DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 97-639 Prepared in cooperation with NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Cover: View of Moordener Kill from State Rt. 150 in Brookview, N.Y., looking west (downstream). Note exposed bedrock in streambed. (Photo by R.J. Reynolds, 1999). Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York By Richard J. Reynolds ______________________________________________________________ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 97-639 Prepared in cooperation with the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION science for a changing world Troy, New York 1999 i U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director ______________________________________________________________________ For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey 425 Jordan Road Branch of Information Services Troy, NY 12180-8349 P.O. Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225 ii CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Hydrogeology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Surficial Deposits ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Schodack Terrace ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Kinderhook Terrace .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Deglacial Sequence ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Geologic Sections ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Schodack Terrace ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Kinderhook Terrace ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Unconfined Aquifers ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Confined Aquifers ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Altitude of the Water Table ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Ground Water Flow.................................................................................................................................................... 10 Recharge ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Aquifer Properties ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Well Yields ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Specific Capacity ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Bedrock ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Bedrock Surface Configuration ................................................................................................................................ 16 Pre-Glacial Drainage Channels ................................................................................................................................ 16 Faults ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Effects of Faults on Well Yields................................................................................................................................. 18 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 18 Selected References .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix - Records of wells in the Schodack-Kinderhook area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, N.Y A. Wells north of 42° 30'................................................................................................................................................ 24 B. Wells south of 42° 30'................................................................................................................................................ 28 PLATES (in pocket) Maps of study area in Rensselaer and Columbia County, N.Y., showing: 1. Locations of wells and test holes 2. Surficial geology 3. Water-table altitude 4. Bedrock-surface altitude FIGURES 1. Map showing location and principal geographic features of study area in Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, N.Y...... 3 2. Hydrogeologic sections ..................................................................................................................................................... a.Geologic section A-A' through the Schodack Terrace, Rensselaer, N.Y. .................................................................... 8 b. Geologic section B-B' through the Kinderhook Terrace, Columbia County, N.Y...................................................... 9 Contents iii TABLES 1.Summary of Moordener Kill seepage investigation, October 18, 1960............................................................................. 11 2. Summary of aquifer tests from Myrick and Associates (1960)......................................................................................... 13 3. Well yield, by water-use and aquifer type, for the Schodack-Kinderhook area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, N.Y.................................................................................................................................................................... 14 4. Reported specific capacity data, estimated transmissivity, and estimated hydraulic conductivity at selected wells in the Schodack-Kinderhook area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, N.Y. ........................................................................... 17 CONVERSION FACTORS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND VERTICAL DATUM Multiply by To Obtain Length inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter foot (ft) 0.3048 meter mile (m) 1.609 kilometer foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer Area square mile (mi2) 2.59 square kilometer Flow cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 28.32 liter per second gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meters per second million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 3,785 cubic meters per day million gallons per day per square mile [(Mgal/d)/mi2] 1,461.4 cubic meters per day per square kilometer gallons per day per square mile [(gal/d)/mi2] 0.001462 cubic meters per day per square kilometer gallon per day per foot [(gal/d)/ft] 0.0001437 liter per second per meter Hydraulic Units transmissivity, feet squared per day (ft2/d) 0.0929 meter squared per day hydraulic conductivity, feet per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day specific capacity, gallons per minute per foot [(gal/min)/ft] 0.2070 liter per second per meter Sea level:In this report, “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)--a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea level Datum of 1929. iv Contents Hydrogeology of the Schodack-Kinderhook Area, Rensselaer and Columbia Counties, New York by Richard J. Reynolds ABSTRACT Survey study, were 16.3 and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hudson River Watershed 2002 Water Quality Assessment Report
    HUDSON RIVER WATERSHED 2002 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ROBERT W. GOLLEDGE, JR, SECRETARY MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARLEEN O’DONNELL, ACTING COMMISSIONER BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION GLENN HAAS, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GLENN HAAS, DIRECTOR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY LIMITED COPIES OF THIS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE AT NO COST BY WRITTEN REQUEST TO: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 627 MAIN STREET WORCESTER, MA 01608 This report is also available from the MassDEP’s home page on the World Wide Web at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/wqassess.htm Furthermore, at the time of first printing, eight copies of each report published by this office are submitted to the State Library at the State House in Boston; these copies are subsequently distributed as follows: · On shelf; retained at the State Library (two copies); · Microfilmed retained at the State Library; · Delivered to the Boston Public Library at Copley Square; · Delivered to the Worcester Public Library; · Delivered to the Springfield Public Library; · Delivered to the University Library at UMass, Amherst; · Delivered to the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Moreover, this wide circulation is augmented by inter-library loans from the above-listed libraries. For example a resident in Marlborough can apply at their local library for loan of any MassDEP/DWM report from the Worcester Public Library. A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This report, entitled, “Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management – Watershed Planning Program, 1963-(current year)”, is also available by writing to the Division of Watershed Management (DWM) in Worcester.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Schodack
    TOWN OF SCHODACK RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK OMPREHENSIVE LAN C P JANUARY 2011 Acknowledgments Town Board Dennis Dowds, Supervisor Jim Bult, Councilman Frank Curtis, Councilman Michael Kenney, Councilman Debra Young, Councilman Planning Board Peter Goold, Chairman* Denise Mayrer, Vice Chairman G. Jeffery Haber Paul Puccio* Wayne Johnson* John La Voie Andrew Timmis *Planning Advisory Committee Planning Consultant © 2011 Laberge Group, Project #27116 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 What is a Comprehensive Plan? ...................................................................................................................... 1 Schodack’s Comprehensive Plan and Guiding Principles ............................................................................... 2 Vision Statement for the Town of Schodack ................................................................................................... 3 Methodology for Developing Schodack’s Comprehensive Plan Summary ..................................................... 3 II. Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................................... 5 Preface to the Schodack Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles .................................................................. 5 Comprehensive Plan Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capital District Hudson River Water Quality Factsheet
    St Lawrence R. Merrimack R. Connecticut R. HOW’S THE WATER? People ask, “Where is it safe to swim in the Hudson River?” Riverkeeper’s monitoring program provides data to help inform decisions. Find all the data, and learn more at riverkeeper.org/water-quality CAPITAL DISTRICT Making choices based on water quality patterns Upper Hudson River Even if there is no data for a particular location where one may Mohawk River Troy enter the water, the data show patterns that can guide decisions. Cohoes These pie charts show the percentage of sites sampled in each Watervliet Poesten Kill category that are ● generally safe, ● unsafe after rain and ● generally unsafe. Wynants Kill Albany Quackenderry Creek Mill Creek MID CHANNEL: The deeper, well-mixed part of the river away from its shores Bethlehem would have generally met safe swimming Castleton Moordener Kill criteria, except near and downstream from Coeymans combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the Capital District and New York City. Find data for the whole Hudson & tributaries identified Coxsackie on this map at NEAR SHORE: Water quality near city riverkeeper.org/ water-quality and village waterfronts is most likely to Catskill Creek Athens be affected by street runoff and sewer Hudson overflows, while shorelines that are less Catskill developed generally have shown less Key impact from rain. Sampling locations are color-coded according to analysis of nearly 5,000 samples from 2008-2018 to indicate the likelySawyer relative Kill risks associated with swimming. However, good or poor water quality may occur at any location depending on local conditions. Generally safeSaugerties for swimming TRIBUTARIES: The smaller creeks and rivers Location would have met both EPA criteriaRoeliff for safe swimming.Jansen WhileKill it would meet that feed the Hudson have had more risky criteria, water quality varies significantlyTivoli over time.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Flood Resilience Education in the Hudson River Estuary: Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation
    NEW YORK STATE WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 1123 Bradfield Hall, Cornell University Tel: (607) 255-3034 Ithaca, NY 14853-1901 Fax: (607) 255-2016 http://wri.eas.cornell.edu Email: [email protected] Flood Resilience Education in the Hudson River Estuary: Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation Shorna Allred Department of Natural Resources (607) 255-2149 [email protected] Gretchen Gary Department of Natural Resources (607) 269-7859 [email protected] Catskill Creek at Woodstock Dam during low flow (L) and flood conditions (R) Photo Credit - Elizabeth LoGiudice Abstract In recent decades, very heavy rain events (the heaviest 1% of all rain events from 1958-2012) have increased in frequency by 71% in the Northeast U.S. As flooding increases, so does the need for flood control Decisions related to flood control are the responsibility of many individuals and groups across the spectrum of a community, such as local planners, highway departments, and private landowners. Such decisions include strategies to minimize future Flood Resilience Education in the Hudson River Estuary: Needs Assessment and Program Evaluation flooding impacts while also properly responding to storm impacts to streams and adjacent and associated infrastructure. This project had three main components: 1) a flood education needs assessment of local municipal officials (2013), 2) an evaluation of a flood education program for highway personnel (2013), and 3) a survey of riparian landowners (2014). The riparian landowner needs assessment determined that the majority of riparian landowners in the region have experienced flooding, yet few are actually engaging in stream management to mitigate flood issues on their land.
    [Show full text]
  • Chittenden Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Chittenden Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 3273-024 New York Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 January 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xiii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... xiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Application .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need For Power ........................................................ 2 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................ 2 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................ 4 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ....................................................... 4 1.4 Public Review and Comment ........................................................................ 4 1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................ 4 1.4.2 Interventions ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NATURAL AREAS and WILDLIFE in YOUR COMMUNITY a Habitat Summary Prepared for the Town of East Greenbush
    NATURAL AREAS AND WILDLIFE IN YOUR COMMUNITY A Habitat Summary Prepared for the Town of East Greenbush This summary was completed in September 2018, providing information for land-use planning and decision-making as requested by the Town of East Greenbush. It identifies significant ecosystems in the Town, including coastal habitats, streams, forests, wetlands, and other natural areas with important biological values. This summary is based only on existing information available to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and its partners, and, therefore should not be considered a complete inventory. Additional information about habitats in our region can be found in the Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Framework developed by the Hudson River Estuary Program (Penhollow et al. 2006) and in the Biodiversity Assessment Manual for the Hudson River Estuary Corridor developed by Hudsonia and published by DEC (Kiviat and Stevens 2001). Ecosystems of the estuary watershed—wetlands, forests, stream corridors, grasslands, and shrublands—are not only habitat for abundant fish and wildlife, but also support the estuary and provide many vital benefits to human communities. These ecosystems help to keep drinking water and air clean, moderate temperature, filter pollutants, and absorb floodwaters. They also provide opportunity for outdoor recreation and education, and create the scenery and sense of place that is unique to the Hudson Valley. Local land-use planning efforts are instrumental in balancing future development with protection of these resources. By conserving sufficient habitat to support the region’s astonishing diversity of plants and animals, communities can ensure that healthy, resilient ecosystems—and the benefits they provide—are available to future generations.
    [Show full text]
  • FLOW and CHLORIDE TRANSPORT in the TIDAL HUDSON RIVER, NY Lawrence A
    Citation: Weiss, L.A., Schaffranek, R.W., and de Vries, M.P., 1994, Flow and chloride transport in the tidal Hudson River, New York, in Hydraulic Engineering ‘94: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 2, p. 1300-1305. FLOW AND CHLORIDE TRANSPORT IN THE TIDAL HUDSON RIVER, NY Lawrence A. Weiss1, Member, ASCE, Raymond W. Schaffranek2,Member, ASCE, and M. Peter deVries3 ABSTRACT A one-dimensional dynamic-flow model and a one-dimensional solute-transport model were used to evaluate the effects of hypothetical public-supply water withdrawals on saltwater intrusion in a 133-mile reach of the tidal Hudson River between Green Island dam, near Troy, N.Y., and Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. Regression techniques were used in analyses of current and extreme historical conditions, and numerical models were used to investigate the effect of various water withdrawals. Of four withdrawal scenarios investigated, simulations of a 27-day period during which discharges at Green Island dam averaged 7,090 ft3/s indicate that increasing the present Chelsea pumping-station withdrawal rate of 100 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) to 300 Mgal/d would have the least effect on upstream saltwater movement. A 90-day simulation, during which discharges at Green Island dam averaged 25,200 ft3/s, indicates that withdrawals of 1,940 Mgal/d at Chelsea would not measurably increase chloride concentrations at Chelsea under normal tidal and meteorological conditions, but withdrawals of twice that rate (3,880 Mgal/d) could increase the chloride concentration at Chelsea to 250 mg/L. INTRODUCTION New York City's water-supply system serves over 9 million people in the City and five nearby counties; several upstate communities also could use the system during an emergency.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Oil Spill Risk Assessment
    Hudson River Oil Spill Risk Assessment Volume 4: Spill Consequences: Trajectory, Fate and Resource Exposure Prepared for Scenic Hudson, Inc. One Civic Center Plaza Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-3157 Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 Deborah French McCay, PhD Jill Rowe and Deborah Crowley RPS 55 Village Square Drive South Kingstown, RI 02879-8248 John Joeckel SEAConsult LLC P. O. Box 243 Wachapreague, VA 23310-0243 Andy Wolford, PhD Risknology, Inc. 3218 Quiet Lake Drive Katy, TX 77450-5721 May 2018 Acknowledgments This project was commissioned by Scenic Hudson, Inc., of Poughkeepsie, New York, under a Professional Services Contract with Environmental Research Consulting (ERC). RPS ASA, SEAConsult LLC, and Risknology, Inc., were all subcontractors to ERC under separate contracts. The HROSRA research team acknowledges the invaluable inputs and discussions with Scenic Hudson over the course of the study period (September 2017 through May 2018), including the selection and development of the hypothetical spill scenarios. The contents of the report, data, analyses, findings, and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the research team and do not constitute any official position by Scenic Hudson. The Hudson River Oil Spill Risk Assessment was conducted as an independent, objective, technical analysis without any particular agenda or viewpoint except to provide quantitative and qualitative information that could be used to work to a common goal of spill prevention and preparedness. The study is intended to inform officials, decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public about oil spill risk in the Hudson River. The diligent efforts of the RPS SIMAP modeling team of Deborah Crowley, Jenna Ducharme, Matt Frediani, Emily Skeehan, and Matt Bernardo provided the necessary data, results, maps, and graphics that formed the foundation of much of the analysis in the HROSRA.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2019 Trout Stocking Summary
    Mill Creek East Greenbush 440 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches SPRING 2019 TROUT STOCKING SUMMARY Poesten Kill Brunswick 2570 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Albany, Columbia, Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady County Poesten Kill Brunswick 200 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Poesten Kill Brunswick 1420 May Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches WATER TOWN NUMBER DATE SPECIES SIZE Poesten Kill Poestenkill 300 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Poesten Kill Poestenkill 1560 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Albany County Poesten Kill Poestenkill 270 May Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Basic Creek Westerlo 440 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Poesten Kill Poestenkill 710 May - June Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Catskill Creek Rensselaerville 750 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Second Pond Grafton 440 June Brown Trout 8.5 - 9.5 inches Catskill Creek Rensselaerville 180 May Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Shaver Pond Grafton 600 Spring Rainbow Trout 8.5 - 9.5 inches Hannacrois Creek Coeymans 125 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Tackawasick Creek Nassau 100 April Brown Trout 12 -15 inches Hannacrois Creek Coeymans 1060 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Tackawasick Creek Nassau 800 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Hannacrois Creek Coeymans 710 May - June Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Tackawasick Creek Nassau 530 May - June Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Lisha Kill Colonie 350 March - April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Town Park Pond East Greenbush 500 April - May Rainbow Trout 8.5 - 9.5 inches Onesquethaw Creek New Scotland 1150 April Brown Trout 8 - 9 inches Walloomsac River Hoosick 500 April Brown Trout
    [Show full text]