Content uploaded by John I Garver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John I Garver on Mar 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mohawk Watershed
Symposium 2018
Abstracts and Program
College Park Hall, Union College
Schenectady NY
23 March 2018
i
Mohawk Watershed Symposium
2018
Abstracts and Program
College Park Hall
Union College
Schenectady, NY
23 March 2018
Edited by
J.M.H. Cockburn and J.I. Garver
Copyright Information:
© 2018 Geology Department, Union College, Schenectady NY. All rights reserved. No part of the
document can be copied and/or redistributed, electronically or otherwise, without written permission from
the Geology Department, Union College, Schenectady NY, 12308, U.S.A.
ISBN: 978-1-939968-17-3
Digital version of MWS 2018 abstract volume available as a free PDF download format from the main
Mohawk Watershed Symposium website, under the 2018 symposium link:
http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mws/mws.html
Suggested Citation:
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union
College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, Volume 10, 77 pages.
On the cover:
A mid-winter thaw in January 2018 resulted in ice jams across the Northeast. Following a cold start to the
winter, the Mohawk broke up after heavy rain and warm temperatures, with water levels rising on 13
January 2018. This initial breakup on the Mohawk River was incomplete, and a 12-mile long ice jam
lodged in the Rexford Knolls, and backed up ice was in the main channel past the historic Stockade district
in Schenectady. This initial ice jam that formed in the lower Mohawk River would later become 17 miles
long in late January and ranked at the top of all ice jams in the State for emergency management. This
jam would eventually break on 22 February having resided in the channel for over a month.
This photograph was taken in Riverside Park in the low-lying Stockade district of Schenectady. The view
in the image is looking up river to the west at the setting sun late in the afternoon on 14 January. When the
jam was emplaced, blockage at crest caused relatively high water at about midnight, and plunging
temperatures in the early morning allowed this water to freeze. Following the crest, water levels slowly
dropped by ~12 inches, so here we see recent thin ice, which collapsed, and the ice jam in the main channel
is seen in the distance.
Photo: John Garver, Union College (14 January 2018).
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
ii
Preface
This is the 10th Mohawk Watershed Symposium, and the meeting continues to serve as a
focal point for concerned and invested stakeholders. It helps to keep all involved
informed about important issues that affect water quality, recreation opportunities,
hazards and other developments in the basin.
The flood hazard remains an important issue in the basin, especially for those river-
lining communities along the Mohawk and its tributaries. Identification of the hazards,
monitoring, and solutions to chronically flooded areas are a top priority for many
stakeholders. Monitoring physical parameters in the River by HRECOS, the USGS Ice
Jam monitoring system, and others play an important role in understanding and
modelling physical aspects of the river. Modelling is becoming important as we try to
understand floods, flooding, and associated hazards.
The Northeast and NY State had a major ice jam problem this winter. The lower
Mohawk River was affected by an historic ice jam and ice jam flooding that occupied
considerable time and resources for emergency management. A mid-winter jam formed
in mid January, and subsequent thaw in late January released upstream ice and
lengthened the jam to 17 miles. A thaw in late February resulted in high water, flooding,
and release of the ice. Once again, the lower parts of the historic Stockade district were
flooded, and the event triggered new calls for ways to address this chronic problem. This
event solidified monitoring and assessment efforts by the local county emergency
management (mainly Albany, Schenectady, and Montgomery), the USGS, NOAA/NWS,
FEMA, and academia.
Water quality remains a central issue in the Watershed. USGS and NYSDEC have been
working to develop a Water Quality Model for the Mohawk, which will be presented at
this year’s meeting. A critical component of understanding water quality is data from
hundreds of measurements across the watershed. Researchers from SUNY Cobleskill,
SUNY Polytechnic Institute in Utica, Union, Cornell, the Schoharie River Center, and
Riverkeeper have had a busy year collecting and analyzing samples that address water
quality issues in the main stem of the Mohawk, and its tributaries. These critical
measurements include quantifying the distribution, source, and fate of environmental
contaminants including fecal bacterial, microplastics, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other
compounds that affect water quality. We are seeing exciting new research on the
identification and quantification of micropollutants, and these new analytical approaches
will provide important information on subtle and unrecognized sources of environmental
contamination in the basin.
The Mohawk River is one of the largest sources of drinking water in the Capital District,
and for nearly 100,000 people in Colonie and Cohoes. Despite the importance of this
critical source, we lack a source water protection program, and Riverkeeper will present
ideas and approaches from tributaries in the Hudson that may serve as a model for the
Mohawk.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
iii
Increasingly we look to the river for inspiration, recreation, and this can have a direct
impact on community focus and economic development, and we can predict that this
river-centric view will increase as water quality improves. As such, we face some issues
related to connecting communities to the river, while recognizing that water quality and
flooding guide fundamental decisions. Conservation and ecosystem protection remains a
central priority to effective watershed management. We are seeing new plans for
identification of priority areas, and specific approaches to ecosystem management that
directly affects water quality.
On to the future. The next generation continues to be very active in the Mohawk and its
tributaries, and once again we are pleased that so many students can be part of the annual
Mohawk Watershed Symposium. The Schoharie River Center (SRC) continues to have a
focus on water quality assessment, and initiated a new program for microplastic
collection and identification. The Fort Plain environmental study team, an SRC partner,
continues to focus on community-based science primarily focussed on water quality, and
education of high school youth.
We are getting a new Action Agenda in the watershed – our guiding blueprint for
watershed management - and we need your help. In 2009, the first Mohawk River Basin
Action Agenda was developed by the NYSDEC and partners with five main goals that
focused on an ecosystem-based approach to watershed management. This guiding
document has provided important targets for stakeholders over the last decade. The
vision behind the 2018-22 Action Agenda will be presented at this meeting. It will focus
on the goal of a swimmable, fishable, resilient Mohawk River watershed that will be
addressed through three main objectives: a) improve water quality; b) improve fisheries
and habitat; and c) plan for resiliency. There will be a public comment period for this
new plan, so you as a stakeholder should take the time to make your voice heard.
Ten years of success. Today we celebrate a decade of consecutive meetings that have
brought stakeholders together in this Symposium. This year’s meeting features 29
presentations to shape the discussion and continue the conversation about issues within
the basin. We continue to see new ideas, many of them presented by students from a
number of different educational institutions, this growth in student participation is both
exciting, and a welcome sign of continued progress. By the end of the day, the Mohawk
Watershed Symposium series will have been the forum for 310 talks, posters, and special
presentations since inception in 2009.
It takes a community to make this happen and we are delighted to see so many familiar
names and we welcome those new to the Mohawk Watershed Symposium.
Enjoy the day.
J.M.H. Cockburn, Univ. of Guelph
J.I Garver, Union College
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
iv
Major Financial Support for MWS 2018
Major Financial support for MWS
2018 was provided by the New York
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.
Riverkeeper’s mission is to protect the environmental, recreational and commercial
integrity of the Hudson River and its tributaries. Visit the webpage to learn more:
Riverkeeper.org
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
v
Robert H. Boyle (1928-2017)
Last year we lost a friend, advocate, and ardent supporter
of the MWS series. Bob cared deeply about NY
waterways, and he had a special attachment to the Hudson
and Mohawk. In the 1960s a group led by Bob were
determined to reverse the decline of the Hudson River by
taking on polluters using the Federal Refuse Act of 1899.
His 1969 book entitled “The Hudson River and Natural
and unnatural history” is regarded the definitive book on
the Hudson River and some of the most important
environmental victories in the history of America. If you
are a stakeholder in the Hudson-Mohawk watershed, this
is required reading. In 1970 he was the first to recognize
that PCB contamination in fishes in North American, including five Striped Bass that he
caught in the Hudson, and this finding was published in an article entitled Poison Roams
our Coastal Seas, which appeared in Sport Illustrated. Bob was the founder of
Riverkeeper and the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research.
He received numerous awards and honors in his decades of work, including being named
one of the 100 Champions of Conservation for the 20th century by Audubon Magazine.
Bob has made a major impact in the Mohawk Watershed. He was instrumental in getting
the MWS series started. He was the first keynote speaker of the MWS series in 2009, and
in this address he noted that science and the law are needed to protect the natural
resources of the watershed from predatory interests. This address was entitled Drums
and Bums Along the Mohawk and it addressed past mishaps, and futures threats to the
River and the watershed. Bob was involved with the controversy in the West Canada
Creek that surrounded water use and riparian rights. He was concerned about energy and
water issues in the basin including the large-volume hydrofracking for shale gas
development, and out-of-basin water transfer. He was deeply concerned about how
climate change as an overarching issue that threatens life on Earth.
Bob presented an address entitled The Future of the Mohawk River at the 2016 MWS. He
wrote: “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.” He saw the need for a two-step approach for the
health and future of the Mohawk Watershed. The first step would be the establishment
an organization to oversee the protection of the River and the second step is a full and
complete ecological survey on the status of conditions in the Mohawk ecosystem.
He cared deeply about American rivers in general and the Mohawk in particular. He was
a regular at the MWS meetings, and his ideas, insight, and energy will be missed.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
Mohawk Watershed Symposium - 2018
23 March 2018, College Park, Union College, Schenectady NY
Oral session (College Park) - Registration and Badges required
8:00 AM 8:30 AM
Registration, Coffee, College Park
8:30 AM 8:35 AM
Introductory Remarks
Jackie Cockburn, MWS Co-Chair, University of Guelph
8:35 AM 8:50 AM
Factoring in virtual water to determine the real cost of products
Ashraf Ghaly, Department of Engineering, Union College
8:50 AM 9:16 AM
Screening for agricultural and wastewater-derived micropollutants at the mouth of the Mohawk River - Invited
Damian Helbling, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University
9:16 AM 9:31 AM
Efficacy of environmental DNA and traditional sampling methods to monitor the expansion of Round Goby in
the Mohawk River-Barge Canal system
Scott George, US Geological Survey, Water Science Center, Troy, NY
9:31 AM 9:57 AM
Current research on blueback herring in the Mohawk River - Invited
Cara Ewell Hodkin, Dept of Environment & Forest Biology, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry
9:57 AM 10:42 AM
COFFEE and POSTERS (see below for listing)
10:42 AM 11:08 AM
Climate change, weathering the flood and supporting RiverSmart Communities - Invited
Christine Hatch, Department of Geosciences, UMASS-Amherst
11:08 AM 11:34 AM
Ice jam flooding on the lower Mohawk River and the 2018 mid-winter ice jam event - Invited
John I. Garver, Geology Department, Union College
11:34 AM 12:00 PM
Schenectady’s historic Stockade district: options for flood mitigation - Invited
Bill Nechamen, Nechamen Consulting Inc
12:00 PM 1:20 PM
- LUNCH and Poster Sessions - Lunch at College Park
1:20 PM 1:46 PM
A spatial assessment of priority areas for conservation and climate adaptation in the Schoharie Creek
Watershed - Invited
Becky Shirer and Chris Zimmerman, The Nature Conservancy, Albany NY
1:46 PM 2:12 PM
In harm's way: community responses to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee - Invited
Ellen McHale, Utica College
2:12 PM 2:27 PM
Discover the Mohawk: Reconnecting our community with the river
Leah Akins, ECOS: The Environmental Clearinghouse
2:27 PM 2:42 PM
Mohawk River water quality: Trends and observations of bacterial indicators during the summer of 2017
Carolyn Rodak, Department of Engineering, SUNY Polytechnic Institute, Utica NY
2:42 PM 3:27 PM
COFFEE and POSTERS (see below for listing)
3:27 PM 3:53 PM
Development of a water-quality model for the Mohawk River - Invited
Thomas Suro, USGS New Jersey Water Science Center
3:53 PM 4:19 PM
Citizen science to community action in the Hudson River: A case study in protecting a river drinking water
supply - Invited
Dan Shapley, Riverkeeper
4:19 PM 4:45 PM
Working towards a swimmable, fishable, resilient Mohawk River Watershed: Updating the Mohawk River
Basin Action Agenda for 2018 - Invited
Alexander J. Smith & Katherine Czajkowski, NYS DEC, Mohawk River Basin Program
4:45 PM 4:55 PM
Concluding Remarks
John I. Garver, MWS Co-Chair, Union College
5:00 PM 7:00 PM
Symposium Reception College Park Hall Lobby, 5:00 - 7:00 PM
*The lead or presenting author/s is/are listed in the schedule, for complete author listings and affiliations please refer to the abstract.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
vi
Poster session (all day)
P1
Landslides and their potential for contributing to dam failure at the Blenheim/Gilboa pumped-storage power
project
H. Bartholomew, Dam Concerned Citizens, Middleburgh, NY
P2
Investigating the urban stream syndrome in the Mohawk Watershed around Schenectady, NY
C. Bechtold, A. Verheyden, Geology Dept., Union College, Schenectady, NY
P3
Fort Plain Environmental Study Team: A community-based approach to science
Fort Plain Environmental Team - Students: E. Abrams, M D’Arcangelis, T. Giffoard, M. Hoffamn, J. Huang, Q.
Jones, J. Kirby, W. Maginnis, P. Murphy, J. Reese, M. Stockwell, B. Thibodeau, M. Wintermute; Leaders: L. Elliott,
K. Boose, B. McKeeby, J. McKeeby, M. McKeeby, & J. Perog
P4
Photogrammetric models from UAS mapping and ice thickness estimates of the 2018 mid-winter Ice Jam on the
Mohawk River, NY
J.I. Garver, E. Capovani, D. Pokrzywka, Geology Dept., Union College, Schenectady, NY
P5
Techniques to reduce water footprint and to curb its adverse effects
A. Ghaly, Dept. of Engineering, Union College
P6
Is that E. coli or not? Unique fluorescent color in Colilert treated samples from the Mohawk River
I. Gillette-Ferguson, E. Benton, J. Burton, L. Demera, E. Frost, A. Gieseler, T. Hotaling, N. Mazoff, S. Meaney, L.
Meehan, N. Oukili, C. Peck, A. Shaw, J. Stanton, L. Wanits, C. Williams, Dept. of Natural Sciences and
Mathematics, SUNY Cobleskill, Cobleskill, NY
P7
Forecasting of water discharge using atmospheric and hydrologic sensors to identify long-term high-risk
periods in Herkimer County, NY
I. Gogos, K. Shire, S. Lakeram, A. Marsellos, K. Tsakiri, Dept. of Geology, Environment, Sustainability, Hofstra
University, Hempstead, NY
P8
Flood forecasting of water discharge at Freeman’s Bridge in Schenectady, New York
S. Lakeram, T. Plitnick, D. Chernoff, A. Marsellos, K. Tsakiri, Dept. of Geology, Environment, Sustainability,
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
P9
Monitoring the Hudson and beyond with HRECOS: The Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing
System
G. Lemley, Hudson River Estuary Program, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation/NEIWPCC, Albany, NY
P10
Reconstruction and flood simulation using GIS and Google Earth to determine the extent and damage of the
January 14-15th 2018 ice jams on the Mohawk River in Schenectady, New York
L. Mahoney, S. Roscoe, A. Marsellos, Dept. of Geology, Environment, Sustainability, Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY
P11
Multiple Flooding locations in Oneida County, NY in 2017: An approach to determine flood vulnerable sites
using LiDAR in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and flood simulations
A. Rienzo, P. Weinstein, K. Mecca, A. Marsellos, Dept. of Geology, Environment, Sustainability, Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY
P12
Accumulation of microplastic particles in New York State tributaries
A. Shimkus, J.A. Smith, Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake High School, Burnt Hills
P13
Microplastic pollution in the main channel of the Mohawk River: Final results of the 2016 sampling program
J.A. Smith, J. Hodge, B. Kurtz, J.I. Garver, Geology Dept., Union College, Schenectady, NY
P14
A series of snap-shots: Data and observations from the Riverkeeper, SUNY Cobleskill, and SUNY Poly Mohawk
River water quality project as it enters year four
D. Sweeney, L. Wanits, E. Townsend, B. Brabetz, N. Law, C. Rodak, J. Epstein, J. Lipscomb, D. Shapley,
Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, SUNY Cobleskill, Cobleskill, NY
P15
Using total coliforms, E. coli and Enterococcus bacteria as reporters for water quality along the North
Chuctanunda Creek, a tributary of the Mohawk River
L. Wanits, B. Brabetz, N. Law, Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, SUNY Cobleskill, Cobleskill, NY
*The lead or presenting author/s is/are listed in the schedule, for complete author listings and affiliations please refer to the abstract.
5:00 PM 7:00 PM
Symposium Reception College Park Hall Lobby, 5:00 - 7:00 PM
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
vii
viii
Table of Contents
Preface .............................................................................................................................................................. ii!
Major Financial Support for MWS 2018 ........................................................................................................ iv!
Schedule ......................................................................................................................................................... vi!
Fort Plain Environmental Study Team: A community-based approach to science!
Emily Abrams, Michael D’ Arcangelis, Taylor Gifford, Michael Hoffamn, Jason Huang, Quinn Jones,
Justine Kibry, Willow Maginnis, Patrick Murphy, Jenna Reese, Michaela Stockwell, Bryce Thibodeau,
Mackenzie Wintermute, Lance Elliott, Kayleigh Boose, Ben McKeeby, John McKeeby, Maeve
McKeeby, John Perog ................................................................................................................................. 1!
Discover the Mohawk: Reconnecting our community with the river!
Leah Akins, Art Clayman, Mary Moore Wallinger, Kristin Diotte, Cathy Kuzsman ................................. 2!
Landslides and their potential for contributing to dam failure at the Blenheim/Gilboa pumped storage
power project (FERC#2685)!
Howard R. Bartholomew ............................................................................................................................. 4!
Investigating the urban stream syndrome in the Mohawk Watershed around Schenectady, NY!
Cameron Bechtold, Anouk Verheyden ........................................................................................................ 6!
Screening for agricultural and wastewater-derived micropollutants at the mouth of the Mohawk River!
Corey M.G. Carpenter, Damian E. Helbling ............................................................................................... 7!
Current research on blueback herring in the Mohawk River!
Cara Ewell Hodkin .................................................................................................................................... 12!
Ice Jam flooding on the lower Mohawk River and the 2018 mid-winter Ice jam event!
John I. Garver ............................................................................................................................................ 13!
Photogrammetric models from UAS mapping and ice thickness estimates of the 2018 mid-winter Ice Jam
on the Mohawk River, NY!
John I. Garver, Ed Capovani, Dennis Pokrzywka ..................................................................................... 19!
Efficacy of environmental DNA and traditional sampling methods to monitor the expansion of Round
Goby in the Mohawk River-Barge Canal system!
Scott D. George, Christopher Rees, Meredith Bartron, Barry P. Baldigo ................................................. 25!
Factoring in virtual water to determine the real cost of products!
Ashraf Ghaly ............................................................................................................................................. 26!
Techniques to reduce water footprint and to curb its adverse effects!
Ashraf Ghaly ............................................................................................................................................. 27!
Is that E. coli or not? Unique fluorescent color in Colilert treated!samples from the Mohawk River!
Illona Gillette-Ferguson, Emily Benton, Jillian Burton, Lily Demera, Emily Frost, Alex Gieseler, Tyler
Hotaling, Nathalia Mazoff, Sarah Meaney, Lucy Meehan, Nora Oukili, Caitlyn Peck, Ayiana Shaw, Jen
Stanton, Lyndsey Wanits, Claire Williams ............................................................................................... 28!
Forecasting of water discharge using atmospheric and hydrologic sensors to identify long-term high-risk
periods in Herkimer County, NY!
Illiana Gogos, Kaitlyn Shire, Scott Lakeram, Antonios Marsellos, Katerina Tsakiri ............................... 29!
Climate change, weathering the flood and supporting RiverSmart Communities!
Christine E. Hatch, Eve Vogel, Benjamin Warner Hatch, John Gartner ................................................... 33!
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
ix
Flood forecasting of water discharge at Freeman’s Bridge in Schenectady, New York!
Scott Lakeram, Tom Plitnick, Daniella Chernoff, Antonios Marsellos, Katerina Tsakiri ........................ 35!
Monitoring the Hudson and beyond with HRECOS: The Hudson River Environmental Conditions
Observing System!
Gavin M. Lemley, Alexander J. Smith ..................................................................................................... 38!
Reconstruction and flood simulation using GIS and Google Earth to determine the extent and damage of
the January 14-15th 2018 ice jams on the Mohawk River in Schenectady, New York!
Lauren Mahoney, Sally Louise Roscoe, Antonios Marsellos ................................................................... 39!
In Harm’s Way: Community Responses to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee!
Ellen E. McHale ........................................................................................................................................ 43!
Schenectady’s historic Stockade district: options for flood mitigation!
William Nechamen ................................................................................................................................... 45!
Multiple Flooding locations in Oneida County, NY in 2017: An approach to determine flood vulnerable
sites using LiDAR in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and flood simulations!
Angela Rienzo, Paul Weinstein, Kristen Mecca, Antonios Marsellos ...................................................... 50!
Mohawk River water quality: Trends and observations of bacterial indicators during the summer of 2017!
Carolyn Rodak, Tristan Abend, Xinchao Wei .......................................................................................... 54!
Citizen science to community action in the Hudson River: A case study in protecting a river drinking water
supply!
Dan Shapley .............................................................................................................................................. 60!
Accumulation of microplastic particles in New York State tributaries!
Ava Shimkus, Jacqueline A. Smith ........................................................................................................... 61!
A spatial assessment of priority areas for conservation and climate adaptation in the Schoharie Creek
Watershed!
Rebecca Shirer, Chris Zimmerman ........................................................................................................... 65!
Working towards a swimmable, fishable, resilient Mohawk River Watershed: Updating the Mohawk River
Basin Action Agenda for 2018!
Alexander J. Smith, Katherine Czajkowski ............................................................................................... 68!
Microplastic pollution in the main channel of the Mohawk River: Final results of the 2016 sampling
program!
Jacqueline A. Smith, James L. Hodge, Bradley H. Kurtz, John I. Garver ................................................ 69!
Development of a water-quality model for the Mohawk River!
Thomas P. Suro, Michal Niemoczynski, Frederick J. Spitz ..................................................................... 74!
A Series of snap-shots: Data and observations from the Riverkeeper, SUNY Cobleskill, and SUNY Poly
Mohawk River water quality project as it enters Year Four!
Daniel Sweeney, Lyndsey Wanits, Eric Townsend, Barbara L. Brabetz, Neil A. Law, Carolyn Rodak,
Jennifer Epstein, John Lipscomb, Dan Shapley ........................................................................................ 76!
Using Total Coliforms, E. coli and Enterococcus bacteria as reporters for water quality along the North
Chuctanunda Creek, a tributary of the Mohawk River!
Lyndsey Wanits, Barbara L. Brabetz, Neil A. Law .................................................................................. 77
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
x
Wa·ter·shed
ˈwôdərˌSHed,ˈwädərˌSHed/
noun
1. A region or area bounded peripherally by a divide and draining to a particular
watercourse or body of water.
Synonyms: Divide, catchment. See also: drainage basin
Example: “The Mohawk Watershed”
Stake·hold·er
ˈstākˌhōldər/
noun
1. A person with an interest or concern in something.
Synonyms: partner, colleague, collaborator
….denoting a type of organization or system in which all the members or participants are
seen as having an interest in its success.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
1
Fort Plain Environmental Study Team: A community-based approach to science
Student Members: Emily Abrams1, Michael D’ Arcangelis1, Taylor Gifford1, Michael Hoffamn1,
Jason Huang1, Quinn Jones1, Justine Kibry1, Willow Maginnis1, Patrick Murphy1, Jenna Reese1,
Michaela Stockwell1, Bryce Thibodeau1, Mackenzie Wintermute1, Advisors: Lance Elliott1, Kayleigh
Boose2, Ben McKeeby2, John McKeeby2, Maeve McKeeby2, John Perog2
1Fort Plain Environmental Study Team
2Schoharie River Center - Burtonsville, NY
Founded in 2014, the Fort Plain High School Environmental Study Team is a group of students, in grades
10-12, that engages in community-based science. We believe that students learn science best when they are
given the opportunity for a hands-on, immersive approach. Our main partner, The Schoharie River Center
(SRC), has been integral in teaching us how to both collect and analyze nearby stream samples at our
annual freshwater field ecology school. Through this research and other events held throughout the year,
our team had worked closely with community groups, local nonprofit organizations, and professional
scientists to evaluate the quality and health of our environment. In addition to our summer program, we
also participate in bike path cleanups, kayak trips, sailing days, micro-plastics collection, winter
snowshoeing, nordic skiing, and movie nights. The goal of these programs and activities is to encourage a
love for the outdoors, inspire students towards action, and increase our collective local knowledge, while
having some fun too! Although we act at the local level, our goal is to become more globally aware young
adults and to promote service through science.
Over the past four years, our team has performed multiple assessments to assess the water quality of nearby
creeks, streams, and rivers. Chemical tests such as dissolved oxygen, phosphates, and nitrates, pH,
alkalinity, and conductivity provide an important snapshot of the current health of the stream, but they do
not reflect the quality of the stream for the rest of the year. That is where the macroinvertebrates come
in. These small insects live in the stream during its ups and downs, so it is a better representation of how
the stream normally functions. For example, according to the Wadeable Assessments by Volunteer
Evaluators (WAVE), there are certain macroinvertebrates classified as “Most Wanted, Least Wanted, or
Other”. “Most Wanted” insects are extremely sensitive to pollution and therefore their presence indicates
that the overall water quality of the stream is above average. In contrast, “Least Wanted” insects are not as
sensitive to pollution and can live in potentially deplorable conditions. “Other” macroinvertebrates are
either not specifically sensitive or are still in the process of being researched.
Using assessments such as WAVE, our team has sampled and classified hundreds of macroinvertebrates
since our founding. Our research began on the Otsquago Creek, which runs through the Village of Fort
Plain, after the flooding of 2013. We aspired to evaluate a stream’s health and resilience after this major
environmental event. We now have over four years of data, across eight different sites, spanning from the
stream’s mouth to headwaters. For comparison, our group also researched the neighboring Canajoharie and
Flat Creeks, which presented some interesting results. By conducting rapid biological assessments, we
have not only been able to gain the knowledge of what a healthy steam is like, but ascertain the quality of
the environment around us. We hope that our work serves as a model for other like-minded groups in their
own attempts to learn and do more for their community.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
2
Discover the Mohawk: Reconnecting our community with the river
Leah Akins1, Art Clayman1, Mary Moore Wallinger2, Kristin Diotte3, and Cathy Kuzsman1
1ECOS: The Environmental Clearinghouse
2LAndArt Studio
3Department of Development, City of Schenectady
Discover the Mohawk is a program designed to bring attention to the Mohawk River in Schenectady as a
catalyst for cultural, economic, educational and recreational activity along the historic Erie Canal. Our
partnership, composed of ECOS: The Environmental Clearinghouse, Schenectady Metroplex Development
Authority, City of Schenectady, and LAndArt Studio, is launching this effort to i). reconnect Mohawk
Valley communities to the river and ii). renew our state’s heritage of vibrant, bustling river towns
connected by the mighty Erie Canal.
We plan to highlight a series of strategic sites along the river to celebrate the bicentennial of the creation of
the Erie Canal. As part of the Discover the Mohawk program, we aim to strengthen the connections
between these sites, or primary nodes, linking people to the river and surrounding cultural, economic,
educational and recreational resources (Figure 1). Our program will focus on the backbone of this network
of sites, the Erie Canal, this spring with a series of Conversations on the Canal featuring the state’s leading
canal experts.
The Discover the Mohawk initiative addresses priorities identified in the Mohawk River Basin’s Action
Agenda and the Schenectady Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. ECOS will take the lead in
developing environmental education curriculum focused on the ecology of the Mohawk River. We hosted
a Day in the Life of the River event last fall in collaboration with the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and plan to expand such offerings. The ECOS Mohawk River Program, which
has educated thousands of local school- children over the past few decades, provides a solid base for this
expansion.
ECOS is launching a new online mapping tool called Woods and Waters Online, which will provide the
first free public access to the information published in our Natural Area guides since the first editions in the
1980s (Figure 2). Woods and Waters Online will update the latest versions, i.e. Natural Areas of
Schenectady County (sixth edition, 2006), Natural Areas of Albany County (fourth edition, 2004), Natural
Areas of Rensselaer County (second edition, 2002) and Natural Areas of Saratoga County (first edition,
1998). This mapping and outreach tool will be a powerful vehicle to further focus public attention on the
Discover the Mohawk Initiative.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
3
Figure 1. Focus Area Map and Potential Primary Node Locations
Figure 2. Screen-shot of beta-version of Woods and Waters Online on ECOS website
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
4
Landslides and their potential for contributing to dam failure at the
Blenheim/Gilboa pumped storage power project (FERC#2685)
Howard R. Bartholomew
Dam Concerned Citizens, Inc., Middleburgh, NY
By the very nature of the topographical setting of many hydroelectric pumped storage power plants, the
lower reservoirs of these facilities are at increased risk of sustaining damage during times of heavy rain
induced floods due to the possible co-occurrence of landslides. The Blenheim/Gilboa (B/G) power project
is no exception to such a proposition. The need for a reservoir confined to an area near a precipice as a
location for an elevated upper reservoir, naturally means at least one steep hill side, which are often
accompanied by thin, unstable soils there are subjected to slippage and failure when fully saturated. As
indicated in the USDA Soil Survey of Schoharie Co., N.Y., the soils on the hillside of B/G are subject to
sloughing when wet. Other factors conducive to the genesis of earth movement exist at pumped storage
power plants in general and at B/G, in particular. One potential stimulus to earth movement in times of
floods and rain include reservoir-induced seismicity, resulting from repeated cycles of loading and
unloading of much of the volume of the reservoirs during times of routine operation. It is interesting to note
that no earthquakes have occurred at the 90-year-old Gilboa Dam/Schoharie Reservoir own by the city of
New York and managed to by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection just upstream
of B/G. The Schoharie Reservoir, with a full pool capacity of c.17.5 billion gallons, exceeds the capacity of
the lower reservoir of B/G full pool volume of c.5 billion gallons by a ratio greater than 3:1. One potential
explanation is that the NYC Schoharie Reservoir is limited in the amount of daily discharge of 750 MGD,
(million gallons per day), under normal operating conditions. This amounts to changes in water elevation of
about one meter. In contrast, the much smaller B/G lower reservoir can be emptied and refilled in a 24-hour
period. While not possible to determine, rapid filling/emptying of the lower reservoir at B/G may have been
one of the contributing factors to the occurrences of a minor earthquake that took place on September 26,
2015, with an epicenter directly below B/G.
The release works at B/G consists of 3 Tainter gates, and the combined rated capacity of these gates barley
exceeds the Inflow Design Flood. If one of these Tainter gates were to be occluded by debris from a
landslide, there exists a much greater potential for an overtopping of the earthen dam that impounded the
lower reservoir at B/G possibly leading to dam failure.
Considering the risk of dam failure exacerbated by rain/flood induced earth movement, it would seem
prudent to attempt to increase the stability of areas and soil types most susceptible to movement. As
previously noted, the steep, high relief hill sides at B/G are especially vulnerable to sloughing when wet.
Fortunately post-tensioned earth anchors that have been devised to secure banks from excessive movement
are now available. In the ongoing rehabilitation of the Schoharie Reservoir and Gilboa Dam, the managing
agency of the Infrastructure, NYCDEP, discovered a potentially dangerous site regarding land slide
vulnerability on the western side of the Schoharie creek immediately downstream of the of the Gilboa Dam
spillway. Waters of the Schoharie Creek were undercutting the stream bank there causing it to slowly
collapse into the creek channel. A major landslide, such as often accompanies a heavy rain/flood event,
could totally occlude the creek channel, causing adjacent property to be flooded. The NYCDEP solution
was to reinforce the western wall foundation of the dam, re-point, extend, and reinforce the west training
wall, and install 40 post-tensioned earth anchors. Four of these anchors, located well above the high water
line, are equipped with easily accessible load cells, permitting a routine means of determining the holding
capacity of the steal cable tensions in the soil medium they hold in place. To date, four years after their
installation, no weakening of their hold-down capacity has been discovered.
A serious potential for a harmful earth slide exists on the eastern slope of the steep hillside adjacent to the
lower reservoir of B/G in the vicinity of the transmission lines. Possible mitigating actions include the
reinforcement of the stream bank in vulnerable areas and the installation of post-tensioned anchors on the
steep slope. It is the stated position of DCC Inc. that serious consideration of these recommendations be
undertaken by NYPA. Failing to properly examine this problem would result in a DCC rejection of the
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
5
application for the renewal of the license for the B/G Pump Storage Power Project, FERC#2685 as failure
of the soil resulting in a major land slide and possible Tainter gate blockage would result in threat to lives
and property of those residing downstream of B/G.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
6
Investigating the urban stream syndrome in the
Mohawk Watershed around Schenectady, NY
Cameron Bechtold and Anouk Verheyden
Geology Department, Union College, Schenectady, NY
In a rapidly expanding world where more than 50% of the population now lives in urban areas (Grimm et
al. 2008), more forested areas are being replaced by impervious surfaces and development. As a result,
there is increased runoff and nutrient input into waterways around these urbanized areas. Consequently,
those waterways face nutrient overload, which leads to eutrophication as well as other physical and
chemical changes to the stream. The degradation of urban streams is referred to as the “Urban Stream
Syndrome.”
This study will focus on organic pollution in urban and rural settings, more specifically we will investigate
nitrogen pollution. In order to detect sources of nitrogen pollution, stable nitrogen isotopes of macro algae
have been used (Cole et al. 2004). A δ15N value higher than 5 permil is an indicator of human sewage
(Cabana and Rasmussen 1993). This summer (2017), 34 streams were sampled, of which 19 in an urban
environment and 11 in a rural environment. The δ15N values were compared with values obtained from the
same streams in 2016 to determine whether δ15N values show consistency and can indeed be used to
pinpoint sources of nitrogen pollution. The two summers do have a strong correlation, and are consistent
with sites that have both high and low results. Of the ten sites of concern, only one is considered rural, but
only four rural sites had algae recovered from them. All nine of the urban sites had algae that indicated that
there was a concern of sewage pollution. There was no indication of a relationship between NH4, NO2, and
NO3 ion concentrations with the δ15N values. We also found that further research could be done in regard to
the Rb/Sr ratio as an indicator for sewage effluent.
References:
Cabana, G. & J. B. Rasmussen. October 1996. Comparison of aquatic food chains using nitrogen isotopes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93: 10844-10847.
Cole, M. L. et al. 2004. Assessment of a δ15N isotopic method to indicate anthropogenic eutrophication in
aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Quality 33: 124-132.
Grimm, N. B. et al. 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319: 756-760.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
7
Screening for agricultural and wastewater-derived micropollutants
at the mouth of the Mohawk River
Corey M.G. Carpenter and Damian E. Helbling
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Introduction
Data from water quality monitoring studies have revealed the nearly ubiquitous occurrence of organic
micropollutants in surface water systems around the world (Richardson and Ternes, 2018). Whereas
micropollutants, by definition, are most frequently measured in sub µg/L concentrations in most major river
systems, there is concern about the toxic effects of the more bioactive substances including pesticides,
pharmaceuticals, and hormones (Schwarzenbach et al., 2006). Major sources of micropollutants include
sewage treatment plant (STP) outfalls and diffuse runoff from agricultural and urban landscapes, though
many other sources likely remain undiscovered (Kolpin et al., 2002).
In 2015, we conducted the first broad screening for organic micropollutants in the Hudson River Estuary
(HRE) (Pochodylo and Helbling, 2016). This study quantified the occurrence of up to 117 micropollutants
(83 measured in at least one sample) in samples collected from May through September at eight sites along
a stretch of the HRE bounded by the confluence of the Mohawk River and the Tappan Zee Bridge. We
found that samples from the HRE contained a complex mixture of pesticides and pharmaceuticals in
concentrations ranging from the mid ng L-1 range up to the mid mg L-1 range.
The data collected during the 2015 sampling campaign described the occurrence of micropollutants in the
HRE, but provided no insights on major sources of micropollutants in the HRE. We therefore designed a
new study to assess the relative contributions of various sources of micropollutants in the HRE. The
specific goals of this study were to: (1) determine whether the presence of certain groups of micropollutants
were associated with geospatial features of the upstream watershed (i.e., type of land cover, number of STP
outfalls); and (2) identify whether certain tributaries were contributing more loads of micropollutants to the
HRE than others.
Methods
In collaboration with Riverkeeper (Riverkeeper, 2018), we collected 127 samples at seventeen sites along
the HRE between the Mohawk River and the Tappan Zee Bridge between May 2016 and October 2017.
Three of the sites were selected based on their proximity to STP outfalls, and the remaining sites were at
the mouth of and/or inside major tributaries including the Mohawk River, Catskill Creek, Esopus Creek,
Rondout Creek, Normans Kill, and others. The samples were analyzed by means of high-performance
liquid chromatograph and mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) to quantify the occurrence of up to 200
micropollutants. Details on the experimental methods and results of this study are reported elsewhere
(Carpenter and Helbling, 2018). The data presented here will focus on samples collected at the mouth of
the Mohawk River and in the HRE just north of the confluence with the Mohawk River.
Results and Discussion
Before we discuss the data from the samples collected at the mouth of the Mohawk River, it is important to
note some of the key observations made from the larger dataset collected from throughout the HRE. From
our target list of 200 micropollutants, we measured 168 of them in at least one of the samples. Four of the
micropollutants were detected in every sample including atrazine (herbicide), gabapentin (antiepileptic),
metolachlor (herbicide), and sucralose (artificial sweetener). As expected, the highest concentrations of
micropollutants were measured in the STP outfall samples, which contained a variable mixture of STP
effluent and river water. Sucralose, atenolol acid (metabolite of atenolol and metoprolol), and metformin
(antidiabetic) were measured as high as the mid mg L-1 range in the STP outfall samples, though dilution
and mixing resulted in lower concentrations for these three micropollutants at adjacent downstream
sampling sites. A majority of the remaining micropollutants (84%) were measured in the 1 to 100 ng L-1
range, which is typical of concentrations measured in surface water systems around the world.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
8
Our relatively large dataset was amenable to analysis by means of multivariate statistics. We used
hierarchical clustering to evaluate the spatiotemporal occurrence patterns and normalized-concentration
patterns within the data. We found that the micropollutants clustered into three major groups based on their
occurrence patterns: ubiquitous and mixed-use (core micropollutants); those primarily sourced from
sewage treatment plant outfalls (STP micropollutants) and those primarily derived from diffuse upstream
sources (diffuse micropollutants). Further, these three major clusters could be refined into eight sub-clusters
that could be further linked to a variety of geospatial features of the upstream watershed. For example, the
core micropollutants were divided into four sub-clusters and represents agricultural micropollutants (sub-
cluster A), those sourced from sewage treatment plants at relatively high and low concentrations (sub-
clusters B and C, respectively), and a group of micropollutants with mixed-uses and multiple sources (sub-
cluster D) (Carpenter and Helbling, 2018).
We collected nine samples at the mouth of the Mohawk River. From our target list of 200 micropollutants,
we measured 85 of them in at least one of the nine samples. A summary of the distribution of detected
micropollutants by use-class is provided in Figure 1. Notably, 26 micropollutants were detected in all nine
samples including the herbicides atrazine and metolachlor, the pharmaceuticals venlafaxine
(antidepressant) and atenolol (beta-blocker), the insect repellent DEET, and the artificial sweeteners
acesulfame and sucralose. The majority (90%) of micropollutants were detected in the 1-100 ng L-1 range,
though sucralose and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA, an industrial perfluorochemical) were detected up to
the low µg L-1 range in some samples. The total number of detected micropollutants per sample ranged
from 52-60 micropollutants and the cumulative concentrations ranged from 2,578-4,763 ng L-1. The
majority (71%) of the detected micropollutants were core micropollutants; while 17% were STP
micropollutants and 12% were diffuse micropollutants.
Figure 1: The distribution of micropollutant use-classes contained on our target list (left) and detected in at
least one samples at the mouth of the Mohawk River (right). Blue shaded use-classes are considered to be
wastewater-derived; green shaded use-classes are considered to be agricultural-derived.
To help us interpret these data, we used ArcGIS and publically available data to develop maps of the
Mohawk River catchment area that include geospatial references for land cover and STP sewage outfalls
(Figure 2). The Mohawk River catchment area contains 55.4% forest (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed
forests), 15.6% hay/pasture, and 8.7% cultivated crops. Based on our results from the broader HRE study,
this type of land cover is predictive of sub-cluster A micropollutants (agricultural pesticides). Indeed, the
Mohawk River had the highest measured concentrations of sub-cluster A micropollutants throughout the
HRE. We also identified 13 major STP outfalls and 20 minor STP outfalls in the Mohawk River watershed.
These are expected to be major sources of STP micropollutants and sub-clusters B and C of the core
micropollutants. Sub-clusters B and C micropollutants were detected at relatively high concentrations in
the Mohawk River. However, the hydraulic distances from the STP outfalls to the sample site at the mouth
of the Mohawk River is relatively long (>13 km) which caused low occurrence and concentrations of the
STP micropollutants. This geospatial analysis demonstrates that the results from the HRE study can be
extrapolated to explain the findings in the Mohawk River.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
9
We next aimed to evaluate whether the Mohawk River was a bigger contributor of micropollutant loads to
the downstream HRE than the Upper Hudson River (UHR). We sampled mid-channel of the HRE just
north of the confluence of the Mohawk River where the two rivers combine to form the main stem of the
HRE. We converted measured micropollutant concentrations to loads using river flow data obtained from
nearby USGS stream gages. The average flowrates of the Mohawk River and the UHR during the study
period were 3576 ft3 s-1 and 6322 ft3 s-1, respectively. Cumulative micropollutants loads for the sub-clusters
of the core micropollutants in the Mohawk River and in the UHR are provided in Figure 3. Despite lower
flowrates, the Mohawk River had greater total cumulative loadings of sub-clusters A, B, and C
micropollutants when compared to the UHR. Our geospatial analysis of these two watersheds explain these
observations; the Mohawk River watershed has greater extents of agricultural (hay/pasture and cultivated
crops) land cover and more STP outfalls than the UHR, features which we identified as predictive of the
presence of these groups of micropollutants. Conversely, UHR contributes greater cumulative loadings of
sub-cluster D micropollutants to the HRE when compared to the Mohawk River. The greater flowrate of
the UHR partially explains the greater loadings of sub-cluster D micropollutants that are present in both
sub-watersheds at similar concentrations. We also explored the temporal patterns of micropollutant loading
in the HRE for the core micropollutant sub-clusters (shown in the right panel of Figure 3). Only the
loadings of sub-cluster A were found to change significantly with sample date and were elevated from May
to July. This suggests that these micropollutants have a dynamic input in the HRE with increased usage
during the growing season, while the other sub-clusters of micropollutants have consistent loadings over
time.
Our data provide the first comprehensive micropollutant screening in the HRE and define unique and
distinct micropollutant clusters that are linked to micropollutant sources (Carpenter and Helbling, 2018).
Our results can be used as a means to select one or a few micropollutants to monitor for evidence of impact
from a particular source. We also determined that despite having a lower average stream flowrate than the
UHR, the Mohawk River was a significant contributor of certain clusters of micropollutants to the HRE
including agricultural micropollutants and those derived from STP outfalls. Water quality stakeholders
interested in minimizing the concentrations of micropollutants in the Mohawk River should focus on
agricultural areas during the growing season, along with STP outfalls, for implementation of mitigation
strategies.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
10
Figure 2: Map of the Mohawk River Watershed, a sub-watershed of the Hudson River Estuary catchment
area (top right), showing locations of permitted sewage treatment plant outfalls and land cover.
Figure 3: Cumulative loads of core micropollutant sub-clusters over the entire sampling period in the
Mohawk River and the Upper Hudson River (left) and cumulative loads of sub-cluster A (agricultural
micropollutants) over time (right).
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
11
References:
Carpenter, C.M.G., Helbling, D.E., 2018. Widespread micropollutant monitoring in the Hudson River
Estuary reveals spatiotemporal micropollutant clusters and their sources. Submitted.
Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Thurman, E.M., Zaugg, S.D., Barber, L.B., Buxton, H.T., 2002.
Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: A
national reconnaissance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 1202–1211. doi:10.1021/es011055j
Pochodylo, A., Helbling, D.E., 2016. Target Screening for Micropollutants in the Hudson River Estuary
during the 2015 Recreational Season. Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation’s Hudson River Estuary Program. Available at: https://wri.cals.cornell.edu/grants-
funding/hrep/2015
Richardson, S.D., Ternes, T.A., 2018. Water Analysis: Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues. Anal.
Chem. 90, 398–428. doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.7b04577
Riverkeeper, 2018. Riverkeeper - NY’s Clean Water Advocate [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.riverkeeper.org/
Schwarzenbach, R.P., Escher, B.I., Fenner, K., Hofstetter, T.B., Johnson, C.A., Von Gunten, U., Wehrli,
B., 2006. The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313, 1072–1077.
doi:10.1126/science.1127291
Invited Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
12
Current research on blueback herring in the Mohawk River
Cara Ewell Hodkin
Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
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. In a collaboration between SUNY ESF and the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, adults were collected in 2012, 2013, 2016, and 2017 during the spawning
runs, and young-of-the-year were collected throughout the summers of 2016 and 2017.
Our aim is to determine the demographic characteristics and life history of the Mohawk River spawning
population of Blueback Herring by analyzing scales, otoliths, and stomach contents. Such characteristics as
size at age, age at maturity, degree of repeat spawning, etc. are critical needs for fishery stock assessments.
This work can be compared to previous (unpublished) work conducted in 2000 (by Karin Limburg), for a
temporal trend comparison.
Further, we wish to determine whether Blueback Herring of the Mohawk River are philopatric (i.e., home
to the Mohawk). Our ongoing studies have identified several biogeochemical markers present in juvenile
blueback herring otoliths that can separate the Mohawk River from other parts of the watershed.
Collections of spawning adults were tested for the presence of these markers in their otoliths via laser
ablation inductively coupled mass spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) as well as multicollector LA-ICPMS and
stable isotope analysis.
Invited Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
13
Ice Jam flooding on the lower Mohawk River and the 2018 mid-winter ice jam event
John I. Garver
Geology Department, Union College, Schenectady, NY
An ice jam of historic proportions formed in January 2018 on the lower Mohawk River. The ice jam was
27 km long, and the toe was lodged in the Rexford Knolls, a chronic jam point. The Knolls are a unique
section of the river where late-glacial capture moved the channel to a bedrock incised gorge, and today the
channel is narrow and deep with a prominent constriction. Along the length of the jam at least four other
jam points also affected flow and progress of ice movement. The toe of the jam failed during high water at
21-22 February caused by rain and then exceptionally warm temperatures (21°C, 70°F). A significant
release of water moved downstream, and water levels dropped 1.8 m (6 ft) in a few hours, which relieved
flooding of homes in the Stockade of Schenectady.
The event. The rapid thaw and rain on 12 Jan 2018 caused the ice in the lower Mohawk River to break up
on the morning of 13 January, and most of the activity was concentrated in the Schenectady pool between
Lock E8 and Lock E7. Initial breakup caused a jam and blockage between the GE outfall and Lock 8 (Isle
of the Oneidas) with significant back up (maximum differential of about 3.4 m or 11 ft) at about 10:30 AM:
sheet ice extended from the front of the jam (near GE) to Lock 7 (nearly 10 mi or 16 km). This first jam
broke at 1030 AM, released a surge, and this ice and additional upstream ice formed a second jam in the
Rexford Knolls by about 1220 PM. By late afternoon, the back up (differential) between Rexford (in the
ice floe, behind the jam point) and Vischer (down river) was between 1.8 and 2.1 m (6 and 7 ft). This jam
had an estimated length of 19 km (~12 mi) (solid packed ice from the Knolls to the Mabee Farm). This jam
would be in place for over a month (Figure 1).
This jam remained in place following crest on the Mohawk, but rain and snow melt the following week
caused renewed concern that the jam would be mobilized between 24-25 January. The jam did not move,
because crest on the Mohawk (25 Jan, ~19K cfs at Cohoes), was lower than the initial event (13 Jan, 21-
23k cfs). However, in this second event, release of ice from the Schoharie Creek worked down river and the
jam grew significantly in length (8 km, ~5 miles), the total length of the jam was then 27 km (17 mi) long,
extending from the Knolls to near Lock 10 (Wolf Hollow-Swart Hill Road). Moderate temperatures in the
next few weeks resulted in the significant loss of ice.
Rain on 19 Feb and very warm temperatures on 20 and 21 Feb resulted in remobilization of ice at the up
river end (on 20 Jan), and then after considerable back up flooding (between 10 and 15 ft or 3.0 to 4.6 m),
especially in the Stockade (maximum of 225 BCD or 223.8 NAVD). Finally, the original toe of the jam
broke at 0200 AM in 22 February, and stage measurements and eyewitness accounts suggest that a
movement of E9/Mabee jam (at the back end of the system) at 0100 AM sent a release wave that drove
failure at the toe. Once the entire lower part of the jam release, a surge of water went down river to Cohoes
(maximum discharge of 50 k cfs), and two smaller jams remained in place after breakup. The more
significant of these was at Lock 8, which was 4.8 km (3 mi) miles long, longer in part due to additional ice
from the Lock 9/Mabee jam.
Background. Ice jams are chronic in the Schenectady pool on the lower Mohawk River in eastern NY
State (Lederer and Garver, 2001; Scheller and others, 2002; Garver and Cockburn, 2009; Marsellos and
others, 2010; Garver, 2014; Garver and others, this volume). The lower part of the Mohawk River has a
low gradient, and the permanent dam at Vischer’s Ferry (also Lock E7) impounds water for nearly 16 km
(~10 miles) to Lock E8, and thus this is one site where thick sheet ice builds in the winter. Several
constrictions in the river channel and floodplain - both natural and man-made - reduce surface area and
potential flow at high water. The Rexford Knolls is a natural constriction that occurs between the Rexford
Bridge (Rt. 146) and Vischer’s Ferry Dam. This section of the river is incised deeply into bedrock and it
has essentially no floodplain: here it is bound by steep cliffs, and the channel is very deep (in excess of 12
m). The Knolls are a chronic jam point, and recent jams occurred in the same location, and this was also a
jam point the 1914 event, the worst historical ice jam ever in this region (see summary in Garver, 2014).
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
14
Most ice jams on the lower Mohawk form when warm temperatures and significant discharge drive the
disintegration of river ice, especially sheet ice, which can thick on impounded sections of the River. The
Mohawk River in the Schenectady area is troublesome because the gradient is low, there are a number of
constrictions, and commonly covered thick sheet ice because it is an impounded pool (impeded by the
Vischer’s Ferry Dam). In this section, water depth varies, and several key sections of the River are
relatively deep, so that water moves more slowly in higher flow conditions. In the past decade have been
seeing a number of mid-winter break up events, which are complicated if the system is incompletely
flushed.
Jams form when a rapid influx of runoff increased discharge and moving ice in the channel becomes
impeded. In almost all historical observations on the Mohawk, ice jams occur early in the hydrologic event
as water levels are rising. During break up and down-river ice movement, the process can be orderly and
uneventful if no obstructions and blocking occur. But ice floes can, and typically do, get jammed and can
cause restriction of flow on the river. Several factors promote jamming. One is a change in down-river
gradient because low gradient (or flat) water moves more slowly, so a simple change in flow rate can
initiate blockage and jamming. Another is constrictions and blockage that can restrict flow that can lead to
thickening and ultimately damming of flow. The Schenectady pool between Lock E8 and Lock E7 has
both.
Locks and dams. This section of the Mohawk is part of the Erie Canal, and there are a series of locks and
dams along the length of this study area. Almost all of the dams at the locks are removable, and swing
upwards in the winter. A critical exception is the 30 ft (9.1 m) high Vischer’s Ferry dam (Lock E7), which
is classified as a NYS Class C, high hazard dam. This dam creates the Schenectady pool, which extends for
10 miles between Lock E7 and Lock E8. This section of the River has a low gradient and has significant
sheet ice in the winter. The channel is very deep in the Knolls and there are several important constrictions
where channel width is reduced by nearly a factor of two (Figure 2). Thus, ice jams form in this reach of
the Mohawk almost every year. Thus for those who study the hazard of ice jamming on the Mohawk, there
is little question that the pooled water behind permanent Vischer’s Ferry Dam is a major contributing factor
to ice jams and ice jam flooding.
Jams can cause dams that block flow and these can result in spectacular changes in water levels. When
damming occurs, flooding can result in an up-river rise in water elevation (stage), and that rise can be very
rapid, especially if the river flow is blocked. Rise in stage elevation between 3 and 5 m (~10 and 15 ft) in
several hours have been recorded during the last significant events in 2007 and 2010 (Garver, 2014). As
water rises behind a dam, ice consolidates and adjusts, but because ice floats the blockage can be self-
destructive and this rising water can promote failure of the ice dam. This rapid rise presents a challenge for
Emergency Management because often it is unclear how rapid the water rise will be and if the ice dam will
fail.
When a dam breaks, a release wave (or ice jam release surge) propagates down river and this wave can
promote more jamming and damming, or simply proceed down river in an uneventful way. Release waves
can involve an enormous amount of water, and they too can cause a spectacular rise in water level. Long-
term monitoring of stage and discharge on the Mohawk by the USGS shows that many of the highest flows
(discharge) recorded on the Mohawk at Cohoes Falls have been directly related to release waves. In the
last 50 yr, the two largest recorded peak instantaneous flows – 1996 and 1964 – were release waves from
failed ice jams up river (see Figure 3; and Garver, 2014).
Channel width and depth are important when considering jam points. Changes in the channel width may
result in constriction points that can force jamming due to bottlenecking. The channel width varies wildly
depending on stage elevation, partly because at high stage elevations the water spreads out across the flood
plain. Here the channel width at relatively low flow when ice jamming is initiated has been estimated for
the actively used channel in the 2018 event. Several reaches of the River have significant reductions in
effective channel width, and one of the more prominent is the one in the Rexford Knolls (at KAPL), where
the width is reduced by ~60%. Channel depth matters because deeper water moves more slowly, and hence
can promote ice jamming due to surface velocity change. The channel depth between E7 and E8 is
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
15
variable, partly due to modification for navigation, but the deepest part is in the bedrock-lined section
through the Knolls (Figure 3, GE R&D).
Figure 1: Map of key features related to ice jamming on part of the lower Mohawk River (NY) after 28 Jan
2018. The toe of the jam released on 22 February, and much of the jam below the Stockade went
downriver. Erie Canal locks (E7, E8, E9, E10) are marked.
Figure 2: Effective channel width estimates used by the river during the initiation of ice out events.
Channel widths were measured only on active channels, and in some instances where the channel
bifurcates, only one channel has rubble ice and significant flow. The two best known jam points in the
lower Mohawk are at the Isle of the Oneidas, and in the Knolls (Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories or
KAPL above) (Figure 1) where the river channel narrows significantly. Dotted line is a simple polynomial
through the data.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
16
Figure 3: Effective channel depth on the Mohawk River from Lock E8 to Vischer’s Ferry (Lock E7) shown
in feet. Depths are maximum depths with a river level of a 10 yr flood. Channel profile from the
Schenectady County Flood Insurance Study (FEMA). The deepest section is in the Knolls, a section of the
river with no floodplain and steep bedrock walls. Black stars indicate the location of sensors in the
network.
Ice jams are particularly problematic for Emergency Management because change can occur quickly and
damage can be severe (Figure 4). One challenge is that backed up water behind a dam (back up flooding)
can rise (and fall) remarkably fast, and the rate of change complicates the decision making for evacuation
and securing river-proximal assets. Another reason is that the surge of the release wave (release wave
surge) can also result in rapid and significant rises in water levels. While some reaches of the river may be
prone to jamming and back up flooding, downstream communities may need to understand and appreciate
the timing of release waves, the amount of water released, and the velocity of the wave.
Figure 4: Comparison of hydrographs for specific events with ice jams on the lower Mohawk River.
Discharge records downriver at Cohoes show an abrupt decrease in flow, followed by surge. The decrease
in flow is related to upstream damming and blockage by ice, and the surge represents the ice jam release
wave (two jam events are record in 1964 and 1996, but only a single jam in 2007 and 2010, and 2018A,B).
The release wave was particularly dramatic in the 1964 event, and this is the highest instantaneous
discharge ever (directly) on the Mohawk. The initial 2018 event (13 Jan) was driven by a very small event,
and the release wave for the breakup of the jam (22 Feb) occurred after crest.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
17
Real-time data. Because this section of the Mohawk River has chronic ice jams, the US Geological
Survey (USGS) has installed an ice jam monitoring system between Lock E8 and Lock E7 (Vischer Ferry
Dam). This system consists of four stream gages for the rapid determination of stage elevation (river
elevation), and data are transmitted by GOES satellite and are then available in near real time on the
internet (Wall and others, 2013).
Release Wave. The release of water
from ice dam breaks are of critical
importance in emergency management,
but we have little data on how these
waves propagate down river in the
Mohawk (Table 1; Figure 4; 5). A
small release wave occurred in the
initial event, and the nature of the wave
provides important information about
waves in this part of the Mohawk (Figure 4). The increase in stage elevation from the release wave from
the first jam (13 Jan) can be seen in the down river gages (Freeman’s Bridge, Rexford, Vischer Ferry, and
then eventually at Cohoes Falls near the confluence with the Hudson River).
Arrival calculations suggest that the release wave on 13 January travelled at ~20 km/hr (Table 1; 12.4 mph,
or 5.5 m/s). As is well known in the literature, the waveform gets attenuated down river from the release
point, and this results in a decrease in velocity, amplitude, and wavelength (Belatos, 2005; 2017). Thus the
integrated celerity (velocity) is estimated to be 24 km/hr (15.2 mph or 6.7 m/s) for the release wave to
Vischer’s Ferry (Figure 5). Note that these calculations are for the celerity (velocity) of the leading edge of
the wave (CL), which is the fastest moving part of the wave (Belatos, 2005).
The release wave continued down river and was recorded by an increase in stage elevation at Cohoes Falls
near the Hudson River. The travel time can be used to estimate an integrated down-river velocity of
between 18.6 and 20.3 km/hr (11.6 to 12.6 mph or 5.2 to 5.6 m/s). In the 2010 Ice jam release initiated
between Lock E8 and Lock E9, a large and significant release wave left Rotterdam Junction and arrived in
Cohoes travelling at an average celerity of 19.5 km/hr (12 mph or 5.4 m/s) (Garver, 2014). These numbers
can guide alerts and warnings if we know a large and significant release has occurred and is moving down
river.
Figure 5: Down river arrival of the main release wave on 13 January that originated from the Lock 8 area
(between E8 and GE outfall). [A] Wave surge in the ice floe; [B] Wave estimates from only down river of
the toe of the ice jam. This wave travelled down river and the successive arrival times at sensors allow for
estimation of the velocity of the wave, which here is calculated to be approximately 18.6 and 20.3 km/hr
(11.6 to 12.6 mph – see Table 1). The wave was attenuated downstream (Data: USGS Cohoes, unverified
data).
Summary. This break up event resulted from a thaw with rain, and it was preceded and followed by
extremely cold weather and freezing. In mid January a jam formed, dammed, released, and subsequently
became lodged in the confined and narrow Rexford Knolls, a chronic jam point. This section of the river is
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
18
deep, and there is a prominent constriction in the effective channel width. It is also in a static pool that is
impounded by the Vischer’s Ferry Dam, hence this is a location where a significant amount of strong sheet
ice forms in the winter months. A subsequent thaw on 24-25 January did not result in movement of the floe,
but additional ice was added to the tail so that the length surpassed 17 miles. On 22 February another rapid
thaw resulted in the released of the jam, but only after it caused considerable flooding in the historic
Stockade district of Schenectady.
References
Beltaos, S., 2017. Hydrodynamics of storage release during river ice breakup. Cold Regions Science and
Technology, 139, pp.36-50.
Beltaos, S., 2005. Field measurements and analysis of waves generated by ice-jam releases.
In Proceedings, 13th Workshop on the Hydraulics of Ice Covered Rivers, Hanover, NH (pp. 227-249).
Garver, J.I., 2014. Insight from Ice Jams on the Lower Mohawk River, NY. In Cockburn, J.M.H. and
Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2014 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY,
p.12-15
Garver, J.I., and Cockburn, J.M.H. 2009. A historical perspective of Ice Jams on the lower Mohawk River.
In: Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings from the 2009 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union
College, Schenectady NY, p. 25-29.
Garver, JI, Capovani, E, and Pokrzywka, 2018. Photogrammetric models from UAV mapping and ice
thickness estimated of the 2018 mid-winter Ice jam on the Mohawk River, NY (this volume).
Lederer, J.R., and Garver, J.I., 2001, Ice jams on the lower Mohawk River, New York: Lessons from recent
breakup events. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs v. 33, n. 1, p. 73.
Marsellos, A.E., Garver, J.I., and Cockburn, J.M.H., 2010, Mapping and Volumetric calculations of the
January 2010 Ice Jam Flood, Lower Mohawk River, using LiDAR and GIS; Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver,
J.I., Proceedings of the 2010 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY, March
19, 2010, p. 23-27.
Scheller, M., Luey, K., and Garver, J.I., 2002. Major Floods on the Mohawk River (NY): 1832-2000.
Retrieved March 2014 from http://minerva.union.edu/garverj/mohawk/170_yr.html
Wall, G., Gazoorian, C. and Garver, J.I., 2013, March. USGS Ice jam and flood monitoring: Mohawk
River, Schenectady, in Proceedings of the 2013 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College,
Schenectady, NY, p.83-85.
Invited Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
19
Photogrammetric models from UAS mapping and ice thickness estimates of the
2018 mid-winter ice jam on the Mohawk River, NY
John I. Garver1, Ed Capovani2, Dennis Pokrzywka2
1 Geology Department, Union College, Schenectady, NY
2 In Sky Aerial Services, Glenville, NY
A 27 km (17 mile) long ice jam formed during a January mid-winter breakup event, and it stayed in place
for most of the winter. By historic standards this was the longest to have formed in decades, and thickness
estimates were made to better understand the hazard and the nature of the ice in constriction points.
Unmanned aerial system (UAS) photogrammetry and Structure from Motion (SfM) at two sites was done to
better understand the structure and thickness of the ice. In the toe of the jam, in the Rexford Knolls,
thickness is estimated to be between ~1.2 and 3.0 m (4-10 ft) thick for floating and thickened ice that meets
sheet ice near Lock E7. At Lock E9, about 22 km (13.5 mi) up river, topographic mapping on the deflated
and ground ice rubble reveals that the ice was between 1.8 and 2.7 m (6-9 ft), but ridges are as thick as 3.6
and 4.6 m (12-15 ft). UAV use is in its infancy in ice jam work, but imaging and mapping will be
transformative in work aimed at assessing the hazard and understanding the science behind jams. The 2018
Jam ultimately broke up on 22 February, but only after causing backup flooding in the historic Stockade
district in Schenectady.
Figure 1: LiDAR hillshade of the lower part of the Mohawk River between Lock E9 and Lock E7, which
was occupied by an ice jam in the winter of 2018 (white). The toe of the ice jam was located in the Knolls
(site A), and it extended up river for 27 km (17 Miles). UAV surveys were done in two principal locations
(A and B ). Note that in this reach of the river, Lock E7 is adjacent to the Vischer’s Ferry dam (permanent),
but Lock E8 and E9 are removable and lifted in the winter. Black stars are the location of the sensors for
the USGS ice jam monitor system (base map from Schenectady County GIS).
Background. Ice jams are a chronic hazard on the lower Mohawk River in eastern NY. To better
understand mitigation of this natural hazard, information on the nature of jam points, and the dynamics of
specific ice jams allows for better forecasting and prediction of the movement of ice floes. On 13 January
2018, the Mohawk and many other rivers in the Northeast US broke up after heavy rain, warm
temperatures, and rising waters. The breakup on the Mohawk River was incomplete, and a 19-km long ice
jam lodged in the Rexford Knolls, a reach where the river is incised into the bedrock, and there is no
floodplain. Additional ice was added in a minor thaw on 24-25 Jan, and at that point the jam was 27 km (17
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
20
miles) long. This is one of several known chronic jam points in this section of the Mohawk (Garver this
volume). With this thickened ice pack, there was a concern of backup flooding upriver. To better
understand the nature of the toe of this ice jam we used UAS mapping the Mohawk ice jam in two
locations. This work included still and video, but also systematic mapping for photogrammetry and SfM.
We focused on two locations (Fig 1): one at the toe of the ice jam (A) and one at Lock 9 (B – mile 13.5 of
the jam).
Figure 2: UAS image of rubble ice on 22 January of main ice floe in Schenectady NY (looking north,
down river). The historic Stockade district is to the right, and a new Rivers casino complex on the river’s
edge is beyond the Amtrak bridge on the right. Undeveloped flood plain on left is Glenville (Steve Disick,
Albany County Sheriff’s Drone unit).
UAS use in Ice Jams. Ice jams in this part of the Mohawk are common, and decisions about the extent and
severity of ice can be complicated until assessment of the nature of the ice can be made along the length of
a jam. One critical question during an event involves the position of the jam point, and once jams have
been emplaced there can be a complicated and tense period where the dynamics of the floe are slowly
pieced together from many individual observations. UAS images allow a rapid and powerful view from
above that can easily put the jam situation into perspective (Fig. 2). In this event the National Weather
Service also flew a flight line along the length of the entire jam. For the first time, however, UAS use
allows detailed mapping to obtain thickness and topography, and thus opens important avenues into gaining
an understanding of the science behind ice jam dynamics (Alfredsen et al., 2018). In this paper we provide
both technical and scientific details, which may help others thinking of using this technology to study river
ice.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
21
Figure 3: [A] Digital Surface Model (DSM) before densification with the general outline of the two
separate flight missions used for mapping. [B] Flight plan for the first (west) flight used for mapping.
Figure 4: The model displayed using a kmz file (and tiles images) on Google Earth. Overlain on the model
is the flow direction and the primary flow features in the ice. Note that the model is draped over a summer
scene on Google Earth (green in the water is water chestnut growing in shallows). North is to the top left.
[A] Rexford Knolls – toe of ice jam. The mapped area covers 0.135 km2 and includes the main part of the
toe of the ice jam that formed on 13 January 2018. We divided the area up into to two separate missions
and then combined them in post processing. We flew both missions at an altitude of 46 m (152’ AGL)
using a 20 mega pixel camera with a 12 mm lens. This sample density yielded a 0.5”/pixel ground
sampling distance. We captured 776 images, and the photo overlap was 80% along the path and 80% across
the path (Fig. 3).
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
22
Figure 5. Image of ice at Lock E9 looking down river taken on 3 Feb 2018. At this time there was very
low flow conditions on the Mohawk (<3000 cfs), and underflow in the main channel, but most ice is
grounded on the bottom of the channel. Contour map of this area in next figure.
Figure 6: Map of topography on the ice surface topography at Lock E9 taken on 3 Feb 2018. Topography
generated from SfM (Pix4D), and then contours overlain over the composite orthophoto. Dashed lines are
internal slip surfaces in the ice. Contours in 3 ft (0.9 m) intervals, and simplified from original output.
Complications arise from determining contours over open water (nearly black). The highest elevation in the
center of the image (18 ft) is an artifact of the contouring process adjacent the open water. We suggest that
some of this ice is at least 15 ft thick (4.6 m), but its thickness is highly variable. Channel width (top to
bottom) is about 185 m in this part of the River.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
23
The two pre-programmed UAS flight paths (see Figure 2b for an example of one) and the geo-referenced
imagery provide the basis for the model. All imagery data were processed in house, using Pix4d Mapper
Pro software to create a 3-dimensional digital model. The information from the images resulted in
16,145,612 2D bundle block adjustments, and 3,225,235 3D points for bundle block adjustment, and this
means that computation time is non-trivial.
[B] Lock E9 Glenville-Rotterdam Junction. The second location mapped was at Lock 9 in
Glenville/Rotterdam Junction NY (see Figure 1). The area mapped at this location was approximately 0.04
km2 (11 acres). We flew this are twice as a single mission at an altitude of 44.5 m (146’ AGL) using a 20
mega pixel camera with a 12 mm lens. This yielded a 0.46”/pixel ground sampling distance. We captured
560 images, and the photo overlap was 82% along the path and 82% across the path.
Structure from Motion (SfM) photogrammetry results in a point cloud that can be manipulated and used
for three-dimensional analysis. We are interested in using the SfM for estimates of ice thickness in
different parts of the ice jam. To make estimates of ice thickness we use two elevation references: 1)
undisturbed sheet ice adjacent to rubble ice; or 2) flowing water adjacent to rubble ice. Because we do not
have absolute control points we do not have precision in actual elevations. However, we do have good
vertical elevations in the point cloud relative to one another across the model.
At the toe of the ice jam we compare the elevation of elevated blocks to adjacent sheet ice. To make ice
thickness estimates in this area where the ice is floating, we assume that the sheet ice is 0.305 m thick
(12”), and that the ice has a density of 0.9 g/cm3 and water is 1.0 g/cm3 and thus the sheet ice is 0.03 m or
0.1 ft above the water level. Most of the rubble ice in the main ice floe is irregular and rough, but there are
some large elevated flat sheets of ice that are supported by the buoyant force of underlying ice. We assume
for this exercise that these sheets are in isostatic equilibrium, and therefore their elevation above the sheet
ice can be used to estimate ice thickness. This assumption is likely perfect in the case where the ice is
solid, but it breaks down if there is significant liquid water. But in the situation where the ice floe has 10%
interstitial liquid water, the density is only slightly greater (0.91 g/cm3). Pressure ridges, sags, and
grounding also occur, and these can result in anomalous elevations if simple isostatic compensation is
assumed. Thickness estimates show that most ice is between ~1.2 and 3.0 m (4-10 ft) thick, and the
thickness is highly variable.
Mapping at Lock E9 was done on 3 Feb 2018 and on 27 January 2018, and between these intervals there
was no appreciable change in ice topography. However, small open leads in the water allow for
measurement of referenced topography on the ice, much of which was grounded. This analysis indicates
that the topography on the surface of the ice referenced to water level was between 1.8 and 2.7 m (6 and 9
ft), but ridges are as thick as 3.6 and 4.6 m (12-15 ft) (Fig. 7).
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
24
Figure 7. Topographic profiles of ice, most of which was grounded, at Lock E9. These profiles include
water in the channel (not shown), and thus elevation is referenced to water elevation (0 ft/m). Most of the
ice is between 1.8 and 2.7 m (6 and 9 ft), but ridges are as thick as 3.6 and 4.6 m (12-15 ft).
Summary. Ice jams are a chronic hazard in the lower Mohawk River between Lock E8 and Lock E9. The
2018 event on the Mohawk River produced an extraordinarily long ice jam, and while the jam formed, and
then sat in place it was a major challenge for emergency management. UAV and photogrammetry is now
able to provide important insight into the thickness, structure, and morphology of ice floes that are in place
and threaten local community assets. UAV images provided rapid views of problematic jam points. SfM
allows for mapping of ice structure in the channel, and estimates of ice thickness, which were 1.8 to 2.7 m
in the Lock E9 area.
References:
Alfredsen, K., Haas, C., Tuthan, J. and Zinke, P., 2018. Brief Communication: Mapping river ice using
drones and structure from motion. The Cryosphere, 12, p. 1–7.
Garver, J.I., 2014. Insight from Ice Jams on the Lower Mohawk River, NY. In Cockburn, J.M.H. and
Garver, J.I., Proceedings of the 2014 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union College, Schenectady, NY,
p.12-15.
Garver, J.I., and Cockburn, J.M.H. 2009. A historical perspective of Ice Jams on the lower Mohawk River.
In: Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings from the 2009 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union
College, Schenectady NY, p. 25-29.
Garver, J.I., 2018. Ice Jam flooding on the lower Mohawk River and the 2018 mid-winter ice jam event. In:
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., Proceedings from the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium, Union
College, Schenectady NY, in press.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
25
Efficacy of environmental DNA and traditional sampling methods to monitor the
expansion of Round Goby in the Mohawk River-Barge Canal system
Scott D. George1, Christopher Rees2, Meredith Bartron2, Barry P. Baldigo1
1 U.S. Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center, Troy, NY
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Fishery Center, Lamar, PA
The Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus) is an invasive benthic fish indigenous to the Ponto-Caspian
region of Eurasia, which recently colonized all five Great Lakes and is presently invading eastward into the
Mohawk River Basin through the New York State (Barge) Canal System. In 2014, an angler caught a
Round Goby near Lock E20 in the Utica area, prompting concerns about downstream movement into the
Hudson and Champlain drainages. This observed and anticipated expansion is concerning because Round
Goby can outcompete native benthic fishes, consume the eggs of nest-building centrarchids such as
Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu), transfer contaminants to higher trophic levels (e.g., desirable
gamefish), and carry the viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) virus which has been linked to multiple fish
kills in New York. During 2016 and 2017, the U.S. Geological Survey, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a collaborative study to (a)
document the distribution, relative abundance, and rate of expansion of Round Goby through the Mohawk
River-Barge Canal system and (b) compare the efficacy of environmental DNA (eDNA) and traditional fish
sampling methods for monitoring the distribution of this species. The presence of Round Goby was
assessed using water samples (eDNA) and standard benthic trawls, bag seines, and minnow traps twice
annually at 12 sites between Rome and Albany, NY during June and August in 2016 and 2017. Preliminary
results indicate Round Goby have invaded waters at least as far east as Marcy, NY. The slow expansion
towards the Hudson River drainage is surprising considering the rapid colonization that recently occurred
to the west of the study area. Environmental DNA appears to be a more sensitive technique for detecting
populations at low abundances than the traditional fish sampling methods.
Oral Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
26
Factoring in virtual water to determine the real cost of products
Ashraf Ghaly
Department of Engineering, Union College, Schenectady, NY
Virtual water is defined as the actual amount of water needed to produce a good or a product. For example,
it takes on average a thousand kilograms of water to produce one kilogram of milk, and about 15000
kilograms of water to produce 1 kilogram of beef. These figures vary from one place in the world to
another and could be higher or lower depending on the local climatic and agriculture conditions in the area
where the products are produced. The water is termed as virtual because once the product is produced, the
real amount of water used to produce it is no longer actually contained in the product, but, on the other
hand, the product itself cannot be produced without that needed amount of water. In addition to the
freshwater that upstate New York provides downstate with, upstate is also the main supplier of downstate’s
needs of milk and beef. Considering the actual amount of water embodied in products that require
significant amount of water, it is evident that upstate New York is a considerable exporter of fresh water.
The example of areas exporting and importing water embodied in products can be seen in many places in
the world.
The question that begs for an answer, does it make good economic and environmental sense? There is no
easy answer to this question. One could argue that it makes economic sense for water-scarce areas to
import goods and products that are water guzzlers to save their own limited resources for other, more
important needs. It also makes good economic sense for areas with abundance of water resources to
produce staple products that many markets are ready to import. From an environmental point of view, it is
clear that exporting and importing millions of tons of goods will have a negative environmental impact in
terms of energy consumption and of the release of greenhouse gas. The concept of virtual water trade has
also some shortcomings that are difficult to reconcile. It is based on the assumption that all sources of
water, such as rainfall or that flowing through rivers, are of equal value, which is not exactly the case. It
also assumes that water saved from producing a highly demanding product would be available for the
production of less demanding products, which may not be necessarily possible. Another aspect that could
hinder the application of the virtual water trade is related to politics where it is generally believed that those
that do not produce their own food do not own their freedom. So, the fear that food could become a weapon
to apply political or economic pressure may scare away countries that would otherwise be willing
participants in virtual water trade. In conclusion, if applied fairly, the concept of virtual water is reasonable
and can help alleviate the pressure of water scarcity in some parts of the world. It could have some
environmental side effects which could be reduced in the framework of developing an integrated system for
regional and global water resources management.
Oral Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
27
Techniques to reduce water footprint and to curb its adverse effects
Ashraf Ghaly
Department of Engineering, Union College, Schenectady, NY
The average person drinks between two and five liters of water daily, and needs about 150 liters for
cooking, cleaning, washing, and flushing. This is the amount of water that a person physically comes in
contact with on a daily basis. The fact of the matter is that, in developed countries, the amount of water
actually consumed by a person exceeds 3000 liters a day. This considerable quantity of water is used in the
production of the food, goods, and services people need for their daily lives. Even products that seem to
have nothing to do with water, such as a shirt or a computer chip, require basic materials that consume
untold amounts of water to grow, mine, or manufacture. Hence, the real impact of producing food and
goods go beyond the monetary value of the product. The hidden or embedded quantity of water necessary
for almost all products exact a heavy toll on the environment. This toll is known as water footprint, which
is defined as the actual amount of water required to produce a certain product.
Surface water in lakes or that running in streams and rivers, or that stored in ground aquifers is known as
blue water. This is the water used for household activities, industrial production, power generation,
agriculture, recreation, and ecosystem health. Green water is the water trapped in the voids between soil
particles within root zone of plants and crops. This water mainly enables agriculture activities. Unlike blue
water, which can be managed for all sorts of uses, green water is almost uncontrollable as it cannot be
harvested or piped, however, it is essential for crop growth. A third type is grey water, which refers to
wastewater without fecal contamination. It is viewed as safer to handle and easier to treat and reuse onsite
for toilet flushing, landscape or crop irrigation, and other non-potable uses such as growing trees and
shrubs.
Water footprint of various products varies from one place to another due to climatic conditions, techniques
of production, type of species within the same family of product. For example, to produce one kilogram of
oranges in the USA, it takes 175 kilograms of water, whereas this figure is over 500 kilograms in Australia.
Another example is biofuels such as Ethanol, which constitutes 10% to 15% of gasoline, blend in the USA.
This simply means that water is used to grow crops that supply the transportation industry with energy
rather than providing people with food. In addition to the ethical issue this raises, the question that seeks an
answer is whether this is environmentally sustainable. This paper aims at presenting techniques to reduce
the water footprint of products and curbing its adverse effects on the environment. A major pillar of
minimizing the negative impact of water footprint is responsible consumption, conservation of resources,
and diminution of waste. Implementation of these steps can significantly decrease water footprint and
lessen the harmful effect on the society in general and on the environment in particular.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
28
Is that E. coli or not? Unique fluorescent color in Colilert treated
samples from the Mohawk River
Illona Gillette-Ferguson, Emily Benton, Jillian Burton, Lily Demera, Emily Frost, Alex Gieseler,
Tyler Hotaling, Nathalia Mazoff, Sarah Meaney, Lucy Meehan, Nora Oukili, Caitlyn Peck, Ayiana
Shaw, Jen Stanton, Lyndsey Wanits, Claire Williams
Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, SUNY Cobleskill, Cobleskill, NY 12043
Crew 8 at SUNY Cobleskill, Leatherstocking Council, Boy Scouts of America
Water samples were collected from the Mohawk River and processed according to EPA standard method
9223B for Quanti-Tray analysis using Colilert (IDEXX, Westbrook, ME). Upon analysis of the tray, some
wells were discovered to be a different fluorescent color or shade than the typical E. coli positive samples.
These unique wells were then subcultured and analyzed further for response in Colilert media and
identified using EnteroPluri tubes (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ). These tests will allow further
elucidation of the types of environmental bacteria that are not E. coli that can cause fluorescence using the
Colilert system.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
29
Forecasting of water discharge using atmospheric and hydrologic sensors to identify
long-term high-risk periods in Herkimer County, NY
Illiana Gogos1, Kaitlyn Shire1, Scott Lakeram1, Antonios Marsellos1, Katerina Tsakiri2
1Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
2Department of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management, College of Business Administration,
Rider University, Lawrence, NJ
Introduction
Herkimer County is located in Upstate New York that includes part of the Mohawk River that flows across
the south part of the county. From the dates of July 28th, 2013 to July 2nd 2013, many areas of Herkimer
County experienced severe flash flooding due mostly to heavy rainfall. This flood caused damage to
homes, businesses, roadways, bridges, and caused one fatality throughout different towns in Herkimer
County (Eisenstadt, 2013). Due to its proximity to the Mohawk River and other sources of water such as
streams, this area is highly prone to flooding, and public authorities as well as residents and businesses are
in need of an advanced forecasting system. Previous research has been conducted in this area using spatial
analysis to identify vulnerable areas of flooding (Swan et al, 2013). In this research, we utilize available
atmospheric and hydrogeological time series data from available sensors near Little Falls, Herkimer County
to design a forecasting algorithm for a long-term prediction of flooding in Herkimer County. Little Falls,
NY was chosen as it is considered as one of the most dynamic study locations because it provides
continuous daily and hourly monitoring of atmospheric and hydrological sensors along the Mohawk River
to explore forecasting of flood high-risk periods.
Methodology
The USGS National Water Information System website was used to locate a surface water site with the
most sufficient data. We chose the gaging station USGS 1347000 in Little Falls, NY and our data for water
discharge rate and daily statistics was obtained between February 1st, 2012 and February 1st 2018. A map
was created on Google Earth to highlight the stations that we utilized to retrieve data. Additionally,
atmospheric data was obtained through NOAA in order to correlate with the water discharge. The raw data
was retrieved through KNIME, a data mining software. Data pre-processing such filtering, replacing
missing data, converting hourly data to daily data, and finding maximum and minimum values that took
place through data mining simple techniques. Then, the Kolmogorov-Zurbenko filter with a length of the
filter equal with 31 was applied to all variables following previous described methodology (Tsakiri et al.,
2014) to derive the long-term component. Then, the processed data, which we call “long-term component”,
was imported into SPSS for further advanced statistical analysis, such as forecasting. In SPSS, bivariate
analysis allowed us to select correlated variables to water discharge, and a linear regression model was
obtained by isolating the water discharge as the dependent variable. The independent variables used in the
model are minimum temperature, maximum temperature, maximum Relative Humidity, Snow Depth,
Precipitation, Maximum Atmospheric Pressure, Maximum Groundwater Depth, and Snowfall. The
following section describes the results of the linear regression model.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
30
Figure 1: A map created on Google Earth of the Greater Herkimer County area displaying the Mohawk
River (flowing west to east) depositing into the Hudson River, the horizontal scale in meters, and the
yellow pins on the map that represent the study area and the sensors locations from where weather stations
and water wells data were obtained from (Albany International Airport Weather Station
GHCND:USW00014735, Weather Data Station WBAN 04741, USGS gage station id 01346000, USGS
Well 4301210745230001).
Figure 2: Time Series Plot of the raw daily water discharge data from January 2012 to February 2018. The
high peaks of the time series plot indicate minor and major flooding events.
Results
Before applying the linear regression model, we examine the correlations between the variables. For the
raw data, the correlation between the water discharge and the depth (groundwater) is 0.734, while the
correlation between the water discharge and maximum temperature is 0.173. After the application of the
Kolmogorov-Zurbenko filter, the correlation between water discharge and depth is 0.923, and the
correlation between water discharge and maximum temperature is .504. Using the linear regression model,
the forecasting equation has been designed after consideration of the acceptable p-values for the
coefficients of the linear regression model (p-values are less than 0.05). Because all the coefficients of the
linear regression model have a p value less than 0.05, we can conclude that the coefficients are statistically
significant. The value of the R2, the coefficient of determination, of the linear regression model is equal to
0.941. Thus, 94.1% of the variation of the long term component in water discharge can be explained by the
atmospheric variables and the hydrological variables. To verify the assumptions of the linear regression
model, we plot the residuals of the model.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
31
A scatterplot of the residuals, a normal probability P-P plot, and a line chart showing the long-term water
discharge versus the predicted values are plotted in Figure 3. The plots show that the residuals have normal
distribution and they show no significant pattern or extreme values. In addition, the variance of the
residuals is constant since they are randomly distributed around zero. The predicted and the long term water
discharge values seem to overlap which is reasonable due to high correlation. In the plot, the most recent
peak represents heavy rainfall, which caused a flood in July 2017.
Figure 3: On the left side, a Normal Probability Plot shows the distribution of the residuals derived by the
linear regression of the Water Discharge and the independent variables. On the right side, the scatter plot
shows the standardized residuals versus the standardized predicted values.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
32
Figure 4: Time Series Plot of the predicted Values of the water discharge (green) compared with the long-
term water discharge (blue). The peaks represent major flood events, such as the destructive flood that
occurred on June 28, 2013 caused by persistent heavy rainfall.
Discussion
The normal probability plot (Fig. 3) shows that the data is approximately normal because most of the points
fit on or around the line. All the coefficients of the linear regression model are statistically significant since
the P-values are less than 0.05, and the R2 value is 0.941 for the long term components. The R-square value
on the raw data using the linear regression model is 0.886. Thus for the long term components, 94.1% of
the variation in water discharge can be explained by the independent variables (from linear regression)
providing a very accurate long-term forecasting as the predicted values of the water discharge almost line
up with the measured values by the USGS (Fig. 4). For the long term component of the water discharge the
most correlated variable is the long term component of the groundwater level. A scatterplot of the residuals
(Fig. 3) displays that the data shows no linearity or outliers, indicating that there is no influence of extreme
points on the results and the linear regression model is appropriate for the analysis.
Long term data were retrieved through statistical processing in KNIME and the Kolmogorov-Zurbenko
filtering to eliminate short term variations (considered as noise). The correlation between the water
discharge and the maximum temperature significantly increased for the long term components. The
correlation between the water discharge and groundwater increased by approximately 25.7%. The
correlation between the water discharge and maximum temperature increased by approximately three times.
The purpose of this analysis is to have the ability to predict long term trends. Although these trends will not
have the ability to predict a flood within a few days, it can predict monthly flooding.
Conclusion
The results indicate that the long-term data can be used to predict flood patterns over a long period of time,
while the raw data do not produce as significant results. Therefore, in order to predict floods in spans of
months, the long-term data should be used to justify the flood prediction. This forecasting model will allow
to identify high-risk flood periods of time in advance, which is important for citizens to be prepared for
such geohazard from ahead of time to ensure their safety.
References:
Eisenstadt, Marnie. (2013) Flooding: Twice-Flooded Residents in Herkimer Are Bracing for More Rain. Syracuse.com,
www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/07/flooding_twice-flooded_residen.html.
Swan, B., Yankopoulos, A.T., Marsellos, A.E. (2016) Evaluation and Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the June
28, 2013 Flood in Herkimer, New York Using GIS and Other Reconstructive Data. Proceedings from the Mohawk
Watershed Symposium, p. 52-54, ISBN: 978-1-939968-07-4.
Tsakiri, K.G., Marsellos, A.E., Zurbenko, I.G. (2014) An Efficient Prediction Model for Water Discharge in Schoharie
Creek, NY. Journal of Climatology, vol., 2014, pp. 1–10.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
33
Climate change, weathering the flood and supporting RiverSmart Communities
Christine E. Hatch1, Eve Vogel1, Benjamin Warner Hatch2, John Gartner1
1Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
2Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Where do droughts and floods come from? Why do they happen? Do they happen in New England? Often?
Regional-scale climate models for the northeastern United States predict changes in precipitation patterns,
quantities, and intensity in the coming decades, including increased frequency of both floods and droughts.
Here we explore the effects climate change may have on water resources, rivers and human infrastructure.
While very large flood events may recur in a single location every 60-100 years, there is a high likelihood
of an event of this magnitude occurring somewhere in New England every year. Like many states in the
region, we have lots of rivers, and those rivers cross lots of roads. Each road-stream crossing was designed
to accommodate a certain volume of water passing under it, using ~100 years of streamflow records to
predict the likelihood of a particular size flood. But there are shortcomings to this approach: our records
are too short (one data point is insufficient to predict what will happen every 100 years or more),
streamflows are changing (rainfall patterns are increasing in both intensity and total quantity in the
Northeast, and are projected to continue doing so), and many of our bridges and culverts have already
outlived their designed lifespan, making them more likely to be undersized and vulnerable to the largest
flood flows. It is financially difficult for towns to upgrade crossings to more resilient designs that can
accommodate larger flows. But towns can inventory vulnerable structures well ahead of time to know
which could provide optimal benefits to ecosystems and human resilience if replaced. Such information
can help towns apply for state or federal funds for replacement in the event of a failure. In addition to
planning ahead, New England communities can be more resilient to river floods, becoming river-smart
(Vogel et al., 2016), by (1) Understanding and applying the science of river dynamics and its key insights
on river floods– both in general, and in relation to specific locations of concern and opportunity, (2) as
much as possible, finding ways to give rivers room to move and be rivers– to carry and deposit water,
sediment and debris, to flood floodplains, and to meander and braid, and (3) when armoring stream banks
or deepening channels is unavoidable, mitigate these actions so as to reduce unintended consequences of
erosion and deposition that will be displaced elsewhere. As part of our work, we identified five targeted
policy recommendations to help communities become river-smart, illustrated here:
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
34
References:
Vogel, Eve; Benjamin Warner, Jerry Schoen, Nicole Gillett, Laurel Payne, Daphne Chang, Peter
Huntington, Christine Hatch, Marie-Francoise Hatte, and Noah Slovin (2016): Supporting New England
Communities to Become River-Smart: Policies and programs that can help New England towns thrive
despite river floods. Publication editor Joe Shoenfeld. UMass Center for Agriculture, Food and the
Environment. Available at https://extension.umass.edu/riversmart/policy-report
Invited Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
35
Flood forecasting of water discharge at Freeman’s Bridge
in Schenectady, New York
Scott R. Lakeram1, Tom A. Plitnick1, Daniella K. Chernoff1, Antonios E. Marsellos1, Katerina G. Tsakiri2
1Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
2Department of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management, College of Business Administration,
Rider University, Lawrence, NJ
Introduction
The county of Schenectady encompasses 204.52 square miles and is located along the banks of the
Mohawk River in Upstate New York (Census, 2010). With such a vast area citizens living in Schenectady
are at the predisposition to the water levels of the Mohawk River. Due to the fluctuating water levels,
flooding has become a common occurrence, particularly for individuals living along the banks of the river.
These flooding events occur from a myriad of sources, many of which are derived from ice jams, inflicting
damage to homes and local businesses. Ice jams occur during the winter when floes accumulate at the base
of bridge piers, locks, and dam structures, inhibiting the movement of water downstream (Pariset et al.
1966). Research on flood forecasting and damage evaluation in this area has been conducted in the past
(Foster et al. 2011, Tsakiri et al. 2014, and Pascucci et al. 2017). The recent ice jam that occurred on
January 26th of 2018, raised the water levels of the Mohawk River substantially (USGS, 2018). In an
attempt to warn residents of possible future flooding events, daily climate and groundwater data from the
past six years were statistically analyzed in order to achieve long-term forecasting.
Methodology
In order to evaluate issues of flooding along the city’s river banks, atmospheric and hydrological data were
obtained from weather stations situated near Schenectady, NY (Water Discharge Station Id 01354500 and
Station Id 01354330, USGS Well 425048073472501, USGS Well 424859073585501, Albany Airport
Weather Station GHCND:USW00014735, and Pressure Data Station WBAN 04741). Using the weather
stations, well stations and bridge location as pins, maps of the studied area were created utilizing a digital
elevation model (DEM) with Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) data (LiDAR-DEM) in Global
Mapper (Figure 1). Once the data were obtained, variables were inserted into KNIME, an open source data
analytics and data mining software, reporting and integration platform. Here, the raw data was mined from
their original url sources. Hourly data were converted to daily data by extracting the maximum value of the
day and missing data were replaced with previous daily values. A Log transformation was placed on the
water discharge data to reduce the difference between extreme values and minimum values for that day. A
periodicity of thirty-one days was selected, a Kolmogorov-Zurbenko filter was applied in order to
determine long-term values and a linear correlation was conducted in order to find any similarities between
the variables (Yang et al. 2010). The filtered data were transferred into Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) where a linear regression was performed. The long-term and raw data were analysed for
differences in the regression number. The unstandardized values were extracted and plotted with the long-
term discharge values.
Results - Interpretation
A detailed map of the studied area was produced using Global Mapper. The LiDAR bare earth model was
generated in Global Mapper to explore the landscape and confirm that all stations are located within an
appropriate distance and no physical barriers were present, such as ridges. All studied points were placed
on the map as pins and labeled. The programs KNIME and SPSS were used to analyze data collected from
the weather and groundwater stations. The linear regression yielded a 95% of coefficient of determination
between the long-term component of the water discharge and the independent variables. Thus, 95% of the
variation in the long-term of the water discharge can be explained by the atmospheric and hydrologic
variables such as: the ground water depth upstream, the difference in groundwater depth (between upstream
and downstream), the maximum temperature, the minimum temperature, the precipitation, the snowfall, the
snow depth and the average wind speed. The P-values of the coefficients in the linear regression model are
all less than 0.05 indicating that all the variables were statistically significant.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
36
To verify the assumptions in the linear regression model, we check the plots of the residuals. The histogram
of the regression standardized residuals follows the normal distribution verifying the normality of the
residuals (Figure 2). The scatter plot of the residuals divided by the standard deviation was completed to
determine if any outliers were present in the data. The plotted data produced a plot with no patterns and
extreme points (Figure 2).
Figure 1: A LiDAR bare earth model of the greater Schenectady area showing the Mohawk River (flowing
from the west to the east) depositing in the Hudson River. The vertical scale shows vertical elevation with
no exaggeration (in Meters) and the horizontal scale is in Kilometers. Yellow pins located on the map
indicate weather and groundwater station structures where data was taken from. The yellow pins located
on the map correspond with a numerical value to indicate locations (USGS Well 425048073475501 (1),
Pressure Data Station WBAN 04741 (2), Freeman’s Bridge (3), USGS well 424859073582501 (4), Albany
International Airport Weather Station GHCND:USW00014735 (5).
Figure 2: On the left side, the histogram of the standardized residual derived from the linear regression
model (N=2,130). On the right side, a scatter plot of the studentized residual derived by the regression
model versus the predicted values for the dependent variable (N=2,130).
Discussion
Schenectady County, which is located in Upstate New York, is highly susceptible to flooding events that
occur along the Mohawk River. These events are caused by high amounts of rainfall and primarily by ice
jams. Using KNIME and SPSS the data were analysed in order to predict flooding events caused by ice
jams near Freeman’s Bridge.
The plotted predicted discharge values closely follow the trend of the long-term water discharge, indicating
the accuracy of the model. From the graph it was determined that two flooding events occurring in June
2013 and July 2017 along with two ice jams occurring in January 2014 and January 2018. Even though
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
37
there are distinctive flooding events, series of consecutive flooding events have happened and aggregations
of flooding events were sometimes clumped together and were displayed as a single exponential trend.
Figure 3: Time Series plot of the unstandardized predicted values overlain with the long-term of the water
discharge from January of 2012 to February of 2018. Four major events are showing on the graph (June
2013, January 2014, July 2017, and January 2018) indicating an ice jam and/or flood event.
Conclusion
The accuracy of this method could prove to be a reliable source for forecasting future ice jams and flooding
events. This methodology can be applied to forecasting floods in Schenectady County, increasing the
preparedness of the public and reducing the risk of damage to local infrastructure. Anticipating flood events
in advance may provide adequate time for public authorities to immediately respond to flood calls and
minimize injuries that can occur to the public.
References:
Census. (2010) Schenectady County, New York; UNITED STATES. www.census.gov,
www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/schenectadycountynewyork,US/PST045216.
Foster, J.A., Marsellos, A.E., Garver, J.I. (2011) Predicting trigger level for ice jam flooding of the lower Mohawk
River using LiDAR and GIS. Proceedings from the Mohawk Symposium 2011, in Schenectady, New York, p.13-15.
United States Geological Survey, Mohawk River Ice Jam Monitoring.” New York Water Science Center, USGS,
Updates, 27 Jan. 2018, ny.water.usgs.gov/flood/MohawkIce/.
Pariset, Ernest, Hausser, René, Gagnon, André. (1966) Formation of Ice Covers and Ice Jams in Rivers. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, Vol. 92, Issue 6, Pg. 1-24
Pascucci, T., Chernoff, D., Lakeram, S. & Marsellos, A. (2017) Statistical analysis of damage to local businesses due to
flooding events along the Mohawk River valley in Amsterdam, New York. Proceedings from the Mohawk Watershed
Symposium 2017, p. 50-52 ISBN: 978-1-938868-12-8
Tsakiri, K.G., Marsellos, A.E., Zurbenko, I.G.,(2014) An efficient prediction model for water discharge in Schoharie
Creek, NY. Vol. 2014 Article ID 284137, Journal of Climatology. doi:10.1155/2014/284137.
Yang, Wei, Zurbenko, Igor. (2010) Kolmogorov–Zurbenko filters. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational
Statistics 2, no. 3: 340-351.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
38
Monitoring the Hudson and beyond with HRECOS:
The Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System
Gavin M. Lemley1 and Alexander J. Smith2
1Hudson River Estuary Program, NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY
2Division of Water, 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 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. 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.
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., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
39
Reconstruction and flood simulation using GIS and Google Earth to
determine the extent and damage of the January 14-15th 2018
ice jams on the Mohawk River in Schenectady, New York
Lauren Mahoney, Sally Louise Roscoe, Antonios Marsellos
Department of Geology, Environment, Sustainability at Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Introduction
During the 14th to the 15th of January 2018, the city of Schenectady located in Upstate New York
experienced flooding due to the ice jam of the Mohawk River. The fluctuations of temperature in the month
of January, ranging from extreme cold to then a period of warming, caused the ice jam to occur in the
Schenectady region of the Mohawk River. As the floes blocked the flow of the river, the water became
displaced. This resulted in flooding of the surrounding area. The damages were relatively minor. The
flooding that occurred in the Stockade area of Schenectady in mid-January of 2018 was quite well
documented through both local media and online newspapers. Previous work has been around spatial and
time series prediction or damage evaluation at this location (Marsellos et al., 2010, Foster et al., 2011;
Tsakiri et al., 2013, Lewis et al., 2016). This research utilizes Geographical Information System (GIS)
software with Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), publicly announced locations showing the flood
damage, and the related water level at the time of the flood (Fig. 1). A methodology is provided in this
research on how to create a flood simulation to further understand the impact of the flood, as well as to
prepare for the potential of the flood re-occurring within the given area.
Figure 1: Aerial image obtained from Google Earth of the study area and the utilized referenced points of
flood occurrences with water level seen in publicly available pictures from the ice jam of the 14-15th of
January 2018 in Schenectady, New York.
Methodology
Photographic evidence of the flooding was obtained from publicly available resources such as internet,
online newspaper, blog-media, and we infer a direct measurement of the water level surface from the ice
jam that occurred in the Schenectady region of the Mohawk River. The geographic locations of each of the
photographs and the associated flood level were determined using Google Earth and GIS software. These
research points were converted into .kmz files, which were then inserted into Global Mapper (GM), which
is a GIS software. A LiDAR digital elevation model (LiDAR-DEM) was used as a virtual background for
the research points, and once both the points and the LiDAR data was in GM, a 3D model was created.
Two LiDAR-DEMs were constructed; one shows the Bare-Earth model (a surface of the Earth with no
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
40
objects on) and a DSM model (digital surface model; a surface of the Earth with all objects on). Flood
simulations were run in both LiDAR-DEMs to compare the flood impacts.
The 3D model on Global Mapper (GM) was flooded multiple times in subsets of the studied area, using
manually simulated water levels. These water levels were then determined by combining the visuals
provided by the 3D model and the photographic evidence of the flood (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). A table provided
the measured water levels of the flood by the two techniques, that is the Google Earth and the LiDAR-
DEM visualization is provided (Table 1).
Figure 2: (left picture) Global Mapper 3D model of flooded Site 4, at Ingersoll Ave, and (right picture) the
publicly available image showing the flood caused by the ice jam of January 2018 (images showing the
flood were provided by Peter R. Barber for the Daily Gazette newspaper).
Figure 3: (left picture) Global Mapper 3D model of flooded Site 6, at North Street, and (right picture) the
publicly available image showing the flood caused by the ice jam of January 2018 (images showing the
flood were provided by David Giacalone for the Suns along the Mohawk blog).
Results
The Stockade neighborhood flooded fairly equally, with areas at lower elevations closer to the river, such
as sites 1, 2, and 9, experiencing increased flooding. LiDAR-DEM using all LiDAR points were used to
visualize flooding in 3D mode. The LiDAR-DEM using only the ground points (Bare Earth Model) was
found to be inadequate to realistically visualize flood in the infrastructure of the town. The standard
deviation of the measured water surface elevation from the flood images and the Global Mapper
visualization is approximately 1.1 ft. while the average offset between those two techniques is 1.8 ft.
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
41
Table 1: Results and coordinates for each investigated site for determining the flood level using the
LiDAR-DEM and the Google Earth elevation data.
Discussion
The comparison of LiDAR data and Google Earth Pro data in this study displayed the contrast of these two
different elevation datasets that those programs utilize for the flood simulation. The LiDAR data were
more accurate for determining the elevations of our study areas, as well as for the simulation of the actual
flood, which occurred in January 2018. However, Google Earth is more efficient in terms of fewer
requirements for pre-processing of the elevation data and it is more widely accessible to the public. In
addition, geolocation address was more feasible of our sites based on the photographs collected and the
existing Google geodatabase.
The Bare Earth Model or Digital Terrain Model (DTM), is not an ideal model to use since it did not
accurately display the accumulation of the flow of water around existing structures. The Bare Earth Model
only displays the terrain of the ground surface, excluding objects on the ground such as trees or buildings,
which would deviate the flow of the river flooding.
Floods can be monitored and analyzed without it being necessary to visit the site. This type of study
demonstrates the vast implications of how floods can better be studied in the future. This methodology
shows how the further evaluation and analysis of past floods better improve the understanding of how
rising water levels affect the topography of a region like Schenectady. The ability to better understand how
flooding affects neighborhoods like Stockade in Schenectady can result in improved measures that may be
taken to prepare for and reduce the severity of the implications that result from flooding.
Conclusion
The integration of LiDAR data and Google Earth data into Global Mapper is able to construct a more
accurate flood simulation, since this method combines the efficiency of Google’s geolocation database
along with the accuracy of LiDAR elevation data. While the utilization of the DTM is unique to GIS
software such as Global Mapper, it is not necessary for our analysis since it does not display water flow
around existing infrastructure; therefore, it cannot be an accurate model to determine flood damages for
residents. This methodology is useful for future research because it provides a framework for how floods
can be evaluated remotely, which can produce more prompt results on a broader scale.
References:
Barber, P. Daily Gazette: “Ingersoll Avenue in the Stockade Sunday, January 14th, 2018”
Foster, J.A., Marsellos, A.E., Garver, J.I., 2011. Predicting trigger level for ice jam flooding of the lower
Mohawk River using LiDAR and GIS. Proceedings from the Mohawk Symposium 2011, in Schenectady,
New York, p.13-15.
Giacalone D. Suns along the Mohawk: “North Street at 8 AM”
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
42
Lewis, A., Weaver, E., Dorward, E., Marsellos, A.E., 2016. Two Methods for Determining the Extent of
Flooding During Hurricane Irene in Schenectady, NY. Proceedings from the Mohawk Watershed
Symposium 2016, p. 21-23, ISBN: 978-1-939968-07-4.
Marsellos, A.E., Garver, J.I., Cockburn, J.M.H., 2010. Flood map and volumetric calculation of the January
25th ice-jam flood using LiDAR and GIS, in Schenectady, NY. Proceedings from the Mohawk Symposium
2010, in Schenectady, New York, p. 23-27.
Tsakiri, K.G., Marsellos, A.E., Zurbenko, I.G., 2013. Explanation of the water monitoring time series data
in Schoharie Creek, New York. Proceedings from the Mohawk Symposium 2013, in Schenectady, New
York, p. 74-75.
Poster Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
43
In Harm’s Way: Community Responses to Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee
Ellen E. McHale
Utica College, Utica, NY
In 2011, Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee delivered two consecutive blows to communities in the
Schoharie and Mohawk Watershed, as torrential rains caused unprecedented flooding throughout the
region. Five years later, in 2016, I began to record the personal experience narratives of flood survivors
and volunteers: first through a series of community “sharing” sessions focused upon the volunteer
experience and later through recording the personal experience stories of those whose lives and property
had been directly impacted by the catastrophic flooding caused by Irene and Lee in the Mohawk and
Schoharie Watersheds. This oral history collecting was supported through the efforts of Schoharie Area
Long Term (S.A.L.T.) Recovery; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; the Town of Prattsville; and the
National Endowment for the Arts through a grant received by Long Island Traditions, a non-profit
organization pursuing their own documentation of the effects of Superstorm Sandy. Questions driving this
research included the following:
• What were the personal flood experiences of those affected by flooding caused by the two back-
to-back storms?
• What preparations were made by individuals to anticipate such flooding?
• What were the community responses to the incidences of flooding?
• Five years later, was has been the long-term effects on “community” and the community’s
perception of itself?
• Are there historical and cultural attitudes that can assist with individual and community recovery?
• With the impact of climate change and the increased incidence of heavy weather events, what can
a community do to ready themselves? What should be in a community’s “toolbox” for future
weather events?
Interviews were conducted with private home-owners, business owners, and with town and village officials
in Prattsville, Middleburgh, Schoharie, Town of Charleston, Rotterdam Junction, Schenectady, and Scotia.
In all, over forty interviews were conducted over a two-year period. Themes that were revealed in the
narratives illustrated personal lack of preparation; concerns for the safety of the Gilboa dam;
communication failures; flood-related displacement and isolation; the removal of barriers to community
cooperation and a renewed feeling of “community;” the importance of “outside helpers” and the kindness
of strangers; and community revitalization. Other themes that emerged from the interviews included the
role of humor in recovery, community resiliency and solidarity, and the changing perceptions of place after
experiencing flood dislocation and return.
Folklorists are scholars who work in the realm of oral narrative and the aesthetic expressions of everyday
life. They conduct qualitative research through the collecting of oral narratives and through participant
observation. While flooding has not been a common subject for folklore study, folklorists have begun to
record community responses to weather and to the changing climate. Ground-breaking work was done in
Houston in 2006, after flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina. In this seminal project, folklorists Carl
Lindahl of the University of Houston and Pat Jasper of Texas Folklife Resources documented the personal
experience narratives of those affected by Hurricane Katrina in Houston. With assistance from the Library
of Congress’s Center for Folklife, Lindahl and Jasper trained Katrina survivors in the methodology of oral
history in order to have Katrina survivors interview each other, thereby assisting flood survivors to find
healing and to counteract the prevailing mainstream media narrative of Katrina “victims”.
When Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee hit the Catskills and the Mohawk Valley, and after
Hurricane Sandy impacted New York and New Jersey, folklorists in New York State launched their own
initiatives based upon Lindahl and Jasper’s prior work in Houston. At the heart of the New York initiative
was the belief stated by Lindahl, “The need for survivors to tell their stories—and for the rest of us to hear
them.” (Lindahl 2006:1528). A second concern for the ad hoc New York group was the inevitability of
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
44
future heavy weather events and the need to understand human and cultural responses to flooding. Perhaps,
through understanding the human response to flooding, communities can better prepare and accomplish
greater long-term resiliency.
Narratives arising from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee highlight the role of flooding in creating
community cohesion, as evidenced by positive post-flood interactions between fellow flood survivors. In
several communities, specific individuals are valorized as “heroes” - those who risked their own lives to
assist others, as well as those who worked tirelessly to assist with flood recovery. Now, seven years post
Irene and Lee, flood survivors who remained within their communities have proven themselves to be
agents of community change and resiliency. Their stories chronicle their responses to personal tragedy and
the changing nature of “community.”
References:
Lindahl, Carl. “Legends of Hurricane Katrina: The Right to Be Wrong, Survivor-to-Survivor Storytelling,
and Healing,” Journal of American Folklore, Volume 125, Number 496, Spring 2012, pp. 139-176.
Lindahl, Carl. “Storms of Memory: New Orleanians Surviving Katrina in Houston,” Callaloo, Volume 29,
Number 4, Fall 2006, pp. 1526-1538
Invited Presentation
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
45
Schenectady’s historic Stockade district: options for flood mitigation
William Nechamen
Principal, Nechamen Consulting, LCC; Executive Director, New York State Floodplain and Stormwater
Managers Association
Schenectady, New York contains a jewel of a historic neighborhood in the Stockade, along with recurring
and severe flood risk from the Mohawk River. The continued viability of the Stockade neighborhood
depends on mitigating flood risk. There are several ways to mitigate flood risk with different effectiveness,
costs, benefits, and feasibility.
The Stockade district is a unique historic community, having been the first historic district in New York
State. The district roughly runs from the area west of Erie Boulevard and north of State Street (Route 5) to
the Mohawk River. The lower elevations in the Stockade are flood-prone, having been flooded multiple
times from both ice dams and heavy storms. A long-term gage record downstream at Cohoes shows that
flows heavy enough to cause flooding have occurred in at least in 1863, 1913, 1916, 1936, 1938, 1955,
1964, 1977, 1980, 1996, 2005, 2006, and 2011. Of the 12 heaviest flows, 8 were during winter months and
may have been caused by ice dams upstream of Cohoes suddenly giving out and releasing water. Three
were during tropical storm season. One was in late Spring because of heavy rains. Most of the Stockade is
not flood prone; only the lower reaches roughly below Front Street.
Newspaper accounts show that Schenectady also suffered floods in the 19th and early 20th centuries, prior to
the current configuration of the Barge Canal and the Vischer Ferry Dam. Here are some reports.
In 1903, the Warwick (RI) Daily Dispatch reported: “Entire Atlantic Seaboard Damaged by Rain’s
Aftermath. Schenectady, N. Y. — The works of the General Electric Company and the American
Locomotive Company, which together employ 18,000 hands, were obliged to shut down on account of the
floods. Both plants were submerged… The entire western end of town along the river front is under water,
which rose twenty feet. The losses are conservatively estimated at from $100,000 to $200,000.” (Note:
That’s $2.6 million to $5.2 million today).
From the Watertown Daily Times, March 3, 1902: Schenectady, NY. “The water in the Mohawk River
went down several feet yesterday but rose again during the night and at 10 o’clock was 17 feet 6 inches
high. The dyke (sic) connecting the city and Scotia is threatened, and if washed away the losses will be
very heavy.”
From the New York Daily Tribune, July 24, 1869: Schenectady, NY Oct 4. “The incessant driving rain of
last night caused much damage to this section. Several dams in the suburbs of the city are gone, and the
flats are submerged. Several of the main streets of the city are under water. The Mohawk River is ten feet
above the low water mark… The storm is the severest of the kind ever known in this vicinity.”
The New York Daily Tribune reported on May 4, 1854: “The Late Storm. Still Further Particulars. The
Freshet at Albany. At Schenectady, the water in the Mohawk rose to the height of fourteen feet eight
inches above the ordinary summer level. The south-western portion of the city and the flats and islands
were submerged. Large quantities of lumber had floated down the stream.”
In 1850, the New York Daily Tribune printed a “correspondence” stating, “The heavy rains on Thursday
and Friday have produced the most extensive and disastrous flood in the Hudson and its tributaries ever
known at this season of the year. … A great rise in the Hudson at Troy, Albany, etc. and immense damage
all along the low lands of the Mohawk between this place and Schenectady must be the result of this
freshet.”
Every river floods. The floodplain of a river is a natural feature that is a result of the historic land sculpting
properties of the river itself. Problems happen when people build and reside in floodplains. Floodplain
development is often the result of decisions made decades and even over a century ago. FEMA helps by
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
46
mapping the parts of the floodplain that are most likely to flood. In the Stockade, that is in general the area
between Front Street and the river. The area that has a one-percent chance of flooding every year, often
called the 100-year floodplain, is shaded in the map below. The map also shows a slightly larger area that
has up to a 0.2% probability of flooding each year, often called the 500-year floodplain. The map can be
seen in figure 1.
Figure 1: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map.
Flooding will continue and is likely to get worse. In the Northeastern United States, there has already been
a 71 percent increase in in the amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest 1% of all daily events from
1958 to 2012. (National Climate Assessment Report, Updating Data from Carl, T.R., J.T. Melillo and T.C.
Peterson 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.) In the east central region of New
York State, total precipitation is anticipated to increase by 5% to 15% by the 2080’s and an increase in days
with heavy precipitation. (Climate Change in New York State: Updating the 2011 ClimAID Climate Risk
Information, NYSERDA, 2014.)
While every river floods, the depth of flooding is influenced by many factors. When dams and bridges
cross rivers, they sometimes cause water levels to rise, or block ice from flowing causing ice dams. Natural
features, such as the shape and material making up the river bed, and gorges which narrow a river, also
influence flood heights. The Mohawk River is a complex river with man-made changes and different
natural features. As such, flood elevations change over the length of the river. The rise in flood levels as
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
47
you go upstream is not uniform. The stream profile shown in Figure 2 illustrates the point. There are five
lines on the graphic, representing from bottom to top, the location of the river bed, and the 10% (10 year),
2% (50 year), 1% (100 year) and 0.2% (500 year) flood elevations.
Figure 2: Mohawk River flood profile.
The Vischer Ferry dam influences flood elevations but it is not the only factor. Flood elevations rise
upstream of the bridges. The stream bed itself rises and falls, influencing flood elevations. One limiting
factor to river flows is the narrows at the knolls, which is the gorge just downstream of the Rexford Bridge.
If the dam was not present, there would be a steeper drop in flood elevations at that location as you move
downstream but flooding in Schenectady would not be eliminated.
Recent floods are far from the highest floods that can be anticipated. A 100-year flood has a one percent
probability of occurring each year, or 26% over any 30-year period. The elevations shown on Figure 2 are
based on engineering calculations derived from a statistical analysis of flood flows. These are probabilities
based on historic records. Based on flow records at Cohoes, the flood from Tropical Strom Irene was about
a 30-year event on the lower Mohawk River. The recent February 2018 ice jam flood rose to 223 feet at
Freemans’s Bridge. The 100-year flood elevation at that location is 227 feet; four feet higher.
There are a limited number of mitigation options to reduce flooding in Schenectady. The can be analyses
of changing configurations and operations of upstream and downstream dams. Large upstream dams could
hold water back. Berms or levees can keep floodwaters from structures. Upstream ponding areas can be
increased. Buildings can be torn down, moved or elevated.
Large upstream impoundments are generally not feasible. The most favorable dam sites in the basin were
taken over a century ago for use by New York City or for Erie Canal management. In the modern era, it us
generally both cost and environmentally prohibitive to build new large dams. Significant private property
would also have to be taken.
There have been changes to operations at the upstream canal dams so that they can be more easily lifted
out of the river. The changes reduce the probability of debris being caught in the dams and increasing
flooding in the vicinity. However, operations of those dams cannot reduce flooding downstream of them in
Schenectady, in part because there is limited impoundment along the river itself.
The Vischer Ferry Dam, eight miles downstream of Schenectady, has been subject of attention. The dam
clearly has influence on the river but is not the sole cause of flooding. Thus far a full hydraulic analysis of
the dam’s influence on the river along with “what if” scenarios for different dam configurations has not
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
48
been done and would also have to include impacts downstream including in the flood-prone community of
Waterford. This writer supports such a study, not only to finally answer the what-if questions, but also to
evaluate the impacts of the dam on stream sediment and pollution movement. However, even if it could be
shown that the Vischer Ferry dam influences flooding in Schenectady, any change to the dam would take
many years and cost a great deal of money.
The dam is owned by the New York Power Authority and was constructed to produce power while
including a lock for navigation on the then newly constructed Barge Canal. Reconstructing the dam to
allow for either a lift dam configuration or large release gates would have to be paid for either by energy
customers or taxpayers. The New York Power Authority does not have a business interest in reconfiguring
the dam except to comply with regulatory dam safety requirements, which are designed to prevent dam
failure. The state is unlikely to pay for changes to the dam if there are less expensive alternatives. Federal
money comes with strict requirements for benefit – cost analyses. Making changes to the Vischer Ferry
Dam is unlikely to find financing and even if it did, it would take many years.
What about berms or levees? A berm is a low mounded wall of dirt designed to keep shallow waters away
from areas. They are often built to circle a building. They are usually not engineered structures and are
rarely high enough to meet FEMA’s requirement for removal of the protected area from the mapped flood
zone. FEMA requires that any area to be removed from a mapped flood zone due to a levee or berm must
show proof that the structure meets strict engineering standards, the top must be at least three feet higher
than the 100-year flood elevation and must have a maintenance and operation plan.
Levees are taller linear structures constructed parallel to the source of flooding. They are often constructed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Levee systems are extremely expensive. For example, one recently
reconstructed in the Wilkes Barre, PA area cost over $200 million for a 15-mile system. While a
Schenectady levee would be shorter, about two miles, it would still be pricey, probably at least $30 million.
When levees are built by the Corps, there is a requirement for a 35% non-federal match. Under state law,
the state covers half of the match and a local partner must cover the other half. In other words,
Schenectady City or County would be on the hook for at least a $5 million construction cost plus annual
operating expenses. Because the flood-prone parts of the Stockade only include about 60 structures, such a
plan would be unlikely to meet federal benefit cost requirements, even if the structure was authorized and
the matching funding was found. A levee would also cut off views of the river and could increase flooding
in Scotia.
That leaves three options: do nothing, buy out and demolish flood-prone structures, or elevate flood-prone
structures. The do-nothing option will result in more frequent and more severe flood damages. As our
climate changes, in time there will be less ice, but there will also be more precipitation.
In addition to the financial and human costs of recurring and escalating damages, the cost of flood
insurance continues to rise. In 2012, Congress passed the Biggert – Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
that among things required that flood insurance rates for older structures that were constructed before
modern floodplain design standards would move towards actuarial insurance rates. The 2014 Homeowners
Flood Insurance Affordability Act slowed down some of the increases but did not stop them. The result is
that flood insurance policies for older buildings with lowest floors, including basements, below flood
elevations will rise thousands of dollars per year. Flood insurance is required by federal law as a condition
of a mortgage from any federally regulated lending institution if the structure is located within a FEMA
mapped 100-year flood zone. The actuarial rate for a home with a basement that has a floor seven feet
below the 100-year flood elevation would be over $4000 a year for $150,000 of flood insurance coverage.
The combination of flood damages and the escalating cost of flood insurance is making it more difficult for
many property owners in the flood-prone parts of the Stockade to afford their properties. This can
potentially result in abandoned homes and an increase in absentee landlords, along with declining property
values, not only for the flood-prone properties but for adjacent properties on higher land.
The do nothing alternative will make matters worse. Fortunately, there is often grant money for elevations
and buy outs. Structures that were damaged by floods often do not have to meet benefit-cost analyses for
Cockburn, J.M.H. and Garver, J.I., 2018. Proceedings of the 2018 Mohawk Watershed Symposium,
Union College, Schenectady, NY, March 23, 2018, v. 10, 77 pages.
49
federal elevation and buy out program. Unfortunately, such funds are only available periodically, usually
after major disasters hit the state. Currently, there may be funds left over from Irene, Lee and Sandy to
make that happen, but only for willing property owners.
Schenectady recognizes that Stockade residents care deeply about their historic properties. However, doing
nothing will eventually destroy the flood-prone properties and result in declining values of adjacent
properties, and there is neighborhood opposition to buy outs and demolitions. Recognizing that elevating
buildings is controversial, it is the least expensive flood protection measure short of tearing down buildings.
To explore options, the city of Schenectady contacted with an architectural firm to develop recommended
designs for elevated properties that would maintain their historic look and appeal. The Stockade Historic
District Flood Mitigation Design Guidelines can be found on Schenectady’s web site ant
http://www.cityofschenectady.com/documentcenter/view/1811. The review each flood-prone structure in
the Stockade and recommends designs for elevating structures.
One option is to fill in basements and vent the portion of the foundation between the basement and the
lowest living floor to equalize water forces on the building. However, any area of a structure that is below
the adjacent grade on all sides is considered a basement and its elevation will be used to calculate flood
insurance rates. Filling the basement and venting the area between the filled basement area and the lowest
living floor will reduce flood risk. But if the living floor is lower than the 100-year flood elevation,
insurance rates will remain high.
The design guidelines assume that buildings will be elevated to meet state building code standards that the
lowest floor will be two feet above