DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Flood Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Flood Analysis LOCAL FLOOD ANALYSIS TOWN OF LEXINGTON ALONG SCHOHARIE CREEK AND THE WEST KILL IN THE HAMLETS OF LEXINGTON AND WEST KILL GREENE COUNTY, NEW YORK MAY 2016 MMI #2884‐03 Photo Source: Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (2014) This document was prepared for the Lexington Flood Commission with funding provided by the Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District's Stream Management Program through contract with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Prepared by: MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 231 Main Street, Suite 102 New Paltz, NY 12561 (845) 633‐8153 www.miloneandmacbroom.com Copyright 2016 Milone & MacBroom, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES‐1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Areas .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Nomenclature ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Community Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 Initial Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Field Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Watershed Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Watershed and Stream Characteristics ............................................................................................ 10 2.5 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................... 13 2.6 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................... 14 3.0 FLOODING HAZARDS AND MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 18 3.1 Flood History Along Schoharie Creek and the West Kill.................................................................... 18 3.2 FEMA Mapping .................................................................................................................................. 18 3.3 Tropical Storm Irene ......................................................................................................................... 21 4.0 FLOOD MITIGATION ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 23 4.1 Analysis Approach ............................................................................................................................. 23 4.2 Mitigation Approaches ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Analysis of Flood Mitigation Approaches .......................................................................................... 26 4.4 Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................................. 33 4.5 Property‐Specific Mitigations and Relocations ................................................................................. 36 4.6 Other Flood Concerns ....................................................................................................................... 39 4.7 Limited Stream Stabilization ............................................................................................................. 40 5.0 BENEFIT‐COST ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 41 5.1 Overview of Benefit‐Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................... 41 5.2 BCA Results ......................................................................................................................................... 42 6.0 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................ 47 6.1 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................................... 47 6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 47 6.3 Implementation Plan .......................................................................................................................... 49 6.4 Descriptions of Funding Sources ........................................................................................................ 51 6.5 Potential Funding Sources for Mitigation Projects ............................................................................ 54 7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 57 LOCAL FLOOD ANALYSIS TOWN OF LEXINGTON, GREENE COUNTY, NEW YORK MAY 2016 TC ‐ i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page LIST OF TABLES Table ES‐1 Lexington Flood Mitigation Alternatives ........................................................................ ES‐2 Table ES‐2 Potential Funding Sources for Components of Mitigation Projects in Lexington Hamlet ............................................................................................................................ ES‐4 Table ES‐3 Potential Funding Sources for Mitigation Projects in West Hill Hamlet ......................... ES‐5 Table 2‐1 Bridge Crossings ................................................................................................................. 13 Table 2‐2 USGS Gauging Stations ...................................................................................................... 15 Table 2‐3 FEMA Peak Discharges ....................................................................................................... 15 Table 2‐4 StreamStats Peak Discharges ............................................................................................ 16 Table 2‐5 Estimated Bankfull Discharge, Width, and Depth ............................................................. 17 Table 4‐1 Flood Mitigation Alternatives – Study Area A – West Kill Hamlet .................................... 28 Table 4‐2 Flood Mitigation Alternatives – Study Area B Lexington Hamlet ..................................... 30 Table 4‐3 Alternative B‐1 Water Surface Elevation Reductions ........................................................ 33 Table 4‐4 Alternative B‐5a Water Surface Elevation Reductions ...................................................... 34 Table 4‐5 Combination of Alternatives B‐1 and B‐5a Water Surface Elevation Reductions ............. 35 Table 4‐6 Alternative B‐6b Water Surface Elevation Reductions ...................................................... 35 Table 4‐7 Combination of Alternatives B‐1 and B‐6b Water Surface Elevation Reductions ............. 36 Table 5‐1 Alternative B‐1 Benefit‐Cost Analysis ................................................................................ 42 Table 5‐2 Alternative B‐5a Benefit‐Cost Analysis .............................................................................. 43 Table 5‐3 Combination of Alternatives B‐1 and B‐5a Benefit‐Cost Analysis ..................................... 43 Table 5‐4 Alternative B‐6b Benefit‐Cost Analysis .............................................................................. 44 Table 5‐5 Combination of Alternatives B‐1 and B‐6b Benefit‐Cost Analysis ..................................... 45 Table 5‐6 Comparison of Benefits ‐ Bridge Replacement and Right Floodplain .............................. 45 Table 5‐7 Comparison of Benefits ‐ Bridge Replacement and Left Floodplain .................................. 46 Table 6‐1 Potential Funding Sources for Components of Mitigation Projects in Lexington Hamlet 54 Table 6‐2 Potential Funding Sources for Mitigation Projects in West Kill Hamlet ............................ 55 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1‐1 Study Area A ........................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 1‐2 Study Area B ........................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2‐1 Watershed Map ................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2‐2 Schoharie Creek Channel Profile ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 2‐3 West Kill Channel Profile .................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3‐1 Floodplain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mohawk River Watershed – HUC-12
    ID Number Name of Mohawk Watershed 1 Switz Kill 2 Flat Creek 3 Headwaters West Creek 4 Kayaderosseras Creek 5 Little Schoharie Creek 6 Headwaters Mohawk River 7 Headwaters Cayadutta Creek 8 Lansing Kill 9 North Creek 10 Little West Kill 11 Irish Creek 12 Auries Creek 13 Panther Creek 14 Hinckley Reservoir 15 Nowadaga Creek 16 Wheelers Creek 17 Middle Canajoharie Creek 18 Honnedaga 19 Roberts Creek 20 Headwaters Otsquago Creek 21 Mill Creek 22 Lewis Creek 23 Upper East Canada Creek 24 Shakers Creek 25 King Creek 26 Crane Creek 27 South Chuctanunda Creek 28 Middle Sprite Creek 29 Crum Creek 30 Upper Canajoharie Creek 31 Manor Kill 32 Vly Brook 33 West Kill 34 Headwaters Batavia Kill 35 Headwaters Flat Creek 36 Sterling Creek 37 Lower Ninemile Creek 38 Moyer Creek 39 Sixmile Creek 40 Cincinnati Creek 41 Reall Creek 42 Fourmile Brook 43 Poentic Kill 44 Wilsey Creek 45 Lower East Canada Creek 46 Middle Ninemile Creek 47 Gooseberry Creek 48 Mother Creek 49 Mud Creek 50 North Chuctanunda Creek 51 Wharton Hollow Creek 52 Wells Creek 53 Sandsea Kill 54 Middle East Canada Creek 55 Beaver Brook 56 Ferguson Creek 57 West Creek 58 Fort Plain 59 Ox Kill 60 Huntersfield Creek 61 Platter Kill 62 Headwaters Oriskany Creek 63 West Kill 64 Headwaters South Branch West Canada Creek 65 Fly Creek 66 Headwaters Alplaus Kill 67 Punch Kill 68 Schenevus Creek 69 Deans Creek 70 Evas Kill 71 Cripplebush Creek 72 Zimmerman Creek 73 Big Brook 74 North Creek 75 Upper Ninemile Creek 76 Yatesville Creek 77 Concklin Brook 78 Peck Lake-Caroga Creek 79 Metcalf Brook 80 Indian
    [Show full text]
  • 113 Hudson River Basin 01350101 Schoharie Creek At
    HUDSON RIVER BASIN 113 01350101 SCHOHARIE CREEK AT GILBOA, NY LOCATION.--Lat 42°23'50", long 74°27'03", Schoharie County, Hydrologic Unit 02020005, on left bank 200 ft upstream from bridge on County Highway 322, 0.2 mi west of village of Gilboa, 0.4 mi downstream from dam on Schoharie Reservoir, and 0.8 mi upstream from the Platter Kill. DRAINAGE AREA.--316 mi2. PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1975 to current year (since October 1983, discharges only for days of Schoharie Reservoir spill and since October 1989, discharges only for days of mean flow exceeding 10 ft3/s). REVISED RECORDS.--WDR NY-90-1: Drainage area. GAGE.--Water-stage recorder and crest-stage gage. Datum of gage is 939.56 ft above NGVD of 1929. REMARKS.--Records fair except those for estimated daily discharges, which are poor. Entire flow, runoff from 315 mi2, except for periods of spill, diverted from Schoharie Reservoir through Shandaken Tunnel into Esopus Creek upstream from Ashokan Reservoir for water supply of city of New York. Satellite gage-height telemeter at station. EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.--Maximum discharge, 70,800 ft3/s, Jan. 19, 1996, gage height, 30.60 ft, outside gage height, 32.2 ft, from floodmark, from rating curve extended above 14,000 ft3/s on basis of flow-over-dam measurement of peak flow; minimum daily discharge, 0.04 ft3/s on many days, June to October 1976, and Sept. 11-13, 1980, but may have been lower since October 1983 (see PERIOD OF RECORD); minimum instantaneous discharge not determined.
    [Show full text]
  • SUNY Albany Concept Plan
    1 Schoharie Creek Trail Concept Plan 1 1 Prepared for Schoharie Area Long Term, Inc. (SALT) Prepared by University at Albany Graduate Planning Studio Spring 2016 Graduate Planning Studio Students Abdullah Alhemyari Kyle Hatch Jamie Konkoski Katie O’Sullivan Matthew Rosenbloom-Jones Schoharie Creek Trail Concept Plan 2 2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3 II. Project Context ....................................................................................................................... 5 III. Trail Benefits Analysis ............................................................................................................. 8 IV. Vision Concept ........................................................................................................................ 9 V. Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 30 VI. Sources .................................................................................................................................. 31 VII. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX A: Existing Conditions Report .................................................................................. 34 APPENDIX B: Data Sources and Analysis Methods ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory, Classification and Description of Riparian Natural
    INVENTORY, CLASSIFICATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF RIPARIAN NATURAL COMMUNITY REFERENCE TYPES FOR WEST KILL WATERSHED, NEW YORK REVISED FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2009 Prepared for Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District and NYC DEP Stream Management Program NNeeww YYoorrkk NNaattuurraall HHeerriittaaggee PPrrooggrraamm A Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, NY 12233-4757 (518) 402-8935 Fax (518) 402-8925 www.nynhp.org INVENTORY, CLASSIFICATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF RIPARIAN NATURAL COMMUNITY REFERENCE TYPES FOR WEST KILL WATERSHED, NEW YORK FINAL REVISED TECHNICAL REPORT Frederick C. Sechler, Jr. New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor Albany, New York 12233-4757 Cover photo: Cobble Shore Community Carex torta - Apocynum cannabinum - Cyperus spp. herbaceous vegetation (CEGL006536) (Plot WK19A) along West Kill main stem Photograph by: Frederick C. Sechler, NYNHP Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District 907 County Office Building, Cairo, NY 12413 NYC DEP Stream Management Program 71 Smith Avenue, Kingston, NY 12401 The New York Natural Heritage Program is a partnership between NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and The Nature Conservancy. The program's mission is to facilitate the conservation of New York‟s biodiversity by providing comprehensive information and scientific expertise on rare species and natural ecosystems to resource managers and other conservation partners. i Table of Contents TABLE
    [Show full text]
  • Explore Data from Each Sampling Site, Year-To-Year Patterns
    Mohawk River: % Samples Achieving EPA Safe Swimming Guideline Samples collected and processed by SUNY Cobleskill, SUNY Polytechnic and Riverkeeper. Results are based on 11-32 samples per site, collected from May-October, 2015-2019. EPA's recommended Beach Action Value (BAV) is a guideline for day-to-day beach management. Rome- Delta Lake outlet 4% 96% Rome- Barge Canal at city boat ramp 33% 67% Rome- Bellamy Harbor Park 44% 56% Whitestown- Route 32 Bridge 54% 46% Oriskany- Oriskany Creek tributary* 59% 41% Utica- Barge Canal at Historic Utica Marina 31% 69% Utica- Reall Creek tributary* 83% 17% Utica- Park & Ride fishing access 69% 31% Frankfort- Dyke Road Bridge 76% 24% Schuyler- Frankfort Harbor* 79% 21% Schuyler- Moyers Creek tributary* 83% 17% Ilion boat launch* 67% 33% Herkimer- Gems Along the Mohawk kayak launch 57% 43% Herkimer- I-90 bridge*** 64% 36% Herkimer- Fishing access at STP 75% 25% Herkimer- West Canada Creek at East German St. Ext 68% 32% German Flatts- Barge Canal at Lock 18 25% 75% Little Falls- Canal Harbor boat launch at Rotary Park 36% 64% Manheim- East Canada Creek at Route 5 Bridge 54% 46% Minden- Barge Canal at Lock 16 19% 81% Fort Plain- Lock 15 kayak launch 52% 48% Canajoharie- DEC boat launch at Route 10 37% 63% Glen- Riverside Drive kayak access 42% 58% % Beach Advisory (>60 cells/100 mL) % Acceptable (0-60 cells/100 mL) Sampling began in *2016, **2017, ***2018 2/25/20 Mohawk River: % Samples Achieving EPA Safe Swimming Guideline Samples collected and processed by SUNY Cobleskill, SUNY Polytechnic and Riverkeeper.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashokan Watershed Adventure Guide
    ASHOKAN WATERSHED ADVENTURE GUIDE A Self-Guided Tour of the Ashokan Landscape for All Ages #AshokanWatershedAdventure AWSMP Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program The Ashokan Watershed Adventure is sponsored by: AWSMP Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program Cornell Cooperative Extension Ulster County AWSMP Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program About the Ashokan Watershed Adventure The Ashokan Watershed Adventure is a self-guided tour of the AshokanAshokan landscape Watershed for all ages. Adventurers explore the Ashokan Reservoir watershed at theirSt rowneam Managementpace and earn Program prizes based on the number of Adventure Stops visited. From the humble headwaters of the Stony Clove Creek to the shores of the mighty Ashokan Reservoir, Adventurers will experience the landscape like never before. Adventure Stops have been thoughtfully curated by Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program (AWSMP) staff to highlight some of the most interesting and beautiful places in the watershed. Grab your friends and family or head out on your very own Ashokan Watershed Adventure! How it works Pre-adventure planning There are 11 Ashokan Watershed Adventure Stops. Visit as As with any adventure into the wild lands of the Catskill many as you can to earn a prize. Adventure stops can be Mountains, planning is a very important part of having a fun visited in any order. Each stop has a chapter in the Adventure and safe experience. Guide that includes the site name and location, geographic coordinates, directions and parking instructions, safety guide- 3Cell phone service is limited to non-existent. We lines, and an educational message to inform Adventurers recommend downloading a map of the area to your phone about the unique aspects of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Fishing: a Driver for Ecotourism
    New York FRESHWATER April 2019 FISHINGDigest Fishing: A Sport For Everyone NY Fishing 101 page 10 A Female's Guide to Fishing page 30 A summary of 2019–2020 regulations and useful information for New York anglers www.dec.ny.gov Message from the Governor Freshwater Fishing: A Driver for Ecotourism New York State is committed to increasing and supporting a wide array of ecotourism initiatives, including freshwater fishing. Our approach is simple—we are strengthening our commitment to protect New York State’s vast natural resources while seeking compelling ways for people to enjoy the great outdoors in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. The result is sustainable economic activity based on a sincere appreciation of our state’s natural resources and the values they provide. We invite New Yorkers and visitors alike to enjoy our high-quality water resources. New York is blessed with fisheries resources across the state. Every day, we manage and protect these fisheries with an eye to the future. To date, New York has made substantial investments in our fishing access sites to ensure that boaters and anglers have safe and well-maintained parking areas, access points, and boat launch sites. In addition, we are currently investing an additional $3.2 million in waterway access in 2019, including: • New or renovated boat launch sites on Cayuga, Oneida, and Otisco lakes • Upgrades to existing launch sites on Cranberry Lake, Delaware River, Lake Placid, Lake Champlain, Lake Ontario, Chautauqua Lake and Fourth Lake. New York continues to improve and modernize our fish hatcheries. As Governor, I have committed $17 million to hatchery improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Lexington Draft Long Term Community Recovery Strategy
    Town of Lexington Draft Long Term Community Recovery Strategy September 2014 i This page intentionally left blank ii Acknowledgements Town of Lexington Town Board Dixie Baldrey, Supervisor Jo Ellen Schermerhorn William Pushman Michael Barcone Bradley Jenkins Long Term Community Recovery Strategy Steering Committee Dixie Baldrey Mary Palazzolo Lynn Byrne Joe Cuesta Karen Deeter Bonnie Blader Beverly Dezan Adam Cross Alice M. Cross Rose Williams Andy Labruzzo, NYS Department of State Consultants Nan Stolzenburg, AICP CEP, Community Planning & Environmental Associates Don Meltz, AICP, Don Meltz Planning & GIS Ellen Pemrick, E.M. Pemrick & Company Ben Syden, Laberge Group Adam Yagelski, Community Planning & Environmental Associates This Plan was prepared for the New York State Department of State with funds provided under Title 3 of the Environmental Protection Fund Act. iii Table of Contents List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction and Flood Event Background ..................................................................... 7 Flooding From Hurricane Irene .................................................................................................... 8 The Planning Process ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Ddt, Chlordane, and Total Pcb's in Bed Sediments in the Hudson River Basin
    NYES&E, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1997 DISTRIBUTION OF DDT, CHLORDANE, AND TOTAL PCB'S IN BED SEDIMENTS IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN Patrick J. Phillips1, Karen Riva-Murray1, Hannah M. Hollister2, and Elizabeth A. Flanary1. 1U.S. Geological Survey, 425 Jordan Road, Troy NY 12180. 2Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Troy NY 12180. Abstract Data from streambed-sediment samples collected from 45 sites in the Hudson River Basin and analyzed for organochlorine compounds indicate that residues of DDT, chlordane, and PCB's can be detected even though use of these compounds has been banned for 10 or more years. Previous studies indicate that DDT and chlordane were widely used in a variety of land use settings in the basin, whereas PCB's were introduced into Hudson and Mohawk Rivers mostly as point discharges at a few locations. Detection limits for DDT and chlordane residues in this study were generally 1 µg/kg, and that for total PCB's was 50 µg/kg. Some form of DDT was detected in more than 60 percent of the samples, and some form of chlordane was found in about 30 percent; PCB's were found in about 33 percent of the samples. Median concentrations for p,p’- DDE (the DDT residue with the highest concentration) were highest in samples from sites representing urban areas (median concentration 5.3 µg/kg) and lower in samples from sites in large watersheds (1.25 µg/kg) and at sites in nonurban watersheds. (Urban watershed were defined as those with a population density of more than 60/km2; nonurban watersheds as those with a population density of less than 60/km2, and large watersheds as those encompassing more than 1,300 km2.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Fishing Rights Maps: West Kill
    Public Fishing Rights Maps West Kill Fish Species Present About Public Fishing Rights Brown Trout Public Fishing Rights (PFR’s) are permanent easements purchased by the NYSDEC from will- ing landowners, giving anglers the right to fish Rainbow Trout and walk along the bank (usually a 33’ strip on one or both banks of the stream). This right is for the purpose of fishing only and no other purpose. Treat the land with respect to insure the continua- Brook Trout tion of this right and privilege. Fishing privileges may be available on some other private lands with permission of the land owner. Courtesy toward the land-owner and respect for their property will insure their continued use. Description of Fishery These generalized location maps are intended to The West Kill flows for 11 miles before entering aid anglers in finding PFR segments and are not Schoharie Creek just below the village of Lexing- survey quality. Width of displayed PFR may be ton. Wild trout are found throughout the stream, wider than reality to make it more visible on the but they are most abundant in the upper 8 miles. maps. Please look for this PFR sign to ensure that Wild brown trout can be found in all sections of the you are in the right location and have legal access stream, but rainbow trout are found mostly in the to the stream bank. lower reaches, and brook trout numbers increase as one heads upstream. In addition, approximately 700 yearling brown trout are stocked in the lower 3 miles of stream.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.3 Physical Geography of the Schoharie Watershed
    2.3 Physical Geography of the Schoharie Watershed Physical geography encompasses the physical elements and processes that comprise the earth's surface features and associated processes. These processes include: energy, air, water, weather, climate, landforms, soils, animals, plants, and the Earth itself. The study of physical geography attempts to explain the geographic patterns of climate, vegetation, soils, hydrology, and landforms, and the physical environments that result from Hunter (Colonel's Chair) Mountain with the East Kill/Batavia Kill valley divide in background. their interactions. The Schoharie watershed is located in the Appalachian Plateau physiographic province (Figure 2.3.1). The erosional characteristics of the sedimentary rock formations of the Appalachian Mountains are responsible for the characteristic valley and ridge topography of the Catskills. Durable layers of sandstone and conglomerate form ridges and less resistant limestone and shale underlie the Schoharie valley as it winds its way to the Mohawk River. During the height of glaciations, the Schoharie watershed was covered by an ice sheet up to a mile thick. Upon retreat, these ice sheets left a layer of unsorted and unconsolidated glacial debris, glacial till, ranging from clay particles to huge boulders. Following the retreat of the ice sheet, the landscape was covered with glacial tills and bedrock and was wiped clean of plants and animals, leaving a clean slate for the migration and colonization of the modern plant and animal communities. Today, the Schoharie watershed lies within the Northeastern Highlands ecoregion. This ecoregion is characterized by nutrient poor soils blanketed by northern hardwood and spruce fir forests. Figure 2.3.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 26 , Number 2
    The hudson RIVeR Valley ReVIew A Journal of Regional Studies HRVR26_2.indd 1 5/4/10 10:45 AM Publisher Thomas s. wermuth, Vice President for academic affairs, Marist College Editors Christopher Pryslopski, Program director, hudson River Valley Institute, Marist College Reed sparling, writer, scenic hudson Editorial Board Art Director Myra young armstead, Professor of history, Richard deon Bard College Business Manager Col. lance Betros, Professor and head, andrew Villani department of history, u.s. Military academy at west Point The Hudson River Valley Review (Issn 1546-3486) is published twice Kim Bridgford, Professor of english, a year by the hudson River Valley Fairfield university Institute at Marist College. Michael Groth, Professor of history, wells College James M. Johnson, Executive Director susan Ingalls lewis, assistant Professor of history, state university of new york at new Paltz Research Assistants sarah olson, superintendent, Roosevelt- Gail Goldsmith Vanderbilt national historic sites elizabeth Vickind Roger Panetta, Professor of history, Hudson River Valley Institute Fordham university Advisory Board h. daniel Peck, Professor of english, Todd Brinckerhoff, Chair Vassar College Peter Bienstock, Vice Chair Robyn l. Rosen, Professor of history, dr. Frank Bumpus Marist College Frank J. doherty david schuyler, Professor of american studies, shirley handel Franklin & Marshall College Marjorie hart Maureen Kangas Thomas s. wermuth, Vice President of academic Barnabas Mchenry affairs, Marist College, Chair alex Reese david woolner,
    [Show full text]