DOCSLIB.ORG

Discovery Report Mid-Hudson Watershed HUC 02020006 Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Ulster Counties, New York*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discovery Report Mid-Hudson Watershed HUC 02020006 Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Ulster Counties, New York* Discovery Report Mid-Hudson Watershed HUC 02020006 Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Schoharie, and Ulster Counties, New York* *These counties span more than one watershed; please see the following page for a list of communities fully or partially located in the watershed. This report covers only the Mid-Hudson Watershed in the State of New York. Report Number 01 August 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY Project Area Community List This list includes all communities located fully or partially within the Mid-Hudson Watershed. While all communities may be under consideration for a revised Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), not all communities will receive new/updated FEMA FISs or FIRMs as a result of this watershed Discovery project. Albany County New Lebanon, Town of Albany, City of* Philmont, Village of Altamont, Village of Stockport, Town of Berne, Town of* Stuyvesant, Town of Bethlehem, Town of Taghkanic, Town of Coeymans, Town of Valatie, Village of Colonie, Town of* Delaware County Colonie, Village of* Middletown, Town of** Green Island, Village of*** Dutchess County Guilderland, Town of* Amenia, Town of** Knox, Town of* Milan, Town of* Menands, Village of Northeast, Town of* New Scotland, Town of Pine Plains, Town of* Ravena, Village of Red Hook, Town of* Rensselaerville, Town of* Red Hook, Village of* Voorheesville, Village of Rhinebeck, Town of* Watervliet, City of* Stanford, Town of* Westerlo, Town of* Tivoli, Village of Columbia County Greene County Ancram, Town of* Athens, Town of Austerlitz, Town of* Athens, Village of Canaan, Town of* Cairo, Town of* Chatham, Town of Catskill, Town of Chatham, Village of Catskill, Village of Claverack, Town of Coxsackie, Town of Clermont, Town of Coxsackie, Village of Copake, Town of* Durham, Town of* Gallatin, Town of Greenville, Town of Germantown, Town of Hunter, Town of** Ghent, Town of Jewett, Town of** Greenport, Town of Lexington, Town of** Hillsdale, Town of* New Baltimore, Town of Hudson, City of Windham, Town of** Kinderhook, Town of Rensselaer County Kinderhook, Village of Berlin, Town of* Livingston, Town of Brunswick, Town of* Discovery Report: Mid-Hudson Watershed, New York i Rensselaer County (cont.) Castleton-on-Hudson, Village of East Greenbush, Town of East Nassau, Village of Grafton, Town of* Nassau, Town of Nassau, Village of North Greenbush, Town of Poestenkill, Town of Rensselaer, City of Sand Lake, Town of Schodack, Town of Stephentown, Town of* Troy, City of* Schenectady County Delanson, Village of Duanesburg, Town of* Princetown, Town of* Rotterdam, Town of* Schoharie County Broome, Town of* Conesville, Town of** Fulton, Town of** Middleburgh, Town of** Wright, Town of** Ulster County Denning, Town of** Hardenburgh, Town of** Hurley, Town of* Kingston, City of* Kingston, Town of Marbletown, Town of* Olive, Town of** Rosendale, Town of** Saugerties, Town of Saugerties, Village of Shandaken, Town of** Ulster, Town of* Woodstock, Town of Discovery Report: Mid-Hudson Watershed Area, New York ii *Partially within the Mid-Hudson Watershed **Partially within the Mid-Hudson Watershed, but not included in this Discovery Report due to inclusion within other Discovery processes, lack of flooding sources, and/or unpopulated area or development. ***Outside of the Mid-Hudson Watershed but included in this Discovery project due to proximity and study needs. Discovery Report: Mid-Hudson Watershed Area, New York iii Study Date The information and data presented in this report are static and were current as of August 2017. The Discovery process for the Mid-Hudson Watershed began in early 2016. Data collection was completed between March 2016 and February 2017. The in-person Discovery Meetings were held in October 2016. Additional details on meetings and stakeholder involvement can be found in Sections IV and V of this report. Where applicable, the dates of data creation are noted throughout the report. Discovery Report: Mid-Hudson Watershed Area, New York iv Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... ix Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................ xi Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 I. Discovery Overview ............................................................................................................. 3 II. Mid-Hudson Watershed Overview ....................................................................................... 4 Watershed Characteristics and Geography ................................................................................ 4 Demographics ............................................................................................................................ 5 Population .......................................................................................................................... 5 Government/Representatives ............................................................................................. 5 Property Ownership ........................................................................................................... 6 Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 11 Media ............................................................................................................................... 14 Historic Flooding Problems ..................................................................................................... 16 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 16 New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program (NYRCRP).............................. 20 High Water Marks............................................................................................................ 20 Disaster Declarations ....................................................................................................... 20 Ice Jams ............................................................................................................................ 21 Dams .............................................................................................................................. 214 Recent Media Coverage of Natural Hazards ................................................................... 25 III. Summary of Watershed-Wide Data ....................................................................................... 25 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Data ..................................................................... 25 Effective Regulatory Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) ............................................ 25 Letters of Map Change (LOMCs) .................................................................................... 28 Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS) and NFIP Mapping Needs ............. 32 Flood Insurance Policies and Claims ............................................................................... 34 Repetitive Loss/Severe Repetitive Loss Properties ......................................................... 37 Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) ............................................................................ 40 Community Assistance Contacts (CACs) ........................................................................ 41 Ordinances ....................................................................................................................... 44 Community Rating System (CRS) ................................................................................... 46 Discovery Report: Mid-Hudson Watershed Area, New York v Other Data Useful for Flood Risk Assessment and Mitigation ............................................... 47 Topographic Data............................................................................................................. 47 Dams ................................................................................................................................ 47 Levees .............................................................................................................................. 47 Stream Gages and Flows .................................................................................................. 48 Rain Gages ....................................................................................................................... 49 Average Annualized Loss (AAL) Data............................................................................ 49 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) ......................................................... 50 Transportation .................................................................................................................. 50 Jurisdictional Boundaries ................................................................................................. 50 Hazard Mitigation Planning and Activities ............................................................................. 51 Summary of Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) ................................................................ 51 Critical Facilities and Other Important
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hudson River Pcbs Superfund Site Second Five-Year Review Fact Sheet June 2017
    Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Second Five-Year Review Fact Sheet June 2017 What is a five-year review? How did EPA perform the The purpose of a five-year review is to determine if a Hudson five-year review? Superfund cleanup remedy is working as intended and is Usually, the EPA performs the five-year reviews with some protective of human health and the environment. input from state partners, but in the case of the Hudson If any issues that affect protectiveness are found during the River PCBs site five-year review, the EPA took the unusual five-year review, recommendations are made to address step of establishing a team that included representatives them. from state and federal agencies, as well as the Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees, and representatives from How is protectiveness determined? the site’s Community Advisory Group. The EPA consulted with this team as it developed its five-year review. Although Protectiveness is determined by answering the following the EPA typically does not seek public comment on five-year three questions: reviews, the EPA will hold a public comment period on the • Is the remedy functioning as intended? Hudson River five-year review. • Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of What was the outcome of the Hudson remedy selection still valid? River PCBs site five-year review? The EPA believes that the available data and information • Has any other information come to light that could call show that the Hudson River PCBs site remedy is working into question the protectiveness of the remedy? as designed and is expected to accomplish its goal of When is a five-year review conducted? long-term protection of human health and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Wings Over Dutchess
    Volume 54 Number 1 www.watermanbirdclub.org January 2012 JANUARY 2012 MEETING Our first meeting in 2012 will be on Monday, January 23rd at the Freedom Plains Church Parish Hall, Route 55, Freedom Plains, across from Arlington High School, at 7:30 PM. Our Speaker will be our own member, Steve Golladay. He will present High Speed Photography of Hummingbirds. Learn about hummingbirds as well as photographic equipment and technique. Steve will demo his hummingbird photography setup, which includes five off camera flashes + one on-camera flash, and will show you some stunning photographs he was able to capture with it. We hope you will join us for a every informative and fun evening. Refreshments will follow our meeting. James Baird SP Norrie Point Vanderbilt Mills Mansion Tymor Forest Harlem Valley (w/red maple Rail Trail Mansion syrup pails) Amenia FEBRUARY 2012 & MARCH 2012 FIELD TRIPS WEDNESDAY Feb. 1 James Baird State Park *pg. 66. Meet at the restaurant parking lot at 9:00am. Feb. 8 Norrie Point *pg.78. Meet at the museum parking lot at 9:00am. Feb. 15 Bowdoin Park *pg. 16. Meet at the upper level parking area at 9:00am. Feb. 22 Vanderbilt Mansion *pg. 126. Meet at the visitor parking lot at 9:00am. Feb. 29 Wilcox Park – if closed Thompson Pond. Meet at park’s parking lot (off Rt. 199 east of Parkway) at 9:00am. Mar. 7 Mills Mansion *pg. 78. Meet at the Mansion parking lot, Staatsburg at 9:00am. Mar. 14 Tymor Forest *pg. 124. Meet at the barns at 9:00am.
    [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]
  • 2015 Angus Pathfinder® Report a SEARCH for SUPERIOR COWS
    2015 Angus Pathfinder® Report A SEARCH FOR SUPERIOR COWS he Angus Pathfinder ® program regularly and wean a calf that helps Twas started in 1978 in an maintain the average weaning ratio effort to identify superior cows in of 105 or above. It is pointed out that the breed based on Angus Herd once a cow is designated a Pathfinder, Improvement Records (AHIR®). In she is always a Pathfinder, even identifying these superior cows, though she might not qualify for listing emphasis was placed on early each year. puberty, breeding and early calving, followed by regularity of calving and Annual Report above-average performance of the The Pathfinder Report is issued offspring. each spring. Outstanding females and While outstanding cows can be bulls are listed in the report and, more identified after their first or second importantly, the breeders who are calves, the Pathfinder program keeping AHIR records of performance requires a minimum of three are identified as owners of Pathfinder calves from a cow to determine her Cows and Pathfinder Sires. regularity of calving and ability to Studying the Pathfinder Report is produce superior calves for weaning fairly simple. An effort has been made weight year after year. In addition, an to list important information about important part of the report is the list the Pathfinder Cow, her owner and of bulls that have sired five or more the performance information that has qualifying females. qualified her as a top female. If you The 2015 Angus Pathfinder Report wish to review a Pathfinder’s extended identifies a total of 9,138 cows that pedigree or current expected progeny have excelled in production based differences (EPDs) and $Values, we on AHIR records of performance.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Chenango County, NY 75.19694W
    42.760880N 42.759649N 75.98561W 2010 CENSUS - CENSUS TRACT REFERENCE MAP: Chenango County, NY 75.19694W LEGEND 7 d R 7 Earlville 21523 n o 0 t l i C Hamilton town 31720 Brookfield town 08587 SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL LABEL STYLE M m O O a DeRuyter 20390 Lebanon town 41674 H G A E R S S D W Main St T Federal American Indian 13 T Georgetown town 28695 O L I Carpenter Rd S Reservation L'ANSE RES 1880 A DeRuyter town 20401 O Losee Rd N MADISON 053 d N Pope Hill R D 80 d E Main St ill R 0 M Off-Reservation Trust Land, n S a Rd d 0 Cas ill 5 S Lebanon Rd l tle H R m il M Fur R H d C T1880 a n M CHENANGO 017 Hawaiian Home Land 2 o d 3 o in ps u l l R Rd l St e 3 m i g d B o i d h Coye o a T r C R f d 4 a n R mi B e ch d 1 S d t k r 2 Button D d R b is m 4 l R o e b s R d a a t N Rd R Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area, o r y s P d S s d r o R v s r o d r a R R u B x d r is l R a t l d c p Alaska Native Village Statistical Area, h e l d i Rd K S T n R M e Knapp r S KAW OTSA 5340 H r F d s o e R u Tribal Designated Statistical Area e 12 l y d o a M C l r c e e s r i Rd t R y e t e b r U R d d d m d C C R a R o R o Columbus town 17486 R State American Indian B a s d k d ll g 1 i l n e R i 6 e l H nc l Tama Res 4125 H i l C e y e l r Reservation i Burlington town 11209 t B w o y d r R 80 a 4 H -L North Rd e d D R R 1 C m u a Rd e v h R d o l e d g n n c r i o d n s in C d l l i e C b h 2 n a R y Rd a u n R CHENANGO 017 Edmeston town 23613 d a R S o D C 2 d u Andrews s CORTLAND 023 a o t l m R C e u r d a k R 7 C m y C State Designated Tribal a o t
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Schodack
    TOWN OF SCHODACK RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK OMPREHENSIVE LAN C P JANUARY 2011 Acknowledgments Town Board Dennis Dowds, Supervisor Jim Bult, Councilman Frank Curtis, Councilman Michael Kenney, Councilman Debra Young, Councilman Planning Board Peter Goold, Chairman* Denise Mayrer, Vice Chairman G. Jeffery Haber Paul Puccio* Wayne Johnson* John La Voie Andrew Timmis *Planning Advisory Committee Planning Consultant © 2011 Laberge Group, Project #27116 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 What is a Comprehensive Plan? ...................................................................................................................... 1 Schodack’s Comprehensive Plan and Guiding Principles ............................................................................... 2 Vision Statement for the Town of Schodack ................................................................................................... 3 Methodology for Developing Schodack’s Comprehensive Plan Summary ..................................................... 3 II. Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................................... 5 Preface to the Schodack Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles .................................................................. 5 Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 'Five Year Review Report' for Hudson River Pcbs Site
    Recommendations to EPA for the “Five Year Review Report” for Hudson River PCBs Site Executive Summary The Hudson River is one of the highest priority natural resources for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in New York State. Since the 1970s, DEC has been at the forefront in requiring General Electric (GE) to address the PCB contamination of the Hudson River. With over forty years of effort involved in confronting this major environmental issue, DEC has a unique historical perspective to offer to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DEC scientists and engineers have conducted an independent evaluation of the site history and current conditions, utilizing EPA’s own guidance and criteria for performing five year remedy reviews. DEC also has a point of view different from EPA, in that the Hudson River is primarily a natural resource of the State; the people of the State will be making use of this precious resource long into the future. As a result, DEC is providing the State’s positions on the upcoming 2017 Five- Year Review (FYR) for the Hudson River PCBs Site before EPA finalizes its report. DEC’s position has been informed by an independent evaluation of the information and data available for the site in an effort to provide EPA with an objective analysis regarding whether or not the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. When deciding on the remedy for the Hudson River, EPA considered that cancer and non-cancer health risks were well above the acceptable risk range for people who ate fish from both the upper Hudson River (between Hudson Falls and Troy) and the lower Hudson River (from Troy south to Manhattan).
    [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]
  • Capital District Hudson River Water Quality Factsheet
    St Lawrence R. Merrimack R. Connecticut R. HOW’S THE WATER? People ask, “Where is it safe to swim in the Hudson River?” Riverkeeper’s monitoring program provides data to help inform decisions. Find all the data, and learn more at riverkeeper.org/water-quality CAPITAL DISTRICT Making choices based on water quality patterns Upper Hudson River Even if there is no data for a particular location where one may Mohawk River Troy enter the water, the data show patterns that can guide decisions. Cohoes These pie charts show the percentage of sites sampled in each Watervliet Poesten Kill category that are ● generally safe, ● unsafe after rain and ● generally unsafe. Wynants Kill Albany Quackenderry Creek Mill Creek MID CHANNEL: The deeper, well-mixed part of the river away from its shores Bethlehem would have generally met safe swimming Castleton Moordener Kill criteria, except near and downstream from Coeymans combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the Capital District and New York City. Find data for the whole Hudson & tributaries identified Coxsackie on this map at NEAR SHORE: Water quality near city riverkeeper.org/ water-quality and village waterfronts is most likely to Catskill Creek Athens be affected by street runoff and sewer Hudson overflows, while shorelines that are less Catskill developed generally have shown less Key impact from rain. Sampling locations are color-coded according to analysis of nearly 5,000 samples from 2008-2018 to indicate the likelySawyer relative Kill risks associated with swimming. However, good or poor water quality may occur at any location depending on local conditions. Generally safeSaugerties for swimming TRIBUTARIES: The smaller creeks and rivers Location would have met both EPA criteriaRoeliff for safe swimming.Jansen WhileKill it would meet that feed the Hudson have had more risky criteria, water quality varies significantlyTivoli over time.
    [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]