The Ecological Restoration of an Urban Stream Corridor ...grobins/AudetteThesis.pdf · The...
-
Upload
nguyentuyen -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
1
Transcript of The Ecological Restoration of an Urban Stream Corridor ...grobins/AudetteThesis.pdf · The...
The Ecological Restoration of an Urban Stream Corridor
Patroon Creek, Albany, NY
Abstract of
a thesis presented to the Faculty
of the University at Albany, State University of New York
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences
Department of Biological Sciences Program in Biodiversity, Conservation & Policy
Laura C. Audette 2004
ii
Abstract
Urban streams and rivers have suffered chemical and biological degradation that has left many of these waterbodies in a seriously polluted state. Ecological restoration of urban stream corridors tries to address these problems by improving structural and functional properties of urban riparian ecosystems. The objective of this study was to examine chemical and biological properties of an urban stream corridor and its surrounding landscape in order to determine the opportunities and feasibility of an ecological restoration program along segments of the stream. This research was conducted along the Patroon Creek, a highly urbanized watershed that flows through Albany, NY. I surveyed the creek and its tributaries and designated zones of high ecological restoration potential based on condition of buffer, amount of undeveloped land, and surrounding landscape characteristics. Sampling sites were designated along the length of the creek and its tributaries where water quality measurements and samples were taken monthly for one year. Artificial settlement plates were used at five sites along the creek to survey aquatic macroinvertebrates in July and August of 2003. Digital orthophotos were used in ArcGIS to delineate the landscape characteristics of the watershed, with percent impervious surface calculated for the entire watershed and smaller areas around the sampling sites. The Patroon Creek Watershed contains approximately 35% impervious surfaces, a threshold level for high degradation potential. Water quality parameters showed both temporal and spatial variation, with high concentrations of ions, particularly sodium and chloride, in winter months. Family level benthic macroinvertebrate indices rated the creek as being moderately to severely degraded. As percent impervious surface increased there was a corresponding decrease in water quality along the creek. However, the restoration zones along the creek do appear to be acting as a partial buffer against non-point source contaminants and enhanancing these remnant riparian buffer zones is a logical next step in improving Patroon Creek water quality.
The Ecological Restoration of an Urban Stream Corridor
Patroon Creek, Albany, NY
A thesis presented to the Faculty
of the University at Albany, State University of New York
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences
Department of Biological Sciences Program in Biodiversity, Conservation & Policy
Laura C. Audette 2004
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the chair of my committee, Dr. George Robinson, for all of his help and guidance throughout my term here in the Biodiversity Program. I would like to thank my committee members Dr. John Arnason and Dr. Floyd Henderson for all of their advice and suggestions. I would like to thank Sean Madden for his help in data collection and Barbara Fletcher for her help with the dreaded Ion Chromotograph. Additionally, I would like to thank all of the students and professors within the Biodiversity Program for all of their suggestions and contributions. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Ben, and my dog Sprite for all of their help and support.
v
Table of Contents Page
Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Ecosystems in Urban Areas 1 1.2 Natural Streams 2 1.2.1 Ecological Properties of Natural Streams 2 1.3 Urban Streams 5
1.3.1 Ecological Properties of Urban Streams 6 1.4 Restoring Urban Streams 8 1.5 Study Objectives 10
2. Study Area and Methods 13
2.1 Site Description 13 2.2 History of the Patroon Creek 14 2.3 Characterizing and Mapping the Creek and Tributaries 15
2.3.1 Designation of Restoration Zones 15 2.3.2. Vegetation Inventories 16 2.3.3 Measuring Water Quality 16 2.3.4 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Surveys 17 2.3.5 Mapping Impervious Surfaces and Riparian Buffers 19
2.4 Analytical Methods 21
3. Results 26 3.1 Temporal and Spatial Variations in Water Quality 26 3.2 Water Quality Correlations 28 3.3 Water Quality and Restoration Zones 28 3.4 Water Quality and Riparian Buffer Quality 30 3.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 31 3.6 Relationships between Water Quality and Impervious Surfaces 31
4. Discussion 58
4.1 Water Quality Status of the Patroon Creek 58 4.2 Urban Stream Restoration 62 4.3 Restoration Options 62
4.3.1 Stream Channel Restoration Practices 62 4.3.2 Water Quality Restoration Practices 65
vi
5. Restoration Policy 67 5.1 Agencies and Legislation Governing the Process 67
5.1.1 State Regulations 68 5.1.2 Federal Regulations 73
5.2 Stakeholders 79 5.3 The Patroon Creek Policy Process 83
5.3.1 Policy Phases 84
References 91 Appendices 97
vii
List of Tables Page
Table I New York State water quality assessment criteria for family level 19 macroinvertebrate indices.
Table II Percentage of categorized impervious surfaces within the Patroon 53
Creek Watershed.
viii
List of Figures Page
Figure 1 View of the Patroon Creek Watershed in Albany, NY. 12 Figure 2 Names of water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate sample
sites along the Patroon Creek. 12 Figure 3 Impervious surface categories for the Patroon Creek Watershed. 25 Figure 4 Mean seasonal fluoride (a) and sulfate (b) concentrations (ppm) 33
from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek.
Figure 5 Mean seasonal calcium (a) and magnesium (b) concentrations 33 (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek.
Figure 6 Mean seasonal alkalinity (a) and pH (b) measurements from 33
sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Figure 7 Mean seasonal % saturation of dissolved oxygen (a) and 34
temperature (°C) (b) measurements from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek.
Figure 8 Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) phosphate concentrations 34
(ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Figure 9 Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) potassium concentrations 34
(ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Figure 10 Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) nitrate concentrations 35
(ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Figure 11 Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) ammonium concentrations 35
(ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Figure 12 Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) chloride concentrations 35
(ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Figure 13 Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) sodium concentrations 36
(ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Figure 14 Mean fluoride concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along 37
the Patroon Creek. Figure 15 Mean sulfate concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along 37
the Patroon Creek.
ix
Figure 16 Mean calcium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 38 along the Patroon Creek.
Figure 17 Mean magnesium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 38
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 18 Mean nitrate concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 39
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 19 Mean ammonium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 39
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 20 Mean chloride concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 40
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 21 Mean sodium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 40
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 22 Mean potassium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 41
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 23 Mean phosphate concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 41
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 24 Mean % saturation of dissolved oxygen measurements for sample 42
sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek.
Figure 25 Mean temperature (°C) measurements for sample sites (n=14) 42 along the Patroon Creek.
Figure 26 Mean pH measurements for sample sites (n=14) along the 43
Patroon Creek. Figure 27 Mean alkalinity concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) 43
along the Patroon Creek. Figure 28 Correlation between sodium and chloride concentrations (a) and 44
calcium and magnesium concentrations (b). Figure 29 Correlation between ammonium and nitrate concentrations (a) 44
and ammonium and sulfate concentrations (b). Figure 30 Correlation between magnesium and sulfate concentrations. 44 Figure 31 Proportion of chloride to sodium molarity at each sample site 45
(n=14) along the Patroon Creek.
x
Figure 32 Proportion of measurements from sample sites downstream of the 46
restoration zones over measurements of sample sites upstream of the restoration zones for fluoride (a) and potassium (b) concentrations.
Figure 33 Proportions of measurements from sample sites downstream of 46
The restoration zones over measurements of sample sites upstream of the restoration zones for nitrate (a) and ammonium (b) concentrations.
Figure 34 Means comparison for fluoride (a) and sulfate (b) concentrations 47
comparing sample sites upstream of the restoration zones against sample sites downstream of the restoration zones .
Figure 35 Means comparison for calcium (a) and nitrate (b) concentrations 47
comparing sample sites upstream of the restoration zones against sample sites downstream of the restoration zones
Figure 36 Means comparison for potassium concentrations (a) and 48
temperature measurements (b) comparing sample sites upstream of the restoration zones against sample sites downstream of the restoration zones.
Figure 37 Means comparison for nitrate (a) and potassium (b) 49
concentrations comparing the sample site upstream of restoration zone 1 against the sample site downstream of restoration zone 1.
Figure 38 Means comparison for sulfate concentrations comparing the 49
sample site upstream of restoration zone 1 against the sample site downstream of restoration zone 1.
Figure 39 Means comparison for nitrate (a) and potassium (b) concentrations 50
comparing the sample site above restoration zone 2 against the sample site below restoration zone 2.
Figure 40 Means comparison for sulfate (a) and calcium (b) concentrations 50
comparing the sample site upstream of restoration zone 2 against the sample site downstream of restoration zone 2.
Figure 41 Means comparison for chloride (a) and sodium (b) concentrations 51
comparing highly buffered sites (1) and poorly buffered sites (2). Figure 42 Means comparison for potassium (a) concentrations and 51
measurement of % saturation of dissolved oxygen (b) comparing highly buffered sites (1) and poorly buffered sites (2).
xi
Figure 43 Mean benthic macroinvertebrate family level indices for five 52
sites along the Patroon Creek (n=2). Figure 44 Categories of impervious surfaces within the Patroon Creek 54 Watershed. Figure 45 Scattergrams of family richess vs. % impervious surface (a) and 55
EPT richness vs. % impervious surface (b). Figure 46 Scattergrams of family biotic index vs. % impervious surface 55
(a) and biological assessment profile vs. % impervious surface (b). Figure 47 Scattergrams of chloride concentration vs. % impervious surface 56
(a) and sodium concentration vs. % impervious surface (b). Figure 48 Scattergrams of nitrate concentration vs. % impervious surface 56
(a) and ammonium concentration vs. % impervious surface (b). Figure 49 Scattergrams of sulfate concentration vs. % impervious surface 57
(a) and potassium concentration vs. % impervious surface (b). Figure 50 Scattergrams of calcium concentration vs. % impervious surface 57
(a) and magnesium concentration vs. % impervious surface (b). Figure 51 Agencies and stakeholders involved in or potentially involved 90
in a restoration project concerning the Patroon Creek.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Ecosystems in Urban Areas
Urbanization (including suburban “sprawl”) is the principal form of land use
change at a global scale, and more than 75% of the US population and more than half of
the world population live in cities (Paul and Meyer 2001). Rural, agricultural, and
natural ecological systems are continuously incorporated into urban areas, and these
changes bring an increasing number of roads, residences, and commercial activities into
contact with natural habitats and ecosystems. Fully developed urban ecosystems can be
defined as areas where large populations of high densities live and interact with each
other and their surroundings (Grimm et al. 2000, Pickett et al. 2001). Ecosystems in
urban areas become severely altered and degraded through inevitable changes in local
climatic conditions, hydrologic regimes, soil disturbances, vegetation structure, and
wildlife habitat. However, residents of urban areas, humans and otherwise, remain
dependent upon critical ecological functions that urban ecosystems provide (Bolund and
Hunhammer 1999). The study of ecology in urban areas is a relatively new field with a
small background of completed research on the structural and functional components of
these ecosystems. It is not clear what and how certain ecological functions are either
maintained or lost and how different levels and types of degradation affect urban
ecological systems (Grimm et al. 2000).
One type of urban ecosystem that has experienced all levels and types of
degradation while still providing ecosystem services is the river or stream corridor.
Historically, human settlement has centered on waterways due to their importance in
transportation, the movement of goods, and their use as a source of drinking water and
2
sewage systems (Riley 1998). Rivers and streams are becoming critical components of
urban systems, despite their alteration and impairment due to the spread of human
population centers. In order to maintain and restore the natural functions of rivers and
streams, ecological research will be critical (Paul and Meyer 2001).
1.2 Natural Streams
Before one can gain a sense of urban stream systems and the effects of
degradation upon them, it is important to understand the characteristics and functional
attributes of a natural stream system. Natural stream systems can also serve as reference
watersheds in order to ascertain the changes that an urban stream has undergone, the
structural and functional components that have been lost or altered, and new attributes
that the stream may have acquired. Natural streams provide baseline reference levels that
allow us to measure levels of alteration and degradation in urban stream systems and
provide a background of knowledge on which to base restoration efforts. The natural
streams in this thesis are referring to forested streams in a temperate climate.
1.2.1 Ecological Properties of Natural Streams
A natural stream is a dynamic linear system, which drains one or more terrestrial
ecosystems and is characterized by natural fluctuations that underlie its physical and
biological dynamics (Cushing and Allen 2001). The dynamic equilibrium of an
unmanaged stream can be seen through the constantly shifting patterns of its channel,
floodplain, and sediments (Harman and Jennings 1999). Natural streams perform
numerous functions that derive from their variability as ecological systems, such as
transporting water, particles, and dissolved compounds, and providing habitat for
3
numerous aquatic organisms, such as fish, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and plants
(Cushing and Allen 2001).
Natural streams have important physical characteristics that are essential
components in the stability and functioning of the stream system. One natural
characteristic of a stream is its watershed or total land that drains into the stream, in the
form of surface run-off or groundwater (Wetzel and Likens 2000). In a natural system,
approximately one-third of the precipitation an area receives becomes surface runoff,
which flows over the land into small channels or tributaries and eventually into the main
channel or main branch of the stream (Cushing and Allen 2001). Precipitation that does
not contribute to runoff, infiltrates into the ground contributing to hyporheic flow,
trapped by impermeable layers to form a water table, which then seeps into adjacent low
areas such as stream channels and thus becomes groundwater discharge into the stream
(Townsend 1980).
The channel and floodplain are also important physical characteristics of a
natural stream system. The main depression that the stream flow follows is the stream
channel, surrounded by its floodplain, the low-lying land area adjacent to the stream
(Wetzel and Likens 2000, Cushing and Allen 2001). The varying nature of a stream’s
flow or discharge causes the stream to alternately erode and deposit sediment along the
stream channel, resulting in natural curves and bends and causing the natural lateral
movement of the stream back and forth across its floodplain (Beschta and Platts 1986,
Cushing and Allen 2001). This meandering process reduces flow energy along the length
of the stream channel (Wetzel and Likens 2000).
4
The substrate or bottom material of a stream channel is an important component
of the system for a multitude of reasons. Variation in the physical structure of the stream
channel, which is an amalgamation of boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, and/ or silt
particles, yields a wide variety of ecological settings along the length of the system
(Harman and Jennings 1999). This complex substrate provides objects of attachment for
algal, and microbial growth and the mixture of coarse and fine substrate particles also
provide significant habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates, fishes and other vascular
plants (Beschta and Platts 1986, Cushing and Allen 2001).
The current, another physical characteristic of a stream, is important in the
transport of matter and energy along the system. It varies in velocity, depth, and width
depending upon rainfall or snowmelt as well as obstructions in the water and the
meandering of the stream channel (Cushing and Allen 2001). Natural pools (areas of
slower water velocity along the stream channel) and riffles (areas of faster water velocity)
stabilize the channel’s natural slope by alteration of erosional and depositional processes
(Beschta and Platts 1986).
Natural streams also consist of chemical and biological components that are
important parts of the system. Chemical constituents of a stream, such as dissolved ions
and gases (e.g., nitrate, phosphate, potassium, and dissolved oxygen) directly and
indirectly affect its biota depending upon their concentrations and interactions (Townsend
1980, Cushing and Allen 2001). Chemical components enter into the aquatic system
through diffusion from the atmosphere, natural aeration, rainwater, metabolic and
photosynthetic processes within the stream, surface runoff, and groundwater (Townsend
1980, Wetzel and Likens 2000).
5
Riparian zones or vegetated areas adjacent to the stream banks are major
biological characteristic of a stream system. They play an important role in regulating
the inputs into the water body and stabilizing the stream channel. The vegetation along
the stream channel functions as a filter for inputs coming into the stream, while also
reducing the impact of high velocities and turbulence of the stream against the channel
banks (Beschta and Platts 1986, Kalff 2002). Riparian areas also shade the stream from
solar radiation, regulating the water temperature, which affects dissolved oxygen, an
important factor in the distribution of fishes and macroinvertebrates (Cushing and Allen
2001). Riparian zones also deposit biomass, in the form of coarse particulate organic
matter, via loss of leaves and woody debris; this coarse organic matter forms the base of a
complex food web, in addition to providing habitat complexity (Cushing and Allen 2001,
Kalff 2002).
1.3 Urban Streams
In comparison to natural streams, urban streams have undergone a series of
human-induced changes or alterations that affect their physical and biotic systems. The
altered urban landscape affects the watershed, the floodplain, and the stream channel, and
ultimately results in the disruption of many stream ecosystem properties (Harman and
Jennings 1999). In many urban areas, pollutants, such as domestic sewage, industrial
contaminants, highway runoff, fertilizers, and pesticides degrade streams. They are also
physically degraded through processes such as channelizing, straightening, and in the
extreme, rerouting underground (Wetzel and Likens 2000).
6
1.3.1 Ecological Properties of Urban Streams
Urban stream systems are affected by physical alterations to the surrounding
watershed. In an urbanized watershed, commercial and industrial development leads to
replacement of terrestrial vegetation with impervious surfaces such as rooftops, roads,
and parking lots that reduce the amount of permeable surfaces. Water that falls onto an
urbanized watershed in the form of precipitation is less able to recharge groundwater, and
this reduces stream baseflow (Paul and Meyer 2001). Instead, the water becomes fast-
moving runoff into the stream system, resulting in larger peak discharges and faster
peaking floods (Arnolds and Gibbons 1996, Bondarev and Gregory 2002).
Urban stream systems are also affected by the physical alteration of the stream
channel. Urban streams often contain dams and impoundments, which further alter
hydrology and ecosystem properties. Dams modulate natural flows by reducing
fluctuations, and also alter the stream temperature and sedimentation processes, as well as
fragmenting populations of organisms that were once connected (Cushing and Allen
2001). When urban streams are rerouted into culverts or channels, including
underground locations, whole sections lose many of their natural attributes (Groffman et
al. 2003). This loss of the floodplain and naturally rough edges of the stream increases
the velocity of the flow along the stream channel, which diminishes or destroys the
stream’s natural tendency to meander, increases the energy of high flow events, and
reduces the stream’s natural pools and riffles (Booth and Jackson 1997, Paul and Meyer
2001). The increased runoff from the surrounding impervious surfaces in an urbanized
watershed and the channelization of the stream can lead to flashy or variable flows of the
7
stream water, resulting in a high erosion rate along the streambanks and incision of the
stream channel (Klein 1979).
The substrate of the stream bottom and the sediment load the stream carries are
also altered by urbanization. Often during the high construction period of an urbanizing
watershed, a large load of fine sediments enters the stream system, degrading the natural
stream substrate and affecting aquatic habitats (Finkenbine et al. 2000). After
urbanization, the input of fine sediment material is reduced and the higher flow regime
results in a loss of fine sediment and an increase in the concentration of coarser materials
in the substrate, again affecting aquatic habitats. Sensitive aquatic organisms decline or
disappear, with consequences for ecological processes such as energy transfer and
nutrient cycling (Klein 1979, Paul and Meyer 2001).
Urban streams are the recipients of many domestic and industrial effluents that
deteriorate water quality by changing the stream’s chemical composition. Actions
required by the Clean Water Act of 1972 have dramatically reduced point source
pollution, and now most contaminants are in the form of non-point source pollution,
pollutants that are generated in relatively low concentrations, but over a large area
(Cushing and Allen 2001). The high percentage of impervious surfaces in urban areas
produces runoff with contaminants such as fertilizers, animal wastes, automobile oils,
leaky sewer lines, and road de-icing salts, carried as dissolved or suspended material into
urban waterways (Cushing and Allen 2001, Paul and Meyer 2001). High nutrient loads
lead to large increases in algal growth, whose decay consumes dissolved oxygen (Klein
1979, Duda et al. 1982, Heaney and Huber 1984). In addition to higher levels of
nutrients and other ions that compromise aquatic life, human health can be directly
8
threatened by high levels of coliform bacteria, especially when the urban watersheds
contain wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflows (CSO). In the event
of high rainfall storms, combined sewer overflow systems frequently merge and redirect
stormwater and untreated sewage into nearby streams and rivers (Paul and Meyer 2001).
Heavy metals are another form of urban stream pollutant, and it has been found that as
the percentage of impervious surfaces in a watershed increases, the loading rates of lead
and zinc into streams also increase (Klein 1979). Other heavy metals detected at high
levels in urban streams include chromium, nickel, cadmium, copper, manganese, and
mercury (Paul and Meyer 2001).
As a result of and in addition to physical and chemical modification, urban
streams are also degraded biologically. Urbanization usually reduces or removes riparian
vegetation that would otherwise filter or sequester pollutants coming into the system
(Paul and Meyer 2001). The loss of riparian areas reduces terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
habitat in or around the stream or river (Beschta and Platts 1986, Finkenbine et al. 2000).
The loss of riparian vegetation also reduces the stability of the stream channel resulting in
increased stream bank erosion and eventually the incision of the stream channel. This
often leads to a drop in the water table, which further degrades riparian vegetation around
the stream system (Bondarev and Gregory 2002, Groffman et al. 2003).
1.4 Restoring Urban Streams
In response, there has been an increase in the implementation and study of urban
stream restoration projects. In an urban stream restoration project, the goal is to restore
some or all of the stream’s natural attributes and functions. (Charbonneau and Resh
9
1992). However, urban stream restoration projects are faced with strong challenges, such
as the loss of riparian vegetation, increased impervious surfaces, channelization and
physical modification, and altered hydrologic regimes (Charbonneau and Resh 1992,
Cushing and Allen 2001, Morley and Karr 2002).
Perhaps the greatest challenges are posed by contaminants. In 1987, the 1972
Clean Water Act was reauthorized to “restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of the nations waters,” with the USEPA as the federal agency that
shoulders the responsibility for enforcement, in collaboration with state governments
(Cushing and Allen 2001). Although the 1972 Clean Water Act has led to substantial
reductions in point source pollution and subsequent recovery of many of the nation’s
waterways, urbanized streams and rivers must still contend with high levels of nonpoint
source pollution (Riley 1998, Cushing and Allen 2001).
Despite challenges to urban stream restoration, there have been success stories
(Riley 1998). One of the best examples is Strawberry Creek in Berkeley, California,
restored from a severely degraded urban system to a stream that has regained much of its
natural attributes and functional capacity. The success of this project can be attributed to
an incorporation of many tested and ecologically informed restoration practices into the
restoration plan. Examples of the practices employed include the removal of dams and
culverts, revegetation of riparian areas with native species, ecological enhancement of
stream habitats, improvements in stormwater management, and the collaborative effort of
all parties involved (Charbonneau and Resh 1992). This project and others demonstrate
that ecological approaches offer the potential to restore other degraded urban stream
systems to more natural states.
10
I began this project of the Patroon Creek with the working hypothesis that natural
or semi-natural areas along the Patroon Creek have a positive ecological affect on the
stream system, measured by vegetation, water quality, biologic communities, and
landscape characteristics. There should be variability in these indices along the creek
especially between poorly and highly buffered segments of the stream corridor. I
hypothesized that these remnant natural areas or zones along the creek would have the
most potential for viable ecological restoration opportunities in the future.
1.5 Study Objectives
The purpose of this thesis was to characterize an urban stream, the Patroon Creek
in Albany, NY with the end goal of ecological restoration of prominent segments of the
creek. The first step was to evaluate the current condition of the stream and also
determine the likelihood and potential values of restoration along key reaches of Patroon
Creek.
My specific research goals were:
1. To evaluate the structural and functional attributes of existing buffers and natural
areas around Patroon Creek. This included determining levels of degradation as
well as delineation of existing buffers and an assessment of their current
functional status.
2. To determine the feasibility of restoration options, based on the relative amounts
of remnant natural riparian zones and the current state of the main channel.
11
My specific research objectives were to:
1. Characterize the ecological condition of Patroon Creek. Very little previous
information was available, so this first objective required that I
A. Map the path of the stream and identify major buffered and unbuffered
zones.
B. Assess riparian communities in size and diversity.
C. Monitor water chemistry along the length of the stream and its tributaries.
D. Analyze the benthic macroinvertebrate community along the length of the
stream and its tributaries.
E. Analyze surrounding landscapes and the extent of urbanization in the
watershed, primarily through calculation of impervious surfaces.
2. Define zones with the greatest restoration potential; the ability to restore natural
functionality, based on current ecological status, accessibility, and community
needs.
3. Delineate the legal and political frameworks that would need to be addressed in a
successful restoration project for the Patroon Creek.
12
Figure 1. View of the Patroon Creek Watershed in Albany NY. The digital orthophotographs are from 2001. The creek begins in the Albany Pine Bush and empties into the Hudson River. The purple polygon is the watershed, the yellow polygons are the three restoration zones, and the red points are the sample sites.
I-87 and I-90 interchange
Hudson River
Figure 2. Names of water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate sample sites and restoration zones along the Patroon Creek.
Restoration Zone 1
Restoration Zone 2
Restoration Zone 3
13
2. STUDY AREA AND METHODS
2.1 Site Description
The Patroon Creek is one of five streams or creeks that historically ran through
the city of Albany. Besides the Normanskill, which flows along Albany’s southern
border, the Patroon Creek is the only other stream that has not been completely rerouted
underneath the city. The Creek is located along the northern border of the city of Albany
and is completely within the borders of Albany County. Its main branch originates at
Rensselaer Lake (Six Mile Reservoir) at the southeastern tip of the Albany Pine Bush and
runs between Interstate I-90 and the Conrail Railroad line, until it enters Tivoli Preserve
in the Arbor Hill Section of Albany. It eventually empties into the Hudson River north of
the Port of Albany in the Corning Preserve (Bode et al. 1995) (Figure 1). The Patroon
Creek watershed encompasses 37 km2 of land area, extending from the Albany Pine Bush
on the west to the Hudson River on the east and from the boundary of Colonie on the
north to just below Interstate 90 on the south.
Along the course of the creek, there are three reservoirs. Rensselaer Lake, the
headwaters of Patroon Creek, was built in 1850 when it was used as a source of drinking
water for the city of Albany (Barnes 1977). Presently, Rensselaer Lake is a part of the
protected Albany Pine Bush Preserve. It is no longer used as a source of drinking water
for the city of Albany, but has been recently leased by The Albany Water Authority from
the city in order to ensure a backup water supply in case of acts of terrorism (Woodruff
2003). The second reservoir on Patroon Creek is Three-Mile Reservoir located
approximately halfway between Rensselaer Lake and the Hudson River. The third and
14
final reservoir along the creek is Tivoli Lake in Tivoli Preserve, which is located in the
Arbor Hill community of the city of Albany.
Along with being located in an urban setting, the Patroon Creek has undergone
dramatic alterations over the course of its history due to surrounding development. These
changes have permanently altered the course and natural definition of the creek. During
the 1960’s Interstate 90 was constructed across the nation, extending from Seattle, WA to
Boston, MA, going right through Albany, NY. The path for I-90 runs through the Albany
Pine Bush and along the northern edge of the city. The natural floodplain of the Patroon
Creek was directly in line with the proposed interstate. Due to the construction of the
interstate, Patroon Creek was dramatically rerouted and channelized (NYSDPW 1964).
Large sections of the creek were put through underground culverts and of the
approximately six miles from Rensselaer Lake to the Hudson River, 2.56 miles are
presently located underground in approximately 27 different culverts.
2.2 History of the Patroon Creek
Throughout its history, the Patroon Creek has seen its share of environmental
degradation. During the 17th century its waters were used to power grist and saw mills
located along the stream (Barnes 1977). Also during the last fifty years major point
sources of pollution such as the First Prize Meat Packing plant, National Lead Industries,
and Mereco Mercury company operated along the creek, but are presently not operating
(Bode et al. 1995). The City of Albany has also grown up around the creek and it is
presently surrounded by large commercial properties, industrial properties along Railroad
Ave, residential areas and a large railroad yard; and a large section of the creek is within
15
200 meters of Interstate 90. Much of the watershed has become covered with impervious
surfaces such as roads, residential and commercial developments, and parking lots. As a
result, Patroon Creek has been the recipient of pollution from storm-water runoff,
sedimentation, sewage discharge, and illegal dumping (Bode et al. 1993).
Recently there has been growing concern over the historical and recent
degradation of Patroon Creek and the growing health risks that are associated with its
polluted state. Recent tests have shown high levels of e. coli and other bacteria in the
waters of the creek, which are due to sewage leaks from local business complexes (Bode
et al. 1993). There have also been findings of the heavy metals lead and mercury in
sediments along the creek bottom (Arnason and Fletcher 2003). These high bacteria
levels and metal pollutants are of concern due to the use of the creek as a play area and
swimming hole for children in surrounding neighborhoods. Along with this recent
concern over the status of the creek there has been a growing interest in the idea of
restoring all or parts of the stream to a more natural state or in this case a less dangerous
status in terms of pollution (Cappiello 2002).
2.3 Characterizing and Mapping the Creek and Tributaries
2.3.1 Designation of Restoration Zones
The six-mile course of the creek from the Albany Pine Bush to the Hudson River
was surveyed and mapped with a Garmin hand-held GPS unit. The 2001 digital
orthophotographs from the New York State Clearinghouse website, along with the GPS
coordinates were input into ArcGIS 8.1 software. Using the criteria of size, location, and
surrounding land uses, three areas were identified on the orthophotos and designated as
16
restoration zones (Figure 2). These zones were located adjacent to and east of Fuller Rd,
surrounding three-mile reservoir and the area known as Tivoli Preserve. Based on visual
surveys they were deemed to have significant ecological restoration potential. Also,
based on the surveys and aerial orthophotos, riparian areas of Rensselaer Lake and the
surrounding area in the Albany Pine Bush were designated as the restoration template for
Patroon Creek.
2.3.2 Vegetation Inventories
Plant species inventories of all three restoration zones and Rensselaer Lake were
taken by visually surveying the area. Plants that could not be identified in the field were
sampled and taken back to the lab for identification. All taxa were identified to species
and sub-species levels (Appendix A).
2.3.3 Measuring Water Quality
Water quality data were collected from September 2002 through August 2003 on
the first Tuesday of every month. Sampling sites were designated along the length of the
Patroon Creek and its tributaries. The fourteen water quality sampling sites were PB
West, Rens. Lake, Fuller Rd, Main Br., N/M Confl., Central, Tobin, TPW, Tiv. St.,
Hudson, S. Lake, Cherry Rd, Hg Site, and Pb. (Figure 2). The positions of these
sampling sites was based on the criteria of acquiring a complete coverage of the creek
and its tributaries, having access to the sites, and the location of these sites in reference to
the restoration zones. Sites were located both upstream and downstream of all three zones
in order to determine the effect of these areas on water quality. Dissolved oxygen, and
temperature were measured in the field using either a Corning 312 Dissolved Oxygen
meter or a YSI 85 Dissolved Oxygen Meter.
17
At each site, water samples were collected in 500 ml nalgene bottles, kept on ice,
and brought back to the lab where they were filtered, using a 0.45µm filter and
refrigerated. The pH and temperature (°C) for each sample was measured in the lab using
a Thermo Orion Triode pH Electrode (model 915 7BN). Each sample was also analyzed
for cation and anion concentrations using a Dionex DX-120 and Dionex ICS-90 Ion
Chromotographs. Each sample was analyzed for the anions flouride, chloride, nitrate,
phosphate, and sulfate and the cations lithium, sodium, ammonium, potassium,
magnesium, and calcium. Alkalinity was calculated by difference, i.e. converting the
concentrations of all ions from ppm to milliequivalence and then subtracting the sum of
the anions from the sum of the cations.
∑∑ −= )/()/()/( LmeqanionsLmeqcationsLmeqalkalinitycalculated
∑∑ −×= )/()/(50)( LmeqanionsLmeqcationsppmalkalinitycalculated
2.3.4 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Surveys
Aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected and identified following the protocol
set forth in the June 2002 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s
Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York State
(Bode et al. 2002). The heterogeneous nature of Patroon Creek’s substrate made it
difficult to compare kick samples at varying locations. Instead, multiplates were used to
collect the macroinvertebrates. Multiplates are an artificial substrate that provide a
homogeneous substrate type, depth, and exposure time (Bode et al. 2002). Multiplates
consist of three hardboard plates, separated by spacers and mounted on a turnbuckle that
attaches to a cement block that anchors it in the stream (Appendix D). The total surface
that is exposed on one multiplate for colonization by the macroinvertebrates is 0.14 m2 or
18
1.55 ft2. On each cement block, two multiplate samplers are positioned (Bode et al.
2002). Five sites along the Patroon Creek were selected for placement of the multiplates.
The five benthic macroinvertebrate sample sites were PB West, Fuller Invertebrates, Hg
Site, Central, and Stream Gauge (Figure 2) and were selected to cover the length of the
stream. Each multiplate was placed in the best pool or run at the site location, and were
placed midway between the substrate and the water’s surface. After five weeks the
samplers were retrieved from the creek. This process was repeated once, with the first
multiplate retrieval in July 2003, and the second multiplate retrieval in August 2003.
Each multiplate was carefully unattached from the cement block and put into a bucket of
creek water. A paint scraper was used to scrape all organisms off of all the surface area of
the plates and screws into the bucket. The resulting mixture in the bucket was filtered
through a U.S. no 30 standard sieve and the resulting organisms and debris were placed
in a glass jar with 95% ethyl alcohol. From each site, the sample with the most material
was used to sort and identify the organisms while the other sample was used as an
archive. The sample to be sorted was filtered with tap water through a U.S. no 40
standard sieve. It was divided into four equal quarters, with each quarter being analyzed
separately. Organisms were identified down to order and sorted using a compound
microscope and placed in vials containing 70% ethyl alcohol. Samples that had a large
number of a particular order were subsampled to 100 individuals. The sorted organisms
were then identified down to the family level and placed in vials containing 70% ethyl
alcohol.
The family level macroinvertebrate indices of Family Richness, Family EPT
Richness, Family Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, and Family Biological Assessment Profile
19
were calculated for the Patroon Creek samples. Family Richness was calculated by
taking the total number of macroinvertebrate families from the sample. Family EPT
Richness was meaured by counting the total number of Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) in the sample. Family Biotic Index
was calculated by multiplying the number of macroinvertebrates in each family by an
assigned tolerance value, adding these products, and then dividing the number by the
total number of individuals. The end values for the above metrics were then converted to
a 10 pt scale and averaged for the Biological Assessment Profile (Bode 2003).
Table I. New York State water quality assessment criteria for family-level macroinvertebrate indices (Bode 2003).
FAMILY
RICHNESS
FAMILY EPT
RICHNESS
FAMILY BIOTIC
INDEX
BIOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT
PROFILE
Non-
Impacted > 13 > 7 0 – 4.5 7.51 – 10.00
Slightly
Impacted 10 - 13 3 - 7 4.51 – 5.50 5.01 – 7.50
Moderately
Impacted 7 - 9 1 - 2 5.51 – 7.00 2.50 – 5.00
Severely
Impacted < 7 0 7.01 – 10.00 0 – 2.50
2.3.5 Mapping Impervious Surfaces and Riparian Buffers
In order to discriminate and determine the percentage of impervious surface
within the Patroon Creek watershed a GIS project was developed using ArcGIS 8.1
software. Digital Orthophotos taken in 2001 were downloaded from the New York State
Clearinghouse website and used as the base layer for the project. A shapefile consisting
of the border of the Patroon Creek watershed was acquired from Todd Fabozzi, the
20
Program Manager of the Capital District Regional Planning Commission. The watershed
shapefile was made from digital elevation models and considering the Patroon Creek is
an urbanized watershed, the watershed borders could be more complex than the model
used. This shapefile was used to delineate the area of the watershed for impervious
surface delineation. Impervious surfaces within the watershed were divided into two
primary classifications, rooftops and transportation. The classification of rooftops was
then divided into the classes of commercial/ industrial, residential single-units, and
residential multiple-units. The residential sub-category contained all the impervious
surfaces within the residential areas such as driveways in addition to rooftops. The
classification of transportation was divided into the classes of railroads, highways/
interstates, four-lane roads, two-lane roads, and parking lots. The impervious surfaces of
each class except for the residential classes were individually hand digitized from the
digital orthophotos (Figure 3). The areas of all of the polygons that made up each class
were summed and the percentage of the watershed that each class covered was calculated.
For the residential classes, instead of hand digitizing each individual residential unit
within the watershed, the total encompassing area of single-unit and multiple-unit
residential classes was digitized separately. Within the single-unit residential class, five
sub-samples of 250 m x 250 m, were selected and within these sections the impervious
surfaces were digitized and impervious surface area was calculated. One sub-sample was
located in an area with the minimum density of single unit residential houses and was
used to calculate the minimum amount of residential impervious surface, while another
sub-sample was located in an area of the watershed with the maximum density of single
unit houses and was used to calculate the maximum amount of single-unit residential
21
impervious surfaces. After the impervious surface area was calculated for each of the
five sections, the average was taken and extrapolated onto the encompassing area that had
been digitized for single-unit residential class. This same process was done for the
multiple-unit residential category, using two sections instead of five due to the small area
that this class constituted of the watershed. The impervious surface area for each class
was summed and then used to calculate the total impervious surface coverage of the
Patroon Creek watershed.
Site description areas for all sample sites along the Patroon Creek were also
created in ArcGIS 8.1. Polygons were created around each sample site extending 200m
on both sides of the stream and 400m upstream from the sample site. In each of these site
description areas the following parameters were calculated; average north and south
buffer widths, total length of the stream in the area, length of the stream above and below
ground in the area, and % impervious surface of the area. Average buffer width was
measured by taking 10 measurements of buffer on the north side of the creek and 10
measurements on the south side of the creek throughout the site description area. These
10 measurements were averaged to get the mean north and south buffer width for each
area. See Appendix E for impervious surface figures.
2.4 Analytical Methods
In order to determine linear trends in water quality along the creek, water data were
examined by calculating seasonal, monthly, and spatial (sample site) means using all of
the data gathered and measured. Sample site means and standard deviations were plotted
on a linear diagram of the creek and its tributaries. Correlations were created for water
22
quality variables that appeared to be related (i.e. sodium and chloride, magnesium and
sulfate etc.) to see if there were any clear relationships between individual water quality
parameters. Linear regressions were used to test the strength of these relationships
between the water quality variables. To determine if chloride and sodium concentrations
were coming from the same source, concentrations of chloride and sodium (ppm) were
converted to molarity. The proportion of chloride molarity over sodium molarity was
calculated for all sample sites along the main branch of the creek and its tributaries to see
if the proportion was constant over the length of the creek.
To test the hypothesis that the three restoration zones have an effect on water
quality, a series of ANOVA analyses were done on all of the water quality variables that
had been measured. All statistical tests were performed in SYSTAT ™ 9.0 or EXCEL ™
9.0. The water quality data that was used in these analyses only came from the three
sites upstream of each restoration zone (Fuller Rd upstream of zone 1, Central Ave
upstream of zone 2, and TPW upstream of zone 3) and from the three sites downstream
of each restoration zone (Main Br. downstream of zone 1, Tobin downstream of zone 2,
and Tiv. St. downstream of zone 3).
The first set of ANOVA’s looked at the difference between the cumulative data
from all of the sites upstream of the restoration zones versus all of the sites downstream
of the restoration zones for each water quality parameter. This was to determine
whether there was a significant difference in water quality parameters after the creek had
gone through the remnant natural areas (restoration zones). To determine the affect of
each individual restoration zone on water quality, ANOVA analyses were also done for
all water quality parameters but only on the data relating to a specific zone. For zone 1
23
analyses, water data taken at Fuller Rd (the upstream site) were tested against water data
taken at Main Br. (the downstream site). The same analyses were done for zone 2 and 3
water quality data. For all ANOVA’s R2, F values, and p statistics were calculated.
Proportional water quality data was calculated for each restoration zone to also
determine if each zone had a positive, negative or neutral affect on the water quality. For
each individual restoration zone the proportion of the downstream site concentrations
over the upstream site concentrations for each water quality parameter was calculated.
For example, for restoration zone 1 the concentration of fluoride at Main Br. site (the
downstream zone 1 site) was divided by the concentration of fluoride at Fuller Rd (the
upstream zone 1 site) to get the proportion of fluoride concentration at zone 1.
To test the hypothesis that buffered areas of the creek have better water quality
than unbuffered or slightly buffered areas of the creek, data from only the main branch
sample sites were divided into the two groups of highly buffered and poorly buffered
sites. The sites were categorized based on the sum of their mean north buffer width and
their mean south buffer width. Sites with a cumulative buffer width of less than 90
meters were categorized as poorly buffered (Hudson, Tobin, and Central) and sites with a
cumulative buffer width of more than 90 meters were categorized as highly buffered
(TPW, Tiv St., N/M Confl., Main Br., Fuller Rd.). The PB West site data was not used,
because it acted as a model reference site.
To test the relationship between amount of impervious surface and water quality
data, scattergrams of % impervious surface and the corresponding water quality data
were created. The % impervious surface measurements that were used were taken from
the site description areas around each sample site. Linear regressions were calculated to
24
test the relationships. To test the relationship between amount of impervious surface and
macroinvertebrate communities, scattergrams of % impervious surface and the
corresponding benthic macroinvertebrate indices were created. These relationships were
also tested with least square linear regressions.
25
Figure 3. Impervious surface categories for the Patroon Creek watershed.
Railroads Transportation Parking Lots 2 & 4 Lane Roads Highways Commercial/ Industrial
Single Unit Residential
Multi Unit Residential
Riparian Buffer
26
3. RESULTS
3.1 Temporal and Spatial Variations in Water Quality
All water quality parameters showed seasonal as well as monthly variation during
the course of the sampling year. Sulfate, calcium, and magnesium concentrations and %
saturation of dissolved oxygen remained relatively constant throughout the year (Figures
4, 5, 7). Flouride concentration, alkalinity and pH measurements showed slight seasonal
variation, with the highest concentration of fluoride and alkalinity in the fall, and the
highest pH measurements in the summer (Figures 4, 6). Temperature measurements
showed the expected natural variations of coldest readings in the winter and warmest in
the summer (Figure 7). Phosphate was present at detectable levels only in September,
January, and March (Figure 8). Potassium had the highest seasonal concentrations in
spring, with the highest concentrations measured in March, but also showed a spike in
concentration in August (Figure 9). Nitrate, ammonium, chloride and sodium all had the
highest concentrations in the winter months. Nitrate concentrations slightly increased in
the winter months, with the highest concentrations in January. Ammonium, chloride, and
sodium had large spikes of concentrations in January as compared to previous months,
with a gradual decline throughout the spring months (Figures 10-13).
Sample site means varied along the course of the Patroon Creek from the source in
the Albany Pine Bush to its mouth at the Hudson River with high concentrations of many
ions coming in from the North branch of the creek. Alkalinity, temperature and %
saturation of dissolved oxygen measurements remained relatively stable over the course
of the main branch of the creek and showed little spatial variation (Figures 24, 25, 27).
Flouride concentrations were relatively low and stable along the course of the creek from
27
the source to mouth at the Hudson. However there was a large fluoride spike 3.5 km
from the source at the Main Branch sample site (Figure 14). Sulfate concentrations also
were relatively constant along the course of the creek with a slight increase in
concentration at the last three sample sites (TPW, Tivoli St., and Hudson) and slightly
higher concentrations along the North Branch of the creek (Figure 15). Estimates of pH
also showed a slight increase from the Pine Bush to the Hudson (Figure 26). Calcium,
magnesium, chloride, and sodium concentrations showed a trend of increase from the
source to the mouth along the length of the creek. Calcium and magnesium
concentrations only slightly increased along the length of the creek with calcium at
slightly higher concentrations along the North Branch (Figures 16, 17). After a
substantial increase in concentration from PB West in the Pine Bush to Rensselaer Lake
sample site, both sodium and chloride also gradually increased in concentration to the
mouth at the Hudson. Both chloride and sodium had higher concentrations along the
North Branch with the highest concentrations measured at the S. Lake sample site (Figure
20, 21). Potassium showed a gradual increase in concentration along the path of the
creek, with significant declines at the Main Branch and Tobin sample sites (Figure 22).
Nitrate and ammonium concentrations varied at the sample sites on the creek but did not
show any trends along the course of the creek. Nitrate remained relatively constant
around 3-4 ppm, with the highest concentrations at Rensselaer Lake and the lowest at PB
West and Tobin (Figure 18). Ammonium remained relatively constant around 2 ppm
with the highest concentrations measured at Rensselaer Lake and the lowest at PB West
and Central (Figure 19). Phosphate concentrations were only measurable at the Main
28
Branch, N/M confluence, and Central Ave. sample sites with the highest concentrations
at the N/M confluence site (Figure 23).
3.2 Water Quality Correlations
Multiple water quality parameters were tested against each other to determine
correlated ion concentrations. Chloride was significantly and highly correlated with
sodium (Figure 28). Magnesium was significantly correlated with calcium and sulfate
(Figures 28, 30). Ammonium was significantly correlated with nitrate and sulfate (Figure
29). Figure 31 shows that the proportion of chloride to sodium molarity is relatively
constant between 1.0 and 1.2 throughout the course of the creek and its tributaries.
3.3 Water Quality and Restoration Zones
The proportional data for magnesium, sodium, calcium, chloride, alkalinity,
%DO, and pH showed that for all restoration zones the proportions were 1.0 or close to
1.0, showing that the concentrations for these measurements were on average the same
upstream and downstream of the restoration zones. The proportion for fluoride
concentration hovered around 1.0 for zones 2 and 3, but was almost 3.0 for zone 1,
showing that the concentration of fluoride downstream of zone 1 is almost three times
higher than upstream of zone 1 (Figure 32). The proportion for potassium is close to 1.0
for zone 1, but was between 1.0 and 0.5 for zone 2 and was close to 1.5 for zone 3
(Figure 32). This shows that for zone 2 potassium concentrations decreased and for zone
3 that potassium concentrations were approximately 1.5 times higher after the zone. The
proportion of nitrate was 1.0 for zone 3, but was less than 1.0 for zones 1 and 2, showing
29
that the concentration of nitrate decreased after zone 1 and 2 (Figure 33). The proportion
of ammonium for all zones was less than 1.0, ranging from 0.0 to approximately 0.4
(Figure 33). This shows that at all zones the concentration of ammonium downstream of
the zones was two times to approximately 0.5 times as much as the concentration of
ammonium upstream of the zones. The proportion for temperature was slightly higher
than 1.0 for zones 1 and 3 and slightly lower than 1.0 for zone 2, meaning that in zones 1
and 3 the temperature was higher downstream of the zones and in zone 2 the temperature
was higher upstream of the zone.
The ANOVA analyses comparing cumulative upstream and downstream site
water quality parameters showed no differences in magnesium, sodium, and phosphate
concentrations as well as pH and % saturation of dissolved oxygen measurements
upstream and downstream of the target restoration zones. Flouride, ammonium, and
alkalinity trended higher downstream of zone sites. However, due to the large variation
within the data the differences were not significant. Sulfate, calcium, nitrate, chloride,
and potassium concentrations as well as temperature measurements all decreased in
concentration from upstream sites to downstream sites, but only the difference in nitrate
concentrations was significant (Figures 34, 35, 36).
The ANOVA analyses showed only flouride increased in concentration from the
upstream to downstream sample site of zone 1, but it was not a significant increase.
Chloride, calcium, nitrate, sulfate and potassium concentrations as well as temperature
and % saturation of dissolved oxygen measurements showed a decreasing trend in
concentrations from the upstream site to the downstream site. Nitrate, sulfate, and
30
potassium showed the largest decreases in concentrations (Figures 37, 38). However,
only nitrate differences were significant.
Looking at zone 2, flouride, ammonium, and alkalinity concentrations as well as
% saturation of dissolved oxygen measurements appeared to increase from upstream to
downstream sites. Chloride, nitrate, sulfate, magnesium, potassium, calcium, and
temperature measurements showed a decrease. Nitrate, sulfate, potassium, and calcium
showed the largest changes between upstream and downstream site concentrations
(Figures 39, 40). The large variation within the data resulted in nitrate once again being
the only one that was significant.
Downstream of zone 3, chloride, nitrate, sulfate, sodium, ammonium, potassium,
and temperature measurements showed no change or very slight change in concentration
or measurement. Flouride, magnesium, calcium, alkalinity, pH and % DO all showed
possible increases in concentrations from upstream to downstream sites. However, only
the difference in pH measurements from upstream vs. downstream sites was significant.
3.4 Water Quality and Riparian Buffer Quality
Comparing highly buffered sites with poorly buffered sites, most measurements
showed little difference. Chloride, sodium, potassium and %DO showed a possible
difference between poorly and highly buffered sites (Figures 41, 42). However none of
the differences in concentration or amounts between the two buffer categories were
significant.
31
3.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Appendix B lists all of the families of benthic macroinvertebrates found in the
Patroon Creek for the 2003 summer sampling. Appendix C lists the family level indices
calculated for each sampling date. Mean values are reported in Figure 43. The family
richness benthic macroinvertebrate index showed that all sampling sites fell within the
severely impacted category, except PB West, which fell within the moderately impacted
category. The EPT richness benthic macroinvertebrate index showed that PB West fell
between the slightly and moderately impacted categories, Fuller Rd fell between the
moderately and severely impacted categories, Hg and Stream Gauge sites fell within the
severely impacted category and the Central site fell within the moderately impacted
categories in concordance with previous studies (Bode et al. 1993). Some sites fell
between categories because the resulting index was an average of two measurements.
The family biotic macroinvertebrate index showed that all sites except the Hg site fell
within the moderately impacted category with the Hg site falling within the severely
impacted category. The biological assessment profile macroinvertebrate index, which is
a culmination of all of the above indices, gives a similar pattern.
3.6 Relationships between Water Quality and Impervious Surfaces
Between 32% and 38% of the Patroon Creek watershed is impervious surfaces.
Parking lots followed by two-lane roads make up the largest percentage of total
impervious surfaces, with single-unit residential impervious surfaces ranging from 4% to
10% of the watershed (Table II and Figure 44). The category of transportation impervious
surfaces makes up 21.4% of the watershed with roads making up 9.4 % of the watershed.
32
The category of rooftop impervious surfaces makes up approximately 13.54% of the
watershed (average single-unit residential number used) with residential making up
approximately 8.64% of the watershed (average single-unit residential number used).
As % impervious surface increased around the benthic macroinvertebrate
sampling sites, the indices of family richness, EPT richness, and biological assessment
profile all decreased (Figures 45, 46). For these three indices the lower the index value
the more degraded the waterbody. As % impervious surface increased the
macroinvertebrate family biotic index increased (Figure 46). For this index the higher the
number the more degraded the waterbody. However, linear regressions showed that none
of these relationships were significant.
As % impervious surface increased around the water quality sampling sites,
chloride, sodium, ammonium, sulfate, potassium, calcium, and magnesium
concentrations showed an increase and nitrate concentration showed a decrease (Figures
47-50). However, only the relationships between chloride, sodium, and calcium were
statistically significant.
33
Figure 4. Mean seasonal fluoride (a) and sulfate (b) concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
Figure 5. Mean seasonal calcium (a) and magnesium (b) concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
Figure 6. Mean seasonal alkalinity (a) and pH (b) measurements from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
34
Figure 7. Mean seasonal % saturation of dissolved oxygen (a) and temperature (°C) (b) measurements from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
Figure 8. Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) phosphate concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
Figure 9. Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) potassium concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
35
Figure 10. Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) nitrate concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
Figure 11. Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) ammonium concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
Figure 12. Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) chloride concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
36
Figure 13. Mean seasonal (a) and monthly (b) sodium concentrations (ppm) from sample sites (n=12) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
a b
37
Figure 14. Mean fluoride concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10 sites on the main channel.
Figure 15. Mean sulfate concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10 sites on the main channel.
38
Figure 16. Mean calcium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
Figure 17. Mean magnesium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
39
Figure 18. Mean nitrate concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
Figure 19. Mean ammonium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
40
Figure 20. Mean chloride concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
Figure 21. Mean sodium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
41
Figure 22. Mean potassium concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
Figure 23. Mean phosphate concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the 10
sites on the main channel.
42
Figure 24. Mean % saturation of dissolved oxygen measurements for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph
includes only the 10 sites on the main channel.
Figure 25. Mean temperature (°C) measurements for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes
only the 10 sites on the main channel.
43
Figure 26. Mean pH measurements for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes only the
10 sites on the main channel.
Figure 27. Mean alkalinity concentration (ppm) for sample sites (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Samples were taken monthly between September 2002 and August 2003, with two samples taken in March 2003 (n=13). Values in () are standard deviations. Error bars represent one standard error. The graph includes
only the 10 sites on the main channel.
44
Figure 30. Correlation between magnesium and sulfate concentrations. [Magnesium =
8.12+(0.20 ± 0.03) * Sulfate].
Figure 28. Correlation between sodium and chloride concentrations (a) and calcium and
magnesium concentrations (b) [Sodium = 13.73+ (0.53± 0.004) * chloride] [Calcium =
16.73+(4.34 ± 0.30) * magnesium].
a b
Figure 29. Correlation between ammonium and nitrate concentrations (a) and ammonium and
sulfate concentrations (b). [Ammonium = 0.62+ (0.39 ± 0.15) * nitrate] [Ammonium =
-3.46+(0.16 ± 0.03) * sulfate].
a b
45
Figure 31. Proportion of chloride to sodium molarity at each sample site (n=14) along the Patroon Creek. Error bars represent one standard error.
Relative molarity of sodium and
chloride ions
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
Hudson
Tiv
oli
St.
TP
W
Tobin
Centr
al
N/M
Confl.
Main
Br
Fulle
r R
d
Rens L
ake
PB
West
Pb
Hg S
ite
Cherr
y R
d
S. Lake
Sample Site
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f
Ch
lori
de
to
So
diu
m
Mo
lari
ty (
mm
ols
/kg
)
46
Figure 32. Proportion of measurements from sample sites downstream of the restoration zones (Main Br., Tobin, Tiv St.) over measurements of sample sites upstream of the restoration zones (Fuller, Central, TPW) for fluoride (a) and potassium (b) concentrations (ppm). Error bars represent one standard error.
1 2 3
Restoration Zone
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Ra
tio
Do
wn
st r
ea
m/U
pstr
ea
m
1 2 3
Restoration Zone
-1
1
3
5
Ratio
Do
wnstr
ea
m/U
pstr
eam Flouride Potassium
a b
Figure 33. Proportions of measurements from sample sites downstream of the restoration zones (Main Br., Tobin, Tiv St.) over measurements of sample sites upstream of the restoration zones (Fuller, Central, TPW) for nitrate (a) and ammonium (b) concentrations (ppm). Error bars represent one standard error.
1 2 3
Restoration Zone
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Ra
tio
Do
wnstr
eam
/ Up
str
ea
m
1 2 3
Restoration Zone
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
Ra
tio
Do
wn
str
ea
m/U
pstr
ea
mNitrate Ammonium
a b
47
Figure 34. Means comparison for fluoride (a) and sulfate (b) concentrations (ppm) comparing sample sites upstream of the restoration zones (Fuller, Central, TPW) against sample sites downstream of the restoration zones (Main Br., Tobin, Tiv St.) (Flouride F
1,73=1.46, p=0.23) (Sulfate F 1,74=2.42, p=0.12) Error bars represent one standard error.
a Flouride
b Sulfate
Figure 35. Means comparison for calcium (a) and nitrate (b) concentrations (ppm) comparing sample sites upstream of the restoration zones (Fuller, Central, TPW) against sample sites downstream of the restoration zones (Main Br., Tobin, Tiv St.) (Calcium F 1,74=2.14, p=0.15) (Nitrate F 1,74=10.91, p=0.001). Error bars represent one standard error.
a Calcium
b Nitrate
48
Figure 36. Means comparison for potassium concentrations (ppm) (a) and temperature
measurements (°C) (b) comparing sample sites upstream of the restoration zones (Fuller, Central, TPW) against sample sites downstream of the restoration zones (Main Br., Tobin, Tiv St.) (Potassium F 1,74=2.27, p=0.14) (Temperature F 1,74=0.53, p=0.47). Error bars represent one standard error.
a Potassium
b Temperature
49
Figure 37. Means comparison for nitrate (a) and potassium (b) concentrations (ppm) comparing the sample site upstream of restoration zone 1 (Fuller) against the sample site downstream of restoration zone 1 (Main Br.) (Nitrate F 1,22=5.00, p=0.04) (Potassium F 1,22 =2.52, p=0.13). Error bars represent one standard error.
a
Nitrate b
Potassium
Figure 38. Means comparison for sulfate concentrations (ppm) comparing the sample site upstream of restoration zone 1 (Fuller) against the sample site downstream of restoration zone 1 (Main Br.) (Sulfate F 1,22 =1.99, p=0.17). Error bars represent one standard error
Sulfate
50
Figure 39. Means comparison for nitrate (a) and potassium (b) concentrations (ppm) comparing the sample site upstream of restoration zone 2 (Central) against the sample site downstream of restoration zone 2 (Tobin) (Nitrate F 1,24=14.46, p=0.001) (Potassium F 1,24 =3.69, p=0.07). Error bars represent one standard error.
a Nitrate
b Potassium
Figure 40. Means comparison for sulfate (a) and calcium (b) concentrations (ppm) comparing the sample site upstream of restoration zone 2 (Central) against the sample site downstream of restoration zone 2 (Tobin) (Sulfate F 1,24=4.43, p=0.05) (Calcium F 1,24 =2.49, p=0.13). Error bars represent one standard error.
a Sulfate
b Calcium
51
Figure 42. Means comparison for potassium (a) concentrations and measurement of % saturation of dissolved oxygen (b) comparing highly buffered sites (1) and poorly buffered sites (2). (Potassium F 1,111=0.38, p=0.54) (% DO F 1,111=1.75, p=0.19). Error bars represent one standard error.
1 2
Buffered Unbuffered
75.0
81.5
88.0
94.5
101.0
% S
atu
ration
of D
isso
lve
d O
xyg
en
b
%DO
1 2
Buffered Unbuffered
6
8
10
12
14
16
Po
tassiu
m C
oncentr
ation
(ppm
)
a
Potassium
Figure 41. Means comparison for chloride (a) and sodium (b) concentrations comparing highly buffered sites (1) and poorly buffered sites (2). (Chloride F
1,111=1.21, p=0.27) (Sodium F 1,111=1.93, p=0.17). Error bars represent one standard error.
1 2
Buffered Unbuffered
220
263
306
349
Ch
lorid
e C
oncen
tration
(ppm
)
a
Chloride
1 2
Buffered Unbuffered
127
138
149
160
171
182
193
204
Sodiu
m C
oncent r
ation (
pp
m)
b Sodium
52
Figure 43. Mean benthic macroinvertebrate family level indices for five sites along the Patroon Creek (n=2). Samples were taken in July and August 2003. Family Richness (a), EPT Richness (b), Family Biotic Index (c), Biological Assessment Profile (d). PC 1994 is equivalent to Central Ave and was sampled by the NYSDEC in 1994.
EPT Richness
0
1
2
3
PB
West
Fuller
Rd
Hg Central PC
1994
Stream
Gauge
Sample Site
Family Biotic Index
02468
PB
West
Fulle
r
Rd Hg
Centr
al
Str
eam
Gauge
Sample Site
Biological Assessment Profile
0.001.002.003.004.005.00
PB
West
Fuller
Rd
Hg Central Stream
Gauge
Sample Site
Severely
Impacted
Moderately
Impacted
a
b c
d
53
Table II. Percentage of categorized impervious surfaces within the Patroon Creek Watershed.
CATEGORIES AREA (km2) % of WATERSHED
Patroon Creek Watershed
36.98 100
Parking Lots 4.09 11.06
Highways/ Interstates
0.87 2.36
Four Lane Roads 0.54 1.46
Two Lane Roads 2.06 5.58
Railroads 0.34 0.92
Commercial/ Industrial
1.81 4.90
Single Unit Residential (Average)
2.62 7.07
Single Unit Residential (Minimum)
1.50 4.06
Single Unit Residential (Maximum)
3.72 10.06
Multi Unit Residential
0.58 1.57
Total
Impervious
Surfaces (%) of
Watershed
12.92 32 % - 38%
54
Impervious Surface Categories of the
Patroon Creek Watershed
Highways/
InterstatesFour Lane
Roads
Two Lane
Roads
Railroads
Single Unit
Residential
Rooftops
Multi Unit
Residential
RooftopsCommercial/
Industrial
Rooftops
Parking Lots
Figure 44. Categories of impervious surfaces within the Patroon Creek Watershed. See Table II for coverage areas.
55
Figure 45. Scattergrams of family richess vs. % impervious surface(a) and EPT richness vs. % impervious surface (b). % impervious surface was calculated for the site description area located upstream of the five macroinvertebrate sample sites (n=5) [FR =7.15+(-0.04 ±0.05) *
%IS] [EPT =1.36 +(-0.02± 0.02)* %IS].
R2 = 0.20
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 20 40 60 80
% Impervious Surface
Ben
thic
Macro
invert
eb
rate
Fam
ily
Ric
hn
ess
a
R2 = 0.12
0
1
2
3
0 20 40 60 80
% Impervious Surface
Ben
thic
Macro
invert
eb
rate
Fam
ily
EP
T R
ich
ness
b
Figure 46. Scattergrams of family biotic index vs. % impervious surface (a) and biological assessment profile vs. % impervious surface (b). % impervious surface was calculated for the site description area located upstream of the five macroinvertebrate sample sites (n=5) [Family biotic index = 6.43+ (0.01 ± 0.01) * %IS] [BAP = 3.06+(-0.02 ± 0.03) * %IS].
R2 = 0.06
0
2
4
6
8
0 20 40 60 80
% Impervious Surface
Ben
thic
Macro
invert
eb
rate
Fam
ily B
ioti
c In
dex
a
R2 = 0.11
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80
% Impervious Surface
Ben
thic
Macro
invert
eb
rate
Bio
log
ical A
ssessm
en
t P
rofi
le
b
56
Figure 47. Scattergrams of chloride concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (a) and sodium concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (b). % impervious surface was calculated for the site description area located upstream of the water quality sample sites (n=14) [Chloride= 163.59+(3.46 ± 1.47) * %IS] [Sodium=97.03+(1.89 ± 0.83) * %IS].
R2 = 0.32
0
150
300
450
600
750
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
Ch
lori
de (
pp
m)
a
R2 = 0.30
0
100
200
300
400
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
So
diu
m (
pp
m)
b
Figure 48. Scattergrams of nitrate concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (a) and ammonium concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (b). % impervious surface was calculated for the site description area located upstream of the water quality sample sites (n=14) [Nitrate=3.45+(-0.004 ± 0.01) * %IS] [Ammonium= 1.51+(0.01 ±0.01) * %IS].
R2 = 0.01
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
Nit
rate
(p
pm
)
a
R2 = 0.09
0
1
2
3
4
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
Am
mo
niu
m (
pp
m)
b
57
Figure 49. Scattergrams of sulfate concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (a) and potassium concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (b). % impervious surface was calculated for the site description area located upstream of the water quality sample sites (n=14) [Sulfate=30.16 +(0.10 ± 0.07) * %IS] [Potassium=7.61 +(0.08 ± 0.05) * %IS].
R2 = 0.17
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
Su
lfate
(p
pm
)
a
R2 = 0.14
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
Po
tassiu
m (
pp
m)
b
Figure 50. Scattergrams of calcium concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (a) and magnesium concentration (ppm) vs. % impervious surface (b). % impervious surface was calculated for the site description area located upstream of the water quality sample sites (n=14) [Calcium=71.55+(0.25 ± 0.11) * %IS] [Magnesium=14.09+(0.02 ±0.03) * %IS].
R2 = 0.31
0
30
60
90
120
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
Calc
ium
(p
pm
)
a
R2 = 0.05
0
5
10
15
20
0 50 100
% Impervious Surface
Mag
nesiu
m (
pp
m)
b
58
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Water Quality Status of the Patroon Creek
Previous studies of the Patroon Creek have classified parts of the creek as a severely
impaired water body based on biological and water quality measurements (Bode et al.
1995). Present water quality measurements still indicate the poor health of the Patroon
Creek and the need for some type of ecological restoration. One of the main problems
that the Patroon Creek faces is that it is a highly urbanized watershed surrounded by a
heavily developed landscape. Approximately 35% of the watershed is covered by
impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and rooftops. Studies have shown that a
stream’s water quality begins to degrade at a 10-15% watershed impervious surface level,
with severe degradation at a 30-35% watershed impervious surface level (Klein 1979,
Paul and Meyer 2001). At places along its path, the Patroon Creek also runs through the
middle of industrial areas, is rerouted underground into concrete culverts, or is also
directly adjacent to long stretches of Interstate 90. This high level of urbanization within
the watershed has important implications on the resulting hydrology and water quality of
the Patroon Creek and its tributaries.
High levels of impervious surface can discharge non-point source contaminants
into the stream, degrading the water quality and biological health of the system. In my
analyses there appears to be a trend, with increasing levels of impervious surface
associated with decreasing water quality of the Patroon Creek. This is most evident for
sodium and chloride ions, presumably from deicing salt. The water quality of the Patroon
Creek also exhibited large temporal and spatial variation throughout the course of the
sampling year for this study and along the length of its main branch and tributaries.
59
Sodium and chloride showed a maximum in concentration during the winter and spring
months, coinciding with the snowfall and snowmelt periods. Since sodium and chloride
exhibit an almost 1:1 correlation it is most likely that the large winter spike in
concentrations in the stream can be attributed to the application of salt onto the roads and
parking lots throughout the watershed. Potassium, nitrate, and ammonium also showed
seasonal spikes in concentration during the winter and early spring months. The high
levels of residential development within an urban watershed is a common source of these
three ions due to fertilizer use on lawns (Paul and Meyer 2001). The elevated levels of
nitrate and ammonium in the winter could be a reflection of the ions not being taken up
by riparian vegetation. Potassium concentrations may be related to anomalous point
sources, such as railroad bed materials or industrial waste, the significant spike in
concentration during the winter months could be due to potassium in deicing mixtures.
Another trend is the appearance of elevated levels of some ions not only in the winter
months but also throughout the whole year. Sodium and chloride concentrations remain
high throughout the summer and fall (chloride concentrations remains around
approximately 200 ppm, sodium concentrations remains around approximately 130-
150ppm), potentially indicating that they are being stored within the stream, slowly
released back into the water, and not being fully flushed out of the watershed. This same
situation of elevated summer concentrations of sodium and chloride was apparent in a
study done in Toronto, where only 45 % of the annual incoming salt was removed from
the system and the rest was stored in sub-surface waters (Howard and Haynes 1992).
The average concentrations along the length of the creek for most of the ions
measured were detected at significantly higher levels than concentrations measured in a
60
non-urban forested watershed (Likens and Bormann 1995). Also chloride concentrations
bordered the EPA’s maximum acceptable limit for drinking water quality and sodium
concentrations were significantly higher than EPA recommended human health limits
(Howard and Haynes 1992). Some of the highest concentrations of ions were measured
at Shafer Lake, a sampling site at the source of the north branch tributary, surrounded by
parking lots, heavily traveled roads, and numerous commercial and industrial businesses,
all possible sources of contaminants. Another trend appears to be a slight increase in ion
concentration along the length of the stream from its source in the Pine Bush to its mouth
at the Hudson. Along this path, the Patroon Creek picks up water from the elevated north
branch, is continuously exposed to industrial areas, runs through multiple concrete
culverts, and is adjacent to Interstate 90.
Benthic macroinvertebrate indices are another biological measure of the
degradation of a water body or stream system. Invertebrates are affected by the physical,
chemical, and biological influences within a stream and are therefore considered a more
complete assessment of the stream’s health (Davis and George 1987). The family level
indices measured along the Patroon Creek rated parts of the stream as either being
moderately or severely degraded, coinciding with the results of my water quality
assessment.
Based upon chemical and biological indicators, the Patroon Creek faces serious
challenges when it comes to the quality of its waters, the levels of contaminants that it
receives, and the fact that there are areas along the creek contributing significant pollutant
loads into the system. However, remnant natural areas along the creek, potential
restoration zones, might be enhanced to improve buffering capacity. In comparison to
61
other sections of the creek, these areas exhibit higher amounts of riparian buffers, which
are documented filters for non-point source pollutants (Gregory et al. 1991, Hill 1996).
The main premise of this study was to determine whether or not these restoration
zones exhibit buffering capacity as measured by the water quality of the creek. I
hypothesized that the three remnant natural areas along the creek, designated as
restoration zones 1-3, would have a positive affect upon the water quality of the creek, as
seen by the variables measured, therefore providing opportunities for ecological
enhancement and restoration. Looking at their cumulative and individual relationships
with water quality, they appear to be functioning as a partial non-point source buffer for
many of the ions measured. For the cumulative sites, nitrate was the only water quality
variable that showed a significant decrease in concentration downstream of the
restoration zones. However there appears to be an improvement in multiple water quality
variables after the creek has passed through two of the restoration areas. These are the
upstream and midstream sites designated zones 1 and 2. Zone 3, Tivoli Preserve, did not
show much of a change in water quality between upstream and downstream zone
sampling sites. Possible explanations could be that a large section of the creek is rerouted
underground in this area and out of contact with riparian buffers. Another important
difference is that zones 1 and 2 have significant areas of riparian wetlands, adjacent to the
creek, where zone 3 does not. The wetlands could possibly be enhancing the buffering
capacity of the riparian areas.
62
4.2 Urban Stream Restoration
Stream restoration aims to restore the natural structure, dynamics, and biological
diversity. But because many urban streams, such as the Patroon Creek, are constrained
by the surrounding developed landscape, urban stream restoration projects usually focus
on restoring the functional characteristics of stream systems (Charbonneau and Resh
1992, Stanford et al. 1996, Riley 1998). Patroon Creek faces many ecological challenges
such as water quality contamination, the loss of its natural floodplain, destruction of its
natural stream banks, and alteration of much of its riparian areas. Since each urban
stream is a unique system, with multiple challenges, each restoration project must assess
the current situation, determine the immediate needs of the stream, and examine multiple
restoration options that could be used to meet these challenges (Riley 1998).
4.3 Restoration Options
4.3.1 Stream Channel Restoration Practices
An urban stream restoration project that focuses on erosional and structural
problems associated with the stream channel can involve the potential options of
restoring some or all of the functional and structural attributes back to the stream channel,
such as bank stability, habitat for aquatic organisms, and flow regulation (Gore and
Shields 1995, Riley 1998). Restoration planners usually encounter two primary problems
in urban stream channels, both of which are apparent in the Patroon Creek. First, urban
streams tend to be deeply incised and eroded along segments of their length, the results of
increased flows from urban runoff, loss of riparian vegetation, and channel straightening
(Riley 1998). Second, many urban stream channels have lost pool and riffle sequences
63
along the stream, due to the aggradation of a silty bottom which can negatively affect
benthic macroninvertebrate communities within the water body (Stanford et al. 1996).
Often construction projects and incorrectly placed culverts cause large fluxes in sediment
inputs and transport in the stream, which can aggravate these problems (Stanford et al.
1996, Riley 1998).
In such cases, a number of potential restoration practices could be implemented,
such as the stabilization of stream banks, the improvement of riparian areas, and the
removal or alteration of problematic culverts. A standard practice for restoring and
stabilizing stream banks is revegetation. Plants hold soil and stabilize the bank while
protecting banks from erosional flows, while also contributing to aquatic habitat
(Osborne and Kovacic 1993). Brush deflectors, tree revetments, rootwads, and small
cuttings from native riparian vegetation are restoration practices that focus on using
natural products to introduce plant physical structure into the streambanks to provide a
stabilizing factor (Riley 1998, West 2000). On some urban streams, revegetating stream
banks alone will not solve the problem and other structural components will need to be
incorporated into the restoration project. Jacks, lunkers, rock work, and cribwalls are
restoration practices that focus on using more man-made structural devices to add
structure and stability to a stream bank (Charbonneau and Resh 1992, Riley 1998). Most
of these practices are described in more detail in Ann Riley’s book, Restoring Streams in
Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and Citizens, where she explains how all of
these devices can be made and used in different urban stream restoration projects (Riley
1998). The objective of all of these practices is to restore stability to the stream banks
using natural or semi-natural products in order for the stream channel to withstand high
64
flows and erosional forces. In addition to providing stability, these structural components
also can provide habitat for aquatic organisms within the stream (Riley 1998).
Another potential component of an urban stream channel restoration project is the
revegetation of surrounding riparian areas (Riley 1998, Barth 2000). These revegetation
projects may include planting native species to improve existing riparian areas that have
been degraded, as well as removing invasive species. Sometimes all that is needed is to
remove exotic species from riparian areas to allow room for native species to recolonize
the site (Riley 1998).
Many urban streams have been physically altered and often rerouted both above
and belowground through culverts, as with the Patroon Creek. Much of the time these
culverts are incorrectly sized to handle the stream’s flow and cause problems downstream
(Charbonneau and Resh 1992). Culvert-removal restoration projects can be very feasible
and cost-effective; however, the problems associated with culverts are wide ranging and
vary, depending on the stream dynamics, the placement of the culvert, and the culvert
itself. They can act as dams causing streams to fill in upstream and they can also
contribute to downstream erosion by concentrating flows (Riley 1998). Restoration
projects can lead to the removal of the culverts to restore some of the stability of the
stream system, depending upon feasibility of this option. The removal of some of the
numerous culverts along the path of the Patroon Creek, especially in the undeveloped
areas, such as Tivoli Preserve, are options for further restoration potential. However, the
effects of the multiple culverts and their proposed removal is an issue for further
research.
65
4.3.2 Water Quality Restoration Practices
Based upon the ecological assessment of the Patroon Creek done in this study, I
believe that improving water quality should be the primary restoration focus. Due to the
limited land area along the creek, constraints imposed by the surrounding development,
and the apparent buffering ability of pre-existing riparian areas, a viable option to meet
this challenge would be the enhancement and creation of wetlands along the Patroon
Creek. There are some serious issues concerning water quality contamination along the
creek and these are of high concern due to the fact that neighboring communities such as
those surrounding the Tivoli Preserve area of the watershed have many children that use
the creek as a place to swim in and play near in the summer. Wetlands and their
vegetation have the ability to absorb nutrients and other contaminants and act as a filter.
In agricultural settings it has been documented that riparian buffers and wetlands reduce
non-point pollutants such as sediment, nitrate, and phosphorous from stream systems
(Gilliam 1994). Urban stream systems also experience unique combinations of non-point
source pollutants that could also be filtered out through wetlands and buffers. The
wetlands that line the creek could be enhanced to improve their ecological services, such
as recharging groundwater, filtering pollutants, controlling floods, storing runoff,
sequestering nutrients, providing wildlife habitat, and enhancing recreational and
educational opportunities for the nearby communities (Niering 1985, Barth 2000). A
likely first step is to enlarge pre-existing riparian wetlands through revegetation projects
using native wetland flora. Additional wetland diversion areas can be constructed as
holding areas for surface water run-off.
66
Besides the crucial steps of ecologically assessing the targeted urban stream,
picking a restoration focus, and deciding upon the restoration tools to be implemented, it
is also extremely important to examine the political issues associated with an urban
stream restoration project. An important component of a successful restoration project is
acquiring the correct political authority and community support (Riley 1998). Without
these, any restoration project associated with the Patroon Creek has a low probability of
taking place. The policy framework for such an undertaking is discussed in my final
chapter.
67
5. RESTORATION POLICY
Starting and implementing an urban stream restoration project can be very
difficult not only because of the ecological problems that are encountered, but also due to
jurisdictional and legislative obstacles given the large number of people, organizations,
and political issues that could become involved in such a project (Charbonneau and Resh
1992). It is important early on in the restoration process to understand the stream system,
identify potential ecological problems that might arise, and identify potential parties that
might have an interest or stake in the restoration process (Purcell et al. 2002)
5.1 Agencies and Legislation Governing the Process
A project to restore wetlands in Tivoli Preserve along the Patroon Creek would
involve federal and state agencies, as well as local municipalities and numerous
stakeholders with an interest in the project (Riexinger 2003). The process can be
complicated and involved and depending on the parameters or goals of the restoration
project. This concluding chapter focuses on wetland restoration, and the creation of
wetlands; other restoration projects would entail different regulations. The major players
in wetland policy are the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on the federal level, and the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on the state
level. These agencies enforce the regulatory provisions surrounding a wetland restoration
project. Many more agencies and interest groups could be involved, but they would not
have regulatory authority over the project (Riexinger 2003). The regulatory agencies'
68
guidelines vary and derive from different pieces of legislation, and it is important to note
that the following description focuses on specific pieces of legislation that play a part or
might be important to any proposed project of wetland restoration.
5.1.1 State Regulations
The NYSDEC is the state agency responsible for regulation of wetlands in New
York State that fall outside of the Adirondack Park. Its State Wetlands Regulatory
Programs covers both public and private lands, but not all wetlands are regulated, and the
NYSDEC is guided by federal laws and programs such as the Freshwater Wetlands Act
(Title 24 of the ECL), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C P.L. 95-217) Section 401, the
Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) (6NYCRR Part 621 ECL), as well as its own State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6NYCRR Part 617 ECL) (USEPA 1994).
The Freshwater Wetlands Act
The Freshwater Wetlands Act, Article 24 of New York State’s Environmental
Conservation Law (NYS CLS ECL), grants the NYSDEC and APA, Adirondack Park
Agency, the authority to regulate state freshwater wetlands. It was enacted in 1975 in
order to prevent the continued loss and degradation to wetlands. The Act’s Declaration of
Policy states:
It is declared to be the public policy of the state to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived there from, to prevent the despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands, and to regulate use and development of such wetlands to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the state.
The NYSDEC established the Freshwater Wetlands Regulatory Program which produces
and enforces regulations that:
69
1. Are compatible with the preservation, protection, and enhancement of the
present and potential values of wetlands.
2. Will protect the public health and welfare.
3. Will be consistent with the reasonable economic and social development of
the state (NYSDEC 1996).
Under the Freshwater Wetlands Act, a wetland that is 5 ha (12.4 acres) or larger is
protected and if a smaller wetland is deemed to have unusual local importance, based on
the criteria stated above, it will also be protected under the Act. The Act requires that all
protected wetlands within the state and outside of the Adirondack Park be mapped by the
NYSDEC in order for these wetlands to be cataloged. Besides mapping, the Act also
requires that protected wetlands be classified according to Wetlands Mapping and
Classification Regulations (6NYCCR Part 664). The wetland classes range from Class 1,
wetlands that provide numerous benefits, to Class IV, wetlands that provide the least
benefits (NYSDEC n.d.(c)).
The Freshwater Wetlands Act’s main goal is to protect wetlands from actions that
would lead to degradation. Under the Act, examples of activities that take place within
protected wetlands and adjacent lands (areas that extend 100 ft from the wetland) that
require a wetlands permit are:
1. Construction of buildings, roads, septic systems, bulkheads, dikes or dams.
2. Placement of fill, excavation or grading.
3. Modification, expansion, or extensive restoration of existing structures.
4. Drainage, except for agriculture.
5. Application of pesticides.
70
Examples of activities that are not regulated under the Act and that do not need a
wetlands permit are:
1. Conducting normal agricultural activities, except filling.
2. Recreational activities.
3. Routine maintenance of existing structures.
4. Selectively cutting trees and harvesting firewood.
To acquire a permit under the Freshwater Wetlands Act, a proposed project must
conform with the permit standards outlined in Freshwater Wetlands Permit Requirement
Regulations (6NYCRR Part 663). These standards require that adverse affects to
wetlands be avoided or minimized where necessary. If a proposed project will have only
minimal affects on a regulated wetland, the NYSDEC can issue a conditional permit,
while if the proposed project will have significant affects on the wetland, the benefits of
the project must outweigh the benefits of the lost wetland.
Clean Water Act Section 401
The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. P.L. 95-217) was passed in 1977 as an
amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 with the goal to “restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”
(Freedman 1987, USEPA 2003(a), USEPA 2003(c)). The two sections of the act that
pertain to a wetland restoration project on the Patroon Creek are Sections 404 and 401. I
will discuss Section 404 in conjunction with the US Army Corps of Engineers later on in
this chapter. Section 401, the State Certification of Water Quality, requires that federal
permits meet state’s water quality standards and receive a state certification (USEPA
1994). Under this law, states and tribes have the authority to approve, review, condition,
71
or deny all federal permits. This requirement of the Clean Water Act allows states to use
their water quality standards to protect their wetlands from proposed projects that could
be damaging to these wetlands. In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
distributed its guidelines on developing water quality standards for wetlands to all states.
These water quality standards are put into place by the states and consist of three main
components: designated uses, criteria to protect those uses, and an anti-degradation
policy (USEPA 2003(a)). It is these water quality standards that provide a framework
for states to review federal permits. Under Section 401, states are able to review
proposed permits by looking at their potential physical, chemical and biological impacts
such as loss of fish habitat, turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen levels, alteration of
stream volume, etc. After the state has reviewed the federal project and approved it, a
Section 401 Water Quality Certificate is issued, which designates that the project is in
line with state water quality standards and also other requirements of New York State
law. If under any circumstance a Water Quality Certificate is issued with state-added
conditions, in order for the proposed project to proceed, these conditions would become a
part of the federal permit (NYSDEC n.d.(b)).
State Environmental Quality Review Act
The State Environmental Quality Review Act or SEQR (6NYCRR Part 617
ECL), which was passed in 1975, is New York’s state version of NEPA, the National
Environmental Policy Act (Freedman 1987). SEQR does not require permits for
environmental projects, but instead requires potential impacts of the project to be
examined (Riexinger 2003). Under SEQR, all state and local government agencies must
look at and consider impacts to the environment of all proposed and permitted projects
72
and weigh them equally with social and economic parameters of the projects when
deciding to approve or deny a project. The main purpose of this Act is "to incorporate
the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review, and
decision making processes of the state, regional, and local governments" (Amoroso et al.
2002). The goal of this piece of legislation is to limit potential negative impacts on the
environment from proposed projects, and in this case the filling in or degradation of
existing wetlands. This is done through the compilation of an environmental impact
assessment form where both the severity and importance of all phases of the proposed
project are reviewed. Informational sources consist of the project director, comments
from other involved agencies and the public. If a project or “action”, as projects are
referred to under SEQR, is found not to have potentially detrimental environmental
impacts, a determination of no significance (Negative Declaration) is prepared and an
EIS is not required. However, if a proposed or actual project is found to have potentially
large-scale negative environmental impacts an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
required and must be made available to the public. An EIS must include:
1. Description of the action, including its needs and benefits.
2. Description of the environmental setting and areas to be affected.
3. An analysis of all environmental impacts related to the action.
4. An analysis of reasonable alternatives to the action.
5. Identification of ways to reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts
(NYSDEC n.d.(a), NYSDEC n.d.(e)).
Whether or not an EIS is required for a project, SEQR does require the filing of
an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for any environmentally related project.
73
Compared to an EIS, an EAF is scaled-down and not as detailed, but it does identify and
analyze the potential impacts of the project (NYSDEC n.d.(b)).
Uniform Procedures Act
The Uniform Procedures Act or Article 70 in the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law, passed in 1977, provides the framework for processing environmental
protection permits. This Act established the framework for:
1. Determining the adequacy of applications.
2. Seeking public involvement.
3. Resolving issues.
4. Final decisions on environmental permit applications.
5. Appealing Department decisions.
The main purpose of this Act is to establish uniform review protocol and timeframes for
the primary regulatory programs of the NYSDEC (NYSDEC n.d.(d))
5.1.2 Federal Regulations
On a federal level, the USACE is jointly responsible along with the USEPA for
the regulation of activities affecting surface waters of the United States including
wetlands (Rodgers 1994). The USACE has had regulatory authorization through permits
in navigable waters since the establishment of the Rivers & Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. 403). The Clean Water Act passed in the 1970s greatly expanded the Corp’s
regulatory role by increasing its scope to all waters of the nation including wetlands
(USACE 2002). Both agencies define wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
74
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Jasper 2002). The mission statement for the
regulatory branch of the Corps is:
The mission of the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program is to protect the Nation's aquatic resources, while allowing reasonable development through fair, flexible and balanced permit decisions... The Corps balances the reasonable foreseeable benefits and detriments of proposed projects, and makes permit decisions that recognize the essential values of the Nation's aquatic ecosystems to the general public, as well as the property rights of citizens who want to use their land. During the permit process, the Corps considers the views of other Federal, state and local agencies, interest groups, and the general public... The adverse impacts to the aquatic environment are offset by mitigation requirements, which may include restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving aquatic functions and values. The Corps strives to make its permit decisions in a timely manner that minimizes the impacts to the regulated public (USACE 2002).
A main point in the regulation of wetland restoration is that the USACE has
jurisdiction over all wetlands in New York State, even if they are not mapped and
regulated by the NYSDEC under the Freshwater Wetlands Act (Riexinger 2003). The
USACE is also guided by several laws such as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. P.L. 95-
217) Section 404, the National Environmental Policy Act ( 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq), the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), and the Endangered Species Act (7 U.S.C. 136;
16 U.S.C. 460 et seq) (USEPA 1994, NEPA 1997, Firstencel 2003).
Clean Water Act Section 404
The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. P.L. 95-217), passed in 1972, is the mainstay of
federal legislation protecting the United States water bodies, and it is the broadest federal
program for regulating the discharge of substances into United States water bodies
(Percival 2002). The Clean Water Act was implemented to achieve the cessation of
pollutant discharge into water bodies and to establish and maintain water quality that
allows recreational activities. Agencies on all levels; federal, state, and local cooperate to
75
carry out the regulations of the Act, and have thus far resulted in a significant
improvement in the Nation’s water quality (Jasper 2002). Under this legislation a
cooperative effort between federal and state agencies is emphasized. The Act treats all
discharges into the bodies of water of the United States as illegal, unless authorized under
a permit (Copeland 1999). In order to achieve its goals the Clean Water Act:
1. Maintains strict standards on water quality.
2. Offering financial aid to assist in compliance with the law.
3. Protects valuable wetlands and other aquatic habitats (Jasper 2002).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established regulations and the requirement
for a federal permit for depositing dredged or fill material into the water of the United
States, including wetlands (Freedman 1987, USEPA 2003(a)). Dredged material is
defined as substances taken from the waters of the United States. Fill material is defined
as “any material used for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land
or of changing the bottom elevation of a water body” (Rodgers 1994). A public hearing
is also required concerning a proposed project if there is sufficient public interest. This
section of the Act is designed to make sure that all alternatives to discharging dredged or
fill material have been taken into consideration, in case one of these alternatives is less
damaging to the aquatic ecosystems involved (USEPA 2003(c)). The USEPA works in
conjunction with the USACE in enforcing this section of the Clean Water Act. The
USEPA is responsible for and has the authority to:
1. Develop and interpret environmental criteria used in evaluating permit
applications.
2. Determine scope of geographic jurisdiction.
76
3. Approve and oversee State assumption.
4. Identify activities that are exempt.
5. Review/comment on individual permit applications.
6. Veto the Corps' permit decisions (Section 404c).
7. Evaluate specific cases (Section 404q).
However, it is the USACE that administers the program and permit process as the
primary federal regulatory agency in enforcing Section 404 provisions. The USACE is
responsible for:
1. Administering the day-to-day program under the Act, including individual
permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations.
2. Developing policy and guidance.
3. Enforcing Section 404 provisions (USEPA 2003(c)).
Both agencies can take enforcement action against violators of the Act (Jasper
2002). Different types of permits under Section 404 can be acquired for activity affecting
a wetland. An individual permit is required when a proposed project is deemed to have
significant impacts on the wetland. A general permit is granted for potential projects that
have been assessed to have small detrimental affects on the body of water or wetland.
Both types of permits can be acquired at a nationwide, regional or state basis depending
on the scope of the project (USEPA 2003(c)).
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) was passed in 1969 and established a national
policy on federal activities that affect the environment. The policy established by this
piece of legislation dictated Congress' responsibility, along with that of state and local
77
agencies, to make and maintain conditions that allow for the harmonious existence of
man and nature so as not to negatively affect the social, economic, and other needs of
future generations (NEPA 1997). Title 1 of the Act focuses on increased interaction and
cooperation among federal, state, and local agencies. Title 1 also requires all federal
agencies involved in projects that might significantly affect the environment to fill out an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which examines the environmental impacts of
the project, unavoidable negative impacts, and alternative options to the proposed project.
The EIS is required to be accessible to the President, the public and the Council on
Environmental Quality, which was created in Title 2 of NEPA (Freedman 1987). The
Council on Environmental Quality, reviews and assesses federal government policies and
programs and promotes other national policies that would benefit the environment. It
also assists the President in creating the required annual Environmental Quality Report,
assessing the state of the environment (Sive 1976, NEPA 1997). NEPA does not increase
or widen the regulatory power or authority of any agencies, but it does set the mandate
that all federal agencies are required to take environmental concerns and issues into
consideration, just as all other issues, such as social or economic concerns are addressed
(Freedman 1987).
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Under the 1946 amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661 et seq), any department or United States agency that is involved with a project
under a federal permit that changes the water or channel of a body of water of the United
States, must confer and coordinate with the USFWS and the State's fish and wildlife
agency to assess the potential impacts of a project on fish and wildlife and to take
78
measures to alleviate these impacts (USFWS 1992). The goal of this Act was to establish
a legal framework to protect the nation's fish and wildlife resources and to make sure that
wildlife conservation is viewed and considered on an equal basis in water-resource
programs (FWCA 1997). The FWS and the State Wildlife Agency will initiate an
investigation into the effects of the project on the wildlife and any resulting suggestions
must be fully considered by the federal agencies involved in the project (FWCA 1997).
However, the FWS does not have the authority to veto any Army Corps of Engineer
permits (Riexinger 2003).
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), passed in
1966 declares that “the Congress finds and declares…that the historical and cultural
foundations of the nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and
development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people.” This Act
established a National Register of Historic Places, which would make a listed item,
structure, or property available for federal grants, loans and tax incentives (Rodgers
1994). This Act created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), a
Federal agency that assists Congress and the President on matters that deal with or would
affect historic sites. The Act requires that any Federal agency undertaking a project, i.e.
Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, is required to obtain review and comments from
the ACHP, and also discuss the project with the State Historic Preservation Officer, who
has been appointed to enforce and carry out the NHPA (CWIS 2002).
79
Endangered Species Act
The primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) ( 7 U.S.C. 136; 16
U.S.C. 460 et seq) is "To provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a
program for the conservation of such ....species..."(Jasper 2002). This act establishes the
framework for determining endangered and threatened species and dictates that the US
Fish and Wildlife Service implement and regulate the provisions of the Act (Jasper 2002).
Under the ESA, all federal agencies must assess all proposed projects in order to
determine if the project would in any way jeopardize species protected under the law or
harm these species’ habitats (Freedman 1987).
5.2 Stakeholders
Planning an ecological restoration project on the Patroon Creek would involve
many stakeholders since the creek is an urban stream that falls under multiple layers of
government and regulatory agencies and affects many possible nongovernmental interest
groups. Different stakeholders will view a restoration project from differing viewpoints
and even if they all favor some form of restoration, they may not have common goals. In
order for the planning and political process for a restoration project to proceed smoothly a
very important part of the planning process is to identify all of the potential stakeholders
and their concerns and get these parties on board with the project. The following is a
listing of some of the potential stakeholders that would be interested in a restoration
project along the Patroon Creek. There are probably many more potential stakeholders
for a project of this magnitude.
80
Albany County Soil and Water Conservation District
The Albany County Soil and Water Conservation District's goals are to prevent
soil erosion and water pollution in Albany County (ACSWCD 2003). It provides a
number of services in the form of:
• Water Quality Management
• Erosion Control
• Drainage Assistance
• Conservation Education
• Soils Information
• Flood Control
• Topographic, State Wetlands, and Flood Plain Mapping (ACSWCD
2003)
New York State Department of State
The Division of Coastal Resources in the New York State Department of State
potentially would have an interest in this project. One of the main goals of the Division
of Coastal Resources is administering New York State's Coastal Management Program,
which works for the advancement of economic opportunities and the protection of natural
coastal resources, including the Hudson River (NYSDOS 2002). Since the Patroon Creek
empties into the Hudson River and is important to the city of Albany, a Hudson River
City, the Department of State might participate in the restoration planning for Patroon
Creek.
81
New York State Department of Transportation
The NYSDOT could be a significant stakeholder due to the fact that Patroon
Creek is located in close proximity to Interstate 90 along much of its path. Also the
NYSDOT could be interested because of their environmental initiative policy. The
NYSDOT states, it is the mission of the NYSDOT to ensure our customers-those who
live, work and travel in New York State-have a safe, efficient, balanced, and
environmentally sound transportation system (NYSDOT 2001).
Under this initiative the NYSDOT takes on the responsibility of working with
other state agencies and policies to improve the environment. Based on this mission
statement, the NYSDOT is interested in funding and undertaking projects, on NYSDOT
land, to improve water quality, restore wetlands, protect fish and wildlife habitat, promote
eco-tourism, and enhance transportation corridors (NYSDOT 2001). In areas where water
quality is a concern from runoff, the NYSDOT is interested in:
• Creating wetlands and storm-water management structures.
• Bioengineering streambanks.
• Creating specialized water quality inlet structures.
In areas where wetlands are affected, the NYSDOT is interested in:
• Improving or restoring wetlands affected by federal-aid highway
projects that were done before regulatory mitigation was required.
• Constructing additional wetland acreage in projects beyond that
required for state and federal wetland permits.
• Working cooperatively with the NGOs and resource agencies to
preserve important existing wetland sites.
82
• Creating new wetlands to control non-point source pollution as well as
to provide other wetland functions, such as wildlife habitat (NYSDOT
2001).
Ducks Unlimited
Ducks Unlimited is an example of a nonprofit that could be interested in the
project and therefore be a stakeholder. It is one of the major wetland conservation groups
on a worldwide basis and believes that protecting wetlands is one of foremost actions
needed for waterfowl conservation and other wildlife species (Ducks Unlimited 2002).
W. Haywood Burns Environmental Education Center and the Arbor Hill Environmental
Justice Center
These two linked community groups would be very important players in an
ecological restoration project of Patroon Creek, because of their location in the Arbor Hill
community of Albany. The Patroon Creek runs right through this community and is used
by the children and adults of this community for recreational purposes. It is of interest to
these community groups to restore the Patroon Creek and improve water quality (W.
Haywood Burns n.d.).
These are just a few of the potential stakeholders that could be interested in such a
project along the Patroon Creek. Other interested parties could include the Albany Water
Board, Niagara Mohawk, Trout Unlimited, Save the Pine Bush the New York State
Department of Health and the City of Albany who own and manage the creek
environment. There is also the possibility that many more groups might become
interested in the project once they become informed of the restoration and its potential
benefits. The main goal is to identify these stakeholders or interest groups as early as
83
possible and get them involved in the project so they will be more willing to work for the
good of the restoration effort (Riexinger 2003).
5.3 The Patroon Creek Policy Process
A wetland restoration project along the Patroon Creek would most likely invoke
the guidelines or regulations from much of the legislation discussed above. Different
projects or places along the creek might result in varying policy processes depending on
who is involved and what laws apply. Whenever any type of fill material is deposited
into water bodies of the US, culverts are involved, and/or any soil is disturbed, the project
falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE. The involvement of the USACE could
potentially vary depending upon whether or not the project is sponsored by another
agency. If the USFWS, NYSDEC, or National Resource Conservation Service or other
agencies are acting as the sponsor or lead in a project, the USACE would not play as
active of a role in the project (Firstencel 2003). However, whether or not the USACE has
a large or small role in the restoration, it is still important to make sure that all aspects of
the project comply with USACE guidelines and that necessary USACE permits are
acquired.
One of the primary issues of a wetland restoration project from the NYSDEC's
perspective is whether or not any of the wetlands along the Patroon Creek that are
involved are regulated by the NYSDEC. If these wetlands are mapped under NY State
guidelines then the Freshwater Wetlands Act comes into play and a FWA permit is
required. If the wetlands are not on state wetland maps and are not affected by nearby
regulated wetlands then a FWA permit is not required (Riexinger 2003).
84
Another way to expedite a project of this scope, if it is deemed that a permit
would be required from both the USACE and the NYSDEC, would be to file a joint
permit application. This is a process where the receiving agency of the permit would
share the information with the other agency in order to facilitate the permit process. The
original permit can be filed with either the USACE or the NYSDEC (Riexinger 2003).
5.3.1 Policy Phases
Phase I - Exploration and Information Gathering
The process of implementing a wetland restoration project on the Patroon Creek
can be divided and analyzed in segments or phases. Currently the Patroon Creek
restoration project is in an exploratory phase, where interested parties are being
assembled and information about the creek is being gathered. This is a time when the
agendas of the multiple stakeholders or interested parties become apparent. Agenda
setting is a large part of the policy process and it is where problems and various solutions
to these problems acquire or lose public attention and support (Birkland 2001). Usually
in the policy process, items can be placed on an agenda by stating them in terms of being
a problem, about which something can be done. Once a problem has been placed on the
agenda, it has a higher chance of coming to the attention of the public and government
officials (Birkland 2001). The Patroon Creek can definitely be viewed as a problem due
to its polluted state, and it is apparent that something needs to be done about it because of
its proximity to and use by the Arbor Hill community in Albany, as well as its flow into
the Hudson River (Bode et al. 1995, W. Haywood Burns n.d.).
A potential obstacle to this policy process is that the large number of potential
stakeholders all have varying agendas and goals concerning the restoration. For example,
85
researchers at the University at Albany, under a federal USEPA grant, are interested in
studying the scientific aspects of the creek, using this information in the restoration
process, and using the creek for educational and training purposes. The W. Haywood
Burns Environmental Education Center is interested in quality of life issues, cleaning up
the Patroon Creek to provide a healthier and safer community environment. NYSDEC
and the USACE are regulatory agencies and would potentially be interested in a
restoration project if that project is brought to their attention. They would then be
responsible for the logistical and legislative aspects of a restoration project and making
sure all actions comply with established regulations (USACE 2002, NYSDEC 2003).
Other stakeholders might have similar or different ideas concerning the restoration of the
Patroon Creek. Because of the large number of potential agendas among involved
stakeholders, it is important for these parties to get in the habit of consulting with each
other and trying to act as a cohesive group rather than a fragmented party. This will
bolster potential political support for the restoration project, because often during the
policy process, political figures will regard an issue with increased awareness and
diligence if it has a strong backing and support among interest groups (Kingdon 1995).
Stakeholders that consult with each other can work together on the issue at hand to begin
to gain momentum. It is crucial that a problem, once it has achieved status on the
governmental agenda, where it is receiving attention, continue its forward motion in order
for it to reach the decision agenda, where action is taken (Kingdon 1995). A decision in
this situation would not entail the creation of policy or the establishment of a piece of
legislation; instead it would consist of the decision on whether or not a restoration project
on the Patroon Creek is a feasible and realistic next step in cleaning up the creek. Based
86
on that decision, the next step can be taken to acquire the support and involvement of
agencies and stakeholders and the fulfillment of permit processes and regulatory actions.
Phase II - Planning and Consultation
The second phase of this process can be viewed as the planning stage. This is the
time where crucial questions need to be asked such as, whose needs are most urgent and
what political contacts and strength need to be generated to satisfy them; how can an
increase in public interest be generated; which agency or stakeholder is going to take the
lead in the Patroon Creek restoration project? Potential candidates for the lead position
on a project of this scope are regulatory agencies such as the NYSDEC or USACE. These
agencies have the authority under established pieces of legislation to work on wetlands,
are familiar with the permit process, and their staff has access to important political
figures that would be interested in such a project (NYSDEC 1996, USACE 2002).
Another crucial step in planning a restoration project of this scope is garnering
support from the public and all potentially involved stakeholders. Heidi Firstencel, from
the USACE, suggested that the most fundamental steps in a restoration project of the
Patroon Creek are to start planning and getting people involved as early as possible.
Garnering political support for a project is a crucial step in making the process go
smoother (Riexinger 2003). Many times on such projects the USACE has held meetings
among stakeholders as much as two years before the start of the project. When there are
many involved parties, a large time frame is needed to balance all the questions,
concerns, desires, and regulations that are part of the process. It allows all interested
parties the opportunity to get involved in the project. Stakeholders, agencies, etc. who are
87
not given the opportunity to participate in the planning process can implement roadblocks
along the planning process (Firstencel 2003). Patricia Riexinger of the NYSDEC also
reiterated the fact that one of the most important phases of the planning process is
gathering public support. She stated that whether or not an Environmental Impact
Statement is required for the project under SEQR, she recommended that all
environmental projects fill out an EIS. A completed EIS has multiple benefits associated
with it. First of all, an EIS is a vehicle for analyzing the options or alternatives to a
project. It is a way of anticipating concerns of the stakeholders and public involved in the
project and, because it is a public document, it allows these concerns to be addressed
before they become an issue.
In order for an issue, in this case the restoration project, to keep moving along the
policy path, political support is almost essential. The movement of the policy process can
be divided into two parts or streams: the policy stream, where the process of getting an
item on the agenda takes place, proposals or solutions are promoted, and attempts at
creating an interest in selected parties are made, and the political stream, consisting of the
"mood" of the public, and the agendas of the administration or current political figures
(Kingdon 1995). Increasing public interest and garnering political support can go hand in
hand on this project. Because the Patroon Creek has been viewed by both community
groups and political figures as a serious problem due to contamination issues, and since
the idea of a restoration project is a positive issue, there is a good chance that there will
be interest in a restoration project on the creek (Firstencel 2003). However, it is
important for a problem to be defined in a way such that the general population agrees
with the problem definition. The definition of a problem is an important aspect of the
88
policy process because this dictates the potential solutions that can be offered (Birkland
2001).
The most visible problems surrounding the Patroon Creek have been defined as a
pollution and contaminant issue that directly affects human health, especially the citizens
of Arbor Hill, and the residential areas of Albany and Colonie near Central Ave (Fricano
2001, Cappiello 2002, Hourigan 2004). The W. Haywood Burns Environmental
Education Center and the Arbor Hill Environmental Justice Corporation have taken on
this issue of a contaminated Patroon Creek and are in the process of educating the
community of Arbor Hill about the dangers the creek may pose (W. Haywood Burns
n.d.). Problems surrounding the creek such as depleted uranium findings within the creek
have been publicized through the news media and are also contributing to increased
public awareness of this problem among not only citizens in Arbor Hill but in other
communities the stream passes through (Lebrun 2003). Public interest is a large
component of the political stream in the policy process. It brings issues to the attention
of decision makers and allows these issues to gain agenda status (Kingdon 1995).
Increased public awareness of these contaminant issues surrounding Patroon Creek will
add momentum to the idea of a restoration project. Getting the community interested and
involved in the presence and ecological state of the Patroon Creek will also add to the
political momentum. Providing a "hook", or a focus of interest, helps gather the
community around the project. These "hooks" can vary from controlling erosion,
enhancing the neighborhood and educational opportunities, to creating greenways,
reclaiming ecological values, and improving water quality (Charbonneau and Resh 1992,
Riley 1998). Once it has been recognized what the community interest or concern is
89
surrounding the creek, it is important for stakeholders to make the Patroon Creek a
community priority, and one way to do this is get locally elected representatives on board
(Riley 1998). Getting as many people as possible interested in the project and willing to
work for the good of the restoration will allow for a more realistic chance that the project
will go forward.
Phase III - Taking Action
The next step in this process is designing and implementing the restoration project
or projects. For Patroon Creek, this phase will depend on which stakeholder or agency
takes the lead in such a project. For example, USEPA may take over due to the recently
publicized uranium contamination (Lebrun 2003, Hourigan 2004). The issue of uranium
might actually become the Patroon Creek’s window of opportunity that could catapult the
clean-up of Patroon Creek to the top of the decision making agenda (Kingdon 1995,
Hourigan 2004). However, for broader ecosystem-based solutions to the multiple
problems of Patroon Creek, a single issue may be insufficient to generate enough public
interest, stakeholder cooperation, political support, and funding.
A wetland restoration project along the Patroon Creek, while moderate in scope,
may require a very complicated and long policy process. However, certain steps can be
taken that can make the process go smoother and result in success. First it is important to
identify as many stakeholders or interest groups as possible early in the planning phase.
Getting people on board will allow the project directors ample time for many as possible
concerns to be voiced and considered in the project planning. Next, it is imperative to
identify the agencies that would have to be involved and to become familiar with the
pieces of legislation that are guiding the actions of these agencies. It is a good idea to set
90
up a meeting with representatives from all agencies involved, in order to work out the
logistics and details in order for all of the necessary permits to be acquired and
regulations to be met. And finally, it is important to interest surrounding communities in
the project so that there will be constant support for the final result of the project and the
benefits it will entail. There are many small details to a project of this scope that I have
left out of this thesis. However, if the participants in a restoration project are working
hand in hand with the regulatory agencies involved these details will fall into place.
Figure 51. Agencies and stakeholders involved in or potentially involved
in a restoration project concerning the Patroon Creek.
Federal Agencies
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) ACHP (Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation)
State Agencies
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) NYSDOS (New York State Department of State) NYSDOT (New York State Department of Transportation) NYSDOH (New York State Department
of Health)
Local Agencies
City of Albany
Albany Water Board
Other Stakeholders
Ducks Unlimited W. Haywood Burns Environmental
Education Center Trout Unlimited
Albany Pine Bush Commission
91
References
ACSWCD (Albany County Soil and Water Conservation District). 2003. Accessed 4/5/03 http://www.albanycounty.com Amoroso FL, AE Floro, J Greenthal, RE Leistensnider, eds. 2002. New York
Environmental Law Handbook 6th ed. Government Institutes, Maryland. Arnason JG, BA Fletcher. 2003. A 40+ year record of Cd, Hg, Pb, and U deposition in
sediments of Patroon Reservoir, Albany County, NY, USA. Environmental Pollution 123: 383-391.
Arnold CL Jr., CJ Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62: 243-258.
Barnes JW, ed. 1977. Rochester History, Water Works History: A Comparison of
Albany, Utica, Syracuse, and Rochester. Accessed 3/14/03. http://www.rochester.lib.ny.us/~rochhist/v39_1977/v39i3.pdf.
Barth CA. 2000. Sligo Creek: comprehensive stream restoration. In The Practice of
Watershed Protection, eds. by TR Schueler and HK Holland. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. pp 192-197.
Beschta RL, WS Platts. 1986. Morphological features of small streams: significance and
function. Water Resources Bulletin 22: 369-379. Birkland TA. 2001. An introduction to the policy process; theories, concepts, and models
of public policy making. M.E. Sharpe, New York. 294 p. Bode RW, United States Geological Survey. October 2003. Interview by author. Bode RW, E Kuzia, MA Novak, LE Abele. 1995. Biological assessment - Patroon Creek
1994 survey. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Report. Division of Water, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Albany, NY. 32 p.
Bode RW, MA Novak, LE Abele. 1993. 20 year trends in water quality of rivers and streams in New York State: based on macroinvertebrate data 1972-1992. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Report. Division of Water, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Albany, NY. 196p.
Bode RW, MA Novak, LE Abele, DL Heitzman, AJ Smith. 2002. Quality assurance
work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Report. Division of Water, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Albany, NY. 115 p.
92
Bolund P, S Hunhammer. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
Economics 29: 293-301. Bondarev V, K Gregory. 2002. Urbanisation and stream channels. Geography Review 15:
10-12. Booth DB, CR Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds,
stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 1077-1090.
CWIS (California Wetlands Information System). National Historic Preservation Act.
2002. Accessed 3/23/03. http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/NHPA_summary.html
Cappiello D. 2002. Tide of troubles rolls state's waters; DEC adds three local sites to its
list of impaired waters. Times Union. March 29 2002, Pg A1. Charbonneau R, VH Resh. 1992. Strawberry Creek on the University of California,
Berkeley campus: a case history of urban stream restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2: 293-307.
Copeland C. 1999. Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law. CRS Report for Congress.
Accessed 9/10/02. http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/water/h2o-32.cfm. Cushing CE, JD Allen. 2001. Streams: their ecology and life. Academic Press. 366 p. Davis JB, JJ George. 1987. Benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of urban and
motorway discharges. The Science of the Total Environment 59: 291-302. Ducks Unlimited. Wetland Functions. 2002. Accessed 3/23/03.
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/wetland_functions.asp Duda AM, DR Lenat, DL Penrose. 1982. Water quality in urban streams-what we can
expect. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 54: 1139-1147. Finkenbine JK, JW Atwater, DS Mavinic. 2000. Stream health after urbanization. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association 36: 1149-1160. Firstencel, Heidi. United States Army Corps of Engineers March 3 2003. Interview by
author. FWCA (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). 1997. Accessed 3/23/03.
http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/fwca.html
93
Freedman W. 1987. Federal Statutes on Environmental Protection Regulation in the
Public Interest. Quorum Books, New York. Fricano M. 2001. NL site to be cleared of waste; Colonie 42,000 tons of tainted soil to be
shipped out of state rather than stored at the old plant, Army Corps says. Times Union. June 19 2001, Pg A1.
Gilliam JW. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. The Journal of Environmental
Quality 23: 896-900. Gore JA, FD Shields Jr. 1995. Can large rivers be restored? BioScience 45: 142-152. Gregory SV, FJ Swanson, WA McKee, KW Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem prespective
of riparian zones. BioScience 41: 540-552. Grimm, NB, JM Grove, STA Pickett, CL Redman. 2000. Integrated approaches to long-
term studies of urban ecological systems. BioScience 50: 571-584. Groffman PM, DJ Bain, LE Band, KT Belt, GS Brush, JM Grove, RV Pouyat, IC
Yesilonis, WC Zipperer. 2003. Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:315-321.
Harman WA, GD Jennings. 1999. Natural stream process: fact sheet number 1. Accessed
12/21/03. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqr/sri/rv-crs-1.pdf. Heaney JP, WC Huber. 1984. Nationwide assessment of urban runoff impact on
receiving water quality. Water Resources Bulletin 20: 35-42. Hill AR. 1996. Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. The Journal of Environmental
Quality 25: 743-755. Hourigan G. 2004. One half-life to live. Metroland, February 5 2004. Howard KWF, J Haynes. 1992. Groundwater contamination due to road de-icing
chemicals- salt balance implications. Geoscience Canada 20:1-8. Jasper MC. 2002. Environmental Law. Oceana Publications, New York. 192 p. Kalff J. 2002. Limnology. Prentice Hall. 592 p. Kingdon JW. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Harper Collins College
Publishers, New York. 253 p. Klein R. 1979. Urbanization and stream quality impairment. Water Resources Bulletin
15: 948-963.
94
Lebrun F. 2003. A nasty find in just the wrong place. Times Union. February 21 2003,
Pg B1. Likens GE, FH Bormann. 1995. Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem, 2nd ed.
Springer-Verlag, New York. 159 p. Morley SA, JR Karr. 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the
Puget Sound Basin. Conservation Biology 16: 1498-1509. NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969). 1997. Accessed 3/23/03.
http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/nepa.html NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2003. Federal
Regulatory Programs. Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/fwwprog6.htm
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 1996. Freshwater Wetlands Program: Applicants Guide. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). n.d.(a)
Environmental Impact Assessment in New York State. Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/des/seqr/index.html
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). n.d.(b)
Introduction to SEQR. Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/des/seqr/seqr_1.html
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). n.d.(c)
Programs to Conserve Wetlands. Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/fwwprog4.htm
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). n.d.(d)
Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) Permits. Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/des/upa/upa_permits.html
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). n.d.(e) What is
an Environmental Impact Statement? Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/des/seqr/seqr_3.html
NYSDPW (New York State Department of Public Works). 1964. Interstate 90
construction blueprints. NYSDOS (New York State Department of State). 2002. Accessed 4/5/03.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/cstl/cstlmiss.html
95
NYSDOT (New York State Department of Transportation). 2001. Environmental
Initiative. Accessed 4/5/03. http://www.dot.state.ny.us/eab/envinit.html Niering WA.1985. The Audubon Society Nature Guides: Wetlands. Alfred A. Knopf,
New York. Osborne LL, DA Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality
restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29: 243-258. Paul MJ, JL Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. In Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 32:333-365. Percival RV. 2002. Environmental Law Statutory Supplement and Internet Guide. Aspen
Law and Business, New York. Pickett STA, ML Cadenasso, JM Grove, CH Nilon, RV Pouyat, WC Zipperer, R
Costanza. 2001. Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial, ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. In Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:127-157.
Purcell AH, C Friedrich, VH Resh. 2002. An assessment of a small urban stream
restoration project in northern California. Restoration Ecology 10: 685-694. Riexinger, Patricia, New York State Department of. Environmental Conservation. March
25 2003. Interview by author. Riley AL. 1998. Restoring streams in cities: a guide for planners, policymakers, and
citizens. Island Press. 423 p. Rodgers WH Jr. 1994. Environmental Law. West Publishing Company, Minnesota.
1158 p. Sive MR, ed. 1976. Environmental Legislation: A Sourcebook. Praeger Publishers,
New York. 561 p. Stanford JA, JV Ward, WJ Liss, CA Frissell, RN Williams, JA Lichatowich, CC Coutant.
1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12: 391-413.
Townsend CR. 1980. The ecology of streams and rivers. Edward Arnold (Publishers).
68 p. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch). 2002. Accessed
3/23/03. http://www.usace.army.mil/public.html#Regulatory
96
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Revised 1994. Building Near
Wetlands: The Dry Facts. United States Environmental Protection Agency Publication #EPA-902-F-93-001. U.S. Government Printing Office.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2003(a). Laws. Accessed
3/27/03. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/laws/
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2003(b). Section 401
Certification and Wetlands. Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/sec401.html
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2003(c). Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act: An Overview. Accessed 3/27/03. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact10.html
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Digest of Federal Resource
Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Accessed 3/23/03. http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/fwcoord.html
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). n.d. Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act. Accessed 3/23/03. http://www.fws.gov/r9dhcbfa/fwca.htm West J. 2000. Bioengineering in Four Mile Run, Virginia. In The Practice of Watershed
Protection, eds. by TR Schueler and HK Holland. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. pp 173-175.
Wetzel RG, GE Likens. 2000. Limnological Analyses 3rd edition. Springer. 429 p. W. Haywood Burns Environmental Education Center. n.d. Accessed 5/8/03.
http://www.w-haywoodburns.org/ Woodruff C. 2003. Water deal helps city keep budget afloat; authority to pay $7M for Six
Mile Waterworks lease as backup supply. Times Union. March 6 2003, Pg B1.
97
Appendix A. Vegetation species found in the three restoration zones along the Patroon Creek.
Genus Species Common Name
Fuller 3-mile Tivoli
Acer negundo box-elder X X X
Acer rubrum var. rubrum red maple X X X
Asclepias syriaca common milkweed X X X
Aster novae-angliae New England aster X X X
Catalpa speciosa catalpa X X X
Centaurea maculosa bushy knapweed X X X
Cornus sericea red-osier dogwood X X X
Lonicera tatarica tartarian honeysuckle X X X
Phragmites australis common reed X X X
Prunus serotina black cherry X X X
Rhus glabra smooth sumac X X X
Rhus hirta staghorn sumac X X X
Rubus occidentalis black raspberry X X X
Salix babylonica weeping willow X X X
Ulmus rubra slippery elm X X X
Amelanchier laevis smooth shadbush X X
Andropogon gerardii big bluestem X X
Arctium minus common burdock X X
Bromus inermis smooth brome X X
Cichorium intybus chicory X X
Cornus amomum ssp. amomum silky dogwood X X
Corylus americana hazelnut X X
Dactylis glomerata orchard grass X X
Daucus carota Queen-Anne's-lace X X
Elaeagnus umbellata autumn olive X X
Galium tinctorium bedstraw X X
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X X
Medicago lupulina black medick X X
Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern X X
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper X X
Pinus strobus white pine X X
Populus deltoides cottonwood X X
Populus tremuloides quaking aspen X X
Quercus rubra red oak X X
Quercus velutina black oak X X
Robinia pseudo-acacia black locust X X
Sambucus canadensis black elderberry X X
Solidago canadensis var. scabra tall goldenrod X X
Vitis riparia frost grape X X
Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven X X
98
Celastrus orbiculata oriental bittersweet X X
Celastrus scandens American bittersweet X X
Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa gray dogwood X X
Morus spp. X X
Phytolacca americana poke X X
Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn X X
Typha latifolia common cat-tail X X
Acer saccharinum silver maple X
Alliaria petiolata GARLIC MUSTARD X
Allium canadense wild garlic X
Amaranthus retroflexus pigweed X
Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry X
Cirsium pumilum bull-thistle X
Cotinus coggygria smoke-tree X
Dianthus armeria deptford pink X
Echinocystis lobata wild cucumber X
Erigeron annuus daisy-fleabane X
Eupatorium perfoliatum thoroughwort X
Eupatorium rugosum white snakeroot X
Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not X
Iris versicolor blue flag X
Leonurus cardiaca motherwort X
Lepidium virginicum wild peppergrass X
Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy X
Lonicera xylosteum fly honeysuckle X
Lotus corniculata bird's-foot trefoil X
Lysimachia quadriflora whorled loosestrife X
Matteuccia struthiopteris ostrich fern X
Medicago sativa alfalfa X
Mirabilis nyctaginea heartleaf umbrella-wort X
Phleum pratense timothy X
Pinus rigida pitch pine X
Pinus nigra X
Poa compressa Canada bluegrass X
Potamogeton crispus poodweed X
Prenanthes alba white lettuce X
Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern X
Quercus alba white oak X
Quercus coccinea scarlet oak X
Quercus ilicifolia scrub oak X
Rhamnus alnifolia alder-leaf buckthorn X
Rubus odoratus flowering rasberry X
Rudbeckia hirta var. pulcherrima black-eyed-Susan X
Silene vulgaris bladder-campion X
Specularia perfoliata Venus' looking-glass X
Symplocarpus foetidus skunk-cabbage X
Thalictrum pubescens tall meadow-rue X
99
Tragopogon pratensis yellow goat's-beard X
Verbascum thapsus mullein X
Viburnum dentatum arrowwood X
Salix nigra black willow X X
Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet nightshade X X
Ambrosia artemisiifolia ragweed X
Apocynum cannabinum indian hemp X
Aster ericoides white wreath aster X
Aster puniceus purple-stemmed aster X
Aster radula rough-leafed aster X
Aster umbellatus flat-top white aster X
Aster vimineus small white aster X
Betula populifolia gray birch X
Bidens frondosa beggar-ticks X
Boehmeria cylindrica false-nettle X
Carex spp. X
Chelidonium majus greater celandine X
Conyza canadensis horseweed X
Cornus alternifolia green osier X
Cornus florida flowering dogwood X
Crataeges spp. hawthorne X
Dipsacus laciniatus teasel X
Fragaria virginiana field strawberry X
Fraxinus americana white ash X
Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke X
Impatiens pallida pale jewelweed X
Lolium perenne English ryegrass X
Morus alba white mulberry X
Oenothera rhombipetala ssp. clelandii evening primrose X
Phalaris arundinacea reed canary-grass X
Plantago major common plantain X
Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese bamboo X
Polygonum pensylvanicum pinkweed X
Populus grandidentata big-toothed aspen X
Prunus pensylvanica pin-cherry X
Quercus prinoides dwarf chestnut oak X
Rhus radicans poison ivy X
Rosa virginiana wild rose X
Rubus flagellaris American dewberry X
Rumex crispus curly dock X
Saponaria officinalis bouncing-bet X
Solidago canadensis var. canadensis Canada goldenrod X
Solidago stricta wandlike goldenrod X
Tanacetum vulgare tansy X
Trifolium agrarium hop-clover X
Trifolium pratense red clover X
Trifolium repens white clover X
100
Viburnum edule Squashberry X
Viburnum recognitum northern arrowwood X
Vicia Sp. vetch X
Viola septentrionalis northern blue violet X
Acer saccharum sugar maple X
Gleditsia triacanthos honey-locust X
101
Appendix B. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates found in multiplate samples taken from Patroon Creek in July and August 2003. Organisms are listed order family.
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
COMMON NAME JULY AUGUST
Isopoda Asellidae Sowbug X X
Gastropoda (Cl)
Physidae
X
Diptera Chironomidae
X X
Diptera Tipulidae X X
Diptera Simuliidae
X
Diptera Ceratopogonidae
X
Oligochaeta Naididae
X X
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Crayfish X
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae
Caddisfly X X
Trichoptera Lepidostomatidae
Caddisfly X
Trichoptera Limnephilidae
Caddisfly X
Amphipoda Gammaridae
Scud X X
Pelecypoda
Sphaeriidae
X X
Coleoptera Elmidae X
Plecoptera Perlodidae
Stonefly X
102
Appendix C.Family-level aquatic macroinvertebrate indices for the five multiplate sampling sites taken from Patroon Creek in July and August 2003.
SITE
FAMILY
RICHNESS
FAMILY EPT
RICHNESS
FAMILY BIOTIC
INDEX
BIOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT
PROFILE
Pine Bush West
July 2003 7.0 1.0 6.68 2.89
August 2003
10.0 4.0 5.88 5.29
Average 8.5 2.5 6.28 4.09
Fuller Rd Area
July 2003 4.0 1.0 7.05 2.17
August 2003
4.0 0.0 6.48 1.64
Average 4.0 0.5 6.77 1.91
Hg Site
July 2003 4.0 0.0 7.03 1.34
August 2003
3.0 0.0 7.92 0.96
Average 3.5 0.0 7.48 1.15
Central Ave
July 2003 6.0 1.0 5.95 3.02
August 2003
8.0 1.0 6.00 3.47
Average 7.0 1.0 5.98 3.25
Stream Gauge
July 2003 7.0 0.0 7.39 1.77
August 2003
4.0 0.0 6.03 1.89
Average 5.5 0.0 6.71 1.83
103
Appendix D. Diagram of multi-plate samper used for benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling.
104
Appendix E. Figures of impervious surface categories for the Patroon Creek Watershed.
105