DOCSLIB.ORG

Catskill Trends

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. ( 24 - 3 22 5 40 20 4 1830 annual emissions (million tons) (million annual emissions annual (millionemissions tons) X X 16 3 20 14 12 2 10 10 1 80 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted NO Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted EPA Acid Rain Program NO Program EPA Rain Acid EPA Acid Rain NO Program Year Biscuit Brook Biscuit Brook eq/L) eq/L) 50 120 conc. ( conc. conc. ( 2- 2- 40 4 100 4 30 80 20 60 Deposition b[0] = 29.5 b[0] = 2.99 Water Stream b[1] = 4.88 b[1] = 2.46 10 40 r ² = 0.85 r ² = 0.84 0 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted SO NTN annualBiscuit volume-weighted Emissions SOBiscuit Brook annual volume-weighted Emissions EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons) EPA Acid Rain Program SO2 annual emissions (million tons) Biscuit Brook eq/L) 120 b[0] = 27.7 b[1] = 1.83 conc. ( r ² = 0.86 2- 4 100 80 60 40 Stream Water Stream 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 Biscuit Brook annual volume-weighted SOBiscuit Brook annual volume-weighted Deposition 2- Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted SO4 conc. (eq/L) Biscuit Brook Biscuit Brook eq/L) eq/L) 28 60 b[0] = 25.8 26 b[1] = 0.016 r ² = 8.75e-6 conc. ( conc. - 24 50 3 22 20 40 18 16 30 14 Deposition b[0] = 6.11 b[1] = 2.76 12 r ² = 0.81 Water Stream 20 10 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted NO volume-weighted annual NTN Biscuit Emissions ( conc. NO3- volume-weighted annual Brook Biscuit Emissions EPA Acid Rain Program NOX annual emissions (million tons) EPA Acid Rain Program NOX annual emissions (million tons) Biscuit Brook eq/L) 60 b[0] = 26.5 b[1] = -0.033 r ² = 3.5e-4 conc. ( conc. - 3 50 40 30 20 Stream Water Stream 10 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Biscuit Brook annual volume-weighted NO annualBrook volume-weighted Biscuit Deposition - Biscuit NTN annual volume-weighted NO3 conc. (eq/L) Mean Annual Sulfate Concentration 140 Deposition 120 Biscuit Brook eq/l Rondout Creek Tison's Creek 100 Winnisook Creek Neversink River 80 60 40 20 Vol. Wt. Annual Mean Sulfate, in 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Water Year Mean Annual Nitrate Concentration 70 Deposition 60 Biscuit Brook eq/l Rondout Creek Tison's Creek 50 Winnisook Creek Neversink River 40 30 20 10 Vol. Wt. Annual Mean Nitrate, in 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Water Year Forest Floor Forest Floor Oa Spodosol Cake E Bs Winnisook Oa Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium 4.0 1.2 3.5 1.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 0.8 3.0 2.5 2.5 0.6 0.8 2.0 2.0 0.4 1.5 1.5 0.6 1.0 0.2 per kilogram per 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 0.0 0.2 0.0 * 1993 2012 1993 2012 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook Oa/A Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium 20 2.5 1.4 0.06 1.2 0.05 15 2.0 1.0 0.04 10 1.5 0.8 0.03 5 1.0 0.6 0.02 0.4 0.01 per kilogram per 0 0.5 0.2 0.00 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles * 0.0 0.0 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Winnisook Oa Aluminum Hydrogen pH-H20 Original 14 10 4.6 12 4.4 8 4.2 10 4.0 6 8 3.8 Reanalysis 3.6 6 4 3.4 4 per kilogram per 2 3.2 2 3.0 * Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 0 0 2.8 1993 2012 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook Oa/A Aluminum Hydrogen pH-H20 6 14 5.0 4.8 5 12 10 4.6 4 4.4 8 4.2 3 6 4.0 2 4 3.8 per kilogram per 2 3.6 1 0 3.4 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 0 3.2 * 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Winnisook Oa Carbon Nitrogen 60 3.0 50 2.5 40 2.0 30 1.5 Percent 20 1.0 10 0.5 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook Oa/A Carbon Nitrogen 50 2.5 40 2.0 30 1.5 20 1.0 Percent 10 0.5 0 * 0.0 2001 2011 2001 2011 Winnisook Oa CEC % Base Saturation 20 40 18 35 30 16 25 14 20 12 15 per kilogram per 10 10 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 8 5 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook Oa/A CEC % Base Saturation 26 100 24 22 80 20 18 60 16 14 12 40 10 per kilogram per 8 20 6 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 4 0 2001 2011 2001 2011 Winnisook B Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium 0.22 0.16 0.40 0.25 0.20 0.35 0.18 0.14 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.30 0.14 0.25 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.15 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.06 per kilogram per 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.05 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 0.00 0.02 0.00 1993 2012 1993 2012 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook B Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium 4 0.5 0.22 0.014 0.20 0.012 3 0.4 0.18 0.010 0.16 0.3 2 0.14 0.008 0.12 1 0.2 0.006 0.10 0.004 per kilogram per 0 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.002 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 0.0 0.04 * 0.000 * 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Winnisook B Aluminum Hydrogen pH-H20 Original 7 1.8 5.2 1.6 5.0 6 1.4 4.8 5 1.2 4.6 4.4 1.0 4 4.2 Reanalysis 0.8 4.0 3 0.6 3.8 per kilogram per 0.4 2 3.6 0.2 3.4 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 1 0.0 * 3.2 * 1993 2012 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook B Aluminum Hydrogen pH-H20 6 14 5.0 4.8 5 12 10 4.6 4 4.4 8 4.2 3 6 4.0 2 4 3.8 per kilogram per 2 3.6 1 0 3.4 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 0 3.2 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 Winnisook B Carbon Nitrogen 5.0 3.0 4.5 2.5 4.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.5 Percent 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook B Carbon Nitrogen 7 2.5 6 2.0 5 4 1.5 3 1.0 Percent 2 0.5 1 0 0.0 2001 2011 2001 2011 Winnisook B CEC % Base Saturation 8 14 7 12 10 6 8 5 6 4 4 per kilogram per 3 2 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 2 0 * 1993 2012 1993 2012 Fall Brook B CEC % Base Saturation 10 70 9 60 8 50 40 7 30 6 20 5 per kilogram per 10 4 0 Centimoles of charge of Centimoles 3 2001 2011 2001 2011 Sulfate NY68 * WN * RC Stream Water * Station TS * Trends BS * MB * -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Sen Slope in eq/L/yr Nitrate NY68 * WN RC Station TS BS MB -2 -1 0 1 2 Sen Slope in eq/L/yr ANC NY68 WN * Stream Water RC * Station TS * Trends BS MB * -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Sen Slope in eq/L/yr H+ NY68 * WN * RC * Station TS * BS MB * -2 -1 0 1 2 Sen Slope in eq/L/yr Mg NY68 WN * RC * Stream Water Station TS * Trends BS * MB * -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Sen Slope in eq/L/yr SiO2 NY68 WN * RC * Station TS * BS * MB * -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Sen Slope in eq/L/yr Base Cation- Si Correlations (r2) Site Mg-Si Ca-Si Na-Si K-Si Biscuit 0.934 0.873 0.625 0.843 Rondout 0.847 0.839 0.718 0.525 Tison 0.884 0.867 0.623 0.702 Winnisook 0.863 0.633 0.497 0.637 Claryville 0.755 0.141 -0.733 0.588 Is this an indication of a decreasing weathering rate? Conclusions The Clean Air Act and its amendments have decreased emissions and deposition Stream sulfate concentrations have decreased significantly, nitrate concentrations have not At the most acidic sites stream water ANC is increasing and H+ is decreasing The stream water trends results may indicate a decreasing weathering rate in response to decreased acid deposition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • Controls of Stream Chemistry and Fish Populations in the Neversink Watershed, Catskill Mountains, New York
    Prepared in cooperation with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection Controls of Stream Chemistry and Fish Populations in the Neversink Watershed, Catskill Mountains, New York he Neversink Watershed Study was initiated in 1991 to T develop an understanding of the key natural processes that control water quality within the forested, 166 km2 64 mi2), Neversink River watershed; part of the New York City drinking water supply system, in the Catskill Mountain region of New York. The study entailed (1) hydrological investigations of water movement from the atmosphere to streams, (2) biogeochemical investigations of nitrogen and calcium, important nutrients in forest and aquatic ecosystems whose availability has been altered by acidic deposition, (3) an investigation of elevational patterns in atmospheric deposition, and (4) fisheries investigations to determine the relative importance of physical habitat and acidic deposition in controlling the abundance and By Gregory B. Lawrence1, Douglas A. Burns1, Barry P. Baldigo1 diversity of fish species in the watershed. This report summarizes Peter S. Murdoch1 and Gary M. Lovett2 the results of these investigations, which have also been presented, 1U.S. Geological Survey, Troy, New York in detail, in peer-reviewed technical articles and reports that are 2Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York cited throughout the text. Departmentof the Interior WRIR 00-4040 U.S, Geological Survey January 2001 1 INTRODUCTION water is altered by chemical and biological processes that interact in complicated ways. An understanding of these The City of New York relies on six reservoirs in the processes is essential for discerning the effects of human Catskill Mountains to provide 90% of its water supply to activities from undisturbed conditions, and reducing 8 million residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Relations of Environmental Factors with Mussel-Species Richness in the Neversink River, New York
    1 Prepared in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and Sullivan County Division of Planning and Environmental Management Relations of Environmental Factors with Mussel-Species Richness in the Neversink River, New York Significant Findings • A 6-year study of mussel communities and their habitat in the Neversink River basin in southeastern New York found that the principal factors apparently affecting mussel-species richness were site (reach) elevation, drainage-area size, channel width, bottom- material composition, water velocity, shear stress at bankfull discharge, and water quality (acid- neutralizing capacity (ANC) and concentrations of calcium, phosphorus, and sulfate). Together these 10 factors explained as much as 94 percent of the variability in mussel-species richness across the watershed. Swollen wedgemussel (Alasmidonta varicosa) from the Neversink River. • The number of species in mussel communities throughout the basin typically increases in a downstream progression from zero or one species in upstream sites to as many as six species in downstream sites. • A recently removed dam in the lower part of the river may have confined populations of two rare mussel species to lower reaches of the Neversink River; its removal in 2004 could allow those species to populate additional reaches in the upper basin. U.S. Department of the Interior Printed on recycled paper Open-File Report 2007–1283 U.S. Geological Survey March 2008 2 Introduction flow patterns have recently been (richness) were quantified through 2-hour proposed by TNC and could benefit snorkeling searches at 28 sites during the Declines in the distribution, the established mussel populations summer of 1997; of these, 17 were on abundance, and diversity of freshwater- and aquatic communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply System History
    Rondout and Neversink Reservoirs Nwersink Reservoir Museum Rondout Reservoir Neversink Reservoir Construclion Began: l94l Construction Completed: 1953 Filling begn on June 4, 1953 and it took two years to completely fill. S.A. Healy Conpany frorn Chicago, Illinois constructed the reservoir erd dsm. The dam's cut ofwall is eight feet wide at the bottor4 four feet wide at the top and 166 feet tsll. The earthen structure containing the qrt otr wall is 1500 feet wide at the base, 60 feet wide at the top, 200 feet higb and 2800 feet long. The dam is made up ofseven and one haIfMILLION c'ubic yards ofcompacted soil and one million cubic yards ofrock. Thc rrscwoir ir five mil€r long rnd otrc hr|f mile n'ide, It holdr 35 billiotr grllon! ofwater. Rondout Reservoir Construction Began: 1937, Construction Conpleted: 1951 Ihc Rondout Rcrervoir ir the key ltructurc in thc Dehwlrc Syrtcm. It is the receiving basin for the three other Delsware system reservoirs - the Cannorsville, Pepactoa and Neversink Reservoirg and also hous€s the control works tiat regulate all water entering the Delaware Aqueduct. The Roodout Rca€rroir clD hold 50 BILLION gdloDs of wrt€r. Bccause ofercesrivc groutrd wrt€r, tbe dtm r€quircd e concretc coro to prevcnt lerkage. A series ofcon- nected c{issons rnade from heavily reinforced concrete nake up the concrete core. Using diesel powercd earth moving construction equipment, wo*ers compacted earth and earth rnaterials around thc core. Whrt i! a c{ilsotr? A watertight chembe! used to carD/ out constuclion work under water.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Fishing Regulation Guide
    NEW YORK STATE FRESHWATER FISHING REGULATIONS GUIDE Regulations in efect April 1, 2021 Department of Environmental Conservation New York State has about 300 Complaints are forwarded to an ECO Environmental Conservation Ofcers for investigation. The more detailed (ECOs) and Investigators (ECIs) who work information you provide, the more likely throughout the state, including New the violator will be apprehended. Try to York City. ECOs spend most of their time remember the “who, what, where, when, patrolling within their assigned county. and how" of the event. The assistance of the public is essential • Keep a distance from the violator. Do to the efective enforcement of state not approach or attempt to confront environmental laws and regulations. If you suspects. They may be dangerous, observe someone violating Environmental destroy evidence, or simply evade Conservation Law or see the results of ofcers if forewarned. a violation, REPORT IT! Poachers and • Who did it? Provide names, ages, sex, polluters are thieves, stealing from you, height, weight, clothing or vehicle our fellow anglers, and future generations. descriptions, and other details. Those who pollute our air or water, destroy • What occurred? What exactly do you our environment, or ignore fsh and wildlife think is the nature of the violation? laws are criminals. Examples — taking over limit of fsh, Contact an Environmental snagging, illegal netting, fshing out of season, trespassing. Conservation Police Ofcer • When did it occur? Provide dates and (ECO) times. Is it still in progress, ongoing, or For general questions, call 1-877-457-5680. something yet to happen? Examples— You will speak with a dispatcher who will happening right now, happens every Fri assist you or connect you to an ECO.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for Clean Water Act Implementation
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Protecting and Restoring our Nation’s Waters: The Effects of Science, Law, and Policy on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction with a focus on the Arid West A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Environmental Science and Engineering by Forrest Brown Vanderbilt 2013 © Copyright by Forrest Brown Vanderbilt 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Protecting and Restoring our Nation’s Waters: The Effects of Science, Law, and Policy on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction with a focus on the Arid West by Forrest Brown Vanderbilt Doctor of Environmental Science and Engineering University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor Richard F. Ambrose, Chair Since its initial passage in 1972, the Clean Water Act has attempted to restore and protect our Nation’s waters. The definition of ‘our Nation’s waters’ has undergone periodic debate and scrutiny as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Supreme Court have defined and redefined the standards for determining CWA jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s most recent set of standards, including the “significant nexus” test, appear to both increase the uncertainty in what is regulated and increase the burden of proof for determining CWA jurisdiction. The Arid West was singled out in the most recent EPA and Corps joint jurisdictional guidance as a problematic area. Focusing on the Arid West, my dissertation evaluates the CWA jurisdiction process from three perspectives: law, policy, and ii science, and explores an understanding of the past, present, and potential future path of CWA jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware River Basin
    Water Supply/Demand Status Report for the Delaware River Basin September 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................IV PURPOSE STATEMENT .................................................................................................................. V STUDY LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................... V REPORT OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................VI I. INTRODUCTION TO THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN........................................................1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN ..............................................................................1 II. WATER SUPPLY BACKGROUND AND THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION (DRBC)......................................................................................................................3 2.1 DEFINITION OF “WATER SUPPLY” ................................................................................................3 2.2 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION .......................................................................................3 2.2.1 The Delaware River Basin Compact....................................................................................3 2.2.2 Rules of Practice and Procedure..........................................................................................3 2.2.3 Water Code............................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Management Program Two-Year Action Plans for Ashokan, Schoharie, Neversink/Rondout and Delaware Programs
    New York City Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Supply Stream Management Program Two-Year Action Plans for Ashokan, Schoharie, Neversink/Rondout and Delaware Programs May 2020 Prepared in accordance with Section 4.2 of the NYSDOH 2017 Filtration Avoidance Determination Prepared by: DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Action Plan 2020-2022 ASHOKAN WATERSHED STREAM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PO Box 667, 3130 Route 28 Shokan, NY 12481 (845) 688-3047 www.ashokanstreams.org To: Dave Burns, Project Manager, NYC DEP Stream Management Program From: Leslie Zucker, CCE Ulster County, and Adam Doan, Ulster County SWCD Date: May 1, 2020 Re: Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program 2020-2022 Action Plan Cornell Cooperative Extension of Ulster County (CCE) and Ulster County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) with support from the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have developed the 2020-2022 Action Plan for your review. The purpose of the Action Plan is to identify the Ashokan Watershed Stream Management Program’s planned activities, accomplishments, and next steps to achieve recommendations derived from stream management plans and stakeholder input. Program activities were reviewed by our Stakeholder Council at November 2019 and April 2020 meetings and their comments are reflected in this 2020-2022 work plan. The Action Plan is divided into key programmatic areas: A. Protecting and Enhancing Stream Stability and Water Quality B. Floodplain Management and Planning C. Highway Infrastructure Management in Conjunction with Streams D. Assisting Streamside Landowners (public and private) E. Protecting and Enhancing Aquatic and Riparian Habitat and Ecosystems F. Enhancing Public Access to Streams The Action Plan is updated annually.
    [Show full text]