WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ASSESSMENT OF SUB-WATERSHEDS Win McIntyre and Dave Mosher Mohawk River Watershed Coalition of Conservation Districts

MOHAWK RIVER WATERSHED COALITION ASSESSMENT RESULTS Low Scoring Sub-Watersheds, Cont.

The Mohawk River Watershed The assessment scores have Sources of pollution to low scoring sub-watersheds: Coalition is comprised of Soil and been consolidated at the 10- ■ 33 municipal wastewater plants (40% of total in Mohawk WS) Water Conservation Districts from digit HUC level. The following ■ Two EPA Superfund sites the following counties: Albany, map shows the relative total ■ 16 "brownfield" sites in the Utica/Rome area Delaware, Fulton, Green, Hamilton, assessment scores for the 18 ■ High non-point source pollution from agriculture and developed areas Herkimer, Lewis, Madison, 10-digit HUC's in the Mohawk

Montgomery, Oneida, Otsego, River watershed, with the Recommendations to Restore Watershed Health: Agricultural Areas Developed Areas Other Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie • Implement storm water high-scoring healthy sub-watersheds light-shaded, low-scoring • Restore/increase riparian buffer • Reduce streambank erosion management plans for MS4 zones. through natural stream design. unhealthy sub-watersheds dark-shaded, and the mid-scoring sub- communities. ASSESSMENT REPORTS • Implement green infrastructure • Address failing septic systems • Restrict animal access to streams. initiatives in cities (Utica, Rome). near streams and lakes. watersheds medium-shaded. • Encourage forest management Watershed assessments for the Mohawk River watershed were done • Restore wetlands. • Preserve green space. planning. • Continue to address Superfund at the 12-digit HUC level (116 in the watershed). Each assessment • Continue AEM programs. • Restore brownfield sites. To reflect the wide ranging site issues (e.g. Griffiss AFB). • Expand nutrient management • Improve DPW sand and salt included the following and will factor into a characterization report • Continue to address CSO issue. diversity in the watershed, three programs. storage facilities. • Promote prescribed grazing. • Encourage "smart growth". • Protect drinking water supplies. as a part of the Watershed Management Plan: • Improve animal feeding and • Protect wetlands and wildlife geographic regions have been • Increase pervious surfaces. waste operations. management areas. Analysis of Assessment Scores • Ensure that SPDES permits are ■ established along 10-digit HUC • Implement soil erosion BMP's. being complied with. Field Observations and Photo-Documentation boundaries. As shown by the • Promote tertiary treatment to ■ remove phosphorus at WWTP's. • Address Section 303(d) issues. ■ Recommendations for Restoration and/or Protection following map, the regions are ■ Summary Narrative Upper Mohawk, Main River, and High Scoring Sub-Watersheds The adjacent is an example of an Schoharie Watershed. UPPER MOHAWK: Middle (87.5) Water Region/Sub- Land Use Habitat Total Upper West Canada Creek (90) These sub-watersheds are located in assessment report done for the 12- Quality watershed Score Score Score digit HUC "Lower Canajoharie Score the northern and southern uplands of The adjacent table summarizes the UPPER MOHAWK MAIN RIVER: (94) Creek", which drains to the 24 30 13 67 the Mohawk River watershed, which Ninemile Creek 22 34.5 12 68.5 SCHOHARIE WS: (85.5) Mohawk River at Canajoharie, NY. assessment scoring results for the 24 34.5 14 72.5 (87) include the and the The analysis, which is shown on Lower W. Canada Ck. 26 34.4 14 74.5 Delta Reservoir 28 36 18 82 Panther Creek (88.5) the page "Watershed Assessment 10-digit HUC's, grouped by region. Middle W. Canada Ck. 30 40.5 26 87.5 Catskills, respectively. Upper W. Canada Ck. 26 48 16 90 Scores", uses data from the GIS MAIN RIVER ■ Low-Scoring: 62 - 72.5 18 33 11 62 web map. To further understand 22 34.5 15 71.5 the scores, additional maps can be 24 34.5 15 73.5 Characteristics of High Scoring Sub-Watersheds: ■ Mid-Scoring: 73 - 83.5 Fly Creek 24 36 18 78 used. For example, a low score East Canada Creek 32 42 20 94 Water Quality Land Use Habitat under Water Quality for "% SCHOHARIE WS ■ High-Scoring: 84 - 94 22 33 13 68 • Impact of acid rain in • Low percent agricultural • Low pH affecting aquatic Impaired" could be analyzed for Batavia Kill 26 42 13 81 Fox Creek 28 36 18 82 Adirondack Park land use life in Adirondack Park what uses are impaired by looking West Kill 30 37.5 18 85.5 • High percent • Low population density • Relatively high in fish East Kill 28 45 14 87 at the map layer "PWL Stream Panther Creek 28 40.5 20 88.5 wetland/forest and riparian and small communities species intolerant to Impairment." cover pollution Low Scoring Sub-Watersheds • Very good water quality, • Low commercial • Healthy in-stream habitat with low percent development

UPPER MOHAWK: Oriskany Creek (67) These six sub-watersheds are mainly impairment Ninemile Creek (68.5) Nowadaga Creek (72.5) located in the lowlands along the Sources of pollution MAIN RIVER: Cayadutta Creek (62) Mohawk River. The Cobleskill Creek sub- Canajoharie Creek (71.5) watershed is adjacent to and south of to high scoring sub- Recommendations to Protect

SCHOHARIE WS: Cobleskill Creek (68) watersheds: Watershed Health: Canajoharie and Cayadutta Creek.

Only 13 municipal Developed Areas Other ■ • Address failing septic systems • Reduce streambank erosion Characteristics of Low Scoring Sub-Watersheds: wastewater plants (16% along streams and lakes. through natural stream design. • Manage stormwater in developed • Enhance in-stream habitat. Water Quality Land Use Habitat of total in Mohawk WS) areas. • Poor water quality as • Ninemile Creek and • Fish intolerant to • Protect forest riparian buffers and measured by the percent Oriskany Creek encompass pollution, like trout, below a ■ No brownfield or EPA wetlands. • Manage timber harvesting. impairment per the WI/PWL the cities of Utica and Rome healthy level Superfund sites • Seed drainage ditches to prevent Scoring Categories: • Ten waterbody segments • Nowadaga Creek, • Many streams with ■ Low non-point source erosion. Low Scoring Medium Scoring High Scoring on DEC's 2012 Section Canajoharie Creek, and impaired aquatic life • Quantify impacts of hydrologic Poor Water Quality Combination of high and low Good to excellent water quality 303(d) list Cayadutta Creek include pollution (low impacts (varying flows) from Impaired benthic habitat scoring Healthy benthic habitat many river communities. reservoirs. Low percentage of wooded cover High percentage of wooded and/or riparian agriculture and • Restore natural floodplains. • High agricultural and/or • Manage invasive species. Low percentage of riparian cover Low % of agricultural and/or developed high development land use development and high High agricultural land use, and/or • High livestock density for High degree of development forest cover agricultural areas

This project was funded by the State Department of State under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund