STATE

ROUTE 3

NEW LONDON TURNPIKE

NEW LONDON

TURNPIKE

STATE

ROUTE 3

HILL

FARM

ROAD

HARKNEY HILL 

ROAD 

95

95

Big

Mud Bottom

Carr

Brook

Mishnock

Old

Hickory

Brook

Bear

Nooseneck

River

Raccoon

Brook

Congdon

River

River River

Flat River

Reservoir

Lake

Mishnock

Carr

Pond

Capwell Mill Pond

Millbrook

Pond

Phelps

Pond

Tarbox

Pond

Reynolds

Pond

Maple

Root

Pond

Brook

River

W E S T G R E E N W I C H

C O V E N T R Y 

W E S T G R E E N W I C H

E X E T E R

41°37'30"

71°40'

71°35'

41°35'

41°40'

EXPLANATION

1 KILOMETER

0 1 MILE

0

Sand and gravel deposits

Till and bedrock

Study-area boundary

Big River Management

 Area boundary

Wetland study sites (numbered 

 as listed in table 1)

Well

41°30'

MA

CT

Block

Island

Sound 0 10 MILES

0 10 KILOMETERS

MA

STUDY

AREA Narragansett Bay

Providence

RI

71°45'

42°

71°15'

Hungry

Hill

Hopkins

Hill

Nooseneck

Hill

Fish

Hill

Weaver

Hill

1

2

3

4

5

5

Scientific Information in Support of Water Resource 

Management of the Big River Area, Rhode Island

Introduction

The Rhode Island Water Resources Board (RIWRB) is 

concerned that the demand for water may exceed the available public water supply in central and southern Rhode Island. 

Although water is often assumed to be plentiful in Rhode Island 

because of abundant rainfall, an adequate supply of water is not 

always available everywhere in the state during dry periods. 

Concerns that water demand may exceed supply are greatest 

during the summer, when lower water levels and increased 

drought potential combine with seasonal increases in peak water 

demand (Rhode Island Water Resources Board, 2012). High 

summer water demands are due to increases in outdoor water 

use, such as lawn watering and agricultural irrigation, 

and to increased summer population in coastal 

areas. Water-supply concerns are particularly 

acute in central and southern Rhode Island, where groundwater 

is the primary source of drinking water.

The Big River and Mishnock River Basins (fig. 1) are 

subbasins of the South Branch of the Pawtuxet River Basin in 

central and southern Rhode Island. These basins—referred to 

together as “the Big River area” for the purposes of this report—

are undeveloped relative to other nearby areas and provide a 

potential source of high-quality public drinking water for central 

and southern Rhode Island.

Major Findings

• Three subbasins in the Big River area 

(the Big, Carr, and Mishnock River 

Basins) function as a single connected 

groundwater resource.

• Withdrawals in one subbasin have the 

potential to deplete streamflows in—or 

intercept groundwater that would have 

discharged to—another subbasin.

• Groundwater and stream systems are 

hydraulically connected.

• Groundwater withdrawals would reduce 

streamflows. Informed management of 

the location, magnitude, and timing of 

withdrawals can reduce the depletion of 

critical streamflows.

• Groundwater and wetlands are 

hydraulically connected.

• Groundwater withdrawals have the 

potential to alter the seasonal duration of 

inundation and saturation of the wetlands.

• The influence of withdrawals on 

wetlands depends upon the proximity of 

wetlands to pumped wells and streams and 

the connection between the aquifer and 

the wetland.

• The amount of groundwater that is 

available for withdrawal is dependent on 

geology, the annual pattern of watersupply demands, the timing and amount of 

withdrawals from multiple wells, and the 

requirements for maintaining streamflows 

and water levels in wetlands.

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Fact Sheet 2015–3035

April 2015

Figure 1. Location of the Big River study area and the Big River 

Management Area, Rhode Island. Modified from Granato and 

others, 2003.
2

 After the severe drought of the 1960s, the State of Rhode 

Island acquired land in the Big River area with the intention of 

building a water-supply reservoir. The reservoir was not built 

because of concerns over potential environmental impacts and 

projected statewide water-supply needs (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1989). The land acquired for the reservoir 

(13.4 mi2), called the Big River Management Area (BRMA), is 

currently managed by the RIWRB as a future source for public 

water supply and as open space. In the 1980s, the RIWRB began 

to consider whether the BRMA could supply water from its 

aquifers (groundwater). Groundwater withdrawals for public or 

other water-supply needs can alter the hydrologic conditions 

and ecologic communities of surrounding rivers, lakes, and 

wetlands by removing water from these systems. Consequently, 

the RIWRB was interested in determining optimal amounts of 

groundwater that could be withdrawn from the BRMA for public 

supply while minimizing the effects on rivers, lakes, streams, 

and wetlands that also rely on this water. 

For nearly two decades, the RIWRB has conducted a series 

of cooperative studies with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

The goals of these studies have been to (1) evaluate and characterize the water resources of the BRMA and the greater Big 

River area, and (2) identify sustainable levels of groundwater use 

that would minimize effects on water resources. This fact sheet 

describes the major findings of those studies.

The Big River Area

The Big and Mishnock Rivers are adjacent headwater 

tributaries of the South Branch Pawtuxet River. The Big River is 

the larger of the two, draining an area of about 30 square miles 

(mi2), compared to only 4 mi2 for the Mishnock. The Big River 

flows north into the Flat River Reservoir (Johnson Pond), where 

it merges with the Flat River. The outflow of the reservoir, called 

the South Branch Pawtuxet River, is joined by the Mishnock 

River about 1.5 miles downstream. The South Branch Pawtuxet 

River then flows east toward Narragansett Bay (Granato and 

others, 2013). 

The landscape in the Big River area consists of rolling hills 

and valleys. The natural land cover is mostly forest and wetlands 

and includes several unique habitats, such as Atlantic white 

cedar swamps (fig. 2) and pitchpine/scrub oak barrens that are 

classified as Natural Heritage Areas (Rhode Island Geographic 

Information System, 2014). The BRMA is protected land, similar 

to the watershed-protection areas around large reservoirs such as 

those bordering the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts and the 

Scituate Reservoir in Rhode Island. Developed land in the Big 

River area is clustered in areas adjoining major highways (State 

Route 3 and U.S. Interstate 95) and the Flat River Reservoir and 

Lake Mishnock. 

Streamflows in the Big and Mishnock Rivers vary 

seasonally and are lowest in summer. The headwater tributaries 

and upper reaches of the Big River have relatively natural flows 

that support native aquatic species including brook trout (fig. 2). 

Streamflows and water levels in the downstream reaches of the 

Big River are altered because of impoundment by the Flat River 

Reservoir and the annual drawdown and refilling of the reservoir 

during winter and spring. Most homes in the Big River area have 

private water wells and onsite septic systems. Water supplies in 

portions of the towns of Coventry and West Greenwich north of 

Interstate 95 are served by the Kent County Water Authority. 

The only large-scale groundwater withdrawals in the Big and 

Mishnock River Basins are from wells in the Mishnock River 

Basin owned and operated by the Kent County Water Authority.

Science in Support of Water-Resource Management

The cooperative studies by the USGS and RIWRB followed 

a scientific process that moved from basic hydrogeologic assessment to the development of complex groundwater models. Each 

study built upon the work of the previous studies, addressed a 

series of groundwater-usage alternatives, and evaluated factors 

that would affect local surface-water and groundwater resources. 

The findings of these studies have guided management decisions 

regarding groundwater withdrawals in the BRMA and provide a 

foundation for the development of statewide policies to 

sustainably manage water resources in Rhode Island.

A

B

Figure 2. A, Atlantic white cedar swamp, and B, brook trout stream, Big 

River area, Rhode Island. 
3

Hydrogeologic Assessments

The goal of the initial USGS investigation (Craft, 2001; 

Stone and Dickerman, 2002) was to collect the information 

needed to characterize the hydrogeology, water resources, and 

groundwater flow in the Big River area. The USGS installed 

observation wells, collected geophysical information, conducted aquifer tests, and established a monitoring network to 

determine the thickness, extent, and water-bearing properties 

of the aquifers (Craft, 2001). Groundwater and surface-waterlevel data were collected from July 1996 through September 

1998. Groundwater-level data were collected from 27 monitoring wells, 18 aquifer-test observation wells, and 15 streambed 

piezometers. Stream discharge was measured at 10 partial-record 

stations, and surface-water-level data were collected at 8 ponds 

and reservoirs. Craft (2001) also provides geologic data from 

80 boreholes, historical water-level data from 375 groundwater 

sites, and water-quality data from 31 wells. These data served 

as the basis for the hydrogeologic-mapping and numericalmodeling studies that followed.

Geologic maps and cross sections of the Big River area 

produced by Stone and Dickerman (2002) show bedrock and 

overlying surficial geologic deposits laid down during continental glaciation. Surficial geologic deposits include glacial till 

(unsorted deposits of silty sand, clay, pebbles, and boulders), 

fine-grained (sand and silt) glacial-lake deposits, and coarsegrained (sand and gravel) meltwater deposits. Glacial till is the 

predominant surficial geologic deposit in upland areas. Till is a 

discontinuous deposit of variable thickness—often less than 10 

to 15 feet (ft) thick and on top of bedrock. Coarse-grained sand 

and gravel deposits and fine-grained sand and silt deposits are 

the predominant surficial geologic deposits in valleys. These 

deposits are thinnest along the edges and thickest in the middle 

of the valleys. Sand and gravel deposits are thickest (50 to 

100 ft) in the Big, Carr, and Mishnock Valleys, where they form 

the major aquifers in the area. The maps and associated 

hydrogeologic information in Craft (2001) and Stone and 

Dickerman (2002) provide water-resource planners and watersupply managers with a hydrogeologic framework that can be 

used to identify sites favorable for potential groundwater supply. 

Simulation of the Effects of Groundwater 

Withdrawals on Streamflow

Two USGS groundwater-modeling studies (Granato and 

others, 2003; Granato and Barlow, 2005) were conducted to 

simulate groundwater flows and determine the potential effects 

of groundwater withdrawals on streamflow in the Big River 

area. Both studies used the groundwater-modeling software 

MODFLOW–2000 (Harbaugh, 2005) to simulate groundwater 

levels and flows and streamflows. In the initial modeling study, 

Granato and others (2003) used surficial geologic information 

from Stone and Dickerman (2002) and water-level data from 

the monitoring networks (Craft, 2001) to develop groundwater 

models of average annual and average monthly conditions. The 

models were used to create water-table maps (fig. 3), calculate 

water budgets, and simulate the effects of selected water-supply 

options on streamflow. 

In most places, the surficial aquifer is hydraulically 

connected to streams, ponds, and wetlands. Hydrologic data 

indicate that some local hydrogeologic conditions are complex. 

For example, although groundwater generally flows toward 

streams and rivers within the same basin, results indicate that 

some groundwater flows out of the Carr River subbasin and 

across the Big River Basin boundary into the Mishnock River 

Basin. Consequently, groundwater withdrawals from the Carr 

River subbasin could potentially affect streamflow and water 

supplies in the Mishnock River Basin. 

A water budget developed from the groundwater model 

(Granato and others, 2003) describes the amount of water 

entering and leaving the Big River area (fig. 4). The water 

budget indicates that under predevelopment conditions (no 

pumping or wastewater returns), most groundwater (93 percent) 

ultimately exits the basins as streamflow. Additional analysis of 

the streamflow response to groundwater withdrawals 

indicated that the primary source of water to potential publicsupply wells would be intercepted groundwater that would 

otherwise have flowed to streams. Fourteen hypothetical groundwater-withdrawal scenarios were simulated to determine the 

effects of groundwater withdrawals on streamflow (Granato and 

others, 2003). The scenarios represented a range of withdrawal 

options at 12 locations the RIWRB was considering as potential 

locations for public-supply wells. Streamflow depletions 

simulated by the models indicated that groundwater supplies in 

the Big River area cannot be developed without a reduction in 

streamflow. For example, Scenario 10 simulated groundwater 

withdrawals of 4, 2, and 1 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) from 

310

320 330340

350 360

260

270

280

290

300

260

260

270

280 290

300

250

310

270

270

280

290

300

250

0

0

1 MILE

1 KILOMETER

41°36'

71°38'

71°38'

41°41' 41°41'

71°33'

Big

Carr

Mishnock

Old

Hickory Brook

Nooseneck River Congdon River

River

River

River

Bear Brook

Flat River

Reservoir

Lake

Mishnock

Capwell Mill

Pond

Millbrook

Pond

Phelps

Pond

Tarbox

Pond

Reynolds Pond

Maple Root

Pond

Hungry

Hill

Boundary of active area of model—No 

 groundwater flow across this boundary

EXPLANATION

Groundwater-flow direction 

Inactive cell area

Model-calculated water-table 

 contour—Shows altitude of 

 water table in feet above NGVD 1929.

 Contour interval is 10 feet. 50-foot contour

 interval appears thicker

260

ROWS

COLUMNS

Figure 3. Water table map indicates general direction of groundwater 

flow is from till and bedrock uplands toward the river valleys, Big River 

area, Rhode Island. Modified from Granato and others, 2003.
4

Estimated inflows, in percent

Groundwater recharge

Streamflow from uplands

Lateral groundwater inflow

Overland flow from uplands

11

28.5

39.8

20.7

Estimated outflows, in percent

Streamflow

Evapotranspiration

Groundwater withdrawal

Groundwater underflow

0.1

93.39

3.6 2.9

EXPLANATION

Figure 4. Groundwater inflows are from different 

sources, whereas outflows are mostly from streamflow, 

Big River area, Rhode Island. Modified from table 4 in 

Granato and others, 2003.

the Big, Mishnock, and Carr River Basins and 

determined that these withdrawals would reduce 

average August streamflows in those rivers by 

25, 51, and 24 percent, respectively. Withdrawal 

strategies that balanced aquatic-habitat protection 

goals with water-supply needs were evaluated 

by comparison of model-simulated streamflows 

to streamflows required to sustain stream habitat 

in summer (0.5 ft3/s/mi2; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1981).

A subsequent study (Granato and Barlow, 

2005) modeled additional scenarios to determine 

the effects of groundwater withdrawals on streamflows. The study used conjunctive management 

(combined simulation and optimization) models to 

determine (1) the effects of instream-flow criteria 

on groundwater withdrawals, (2) whether more 

water could be obtained from the Big River area 

if pumping were varied seasonally, (3) how 

pumping from a network of wells could be 

optimized to minimize streamflow depletions, (4) 

the effects of withdrawals on streamflow during 

dry periods, and (5) the influence of wastewaterreturn flows on water availability. The analysis 

focused on 13 possible locations for public-supply 

wells in the BRMA and evaluated 31 hypothetical 

groundwater-withdrawal scenarios. 

The scenarios modeled by Granato and 

Barlow (2005) confirmed that the amount of 

groundwater available decreases as the minimumstreamflow criteria are increased—that is, as more 

water is required to be left in the streams (fig. 5). 

The conjunctive management models developed 

by Granato and Barlow (2005) allowed management options to be compared by determining the 

specific rates of pumping at each of the wells, the 

total amount of water available from the BRMA, and the streamflow depletion 

associated with each scenario. Analysis in Granato and Barlow (2005) also 

determined that the timing of water-supply demand is a critical factor influencing the total amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn from a basin over 

a typical year. Water demand in Rhode Island is normally highest during the 

summer, when streamflows are relatively low. Simulations that incorporated 

this pattern of increased summer demand resulted in rates of annual average groundwater withdrawals from the basin that were about one-half of the 

withdrawal rates in scenarios that did not consider the seasonal constraint. The 

analysis indicated that additional wells throughout the area with collectively 

managed water withdrawals would be needed to reduce the influence of pumping on streamflow during summer. Groundwater withdrawals would need to be 

reduced by about 1–2 Mgal/d if pumpage were not managed collectively.

Effects of Groundwater Withdrawals on Streams and Wetlands

In another USGS study of the Big River area, Borenstein and others 

(2012) characterized the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of selected wetlands; 

Masterson and Granato (2013) then modified the existing groundwater models 

(Granato and others, 2003; Granato and Barlow, 2005) to develop a local-scale 

groundwater-flow model for the northern part of the BRMA near the Flat River 

Reservoir and used data from the wetlands study to further refine the model. 

These studies were conducted to (1) investigate whether groundwater withdrawals in the BRMA could induce infiltration from the Flat River Reservoir, 

potentially reducing the effect of water withdrawals on surrounding wetlands 

and streamflow, and (2) develop a better understanding of the interactions 

between groundwater and surface water in riparian wetlands under changing 

pumping conditions.

To characterize typical hydrologic and vegetative conditions in wetlands 

in the Big River area, five wetlands were selected for study, and a monitoring 

network was established (Borenstein and Golet, 2010; Borenstein and 

others, 2012). Four of the study sites were forested wetlands along 

perennial streams, and the fifth site was adjacent to Reynolds Pond (fig. 1). 

B

C

D

E

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Instream-flow criterion, in cubic feet per second per square mile

0

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

A. Hydrologic limit 

B. Connecticut minimum-flow standard 

C. Wetted-perimeter method 

D. Modified U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aquatic base flow 

E. R2Cross method

A

 Average groundwater withdrawals, in million gallons per day 

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. As the the minimum-streamflow criteria are increased, the amount of 

groundwater available decreases, Big River area, Rhode Island. Modified from Granato 

and Barlow, 2005.
5

The hydrology of each wetland study site was characterized during the 2009 growing season (April 15–November 30) 

through measurements of groundwater levels, surface-water 

levels in adjacent water bodies, and ponded-water conditions at 

the wetland land surface. Water levels indicated that the surficial 

aquifer is in hydraulic connection with wetlands at all five sites. 

The prevalence of ponded water varied among the wetland 

study sites. Ponding was observed throughout the growing 

season at the two wettest sites and for a part of the season at 

the remaining sites. Water levels were less than 1 ft below the 

ground surface for more than 80 percent of the growing season 

at most locations in the five sites, indicating that the shallow 

soil layers are wet during most of the year. 

Vegetation in the wetlands was sampled as five layers—

trees, saplings, shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, and mosses 

(fig. 6). For example, in red maple swamps—the most common 

wetland type studied—tree and sapling species are typically red 

maple and white pine, shrubs include sweet pepperbush and 

swamp azalea, herbaceous vegetation includes skunk cabbage 

and cinnamon fern, and mosses are predominantly sphagnum 

moss. Vegetation varied with hydrologic conditions across the 

five study sites and also across transects within individual sites. 

If the wetland soils were to become significantly drier as a result 

of groundwater withdrawals, the species composition of 

herbaceous plants and mosses would likely undergo more 

change at a faster rate than that of trees, saplings, and shrubs. 

Shallowly rooted and requiring wet conditions, herbaceous 

plants and mosses would likely be more sensitive to changes in 

soil moisture than trees, saplings and shrubs, which have a more 

persistent nature, relatively deep roots, and tolerance for variable soil-moisture conditions (Allen and others, 1989). 

The model developed by Masterson and Granato (2013) 

tested several hydrogeologic factors that affect groundwater 

availability in the northern portion of the BRMA, including the 

hydraulic conductivity of fine-grained glacial-lake deposits that 

underlie the Flat River Reservoir and the northern part of the 

BRMA, the exchange of groundwater between the till uplands 

and the valley-fill aquifer system, and the annual drawdown and 

refilling of the Flat River Reservoir during winter and spring. 

The results indicated that fine-grained sediments underlying 

the Flat River Reservoir would restrict the amount of induced 

infiltration available from the reservoir and thereby increase the 

potential for decreased water levels beneath nearby wetlands.

Masterson and Granato (2013) also simulated the effects 

on wetland water-level declines in a five-well 2.5-Mgal/d 

groundwater-withdrawal scenario proposed by the RIWRB. The 

results indicated that the amount of dewatering of wetlands and 

nearby surface-water bodies is directly related to the amount of 

groundwater withdrawn by pumping. Average monthly water 

levels in wetlands near Reynolds Pond would decline 4 to 6 

ft, depending on whether the Flat River Reservoir was flooded 

or drained (table 1). Simulated declines in water levels in the 

Atlantic white cedar wetland were less than 1 ft, and declines 

in water levels in the other study wetlands were less than 0.3 ft. 

The simulation results indicate that groundwater withdrawals 

are likely to lower water levels in wetlands and alter wetland 

ecology by reducing the seasonal duration of inundation and 

saturation of the wetlands.

Informing Water-Management Decisions

Collectively, the scientific studies conducted by the USGS 

in cooperation with the RIWRB have provided the foundational understanding and the numerical modeling tools needed 

to assess the responses of the aquifers and streams in the Big 

River area to future water-supply development. USGS groundwater models have been used by the RIWRB to locate test 

wells, develop a test-well pumping plan, and assess the effects 

of groundwater withdrawals on hydrologic conditions in local 

streams, rivers, and wetlands. These cooperative studies have 

improved the understanding of surface and groundwater 

interactions among streams, riparian wetlands, and aquifers and 

helped to quantify the nature and magnitude of the tradeoffs 

between developing groundwater supplies and protecting water 

resources in the BRMA. The long-term partnership between 

the RIWRB and USGS provides a scientific foundation for 

water-resource management. The studies in the Big River area 

continue to inform sustainable water-resources management in 

Rhode Island. 

Table 1. Selected average monthly water-level declines at the wetland-study sites in response to continuous pumping at 

aquifer-test sites, Big River area, central Rhode Island.

[ID, identification. Value indicates the water-level decline between the no-pumping and pumping conditions. Wetland study sites are identified by map IDs on 

figure 1. Modified from Masterson and Granato, 2013, table 4]

Map ID Wetland name Well name August (feet)1 December (feet)1

1 Bear Brook Swamp COW484 0.2 0.2

2 Reynolds Swamp WGW427 3.8 5.8

3 Cedar Swamp WGW428 0.4 0.5

4 Scarborough Swamp WGW426 0 0.1

5 Congdon Swamp WGW429 0 0

1

From March through October, control boards are typically in place, and water levels in the reservoir are raised. From November through February, control 

boards are typically removed, and water levels in the reservoir are lowered for weed control.
6

Figure 6. USGS employee sampling wetland vegetation in the Big River 

area, Rhode Island. 

References Cited

Allen, S.D., Golet, F.C., Davis, A.F., and Sokoloski, T.E., 1989, 

Soil-vegetation correlations in transition zones of Rhode 

Island red maple swamps: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Report 89 (8), 47 p.

Borenstein, M.S., and Golet, F.C., 2010, Baseline characterization of forested wetlands for assessment of groundwater 

withdrawal impacts at the Big River Management Area, 

Rhode Island: Department of Natural Resources Science, 

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I., 99 p. 

Borenstein, M.S., Golet, F.C., Armstrong, D.S., Breault, 

R.F., McCobb, T.D., and Weiskel, P.K., 2012, Hydrologic, 

vegetation, and soil data collected in selected wetlands of the 

Big River Management Area, from 2008 through 2010: U.S. 

Geological Survey Data Series 666, 11 p.

Craft, P.A., 2001, Hydrogeologic data for the Big RiverMishnock River stream aquifer system, Central Rhode Island: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01–250, 104 p. 

Granato, G.E., and Barlow, P.M., 2005, Effects of alternative 

instream-flow criteria and water-supply demands on 

groundwater development options in the Big River area, 

Rhode Island: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004–5301, 110 p.

Granato, G.E., Barlow, P.M., and Dickerman, D.C., 2003, 

Hydrogeology and simulated effects of groundwater 

withdrawals in the Big River area, Rhode Island: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03–4222, 76 p. 

Harbaugh, A.W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005—The U.S. 

Geological Survey modular ground-water model–The 

ground-water flow process: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques and Methods 6—A16, variously paged.

Masterson and Granato, 2013, Numerical simulation of 

groundwater and surface-water interactions in the Big River 

Management Area, Central Rhode Island: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5077, 53 p. 

Rhode Island Geographic Information System, 2014, Rhode 

Island Natural Heritage Areas, natHeritage14.zip: Rhode 

Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS), University of Rhode Island Environmental Data Center, accessed 

March 11, 2014, at http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/data/data.

aspx?ISO=biota.

Rhode Island Water Resources Board, 2012, Rhode Island 

Water Resources Board 2012 Strategic Plan: Rhode Island 

Water Resources Board, accessed online on June 21, 2013, at 

http://www.wrb.ri.gov/policy_statutes_planning/WRB_

StrategicPlan_031612.pdf.

Stone, J.R., and Dickerman, D.C., 2002, Glacial geology and 

aquifer characteristics of the Big River area, Central 

Rhode Island: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 01–4169, 12 p., 1 pl.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 1989, 

Recommendation to prohibit construction of the Big River 

Reservoir pursuant to section 404c of the Clean Water Act: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed June 2, 

2014, at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/

upload/Big-River_404-c-_RD.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981, Interim regional policy 

for New England stream flow recommendations: Newton 

Corner, Mass., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3 p. 

By David S. Armstrong, John P. Masterson, Keith W. Robinson, 

and Kathleen M. Crawley1

1

Rhode Island Water Resources Board

For more information concerning this report, contact:

Director, New England Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey 

10 Bearfoot Road 

Northborough, MA 01532

dc_nweng@usgs.gov

or visit our Web site at:

http://ri.water.usgs.gov

ISSN 2327-6916 (print)

ISSN 2327-6932 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20153035

Publishing support by the 

Pembroke Publishing Service Center