Mohawk Watershed Symposium 2016

Mohawk Watershed Symposium 2016

Abstracts and Program College Park Hall, Union College Schenectady NY 18 March 2016

Mohawk Watershed Symposium 2016 Abstracts and Program College Park Hall Union College Schenectady, NY 18 March 2016

Edited by: J.M.H. Cockburn and J.I. Garver

Copyright*Information:* ©*2016*Geology*Department,*Union*College,*Schenectady*N.Y.*12308D3107.*All*rights*reserved.*No*part*of*the*document*can*be* copied* and/or* redistributed,* electronically* or* otherwise,* without* written* permission* from* the* Geology* Department,* Union* College,*Schenectady*NY,*12308D2311,*USA.* * * ISBN:*978D1D939968D07D4* * * * * Digital* version* of* MWS* 2016* abstract* volume* available* as* a* free* PDF* download* format* from* the* main* Mohawk* Watershed* Symposium*website,*under*the*2016*symposium*link: http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mws/mws.html* * * * * * Suggested(Citation:( Cockburn,*J.M.H.*and*Garver,*J.I.,*2016.**Proceedings*of*the*2016*Mohawk*Watershed*Symposium,*Union*College,*Schenectady,* NY,*March*18,*2016,*Volume*8,*68*pages* * * * * * * * * * * On* the* cover:* The* Blueback* Herring* (Alosa& Aestivalis).* * The* blueback* herring* or* blueback* shad* ranges* from* Nova* Scotia* to* Florida,* and* is* common* in* the* Hudson* and* lower* Mohawk* rivers.* This* fish* is* anadromous,* meaning* it* lives* in* the* marine* environment*and*migrates*in*the*spring*when*it*spawns*in*freshwater*rivers.**After*spawning*the*surviving*spent*fish*migrate* back*to*the*sea*and*young*fish*follow*this*migration*route*once*they*are*about*a*month*old.***The*cover*drawing*was*prepared* by* Ellen* Edmonson* and* Hugh* Chrisp* as* part* of* the* 1927D1940* New* York* Biological* Survey* conducted* by* the* Conservation* Department*(the*predecessor*to*the*New*York*State*Department*of*Environmental*Conservation).*Permission*for*use*of*image* is*granted*by*NY*State*Department*of*Environmental*Conservation.* * * * * Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

i

PREFACE The 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium marks our 8th annual meeting since inception in 2009. From the beginning, the Symposium was envisioned as an opportunity to facilitate and foster conversations that drive positive change and expand the understanding of physical processes within the watershed. This success is demonstrated in the breadth and depth of participation and the dynamic nature of our annual meeting. One of the most important results of the Mohawk Watershed Symposium series is the investment by a wide range of individuals in our watershed. The annual meeting has re-energized the Mohawk River identity, and inspired a new generation of basin advocates with a sense of importance that results in ownership of the watershed and its issues. Building and sustaining a coalition of concerned and invested stakeholders allows us to strengthen connections and be informed about issues that affect water quality availability, recreation opportunities, and other demands on water use (e.g., aquatic ecology, stream restoration). Water quality and healthy ecosystems are a key theme at this year’s Mohawk Watershed Symposium. Given the crises in Flint Michigan, and Hoosick Falls New York, we are reminded of the importance of clean drinking water and the fragility of our water infrastructure. On 29 February 2016, Representative Tonko (NY-20) co-introduced the AQUA Act to Congress, which updates the Safe Drinking Water Act to significantly increase funding authorization levels for local communities with water infrastructure deficiencies. In Congressman Tonko’s plenary address he will review some aspects of the AQUA Act and most importantly remind us that although water quality and threats to our water security may be something that is ‘out of site’, it cannot be ‘out of our minds’. We are pleased to welcome Professor Karin Limburg as the keynote speaker this year, an ecologist at SUNY ESF and longtime supporter and participant of the Mohawk Watershed Symposium series. Dr. Limburg’s research focuses on fisheries, watersheds, and aquatic ecosystems. Much of her work has been with fisheries in New York State watersheds, including the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. Her research has focused on understanding ecosystems on a regional scale and how marine and freshwater systems are interconnected, and for this we turn to the ear bones (otolith) from river Herring to quantify changes in environmental conditions and fish migration. In addition to Dr. Limburg’s work in aquatic ecology and geochemistry, her work is embedded in stakeholder involvement and investment. These qualities make her an ideal keynote speaker at this year’s Symposium. We are indebted to our sponsors NYS DEC for their continued support, which ensures each Symposium is a success. The changes we witnessed at our annual symposium and within the watershed, changes that go beyond the history of the Mohawk Watershed Symposium, are astounding. The accomplishments should be celebrated and the hard work continued. This year we have nine invited talks that cover a variety of issues in the basin and 24 volunteered talks and posters. We are seeing an important increase in the number of colleges and universities participating in the Symposium. This is a welcome addition and it fits well with the new grants program launched by NYSDEC that is aimed at fostering the five items on the Mohawk Basin Action agenda. This year also has one of the highest number of student involved presentations with at least 13 presentations having student co-authors. By the end of the day the MWS symposium series will have been the forum for 242 talks, posters, and special presentations since inception. It takes a community to make this happen and we are delighted to see so many familiar names and we welcome those new to MWS. Enjoy the day.

John I. Garver Union College

ii

Jaclyn Cockburn University of Guelph

Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

Major Financial support for MWS 2016

New$York$State$Department$of$ Environmental$Conservation$

Major Financial support for MWS 2016 was provided by the NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation though the Mohawk River Basin Program The Mohawk River Basin Program (MRBP) is a multi-disciplinary environmental management program focused on conserving, preserving and restoring the environmental, economic, and cultural elements of the Mohawk River Watershed. Through facilitation of partnerships among local, state and federal governments, the MRBP works to achieve the goals outlined in the Mohawk River Basin Action Agenda (2012-2016). The MRBP sees the continuation of the Union College Mohawk Watershed Symposium as an ideal platform for communication among stakeholders at all levels. The MRBP partners with organizations such as the New York State Water Resources Institute (WRI), a government mandated institution located at Cornell University, whose mission is to improve the management of water resources. This year, through the cooperative relationship between the MRBP and Cornell University (WRI), funding was offered to help support and sponsor the Symposium.


iii

SCHEDULE Mohawk Watershed Symposium - 2016 18 March 2016, College Park, Union College, Schenectady NY Oral session (College Park) - Registration and Badges required 8:30 AM

8:55 AM Registration, Coffee, College Park

8:55 AM

9:00 AM Introductory Remarks

9:00 AM

9:26 AM New York State Flood Risk Management Standard (invited)

9:26 AM

9:41 AM Flood of January 19-20, 1996: 20 Years Later

9:41 AM

9:56 AM Bald Eagles and the Mohawk: Video captures the Watershed

9:56 AM

Mike Lemery, Filmaker, Schenectady, NY Quantifying Early Anthropocene Landscape Change and its Effects on Watershed Processes in southern New 10:22 AM England (invited) William Ouimet, Geology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

Jackie Cockburn, MWS Co-Chair, University of Guelph William Nechamen, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany NY Britt E. Westergard, NOAA/National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office, Albany, NY

10:22 AM 11:07 AM

COFFEE and POSTERS (see below for listing)

11:07 AM 11:33 AM Microplastic Pollution in the Mohawk and Hudson Watersheds (invited)

Jacqueline Smith, Geology, College of St Rose, Albany, NY 11:33 AM 11:48 AM The Mohawk River as a “Reference” River for Ecological and Contaminant Studies on the Hudson River:

Density and Abundance of Mink Sean S. Madden, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY 11:48 AM 12:03 PM Response of Fish Assemblages to Seasonal Drawdowns in Sections of the Mohawk River-Barge Canal System Scott George, U.S. Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, NY 12:03 PM 12:29 PM The Future of the Mohawk River (invited) Robert H. Boyle, Founder of Riverkeeper and the Hudson River Fdn. for Science and Env. Research 12:29 PM

1:59 PM

- LUNCH and Poster Sessions - Lunch at College Park

1:59 PM

2:14 PM

Water: A Commodity or a Human Right?

2:14 PM

2:40 PM

Retrospection and Anticipation: The Evolution of Citizen Action in the Schoharie/Mohawk Watershed (invited)

2:40 PM

3:06 PM

Ashraf M. Ghaly, Department of Engineering, Union College, Schenectady, NY

3:06 PM

Howard Bartholomew, President Dam Concerned Citizens The Barge Canal: Why Was It Built and What It Did (invited) Simon Litten, Environmental Consultant 3:21 PM Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan Update (invited) Pete Nichols, Chairman, Mohawk River Watershed Coalition

3:21 PM

4:06 PM

4:06 PM

4:32 PM

4:32 PM 4:52 PM 5:12 PM

COFFEE and POSTERS (see below for listing)

Mohawk River Water Quality Snapshot: 121 Miles in 24 Hours (invited) Dan Shapley, Water Quality Program Manager, Hudson Riverkeeper 4:52 PM What’s ‘Out of Sight’ Cannot be ‘Out of Mind' (Plenary Address) Congressman Paul Tonko, 20th District of New York 5:12 PM Keynote Introduction and Address: The Mohawk River is important to the North Atlantic Keynote Speaker: Karin Limburg, Professor, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, NY 5:17 PM Closing Remarks John Garver, MWS Co-Chair, Union College

Symposium Reception (Old Chapel) 5:30pm-6:30pm Old Chapel is on the main part of the campus, limited parking near the building is available

Symposium Banquet (Old Chapel) 6:30pm - 8:30pm, registration and tickets required From the Mountains to the Sea and Back Again: why the Mohawk River is important to the North Atlantic Keynote Speaker: Karin Limburg, Professor, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, NY

iv


Poster session (all day) P1

P2

Uranium in Shale of the Utica Shale and Schenectady Formation, Lower Mohawk Valley NY: implications for groundwater Matt Amatruda* and John I. Garver, Geology Department, Union College Schenectady NY Fort Plain Flood of June 28th 2013: Determining vulnerable sites to flood risk using LiDAR and GIS L.A. D’Orsa*, J.M. Langella, J.P. Saket, and A.E. Marsellos, Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

P3

The Vischer Ferry Dam (Lock E7) Reservoir Induces Flooding in the Schenectady Area: Issue, analysis of conditions, and a solution

P4

Understanding the Influence of Hurricane Irene on the Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport in the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers, NY

James E. Duggan, Consultant (retired registered architect/urban planner)

Christopher S. Fuller*, James S. Bonner, M.S. Islam, and William Kirkey, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY. P5

The Fall of Peak Oil and the Rise of Peak Water Ashraf M. Ghaly, Department of Engineering, Union College, Schenectady, NY

P6

Determining the Provenance and Life Histories of Blueback Herring in the Mohawk River Cara E. Hodkin* and Karin Limburg, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, NY

P7

Monitoring the Hudson and Beyond with HRECOS: The Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System Gavin M. Lemley* and Alexander J. Smith, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Estuary Program/NEIWPCC, Albany, NY

P8

Two Methods for Determining the Extent of Flooding During Hurricane Irene in Schenectady, NY A. Lewis*, E. Weaver, E. Dorward, and A. Marsellos, Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

P9

Future of Water Quality Sampling along the Mohawk River: Blitz 2016 John Lipscomb, Dan Shapley, Jen Epstein, Barbara Brabetz, Neil Law, and Jason Ratchford*, Fisheries & Aquaculture, SUNY Cobleskill, Cobleskill, NY

P10

P11

P12

P13

P14

P15

P16

P17

Data Mining for Immediate Decision Making in Flood Hazard Events: An application at Mohawk Watershed in New York A.E. Marsellos*, K.G. Tsakiri, and A. Kavalieros, Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY Implementation of the Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan Win McIntyre, Katie Budreski, and Pete Nichols*, Mohawk River Watershed Coalition Environmental Study Teams: A Community Based Approach to Local Water Quality Monitoring and Youth Development Skills Training throughout the Mohawk River Basin. John McKeeby* and Scott Hadam, Schoharie River Center, Burtonsville, NY The Northeast Stream Quality Assessment Karen R. Murray*, James Coles and Peter Van Metre, U.S. Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, NY Rapid Bioassesment of Cobleskill Creek Prior to Stream Restoration Efforts: Establishing a Reference Reach to Monitor the Recovery of Stream Biotic Integrity Giovanni Pambianchi*, Robin LaRochelle and Carmen Greenwood, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Sciences, SUNY Cobleskill, Cobleskill, NY Flooding of the Mohawk River at Lock 12 in Fort Hunter, NY, during Hurricane Irene (August 28-29th, 2011) A. Sisti*, E. Combs, and A.E. Marsellos, Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY Reconnecting Waters for Eels and River Herring: A mediated modeling approach to assess receptivity to dam removal in the Hudson-Mohawk Watershed Kayla M. Smith*, Karin E. Limburg, Andrea M. Feldpausch-Parker, and Alexander J. Smith, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY Evaluation and Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the June 28, 2013 Flood in Herkimer, New York Using GIS and Other Reconstructive Data B. Swan*, A.T. Yankopoulos, and A.E. Marsellos, Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

P18

Investigating Annual Sediment Loads in Schoharie Creek Following Tropical Storms Irene and Lee Jesse Van Patter* and Jaclyn Cockburn, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph ON, Canada

P19

Effects of Stream Restoration Activities on Turbidity Levels Christopher Wright* and Andrew Gascho Landis, Department of Environment and Energy Technology, SUNY Coblskill, Cobleskill, NY * Indicates the presenting author, which is listed in the schedule, for complete author affiliation please refer to the abstract.


v

KEYNOTE SPEAKER Dr. Karin E. Limberg SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse NY "From the mountains to the sea and back again: why the Mohawk River is important to the North Atlantic" Karin Limburg is an ecologist who focuses primarily on fisheries, watersheds, and aquatic ecosystems. Much of her work has been with fisheries in New York State watersheds, including the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. But her work includes the marine realm including the Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic sea and part of this effort is focused on understanding links between freshwater systems and the oceans. Her research with fish includes "otolithology" where the ear bone (or otoilith) captures a remarkable record of environmental conditions in ecosystems. She received the Exemplary Researcher Award in 2010 at SUNY ESF. She went to Vassar College (A.B.) and double majored in Biology and Ecology/Conservation, she earned a M.S from the University of Florida (Gainesville) and she did her PhD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. She has used isotopes and geochemistry of otoliths from river Herring to quantify changes in environmental conditions and fish migration. She has published extensively in the scientific literature and also in the popular press. Over time her research has focused more on understanding ecosystems on a regional scale and how marine and freshwater systems are interconnected. She has recently advocated for a re-evaluation of dams in the US because of the harmful effects on river ecology. She was co-author on a recent paper that concluded that hydropower dams in the Northeast1 that were designed to allow migratory fish to pass upstream have failed and thus adversely affected fisheries. A recent piece entitled “Let the River Run Wild”2 points to the harmful effects of dams on river ecology in the Northeast. 1

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130116163545.htm

2

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/let-the-susquehanna-river-run-wild.html?_r=0

vi


PLENARY ADDRESS What’s ‘out of sight’ cannot be ‘out of mind’ Congressman Paul Tonko, 20th District New York Representatives Paul Tonko and Frank Pallone Introduce AQUA Act and update Safe Drinking Water Act and Help for Local Water Systems to Avoid Infrastructure Disasters, Big and Small (excerpts from the Tonko press release, 29 February 2016 (Sean Magers)) On 29 February 2016, Representatives Paul D. Tonko (NY-20) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-6) introduced the AQUA Act, which updates the Safe Drinking Water Act to significantly increase funding authorization levels for local communities with water infrastructure deficiencies. Representative Tonko noted that: “The Flint water crisis has brought attention to our nation’s aging water infrastructure and what can happen when we try to cut corners in state budgets, but the discussion cannot end in Michigan. Cash-strapped local governments struggle each year to find sufficient funds for repair and replacement of essential water infrastructure. Between the steady decline in federal funding and the growing need for more support from Washington, greater burden has fallen upon local governments at a time when they simply cannot shoulder it. From simple water main breaks that bring everyday life to a screeching halt to larger disasters that harm a generation of lives, it’s well past time to get real about the funding levels that are needed to bring our water infrastructure into the 21st century.” "Our water infrastructure has not been sufficiently funded for years, and we're now seeing the tragic results in Flint and in other communities around the nation, including New Jersey," said Pallone. “This bill devotes much-needed funding to local governments so they can repair and replace aging water systems to ensure people have access to safe and clean drinking water. I applaud Congressman Tonko for his longstanding leadership on this issue, and look forward to working with him to move this important legislation through Congress." The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), the primary source of federal funding for drinking water infrastructure projects, was created by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. Congress has neglected to reauthorize the program since its initial authorization expired in 2003. It continues to provide assistance to states because it has been included in annual appropriations and budget deals. Because of this, the program remains in danger of being eliminated each year and is funded at an outdated and inappropriate 13-year old level. “Simply put, communities big and small are not getting what they need from Washington, and Congress has to give them the tools they need to solve the problems they have today before they become disasters tomorrow,” added Tonko. Pallone is the Ranking Member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Tonko serves as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, which has jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act accomplishes several things (see the press release for more details) 1) The Aqua Act reauthorizes the Safe Drinking Water Act for five years at higher levels in order to meet the growing needs gap. 2) Section 19 addresses the Risks of Drought to Drinking Water represents language from Representative Jerry McNerney’s (CA-9) bill, H.R. 1709. 3) It addresses Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability. Section 20 was authored by Representative Lois Capps (CA-24), and it requires the Administrator to establish a grant program to assist public water systems in improving drinking water resiliency and sustainability. 4) Section 21 addresses Lead Service Line Replacement, and requires the Administrator to establish a grant program to remove lead service lines from public water systems. For the full press release please visit: http://tonko.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=548


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

ii(

Schedule

iv(

Keynote Speaker

vi(

Plenary Address

vii(

Table of Contents

viii(

Abtracts are listed alphabetically by the last name of the first author Uranium in Shale of the Utica Shale and Schenectady Formation, Lower Mohawk Valley NY: Implications for Groundwater* Matt Amatruda and John I. Garver .............................................................................................................................1* Retrospection and Anticipation: The Evolution of Citizen Action in the Schoharie/Mohawk Watershed* Howard R. Bartholomew ............................................................................................................................................3* The Future of the Mohawk River* Robert H. Boyle ..........................................................................................................................................................6* Fort Plain Flood of June 28TH, 2013: Determining Vulnerable Sites to Flood Risk Using LiDAR and GIS* L.A. D’Orsa, J.M. Langella, J.P. Saket and A.E. Marsellos .......................................................................................8* The Vischer Ferry Dam (Lock E7) Reservoir Induces Flooding in the Schenectady Area: Issue, Analysis of Conditions, and a Solution* James E. Duggan .......................................................................................................................................................11* Understanding the influence of Hurricane Irene on the hydrodynamics and sediment transport in the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers, NY* Christopher S. Fuller, James S. Bonner, M.S. Islam, and William Kirkey ..............................................................15* Response of Fish Assemblages to Seasonal Drawdowns in Sections of the Mohawk River-Barge Canal System* Scott George, Barry Baldigo, and Scott Wells .........................................................................................................16* Water: A Commodity or a Human Right?* A.M. Ghaly ...............................................................................................................................................................17* The Fall of Peak Oil and the Rise of Peak Water* A.M. Ghaly ...............................................................................................................................................................18* Determining the Provenance and Life Histories of Blueback Herring in the Mohawk River* Cara Ewell Hodkin and Karin Limburg ....................................................................................................................19* Monitoring the Hudson and Beyond with HRECOS: The Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System* Gavin M. Lemley and Alexander J. Smith ...............................................................................................................20* Two Methods for Determining the Extent of Flooding During Hurricane Irene in Schenectady, NY* A. Lewis, E. Weaver, E. Dorward, and A. Marsellos ...............................................................................................21* The Barge Canal: Why It Was Built and What It Did* Simon Litten..............................................................................................................................................................24* Mohawk River Water Quality Snapshot: 121 Miles in 24 Hours: A First Look at Data from a Pilot Riverkeepers-SUNY Cobleskill Partnership* John Lipscomb, Dan Shapley, Jen Epstein, Barbara L. Brabetz, and Neil A. Law ..................................................27* Future of Water Quality Sampling Along the Mohawk River: Blitz 2016 Transitioning Riverkeeper-SUNY Cobleskill Partnership from Pilot to Practice* John Lipscomb, Dan Shapley, Jen Epstein, Barbara Brabetz, Neil Law, and Jason Ratchford ...............................29* The Mohawk River as a “Reference” River for Ecological and Contaminant Studies on the Hudson River: Density and Abundance of Mink* Sean. S. Madden .......................................................................................................................................................30* Data Mining for Immediate Decision-making in Flood Hazard Events: An Application at Mohawk Watershed in New York* A.E., Marsellos, K.G., Tsakiri, A. Kavalieros ..........................................................................................................32* Implementation of the Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan* Win McIntyre, Katie Budreski, and Peter Nichols ...................................................................................................34* viii


Environmental Study Teams: A Community Based Approach to Local Water Quality Monitoring and Youth Development Skills Training throughout the Mohawk River Basin* John McKeeby and Scott Hadam ............................................................................................................................. 35* The Northeast Stream Quality Assessment* Karen Riva Murray, James Coles, and Peter Van Metre .......................................................................................... 36* New York State Flood Risk Management Standard* William Nechamen ................................................................................................................................................... 37* Quantifying Early Anthropocene Landscape Change and its Effects on Watershed Processes in Southern New England* William Ouimet and Katharine Johnson .................................................................................................................. 40* Rapid Bioassesment of Cobleskill Creek Prior to Stream Restoration Efforts: Establishing a Reference Reach to Monitor the Recovery of Stream Biotic Integrity* Giovanni Pambianchi, Robin LaRochelle and Carmen Greenwood ........................................................................ 44* Flooding of the Mohawk River at Lock 12 in Fort Hunter, NY, During Hurricane Irene (August 28-29th, 2011)* A. Sisti, E. Combs, and A.E. Marsellos ................................................................................................................... 45* Microplastic pollution in the Mohawk and Hudson Watersheds* Jacqueline A. Smith .................................................................................................................................................. 48* Reconnecting Waters for Eels and River Herring: A Mediated Modeling Approach to Assess Receptivity to Dam Removal in the Hudson-Mohawk Watershed* K.M. Smith, K.E. Limburg, A.M. Feldpausch-Parker and A.J. Smith..................................................................... 50* Evaluation and Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the June 28, 2013 Flood in Herkimer, New York Using GIS and Other Reconstructive Data* B. Swan, A.T. Yankopoulos, and A.E. Marsellos .................................................................................................... 52* Investigating Annual Sediment Loads in Schoharie Creek Following Tropical Storms Irene and Lee* Jesse Van Patter and Jaclyn Cockburn ..................................................................................................................... 55* Flood of January 19-20, 1996: 20 Years Later* Britt E. Westergard ................................................................................................................................................... 57* Effects of Stream Restoration Activities on Turbidity Levels* Christopher Wright and Andrew Gascho Landis ..................................................................................................... 58*


ix

NOTES:

x


URANIUM IN SHALE OF THE UTICA SHALE AND SCHENECTADY FORMATION, LOWER MOHAWK VALLEY NY: IMPLICATIONS FOR GROUNDWATER Matt Amatruda and John I. Garver Geology Department, Union College, Schenectady, NY The lower Mohawk Valley is underlain by shale and sandstone of the Upper Ordovician Utica Shale and Schenectady Formation, and thus shale is a common bedrock lithology (Fisher, 1954). The Utica Shale is characteristic of an organic-rich black shale, formed in a low-energy, anoxic deep sea basin whereas the overlying Schenectady Formation is a sequence of gray shales and interbedded greywacke sandstone beds that were rapidly deposited over organic-rich muds (Bradley and Kidd, 1991). This study is aimed at documenting the distribution of uranium in shale units, and to understand causes of variation of uranium concentrations in shale. The findings are important for understanding radon potential and the geochemistry of groundwater in the lower Mohawk (Nelson and Garver, 2015). Fieldwork for the study was conducted using a portable gamma spectrometer (Radiation Solutions Inc. RS230 BGO Super-Spec) with a lead (Pb) collar. Measurements on 140 rocks were made in the field at thirteen locations to understand radioactivity (K, Th, and U) in stratigraphic sections, and in isolated outcrops over a wide area that is mainly in Montgomery and Schenectady counties. We are particularly interested in uranium because it can occur in elevated concentrations in ground water, and the decay chain includes radon gas, known to cause cancer. We are intrigued by the possibility that the uranium and its progeny (daughters) can be used as tracers in groundwater and surface water (Appleton, 2013). For all units, uranium ranges from ~2 to 9.0 ppm and the highest values are from the upper part of the Utica Shale. Average uranium content for all stratigraphic units of the Utica Shale and Schenectady Formation is approximately 5.0 ppm. In the Schenectady Formation, uranium concentrations are consistent and uniform whereas concentrations in the Utica are highly variable, and generally higher. The narrow range of K, U, and Th values in the Schenectady Formation point to clastic and detrital sources; likely sediment derived from the Taconic thrust complex and deposited into the deep sea basin (Bradley and Kidd, 1991). The mean U/Th ratio for all Utica Shale stratigraphy was calculated at 0.75 ± 0.15 and the mean U/Th ratio for all Schenectady Formation stratigraphy was calculated at 0.34 ± 0.05: they are distinct and different. The Utica Shale shows increasing radioactivity and uranium upsection. High values of uranium in the upper part of the stratigraphy may be associated with increasing amounts of clastic sediments, redox reactions in the depositional setting, or secondary remobilization. The highest values of uranium in the Utica Shale and Schenectady Formation range between 6.0 and 9.0 ppm. The mean Th/U ratio for the Utica Shale and Schenectady Formation is 1.9 and 3.0, respectively. Anomalously high concentrations of uranium were observed in the upper Utica Shale (8.0-9.0 ppm) downstream of Buttermilk Falls on Yates Creek, adjacent to the Noses Fault. Shale units along the Hoffman’s fault do not appear to have anomalous values. Gamma measurements of total radioactivity at Wolf Hollow (Hoffman’s Fault) and Rotterdam Square mall are somewhat confounding in terms of lithology and stratigraphy. Stratigraphic placement of the Utica Shale is difficult to determine at Wolf Hollow, because there is no visible contact with the Schenectady Formation at this location. The U/Th ratio calculated from field data measured on the Utica Shale at Wolf Hollow is characteristic of other locations and provides of value of 0.75 ± 0.15. The values observed on black shale at Wolf Hollow resemble measurements taken from black shales of the lower Utica stratigraphy, although the placement of the rocks on the geologic map created by Fisher et al. (1970) would suggest these rocks to be placed among upper Utica stratigraphy. Three scenarios may explain conflicting data results observed at Wolf Hollow: the black shales observed at Wolf Hollow are actually part of the Schenectady Formation, the black shale represents a “slice” of the upper Utica stratigraphy along the contact with the Schenectady Formation, or the black shale at this location is representative of the Utica Shale, but the stratigraphic placement is difficult to establish. The rocks at Rotterdam Square Mall are an organic-rich black shale,but the U/Th ratio was calculated at 0.37 ± 0.07, which appears to be representative of other Schenectady Formation units. A modern understanding of the Utica/Schenectady contact boundary and LIDAR for Schenectady County may indicate that these rocks are actually part of a transitional sequence of beds of the Schenectady Formation. Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

1

An important result of this work is that there is a strong stratigraphic dependence of uranium in the Utica Shale and that much of the shale of the Schenectady Formation has relatively high uranium. Results from this work could establish a link between radon-related deaths from lung cancer and provide further insight on areas where radon and its radioactive parents could affect groundwater. In much of the lower Mohawk Valley, groundwater wells for private residences are drilled directly into the rocks of the underlying Utica Shale and Schenectady Formation. Exposure from radioactive groundwater wells used for drinking water supply could potentially be hazardous to residents and increase radon exposure in homes. Degassing of radon from tapped groundwater sources has been linked to elevated radon levels in the domestic setting in various other studies and groundwater movement could possibly contribute to the oxidation and transport of mineralized uranium that could produce locations where elevated radon hazards may exist. These observations can be used to better inform decisions about radon hazards, and potential trace elements in groundwater (i.e., Kitto et al., 2001).

Figure 1: Radioactivity and uranium content of shale in the Utica and Schenectady Fm. [A] stratigraphic position of samples in the study area showing relatively high uranium concentrations in the upper Utica Shale. [B] Radioactivity of the shales plotted against Thorium and Uranium with specific locations indicated. References Appleton, J. D. (2013). Radon in air and water. Springer Netherlands. 239-277 Bradley, D.C. and Kidd, W.S.F., 1991. Flexural extension of the upper continental crust in collisional foredeeps. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 103(11), pp.1416-1438. Eastern New York. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 47, No. 3, p.73 Fisher, D. W., Y. W. Isachsen, and L. V. Richard. "Geologic map of New York State, 1970, Hudson– Mohawk sheet." New York State Museum, Map and Chart Series 15 (1970). Fisher, Donald W. "Lower Ordovician (Canadian) stratigraphy of the Mohawk valley, New York." Geological Society of America Bulletin 65, no. 1 (1954): 71-96. Kitto, M.E., Kunz, C.O. and Green, J., 2001. Development and distribution of radon risk maps in New York State. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 249(1), pp.153-157. Nelson, C.J. and Garver, J.I. (2015). Radon Potential of the Utica and Marcellus Black Shales of Eastern New York. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. Vol. 47, No. 3, p.73 Poster Presentation

2


RETROSPECTION AND ANTICIPATION: THE EVOLUTION OF CITIZEN ACTION IN THE SCHOHARIE/MOHAWK WATERSHED Howard R. Bartholomew Dam Concerned Citizens, Inc. PO Box 310, Middleburgh, NY 12122-0310 Retrospection On October 25, 2005, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) announced that serious structural deficiencies were present at the Gilboa Dam, impounding the 1,142 acre Schoharie Reservoir, located in portions of Schoharie, Greene, and Delaware counties. This reservoir is the northernmost of the west-of-Hudson portion of the NYC water supply system, holding about 16% of the total water supply in the system, and acts in both a storage and diversion capacity, transferring water southwards into the Ashokan Reservoir via the 18.1-mile-long Shandaken Tunnel that discharges Schoharie Creek water into the Esopus Creek at Allaben. Both the ~700-foot-long earthen dam, elevation 1,150’, and the 1,324-foot-long concrete spillway, elevation 1,130’, located at the northern end of the reservoir, were found to have a compromised Factor of Safety (FOS). The structural problems place in jeopardy the lives and property of those downstream in the Schoharie Creek corridor in Schoharie, Montgomery, and Schenectady counties. The Schoharie Creek, the most productive tributary of the Mohawk River, drains the northern slopes of the Catskill Mountains and flows northwestward ~50 miles from the Gilboa Dam to its confluence with the Mohawk at Fort Hunter. The Gilboa Dam was constructed over an eight-year period from 1918-1926. The more serious problems existed in the cold-cast concrete and stone spillway. Due to weathering over a period of nearly 80 years, the downstream face of the spillway had lost much of its ashlar facing, the underlying concrete had crumbled, and the overall mass of the spillway structure, a gravity dam, had been reduced. This weathering was the result of both the seasonal freeze-thaw cycle and nearly eight decades of mechanical weathering from water pounding during dam spillage. The loss of mass, coupled with less than competent underlying bedrock, placed the spillway in danger of sliding during times of extreme flooding. This situation led the NYCDEP, with approval from its regulating agency, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), to declare a state of emergency at Gilboa, which was in effect from October 25, 2005 through September of 2006. The initial public reaction to this potentially life-threatening situation was one of disbelief followed by fear and even anger. Local residents had noticed a deterioration of the dam infrastructure which was visible from the overlook at the eastern end of the spillway along NYS Rte. 990V, but had assumed that it was simply ‘cosmetic’ and of no structural significance. Most folks never thought that the Gilboa Dam might fail in time of an extreme flood. It was during the apprehension-filled weeks subsequent to the declaration of the state of emergency that Dam Concerned Citizens, Inc. (DCC) was formed. In 2005, the late Lester Hendrix, the founder and first president of DCC, built a website called Code Orange, (this would later become the framework for the main DCC website www.dccinc.org) and used the Internet as a means of communication to inform the public of the problems at Gilboa and to awaken interest in dam safety issues. The DCC website has now had over one half a million visitors in the 11 years it has been in existence. Lester Hendrix’s efforts in the early years of the ‘crisis at Gilboa’ undoubtedly accounted for the fact that no one drowned during the flooding associated with Hurricane Irene in late August of 2011. The learning curve of the public on matters of dam safety and flood mitigation was steep to say the least. It involved the suppression and exchanging of an emotional reaction to the problem at hand for one of unbiased scientific understanding of what solutions were available that might remedy a potentially life-threatening problem. With this goal in mind, the board of directors of DCC began to enlist as members, or pro bono consultants, expert in the field of dam safety, civil engineering, geology, hydrology, dam operation, and environmental science. As work proceeded at pace at Gilboa, directed towards the stabilization of vulnerable infrastructure, DCC watched intently. The work included the installation of 80 post-tensioned anchors, grouted into holes bored down through the concrete portion of the dam, into the underlying bedrock. These anchors exert great downward mechanical pressure to better hold the spillway in place and resist the force of hydrostatic uplift caused by water flowing over the spillway. The downstream side of the spillway was resurfaced with a more efficient series of energy-dissipating steps that would reduce the impact of water falling on the sidechannel discharge floor immediately in front of the dam. The initial addition of 4 siphons, each capable of discharging ~300cfs, provided a means of lowering water levels behind the dam, exclusive of discharge through the Shandaken Tunnel, when water was not overflowing the spillway. In addition, a 220-foot-long and five-feet-deep ‘notch’ was cut in the western end of the concrete spillway. This notch, still in place, can pass ~8,600cfs before water levels rise to the spillway crest level and begin to overtop the entire Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

3

spillway. These measures enabled a full pool elevation of the Schoharie Reservoir to be lowered by 5.5’ and its storage capacity to be reduced by 6,200 acre-feet, or ~2 billion gallons, thereby reducing the strain exerted by the impounded water on the compromised dam infrastructure. Also, during the 11-month state of emergency, flow through the Shandaken Tunnel was maximized. Since the cessation of the state of emergency in September of 2006, an inflatable Obermeyer gate system has been placed in the spillway notch allowing for the restoration of the full pool elevation to 1,130’. The four original siphon installed during the state of emergency have since been replaced by two studier siphons of equal carrying capacity to the original four. These siphons will remain in place until a new low level outlet (LLO) is completed in 2020. The siphons are currently used for void creation to accommodate melt-water runoff from winter snow pack, a key component of the snow pack-based reservoir management plan (SPBRMP). Other structural improvements at the Gilboa Dam include the installation of more post-tensioned anchors, some of which have load cells, in the west training wall that redirect water downstream of the Gilboa Dam. The load cells will indicate any movement to the training wall that may occur during periods of high discharge over the dam. Instrumentation was also greatly enhanced by the construction of a 1,326-foot-long gallery at the base of the dam spillway that contains both piezometers to measure water pressure and extensiometers to measure flexure and/or movement in the dam spillway. The gallery also has a drain conduit to conduct water away from the dam that would otherwise exert hydrostatic uplift on the spillway. Furthermore, the gallery provides an actual look at the internal condition of the spillway itself. DCC has participated in the Mohawk River Watershed Symposium since its inception in 2008, and a review of our past abstract submissions will provide a detailed description of the many topics which have now become incorporated into the refurbished Gilboa Dam. DCC is satisfied with the quality of the design and work accomplished by the contractors of NYSCEP at Gilboa and awaits the completion of the LLO and of the establishment of conservation releases from the Schoharie Reservoir northward into the downstream section of the creek during the summer months and times of non-spillage. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana. If one lesson can be learned from the previous retrospective discussion of the ‘crisis at Gilboa’ and its remediation, it should be that constant vigilance and adequate maintenance of critical infrastructure is necessary for public safety. Anticipation In 2020 work on the LLO at Gilboa is scheduled for completion. The controllable nine-foot diameter drain will bring the dam and reservoir into substantial compliance with existing NYSDEC rules requiring that release works be capable of draining a reservoir of 90% of its water in 14 days, assuming no inflow, or by 90% in 120 days assuming normal inflow conditions. Under the average rate of inflow, the new LLO at Gilboa is expected to drop water levels up to two feet per day. The SPBRMP will, after 2020, rely upon the LLO to achieve void creation in the Schoharie Reservoir to accommodate runoff from snow melt in late winter/early spring. Records of stream flow at the USGS-monitored stream gage 5 miles south (upstream) of the Gilboa Dam at Prattville (1904-present) indicate that ~75% of the peak flows at this gaging station have occurred as a result of rain/snow melt events. The second largest recorded flood in the Schoharie Valley took place on January 19, 1996, with a peak discharge at Prattsville of 52,800cfs and peak discharge at the Gilboa Dam of 70,800cfs later that same day. The drainage basin of the Schoharie Creek at Prattsville is 237 square miles and at Gilboa is 314 square miles and the ~25% increase in drainage basin area mirrors the ~26% increase in discharge between the two sites during this flood event. Excluding the flood of August 28, 2011 associated with Hurricane Irene, five of the top ten floods in the Schoharie Valley were rain/snow melt induced events. The SPBRMP offers reliable relief to residents impacted by high stream flow events in areas downstream of the Gilboa Dam. Until the LLO is completed, the two siphons, along with the gated notch, will be used to accomplish void creation in the Schoharie Reservoir. Given that 75% of the high discharge events are rain/snow melt related events, the other 25% of high discharge events are generally cause by tropical storms or hurricanes. These flood events are much less frequent, are much more unpredictable, and generally more severe in their destructive impact than their winter/spring counterparts. If at the end of a ‘dry’ summer, the Schoharie Reservoir is in a drawn-down condition and a hurricane produced abundant rainfall, the void in the Schoharie Reservoir can absorb much of the runoff an offer significant attenuation of discharge into the downstream portions of the stream below the Gilboa Dam. Just such an event occurred during September of 1960 when pool elevation was 1,096 feet (34 feet below spillage), and Hurricane Donna dumped 6” of rain in the upstream catchment of the Schoharie Reservoir (see the MVWS archived abstract from DCC entitled ‘The Flood that wasn’t’ for more details). Normal summertime operation of the Schoharie Reservoir occasionally provides de facto flood mitigation. However, release works at the Gilboa Dam can provide limited quick-response void creation up to the limits imposed on their rate of drawdown. Too rapid a drawdown of the Schoharie Reservoir could result 4


in issues of bank instability. Void creation, by its very nature, is a rather slow process. Nevertheless, the dam and reservoir have significant flood mitigation potential and it has been a long-range goal of DCC to see that it is exercised to its full capacity, taking into consideration the water supply requirements of the NYCDEP and issues of stability, etc. While the Schoharie Reservoir is better suited for long-term, incremental void creation, the BlenheimGilboa Pumped Storage Project (BG), is better suited for rapid response flood mitigation. BG is owned and operated by the New York State Power Authority (NYPA), and is located 5.4 miles downstream of the Gilboa Dam. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) operates it under terms of a license agreement to the NYPA. It consists of two reservoirs with a storage capacity of 34,700 acre-feet or 11.3 billion gallons of water. An earthen dam 100 feet high and 1,800 feet long impounds the lower reservoir. The release works for this reservoir consist of three Tainter Gates, each of which is 38 feet wide by 42 feet tall. BG is a ‘black start’ plant capable of producing electricity on short notice by dropping water from the upper reservoir through turbines down into the lower reservoir. When the upper reservoir is at full capacity and the lower reservoir is a minimum pool elevation, over 1,100 feet of head exists between the two bodies of water. This rapid response to electrical demand is coupled with the ability to greatly reduce stream flow in the Schoharie Creek in times of flood via pumping of water upwards into the upper reservoir. At peak capacity, BG can pump water upwards at a rate of 10,000 cfs for up to 11 hours (given the upper reservoir starts at only 25% capacity). As the daily mean stream flow at the USGS stream flow gage at North Blenheim, 1.2 miles downstream of BG, on August 28, 2011, was 46,600cfs, it can be seen that the removal of 10,000cfs of water over 11 hours during the course of this event from the Schoharie Creek, would have constituted a significant rapid response flood mitigation effort. As NYPA at BG is now in the process of applying for a renewal of its operating license with FERC, it is a goal of DCC to see that the aforementioned flood mitigation practice becomes an integral part of the new license agreement. The capacity of the dual reservoir system to mitigate the impact of floods on the Schoharie Creek should be utilized to the fullest extent possible. As the recurrence interval for discharge events greater than 30,000cfs at BG is ~10 years, it would seem reasonable to request a one- or two-day interruption of normal production of power be considered for the relicensing of the utility. An integrated and coordinated approach to flood mitigation by the NYCDEP and the NYPA has been and will continue to be a long-term goal of DCC. In the wake of the flooding associated with Hurricane Irene is August of 2011, a persistent question of residents of the Schoharie Creek corridor has been have there ever been bigger floods than that of August 28, 2011? Historical records mentioning past floods extend back to the mid-17th century, at the time of European arrival in our region and Schoharie County had its first permanent settlement by European colonists in 1712. To help extend our knowledge of prehistoric flood events in the Schoharie Valley, DCC is both financing and participating in the analysis of sediment, tree, timber, and speleothem cores in order to examine proxy records of past climatic conditions with the hope of identification of past flood events. The quest for this data extends beyond mere scientific curiosity. The power project at BG was placed in serious jeopardy during the peak high flow of August 28, 2011, and a flood of only 10,000cfs greater than this flood of historic record could seriously endanger the capacity of the release works at this reservoir. If floods of greater magnitude than this flood of historic record have occurred in the past, might they not reoccur in the future, thereby further jeopardizing the two major dams along the Schoharie Creek? Such is the work DCC finds itself involved in elven years after its founding. The gathering of unbiased, accurate information about the Schoharie Creek watershed and sharing it with the public is an important part of our mission. Decisions regarding dam design, safety, flood mitigation, inundation, and flood zone mapping all require accurate data. The obtaining of high-quality data is a necessity if the residents of the Schoharie and Mohawk valleys are to be able to cope with changing climate scenarios as we move forward into the future. Invited Presentation


5

THE FUTURE OF THE MOHAWK RIVER Robert H. Boyle Cooperstown, NY A bright and solid future for the Mohawk River, the storied but neglected waterway coursing through the unique valley that led the United States to world preeminence, demands new thinking. Although called a river, the Mohawk has been an industrial ditch since the early 1900s when it was disemboweled, dredged, dammed, and locked for much of its length to take on additional duty as the New York State Barge Canal, renamed the Erie Canal in 1992. The commercial shipping on the 525-mile long Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego and Champlain canal system shifted years ago to the St. Lawrence Seaway and Thruway truckers. As a result, the subsidized New York State Canal Corporation, which operates at an enormous loss, is to be transferred from the financially wobbly Thruway Authority to the Power Authority. Given this impending major change, the multiple and diverse problems, the threats already underway and in the offing, and the increasing public interest in the region as demonstrated by the seven preceding Mohawk Watershed Symposia at Union College it is essential that two steps be taken now. Step 1 calls for the establishment by those concerned of an organization, now nameless, dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the Mohawk River/Erie Canal and its 3,460 square mile square watershed. This is imperative: the Mohawk is an orphan in need of strong adoptive parents. Even its official length of 149 miles, is wrong, according to the late M. Paul Keesler, author of Mohawk, Discovering the Valley of the Crystals, who by foot and boat measured the river as 161 miles long, seven miles longer than the tidal Hudson into which it empties. Although the Mohawk is the major tributary of the Hudson supplying more than 40 percent of the water (as well as invasive species) to the estuary below the Troy Dam, do not look for help from Hudson River organizations. Aside from exploratory trips up by the Mohawk by Riverkeeper Boat Captain John Lipscomb, Scenic Hudson, the Sloop Clearwater, Riverkeeper, and the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research act as if the Mohawk does not exist despite the round-the-clock effect it has on the Hudson. Such thinking brings to mind the French who before World War Two built the fortified Maginot Line opposite the German frontier but refused to continue it up along the border with Belgium because, well, the Germans would not come that way. Based on my 57 years of cut and thrust experience, it is essential that the Mohawk organization have a scientific advisory board and access to a law school environmental clinic. Science and the law are the teeth and claws needed to fend off predators, notably the state government, i.e., the governor who appoints the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation and other department heads. They must do what the governor wants, no matter how whacky or damaging. If they do not obey the Second Floor, they are gone, as witness the departures of Ogden Reid, Peter A. A. Berle, and Pete Grannis. A strong environmental organization counterweight is necessary. For instance, if the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, as Scenic Hudson was known in the 1960s, 6

Figure 1: An overhead view of the response to the 2015 Mount Carbon train derailment in Mount Carbon, West Virginia. When will this happen in the Mohawk? This derailment resulted in a large fire, explosion of 24 Tank cars (DOT-111 cars introduced in 2011 to increase safety), and release of 378,000 gallons of crude oil into the river (photo: A. Vallier, copyright released).


had not fought Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s support of the proposed Storm King pumped storage hydro plant, and if the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association had not defeated Governor Mario Cuomo’s push for the Westway Project, even though he was informed it was corrupt, it is likely that striped bass would no longer be found in the Hudson. Step 2 calls for an ecological survey on the status of conditions in the Mohawk ecosystem. You must know what you have to protect it, make it better, and defend it. Major issues center on water for the health of the natural ecosystem and human needs for potable supplies, power generation, flood control, fishing and swimming, recreational boating and shipping, industry, and agriculture, all under the overarching rule of climate change. Threats are readily apparent. New York has supposedly “banned” high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing, but everyday out-of-state “bomb trains” ominously rumble through cities and villages alongside the Erie Canal, the Mohawk/Erie Canal, Lake Champlain, and the Hudson River, while pipelines and compressor stations proliferate across the state, all causing talk that Albany could exceed Jeddah Islamic Port on the Red Sea as the biggest oil port on the planet (Figure 1). Although the state’s Mohawk River Basin Program and Action Agenda is said to “promote collaborative decision-making based on an understanding of the whole ecosystem,” the “collaborative” tilt has have been unduly weighed down by fat Albany thumbs on the scale in favor of the politically-wired in the Utica area, notably the entity with the bloated, imperiously ambitious name of the Mohawk Valley Water Authority. This agency views the Canal Corporation as its subdivision, and riparian rights owners on West Canada Creek as so many impertinent vassals. At the same time, the administration of Governor Andrew Cuomo, a notoriously domineering micro-manager, has given Utica and Oneida County yet another delay, this one until December 31, 2021, to stop dumping, after rain events, up to 500 million gallons of raw sewage a year into the Mohawk. The dumping has been so noxious that it prompted a young woman to parade along the Mohawk dressed as a turd. To be sure, there is another side to the Mohawk that will be discussed, one that offers great possibilities, surprises, and cheers for the future, if the ecosystem is to be saved. In the interim, take guard against those seeking to take advantage of the Mohawk Valley. Indeed one of the most notorious yet unknown attempted scams in American history was based on the Erie Canal, a scam hatched, as it only could be, in Albany. The scammer was sly Erastus Corning of Albany, a wealthy political power and president of the Utica & Schenectady Railroad, one of a number of short-line railroads that paralleled the Erie Canal. Chartered by the state, the railroads had to pay tolls to the state and could only to carry freight during winter when the highly profitable state-owned canal was closed. Starting in 1851 the legislature abolished the tolls, and in 1853 the legislature allowed the consolidation of two or more rail lines. Corning then merged not two but almost a dozen cross-state lines to form the New York Central Railroad Company, a $23 million corporation, the largest in the country, of which he instantaneously became president. In 1858, after noting that the “great falling of in canal revenues” and “the swelling up” in taxes, the state legislatures passed an act calling for a Constitutional Convention “abolishing the executive and legislative departments of the government, and vesting their powers in the president, vice-president, and directors of the New York Central Railroad Company." The act was submitted to the people for their approval that November. Corning lost, but by just 6,360 votes. Invited Presentation


7

FORT PLAIN FLOOD OF JUNE 28TH, 2013: DETERMINING VULNERABLE SITES TO FLOOD RISK USING LIDAR AND GIS L.A. D’Orsa, J.M. Langella, J.P. Saket and A.E. Marsellos Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY Introduction: On Friday, June 28th, 2013, Fort Plain, New York, was severely flooded; Fort Plain is located along the Montgomery region of the Mohawk River. This was due to seasonal, persistent rains and caused damage to homes, businesses, and altered Fort Plain’s environment. In 2009, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) prepared a study entitled “Comparison of the 2006 Flood to Historic Floods”. This flood occurred on June 26th 2006, and affected the areas surrounding the Mohawk River basin in New York State. The study compares the 2006 flood to the flood of March 1977 and the flood of January 1996 by relating the recorded peak water-surface elevations and discharges at selected USGS stream-gaging stations. (USGS, 2009). The purpose of this study is to enhance the resilience of the town and preparedness against floods by simulating previous and possible future flood hazards. Methodology: A methodology is described and has been applied at a study area where data were available. A lab and a field data technique was used to approach high accuracy of a flood water level and coverage simulation. The first technique utilized public available pictures of the flooding in Fort Plain from June 28th, 2013. Pictures Figure 1: An aerial view of the study area (from were obtained from Google and then ten geographic ArcGIS) showing the locations of the obtained locations were inferred and mapped on ArcGIS (Fig. 1). pictures from Google. The figure shows the The pictures correspond to locations that range in an area study area with a black polygon, the Mohawk from 15 Herkimer St., Fort Plain, NY 13339, to Lock 15, River with a red polyline, and the GPS points which is southeast of the starting point, to 12 Abbott St., gathered in the field. Fort Plain, NY 13339, which is west of Lock 15. This region totals in 1.5 miles in length. All digitized points showing the water level of the flood are located at the western side of the Mohawk River and along the Otsquago Creek. Mapped locations were imported into GIS software. LiDAR data were used to produce a digital elevation model (DEM) to provide flood simulations and other channel characteristics (e.g. slope, longitudinal profile and elevation gradient). A 3DLiDAR digital elevation model (DEM) of the town infrastructure has been constructed, and a flood simulation was able to show the intersection between the water surface of the flood and the georeferenced locations from the pictures. The second technique utilizes field obtained data to simulate the flood. A high accuracy GPS survey of points collected from the field at the study area and differentially corrected to provide accurate water levels of the flood. This allowed us to analyze the data more thoroughly rather than by looking at online images and simulate the flood in the 3D-LiDAR DEM. A geo-collector Trimble Geo 7X, with a capability of a horizontal and vertical accuracy of 0.1 m, with an external antenna Trimble Tornado mounted on a 2m pole was used. 60 points were obtained from each location under 0.3 m preliminary post-processed accuracy. Post-processing correction took place in Trimble extension integrated in ArcMap, and a permanent station with less than 100 km radius (ONEONTA, NYON permanent GPS station of 5sec interval) from our GPS antenna was used. Results: At the study area, the longitudinal profile of the river shows a slope of 0.3°, by using Global Mapper. The slope of the eastern side of the river increases by 3.3°. The eastern side of the river is outside the well-developed flood plain, hence why there are no flood observation points on this side of the river. On the contrary, the western side increases only by 0.3°. This area has a lower elevation and gentle slope, and corresponds to the point bar deposits. These numbers were obtained from LiDAR. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data (approximately of 30 meters spatial resolution) provided a coarser 8


resolution and very erroneous results and for this reason any results were disregarded. The existing AirLiDAR data (0.3 meters spatial resolution) provided a more accurate slope. Table 1 illustrates the determined water levels of the flood determined from the Global Mapper 3D mode during laboratory, and the corresponding GPS high accuracy elevations that were obtained from the field before and after the differential correction of the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) sessions. The maximum water level of the flood, from the 3D LiDAR DEM and available pictures showing high water marks, was 101.6 meters. The maximum water level of the flood, determined from the Trimble Geo 7X and the subsequent post-processing, was 105 meters. The differential correction has increased accuracy from the previous, uncorrected vertical elevation values from the range of 4.37 meters to 13.71 meters. The corrected values range from 0.27 meters to 1.33 meters. Discussion: When simulating the flood, it was taken into account that terrain features obstruct water flow, like buildings, and trees. This function also determines how a flood plain would increase when the area is enlarged by some depth. There were two clusters obtained from the GPS data. One clustered above 100 m, and the other centered on 90 m. The flood simulation focused on the most reliable data, which was the cluster of 90 m. However, a possible binomial clustering is common to occur when flood occurs in different elevations along the same river, especially when GPS data are taken from an extensive segment of a river’s steep longitudinal profile. The specific location was chosen by the availability of web-based public available pictures from a previous flood to demonstrate a methodology of simulating floods and inform the community for possible vulnerable sites of high flood damage. Flooding causes contamination to occur, while debris and other forms of waste can travel to unwanted areas. This technique of flood simulating and identification of vulnerable sites may help Fort Plain for quick recovery or enhance the societal resilience against floods. When the study area was visited on February 20-21st, 2016, recovery was still underway. Some houses were completely gone, while others were still under construction. This research was conducted in order to present a methodology of assessing vulnerable sites for flood hazard, and to prepare and alert the area for future floods. Table 1: Water levels of the flood determined from the Global Mapper 3D mode in the laboratory, and the corresponding pictures of the flood event. GPS data (mean sea level elevations; MSL) were collected from the field. Coordinates

Elevation (meters)

Accuracy (meters)

GPS Simulation GPS GPS GPS GPS Data Simulation Estimated Uncorr. Cor. Uncorr. Cor. No. Address Latitude Longitude (MSL) & Pictures Error Horiz. Horiz. Vert. Vert. 02C 22 Abbott St 42° 55' 47.951" N 74° 38' 9.148" W 103.35 101.6 ± 0.3 ±7.14 ±1.47 ±13.71 ±1.33 03C 12 Abbott Street 42° 55' 47.463" N 74° 38' 3.032" W 101.73 100.2 ± 0.3 ±6.68 ±0.26 ±9.65 ±0.42 04C Abbott Street Bridge 42° 55' 45.732" N 74° 37' 58.376" W 105.00 N/A N/A ±4.44 ±0.28 ±7.29 ±0.79 05.2c Red Mill Bridge 42° 55' 46.288" N 74° 37' 31.74°8" W 102.62 N/A N/A ±4.56 ±0.17 ±7.49 ±0.36 05C Red Mill 42° 55' 46.567" N 74° 37' 31.243" W 92.39 96.6 ± 0.3 ±6.94 ±0.85 ±12.49 ±0.82 06C Valero 40 59' 4.235" N 73 51' 10.013" W 96.57 95.8 ± 0.3 ±6.72 ±0.28 ±9.49 ±0.58 07C New York Pizzeria 42° 55' 49.919" N 74° 37' 26.392" W 93.06 96.9 ± 0.3 ±4.91 ±0.12 ±8.19 ±0.27 08C Kathy's Attic Shop 42° 55' 50.402" N 74° 37' 25.019" W 96.88 96.6 ± 0.3 ±4.88 ±0.30 ±5.30 ±0.58 09C 181 Canal Street 42° 56' 2.216" N 74° 37' 30.398" W 93.39 94.4 ± 0.4 ±6.61 ±0.22 ±7.08 ±0.28 10C Agway Feed Center 42° 56' 15.543" N 74° 37' 31.220" W 93.61 94.5 ± 0.3 ±4.00 ±0.15 ±4.37 ±0.46 11C Daylight Donuts 42° 55' 54.351" N 74° 37' 14.061" W 92.48 94.3 ± 0.3 ±6.48 ±0.46 ±8.76 ±0.58 12C Lock 15 42° 56' 22.8820" N 74° 37' 27.2073" W N/A 92.3 ± 0.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 13C Lock 15 42° 56' 18.945" N 74° 37' 20.648" W 92.87 N/A N/A ±3.71 ±0.25 ±4.51 ±0.30


9

Figure 2: Sample 11C, Daylight Donuts, in Fort Plain, NY, which shows A, a 3D LiDAR DEM with a flood reconstruction, the water level of the flood, and Daylight Donuts, B, a picture from the June 28, 2013 flood shortly after the flood event, C, high accuracy GPS survey after the flood, and D, a reference map showing the damaged building, and its distance from the Mohawk River.

Figure 3: Flood simulation produced by Global Mapper. Purple coloration illustrates the maximum flood elevation. Georeferenced locations of the pictures obtained as points from Google and displayed as orange dots. References Suro, Thomas P., Gary D. Firda, and Carolyn O. Szabo. "Flood of June 26–29, 2006, Mohawk, Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins, New York." (2009): n. pag. USGS, 2009. Web. 9 Feb. 2016. . http://www.courierstandardenterprise.com/News/06282013_fpflood; 06C, 08C, 011C, 012C http://www.dailygazette.com/photos/galleries/2013/jun/28/mohawk-valley-flooding/25491/; 03C, 05C http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Summer-2013-flooding-in-central-NY-4642214.php - photo-4875994; 02C

Poster Presentation 10


THE VISCHER FERRY DAM (LOCK E7) RESERVOIR INDUCES FLOODING IN THE SCHENECTADY AREA: ISSUE, ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS, AND A SOLUTION James E. Duggan Consultant (retired registered architect/urban planner) Among the many dams that canalized the Mohawk River into seasonal “flat-water” pools (Figure 1), the high concrete “Vischer Ferry” Dam serving Lock 7 in Niskayuna differs physically from all others because it is fixed and permanent. In this overall profile along the canal between Fonda and Crescent, the 27-feet lift at the Vischer Ferry dam averages twice the lift of other locks upstream. Its year-round, nearly 11miles “Niskayuna” (Vischer Ferry) Pool also averages twice their pool-length. Original planning was for fixed dams; then the planners noted: “…the fixed type” of dams… river subject to floods … forms obstruction to the rapid discharge of the surplus waters, and … becomes a menace to the neighboring property…substitution of movable for fixed dams … little or no hindrance to a flood…possible to control floods and ice flows, at least to restoring natural conditions, which could not be accomplished with fixed dams.” Thus it was clear in the beginning that this sort of structure would be problematic. For upstream locations, planners Figure 1: Flat-water pools in the Mohawk River. selected movable dams, removable and out of the water during usual spring runoff, also opened as needed during any “high water” conditions. Also, the steel-trussed dams could bridge the flow and be taller than most fixed dams, thereby providing longer navigation pools and less lock-through time for barges and other craft in progressing along the pronounced topography of Montgomery and Schenectady Counties. Schenectady area, Vischer Ferry Dam, and Runoff Before the Vischer Ferry Dam was built, the natural channel in the Mohawk influenced a surface-slope from upstream and past early Schenectady. In all certainty, riverside residents experienced flooding and adjusted with a basic understanding of a ‘high water” mark toward developing above it, thus having a reasonably reliable margin of protection.

Figure 2: Construction of the Vischer Ferry Dam in 1916 (left); map showing the Niskayuna Pool (right). Unlike upstream dams, this dam, is permanent and its crest is “fixed.” It impedes normal flow of the river to impound a reservoir and navigation pool of massive volume. This pool extends upriver past the Schenectady area to Lock 8. This dam changed a sloped, free-flowing river into a higher-elevation, static Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

11

body of water. Furthermore, all this immediately created a then-undefined high floodplain that would impact the Schenectady area, particularly significant canal-side portions of the “Historic Stockade” neighborhood. In 1902, local officials of ALCO (previously Schenectady Locomotive Works) planned to expand production from the eastern side of the Erie Canal (now Erie Boulevard) to land fronting on the Mohawk River. By 1905, ALCO operated from a new large, busy riverside cluster of heavy-industry buildings … all before “fixed” design of the Lock 7 Dam was identified explicitly or its construction underway (contract dated 1907). In March 1913, a canal-inundation at the new ALCO facilities surprisingly disrupted operations. A year later, higher inundation by an obviously catastrophic runoff-volume caused extensive damage. (The recently cleared ALCO location is under redevelopment now for a mixed-use project known as “Mohawk Harbor”, with massive amounts of fill added to several feet above the Vischer Ferry dam-based FEMA “100-Year” floodplain.) Inundations routinely have threatened and too-often damaged the canalside Schenectady area, despite visually impressive massive runoff-overflows. In claiming that runoff-overflows across the very lengthy Vischer Ferry dam would provide “flood discharge”, the then-NYS Department of Engineer and Surveyor’s design apparently had meant avoiding inundation in the developed Schenectady area upstream. If not here, where else would the intended “flood discharge” benefit or matter? This dam’s high-elevation pool that extends upstream to Lock 8 has almost certainly worsened the impact of natural flooding. A century-plus of inundations clearly has disproven the planners’ confidence for successful “flood discharge” in the Schenectady area by relying on a runoff-overflows so many miles downstream. Omitting any way to have controlled releases from the reservoir-pool seems to have been a result of inadequate understanding of the “big picture.” Is effective, non-inundating discharge of runoff from upstream to and past the Schenectady area possible, or are we stuck with the century-old reservoir and sluggish drainage? Could the Vischer Ferry Dam incorporate 21st century controlled below-crest release in response to available alerts? Analysis of conditions In 2009, for the purpose of establishing rates for flood insurance, FEMA released a data-filled report referencing the “100-Year” discharge and associated floodplain elevation. Starting at the Albany County Line, this study included the lower-elevation “Crescent Pool” within Schenectady County, valuably a profile of this pool’s bottom over which this dam rises so high (~36 feet from channel base). The report projects peak runoff-surface profiles, supported by tables of data. After August 2011 Tropical Storm Irene, the NYS Canal Corporation (NYSCC) released a “Hydraulic Assessment” report in March 2013 for both Schenectady and Montgomery Counties. By starting at the upstream face of Lock E7 and the expected peak runoff-surface elevations at that point, the NYSCC report omits the crest-elevation of this obstructing dam and thus inhibits readily identifying the peak runoffoverflows’ physical height. While severely compressing runoff profiles horizontally, which “disguised” most flatness, this later report generally substantiated the earlier, more descriptive FEMA report. Predicted flood elevations are known for the Vischer Ferry Dam: the “10-Year” (most-common) is a surprising NYSCC-estimated ~5.7 feet high. Add the following: another ~1.3 feet for the “50-Year”; another ~0.5 foot for the “100-Year.” Thus the “100-Year” is ~7.4 feet above the crest, only ~30% higher than the “10-Year” runoff-surface elevation. For Tropical Storm Irene, the reported actual peak overflow height was 218.4 feet, a profile-confirming physical height of ~7.4 feet. A catastrophic “500-Year” would add ~1.0 foot more, a cumulative overflow-height of ~8.35 feet … only ~45% higher than the “10-Year” flood. As reference, the “10-Year” runoff-volume is ~86,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), the “50-Year” is 116,000 cfs, the “100-Year” is 126,545 cfs and the “500-Year” is 153,000 cfs, while NYPA turbineoperations at the Lock 7 Dam reportedly can pass a maximum of ~25,000 cfs. For the Schenectady area, the runoff-profiles mostly show slopelessness, thus inadequate drainage. The reservoir-pool’s inherent flatness cancels influence by bottom-slope and accentuates many other possible factors including the hydraulic effects of sharp turns and narrowing, such as those immediately upstream from Freemans Bridge. The reservoir-pool’s volume complicates here at this narrowing, even as velocity 12


increases in passing the WatersEdge Lighthouse Restaurant complex. Does a mild backwater of runoff occur upstream from here? Runoff-profiles in these two analyses reveal the key reason for the problem. The impounded volume of the Vischer Ferry dam’s reservoir-pool physically underlies all runoff, maintaining the natural higher runoffsurface elevations passing Lock 8, also imparting slopelessness, thus promoting inundation and damage in the nearby Schenectady area. That the runoff then over-rides the new reservoir-pool’s volume impedes runoff-drainage that requires slope. This cancelled the sloping bottom-influenced drainage of runoff that had safeguarded riverside Schenectady area. Furthermore, only after free-flow runoff has affected the canal-side Schenectady area can the runoff arrive significantly later at the distant dam in Niskayuna as its “discharge” overflow. Even the small “10-Year” runoff-volume interferes with road-access to SCCC and threatens the Stockade, Jumpin’ Jacks etc. (it emerges from the Stockade’s storm sewers before fully inundating Riverside Park), all so close to Lock 8. Also, the slow-flow reservoir-pool during winter promotes a strong ice-sheet and subsequent ice-jamming. A multi-page composite excerpted from the NYSCC Report, the “10-Year” Runoff-Profile is shown in the following figure. Flow is from right-to-left. The slightly “textured” background is a measuring grid of squares involving an extreme difference in scales … each small square equals one-foot vertically, while 200 feet horizontally.

Figure 3: The 10-yr runoff profile at Lock 7 upstream past locks 8, and 9, at total of 17.3 miles. The irregular lowest plot represents the river bottom. The horizontal bolded line labelled “Reservoir-Pool” represents the (less-than) “210-feet” water-surface elevation of the (evenly shaded) huge volume held behind the Lock 7 Dam’s crest during normal low-flow “flat-water”, e.g., August through mid-October 2015. Elevations are North American Vertical Datum, 1988 – NAVD88. At any given place, the peak of free-flow runoff usually arrives as a lengthy, slowly passing wave. Basic slopelessness of runoff-profiles means that the runoff-volumes hardly drain, and larger volumes inundate. The slopelessness in the figure above (directly over the term “RESERVOIR-POOL”) shows below as the calculated small quantities in the “Decrease” column. The larger runoff-volumes produce increasingly inadequate decreases. Table 1: Runoff values for significant flood levels between Lock 7 and Lock 8. Volume Runoff

Lock 8 Dam (open)

(cfs)

(%)

Elevation Rise (feet) (feet)

Step (feet)

Western Gateway Bridge Elevation Rise (%) (feet) (feet)

Step (feet)

(%)

209.3 Near bank-height at Riverside Park

Decrease (feet)

"Normal"

~2,000

-

209.3

-

-

-

11-Jun-13 "10-Year"

70,000 86,500

-

228.0

18.7

-

-

225.0

15.7

-

-

? -3.0

-

"50-Year" "100-Year"

116,000 126,500

+34% +46%

230.7 232.0

21.4 22.7

2.7 4.0

14.4 21.4

229.0 230.5

19.7 21.2

4.0 5.5

25.5 35.0

-1.7 -1.5

"500-Year"

153,000

+77%

234.7

25.4

6.7

35.8

233.4

24.1

8.4

53.5

-1.3

With the Western Gateway Bridge common to SCCC, Jumpin’ Jacks, the Stockade et al, these small decreases in free-flow peak water-surface elevations illustrate the long-standing harmful result of this dam’s gate-less design. Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

13

As contrasted with the distinct slope showing upstream from Lock 8 (right 1/3 of figure above), the Vischer Ferry dam’s reservoir-pool always underlying the “10-Year” is problematic to the canalside Schenectady area. The reservoir-pool’s century-long presence at the Lock 8 Dam’s lower side has prevented runoff from following the natural bottom-slope to and past the Western Gateway Bridge. The underlying reservoirpool’s flat volume literally supports the runoff, thus curtailing any significant decrease in runoff-surface elevation along, say, ~4 miles, where natural drainage had protected Schenectady-area properties. The arriving runoff-surface elevation remains (a) significantly higher than pre-dam and (b) virtually flat. Close examination of how high this NYS dam structure, reportedly 36 feet on the riverbed, raises the Niskayuna Pool above the Crescent Pool reveal how this height easily will allow a basic adaptation of this dam to provide capability for below-crest release to improve runoff-drainage with far-less overflow or none at all. Data within the FEMA FIS defines potential for release at the Lock 7 Dam. Coupling the “100Year” runoff-surface elevation of 217.4 feet overflowing the Lock 7 Dam with its counterpart elevation at the nearest cross-section (E) in the downstream Crescent Pool (200.7 ft) reveals this potential. It is substantial (~17 ft) and deserving of serious investigation. Response One strategy would be to preemptively release water providing significantly more drainage during flood events. A primary objective would be to have the capability to add slope and velocity to lower peak runoffsurface elevations, particularly between the reservoir-pool’s headwaters near the Lock 8 Dam and Freemans Bridge area. The tactic would be to install a gate system in this dam to release a significant portion of the reservoir-pool. A variety of engineered gate systems are available for insertion at this dam to allow controlled drawdown of the reservoir pool. Recently a spillway gate system of metal panels supported by controllably inflated bladders was installed in the Gilboa Dam on the Schoharie Creek. The southern section of the dam between Lock E7 and Goat Island is aligned with the channel both upstream and downstream. Thus, this section intuitively is a likely target for modification. Replacing, the uppermost 10-12 feet of this dam’s height with a controllable gate system for pre-emptive release will result in the runoff having significant new slope and velocity toward this dam. Hydraulic analyses and runoff-profiles for an opened gate system would be required to determine the required gate dimensions. Figure 4: Obermeyer gate system at the Gilboa Dam. The overall size of the gate system should provide the target preemptive release from the reservoir-pool for a slope then able to convey enough runoff to avoid inundation in the upstream Schenectady area, from Lock 8 to past Freemans Bridge. This dam’s footprint and nearby conditions’ effects on turbulence, flowvelocities, backwater, etc. will affect resulting drainage. The time has come for evaluation of this antiquated system. Governor Cuomo, referring to a series of disaster recoveries: “… Build Back Better.” Here, the time has come. Poster Presentation

14


UNDERSTANDING THE INFLUENCE OF HURRICANE IRENE ON THE HYDRODYNAMICS AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT IN THE MOHAWK AND HUDSON RIVERS, NY Christopher S. Fuller, James S. Bonner, M.S. Islam, and William Kirkey Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY The frequency and severity of extreme weather-related episodic events have increased in recent years. These ephemeral events have been shown to dramatically alter water column conditions in affected aquatic systems. Impacts of a representative storm event in New York’s Mohawk and Hudson Rivers (HR) and Estuary (HRE) are evaluated in this paper. Hurricane Irene struck the United States Atlantic Coast in August 2011with heavy rainfall throughout the Mohawk and Hudson River watersheds as it moved inland. Using automated sensor systems, the River and Estuary Observatory Network (REON) characterized the impacts of this event on hydrodynamics, and sediment transport. Recorded data showed dramatic increases in stream discharge in the Mohawk (e.g., from 110 m3/s to 3300 m3/s at Cohoes, NY) and upper Hudson River. These elevated flows were correlated with order-of-magnitude increases in water current velocities throughout the watersheds. In the tidal reaches of the Hudson River, the tidal signature was attenuated during flood flows. The storm-related sediment load represented a major portion of the estimated total annual load. The contribution of episodic events to sediment mobilization and transport of sediment bound contaminants (e.g. PCB) from the HR superfund site was demonstrated through observed changes in suspended sediment size distribution and rapid increases in bed shear stress (e.g., from 0.2 N/m2 to 4.4 N/m2 at Fort Edward, NY). Strong, Irene-induced flood currents prevented sediment re-suspension normally associated with flood tides in estuarine river reaches. This study provided critical insight with respect to hydrodynamic and sediment dynamic variability during episodic events for improved transport models and impact evaluations of the Mohawk and Hudson River. Poster Presentation


15

RESPONSE OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES TO SEASONAL DRAWDOWNS IN SECTIONS OF THE MOHAWK RIVER-BARGE CANAL SYSTEM 1

2

Scott George1, Barry Baldigo1, and Scott Wells2

United States Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, NY New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State, Troy, NY

The Mohawk River and New York State Barge Canal run together as a series of permanent and temporary impoundments for most of the distance between Rome and Albany, NY. The downstream section is composed of two permanent impoundments, the middle section is composed of a series of temporary (seasonal) impoundments, and the upper section is composed of a series of permanent impoundments. In the middle section, movable dams are lifted from the water during winter and the wetted surface area decreases by 36 to 56%. This investigation used boat electrofishing during spring of 2014 and 2015 to compare the relative abundance of fish populations and the composition of fish communities between the permanently and seasonally impounded sections of the Barge Canal to determine the effects of both flowmanagement practices. Excluding migratory Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis), a total of 3,264 individuals from 38 species were captured and total catch per unit effort (CPUE) ranged from 46.5 to 132.0 fish/h at sites in the seasonally impounded section compared to 89.9 to 342.0 fish/h in the permanently impounded sections. Mean CPUE in the seasonally impounded section was significantly lower (by about 50%) than that of the permanently impounded sections and community composition differed significantly between sections. The abundance of many lentic species including Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens), Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides), Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) decreased markedly in the seasonally impounded section and even a number of species that are well adapted to large riverine habitats such as Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and Walleye (Sander vitreus) were less abundant. The proportion of native individuals captured, however, was highest in the seasonally impounded section and large increases in the abundance of a few native cyprinids were observed. Overall, the winter drawdowns in the seasonally impounded section appear to reduce the relative abundance of fish and may adversely affect angling opportunities, but may also create more natural riverine conditions that favor some native species. Oral Presentation

16


WATER: A COMMODITY OR A HUMAN RIGHT? A.M. Ghaly Department of Engineering, Union College, Schenectady, NY A commodity is something priced by the laws of supply and demand in the marketplace. A human right is something all humans are entitled to and enjoy at no cost. Water is a substance that has been designated by the United Nations as a human right yet it is increasingly seen as a commodity too. The shortage of fresh water supply that many parts of the world presently experience has forced governments to rethink the system of subsidies that provide water at almost no cost to poor populations. This way of thinking usually originates from inefficient or corrupt public utilities incapable of meeting demand while their operating cost is significantly high. Governments with this failing model of public utilities are forced to look for alternatives to remedy such a serious problem. Private companies or international corporations involved in the business of collecting, treating, and distributing potable clean water have inherent interest in being profitable and in realizing certain margin for their shareholders. To achieve this goal, prices would have to go higher, which upsets a public that got used to lower prices. This model has resulted in social upheaval in many countries in the world prompting governments to prematurely cancel contracts with private companies to operate water supply systems. Water scarcity is being seen as the main factor in commoditizing water. A few decades ago almost no one thought individuals would, willingly, buy bottled water. Bottled water, which in some cases could be of quality less than that of tap water, is being bought today at a considerable price relative to that paid for tap water. This implies that society has reached a point of willingness to pay for what is essentially a human right. In light of these changes in societal norms, a new model is needed to price the water. This model should make water within the reach of those who can least afford it, yet make it of value that makes people think twice before they overuse or waste it. This new model should encourage conservation and should emphasize environmental consciousness. Among water uses, agriculture comes at the top of activities that consume significant amount of water. In developing a new model for water pricing, it is vital to direct attention to new irrigation technologies that ensure the best possible growth for crops with the least possible amount of water. There is also an urgent need to address issues of reduction and reuse and waste water. It is concluded that, although water is a human right, responsible use of water is the obligation of the entire humanity. Absence of this consideration can only aggravate a situation that all humans must cooperate to avoid. Oral Presentation


17

THE FALL OF PEAK OIL AND THE RISE OF PEAK WATER A.M. Ghaly Department of Engineering, Union College, Schenectady, NY There has been a significant decline in crude oil prices since it reached its latest peak in 2014. The price of a barrel of oil lost almost three-quarters of its value as oil producing nations pumped oil at unprecedented rate. This high rate of supply far exceeded demand, which contributed to the sharp decrease in prices. The situation was compounded with many new discoveries of oil in many places in the world in addition to the shale oil hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technology that made it possible to produce oil previously thought to be uneconomical to extract. This technology pushed the United States to the number one position of oil producing countries. The plentiful supply of oil witnessed recently had the effect of shaking the foundation of peak oil theory, which predicted a non-reversible decline of this natural resource until total depletion. On the other hand, another precious natural resource, water, is witnessing fierce competition in many places in the world due to the significant increase in population. The shortage of water to meet basic human needs of domestic, agriculture, and industrial uses resulted in massive migration of people from rural to urban areas, which added considerable pressure on cities due to accelerated rate of urbanization. Furthermore, droughts and change of weather pattern made agriculture unpredictable, which sank many nations into poverty. Water scarcity also led to armed conflicts and forced mass movement of populations to cross boarders to unwelcoming countries, which added to social unrest. Unlike the expression “peak oil” which has been around for decades, peak water is only a few years old concept that underlines the growing constrains on the availability and quality of freshwater. This includes renewable (rain), non-renewable (groundwater aquifers), and ecological water. Ecological water is one whose economical benefit is shadowed by ecological and environmental constraints. In addition to the millions of people that presently experience water stress, it is projected that, with the continuation of present trends, over a quarter of the world population will be under severe water scarcity by 2025, and that two-thirds of the world population could be subjected to serious water stress. While there are alternatives for oil to produce energy, there is no substitute for water for human use. Peak water implies reaching physical and environmental limits on meeting basic human water need. The subsequent decline in economic activities and rise of tension would be inevitable. Poster Presentation

18


DETERMINING THE PROVENANCE AND LIFE HISTORIES OF BLUEBACK HERRING IN THE MOHAWK RIVER Cara Ewell Hodkin and Karin Limburg Department of Environmental and Forest Biology SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, NY Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) demonstrate a strong linkage between the Mohawk River, the Hudson River, and the Atlantic Ocean. Previous studies have indicated that blueback herring (1) can overwinter somewhere in the system as sub-adults, but (2) eventually all recruits to the spawning stock migrate out to sea before returning to spawn (KL, unpublished). In a collaboration between SUNY ESF and Region 4 DEC (Scott Wells), funded by the NYS Water Resources Institute at Cornell, adults Blueback Herring were collected in 2012 and 2013, but there were no funds available to complete the work-up, leaving a dataset of morphometric characteristics, scales, otoliths, stomach contents, and 230 additional individuals preserved for analysis that have been left incomplete. This work requires expansion and updating to assess both the population status, the degree of homing to the Mohawk for spawning, and the Mohawk’s overall importance as a nursery habitat. We are left with four basic questions: 1. What is the relative importance of the Mohawk River nursery, relative to nurseries in the Hudson River estuary? 2. What is the provenance of blueback herring spawners in the Mohawk River? 3. What is the degree of overwintering and within-Mohawk habitat use? 4. What are demographic characteristics of the Mohawk River spawning population? To answer these questions, we plan to complete the work-up and analyze the data set. Morphometrics will include length, weight, and gonadosomatic index, separated by sex. Stomach contents will be identified to the nearest taxon possible. Scales will be taken, cleaned, and examined microscopically for spawning checks. Otoliths will be extracted, cleaned, and sectioned down to the core. Ages will be determined from the otoliths. Additionally, otoliths will be analyzed via laser ablation inductively coupled mass spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) for calcium and trace elements (Ba, Mg, Mn, Sr, and possibly Pb Electro-fishing Otolith and Zn). We will also use the multi-collector LAICPMS at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for strontium isotope ratio determination (one of the best ways to distinguish Mohawk from other parts of the Hudson watershed), and will mill out sections in the core for oxygen stable isotope analysis (to be sent to the University of Arizona isotope facility). Tissue samples have been analyzed for 13C and 15N at the UC Davis Stable Isotope Facility. Lastly, we plan to conduct a habitat survey for juvenile blueback herring in the Mohawk River in summer 2016. Poster Presentation


19

MONITORING THE HUDSON AND BEYOND WITH HRECOS: THE HUDSON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OBSERVING SYSTEM 1

Gavin M. Lemley1 and Alexander J. Smith2

HRECOS Coordinator, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Hudson River Estuary Program/NEIWPCC, Albany, NY; 2 Mohawk River Basin Program Manager, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY The Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System (HRECOS) is a network of environmental monitoring stations located along the mainstem rivers of the Hudson River Watershed; the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. Stations are equipped with sensors that continuously record several water quality and weather parameters every 15 minutes, year-round. Remote telemetry at each station transmits data in near-real-time for users to view and download via www.hrecos.org. The mission of HRECOS is structured around five major user group focus areas: Environmental Regulation and Resource Management, Research, Education, Emergency Management, and Commercial Use and Recreation. The program works to improve the capacity of stakeholders to understand the ecosystem and manage water resources, provide baseline monitoring data necessary for applied research and modeling, support the use of real-time data in educational settings, provide policy makers and emergency managers with data products to guide decision making, and provide information for safe and efficient navigation by commercial mariners and recreational boaters. HRECOS Station locations HRECOS expanded into the Mohawk River in 2011 with the aid of funding provided by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) Mohawk River Basin Program. There are currently three Mohawk HRECOS stations—one in Ilion, NY (downriver of Utica), a second one at Lock 8 in Rotterdam, and a third at the Rexford Bridge in Schenectady. These stations are used to help satisfy the water quality goals of the Mohawk River Basin Program Action Agenda. The data are used in conjunction with existing water quality data in the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load for the Mohawk River to limit the discharge of pollutants and restore the impaired waters, while also monitoring improvements resulting from Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plans. Mohawk HRECOS Stations are also used to assist the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Weather Service in their flood prediction and warning systems. Newest HRECOS station on the Mohawk River at Ilion HRECOS is operated and funded by a consortium of government, research, and non-profit institutions. The system builds upon existing regional monitoring activities, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System, NYSDEC’s Rotating Integrated Basin Studies (RIBS), USGS monitoring, Stevens Institute of Technology’s New York Harbor Observing and Prediction System (NYHOPS), and monitoring efforts of several other partner organizations. All data and products of HRECOS are freely available to the public at www.hrecos.org. Poster Presentation

20


TWO METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF FLOODING DURING HURRICANE IRENE IN SCHENECTADY, NY A. Lewis, E. Weaver, E. Dorward, and A. Marsellos Department of Geology, Environment, Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY Introduction In late August 2011, Hurricane Irene caused widespread flooding throughout the state of New York. The city of Schenectady, situated on the banks of the Mohawk River, experienced extensive flooding, especially in the vicinity of its historic Stockade neighborhood. Although the area has a history of floods which impact public spaces, commercial businesses, and residential buildings, it has been the subject of little previous research. Furthermore, most existing papers utilized field methods to assess past flooding events, an approach which is not always practical. This research compares the accuracy of two different methods for flood simulation: one which utilizes photographs and 3D reconstruction of the flooding, and one which utilizes field data.

Figure 1: Aerial image of study area in Schenectady, New York, with test sites labeled.

Methods This research made extensive use of GIS software GlobalMapper 17.0 (GM). LiDAR data of the study area was used to model the ground surface in GM because its high resolution and differentiation of the ground surface from any obstacles allowed a bare earth model with minimal error to be obtained. The first method of study used photographs of flooding to estimate the water level. The flooding from Irene was well documented photographically by news agencies, official services, and residents of Schenectady. We obtained photographs showing water levels from various websites. The locations shown in each photograph were identified and tagged as placemarks in Google Earth. The collection of points were extracted as a .kmz file and imported into GM over the LiDAR digital elevation model. A 3D model of the study area was then created using the GM 3D view capabilities. Within the 3D view window we increased the level of the floodwater until it approached what was seen in the photographs. We then adjusted the flood level and found the minimum and maximum elevation values that best match the high water marks of the flood in the pictures at each point. Visiting the study area and collecting GPS readings at each site with a Trimble Geocollector Geo7X unit obtained a second set of data. The flood photographs were referenced to determine the water level at each location. Once it had been identified, we placed the Trimble unit at that elevation and waited until the preliminary post-processed accuracy read under 0.30m before collecting a minimum of 30 positions during a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) session. At the laboratory, we used as reference a continuously operating reference station (CORS) within a 100 km radius (ONEONTA, NYON GPS station with five second intervals). At some locations obtaining sufficient accuracy proved troublesome, so an external Trimble Tornado antenna mounted on a 2.0 m pole was used, and in some cases, up to 60 positions were recorded. Post-processing correction was done in a Trimble extension integrated in ArcMap. The sites were imported into GM over the LiDAR digital elevation model. The model was interpolated to fill any gaps, and the maximum depression depth to be filled was fixed at 0.5 m. We modeled flooding of the study area by increasing the water level of the Mohawk River from the level of 69.59 m, as derived from the GPS survey.


21

Figure 2: (A) Site 11a seen in Google Earth; (B) GlobalMapper simulation of the flood at site 11a using LiDAR data; (C) Flooding on Ingersoll Avenue in Schenectady, 2011 (Daily Gazette); (D) Indicating high water mark at site.

Figure 3: (A) View of flooding over the study area; (B) Final GlobalMapper flood model from GPS data.

22


Results The flood simulation of the photographic data had a consistent error of ±0.2 m. The corrected GPS data contained an elevation error range of 0.2 m - 0.82 m. Table 1: Results of both methods, showing coordinates of each site and error obtained from each method, including both uncorrected and corrected GPS data.

Conclusion To our surprise, both methods produced flood simulations with similar error ranges. The GPS data produced inaccuracy much higher than expected. Such high error probably resulted from the nature of the study area: in a residential neighborhood, the large number of structures probably created many reflections that interfered with the GPS data. At one site, 10a, an elevation far outside the expected range was recorded, probably as a result of these errors. These obstacles were also likely the cause of our inability to gather elevation data in the first flood simulation: a lack of post-processing with LiDAR cloud points meant that it was impossible to identify certain structures on the surface model with adequate certainty. However, the flood map created with GPS data matches quite closely with aerial images of the flooding, indicating the potential of this technique (Figure 3). It would likely be better researched in areas with fewer obstructions. References Farrell, John C.; Rodbell, Donald T. The sedimentary record of Mohawk River floods preserved in Collins Pond, Scotia, NY confirmed by Hurricane Irene [abstract]. In: Geological Society of America (GSA); February, 2012; Boulder, CO, United States. Abstracts with Programs: Geological Society of America; February, 2012.32-3. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=2f7ab168-a4f5-4619-8b3a9c8f1f60bb40%40sessionmgr102&vid=0&hid=102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN= 2012-090137&db=geh Stacey Lauren-Kennedy. 2011. Daily Gazette, Schenectady. http://media.dailygazette.com/img/photos/2011/08/30/stockadeflood25_tx728_fsharpen.jpg?26f4c7d4dffd7 6390dc86be72395deea469da9d9 Dahlmann G., Darcy M. 2011. Photos of Irene Flooding in Schenectady. All Over Albany. [Accessed 2016 Jan 31]. http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2011/08/29/photos-of-irene-flooding-in-schenectady Poster Presentation


23

THE BARGE CANAL: WHY IT WAS BUILT AND WHAT IT DID Simon Litten New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Retired, [email protected] For most of its length the Mohawk River is occupied by an early 20th Century civil engineering project; the Barge Canal. The Barge Canal is the successor to the old Erie Canal and the Erie Canal in turn followed the Western Inland Locks Navigation Company. These canals connected the Mohawk River, and later the Hudson, to the Great Lakes. Three water routes lead into the heart of North America; the Mississippi, the St. Lawrence, and Hudson’s Bay but only Hudson’s Bay was technically accessible to shippers. Its access was constrained by winter and it had a very small largely aboriginal population. Conquest of the Mississippi necessitated steam power. The St Lawrence route was hampered by rapids, Canadian and British fear of American military aggression, and the engineering challenges of building large locks in the St. Lawrence and around Niagara Falls for vessels navigating the Great Lakes (Creighton, 1937; Easterbrook and Aitken, 1958; Wolfe, 1962). The Erie Canal, a 350 mile long ditch equipped with locks and aqueducts, permitted an animal drawn barge to move goods between Lake Erie to Albany. It was the only feasible way of carrying bulky commodities. The Erie Canal was phenomenally successful for fifty years and it made New York into the Empire State. However, by 1883 tolls could no longer support the maintenance and operation of the canal. Since that time its value has been murky.

Figure 1: Cargo carried by New York canals compared with that moved by the railroads, 1853-1917. Annual Report Superintendent of Public Works, Superintendent Walsh, 19191. In 1903 the NYPE and other canal supporters persuaded New York voters to approve a $101 million bond act bringing the aging and moribund canal system into the 20th Century. Steam and internal combustion would replace animal power. Locks would be operated electrically. Electric lighting would enable nighttime operation. Terminals would replace doing business with barge captains on the towpaths. Large feeder reservoirs were built at Delta and Hinckley. To the maximum extent possible, existing waterways would be “improved” for navigation. Eight movable dams between Schenectady and Fort Plain maintain suitable water depths in the Mohawk River. Concrete replaced stone in lock construction. The new locks were designed to accommodate 2,000-ton capacity barges and the yearly throughput was estimated to be 20 million tons. It was expected that the dominant cargo would be grain traveling east (Whitford, 1922). The Barge Canal opened in 1918 during a transportation crisis caused by WWI and as rubber tire vehicles began their accent. Barge operators were slow to invest in higher capacity but more expensive steel barges that would be useless during the non-navigation season. By 1926 the canal’s operator, the Superintendent of Public Works, began to lose interest in the canal and turn to roads as the future of transportation. Tonnage on the canal system grew slowly peaking in 1951 at about five million, a quarter of the predicted. Since then it has dwindled.

24


Figure 2: Traffic history of the New York state canal system. Annual Reports Superintendent of Public Works 1918-1961; NYS Department of Transportation 1962-1991; NYS Thruway Authority 1992-2011. Today the Port of Churchill in Hudson’s Bay can handle Panamax ships but its railroad link, constructed on permafrost, to the wheat lands in the Prairie Provinces is threatened by climate change. The St Lawrence Seaway, completed in 1959, was built to move grain east and iron ore from Labrador west. Now too small to accommodate modern container ships it is facing increased competition from the Panama Canal. From 1932 the principal business of the New York canals was moving petroleum products north from refineries in New York and New Jersey so that the St. Lawrence was never the threat that it was imagined to be. The Mississippi now carries 60% of the US export grain and the Port of New York does not handle grain2. The canal is still being maintained for cargo transportation. A 2014 study found that shipping accounted for less than one half of a percent of the canal’s non-tourism value. The rest of the value, $6.3 billion, was for water supply (CHA Design/Construction Solutions, Jacobs Civil Consultants, and A. Strauss Wieder, 2014). A 2010 study put the canal’s tourism value at $348 million dollars a year, 16 times greater than its value for shipping. Bicycling, hiking, running, and dog walking constituted 99% of its use (Scipione, 2014). These activities are independent of navigation. Comptroller DiNapoli reported in 2015 that only 55% of “critical” canal structures were in “good” condition (DiNapoli, 2015). NYSDEC reports that both the Delta and Hinckley Dams were “stability unsafe” (Stone Environmental, 2016). Control depths, particularly in the Champlain Canal, are not being met due to PCB contaminated sediment. Floods in 2006 and 2011 caused millions in damages. The canal is underfunded and DiNapoli found that the canal is a serious drain on the finances of the Thruway Authority, its present operator (DiNapoli, 2015). In 2015 operations and capital costs for the canal were $108 million (Mahoney et al., 2015). The canal is a marvel of early 20th Century engineering. It is newly added to the National Register of Historic Places (Hay 2014). Despite significant reductions in personnel and operating budget, the canal staff does a heroic job of maintaining century old equipment. The presence of the almost entirely nonindustrial waterway may be a kind of preservative for large sections of the Mohawk. The canal occupies an important place in the historical consciousness of New Yorkers. However, many of today’s environmental concerns were not part of the design considerations in 1903. These include biological disturbances and access. Flooding was a contemporary concern but the nature of the watershed is changed. The dollar costs of invasive species, loss of wetlands, habitat changes from ponding behind the dams, altered sediment flow, and access restrictions are very difficult to determine. The canal cannot be easily abandoned - collapse of some of its structures would have disastrous effects and they are an essential part of the agricultural, drinking water, industrial, and hydroelectric water supply. Its recreational value is substantial. But as construed the canal’s sustainability is questionable. The Mohawk River would continue to flow without the canal. Can we imagine a partially restored Mohawk River without the constraint of supporting commercial navigation? There needs to be a detailed and honest discussion about which aspects of the canal are viable, which aspects of a natural river can be recovered, how the Mohawk (the largest tributary to the Hudson) fits into the larger picture of the Hudson Estuary’s restoration (Miller, 2013), and which historic engineering elements should be preserved. Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

25

Notes: 1 Annual reports of the Superintendent of Public Works and successor canal operators, the NYS Department of Transportation and the Thruway Authority, are at the New York State Library 2 The Port of Albany exports about 0.1 million tons of grain each year. In 1932 the world's largest grain elevator was built at the port. Today it is the largest east of the Mississippi. References: Carhart ER. 1911. The New York Produce Exchange. American Academy of Political and Social Science 38 (2): 206-221. CHA Design/Construction Solutions, Jacobs Civil Consultants I, and A.Strauss-Wieder I. 2014. "New York State Canal Corporation Report on Economic Benefits of Non-Tourism Use of the NYS Canal System." 2016. Available from http://www.canals.ny.gov/economic-benefit-report.pdf. Condit CW. 1981. The Port of New York: A History of the Rail and Terminal System from the Grand Central Electrification to the Present. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Creighton DG. 1937. The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence 1760-1850. Toronto: The Ryerson Press. DiNapoli TP. 2008. "New York State Thruway Authority Audit Summary and Recommended Actions." 2016. Available from http://osc.state.ny.us/reports/thruwayauthauditsumrecomactions01-2508.pdf. -----. 2015. "Infrastructure Inspection and Maintenance." 2016. Available from http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s45.pdf. Easterbrook WT, and Aitken HGJ. 1958. Canadian Economic History. Toronto: The Macmillian Company of Canada Limited. Hay D. 2014. "New York State Barge Canal." 2016. Available from http://www.eriecanalway.org/documents/01_Intro-Narrative_Final.pdf. Mahoney JM, Luh DJ, Simberg RN, Rice Jr. JD, and Holguín-Veras J. 2015. "2016 Budget." 2015. Available from http://www.thruway.ny.gov/about/financial/budgetbooks/books/2016-budget.pdf. Miller D. 2013. "Hudson River Estuary Habitat Restoration Plan." 2016. Available from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/hrhrp.pdf. Scipione PA. 2014. "The Economic Impact of the Erie Canalway Trail: An Assessment and User Profile of New York's Longest Multi-Use Trail." 2016. Available from http://www.ptny.org/application/files/2714/4604/5359/Economic_Impact_of_the_Erie_Canalway_ Trail_Full_Document.pdf. Stone Environmental. 2016. "Mohawk River Watershed Web Map." 2016. Available from http://mohawkriver.org/mapping-tool/. Whitford NE. 1922. History of the Barge Canal of New York State: Supplement to the Annual Report of the State Engineer and Surveyor for the Year Ended June 30, 1921. Albany: J. B. Lyon Company. Wolfe R, I. 1962. Transportation and Politics: The Example of Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 52 (2): 176-190. Invited Presentation

26


MOHAWK RIVER WATER QUALITY SNAPSHOT: 121 MILES IN 24 HOURS: A FIRST LOOK AT DATA FROM A PILOT RIVERKEEPERS-SUNY COBLESKILL PARTNERSHIP John Lipscomb1, Dan Shapley1*, Jen Epstein1, Barbara L. Brabetz2, and Neil A. Law2 1

2

Riverkeeper Water Quality Program Department of Mathematics & Natural Sciences, SUNY Cobleskill, Cobleskill, NY *Invited Speaker

In 2014, Riverkeeper extended monthly boat patrols of the Hudson River Estuary into the Mohawk River, reaching as far as Rome. In 2015, Riverkeeper patrolled the Mohawk regularly and in partnership with SUNY Cobleskill launched a pilot monthly water quality monitoring project modeled on the water quality monitoring that Riverkeeper has conducted in the Hudson River Estuary since 2008 in partnership with CUNY Queens College and Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory; and since 2012 in an increasing number of Hudson River tributaries, in partnership with more than two dozen local organizations. In 2015, Riverkeeper and partners collected 6,718 water samples from the Hudson River Watershed for water quality measurements, including 2,559 measurements of the fecal indicator bacteria Enterococcus (Entero). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends measuring Entero to assess water quality for primary contact recreation in both fresh and saline waters. Riverkeeper measures results using 2012 EPA Recreational Water Quality Criteria, which recommend measuring both frequency and degree of contamination to assess recreational water quality. The criteria, utilizing a Geometric Mean (GM, a weighted average) of Entero counts (Most Probably Number, or MPN) that should not exceed 30, a Statistical Threshold Value (STV) of 110 that should not be exceeded in more than 10% of samples, and a single-sample Beach Action Value (BAV) that should not exceed 60. The EPA recommends sampling water quality weekly; after enough time, monthly sampling should provide a similar probability distribution. Four sampling events in July, August, September and October yielded 113 samples from 33 locations in the Mohawk River and/or Erie Canal between Delta Lake and Waterford, a reach of 121 river miles. Each sampling event took place over 24-48 hours. Of the sites, 23 were sampled on all four occasions; other sites were sampled less frequently because the sampling events served as an iterative process to help determine the best locations for future Press document Riverkeeper patrol boat Capt. John Lipscomb as he processes a sampling. Most sites were sample of Mohawk River water (Photo by Dan Shapley/Riverkeeper). located at public access points, primarily boat launches associated with barge canal locks. We focused on public access points because fecal contamination increases the risk of becoming ill from contact with the water. Our Mohawk project also included 1-2 samples taken in each of the Mohawk’s largest tributaries, Schoharie Creek, East Canada Creek and West Canada Creek. We sampled additional sites to bracket potential sources of contamination, such as Utica, the largest community on the Mohawk River with a Combined Sewer System. Utica has approximately 49 Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Several of the Capital District’s 92 CSOs discharge to the Mohawk, and other Mohawk communities with CSOs include Little Falls and Amsterdam, each with three, and Schenectady with two. Other sources of fecal indicator bacteria include sanitary sewer overflows, such as those documented publicly by the Sewage Pollution Right to Know Law; Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

27

urban streetwater runoff; runoff from agriculture (livestock as well as crops where manure is spread as fertilizer); septic system failures and wildlife. Samples were collected using protocols published in Riverkeeper’s 2014 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), approved by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and New England Interstate Pollution Control Commission. Riverkeeper collected samples from Waterford to Amsterdam, in most instances from the Riverkeeper patrol boat. SUNY Cobleskill students and faculty collected samples from Amsterdam to Rome. Samples were processed utilizing the IDEXX Enterolert system by both Riverkeeper and SUNY Cobleskill, utilizing protocols defined in Riverkeeper’s 2014 QAPP. Our results show that 17.7% of the 113 Mohawk River/Erie Canal watershed samples exceeded BAV and 12.3% exceeded STV criteria. We calculated GMs for the 23 sites sampled 4 times. Of these, four (17%) exceeded the GM criterion. While the dataset is too small to draw many conclusions, the data so far suggest that some water quality patterns familiar to the Hudson River are present in the Mohawk River. In the Hudson River Estuary we have found that contamination varies by location, over time, in frequency and in degree. The same seems to be true for the Mohawk. Other insights will come with more data. Additional sampling is planned in 2016. References Riverkeeper’s QAPP: http://www.riverkeeper.org/water-quality/testing/ The 2015 “How’s the Water?” report: http://www.riverkeeper.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/Riverkeeper_WQReport_2015_Final.pdf Riverkeeper water quality data: http://www.riverkeeper.org/water-quality/ (Mohawk data is to be added soon.) New York State DEC CSO map and information http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/88736.html Sewage Pollution Right to Know: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/90315.html IDEXX Enterolert: https://www.idexx.com/water/products/enterolert.html Invited Presentation

28


FUTURE OF WATER QUALITY SAMPLING ALONG THE MOHAWK RIVER: BLITZ 2016 TRANSITIONING RIVERKEEPER-SUNY COBLESKILL PARTNERSHIP FROM PILOT TO PRACTICE John Lipscomb1, Dan Shapley1, Jen Epstein1, Barbara Brabetz2, Neil A. Law2, and Jason Ratchford3 1

2

Riverkeeper Water Quality Program Department of Natural Sciences & Math, SUNY Cobleskill, NY 3 Fisheries & Aquaculture, SUNY Cobleskill, NY

After discussions and preliminary testing in 2014, SUNY Cobleskill and Riverkeeper worked as partners in 2015 to collect 113 water samples along the 120+ mile length of the Mohawk River. Each was analyzed for fecal bacteria Enterococcus (Entero) using IDEXX’s Enteroalert method, Riverkeeper’s established protocol based on the EPA’s 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria. Each sampling blitz took place in 12 to 30 hours ensuring a true snapshot of the aquatic health of the waterway. Four sampling events occurred monthly from July to October 2015. Samples were processed and analyzed on Riverkeeper’s research vessel and at a newly established satellite lab located at SUNY Cobleskill. Site selection was refined during this sampling season to optimize access, availability and the representative quality of the waterway and its uses. Analysis included major tributaries along the river. Preliminary data analysis indicates that 17.7% of samples exceeded safe values for recreational use. Plans for 2016 include recruitment of citizen science partners in each river region and expansion of basic water chemistry parameters at sites of scientific interest. Testing is planned monthly from May to October 2016 and will include sampling from shore as well as on board Riverkeeper’s patrol boat. Poster Presentation


29

THE MOHAWK RIVER AS A “REFERENCE” RIVER FOR ECOLOGICAL AND CONTAMINANT STUDIES ON THE HUDSON RIVER: DENSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF MINK Sean S. Madden New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY Natural resources of the Hudson River have been contaminated through past and ongoing discharges of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) – New York State, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of the Interior – are conducting a natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) to assess and restore those natural resources injured by PCBs (HRNRT 2002). As part of the Hudson River NRDA, the Trustees initiated a study of mink (Neovison vison) density and abundance (HRNRT 2012). Mink are well-documented to be sensitive to PCBs and historic data suggested that populations along the Hudson may have been negatively affected by their exposure to PCBs (Bursian et al. 2013, Mayack and Loukmas 2001). As part of quantifying the effects of a contaminant on a natural resource, the Trustees measure the extent to which the injured resource differs from baseline conditions. Baseline is the condition that would have existed had the release of the hazardous substance under investigation not occurred. Ideally, historic data sets that predate the release of the contamination would provide a baseline, but rarely do these data sets exist. More often, researchers use a reference area either upstream or away from the source of contamination. Finding an appropriate reference area for ecological studies in large river systems requires consideration of a number of issues. The Mohawk River has the potential to serve as a comparison to other relatively large river systems, most notably its neighbor, the upper Hudson River from Ft. Edward to Troy. The Mohawk River reflects an agricultural and industrial past common among large river systems in the northeastern United States. In contrast, the upper Hudson River below Ft. Edward has PCB contamination from two General Electric capacitor plants that overwhelms by orders of magnitude any other contaminants from historic industry and agriculture practices (Horn et al. 1979, HRNRT 2009). The Mohawk and Hudson River watersheds have their differences. For example, the Mohawk River tributaries tend to have a steeper gradient then upper Hudson River Tributaries. However, the two rivers also have important similarities; both are heavily managed waterbodies and share the presence of a canal system consisting of dams and locks. The fact that the rivers are in the same general climate and physically located in relatively close proximity supports use of the Mohawk River as a comparison to the upper Hudson River.

Figure 1: Study areas along the Mohawk and Hudson Rivers for comparing mink density and abundance. The river sections extend roughly from Herkimer to Amsterdam (Mohawk) and Ft. Edward to Troy (Hudson).

For our study of mink density and abundance, the Mohawk River served as the site of our pilot study in 2012 and then as our comparison to the Hudson River in 2013 and 2014. Sample sites consisted of streamroad intersections on tributary streams within 5 km of the main stem rivers along an approximately 50 km river section (Hudson River = Ft. Edward to Waterford; Mohawk River = Herkimer to Amsterdam). Each survey location was sampled three different times between the beginning of May and the middle of June to ensure that sampling occurred after the breeding season, but before juvenile dispersal. A sampling event consisted of a trained dog, working with a handler, searching stream banks to detect mink scat. Any scat that the dogs located were collected and preserved in ethanol until they could be analyzed in the genetics laboratory. The genetic information served as the data for capture-mark-recapture information, e.g., the 30


same mink identified genetically over different sampling events or at different sampling locations was a “recapture.” This capture-recapture information was analyzed using spatially explicit capture-recapture (SCR) models, which extend traditional capture-recapture to include the distribution of home ranges on the landscape and trap-specific detection probabilities in population estimates (Royle et al. 2013). The Mohawk River is not historically synonymous with the frontiers of ecological research, but our study is notable for utilizing the combination of three research methods in wildlife studies that have advanced considerably in the past decade; non-invasive genetic identification of individuals, scat detection dogs, and spatially explicit capture-recapture modelling. These methods have grown in popularity and robustness in recent years, and are now well supported in the scientific literature. This is the first instance of using these three techniques together to study mink. Although the results of these studies are pending, our mink data from the Mohawk River will do more than provide a comparison to the upper Hudson River. These data provide important information on mink populations in the Mohawk basin that can benefit resource managers, trappers, and other interested members of the public. This study serves as a reminder that the Mohawk is more than the “barge canal” and is a functioning ecological system. References: Bursian, S. J., J. Kern, J. E. Link, and S. D. Fitzgerald. 2013. Dietary Exposure of Mink (Mustela vison) to Fish from the Upper Hudson River, New York, USA: Effects on Reproduction, Offspring Growth and Mortality. ET&C 32:780-793. Horn, E. G., L. J. Hetling and T. J. James. 1979. The Hudson River – a case study. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences 320: 591!609. Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees (HRNRT). 2002. Hudson River Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan. September 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees (HRNRT). 2009. Data report: Organochlorine and metal contaminant levels in Hudson River aquatic insects. Hudson River Natural Resource Damage Assessment. September 2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD, USA Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees (HRNRT). 2012. Study Plan for Mink Injury Determination: Investigation of Mink Abundance and Density Relative to Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contamination within the Hudson River Drainage, Hudson River Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Public Release Version. Final. July 13, 2012, 2012. U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. Mayack, D. T. and J. Loukmas. 2001. Progress report on Hudson River Mammals: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) levels in mink, otter, and muskrat and trapping results for mink, the upper Hudson River drainage, 1998!2000. Bureau of Habitat, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. Royle, J. A., R. B. Chandler, R. Sollmann, and B. Gardner. 2013. Spatial Capture-Recapture. Academic Press/Elsevier. 612 pages. Oral Presentation


31

DATA MINING FOR IMMEDIATE DECISION-MAKING IN FLOOD HAZARD EVENTS: AN APPLICATION AT MOHAWK WATERSHED IN NEW YORK 1

2

A.E., Marsellos1, K.G., Tsakiri2, and A. Kavalieros3

Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY School of Computing, Engineering, and Mathematics, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom 3 Dept of Geology and Geonvironment, National and Kapodestrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Introduction It has been observed that we experience an increase in flooding in the rivers due to the climatic change. Flooding in the rivers in Upstate New York may happen due to ice jams or tropical storms [1-5]. Ice jam is an event that happen when the frozen river breaks up, and movement of large ice chunks are restricted at channel constrictions, lock stations, and bridges. In this paper, we present a methodology to connect computer science (data mining) with statistical tools for the better watershed management and subsequent prediction of flooding in Mohawk River, NY. For this study, we use different USGS monitoring stations in Mohawk watershed in Upstate New York, USA and in other watersheds, as well. For any watershed, including the Mohawk watershed, it is important to predict the time of the flooding. Because the data from the monitor stations change in a daily basis, it is important to design a dynamic model, which has the ability to use big databases, for the prediction of flooding in the rivers. For this model we use data mining software (Knime), which can be connected with statistical software for the better prediction of flooding in the rivers. In particular, data mining is the process of analyzing data from different perspectives and summarizing it into useful information that can be used to increase revenue, cuts costs, or both. In addition, it allows efficient decision making upon hazardous events such as floods. One analytical tool for analyzing data and connect different data bases is the data mining software, Knime [6]. Knime allows users to analyze data from many different dimensions, categorize it, and summarize the relationships identified. In general, data mining is the process of finding correlations or patterns among fields in large relational databases. Further, we can also connect data mining software (such as Knime) with a statistical software package (such as R) to analyze relationships and patterns between different databases. In this study we connect data mining with statistical software (e.g. R) and geospatial software (e.g. GIS) for the prediction of flooding in Mohawk River, NY. 2. Methodology For the prediction of flooding in the rivers, we may use a statistical methodology (time series analysis techniques) for the reduction of the noise in the data. The decomposition of the time series is a well-known time series analysis technique and can be also applied in daily observations (Tsakiri et al., 2014). For the prediction of flooding, we use the water discharge time series (which is the response variable and measures the volume of the water in the river), and the independent variables, which consist of the ground water level and the climatic Figure 1: Mohawk Watershed coverage in Upstate New York. variables (temperature, tides, wind speed A longitudinal profile of the river is shown (bottom left). and precipitation). For the analysis, we Schoharie watershed has an area of approximately 2,400 km2 decompose all the time series into different with a minimum and maximum elevation from the mean sea uncorrelated components (long, seasonal, level of 82 m and 1219 m, respectively (derived from spatial and short term component). The long-term analysis on a 3-arc SRTM DEM). Mohawk watershed has an component describes the fluctuations of a area of approximately 6,680 km2, and elevations range from 4 m to 1094 m. time series defined as being longer than a given threshold; the seasonal component describes the year-to-year fluctuations, while the short-term component describes the short-term variations. The main purpose is to predict the water discharge time series using the ground water level and the climatic variable for different stations in Mohawk River. For the decomposition of the time series, we may use a low pass filter in order to remove the high frequencies (i.e. noise) from the data. In this study, we use the 32


Kolmogorov-Zurbenko (KZ) filter, which provides the minimum, squared of error for the model [7-8]. The KZ filter, which separates the long-term variations from the short-term variations in a time series, provides a simple design and the minimum level of interferences (minimum correlation) between the scales of the time series (long, seasonal and short term components). For our analysis, we first decompose the time series of the water discharge time series into the long-term component, seasonal component, and short-term component. Afterwards, we predict each component of the water discharge time series separately using a multivariate model. By using the decomposition of the time series, we have succeeded to improve the prediction of flooding up to 81% at the Mohawk Watershed area. As soon as we have designed the statistical model, we may import this model to data mining software in order to create a dynamic model that Figure 2: Description of the process in the Data Mining software, may evolve and adapt in daily basis. Knime in which the statistical algorithm of the decomposition of the The data mining software analyzes time series has been used. relationships and patterns in stored transaction data based on open-ended user queries. For the prediction of flooding, the Data Mining investigates the relationships between the response variable (water discharge time series) and the independent variables (ground water and climatic variables) to identify the pairs with the maximum correlations. Based on the pairs with the maximum correlation, we design a time series decomposition model as it is described above. Figure 2 describes the procedure in the Data Mining software with a tree diagram method. Each step describes the decomposition of the time series analysis of all the variables derived from one station. Using Data Mining, we can create a dynamic model that has the ability to change the results of the prediction based on the new information on a daily basis. This methodology can be applied in other stations, as well [9]. 3. Conclusions A better understanding of flooding may reduce the chance of costly damages associated with these hazards. For this reason, it is important to design a dynamic model that may change in time using new observations from different monitor stations. This model may be designed using data mining and statistical techniques. A dynamic model provides the capability of an immediate decision-making and an efficient response of the local authorities (e.g. fire, police, hospitals, etc.) to a flood hazard. In particular, we have used the time series decomposition analysis and multivariate techniques (multivariate models), which allow us to improve the prediction of flooding that, can be caused by storms, rapid snowmelt, and ice jams which may occur in different stations along Mohawk River, NY. An example has presented in this study for a station in Mohawk River, NY and it can be applied in other stations, as well. References 1. Bronstert A., 1995. River Flooding in Germany: Influence by Climate Change? Physics & Chemistry of the Earth, 20 (6), 445-450. 2. Kotlarski S., et al. 2012, The Elbe river flooding 2002 as seen by an extended regional climate model, J Hydrol, 472-473, 169-183. 3. Johnston S.A., and Garver J.I., 2001. Record of flooding on the Mohawk River from 1634 to 2000 based on historical Archives, In: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 33 (1), 73. 4. Scheller M., et al., 2002. Major Floods on the Mohawk River (NY): 1832-2000, http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mohawk/170_yr.html 5. Garver J.I. and Cockburn J.M.H., 2009. A historical perspective of Ice Jams on the Lower Mohawk River, In: proceedings from 2009 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady NY, 25-29. 6. Han J., et al,. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques, The Morgan Kaufamann Series in Data Management Systems, 3rd edition7. Tsakiri K.G., et al., 2014. An efficient Prediction Model in Schoharie Creek, NY, J Climatology, doi.org/10.1155/2014/284137 8. Zurbenko I.G., 1986. The Spectral Analysis of Time Series. Amsterdam, North Holland Series, In Statistics and Probability 9. Marsellos, A.E., et al., 2014. Prediction of River Flooding using Geospatial and Statistical Analysis in New York, USA and Kent, UK. AGU Abstracts with Program, H41C-0827.

Poster Presentation Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

33

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MOHAWK RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Win McIntyre1, Katie Budreski2, and Peter Nichols1* 1

2

Mohawk River Watershed Coalition Stone Environmental, Montpelier, VT *Invited Speaker

The Management Plan for the Mohawk River Watershed was completed in 2015, funded by the New York Department of State under Title 11 of the Environmental Protection Fund. Preparation of the Plan was led by the Mohawk River Watershed Coalition of Conservation Districts (MRWC) in collaboration with members of the Mohawk River Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC). Key members of the WAC included NYS Department of State (NYSDOS), NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), U.S Geological Survey (USGS), NYS Canal Corporation, NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US Army Corps of Engineers, and numerous others. The Management Plan is available at the MRWC website, http://mohawkriver.org. An important component of the Management Plan was the use of a web-based geographic information system (GIS), known as the Mohawk River Watershed (MRW) Web Map (http://mohawkriver.stoneenv.net/ ), which played a significant role in the characterization of the Mohawk River Watershed and the prioritization of projects for protection and restoration. The developer of the MRW Web Map, Stone Environmental, expanded it with a secure, user updatable application that tracks implementation of watershed projects outlined and recommended in the management plan. Project information is updated and managed using a separate password-protected web GIS project tracking system by MRWC members. Watershed projects can be interactively created, updated, and viewable within the project tracking system and also instantly viewable in the public-facing Web Map. Watershed project details are stored and viewable at the sub-watershed scale and include information about the goals addressed, estimated timeline, estimated cost, potential funding sources, responsible party, and project status/progress, where available. The tracking of implementation projects is organized into three categories, watershed projects by strategy, goals, and progress. A key strategy of the Management Plan is to implement best management practices (BMP’s) to (a) restore and protect natural hydrology, (b) reduce erosion and sedimentation, (c) minimize pollution, and (d) protect and restore habitats. On the Web Map, implementation projects are grouped into these four components of the BMP strategy. Implementations of projects recommended by the Management Plan have been underway since 2014, at which point the Plan was substantially complete. As of the beginning of 2016, there are 12 projects funded by NYSDOS Title 11 EPF for $3.4 million, in addition to 22 active non-point source agricultural projects funded by NYS Dept. of Ag. & Markets for $9 million. This is a total of 34 projects for $12.4 million that support the Management Plan and are overseen by the MRWC Districts. Invited Presentation with a Poster

34


ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY TEAMS: A COMMUNITY BASED APPROACH TO LOCAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT SKILLS TRAINING THROUGHOUT THE MOHAWK RIVER BASIN John McKeeby and Scott Hadam Schoharie River Center, 2025 Burtonsville Road, Esperance, NY 12066, email: [email protected] The Schoharie River Center, Inc. (SRC), a not for profit Sites assessed by SRC EST 2014 – 2015 organization formed in 1999, located in Burtonsville (Montgomery County N.Y.), works to empower people to become actively engaged in the scientific study, monitoring, protection, and improvement of their local environment. We have developed and implemented Environmental Study Team (EST) youth programs, which specifically engage youth ages 13 – 18 years old, and teach them how to monitor and document their community’s environmental conditions. Focusing on watershed ecology through teaching youth the skills involved in stream monitoring and water quality assessment, the goal of these programs is to increase the understanding, and knowledge of the public as to the emergent environmental issues confronting them, and provide youth with the life skills and critical knowledge to make informed decisions and take responsible actions to protect and improve the quality of their local environment and the health and sustainability of their communities. Engaging youth in how to conduct scientific assessments of local water quality (including water chemistry, benthic-macro-invertebrate, coli form bacteria, and physical assessments), provide these youth with valuable experience and knowledge that not only promotes the values of stewardship and increased environmental literacy at the grass roots level, but also empowers and enables them to play a vital role in their community. Youth become aware of local conditions and engage in critical monitoring activities, and provide trained and motivated volunteer man-power for community based service activities such as streambank clean-ups, riparian area protection, restoration, and re-planting activities, invasive species monitoring and removal, and community education. The activities of the EST programs enable youth to integrate academic knowledge and skills taught in school with experiential based fieldwork activities (both ecological and cultural) that are the focus of the EST. A central theme is to understand how humans relate to and impact their natural environment (and how the environment has impacted and shaped their culture and way of life). To this end, in addition to assessing water quality, EST teams study and document local history and culture through activities such as community archeological programs, and oral history interviewing. Since 2013, the SRC EST program, along with a broad coalition of other community stakeholders in Schenectady, Schoharie, and Montgomery Counties, has developed and supported new EST groups in Fort Plain/Canajoharie, Amsterdam, Middleburg, Minekill State Park and in the city of Schenectady. Leveraging funding and grant support from a wide range of sources, including NYS DEC, NYS Council of the Arts, the United Way, county youth bureaus, private foundations and individual donors, has enabled the SRC to support each new EST chapter by providing on-site training, equipment, and coordinated field work experiences for EST youth. Each EST program meets year-round as a separate chapter, as well jointly with other chapters for special projects that may be occurring at one specific site (i.e., stream bank clean-up, riparian area planting, or joint hike or canoe/kayak trip). Since 2014 our EST programs have conducted water quality WAVE assessments at 44 sites throughout the Mohawk River Basin. All WAVE data is collected by youth and WAVE trained adult advisors and submitted to the NYS DEC WAVE coordinator. EST program youth also document and write up their research in rapid bio-assessment reports, which are presented (and published) both on-line and at conferences such as the Mohawk Watershed Symposium. Poster Presentation Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

35

THE NORTHEAST STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT 1

2

Karen Riva Murray1, James Coles2, and Peter Van Metre3

U.S. Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, NY U.S. Geological Survey, New England Water Science Center, Pembroke, NH 3 U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Water Science Center, Austin, TX

In 2016, the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) will be assessing stream quality in the Northeastern United States. The goal of the Northeast Stream Quality Assessment (NESQA) is to evaluate the quality of streams in the region by characterizing multiple water-quality constituents that are potential stressors to aquatic life, and to evaluate the relation between these stressors and biological communities. Objectives are to determine the status of stream quality (contaminants, nutrients, toxicity, sediment, flow, habitat, ecological communities) across the region, evaluate relations between stressors and ecological condition at sampled locations, evaluate relations between environmental settings and both measured stressors and ecological condition, and develop regional models and management tools to make spatially-explicit predictions of stressors and ecological responses. NESQA is the fourth Regional Stream Quality Assessment to be conducted since 2013. Ninety-five sites spanning urban and agricultural gradients across the region will be sampled in the summer of 2016, and 66 sites representing across a gradient of flow alteration in forested uplands were previously sampled in 2014 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: NAWQA sample sites in 2014.

NESQA sampling in 2016 will commence in June. Each site is either gaged for streamflow or will be monitored for water level, and will have hourly water temperature recorded by a thermistor. Water samples, collected weekly four to nine times, will be analyzed for pesticides, pharmaceuticals, organic waste indicators, nutrients, mercury, suspended sediment, and other constituents. Time-integrating Polar Organic Integrated Samplers (POCIS) will be deployed at all 95 sites. Benthic algal and macroinvertebrate community sampling, fish community surveys, habitat assessment, fish collection for mercury analysis, and bed sediment collection for contaminant analysis and toxicity testing will be conducted once at each site in August 2016. Special studies (at selected sites) include automated pesticide sampling, continuous nutrient monitoring, passive suspended sediment sampling, bed sediment polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons studies, and fish mercury isotope analysis. Findings will provide the public and policymakers with information regarding which human and environmental factors are the most critical in affecting stream quality and, thus, provide insights about possible approaches to protect or improve stream health across the region. Poster Presentation

36


NEW YORK STATE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD William Nechamen Chief, Floodplain Management Section New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY Overview In 2014, in response to recent extreme flooding in much of New York State, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA). The legislative purpose of the Act is to ensure that certain state monies, facility-siting regulations and permits include consideration of the effects of climate risk and extreme-weather events, specifically flooding, storm surge and sea-level rise. CRRA requires the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), in consultation with the Department of State (DOS), to prepare guidance on the implementation of CRRA, including but not limited to, available and relevant data sets, risk analysis tools and available data predicting the likelihood of future extreme weather events. The DEC Office of Climate Change (OCC) is leading an interagency effort to develop implementation guidance. This implementation guidance includes three topical guidance documents explicitly required by CRRA: • Consideration of sea-level rise, storm surge and flooding in smart growth assessments required by the State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (Environmental Conservation Law Article 6) as amended by CRRA • Use of natural resources and natural processes to enhance resiliency • Model local laws to enhance community resiliency As part of overall CRRA implementation, DEC is also preparing guidance for review of applications for bridge and culvert permits issued pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 15, Title 5. Further, DEC divisions and other state agencies responsible for implementation of programs enumerated in CRRA are expected to amend program-specific guidance to require that applicant demonstrate consideration of sea-level rise, storm surge and flooding. Foundational to development of all of the guidance prepared or amended pursuant to CRRA is a State Flood Risk Management Standard. DEC’s approach to CRRA implementation has been to develop a State Flood Risk Management Standard (SFRMS) that incorporates future conditions, including the greater risks of coastal flooding presented by sea-level rise and enhanced storm surge, and of inland flooding expected to result from increasing frequent extreme precipitation events. Current flood risk standards in the nation and the state primarily rely on the one percent annual chance flood. That is the flood that has a one percent or greater chance of being equaled or exceeded annually, usually referred to as the 100-year flood. The SFRMS would replace the 1% floodplain in programs covered by CRRA; associated guidance would be incorporated into both new guidance documents required by CRRA and program-specific guidance. A team led by DEC’s Division of Water, Bureau of Flood Protection and Dam Safety, and including representatives from various state agencies, including Department of State (DOS), Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES), and the Dormitory Authority (DASNY) developed the guidance. Support has also been provided by the New York State Floodplain and Stormwater Managers Association (NYSFSMA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Federal Flood Risk Management Standard New York State is developing the SFRMS in the context of changes to the federal flood risk standard. On January 28, 2015, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13690, which updates the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). This is the first update to the FFRMS since President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order 11988 in 1977. Both executive orders apply to federal investments in flood risk areas. The 2015 executive order update was made so federal investments consider future flood risk, including the effects of climate change. The interagency federal Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MITFLG) is charged with developing guidelines under that FFRMS. Because so many publicly funded projects in New York State also include federal funding, the federal Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

37

guidelines are being used to inform the development of The SFRMS and guidance. The Federal Executive Order redefines the floodplain for federal projects. Instead of the floodplain being based on the 1% annual chance flood, it is redefined as the floodplain resulting from: • The elevation and flood hazard area that results from using a climate-informed science approach that uses the best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science. This approach will also include an emphasis on whether the action is a critical action as one of the factors to be considered when conducting the analysis; • The elevation and flood hazard area that result from using the freeboard value, reached by adding an additional 2 feet to the base flood elevation for non-critical actions and by adding an additional 3 feet to the base flood elevation for critical actions; • The area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500-year flood); or • The elevation and flood hazard area that results from using any other method identified in an update to the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Federal agencies are required to update their procedures and regulations to utilize the standards above. However, there is no requirement regarding which standard to use. State Flood Risk Management Standard The purpose of the state guidance is to inform state agencies as they carry out the requirements of CRRA. The guidance may also be used to guide state actions not covered by CRRA, as well as to help local communities and the public to understand the risks to both public and private development from flooding under current conditions and under anticipated future conditions. The proposed New York SFRMS utilizes the federal guidance, but develops more specific recommendations for which standard to use based on location in tidal areas, riverine areas and large lake or Great Lakes areas. Guidance also considers the nature of development, from individual homes up to multimillion dollar developments and also critical infrastructure. The proposed guidance recommends utilizing the highest flood risk standard appropriate for the type and location of the proposed development as follows. The starting point for all standards are the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). However the FIRMs do not consider future conditions, and many FIRMs contain data that is decades old. In order to build for a higher flood risk, development in tidal areas is recommended to utilize the higher of the following: • The elevation and horizontal flood hazard area that results from adding two feet of freeboard (three feet for critical facilities) to the base flood elevation and extending this level to its intersection with the ground. • The elevation and area subject to flooding from the 0.2% annual chance flood. • The elevation and flood hazard area inundated by floodwaters during the local storm of record plus the medium sea-level rise projection for the 2080s, plus two feet of freeboard. • The elevation and flood hazard area that result from adding the medium sea-level rise projection for the 2080s plus two feet of freeboard to the base flood elevation. • For critical facilities, the sea level rise projection applicable for the full projected operation life of the facility, plus three feet of freeboard. In riverine areas, the United States Geological Survey has developed a Future Flow Explorer that can be used to estimate future peak flows in areas of New York north of New York City. For development in riverine areas, the higher of the following standards is recommended. • The elevation and horizontal flood hazard area that results from adding two feet of freeboard (three feet for critical facilities) to the base flood elevation and extending this level to its intersection with the ground. • The elevation and area subject to flooding from the 0.2% annual chance flood. • The elevation and flood hazard area inundated by floodwaters during the local storm of record plus two feet of freeboard. • For larger developments, including multi-family housing and large non-residential facilities, a climateinformed science approach utilizing the USGS Future Flow Explorer and a hydraulic analysis using the RCP 8.5 projection for 2050-2074.

38


• For critical facilities, a climate-informed science approach utilizing the USGS Future Flow Explorer and a hydraulic analysis using the RCP 8.5 projection applicable for the full expected operational life of the facility plus three feet of freeboard. For large lakes, including the Finger Lakes, Oneida Lake, Chautauqua Lake, Lake Champlain, Lake George and the Great Lakes, climate science does not yet indicate how long term trends in lake levels will contribute to flooding. For such lakes, all development is recommended to utilize the higher of the current base flood elevation plus two feet extended horizontally or three feet for critical facilities, or the 0.2% annual chance flood elevation. Changing Flood Risk Flood risk is always changing and not only due to climate change. Human-caused changes to our waterways and shorelines, and the very nature of development, change flood risk. Flood risk also changes naturally as rivers meander and natural dynamic shoreline processes take place. It is important to note the many ways in which flood risk continues to change. In spite of natural and human caused changes to flood risk, most flood risk programs depend on a static determination of the “100-year” floodplain, as depicted on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Flood maps are based on historic data and, due to limited federal budgets, are too infrequently updated. As we look to the future, the value of extrapolating historical experience as a guide to future conditions may become more limited. That is because climate change not only affects the average of future temperature and precipitation, but also the variation around the average. This is known as non-stationarity. Both flood and drought are measured at the extremes of hydrologic data. A wider variation around the average means that even if the average does not change significantly, the frequency and severity of large floods will increase. Applicability The SFRMS has potential applicability in a number of planning and regulatory programs: • The SFRMS will be directly incorporated into topical and program-specific guidance pursuant to CRRA. • The SFRMS could be voluntarily incorporated into state and local regulatory programs in which flooding is a concern but are not covered by CRRA and by funding programs. • Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 502 provides floodplain management criteria, including a definition of the flood hazard area as the area of 1% or greater annual chance of flooding, for state-constructed or state-financed projects. Although not required by CRRA, this regulation could be amended to incorporate the SFRMS. • DEC provides model language for local laws for flood damage protection. This model language provides for the minimum requirements for a community to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Communities may however adopt more protective standards, and DEC provides optional additional language for such standards. The SFRMS could be incorporated into the optional more protective standards for voluntary local adoption. • The State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (Uniform Code) includes a requirement that residential structure design include two-feet of freeboard above the base flood elevation (the water elevation resulting from a flood having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year). The Uniform Code could be amended to incorporate the SFRMS statewide (except New York City, which has its own building code), but this process is a lengthy one. Municipalities have options for adopting more restrictive local building codes, and DEC and DOS could develop guidance and model language to facilitate local adoption of the SFRMS. Notes: 1 Milly, P.C,D, J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R.M. Hirsch, Z.W. Kundzewicz, D.P. Lettenmaier, & R.J. Stouffrer, “Stationarity is dead: Whither Water Management,” Science, 319(5863): 573, 2008, as referenced in Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Soliciting an Considering Stakeholder Input, Appendix H: Climate-Informed Science Approach and Resources, 2015, P. 4.

Invited Presentation


39

QUANTIFYING EARLY ANTHROPOCENE LANDSCAPE CHANGE AND ITS EFFECTS ON WATERSHED PROCESSES IN SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND William Ouimet and Katharine Johnson Department of Geography and Center for Integrative Geosciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT One of the grand challenges facing scientists today is addressing how the earth’s surface will evolve in the ‘Anthropocene’ – where the Anthropocene is broadly defined as the recent period of geologic history characterized by drastic and widespread changes to Earth’s surface, ecosystems, landscape and climate by human activity (e.g., Steffen et al., 2007). Meeting this challenge requires detailed studies on past and present human interactions with earth surface processes over multiple spatial and temporal scales (Chin et al., 2013). The magnitude and intensity of human impacts and landscape changes associated with the Anthropocene vary regionally on a global scale, and thus assessing these impacts is crucial to distinguish markers of human-induced change from natural processes (Edwards, 2015; Water et al., 2016). In southern New England, humans began to inhabit the region following deglaciation, and were responsible for a range of measurable ecological changes throughout the Holocene (Cronon, 1983). Despite this, the most drastic human-induced geomorphic and ecological change occurred with the colonization of the region by Europeans in the 17th century. Colonization initiated nearly 200 years of deforestation and agricultural expansion in the 17th to early 20th centuries followed by a dramatic reduction in agriculture and forest regrowth (Cronon, 1983; Foster et al., 2008). Widely available Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data and associated 1m digital elevation models (DEMs) provide a vital tool for studying the type, extent and intensity of historic land use throughout the region, particularly in rural areas where historic features are obscured by forest canopy and preserved through lack of development (Figure 1).

Figure 1: A 30cm aerial image shows a forested landscape while a 1m hillshaded DEM derived from LiDAR data for the same area reveals polygons of stone wall lined fields, an old road, and a foundation with adjacent outbuilding walls. Together, the structures highlight the extent and complexity of an 18th to early 20th century farmstead that now lies abandoned and hidden under southern New England forests. Data sources: CTECO (imagery) and USDA NRCS (LiDAR).

The most prominent and widespread type of 17th to early-20th land use in southern New England was agriculture and pasture; with pasture occurring in steeper, rockier terrain throughout the region that today is seen as marginal and less productive for agriculture. English-style agriculture and pasture involved 40


widespread clearance of forest, ditching and draining of swamps, introduction of domesticated livestock, and planting of non-native crops and grasses (Cronon, 1983; Donahue, 2004). For hundreds of years, stones exposed at the surface due to soil erosion and deep frosts within rocky, glacial till-mantled hillslopes where agriculture and pasture continually occurred were built into walls that have become an iconic feature of this landscape. Within forested watersheds today stone walls serve as a direct indicator of the extent of historical cleared land for agriculture and pasture (Figure 1). Based on LiDAR mapping, we find that stone wall density and inferred soil modification varies significantly throughout the region. In one study of four rural towns in Connecticut, each of which contain >75% forest cover, stone walls are prevalent (~1,630 km over ~415 km2), but density ranges widely from 0-12 km/km2. Important controls on average density include surficial material (4.3 km/km2 on glacial till compared to 1.5 km/km2 on floodplain alluvium, swamp, and glacial melt-water and pond sediments) and pattern of settlement (~5.3 km/km2 on improved land). Maps of stone wall extent and density provide the foundation for understanding the overall impacts of historically cleared or plowed land on modern soils and forests in the region, such as contributing to the stoniness of the soil (Dincauze, 2004; Thorson, 2002), development of a thick A-horizon plow-zone, and affecting forest structure and location of specific types of species (Foster, 1992). Another prominent example of pre-20th century land use in southern New England was clearing forests for charcoal production. Though not as widespread as agriculture and pasture land use, charcoal production occurred in select regions of the northeast such as northwestern CT and adjacent MA and NY counties where iron mining and subsequent processing was dominant from the late 18th to late 19th century. Local production of charcoal in nearby forests by colliers was the dominant source of charcoal for blast furnaces, foundries, and small blacksmiths in the region until local sources were supplemented with charcoal from elsewhere in New England and anthracite from Pennsylvania (Gordon, 2001). One charcoal hearth required 25 to 35 cords of wood (typically from 1-2 acres of cleared forest) and produced 900-1200 bushels of charcoal (Straka, 2014). Today, direct evidence of historic charcoal production is extant throughout northwestern Connecticut in the form of relict charcoal hearths (RCHs) observed in LiDAR (Figure 2A). These flat circular platforms (typically 8-12 m in diameter) consist of a constructed soil platform sometimes reinforced with stones, and charcoal remains of mounds associated with charcoal production. To date, a regional analysis of a 1,170 km2 study area in northwestern Connecticut reveals at least 20,600 RCHs. In Goshen and Cornwall Connecticut, nearly 40% of the town was cleared solely for charcoal production, with mapped RCH areas displaying minimal evidence of stone walls and hence agriculture and pasture (Figure 3). The impacts of charcoal production on soil and forest ecosystems must be considered in watershed studies, such as increased stocks of soil organic carbon (SOC) and reduced plant growth (Mikan and Abrams, 1995).

Figure 2: Hillshaded LiDAR DEMs highlight hillslopes dotted with relict charcoal hearths (left) and gullies (right). Data source: USDA NRCS (LiDAR). Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

41

Figure 3: The emerging view of preserved historic land use and gullies from LiDAR analysis in Litchfield County, CT. Stone walls (RED lines), foundations (GREEN boxes), relict charcoal hearths (PURPLE circles) and erosional gullies (YELLOW lines).

Our emerging early Anthropocene view of southern New England is that of a patchwork of historic land use (agriculture and pasture from stone walls; charcoal production from RCHs; Figure 3) such that forested watersheds throughout New England today should be assumed to have been 70-100 % cleared at some point prior to the 20th century. One of the by products of land clearing is soil degradation, increased runoff, gully erosion and sedimentation downstream (e.g., Trimble, 1985). LiDAR mapping in northwestern Connecticut reveals the prevalence of gullies throughout the landscape (Figure 3). A sub-set of these gullies appears to originate from stone wall lined fields and it is suspected that these were initiated directly by Anthropocene activities (Figure 2B). Soil erosion and sediment mobilization are well-documented in 19th century accounts, and associated legacy sediments have been particularly well documented in the southeastern Piedmont and mid-Atlantic U.S. regions behind historic small mill dams (Walter and Merritts, 2008; Merritts et al., 2011; Thorson et al., 1998). Though there are a multitude of small mill dams left behind from European settlement and identified throughout our Connecticut study areas with LiDAR mapping, historic sedimentation rates behind mill dams do not appear to have been as high as in the mid-Atlantic. The interactions between human activity and earth surface processes such as land-use change, gully erosion and legacy sediment are likely to be much different in landscapes such as New England where the legacy of previous glaciation includes complex grain size variations throughout watersheds, river fragmentation including wetlands, and varied bedrock/alluvial rivers (Thorson et al., 1998). Furthermore, in New England many 18th and 19th century lots in riparian zones were laid out perpendicular to streams, resulting in blockages from fences, roads, and walls. These processes would further segment streams, in addition to well-known mill dams, trapping legacy sediment. Overall, quantifying human impacts that characterize the Anthropocene serves as a benchmark for understanding human activities in the context of natural processes and Holocene landscape evolution. It is crucial to realize that in the northeastern US the Anthropocene changes associated with the late 20th and 21st centuries (particular changes in climate and run off) occur within a landscape that experienced significant changes starting in the late 17th century. The physical landscape influenced the magnitude and patterns of Anthropocene land use, and in turn land use impacted soil erosion, runoff generation, sediment mobilization, the distribution of legacy sediment, and forest regrowth. Understanding these feedbacks is integral in understanding the modern southern New England landscape and its future. The importance of 42


legacy sediment and the interaction between glacial history and human impacts will come to the forefront in the coming century as Southern New England is poised for continued land-use change and increased flooding in response to 21st century climate change. Catastrophic flooding during Hurricane Irene, in 2011, carried specific signatures of upland sediment in the flood waters, yet those sources are largely unstudied (Yellen et al., 2014). The lasting impact of legacy sediment and the eroded glacial history of New England rivers will also be expressed in river restoration and dam removal efforts underway throughout the region (e.g., Burchsted et al., 2010; Gartner et al., 2014). References: Burchsted, D., Daniels, M., Thorson, R., and Vokoun, J., 2010, The River Discontinuum: Applying Beaver Modifications to Baseline Conditions for Restoration of Forested Headwaters. Bioscience, 60(11), 908-922. Chin, A., Fu, R., Harbor, J., Taylor, M. and Vanacker, V., 2013, Anthropocene: Human interactions with earth systems, Anthropocene 1, 1-2. Cronon, W., 1983. Changes in the Land. Hill and Wang: New York. Dincauze, D.F., 2004. Yankee Walls. Rev. Archaeology. 25, 10–13. Donahue, B., 2004. The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial Concord. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Edwards, L. E. (2015), What is the Anthropocene?, Eos, 96, doi:10.1029/2015EO040297 Foster, D. R., 1992. Land-use history (1730-1990) and vegetation dynamics in Central New England, USA. Journal of Ecology 80 (4), 753–771. Foster, D. R., Donahue, B., Kittredge, D., Motzkin, G., Hall, B., Turner, B., and Chilton, E., 2008. New England’s forest landscape: ecological legacies and conservation patterns shaped by agrarian history. In Agrarian Landscapes in Transition: Comparisons of Long-Term Ecological & Cultural Change, eds. C. R. Redman and D. R. Foster, 44–88. New York: Oxford University Press. Gartner, J.D., Magilligan, F.J. and Renshaw, C.E., 2015. Predicting the type, location and magnitude of geomorphic responses to dam removal: Role of hydrologic and geomorphic constraints. Geomorphology, 251, pp.20-30. Gordon, R.B. (2001). A landscape transformed the ironmaking district of Salisbury, Connecticut. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merritts, D., Walter, R., Rahnis, M., Hartranft, J., Cox, S., Gellis, A., Potter, N., Hilgartner, W., Langland, M., Manion, L., Lippincott, C., Siddiqui, S., Rehman, Z., Scheid, C., Kratz, L., Shilling, A., Jenschke, M., Datin, K., Cranmer, E., Reed, A., Matuszewski, D., Voli, M., Ohlson, E., Neugebauer, A., Ahamed, A., Neal, C., Winter, A., and Becker, S., 2011. Anthropocene streams and base-level controls from historic dams in the unglaciated mid-Atlantic region, USA. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369(1938), 976–1009. Mikan, C. J., and Abrams, M. D., 1995. Altered forest composition and soil properties of historic charcoal hearths in southeastern Pennsylvania. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25 (5), 687–696. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., and McNeill, J. R., 2007. The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(8), 614-621. Straka, T. (2014). Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters. Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. Thorson, R. M., Harris, A. G., Harris, S. L., Gradie, R., and Lefor, M. W., 1998. Colonial impacts to wetlands in Lebanon, Connecticut. Reviews in Engineering Geology 12, 23-42. Thorson, R., 2002. Stone by stone: the magnificent history in New England’s stone walls. New York: Walker & Company. Trimble, S.W., 1985. Perspectives on the History of Soil Erosion Control in the Eastern United States. Agricultural History 59(2), 162-180. Walter, R.C., and Merritts, D.J., 2008. Natural Streams and the Legacy of Water-Powered Mills. Science 319(5861), 299–304. Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A.D., Poirier, C., Gałuszka, A., Cearreta, A., Edgeworth, M., Ellis, E.C., Ellis, M. and Jeandel, C., 2016. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science, 351(6269), p2622. Yellen, B., Woodruff, J.D., Kratz, L.N., Mabee, S.B., Morrison, J. and Martini, A.M., 2014. Source, conveyance and fate of suspended sediments following Hurricane Irene. New England, USA. Geomorphology, 226, pp.124134.

Invited Presentation


43

RAPID BIOASSESMENT OF COBLESKILL CREEK PRIOR TO STREAM RESTORATION EFFORTS: ESTABLISHING A REFERENCE REACH TO MONITOR THE RECOVERY OF STREAM BIOTIC INTEGRITY Giovanni Pambianchi, Robin LaRochelle and Carmen Greenwood Department of Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Sciences, SUNY Cobleskill, NY In early fall 2011 Cobleskill Creek and its associated tributaries were severely impacted by Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, causing record levels of flooding throughout New York State. A 500 -meter section of Cobleskill Creek adjacent to the SUNY Cobleskill campus and farm in Schoharie Co. experienced channel widening caused by floodwaters. Flooding caused elimination of riparian buffers and eroding banks, and increased the potential for nutrient runoff to enter the stream. With funding from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a channelization project is slated to begin in the spring of 2016. This project will establish a central channel in the 500-meter section of the stream and provide for the implementation of riparian buffers. The goal of this study was to establish a reference reach to monitor recovery of the biotic integrity of the creek following the restoration. Rapid Bioassessment was conducted at 2 locations: upstream and downstream of the proposed restoration site on Cobleskill Creek. A 100-meter stretch was measured at both locations and was characterized by the physical parameters of each site including stream flow, velocity, and width. Macroinvertebrates were sampled from the upstream and downstream sites on 3, 15, 25 Oct 2015, 24 Nov 2015, and 12 Jan 2016. Rapid Bioassessment protocol (described by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) was conducted at both study sites using a Surber Sampler. A 100-organism subsample was taken from each sampling event. Invertebrates were identified to the family level, enumerated and analyzed. Indices of diversity and biotic integrity were applied to samples from both sites for comparison. Student’s t-tests concluded that there were no statistical differences between the upstream and downstream sites in Shannon’s diversity index (p>0.05), Simpsons diversity index (p>0.05) and evenness (Modified Hill’s Ratio) (p> 0.05). Hillsenhoffs biotic index showed no significant difference between the two sites (p>0.05) as well as showing both sites have good biotic integrity. The similarity between the upstream and downstream sites indicates that the upstream site will in fact serve as a viable reference reach to monitor the recovery of the biotic integrity of Cobleskill Creek following the ecological restoration event. Poster Presentation

44


FLOODING OF THE MOHAWK RIVER AT LOCK 12 IN FORT HUNTER, NY, DURING HURRICANE IRENE (AUGUST 28-29TH, 2011) A. Sisti, E. Combs, and A.E. Marsellos Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability, Hostra University, Hempstead, NY Introduction The Mohawk River in Upstate New York has been subjected to several floods throughout history. Between August 28-29th, 2011, the Hurricane Irene, which had passed through the Albany-Schenectady region caused of a great deal of flood-related damages throughout the New York State. This study will take a closer look at the extent of the flooding caused by this storm in Fort Hunter, NY, a small town situated along the Mohawk River, which is notorious for its frequent flooding. While previous work has examined Mohawk River’s floods and its tendency to flood on a regular basis (Johnston, 2001), no previous work has been done in this town which utilizes high resolution spatial data (e.g. LiDAR) in conjunction with GPS and GIS software to reconstruct a previous flood event along a 6 km Mohawk River’s river segment which crosses Fort Hunter area. The goal of this study is to reconstruct the water flood level and to evaluate the damages of a previous flood. Methodology Figure 1: Study area of Lock Station 12 at Fort Hunter, NY with A laboratory and fieldwork method was image locations of the flooding. used to determine various elevations at the flooded study area. A laboratory methodology was used to determine the water level of the flood and the geographic locations of the available pictures depicting the water level of the flood. Ten pictures of the flooding were found in the Internet and other scenes were extracted from YouTube video files documenting the flood event. Google Earth was used to determine the geographic locations of the pictures (Fig. 1) at the study area. The georeferenced points were imported into GIS software. Using the Global Mapper program and the available pictures the elevations of the water level were extracted showing the water level of the flood. A fieldwork methodology was followed using a GPS high accuracy survey (Fig. 2) in order to determine accurate elevations of the flood. GPS points were collected of the flood, and some erroneous positions were discarded from the GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) session and subsequent differential correction. Multiple GPS points were collected for each image (Fig. 1). Points were also obtained along a line to create a short topographic section. This section was used to correlate the GPS corrected elevation data with those derived from the LiDAR DEM (Digital Elevation Model). The pictures georeferenced location was digitized and imported into the GIS software. A high-resolution satellite imagery of the study area was also imported as an overlay image in conjunction with the high resolution LiDAR DEM in order to simulate the flood in 3D mode of the study area. The digital elevation model utilized all LiIDAR points with tight constraints to create a DTM (Digital Terrain Model) with a minimum elevation to avoid pseudo structures such as trees showing as buildings. A DSM was avoided for the above reason. This procedure has facilitated the flood reconstruction and visualization of the flooded structures. Visiting the study area has allowed us to GPS survey and obtain accurate elevation data by differentially corrected using a GPS reference station (CORS: Continuously Operating Reference Station) from a less than 100 km radius. A transect profile was also made to compare the GPS corrected data with the LiDAR data for the locations at Lock 12, which is where most of the locations are in Figure 1.


45

Figure 2: Lock Station 12 with image of location 5ac where there is no flooding, image of the flooding occurring at that point, aerial view of flood point and 3D simulated flood model of the image.

A flood modeling using a flow simulation has taken place to map the flooded areas at 86.35 m. This elevation was chosen as the maximum obtained elevation from the GPS survey that approaches the peak water level of the flood. A value of 0.5 m of depth has been assigned to fill depressions in the terrain data and facilitate the flow network construction for the flow modeling. The water flow simulation has been set up to initiate from the Mohawk River’s surface under normal flow conditions. Results The simulated water elevation is based on the reference images used for this study and the determined elevations are cited in Table 1. A high level of accuracy (±0.1m) was obtained from the laboratory and fieldwork data analysis. The high resolution of the LiDAR imagery was able to depict various structures and high water marks of the flood, which aided in determining the elevation of the water levels at the various points. The maximum water level elevation was determined to be 86.80 m (±0.1m).

Figure 3: Reconstruction of flood using LiDAR data

The 3D reconstruction model of the flood constructed in Global Mapper has provided an accurate simulation of the flood levels using the LiDAR DEM. The 3D reconstructions and water flood simulations provided a no more than ±0.1 m error of the flood water levels given the reference images that were used. High water marks located or captured by the pictures on flooded structures facilitated the water flood level determination. Marks were located on various structures included but not limited to fences, brick walls, carbs, streets, house doors or windows and other structures. This is illustrated in Figure 2, where the same location (5ac) is viewed at the time of the flood, time of the GPS survey, and the 3D LiDAR DEM reconstruction of the flooded scene. By taking the GPS maximum elevation value that is the 86.35 m and establishing the flow river network and flood modeling a complete reconstruction of the flood’s boundaries were created (Fig. 3). 46


Table 1: Coordinates/locations of all data points and results from LiDAR simulation and GPS measurements.

The GPS corrected elevation data were collected at these same points where picture locations were georeferenced (Fig. 3 and Table 1). The locations at Lock 12 indicate the flood boundary on that side of the river. Location 9ac is used to indicate the flood boundary at Brown Place, on the opposite bank of Lock 12. Figures 4a and 4b indicate error seen between the GPS elevation data and the LiDAR simulated flood.

Figure 4: A. (Left) Comparison of GPS and LiDAR vertical accuracy. Large spikes in LiDAR data represent buildings/structures found on this transect. The LiDAR error is not shown on the graph because the error is too small to be seen properly. The error for the LiDAR is ± .20m. B. (Right) Transect at Lock 12 to extract the LiDAR elevation data from the DEM.

Discussion This study focused on a small region, especially with regards to the LiDAR flood simulations. This allowed for a high level of accuracy. The lab simulation and GPS survey methods show that these methods are capable of producing results with a high level of precision and accuracy on simulating a flood event remotely or visiting the study area. By having reference images, which show water levels during the flood, multiple methods can be utilized for an accurate reconstruction of the past floods. The LiDAR flood analysis method produced an error of ±0.1m. This is a high enough level of accuracy and allows for a proper reconstruction of past floods. By comparing the LiDAR to the GPS elevation data that were collected, the results were able to be cross-referenced in order to determine their accuracy. Conclusion Floods can be observed using laboratory simulation techniques without requiring visits the flood site. This means that being able to look at past floods and analyze them with accuracy and precision can assess a greater evaluation of a flood event in this region. By having a better understanding of how increased water elevations interact with the topographic anaglyph of this region, measures can be taken to prevent the spread and severity of floodwaters in Fort Hunter, NY, as well as in other places along the Mohawk River. References Johnston, Sarah A., and John I. Garver. "Record of Flooding on the Mohawk River from 1634 to 2000 Based on Historical Archives."Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 33.1 (2001): 73. GeoRef. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. "AFTERMATH OF HURRICANE IRENE MOHAWK RIVER LOCK 12." YouTube. YouTube, 30 Aug. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Poster Presentation Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016

47

MICROPLASTIC POLLUTION IN THE MOHAWK AND HUDSON WATERSHEDS Jacqueline A. Smith Department of Physical and Biological Sciences, The College of Saint Rose, Albany, NY Microplastics are commonly defined as plastic particles less than 5 mm in diameter, whether deliberately manufactured to be that size or resulting from the fragmentation or erosion of larger pieces of plastic. Personal care products such as facial scrubs and whitening toothpastes commonly rely on tiny particles of plastic and/or plastic beads for their abrasive properties. With diameters of