DOCSLIB.ORG

A Supplemental Assessment of the Mohawk Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Supplemental Assessment of the Mohawk Watershed A SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE MOHAWK WATERSHED Prepared by: Charles W. Huntington Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. 23252 S. Central Point Road Canby, Oregon 97013 Prepared for: Mohawk Watershed Partnership Marcola, Oregon November 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................v 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 2. STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................................2 3. METHODS ............................................................................................................................9 3.1. STREAMFLOWS AND WATER USE ..............................................................................9 3.1.1. Streamflows.....................................................................................................................9 3.1.2. Water Use .....................................................................................................................11 3.2. STREAM CHANNELS ...................................................................................................11 3.2.1. Channel Changes..........................................................................................................11 3.2.2. Responsive Stream Reaches ........................................................................................12 3.3. RIPARIAN AREAS, WETLANDS AND FLOOD-PRONE LANDS...................................12 3.3.1. Riparian Conditions .......................................................................................................12 3.3.1.a. Changes in the spatial extent of bottomland forest ......................................................12 3.3.1.b. Fragments of bottomland forest that could be high priorities for protection ..................14 3.3.1.c. Assessment of lowland riparian forest widths and streamside conditions ....................14 3.3.1.d. Landuse patterns near streams...................................................................................16 3.3.2. Riparian Protection Rules..............................................................................................16 3.3.3. Wetlands and Flood-Prone Areas..................................................................................16 3.4. SUBWATERSHED SENSITIVITY AND FOREST STANDS...........................................17 3.5. ELEVATED SEDIMENT YIELDS...................................................................................18 3.6. FISH HABITAT ..............................................................................................................18 3.6.1. Benchmark Analysis......................................................................................................20 3.6.2. Comparison to 1938 River Survey.................................................................................23 3.7. UNNATURAL BARRIERS TO FISH MIGRATION .........................................................23 3.8. WATER QUALITY .........................................................................................................23 3.9. FISH..............................................................................................................................23 4. RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................24 4.1. STREAMFLOWS AND WATER USE ............................................................................24 4.1.1. Streamflows...................................................................................................................24 4.1.2. Water Use .....................................................................................................................26 4.2. STREAM CHANNELS ...................................................................................................28 4.2.1. Channel Changes..........................................................................................................28 4.2.2. Responsive Stream Reaches ........................................................................................32 4.3. RIPARIAN AREAS, WETLANDS AND FLOOD-PRONE LANDS...................................32 4.3.1. Riparian Conditions .......................................................................................................32 4.3.1.a. Changes in the spatial extent of bottomland forest ......................................................35 4.3.1.b. Fragments of bottomland forest that could be high priorities for protection ..................37 4.3.1.c. Assessment of lowland riparian forest widths and streamside conditions ....................37 4.3.1.d. Landuse patterns near streams...................................................................................41 Supplemental Assessment of the Mohawk Watershed - i - Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. 4.3.2. Riparian Protection Rules..............................................................................................44 4.3.3. Wetlands and Flood-Prone Areas..................................................................................46 4.4. SUBWATERSHED SENSITIVITY AND FOREST STANDS...........................................49 4.4.1. Steep Slopes and Ancient, Deep-Seated Landslides.....................................................49 4.4.2. Rain-on-Snow Zones.....................................................................................................49 4.4.3. Forest Stands................................................................................................................51 4.4.4. Relationship Between Forest Stands and Subwatershed Sensitivity..............................51 4.5. ELEVATED SEDIMENT YIELDS...................................................................................51 4.6. FISH HABITAT ..............................................................................................................55 4.6.1. Benchmark Analysis......................................................................................................56 4.6.2. Comparison to 1938 River Survey.................................................................................66 4.7. UNNATURAL BARRIERS TO FISH MIGRATION .........................................................69 4.8. WATER QUALITY .........................................................................................................70 4.9. FISH..............................................................................................................................75 4.9.1. Native Species ..............................................................................................................75 4.9.2. Non-native Species .......................................................................................................75 4.9.3. Focal Species................................................................................................................79 4.9.3.a. Coastal Cutthroat Trout ...............................................................................................80 4.9.3.b. Spring Chinook Salmon...............................................................................................84 4.9.3.c. Limiting Factors for Cutthroat Trout .............................................................................88 4.9.3.d. Limiting Factors for Spring Chinook.............................................................................89 5. FRAMEWORK FOR WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT .........................................................91 5.1. ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................92 5.2. ACTIONS CONSISTENT WITH ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES......................................93 5.2.1. Forest Lands.................................................................................................................94 5.2.2. Agricultural/Grazing Lands............................................................................................95 5.2.3. Rural-Residential Areas.................................................................................................96 5.3. WHERE TO FOCUS EARLY EFFORTS BY THE PARTNERSHIP................................98 6. LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................102 APPENDIX A STREAM SURVEY PROTOCOLS AND RESULTANT HABITAT DATA FOR THE MOHAWK WATERSHED APPENDIX B SUMMARIES OF ANALYSES OF STREAM SURVEY DATA COLLECTED OR COMPILED FOR THE MOHAWK WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP APPENDIX C WATER TEMPERATURE DATA FOR STREAMS IN THE MOHAWK WATERSHED APPENDIX D INFORMATION ON THE HISTORIC DISTRIBUTION OF SPRING CHINOOK IN LOW ELEVATION WILLAMETTE BASIN WATERSHEDS APPENDIX E PRIORITIZATION OF SUBWATERSHEDS FOR POTENTIAL CONSERVATION EMPHASIS Supplemental Assessment of the Mohawk Watershed - ii - Clearwater BioStudies, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report summarizes information prepared for the Mohawk Watershed Partnership to help in the development of a conservation program for the Mohawk watershed, Oregon. It was
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mohawk River Watershed – HUC-12
    ID Number Name of Mohawk Watershed 1 Switz Kill 2 Flat Creek 3 Headwaters West Creek 4 Kayaderosseras Creek 5 Little Schoharie Creek 6 Headwaters Mohawk River 7 Headwaters Cayadutta Creek 8 Lansing Kill 9 North Creek 10 Little West Kill 11 Irish Creek 12 Auries Creek 13 Panther Creek 14 Hinckley Reservoir 15 Nowadaga Creek 16 Wheelers Creek 17 Middle Canajoharie Creek 18 Honnedaga 19 Roberts Creek 20 Headwaters Otsquago Creek 21 Mill Creek 22 Lewis Creek 23 Upper East Canada Creek 24 Shakers Creek 25 King Creek 26 Crane Creek 27 South Chuctanunda Creek 28 Middle Sprite Creek 29 Crum Creek 30 Upper Canajoharie Creek 31 Manor Kill 32 Vly Brook 33 West Kill 34 Headwaters Batavia Kill 35 Headwaters Flat Creek 36 Sterling Creek 37 Lower Ninemile Creek 38 Moyer Creek 39 Sixmile Creek 40 Cincinnati Creek 41 Reall Creek 42 Fourmile Brook 43 Poentic Kill 44 Wilsey Creek 45 Lower East Canada Creek 46 Middle Ninemile Creek 47 Gooseberry Creek 48 Mother Creek 49 Mud Creek 50 North Chuctanunda Creek 51 Wharton Hollow Creek 52 Wells Creek 53 Sandsea Kill 54 Middle East Canada Creek 55 Beaver Brook 56 Ferguson Creek 57 West Creek 58 Fort Plain 59 Ox Kill 60 Huntersfield Creek 61 Platter Kill 62 Headwaters Oriskany Creek 63 West Kill 64 Headwaters South Branch West Canada Creek 65 Fly Creek 66 Headwaters Alplaus Kill 67 Punch Kill 68 Schenevus Creek 69 Deans Creek 70 Evas Kill 71 Cripplebush Creek 72 Zimmerman Creek 73 Big Brook 74 North Creek 75 Upper Ninemile Creek 76 Yatesville Creek 77 Concklin Brook 78 Peck Lake-Caroga Creek 79 Metcalf Brook 80 Indian
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie River Sub-Basin Action Plan 2016-2026
    McKenzie River Sub-basin Strategic Action Plan for Aquatic and Riparian Conservation and Restoration, 2016-2026 MCKENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL AND PARTNERS June 2016 Photos by Freshwaters Illustrated MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The McKenzie Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, Eugene Water & Electric Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District, Lane Council of Governments and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Johan Hogervorst, Willamette National Forest, U.S. Forest Service Kate Meyer, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Karl Morgenstern, Eugene Water & Electric Board Larry Six, McKenzie Watershed Council Nancy Toth, Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Weybright, McKenzie Watershed Council Technical Advisory Group Brett Blundon, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene District Dave Downing, Upper Willamette Soil & Water Conservation District Bonnie Hammons, McKenzie River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Chad Helms, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jodi Lemmer, McKenzie River Trust Joe Moll, McKenzie River Trust Maryanne Reiter, Weyerhaeuser Company Kelly Reis, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife David Richey, Lane Council of Governments Kirk Shimeall, Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development Andy Talabere, Eugene Water & Electric Board Greg Taylor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jeff Ziller, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife MCKENZIE RIVER SUB-BASIN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN June 2016 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Erie Canalway Map & Guide
    National Park Service Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor U.S. Department of the Interior Erie Canalway Map & Guide Pittsford, Frank Forte Pittsford, The New York State Canal System—which includes the Erie, Champlain, Cayuga-Seneca, and Oswego Canals—is the centerpiece of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor. Experience the enduring legacy of this National Historic Landmark by boat, bike, car, or on foot. Discover New York’s Dubbed the “Mother of Cities” the canal fueled the growth of industries, opened the nation to settlement, and made New York the Empire State. (Clinton Square, Syracuse, 1905, courtesy Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, Detroit Publishing Extraordinary Canals Company Collection.) pened in 1825, New York’s canals are a waterway link from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes through the heart of upstate New York. Through wars and peacetime, prosperity and This guide presents exciting Orecession, flood and drought, this exceptional waterway has provided a living connection things to do, places to go, to a proud past and a vibrant future. Built with leadership, ingenuity, determination, and hard work, and exceptional activities to the canals continue to remind us of the qualities that make our state and nation great. They offer us enjoy. Welcome! inspiration to weather storms and time-tested knowledge that we will prevail. Come to New York’s canals this year. Touch the building stones CONTENTS laid by immigrants and farmers 200 years ago. See century-old locks, lift Canals and COVID-19 bridges, and movable dams constructed during the canal’s 20th century Enjoy Boats and Boating Please refer to current guidelines and enlargement and still in use today.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mckenzie River Watershed
    McKenzie River Watershed Baseline Monitoring Report 2000 to 2009 Karl A. Morgenstern David Donahue Nancy Toth Eugene Water & Electric Board January 2011 ii Acknowledgements The Eugene Water & Electric Board would like to acknowledge the various agencies and organizations that assisted with water quality sampling, providing guidance and input and assisting with the development of this document. McKenzie Watershed Council Water Quality Committee Members McKenzie Watershed Council Larry Six Mohawk Watershed Partnership Jared Weybright Weyerhaueser Company Maryanne Reiter Weyerhaueser Company Bob Danehy International Paper Company Loren Leighton U.S. Forest Service Dave Kreitzing U.S. Forest Service Bonnie Hammond U.S. Bureau of Land Management Steve Liebhardt U.S. Bureau of Land Management Janet Robbins City of Springfield Chuck Gottfried City of Springfield Todd Miller Springfield Utility Board Amy Chinitz Springfield Utility Board Dave Embleton Retired from Springfield Utility Board Chuck Davis Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality Chris Bayham Springfield School District Stuart Perlmeter Army Corps of Engineers Greg Taylor Eugene Water & Electric Board Karl Morgenstern Eugene Water & Electric Board David Donahue Eugene Water & Electric Board Nancy Toth Partners Providing Sampling Support, Database Support and Document Review U.S. Forest Service Mike Cobb U.S. Forest Service David Bickford City of Springfield Shawn Krueger Eugene Water & Electric Board Jared Rubin Eugene Water & Electric Board Bob DenOuden Eugene Water & Electric Board
    [Show full text]
  • Mohawk River Trail (MRT) See Maps C & C-1 the Mohawk River Trail (MRT) Trailhead Is Located Bellamy Harbor Park
    Mohawk River Trail (MRT) See Maps C & C-1 The Mohawk River Trail (MRT) trailhead is located Bellamy Harbor Park. From there, the trail extends north, connecting Rome’s waterfront with historical sites, commercial districts, public services, local schools, city parks, the Griffiss Business and Technology Park, and residential neighborhoods. The MRT offers a unique multi- use trail recreational experience and excellent scenic vistas of the Mohawk River. Terrain: Flat Length: 3.97 miles Configuration: Point to Point Sections of the paved trail run along the Canal. Surface Type: Asphalt Trailhead Locations: Bellamy Harbor Park, Rome City Park, Chestnut Street parking area. Bridges allow bicyclists and pedestrians to cross the Canal. The flat paved trail provides easy riding for families with young Benches provide a place to take a break and take in the children. scenery. 14 ! S s S i p r d P u r d L r o R a e i l R n p e e M ll d H R H r T C g h vi te n u n a u e i r n s e C d e b n n l e l R e so l C t r a st d r e R l P n k R e e R g r d e in e g o p W L ki y r o R d Lee l R r n a e ck i d l d b d o R a i R d M t n W S l T n l S i ! t G R Center Stokes Weste Westernville iffo South rnville H rd d Rd ! ! H e T Slon Lee C Rd ill R Hill Rd h enter d o Stoke C m s Brookfield Rd Rd t a H S m a a l D C l F s i n o w i r l a S h o ki r t a o vi R n n d ki d u d d ield R er s M yd okf d s T R Town of e so n Bro R n n d Delta vans n E R e Delta Lake R r ! Western d Rd E d Terrace R State Park d D o !5 R H Lee !5 p M i a 46 d l p rsh Town Park l Lee
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands of Saratoga County New York
    Acknowledgments THIS BOOKLET I S THE PRODUCT Of THE work of many individuals. Although it is based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), tlus booklet would not have been produced without the support and cooperation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Patrick Pergola served as project coordinator for the wetlands inventory and Dan Montella was project coordinator for the preparation of this booklet. Ralph Tiner coordi­ nated the effort for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Data compiled from the NWI serve as the foun­ dation for much of this report. Information on the wetland status for this area is the result of hard work by photointerpreters, mainly Irene Huber (University of Massachusetts) with assistance from D avid Foulis and Todd Nuerminger. Glenn Smith (FWS) provided quality control of the interpreted aerial photographs and draft maps and collected field data on wetland communities. Tim Post (N.Y. State D epartment of Environmental Conservation), John Swords (FWS), James Schaberl and Chris Martin (National Park Ser­ vice) assisted in the field and the review of draft maps. Among other FWS staff contributing to this effort were Kurt Snider, Greg Pipkin, Kevin Bon, Becky Stanley, and Matt Starr. The booklet was reviewed by several people including Kathleen Drake (EPA), G eorge H odgson (Saratoga County Environmental Management Council), John Hamilton (Soil and W ater Conserva­ tion District), Dan Spada (Adirondack Park Agency), Pat Riexinger (N.Y. State Department of Environ­ mental Conservation), Susan Essig (FWS), and Jen­ nifer Brady-Connor (Association of State Wetland Nlanagers).
    [Show full text]
  • Mckenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents
    McKenzie River, ca. 1944 McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Report February 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 McKenzie River, ca. 2000 Prepared for the McKenzie Watershed Council Prepared By: Alsea Geospatial, Inc. Hardin-Davis, Inc. Pacific Wildlife Research, Inc. WaterWork Consulting McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment Summary Table of Contents High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring 1 The McKenzie River Watershed: Introduction 8 I. Watershed Overview 9 II. Aquatic Ecosystem Issues & Findings 17 Recommendations 29 III. Fish Populations Issues & Findings 31 Recommendations 37 IV. Wildlife Species and Habitats of Concern Issues & Findings 38 Recommendations 47 V. Putting the Assessment to work 50 Juvenile Chinook Habitat Modeling 51 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat Results 54 VI. References 59 VII. Glossary of Terms 61 The McKenzie River Subbasin Assessment was funded by grants from the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Forest Service. High Priority Action Items for Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Our analysis indicates that aquatic and wildlife habitat in the McKenzie River subbasin is relatively good yet habitat quality falls short of historical conditions. High quality habitat currently exists at many locations along the McKenzie River. This assessment concluded, however, that the river’s current condition, combined with existing management and regulations, does not ensure conservation or restoration of high quality habitat in the long term. Significant short-term improvements in aquatic and wildlife habitat are not likely to happen through regulatory action. Current regulations rarely address remedies for past actions. Furthermore, regulations and the necessary enforcement can fall short of attaining conservation goals. Regulations are most effective in ensuring that habitat quality trends improve over the long period.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohawk River Canoe Trip August 5, 2015
    Mohawk River Canoe Trip August 5, 2015 A short field guide by Kurt Hollocher The trip This is a short, 2-hour trip on the Mohawk River near Rexford Bridge. We will leave from the boat docks, just upstream (west) of the south end of the bridge. We will probably travel in a clockwise path, first paddling west toward Scotia, then across to the mouth of the Alplaus Kill. Then we’ll head east to see an abandoned lock for a branch of the Erie Canal, go under the Rexford Bridge and by remnants of the Erie Canal viaduct, to the Rexford cliffs. Then we cross again to the south bank, and paddle west back to the docks. Except during the two river crossings it is important to stay out of the navigation channel, marked with red and green buoys, and to watch out for boats. Depending on the winds, we may do the trip backwards. The river The Mohawk River drains an extensive area in east and central New York. Throughout most of its reach, it flows in a single, well-defined channel between uplands on either side. Here in the Rexford area, the same is true now, but it was not always so. Toward the end of the last Ice Age, about 25,000 years ago, ice covered most of New York State. As the ice retreated, a large valley glacier remained in the Hudson River Valley, connected to the main ice sheet a bit farther to the north, when most of western and central New York was clear of ice.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohawk/Mcgowan Watershed Analysis
    MOHAWK/McGOWAN WATERSHED ANALYSIS BLM MAY 1995 Chapter 1 Introduction What Is Watershed Analysis Watershed analysis is a systematic procedure for characterizing watershed and ecological processes to meet specific management and social objectives. Throughout the analytical process the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is trying to gain an understanding about how the physical, biological, and social processes are intertwined. The objective is to identify where linkages and processes (functions) are in jeopardy and where processes are complex. The physical processes at work in a watershed establish limitations upon the biological relationships. The biological adaptations of living organisms balance in natural systems; however, social processes have tilted the balance toward resource extraction. The BLM attempt in the Mohawk/McGowan analysis is to collect baseline resource information and understand where physical, biological and social processes are or will be in conflict. What Watershed Analysis Is NOT Watershed analysis is not an inventory process, and it is not a detailed study of everything in the watershed. Watershed analysis is built around the most important issues. Data gaps will be identified and subsequent iterations of watershed analysis will attempt to fill in the important pieces. Watershed analysis is not intended to be detailed, site-specific project planning. Watershed analysis provides the framework in the context of the larger landscape and looks at the "big picture." It identifies and prioritizes potential project opportunities. Watershed analysis is not done under the direction and limitations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). When specific projects are proposed, more detailed project level planning will be done. An Environmental Assessment will be completed at that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Bibliography on the Industrial History of the Hudson-Mohawk Region
    Research Bibliography on the Industrial History of the Hudson-Mohawk Region by Sloane D. Bullough and John D. Bullough 1. CURRENT INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY Anonymous. Watervliet Arsenal Sesquicentennial, 1813-1963: Arms for the Nation's Fighting Men. Watervliet: U.S. Army, 1963. • Describes the history and the operations of the U.S. Army's Watervliet Arsenal. Anonymous. "Energy recovery." Civil Engineering (American Society of Civil Engineers) 54 (July 1984): 60- 61. • Describes efforts of the City of Albany to recycle and burn refuse for energy use. Anonymous. "Tap Industrial Technology to Control Commercial Air Conditioning." Power 132 (May 1988): 91–92. • The heating, ventilation and air–conditioning (HVAC) system at the Empire State Plaza in Albany is described. Anonymous. "Albany Scientist Receives Patent on Oscillatory Anemometer." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 70 (March 1989): 309. • Describes a device developed in Albany to measure wind speed. Anonymous. "Wireless Operation Launches in New York Tri- Cities." Broadcasting 116 10 (6 March 1989): 63. • Describes an effort by Capital Wireless Corporation to provide wireless premium television service in the Albany–Troy region. Anonymous. "FAA Reviews New Plan to Privatize Albany County Airport Operations." Aviation Week & Space Technology 132 (8 January 1990): 55. • Describes privatization efforts for the Albany's airport. Anonymous. "Albany International: A Century of Service." PIMA Magazine 74 (December 1992): 48. • The manufacture and preparation of paper and felt at Albany International is described. Anonymous. "Life Kills." Discover 17 (November 1996): 24- 25. • Research at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy on the human circulation system is described. Anonymous. "Monitoring and Data Collection Improved by Videographic Recorder." Water/Engineering & Management 142 (November 1995): 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water in the Eugene-Springfield Area, Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Ground Water in the Eugene-Springfield Area, Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2018 Prepared in cooperation with the Oregon State Engineer Ground Water in the Eugene-Springfield Area, Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon By F. J. FRANK GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2018 Prepared in cooperation with the Oregon State Engineer UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1973 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600346 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Price: Paper cover $2.75, domestic postpaid; $2.50, GPO Bookstore Stock Number 2401-00277 CONTENTS Page Abstract ______________________ ____________ 1 Introduction _________ ____ __ ____ 2 Geohydrologic system ___________ __ _ 4 Topography _____________ ___ ____ 5 Streams and reservoirs ______ ___ _ __ _ _ 5 Ground-water system ______ _ _____ 6 Consolidated rocks __ _ _ - - _ _ 10 Unconsolidated deposits ___ _ _ 10 Older alluvium ____ _ 10 Younger alluvium __ 11 Hydrology __________________ __ __ __ 11 Climate _______________ _ 12 Precipitation ___________ __ 12 Temperature -__________ 12 Evaporation _______ 13 Surface water __________ ___ 14 Streamflow _ ____ _ _ 14 Major streams __ 14 Other streams ________ _ _ 17 Utilization of surface water _ 18 Ground water __________ _ __ ___ 18 Upland and valley-fringe areas 19 West side _________ __ 19 East side __________ ________________________ 21 South end ______________________________ 22 Central lowland ________ __ 24 Occurrence and movement of ground water 24 Relationship of streams to alluvial aquifers __ _ 25 Transmissivity and storage coefficient ___ _ 29 Ground-water storage _ __ 30 Storage capacity _ .
    [Show full text]
  • Barge Canal” Is No Longer an Accurate Description of the New York State Canals Marine Activity on New York’S Canals
    The Story of the Afterword Today, the name “Barge Canal” is no longer an accurate description of the New York State Canals marine activity on New York’s canals. Trains and trucks have taken over the transport of most cargo that once moved on barges along the canals, but the canals remain a viable waterway for navigation. Now, pleasure boats, tour Historical and Commercial Information boats, cruise ships, canoes and kayaks comprise the majority of vessels that ply the waters of the legendary Erie and the Champlain, Oswego and Cayuga- Seneca canals, which now constitute the 524-mile New York State Canal ROY G. FINCH System. State Engineer and Surveyor While the barges now are few, this network of inland waterways is a popular tourism destination each year for thousands of pleasure boaters as well as visitors by land, who follow the historic trade route that made New York the “Empire State.” Across the canal corridor, dozens of historic sites, museums and community festivals in charming port towns and bustling cities invite visitors to step back in time and re-live the early canal days when “hoggees” guided mule-drawn packet boats along the narrow towpaths. Today, many of the towpaths have been transformed into Canalway Trail segments, extending over 220 miles for the enjoyment of outdoor enthusiasts from near and far who walk, bike and hike through scenic and historic canal areas. In 1992, legislation was enacted in New York State which changed the name of the Barge Canal to the “New York State Canal System” and transferred responsibility for operation and maintenance of the Canal System from the New York State Department of Transportation to the New York State Canal Corporation, a newly created subsidiary of the New York State Thruway Authority.
    [Show full text]