DOCSLIB.ORG

Upstate Water Supply Resiliency Final Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upstate Water Supply Resiliency Final Environmental Impact Statement Water for the Future: Upstate Water Supply Resiliency Final Environmental Impact Statement December 2017 CEQR No: 15DEP006U Lead Agency: New York City Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner: Vincent Sapienza, P.E. Lead Agency Contact: Angela Licata, Deputy Commissioner of Sustainability Attention: Sangamithra Iyer, P.E. Director of Office of Water Supply Infrastructure & Watershed Assessment New York City Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Environmental Planning and Analysis 59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373 (718) 595-3585 [email protected] Preparers: New York City Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Environmental Planning and Analysis Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Architecture and Engineering, P.C. 711 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 Hazen and Sawyer 498 Seventh Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10018 Table of Contents ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. A-1 GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................... G-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1.1-1 1.1 Overview of Water for the Future .................................................................. 1.1-1 1.2 Organization of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement ..................... 1.2-1 CHAPTER 2 : PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED UPSTATE WATER SUPPLY RESILIENCY ......................................................................................... 2.0-1 CHAPTER 3 : OVERVIEW OF THE CITY’S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ................ 3.1-1 3.1 Surface Water Supply System Overview ....................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.1 Catskill Water Supply System Overview ........................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.2 Delaware Water Supply System Overview ......................................................... 3.1-4 3.1.3 Croton Water Supply System Overview ............................................................. 3.1-5 3.1.4 Surface Water Supply System Operation ........................................................... 3.1-6 3.2 Groundwater System Overview ...................................................................... 3.2-1 CHAPTER 4 : WATER FOR THE FUTURE BACKGROUND AND PLANNING ...... 4.1-1 4.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.2 Water Supply Augmentation Planning .......................................................... 4.2-1 CHAPTER 5 : PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 5.1-1 5.1 Water for the Future Project Components .................................................... 5.1-1 5.2 Water for the Future Supporting Projects ..................................................... 5.2-1 5.2.1 Demand Management ......................................................................................... 5.2-1 5.2.2 Catskill/Delaware Interconnection at Shaft 4 ..................................................... 5.2-1 5.2.3 Improvements to Catskill Aqueduct Stop Shutters ............................................. 5.2-2 5.2.4 Croton Water Filtration Plant.............................................................................. 5.2-2 5.2.5 Cross River and Croton Falls Pump Stations ...................................................... 5.2-3 WFF: Upstate Water Supply Resiliency FDEIS TOC-1 Table of Contents 5.3 Summary of Environmental Review of WFF Components and Supporting Projects .......................................................................................... 5.3-1 CHAPTER 6 : PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ...................................................................... 6.1-1 6.1 Catskill Aqueduct Repair and Rehabilitation ............................................... 6.1-1 6.2 Water for the Future Shutdown System Operations .................................... 6.2-1 6.3 Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Inspection and Repair ................................. 6.3-1 CHAPTER 7 : POTENTIAL MAJOR DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND CONSULTATION .............................................................................. 7.0-1 CHAPTER 8 : ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 8.0-1 8.1 EIS Assessment Conditions and Impact Categories ..................................... 8.1-1 8.2 Definition of Impact Categories and Analysis Thresholds ........................... 8.2-1 8.2.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy ................................................................. 8.2-1 8.2.2 Socioeconomic Conditions ................................................................................. 8.2-1 8.2.3 Community Facilities and Services .................................................................... 8.2-3 8.2.4 Open Space and Recreation ................................................................................ 8.2-3 8.2.5 Critical Environmental Areas ............................................................................. 8.2-4 8.2.6 Shadows .............................................................................................................. 8.2-4 8.2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 8.2-5 8.2.8 Urban Design and Visual Resources ................................................................... 8.2-7 8.2.9 Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 8.2-8 8.2.10 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 8.2-9 8.2.11 Water and Sewer Infrastructure ........................................................................ 8.2-10 8.2.12 Solid Waste and Sanitation Services................................................................. 8.2-11 8.2.13 Energy ............................................................................................................... 8.2-12 8.2.14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............................................. 8.2-12 8.2.15 Transportation ................................................................................................... 8.2-12 8.2.16 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 8.2-14 8.2.17 Noise ................................................................................................................. 8.2-15 8.2.18 Neighborhood Character ................................................................................... 8.2-17 8.2.19 Public Health ..................................................................................................... 8.2-17 CHAPTER 9 : PROPOSED CATSKILL AQUEDUCT REPAIR AND REHABILITATION ............................................................................................................... 9.1-1 9.1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 9.1-1 WFF: Upstate Water Supply Resiliency FDEIS TOC-2 Table of Contents 9.2 Project Description ........................................................................................... 9.2-1 9.2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 9.2-1 9.2.2 Overview of Proposed Activities ........................................................................ 9.2-3 9.2.3 Schedule .............................................................................................................. 9.2-5 9.2.4 Description of the Upper Catskill Aqueduct ..................................................... 9.2-10 9.2.5 Operation of the Upper Catskill Aqueduct ....................................................... 9.2-15 9.2.6 Proposed Repair and Rehabilitation Activities ................................................. 9.2-16 9.2.7 Catskill Aqueduct Repair and Rehabilitation Study Areas and Activities ....... 9.2-45 9.3 Screening Assessment and Impact Analysis Methodology ........................... 9.3-1 9.3.1 Definition of Study Areas ................................................................................... 9.3-3 9.3.2 Screening Assessment Approach ........................................................................ 9.3-6 9.3.3 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy ................................................................. 9.3-8 9.3.4 Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................................... 9.3-55 9.3.5 Community Facilities and Services .................................................................. 9.3-56 9.3.6 Open Space and Recreation .............................................................................. 9.3-58 9.3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 9.3-60 9.3.8 Visual Resources ............................................................................................... 9.3-63 9.3.9 Natural Resources ............................................................................................. 9.3-70 9.3.10 Hazardous Materials
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2008 Waterfowl Count Report
    New York State Waterfowl Count – 2008 January 12, 2008 Ulster County Narrative Page 1 of 8 Sixteen observers in five field parties participated in the Ulster County segment of the annual New York State Winter Waterfowl Count, recording a total of 17 species and 6,890 individuals within the county on Saturday, 12 January 2008. This represents a record high species count, exceeding last year's diversity by three species, and is just 204 individuals short of our record high total set in 2006. Field observers noted fast moving water, and essentially frozen ponds, lakes, and marshes throughout the county. Stone Ridge Pond on Mill Dam Road was the exception, and continues to contribute a large number of individuals and a few unusual species to the composite, hosting American Wigeon, Ring-necked Duck, and 1,061 individuals this year. The Hudson River, Ashokan Reservoir, lower Esopus Creek in Saugerties, and agricultural fields surrounding Wallkill prison accounted for the majority of the balance of the count. Weather conditions were quite favorable for this time of the year, especially in comparison to the rain and wide- spread fog of last year, or the sub-freezing temperatures typical of a mid-January count. A very dense fog did persist over the Hudson River early morning, requiring some minor route changes to allow for early visits to inland sites while delaying surveys of the Hudson to later in the day. Temperatures started out just below freezing, then warmed to a very comfortable mid-40's (F) by afternoon. Winds were calm for the most part, with the exception of a cold NW gale sweeping across partially frozen Ashokan Reservoir, making for very choppy waters in the lower basin and difficult viewing conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Public Comment on Draft Trout Stream Management Plan
    Assessment of public comments on draft New York State Trout Stream Management Plan OCTOBER 27, 2020 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner A draft of the Fisheries Management Plan for Inland Trout Streams in New York State (Plan) was released for public review on May 26, 2020 with the comment period extending through June 25, 2020. Public comment was solicited through a variety of avenues including: • a posting of the statewide public comment period in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB), • a DEC news release distributed statewide, • an announcement distributed to all e-mail addresses provided by participants at the 2017 and 2019 public meetings on trout stream management described on page 11 of the Plan [353 recipients, 181 unique opens (58%)], and • an announcement distributed to all subscribers to the DEC Delivers Freshwater Fishing and Boating Group [138,122 recipients, 34,944 unique opens (26%)]. A total of 489 public comments were received through e-mail or letters (Appendix A, numbered 1-277 and 300-511). 471 of these comments conveyed specific concerns, recommendations or endorsements; the other 18 comments were general statements or pertained to issues outside the scope of the plan. General themes to recurring comments were identified (22 total themes), and responses to these are included below. These themes only embrace recommendations or comments of concern. Comments that represent favorable and supportive views are not included in this assessment. Duplicate comment source numbers associated with a numbered theme reflect comments on subtopics within the general theme. Theme #1 The statewide catch and release (artificial lures only) season proposed to run from October 16 through March 31 poses a risk to the sustainability of wild trout populations and the quality of the fisheries they support that is either wholly unacceptable or of great concern, particularly in some areas of the state; notably Delaware/Catskill waters.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of New York City Water Supply Reservoirs Within the Catskill/Delaware and Croton Watersheds
    2014 aquatic invasive species surveys of New York City water supply reservoirs within the Catskill/Delaware and Croton Watersheds Megan Wilckens1, Holly Waterfield2 and Willard N. Harman3 INTRODUCTION The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) oversees the management and protection of the New York City water supply reservoirs, which are split between two major watershed systems, referred to as East of Hudson Watersheds (Figure 1) and Catskill/Delaware Watershed (Figure 2). The DEP is concerned about the presence of aquatic invasive species (AIS) in reservoirs because they can threaten water quality and water supply operations (intake pipes and filtration systems), degrade the aquatic ecosystem found there as well as reduce recreational opportunities for the community. Across the United States, AIS cause around $120 billion per year in environmental damages and other losses (Pimentel et al. 2005). The SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station was contracted by DEP to conduct AIS surveys on five reservoirs; the Ashokan, Rondout, West Branch, New Croton and Kensico reservoirs. Three of these reservoirs, as well as major tributary streams to all five reservoirs, were surveyed for AIS in 2014. This report details the survey results for the Ashokan, Rondout, and West Branch reservoirs, and Esopus Creek, Rondout Creek, West Branch Croton River, East Branch Croton River and Bear Gutter Creek. The intent of each survey was to determine the presence or absence of the twenty- three AIS on the NYC DEP’s AIS priority list (Table 1). This list was created by a subcommittee of the Invasive Species Working Group based on a water supply risk assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice for the Community in the Vicinity of Jerome Ave and Gunhill
    Vincent Sapienza Commissioner FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2018 CONTACT: [email protected], (845) 334-7868 No. 111 DEP TO WORK WITH U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TO STUDY SUSPECTED LEAK FROM THE CATSKILL AQUEDUCT Multi-year study will focus on pressure tunnel that carries water deep below the Rondout Valley Historic photos of the Rondout Pressure Tunnel can be found by clicking here The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) today announced that it will work with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on a multi-year study to examine suspected leaks from a portion of the Catskill Aqueduct that runs several hundred feet below the Rondout Creek in Ulster County. DEP has been gathering information on this portion of the aqueduct, known as the Rondout Pressure Tunnel, for several years. In 2016, experts used a remote-operate vehicle to view the inside of the pressure tunnel for the first time since it was built more than a century ago. The vehicle used high-definition video cameras, acoustic equipment and other instruments to pinpoint several leaks in the tunnel. Scientific data collected by USGS will supplement the remote-operated vehicle’s inspection of the tunnel, giving DEP a clearer picture of where water is traveling after it escapes the aqueduct. At this time, DEP knows that a significant portion of the water comes to the surface and moves overland into the Rondout Creek in High Falls. USGS will begin its work by meeting individually with landowners in High Falls over the next several months. Scientists from USGS will seek permission to install monitoring instruments in existing groundwater wells, and potentially to install new monitoring wells in that portion of the valley.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City's Water Story
    New York City’s Water Story: From Mountain Top to Tap SCHOHARIE COUNTY Schoharie Reservoir 1,130 FEET Delaware Watershed Gilboa Catskill Watershed Stamford The water we use today is the same water that fell as C rain when dinosaurs roamed a D t Prattsville Siuslaw s DELAWARE COUNTY West Branch Delaware e k l i the earth. In its endless a l Windham l w a W r cycle, water is the only e a t W e GREENE COUNTY rs Schoharie Creek substance that naturally a h te e r d Grand Gorge sh exists as a solid, e d liquid or gas. Delhi Lenox Roxbury East Branch Delaware Hunter Tannersville Andes Walton HUNTER MOUNTAIN Water’s journey from 4,040 FEET mountain top to tap begins Margaretville Shandaken Tunnel when rain and snow fall on COLUMBIA COUNTY watersheds, the areas Massachusetts of land that catch, absorb, Downsville Phoenicia and carry water downhill to gently and swiftly Deposit Pepacton Woodstock flowing streams. Cannonsville Reservoir Reservoir 1,150 FEET 1,280 FEET Esopus Creek SLIDE MOUNTAIN Boiceville West Delaware Tunnel East Delaware Tunnel 4,180 FEET Streams provide life-cycle Neversink Frost Valley needs for fish and other RIver aquatic organisms. Oxygen is Ashokan Rondout trapped in the fresh water as Creek Reservoir Claryville Olivebridge 590 FEET Kingston it tumbles over rocks into deep pools. Overhanging tree branches keep water r C e A v cool as fresh water T i Grahamsville S K R DUTCHESS COUNTY continues its journey. IL L n Neversink A Neversink Reservoir Tunnel Q o s 1,440 FEET U s E d Liberty Rondout Reservoir d Water is naturally filtered D u u U 840 FEET U C C H H T by the soil and tree roots in T dense forests as it travels toward reservoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Water Quality
    Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ v List of Figures....................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... xi Errata Sheet Issued May 4, 2011 .......................................................................................... xiii 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 What is the purpose and scope of this report? ......................................................... 1 1.2 What constitutes the New York City water supply system? ................................... 1 1.3 What are the objectives of water quality monitoring and how are the sampling programs organized? ........................................................................... 3 1.4 What types of monitoring networks are used to provide coverage of such a large watershed? .................................................................................................. 5 1.5 How do the different monitoring efforts complement each other? .......................... 9 1.6 How many water samples did DEP collect
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Agricultural Program 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Workload
    Watershed Agricultural Program 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Workload TABLE OF CONTENTS Planning For Increased BMP Implementation Page WAP Managers Report 2 The Watershed Agricultural Program (WAP) commenced a 6 year contract with 2019 Planning Goals 3 the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), on April 1, 2019 Accomplishments-Funding 3 2019 to accelerate the implementation of BMPs with over $4 million in annual 2019 Accomplishments-BMPs 4 funding. The increase in BMP implementation funds are targeted for the 2019 Planning Goals 22 implementation of BMPs that have been on our backlog list prior to 2017. To 22020 Projected Workload 22 accomplish the increase in workload the WAP has added two assistant Whole 2020 Projected Workload-BMPs 23 Farm Planner positions and has also increased the number of engineering Staff Listing 24 department staff. Program summaries: Conservation Reserve The conservation planners focused on 92 revisions that placed identified Enhancement Program (CREP) 5 resource concerns in the prioritization process, and Whole Farm Plans were Nutrient Management 6 revised accordingly. Precision Feed Management 7-8 Farmer Education 9 In 2019 the WAP implemented 487 BMPs on all active farms at a total cost $4.6 Economic Viability 10 million. These figures include 453 BMPs on West of Hudson farms ($4.2m) and 34 2019 WAP Farm Tour 11 BMPs on East of Hudson farms ($400,000). Projects 12-17 WIRC Team 18 The Precision Feed Management (PFM) Program is a science based program that East of Hudson 19-21 develops feed management plans to deal with the large quantity of feed nutrients managed annually on participant farms.
    [Show full text]
  • How's the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks?
    How’s the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks? Cizen Science Fecal Contaminaon Study How’s the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks? Background & Problem Methods Results: 2012-2013 Potenal Polluon Sources © Riverkeeper 2014 © Riverkeeper 2014 Photo: Rob Friedman “SWIMMABILITY” FECAL PATHOGEN CONTAMINATION LOAD © Riverkeeper 2014 Government Pathogen Tesng © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Fecal Contaminaon Study 2006 - Present Enterococcus (“Entero”) EPA-recommended fecal indicator Monthly sampling: May – Oct EPA Guideline for Primary Contact: Acceptable: 0-60 Entero per 100 mL Beach Advisory: >60 Entero per 100 mL © Riverkeeper 2014 Science Partners & Supporters Funders Science Partners • HSBC • Dr. Gregory O’Mullan Queens • Clinton Global Iniave College, City University of New • The Eppley Foundaon for York Research • Dr. Andrew Juhl, Lamont- • The Dextra Baldwin Doherty Earth Observatory, McGonagle Foundaon, Inc. Columbia University • The Hudson River Foundaon for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. • Hudson River Estuary Program, NYS DEC • New England Interstate Water Polluon Control Commission (2008-2013) © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Cizen Science Program Goals 1. Fill a data gap 2. Raise awareness about fecal contaminaon in tributaries 3. Involve local residents in finding and eliminang Photo: John Gephards sources of contaminaon © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Cizen Science Studies Tributaries sampled: • Catskill Creek • 45 river miles • 19 sites (many added in 2014) • Esopus Creek • 25 river miles
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan Update North Salem Comprehensive Plan
    NORTH SALEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE NORTH SALEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Prepared by: Town of North Salem Delancey Hall, Town Hall 266 Titicus Road North Salem, New York 10560 Adopted December 20, 2011 FERRANDINO & ASSOCIATES INC. DRAFT JAN NORTH SALEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acknowledgments Town Board Warren Lucas, Supervisor Peter Kamenstein, Deputy Supervisor Stephen Bobolia, Councilman Mary Elizabeth Reeve, Councilwoman Amy Rosmarin, Councilwoman Comprehensive Planning Committee John White, Chair Janice Will, Secretary Martin Aronchick, Member Katherine Daniels, Member Linda Farina, Member Charlotte Harris, Member Robert Kotch, Member Michelle La Mothe, Member Drew Outhouse, Member Pam Pooley, Member Alan Towers, Member Peter Wiederhorn, Member Planning Consultant Ferrandino & Associates Inc. Planning and Development Consultants Three West Main Street, Suite 214 Elmsford, New York 10523 Vince Ferrandino, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Teresa Bergey, AICP, Senior Planner/Project Manager Kruti Bhatia, AICP, Planner Evan Smith, Planner In concert with Fitzgerald & Halliday Inc., for Transportation Mary Manning, P.E., Project Manager FERRANDINO & ASSOCIATES INC. DECEMBER 2011 NORTH SALEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planning Board Cynthia Curtis, Chair Recreation Committee Dawn Onufrik, Secretary John Varachi, Chair Charlotte Harris, Member/ CPC Liaison Norma Bandak, Member Gary Jacobi, Member Andrew Brown, Member Bernard Sweeny, Member Brendan Curran, Member Robert Tompkins, Member Allison Hublard-Hershman, Member Della Mancuso, Member Zoning Board of Appeals
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Action in Kensico Reservoir Study Area
    Kensico Reservoir Project Description 8. PROPOSED ACTION IN THE KENSICO RESERVOIR STUDY AREA 8.1 KENSICO RESERVOIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8.1.1 BACKGROUND As discussed in Section 1.2.3, “Emergency Authorizations for Alum Application,” NYSDEC, in coordination with NYSDOH issued several emergency authorizations to DEP, which allowed for the application of alum to water in the Catskill Aqueduct upstream of Kensico Reservoir1 to address episodic turbidity. Specifically, alum was applied to coagulate the suspended solids to improve settling and reduce turbidity in flows of water from Ashokan Reservoir.2 Following the expiration of these emergency authorizations, DEP applied for a permit and NYSDEC issued the Catalum SPDES Permit. This permit authorizes DEP to apply alum and sodium hydroxide to reduce turbidity in the Catskill Aqueduct upon NYSDEC receipt of a copy of a notice from the NYSDOH that there is a potential imminent development of a public health hazard related to the discharge of turbid water from Kensico Reservoir. The Catalum SPDES Permit issued by NYSDEC to authorize alum application included a condition that DEP dredge accumulated alum floc from the Reservoir in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the environment within Kensico Reservoir. In 2011, the Catalum SPDES Permit was administratively extended. In June 2012, DEP requested a modification to the NYSDEC Catalum SPDES Permit to incorporate measures to address episodic turbidity in water diverted from Ashokan Reservoir, and delay of dredging of alum floc from Kensico Reservoir until completion of RWBT repairs. Repairs to the RWBT are underway and are part of a broader program to ensure the continued reliability of the drinking water system: DEP’s Water for the Future (WFF) Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface-Water Stations, in Downstream Order, for Which
    SURFACE-WATER STATIONS, IN DOWNSTREAM ORDER, FOR WHICH RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE 2014 WATER YEAR SUMMARIES [Letter after station name designates type of data: (b) biological, (c) chemical, (cs) crest-stage gage, (d) discharge, (e) elevation, (g) gage height, (m) minor element, (mm) miscellaneous measurement site, (n) nutrient, (o) organic, (p) pesticide, (s) sediment, (t) water temperature, (tb) turbidity, (v) contents] Station number Housatonic Watershed Stony Brook near Dover Plains (cs) ....................................................................... 01199477 Bronx Watershed Mamaroneck River at Winfield Avenue at Mamaroneck (cs) .................................. 01300800 Mamaroneck River at Mamaroneck (cs)................................................................. 01301000 Upper Hudson Watershed Arbutus Pond Outlet near Newcomb (cs) ............................................................... 01311992 Hudson River near Newcomb (d) ........................................................................... 01312000 Indian Lake (head of Indian River) near Indian Lake (e) ........................................ 01314500 Indian River near Indian Lake (d) ........................................................................... 01315000 Hudson River at North Creek (d) ............................................................................ 01315500 Schroon River at Riverbank (cs) ............................................................................ 01317000 Hudson River at Hadley (d) ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Gear, Multi-Site Fish Survey in New
    SUBMERSED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN A HUDSON RIVER WATERSHED: THE GREAT SWAMP OF NEW YORK A Final Report of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program Chris Cotroneo Polgar Fellow Biology Department Queens College 65-30 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11367 Project Advisor: John Waldman, Ph.D. Biology Department Queens College 65-30 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11367 Cotroneo, C., and J. Waldman. 2019. Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in a Hudson River Watershed: The Great Swamp of New York. Section III: 1-44 pp. In S.H. Fernald, D.J. Yozzo and H. Andreyko (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2016. Hudson River Foundation. III-1 ABSTRACT Baseline information about submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) communities and their associated fish assemblages represents a valuable information resource for use by the scientific community for comparison to other studies, documenting changes over time, and to assist with actions such as fish passage. In order to collect data throughout the entire growing season, a comprehensive six-month, submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) study was conducted in New York’s Great Swamp. Sampling sites were selected based upon the presence of SAV representative of the surrounding area and were sampled bi- weekly. Aerial percent cover was estimated for each SAV species identified within the sampling site. A total of 12 SAV stands were sampled throughout the course of the study. A total of 58 SAV samples were taken, revealing five dominant SAV species: Potamogeton crispus, P. pusillus, P. illinoensis, Ceratophyllum demersum, and Elodea canadensis. Every fourth week the same sites were sampled for nekton to determine if habitat use changed with any changes in dominant SAV species.
    [Show full text]