Mohawk Subwatershed Assessments

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Mohawk Subwatershed Assessments MOHAWK RIVER 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 Upper Mohawk, Main River, and High Scoring Sub-Watersheds ■ Summary Narrative The adjacent is an example of an Schoharie Watershed. UPPER MOHAWK: Middle West Canada Creek (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: East Canada Creek (94) Creek", which drains to the Oriskany Creek 24 30 13 67 the Mohawk River watershed, which Ninemile Creek 22 34.5 12 68.5 SCHOHARIE WS: West Kill (85.5) Mohawk River at Canajoharie, NY. assessment scoring results for the Nowadaga Creek 24 34.5 14 72.5 East Kill (87) include the Adirondack Park 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 Cayadutta Creek 18 33 11 62 web map. To further understand Canajoharie Creek 22 34.5 15 71.5 the scores, additional maps can be Alplaus Kill 24 34.5 15 73.5 Characteristics of High Scoring Sub-Watersheds: Fly Creek 24 36 18 78 ■ Mid-Scoring: 73 - 83.5 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 Cobleskill Creek 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) to high scoring sub- watershed is adjacent to and south of Recommendations to Protect SCHOHARIE WS: Cobleskill Creek (68) Canajoharie and Cayadutta Creek. watersheds: Watershed Health: 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 Scoring Categories: • Seed drainage ditches to prevent • 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 reservoirs. many river communities. 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 New York State Department of State under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund .
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]
  • NENHC 2008 Abstracts
    Abstracts APRIL 17 – APRIL 18, 2008 A FORUM FOR CURRENT RESEARCH The Northeastern Naturalist The New York State Museum is a program of The University of the State of New York/The State Education Department APRIL 17 – APRIL 18, 2008 A FORUM FOR CURRENT RESEARCH SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CITING ABSTRACTS: Abstracts Northeast Natural History Conference X. N.Y. State Mus. Circ. 71: page number(s). 2008. ISBN: 1-55557-246-4 The University of the State of New York THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ALBANY, NY 12230 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Regents of The University ROBERT M. BENNETT, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. ................................................................. Tonawanda MERRYL H. TISCH, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ................................................. New York SAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.................................................................................. New Rochelle JAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. .................................................................. Peru ANTHONY S. BOTTAR, B.A., J.D. ..................................................................................... Syracuse GERALDINE D. CHAPEY, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ................................................................... Belle Harbor ARNOLD B. GARDNER, B.A., LL.B. .................................................................................. Buffalo HARRY PHILLIPS, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ............................................................................. Hartsdale JOSEPH E. BOWMAN, JR., B.A.,
    [Show full text]
  • Progress of Stream Measurements
    Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 125 Series P, Hydrographic Progress Reports, 30 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR REPORT PROGRESS OF STREAM MEASUREMENTS THE CALENDAR YEAR 1904 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF F. H. NEWELL BY R. E. HORTON, N. C. GROVER, and JOHN C. HOYT PART II. Hudson, Passaic, Raritan, and Delaware River Drainages WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 125 Series P, Hydrographic Progress Reports, 30 i DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR REPORT PROGRESS OF STREAM MEASUREMENTS THE CALENDAR YEAR 1904 PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF F. H. NEWELL BY R. E. HORTON, N. C. GROVER, and JOHN C. HOYT PART II. Hudson, Passaic, Raritan, and Delaware River Drainages WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1905 CONTENTS. Letter of transmittal...................................................... 7 Introduction............................................................. 9 Cooperation and acknowledgments ...... ...^.............................. 18 Hudson Eiver drainage basin. ............................................ 19 Hudson Eiver at Fort Edward, N. Y .............................. 19 Hudson Eiver at Mechanicsville, N. Y............................. 22 Indian Eiver at Indian Lake, Hamilton County, N. Y.............. 24 Hoosic Eiver at Buskirk, N. Y .................................... 24 Mohawk River at Little Falls, N. Y................................ 26 Mohawk Eiver at Dunsbach Ferry Bridge, N. Y.................... 29 Oriskany Creek near Oriskany, N. Y .............................. 32 Starch Factory Creek near New Hartford, N. Y.................... 35 Sylvan Glen Creek near New Hartford, N. Y....................... 37 Graefenberg Creek near New Hartford, N. Y....................... 39 Eeels Creek and Johnston Brook near Deer-field, N. Y.............. 41 Nail Creek at Utica, N. Y......................................... 45 West Canada Creek at Twin Eock Bridge, N. Y...................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • NY Excluding Long Island 2017
    DISCONTINUED SURFACE-WATER DISCHARGE OR STAGE-ONLY STATIONS The following continuous-record surface-water discharge or stage-only stations (gaging stations) in eastern New York excluding Long Island have been discontinued. Daily streamflow or stage records were collected and published for the period of record, expressed in water years, shown for each station. Those stations with an asterisk (*) before the station number are currently operated as crest-stage partial-record station and those with a double asterisk (**) after the station name had revisions published after the site was discontinued. Those stations with a (‡) following the Period of Record have no winter record. [Letters after station name designate type of data collected: (d) discharge, (e) elevation, (g) gage height] Period of Station Drainage record Station name number area (mi2) (water years) HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN Tenmile River near Wassaic, NY (d) 01199420 120 1959-61 Swamp River near Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199490 46.6 1961-68 Tenmile River at Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199500 189 1901-04 BLIND BROOK BASIN Blind Brook at Rye, NY (d) 01300000 8.86 1944-89 BEAVER SWAMP BROOK BASIN Beaver Swamp Brook at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01300500 4.42 1944-89 MAMARONECK RIVER BASIN Mamaroneck River at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01301000 23.1 1944-89 BRONX RIVER BASIN Bronx River at Bronxville, NY (d) 01302000 26.5 1944-89 HUDSON RIVER BASIN Opalescent River near Tahawus, NY (d) 01311900 9.02 1921-23 Fishing Brook (County Line Flow Outlet) near Newcomb, NY (d) 0131199050 25.2 2007-10 Arbutus Pond Outlet
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications
    Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Waterbody Type Segment ID Waterbody Index Number (WIN) Streams 0202-0047 Pa-63-30 Streams 0202-0048 Pa-63-33 Streams 0801-0419 Ont 19- 94- 1-P922- Streams 0201-0034 Pa-53-21 Streams 0801-0422 Ont 19- 98 Streams 0801-0423 Ont 19- 99 Streams 0801-0424 Ont 19-103 Streams 0801-0429 Ont 19-104- 3 Streams 0801-0442 Ont 19-105 thru 112 Streams 0801-0445 Ont 19-114 Streams 0801-0447 Ont 19-119 Streams 0801-0452 Ont 19-P1007- Streams 1001-0017 C- 86 Streams 1001-0018 C- 5 thru 13 Streams 1001-0019 C- 14 Streams 1001-0022 C- 57 thru 95 (selected) Streams 1001-0023 C- 73 Streams 1001-0024 C- 80 Streams 1001-0025 C- 86-3 Streams 1001-0026 C- 86-5 Page 1 of 464 09/28/2021 Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Name Description Clear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Mud Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to Long Lake total length of all tribs to lake Little Valley Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Elkdale Kents Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Crystal Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Forestport Alder Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Bear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Minor Tribs to Kayuta Lake total length of select tribs to the lake Little Black Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Wheelertown Twin Lakes Stream and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to North Lake total length of all tribs to lake Mill Brook and minor tribs entire stream and selected tribs Riley Brook
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Department of State
    November 25, 2020 DEPARTMENT OF STATE Vol. XLII Division of Administrative Rules Issue 47 NEW YORK STATE REGISTER INSIDE THIS ISSUE: D Inland Trout Stream Fishing Regulations D Minimum Standards for Form, Content, and Sale of Health Insurance, Including Standards of Full and Fair Disclosure D Surge and Flex Health Coordination System Availability of State and Federal Funds Executive Orders Financial Reports State agencies must specify in each notice which proposes a rule the last date on which they will accept public comment. Agencies must always accept public comment: for a minimum of 60 days following publication in the Register of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, or a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Proposed Rule Making; and for 45 days after publication of a Notice of Revised Rule Making, or a Notice of Emergency Adoption and Revised Rule Making in the Register. When a public hearing is required by statute, the hearing cannot be held until 60 days after publication of the notice, and comments must be accepted for at least 5 days after the last required hearing. When the public comment period ends on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, agencies must accept comment through the close of business on the next succeeding workday. For notices published in this issue: – the 60-day period expires on January 24, 2021 – the 45-day period expires on January 9, 2021 – the 30-day period expires on December 5, 2020 ANDREW M. CUOMO GOVERNOR ROSSANA ROSADO SECRETARY OF STATE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE For press and media inquiries call: (518) 474-0050 For State Register production, scheduling and subscription information call: (518) 474-6957 E-mail: [email protected] For legal assistance with State Register filing requirements call: (518) 474-6740 E-mail: [email protected] The New York State Register is now available on-line at: www.dos.ny.gov/info/register.htm The New York State Register (ISSN 0197 2472) is published weekly.
    [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]
  • The New York State Flood of July 1935
    Please do not destroy or throw away this publication. If you have no further use for it write to the Geological Survey at Washington and ask for a frank to return it UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 773 E THE NEW YORK STATE FLOOD OF JULY 1935 BY HOLLISTER JOHNSON Prepared in cooperation with the Water Power and Control Commission of the Conservation Department and the Department of Public Works, State of New York Contributions to the hydrology of the United States, 1936 (Pages 233-268) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1936 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. -------- Price 15 cents CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................... 233 Acknowledgments...................................................... 234 Rainfall,............................................................ 235 Causes.......................................................... 235 General features................................................ 236 Rainfall records................................................ 237 Flood discharges..................................................... 246 General features................................................ 246 Field work...................................................... 249 Office preparation of field data................................ 250 Assumptions and computations.................................... 251 Flood-discharge records........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Before Albany
    Before Albany THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Regents of the University ROBERT M. BENNETT, Chancellor, B.A., M.S. ...................................................... Tonawanda MERRYL H. TISCH, Vice Chancellor, B.A., M.A. Ed.D. ........................................ New York SAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. ................................................................... New Rochelle JAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. ....................................................... Peru ANTHONY S. BOTTAR, B.A., J.D. ......................................................................... Syracuse GERALDINE D. CHAPEY, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ......................................................... Belle Harbor ARNOLD B. GARDNER, B.A., LL.B. ...................................................................... Buffalo HARRY PHILLIPS, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. ................................................................... Hartsdale JOSEPH E. BOWMAN,JR., B.A., M.L.S., M.A., M.Ed., Ed.D. ................................ Albany JAMES R. TALLON,JR., B.A., M.A. ...................................................................... Binghamton MILTON L. COFIELD, B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. ........................................................... Rochester ROGER B. TILLES, B.A., J.D. ............................................................................... Great Neck KAREN BROOKS HOPKINS, B.A., M.F.A. ............................................................... Brooklyn NATALIE M. GOMEZ-VELEZ, B.A., J.D. ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mohawk River Coliform Bacteria Monitoring Project Report
    New York State DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Division of Water Upper Mohawk River Coliform Bacteria Monitoring Project Portions 12 and 13 in the Utica-Rome Area June 2012 - September 2012 November 2013 (Revised January 2014) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of coliform bacteria monitoring conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) from June through September 2012 in portions 12 and 13 of the Mohawk River (see Figure 2). Water sampling was conducted at two stations: Mohawk River in West Schuyler (Portion 12) and Mohawk River near Oriskany (Portion 13). Twenty-two samples per station were collected and analyzed for total and fecal coliform bacteria. Field parameters of dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH and temperature were also measured at each station during sampling. Portions 12 and 13 of the Mohawk River are listed in the Final 2012 Section 303(d) List, Part 1 - Individual Waterbody Segments with Impairment Requiring Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development. Pollutants and water quality indicators listed in the Section 303(d) list include floatables (aesthetics), pathogens and dissolved oxygen/oxygen demand. Pollution sources contributing to impairment include Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), and urban stormwater runoff. The goal of the project was to collect and test samples for coliform frequently enough to satisfy the requirements of New York State Water Quality Standards (at least five samples per month). NYSDEC uses coliform bacteria as an indicator of pathogens. The water quality standard for coliform is based on a minimum of five examinations within a calendar month for Class B and C waterbodies.
    [Show full text]