55

9.70

21.4

1.72

9.57

4.62

" t

5.42

RUN 4

t

t

3.55

9.70

t

1.70

9.40

' 4.60

4.65

i 5.44

RUN 5

t

1.40

3.55

9.70

21.4

1.72

9.41

4.61

4.66

5.42

Page 52: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Flows (cfs)

RUN1* RUN 2* RUN 3* RUN 4* RUN 5*

* The flows in Runs 1-5 were calculated using the Stage-Discharge relationships.

Shaded areas represent data under review.

Page 53: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Time (hrs)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUNS

SR01 0630 1230 1815 2400 0630

SR02 0640 1245 1830 0015 0639

SR03 0650 1310 1855 0035 0655

SR04 0710 1345 1925 0055 0715

SR05 0725 1425 2010 0125 0724

SR06 0745 1445 2030 0135 0745

FM01 0645 1300 1835 0025 0646

IR01 0735 1405 1955 0120 0730

RB01 0720 1355 1930 0110 0717

RH01 0700 1320 1910 0045 0700

Page 54: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Calcium (mg/L)

STATION RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.63 0.45 0.84 0.89

SR02 0.89 0.74 1.08 1.31

SR03 2.08 1.83 2.36 2.38

SR04 2.03 1.96 2.33 2.29

SR05 3.04 2.76 3.27 3.09

SR06 3.21 3.18 3.55 3.38

FM01 0.58 0.61 1.19 1.03

IR01 4.04 3.95 4.36 4.17

RB01 3.61 3.4-5 4.02 4.02

RH01 0.35 0.17 0.71 0.61

Page 55: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Magnesium (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.415 0.367 0.364 0.363

SR02 0.491 0.425 0.415 0.434

SR03 0.737 0.712 0.664 0.656

SR04 0.682 0.661 0.643 0.619

SR05 0.790 0.731 0.711 0.717

SR06 0.829 0.759 0.757 0.739

FM01 0.489 0.434 0.443 0.431

IR01 0.941 0.885 0.843 0.856

RB01 0.886 0.8T2 0.799 0.817

RH01 0.357 0.329 0.330 0.321

Page 56: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Chromium (ng/L)

STATION RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 1.97 1.93 0.42 0.56

SR02

SR03

, 1.15

0.67

0.52

0.66

i

'i

0.40

0.49

0.72

0.46

SR04 0.95 0.93 0.59 0.51

SR05 1.10 1.16 0.82 1.27

SR06 1.19 0.73 0.55 0.72

FM01 0.63 1.14 0.99 0.73

IR01 0.95 0.66 0.95 1.76

RB01 0.63 0.63 0.43 1.28

RH01 0.86 0.57 0.66 1.92

Page 57: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Chromium (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR01 0.32 0.15 0.08 0.05

SR02 , 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 i I

SR03 0.05 0.08 ii 0.02 0.06

SR04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04

SR05 0.09 0.52 0.33 0.25

SR06 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.24

FM01 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.21

IR01 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.22

RB01 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.12

RH01 0.26 0.11 0.12 1.23

Page 58: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Nickel (Mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2

SR01I

2.18 1.01

SR02 0.51 , 0.57

SR03 0.49 , 0.56

SR04 0.35 0.91

SR05 ; 0.74 1.88

SR06 1.52 1.08

FM01 0.83 1.30

IR01 1.06 1.08

RB01 0.77 0.25

RH01 1.04 1.28

RUN 3

0.61

0.75

0.52

0.50

1.65

1.70

0.42

1.55

0.98

1.13

RUN 4

0.58

0.83

0.61

0.29

1.61

1.88

0.59

1.70

0.75

0.50

Page 59: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Nickel (ng/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

1.47

0.10

0.22

ND

0.32

1.16

0.62

0.80

0.56

0.74

RUN 2

0.11

0.33

0.23

0.55

1.42

0.84

0.86

0.85

ND

1.06

RUN 3 RUN 4

0.44 0.37

0.57 0.51

0.32 0.40

0.25 0.09

1.41 1.25

1.49 1.62

ND 0.36

1.23 1.11

0.76 0.28

0.87 0.21

Page 60: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Copper

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 1.02 1.97 1.00 1.75

SR02 0.81 0.91 0.96 1.03

SR03 0.71 0.93 0.74 0.87

SR04 2.00 1.18 0.75 0.78

SR05 1.70 1.14 1.21 1.11

SR06 1.48 1.23 1.23 1.30

FM01 1.05 1. 00 1.02 0.86

IR01 1.16 13.82 1.87 16.49

RB01 0.79 0.76 0.42 0.57

RH01 0.42 ND 0.04 0.85

Page 61: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY

CONSTITUENT:

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1 25 March 1996

Dissolved Copper (ng/L)

RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS

0.95 ; 1.57 0.78

0.81 0.91 0.96

0.71 ,i 0.93 0.74

1.07 i 1.07 0.75

! 1.70 1.14 !

i 1.21

1.48 1.23 1.23

1.05 1.00 1.02

1.16 13.82 1.87

0.79 0.76 0.42

0.42 ND 0.04

RUN 4

1.75

1.03

0.87

0.78

1.11

1.25

0.86

16.49

0.57

0.85

Page 62: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Lead

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

0.77

0.75

0.64

1.52

1.09

0.87

1.05

0.92

4.15

0.35

RUN 2

1.16

1.24

0.87

1.92

1.05

0.86

1.17

1.54

1.30

0.37

; RUN 3 RUN 4

0.58 1.04

0.93 1.23

0.81 0.79

| 1.76 4.25

1.97 1.36

1.27 1.35

1.50 3.18

5.40 1.39

1.67 1.70

0.52 0.63

Page 63: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Lead (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.08 0.20 0.24 0.44

SR02 0.29 0.20 0.48 0.55

SR03 0.21 0.43 0.28 0.29

SR04 0.52 0.52 0.75 1.48

SR05 0.42 0.39 1.05 0.74

SR06 0.42 0.44 0.52 0.65

FM01 0.74 0.70 1.07 2.83

IR01 0.61 1.06 2.11 0.67

RB01 0.72 0.46 0.42 0.43

RH01 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.13

Page 64: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Cadmium (^g/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 ; 0.43 0.62 0.41 0.52

SR02 0.55 0.49 0.56 0.55

SR03 ; 0.55 , 0.51 0.47 0.47

SR04 0.58 ! 0.51 , 0.50 0.51

SR05 0.51 0.41 0.56 0.46

SR06 0.57 0.45 | 0.44 0.44

FM01 0.54 0.52 0.47 0.55

IR01 0.44 0.41 0.42 0.44

RB01 0.38 0.44 0.34 0.46

RH01 0.40 0.39 0.46 0.49

Page 65: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Cadmium (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR01 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.09

SR02 0.11 0.07 0.15 0.08

SR03 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.07

SR04 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04

SR05 0.10 0.05 0.11 0.06

SR06 0.15 0.06 0.07 0.06

FM01 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.08

IR01 ND ND ND ND

RB01 ND ND ND ND

RH01 ND ND ND ND

Page 66: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Zinc (^g/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1 i

1.15

7.66 j

4.52

0.69

8.50

12.25

8.16

9.51

7.42

5.42

RUN 2

2.01

10.21

4.91

5.13

8.85

8.40

10.57

9.49

7.04

5.83

RUN 3 RUN 4

3.88 7.75

4.58 8.27

4.84 4.71

6.67 6.44

1.06 | 8.28

8.82 9.25

8.58 14.01

10.05 9.67

7.30 8.13

6.21 6.74

Page 67: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 1

25 March 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Zinc (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 ND ND 3.31 6.48

SR02 7.16 9.44 4.00 7.36

SR03 4.17 4.08 4.18 4.20

SR04 ND 4.23 6.12 5.97

SR05 7.85 8.01 ND 7.59

SR06 11.12 7.77 8.22 8.66

FM01 7.74 9.76 8.09 13.52

IR01 8.90 8.96 9.27 8.94

RB01 6.62 6.26 6.54 6.81

RH01 3.90 5.48 5.58 6.09

Page 68: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2 (DWS2) July 10, 1996

Runs Schedule Runl-0605-July 10, 1996 Run 2-1210-July 10, 1996 Run 3 - 1805-Julyl0,1996 Run 4-0010-July 11,1996 Run 5-0640-July 11, 1996

(DO Measurement-only)

Page 69: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Fecal Coliform (FC/100 ml)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 810 370 270 240

SR02 180 76 47 55

SR03 250 160 99 86

SR04 130 100 2400 80

SR05 1100 970 120 1100

SR06 740 650 670 600

FM01 150 70 110 , 70

IR01 1100 680 520 630 i

RB01 410 280- 350 1 290

RH01 2200 1100 1100 ! 760

Page 70: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 , RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR01 4.16 5.36 5.38

SR02 2.18 2.18 l.t 1.80

SR03 2.67 2.04 2.60 2.49

SR04 2.10 2.18 1.92 1.94

SR05 1.46 2.11 2.60 2.07

SR06 1.44

The values in the shaded areas have been rerun. Data is under review.

Page 71: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/L)

The values in the shaded areas have been rerun. Data is under review.

Page 72: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: BOD5 (unfiltered) (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.58 0.45 0.20 0.40

SR02 ' 0.53 2.53 0.45 0.55

SR03 i 1.03 1 1.08 j 0.70 0.65

SR04 ! 1.03 1.43 1.08 ; 1.10 I

SR05 1.18 1.33 0.78 0.63

SR06 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.28

FM01 1.48 1.L5 1.38 1.00

IR01 0.90 0.73 0.73 0.70

RB01 0.93 0.93" 0.98 0.88

RH01 0.65 0.78 0.50 0.53

Page 73: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Ammonia (mg/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

ND

ND

0.742

0.357

0.280

0.150

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUN 2

ND

ND

0.836

0.440

0.253

0.054

ND

ND

ND'

ND

ND - Not Detectable (Detection Limit = 0.005 mg/L)

RUN 4

ND

ND

0.849

0.310

0.045

0.061

! ND

ND

ND I

, ND

RUN 3

ND

ND

0.836

0.284

0.159

0.070

ND

ND

ND

ND

Page 74: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

CONSTITUENT:

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

10 July 1996

Nitrates as N (mg/L)

RUN 1 RUN 2

0.474 0.526

0.268 0.255

0.513 0.500

0.229 : 0.294

0.435 0.448

0.603 0.745

0.190 0.152

0.939 0.951

0.323 0.263"

0.123 0.108

RUN 3

0.577

0.281

0.526

0.294

0.681

0.590

0.190

0.913

0.247

0.123

RUN 4

0.668

0.268

0.539

0.410

0.887

0.564

0.216

0.964

0.232

, 0.123

Page 75: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Phosphate as P (mg/L)

RUN 4

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND - Not Detectable (Detection Limit =

RUN 2

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND'

ND

0.010 mg/L)

RUN 3

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Page 76: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: TKN(mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR06 0.390 0.366 0.248 0.180

CONSTITUENT: TP(mg/L)

STATION ,1 RUN1 | RUN 2 1 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR06 I 0.128 Ii 0.128 0.116 0.104

Page 77: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Chloride (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 20.8 21.5 22.4 21.3

SR02 15.9 15.3 16.9 16.5

SR03 27.5 25.7 27.1 27.4

SR04 23.0 24.1 23.3 23.2

SR05 27.6 28.6 , 33.2 37.5

SR06 27.9 30.6 i 27'4 27.1

FM01 34.0 34.9 1 35.7 36.2

IR01 46.0 46.2 1 46.7 48.0

RB01 38.1 39.9' 38.9 41.1

RH01 16.1 17.7 ,' 17.6 18.2

Page 78: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Sodium (mg/L)

STATION RUN 1 RUN 2

SR01 9.78 9.85

SR02 7.37 7.57

SR03 j 11.1 11.0

SR04 9.53 9.51

SR05 12.7 12.8

SR06 12.6 12.7

FM01 14.1 14.6

IR01 19.7 20.5

RB01 18.1 18.5'

RH01 7.74 8.03

RUN 3

11.0

7.90

11.9

11.3

15.4

13.2

16.2

21.9

19.8

8.57

RUN 4

10.8

7.81

11.9

10.5

18.5

13.5

16.3

21.5

19.3

8.47

Page 79: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Chlorophyll a

RUN 4

0.37

0.41

0.51

1.78

0.37

0.64

1.28

0.31

i 0.19

0.23

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

0.59

0.23

0.99

2.57

0.55

1.48

8.89

0.26

0.41

0.79

RUN 2

0.28

0.37

1.18

3.55

0.96

2.17

3.16

0.41

0.17"

0.37

RUN 3

0.36

0.28

0.83

2.96

0.50

0.73

3.36

0.40

0.13

0.37

Page 80: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: pH

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 6.70 6.68 6.72 6.70

SR02 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35

SR03 6.55 6.54 6.57 6.59

SR04 6.79 6.88 6.79 6.87

SR05 6.57 6.60 6.46 6.36

SR06 6.43 6.47 6.59 6.53

FM01 5.82 5.98 5.87 5.91

IR01 6.24 5.91 6.25 6.25

RB01 6.78 6.83' 6.84 6.83

RH01 6.19 6.33 6.21 6.20

Page 81: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

STATION , RUN1 ' RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN4 RUNS

SR01 ! 9.50 9.40 ; 12.1 11.6 10.0

SR02 8.20 8.40i

10.00 9.60 8.35

SR03 7.35i

7.80 10.00 , 9.50 7.90

* L SR°iAbove Dam ,

7-50 8.20 10.50 9.50 7.50

SR04 Below Dam

7.50 ! 8.30 10.00 9.40 8.08

SR05 7.55 8.40 8.75 8.10 7.00

SR06 Above Dam

5.60 7.85 8.40 8.30 6.45

SR06 Below Dam

7.50 8.20 8.50 8.30 8.05

FM01 7.10 7.80 8.95 8.60 7.70

IR01 7.35 8.10 9.35 8.90 8.15

RB01 7.50 7.70 9.70 9.10 7.90

RH01 7.45 8.40 9.80 9.11 7.75

Page 82: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Temperature (°C)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 15.5 17.5 18.0 16.0

SR02 17.0 19.0 21.3 18.0

SR03 : 17.2 18.0 19.5 17.5

SR04 22.1 25.0 24.3 23.5

SR05 , 21.0 23.0 22.8 19.0

SR06 i 21.5 26.0 24.0 22.0

FM01 ! 19.2 20.0 21.8 19.5

IR01 i 18.0 20.0 20.0 18.0

RB01 ii 21.0 23.0 '24.3 21.0

RH01 16.9 19.0 20.5 17.8

RUN 5

15.0

17.2

16.7

22.2

18.0

21.8

; 18.5

17.5

1 20.5

17.0

Page 83: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Conductivity (umhos/cm)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

80

62

115

110

127

132

115

161

158

68

RUN 2

70

52

125

120

135

140

400

180

170'

85

RUN 3

82

68

115

125

148

137

121

170

162

70

RUN 4

72

63

109

105

150

125

112

165

160

69

Page 84: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826
Page 85: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826
Page 86: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Stage rebar (ft)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3

SR01 t t t

SR02 1.23 1.25 1.29

SR03 1.67 1.68 1.66

SR04 t t t

SR05 1.06 1.06 1.34

SR06 t t t

FM01 1.85 1.87 1.88

IR01 t t t

RB01 1.26 1.27 1.31

RH01 2.94 2.95 2.98

t Not taken on that run

RUN 4

t

1.30

1.59

t

1.40

t

1.90

t

1.30

3.01

RUN 5

t

1.28

1.53

t

1.45

t

1.89

t

1.30

3.01

Page 87: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Stage bridge (upstream) (ft)

STATION RUN1

SR01 1.62

SR02 1.63

SR03 3.93

SR04 1.64

SR05 21.5

SR06 1.87

FM01 9.75

IR01 4.84

RB01 4.79

RH01 5.70

RUN 2

1.66

1.64

3.92

1.64

21.5

1.88

9.78

4.84

4.80

5.70

' RUN 3

1.69

1.67

3.92

1.60

21.7

| 2.05

9.76

4.85

"4.80

5.73

RUN 4

1.68

1.69

3.85

1.53

21.9

i 2.18

9.78

4.85

4.81

5.76

RUNS

1.67

1.68

3.79

1.48

21.9

2.23

9.77

4.86

4.81

5.76

Page 88: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Flows (cfs)

STATION RUN1* RUN 2* RUN 3* RUN 4* RUN 5* MEASURED

SR01 0.54 048 045 046 047 0 30 (0940)

SR02 239 222 191 1 84 1 98 1 84 (1000)

SR03 756 737 ||||8gg8w3|i£3J|&$p|JssiiiJMg^Jggsa

898 (1210)

SR04

SR05

877

11.4

883

11.4

;§ 1111111 KII

=SR05-LR01 -RB01

792 (1610)

SR06 11.4 10.8 949 (1645) I^^^^P^W ™ffiF

FM01 2.03 1.89 1.82 170 1.79 0 54 (1040)

IR01 0.51 051 0.48 0.48 0.47 066 (1545)

RB01 2.11 2.05 2.05 1.99 1.99 1 89 (1325)

RH01 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.10 (1120)

* The flows in Runs 1-5 were calculated usina the Staee-Ducharee relationships.

Shaded areas represent unsteady flow conditions at SR04.

Page 89: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Time (hrs)

STATION i RUN1 ; RUN 2 RUN 3

SR01 0605 1210 1805

SR02 0615 i 1230 1820

SR03 0635 1300 1840

SR04 0705 1345 1910

SR05 0745 1410 1930

SR06 0755 1425 1950

FM01 0625 1250 1830

IR01 0735 1400 1925

RB01 0815 1330 "2000

RH01 0065 1315 1855

RUN4

0010

0025

0055

0130

0150

0210

0035

0135

0215

0230

RUN 5

0640

0700

0720

0740

0810

0820

0710

0800

0830

0725

Page 90: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Calcium (mg/L)

STATION RUN 1 RUN 2

SR01 2.35 2.43

SR02 2.56 2.38

SR03 , 4.55 4.45

SR04 4.10 4.08

SR05 4.90 4.78

SR06 5.06 5.06

FM01 2.86 2.83

IR01 6.40 6.59

RB01 6.23 5.73'

RH01 1.86 1.55

RUN 3

2.51

2.50

4.36

4.33

5.70

5.06

3.01

6.49

5.85

1.64

RUN 4

2.60

2.63

4.80

4.29

| 6.57

. 5.43

3.24

! 6.85

j 6.62

2.02

Page 91: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Magnesium (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 1.03 1.05 1.10 1.17

SR02 1.10 1.06 1.09 1.16

SR03 1.85 1.82 1.76 1.87

SR04 1.61 1.61 1.66 1.67

SR05 1.83 1.80 1.97 2.34

SR06 1.87 1.88 1.84 1.92

FM01 1.28 1.24 1.32 1.41

IR01 2.10 2.16 2.15 2.25

RB01 2.15 2.15" 2.16 2.31

RH01 0.76 0.71 0.73 0.78

Page 92: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Chromium

RUN 4

0.32

0.29

0.31

0.38

0.32

0.43

1 0.32

j 0.23

; 0.19 1 0.20

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

1.48

0.27

0.35

0.24

0.39

0.64

0.29

0.44

1.19

0.38

RUN 2

0.41

0.29

0.35

0.29

0.28

0.31

0.30

0.46

0.22

0.19

RUN 3

0.30

0.29

0.26

0.31

0.34

0.57

0.36

0.57

0.21

0.17

Page 93: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Chromium (ng/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN 1

0.02

ND

0.03

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.17

ND

ND

RUN 2

0.01 '

0.08

ND

ND

i

;

ND

ND

ND

0,17

ND

ND

RUN 3

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.19

ND

ND

RUN 4

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ji ND

: ND

! ND

Page 94: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Nickel (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2

SR01 0.60 0.15

SR02 0.36 0.18

SR03 , 0.62 0.54

SR04 0.15 0.54

SR05 0.64 0.80

SR06 0.76 0.42

FM01 0.72 0.87

IR01 1.47 ,39

RB01 0.60 0.66

RH01 0.52 0.57

RUN 3

0.19

0.44

0.27

0.43

0.68

0.78

0.40

1.86

0.22

0.27

RUN 4

0.44

0.26

0.54

0.46

0.67

0.53

0.81

1.00

0.17

1.69

Page 95: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Nickel (ng/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN 1

0.21 '

0.15 j

0.41 ;

0.07

0.44

0.52

0.53

1.31

0.22

0.32

RUN 2

0.00

ND

0.37

0.39

0.60

0.24

0.55

1.06

0.00

0.27

RUN 3

ND

i 0.28

0.13

0.26

0.51

0.33

0.67

1.52

0.10

0.15

RUN 4

0.23

0.09

0.33

0.28

0.50

0.36

1 0.58

1 0.89

j 0.02

! 0.15

Page 96: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Copper (^g/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.97 1.38 1.44 1.40

SR02 0.98 0.74 2.06 1.30

SR03 1.17 1.36 0.91 0.69

SR04 0.92 1.09 1.07 1.34

SR05 2.85 3.82 2.41 6.64

SR06 2.71 1.98 1.81 1.69

FM01 1.28 1.30 1.64 2.05

IR01 3.29 3.92 3.94 2.49

RB01 1.03 1.16 1.32 1.10

RH01 1.23 1.71 0.70 1.30

Page 97: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Copper (|ag/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN 1

0.97

0.98

1.17

0.92

2.85

2.71

1.28

3.29

1.03

1.23

RUN 2

1.38

0.74

1.36

1.09

3.82

1.98

1.30

3.92

1.16

1.71

RUN 3

1.44

2.06

0.91

; 1.07

2.41

1.81

1.64

3.94

1.32

0.70

RUN 4

1.40

1.30

0.69

1.34

6.64

1.69

2.05

2.49

1.10

1.30

Page 98: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Lead (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 1.92 0.58 0.38 1.42

SR02 0.75 0.27 0.53 0.49

SR03 0.58 0.27 0.90 0.61

SR04 0.43 0.37 1.07 0.52

SR05 0.88 1.33 j .44 0.95

SR06 0.73 0.73 1.86 0.85

FM01 1.32 1.00 3.49 1.83

IR01 1.30 0.41 2.31 0.34

RB01 1.48 0.81 0.83 0.46

RH01 1.78 0.24 0.41 0.82

Page 99: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.53 0.23 0.08 0.98

SR02 0.30 ND 0.36 0.20

SR03 ND ND 0.58 ND

SR04 ND 0.03 0.61 0.14

SR05 0.54 0.52 0.95 0.57

SR06 0.22 0.38 1.30 0.34

FM01 0.88 0.49 2.72 0.71

IR01 0.69 0.13 1.67 0.14

RB01 0.28 0.55 0.57 0.05

RH01 1.28 ND 0.19 0.64

Page 100: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Cadmium

STATION , RUN1 RUN 2

SR01 0.45 0.42

SR02 0.59 0.50

SR03 0.42 0.46

SR04 0.40 0.43

SR05 0.41 0.42

SR06 0.44 0.43

FM01 0.44 0.49

IR01 0.45 0.33

RB01 0.40 0.36

RH01 0.33 0.37

RUN 3

0.45

0.43

0.40

0.45

0.46

0.45

0.43

0.29

0.33

0.33

RUN 4

0.44

0.40

0.56

0.40

0.51

0.42

0.45

0.35

0.36

0.33

Page 101: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Cadmium (jag/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUN 2

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUNS

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUN 4

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Page 102: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Zinc

RUN 4

9.85

9.61

5.06

4.81

8.59

7.02

1 18.30

1 16.62

i 3.96 I i 4.56

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

3.49

3.83

18.65

0.89

10.32

12.94

5.23

25.48

9.62

6.70

RUN 2

0.52

2.12

3.05

3.85

13.55

8.69

5.37

25.60

4.01

7.80

RUN 3

2.51

12.36

10.49

8.48

0.75

12.24

29.39

21.46

3.93

5.56

Page 103: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 2

10 July 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Zinc (ng/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

3.63

2.94

2.60

2.77

9.93

12.55

4.86

24.53

4.80

6.06

, RUN 2

2.74

1.81

2.73

3.64

12.33

8.32

4.92

20.86

3.74

7.67

RUN 3

2.18

10.43

9.76

8.03

12.92

11.84

28.63

18.57

3.72

5.35

RUN 4

8.76

9.28

4.33

4.61

8.21

6.61

16.89

16.38

3.53

4.47

Page 104: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3 (DWS3) October 27, 1996

Runs Schedule Runl - 0630 - October 27, 1996 Run 2 - 1145 - October 27,1996 Run 3 - 1810 - October 27, 1996 Run 4- 0010 - October 28, 1996 Run 5 - 0630 - October 28, 1996

(DO Measurement only)

Page 105: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Fecal Coliform (FC/100 ml)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

8

6

20

10

140

110

29

27

18

58

RUN 2

160

3

11

8

98

110

54

16

13

24

RUN 3

11

21

25

11

150

91

31

12

17

50

RUN 4

6

6

15

7

160

68

40

6

18

63

Page 106: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

7.66

1.48

2.12

2.36

2.16

2.36

1.22

2.20

1.36

1.56

; RUN 2

5.40

1.14

2.38

3.64

2.00

2.56

! 1.32

1.70

1.24

1.18

RUN 3

9.20

2.92

1.62

1.68

2.82

2.68

0.92

2.02

1.90

1.04

RUN 4

1.66

1.40

2.82

2.08

2.62

4.53

2.16

2.22

1.86

0.90

Page 107: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Volatile Suspended Solids (mg/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

4.00

1.04

1.42

1.74

1.60

1.74

1.06

1.68

1.12

1.04

RUN 2

2.90

0.84

1.54

1.68

1.36

1.58

1.16

1.14

0.74

0.74

RUN 3

2.88

1.46

1.44

1.48

1.66

1.88

0.84

1.50

1.16

0.90

RUN 4

1.32

1.36

1.96

1.60

1.96

1.88

1.76

1.64

1.02

0.66

Page 108: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: BOD7(mg/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

0.95

1.23

1.50

2.40

2.38

2.35

1.55

1.88

1.15

1.18

RUN 2

0.60

0.75

1.18

2.30

1.98

1.75

1.23

1.50

1.15

1.08

RUN 3 RUN 4

0.53 0.78

0.95 0.85

0.98 1.23

1.68 1.65

2.35 2.35

1.93 | 1.78

1.05 1.10

1.58 i

1.48

1.13 1 1.13

1.10 1.00

Page 109: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Ammonia (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2

SR01 ND ND

SR02 0.013 0.012

SR03 0.477 0.397

SR04 0.148 0.140

SR05 0.099 0.113

SR06 0.104 0.102

FM01 0.022 0.018

IR01 0.030 0.031

RB01 0.021 0.022

RH01 0.100 ND

ND » Not Detectable (Detection Limit = 0.0050 mg/L)

RUN 3

ND

ND

0.386

0.161

0.082

0.093

0.018

0.023

0.014

ND

RUN 4

ND

0.020

0.295

0.137

0.140

0.097

0.019

0.031

0.014

ND

Page 110: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Nitrates as N (mg/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

ND = Not Detectable

RUN1

0.083

0.130

0.170

0.023

0.215

0.290

0.335

0.208

0.278

ND

(Detection Limit ­

RUN 2

0.058

0.143

0.240

0.070

0.240

0.338

0.300

0.208

0.190

ND

0.010 mg/L)

RUN 3

0.120

0.190

0.180

0.048

0.290

0.373

0.250

0.230

0.190

ND

RUN 4

0.090

0.200

0.265

0.050

0.268

0.370

0.163

0.265

0.200

ND

Page 111: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Phosphate as P (mg/L)

RUN 3

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUN 4

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN 1

ND

ND

ND

ND

' ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUN 2 ,

ND

ND

NDI

ND

ND i

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND = Not Detectable (Detection Limit = 0.010 mg/L)

Page 112: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: TKN(mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 ' RUN 3 RUN 4

SR06 0.770 0.805 0.762 0.769

CONSTITUENT: TP(mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR06 , ND ND ; ND , ND

ND = Not Detectable (Detection Limit» 0.010 mg/L)

Page 113: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Chloride (mg/L)

STATION : RUN1 i RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 i 17.7 16.9 i 19.4 19.3

SR02

SR03 .

18.8

23.1 i

17.1

22.4i

17.5

22.7

17.5

20.7

SR04

SR05

SR06

!i i

20.6

27.7

24.7

i1

!

20.0

24.2

27.8

! 20.1

27.4

25.3

ii

,

20.8

24.6

25.9

FM01

IR01

1

j

26.5

33.0

25.0

32.6

25.6

33.3

'i !

26.3

34.3

RB01 ,i 31.7 31.7 32.4 i 31.5

RH01 ! 15.8 16.3 16.0 18.0

Page 114: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Sodium (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 10.2 9.92 10.6 10.8

SR02 9.05 8.08 8.55 8.62

SR03 11.0 10.7 11.2 11.3

SR04 10.1 9.76 9.82 9.69

SR05 11.8 11.4 12.0 12.2

SR06 12.3 11.9 12.2 12.5

FM01 12.3 11.9 12.6 12.2

IR01 15.8 15.7 16.0 16.1

RB01 16.0 15.8 16.2 16.4

RH01 8.25 7.76 8.45 8.28

Page 115: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Chlorophyll a (jig/L)

RUN 4

0.06

0.10

0.16

0.22

0.21

0.27

1 0.17

0.24

0.18

, 0.05

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

0.05

0.16

0.18

0.41

0.33

i 0.40

0.29

i 0.11

1 0.34 i

! 0.11

RUN 2

0.03

0.11

0.09

0.42

0.37

0.41

0.34

0.22

0.32

0.05

RUN 3

0.17

0.20

0.07

0.18

0.13

0.12

0.17

0.00

0.09

0.08

Page 116: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: pH

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

RUN1

6.24

6.08

6.17

6.03

6.19

j 6.13

: 4.97

! 5.98

j 6.40

! 6.01

RUN 2

6.30

6.11

6.16

6.02

6.21

6.16

5.01

6.03

6.74

6.17

RUN 3

6.23

6.10

6.20

6.05

6.22

6.18

5.12

6.01

6.52

6.16

RUN 4

6.40

6.20

6.22

6.12

6.33

6.22

; 5.32 ! 6.08

' 6.54

6.20

Page 117: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUNS

SR01 10.0 9.90 9.20 9.25 10.6

SR02 9.00 10.0 9.90 9.20 9.80

SR03 9.10 9.70 9.40 8.75 9.15

SR04 Above Dam

6.15 6.40 6.80 6.10 6.00

SR04 Below Dam

9.85 9.75 9.70 9.50 9.40

SR05 9.50 9.60 9.80 9.40 8.85

SR06 Above Dam

8.00 8.40 8.80 8.20 7.65

SR06 Below Dam

9.75 9.90 10.1 10.0 9.15

FM01 8.25 8.90 8.00 7.80 8.50

IR01 9.70 9.40 9.70 9.60 8.90

RB01 9.70 9.20 9.70 9.50 8.85

RH01 10.0 10.2 9.80 9.20 9.85

Page 118: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Temperature (°C)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5

SR01 10.0 12.2 12.0 12.0 12.0

SR02 9.20 11.8 13.0 12.0 12.0

SR03 9.50 11.0 12.0 12.8 12.2

SR04 11.8 13.0 13.0 12.0 13.0

SR05 10.5 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.8

SR06 11.2 12.5 14.0 13.0 12.8

FM01 9.80 11.8 13.0 12.8 12.5

IR01 10.0 13.0 12.5 12.0 12.0

RB01 11.2 13.5 14.0 13.8 13.8

RH01 9.20 12.0 13.0 12.5 i 12.5 \

Page 119: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Conductivity (umhos/cm)

STATION RUN1 . RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5

SR01 70 65 35 62 65

SR02 60 60 59 60 58

SR03 75 75 79 79 80

SR04 70 70 70 70 70

SR05 80 85 90 85 82

SR06 80 85 92 i 88 88

FM01 72 70 72 1 71 1

75

IR01 98 105 110 ii 100 i 62

RB01 98 105 110 ii 108 ' 108

RH01 50 55 53 1 51 ! 50

Page 120: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Stage rebar (ft)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4 RUN 5

SR01 t t 0.76 t 0.80

SR02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99

SR03 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.28

SR04 t t 1.17 1.18 1.17

SR05 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.88

SR06 t t t 0.34 0.34

FM01 1.49 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.53

IR01 t t t t t

RB01 1.12 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.13

RH01 2.62 2.62 2.64 2.63 2.64

t Not taken on that run

Page 121: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Stage bridge (upstream) (ft)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5

SR01 1.62 1.62 1.61 1.64 1.63

SR02 t t 1.40 1.38 1.39

SR03 3.54 3.55 3.54 3.47 3.54

SR04 1.51 1.50 1.56 t 1.57

SR05 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.4 21.3

SR06 1.72 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.73

FM01 9.43 9.42 9.40 9.40 9.42

IR01 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.44 4.44

RB01 4.69 4.70 4.69 4.68 4.70

RH01 5.40 5.41 5.41 5.41 5.42

t Not taken on that run

Page 122: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Flows (cfs)

STATION RUNT RUN2< RUN 3* RUN 4* RUN 5 * MEASURED 1 o/i 9/96

SR01 054 054 0.55 051 052 0 605 (0900)

SR02 556 556 556 556 576 4 345 (0930)

SR03 198 198 198 198 194 16581 (1100)

SR06 260 260 246 233 24.6 Not flow gaged

FM01 695 695 6.50 629 608 6928 (1015)

ER01 716 675 636 566 566 Not flow gaged

RB01 2.81 2.73 2.81 2.89 2.73 Not flow gaged

RH01 1.75 164 1.64 1.64 1 53 2 181 (1045)

* The flows in Runs 1-5 were calculated using the Stage-Discharge relationships. Shaded areas represent data under review

Page 123: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Time (hrs)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN4 RUN 5

SR01 0630 1145 1810 0010 0630

SR02 0650 1155 1820 0025 0650

SR03 0700 1215 1845 0045 0700

SR04 0720 1300 1920 0115 0720

SR05 0745 1330 1955 0155 0745

SR06 0755 1340 2010 0205 0755

FM01 0655 1205 1830 0035 0655

IR01 0740 1315 1940 0135 0740

RB01 0750 1350 2015 0145 0750

RH01 0710 1230 1905 0100 0710

Page 124: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Magnesium (mg/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.76 0.81 0.79 1.17

SR02 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.16

SR03 1.32 1.28 1.27 1.87

SR04 1.21 1.21 1.13 1.67

SR05 1.39 1.41 1.34 2.34

SR06 1.47 1.45 1.40 1.92

FM01 0.97 0.93 0.90 1.41

IR01 1.66 1.65 1.57 2.25

RB01 1.78 1.78 1.73 2.31

RH01 0.77 0.71 0.66 0.78

Page 125: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Calcium (mg/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

• RUN1

i 1.37

1.58

: 1.29

; 1.23

1.51

1.82

0.82

1.88

2.58

0.86

' RUN 2

0.83

, 1.01

1.39

1.30

,i 1.70

1.85

0.84

2.08

2.59

0.88

RUN 3 RUN 4

0.82 0.83

0.99 1.01

1.39 1.39

1.24 1.34

1.69 1.79

1.70 1.77

0.79 0.81

1.93 2.03

2.44 2.52

0.77 0.83

Page 126: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Chromium

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.08 0.10 ND ND

SR02 0.16 0.07 ND ND

SR03 0.29 0.14 ND ND

SR04 0.19 0.09 ND ND

SR05 0.12 0.09 ND ND

SR06 0.08 0.10 ND ND

FM01 0.10 0.09 ND ND

IR01 0.28 0.20 ND ND

RB01 0.10 0.09 ND ND

RH01 0.08 0.12 ND ND

ND = Not Detectable

Page 127: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Chromium (ng/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

ND = Not Detectable

RUN1 RUN 2

ND ND

0.06 ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND 0.02

0.00 ND

0.14 0.11

ND ND

ND ND

; RUN 3

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUN 4

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Page 128: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Nickel fag/L)

STATION RUN1 ! RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 0.07 , 0.17 ND 0.68

SR02i

0.07 (

0.29 0.21 2.12

SR03 0.59 ,i 0.56 0.28 0.64

SR04 0.54 0.59 0.66 0.63

SR05 0.81 0.50 0.77 0.69

SR06 0.55 2.38 0.51 0.87

FM01 0.44 0.66 0.48 0.86

IR01 1.05 1.29 1.09 1.33

RB01 0.20 0.28 0.31 0.08

RH01 0.47 0.93 0.28 0.19

ND = Not Detectable

Page 129: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Nickel (^ig/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 ND 0.09 ND ND

SR02 ND 0.23 0.21 0.22

SR03 0.46 0.37 0.10 0.51

SR04 0.36 0.52 0.56 0.47

SR05 0.71 0.43 0.77 0.49

SR06 0.40 2.30 0.50 0.59

FM01 0.35 0.55 0.32 0.32

IR01 0.86 1.22 1.03 1.42

RB01 0.11 0.12 0.31 0.44

RH01 0.35 0.36 0.30 0.28

ND = Not Detectable

Page 130: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Copper

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

ND = Not Detectable

RUN1

1.61

2.09

2.03

3.57

7.74

2.73

2.07

2.52

1.93

1.90

RUN 2

2.81

1.77

2.36

2.33

2.36

2.72

2.40

2.46

2.31

2.84

RUN 3

1.29

2.05

1.69

1.54

2.60

1.72

2.30

1.89

2.00

2.39

RUN 4

0.92

2.64

2.17

1.58

2.86

3.54

2.02

2.38

1.69

1.49

Page 131: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dbsolved Copper fag/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 1.61 2.81 1.29 0.59

SR02 2.01 1.77 1.92 2.64

SR03 2.03 2.36 1.56 1.78

SR04 3.57 2.33 1.49 1.28

SR05 7.74 2.36 2.25 2.86

SR06 2.73 2.72 1.56 3.54

FM01 2.07 2.40 2.30 2.02

IR01 2.52 2.46 1.86 2.38

RB01 1.93 2.31 1.69 1.60

RH01 1.90 2.84 1.39 0.90

ND = Not Detectable

Page 132: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Lead (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR01 ND ND ND ND

SR02 ND ND ND ND

SR03 ND 0.15 ND 0.44

SR04 ND ND 0.08 ND

SR05 29.99 ND 1.13 2.04

SR06 0.17 1.58 ND 8.19

FM01 0.60 ND 0.11 1.63

IR01 0.21 ND ND 1.32

RB01 0.03 ND ND ND

RH01 ND ND ND ND

ND ­ Not Detectable

Page 133: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Lead (^g/L)

STATION

SR01

SR02

SR03

SR04

SR05

SR06

FM01

IR01

RB01

RH01

ND = Not Detectable

RUN 1

ND

ND

ND

ND

29.76

0.13

0.60

ND

ND

ND

RUN 2

ND

ND

, 0.15

ND

ND

1.36

ND

ND

ND

ND

RUN 3

ND

0.11

ND

0.53

0.11

ND

0.11

ND

ND

ND

RUN 4

ND

ND

ND

ND

2.04

8.19

1.63

1.32

ND

ND

Page 134: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Cadmium (ng/L)

STATION RUN1 \ RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 ND ND ND ND

SR02 , ND ND ND ND

SR03 ND ND ND ND

SR04 ND ND ND ND

SR05 ND ND ND ' ND

SR06 ND ND ND ND

FM01 ND ND ND ND

IR01 ND ND ND ND

RB01 ND ND ND ND

RH01 ND ND ND ND

ND = Not Detectable

Page 135: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Cadmium (ng/L)

!STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUNS RUN 4

SR01 ND ND ND ND

SR02 ND ND ND ND

SR03 ND ND i ND ND

SR04 ND ND ND ' ND

SR05 ND ND NDi

ND

SR06 ND ND ND ND

FM01 ND ND ND ND

IR01 ND ND ND ND

RB01 ND ND ND ND

RH01 ND ND ND ND

ND = Not Detectable

Page 136: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Total Zinc

STATION RUN1 ' RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 4.40 5.76 4.06 2.97

SR02 6.11 4.94 4.99 6.12

SR03 6.77 13.72 7.33 11.28

SR04 8.39 6.96 6.55 11.88

SR05 20.08 8.15 14.57 12.17

SR06 9.30 21.17 7.46 12.28

FM01 5.89 7.15 5.20 8.01

IR01 14.47 14.71 15.06 16.01

RB01 6.38 6.32 6.53 7.36

RH01 7.21 10.11 6.27 4.10

Page 137: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

SAUGATUCKET RIVER STUDY DRY WEATHER SURVEY 3

27 October 1996

CONSTITUENT: Dissolved Zinc

STATION RUN1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

SR01 4.32 5.66 3.90 2.48

SR02 6.00 4.94 4.99 6.12

SR03 6.66 13.48 7.33 9.42

SR04 8.06 6.96 6.55 11.88

SR05 19.94 8.12 13.09 12.17

SR06 9.26 20.77 6.60 12.28

FM01 5.89 7.03 5.20 8.01

IR01 14.02 14.66 13.25 16.01

RB01 6.19 6.12 5.93 6.86

RH01 7.21 10.06 4.61 4.00

Page 138: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

WET WEATHER WATER QUALITY SURVEY

DATA

Page 139: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

WET WEATHER SURVEY 1 (WWS1) April 28, 1997

Runs Schedule Base - 1920 - April 27, 1997 Run 1-0400-April 28, 1997 Run 2 - 0550 - April 28,1997 Run 3 - 0730 - April 28,1997 Run 4 - 0930 - April 28,1997 Run 5 - 1200 - April 28, 1997 Run 6 - 1405 - April 28,1997 Run 7 - 1605 - April 28,1997 Run 8-1815-April 28, 1997 Run 9 - 2200 - April 28, 1997 Run 10 - 0820 - April 29, 1997 Run 11 - 1820 - April 29, 1997

Rainfall Total Rainfall: 0.64 in

Average Intensity: 0.02 in/hour

Page 140: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o oo Tf O (N T|- ^> TJ- TJ­00 s !"-• S s t - r~ m r» £ 00 ON y o o O , o PO oo m (N o O

0 vo •<!• VO S ; "I- 00 oo oo fN 0 m Tf ^' ? o CM r- ON «N •* CO •* (N O

(N 00 oo ' Tt oo •* VO 00 oo (N 00 o S (N (N r> t *r Os t~- O oo OH o m >n Tt <N m (N 0

i •* o o O <N o o VO ' O vO VO VO (N Tf

• - m m •t Tf o r •*r (N O 00 ™ u. i o M

I (N m ' (N 0 I ~

1

1

vO

§^ I

Tfr vO i 00 SO 0 VO O O Tf

" S Ov m «n 3 (N Tt PO O O (N CO

,1

«n «j g; •* <N (N Tf VO vO 0 Tf

§ (N CN O 3 5 OO X Ov VO p""i rs 5 (N <N (N og* CO

51 3W « r< VO O t 0 vO •~ O •««• Tfr (N 1 «n s § CO (N r»- m *™H

CO

t^^<N VO o 00 oo Tj- 00 (N VO (Npn <N m <N m VO <n f-- s •* s p vr>

§ tN w> ir> PO (N CO

CM

•2 0 oo vO <N (N <N <N ts 00 om (N « •«r £ >o

P5 1 (N m (S pn m CM CO ~ ~ " a •9

Cfi u

*> 0 «S vO Tfr 00 0 TJ- O fN 00 (Nf»1 «n § CN O\ <n •<fr pn ON pn

§ rn r <N <N rn c4 VO w> vO pn pn <N CO

H

Ed (N f< Tt ir> vo r 00 OS oa U

3

S

TA

TIO

N

I O Q 1

Zu

o: cd Qi 04 Od o: & at0 Otf oiDi o a z "8

w |

Page 141: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

• • • •

8I2 ICD CO

>> Cfl H 05 m me

H2

H2H

09 03 C/3 O Cfl O?0 O O

I

I

M c/a 00

2 1 5 j=>

I 1

00 00

I00

oo 0000 1 1

I §

-

Page 142: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o oo 00 ON - : <N 00 00 Z (N

tN z 1 Z

0

S NO Z o § I.

O i z 2 s NO Z

1 2 z 1

s O

1

0 8

000 '

Z ' o 00 (N O z

> a

IE tf > W g ^

§11^81^ s a. 2 S

Bgs

5<SO £ S< CA

o u.

ICO

§CO

i

NO

s

NO

NO

z

z

z

*

00

0

CO

i

£

5?

o

in

ON

O

O OOON

-

1 8

1

NO

NO

o

s

-

z

z

z

z

o

o

s

NO

(N

ON

OO

-

|

NO tN

O

NO

ON m

z

z

z

1

S §

g

i CO

1 CO

m

«

z

z

2

(N

ON

a

2

O•*

8

0

o oo

8 00

z

z

o

o ?!

o oo <N

O <N NO

8

ots

z

z

U

H Z Ed

H

1

i CO

1 £ CO

f-

u

CO

z

— c*

«

(N

§

2

01

a!

5

* pa

§

^ c*

1

NO

oi

z

r-

a!

o o

00

1

O o (N

ON

ad

ON

0

erf

i

z

=

1

i i

1•r o

Page 143: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

II o z70 V5 § o 73 73| 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 CO 8

03 H3•o sO 00 ON 4k u> 10 m0 PJ

] Z o. u

to V* o^ 4k 4k u> I Ox to SO ON 73 LA LA 4k b 4k bo b ON oOO O O\ 4k 00 ON to to to en s ?

o

i 10 to to 4k ON ON 4k OO S) 4k CO 4k to 00 U> 10 OO to -sj

ON 4k 4k £ OO o o s 00 2 O OO 1 a

to JO -O. to 03 ^3^

u» b U> 4k OO SO LA to 0 S O s OO 4k 00 00 u> %OO *

1

w

•*= MJg>s V3 OO OO to

to to to u>

OO S s 4k 4k to to ON ON ON $ l|a•f N*4 k^J

&to to ON u, to w ft - 734k 0 a o.o OO 0 0 OO 0 OO S i-°

on to to to ON u> u> to LA 4k 4k 4k 00 to £ 4k S o 4k NJ OO to to s 1

* _ •fl to U> to 0

OO OO •0, 4k S OO to S § ON OO 00 4k ON 2 s 0

u> OO ON OO to 0to .LA sO 4k i i fc s ON te to ON 1OO

u> 4k to to o4k ON bo bo 5 OO s 2 to 4? i O 4k ON * 1

to JO p sOs b b 00 to bo OO 00 0s 0 p Is S ON ON

| STA

TION

Page 144: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

vo •* en O Ov un en r>- m *••* oo o •o (N vO fS en <N o O S S § S O s o 0 s O 0 O o o O o o O o O o o

en O ' en u-i (N rs en P (N vO vO </">o en ON 00 fS r» en rf en (N§ O S o o O o O s 0 O ' 0 O 0 o o 0 0 o o o

MS CN 00 m <r> W1 00 ON vO en >r> o r •<t VO ON oo r*. r- •* m m en 0 O O o o 0 o o O S O O04 0 O o o o O o o o o o O

ON en o en r~ «n (N r~ ON o en m m en en en en (N (Ss S o o O o S o o o o O u- o o o o o o o o o o o o

1

1 VO Tt (N o en r- 00 I 00 I >o 00 oo oo s s ON 00 ON j o

(N r5 fS 22 (N 9-* (N (N co 0 o 0 o 0 o O O O O ' 0 O i

1

i

«**> (N o en t VO un O ON ON en oo «n 00 ON **• oo ?! 00 (N M (N CM S

CO o o o o O O 0 o 0 0 o 1 0

VO cs 0 r» m r- en r­s oo oo S r* o vo ON VO en (N (N (N <N en (N en (N <N <N

CO 0 o O 0 O 0 O O o O O O

i >r> oo 0 >r> wv •n O U") O en ts

1 s

r f * «/-> (N OO en r~- <N en •~ (Nen en en m •<a- en CN •4 «N CO 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o O o o 0

w—«

0 0\ 00 en VO r-. •«fr vO O en en en en 1 S O 0 1 S § S O O O § o

CD 0 0 o o o o o o o 0 o o

*•* ON ON 00 r» w> ON 00 f~ •*

I en M en § o O

2o o 3 s S o S g o o

CO o O o o 0 o o o o o 0 o

td o •4 (N CO

< - «r> VO p» 00 ON w 1—* H CO<

QQ c* & 0* C* 04 c4 OJ 04 C* OL 04

O u | ST

AT

ION

Page 145: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

II

8

1

zo §

73 73 73 70 73 73 ?3 73 73 73 ^ Cfl o H00>

00ffl

STA

TION

so oo •^ Os u* *. UJ to S o e w-

aIo

oo o

i

O o O o o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 03

u> O ^J

oJto o s «o

fc-*

«>J o s ^J*. u>

>J £ oo

Lft^J

^t o

?B O

O o o o o o o o o o o o O2 O<J\^~i

oJ o& o ON ON

o oo Lrt

o oo<~r<

o ooo\ o oo ON

00*. o 00l*> 3

sO

ojSO

?B Oto

O O2

o o 2

o o-J oo

0

§£ 0

to oo

0

^t VO

o ooto

O

1Ul

0

00to

o ^joo

o ^J<~*

O

ON to

O3

§U>

O o 0 o o 0 o 0 o o o 0 GO

SO sO i o 2 2

4x o oo § i i i so

frM*

to 00 1

O

*k O

o

IO

o

o

0

toto

«

u> ON

0

-u oo

o u> o

o Iftto

o ooto

o ooto

o oo SO

o

5 CO

§Ut

O tou>o\

o K)U» o

o

S o toin4*

O K)OO U)

o u> m*

N)

0 u> u> ON

0LJu> 0

o u>^oIft

0 v*>1JI4*

0 u>*.to

o u>4vto

COI O f^

0

o o tou>

o s1

0 ou> ON

0 ou\ ON

O O«J

0

§ 0 o•vl

0 o 00 SO

o ^iv/<

0 0<o oo

0 b oo

-fl

1 O

s o U) ON

o oo o

0

u> o

O

Ul ON

O

s 0

ONUl

0 to oo

0 u>*.to

0 u> 3

0 L*> OO U>

0 u> 0

*••* *"rt

i

o k)ONUJ

O k)ONU>

o toiy>4k.

o k)v* 00

O to<y>oo

oio w» oo

o IO•fe.(A

o s IS)

o u> oto

o u>to 00

O u>u>to

0 utto oo 0

0 o oo

O O S)00

O Oto 00

o ou> ON

o g0

p Urt•~J

o 2o

o oto*.

o bu>to

o <3u>to

o s-u

o 0 ON

o

Page 146: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

2 •

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q

Q2

Q2

Q2

o3

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

'

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q21

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

­Q2

Q2

QZ

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

*o oo

Q2

Q2

Q2

O2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

QQQ2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2ia

J CO

a, _H

Z

Q2

Q

2Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

QQ2

Q2

Q2

Q2

0

co

M

5 i «

o

^(™< u CQ 04 04 04 f* c4 04 04 04 04 04

CO

<N oo Ov CO

^

Q2iQ

2Q2iIs Q

o

CO w at « ei

H

Ed

^ ZOU

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

.

2

Q2

Q2

H^

Q2

Q '

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

Q2

QQ212

Q2

l

Q2

'

l

Q2

Q2

Q

i

Q i

Q^

2

Q2

Q2

oa

0

os u.

o c4 CO

o CO

s CO

Page 147: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

ft o

1

a

| ST

AT

ION

PI

70 ?o 70 ?8 TO ^3 ?o 73 70 73 ?o 03 > GO

SO OO ^J ON <vi X>. u> to m eO H

H

eoo oo ON Ul *. ^J O\ V3

0 o\ *. ON .&. 70 sO to *. N> ON *. sO oO b bo b to

n

? C/5 <J1 •tk *. ^n •~4 y to 0 ?8

L/i bo ON sO to so j*. Oto u» to '-«J to

oa 1 ON ON ~J oo so so *.O ON V( Oi ?o Iu O *. O In bo oIs* to w» SO ON u>

c/a

^

oo o O o O oo o 0 OA ON ON un ?o so Is) *> ON •u so ON u> <O 0 o*- «

oo to tO o O K> O O 0 **

ON OO 10 1 to ty» so u> ON ^* to o.— 501 —

soo to U> Ul oo U> *. to to *. N ^•U so o so l/t ^J s l • 1 0 u>

T1 SO ON ON -j 1 t/» so p oo ^J oo ~j 2^J 0» o 4k. ON so Ln Iu u> b o^

IM^to |sj to to UJ u> KJ0 % so sJO 0 syi to O -o u> to to §o O OO 00 o\ u> ON (SI so ^ U) ON

ON *• •u *> (J1 LO *. u> u> ! 0^

Ui oO o\ so oo u< 0 oo to u» ON SO

y» -u U) *>. S/l •0, ->l so SO s 0 O ON bo k) u> to b ON o*. k)

^

O

Page 148: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

w^ H w

0 r- o <N o 00 rn NO VO in r- c <N oo ON r-> r~ VO NO >n m NO «n o <N r- t r«- r> r* OO ON t NO NO r~ r~­

^ r- 0 NO «n m CO O ON <N O ro m

s o m OO , (N NO ON in r t m TJ- «n o vo ' «n •n ro (N (N m m m m ro rr

i

•n 00 in 00 r*> NO >n m 0 oo O •<*• s rs o 8 NO NO F c* 00 00 ON IS) O <n NO vo vo NO vo

ON (N •<a- , x-> r« O m Tf o »n NO in rr oo t

**} ' NO t-; >n OO Po O ON ' oo 06 f*-' OO ON u. 1

1 1 00 , r*1 <N •<*• VO . m NO — 1 r i <**> 1«4 OO NO m NO ' ON m sK! (N i (N (N (N 0 O O 0 O Orfi — >

' — — i • 1

«n •* m r» (N 00 ON NO (N 00 ON Q ««4 t T? ON ON Tt Tf •* in VO a r in

ry) 1—4 W-*

—' Qd fN <N 0 0 o O

— — — »-< O ON r <n r-* (N 00 in <N r» S trt f» «n 01 - •* «n m (N (N (N (N)

Cd O O O o o o O O O o O ON

m 0 oo >n r in r m o

1

iII

£ s ON OO m 3 m CM r> in o bE< S o ON ON ON ON ON 00 ON oo r~ r- oo CO

<N > NO <•«"> r S r3 & 3 § <N r- m o CNl S

Vtt t** r - r r~ c - r-» CO

i

r- 00 00 00 OO r~

ON m ?i 5 s s NO <N r*1 VO (N oo OO m ON NO «n m

O o o 0o 06 r- r r OO 0< ON

OON

H

W

HH

in NO r* oo tr>•*N <N W ^ CO

S

TA

TIO

N

< CD oi tt!& od oi & ct 04 C* od atCO

OU |

00

Page 149: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

?e 73 ?3 3 ?8 73 73 73 JO 73 73 03 > 00

vO 00 1 ON w> 4k u> K) m0

| STA

TION

HGHZ

* •

•3 C/3ON ON < < ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON *n|

X 4k O K) K> 4k 00 Wi ON -J 4k

tO ON NJ ->J 4 O to O N)

V/> ON <-r\ ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON C/3

4k O

10 00

oo1>J O vO

K)ON

U> W» t 2

u> »J

isi u>

m 4k

4k 1X1 O

N>

<ji 4k u>

ON L>J IO

ON

O ON

ON S)NO

ON l*> vO

ON

4*-J

ON 4k ^

ON

ON (Jt

ON 4k NO

ON in K>

ON <*ft NO

ON C/3JW O u>

^

2 ON

^ oo

ON V\ Ul

ON t/»oo

ON ON U>

ON ON N>

ON ON Ul

ON

OJ ON

s ON i* ON

ON Lft

ON wii >

C« M*I

ON to O

ON

3 ON 2

ON

2 ON ON

ON Wl

ON ON<O

ON ON>J

ON

^ O

ON ON U>

ON

§

ON ON V/l

C/3*Tl

i ^

I/I W»NO

ON -J OJ

ON

vy» ON ON

ON

§

ON 4k OO

ON

2 ON ON>J

ON I*Ui

ON cn NO

ON Vtu>

ON ON oo

00 M§ON

u> 00

<yi O-J

*>

sO»J

LA

ON

L/1 k)O

< l 4k ON

(s\ON

Lrt ONu>

l/i V* 4k

(yi ONON

w» °J5NO

2

•fl 2! O

v» u> <*»

ON ON ON

ON 4k.

^

ON

N)

ON 4k OO

ON C» ON

ON l/i4k

ON

§

ON i/«

ON 4k OO

ON w»

ON 4k OO

53i

v/l ON~J

ON bo u>

ON ON OO

ON Uju>

ON •1

-J

ON bo

ON

^ON

ON 00 O

ON -sj N)

ON ON 00

ON

5

ON -J OO

g00 O

Ul 4k

ON

4.

C* 00<J1

ON

0

ON b OO

ON

!£ ON N)U>

ON u> u>

ON

'$

ON u> O

ON Ift O

ON U> £ O

Page 150: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o o 0 o o o Ooo <N IT) 3 rn 0

O1 3 00 'OON ON ^ ON ^

i 0 O o O o O0 o o o<N ON ON Ov ON O o O oON oo ON ON

O O 0 O oO O 0 o o Oo oo 00 oQ ON 3 ON o o o2: ON ON ON < ON ON

— — —

o o oO O v> O o Oo C4 (N O oo <N O 00 ! 00 00 ON 00 ON ON o Ou< 1

t 1

VO o O 0 o O o O Oo 0 O Tf o(N m oo ON § O o G> 0 0 o OON ON ON ON

' .

i

O O o o o o Oo o 0 g0 8 ON (N at 0 ~* 0 o 0 o 0ON ON ON —« -

0 0 0 OO O o ooo 00 oo o1 ,

S )

1 VO ON VO

0 0 o c> o oON 00 ON ON 0< ' ON 1 1

m O o o o•0 •n o o o ooo

I § oo- S VO Tf

O o o o oON oo ON VO ON ON ON CO

a, o O o o o o oe <N CNJ r^t rn 8

& i ?O o o S

ON vd ON

B? oo o o oo ooo VO oo 1

r i SON 0 0|1 ON o

3ON CO

iZ .o(N VO r- oo ON O PH S 1 \S fS CQ 1 at 1 at 1 1 1 1 at CO

I \

Page 151: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

s 70 *> TO ?o ?o *J ;» 70 70 ?o 70 03 1/5

z > C/J

o 00 'j ON vy> s*. Ul to en H o

PJ

C/3 oo 00 00 00 OO oo sO sO sO sO to b Ln L/i Lrt b b b b Lft L/» is> Ln 1

Cfl00 vO sO o 00 00 SO S o ob b b b bo ly« 00 O b bo b u> 1^

C/300 SO SO SO so 00 •u o p p 4k. ?s b l/> b b b — O c/>0> k> l/> bo Ui b Ul >

c« 3§

U) o o o o N> N) s> 70 — — — 31 0 v^« o 0 0 oo «-n <J\ oo O V l ~ X — g M n

>5E"? 3 a : M M

CA =N> P o 0 o O o M s> Ul - P0 o o ls\ In o (j\ O 0 u> OO - O « — — 2 3a<

55 3 01 c/a

«*. 0 o 0 o o o —. K) *. — O o Ln t » K) N> 0 b vy» oo O o s -ao< o

•n £ **^ £00 so vO SO so SO p 0 2b ON ty» u> b b ol/» o» bo k) i/i b

N^ so so SO ^o U> 0 0 0 o K> k> i/» b b 10 b in b i » b bo b

*». o O o O o o o O N) u> l/l

o o Ul <-n ^J V/l b o Ln O o o o

00 00 SO oo oo oo so so O p u> b 00 b Oi In b N) v> ob*k b bo b

[ S

TA

TIO

N

Page 152: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o 5

o (N 00 m (N «n oo 0 (N 00 ON «n

o (N CS o OON 00 <N oo 00

m 00 00

oo 00

inOO >n ON

1 = 5( ON ON

fN) NO 00 ON ON

00 ON a 2

o o r-NO

00 NO

m CN| ^

o •<fr

m in —Tj­ o VO

u-

Q D „

V) g i CO

oON

o mON ,

! i '

~* O OO '

O oo

1 I

oNO m oo 00 0 0 oo oo

! 1

i i

1

2 "J ON & ~ * a

1

§CO

g (NON s

1

00 o o 00 r- o

00 00r­

' o 00

m , in

1 ON O OO

00 « 0 O 0 o m NO

o Or~ en NO

CO

1

i o 04 CO

£ oo £ (S 00 NO

(NNO

oo (N 0in o m °p in

a il e J3 a CN)

§CO

oo 3 oo o O O s o —•­

i

o in

^ ^ i

J iK CO

2§NO CN| 00 o O o 00 — in

••

z Ed

H M*

§p

W CO z Z Z

TJ­Z Z

NO

Z

„ Z

00

Z ON

Z o — Z Z

03 04 04 06 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 ICO C O ^ i

Page 153: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

8 C/3

70 70 H70 73 70 70 73 70 70 70 ?o CO > IZ Z g § g 2> g § •g 2? § HCA isO 00 j ON in *. u> NJ m~* o

H

n • •

H §'n

NJ C/3 oo so i in NJ oo ON NJ sO ?3 00 NJ u> LJ in O Oin NJ O Iin

NJ OO § o o O oin O O O

00l»J o

00 NJin

NJ NJ

O

oo NJin

ON

in £

in §in I 2 o ON

§

*. o

sOU> in

03

§NJ

_

oo -u o 00*>.in

NJ NJ -U 0

oo-pk0 5u> o £ NJ

^

NJ NJ o

soin inin

ON NJ O

*. u> o

sOin in

C/3

§U>

ooinin

NJ U»

O

ooinin

-2in

-U

^in KO

g m

00 »•*

° 2 0

* in o

NJ 0

O

cn

1

so

3 so in

KI u> U)o

sO-» Cft

•vl Oin

in §

NJin 0 §

oo g ON

g

Ut§ ^u>in r

§in

so NJ 0

sO NJ

°

NJu>•uin

1— •*so g ^ in

in O

NJin in

l-

O

00 u>in

-J §

in O 1in

C/3?o §

00u>in

OOu*in

NJ NJ NJ O

00 u>in

ON NJ O s o NJ

O «in 2in ON

0

*. NJin 5in

T1

§

iin so 0

NJ U> NJin %in

ONinin

*.in m sin 0inin

00

in $in •ttinin

NJ 3 o 1

so NJin

SO u> O

NJ 10inin

sO u> O 5 0

in in

Ul Oin

NJ O

oo•uin

- 1 O

in NJ 0 sinin s o

oo -tkin

00in O

NJNJin O

00in O 5 o £ u>

m NJ U)0 i 00 o o sin *.

*. O 8in 0

Page 154: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

t»» O CO CO OO o t • J- OO 0 rt Tt § S CO « > fN rs r CO r~ Vt m 3 vO iy o O o o 0 O o O o o O O

«—1 oo r- r- ' v> o m NO «/1 00 >n -a­o CO 5- (N r-~ co o ro m fN m5 ON r CO (N o >n ro (N CO r> NO co co m CO co CO CO CO CO CO ro CO

i

t o r- (N « 0 00 OO NO O fN ON

1 NO 00 r~ ro 00 00 00 O O P* VO r- t»> ON 00 OO OO o fN <N fN O O fN fN i (N fN ^ *"* fS fN fN fN fN fN

i

fN 00 OO ' r- VO 00 fN ON 0 OO 3 fN 00 w> NO fN ON (N O O § 00 r*. NO NO >n NO £

u. W-H *""* *"* * o o O O o O O~

s O ' r- VO Ov r* Os 00 00 If) co >T) «o fN s CO o s , 00 co

a! rj- f «r> w> <O «n Tt •* co i <N 0 00 (N fN (N CN fN fN <N fN fNJ fN fN , (N

m i- vr> vO ON 0 «/"> 00 Tt ON R in <N 9 >r> co r» Tt in O m§ p «n CO $ ON NO (N CO <N fN (N fN fN (N <N (N fN fN i ^* ~

ON ON o « OO vn NO in CO OO oo 00 OO P O V> CO CO fN TT

(N <o CO fN fN CO fN| •<fr TT 1 ^CO (N fN <N fN fN <N fN fN (N fN fN fN

co O NO CO OO m VO fN 5? ro S t>» oo r <N •<r NO

§ fN i O 1 2 00 v> co fN fN CO fN (N (N fN fN fN

VO ft « co «* fN NO vO <n •t o ON Tfr OO ON v* CO CO r- OO a, fN <N cs CO co fN s 3 0 o

CO "n I

<N 0 v~> co 2 O r» m fN $ W> VO r- VO S OO

^ i (N (N <N fN s o 00 ON S CO o o O o

Ed

o(N co Tt vr> NO r~ OO ON U

31 CQ a; Cri C4 c* a; C* ct Qi C* c* C4 O u 1 ST

AT

ION

Page 155: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

• •

I

| STA

TION

70 ;» to 73 ?o 73 ?9 ?o 73 ?o 3 CD > 1v>

0 so oo «j ON U1 -u u> to tn H

w

0 o o o o O O o o o o 0 Cfl «a < > v» <~f\ -u 4» •tt on ON ON ON ON po«vj *. ON SO J Ji. Ul 1o to ' to l*> o ON J i-n O to 00 to to so ON

3 0 o o O o o o 0 0 O o 0 cya ? ON ON ON ^n o ON J -sj -O -J J ?a

0 00 m u> < 1 ON 2u> 00 O KJ S so to *. ( ON S

o O o O o O o 0 03 ON ON ~sl 00 SO o O sO 73% 2 ->J Cn ON so 2 S u> to OO Ooo j£ *. N) ON u> LfJ OO Ul ON -J

u> ""*

o — 00so oo s :i O O 3 OIO ON w« UJ S -o OO to u> 3 ^ 1

^

§, W5

O N) b 10 to «0OA vC O\ O oo 00 B (S\ ON ) §Co1 OO * J oo u> o o oo -J oo cn

C/3 to to tO to i*j u> u> U> u>

O Ln o u> U) 0• 4 U» w u> • o 5 -o oo I

o o o O o o O o o o o 0 T1 w< • *. <J\ -J J J u> to u> -^Hli s l/» § to u> s so O00 so *• 00 in ON 00 H *- Oj v> ^

«•* o o •0, o to u* Ul

•-Os — i*. •3 oo 3* u> oo *. 1hO V* o s ON § to SO »J o u> &

to k) ro K> Is) to U)% •vl o m to o -J t O

Mrt

s so oo *. VO «>> Ut S oo to § oo

0 O o p O O o o o o o o '** Itt *. *. Ln In Ln In In Ln k oo to <-n *. ON o\ oo oo o

N> u> Ijj oo so OJ oo m so s s i

Page 156: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

WET WEATHER SURVEY 2 (WWS2) August 21, 1997

Runs Schedule Base - 1705 - August 20, 1997 Run 1 - 0350 - August 21,1997 Run 2 - 0515 - August 21, 1997 Run 3 - 0740 - August 21, 1997 Run 4 - 1015 - August 21, 1997 Run 5 - 1210 - August 21, 1997 Run 6 - 1500 - August 21, 1997 Run 7 - 2305 - August 21, 1997 Run 8 - 1010 - August 22,1997 Run 9 - 1635 - August 22, 1997 Run 10 - 2300 - August 22, 1997 Run 11 - 0615 - August 23, 1997

Rainfall Total Rainfall: 0.19 in

Average Intensity: 0.01 in/hour

Page 157: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

z

o

i

Q

73

Z

""

Z

70

z 0

Z

JO

§ so

IO

o

73

§ 00

Z

JO

§

o

73

§

Z

JO

§

to

1

JO

§

to o o

JO

§

ON Lft o

JO

2 to

1

JO

§

z

CO

03 m

oo

O3

di 03

o

n o

w H

i. n e

Z z Z to

8 z •tx sO

o 1 z ON 03

oto

z z ON O z to z § oo

8 I 0 5 to Ul o

C/3

O Ul

z z OO o oo oo a oo o

OO oo to 00 ON ? Ul 1

z

z

z

z

o! o

oo o

3

i

o

so

O

Ulto 8

Ul

8

10 s

1

8 8

i

1

00 o

8

§

z

z

Ul

i

o

03

ON

ore BH 3S M H

S £ 2 so e <

05

z

z

z

z

Ul

0

8

g

i

so Ul 0

1

g

to 8

o o

i

u>

»••*

8

8

8

to Ul

8

•u

8

z

? Ul 0

ON o

T1

|

z z 1 to so o £l i oo o o 8

ON

o

to z i O

z z o Z 00

in O z i

Ul

8 8 Ul Ul

8 z Ul

8 O

Page 158: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

05

r-OO ON

O 00

O

o SO rf

CO

"—

co CN

co

CN

^

0

so o

"*

o ^

CO CO

*"*

CO vO CN

o CN

o2

co CN

Of-;

! 5 , 1 CN OO

O wo od od

o CN

CO

CN I/O

CO CO CN

OO o

1

i s o o o , CN '

p- CO wo CO

r-CO • i

o ON

O CO

ON

o CN CN

0 OO

o

1

> a £ « %S& >W C6 r­^ Z> £ ~ cc ^ tf oi p_ si«5s O £

<<C/3

^

I

IB

o (X

1 CO

WO

CO

gs CO

ro

CO

0 r-

o wo *­

co CM

0 ro CN

co wo

ON CO

(N ~*

0

fs.

wo w

co

CN

ro

00

o co ~

o p CO

O~ CN

CO Tf

.

o co 0CN

£ CN

£ Os

CO 00

**

coON CO

' i

CO ON co CO

O

wo

CO vq

wo

O

CN

CO O

!

co

3

!

O ON CO

co ON

t -

CO f~ CN

0 CO OO

CO

«­

"*

0

^

co

wo

f-» co

^ ^

o CN

£

"*

O p^ CN

CO O

P,

CN

CO 00

•~"

,> CO

o co ""

O wo CN

O ro CO

co OO CN

OO CN

Ow-i CN

P,

CO

p. CO

o CO

t~­

^

O SO "

CN ro

CO

o

CO OO o

o wo

p­wo o

CO

~ en — —

!2•a s a on

^

i CO

i CO

(N

CN co

wo

CN

3 o CO

co

$ co

1

0 wo

s

CO OO o CO

co

8 wo

§

&;ON

O

00

1 '

s

CO wo CO

COON 0

wo

wo

CO CO WO

o OO

~

3 § "

H

z 8

§p

jsCO

CD CO

OS

Z

e* 2

5a

CO

Z

Tf

Z

^

wo Z

oi 1

. Z

Oi

Z

\&

00

Z

tf!

ON Z

cd

O

oi

2;

oi Iii a 2

1 S

I

Page 159: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

z no II o

oo73 73o § 73 ?2 73 |2 73 73 73 73 73 CO $2 2 2 2 2 2 5? 2 2 2 300 iI S « oo Ul to m c— O

3 g- —J M i ? a. £ B9

§

3

to to

Ul

Ul

to Ul Ul i o

sO Ul

so bo o

p so ON

so

Ul io-J

to

-J

Ul to i

H

n CM e

sO Ul

_ • J

^

ON U)

5

-U Ul

to b 0

to •xj

^

o

ON o

oo Ul

Ul

to to o

to 00 Ul

to ON

to to

p o

to o

to

to

o5

i

ON ^J

o

to so

o

to o

o

sO

o

Ul to Ul

o

Ul to o

b-J

oo Ul

tod

Ul

to SOUl

to 0

ON oo0

to •tfc

0

to3

Ul

to ^^^

o

J

to

^

to ON

to to o

to

o

$.

Ul

Ul Ul o

to M*

o

Ul

u>

to

to

^ w> Ul

to Ul o

to bu>

o

73 oto

Cfl ^Jr u>

1 00

1

00

s

1 a a S. CM o £ wo

I C/3 >. s

^ CJ

J5>­ w O

= ^S | 35 S S H I » 50 so to *2 se a <-* » w s*^3N 3o><

ONO

to 00 o

to3 s to o to

s to to

^^

so

to io

Ul

s 10

Ul

T,

0

^^

3 I—*

U)

.

sO

l .

oo o to oo Ul

oo 0 ^

o

to o o

ON ON

ON

°

.

so o

^ M

0

o ON Ul

bo Ul

o Ul £ Ul

to

o :5 ON to o s to

o sCO o

3 to o-J is

0

o Ul 2 to

8

, -

Ul 0 o

to ON

0 oo o Ul

p o

Page 160: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o oo Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Qo 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2S

o

o Q Q , o o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q2 2

0 2 2 2 2 2 2S d 0

o (S o Q , Q Q Q Q Q Qo o 0 ' i i 2 2 2 2 2 2o o o o d

o Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Qi 2 2 2 2 2 o 2 2 2 2 2u. o d

1 o NO <N ON NO NO 2- ! 00 . S ioo r- i COCO CO

CO 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O O0 1 !1 I 1

w> •<* •<*• «n oo O CO ON o 00 m r-O co

f^ NO <N NO Tf <N j »—i04

W

a w^ co co *** i co CO ' co co CO CO ^

—*o o o dCO o 0 O 0 O o 0 o 1 1

I

S 04 CO

r. v 5 O

0

NO O

S NO 0

8 NO 0

ON

0 F» <=>

NO

NO 0

CO

NO d

CM NO O

r-NO O

£ CO

d NO

O

i

C/} o 04 CO

0 oo

~~

-.

*~"

oo rr ^—

CO ro ^

NO

rs *™

S oo o

s­o

ON

O CO o

CO !

O

o .ON '

O

NO U"> O

§04 CO

Q2 Q2 2 0

o Q2

Q2

O 2

Q2

Q2

O 2

Q2

Q tio II

Q Q £2| Q Q Q Q Q Q Qi iCO 2 2 2 2 2 28 1I

g__

fN NO r- oo ON u p CO 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 £• 2 2

is

H

CQ 04 04 04 04 04 04 i 04 04 04 04 04 o 2 CO 1

(^ a'i 8

0

Page 161: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

1

z z 8> o II II z z 273 73o o 33 73 70 73 73 73 ?3 73 ?3 COc. >z 03 £ 8

O vO 00 -O ON LA *. Ul N) m H

M Z

o 0 o o o o o o o O 10 C/3 Z. to 4k i o to o u> L*> LA *. 73 > L.J c£ oo vO >0. 0 vO O\ LA OLA O 00 00 u> vO LA LA oo •>J 2

H o o o O o o o o 0 o o 0 0 03

10 to to ON 4 73I — — •o — — —*> 0\ VO sLA vO *>. ON Lv> — *>. i O O p p p o o p p O O3 Z u> 4x LA

vO k> jk LA bo 00 > 3 LA LA LA ~J vO to §u> to •0, LA (O *. U) 00 LA vO U)

_, O o o o o o o o o O

_

O3 3> to to to to to to to U> to

> u> 1 -J *. £ u> LA LA oo § ON u> VO u\ oo •tk. s •1 -O i M O

1$ O 0 o o o o o o o O O3 &B ^ J

LU to u> to to to to to -O 73 10 Ul oo v/l oo 00 -J % OO O Z * S> 5 «3 HON § vO <J\ 0 LA ON to 4*. LA ^O ^^ ^^«

-" so w^ Si5

O o o o o 0 o o o o o O3 U> to to to ly« *. *. *. LA

I> to oo •J ty« •1U)

LA LA oo LA o u> u» vO «J Lv> § • 0 1^

O p p o o o p o o p U) •n 2 o -J 4*. > g oo i U) £ LtJ o1 i s o\ LA «o to LO § U> §

o 0 o o o 0 o o o O O to o vO 4

> oo 4k o to vO LO 4k^ 2 4k LA to 4 s ivO 1 VO J ^

o o o o o o o o 0 O 0 u> o 0 4k

> ?J to o u> oo VO Lv> -0. LA to o 00 to o o u> LA 'J i U>

o 0 p o p p p p O O O

1 N)> s % o 2 •U o £ LA LA LO o<0 u> o 0 to oo vO ON O""

S

TA

TIO

N

Page 162: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

• •

i

<Z

CO OO

go

go

(N0Oo

S§o

go

oo

oo

oo

os

5 -8 S N

H ^

I1

CO

i B,

a« S 0>

a

e* CO

H

Z mOd

— z

oz

zgd

q

od

O)

z

01 zo

dgd

gd

od

QZd

od

od

gd

8d

odi

CO

01 OJ OJ

zod

od

qod

QZdd

0d

gd

ood

gdi

01 01

zgd

od

od

gd

QZ

gd

gd

odd

gddi

01 zg

dgd

qgd

QZ

gd

gd

od

8dd

odi

<04 OJ Oo

go

oo

Oo

Q

zgd

od

0d,

od

ZzZZZZZZZ

od

od

gd

od

Sd

Sd

8d

Qgdd

0d

Sd

0d

gd

{S 00 ON

O4 OJ s ,

^ t01 01

d

01

Od

QZ

*••

QZ

Oo

0d

0d

gd

od

j

l

i

!

4

ooS0

ood

,

o

od

m 0 '

sd

o

ogod d

(N

oo

Od

'

(N

(N

Oo

go

gd

od

gd

u

(N

gd

Oo

o

[i,

I CO

CO

i CO

g

i

o

I1 N « Q < Z Z

04 .1

04 Jj CO 04 04 04 04 04 5: 04 04 04 I

1

I

CO

Page 163: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

• •

JO 73 ?o 73 ye ye ye 70 ye ye ye 03 cn > V* H

O vO 00 -J ON Ul *. Ul to m Pi

CA MB* vO GO

U> tO to to to O to to u> ? yeON O ON 00 to *. vO Ul bo o 00 2 Ui s 00 vO vO -0 to Ul i-si

I^ .

vO O> «>J -»J •O oo oo >o »J >-J oo Cfl 0 NO

-ON J -U Ji. to o to 4k. Ul Ul

Ul oo Ul u> o Ul ON o vO 1-J

O3 VO vO vO vO o to to ON ON U)ui is! o u> o to SO to *• §i •J vO Ul vO O oo U>

^ u> C/3

tO p 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o tok> vO u> Ji. U) to ife. 9\ Ul bo o\ ui J • a VO oo 2 Ul Ul $ 1

_ t/3 oo £Ul ui u> UJ u> to 00 ON

0» to to Ul vO vO Ul §1 § *J

. § •1 ON J Ul 1 0 VO s Ul

wX CO

Ul u> Ul u> to r- to Ul Jk. Ul 4 ON \Ji ye

Ul ISI Ul oo Ul 00 to io b> 00 Ul to ?0 K) Ul Ul *

^

o 0 0 Ul *. ON Cf\ ON 2 •tk vO Ul Ul Ul to '-~i Ul o-J t — 00 to * Ul OO — ON ON —

— —

ON -«4 Ul p oo oo •1 o\ u> >J O g Ul 1to to 00 OO M Ul oUl Ul vO J Ul & 2 oo ^

vO1 ui Ul Ul --J u> «o O £is J Ul u> bo SO § vO to i o

ON 00 vO u> vO Ul Ul ON ^

I—* vO vO vO vO 00 00 po vO N> p o Ul *. a\ vO o Ul '*. bo o§ oo Ul 00 oON 0 00 ^

|

STATIO

N

Page 164: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

1

o f»- 0 O 0 r~ •f 00 •* VO OCN s m CO -?f «n ON OO 5 VO vO VO vO VO «n «n >n >n >n — «n in

o oo Tfr in VO (N m •«* (N ON •* •<*• VO00 OO 00 w> «n VO in «n VO f- «n r vo vb ' VO vO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO

co in t r ON (N O ON r~ (N o Tf m in <N (N m (N , CN m OS vo VO VO VO vb VO VO VO VO VO VO vO

I

o 0 00 <N ' OO OO VO ON m OV 1 f> •* Tf m s; m r- m i fN m TJ- m VO I VO VO vo' «n «n u. 1

(

i a vo m 00 (N OO «n , CN

ir* ON «n m i ­§ in m m «n «n VO TT in >n S t in

vo vd VO vb VO VO vO VO vo VO vO VO CO

OO vO r* o 00 O co m •* ON ON £ 05 2 in

VO m «n «n m S t r> vo r*- OO VO 2 a! r -

CO vo VO vb VO vO VO VO VO VO VO VO VO

11 s

1 VO vO VO r O\ OO o m VO r-ON r- t t*« 00 VO VO r- t- S OO VO VO vO VO VO vo vo vO vo VO VO VO VO CO

< w

i Tt VO r 00 Ov OO •<r o Tt ON C/3 m Wl •rt v» Tt ON (N M* 9^

vO VO VO VO vO VO VO vO m VO vb VO CO —

OO OO r m r- OO m OO 1 m CN <N tN ON S «n 8 O oo O fl VO VO vb vb vb «n VO «n vb vb m' VO CO —

i fN *n OO ON O <N vo vO m £ $ «n vo Tt OO «n <N S «n m

l-t« VO vO VO vO vO «n «n vO VO VO vO vb CO

U O<N m Tf «n VO r- OO ON W

3H(/} 03 ft* c£ Cri Di c* &. C* 06 & ai0 O U 1

STA

TIO

N

Page 165: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

1

in70 ;» 73 J» 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 0

> C/3

o NO 00 **1 ON <s\ t* Ul tsJ ffl H

P3

H

Cfl NO NO 00 NO oo NO 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo oo UJ Lft *J ON ON ON -U o

CIB

vy> o o o o o o o o % % 1 1

i C/3 oo oo -vj oo oo 00 00 -J »J -J ^J ^J

-u u> u> U) ^J SJ 00 ^1 oo ON ^J ^o o o o o o o o o o og s ?

00 00 ^~l ^4 -J oo -J «J -vj ^J >J O3 -sj

N> oo oo o -J *. Ut K) Ul Wl §O 0 s o 0 un <J\ o o o o o u>

C/3

*. *. bo bo 00 u* MM ON <J -J ON <J\ OH ON -J • J ON ON

Cn o o 0 £ o o 0 8 § 8 o i

1/3u> •»J u> (Nj bo NJ NO 00 NO

M00 oo -vl oo 00 oo -J 00 - 1 *J ON ~J

o w> ^ o § 0 o o 0 § IS\ §w«

00 ON ^J 00 -J • 1 ^J ON ON ON ON ON ON *n•u oo oo o K> •>! CO s> o 0 8 o o u> en o o o % s i

-J "11 • 1 ^J ^1 oo oo oo • 1 ^J -J oo u> u> N) L> s 00 oo ^J o o § 0 o § o o o o o o

oo oo • 1 oo 00 oo -J oo oo oo ~J 'J 50 ISt o u> u> -J 0§ w« o o s § c? o s o <J\ w»

*•*

oo 00 ~sl 00 00 oo oo oo oo ^J -J ^J 00 oo -u u> o K> <J\ (J\ ->J 0£ Zsi o o o ^J\ o o o § o (Si s

00 oo oo

^oo oo oo 00 00 00 oo

*-~1

^-«J

NO N» '&, bo l/> NJ 0o o o o o o 0 0 o

S

TA

TIO

N

Page 166: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

1

m «r» o o O o o o 0 o o O o o< oo K r S K r 00 ON ON 00 r tt

0 0 O o o >/N o m «n O Tf oo o <N ON ON 00 00 ON 00 o 00

S9 sOS —

I O o O O m o VO (N O >o in o

/— *•* O\ 00 00 r - 00 00 00 ON o 00 § ON

o o in O m <n o 0 iri O 0 O o oo VO K vo VO f- f» r*- 00 ON OO r s

Lu i

> o X 0 </•> 0 0 w-i <r> o O OO O oD & <N 0 O o ON 00 00 ON O O ON *£ <N (N 8 (N (N (N (N CO u

* W £ « i> > S ON Si c« 2 2 0 O m >O O o Tf Q o 0 0 00 £ O 00 ON oo ON ON ON o O OO S tt- CO rl

q = |•2 5 <

pa X o T «n 0 «n 0 O 0 o O 0 o £ ON o O CO ON 3 (N ?! CN 8 <N s fS r5

5a CO ^

g* < 8 0 O O O O >n t- O o CN| 0 O<n & oo VO r» VO VO VO «n r oo OO oo r-

CO

U s o m 0 <n 0 O <n o o r- Tt 0

o £ ON r 00 r* 00 t»» VO r - 00 ON 06 * CO

2 V a f\ <N oo «r> 0 o m «n o w> 0 o <N

OO VO V0 r r« «r> VO r t - OO r-» mS 2 CO

H

otri W tN CO TT «o VO r oo ON

H CO

5 C* Qi 06 & ttl oi (* Qi Qi of, O* z o j

1

\u [ S

TA

TIO

N

Page 167: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

8 70 70 70 70 70 73 70 ?o 70 70 70 CO 9 z 2 Z z z z z z z z z CO

I NO 00 -j ON UJ to m e^ o ^i n

H • •

00 00 NO o 8 o o S 00

oo o oo o oo o 00 o S

CO

o

O o & crt

ON O

ON UJ

••J M*

-J en 00 0

•nj

O •S.J

to en O

•o o ON en Jo

.J

o CO

oto e S­3

CO 0 O O en s NO

00 s to o en to en

to NO

JO 1 (/>>

o en o

to 0

to en

U)0 io oo en

_

en o en to to en

00I s§2 >

w j

O to NO

ejo en NO

to to S O ON en o en

CO

o en

^°<g sI g S Cfl 5NO G •<

e a H

to o to NO

en 0

00 en 5 NO 00 o en M en § o o ? CO§ON

"S B5gM «3

O •<

_ _ _ Tl

o to eo O

j«. en 0 o o 0 to o to en

eo o

eo <£ 0

oo o NO oo o S U) ON S

00 en O en en

0 S |

o to o to -U. 0 o o o u>

en 00 o s NO o en

en — O

00 0

NO o $ £ o o NO o g o N> en oo to NO en o

Page 168: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o 1 S i S 1 i i I 1 1 § §

i ^ ; « n i O o ! 5 ^ ® 0 ® : £ 0 o

§ 1 s O(NVO

«n m . OO

in o o o *n in |—

w

o

u.

1CO

§ S S~" i j i

O VO m

(N si

oo

00

§—

<n en

«n o m ' o >n o ,­,<N rs <N m m CM SfN <n fi O vo m J2

, — ^ (N — — 04 ' ' !

0 . 0 m <N

! 1 1 1

O m (N (N —

'.

^ ' o o r: ­ Pi

^^ ^Jj^\ W5 ^^ os QS r WP M« 5L

all «n

CO

i CO

O >n ~

o «n

«n <N

(N

o VO

0

«n . oo

00

«r> (N

O

(N

§

o

o «n

0

o «n <N

2

o o

i2fC o

1

o

S •n

<N

. •n — ^

«nin

i CO S <N

«n <n oo

0 S

«n (N

O «n

in m m (N

o o §

1 1

1 § S o m o m

o §

«n m o (N m

m (N o

in

3 >n

<N

in <N

i i CO

«/•> o 0 «n |0

0 o oin O ro (N

o o

«n m S fN

in VO

8

gH5 CO

CO

ffl Z

04

Z

^

Z

5s

Tf

z

^

«n Z

^ i

Z

i£ i

Z

oi oo Z

C

OS z oi

i

O

z f^

Z

f^

Page 169: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

_ _

JW TO 73 73 70 70 73 70 70 70 70 I03

VI> Vi so oo ^) ON in *. u> to Cfl o

e , M

C/5o u> *. UJ O o o 70 Hi o *. u> J to u> 2 • •

ui ON £ vO to o o o $ O§o

SLn" s' 3C/3

Is) tO to to u> to u> u> to to 70in Ul 00 *. in ON , to in oo • in s Ul oo ON to to N-* Ul SO -0 so sO s

tO to to to to to to to to to 00•• sO SO to ON >J ON ON in sO ON o >J Ul o §IO in so 5 § ON sO so so u» oo so Ul

tO N) to to K) to to to to to to to CA *. in in in in ON ON ON Ul Ul 00 i: OJ in u> in SO to SO Ul 2 ^ ON o oo ON so i -*

tO 10 to to to to to to to CD OO •0, '-J •J <?5 ON 00 so sO so ON OO ON 00 sO 10 to u> to £ Ul §3 ^ n^in m OO UJ OO in ON Ul so in

u> u> ui u> u> U) U) CO to ui In .&. Ul u> SO to

vO o ON oo SO1 -ug£ £ sO 1 u> u> -o in in i 5 in 1 _ _

^ to to 10 to to to tl ^ oo oo SO oo >J so to to toin oo s s in so ON u> in in oo j ON ON - i in so ON u> so 0 1

OJ to *^ u> Ul oo Ul o SO oo ON -*t Ul oo ooU» U» oo u> 3 to Ji. to to to|Ul •*J in in

s * j so 00 00 so in

tO 10 to to to to to to to to 00 ON ON in *. •u bo -0. >o

-j u> j 3 s Ul O § £ U\~J £ oo § -0 j -o so Ul

u> 4k. '*> in in u> o to OO Ul ON u> O Ul *J to o

OO 0 SO Ul 3 ON J 00 sO s to sO oo

| STA

TION

Page 170: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o 00 O r o i—< VO pn pn vO o m 00 fN m fN VI «0 pn pnfN P I. rn rn fN fN fN fN r

oo oo ON «n f- fN oo r- ON 0 ON o r- vO oo «r> m ON ro «n (N VO ^

f9Tl­

O i ON (N 0 r>« PO 00 r r~ r OO K tN

Os •<t fN 0 VO r>- Tt pnO vo OS oo •o fN fN rn ON oo u-i Tt in ON i ON 00 ' •<r i o fN m p fN (N 0 o O "* fN fN m pn PO m

1 i

t ir> m <n fN PO o r- ON 00 o >O r- £ pn vO O vO 00 w-i oo s VO un rt rf

1

i •*J- % VO »o U1

IX, (N fN fN , <N fN fN fN pn fN fN fN fN 1 i1

> i

o vO ON r-~ vO PO o OO 00 IO •f s t*« r* ON -W» * oo pn ON £~ § pn 1 pn fN § r* «n o fN 1 rn fN

CO fN (N <N fN fN *"* fN fN fN (N fN £ £ £ > H ^ c­> 3 ON >o «n o vO rf; VO O o § «n «N fN s 8 3 5 pn O pn ro m fN $ ««N fN fN fN fN pn a S s -j- cd S K co fN (N "* *"* •4 """" fN fN fN fN fN <N i !

ON O «n ON pn fN VO 00 VO IP I o! £ «r» r* m »O ^ fN PO fN «o «n fN

CO (N fS fN (N fN (N fN fN fN fN fN fN

|! < pn fN «n 00 VO 00 IS) fN

un oo «r> |• • V> O PO 1­C£ 2 pn 1 5 m m OO 0 <n Tt pn pn CO fN 01 fN fN fN (N «N fN fN fN

" ~

i 0 m m vO «n pn PO m pnVO fN ON pnO m m fN VO |pn pn m <N m m pn PO PO fN

CO ^

•* r wn 'i a

pn t fN ro oo pn OO VO »n O pn r~ VO wn i (N <N fN 5 VO m PO fN fN fN

CO

I w O<N m Tt •n VO r> oo ON U

CO< 03 Qi Cri OH & o: Di Qi oi C* * 0

i| S

TA

TIO

N

Page 171: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

WET WEATHER SURVEY 3 (WWS3) September 29, 1997

Runs Schedule Base - 2310 - September 28,1997 Run 1 - 0020 - September 29,1997 Run 2 - 0240 - September 29,1997 Run 3 - 0510 - September 29, 1997 Run 4 - 0715 - September 29,1997 Run 5 - 1000 - September 29,1997 Run 6 - 1200 - September 29,1997 Run 7 - 1805 - September 29, 1997 Run 8 - 0645 - September 30,1997

Rainfall Total Rainfall: 0.38 in

Average Intensity: 0.02 in/hour

Page 172: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

0 H.8 i 8 i 8 § i o 3 » 8 8 8 - 8 ' * 8 s s

*•* s § s § § • 1 «o •— m mi• 4 8 1

o 0i •o i s ^ 1I p} i 2 ^o u. i '

! '

oas; > i m s (N 8^ OO r- OO \O CO

J M CO 1

i§ 1 g ,

0 O § 1<s VO ON OO CO <N <*> ro U w «» —

IE" i ^ O ^ ^^ •rt <N r-

CO i

O o 0 O o0 Os s S^ " DM Jsi JS 00 vrt ^^ E CO ^^ m "*

I S S r5 S •0 M «N r<

CO I 0 N o

IO | § o o

OO OO i CO I§

m 1 ^ <N

Ed Z s0 w •— (S m ^" *r» vo p* OO

CO Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z £i

ffl c* ed fiei S § oi 0! f* C* CO

8 IT O

Page 173: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o z 30 " I

JO JO JO JO JO 1 I 2 2 00 >04

Z ? zS? 2 z z 2 z 2 _< 00 H iHR oo •xj ON v^ k, Ul to m O z H

0 p z 00 Z *7 zz Z0 por 0 0 § a 0 o B ei 9f ° it o § Qo o O o o o o 00

0 o b b o b b §§ v» ON 0 ON w s

— — —

00 Ul V» vi bo bo N> Ul JO

ON to ON CA ^o 8 S oe Vl ON sO 2

a*>

0 o O o O o O o O 00 3>-J -J o\

o i s N> 2 Ul 1 I s^a N* «j H n • o 2 ^IIs?o o o o o 0 0 o O 00

-p. u> *fy 'f± *y -tk. 'js. lu so oo SO oo o to 00 to UI o so NJ Wl 00 sO ON Vt

? sn^ NO » B -> <» O 0 o o 0 o o 0 o GO 33to Ul Ul to Ul Ul f>. u> Ul JO w

ON Ul oo es vl SO 2 UI 3 so 8 o -<

o o o o o oz bo i i a i i i D 0o

0 0 o o o o o 0 o1o § to s 0 ii i 10

0 0 p o o o oz 18 O o

*" 2 s § § 1V* i oo

p o o 0 o o JO Oz b b b ba O Ul Ul o1 ON to -J •<

Page 174: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

0

S2 04 Q s d

CS NO

d 2 o 3 d d

o d

ON

do d

0 s QZ * 0 ro co d

(Nd

CO NO CM d

oo NO CM d

CM O CM d

CM NO CM O

CM O

I ON CM NO

"

co O (N

^ S ^

r>­ON ON d

o NO d

oo ON d

o —•

NOf"~-

NO f

— o S u.

(N ON d

^ 00 ON

d

NO 00 ON d

r~ ON d

00

oo d ^»

• 0

o» NO

d

ON ON

d

NO CM

oo o

Q5H

£ 04 CO

2 NO

d CM NO

d

oo (N NO

°

CM NO

d

NO

(

0

s d

00 NO d

VO

f d

oo f"-­d

o 04 CO

o NO

d

oo CM

d

CM 00

d 00 NO d

o R 0

ON

NO d

ON

d

00 oo NO d

*•* t d

< * Ed </2

U

i CO

ON CM d

Sn CM d

rr\

CM d

o CM d

NO

d CM CM

°

% CM d

oocod

1

•«*• cM 0

co

CO

ro NO

d

00 oo

d

NO ON

O i o

NO CM NO d

ON

NO

d NO d

^ o d i

NO OO

d

S

0)el

1 CO

oo4 CO

3 (Nd

GO (N

d

i

00 ON CM d

00 m d

0 ro d

S f d

ON CM d

NO

co d

NO

CN d

1 d

t­^ d

§1d

r-CO CM d

r. o d

f f NO O CM CO d d

ON S —d CMd

I o q o

H

Ed

H

O U

z 0

^ CO

ia CO

CO — Z

04

'

(N

Z OH

1

co Z

04

Z

04

in Z

04

• NO

Z 04

I f» OO

Z Z 04 S

ao

II a

I

Page 175: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

a 78 o 1 I II 00

?0 JO 70 H50 S ?C ?o ?o 5 !5 CD S > 2Z 00 " 1

J i § H

00 ON 1 1 4 U> K) - m O or Z n

Z o Z a o Z a o o 0 Z 0 a

o o ^ e

OB•o ^

II p o o

I z o 0 o

o 8

1

z z D 0 o o z a Z a

o o

00 "0

?

-y O

§ 2 g z a Z a § a z D o o 1 z o 0 0 z a a

o o « z a 0 0 0 0 001

o o

o 8 o a

o 8 z O z a

o o

o o

00

1

o o

o 8 z a z a

p Z O z a

o 8

o 0

00§ON

o 0

o 8 z a

o 0 o z o z a

o 8

p "fl

o 0

o 8 a

o 8

o 8 0 o i 1

o 8 1

i i

1

P z 2 O

z a p z o

o o

o o

o S z o S o

i i

0 o a z z z z z Po o 73 o a o o o 2 o

Page 176: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o CM

^"

Od fN

in ' Tj­

>n ' ^>

in f)in

— \d

NO in

I

^ NO

(N oo

o y G\

roi

i

1 1 cO

r** ro

••* fi

OoTf

I

Tj­ in ^

'

'

O in

^

'

O NO NO t** T^ ' ^~

1

'

o «

\O

^t

^D

m

^*

<N

O

^

TfTf-—

NO NO (N

, w-> — '• en

i

in — '

^

(N (N

m

t

o S u­

»n

*n

i

r^ ,

Tf

m

(N

m

• ­fiCO

NO NO CO

P­ NO

CO

Ov t~~

CO

OO in CO

a

U c«

NO

&

3ed CO

sfid

•«fP^(N

p-.NO«N

«*}—(N

, 00

OO <N

00 r-' (N

O (N (N

i I

j

NO ON , (N ,

NO P^

tN

f

fS (N <N

NO ON «N

« r-' (N

«*} CO <S

O

••n

P

(N

i

i

i

ey\ O | C>

r

i

ON ' in NO' o

i P-; <N

<S (Ni

,

'

ris «N

p>« o

P-;

<N

' ««j fS

NO '"

fN

i I

co O Od CO

p­r4«S .

«n m'

<N

NO ^­ (N

«n <o (N

^^in'fN

^ in fN

oo ^­ (N

NO co ^­ in <N ; fS

s CO

p*oo

• ^ «n

>n in

i • NO

in 1

ONO

,

' in

NO co NO

i

(N P^

in NO

i

.o JS U ••

H

ofid CO

2 0 P

CMH<S

QJco

«n ' fN CN

'

—« 2

NO (N <N

fN 2

o H

<N

ro Z

1

— p «n co i p oo in co in ^ fN fN fN tN CN

rf m NO P-­ oo 2 2 2 2 2 .1tr:

F- « Dd Dd Od S 2 § S §

Ico o:

u o

Page 177: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

73 70 70 70 70 70 73 70 O $ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 O3 H 00 j ON en Ji, Ul to N— m 0 z

•2

C/3 a. to to to to to Ul Ul 70 «* J OO O j sO to sO Ul 4k o —OO o " —00 OO OO ~J sO O

OO

OO

00

o s sO

w

OO

o OO

3 00 OO to

so

to SO to

w

s

to 00 -o.

to ON

Ul

s Ul Ul 00

Ul 00 o

evi so to

Ul en ON

(J Ul en

73 0 U)

to to to

to en en

to to N

4k

tsj

c — 5 to to 00

to

£ to Ul 4k

CO 70 %

ON ON OO

ON Ul

ON O

en

8

Ul

OO

*- *• ON

Ul to

^ ON ON ON

^ ON

sJ

C/373S en

ON •0 ON ON ON en ON ON ON Cfl

JsO UM 0

O U> 00

en O

sO 00

en 00

Ul en sO

oON

•0

$ • 1 o Ul

-0 O-J

ON OO

ON to

ON toto

ON 4k O

ON bo

-0

4k

•n

0

W to O OO ' sO Ul

to4k

to M

sO O>

00 —to —00 4k to SO

-J * toON

sO O

to 4k

to to Ul

to to to 1

to to 0

to 4k

O OO

to ON to Ul u,

t^+

O ^i to OO *

en O Ul

o

p en en

SO

en

sO

is! sO 4k ON

sO ON to

SO

$

p to o

a 73 o

ni GW

n

Io

sH

i?

Page 178: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o s

> Q

, vo

s vo

— vo

^ vo

, vo

o1/1 vO

vo vo

(N

vo

o i

oo •n vd

o vo vd

8 vd vd

vO 00 \d

00 vd vd

vO 00 vd

o S

_

vo

00 (N vo

£ vO

(N(N VO

o <N vo

_

vO

CO vo vo

1

<N

vo

o su­

vo oo vd

VO

vd p! vd

00 vo vd vd

00

vd 00 vd

00 00

vd oo vd

Q g*» c« fe & > t-

|1!S§ 1W g £S 5 & O U ««

<< W

g^< CA

s04 CO

0

CO

s CO

c«i y

CO

vd

vo vo vo

vooovo

oo

VO

<N

vd

% vo

t-» oo vo

VI VO

1

0

vd

£ vo

OO vo

vO

vo

1

vd

o

vo

vo oo vo

v» vo

8 vd

vo vo

s vo

vO VO

vd

oo

vo

& vO

vO vo

vo vd

vo vo vo

vo 00 vo

vo vo

vo vd

vof­vo

, vo

c^ vo

00 VO vd

vS vo

t^­00 vo

r­vo vo

1i' 00 <N vd vd vd vd

vd 00

vd vd vd

i

i CO

«*> os vO

vd vd I

OS vo

o vp

SOoo\O

^­ oo ^O

so oo ^O 1

00

vd

Z Cd

Z

2 0

<j

CO

! 1 11

pq ^ , rvi r i ^­ w vo r^^ 7 7 ^" "7 *7 !7 ^^ S S ' S S S S S

1

oo 7*"

S

s I£ ii

O u

Page 179: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

II

r 2 2? oo

r 2 2 .sj

C G z z ON on

£2 2 ^

£2 2 OO

50

g

to

73

2J .

03 CO m

CO

5 H O Z

8 z a •M

H

H

so oo O

oo

o

so

on

oo

o

so

OO

on

l

so

OO

on

^ o

oo o

SO 10 on

00

o

so on O

po t-rt

so OX O

po on

o b o

oo o

CO

o

CO

oto

o 5" n a O

S

on o

0

J

on

-J k> o

po

on

oo to

oo oo o

00

%

z on

00

s

j I o\

1

1

-J 1 00 ON O O l O

t

00 00

1

OO ­J

o o 1 1

oo oo

s §

Jo

ON O

J oo

to o

oo on 0

sO0

oo

%

oo b O

on O

po

on

00 to o

oo

o

oo

o

§ so

§

oo to 0

oo *. on

oo on

on

§

00 ON o

oo on O

oo

o

oo on 0

so on 0

CO

5 oo

CO

I

CO

On

CO1 i

$Ig " >

%$* 3>x « 3 i

HH

» » g5sl^ ^ §

% 05 "<w 3H

a*<

on bo on

on oo on

ON Ox ON to 0 O

ON on O

to o

oo O O

1

00

on

oo

o ooOn

oo O

OO

O

oo

0

oo

g OO

§ OO bo o 21

oo on

oo on

00soO

00 ON O

oo

O

oo on on

00 oo o

so

§ D 73

p o

Page 180: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

!

o >* q | q q >n q q q oo

06 •

i

0 q q <n q q •n o >n o ^^ ^O ^O ^^ ^^ K oo r^ r>-'9K i t i

ii !

Oq q «n «n q «n o m in ^o ^ *o vo !***• i*- oo i >n vd

i '

i i O q <n q q CN ! in o m o

^f r i f^i ^^ ^f in vd in | in U. i i ii

i > i '

Q I

£"<O i »/% O ! *O , O i ^O ^O t^^ ^5 S ^^ ^^ ^o ^^

P* ^M CO aj S 1tf > t*.

«n q q q «n q <N rs <o <n |1? fNfc fNfc ^J \^

CO lP|i iH H -(

2 5 s - !U W oa q i q oo q q q oo q oo iOO ^^ i ^O ^^ f^ ^^ ^^ r^ ^o CO 5 H a

i

I* i j • i

< *o o <n o */j q q' q ov vV3 s ro co ^1 t*\ f^\

CO t

i i i

11 ! i

O fO O ' *O *A 1 o ' o m <N

CO

( i , j

in i q «*j q <n i-; q q <N oa! m , m m ^f * i *O ^D ^0 ^O

ICO

[i] «-• (N . m ^i *O ^D P^ OO

at od & c* II t 1

Ou ! • Ii

1

| S

TA

TIO

N

Page 181: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

• •

II i H

nCO

73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 03 H

2 H§ ' § § § § Z Z „_ 03 3

OO J Os *-A ^ u» to m O 1 Z M

2

a

' n | CO e

•***) OO OO OO OO 00 OO oo oo *o *-/> to ***j o o o o a

o

Q\st

"-J O

^ <-t 1

ON oo

1

"-J O

OsO

1

Os is*

Os to CO

(—ito

4r 3 o

N)t t tO U> C/J ) 5

1 U) U> ^ ' 0 s < w> 0 ho

vyt to oo

CO

1

—Wl

u>o

I

1

S°°

u» o

~ — Wl 00I

i

to to oo to 1

NJ O

to o

o

•—

to

to

K)

o

to o

u>

CO1

I

?

(jj

(jj

W

1

!

t J

J

0

1

(jj

0 —to -* u» tj}

0 UJ 0

CO1 —oo

!

to ^1 — y to ^ — ^

__ ' .~

0 0 r

t-A

to 0

TJ

o "•

OObO

1

t-rt O>

hO O

•— KJ i

^ 8 8 1 i 1 1 1

OO O O (O LA C5 d? S 0 o

K) O O U> O 00 Os 0 O s a 73 0

Page 182: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

i . : I js 70 ^3 ?o , ?o ;» j w | j o c 3

C/5

? i of ^

i 0! • 5!

| ^ S w - m o z e w

£7T^

i oo 1 O U»

!

to O i O

i

o O 0

i

Ul O 1

3Jc?

1

^^ ^^ o

c/a§ 5n

8wi

u> 0

Dl

oo%

oo o

i * ' 5

o O1

ti '

s Ul

21""

i

o

to 0

o 1

u> o

to o

2 w O ' °

*

o o

o o

Ul o

00 o

Ul

u> o

00

Ul

oo to Ul

I*IOo ,

1

o

§

5

to u,

K> < i

o

u> o

o

u>

o

1

w

Ul

Ul

SI o

Ul o

u> 8

to

Ul

toto o

toto Ul

to to u> o

03I 03

1

(/I

C0

o Ul

1

C/3 >

3s w >

2S^ f IB B S H g" » g

522^ < » 3 75 < H w G

O *<

o Ul

oo to o

to to 0

o to 0 o

u> 0

to Ul

to to Ul o o

oo o

00 UJ o o i

oo o

o u> o

u> o

to to o Ul

1

oo o

vO to Ul § 31 20 s o § 10toto

o go

-0,

o oo ii*-J

o o g to£ o o

1

Page 183: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

oo <N 5 ON f> ' <N o <N rs oo oi o O o O ON ON y a ^— * "" O O 0 — O

o ON oo o0 § o r- vO vo ON vq ON PO >O «/•} in S ^

o 00 OO CN ON ' v> (N ^ ON TJ- 00rn CN» ^S oo VO vo , — £ VO >o ~ W-> vo VO

r—

VO S SO fS — ON 1 1 R oo vq «o *n ^i u- en pn pn fo r rn f*} PO ^ >^

O VO 00 vo pn ^ i •—» 6" oo g; o vo 2 r » oSg 5

a; > »- CO "» •n wS «n »X • gg§5 iM CO 7 ft! as | oo (N vO o PO r- «/"> i ON

<N «o VO HSf Oi ™ «-« 00 OO ON r­^ o o —[VI SC W CO «T> «0 <n "* "*" ! "* S 5 *Cj U to S S ON

VO O ON OO o r (NS OO 00 Q m ^ {+} 1 VO 5*~<! Ed Oi OO •"": • vo• vo • ^ V ^S> t<:

c« m (S o 1—t in (N Tf w> O r- o PO 00 i— w vO OO

00 r- oo •—< 0 »O -* o T*' CO •«*• >0 n- TJ­*

_

i(N <N VO VO •«a- oo £ VO

s»ES

C/1

g ""} vq > "* "*. •0 ^

at J3 "3 U vO ri fS pn oo m VO ON «r> ^ O pn vO ON VO r- oo VO

Oi P PH pn (N rs <N H H 2 ^ ^ W 3 H 2 !

O tu rvi PO t ir> vo , r- 00 cr CO 2— 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 rfj CQ oi S a; oi oi 2 2 oi Ou CO i

Page 184: DRAFT, SAUGATUCKET RIVER WATER QUALITY ...a 95%-confidenc limie t tha t there truly a a correlation between stage an d discharge e Predicted "[cfs] 2304 6683 7 101 8511 8511 15826

o >, 05 Q Sr~; ON

f""*.

o

g. f** O

vo

f

O

ON

r-c>

fN |*m.

O

mO f-;

O

m r-o

o £ o fN

s00

~ 00 oo 00

"""

R ^

fN

ON

~

vO m q fN

vO s fN

00 o fN

~

fN

i W>

£ fN

(N fN

o o

^

ON q*

0 m 00 O

O

fN *"

m oo

OO

ON

--

fN (N

o *5 (X

§ ro fN

O m ro fN

£ CO fN

oo fN fN

? fN

PO 1«H

fN

O »*

<N

{ .—*

rs

00 fl fN fN

> Q

H2CO g £* > r-

|I?0 tf Jg H g B

§|iU w ^ g*a< w g* £

vo O

CO

ootf CO

stti CO

m oa* CO

fN m fN

O oo fN fN

co (N fN

„„ vO "*i fN

i

fN ro CN

fN O fN fN

(N fN fN

W» O

fN

00 *o rn fN

OO o (N

% <N <N

«of> rfN

O rn fN

fN 0 fN

— fN fN

m 00 ,

fN 0

fN

f*1 ON M

vO fN fN

«0 O t-~ fN

fNON fN fN

o

*O •—« fN

-fN fN

O m vo (N

^«« c*> fN

(

^

es

§fN

_, fN «rt fN

f ro fN

O VO fN fN

00 OO fN fN

O t*\ fN

VO ro fN

Tf ON fN fN

VO fN fN

.*O cn fN

I i

J, ¥ a

(N

.M

i

OO OO q

.

1 <r\ o

ON »

i

f*«

VO

f­ro

ON

\f) O

1

O fN

vo q

^

VO q

CO oo q

vo

^t~­q

fN

q

ro r­

fN

q

Ed a

o u

Z 0 H < CO

UJ CO

03 — z oi

fN

Z

a:

CO

Z

a!

! 1

^Z cd

«o Z

§

vo Z

i f*­Z

ai

oo Z

Qi

s i a:

a: a