DOCSLIB.ORG

Moyer Creek Basin Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Moyer Creek Basin Assessment EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE RECOVERY WATER BASIN ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES MOYER CREEK HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK April 2014 MMI #5231-01 Photo Source: Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (2013) This document was prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Prepared by: MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 134 Main Street, Suite A1 New Paltz, NY 12561 (845) 633-8153 www.miloneandmacbroom.com Copyright 2014 Milone & MacBroom, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................... 3 2.0 DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Initial Data Collection .................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Field Assessment .......................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Watershed Land Use .................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Geomorphology ............................................................................................................ 5 2.6 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.7 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 10 3.0 FLOODING HAZARDS AND MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ................................ 12 3.1 Flooding History along Moyer Creek ........................................................................ 12 3.2 Post-Flood Community Response .............................................................................. 15 3.3 Flood Mitigation Analysis .......................................................................................... 15 3.4 High Risk Area #1 – Road Crossings in Frankfort Gorge ......................................... 16 3.5 High Risk Area #2 – High Bank Failure and Levees ................................................. 18 3.6 High Risk Area #3 – Main Street Bridge, Canal Walls, and Existing Dam ............... 21 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 27 WATER BASIN ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES MOYER CREEK, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK APRIL 2014 TC - i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Estimated Bankfull Discharge, Width, and Depth ...................................................8 Table 2 Moyer Creek Peak Discharges at its Confluence with the Mohawk River ..............9 Table 3 Moyer Creek Peak Discharges 1,800 Feet Downstream of the Intersection With Route 171 and Furnace Road ........................................................................10 Table 4 Final Hydrology for HEC-RAS Modeling of Moyer Creek ..................................10 Table 5 Summary of Stream Crossing Data ........................................................................11 Table 6 Summary of Important Elevations .........................................................................23 Table 7 Cost Range for Recommended Alternatives .........................................................30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Moyer Creek Drainage Basin Location Map ...........................................................2 Figure 2 Moyer Creek Watercourse Stationing ......................................................................4 Figure 3 Moyer Creek Drainage Basin Aerial........................................................................6 Figure 4 Moyer Creek Profile ................................................................................................7 Figure 5 FEMA Delineated Floodplain ................................................................................13 Figure 6 Moyer Creek High Risk Area #1 – Road Crossings in Frankfort Gorge ...............17 Figure 7 Moyer Creek High Risk Area #2 – High Bank Failure and Levees ......................19 Figure 8 Moyer Creek High Risk Area #3 – Main Street Bridge, Canal Walls, and Existing Dam .........................................................................................................22 Figure 9 Hydraulic Modeling of Dam Removal and Main Street Bridge Replacement ......24 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Summary of Data and Reports Collected Appendix B Field Data Collection Forms Appendix C Moyer Creek Photo Log Appendix D Detention Basin Computations WATER BASIN ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES MOYER CREEK, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK APRIL 2014 TC - ii ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS BIN Bridge Identification Number CFS Cubic Feet per Second CME Creighton Manning Engineering D/S Downstream FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study FT Feet FTP File Transfer Protocol GIS Geographic Information System HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Analysis System LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging MMI Milone & MacBroom, Inc. NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation SQ. MI. Square Mile STA River Station USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey WSEL Water Surface Elevation YR Year WATER BASIN ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES MOYER CREEK, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK APRIL 2014 TC - iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background A severe precipitation system in June 2013 caused excessive flow rates and flooding in a number of communities in the greater Utica region. As a result, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in consultation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) retained Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) through a subconsultant agreement with Creighton Manning Engineering (CME) to undertake an emergency transportation infrastructure recovery water basin assessment of 13 watersheds in Herkimer, Oneida, and Montgomery Counties, including the Moyer Creek watershed. Prudent Engineering was also contracted through CME to provide support services, including field survey of stream cross sections. Moyer Creek flows through the towns of Litchfield and Frankfort and the village of Frankfort in Herkimer County, New York. Figure 1 depicts the contributing watershed of the creek. Moyer Creek drains an area of 20 square miles. The drainage basin is approximately 47.5 percent forested, with rural residential and agriculture land uses. Residential and commercial land uses are concentrated in the lower part of the basin in the village of Frankfort. The creek has an average slope of 1.5 percent over its stream length of 12.7 miles. Though it not severely steep, Moyer Creek generates a substantial amount of stream power, especially as it flows through the steep Frankfort Gorge, where the channel has a slope of 2.0 percent. Sediments transported from the upper reaches of the creek are moved to the lower gradient reaches in the village of Frankfort, where they are deposited in the channel, restricting flow capacity and blocking stream crossings. Compounding the issues of sediment transport and stream hydraulics is the fact that commercial and residential development in the village of Frankfort occurs in the floodplain, in some cases to within 20 feet of the edge of the stream. When the channel exceeds its hydraulic capacity or becomes clogged with sediment debris, it finds new and destructive paths through the community, leaving homes and property damaged by floodwaters, bridges damaged, and unstable creek bed and banks that are at risk for further degradation and failure. The goals of the subject water basin assessment were to: 1. Collect and analyze information relative to the June 28, 2013 flood and other historic flooding events. 2. Identify critical areas subject to flood risk. 3. Develop and evaluate flood hazard mitigation alternatives for each high risk area within the stream corridor. WATER BASIN ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES MOYER CREEK, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK APRIL 2014 PAGE 1 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed SOURCE(S): Map By: CMP Figure 1: Moyer Creek Drainage NYDOT: Emergency Transportation MMI#: 5231-01 Infrastructure Recovery Original: 1/2/2014 99 Realty Drive Cheshire, CT 06410 Basin Location Map Revision: 3/19/2014 (203) 271-1773 Fax: (203) 272-9733 ³ MXD: Y:\5231-01\GIS\Maps\Figure 1 Maps\Figure 1 Moyer Creek.mxd LOCATION: Herkimer County, New York Scale: 1 in = 5,000 ft www.miloneandmacbroom.com 1.2 Nomenclature In this report and associated mapping, stream stationing is used as an address to identify specific points along the watercourse. Stationing is measured in feet and begins at the mouth of Moyer Creek at STA 0+00 and continues upstream to STA 680+00. As an example, STA 73+00 indicates
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]
  • 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]
  • Congressional Record—House H7878
    H7878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 17, 2007 center even exists. We don’t know if it The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to modifications committed to conference: even exists, if it’s created by this ear- clause 6 of rule XVIII, further pro- Messrs. Reyes, Cramer, and Hoekstra. mark. ceedings on the amendment offered by From the Committee on Science and Tech- Concurrent Technology has been the the gentleman from Arizona will be nology, for consideration of secs. 703, 1301, recipient of millions upon millions of 1464, 1467, and 1507 of the Senate amendment, postponed. and modifications committed to conference: dollars over the years. The executives Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I Messrs. Gordon of Tennessee, Wu, and in Concurrent Technology contribute move that the Committee do now rise. Gingrey. handsomely to Members of Congress. The motion was agreed to. From the Committee on Transportation So it receives a lot of earmarks. It Accordingly, the Committee rose; and Infrastructure, for consideration of Ti- seems to be an earmark incubator of and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. tles I–III, sec. 1002, and Title XI of the House some type, an earmark that begets DAVIS of Illinois) having assumed the bill, and secs. 202, 301, Title IV, secs. 801–803, 807, 901, 1001, 1002, 1101–1103, 1422–1424, 1426, more earmarks. chair, Mr. TIERNEY, Chairman of the And yet we have the report that 1427, 1429, 1430, 1433, 1436–1438, 1441, 1443, 1444, Committee of the Whole House on the 1446, 1449, 1464, 1473, 1503, and 1605 of the Sen- comes with the bill that doesn’t even state of the Union, reported that that mention Concurrent Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • (STIP) on Draft Program for REGI
    ** NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ** Tuesday, August 20, 2019 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) on Draft Program Page 1 of 31 for REGION 02 AGENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL 4-YEAR PROGRAM (FFY) Starting October 01, FUND SOURCES FFY 4-YEAR PHASE 2019 PIN PROGRAM FFY FFY FFY FFY in millions of dollars 2020 2021 2022 2023 AQ CODE COUNTY TOTAL PROJECT COST NYSDOT THIS PROJECT WILL REPLACE THE STATE ROUTE 51 BRIDGE OVER STEELE NHPP 2020 0.264 DETLDES 0.264 CREEK IN THE VILLAGE OF ILION, HERKIMER COUNTY. STATE ROUTE 51 IS NFA 2020 0.066 DETLDES 0.066 200412 THE PRIMARY NORTH-SOUTH ROUTE THROUGH THE VILLAGE OF NHPP 2020 0.080 ROWACQU 0.080 HERKIMER. THE PROJECT WILL INCREASE THE WATERWAY OPENING TO NFA 2020 0.020 ROWACQU 0.020 MINIMIZE FLOODING IN THE VILLAGE. NHPP 2021 0.343 CONINSP 0.343 NFA 2021 0.086 CONINSP 0.086 NHPP 2021 3.427 CONST 3.427 NFA 2021 0.857 CONST 0.857 AQC:N/A HERKIMER TPC : $4.6-$7.5 M TOTAL 4YR COST : 5.143 0.430 4.713 0.000 0.000 NYSDOT THIS PROJECT WILL ADDRESS CULVERT DEFICIENCIES THROUGH NHPP 2020 0.048 CONINSP 0.048 REHABILITATION OF THE ROUTE 12 CULVERT (C260154) IN THE VILLAGE OF NFA 2020 0.012 CONINSP 0.012 201679 BOONVILLE, IN ONEIDA COUNTY NHPP 2020 0.400 CONST 0.400 NFA 2020 0.100 CONST 0.100 AQC:N/A ONEIDA TPC : $0.6-$1.5 M TOTAL 4YR COST : 0.560 0.560 0.000 0.000 0.000 NYSDOT THIS PROJECT WILL REPLACE THE STATE ROUTE 28 BRIDGE (BIN 1020280) NFA 2020 1.086 CONST 1.086 OVER THE SOUTH INLET OF RAQUETTE LAKE IN THE TOWN OF ARIETTA, NHPP 2020 0.448 CONINSP 0.448 201897 HAMILTON COUNTY.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Order 210.21 Designated Trout Streams for Michigan
    FISHERIES ORDER Designated Trout Streams for Michigan Order 210.21 By authority conferred on the Natural Resources Commission and the Department of Natural Resources by Part 487 of 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.48701 to 324.48740, ordered on September 10, 2020, the following section(s) of the Fisheries Order shall read effective April 1, 2021, as follows: The streams and portions of streams in the list which follows are hereby designated as trout streams: Key to Designation List: Unless otherwise described, the location description listed after the stream name indicates the downstream limit of the trout designation. All of the stream and its tributaries, unless excepted, from that point upstream are designated trout waters. Exceptions are italicized. INDEX BY GREAT LAKES BASIN Stream location Page Upper Peninsula Streams Flowing Into Lake Superior ............................................................... 1 Upper Peninsula Streams Flowing Into St. Marys River And Connecting Waters ....................... 7 Upper Peninsula Streams Flowing Into Lake Huron ................................................................... 7 Upper Peninsula Streams Flowing Into Lake Michigan ............................................................... 8 Lower Peninsula Streams Flowing Into Lake Michigan ..............................................................16 Lower Peninsula Streams Flowing Into Lake Huron ..................................................................31 Lower Peninsula Streams Flowing Into Lake St. Clair ...............................................................40
    [Show full text]
  • NY State Bridge Data
    NY State Highway Bridge Data: October 31, 2011 Herkimer County Year Date NYS Built or of Last SD/FO Condition Region County Municipality Location Feature Carried Feature Crossed Owner Replaced Inspection Status Rating 02 Herkimer Cold Brook (Village) 1.1 MI N JCT SH 8 & SH 28 8 8 23081019 COLD BROOK NYSDoT 1998 07/13/2010 N 6.21 02 Herkimer Cold Brook (Village) 1.9 MI N JCT RTS 28 & 8 8 8 23081026 COLD BROOK NYSDoT 1998 07/13/2010 N 6.50 02 Herkimer Columbia (Town) 2.9 MI SE OF CEDARVILLE CASLER ROAD UNADILLA LAKE OUT Town 1920 10/11/2010 FO 6.54 02 Herkimer Columbia (Town) 1 MILE SE OF CEDARVILLE COUNTY ROAD 85 UNADILLA RIVER County 1969 05/18/2011 SD 4.29 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 2.3 MI SE JCT RTS 5S &169 5S 5S23021236 NOWADAGA CREEK NYSDoT 1931 09/01/2010 SD 5.06 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 05MI E INT 29A RTE 90I 90I X 5S 5S23021217 NYS Thruway Authority 1954 08/04/2010 N 5.06 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 05MI E INT 29A RTE 90I 90I X 5S 5S23021217 NYS Thruway Authority 1954 08/04/2010 N 5.13 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 3.5 MI SE OF LITTLE FALLS 90I X EASTBOUND DEPOT RD NYS Thruway Authority 1954 05/06/2010 FO 4.44 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) RTE 90I AT INT 29A 90I X EASTBOUND EXIT 29A RAMP NYS Thruway Authority 1970 05/11/2010 N 4.83 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 3.5 MI SE OF LITTLE FALLS 90I X WESTBOUND DEPOT RD NYS Thruway Authority 1954 05/06/2010 FO 4.47 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) RTE 90-I AT INT 29A 90I X WESTBOUND EXIT 29A RAMP NYS Thruway Authority 1970 05/11/2010 N 4.64 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 4.5 MI SE OF LITTLE FALLS COUNTY ROAD 102 NOWADAGA CREEK County 2007 10/29/2009 N 6.86 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 4.5 MI SE OF LITTLE FALLS COUNTY ROAD 102 NOWADAGA CREEK County 2008 11/10/2010 N 7.00 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 4.5 MI SE OF LITTLE FALLS COUNTY ROAD 102 NOWADAGA CREEK County 1934 06/28/2011 SD 4.29 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 2.8 MI NE OF PAINES HLLOW COUNTY ROAD 136 UNKNOWN CREEK County 1991 06/15/2011 N 5.90 02 Herkimer Danube (Town) 3.0 MI SW ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 110–442 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Energy and Water Development Appropriations Fiscal Year 2008 110th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION H.R. 2641/S. 1751 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES Energy and Water Development Appropriations, 2008 (H.R. 2641/S. 1751) S. HRG. 110–442 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2641/S. 1751 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- MENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Defense—Civil Department of Energy Department of the Interior Nondepartmental Witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 33–914 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire RICHARD J.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter: 17 State(S): Idaho Recovery Unit Name: Salmon River
    Chapter: 17 State(s): Idaho Recovery Unit Name: Salmon River Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and/or protect the species. Recovery plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the recovery plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 17, Salmon River Recovery Unit, Idaho. 194 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The preparers of the Salmon River Recovery Unit Chapter include: Marilyn Hemker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sam Lohr, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Will Reid, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (retired) In the Salmon River Recovery Unit, the Upper and Lower recovery unit teams were established in 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Annual Data Report 2018
    SURFACE-WATER STATIONS, IN DOWNSTREAM ORDER, FOR WHICH RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE 2018 WATER YEAR SUMMARIES [Letter after station name designates type of data: (b) biological, (c) chemical, (cs) crest-stage gage, (d) discharge, (e) elevation, (g) gage height, (m) minor element, (mm) miscellaneous measurement site, (n) nutrient, (o) organic, (p) pesticide, (pr) precipitation, (s) sediment, (t) water temperature, (tb) turbidity, (v) contents] Station number Housatonic Watershed Stony Brook near Dover Plains (cs) ....................................................................... 01199477 Bronx Watershed Bronx River at New York Botanical Garden at Bronx, NY (d) ................................ 01302020 Upper Hudson Watershed Arbutus Pond Outlet near Newcomb (cs) ............................................................... 01311992 Hudson River near Newcomb (d) ........................................................................... 01312000 Indian Lake (head of Indian River) near Indian Lake (e) ........................................ 01314500 Indian River near Indian Lake (d) ........................................................................... 01315000 Durgin Brook at Boreas River (d) ........................................................................... 01315170 Vanderwhacker Brook Tributary No. 1 near Boreas River (d) ................................ 01315226 Vanderwhacker Brook Tributary No. 2 near Boreas River (d) ................................ 01315227 Hudson River at North Creek (d) ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 50 CFR Ch. II (10–1–10 Edition) § 226.212
    § 226.212 50 CFR Ch. II (10–1–10 Edition) [70 FR 52536, Sept. 2, 2005] are included in paragraphs (i) through (u) of this section, and these descrip- § 226.212 Critical habitat for 13 tions are the definitive source for de- Evolutionarily Significant Units termining the critical habitat bound- (ESUs) of salmon and steelhead aries. General location maps are pro- (Oncorhynchus spp.) in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. vided at the end of each ESU descrip- tion (paragraphs (i) through (u) of this Critical habitat is designated in the section) and are provided for general following states and counties for the guidance purposes only, and not as a following ESUs as described in para- definitive source for determining crit- graph (a) of this section, and as further ical habitat boundaries. described in paragraphs (b) through (g) (a) Critical habitat is designated for of this section. The textual descrip- the following ESUs in the following tions of critical habitat for each ESU states and counties: ESU StateÐCounties (1) Puget Sound chinook salmon ................................................ WAÐClallam, Jefferson, King, Mason, Pierce, Skagit, Snoho- mish, Thurston, and Whatcom. (2) Lower Columbia River chinook salmon ................................. (i) ORÐClackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Hood River, and Mult- nomah. (ii) WAÐClark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Pacific, Skamania, and Wahkiakum. (3) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon ............................... (i) ORÐBenton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, and Yamhill. (ii) WAÐClark, Cowlitz, Pacific, and Wahkiakum. (4) Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon ................ (i) ORÐClatsop, Columbia, Gilliam, Hood River, Morrow, Mult- nomah, Sherman, Umatilla, and Wasco. (ii) WAÐBenton, Chelan, Clark, Cowlitz, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, and Yakima.
    [Show full text]
  • West Canada Creek Basin Assessment
    EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE RECOVERY WATER BASIN ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES WEST CANADA CREEK HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK April 2014 MMI #5231-01 Photo Source: Milone & MacBroom, Inc. (2013) This document was prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Prepared by: MILONE & MACBROOM, INC. 134 Main Street, Suite A1 New Paltz, NY 12561 (845) 633-8153 www.miloneandmacbroom.com Copyright 2014 Milone & MacBroom, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.0 DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Initial Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Field Assessment .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan
    Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan March 2015 This plan was prepared with funds provided by the New York State Department of State under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund. Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... v Abbreviations and Linked Documents .................................................................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1.1 Evolution of the Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan .......................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Vision and Goals for the Watershed ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2 Related Initiatives ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Overview of the Watershed: Political Boundaries, Natural Boundaries .............................................................. 1-2 1.3 Value of a Watershed Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 1-3 1.4 Planning Process and Partners ............................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.5 Sources of Data and Information ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]