DOCSLIB.ORG

To Passage for Migratory Fish on Lower

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To Passage for Migratory Fish on Lower River Herring: Assessment of Fish Passage Opportunities in Lower Hudson River Tributaries (2009-2012) Presentation to NY Region River Herring Workshop, HRF, Oct. 22, 2012 Carl Alderson, NOAA Restoration Center Lisa Rosman, NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration NOAA Funded Restoration Projects in the Northeast • 216 salt marsh projects • 206 fish passage projects •Completed ~16,000 acres and ~1,400 stream miles •Est. ~4,0000 acres and ~ 1,500 stream miles planned Northeast Fish Passage Prioritization Goal: to identify priority watersheds throughout the region to focus our fish passage projects. • Developed list of priority species among the 14 diadromous species in the region • Mapped co- occurrence and ranked Tributary Fish Passage Study of the Lower Hudson River • Objectives Investigate Changes to Fish Passage Impediments Create an Inventory of Barriers for use as a Decision Making Tool Work with other agencies and programs to further mutual goals Tributary Fish Passage Study of the Lower Hudson River • Scope of Effort 65 Tributaries Update Prior Efforts (Schmidt et al 1996, Halavik and Orvis 1998, Machut et al. 2007) o Not Limited to number of barriers per tributary Desktop Tools o Google Earth, Bing, Digital USGS 7.5 Series Topographic o Digital NYS Dam Inventory Groundtruthing: 51 of 65 tributaries all or partially field verified to date o GPS, Video, Photography, Notes Tributary Fish Passage Study of the Lower Hudson River • Proposed Actions Dam Removal and Culvert Upgrades (Preferred) Eelways, Fish Ladders, Rock Ramps (Less Preferred) No Action (e.g., No Benefit, Owner Opposition, FERC Licensed, Regulatory Obstacle) Evaluation of Barriers - Criteria for Determining Passability Presence/Absence of barriers and their physical attributes Challenges for anadromous and catadromous fish presented by barriers (passable part, all, or none, seasonal, tidally restricted) Stream gradient (steepness) Categorization of streams by hydrologic type (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral) Deliverables of the Study Database GIS IDENTIFYING LOCATION ATTRIBUTES RESTORATION ATTRIBUTES HABITAT ATTRIBUTES SPECIES ATTRIBUTES OBSTRUCTION ATTRIBUTES ACRE BENEFITS CONTACT ATTRIBUTES BIBLIOGRAPHY COMMENTS AND CONCERNS PHOTO LINKS Mapping Product Video Library Photo Library Development of Prioritization Tool Study Scope: Sixty-five Lower Hudson Tributaries Fallkill Mill Creek (R) Annsville Creek Saw Kill Fallsburgh Creek Minisceongo Creek Arden Brook Sing Sing Brook Fishkill Creek Moodna Creek Black Creek South Bay Creek Foundry Brook Moordener Kill Breakneck Brook South Lattintown Creek Furnace Brook Muitzes Kill Catskill Creek Sparkill Creek Gordons Brook Murderers Creek Cedar Point Brook Sprout Brook Hannacrois Creek Normans Creek Cheviot Creek Stockport Creek Highland Brook Peekskill Hollow Brook Claverack Creek Stony Creek Hunters Brook Philipse Brook Coeymans Creek Twaalfskill Creek Indian Brook Pocantico River Copper Mine Brook Vlockie Kill Indian Kill Poesten Kill Coxsackie Creek Vloman Kill Kaaterskill Creek Popolopen Brook Croton River Wades Brook Kinderhook Creek Quassaic Creek Crows Nest Brook Wallkill River Landsman Kill Roeliff Jansen Kill Crumb Elbow Wappingers Creek Lattintown Creek Rondout Creek Dickey Brook Wickers Creek Maritje Kill Roseton Brook Esopus Creek Wynants Kill Mill Creek (C) The NOAA Study Area Is: A subset of the overall Hudson watershed, defined by the outer most bounds of the historic, current and potential migratory routes of river herring, Shad and American Eel within the 65 tributaries of the Lower Hudson Estuary. Partially Investigated Barriers Fully Investigated Barriers Partner agencies are also participating in the effort to restore diadromous fish runs, with some undertaking studies of their own. NYSDEC Lower Hudson Watershed Studies NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program Hudson –Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan The Tale of two The barriers in the New NOAA led Barriers York Harbor Area are Studies within the distributed throughout the Hudson –Raritan low gradient rivers in the Estuary. watershed, whereas the barriers studied on the Note the Spatial Hudson Tributaries tightly Patterns made by cluster near the Hudson the Tributary River main stem due to the barriers of the steep terrain of the Hudson Hudson River in Valley contrast with the barriers studied in the area of New York Harbor (Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Bronx Rivers and lesser tributaries). N So many dams, but who is watching them? Lower Hudson The New York State DEC Dam Safety Database River Piermont to Beacon, NY Number of Dams in Study with NYSDSD Hazard Hazard Class Description Classification Low Hazard A 51 Intermediate Hazard B 18 High Hazard C 13 Negligible or No D Hazard 4 •Our Survey “Dams” consisting of natural and man-made barriers are shown in 86 relation to some of the over 6000 dam records in the NYS Dam Safety Of the 152 dams in our database, Database but more than 10,000 dams 86 are in NYSDSD. are estimated to exist in NYS. Nearly 800 dams in the Hudson River watershed. 66 are not. The DSD categorizes dams by the hazard they present. Hazard Rating refers to consequences of a dam's failure, not the condition of the dam. NOAA STUDY IN PROGRESS 2009-2012 211 51 216 Stream Miles in the Tributaries Visited Barriers Field Visited Survey 112 14 Barriers Not Visited 3.25 Tributaries NOT Visited Average #Miles/Stream 5.05 65 328 Average # Barriers per Tributary Streams Total Barriers Tributary 0.64 Average distance in miles between barriers …..And do (can) diadromous fish go beyond this point? 9 6 For all 328 potential barriers, we 100 asked, can diadromous fish potentially arrive at this point? 2 4 185 21 71 90 2 1 4 20 Passes All Diadromous No Passage Diadromous 141 Seasonal Passage Diadromous Limited Passage Diadromous Tidally Passable Diadromous Limited Passage Anadromous Catadromous Passge TBD Yes No Seasonally Eel Only Limited TBD Approximately 67 miles BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS accessible to river herring Probable Current Run Type Beyond Barrier 12 30 97 Diadromous 189 Eel only Resident Fish Only TBD n =328 BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS Of the 328 barriers surveyed, we asked, what are the major categories present? 8 34 ….And, what is the first barrier to river 134 herring on each of the 65 tributaries? 152 19 Natural Dams 38 7 Culverts/Bridges TBD 1 BARRIER TYPES Dam Culvert Bridge Natural Barren Land Deciduous Forest And, what is the land use/cover type? Developed High Intensity 3 1 1 Developed Low Intensity 18 Developed Medium Intensity 17 70 Developed Open Space 56 1 Emergent Herbaceous Wetland 29 Evergreen Forest 18 6 32 Grassland_Herbaceous 64 1 Mixed Forest NA 11 USGS LANDUSE DATA 2006 Open Water Pasture Hay Shrub Scrub LAND USE_COVER TYPE Woody Wetlands Claverack Creek 7 TODAY FUTURE GOAL 5 6 Removal of dam 5 may w/ dam removal FUTURE GOAL EEL allow eel to pass to RM 9.9 3 4 where the Claverack Creek Falls would present a 1 CLAVERACK CREEK significant challenge. CLAVERACK CREEK: The spillway of Dam #1 is approx 24’ elevation above the elevation at the mouth. It is a full barrier to fish passage. Dam #2 is breached and does not effect passage. Removal of Dams 1, 3 and 4 results in an additional 2.62 miles of passage for herring. Removal of dams 1,3,4 would allow herring to pass to RM 4.5 where Dam #5 Stottsville Dam/Falls would present an obstacle to fish and a significant challenge eel – even if removed. Sprout Brook FUTURE GOAL EEL Removal of Dams 4-13 would allow free access to American Eel FUTURE GOAL w/ dam removal 13 TODAY 4 SPROUT BROOK 1 3 SPROUT BROOK: Fish cannot pass beyond the 1st dam. Assuming that the Cortland Lake Dam ( #3 ) 37’ in height remains in place, removal of Dams 1 & 2 results in no more than an additional 1.22 miles of passage for herring. Rondout Creek ? FUTURE GOAL 2 w/ dam removal TODAY RONDOUT 1 RONDOUT CREEK: The 12’ ft high Eddyville Dam (#1) stands at the head of tide. Without removing the dam, fish would have no further access beyond the base of the dam. Removal of Dam #1 would result in head of tide migration to 3.6 miles upstream. Herring would likely pass to the natural ledges at RM 11.10 (7.1 stream miles). Eel would continue an undetermined distance – possibly to the next dam at RM 13.0 16 Tributaries where action can be prescribed. Tributaries are eliminated where The 16 remaining tributaries are marked as Tier 1 or Tier 2 based on the quality first man-made barrierSixty provides-five Lower no realistic Hudson opportunities. Tributaries: These include FERC relicensingand amount dams; 27of benefits Tributaries dams gained.and Whereculverts Removal First whose ofBarrier alllocation, barriers is Man size to - herringandMade structure provides make an estimated 30First miles Barrier additional is Either miles Natural of habitat. or RemovalMan-made of 1 st tier dams fish passage costly with little benefit; dams and culverts that are technically infeasible;provides andunrestricted those that access could to provide an estimated passage 19.6 to catadromous miles of habitat. only. .Fallkill Annsville Creek Mill Creek (R) Saw. Kill .Fallsburgh Creek Arden Brook Minisceongo Creek Sing. Sing Brook Fishkill Creek Black Creek Moodna Creek South Bay Creek Foundry. Brook Breakneck Brook .Moordener Kill South. Lattintown Creek Furnace Brook Catskill Creek .Muitzes Kill Sparkill Creek Gordons Brook Cedar Point Brook Murderers. Creek Sprout Brook .Hannacrois Creek Cheviot Creek .Normans Creek Stockport. Creek .Highland Brook Claverack Creek Peekskill Hollow Brook Stony. Creek .Hunters Brook Coeymans Creek .Philipse Brook Twaalfskill. Creek .Indian Brook Copper Mine Brook Pocantico River Vlockie. Kill .Indian Kill Vloman. Kill Coxsackie Creek .Poesten Kill .Kaaterskill Creek Croton River .Popolopen Brook Wades. Brook Kinderhook. Creek Crows Nest Brook Quassaic Creek Wallkill. River .Landsman Kill .Roeliff Jansen Kill Wappingers. Creek Crumb Elbow .Lattintown Creek Rondout Creek Wickers. Creek Dickey Brook .Maritje Kill Esopus Creek Roseton Brook Wynants Kill .Mill Creek (C) First Tier Dams Second Tier Dams 38 NaturalCulvert Second Tier Culverts 27 Man Dam-Made 27 Tributaries Where First Barrier to Herring is Man-Made .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Painted Village DRI
    Village of Tannersville Downtown Revitalization Initiative The Painted Village DRI 2 n ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Village of Tannersville earned the unique brand of “The Painted Village in the Sky.” The Village of Tannersville thanks our extraordinary community - residents, business owners, nonprofit leaders and their many employees for creating a buzz and driving this application. To say their engagement is extraordinary is an understatement. They inspire us. Our special thanks to our project sponsors for their ongoing investment in our Painted Village, and to those who donated space for meetings, time for outreach and consulting, leadership through the Village Board and other groups. They had conversation after conversation with residents (at the Post Office, the grocery store, over lunch and just walking on Main Street). We appreciate the commitments made by the Town of Hunter, the Greene County Legislature, and Greene County Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Planning who stand ready to strengthen our capacity further and enable us to drive the $64.5M of leveraged projects through implementation. Finally, we would like to thank our long-time ally, the Hunter Foundation, for their unwavering leadership and partnership every day. Together we are an unbeatable team. Being designated to participate in the DRI process will transform the future for hundreds of people and dozens of organizations who serve thousands of New Yorkers every year. Basic Information ........................................... 1 The Mayor’s Message ..................................... 2 Vision for the Painted Village DRI. ................... 4 Justification .................................................... 6 Downtown Identification .............................. 15 CONTENTS 1. Boundaries Of Proposed DRI Area .......................... 15 2. Past Investment, Future Investment Potential ....... 20 OF 3.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment
    '/ I FE8 >^3 1987 BUREAU OP MWAROOUS SffE CONTROL OWS«)« OF SOL>D AND HAZARDOUS WASTE EA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY A Division of EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. /I =5.^fia . « --- EA REPORT CHG61A PHASE I INVESTIGATION CATSKILL COAL GASIFICATION PLANT SITE TOWN OF CATSKILL GREENE COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation 284 South Avenue Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 Prepared by EA Science and Technology R.D. 2, Goshen Turnpike Middletown, New York 10940 A Division of EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. January 1987 CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1 2. PURPOSE 2-1 3. SCOPE OF WORK 3-1 4. SITE ASSESSMENT 4-1 4.1 Site History 4-1 4.2 Site Topography 4-4 4.3 Site Hydrogeology 4-5 4.4 Site Contamination 4-6 5. PRELIMINARY APPLICATION OF THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM 5.1 Narrative Summary 5-1 5.2 Location 5.3 HRS Worksheets 5.4 HRS Documentation Records 5.5 EPA 2070-12 5.6 EPA 2070-13 6. ASSESSMENT OF DATA ADEQUACY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1 6.1 Adequacy of Existing Data 6-1 6.2 Recommendations 6-1 6.3 Phase II Work Plan 6-1 6.3.1 Task 1 Mobilization and Site Reconnaissance 6-1 6.3.2 Task 2 Preparation of Final Sampling Plan 6-2 6.3.3 Task 3 Soil Vapor Survey 6-3 6.3.4 Task 4 Test Borings and Observation Wells 6-4 6.3.5 Task 5 Sampling 6-5 6.3.6 Task 6 Contamination Assessment 6-6 6.3.7 Task 7 Remedial Cost Estimate 6-6 6.3.8 Task 8 Final Phase II Report 6-6 6.3.9 Task 9 Project Management/Quality Assurance 6-7 APPENDIX 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Greene County Open Space and Recreation Plan
    GREENE COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN PHASE I INVENTORY, DATA COLLECTION, SURVEY AND PUBLIC COMMENT DECEMBER 2002 A Publication of the Greene County Planning Department Funded in Part by a West of Hudson Master Planning and Zoning Incentive Award From the New York State Department of State Greene County Planning Department 909 Greene County Office Building, Cairo, New York 12413-9509 Phone: (518) 622-3251 Fax: (518) 622-9437 E-mail: [email protected] GREENE COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PLAN - PHASE I INVENTORY, DATA COLLECTION, SURVEY AND PUBLIC COMMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 II. Natural Resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 A. Bedrock Geology ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 1. Geological History ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 2. Overburden …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 3. Major Bedrock Groups …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 B. Soils ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 1. Soil Rating …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 2. Depth to Bedrock ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 3. Suitability for Septic Systems ……………………………………………………………………………………… 8 4. Limitations to Community Development ………………………………………………………………… 8 C. Topography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 D. Slope …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 E. Erosion and Sedimentation ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 F. Aquifers ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Ashokan Reservoir: Stop the Mud Fact Sheet
    Ashokan Reservoir: Stop the mud Fact Sheet NYC is dumping billions of gallons of muddy water into the Lower Esopus The New York City Department of Environmental Protection is at it again, dumping millions of gallons each day of turbid water from the Ashokan Reservoir into the Lower Esopus Creek. High volume, turbid releases, such as those following the 2020 Christmas storm, have left the Lower Esopus Creek a muddy mess. These releases have such a negative impact that the Lower Esopus Creek has been placed on the New York State List of Impaired Waters for excessive silt and sediment. Why is this happening? The Esopus Creek is dammed to create the Ashokan Reservoir, one of the most important parts of New York City’s unfiltered drinking water supply, which serves over 9.5 million people in New York City and the Hudson Valley. Erosion from severe storms – which will become more common as the climate changes – causes excessive turbidity in the reservoir. One of the ways New York City manages this challenge is to dump high volumes of muddy water from the reservoir into the Lower Esopus Creek, which flows 32 miles to the Hudson River. These releases are the least ​ expensive way for the DEP to preserve the quality of NYC drinking water. However, this “solution” only shifts the costs and consequences onto the farmers, businesses and residents along the Lower Esopus from these releases. What is the impact? The turbid water severely affects water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and quality of life throughout seven Ulster County communities along the Lower Esopus.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridges in Albany County
    CDTC BRIDGE FACT SHEET BIN 1053380 Bridge Name 5 X over PATROON CREEK Review Date October 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION PIN County Albany Political Unit City of ALBANY Owner 42 - City of ALBANY Feature Carried 5 X Feature Crossed PATROON CREEK Federal System? Yes NHS? Yes BRIDGE INFORMATION Number of Spans 2 Superstructure Type Concrete Culvert At Risk? No AADT 26918 AADT Year 2010 Posted Load (Tons) INSPECTION INFORMATION Last Inspection 8/14/2012 Condition Rating 5.316 Flags NNN No Flags STUDY INFORMATION Work Strategy Item Specific Treatment 1 Concrete Patch Repairs Treatment 2 2014 Preliminary Construction Cost $100,000 MP&T Open Program (years) 10 Comments CDTC BRIDGE FACT SHEET BIN 2200130 Bridge Name KAEHLER LANE over FOX CREEK Review Date October 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION PIN County Albany Political Unit Town of BERNE Owner 40 - Town of BERNE Feature Carried KAEHLER LANE Feature Crossed FOX CREEK Federal System? No NHS? No BRIDGE INFORMATION Number of Spans 1 Superstructure Type Steel Stringer / Multibeam At Risk? Yes AADT 15 AADT Year 2009 Posted Load (Tons) INSPECTION INFORMATION Last Inspection 11/15/2012 Condition Rating 5.404 Flags NNN No Flags STUDY INFORMATION Work Strategy Item Specific Treatment 1 Place Asphalt WS Treatment 2 Repair Lagging Wall 2014 Preliminary Construction Cost $300,000 MP&T Detour Program (years) Immediate Comments CDTC BRIDGE FACT SHEET BIN 2200210 Bridge Name PICTUAY ROAD over COEYMANS CREEK Review Date October 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION PIN County Albany Political Unit Town of BETHLEHEM Owner 30 - Albany
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeologic Data Update for the Stratified-Drift Aquifer in the Sprout and Fishkill Creek Valleys, Dutchess County, New York
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Prepared in cooperation with the SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 3136 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Saturated thickness of the surficial aquifer - SHEET 4 of 4 Reynolds, R.J., and Calef, F.J., III., 2010, Hydrogeologic data update for the stratified-drift aquifer in the Sprout and Fishkill Creek valleys, Dutchess County, New York 73°55' 73°50' 73°45' 41°45' 80˚ 79˚ 78˚ 77˚ 76˚ 75˚ 74˚ 73˚ 72˚ 45˚ CANADA 44˚ Lake Ontario VERMONT NEW 43˚ NEW YORK HAMPSHIRE Lake Erie MASSACHUSETTS 42˚ DUTCHESS COUNTY CONNECTICUT PENNSYLVANIA osg Study area 41˚ NEW 0 25 50 75 100 MILES JERSEY Atlantic 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS Ocean osg t/r t/r EXPLANATION osg Saturated thickness of surficial aquifer, in feet t/r 0 to 10 0 to 10 ft osg 0 to 20 al 0 to 10 ft al 0 to 40 ksg 40 to 100 100 to 180 al ksg ksg Till or bedrock hill—surrounded by aquifer 0 to 20 ft osg Aquifer boundary—Denotes boundary between unconsolidated ksg deposits that comprise the Sprout and Fishkill Creeks aquifer and adjacent deposits of till and bedrock Limit of mapped area—Indicates arbitrary truncation of mapped area Surficial geologic boundary—Denotes boundary between adjacent ksg surficial geologic units. Surficial geologic units explained on Sheet 2 ksg al t/r t/r ksg Saturated Thickness of the Surficial Aquifer ksg col/ksg Sheet 4 shows the estimated saturated thickness of the surficial sand and gravel aquifer in the Sprout Creek-Fishkill Creek t/r study area.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Waterfowl Count Report
    New York State Waterfowl Count – 2008 January 12, 2008 Ulster County Narrative Page 1 of 8 Sixteen observers in five field parties participated in the Ulster County segment of the annual New York State Winter Waterfowl Count, recording a total of 17 species and 6,890 individuals within the county on Saturday, 12 January 2008. This represents a record high species count, exceeding last year's diversity by three species, and is just 204 individuals short of our record high total set in 2006. Field observers noted fast moving water, and essentially frozen ponds, lakes, and marshes throughout the county. Stone Ridge Pond on Mill Dam Road was the exception, and continues to contribute a large number of individuals and a few unusual species to the composite, hosting American Wigeon, Ring-necked Duck, and 1,061 individuals this year. The Hudson River, Ashokan Reservoir, lower Esopus Creek in Saugerties, and agricultural fields surrounding Wallkill prison accounted for the majority of the balance of the count. Weather conditions were quite favorable for this time of the year, especially in comparison to the rain and wide- spread fog of last year, or the sub-freezing temperatures typical of a mid-January count. A very dense fog did persist over the Hudson River early morning, requiring some minor route changes to allow for early visits to inland sites while delaying surveys of the Hudson to later in the day. Temperatures started out just below freezing, then warmed to a very comfortable mid-40's (F) by afternoon. Winds were calm for the most part, with the exception of a cold NW gale sweeping across partially frozen Ashokan Reservoir, making for very choppy waters in the lower basin and difficult viewing conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORTS of the TIBOR T. POLGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, 2013 David J. Yozzo, Sarah H. Fernald and Helena Andreyko Editors a Joint
    REPORTS OF THE TIBOR T. POLGAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM, 2013 David J. Yozzo, Sarah H. Fernald and Helena Andreyko Editors A Joint Program of The Hudson River Foundation and The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation December 2015 ABSTRACT Eight studies were conducted within the Hudson River Estuary under the auspices of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program during 2013. Major objectives of these studies included: (1) reconstruction of past climate events through analysis of sedimentary microfossils, (2) determining past and future ability of New York City salt marshes to accommodate sea level rise through vertical accretion, (3) analysis of the effects of nutrient pollution on greenhouse gas production in Hudson River marshes, (4) detection and identification of pathogens in aerosols and surface waters of Newtown Creek, (5) detection of amphetamine type stimulants at wastewater outflow sites in the Hudson River, (6) investigating establishment limitations of new populations of Oriental bittersweet in Schodack Island State Park, (7) assessing macroinvertebrate tolerance to hypoxia in the presence of water chestnut and submerged aquatic species, and (8) examining the distribution and feeding ecology of larval sea lamprey in the Hudson River basin. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................... iii Preface ................................................................................................................. vii Fellowship Reports Pelagic Tropical to Subtropical Foraminifera in the Hudson River: What is their Source? Kyle M. Monahan and Dallas Abbott .................................................................. I-1 Sea Level Rise and Sediment: Recent Salt Marsh Accretion in the Hudson River Estuary Troy D. Hill and Shimon C. Anisfeld .................................................................. II-1 Nutrient Pollution in Hudson River Marshes: Effects on Greenhouse Gas Production Angel Montero, Brian Brigham, and Gregory D.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Public Comment on Draft Trout Stream Management Plan
    Assessment of public comments on draft New York State Trout Stream Management Plan OCTOBER 27, 2020 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner A draft of the Fisheries Management Plan for Inland Trout Streams in New York State (Plan) was released for public review on May 26, 2020 with the comment period extending through June 25, 2020. Public comment was solicited through a variety of avenues including: • a posting of the statewide public comment period in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB), • a DEC news release distributed statewide, • an announcement distributed to all e-mail addresses provided by participants at the 2017 and 2019 public meetings on trout stream management described on page 11 of the Plan [353 recipients, 181 unique opens (58%)], and • an announcement distributed to all subscribers to the DEC Delivers Freshwater Fishing and Boating Group [138,122 recipients, 34,944 unique opens (26%)]. A total of 489 public comments were received through e-mail or letters (Appendix A, numbered 1-277 and 300-511). 471 of these comments conveyed specific concerns, recommendations or endorsements; the other 18 comments were general statements or pertained to issues outside the scope of the plan. General themes to recurring comments were identified (22 total themes), and responses to these are included below. These themes only embrace recommendations or comments of concern. Comments that represent favorable and supportive views are not included in this assessment. Duplicate comment source numbers associated with a numbered theme reflect comments on subtopics within the general theme. Theme #1 The statewide catch and release (artificial lures only) season proposed to run from October 16 through March 31 poses a risk to the sustainability of wild trout populations and the quality of the fisheries they support that is either wholly unacceptable or of great concern, particularly in some areas of the state; notably Delaware/Catskill waters.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHKILLISHKILL Mmilitaryilitary Ssupplyupply Hubhub Ooff Thethe Aamericanmerican Rrevolutionevolution
    Staples® Print Solutions HUNRES_1518351_BRO01 QA6 1234 CYANMAGENTAYELLOWBLACK 06/6/2016 This material is based upon work assisted by a grant from the Department of Interior, National Park Service. Any opinions, fi ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily refl ect the views of the Department of the Interior. FFISHKILLISHKILL MMilitaryilitary SSupplyupply HHubub ooff tthehe AAmericanmerican RRevolutionevolution 11776-1783776-1783 “...the principal depot of Washington’s army, where there are magazines, hospitals, workshops, etc., which form a town of themselves...” -Thomas Anburey 1778 Friends of the Fishkill Supply Depot A Historical Overview www.fi shkillsupplydepot.org Cover Image: Spencer Collection, New York Public Library. Designed and Written by Hunter Research, Inc., 2016 “View from Fishkill looking to West Point.” Funded by the American Battlefi eld Protection Program Th e New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1820. Staples® Print Solutions HUNRES_1518351_BRO01 QA6 5678 CYANMAGENTAYELLOWBLACK 06/6/2016 Fishkill Military Supply Hub of the American Revolution In 1777, the British hatched a scheme to capture not only Fishkill but the vital Fishkill Hudson Valley, which, if successful, would sever New England from the Mid- Atlantic and paralyze the American cause. The main invasion force, under Gen- eral John Burgoyne, would push south down the Lake Champlain corridor from Distribution Hub on the Hudson Canada while General Howe’s troops in New York advanced up the Hudson. In a series of missteps, Burgoyne overestimated the progress his army could make On July 9, 1776, New York’s Provincial Congress met at White Plains creating through the forests of northern New York, and Howe deliberately embarked the State of New York and accepting the Declaration of Independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Assessment of Fish Passage Opportunities in the Tributaries of the Lower Hudson River Carl W
    Current Assessment of Fish Passage Opportunities in the Tributaries of the Lower Hudson River Carl W. Alderson1, Lisa Rosman2 1 NOAA Restoration Center, Highlands New Jersey, 2 NOAA-ORR/Assessment and Restoration Division, New York, New York NOAA’s Hudson River Fish Passage Initiative Study Team has identified 307 Lower Hudson Tributary Barrier Statistics Abstract barriers (r e d dots) to fish passage within the 65 major tributaries to the Lower • 307 Barriers Identified on 65 Tributaries (215 miles) Google Earth Elevation Profile Tool Hudson Estuary. Take notice of how The Hudson River estuary supports numerous diadromous and tightly these are clustered along the • 153 Dams, 23 Culverts/Bridges, 122 Natural, 9 TBD Demonstrating Three Examples of Potential Hudson Main Stem. Whether by the hand • Dams Constructed 1800-1999 potamodromous fish. Tributaries to the Hudson River provide critical of man or by nature’s rock, the first barrier Stream Miles Gained with Dam Removal spawning, nursery and foraging habitat for these migratory fish. to every tributary falls within short distance • Dam Height Range of 1 ft to 141 feet of the confluence of the Hudson. Here the Previous studies made recommendations for fish passage and were barriers are shown relative to the 5 major • Dam Length Range of 6 ft to 1,218 ft limited to determining the upstream fish movement at the first and watersheds of Lower Hudson from the • Spillway Width Range of 6 ft to 950 ft Battery in Manhattan to Troy, NY second barriers on each of 62 tributaries to the tidal (Lower) Hudson • Includes stream segments where slopes exceed 1:40 7 TODAY River (e.g., dams, culverts, natural falls/rapids) or to multiple barriers FUTURE GOAL Removal of dam 5 may allow • 73 Tributary Miles Currently Estimated Available to Diadromous Fish w/ dam removal 5 FUTURE GOAL EEL 6 eel to pass to RM 9.9 where for a small subset of tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 CERM Presentation Abstracts
    Catskill Environmental Research & Monitoring (CERM) 3rd Biennial Conference October 23 – 24, 2014 Belleayre Mountain Ski Center, Highmount, NY Abstract Book CONFERENCE SPONSORS: Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program/Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Ulster County, Bard College Center for Environmental Policy, Catskill Institute for the Environment, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Energy Research & Development Authority, Roundout Neversink Stream Program & United States Geologic Survey This page left intentionally blank. Session: 1 – Environmental Science & Society Title: Citizen Science: Science Literacy Education to Improve Future Decision Making Presenter: Amy Savage Presenter Affiliation: Citizen Science, Bard College Corresponding Amy Savage Author: Corresponding [email protected] Author Email: Co-Authors: Abstract: Bard College is a selective private liberal arts institution in New York’s Hudson Valley. Bard emphasizes mandatory curricular components, with the goal of preparing students for a lifetime of thoughtful engagement with complex issues. These issues are often scientific in nature, and thus necessitate an ability to engage with frequently unfamiliar scientific concepts in a thoughtful and appropriate way, the essence of scientific literacy. Inability to do so can lead to disempowerment and lack of engagement. In recognition that scientific literacy is both a key feature of, and pathway to, an engaged and informed citizenry, Citizen Science was added to the College’s first year core curriculum in 2011. The Citizen Science program is an intense 3-week course held over the January intersession, during which all first year students participate in common processes of scientific inquiry.
    [Show full text]