DOCSLIB.ORG

3. Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3. Water Quality Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents.................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ v List of Figures....................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... xi Errata Sheet Issued May 4, 2011 .......................................................................................... xiii 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 What is the purpose and scope of this report? ......................................................... 1 1.2 What constitutes the New York City water supply system? ................................... 1 1.3 What are the objectives of water quality monitoring and how are the sampling programs organized? ........................................................................... 3 1.4 What types of monitoring networks are used to provide coverage of such a large watershed? .................................................................................................. 5 1.5 How do the different monitoring efforts complement each other? .......................... 9 1.6 How many water samples did DEP collect in 2009 to monitor the water quality of reservoirs, streams, and aqueducts throughout the upstate watershed? ........................................................................................................... 9 1.7 How has water quality information been used to guide Health and Safety procedures? .............................................................................................. 10 1.8 What enhancements were made to DEP’s monitoring capabilities in 2009? .......... 11 2. Water Quantity................................................................................................................... 13 2.1 What is NYC’s source of drinking water? ............................................................... 13 2.2 How much precipitation fell in the watershed in 2009? ......................................... 13 2.3 What improvements were made to DEP’s meteorological data network in 2009, and how were the data used? .................................................................... 15 2.4 How much runoff occurred in 2009? ....................................................................... 16 2.5 What was the storage history of the reservoir system in 2009? ............................... 19 2.6 What rainfall data are necessary in the design of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans? ................................................................................................ 20 2.7 How is the flow of water to the City maintained when an aqueduct must be shut down for maintenance or repair? ............................................................ 24 3. Water Quality..................................................................................................................... 27 3.1 How did DEP ensure the delivery of the highest quality water from upstate reservoirs in 2009? .................................................................................. 27 3.2 How did the 2009 water quality of NYC’s source waters compare with SWTR standards for fecal coliforms and turbidity? .......................................... 28 3.3 Why did some water consumers experience a “metallic taste” of their drinking water in October 2009 and how did DEP control it? ........................... 31 3.4 What was the water quality in the major inflow streams of NYC’s reservoirs in 2009? ............................................................................................. 32 3.5 What factors contributed to the turbidity patterns observed in the reservoirs in 2009? ............................................................................................. 35 3.6 How were the total phosphorus concentrations in the reservoirs affected by precipitation and runoff in 2009? .................................................................. 37 i 3.7 Which basins were phosphorus-restricted in 2009? ................................................. 39 3.8 What was the trophic status of each of the City’s 19 reservoirs and why is this important? ................................................................................................... 41 3.9 What were the total and fecal coliform levels in NYC’s reservoirs? ...................... 43 3.10 Which basins were coliform-restricted in 2009? ................................................... 47 3.11 How did reservoir water conductivity in 2009 compare to previous years? .......... 49 3.12 How did water quality status in terminal reservoirs compare with regulatory benchmarks in 2009? ........................................................................ 51 3.13 Has DEP monitoring of watershed streams revealed any changes to the macroinvertebrate community? .......................................................................... 57 3.14 What can sampling a stream’s macroinvertebrate community tell us about the effectiveness of wastewater treatment plant upgrades? ................................ 63 3.15 What are disinfection by-products, and did organic concentrations in source waters allow DEP to meet compliance standards in the distribution system in 2009? ............................................................................................................... 65 3.16 How does DEP protect the water quality of the Catskill Aqueduct at Kensico Reservoir from stormwater impacts? .................................................... 66 3.17 Did the first year of data for the Cannonsville Recreational Boating Pilot study show any significant water quality impacts? ............................................. 67 3.18 What was the status of compliance with applicable benchmarks for NYC’s streams in 2009? ................................................................................................ 67 3.19 What were the water quality trends in NYC’s reservoirs as of 2009? ................... 69 4. Pathogens ........................................................................................................................... 79 4.1 How many samples did DEP collect for Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and human enteric viruses in 2009, and what were their occurrences and concentrations in the source waters? ................................................................... 79 4.2 How did protozoan concentrations compare with past regulatory levels? .............. 83 4.3 How do 2009 source water concentrations compare to historical data? .................. 84 4.4 What concentrations of Cryptosporidium and Giardia were found at the various NYC watersheds in 2009? ...................................................................... 89 4.5 What levels of protozoa and human enteric viruses were found in wastewater treatment plant effluents in 2009? .................................................... 98 4.6 What concentrations of Cryptosporidium and Giardia were found at the effluents in various NYC reservoirs in 2009? ..................................................... 100 5. Watershed Management..................................................................................................... 105 5.1 What watershed management programs are required for filtration avoidance and how do they protect the water supply? ....................................... 105 5.2 How can watershed management improve water quality? ...................................... 108 5.3 What are DEP’s watershed management efforts in the Catskill/Delaware System? ............................................................................................................... 109 5.4 How has DEP tracked water quality improvements in the Catskill/Delaware System? ............................................................................................................... 112 5.5 What are the watershed management efforts in the Croton System? ...................... 112 5.6 How does DEP avoid water quality impacts which can occur from the presence of waterbirds (Canada geese, gulls, cormorants, and other waterfowl)? ......................................................................................................... 114 ii Table of Contents 5.7 Why is DEP’s Forest Science Program developing forest growth models? ............ 116 5.8 How does DEP address threats to the water supply posed by invasive species? ..... 117 5.9 What does DEP do to protect the water supply from Zebra mussels? ..................... 119 5.10 How do environmental project reviews help protect water quality, and how many were conducted in 2009? ................................................................... 121 5.11 What was the status of WWTP TP loads in the watershed in 2009? .................... 121 5.12 What “Special Investigations” were conducted in 2009? ..................................... 122 6. Model Development and Application................................................................................ 125 6.1 Why are models important and how are they used by DEP? ................................... 125 6.2 What can models tell us about the effects of 2009’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Group Final Report
    Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Group Final Report Prepared by the Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Group As established under the NYC Watershed Memorandum of Agreement September 28, 2000 New York City Watershed Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Group Final Report Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Group Goal and Objectives Goal Purposes Background Memorandum of Agreement Working Group Members Issue: Nonagricultural Fertilizer Use Findings Recommendations Issue: Nonagricultural Pesticide Use Findings Existing Pesticide Regulations Principal Users of Pesticides Within the Watershed Recommendations Issue: Agricultural Fertilizer Use Findings Monitoring and Modeling Efforts Watershed Agricultural Programs Delaware Comprehensive Strategy Recommendations Issue: Agricultural Use of Pesticides Findings Recommendations Monitoring and Data Collection Needs for Urban Fertilizers and Pesticides Phosphorous Use Pesticides Objectives of Monitoring and Data Collection Need for Fertilizers and Pesticides Table 1. Delaware District Pesticide Monitoring Site Locations Table 2. DEP Keypoint Pesticide Monitoring Site Locations Pesticide and Fertilizer Technical Working Group Goal and Purposes Goal The overall goal of the New York City Watershed Pesticide and Fertilizer Working Group was to report and make recommendations for pesticides and nutrients based on a critical and comprehensive review of their management, use and environmental fate. It is recognized that the review and recommendations of
    [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]
  • Estimates of Natural Streamflow at Two Streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, Water Years 1932 to 2012
    Prepared in cooperation with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Estimates of Natural Streamflow at Two Streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, Water Years 1932 to 2012 Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5050 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. The West Basin of Ashokan Reservoir at sunset. Photograph by Elizabeth Nystrom, 2013. Estimates of Natural Streamflow at Two Streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, Water Years 1932 to 2012 By Douglas A. Burns and Christopher L. Gazoorian Prepared in cooperation with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5050 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Burns, D.A., and Gazoorian, C.L., 2015, Estimates of natural streamflow at two streamgages on the Esopus Creek, New York, water years 1932–2012: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Catskill Trends
    Catskill Trends Mike McHale, Doug Burns, Jason Siemion, Mike Antidormi, Greg Lawrence U.S. Geological Survey, Troy NY New York Catskill LTM Network New York NADP and MDN Station Mean Acidity 1991-2014 60 40 Neversink River 20 Biscuit Brook 0 Rondout Creek -20 Tison's Creek in micromoles per liter Acid Neutralizing Capacity, Winnisook -40 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 pH, in pH units Catskill Sampling Water sampling at 5 streams in the Catskill Mountains Monthly sampling plus storms ~ 35 samples per year Winnisook soils were sampled in 1993 (Javier Ruiz) and 2012 (McHale). Fall Brook Soils were sampled in 2001 (Lawrence) and 2011 (Lawrence and others). There is an NADP site at Biscuit Brook Rondout Creek above Peekamoose (RC) Winnisook Watershed (WN) on the slopes of Slide Mountain in the headwaters of the Neversink River basin Biscuit Brook eq/L) 16 50140 eq/L) ARP Emmissions 14 NY68 Deposition 120 Biscuit Brook ( conc. 40 2- 4 12 100 30 10 80 8 60 20 6 40 10 4 20 2 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20152015 Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted SO annual volume-weighted NTN Biscuit Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted ( SO42- conc. annual volume-weighted NTN Biscuit EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons) SO2(million EPA annual emissions Rain Program Acid EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons) EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons)EPASO2 (million annual Rain Program emissions Acid Year Biscuit Brook 7 2860 eq/L) ARP Emmissions 26 NY68 Deposition 6 Biscuit Brook 50 conc.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Fishing Rights Neversink River
    Public Fishing Rights Maps Neversink River Photo taken by Ed Ostapczuk About Public Fishing Rights Public Fishing Rights (PFR’s) are perma- nent easements purchased by the NYSDEC from willing landowners, giving anglers the right to fish and walk along the bank (usually a 33’ strip on one or both banks of the stream). This right is for the purpose of fishing only and no other purpose. Treat the land with respect to insure the continu- ation of this right and privilege. Fishing privileges may be available on some other private lands with permission of the land owner. Courtesy toward the land-owner and respect for their property will insure their continued use. Description of Fishery These generalized location maps are in- tended to aid anglers in finding PFR seg- The Neversink River contains a quality wild brown trout population, and ments and are not survey quality. Width of is stocked annually with over 5,000 brown trout. This tail-water fishery displayed PFR may be wider than reality to contains good coldwater habitat throughout the summer, providing anglers make it more visible on the maps. Please an opportunity to catch quality fish during the summer months when other look for this PFR sign to ensure that you streams are too warm to fish. are in the right location and have legal ac- Note: cess to the stream bank. Special regulations apply. See Fishing Regulations Guide. Fish Species Present Brown Trout Location Brook Trout For more information on this creek or if Sullivan Rainbow Trout you believe PFR marked areas on these County maps are incorrect or missing PFR signs, please call the Region 3 Fisheries office: (845) 256-3161.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood of April 2-3, 2005, Neversink River Basin, New York
    Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood of April 2–3, 2005, Neversink River Basin, New York Open-File Report 2006–1319 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Center photo: Neversink River flow over Guymard Turnpike at Myers Grove, New York. Left photo: Neversink River at upstream side of Guymard Turnpike bridge at Myers Grove, New York. Right photo: Neversink River overflow at intersection of Guymard Turnpike and Shore Drive at Myers Grove, New York, taken April 3, 2005. Flood of April 2–3, 2005, Neversink River Basin, New York By Thomas P. Suro and Gary D. Firda Prepared in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Open-File Report 2006–1319 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: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 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: Suro, T.P.
    [Show full text]
  • ENVIRONMENTAL LAW in NEW YORK the Effect of the New York
    Developments in Federal and State Law ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN NEW YORK MATTHEW ARNOLD & PORTER BENDER Volume 9, No. 6 June 1998 The Effect of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Watershed Regulations On Land Use by Heather Marie Andrade I. INTRODUCTION substances and wastes, radioactive material, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers and winter highway maintenance materi- The New York City Department of Environmental Protection als.7 The design, construction and operation of wastewater (DEP) Watershed Rules and Regulations became effective on treatment plants, sewerage systems and service connections, May 1, 1997. The Regulations were promulgated by New York (continued on page 88) City to avoid filtration of and to prevent the contamination, degradation and pollution of the City's water supply' pursuant to the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)2 and the 1989 IN THIS ISSUE Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR).3 The DEP obtained the authority to regulate activities affecting its watershed, but UPDATE outside of its political boundaries, from section 1100 (I) of the ♦ Correction 82 New York Public Health Law.4 This section grants power to LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS the State Department of Health (DOH) throughout the state, and ♦ Asbestos 82 the city DEP (upon approval by the DOH) throughout the New ♦ Hazardous Substances 82 York City water supply region, to promulgate and enforce rules ♦ Insurance 83 ♦ that protect watersheds within their respective jurisdictions.5 Land Use 83 ♦ Lead 84 The boundaries of the New York City watershed encompass ♦ Mining 84 areas east of the Hudson in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess ♦ SEQRA/NEPA 84 Counties and west of the Hudson in Delaware, Schoharie, ♦ Water 85 Greene, Sullivan and Ulster Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Westchester County Fishing Waters NYS Department of Health Fish Advisories & Publicly Accessible Waters
    Westchester County Fishing Waters NYS Department of Health Fish Advisories & Publicly Accessible Waters Muscoot River N PUTNAM COUNTY Titicus Reservoir WESTCHESTER COUNTY Titcus Dam Titicus River Hollowbrook Dam Peekskill Hollow Brook Croton River Amawalk Reservoir Waccabuc Amawalk Dam River Blue Mohansic Muscoot River Mountain Cross River Lake Cross River Dam Reservation Reservoir Lounsbury Pond Dam New Croton Muscoot Cross River Dickey Brook Dam Reservoir Muscoot Reservoir New Croton Reservoir Dam Croton Water Supply Dams Croton RiverQuaker Bridge Dam Stone Hill River Silver Lake Dam All outlined waters are NYS DEC public access waters; there may be other fishing access sites in your county. General Advisory Applies Pocantico Lake Whole family: 4 fish meals/month Specific Advisory Applies Hudson River Swan Lake Women under 50 & children under 15: do not eat SwanDam Men over 15 & women over 50: health.ny.gov/fish/HV Lake Sleepy Hollow Dam Location Waterfall Dam Kensico Dam Stream Flow Connected Tributary, Advisory Applies Kensico Reservoir Woodlands Lake Woodlands Lake Dam Popham Road Dam Sheldrake River Long Island Sound* Saw Mill River *Some marine fish advisories exist Bronx River for women under 50 and children, Hodgman Dam visit www.health.ny.gov/fish/NYC for restrictions. The “Flume” www.health.ny.gov/fish [email protected] Map data © 2017 Google Bronx Zoo Double Dam 12/5/18.
    [Show full text]
  • Nys Storm Surge Zones.Pdf
    O R O B l l i L L k l A l R N a O A I W T A M Wappingers Poughquag N Ulstervill e Pine Bush Syl van Falls East Lake D U Wappinger A LS Marlboro N T Lake t E Wallkill r u B O R e o R g r U A in p PAWLING N p S R G p E a Y W Quaker Wappingers DE POT HILL L k I e STORMV ILLE e Hill T A r STATE M ULTIP LE C R Falls US E AREA N Woodinville STEWA RT A MMUNITION Hughsonville U CRAWFORD O H C T Pawling STORAGE ANNEX NEWBURGH R O L C SHA- WA N-GA Thompson Ridge WAPPINGER A Stormville (US ARMY) N I VALLE Y IN R Chadwick Middle O M E R R T Lake T Whaley Lake Whaley FIRST US ARM Y V E E ill I T k Lake Orange Hope R M h ] s C COMMUNICATIONS VERPLANCK-STONY K ILL i T Walden F Lake D FACILITY STATE E NV IRONM ENTA L T [ E Bullville EDUCATION CENTER 16 E Orange Lake R M H I T N N MONTGOMERY Balmville Brockway Brinckerhoff 15 A R 12 L O Fishkill N Holmes N Coldenham Gardnertown 13 CRANB ERRY MOUNTA IN 6 10 STATE WILDLIFE EAST FISHKILL O 11 Black Patterson MANAGEMENT AREA Montgomery 7 8 Glenham Pond WHITE P OND S TATE O C r MULTIP LE USE AREA Circleville 5 k 17 R e Y e re FISHKILL T v 17 i R C Ludingtonvill e U E R Morrison White B ll ANIMAL IMPORT CENTER N ki M ORANGE Heights A ish Pond (FE DE RA L) Newburgh D F Beacon COUNTY HESS WALLKILL US ARM Y WAS HINGTONS HE ADQUA RTE RS UTC STEWA RT INTERNATIONAL STATE HIS TORIC SITE D 119 HIGHLAND LA KES M RESE RVATIOLaNke A L BIG BUCK MOUNTA IN N I (NYS DOT) Washington SOUTH B EACON PUT STATE M ULTIP LE STATE PA RK A MOUNTAIN R (Undev) T US E AREA l (1610') Towners il Silver 18 lk STATE F IRE TOWER KENT Putnam
    [Show full text]
  • Series 252 NYC Watershed Proceedings
    Westchester County Archives Series 252 2199 Saw Mill River Road Elmsford, New York 10523 NYC Watershed Proceedings – Volume Listing (914) 231-1500 1877‐1919 ITEM DATE CALL NUMBER Byram 1899‐1907 A‐0070 (1) Byram 1899‐1907 A‐0070 (2) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (3) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (4) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (5) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (6) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (7)S (J5) Rye Lake, Wampus River and Wampus Pond 1903 A‐0070 (8) Watershed Proceedings – Index for Kensico, n.d. A‐0070 (9) Byram, Rye Lake and Wampus Pond Mount Kisco – Sanitary Protection and 1893‐1901 A‐0070 (10) Lands to be Acquired Reservoir “M” 1896‐1897 A‐0070 (11)S (K3) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (12) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (13) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (14) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (15) Croton Aqueduct 1884‐1890 A‐0070 (16) Croton Aqueduct 1884‐1890 A‐0070 (17) Page 1 Westchester County Archives Series 252 2199 Saw Mill River Road Elmsford, New York 10523 NYC Watershed Proceedings – Volume Listing (914) 231-1500 1877‐1919 ITEM DATE CALL NUMBER Croton Aqueduct 1884‐1890 A‐0070 (18) Pipeline, Kensico and Rye Pond Reservoirs 1881‐1903 A‐0070 (19) (Liber 1) Pipeline, Kensico and Rye Pond Reservoirs 1881‐1903 A‐0070 (20) (Liber 2) Watershed Proceedings – Index for Cornell n.d. A‐0070 (21) Dam, Mount Kisco, New Aqueduct (Croton?), Pipeline, In Re Bronx “Reservoir A” in Somers – Sanitary 1877‐1900 A‐0070 (22) Protection Patterson and Brewster 1899‐1900 A‐0070 (23) Lake Kirk, Lake Mahopac and Muscoot River
    [Show full text]
  • Series 252 NYC Watershed Proceedings – Alphabetical Listing
    Westchester County Archives Series 252 2199 Saw Mill River Road Elmsford, New York 10523 NYC Watershed Proceedings – Alphabetical Listing (914) 231-1500 1877‐1919 ITEM DATE CALL NUMBER Brewster, Lake Gleneida, Farmers Mills, 1894‐1899 A‐0070 (26) White Pond Byram 1899‐1907 A‐0070 (1) Byram 1899‐1907 A‐0070 (2) Carmel, Lake Gleneida 1906 A‐0070 (27) Catskill Aqueduct 1907‐1910 A‐0070 (29) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (12) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (13) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (14) Cornell Dam 1896‐1909 A‐0070 (15) Cross River Dam and Reservoir 1809‐1910 A‐0070 (32) Cross River Dam and Reservoir 1809‐1910 A‐0070 (33) Croton Aqueduct 1884‐1890 A‐0070 (16) Croton Aqueduct 1884‐1890 A‐0070 (17) Croton Aqueduct 1884‐1890 A‐0070 (18) Croton Falls Dam and Reservoir 1906‐1910 A‐0070 (31) Farmers Mills, White Pond and Carmel 1896‐1904 A‐0070 (25) Hill View Reservoir 1908‐1917 A‐0070 (30) Westchester County Archives Series 252 2199 Saw Mill River Road Elmsford, New York 10523 NYC Watershed Proceedings – Alphabetical Listing (914) 231-1500 1877‐1919 ITEM DATE CALL NUMBER Jerome Park 1895‐1898 A‐0070 (28) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (3) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (4) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (5) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (6) Kensico Reservoir 1893‐1910 A‐0070 (7)S (J5) Lake Kirk, Lake Mahopac and Muscoot River 1879 A‐0070 (24) Mount Kisco – Sanitary Protection and 1893‐1901 A‐0070 (10) Lands to be acquired Patterson and Brewster 1899‐1900 A‐0070 (23) Pipeline, Kensico and Rye Pond Reservoirs 1881‐1903 A‐0070
    [Show full text]
  • U N S U U S E U R a C S
    HAMPSHIRE MONTGOMERY CLAVERACK HILLSDALE SOUTHAMPTON Holyoke W OTIS est Lake Garfield fiel MONTEREY Benton Pond d River Blair Pond Lake GREAT BARRINGTON Buel BLANDFORD EGREMONT 109th Congress of the UnitedLower Spectacle Pond States RUSSELL LIVINGSTON Threemile Pond Otis Reservoir Westfield necticut West Copake Lake West Lake Con R iver TAGHKANIC Springfield Mill Pond Borden Brook Reservoir WEST SPRINGFIELD Noyes Pond COLUMBIA COPAKE HAMPDEN MOUNT SHEFFIELD WASHINGTON NEW MARLBOROUGH SANDISFIELD TOLLAND GRANVILLE Agawam GALLATIN BERKSHIRE SOUTHWICK MASSACHUSETTS ANCRAM Canaan S Benedict CONNECTICUT t H Pond W 7 w e Congamond s y Wood Creek t Twin Lake 2 B Lake 7 Pond r NORTH CANAAN 2 a Riga ( n North N Lake c o h S r t t h R H Doolittle Granby S e S w Lake S t s t ) t H y H e 4 w w S r 1 y South P C y t v ( a H o 2 o n lk R 1 n U a an Norfo d ir 0 d 8 w n 3 COLEBROOK SALISBURY y d ( e C 8 r o ( M C DISTRICT d l n R e o o a a b 0 HARTLAND l u r y 2 n e SUFFIELD a o w n C b 539 o tH wy r t r tH 2 k o S i S a in Rd) S ( 44 R o o a StHwy 168 i StHwy 126 nt t n B v u H k d o r M e ( R ) w StHwy 182 e 7 Suffield l R d s d d y 8 e e ) R i 1 1 Depot v R n e 8 n y d r 9 S a e w R t ( a t G s H ) n Wangum d r Manitook Lake t m NORFOLK ) a a S Lake a n C b Pine h y k StHwy 179 R NEW YORK r GRANBY d a MILAN ) 5 Plains 44 B 7 y CONNECTICUT w S S H t a t H l PINE PLAINS m S CANAAN w y o n 1 Salmon Wononskopomuc ) 8 StHwy 20 B d 1 r Lake S Brook o StHwy 126 tH R o w ld k St y e S H fi StHwy 219 wy Millerton 6 t 20 3 h c ( t Hu i nt L sv ( ill StHwy
    [Show full text]