Content uploaded by John I Garver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John I Garver on Mar 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by John I Garver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John I Garver on Mar 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by John I Garver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John I Garver on Mar 10, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mohawk Watershed
Symposium 2016
Abstracts and Program
College Park Hall, Union College
Schenectady NY
18 March 2016
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
i
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
!"#$%&'()*+,-"%./)&",0*
1*2345*67"8"'$*97#/%).7,):*;,&",*!"887'7:*<=(7,7=)/>$*?@A@*42B3CDB43E@*F88*%&'()G*%7G7%H7>@*?"*#/%)*"-*)(7*>"=I.7,)*=/,*J7*
="#&7>* /,>K"%* %7>&G)%&JI)7>:* 787=)%",&=/88$* "%* ")(7%L&G7:* L&)("I)* L%&))7,* #7%.&GG&",* -%".* )(7* 67"8"'$* 97#/%).7,):* ;,&",*
!"887'7:*<=(7,7=)/>$*?A:*42B3CD2B44:*;<F@*
*
*
+<M?0*NECD4DNBNN5CD3EDO*
*
*
*
*
9&'&)/8* H7%G&",* "-* PQ<* 2345*/JG)%/=)* H"8I.7* /H/&8/J87* /G* /* -%77* R9S* >"L,8"/>* -"%./)* -%".*)(7* ./&,* P"(/LT* Q/)7%G(7>*
<$.#"G&I.*L7JG&)7:*I,>7%*)(7*2345*G$.#"G&I.*8&,T0
())#0KK.&,7%H/@I,&",@7>IK'/%H7%UK.LGK.LG@().8*
*
*
*
*
*
Suggested(Citation:(
!"=TJI%,:*V@P@W@*/,>*6/%H7%:*V@+@:*2345@**R%"=77>&,'G*"-*)(7*2345*P"(/LT*Q/)7%G(7>*<$.#"G&I.:*;,&",*!"887'7:*<=(7,7=)/>$:*
?A:*P/%=(*4C:*2345:*X"8I.7*C:*5C*#/'7G*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Y,* )(7* ="H7%0*Z(7* M8I7J/=T*W7%%&,'* [Alosa& Aestivalis\@* * Z(7* J8I7J/=T* (7%%&,'* "%* J8I7J/=T* G(/>* %/,'7G* -%".* ? "H/* <=")&/* )"*
S8"%&>/:* /,>* &G* ="..",* &,* )(7* WI>G",* /,>* 8"L7%* P"(/LT* %&H7%G@* Z(&G* -&G(* &G* /,/>%"."IG:* .7/,&,'* &)* 8&H7G*&,* )(7* ./%&,7*
7,H&%",.7,)*/,>*.&'%/)7G*&,*)(7*G#%&,'*L(7,*&)*G#/L,G*&,*-%7G(L/)7%*%&H7%G@**F-)7%*G#/L,&,'*)(7* GI%H&H&,'*G#7,)*-&G(*.&'%/)7*
J/=T*)"*)(7*G7/*/,>*$"I,'*-&G(*-"88"L*)(&G*.&'%/)&",*%"I)7*",=7*)(7$*/%7*/J"I)* /*.",)(*"8>@***Z(7*="H7%*>%/L&,'*L/G*#%7#/%7>*
J$* ]887,* ]>.",G",* /,>* WI'(* !(%&G#* /G* #/%)*"-* )(7* 4N2ED4NO3* ?7L* A"%T* M&"8"'&=/8* <I%H7$* =",>I=)7>* J$* )(7* !",G7%H/)&",*
97#/%).7,)*[)(7*#%7>7=7GG"%*)"*)(7*?7L*A"%T*<)/)7*97#/%).7,)*"-*],H&%",.7,)/8*!",G7%H/)&",\@*R7%.&GG&",*-"%*IG7*"-*&./'7*
&G*'%/,)7>*J$*?A*<)/)7*97#/%).7,)*"-*],H&%",.7,)/8*!",G7%H/)&",@*
*
*
* *
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
ii
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 Jaclyn Cockburn
Union College 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
iii
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.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
iv
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
Jackie Cockburn, MWS Co-Chair, University of Guelph
9:00 AM 9:26 AM
New York State Flood Risk Management Standard (invited)
William Nechamen, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany NY
9:26 AM 9:41 AM
Flood of January 19-20, 1996: 20 Years Later
Britt E. Westergard, NOAA/National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office, Albany, NY
9:41 AM 9:56 AM
Bald Eagles and the Mohawk: Video captures the Watershed
Mike Lemery, Filmaker, Schenectady, NY
9:56 AM 10:22 AM
Quantifying Early Anthropocene Landscape Change and its Effects on Watershed Processes in southern New
England (invited)
William Ouimet, Geology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
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?
Ashraf M. Ghaly, Department of Engineering, Union College, Schenectady, NY
2:14 PM 2:40 PM
Retrospection and Anticipation: The Evolution of Citizen Action in the Schoharie/Mohawk Watershed (invited)
Howard Bartholomew, President Dam Concerned Citizens
2:40 PM 3:06 PM
The Barge Canal: Why Was It Built and What It Did (invited)
Simon Litten, Environmental Consultant
3:06 PM 3:21 PM
Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan Update (invited)
Pete Nichols, Chairman, Mohawk River Watershed Coalition
3:21 PM 4:06 PM
COFFEE and POSTERS (see below for listing)
4:06 PM 4:32 PM
Mohawk River Water Quality Snapshot: 121 Miles in 24 Hours (invited)
Dan Shapley, Water Quality Program Manager, Hudson Riverkeeper
4:32 PM 4:52 PM
What’s ‘Out of Sight’ Cannot be ‘Out of Mind' (Plenary Address)
Congressman Paul Tonko, 20th District of New York
4:52 PM 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
5:12 PM 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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
v
Poster session (all day)
P1
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
P2
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
James E. Duggan, Consultant (retired registered architect/urban planner)
P4
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.
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
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
P11
Implementation of the Mohawk River Watershed Management Plan
Win McIntyre, Katie Budreski, and Pete Nichols*, Mohawk River Watershed Coalition
P12
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
P13
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
P14
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
P15
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
P16
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
P17
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.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
vi
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.
1http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130116163545.htm
2http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/let-the-susquehanna-river-run-wild.html?_r=0
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
vii
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 long-
standing 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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
viii
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*
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
ix
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*
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
x
NOTES:
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
1
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. RS-
230 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
2
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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
3
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 side-
channel 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
4
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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
5
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 Blenheim-
Gilboa 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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
6
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,
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).
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
7
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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
8
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
were obtained from Google and then ten geographic
locations were inferred and mapped on ArcGIS (Fig. 1).
The pictures correspond to locations that range in an area
from 15 Herkimer St., Fort Plain, NY 13339, to Lock 15,
which is southeast of the starting point, to 12 Abbott St.,
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 3D-
LiDAR 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
Figure 1: An aerial view of the study area (from
ArcGIS) showing the locations of the obtained
pictures from Google. The figure shows the
study area with a black polygon, the Mohawk
River with a red polyline, and the GPS points
gathered in the field.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
9
resolution and very erroneous results and for this reason any results were disregarded. The existing Air-
LiDAR 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.
No. Address Latitude Longitude
GPS
Data
(MSL)
Simulation
& Pictures
Simulation
Estimated
Error
GPS
Uncorr.
Horiz.
GPS
Cor.
Horiz.
GPS
Uncorr.
Vert.
GPS
Cor.
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
Coordinates
Elevation (meters)
Accuracy (meters)
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
10
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://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1063/pdf/ofr2009-1063.pdf>.
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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
11
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 11-
miles “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 dis-
charge 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
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
Figure 1: Flat-water pools in the Mohawk River.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
12
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 runoff-
overflows’ 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 turbine-
operations 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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
13
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 runoff-
surface 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.
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.
Decrease
(cfs) (%)
Elevation
(feet)
Rise
(feet)
Step
(feet)
(%)
Elevation
(feet)
Rise
(feet)
Step
(feet)
(%) (feet)
"Normal" ~2,000 -209.3 - - - 209.3 - - - -
11-Jun-13 70,000 - - - - - ?
"10-Ye ar" 86,500 -228.0 18.7 - - 225.0 15.7 - - -3.0
"50-Year" 116,000 +34% 230.7 21.4 2.7 14.4 229.0 19.7 4.0 25.5 -1.7
"100-Year" 126,500 +46% 232.0 22.7 4.0 21.4 230.5 21.2 5.5 35.0 -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
Runoff
Lock 8 Dam (open)
Western Gateway Bridge
Near bank-height at Riverside Park
Volume
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
14
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 reservoir-
pool’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 “100-
Year” 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 runoff-
surface 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.
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, flow-
velocities, 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
Figure 4: Obermeyer gate system at the Gilboa Dam.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
15
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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
16
RESPONSE OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES TO SEASONAL DRAWDOWNS IN
SECTIONS OF THE MOHAWK RIVER-BARGE CANAL SYSTEM
Scott George1, Barry Baldigo1, and Scott Wells2
1United States Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, NY
2New 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 flow-
management 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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
17
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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
18
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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
19
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
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 gonado-
somatic 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
and Zn). We will also use
the multi-collector LA-
ICPMS 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
Blueback Herring
Otolith
Electro-fishing
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
20
MONITORING THE HUDSON AND BEYOND WITH HRECOS:
THE HUDSON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OBSERVING SYSTEM
Gavin M. Lemley1 and Alexander J. Smith2
1HRECOS Coordinator, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation,
Hudson River Estuary Program/NEIWPCC, Albany, NY;
2Mohawk 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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
21
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.
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.
Figure 1: Aerial image of study area in Schenectady,
New York, with test sites labeled.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
22
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.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
23
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-a4f5-4619-8b3a-
9c8f1f60bb40%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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
24
THE BARGE CANAL: WHY IT WAS BUILT AND WHAT IT DID
Simon Litten
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Retired, slitten@nycap.rr.com
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.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
25
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 non-
industrial 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
26
Notes:
1Annual 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
2The 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/thruwayauthauditsumrecomactions01-25-
08.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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
27
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
1Riverkeeper Water Quality Program
2Department 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
sampling. Most sites were
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;
Press document Riverkeeper patrol boat Capt. John Lipscomb as he processes a
sample of Mohawk River water (Photo by Dan Shapley/Riverkeeper).
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
28
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/wp-
content/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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
29
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
1Riverkeeper Water Quality Program
2Department of Natural Sciences & Math, SUNY Cobleskill, NY
3Fisheries & 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
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2016 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March, 18, 2016
30
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.
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 stream-
road 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