DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program Assessment of Need for a New York State Master Watershed Steward Program April 2012 Elizabeth Keller, Shorna Allred, Allison Chatrchyan, Carolyn Klocker Author Information Elizabeth Keller Shorna Broussard Allred, Ph.D. Watershed Community Education Intern Associate Professor Department of Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources Cornell University Cornell University B20 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 209 Bruckner Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 [email protected] (607) 255-2149 [email protected] www.human-dimensions.org Allison Morrill Chatrchyan, Ph.D. Carolyn Ann Klocker Environment & Energy Program Leader Senior Water Resource Educator CCE Energy & Climate Change Team Cornell University Cooperative Extension Dutchess County Cornell University Cooperative Extension 2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545 Dutchess County (845) 677-8223 ext. 135 2715 Route 44, Millbrook, NY 12545 [email protected] (845) 677-8223 ext. 136 http://ccedutchess.org [email protected] www.dutchesswatersheds.org Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the planning committee for their help in designing the survey instrument and working to plan the New York Master Watershed Steward program thus far. In addition to the authors, the planning committee is comprised of Elizabeth LoGuidice, Elizabeth Higgins, Michael Courtney, Scott Cuppett, Emilie Hauser, Margaret Kurth, and Carolyn Klocker. We are also appreciative of the assistance Deb Grantham in helping to distribute the survey to CCE water resources staff. This work was supported, in part, by an integrated research and extension grant through the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch funds) and Cornell Cooperative Extension (Smith-Lever funds) received from the National Institutes for Food and Agriculture (NIFA,) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This project was also supported by a grant from the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Estuary Program/New York State Water Resources Institute. 2 | P a g e Table of Contents Author Information and Acknowledgements.………………………………………………………………… 2 List of Figures............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction and Methods................................................................................................................................... 6 I. Respondent Involvement in Watershed Management…………………………………………………... 7 II. Watershed Management Training Needs……………………………………………………………….…. 10 III. Recommendations for Program Structure and Implementation….………………………….…. 14 IV. Watershed Management and Planning…………..…………………………..…………….…………….... 26 V. Barriers to Watershed Management and Planning.……………………………………….....……..…. 27 VI. Respondent Demographics……………………………………………………………………...…………..…. 29 Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………... 31 Appendix A: Additional Responses…………………………………………………………………………….…. 33 Appendix B: Analysis of Time Spent Completing Survey………..……………………….……………… 40 Appendix C: Complete Survey……………………………………………………………………………….……… 41 3 | P a g e List of Figures Figure 1. In what capacity are you involved in watershed management?…………………………. 7 Figure 2. Which best describes your involvement in water conservation and stewardship? …………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………...… 8 Figure 3. Please list the watershed group(s) in New York State with which you are involved..………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 9 Figure 4. Training Needs - Organizational and Community Capacity……………………...………. 10 Figure 5. Training Needs - Internal Organizational Capacity…………………………………….……. 12 Figure 6.1 Training Needs - Technical Skills – Background and Planning..……………...………. 13 Figure 6.2 Training Needs - Technical Skills – Assessment and Monitoring.……………………. 13 Figure 7. Do you think there is a need for this type of program?..................................................... 14 Figure 8. Do you have any preferences for the name of a watershed steward program?..... 15 Figure 9. What is your preference for the structure or format of a master watershed steward program? …………………………………………………………………………………....... 16 Figure 10. Do you think program participants should be required to complete a hands-on watershed project?........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 11. How much do you think volunteers would be willing to pay to participate in a watershed steward training program?................................................................................. 18 Figure 12. How do you think a master watershed steward program should be implemented?.................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 13. Are you aware of any non-profit organizations, agencies, or groups that might be good partners to help develop and implement this program?................................... 20 Figure 14.1 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give the name of the program..……………………………………………...…………………….. 21 Figure 14.2 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give its length…………………………………………………………………………………………..… 22 4 | P a g e Figure 14.3 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give the registration fee…………………………………………………………………………........ 23 Figure 14.4 Have you attended any short courses, workshops, or conferences? If so, please give the distance travelled…………………………………………………………………….…….. 23 Figure 15. What types of people do you think are likely to participate in a master watershed steward program?......................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 16. Would you be interested in helping pilot/implement a Master Watershed Steward program?......................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 17. How many people are actively involved in the watershed group(s) that you work with?.................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 18. In terms of a written watershed plan, please indicate the stage your group is currently in……………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 26 Figure 19. What factors are barriers to accomplishing watershed management goals in your organization or community?..................................................................................................... 28 Figure 20. What is your gender?..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 21. What is your age?............................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 22. What is the highest level of education you have completed?....................................... 30 Figure 23. Survey Completion times………………………………………………………………………...…… 40 Figure 24. Time Spent Answering Questions………………………………………………………………… 40 5 | P a g e Introduction and Methods The goal of the New York Master Watershed Steward Program is to strengthen local capacity for successful watershed management across the state and address non-point source pollution. This program will extend the capacity of many watershed organizations and Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) staff by providing a trained and knowledgeable cadre of enrolled CCE watershed volunteers and a regional network for delivering CCE educational programming. This program can increase the impact and scope of research-based information dissemination by creating informed leaders. It also will help increase community ability to solve their own problems and communicate with local government about water priorities. The training will likely include face-to-face workshops, and possibly distance learning and hands-on project components. The program would reach out to citizens, agency staff, municipal officials, non-profit organization staff, organization leaders, university students, watershed activists, and landowners. Training will potentially include modules on subjects such as working with political structures, acquiring funds for watershed management, setting group goals, assessing and inventorying watersheds, and implementing watershed projects. The purpose of the needs assessment was to determine the need for a NY Master Watershed Steward program, how it should be implemented and other particulars important to piloting such a program. The study was implemented through a 13-page, 24-question online survey of watershed organizations and CCE educators involved in watershed management in New York. The survey, conducted from April to May 2011, investigated the need for a watershed steward program and determined the most useful structure and training modules for the program. The survey included sections on respondents’ demographics and current watershed management involvement, training needs, program structure, watershed management planning, and barriers to success. The survey was sent to 208 leaders of watershed organizations and was also sent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Past Tibor T. Polgar Fellowships
    Past Tibor T. Polgar Fellowships The Hudson River estuary stretches from its tidal limit at the Federal Dam at Troy, New York, to its merger with the New York Bight, south of New York City. Within that reach, the estuary displays a broad transition from tidal freshwater to marine conditions that are reflected in its physical composition and the biota it supports. These characteristics present a major opportunity and challenge for researchers to describe the makeup and workings of a complex and dynamic ecosystem. The Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program provides funds for graduate and undergraduate students to study selected aspects of the physical, chemical, biological, and public policy realms of the estuary. Since its inception in 1985, the program has provided approximately $1 million in funding to 189 students and can boast the involvement of 116 advisors from 64 institutions. The program is named in memory of Dr. Tibor T. Polgar, an estuarine biologist who was a key advisor to the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research when the fellowship program was created. The program is conducted jointly by the Hudson River Foundation and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The fellowships are funded by the Foundation. Past reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship program are listed below. Download the entire report or particular sections as PDF files. Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2019 - Sarah Fernald, David Yozzo, and Helena Andreyko, editors I. Use of Gadolinium to Track Sewage Effluent Through the Poughkeepsie, New York Water System – Matthew Badia, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Village of Sleepy Hollow Local Development Corporation Village of Sleepy Hollow Westchester County, New York November 2015
    Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Village of Sleepy Hollow Local Development Corporation Village of Sleepy Hollow Westchester County, New York November 2015 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. 200 White Plains Road Tarrytown, NY 10591 Village of Sleepy Hollow Local Development Corporation November 2015 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION a. Scope The purpose of this analysis is to examine the impact on stormwater quantity and quality with the filling and stockpiling of material on the 27.8 ± acre parcel located at the end of Continental Street in the Village of Sleepy Hollow, New York. Development at the site will include disturbance of 6.0± total acres of the previously developed parcel. b. Existing Conditions The site is now vacant land. It was previously developed with a parking area and auxiliary buildings. The existing buildings have been demolished but the paved areas remain. There are currently piles of stockpiled material around the site that will be removed prior to the activity proposed and described in this report. The site where the material is to be stockpiled is currently classified as urban land and Riverhead loam on steep slope as outlined by the Westchester County Soils Survey. The site is located partially within the 100 year flood plain and flood way and is completely tributary to the Pocantico River via existing drainage culverts and overland flow. In the Existing Condition the project site is divided into two surface types (impervious pavements and wooded steep slopes). No activity is proposed in the flood way or on the steep slopes. The following soils can be found on the property based on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York (See Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Bacterial and Viral Source Tracking in the Pocantico and Sparkill Creek Watersheds
    NEW YORK STATE WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering 230 Riley-Robb Hall, Cornell University Tel: (607) 254-7163 Ithaca, NY 14853-5701 Fax: (607) 255-4449 http://wri.cals.cornell.edu Email: [email protected] Bacterial and Viral Source Tracking in the Pocantico and Sparkill Creek Watersheds Bernadette J. Connors, PhD Dominican College Science Department [email protected] Abstract In New York State, 792 waterbodies are on the “Impaired/TMDL” list, which identifies bodies of water that might require remediation. The Sparkill Creek, placed on the list first in 2010, empties into the Hudson River. It faces issues with stormwater runoff, causing elevated levels of pathogens in the creek and decreased oxygen availability. According to published data, the levels of the indicator bacteria are 24 times higher than EPA standards. The Pocantico River, located in Westchester County, faces many of these same issues. Both were tested for microbial and coliphage loads and diversity as related to weather events. Coliform and E. coli levels were measured, with a significant increase found with a rainfall event for both sampling locations. The coliphage numbers and diversity were also significantly different with a rain event. Microbial community analyses were also completed. Of note was increased prevalence of Enterobacter and Escherichia three miles from the mouth of the creek. Future studies include a more thorough analysis of the microbial community data in both time and space, along with further testing of the fungal, bacterial, and algal populations. Bacterial and Viral Source Tracking in the Pocantico and Sparkill Creek Watersheds Three Summary Points of Interest • Microbial community profiling yields a more comprehensive view of challenges faced by aquatic ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • NY Excluding Long Island 2017
    DISCONTINUED SURFACE-WATER DISCHARGE OR STAGE-ONLY STATIONS The following continuous-record surface-water discharge or stage-only stations (gaging stations) in eastern New York excluding Long Island have been discontinued. Daily streamflow or stage records were collected and published for the period of record, expressed in water years, shown for each station. Those stations with an asterisk (*) before the station number are currently operated as crest-stage partial-record station and those with a double asterisk (**) after the station name had revisions published after the site was discontinued. Those stations with a (‡) following the Period of Record have no winter record. [Letters after station name designate type of data collected: (d) discharge, (e) elevation, (g) gage height] Period of Station Drainage record Station name number area (mi2) (water years) HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN Tenmile River near Wassaic, NY (d) 01199420 120 1959-61 Swamp River near Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199490 46.6 1961-68 Tenmile River at Dover Plains, NY (d) 01199500 189 1901-04 BLIND BROOK BASIN Blind Brook at Rye, NY (d) 01300000 8.86 1944-89 BEAVER SWAMP BROOK BASIN Beaver Swamp Brook at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01300500 4.42 1944-89 MAMARONECK RIVER BASIN Mamaroneck River at Mamaroneck, NY (d) 01301000 23.1 1944-89 BRONX RIVER BASIN Bronx River at Bronxville, NY (d) 01302000 26.5 1944-89 HUDSON RIVER BASIN Opalescent River near Tahawus, NY (d) 01311900 9.02 1921-23 Fishing Brook (County Line Flow Outlet) near Newcomb, NY (d) 0131199050 25.2 2007-10 Arbutus Pond Outlet
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications
    Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Waterbody Type Segment ID Waterbody Index Number (WIN) Streams 0202-0047 Pa-63-30 Streams 0202-0048 Pa-63-33 Streams 0801-0419 Ont 19- 94- 1-P922- Streams 0201-0034 Pa-53-21 Streams 0801-0422 Ont 19- 98 Streams 0801-0423 Ont 19- 99 Streams 0801-0424 Ont 19-103 Streams 0801-0429 Ont 19-104- 3 Streams 0801-0442 Ont 19-105 thru 112 Streams 0801-0445 Ont 19-114 Streams 0801-0447 Ont 19-119 Streams 0801-0452 Ont 19-P1007- Streams 1001-0017 C- 86 Streams 1001-0018 C- 5 thru 13 Streams 1001-0019 C- 14 Streams 1001-0022 C- 57 thru 95 (selected) Streams 1001-0023 C- 73 Streams 1001-0024 C- 80 Streams 1001-0025 C- 86-3 Streams 1001-0026 C- 86-5 Page 1 of 464 09/28/2021 Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Name Description Clear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Mud Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to Long Lake total length of all tribs to lake Little Valley Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Elkdale Kents Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Crystal Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Forestport Alder Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Bear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Minor Tribs to Kayuta Lake total length of select tribs to the lake Little Black Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Wheelertown Twin Lakes Stream and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to North Lake total length of all tribs to lake Mill Brook and minor tribs entire stream and selected tribs Riley Brook
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Poughkeepsie's Upper
    A Short History of Poughkeepsie’s Upper Landing Written by Michael Diaz Chapter 1: Native Americans, the Dutch, and the English When Henry Hudson and his crew first sailed past what is now the City of Poughkeepsie in 1609, they sailed into a region that had been inhabited for centuries by a mixture of Algonquin-speaking peoples from the Mahican, Lenape, and Munsee cultures. The people living closest to the waterfall called “Pooghkepesingh” were Wappinger, part of the Lenape nation. The Wappinger likely had ample reason to settle near the Pooghkepesingh falls – the river and the small stream that ran to it from the falls provided good places to fish, and the surrounding hills offered both protection and ample opportunities to hunt. As the Dutch colony of New Netherland took shape along the banks of the Hudson River, the Dutch largely bypassed the river’s east bank. The Dutch preferred settling on the river’s mouth (now New York City), its northern navigable terminus (today’s Albany), and landings on the western bank of the Hudson (such as the modern city of Kingston). As such, Europeans did not show up in force near the Pooghkepesingh falls until the late 17th century. By that time, the Dutch had lost control of their colony to the English. It was a mix of these two groups that started building what is now the city of Poughkeepsie. On May 5, 1683, a Wappinger named Massany signed a deed giving control of the land around the Pooghkepesingh falls to two Dutch settlers, Pieter Lansingh and Jan Smeedes, who planned to build a mill on the small creek running from the falls.
    [Show full text]
  • New York City Area: Health Advice on Eating Fish You Catch
    MAPS INSIDE NEW YORK CITY AREA Health Advice on Eating Fish You Catch 1 Why We Have Advisories Fishing is fun and fish are an important part of a healthy diet. Fish contain high quality protein, essential nutrients, healthy fish oils and are low in saturated fat. However, some fish contain chemicals at levels that may be harmful to health. To help people make healthier choices about which fish they eat, the New York State Department of Health issues advice about eating sportfish (fish you catch). The health advice about which fish to eat depends on: Where You Fish Fish from waters that are close to human activities and contamination sources are more likely to be contaminated than fish from remote marine waters. In the New York City area, fish from the Long Island Sound or the ocean are less contaminated. Who You Are Women of childbearing age (under 50) and children under 15 are advised to limit the kinds of fish they eat and how often they eat them. Women who eat highly contaminated fish and become pregnant may have an increased risk of having children who are slower to develop and learn. Chemicals may have a greater effect on the development of young children or unborn babies. Also, some chemicals may be passed on in mother’s milk. Women beyond their childbearing years and men may face fewer health risks from some chemicals. For that reason, the advice for women over age 50 and men over age 15 allows them to eat more kinds of sportfish and more often (see tables, pages 4 and 6).
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Ddt, Chlordane, and Total Pcb's in Bed Sediments in the Hudson River Basin
    NYES&E, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1997 DISTRIBUTION OF DDT, CHLORDANE, AND TOTAL PCB'S IN BED SEDIMENTS IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASIN Patrick J. Phillips1, Karen Riva-Murray1, Hannah M. Hollister2, and Elizabeth A. Flanary1. 1U.S. Geological Survey, 425 Jordan Road, Troy NY 12180. 2Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Troy NY 12180. Abstract Data from streambed-sediment samples collected from 45 sites in the Hudson River Basin and analyzed for organochlorine compounds indicate that residues of DDT, chlordane, and PCB's can be detected even though use of these compounds has been banned for 10 or more years. Previous studies indicate that DDT and chlordane were widely used in a variety of land use settings in the basin, whereas PCB's were introduced into Hudson and Mohawk Rivers mostly as point discharges at a few locations. Detection limits for DDT and chlordane residues in this study were generally 1 µg/kg, and that for total PCB's was 50 µg/kg. Some form of DDT was detected in more than 60 percent of the samples, and some form of chlordane was found in about 30 percent; PCB's were found in about 33 percent of the samples. Median concentrations for p,p’- DDE (the DDT residue with the highest concentration) were highest in samples from sites representing urban areas (median concentration 5.3 µg/kg) and lower in samples from sites in large watersheds (1.25 µg/kg) and at sites in nonurban watersheds. (Urban watershed were defined as those with a population density of more than 60/km2; nonurban watersheds as those with a population density of less than 60/km2, and large watersheds as those encompassing more than 1,300 km2.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan OCTOBER 1, 2019–OCTOBER 1, 2024
    Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan OCTOBER 1, 2019–OCTOBER 1, 2024 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner Acknowledgments This plan was prepared by staff of the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve, including Betsy Blair, Chris Bowser, Ann-Marie Caprioli, Brian DeGasperis, Sarah Fernald, Heather Gierloff, Emilie Hauser, Dan Miller, and Sarah Mount, with the assistance of Andy Burgher, Cathy Kittle, and Bill Rudge in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Ed McGowan of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; and Nina Garfield and Ann Weaver of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office for Coastal Management. We appreciate input that has informed development of this plan provided by other colleagues, local leaders, county officials, environmental organizations, researchers, educators, and marsh managers. Suggested citation: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2019. Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan. Albany, NY. Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Reserve .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Communities of New York State
    Ecological Communities of New York State by Carol Reschke New York Natural Heritage Program N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation 700 Troy-Schenectady Road Latham, NY 12110-2400 March 1990 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The New York Natural Heritage Program is supported by funds from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and The Nature Conservancy. Within DEC, funding comes from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Division of Lands and Forests. The Heritage Program is partly supported by funds contributed by state taxpayers through the voluntary Return a Gift to Wildlife program. The Heritage Program has received funding for community inventory work from the Adirondack Council, the Hudson River Foundation, the Sussman Foundation, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service (Finger Lakes National Forest), and each of the seven New York chapters of The Nature Conservancy (Adirondack Nature Conservancy, Eastern New York Chapter, Central New York Chapter, Long Island Chapter, Lower Hudson Chapter, South Fork/Shelter Island Chapter, and WesternNew YorJ< Chapter) This classification has been developed in part from data collected by numerous field biologists. Some of these contributors have worked under contract to the Natural Heritage Program, including Caryl DeVries, Brian Fitzgerald, Jerry Jenkins, Al Scholz, Edith Schrot, Paul Sherwood, Nancy Slack, Dan Smith, Gordon Tucker, and F. Robert Wesley. Present and former Heritage staff who have contributed a significant portion of field data include Peter Zika, Robert E. Zaremba, Lauren Lyons-Swift, Steven Clemants, and the author. Chris Nadareski helped compile long species lists for many communities by entering data from field survey forms into computer files.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Loading in Jamaica Bay, Long Island, New York: Predevelopment to 2005—SIR 2007–5051 Prepared in Cooperation with the National Park Service
    Benotti, Abbene, & Terracciano—Nitrogen Loading in Jamaica Bay, Long Island, New York: Predevelopment to 2005—SIR 2007–5051 Long Island, New York: Loading in Jamaica Bay, Benotti, Abbene, & Terracciano—Nitrogen Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Nitrogen Loading in Jamaica Bay, Long Island, New York: Predevelopment to 2005 Scientifi c Investigations Report 2007–5051 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Nitrogen Loading in Jamaica Bay, Long Island, New York: Predevelopment to 2005 By Mark J. Benotti, Michele Abbene, and Stephen A. Terracciano Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5051 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Benotti, M.J., Abbene, Michele., and Terracciano, S.A., 2007, Nitrogen Loading in Jamaica Bay, Long Island, New York: Predevelopment
    [Show full text]
  • How's the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks?
    How’s the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks? Cizen Science Fecal Contaminaon Study How’s the Water in the Catskill, Esopus and Rondout Creeks? Background & Problem Methods Results: 2012-2013 Potenal Polluon Sources © Riverkeeper 2014 © Riverkeeper 2014 Photo: Rob Friedman “SWIMMABILITY” FECAL PATHOGEN CONTAMINATION LOAD © Riverkeeper 2014 Government Pathogen Tesng © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Fecal Contaminaon Study 2006 - Present Enterococcus (“Entero”) EPA-recommended fecal indicator Monthly sampling: May – Oct EPA Guideline for Primary Contact: Acceptable: 0-60 Entero per 100 mL Beach Advisory: >60 Entero per 100 mL © Riverkeeper 2014 Science Partners & Supporters Funders Science Partners • HSBC • Dr. Gregory O’Mullan Queens • Clinton Global Iniave College, City University of New • The Eppley Foundaon for York Research • Dr. Andrew Juhl, Lamont- • The Dextra Baldwin Doherty Earth Observatory, McGonagle Foundaon, Inc. Columbia University • The Hudson River Foundaon for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. • Hudson River Estuary Program, NYS DEC • New England Interstate Water Polluon Control Commission (2008-2013) © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Cizen Science Program Goals 1. Fill a data gap 2. Raise awareness about fecal contaminaon in tributaries 3. Involve local residents in finding and eliminang Photo: John Gephards sources of contaminaon © Riverkeeper 2014 Riverkeeper’s Cizen Science Studies Tributaries sampled: • Catskill Creek • 45 river miles • 19 sites (many added in 2014) • Esopus Creek • 25 river miles
    [Show full text]