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