DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment of the Ackerman Parcel

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment of the Ackerman Parcel ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPLACEMENT OF THE ACKERMAN PARCEL WITH COEYMANS CREEK WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Prepared January 2021 Lead State Agency: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife Cooperating Federal Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposed Action: To resolve loss of control over the Ackerman parcel (acquired by DEC with federal funds in 1939) by replacing the property with a property of equal value and benefits, the Coeymans Creek Wildlife Management Area (acquired by DEC with state funds in 2019). Location: Towns of New Scotland and Coeymans, Albany County, NY Summary: This environmental assessment considers the impacts to the human environment of the proposed action and the no action alternative. Purchased from Edward and Catherine Ackerman in 1939, the “Ackerman parcel” was originally acquired as part of the Delmar Experimental Game Farm but has since become part of the Five Rivers Environmental Education Center. The primary impact is that some types of wildlife-dependent recreation are not available. The property currently provides opportunities for environmental education and wildlife observation; however, DEC's changes to the administration, use, and regulations pertaining to this property resulted in hunting, trapping, and fishing being prohibited. Consequently, the Ackerman parcel no longer meets the purposes of the grant agreement at the time of acquisition. The conclusion of this assessment is that the preferred alternative—replacing the Ackerman parcel with Coeymans Creek WMA—will not result in any adverse environmental impacts, will resolve DEC’s compliance with terms of the 1939 grant agreement, and will provide greater overall benefits for wildlife, wildlife habitat, and wildlife-dependent recreation. Page 1 of 29 Approved by: James F. Farquhar III Tony Wilkinson Chief, Bureau of Wildlife Director, Division of Fish & Wildlife Date Date Environmental Assessment – Replacement of Ackerman Parcel Page 2 of 25 Page 2 of 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Scope of Document ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Role of State Entities Involved ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Location ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDELINES .......................................... 6 4.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Development of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Alternatives Considered Further .................................................................................................................. 8 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 9 5.1 General Land Use and Administration ......................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................... 9 5.3 Habitat........................................................................................................................................................ 10 5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................................... 11 5.5 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 11 5.6 Noise .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 5.7 Cultural and Historical Resources .............................................................................................................. 12 5.8 Public Use, Access, and Recreation ............................................................................................................ 12 5.9 Socioeconomic Environment and Environmental Justice .......................................................................... 13 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................................... 13 6.1 General Land Use and Administration ....................................................................................................... 13 6.2 Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................... 14 6.3 Habitat........................................................................................................................................................ 14 6.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................................... 14 6.5 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 15 6.6 Noise .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 6.7 Cultural and Historical Resources .............................................................................................................. 15 6.8 Public Use, Access, and Recreation ............................................................................................................ 15 6.9 Socioeconomic Environment and Environmental Justice .......................................................................... 16 7.0 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................. 16 8.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ............................................................................................................................. 17 9.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................... 17 10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................. 18 11.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 18 12.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Appendix A. Maps ................................................................................................................................................... 20 Appendix B. Habitat and Recreation Benefits Matrix ............................................................................................. 24 Appendix C. Public Comment .................................................................................................................................. 25 Environmental Assessment – Replacement of Ackerman Parcel Page 3 of 25 Page 3 of 29 1.0 INTRODUCTION New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential impacts to the human and natural environment associated with resolving DFW’s loss of control of the Ackerman parcel of the Five Rivers Environmental Education Center (Five Rivers; formerly part of the Delmar Game Farm) in Albany County, NY. The Ackerman parcel has been incorporated into Five Rivers and is no longer used for some of the approved purposes for which it was acquired. Hunting, trapping, and fishing are not allowed on the property, DEC discontinued use of the property for game bird propagation, and currently the property’s primary use is environmental education. Therefore, DFW’s proposed action is to replace the Ackerman parcel with a nearby property, Coeymans Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which was purchased with state funds, has an equivalent value, and provides equal if not greater wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreational benefits. The proposed action affects lands purchased with funds from the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR). Because of the federal funds used to purchase the land in question and associated federal regulations, this action must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 United States Code [USC] § 4321-4347), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Section 106 of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridges in Albany County
    CDTC BRIDGE FACT SHEET BIN 1053380 Bridge Name 5 X over PATROON CREEK Review Date October 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION PIN County Albany Political Unit City of ALBANY Owner 42 - City of ALBANY Feature Carried 5 X Feature Crossed PATROON CREEK Federal System? Yes NHS? Yes BRIDGE INFORMATION Number of Spans 2 Superstructure Type Concrete Culvert At Risk? No AADT 26918 AADT Year 2010 Posted Load (Tons) INSPECTION INFORMATION Last Inspection 8/14/2012 Condition Rating 5.316 Flags NNN No Flags STUDY INFORMATION Work Strategy Item Specific Treatment 1 Concrete Patch Repairs Treatment 2 2014 Preliminary Construction Cost $100,000 MP&T Open Program (years) 10 Comments CDTC BRIDGE FACT SHEET BIN 2200130 Bridge Name KAEHLER LANE over FOX CREEK Review Date October 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION PIN County Albany Political Unit Town of BERNE Owner 40 - Town of BERNE Feature Carried KAEHLER LANE Feature Crossed FOX CREEK Federal System? No NHS? No BRIDGE INFORMATION Number of Spans 1 Superstructure Type Steel Stringer / Multibeam At Risk? Yes AADT 15 AADT Year 2009 Posted Load (Tons) INSPECTION INFORMATION Last Inspection 11/15/2012 Condition Rating 5.404 Flags NNN No Flags STUDY INFORMATION Work Strategy Item Specific Treatment 1 Place Asphalt WS Treatment 2 Repair Lagging Wall 2014 Preliminary Construction Cost $300,000 MP&T Detour Program (years) Immediate Comments CDTC BRIDGE FACT SHEET BIN 2200210 Bridge Name PICTUAY ROAD over COEYMANS CREEK Review Date October 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION PIN County Albany Political Unit Town of BETHLEHEM Owner 30 - Albany
    [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]
  • Toxic Water Pollution in New York Table 9
    E NVIRONMENTAL Dishonorable W G TM ORKING ROUP Table 9 Discharge Toxic water pollution in New York Companies reporting toxic discharges to water (1990-1994) City: Albany, New York Facility: Cibro Petroleum Prods. Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 1,000 25 25 25 1,075 BenzeneHudson River 250 5 5 5 265 EthylbenzeneHudson River 250 5 5 5 265 TolueneHudson River 250 5 5 5 265 Xylene (mixed isomers)Hudson River 250 5 5 5 265 Cyclohexane Hudson River 5 5 10 Cyclohexane Unknown 5 5 City: Aquebogue, New York Facility: AMP-Akzo Co. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 2,915 3,683 5,929 3,716 8,574 24,817 Glycol ethersLong Island Sound 2,800 3,622 5,852 3,620 8,453 24,347 Copper compoundsLong Island Sound 107 58 74 94 117 450 Lead Long Island Sound 3 3 3 2 4 15 FormaldehydeLong Island Sound 5 5 City: Baldwinsville, New York Facility: Anheuser-Busch Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 6,584 4,467 2,996 2,490 253 16,790 AmmoniaSeneca River 6,584 4,467 2,996 2,490 253 16,790 City: Beaver Falls, New York Facility: Specialty Paperboard Inc. Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 3,700 1,510 1,042 1,125 1,268 8,645 Zinc compoundsBeaver River 3,700 1,510 1,042 1,125 1,268 8,645 City: Bronx, New York Facility: General Galvanizing & Supply Pounds of toxic chemicals discharged to water Chemical discharged Receiving water 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1990-1994 All toxic chemicals 7,700 1,000 1,000 9,700 Sulfuric acidUnknown 3,500 3,500 Hydrochloric acidUnknown 2,500 2,500 Chlorine Unknown 1,000 1,000 2,000 Nitric acidUnknown 1,500 1,500 CadmiumUnknown 200 200 Source: Environmental Working Group.
    [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]
  • Town of Bethlehem Open Space Plan: Conservation Criteria Implementation
    Town of Bethlehem Open Space Plan: Conservation Criteria Implementation December 2017 FINAL Prepared by: Bethlehem Department of Economic Development and Planning, and M.J. Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C., with support from the Conservation Easement Review Board 1 Executive Summary Open space conservation planning has been a topic of discussion in Bethlehem for over a decade, and has been a focus of numerous committees, meetings, focus groups and written reports. A consistent recommendation found in these efforts, from the 2005 Comprehensive Plan to the 2014 Open Space Program Resolution, has been the development of conservation criteria to evaluate conservation opportunities when they arise. As a result, in February 2017 the town hired M.J. Engineering and Land Surveying, P.C. (MJ) to assist the town planning department in the development of conservation criteria and ultimately, this open space plan. This open space plan document describes how the town first developed four open space conservation values maps; then a list of 25 conservation criteria; and finally, a GIS-based conservation analysis tool to inform ongoing current and future open space conservation tools in town. With the assistance of the Conservation Easement Review Board the following was prepared: 1. An updated, town-wide open space inventory and database, as illustrated in four Open Space Conservation Values Maps: a. Community Character b. Recreation and Greenways c. Forests, Fields and Wildlife Ecosystems d. Natural Water systems: Streams, Wetlands and the Hudson River 2. A list of data-driven Conservation Criteria (25) with which to evaluate open space land for its conservation values. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in the Hudson River Basin New York and Adjacent States, 1992–95
    science for a changing world Water Quality in the Hudson River Basin New York and Adjacent States, 1992–95 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1165 A COORDINATED EFFORT Coordination among agencies and organizations is an integral part of the NAWQA Program. We thank the following individuals and organizations who contributed data, knowledge, time, and expertise. Steven Anderson, Montgomery American Museum of Natural History New York Sea Grant County Soil Conservation District Cornell University New York State Canal Corporation Robert W. Bode, Margaret A. Novak, Cornell University Cooperative New York State Department of Environ- and Lawrence E. Abele, New York Extension mental Conservation State Department of Environmen- Freshwater Institute at Rensselaer New York State Department of Health tal Conservation (NYSDEC) Divi- Polytechnic Institute New York State Department of State sion of Water, Stream General Electric Company Coastal Resource Management Biomonitoring Unit Hudsonia New York State Geological Survey Richard Bopp, Rensselaer Polytech- nic Institute, Department of Earth Hudson River-Black River Regulating New York State Museum and Environmental Sciences District Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Robert Crowe and other landowners Hudson River Foundation River Watch Network, Inc. who permitted access to stream Hudson River National Estuarine Simon’s Rock College and well sites on private property Research Reserve State University of New York at Albany Robert A. Daniels, New York State Hudson Valley Regional Council Suffolk County, N.Y. Museum, Biological Survey Institute of Ecosystem Studies Thatcher Research Associates, Inc. Larry Rosenmann, NYSDEC Divi- New York Botanical Garden The Nature Conservancy sion of Pesticides and Radiation New York City Department of Environ- U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving New York's Capital Region Bridges
    Preserving New York’s Capital Region Bridges THE CONDITION AND FUNDING NEEDS OF THE CAPITAL REGION’S AGING BRIDGE SYSTEM SEPTEMBER 2019 WWW.TRIPNET.ORG Founded in 1971, TRIP ® of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on surface transportation issues. TRIP is sponsored by insurance companies, equipment manufacturers, distributors and suppliers; businesses involved in highway and transit engineering and construction; labor unions; and organizations concerned with efficient and safe surface transportation. INTRODUCTION New York’s transportation system provides links for the state’s residents, visitors and businesses, providing daily access to homes, jobs, shopping, natural resources and recreation. Modernizing New York’s transportation system, including its bridges, is critical to fostering quality of life improvements and economic competitiveness in the Empire State. The preservation and modernization of the Capital Region’s transportation system plays an important role in retaining economic competitiveness and improving economic well-being by providing jobs in the short term and by improving the productivity and competitiveness of the state’s businesses in the long term. As the Capital Region and the state of New York face the challenge of preserving and modernizing bridges, the level of federal, state and local transportation funding will be a critical factor in whether residents, visitors and businesses continue to enjoy access to a safe and efficient transportation network. TRIP has prepared a statewide report on bridge conditions throughout New York as well as regional reports for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Binghamton, Buffalo, Hudson Valley, Long Island, New York City, Rochester, Syracuse and Utica areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides in Surface Waters of the Hudson River Basin, New York and Adjacent States
    Pesticides in Surface Waters of the Hudson River Basin, New York and Adjacent States Introduction and Basin percent of the basin is forested land, 14 supply and the ecological health of streams. percent agricultural, and 8 percent is urban/ This fact sheet summarizes results of a study Description residential land. Water samples collected from of pesticides in surface waters of the Hudson streams and rivers in the Hudson River Basin River Basin. The National Water Quality Assessment in 1994 were analyzed for a broad suite of (NAWQA) program is designed to describe pesticides, which included herbicides and the status and trends in the water quality of insecticides. Herbicides are used to control Pesticide Sampling large representative parts of the Nation's weeds in agricultural fields as well as lawns, surface-water and ground-water resources and commercial land, and other open areas in to provide a scientific understanding of the urban and residential settings. Insecticides are Water samples were collected from a major natural and human factors that affect used to control insects in agricultural and basinwide network of 46 sites on 42 streams the quality of these resources. The Hudson urban settings. Because some pesticides can and rivers (fig. 1) during base-flow conditions River Basin, one of 60 NAWQA project areas, migrate from applied areas to streams and from late May through late June 1994, when encompasses 13,400 mi2 (square miles) in rivers, monitoring surface water for pesticides pesticides are commonly applied to fields. New
    [Show full text]
  • NATURAL AREAS and WILDLIFE in YOUR COMMUNITY a Habitat Summary Prepared for the Town of Bethlehem
    NATURAL AREAS AND WILDLIFE IN YOUR COMMUNITY A Habitat Summary Prepared for the Town of Bethlehem This summary was completed in August 2017 as an update to an earlier 2008 summary, providing information for land- use planning and decision-making as requested by the Town of Bethlehem. 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]
  • Wetland Delineation Report REVISED WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
    ATTACHMENT F Revised Attachment F: Wetland Delineation Report REVISED WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Champlain Hudson Power Express Project Prepared for: Champlain Hudson Power Express, Inc. Toronto, Ontario Prepared by: TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk St Lowell, MA 01854 February 2012 (Revised) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT ROUTE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................1 3.0 WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY .........................................................2 4.0 WETLAND DELINEATION RESULTS ........................................................................4 4.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................4 4.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................7 4.3 Soils..........................................................................................................................8 4.4 Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Series Descriptions ...........................8 5.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................24 6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................25 TABLES Table 4-1 Summary of Wetlands
    [Show full text]
  • To Passage for Migratory Fish on Lower
    River Herring: Assessment of Fish Passage Opportunities in Lower Hudson River Tributaries (2009-2012) Presentation to NY Region River Herring Workshop, HRF, Oct. 22, 2012 Carl Alderson, NOAA Restoration Center Lisa Rosman, NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration NOAA Funded Restoration Projects in the Northeast • 216 salt marsh projects • 206 fish passage projects •Completed ~16,000 acres and ~1,400 stream miles •Est. ~4,0000 acres and ~ 1,500 stream miles planned Northeast Fish Passage Prioritization Goal: to identify priority watersheds throughout the region to focus our fish passage projects. • Developed list of priority species among the 14 diadromous species in the region • Mapped co- occurrence and ranked Tributary Fish Passage Study of the Lower Hudson River • Objectives Investigate Changes to Fish Passage Impediments Create an Inventory of Barriers for use as a Decision Making Tool Work with other agencies and programs to further mutual goals Tributary Fish Passage Study of the Lower Hudson River • Scope of Effort 65 Tributaries Update Prior Efforts (Schmidt et al 1996, Halavik and Orvis 1998, Machut et al. 2007) o Not Limited to number of barriers per tributary Desktop Tools o Google Earth, Bing, Digital USGS 7.5 Series Topographic o Digital NYS Dam Inventory Groundtruthing: 51 of 65 tributaries all or partially field verified to date o GPS, Video, Photography, Notes Tributary Fish Passage Study of the Lower Hudson River • Proposed Actions Dam Removal and Culvert Upgrades (Preferred) Eelways, Fish Ladders, Rock Ramps (Less Preferred)
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Partnership Meeting
    Hudson River Partnership Meeting Damage Assessment Remediation NOAA in the Hudson River and Restoration Program Assessment Restoration Division Restoration Center October 16, 2015 Where We Work Damage Assessment Remediation and Restoration Program 2 Where We Work Damage Assessment Remediation and Restoration Program 3 Hudson River Restoration Planning Establish Nexus between Restoration and Injury Catalog Restoration Opportunities Develop Restoration Criteria Select Restoration Projects Damage Assessment Remediation and Restoration Program Hudson River Restoration Opportunities Project Types Tributary Fish Passage Grasslands Riparian Wetlands Groundwater Hydrologic Reconnection Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Recreational/Human Use Navigational Dredging Restoration Dredging Damage Assessment Remediation and Restoration Program Hudson River Restoration Opportunities Database Database Attributes LOCATION OWNERSHIP PRE/POST RESTORATION HABITAT CLASS FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION BENEFITS CONTACTS DOCUMENTATION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS PHOTO LINKS Mapping Product Video Library Photo Library Damage Assessment Remediation and Restoration Program Hudson River Restoration Opportunities Database NOAA Tributary Barrier Study Study Scope Sixty-eight Lower Hudson Tributaries Annsville Creek Fallkill Mill Creek (R) Saw Kill Arden Brook Fallsburgh Creek Minisceongo Creek Saw Mill River Black Creek Fishkill Creek Moodna Creek Sing Sing Brook Breakneck Brook Foundry Brook Moordener Kill South Bay Creek Casperskill Furnace Brook Muitzes Kill South Lattintown Creek
    [Show full text]