DOCSLIB.ORG

Controls on Water Quality in the New Croton Reservoir/Turkey Mountain Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Controls on Water Quality in the New Croton Reservoir/Turkey Mountain Watershed Controls on Water Quality in the New Croton Reservoir/Turkey Mountain Watershed Final Report for New York State Department of Transportation March 2006 Controls on Water Quality in the New Croton Reservoir/Turkey Mountain Watershed Final Report March 2006 Charles T. Driscoll1, Donald W. Lake2, Shobha K. Bhatia1, Douglas DeKoskie3, James Buchanan3, Joel DuBois3 and Kimberley M. Driscoll1 1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Syracuse University 151 Link Hall Syracuse, NY 13244 2361 Funk Road Erieville, NY 13061 3Integrated River Solutions, Inc. 9 River Road Ulster Park, NY 12487 Table of Contents List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v List of Figures.................................................................................................................. viii Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... xii Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 TASK 1: Development of a Geographic Information System............................................ 1 Location ......................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives and Methodology........................................................................................ 1 Description of Coverages in the Geographic Information System........................... 2 Relief ........................................................................................................................... 2 Bedrock ....................................................................................................................... 2 Surficial Geology ........................................................................................................ 2 Steep Slopes ................................................................................................................ 3 Hydrography............................................................................................................... 3 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 3 Population................................................................................................................... 3 Transportation ............................................................................................................ 4 Soil Distribution.......................................................................................................... 4 Results and Discussion of Geographic Properties of the Turkey Mountain/Sawmill Creek Watershed.......................................................................... 4 TASK 2: Location of Sites of Environmental Degradation................................................ 6 Method ........................................................................................................................... 6 Data Summary .............................................................................................................. 7 TASK 3: Quantitative Stormwater Quality Modeling........................................................ 8 Water Quantity ............................................................................................................. 8 Background................................................................................................................. 8 Approach..................................................................................................................... 8 Results......................................................................................................................... 9 Water Quality................................................................................................................ 9 Background................................................................................................................. 9 Approach................................................................................................................... 10 Results....................................................................................................................... 10 TASK 4A. Water Quality Analysis .................................................................................. 12 Objectives..................................................................................................................... 12 Background: Dynamics of Major Non-point Source Pollutants............................. 12 Oxygen Demand........................................................................................................ 12 Dissolved Organic Carbon Dynamics ...................................................................... 12 Nutrients in Streams.................................................................................................. 13 Bacteria..................................................................................................................... 14 Field and Laboratory Methods.................................................................................. 14 Sampling Procedures................................................................................................ 14 Analytical Procedures............................................................................................... 15 Hydrology and Annual Loads ................................................................................... 15 i Results .......................................................................................................................... 16 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 16 Water Quality............................................................................................................ 16 Temperature, pH, Turbidity, DO, TSS ................................................................. 16 Nutrients................................................................................................................ 18 Bacteria ................................................................................................................. 20 Multivariate Statistical Analysis............................................................................... 20 Factor Analysis ..................................................................................................... 20 Cluster Analysis.................................................................................................... 21 Watershed Loadings.................................................................................................. 21 Stormwater Events .................................................................................................... 22 Toxicity Testing......................................................................................................... 23 Comparison of Surrounding Waters ......................................................................... 23 Summary...................................................................................................................... 23 TASK 4B: Habitat Analysis ............................................................................................. 25 Fishery Assessment ..................................................................................................... 25 Findings – Fishery Assessment................................................................................. 25 Findings – Habitat Assessment................................................................................. 26 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................. 27 Macroinvertebrate Assessment.................................................................................. 29 Methods..................................................................................................................... 29 Physical Habitat .................................................................................................... 29 Water Quality Analysis......................................................................................... 29 Macroinvertebrate Collection ............................................................................... 30 Laboratory Methods.............................................................................................. 30 Sorting Quality Assurance .................................................................................... 31 Sample Identification............................................................................................ 32 QA/QC of Taxonomic Identifications .................................................................. 32 Biological Assessment ................................................................................................. 32 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................. 33 Physical Habitat .................................................................................................... 33 Water Quality Results........................................................................................... 35 Conclusions.................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Annual Report
    ANNUAL REPORT New York State Assembly Carl E. Heastie Speaker Committee on Environmental Conservation Steve Englebright Chairman THE ASSEMBLY CHAIRMAN STATE OF NEW YORK Committee on Environmental Conservation COMMITTEES ALBANY Education Energy Higher Education Rules COMMISSIONS STEVEN ENGLEBRIGHT 4th Assembly District Science and Technology Suffolk County Water Resource Needs of Long Island MEMBER Bi-State L.I. Sound Marine Resource Committee N.Y.S. Heritage Area Advisory Council December 15, 2017 Honorable Carl E. Heastie Speaker of the Assembly Legislative Office Building, Room 932 Albany, NY 12248 Dear Speaker Heastie: I am pleased to submit to you the 2017 Annual Report of the Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation. This report describes the legislative actions and major issues considered by the Committee and sets forth our goals for future legislative sessions. The Committee addressed several important issues this year including record funding for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, increased drinking water testing and remediation requirements and legislation to address climate change. In addition, the Committee held hearings to examine water quality and the State’s clean energy standard. Under your leadership and with your continued support of the Committee's efforts, the Assembly will continue the work of preserving and protecting New York's environmental resources during the 2018 legislative session. Sincerely, Steve Englebright, Chairman Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation DISTRICT OFFICE: 149 Main Street, East Setauket, New York 11733 • 631-751-3094 ALBANY OFFICE: Room 621, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248 • 518-455-4804 Email: [email protected] 2017 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Steve Englebright, Chairman Committee Members Deborah J.
    [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]
  • 2014 Fishing Derby Tips
    2014 Fishing Derby Tips Dear Derby Participant: Most participants believe they have to catch a large trophy fish to win one of the 173 cash prizes totaling $7,560.00 in this year’s fishing derby. This is not so, in 2013, 40 of the prizes totally $1235.00 were not awarded due to no entries. I have compiled the following list of fishing tips you can use to take advantage of this situation and improve your chances to win a prize in 2014. 1. The 20 reservoirs that comprise the New York City Reservoir System offer year round fishing opportunities within minutes of area residents. In addition, there are hundreds of local streams, lakes and ponds as well as the Hudson and Delaware Rivers, and Long Island Sound, which offer excellent fishing opportunities. The Southern New York Fishing Directory is an angler’s Bible for not only the young inexperienced angler but to the older veteran fishermen looking for new places to fish. Order a copy when you register for the 2014 Derby. 2. Historically March, September, October and November offer the best opportunity to win a prize. In March fishing activity is at it’s lowest due to the poor weather conditions, unsafe ice, and the boating season is just beginning on many of the NYC reservoirs. Take advantage of good weather breaks and fish for trout near the bridges and open water areas using live bait and casting spoons. Fish the warmer water inlets for pre spawn crappies and perch. Most trout and panfish caught in March will win prizes.
    [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]
  • Flood Resilience Education in the Hudson River Estuary: Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation
    NEW YORK STATE WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 1123 Bradfield Hall, Cornell University Tel: (607) 255-3034 Ithaca, NY 14853-1901 Fax: (607) 255-2016 http://wri.eas.cornell.edu Email: [email protected] Flood Resilience Education in the Hudson River Estuary: Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation Shorna Allred Department of Natural Resources (607) 255-2149 [email protected] Gretchen Gary Department of Natural Resources (607) 269-7859 [email protected] Catskill Creek at Woodstock Dam during low flow (L) and flood conditions (R) Photo Credit - Elizabeth LoGiudice Abstract In recent decades, very heavy rain events (the heaviest 1% of all rain events from 1958-2012) have increased in frequency by 71% in the Northeast U.S. As flooding increases, so does the need for flood control Decisions related to flood control are the responsibility of many individuals and groups across the spectrum of a community, such as local planners, highway departments, and private landowners. Such decisions include strategies to minimize future Flood Resilience Education in the Hudson River Estuary: Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation flooding impacts while also properly responding to storm impacts to streams and adjacent and associated infrastructure. This project had three main components: 1) a flood education needs assessment of local municipal officials (2013), 2) an evaluation of a flood education program for highway personnel (2013), and 3) a survey of riparian landowners (2014). The riparian landowner needs assessment determined that the majority of riparian landowners in the region have experienced flooding, yet few are actually engaging in stream management to mitigate flood issues on their land.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D New York City 2018 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report
    AECOM NRG Astoria Replacement Project SPDES Permit Modification Appendix D New York City 2018 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report 60609400 April 2020 New York City 2018 Drinking Water Supply and Quality Report Bill de Blasio Mayor Vincent Sapienza, P.E. Commissioner Tunneling through at Schoharie Reservoir OTSEGO RENSSELAER CHENANGO COUNTY SCHOHARIE COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY ALBANY Oneonta COUNTY Gilboa C D a Catskill/Delaware e t s la k w il a l r e Schoharie S Delhi h Watersheds a Reservoir n d a COLUMBIA k GREENE e COUNTY DELAWARE n COUNTY COUNTY Tu Hunter EW YORK n N s n le e i l M 5 Pepacton MASSACHUSETTS 12 iver Cannonsville Walton Reservoir R Reservoir Downsville Phoenicia Ashokan Esopus Reservoir Deposit Creek West Branch East Delaware T Delaware Kingston We st Delaware East Branch Delaware Tunnel unnel DUTCHESS COUNTY Hudson Neversink CUT Reservoir Rondout ULSTER Reservoir COUNTY Delaware Aqueduct Liberty Poughkeepsie Neversink CONNECTI Tunnel Delaware SULLIVAN s Ellenville e il COUNTY M 0 0 1 Croton C Croton a t PENNSYLVANIA s k Watershed i l l A q r u e v e River i R d Lake Boyds Corner k u Reservoir Gleneida s n le i c Middle i s t M r Branch e 5 v Reservoir 7 e PUTNAM lead Bog Brook N Lake i COUNTY G Reservoir ORANGE East Branch COUNTY Kirk Reservoir West Branch Lake g on Falls Divertin Reservoir Crot rvoir Reservoir Rese s ile Titicus M 0 Amawalk Reservoir 5 New Croton Reservoir Cross River Reservoir Reservoir Croton Water N H Muscoot NEW YORK CITY e Filtration Plant Hillview u w dson Reservoir Reservoir C WATER TUNNELS AND ro WESTCHESTER NY t City o Li NEW YORK COUNTY ne ROCKLAND n Jerome Park DISTRIBUTION AREAS Sound A Reservoir COUNTY NEW JER q R Island u CONNECTICUT i e g v n d e Hudson River Lo uc r SEY Cat/Del t Kensico New Croton Aqueduct BRONX UV Facility Reservoir all) y H Cit m fro White City Tunnel No.
    [Show full text]
  • Trip H: Stratigraphic and Structural Relations Along The
    197 TRIP H: STRATIGRAPHIC AND STRUCTURAL RELATIONS ALONG THE WESTERN BORDER OF THE CORTLANDT INTRUSIVES Nicholas M. Ratcliffe City College of New York INTRODUC TION AND PURPOSE OF TRIP The New York State Geological Association as recently as 1958 dealt spec­ ifically with the problem and areas outlined)I! ..thi~ discussion. Recent discoveries by Hall (1965, and this volume), however, have brought the stratigraphic problems of the New York City Group much more clearly to light and have encouraged re­ evaluation of the field evidence in this critical area. The stratigraphic age and correlation of the rocks surrounding the western edge of the Cortlandt intrusives has been clouded by the personal prejudices of individual workers for many years. Because definitive evidence of a stratigraphic kind is difficult to come by in an area as complexly deformed as this, this corre­ lation problem of regional importance is not resolved at the present time. This trip will focus on one major problem: are the rocks called Manhattan Schist and Inwood Marble south of the Cortlandt intrusives correlative with fossil­ iferous rocks at fomkins Cove and Verplanck Point? Lithic and structural argu­ ments will be presented to support this correlation. As in all metamorphosed areas, we must rely primarily on lithic characteristics and stratigraphic succes­ sion as well as on structural continuity to solve this kind of problem. The answer is to be found in the rocks; all we must do is look for it. The purpose of this field trip is to present new stratigraphic and structural data from the western border of the Cortlandt intrusives.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Management Scenarios in the Croton Watershed
    Evaluating Management Scenarios in the Croton Watershed K Moffett, A Atamian, C How, L Wordsman, K Kane Abstract The Croton Watershed is the oldest portion of New York City’s drinking water supply system and is undergoing continued development. To achieve water quality goals, a GIS-based risk assessment methodology was developed to help the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) optimize watershed management efforts and focus limited resources on critical areas to achieve maximum water quality benefits. The methodology was implemented using GIS raster processing and compiled in a Decision Support Tool (DST) to assist the NYCDEP in evaluating different management alternatives. With this tool, NYCDEP can systematically prioritize its watershed monitoring, protection, and restoration efforts, provide local stakeholders with technical information for their own watershed programs, and track development and mitigation projects in the watershed. Introduction The New York City water supply system provides approximately 1.3 billion gallons of high quality drinking water to almost nine million New Yorkers every day — eight million city residents and a million residents of Westchester, Putnam, Orange and Ulster Counties — plus the millions of tourists and commuters who visit the City throughout the year. The source of this superior water supply is a network of 19 reservoirs in a 1,969 square-mile watershed that extends 125 miles north and west of New York City. Figure 1 New York City Water Supply System The Croton System is the oldest of New York City’s three surface water systems. It supplies approximately 10 percent of New York City’s fresh water from 10 reservoirs and three controlled lakes in Putnam and Westchester Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Philipstown Habitat Summary 2021
    Natural Areas and Wildlife in Your Community A Habitat Summary Prepared for the Town of Philipstown January 2021 This summary was completed to provide information for land-use planning and decision-making as requested by the Town of Philipstown. It identifies significant ecosystems in the town, including streams, forests, wetlands, and other natural areas with important biological values. This summary is based only on existing information available to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and its partners, and, therefore should not be considered a complete inventory. Additional information about habitats in our region can be found in the Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Framework developed by the Hudson River Estuary Program (Penhollow et al. 2006) and in the Biodiversity Assessment Manual for the Hudson River Estuary Corridor developed by Hudsonia and published by NYSDEC (Kiviat and Stevens 2001). Ecosystems of the estuary watershed—wetlands, forests, stream corridors, grasslands, and shrublands— are not only habitat for abundant fish and wildlife, but also support the estuary and provide many vital benefits to human communities. These ecosystems help to keep drinking water and air clean, moderate temperature, filter pollutants, and absorb floodwaters. They also provide opportunity for outdoor recreation and education, and create the scenery and sense of place that is unique to the Hudson Valley. Local land-use planning efforts are instrumental in balancing future development with protection of these resources. By conserving sufficient habitat to support the region’s astonishing diversity of plants and animals, communities can ensure that healthy, resilient ecosystems—and the benefits they provide—are available to future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands in the Watersheds of the New York City Water Supply System Wetland Types
    tl Acknowledgments his booklet is the product of the work photointerpreters, Todd Nuerminger and Jim T of many individuals. Although it has its Bohn. Glenn Smith provided quality control origins with the U .S. Fish and Wildli fe . of the i merpret~ d aerial photographs and Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWJ), assisted in collecting field data on wetland this booklet would not have been produced commUnities. Among dle many other ptlrsons without the support and cooperation fl'o!n the comributing to cllis efliart were Don Woodard New York City Depanment of EnviFonmen­ Linda Shaffer, and Becky Sranley of the Mr. Geoffrey Knapp, New York Service's NWI Center at St. Petersburg, used Florida. in this report. The draft report was reviewed by many We also thank Helen Forgione, Geoffrey people including U .S. Fish and Wildlife Knapp, and Paul J. Fusco for contributed Serv·ice personnel-Doll W00da·rd, Bill photographs. Photo credits are shown for their Wilen. Mark Clough, Dianna -" -...,:r--­ photos. Other photos were taken by the plus NYCbhP Preface his repon is based on a wetlands invenrory of three watershed? Where are wetlands most abundant' What T watersheds of New York City's water supply sys­ types are most common' The inven tory results are tem. This area supplies New York City's 19 upstate presented in a series of large-scale (I :24,000) maps reservoirs. The nearly 2,000-square mile area is divided (identifying the location, type, and shape of werlands inro three reservoir systems. West of the Hudson River, larger than 1-3 acres in size) and this booklet.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Oil Spill Risk Assessment
    Hudson River Oil Spill Risk Assessment Volume 4: Spill Consequences: Trajectory, Fate and Resource Exposure Prepared for Scenic Hudson, Inc. One Civic Center Plaza Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-3157 Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 Deborah French McCay, PhD Jill Rowe and Deborah Crowley RPS 55 Village Square Drive South Kingstown, RI 02879-8248 John Joeckel SEAConsult LLC P. O. Box 243 Wachapreague, VA 23310-0243 Andy Wolford, PhD Risknology, Inc. 3218 Quiet Lake Drive Katy, TX 77450-5721 May 2018 Acknowledgments This project was commissioned by Scenic Hudson, Inc., of Poughkeepsie, New York, under a Professional Services Contract with Environmental Research Consulting (ERC). RPS ASA, SEAConsult LLC, and Risknology, Inc., were all subcontractors to ERC under separate contracts. The HROSRA research team acknowledges the invaluable inputs and discussions with Scenic Hudson over the course of the study period (September 2017 through May 2018), including the selection and development of the hypothetical spill scenarios. The contents of the report, data, analyses, findings, and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the research team and do not constitute any official position by Scenic Hudson. The Hudson River Oil Spill Risk Assessment was conducted as an independent, objective, technical analysis without any particular agenda or viewpoint except to provide quantitative and qualitative information that could be used to work to a common goal of spill prevention and preparedness. The study is intended to inform officials, decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public about oil spill risk in the Hudson River. The diligent efforts of the RPS SIMAP modeling team of Deborah Crowley, Jenna Ducharme, Matt Frediani, Emily Skeehan, and Matt Bernardo provided the necessary data, results, maps, and graphics that formed the foundation of much of the analysis in the HROSRA.
    [Show full text]