DOCSLIB.ORG

Chittenden Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chittenden Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Chittenden Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 3273-024 New York Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 January 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xiii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... xiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Application .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need For Power ........................................................ 2 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................ 2 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................ 4 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ....................................................... 4 1.4 Public Review and Comment ........................................................................ 4 1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................ 4 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Comments on the License Application and Settlement Agreement 5 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 5 2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities and Project Boundary ............................ 6 2.1.2 Project Safety ................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation and Environmental Measures .............. 8 2.2 Applicant’s Proposal ................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................ 10 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation and Environmental Measures ........... 10 2.2.3 Modifications to Applicant’s Proposal – Mandatory Conditions .. 12 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 12 2.4 STAFF ALTERNATIVE WITH MANDATORY CONDITIONS ............ 13 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ................................................................................... 13 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 13 3.1 General Description of the River Basin ...................................................... 14 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................ 16 3.2.1 Geographic Scope .......................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ............................................................................. 17 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives ................................................... 17 3.3.1 Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ..................................................................... 44 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. 48 3.3.5 Recreation Resources .................................................................... 53 x 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 55 3.4 No-action Alternative .................................................................................. 58 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 59 4.1 Power and Developmental Benefits of the Project ..................................... 59 4.2 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 60 4.2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................... 61 4.2.2 Applicants’ Proposals .................................................................... 62 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................ 62 4.2.4 Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions ............................... 62 4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures ................................................................ 62 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 63 5.1 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative .................. 63 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by the Applicant ............................................ 63 5.1.2 Additional Staff-recommended Measures ..................................... 64 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff .......................................... 70 5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ...................................................................... 72 5.3 Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations ............................................. 72 5.4 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ..................................................... 74 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................................ 74 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................... 74 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX A – Statutory and Regulatory Requirements APPENDIX B – U.S. Department of Interior’s Section 18 Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions APPENDIX C – Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study APPENDIX D – Water Quality Data and Habitat Survey Photos APPENDIX E – Fish Community Composition APPENDIX F – Cost of Environmental Measures APPENDIX G – List of Comprehensive Plans APPENDIX H – Literature Cited APPENDIX I – List of Preparers xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Chittenden Falls Project Location (source: Chittenden Falls Hydro). ................ 2 Figure 2: Chittenden Falls Project Location and Facilities (source: Google Earth and Chittenden Falls Hydro, as modified by staff). ............................................. 7 Figure 3: Lower Hudson River Basin within the State of New York and Project Location (Source: New York DEC and Wikipedia, as modified by staff) ................. 15 Figure 4: Annual hydrograph of median daily flows at the Chittenden Falls Project based on pro-rated data from USGS gage 01361000 across a 46-year period (1929-1968, 2012-2018) (Source: staff). .................................................... 20 Figure 5: Emigration timing of silver eels along the eastern seaboard of North America (Source: Haro, 2003). ................................................................................. 27 Figure 6: Daily eel counts for the eel mop deployed at the west tailrace site from May 1, 2018 through September 14, 2018 (Source: license application). 28 xii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Estimated mean, minimum, maximum, 90 percent, and 10 percent exceedance flows for the Chittenden Falls Project across a 46-year period of record from January 1929 through December 1967 and January 2012 through December 2018 (Source: staff). ................................................................. 20 Table 2. Physical habitat measurements made along a cross-channel transect in the bypassed reach, under various flows, as part of the bypassed reach habitat survey conducted in July and August of 2019 (Source: license application, as modified by staff). ................................................................................... 33 Table 3. Minimum sizes (total length, in inches) of fish species physically excluded by the project’s current trash racks (2.0-inch clear spacing) and seasonal trash rack overlays (0.75-inch clear spacing) that would be deployed as part of the downstream eel passage system. Fish exclusion sizes were based on body scaling factors relating body width to fish length as reported in Smith (1985). (Source: staff). .............................................................................. 37 Table 4. Burst swimming speeds of juvenile and adult resident fish species present in the project impoundment (Source: staff). ......................................................... 40 Table 5. Parameters for economic analysis of the Chittenden Falls Project (Sources: Chittenden Falls Hydro and staff). .............................................................. 60 Table 6. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for the alternatives for the Chittenden Falls Project (Source: staff). ..................... 61 Table 7. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Chittenden Falls Project (Source: staff). ................................................................................ 73 xiii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE area of potential effects ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BMP best management practices certification water
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hudson River Watershed 2002 Water Quality Assessment Report
    HUDSON RIVER WATERSHED 2002 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, JR, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARLEEN O’DONNELL, ACTING COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION GLENN HAAS, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GLENN HAAS, DIRECTOR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY LIMITED COPIES OF THIS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE AT NO COST BY WRITTEN REQUEST TO: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 627 MAIN STREET WORCESTER, MA 01608 This report is also available from the MassDEP’s home page on the World Wide Web at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/wqassess.htm Furthermore, at the time of first printing, eight copies of each report published by this office are submitted to the State Library at the State House in Boston; these copies are subsequently distributed as follows: · On shelf; retained at the State Library (two copies); · Microfilmed retained at the State Library; · Delivered to the Boston Public Library at Copley Square; · Delivered to the Worcester Public Library; · Delivered to the Springfield Public Library; · Delivered to the University Library at UMass, Amherst; · Delivered to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Moreover, this wide circulation is augmented by inter-library loans from the above-listed libraries. For example a resident in Marlborough can apply at their local library for loan of any MassDEP/DWM report from the Worcester Public Library. A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This report, entitled, “Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management – Watershed Planning Program, 1963-(current year)”, is also available by writing to the Division of Watershed Management (DWM) in Worcester.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York
    Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 97-639 Prepared in cooperation with NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Cover: View of Moordener Kill from State Rt. 150 in Brookview, N.Y., looking west (downstream). Note exposed bedrock in streambed. (Photo by R.J. Reynolds, 1999). Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York By Richard J. Reynolds ______________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 97-639 Prepared in cooperation with the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION science for a changing world Troy, New York 1999 i U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director ______________________________________________________________________ For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey 425 Jordan Road Branch of Information Services Troy, NY 12180-8349 P.O. Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225 ii CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope .........................................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan OCTOBER 1, 2019–OCTOBER 1, 2024
    Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan OCTOBER 1, 2019–OCTOBER 1, 2024 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner Acknowledgments This plan was prepared by staff of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, including Betsy Blair, Chris Bowser, Ann-Marie Caprioli, Brian DeGasperis, Sarah Fernald, Heather Gierloff, Emilie Hauser, Dan Miller, and Sarah Mount, with the assistance of Andy Burgher, Cathy Kittle, and Bill Rudge in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Ed McGowan of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; and Nina Garfield and Ann Weaver of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for Coastal Management. We appreciate input that has informed development of this plan provided by other colleagues, local leaders, county officials, environmental organizations, researchers, educators, and marsh managers. Suggested citation: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2019. Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan. Albany, NY. Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Reserve .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Communities of New York State
    Ecological Communities of New York State by Carol Reschke New York Natural Heritage Program N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation 700 Troy-Schenectady Road Latham, NY 12110-2400 March 1990 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The New York Natural Heritage Program is supported by funds from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and The Nature Conservancy. Within DEC, funding comes from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Division of Lands and Forests. The Heritage Program is partly supported by funds contributed by state taxpayers through the voluntary Return a Gift to Wildlife program. The Heritage Program has received funding for community inventory work from the Adirondack Council, the Hudson River Foundation, the Sussman Foundation, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service (Finger Lakes National Forest), and each of the seven New York chapters of The Nature Conservancy (Adirondack Nature Conservancy, Eastern New York Chapter, Central New York Chapter, Long Island Chapter, Lower Hudson Chapter, South Fork/Shelter Island Chapter, and WesternNew YorJ< Chapter) This classification has been developed in part from data collected by numerous field biologists. Some of these contributors have worked under contract to the Natural Heritage Program, including Caryl DeVries, Brian Fitzgerald, Jerry Jenkins, Al Scholz, Edith Schrot, Paul Sherwood, Nancy Slack, Dan Smith, Gordon Tucker, and F. Robert Wesley. Present and former Heritage staff who have contributed a significant portion of field data include Peter Zika, Robert E. Zaremba, Lauren Lyons-Swift, Steven Clemants, and the author. Chris Nadareski helped compile long species lists for many communities by entering data from field survey forms into computer files.
    [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]
  • HUDSON VALLEY REGION Columbia County
    HUDSON VALLEY REGION Columbia County. The long unwinding road. Take a drive along our country roads and you’ll step back in time to another era. Where the livin’ is easy. Where you can enjoy the best of cultural and historical sites and attractions. Or not, your choice. Where a country store offers fresh produce and baked goods, and a you-can-pay-me- tomorrow attitude. Where “laid back” isn’t just a label, but a lifestyle. Best of all, wherever you wander in our fair county—to shop, hear music, dine, or just explore—you’ll meander along some of best country roads in America. www.bestcountryroads.com 1 Seeing & Doing Seeing & Doing The Arts Living History More and more, Columbia County is the cultural Columbia County offers life’s simple gifts in a gem of the Hudson Valley. Here in a bucolic setting place that’s simply historic. you can view provocative works from international Start with a jewel of Columbia County architecture: and regional artists. Avant-garde painting and Olana—the masterstroke of Frederic Church, sculpture. Exhilarating musicals. And classical one of America’s premier landscape painters. concerts of every size and shape. His Persian-style mansion offers sweeping views Here, renowned artists, inspired by tranquility, of the Hudson that will take your breath away. make their home, following in the footsteps of Head down to Clermont, the 18th century manor Frederic Church, Thomas Cole, Sanford Gifford home, and celebrate Clermont’s Fulton-Livingston and other painters of the Hudson River school. steamboat bicentennial in 2007. Wander through Today, galleries dot the country and grace our the Federal mansion of James Vanderpoel, whose towns and villages.
    [Show full text]
  • T a P P a N Z
    Federal Dam Watervliet Rt. 787 Bridge Starbuck Island Troy Rt. 2 Bridge Water chestnut Vallisneria Rt. 378 Bridge Other Stuff Albany Rensselaer Amtrack Bridges Rt. 20 Bridge Normans Kill Papscaneek Island e e r C e Campbell Island e n a c s p a Vloman Kill P Shad Island Castleton-On-Hudson Conrail and To 90 Bridges k Upper Schodack Island e e r C Lower Schodack Island k c a d o h Ravena c S Houghtaling Island k Cree Mill Bronck Island Coxsackie Island Nutten Hook Coxsackie Stockport Middle Ground Creek kport Stoc West Flats Middle Ground Flats Athens Hudson C Catskill a Rogers Island t sk il Rip Van Winkle Bridge l R o e Inbocht Bay li ff Ja nse Duck Cove n K ill Germantown Saugerties Esop us Creek Tivoli North Bay Tivoli South Bay Kingston-Rinecliff Bridge Kingston reek t C ou nd Ro Esopus Vanderburgh Meadows Cove Point Norrie State Park reek k C ac Bl Blunts Rock Bard Rock Highland Conrail Bridge Mid-Hudson Bridge Poughkeepsie k Lattintown Cre ree ek r C ge Marlboro in pp Wappingers Falls a W Newburgh Beacon Denning Point Fishkill Creek M ood na a Pollepel Island Cold Spring Constitution Island West Point Con Hook ek Bear Mt. Bridge re C le il sv nn Iona Island A Peekskill Bear Mt. State Park Peekskill Bay Buchanan Stony Point State Park H Georges Park Island A d V Pon E dar R Ce S T R A Croton-on-Hudson W r e v Haverstraw B i A R Y n o t o Croton r Point C Ossining T A P P A N Z E E Nyack Tarrytown Tappan Zee Bridge Piermont Irvington Piermont Marsh Hastings-on-Hudson Yonkers Yonkers Tenafly Englewood BRONX RIVER George Washington Bridge Bronx Fort Lee Fairview Union City Manhattan Hoboken EAST RIVER Jersey City Williamsburg Bridge Manhattan Bridge Brooklyn Bridge Bayonne Brooklyn KILL VAN KULL Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Fishing Plan for New York River Herring Stocks
    Sustainable Fishery Management Plan for New York River Herring Stocks William W. Eakin Cornell University in Cooperation with Hudson River Estuary Program and Robert D. Adams, Gregg H. Kenney, Carol Hoffman Division of Marine Resources September 2016 Approved February 1, 2017 Executive Summary Amendment 2 to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Shad and River Herring Interstate Fishery Management Plan requires member states to demonstrate that fisheries for river herring (alewife and blueback herring) within their state waters are sustainable. A sustainable fishery is defined as one that will not diminish potential future reproduction and recruitment of herring stocks. If states cannot demonstrate sustainability to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), they must close their herring fisheries. New York State proposes to maintain a restricted river herring (alewife and blueback herring) fishery in the Hudson River and tributaries and to continue closures of river herring fisheries elsewhere in the State. This proposal conforms to Benefit 4 of the New York State Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda. Stock Status Alewife and blueback herring are known to occur and spawn in New York State in the Hudson River and tributaries, the Bronx River, and several streams on Long Island. The Hudson River is tidal to the first dam at Troy, NY (rkm 245). Data on stock status are available for the Hudson River and tributaries. Few data are available for river herring in streams in Bronx County, southern Westchester County, and on Long Island. River herring are rarely encountered in the New York portion of the Delaware River. Hudson River: Commercial and recreational fisheries exploit the spawning populations of river herring in the Hudson River and tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Between the Railroad and the River, Public Access Issues And
    BETWEEN THE RAILRbAD AND THE RIVER Public Access Issues and Opportunities Along the Tidal Hudson The Hudson River Access Forum September 1989 Between the Railroad and the River: I Public Access Issues and Opportunities along the Tidal Hudson The Hudson River Access Forum September 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . ...... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... iii Chapter 1. Issues: Public Access and the Need for Additional Outdoor Recreational Opportunities along the Hudson River .. .. .... .. 1 Chapter 2. The Importance of Railroad Crossings. 7 Chapter 3. Examples of Access Opportunities .... ... .11 Assessment of Access Opportunities: The Study Method . 11 Columbia County . .. .. .... .. .. 17 Dutchess County ... .... ..... 29 Orange County ...... ..... .. ... .. 49 Putnam County. 61 Rensselaer County ... .... .. .. 71 Rockland County. 85 Ulster County. 91 Westchester County . .. .. .. .. 95 Chapter 4. Programs for Promoting Public Access . 121 Chapter 5. Planning for Public Access: Recommended Actions .. .. .. ... .... ...... 131 Selected References .. .. .. ... .. ...... .. 135 Appendix: Rail Crossings in the Study Area . .. .. ... .137 INTRODUCTION Since the 1960s significant improvements in the Hudson River's water quality have created a growing interest in the River's scenery, fisheries, wildlife, and recreational potential. This interest has spawned a demand for a variety of public access opportunities along the River, including shoreline trails and walkways, scenic viewpoints, swimming and fishing areas, riverside parks and launches for cartopped or trailered boats. Say you are in the cowwy; in some high land of lakes. Take almost any path you please, and ten to one it carries you down in a dale and This report examines th_e current impediments to public access and leaves you there by a pool in a stream. There is ,nagic in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2019 Trout Stocking Summary
    Mill Creek East Greenbush 440 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches SPRING 2019 TROUT STOCKING SUMMARY Poesten Kill Brunswick 2570 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Albany, Columbia, Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady County Poesten Kill Brunswick 200 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Poesten Kill Brunswick 1420 May Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches WATER TOWN NUMBER DATE SPECIES SIZE Poesten Kill Poestenkill 300 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Poesten Kill Poestenkill 1560 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Albany County Poesten Kill Poestenkill 270 May Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Basic Creek Westerlo 440 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Poesten Kill Poestenkill 710 May - June Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Catskill Creek Rensselaerville 750 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Second Pond Grafton 440 June Brown Trout 8.5 - 9.5 inches Catskill Creek Rensselaerville 180 May Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Shaver Pond Grafton 600 Spring Rainbow Trout 8.5 - 9.5 inches Hannacrois Creek Coeymans 125 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Tackawasick Creek Nassau 100 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Hannacrois Creek Coeymans 1060 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Tackawasick Creek Nassau 800 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Hannacrois Creek Coeymans 710 May - June Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Tackawasick Creek Nassau 530 May - June Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Lisha Kill Colonie 350 March - April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Town Park Pond East Greenbush 500 April - May Rainbow Trout 8.5 - 9.5 inches Onesquethaw Creek New Scotland 1150 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Walloomsac River Hoosick 500 April Brown Trout
    [Show full text]
  • Download The
    BETTER TOGETHER You and your TKG agent, Making vacation home dreams come true Hudson Chatham Stockbridge Pittsfi eld 413-329-1162 [email protected] TKGRE.COM Serving the Hudson Valley and the Berkshires BETTER TOGETHER ETTER OGETHER BYou and your T TKG agent, Making Youvacation and your home TKG dreams agent, come true Making vacation home dreams come true Hudson Chatham Stockbridge Pittsfi eld Hudson Chatham Stockbridge Pittsfi eld 413-329-1162 [email protected] [email protected] TKGRE.COM TKGRE.COM Serving the Hudson Valley and the Berkshires Serving the Hudson Valley and the Berkshires Progressive-American Comfort Food at Its Best Everyday 11am-11pm 744 Warren Street Hudson, NY 518-828-0555 WUNDERBARBISTRO.COM ColumbiaCountyTourism.org 1 Get Away from the Everyday.... in Columbia County estled between the banks of the Hudson River and the Nfoothills of The Berkshire Mountains sits Columbia County– one of the jewels of the Hudson Valley. Whether it’s relaxation you seek or an activity-packed getaway, Columbia County is the place. Meander through historic villages and hamlets while discovering miles of unsurpassed rural beauty. Along the way, explore one of over 20 historic properties, or the many art galleries and antique shops. Indulge your appetite with award-winning cuisine at eclectic dining establishments. Or, for something different, follow the artisanal beverage trail offering handcrafted tasting experiences at the county’s breweries, wineries, spirit makers, and cider mills. Pick-your-own farms and orchards provide ample family fun and for outdoor adventurers, a zip line park, downhill skiing and snowboarding, and miles of bike and mountain bike trails satisfy the need for thrills.
    [Show full text]