HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Analysis of the Six Mile Creek Watershed for Watershed Implementation Plan Development AN ANALYSIS OF THE
SIX MILE CREEK WATERSHED
FOR WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
A REPORT IN PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
PRESENTED BY
THE CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, NY
KEISHA K. RUTLAND
MATTHEW C. WILKINSON
TAMMO S. STEENHUIS
JUNE 1996
Executive Problem Statement
The Ithaca Reservoir, the main water supply for the City of Ithaca, is filling with
sediment. Diagnosed as a problem in 1914 the sedimentation is the direct result of upland,
streambank, and channel bed erosion. In 1910 the reservoir stored 357 million gallons
(MG) of water, it now has the capacity to store 156 MG, a loss of 56%. If sedimentation
continues at the current rate of 2.33 MG a year, barring no significant land use changes in
the watershed, the reservoir will be full by the year 2065. In addition to filling the
reservoir, the high sediment content in Six Mile Creek (SMC) increases filtration costs,
and affects the limnology and aquatic life at the south end of Cayuga Lake. The cloudy
waters entering the lake from the Inlet Canal reduce subsurface visibility which is
detrimental to fish, and hinders the amount of light penetrating the water, thereby affecting
photosynthesis of aquatic plants.
The erosion in the watershed has reached a critical state for 25% of the
streambanks along the main channel. Unrestricted streambank erosion is threatening
historical buildings in Brooktondale, and bridges on main thoroughfares. According to a
survey by the Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District, in many places the
bank recession rate exceeds 3 inches a year, but during high flow that rate is surpassed
causing destructive and costly damage along the SMC path. Some riparian landowners
whose streambanks are highly unstable have lost acres of land to erosion and can only
watch in despair as the SMC advances towards their homes. Without some form of
stabilization the streambanks will continually erode, contributing large amounts of
sediment to SMC, and reduce the storage volume of the Ithaca Reservoir.
The water quality, other than erosion, in SMC does not appear to be a current
issue. This fact considers nitrogen and phosphorus loading, turbidity, and the algae and
bacteria populations. As the rural areas outside of Ithaca develop, particularly in the
Towns of Dryden and Caroline, the water quality could change. The Six Mile Creek
Watershed (SMCW) needs sound environmental planning to prevent future problems.
If urbanization and development increases unchecked in the watershed, flow
regimes will be altered, nutrient and chemical loading will increase, and runoff into SMC
will only climb, causing elevated levels of erosion and sedimentation of the SMC. Proper
planning in the future will keep the SMC clean.
In summary, erosion and sedimentation are the main problems that need immediate
attention. Streambanks have to be stabilized and protected until permanent control
measures can be put into place. With one-fourth of the channel already in critical
condition and an equal amount classified as high priority, the erosion problem can no
longer be overlooked, especially since it is also causing sedimentation of the reservoir.
Table of Contents
Executive Problem Statement i
Table of Contents ii
Abbreviations iv
Chapter 1 -Background 1
1.1 Soils 1
1.3 Topography 1
1.4 Description within the City 1
1.5 Land Use 2
1.6 Dams and Reservoirs 2
Chater 2- Six Mile Creek Watershed History 3
2.1 Historical Information 3
2.2 SMC as a Public Water Supply 3
2.2.1 Typhoid epidemic and the Filtration Plant 3
2.3 Public Water Supply 4
2.4 Recreational Qualities 4
Chapter 3 -Flooding 5
Chapter 4 - Sediment Loading 6
4.1 Reservoir Capacity 6
4.2 Threats to the Future Water Supply 6
Chapter 5 - Water Quality 7
5.1 Turbidity 7
5.2 Alkalinity and pH 8
5.3 Bacteria 8
5.4 Algae 9
5.5 Nutrient Loading 10
5.6 Chemical Treatment 10
Chapter 6- Cryptospoirdium and Giardia 11
Chapter 7- Biological Diversity 12
Chapter 8 - Six Mile Creek Hydrology 13
ii
8.1 Stream Mecahnics 13
Chapter 9-Summary of the Preliminary Tier I Agricultural Practices Survey 15
Chapter 10-Streambank Erosion Inventory Study 16
Chapter 11 -Solution Categories for Major Problems 17
11.1 Watershed Improvement Methods 17
11.2 Streambank Improvements 19
11.2 Floodplain Management 21
Chapter 12-Explanation of Cost Data 22
Chapter 13- Whole Community Planning 23
Chapter 14- Communication Channels 25
14.1 Signs Across the Watershed 25
14.2 World Wide Web 25
14.3 Newspaper 26
14.4 Radio 26
Chapter 15-Public Education 27
15.1 Schools 27
15.2 Gorge Ranger 27
15.3 Watershed Administrator 28
15.4 Volunteer Sources 28
Chapter 16-Funding Mechanisms 29
16.1 State Revolving Funds 29
16.2 Bond Banks 29
Chapter 17-Flood and Erosion Mitigation 30
17.1 Mitigation 30
17.2 Flood Insurance 30
17.3 Maintenance 31
17.4 Relocation,Demolition,Acquisition and Floodproofing 31
References 32
Appendix 36
111
Abbreviations
CAC Citizen Advisory Committee
CWA Clean Water Act
DEC Department of Environmental Conservation
DOH Department of Health
EMC Environmental Management Council
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ILWC Ithaca Light and Water Company
JCU's Jackson Candle Units
MG Millions of Gallons
NTU's Total Turbidity Units
NYSWRI New York State Water Resource Institute
PAM Polyacrylamides
PG Phosphogypsum
SMC Six Mile Creek
SMCGR Six Mile Creek Gorge Ranger
SMCW Six Mile Creek Watershed
SRF State Revolving Fund
SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
TCDOP Tompkins County Department of Planning
TCSWCD Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geologic Service
WCP Whole Community Planning
iv
Chapter 1 - Background
1.1 Soils
Six Mile Creek is the result of a northward glacier margin retreat (Karig et. al.,
1995). Before the last ice age, SMC was a tributary for the Cayuga River, but the glaciers
eliminated both SMC and the Cayuga River. As the ice retreated to the north, a period of
severe downcutting and dissecting of the glacier deposits occurred, scraping the land all
the way down to bedrock, and in the process excavated the basin for Cayuga Lake. The
northward retreat of the ice sheet also "...allowed drainage reversal...and the re-
establishment of a north flowing stream in the valley...(Karig et. al., 1995)," which is
known as Six Mile Creek today. The soils left behind by the glaciers are a loose glacial till
that are very susceptible to erosion. As a result, erosion in the watershed is a big concern.
Soil composition of the area is documented in the 1969 USDA Tompkins County soil
survey. The soils are mainly glacial tills with high erosive potentials (Table 1, and Map 2).
1.2 Tributaries
The three main tributaries that makeup SMC converge near Brooktondale, NY,
and will hereby be referred to as the West Branch, South Branch, and North Branch
respectively (Map 3). The headwaters of the North Branch are in Yellow Barn State
Forest. In Slaterville Springs, this branch is paralleled by Route 79 until West Slaterville
(USGS, 1969; SCS, 1990) where it is joined by the South Branch. The South Branch
originates east of Bald Mountain in rural Caroline, and can be accurately located by
following Central Chapel Road and Route 330. The headwaters of the West Branch are
northwest of Durfee Hill. From this area the flow is east and is complemented by
Deputron Road and Belle School Road until the Coddington Road intersection. At the
crossroads the waters turn north and intersect the main channel at Middaugh Road.
1.3 T000graphv
The slogan "Ithaca is Gorges" is a succinct description of the topography
bordering the three main creeks that dominate the City and Town of Ithaca. Beyond the
City limits portions of SMC are contained by steep gorge shale and sandstone. Since the
last glacial sheet covered the area almost 20,000 years ago the power of SMC has been
eroding the shale and sandstone walls creating a powerful geologic attraction. The
majority of streambanks beyond the silt dam are dominated by a gently sloping topography
(Map 3).
1.4 Descriotion within the City
Within the City limits, SMC is contained within a concrete channel built by the
Army Corps of Engineers in 1970. SMC was channelized to protect the City from costly
flood damage; it has been effective in this venture. The banks of SMC within the City have
little natural vegetation, but are instead dominated by impermeable surfaces, such as
parking lots, roads, and buildings. During intense storms the runoff into the channel is
rapid and sometimes contaminated with chemicals (i.e., oil, road salt) that were on the
1
surface. Fortunately, the channelized water is not used as drinking water, but it does
empty directly into Cayuga Lake which may pose environmental problems.
1.5 Land Use
The approximate boundaries of the watershed extend from the City of Ithaca in the
West, to Yellow Barn State Forest to the North, to Caroline Center in the East, and to
Durfee Hill in the South (USGS, 1969). It includes the towns of Dryden, Caroline,
Danby, Slaterville Springs, Ithaca, Brooktondale, and some of the City of Ithaca. Land
cover in the watershed is 56% deciduous, hardwood forests of Beech and Hemlock, which
incorporate portions of three state forests; Shindagin Hollow (south), Hammond Hill, and
Yellow Barn State Forest (both in the northern reaches of the watershed) (USGS, 1969).
Of the remaining land, 24% is devoted to agricultural uses (TCDOP, 1994), and the
remaining 20% is developed in some way. There are approximately 46 dairy or livestock
farms in the watershed (Szeliga, 1996).
Towards the middle of the century, specifically after World War I1, the
characteristic farms of the Finger Lakes region started to fold, and the land began to
naturally reforest itself or be replaced by other land uses (i.e., housing developments).
Fortunately, the City had the foresight to start regulating the land uses around the fragile
ecosystem of SMC, and in 1954 the land on the outskirts of the City was regulated by
zoning ordinances, and an environmental review process required by law by the 1954
State Environmental Quality Review Act. Today most of the land within the SMCW in
the Town of Ithaca is zoned for residential use only (POSSCC, 1990), while the land
within the City is zoned as P-1, or public lands (Foster, 1996). Nevertheless, zoning laws
are not a panacea for solving future problems of the watershed.
1.6 Dams and Reservoirs
Along SMC there are many historic dams once used for prosperous mills. Most
show the effects of time and are in need of repair. The lower portion of the stream is
dominated by three large dams, a silt dam, a 30 foot, and a 60 foot dam; all are important
to the City water supply system. Potter's Falls Dam (60 foot), built in 1910, is preceded
by a silt dam, built in 1925 to catch suspended sediment before it settled in the reservoir
(Harris, 1956). On the downstream portion of the silt dam there is a sluice gate that aids
in catching sediment. Despite being dredged several times the sediment capacity of the silt
dam is only 48% its original capacity.
Originally the reservoir behind the 60 foot dam was capable of storing 357 MG of
water, but sedimentation has reduced the storage capacity to 156 MG (-56%). This is an
average decrease of almost 2.33 MG a year since 1911. Without any steps to control
sedimentation the reservoir will be full by 2065. The water in Potter's Falls Reservoir is
the main water supply for the City. The water is carried through a 24 inch pipe to the
filtration plant on Water Street where it is prepared for distribution.
2
Chapter 2 - Six Mile Creek Watershed History
The Six Mile Creek Watershed covers approximately 128 square kilometers (50
sq. mi.). It is located in one of the many valleys of Central New York that were carved
out by the glaciers during the last ice age 20,000 years ago. During the past thousands of
years SMC has developed a unique cultural history.
2.1 Historical Information
Hundreds of years ago the main inhabitants of the watershed were Native
Americans from the Iroquois Nation. During this time the SMC basin served as a path,
the Warrior Path, that connected the villages that today are know as Owego and Ithaca
(POSSCC, 1990). When the Europeans arrived in the mid-1700's, the path served as the
main transportation artery into Ithaca. Approximately six miles from Cayuga Lake the
path crossed the creek, hence the body of water became known as Six Mile Creek
(POSSCC, 1990). As more people immigrated to the region the route along the banks of
SMC became part of the Catskill Turnpike, and eventually Route 79.
2.2 SMC as a Public Water Suoply
SMC is the primary water supply for the City of Ithaca and its nearly 30,000
inhabitants. SMC was not always the primary source of water for Ithaca, in fact its use as
a source of drinking water is only 104 years old. Interestingly, the concept of public water
supply in the City is not much older.
The need for drinking water rose as the population in Ithaca grew. In 1849 Henry
Sage, a local entrepreneur, was granted permission by the trustees of the Village of Ithaca
to install a water system on Cascadilla Creek so he could sell water to the City's 4900
residents. Four years later Sage and some business partners formed the Ithaca Light and
Water Company (ILWC). In 1872 the company, due to an increasing demand for water,
built Van Orman Dam on Buttermilk Creek, and piped the water into the City through cast
iron mains (Metcalf and Eddy, 1968). It was not until 1892, when the ILWC bought Van
Natta's Mill Dam on SMC, that the creek was used as a source of water for Ithaca. Again
faced with a growing demand for water in 1903, the ILWC built the 30 foot dam on SMC.
The water was pumped to the City from Van Natta's pump station.
2.2.1 Typhoid Epidemic and the Filtration
Plant
Early in 1903 a typhoid epidemic swept across the City causing 85 fatalities, and
forcing Cornell University to close (Harris, 1956). Investigations conducted by officials
from Albany concluded that only those people that drank water from SMC became
infected with the disease. How the water became contaminated is still a question today.
Two theories exist as to the cause of contamination. The first says the direct discharge of
human waste into SMC by the settlements upstream caused the outbreak (POSSCC,
1990), while the second suggests the water was contaminated during construction of the
30 foot dam(Harris, 1956). Whatever the cause, the citizens of Ithaca, concerned over
the quality of their drinking water, voted on March 2, 1903 to eliminate private ownership
of the public water supply system. In addition, plans were made, and land was purchased
3
for a filtration plant which would purify the water coming out of SMC. Late summer of
1903 the filtration plant became operational and water from SMC was filtered for the first
time. This same filtration plant, located on Water Street, has been modernized over the
last century and is operational today.
2.3 Public Water Supplv
In 1904, after a lengthy legal battle between the City and the ILWC, the private
company surrendered control of the SMC water system to the City for $900,000 (Harris,
1956). Over the next five years (1904-1909) the City improved the system by installing
powerful pumping stations to supply water to the higher locales, metered the water for
billing purposes, and started to sanitize the water using chlorine. The City was eventually
crisscrossed with pipes carrying water from SMC to Cayuga Heights, and to land west of
the Cayuga Inlet. To increase the City's potential to supply water to its growing
population, a 60 foot dam was constructed in 1911, upstream of the 30 foot dam.
Transporting the water from Potter's Falls Reservoir(60 foot dam) to the filtration plant
required a 24 inch pipe, 9400 feet long. This pipe was damaged in a landslide in 1948 and
is no longer functional. However, the reservoir is still supplying water to the City.
In response to the diagnosis that the reservoir impounded by the 60 foot dam was
filling with sediment, a silt dam was built upstream. The purpose of the silt dam was to
trap the sediment being carried by SMC before it all settled behind the reservoir and
reduced its storage capacity. Because siltation was such a problem the silt dam quickly
filled with sediment and was consequently, dredged and enlarged in 1936.
During the 1960's, Central New York experienced several years of drought
conditions which caused excessive stress on the existing water supply systems. As a
result, the engineering firm of Metcalf and Eddy conducted a water supply study of
Tompkins County (Metcalf and Eddy, 1968) to determine other sources of water for the
City and rapidly developing surrounding areas. The final report recommended that Bolton
Point be constructed on Cayuga Lake to supply most of the Town of Ithaca and any new
developments in the East Hill area (i.e., Cayuga Heights). Bolton Point became
operational in 1972 (POSSCC, 1990). The water lines for the City were also linked with
the Bolton Point system to be ready for any emergency situations.
2.4 Recreational Qualities
The natural setting of SMC and its close proximity to the City contribute to the
watershed's extensive recreational qualities. Not far from the downtown area a network
of jogging and walking trails parallels SMC up to the 60 foot dam. Some of the other low
impact recreational activities in the SMCW include trout fishing, birdwatching, and
bicycling. The only limitation in terms of recreational activities is the prohibition of
swimming in the waters and biking on the trails of SMC.
As a result of a report which extolled the natural beauty surrounding SMC, a
wildflower preserve and nature trail were established (Mulholland, 1996). In 1976,
Elizabeth Mulholland and the Circle Greenway organization created a protective buffer
around SMC from the City limits up to the 60 foot dam. Approximately 15 years later the
wildflower preserve was named in honor of Elizabeth Mulholland, for all her efforts in
preserving SMC in its natural state.
4
Chapter 3 - Flooding
Flooding has long been a part of the SMC heritage, and several historical events
have caused considerable damage in the watershed. During high water
conditions,increased volumes and velocities cause alarming rates of erosion. If infiltration
is not increased, and the flow velocity slowed these events will continue to contribute
large amounts of sediment to the reservoir bed. Below are some of the most memorable
events in the SMCW (Ithaca Journal, 1935; 1972; 1981; 1993; 1996).
Jul ly 935: The worst flood in the history of the Six Mile Creek Watershed occurred. In
36 hours, 8.12 inches of rain fell causing SMC to overflow its boundaries. The
unconfined flood waters devastated 142 homes and 107 businesses, washed away tons of
valuable cropland, and claimed the lives of 43 people (11 Ithacans). Water supply for the
City was never in immediate danger of failing; however, people in outlying areas were
urged to boil their drinking water.
June 1972: Tropical Storm Agnes contributed 6.72" of rain in 2-1/2 days to an already
saturated watershed. Cayuga Lake peaked at 387.8' above sea level; a value that has a
recurrence interval of 125 years. Excessive overland runoff destroyed recently planted
crops. President Nixon declared Tompkins County a disaster area, and the Army and
National Guard were summoned to aid in the cleanup. The Cayuga Inlet had been
channelized in 1970, and it successfully protected the City from being damaged by the
flood waters.
October 1981: Due to a high intensity storm, there was very little infiltration into the
ground; therefore, runoff into SMC was nearly 100%. Two hundred feet of the concrete
channel from Wilcox Press to Woolworth's was swept away by the high waters, allowing
parts of downtown to flood.
April 1993: This flooding event was the result of a large snowmelt and excess rain that
occurred in the watershed. In late April, the water level of the lake was so high that fish
were found in flooded parking lots over two miles from the lake's normal boundaries.
Forty-one homes suffered major damage and the whole Southwest section of the City was
flooded.
January 1996: At the time of this writing the flow values for the 1996 flood event have
not been confirmed; however, preliminary evaluation by the USGS recorded flow
velocities at approximately 8100 cubic feet per second (Graph 1). The integrity of many
bridges and roads in the area were threatened, and several were closed to regular traffic.
At the peak of the flood, the SMCW was transporting an estimated 8.6 tons of sediment
per minute.
5
Chapter 4 - Sediment Loading
The Ithaca Reservoir and silt dam on SMC provide an ideal setting for sediment
loading.
4.1 Reservoir Capacitv
The silt dam in SMC was created as a detention pond to allow the settling of
gravel, sand, and silt. According to a study conducted in 1994 by the Tompkins County
Soil and Water Conservation District, the SMC watershed delivers 1254 tons of silt per
year(Barber, 1994) to the main waterway above Burns Road. However in 1986, the
sampling station above Burns Road recorded 31,200 tons of sediment in the waterway
(Moran, 1987). An estimated 59% of this sediment has settled in the large reservoir. The
loss of 2.33 MG per year corresponds to 15,500 tons of sediment deposited yearly in the
reservoir. At this rate, the current reservoir capacity would be 156 MG. Therefore, the
silt dam is removing 40% of the total sediment load that could enter the reservoir. If the
current mean rate of siltation continues, the volume of the Ithaca Reservoir will be filled
by the year 2065. Consequently, a maintenance plan is required to maintain the integrity
of the water supply.
4.2 Threats to the Future Water Supplv
The SMC water supply depends on rainfall, recharge, and reservoir storage.
Precipitation for the area has remained fairly constant at 35.4 inches per year(Moran,
1987) and this has been a sufficient amount to supply the City with water. Increasing
demands, coupled with decreased reservoir capacity, may hinder the water supply. Based
on the current needs of the City and present sedimentation rates, the 60 foot reservoir will
store only 36 days of water supply in the year 2000 (current supply is 39.3 days). If
SMCW experiences a major drought, the City would have to rely on Bolton Point for its
water supply.
6
Chapter 5 - Water Quality
From 1985-1994 the cost of preparing 1 million gallons of drinking water from
SMC rose 56% (Table 2). Due to the consistent-SMC water quality of the past 30 years,
there is no relationship linking the rise of preparation costs to diminishing water quality.
The treatment expenditures between the years 1985 to 1994 increased considerably.
Costs were almost 20% greater than the average rate of inflation (3.6%) for the same 10
years (SBBI, 1995). Increases in water treatment are primarily due to increased chemical
costs, and higher water quality standards established by the EPA and CWA(Baker, 1996).
Table 2
Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
$$ / MG 173 193 189 198 190 245 241 278 245 308
Source:Ithaca Filtration Plant
5.1 Turbidity
Turbidity measures the amount of light intercepted by suspended material in a
liquid. Therefore, a high concentration of suspended solids results in cloudy, opaque
water that clogs filters. Consequently, the more turbid the water, the more time and
money needed to meet the quality standards set forth by the EPA. The filtration plant also
must use increased levels of coagulant to clarify the water.
The turbidity of Six Mile Creek, until the late 1960's, was measured in Jackson
Candle Units (JCU's), a visual analysis technique. However, more recent tests measure
total turbidity units (NTU's), a measurement of the light refracted at right angles from
particles suspended in the water(Baker, 1996). There is no model as of yet that compares
JCU's and NTU's, but data collected during the past 27 years suggests no significant trend
in turbidity(Graph 2). Fluctuations in seasonal turbidity resulting from large storm events
and spring runoff are not represented by this graph (Appendix - Section 3).
Gra h 2
Turbidity from 1968-1995
50
15
10
35
30
= 25
20
15
10
i
5
0
1968 1970 1973 1978 1981 1983 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1991 1995
Year
7
5.2 Alkalinity and pH
In SMC the pH, or concentration of hydrogen ions, is determined by biological
processes and the chemical nature of substrates in the waterway (Reid, 1976). When the
pH is low, or acidic, carbon dioxide levels increase and encourage more aquatic
photosynthesis, creating highly oxygenated water that is conducive to algae blooms.
When alkalinity is high, water more readily rebounds from high acid inputs. In
alkaline deficient waters, acid concentration can reach unfavorable levels where biota die
and water lines easily corrode. In SMC, the pH has hovered between 7.5 to 7.9 since
1935 (Graph 3). Similarly, alkalinity has shown minimal fluctuation since 1915 (Graph 4).
However, both parameters do show some seasonal variance.
Graph 3
pH from 1935-1994
8
7.8
a 7.6
7.4
7.2
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1969 1984 1993
Year
Gra h 4
Alkalinity
a 120
100
a� c 80
=_
iO
60
40
° 20
0
a
1915 1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1971 1986 1993
Year
5.3 Bacteria
Large numbers of bacteria in water signify the possible presence of disease causing
pathogens which can lead to typhoid, cholera, and hepatitis. There is a direct relationship
between bacteria levels, pH, and the organic and inorganic compounds in the waterway.
The bacteria in SMC has been analyzed since 1915. Data over the past 81 years
shows a decline in bacteria with an occasional high year(Graph 5). During the summer
months (May through September) bacteria numbers decrease as the pH becomes more
acidic (Graph 6).
8
Gra A 5
Bacteria Count
0
1200
E 1000
g 800
a 600
E 3 400
c 200
V 0
1915 1921 1927 1933 1939 1945 1951 1957 1963 1985
Year
Graph 6
Seasonal Variation of pH and Bacteria
8 700 r
7.s
7.8 600 °
E
500
X 7.6 400 ° d
7.5 300 E 3
7.4 200 0`
7.3 100 'o
7.2 0 V
A d
LL
Month
5.4 Algae
There are thousands of species of algae that are either beneficial or unproductive
to a healthy and stable stream ecosystem. In balanced systems, algae oxygenates the
water. Algae are sensitive to change; therefore, an imbalance in stream chemistry can
result in a sudden population growth or decimation of an algae colony (Wetzel, 1973).
Algae counts in SMC were recorded from 1962 to 1995. Graph 7 shows that
during the winter months (January to March) the algae counts are minimal. In April, as
the waters of SMC warm up, the algae populations increase steadily until hitting a zenith
around October.
Gra P h 7
Avg Algae Numbers from 1964-1995
500 i
i
—4W
C
0300
0
'0200
rn
x100
0
.tan Feb March April May June Month July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
9
5.5 Nutrient Loading
Nitrogen and phosphorus naturally exist in streams. However, when these
nutrients increase, fish kills and algae blooms dominate stream habitats (Wetzel, 1975).
Phosphorus and nitrogen levels can be increased by fertilizer runoff, and improper storage
of animal and human wastes. Nutrient loading in SMC is highest upstream and during the
spring and summer months (Graph 8). As the nitrogen and phosphorus move
downstream, they are diluted or absorbed by soil particles. Current nutrient levels of fall
within the normal range for healthy streams. Nonetheless, SMC should be continuously
monitored to ensure changes in land use do not disrupt the existing stream conditions.
Gra h 8
Comparision of Chemicals Upstream and Downstream
Upstream
Location in Stream oTSP
_
Downstream ONO3
0 50 100 150 200 250
Quantity of Chemical in kg/day
TSP= Total Suspended Phosphorus(kg/day) Location of Upstream Station:Bums Road
NO3= Nitrogen in Nitrate Form(kg/day) Location of Downstream Station:Albany Street
Source:Moran, 1987
5.6 Chemical Treatment
When comparing the data on water treatment, the quantity of chemicals used over
the past 15 years has increased. A possible explanation is the existence of more stringent
water quality regulations requiring the elimination of fine sediments.
Some disinfectants, like chlorine, show no increase in use over the years, but rather
a slight decrease since 1964 (Graph 9). Variations in chlorine use can be attributed to
seasonal water temperature. At high temperatures chlorine is not as effective;
consequently, chemical inputs increase.
Gra h 9
C hlorine U sage
i
i
100000
a_ 80000
'y
60000
o`
40000
u 20000
0
1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992
Year
10
Chapter 6 - Cryptosporidium and Giardia
Many Americans believe that disease causing microorganisms only occur in the
drinking water supply of impoverished countries located in tropical climates. However,
the most frequently identified intestinal parasite in the US is the result of drinking water
contaminated with pathogenic organisms (Yankauer, 1988). Two of the most widely
known water-borne infectious agents are Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Both
microorganisms have shown up in drinking water supplies across the country, and are
responsible for great intestinal discomfort. At the present time, the water from SMC does
not appear to be contaminated with either microorganism, but there is always the risk that
they may show up.
Cryptosporidium and Giardia are found in water contaminated by animal
(i.e., deer, cows) or human feces. In the environment, Cryptosporidium and Giardia are
encased in protective sheaths called cysts. It is not until the microorganisms encounter
the favorable environment of the upper intestinal tract that they become active and cause
symptoms like sulfuric belching, diarrhea, flatulence, nausea, and fatigue. For people with
normal immune systems, an infection caused by contaminated drinking water is much like
an intense stomach flu, but easily treated. However, those individuals with compromised
immune systems (i.e., AIDS patients, the elderly, people undergoing chemotherapy) the
sickness can linger for months even with treatment. Cryptosporidiumt, long called "the
champagne of drinking waters," and Giardia cysts are so widely distributed in nature due
to animal or human sources, that all surface water supplies like SMC are subject to
contamination (Bai et. al., 1995; Yankauer, 1988).
Unfortunately, if Giardia or Cryptosporidium enter the drinking water supply,
regular chlorine disinfection will not kill the microbes (Bai et. al., 1995; Yankauer, 1988).
However, regular chlorination does destroy other living contaminants in the water. If
towns and suburban developments start to grow in the watershed, sewage volumes will
increase, which may elevate the level of fecal coliforms in SMC.
Detection of both previously mentioned oocysts (microorganisms) is difficult and
often time-consuming; therefore, preventive measures must be taken if their presence is to
be avoided. The costs of implementing removal mechanisms is relatively high as
compared to the costs of establishing watershed management techniques that prevent
contamination along the SMC. Criteria for SMCW include guiding future development,
purchasing land within the watershed to ensure it stays undeveloped and in its natural
form, sanitary surveys, and sufficient monitoring mechanisms to know when the water has
been contaminated with either organism. Should SMC experience a problem with
Cryptosporidium or Giardia due to unchecked development or an increase in fecal matter
in the stream, the health of the people drinking the water, namely those in the City of
Ithaca, may be at risk. Continued disinfection techniques, coupled with filtration and
effective watershed management can reduce the likelihood of Or ptosporddum? and
Giardia at the tap.
tt
Chapter 7 - Biological Diversity
. Biological diversity is important to the overall stream health and water quality.
Although SMC water quality appears to be static, aquatic biodiversity is changing. The
ecology can vary with turbidity, chemical inputs or stream modifications. Turbidity
reduces light penetration into the water, resulting in a lower rate of photosynthesis and
diminished oxygen production. Additionally, turbidity can adversely affect the fish
population by limiting their sight, which is important for hunting (American Farmland
Trust, 1986). In turbid waters, fine sediments fill the spaces in gravel beds where certain
species of fish rely on free flowing water to oxygenate their eggs (American Farmland
Trust, 1986). Clearly, fine soil particles have dire consequences on fish reproduction, and
consequently need to be controlled.
A 1974 survey along Creamery Road in Brooktondale revealed a 50% increase in
insects, but a 40% reduction in fish numbers within the channelized sections. However,
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has records from the past
20 years that show no significant change in fish diversity. Because the data is scarce,
further studies are needed to classify biological changes within the watershed.
12
Chapter 8 - Six Mile Creek Hydrology
To identify appropriate practices within the watershed, it is important to
understand the flow process and erosion mechanisms in the creek. Most hydrologic
models consider that when rainfall rate is higher than the infiltration capacity of the soil,
there is excess runoff. This is not the case for the SMC where the rainfall rate is usually
lower than the infiltration capacity of the soil. This is easy to understand if we consider
the following: Rainfall intensity seldom exceeds 4 inches per hour, while infiltation
capacity of most land is far in excess of 4 inches per hour. There are exceptions, such as
roads, cornfields, and bare soils that readily form surface crusts.
Consequently, most of the runoff in the SMCW is generated by areas which
receive large amounts of rain over several days (and not the standard 24 hours). This
process is called "variable watershed hydrology." As the land becomes saturated from
increased rainfall, the amount of runoff increases. Therefore, in designing practices to
reduce runoff, we need to take into account these factors which influence runoff in the
watershed.
8.1 Stream Mechanics
Most streams naturally meander. Meandering streams slow the stream velocity by
increasing the distance over which water must flow. The outer, sharper, bend experiences
faster flows and greater bank scour. The velocity on the inside bend is slower, creating
conditions for sediment deposits and point bars. During storms, point bars are removed
and flow is deflected to the center of the stream (Figure 1 & 2).
To maintain balance, a stream will meander and erode its banks or scour the
streambed. In a balanced system, the elevation of the streambed is relatively constant
(Keown, 1983). When a creek is unstable, water erodes the streambed causing, bank
sloughing and downstream sediment deposition (Figure 3). Because streambed scour
undercuts bank foundations, and results in sloughing, conservation techniques should
focus first on preventing bed scour, and secondly, on stabilizing streambanks.
When streams exceed their maximum carrying capacity, sediment will be deposited
on the streambed, effectively raising the stream elevation and reducing the channel size. If
the creek does not reach sediment carrying capacity upstream, then it will pick up soil
particles downstream, until the maximum suspended load is met. Therefore, conservation
practices may reduce upstream erosion but they may not affect sediment delivery
downstream in the reservoir.
In the past, conservation practices focused on reducing meandering by
channelization--a process of straightening the stream. However, channelization increases
flow downstream of the modified section. This increased velocity will result in more
erosion downstream of the altered section. Additionally, straightening the stream reduces
its length and, consequentially, decreases the stream's capacity to assimilate pollutants
(Simpson et. al., 1982; Chapter 5.5 Nutrient Loading).
Channelization cannot be avoided in areas where homes and buildings are
endangered. Residential areas along SMC must be protected with gabions, riprap, and
concrete walls. Proper planning and installation of control measures will ensure the least
13
amount of ecological and land damage downstream. As the stream vegetation is replaced
with concrete and other inorganic materials, the ecological base of the stream is destroyed.
Consequently, stream modifications, such as concrete linings, can take 10 to 20 years for
stream ecology to restablize itself(Sanders, 1978). Channel alterations also increase the
water velocity, creating an ideal situation for more sediment to be delivered to the
reservoir. These considerations must be in the forefront of deciding which erosion control
measures to use along SMC.
14
Chapter 9 - Summary of the Preliminary Tier I Agricultural
Practices Survey
The Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District is conducting a Tier I
Agricultural Practices Survey to determine the agricultural practices that may be affecting
the water quality in SMC. A rapid overview of total farm operations is being gathered
through direct interviews with farmers. This Tier I Agricultural Practices Survey is the
first step in developing whole farm planning to address non-point source pollution, and to
prioritize water quality problems associated with agriculture.
As of June 1996, the TCSWCD had surveyed 55% of the agricultural lands (4,500
of 8,400 acres) in the watershed. Initial findings suggest the following:
1. Streambank erosion and the subsequent loss of croplands and pastures is the
most frequently mentioned problem.
2. No critical water quality issues directly relate to current agricultural practices in
the watershed. However, a potential water quality problem is the lack of primary and
secondary petroleum spill containment around the petroleum storage facilities on the farms
in the SMCW.
3. Contrary to the county-wide and state-wide trends one-third of the farmers
interviewed to date anticipate expanding their operations in the next five years, while only
one operator indicated that his business will decrease in the next 5 years. As farms
expand, many owners expect to adopt non-traditional agricultural practices (i.e., boarding
horses, goat farming).
4. Much of the acreage in the watershed is utilized for hay, pasture and cropland,
with a disproportionately small portion of the agricultural lands utilized for dairy.
15
Chapter 10 - Streambank Erosion Inventory Study
Personnel from the Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District
conducted a streambank erosion inventory along SMC during the summer of 1994. Their
goal was to identify areas experiencing critical streambank erosion. The technicians
responsible for the survey evaluated 100% of the main stream channel and 17.5% of the
tributaries flowing into SMC. Evaluation methods included the"New York Procedures
for Calculating Streambank Erosion," which utilized an algorithm that combined soil bulk
density with soil factors to predict erosion rates. The resulting values helped estimate the
amount of deposition in SMC.
Approximately 20% of the 266 eroding banks evaluated on the main channel were
considered critical and in need of immediate protection. Critical areas of streambank
erosion were identified as those with recession rates exceeding 3.5 inches a year or those
in close proximity of a house or another structure. Eroding cropland was not classified as
critical, but instead as high priority, which meant it should be stabilized if funds were
available. The estimated cost to correct the critical sites was $100,000, while the high
priority sites required about $10,000 in funds (Barber, 1994).
Only 17.5% of the total tributaries were evaluated; however, 676 eroding sites
were identified, 80 (12%) of which were considered critical. The estimated cost to control
streambank erosion along every tributary is $738,000. Final conclusions from the report
suggest that stabilization procedures should be targeted at controlling deposition and
erosion, not eliminating it. The report also recommends that better records be kept as to
the amount of sediment removed from behind the silt dam.
Some Sites of Severe or Critical Erosion (Barber, 1994): (Map 3)
Main Channel
1. German Cross Road to Banks Road
2. Boiceville Road to Creamery Road
3. Creamery Road to Slaterville Springs Road (Rte. 79)
4. Slaterville Springs Road (Rte. 79) to Six Hundred Road Bridge
Tributaries
T-1. SMC to Beaver Creek Road
T-2. SMC to bridge on Brooktondale Road
T-3. SMC to bridge on Buffalo Road
16
Chapter 11 - Solution Categorizes for Major Problems
Soil erosion is controlled by increasing water infiltration, and improving soil
structure. However, because water and soil move together, controlling the movement of
one will exert control over the other. Erosion control utilizes a combination of long-term
and short-term conservation measures that work with the natural stream motion to reduce
streambank failure and the loss of land.
A three-pronged approach is proposed for reducing the erosion in SMC:
1. Watershed Improvements: focuses on managing land practices to retain a
larger amount of precipitation on the soil. This will reduce the velocity and runoff in SMC.
2. Streambank Protection: includes modifying the stream channel in places where
property or homes are in danger.
3. Floodplain Management: involves decreasing the stream slope by allowing
SMC to naturally meander.
11.1 Watershed Improvement Methods
Goal: The goal is to significantly reduce erosion within the SMCW using long-term
solutions that prevent future problems. Note that this is not an extensive list of practices
and they are not described in detail here. Additional design information can be found in
the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control 0991).
Obiective: Increase water infiltration and reduce stream flow.
A. Increase Infiltration
Most damaging erosion occurs during heavy storms when raindrops splash the soil
surface, breaking up the aggregate structure and forming a hard impermeable crust.
Reducing soil erosion entails decreasing runoff velocity, increasing surface storage, and
improving soil structure. The following suggestions list methods to increase infiltration in
deep soils. Increasing infiltration in shallow soils where the bedrock is near the surface,
causes soil saturation.
1. Increasing water storage prevents steambank scour during overland flow.
Allowing water to stagnate where it falls increases infiltration and reduces stream volume.
This can also reduce the peak flow by releasing the water more slowly. This practice is
appropriate only where the risk of waterlogging is minimal and soils are free draining.
2. Vegetative cover absorbs the impact of raindrops and prevents the
disintegration of soil particles. Cover should be long and/or dense to efficiently entrap
sediment and slow runoff velocity (Table 3).
17
3. Surface residues increase water infiltration. Residues like grasses, mulches,
and other vegetative cover improve soil roughness and soil structure.
B. Stormwater Control
During storms, soil can become saturated with water. The wetter the soil, and the
steeper the gradient, the faster the stormwater runoff. Reducing stream velocities
decreases erosion.
1. Check dams are small retention structures constructed of rock or gabions.
Check dams retain water at a maximum depth of 2 feet to dissipate erosive forces of
stormwater flow. If water is significantly slowed, suspended solids will settle out behind
the dam.
2. Stabilized roads and parking areas reduce direct stormwater runoff. Outlet
channels installed under or alongside the roads will collect runoff and divert water
contaminated with oil and grease away from the stream. Where road integrity is
endangered, rolled bituminous curbing provides support against stormwater erosion.
3. Detention basins catch water before it enters the stream. Water is collected in
the basin and then released with a smaller, less erosive velocity.
C. Agricultural Conservation
1. Vegetated strips of long grasses or bushes along field perimeters intercept
pesticides and nutrients that travel overland. If space permits, maintaining a vegetated
strip of 50 feet is optimal (Keown, 1983). Pasturing and cropping near streambanks can
seriously endanger the vegetated buffer zone and contribute to bank sloughing.
2. Contour plowing and strip cropping on steep slopes are both practices that
control runoff. These systems, in combination with diversion ditches, reduce slope length
and decrease erosion.
3. Proper manure handling reduces the likelihood that contaminants may enter
the waterway. Manure application should be avoided during the fall and winter when
plants are dormant_ and runoff is prevalent. If the farm is in a floodplain, the manure
should be applied and incorporated into the soil on the same day to avoid stream pollution.
Manure storage systems should include a concrete pad with a leachate collection system.
D. Construction Best Management
1. Permanent or temporary soil stabilization should be applied to denuded
areas, within 15 days of final grading. These practices may include sodding, grading and
spreading of topsoil, mulching, permanent seeding, or geotextiles.
2. Phasing projects reduce the quantity of uncovered, highly erodible soils. A
staggered work schedule that uncovers the soil by piecemeal, limits soil disturbance and
18
reduces final restoration costs. Additionally, the smaller the area of disturbance, the less
the erosion.
3. Utilize buffer zones adjacent to construction areas to prevent sheet flow onto
bordering properties and waterways. A minimum of 100 feet of undisturbed vegetation
will significantly reduce sheet flow from the construction area.
4. Structural control methods move runoff to a desired location and prevent
water from overflowing onto other sites. These structures may include diversions,
vegetated waterways, enclosed drainage, spillways, detention ponds, silt fences and outlet
protection.
5. Erosion control plans should be developed before construction begins and
maintained as construction takes place. Clear, concise documentation of all pertinent site
conditions, erosion control measures, and timing of construction will ensure minimal
environmental damage, and reduce costs. The Town of Ithaca does require a detailed
stormwater management plan and a landscaping plan before construction.
E. Reducing Urban Runoff
1. Paved streets and lots laid out at right angles to contours often have excessive
grades that increase erosion hazards. When possible design factors should decrease this
possibility by building roads and grading lots with the land contours.
2. Outlet stilling basins are dish-shaped depressions lined with stone. The basins
reduce downstream erosion by temporarily pooling water to dissipate peak flows. The
pools also allow sediment particles to fall out of solution.
3. Grassed waterways that surround the perimeter of the urbanized area, direct
runoff away from streambanks and limit water entrance into the stream.
11.2 Streambank Improvements
Goal: To improve the streambanks and stream path by reducing erosion. A primary
focus of stream improvement is to limit soil and land loss during large storms. Successful
control measures require an implementation schedule that will classify which problem
areas can be stabilized with vegetation or structures.
Obiective: To prevent bank sloughing and to develop a maintenance plan to ensure
effectiveness of the chosen conservation method.
A. Prevention of Bank Sloughing
1. Precast cellular concrete blocks increase water drainage and permit vegetation
to grow(Figure 4). After bank grading, the blocks provide long-term stability and a
medium for root growth. Fabric or gravel blankets underneath the blocks prevent
scouring.
19
2. Tire revetments are an inexpensive method to create streambank stability.
Tires are stacked horizontally to overlap one another to form a wall. Tires can be packed
tightly with stone, rubble or soil that can support the growth of willow trees or other
vegetation(Figure 5). Upstream and downstream ends of the revetment are tied into the
bank because the flow of water can shift the structure (Keown, 1983).
3. Bulkheads are similar to tire revetments, however bulkheads provide greater
access to the waterfront. These structures are made of concrete, steel, wood, tires, or
aluminum (Figure 6). Banks are not sloped before construction and walls are vertically
anchored to the bank. Fill material is placed behind and below the bulkhead to prevent
structure failure due to saturation and toe scour.
B. Streambank Stabilization
1. Vegetation is the most commonly used method of erosion control because of its
low cost and easy maintenance. The plant roots increase soil stability, and provide
resistance to stream flow. Vegetation control is divided into groups: woody plants and
grasses. Woody plants, like willow waddles, have a more extensive root system and thus
provide greater stability. However, grasses are less costly and grow quickly (Table 3).
2. Riprap is large boulders placed along the streambank to reduce scouring.
Stones are closely placed to one another to prevent water from scouring soil between
rocks (Figure 7). Small stones are used between the larger boulders to fill gaps and to
provide a tight barrier. Riprap is most effective on bends with less than a 300 foot radius
(Keown, 1983). It is important to key in the riprap, and to extend it far enough upstream
of the bend to prevent undercutting.
3. Gabions are stones placed in wire baskets to protect soil (Figure 8). When
insufficient stone size is available for riprap, gabions provide another alternative. The wire
baskets protect the bank by deflecting creek flow to more stable areas of the stream. A
major drawback of gabions is their cost.
4. Removal of large obstructions eliminates destructive barriers to stream flow.
Logs or trees in the stream create snags that scour streambanks and obstruct streamflow.
Removal of massive objects prevents flooding.
5. Impermeable dikes are concrete or wooden structures that reduce stream
velocity and divert flow away from the bank (Figure 9). Dikes are placed in succession,
beginning upstream of the area to be protected. Caution must be taken to ensure that the
far bank is not eroded by water diversion.
6. Soil conditioners are chemicals that increase water infiltration and soil stability
on steep banks. The chemical effects last for 25 months, allowing sufficient time for
vegetation establishment (Appendix - Section 4).
20
7. Live stakes are living woody cuttings capable of rooting with relative ease
along streambanks. The woody cuttings grow into shrubs that.eventually stabilize
streambanks. For example, willow waddle stakes are installed along a graded 2:1 or
flatter slope (Figure 10 & 11).
C. Maintenance of Stabilization Structures
Maintenance of streambank structures can turn short-term protection into long-
term protection. Early detection and proper maintenance of a developing problem will not
only prevent needless expense, but also avoid property loss. A wise practice is to inspect
structures semi-annually and after major storms.
1. Vegetated waterways should be monitored for weeds and brush.
2. Structural controls should be monitored for cracks, bank failure, and settling.
Holes in riprap or gabions should be filled immediately to prevent washout.
11.3 Floodolain Management
Goal: To reduce disturbance in SMC that might prevent natural stream meandering and
thus increase flood damage and expenditures.
Objective: To maintain the integrity of the floodplain and its structures.
A. Zoning in the F000dolain
1. Restricting access to the SMC floodplain allows the stream to meander and
flood with little endangerment to the surrounding houses and structures. New housing
should be prohibited within 200 feet of the 100 year flood boundary of the creek.
2. Limiting construction along the watershed to farming, parks and forest will
reduce activities that disturb streambank stability. Creating vegetated buffer zones of at
least 100 feet between construction sites, homes, and structures reduces bank disturbance
and traps sheet flow.
3. Zoning laws for the Town and City of Ithaca should be enforced. Additionally,
at the time of this printing, the Town of Ithaca is considering amending its zoning law to
create a SMC Conservation District which would limit development in the watershed to
housing, farming, and forest management.
B. Purchase Land Along the Stream to Allow Meandering
If the County or City bought land in the watershed, the problems of riparian land
loss and the endangerment of houses in the floodplain could be reduced. The stream could
meander naturally, which would reduce velocities downstream. This option requires
monetary resources and comprehensive governmental planning.
21
Chapter 12 - Explanation of Cost Data
Table 4 shows the average cost for selected conservation practices and materials
used in New York. Costs for each practice vary according to the site size, the time of year,
and the contractor chosen. This information is to be used for evaluating alternative
management practices to prevent erosion. Most of the practices recommended in this plan
can be found in the Table, otherwise, more information can be obtained from the
Tompkins County Soil Conservation Service. The following is an explanation of how
costs were calculated:
Average Cost Installed includes the cost of all materials, labor and equipment
needed for structural installation. Estimates are based on figures from the Soil
Conservation Service. In the case of grade stabilization, costs vary widely, thus the
figures shown are estimates only.
Life Span Years are the duration in which the practice is expected to exist. The
life of a practice depends upon the degree of effective maintenance.
Operation and Maintenance costs are the average annual costs to maintain the
practice for the entire structural lifespan.
Total Annual Cost combines the installation cost with interest over the lifespan of
the practice.
22
Chapter 13 - Whole Community Planning
Responsible management of the SMCW must represent the combined interests of
everyone in Dryden, Caroline, Danby, and the City and Town of Ithaca. A comprehensive
management plan should also recognize that, in New York State, land use decision making
lies in the hands of local communities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
developed a strategy called Whole Community Planning (WCP). The program builds
communities within the watershed by combining efforts of the local landowners, and the
local government to protect their watershed (NYSWRI, 1993). WCP is an appropriate
management option for the SMCW.
Pfeffer and Stycos (1994) suggest that the whole community management plans
accepted by the communities should employ zoning rules, local water quality regulations
and the creation of programs that educate residents on watershed practices. Education
needs to stress the importance of complete watershed management and protection (Eberts
et. al., 1994).
One of the assumptions of WCP is that the SMCW communities have the financial
capacity to support WCP over the long term. It is also assumed that financial assistance
will be required for residents, farmers, and communities to meet some of the policies
established by WCP guidelines (NYSWRI, 1993). Financial assistance may come from
low interest loans available through the county, state revolving loan funds, the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts, or federal grant money.
The success of WCP depends on a network of relationships among citizen support
groups, and the task forces or committees which encourage local governments to discuss
and approve inter-municipal policies for watershed protection (Allee et. al., 1994). Citizen
groups, called Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC), consist of representatives from the
respective watershed towns. Their responsibility entails prioritizing the problems in the
watershed. Initial ideas presented by the CAC's for correcting troubles are then reviewed
by a task force of experts, responsible for overseeing the operations of multi-community
planning. The task force also sets standards to evaluate the plans implemented under the
philosophy of WCP. After the task force selects practices, and programs from the first
draft, ideas are then subject to review by the general public (NYSWRI, 1993). Public
input is very important because the community is responsible for voluntarily implementing
management practices. Opinions from residents around the watershed are gained from
mailings and public forums. Cost is a big factor in implementing management techniques
and should be heavily considered when the public agrees to adopt phases of the watershed
protection plan. The evaluation process is time consuming, but because a large number of
citizens in the watershed had input in the final product, the results are usually acceptable.
In addition, consistent input from the general public encourages open communication
channels, and will build a foundation of trust important to developing effective policy for
the entire watershed (NYSWRI, 1993).
After public evaluation, the CAC and task force revise the proposal to reflect as
many of the ideas and concerns of the citizens as possible. The final product is then sent to
the local governing body to be voted upon as a watershed policy. If the ideas are voted
23
into policy, the next step is voluntary implementation by the concerned communities
(NYSWRI, 1993).
Implementation is the last step in the WCP process. Once management practices
have been in place for a predetermined amount of time, the task force, or local agencies,
should study their effectiveness. Are the goals being accomplished? Is the water quality
being maintained? Is erosion being controlled? If the questions or methods of evaluation
do not give an affirmative response, the program should not be abandoned, but revised
and refined, until the desired results are attained.
In conclusion, WCP is effective because it assimilates local concerns. Whereas
regulations imposed by third party organizations (i.e., EPA, DEC) are sometimes stringent
and unrealistic for small communities (Figure 12), WCP produces plans that are generally
acceptable to the watershed residents (NYSWRI, 1993).
24
Chapter 14 - Communication Channels
The problems in the SMCW transcend a handful of political and municipal
boundaries in Tompkins County. By organizing the resources of the people in Dryden,
Danby, Caroline and Ithaca, management cooperatives of concerned citizen can be
encouraged. These cooperatives can then act as catalysts for inter-municipal agreements
on watershed protection(Allee et. al., 1994). The best way to gain support from local
citizens for a watershed implementation project is to educate them on the problems.
There are many methods of education and channels of communication that exist to reach
the citizens of the SMCW. However, it is important to realize that many communities do
not have to work alone to achieve their goals of protecting, preserving, and improving
their watersheds. Some of the organizations and agencies in the SMCW that can possibly
lend assistance are the Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE), Tompkins County
Environmental Management Councils (EMC), 4-H clubs, local universities, Soil and Water
Conservation District, United States Geological Service, NY State Department of
Environmental Consevation, County Planning Departments, Department of Health, and
the Water Resource Institute (Neville, 1994).
14.1 Signs Across the Watershed
A good way to inform people that they are in an area that supplies drinking water
for a community is to post roadside signs. An example of this concept can be seen while
driving North on Route 13,just before the Village of Dryden. The signs along Route 13
tell residents and visitors that they are entering the watershed that supplies Dryden with
water. Wording on the signs reminds people to monitor their activities so they do not
threaten the integrity of Dryden's water.
The SMCW could use this type of support. The cost of such an endeavor is
modest. Wording must be concise making people think twice about any activities that
might threaten the waters of SMC (i.e., water quality, increased erosion). In order to reach
out to watershed citizens, a contest can be held to design the graphics and motto for the
sign. The winning entries would appear on signs throughout the watershed. This is a
good way to initiate interest in the management efforts.
14.2 World Wide Web
Today's society is as technologically advanced as it has ever been. It is the era of
computers and the information superhighway. The SMCW implementation plan can, and
should, take advantage of these resources. The Ithaca homepage on the World Wide Web
should include information about the SMCW. Furthermore, all the municipalities in the
watershed could develop this type of information exchange for education and awareness
of citizens. It is a good way to inform the public of pending management practices, and to
get feedback and opinions; which is an integral part of managing the watershed. The
WWW site for SMCW should be maintained by a watershed resident.
25
14.3 Newspaper
The newspaper provides a traditional and reliable method of communicating with
the public. A weekly column in either the Ithaca Journal and/or Ithaca Times is a good
way to announce public forums to discuss recent ideas, and keep the communities
informed about the decisions and policies concerning SMC. An informed watershed
resident should have the responsibility of writing the column.
14.4 Radio
The radio is an effective and relatively inexpensive method of communicating with
many individuals living within the boundaries of the SMCW. Stations should be contacted
to convey messages and announcements about the SMCW implementation project.
26
Chapter 15 - Public Education
Once educational programs are developed for the SMCW, conservation needs to
be taught to the general public. This is stressed by the NYSDEC Division of Water in their
reference manual on Stream Corridor Management. The manual states that education is an
essential element of a successful stream corridor management program because it keeps
the public fully informed about the problems, issues, goals, objectives, and the
implementation strategies of the program (NYSDEC, 1986). In Ithaca, there are many
organizations that have the capacity to run educational seminars and reach out to the
public.
15.1 Schools
Among Cornell University, Ithaca College, and the other local schools there is a
unique resource for educating and communicating with the residents of SMCW. Many
people directly involved with SMCW have expressed interest in making the watershed a
'living laboratory' by encouraging the local schools, high schools and universities to use the
natural resources in the SMCW. For example, the Department of Natural Resources at
Cornell University could teach conservation and preservation techniques to SMC hikers,
while simultaneously offering students hands-on field experience.
The Communications Departments at Ithaca College and Cornell University can be
useful for keeping the public informed and educated on the activities and practices within
the SMCW. They can create educational videos and write informative articles for the
local media. Topics could include erosion control and management practices.
Obviously, the assistance of Ithaca College and Cornell University is not limited to
just the departments listed above. Other disciplines like the Departments of City and
Regional Planning, Government, Engineering, Geology, and CLEARS can also make a
positive contribution to the implementation plan. Even if the student research is not used
in policy decisions, the process of discovery and participation is a good stepping stone for
those making informed decisions about the watershed.
15.2 Gorge Ranger
Park Rangers in National Parks around the nation are responsible for providing
educational information for tourists. Granted, the Six Mile Creek Gorge Ranger
(SMCGR) is not a professional with the training of National Park Rangers, but the
SMCGR can still conduct educational seminars and hikes like his/her national
counterparts. At the present time, the SMC trail system is very popular with the local
citizens. Therefore, educational hikes and seminars run by the SMCGR are a realistic way
of reaching out to citizens about the importance of managing the SMCW. The SMCGR
can present information on controlling erosion, simple stream mechanics, how the activity
upstream has a direct impact on the water supply downstream, natural attractions along
the Creek's route (i.e., the wildflower garden and tree species), and the history of SMC.
27
15.3 Watershed Administrator
In New York State, there are a number of collaborative partnerships, task
forces, committees, and associations that exist for the management and protection of
surface and subsurface water resources (Neville, 1994). The most successful of the 65+
organizations across the State employ a permanent watershed administrator or have an
agency official who takes a genuine interest in the watershed programs. The gauge for
success is measured in terms of the number of municipalities participating in multi-
community watershed management plans, citizen involvement, and the number and
productivity of public education programs (Neville, 1994).
The main responsibility of a watershed administrator is to make sure the policies
and decisions for a watershed management program are followed. An administrator may
also be responsible for developing educational programs and flyers to keep the public
informed and involved about the management process. SMC does not have an
administrator. The SMCW needs someone to support whole watershed management and
to encourage communities to adopt policies that improve and preserve the watershed's
integrity.
15.4 Volunteer Sources
Once the watershed for SMC has a concrete management strategy, there will be a
need for volunteers to help with its implementation. Some of the work might include
cleaning up a reach of stream, planting trees, building a structure to stop erosion, or going
door-to-door to inform people about the efforts being made to preserve SMC. This
section contains a list of some volunteer organizations that may be available to help in the
watershed:
4-H Club Finger Lakes Land Trust
Boy Scouts of America Environmental Management Council
Girl Scouts of America Cornell Cooperative Extension
Circle Greenways of Ithaca Clubs from the local Universities and Colleges
Nature Conservancy Conservation Advisory Councils and Boards
Watershed Citizens The Six Mile Creek Preservation Committee
Religious Organizations Volunteer Fire Departments
Fishing Clubs Greek Organizations (Fraternities and Sororities)
Trout's Unlimited_ Natural Resource Conservation Society
The Public Service Center Soil and Water Conservation District
Cornell Plantations Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
ABEN Department, Cornell Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell
28
Chapter 16 - Funding Mechanisms
The future of maintaining SMC water quality is dependent on a consistent source
and method of funding. In the past decade amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and programs established by the EPA have created mechanisms for obtaining funds for
water supply improvement projects.
16.1 State Revolving Funds
In 1987, an amendment to the CWA established State Revolving Funds (SRF).
Originally created to help states meet costs to construct water treatment facilities, the idea
has been expanded by states on an individual basis to include other water supply
improvement projects. The SRF concept can be effectively used to finance the future
improvements in the SMCW.
New York State would be in charge of maintaining the funds available for such
projects. Communities receiving loans would match the borrowed amount by at least
20%. Loan repayment would begin after the project is complete. All principal and interest
on the loan are returned directly to the SRF or the loan's general fund to ensure the
availability of money for future borrowers.
Possible Options to Match 20%of Loans:
• Loaned or donated equipment and supplies
County/Town/City--Department of Transportation and/or Conservation
Agway Inc. or local hardware stores
• Reduced rental on equipment
• Cash contributions
• Volunteers
• Expertise/consulting services contributed
City Engineering Department
Cornell Cooperative Extension
• Overhead expenses picked up by the Town/County/City
Insurance
Workman's compensation
• Training/educational seminars on bank stabilization and watershed protection
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Soil and Water Conservation District
Natural Resources Conservation Service
• Pilot Studies
16.2 Bond Banks
Along with the SRF, the CWA allowed local banks to set up bond programs where
people and communities can borrow money for watershed improvement projects. The
principal is returned directly to the loan pool, but interest is paid directly to the bond bank.
This option of forming a bond bank should be explored in further detail to see if local
banks would be willing to participate in the plan.
29
Chapter 17 - Flood and Erosion Mitigation
In 1968, the United States passed the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) with
two goals in mind: A) to reduce disaster assistance payments and B) to provide the quid
pro quo for mitigation of future flood losses. Since that time, the NFIA has been amended
several times and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has paid out millions of
dollars in disaster relief. One of the additions to the NFIP was the Upton-Jones
amendment of the late 1980's. This amendment made funds available for the relocation
and demolition of buildings damaged by floods or threatened by erosion across the nation
(Millemann, 1993). This piece of legislation is particularly useful for the SMCW. At the
present time, several homes and commercial buildings are at risk due to erosion along the
banks of SMC. Other homes are constantly being inundated with flood waters and
exorbitant repair costs (i.e., January 1996, April 1993).
17.1 Mitigation
A comprehensive mitigation plan for the SMCW should be adopted by local
municipalities to prevent future problems. In 1988, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(I. 4GP) was established by Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) to help
communities create long-term hazard mitigation measures. The HMGP, which is part of
FEMA, specifies that the Federal government can pay up to 75% of the total cost of a
mitigation project. The remaining monies must be matched by the communities in-kind or
with cash. (For suggestions on in-kind payments see Chapter 16.1 State Revolving Funds)
Objectives of successful mitigation programs should include elimination or significant
reduction of long-term risks to life and property. Possible projects include erosion
protection, floodproofing, acquisition of lands in flood prone areas, and the creation of
standards or regulations guiding future development.
Funding for such a program is always a concern of government officials and
residents. The HMGP is backed by FEMA, but other local sources of funding can be
established for those eligible for the grants. The money that is raised for local grants is
placed in a revolving fund to be managed by a local bank or government agency. The
HMGP monies can be used on public or private land, but only municipalities and certain
non-profits organizations can apply for funding. Mitigation within the flood prone areas
of SMC should be encouraged to save thousands if not millions of dollars in costly flood
damages (Millemann, 1993).
A comprehensive flood and erosion risk map of the entire watershed needs to be
produced to help identify buildings and properties at risk. The map will aid in mitigation
programs and planning for future flood prevention.
17.2 Flood Insurance
Unfortunately, many people do not buy flood insurance policies until after they
have already experienced destructive water damages. According to a Federal regulation
(see H.R. 3456 & H.R. 4461 101st Congress - 2nd Session), all mortgage lenders must
obtain flood insurance on their properties if they are in Special Flood Hazard Zones.
Municipalities in Tompkins County should pursue this regulation and enforce it on flood
30
prone lands around SMC and even Cayuga Lake. If a borrower refuses to purchase their
own insurance policy they can be billed by the lender through an additional charge to the
mortgage payments. Hopefully, billing the borrower will encourage them to visit a local
insurance office and buy their own policy. This method of getting people to buy flood
insurance is called Forced Placed Policy and is supported by several professional insurance
organizations. The average national premium in 1990 for flood insurance was $340
(Millemann, 1993). The long-term benefit and peace of mind is definitely worth any
annual costs.
17.3 Maintenance
Based on interviews, and speakers at forums, residents along SMC are very
concerned that a regular SMC maintenance program does not exist. A suggested
maintenance operation for SMC is to keep the channel free of to prevent the overflowing
of water onto private property and roadways. The responsibility of keeping SMC clear of
debris can fall on any number of agencies. Some of the obvious choices are the
Department of Transportation, Department of Public Works, or the Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD).
17.4 Relocation, Demolition, Acquisition and Floodproofing
The most drastic option for buildings repeatedly inundated with flood waters or
threatened by erosion are relocation, demolition, forced acquisition, or floodproofing. As
was mentioned earlier, the Upton-Jones amendment to the NFIP allocated money for
relocation and demolition projects across the nation. Originally, the amendment intended
to encourage relocation of buildings rather than demolition because the costs were
considerably lower(the average costs nationwide in 1990 were $38,000 versus $60,000
respectively). Unfortunately, 80% of the claims in the US under this legislation have been
for demolition. Relocation and floodproofing should be considered before demolition. (It
should be noted that when a building is demolished, the Federal government pays for the
demolition costs and the owner collects payments from the NFIP). Possible floodproofing
options are as easy as installing sewer check valves to prevent backflow during high water,
elevating the structure above flood levels, or any other necessary modifications to the
edifice to protect against water damage.
If properties repeatedly collect payments from the NFIP for flood damages then
the local governing body should look into a Forced Placed Policy to induce the owner into
purchasing their own insurance policy. The last option is for the government to acquire
the land and force the building to be moved or demolished at the cost of the owner. This
option would prevent land and business owners in the SMC floodplain from relying on the
Federal government to bail them out after destructive flooding.
31
References
Agassi, M. I., Shainberg, J. Morin. "Slope, Aspect, and Phosophogypsum Effects on
Runoff and Erosion." Soil Science Society of America Journal. 54 (1990): 1102-
1106.
Allee, D., L. Raymond, D. Wilcox. "Community Building in Protected Environmental
Regions: The Search for Synergism in Watershed Management." Communities
and Watershed Planning: Shaping a Research Agenda. Conference Proceedings,
Cornell University. 1994.
American Farmland Trust. The Economics of Soil Erosion. Minnesota Soil and Water
Conservation Board. Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Service: MN. 1986.
Bai, M., et. al. "Does New York have a Drinking Problem?" New York. 28 (1995): 24-
31.
Baker, C. verbal communication. Chief Operator of the Ithaca Filtration Plant. February,
1996.
Barber, A., J. Russell-Anelli. "Six Mile Creek Streambank Erosion Inventory Report."
Soil and Water Conservation Department of Tompkins County, (1994).
Dorge, C., C. Hall. "Channelization of New York's Trout Streams." Cornell University,
(1974).
Dunne, T., L.B. Leopold. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman & Co. 1978.
Eberts, P. R., J. Ide. "Education for Watershed Management and Planning: A
Participatory-Action Research Model." Communities and Watershed Planning:
Shaping a Research Agenda. Conference Proceedings. Cornell University. 1994.
Foster, D. Phone Interview. City Planner, City of Ithaca. February 22, 1996.
Gray, D.H., A.T. Leiser. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Van
Nostrand Reinhold: NY. 1982.
Harris, D. "History of Ithaca's Water and Sewer Systems." City of Ithaca, D.P.W., Water
and Sewer Division, (1956).
International Erosion Control Association. Preserviniz Our Environment, The Race is On.
Proceedings of Conference XXIV. 1993.
32
Ithaca Journal. July 8, 1935: p. 1.
Ithaca Journal. April 26, 1993: p. 1.
Ithaca Journal. February 8, 1996: p. 3.
Ithaca Journal. June 23, 1972: p. 1.
Ithaca Journal. October 28, 1981: p. 4.
Karig, D.E., M.R. Bauer, S.A. Griffen, A.L. Bloom. "Recent Channel Degradation in Six
Mile Creek." Cornell University, (1995).
Keown, M. Streambank Protection Guidelines. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1983.
Metcalf and Eddy Engineering Firm. Report on Comprehensive Water Study on
Tompkins County, New York. State of New York Department of Health. 1968.
Millemann, B. "The National Flood Insurance Program." Oceanus. 36 (1993): 6-8.
Moran, E. Aquatic Vegetation Control Program. Tompkins County Department of
Planning. Ithaca, NY. 1987-1988.
Mulholland, E. Personal Interview. February 8, 1996.
Nadler, A., J. Letey. "Organic Polyanions Effects on Aggregation of Structurally
Disrupted Soil." Soil Science. 148 (1989): 346-353.
Neville, L.L. "New York State Collaborative Watershed Management Survey." Master
of Professional Studies Cornell University. (1994).
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. "Stream
Corridor Management: A Basic Reference Manual." New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, (1986).
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. Bureau
of Water Quality Management. "Management Practices Catalogue for Nonpoint
Source Pollution Revention and Water Quality Protection in New York State."
(1995).
New York State Water Resource Institute. "Watershed Protection Through Whole
Community Planning: A Charter for Watershed Partnership." Coalition of
Watershed Towns and the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection: NY, 1993.
33
Pfeffer, M. J., J. M. Stycos. "Community Planning and Formulation of the Public
Opinion: A Natural Experiment in the New York City Watershed."
Communities and Watershed Planning: Shaping a Research Agenda. Conference
Proceedings, Cornell University. 1994.
Reid, G., R. Wood. Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries. 2nd ed., D. VanNostrand:
NY. 1976.
Sanders, D., R. Schmal. Effects of Stream Channelization on Aquatic Macroinvertebrates,
Buena Vista Marsh, Partage County, Wisconsin. United States Department of
Interior, Fish Wildlife Service. 1978.
SBBI. 1995 Yearbook Ibbotson Associates. Inflation Rates. InterNet. 1995.
Schwab, G.O., D.D. Fangmeir, W.J. Elliot, R.K. Frevert. Soil and Water Conservation
Engineering. 4th Edition, John Wiley& Sons, Inc. NY. 1993.
Shainberg, I., G.J. Levy. "Organic Polymers and Soil Sealing in Cultivated Soils." Soil
Science. 158 (1994): 267-273.
Simpson, P. et al. Manual of Stream Channelization Impacts on Fish and Wildlife. United
States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982.
Soil and Water Conservation Society. "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and
Sediment Control." 3rd Printing, Empire State Chapter. (Oct. 1991).
Soil Conservation Service. "New York Procedures for Calculating Streambank Erosion."
1993.
Sojka, R.E., R.D. Lentz. "Time for Yet Another Look at Soil Conditioners." Soil
Science. 158 (1994): 233-234.
Szeglia, L. Phone Interview. Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District.
February 29, 1996.
The Parks, Open Space, and Stream Corridors Committee, Six Mile Creek Valle A
Heritage to Preserve. Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, 1990.
Tompkins County Soil Conservation Service. Aerial Photos of the Six Mile Creek
Watershed. (1990).
United States Department of Agriculture. A Guide to Conservation Plantings on Critical
Areas for New York. NY. 1991.
34
United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Consevation Service. NY Field Office
Technical Guide Tompkins County, NY. 1993.
United States Department of Agriculture. "National Handbook of Conservation
Practices." 1986-1996.
United States Geological Society. 7.5 Minute Topographical Quadrangle Map of
Dryden, NY. United States Department of the Interior. 1969.
United States Geological Society. 7.5 Minute Topographical Quadrangle Map of
Willseyville, NY. United States Department of the Interior. 1969.
United States Geological Society. 7.5 Minute Topographical Quadrangle Map of Ithaca
East, NY. United States Department of the Interior. 1969.
United States Geological Society. 7.5 Minute Topographical Quadrangle Map of
Speedsville, NY. United States Department of the Interior. 1969.
United States Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Tompkins County, New York. Soil
Conservation Service and Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station.
Series 1961, No. 25, (1965).
Yankauer, A. "Purple Burps and the Filtration of Drinking Water Supplies." American
Journal of Public Health. 78 (1988): 123-125.
Wetzel, R. Limnoloy. W.B. Saunders Co, PA. 1975.
35
Appendix
36
Content of Appendix
Section 1 --Maps
Section 2-- Figures, Tables, & Pictures of Conservation Practices
Section 3 -- Turbidity Changes from 1940- 1995
Section 4—Soil Conditioners
Section S-- Tier I Agricultural Practices Survey
Section 6-- Contacts for the Six Mile Creek Watershed
Section 1 -- Maps
ATM- 64
r-0011 �i"�.! Try j// -e�y� 1•.-'lrr � �s
�
Jj
MEN
I ME
�/S'�w�J�
N i .3 / . it}j' , � /� '� '° � �• �A .
:r� }�G Irf y ! -� I'�1, ' t/ / it t; �� ��;6,'�r� r"� ✓ ;.a"����.
r��•. < ,r F �,l j l,) ��� � � � , / .a'ri• �.�%/' / .yam .
M� ����\� ,, i /'�/�y� xC4� `I��Ij''p,. '���"•���1i�a'�' ''
�
ya�* ,.,�w i; 1� �S\�' \'iPS� � *��y�L i q;\ �,/t r j��%� � �v�� ���J!�•�'� �� �/r �'i�F.aTr f/".ii. ^sue•�+
���� �.�C. !.� r � �,rm � ti - Y�> r)���A�A� �i ���� ... t� �}.� ���,r �7Tr" L��a • ���4 r1�
'I WK )i���'n A fM)' %/0
pal 1l tee, °�`" �" �r.�+. !/. J
% \;� s G, I° a ��.,v.§ �� �� y� ta'' '•,'� f,�y_tyG %/, f r �r fro
._.r,r.�e�-rte ' �`'�.`'�r�' ✓"✓ •� .r�!j1 /fi �%+�..r / ,' % �-/�f � +,..
f i�
1 ;`11 � �"Qy`�!�. '9+ ti�iY"�.��� ��r�f�% l�qr •j',1� � owl,
fu
Egi
A 4!%l
ArR M.
OWN IM`
YOM,
tit � �/�/��', :`°. �a�3�.►}� � � `J,,I�i�bd ���/�i:/�i ( � �/ / j.
� t !MAIM.r � ../_r5i5_ ��,.Ar•�3Ji III�'"�t��.,��/�� i� � � �1/ ��a .%� � �'
d ' z ., �'✓'...-� � � 7,,-fr' �, .f'%�. ltd �`,�- tF
.a10{!�' /r _ �'t•.� X11), • �'1 :�;.. WPM,
'�•�-��� S L �'yll� �' c���.. i 1/� , � ■ s�� 1'�t 1 I ilk
F P5
MY
PL
01
{�,.��•�;��' �/� "� '`° %j ,J 'F it��i�,✓�� //!'j ,�,�j`
j�;: �� � ..n•ti,. � � � /�� ��'f/,)J/ r -vrL•l `ti tt� �. ° J J�-5 •/
7 �� 79 P�
��1 , � +•\' ��
,��F�� ` ,I 4..AW '����r��SI� �� � l a/ \\\�T`'...iY� 1\'>•""�i��rK � �I���y'K
'� ,.o%�� '_"2" - �1I\�`����'�i:�� ,�.;,v/•' � „"'ter �,,�� .qt�•��. pi��((/(((/(1/ �, i�1��-�
N
'�".W'v1 ;��',�'.I�i ..�. � It. �• r�" .v L ��. ,,gg��`,l r�I!�\\_ �/� �' 'i•�'(1!i�� �H.k,�'��ri`
r v'
OW4
jC
• 'a. `t� �i•��I ,,r 1 rfi- i. Fs-a�,�'�., _,,?! ..FAQ `° -✓ ��- 1 '^ /
'.,►�yr/r �Qn:- fQ+
fir, ,,( � ����-a��,:��-- i►.•,�c�-=„
` t����``�L` A�" I�•���w / '� `�1�� ' ��.H Iii -
'��� i IP
71
1 •`I/�•,\�,ji � \�, Y fir._.,s• l �± 'ti:.— �"\\�i95
l �� �__ - T, "Y`k� �` „tom' •��.Ifi:
O�i�
r \ � O
rn
` ) r
tF r
MMI-
rn m
s o �
CL
m u \
r.
West Ri )weD�
CORTLAND COUNTY
J:
� o Z
A
N
O
O
D D D D D
C/)
—i U) cf) (f) U GO
Q � I m 1 O < Q _0 :�, O
n � n n
r D D p Z D p p p p p CJ D1
rU O _ 3 n < O m n. _ o = < ° r '< C_)
o m ° (D n. rD Z
o O z 3
= a o o o n o
0 o N 3 a a g o S N f w >Gn<'7,. Q T.Z7 I p o 0>n 0. ac3 m_m D O 3 _ - c •�a mao m> > ° �C)
'O D _
(n O H
J D (O n
C° -C) D O
1 n ( .. (D p m
O- — - (A � cn w O
o O O O a G O O n O 3 o
r o
3 D z a 3 z Z O °°O
G_7
o o � D ^ 3 w d D c x o m ° ° °' D
00 —I 3 o. D. N o �. f(1 n. ° N 3 �" 0 3 I� D m OL)m o D fTl 3 c m fTl — nr o. n n 3 _ _ 3 _ O r m
3°o Z p ° o ° p o ` o m — U — u a m T O r A Z
11 w n o-a —•1 d - w O �. m O ° —� m co - C y "--1 C0 j;T o ? o o — W a ° ? m — - w m 3 Do 3 O K o �_ m tom)
o°
d < 3 0 — f ° m < £ � x d ° < p� o - N a 1 Z
ao fTl m n n O o D (n m. c m ,..r o- d. m m D ` Z
n o frl 3 z 2 0 (D m f
_
O 00 (D .�o o -
m m C
° ° a C, Tl Z m
3 (D O a o m d 3
fTl a m � a o. (n m 3 a (D r-
N < ° O o o m , - (J)
of
U _— u Do ° 3 5 r a o4 :y m a) `
< ° o.
r o v < S c a '<° o m
(n 3 O x ^
m
0
MEN
V �Jlrpp�I�/����
S � t � y Mw r./s'j�� yt..✓%' � , v:�8.��y�j,._5t�,. � h`pl�{%// `l�jl �/
p�l 7� rr�"Dh J✓1
1 Y i
��wy'±•`v�l\ ifj l�I���'rJ Y`r`�r��rN:+�l ,l�'/1�" `t �''7l ,+ ���+. �.'-•a'♦ri% l-� �•
��11, �4.v E'• :a�.,i l�:�r T—� 1� 1 •'��•I I `v rl�"`�.�'.lft. ...'�.� �. .Jy}�� N �J
� �-, ,.1 ����::a.�.a° ',� ���,���__., .;� ter, .,r♦- 1 ',..J�- �:�� :� i,� ,:�' �l
������J��'i""��_� il? �`��a•.�r` r/�/ /r, �i�J� � �ja v ,.rye i.. i�, � �
dam•:;r t ����'G(<�)�t�(I .�F' \.r � -` I'(I�1��1�,��J!r?ti"�i'S'/ � �� ff,�ff��j;u �J�1',/�>y�_���/-� f�. ,�•.'^'+••.�.
�,�,1,k.���=mot, ",�:,���,"l'q",v���, �p,, �i��},.�n�,r .�/// ♦��. •r tiro/,..a1►i!,:,��/;; � ..,�. l.-
���r 1���6`tr'� `�1.. ''���.,,r��i,"«j� �� � '�l ����,���i�/J�.V�,��� I �, �1f�jFr��i�♦yFZr�'�lP'b'r�1,,1� .�.:,
� ry i �� � � c '�J)��1 C �!%�ry�5kl'�i.:,��l "°'a'�.✓I�f;���1��;
�. � >^.• �ti►"� •�1r.L �Sv`i di r C�`'�. h���`1 `� d. r!J /�/� , .Y`ii�i//♦��' l.,�l� ������t M f a �,/1`.'.r "'1.
� •!–.,..-r,;{�rf�' r,��..• R�,� 'L`�i i''�✓,'� 'A' ' � .w ��,+'•v.tF 'l[/ � ,�r•♦ tit� � ���+ �• S
J`/ �� 4���� 4V jj • t �M .M�.
� .i`�LL-;., ..w �/y.� �U��Y ����
y _l'•f '-7'. /� _ iln°`+�YI- !.J :1 J�.i%" �l;. f' Irl� "v •
�17�►�1'��c.�`^ 'r' �� +'l�df r r r'.S .F filj��r.,>,ci��,.�+�
`.k�5 s-a�'r '�W�``� n J1 f I�r MH , r r• ntl� l� �` ` / T� �1
!t J ! ?���,�v.f►: /� of
Al
y� "r1�\ �1♦ ii111�6 Y 1� � ds�• /jp, ,I, � � •'a, �rf�� �" �;! •�s'r���1. _
ll�r�y Vii' �rt��:�r `� ti�'�`..a• i � �.'' •� �
.tko� �vxt
+iA1:�fCt (( �2\`_
,, '� :'� \- ti���tS} : °�'' lAl ^mss;.Y J' ►
�- .',I11 i ;'~i6 +° ' ri' ff i°,sx(r ^^•=fir'''- •'P!
Mi.
NO
M
�,,��r�r't�„
ti--p-r��' �J �`+���4/,i� I��. �1'.��i��e u � L'd;�. .��=ant♦ A ,r
. �'�' ���.bs y.,',y � �� � 9�.! 1 , •>rti��.� - �,.,�,:. f,+e;`!�n 4-1 Tr'/ II
�� 4 a + ��� ��' '- r�tea'%-?..'`r ? ,-0,`r ����ew ',%► � �, i i- �'
•�.. J�/t) �� rf � Jam.
r'. n \e. •�� /i t l �. r1 S., � �
VI'„ti`���,✓���
� a !�vfj i�),�' � ♦r \ it • ' • . �dnV,.L:a%
// `L\� Y �✓fir �r} J%%� � ` , � • �'a�7'(I(��
•�1,,.� ly '`'lb 1.\ �``fit, • • • i 1
/• ` IrI}1 • � �.
�� / • �j'._mac.. -►
i < tC
vi=
\ �
Of, n, ,
Section 2 -- Figures, Tables, & Pictures of Conservation Practices
Graph 1
FLOW RATES IN SIX MILE CREEK
DURING JANUARY 1996
10000 ...................................................................................................................
ri
ti
ti
1000 ..................................................................................... ...t
Flow(cfs)
100
...... ....
..............................
10 f i
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Days in January, 1996
-40-- Max Mean Min
(-.jurce: USGS gauging station at German Cross Road)
d
S
� aa
Cc
a —
W c �• 3 3 0 ° a�i � m �
a)
Z Lp C
Q _ .lam cLv _ � �+'Q � �, �,� � •° �
° r o o ° d a) o o a) a) a)
° o
a � � � �, � � � a° a°0 ICL
E 0 0
o = = 3
co
E
O N >.
44
� Z
O
N
� o
_ _ N
O a) Q
Lula
o o N 0 o \° o ° o ° o o 0 ° c ° �
Q to 0o — — � ° N O W LO W) to to L o to
.- >+ > .- t0 N et N M co N
i N i N i C6 LA to � N t[! O
t y tf) a0 c0 m N � 1A N ao � � N N w
ca
ca O O
Y II >
J 0
U Q
ca a) � cc
FW.. N cc
N
0 L L L L Z V L L Z a) t C~LC fL0 cc
a O) c) y
2.2) 2) O o) 0) Im '0 a) () a) 0 a) O N �
t Z (A (A 0 n (nfn p (n (n - � � — � � 0 _, a) tn
S O g y U) LLI � U �� a)
o O y o
W
U
w 0
O U
CL U
.�'. W i M O cc
E a)
O U U J o M V c•.) J o ca
U m E c U m 0 = w U 0 w U m a) N
J Q m W W W _ = 2 2 J J J J 2 O i.2
cO LW _ > (D c
CL
= c �
o �
L
Y C Cc C
W Q) N CD O c°a o
w y C_ C C !� Y C C C a y N w
Z - 0) N 0 0 O O o O C C O >
> o C a) a) O = N N Y w — .. «. L O N a)
_ .L C W c 3 '0 •O V C O N N N L
J_ UWJ O O 0 0 0 c � � � cc X _j c �
p = = `� 0 � 0 0 0 �Io2S
a) y cc to
C J J J N d m
m W O
co O O ° (n
I— _ J m
Table 3. Tree Species Suitable for the Promotion of Bank Revegetation
Source: International Erosion Control Association, 199.3
TYPE OF TREE/SHRUB CHARACTERISTICS
Washington Hawthorne Deciduous. Medium growth rate to gm ( 307. Dense twig
(Crataegnus phaenophrum) 1.5 - 3m (5'-97 spacing on well drained to moderately welgy upright growth.
Scotch Pine y I drained soils.
Evergreen. Rapid growth rate to 15m (50'). Dry to somewhat poor drained
(Pious sylvestda) soils. Very rugged tree. Lower pH limit is 4.0.
Common juniper Evergreen. Slow growth. Use 1.5-2m (4'- 6' s acin
(Juniperus aommunis) Dry to moderately well drained soil. ) p 9 prefers limestone soils.
Black locust Deciduous. Rapid growth to 15m (50).Can be direst seeded.Widely adapted
(Robinia pseudoacacia) to different soils. Good leaf litter, use in planting mixes. Nitrogen fixing. Lower
pH limit is 4.0.
White Pine Evergreen. Rapid growth. Prefers rich, moist especially heavy soils. Used for
(Pinus strobus) screens. Lower pH limit is 4.0.
Hackberry Deciduous. Moderate rate of growth to 8m(25').Tolerates acid soils to pH 5.0.
(Celtis occidentalis) Tolerates poorly drained soils to excessively drained soils.
Thornless Honeylocust Deciduous. Moderate growth rate to 11m (35). Moderately drained soils, pH
(Gleditsia triacanthos enermis) 6.5 lower limit.
Red Oak Deciduous. Moderate rate of growth in acid soils.
(Quercus rubra)
Gray Dogwood Deciduous. Rapid growing shrub. Prefers sunny location, but will tolerate
(Comus racemosa) shades. Will grow in wide range of soils. Forms colonies. Lower pH limit is 5.0.
Red Chickberry Deciduous. Moderate growth rate. Tolerates dry to somewhat poorly drained
(Aronia arbutfolia) soils:
Tartarian honeysuckle Deciduous. Rapidly growing in well drained sunny location. Lower pH limit is
(Lonicera tatarica) 5.0.
Arrowwood Deciduous. Rapid growth. Prefers well drained to moist soils. Sunny location.
(Viburnum dentatum) Lower pH limit is 4.0.
Red Osier Dogwood Deciduous. Rapid growth in well drained soils, sunny location. Forms thickets.
(Corpus stolonifera) Lower ph limit 4.5.
Forsythia Deciduous. Rapid growth in well drained soils, sunny location, tolerates stony
(Forsythia intermedia) rough slopes. Vigorous growth.
Japanese juniper Evergreen. Rapid growth. Sandy and loamy moderately moist soil. Prefers
(Juniperus procumbens) sun. Hardy, low spreading shrub.
Sargent juniper Evergreen. Moderate rate of growth. Prefers moist, slightly acid sandy soils.
(Juniperus chinensis sargentis) Tolerates droughty banks. Low creeping shrub.
Indigobush Deciduous. Adapted to wide conditions, fairly slow growth rate. Can be
(Amorpha fruticosa) seeded. Lower pH limit is 4.0.
Autumn Olive Deciduous. Competes well with established herbaceous layer. Used as
(Elaeagnus umbellata) nurse plant. Lower pH limit is 4.0. Growth to 6m (207. a
\onmeandering
Shallow —►
Riffle Shallow
Pool
Figure 1. Plan View of a Stream Channel
Source: Dunne and Leopold, 1978
Deep
ac .
:bo
J Point Bar
Point Bar "/Z
ro
04, 5r
•°:;._moo..
X00 :.;ya:.p•.
Deep
Figure 2. Plan View of a Stream Showing Extensive Meandering
Source: Dunne and Leopold, 1978
High flow
Intermediate
flow
water Surfa.e
Low flow ----
�`
Riffle.°. . Pool ---- ��
Riffle +>.
Poole o -----
�RiPfle > ,:. Pool
Figure 3. Profile of a Stream Channel at Different Water Levels
Source: Dunne and Leopold, 1978
Figure 4. Precast Cellular Concrete Blocks
Source: Cray, 1982
Figure 5. Tire Revetment Packed With Stone
Source: U.S. Department of Arn:y Engineering Corps, 1983
Figure 6. Timber Bulkhead
Source: U.S. Department of Army Engineering Corps, 1983
IF
it
Vl-
�L!!VIM
T • ���nl,eke-I•�� 5►� {��� �. • `t � _
—♦- �.R errr -'� `.',� c i �-�''.�j' 'i•Yfts ff.e j
a _. 1 f.'- �.a•+-'.j`�� .�t�* .t �.. �4l.i ,'��f --Y..e -P
sr ♦-.
; t
w J 4
Figure 9. Impermeable Dikes Constructed Out of Stone
Source: U.S. Department of Army Engineering Corps, 1983
Figure 10. Willow Wattle Tied in 4 Inch Diameter Stacks
Source. USDA, 1991
3-5 ft.
Figure 11. Willow Wattles Tied into the Slope With Live Stakes
Spaced 3 to 5 feet Apart
Source. USDA, 1991
Figure 12 WHOLE COMMUNITY PLANNING
SMCW
Local Governments presents Problems
or Agencies
Citizen Advisory
Committee
Existing State and
local water regulations
Zonin Rules
Potential Solutions
revise Review by
Task Force
ok
General Public I-evisc
Review
F cal Government
Vote
Watershed Policy
FPrograi-n Evaluation in 1-3 years revise
Table 4: Costs for Control Measures
Method Units Ave Cost Cost of Life Span Operation Tot Annual
Installed Materials in Years and Maint. Cost
Streambanks:
Tree/Shrub Acre $250.00 variable no limit $20.00 $40.63
Plantings
-800 trees
Site prep Acre $100.00
for tree
planting
Obstruction Feet $3.00 $0.00 no limit $0.00 $0.25
Removal
for med. obj
Obstruction Feet $4.50 $0.00 no limit $0.00 $0.38
Removal
for large. obj
Riprap Cu yards $50.00 $30.00 20 $2.00 $7.19
Ave depth Feet $2.77 $1.66
1.5 feet
Gabions Cu yards $120.00 $40.00 15 $2.00 $16.23
Geotextile Sq yards $1.00 $0.50 30 $0.00 $0.09
Fabric
Concrete Cu yards $300.00 $90.00 20 $0.00 $31.13
Vertical Wall
poured in-situ
Timber Wall Feet $30.00 $15.00 15 $1.00 $4.56
pressure
treated with
4 foot walls
Flood Plain:
Method Units Ave Cost Cost of Life Span Operation Tot Annual
Installed Materials in Years and Maint. Cost
Shaping Cu yards $3.00
Slopes
Diversion/ Feet $2.75 $0.10 30 $0.25 $0.50
Waterway seeding
for barnyard
Diversion/ Feet $2.25 $0.10 30 $0.25 $0.45
Waterway
cropland
Stone Ctr/ Feet $10.00 $5.10 30 $0.35 $1.26
Waterway
(ie. grading,
shaping,
seeding)
Critical Acre $300.00 $220.00 no limit $50 $68.50
Area
Seeding
(ie. mulch)
Critical Acre $400.00 $320.00 no limit $20 $53.64
Area
Seeding
(Crownvetch)
Critical Area Acre $1,500.00 $220.00 20 $0.00 $155.63
Seeding on
Steep banks
w/Hydroseed
>15 ft high
Upland Watershed Improvements:
Method Units Ave Cost Cost of Life Span Operation Tot Annual
Installed Materials in Years and Maint. Cost
Strip Acre $35.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Cropping
Terraces 1000 ft $300.00
Drainfill Cu yard $10.00 $5.30 27 $0.20 $1.14
Source: USDA Soil Conservation Service
NY Field Office Technical Guide
Tompkins County, New York 1993
Section 3 -- Turbidity Changes from 1940 - 1995
Water quality reports from 1968 to 1995 show no change in the annual average
turbidity of the SMCW. However, a yearly average can mask the turbidity changes
occurring within the year. In Ithaca, Summer and Fall represent seasons with the lowest
precipitation. On the contrary, the Spring experiences prevalent thawing and runoff, while
Winter receives vast precipitation in the form of snow. These heavy periods of runoff and
precipitation contribute large rises in turbidity (i.e., 1200 NTU's), although the normal
annual average is 46 NTU's. Therefore, an analysis of seasonal turbidity more readily
reveals trends in water quality.
Data Collection Method
Data was gathered from the Ithaca Filtration Plant in two groups: years 1940 to
1966 represent turbidity measurements in Jackson Candle Units (JCU) and data from 1968
to 1995 were measured in Naphthalene Turbidity Units (NTU). Turbidity measurements
were taken from the Ithaca Filtration Plant intake pipe that runs from the 60 foot dam to
the Filtration Plant. This analysis used data from 1940 to 1995 in 2-year intervals. Each
year was divided into four seasons which contained 3 months each. The total turbidity for
the three months was summed and then divided by the number of days within the season.
Therefore, figures represent the average daily turbidity for the season.
Changes from 1940 to 1968
The highest turbidity occurred in the Spring (March to May), followed by the
Winter season (December, January, and February). However, 1940 to 1966 represent a
diminishing trend between seasonal turbidities; Spring turbidity converges with the Winter
and Fall values, while Summer turbidity remains relatively constant (Graph 10).
Changes in Spring turbidity can be explained by a decrease in agricultural land use.
During this 28 year time period, the number of agricultural farms significantly fell (The
Parks, 1990). The changing land practices permitted revegetation, and greater water
infiltration. Therefore, the land was able to store greater quantities of water during large
storms, and thus, the stream carrying capacity and the stream turbidity were reduced (see
Chapter 8.1 Stream Mechanics for a detailed explanation of carrying capacity).
An analysis of the seasonal ratios revealed a significant change between the Spring
and Fall ratio (Graph 11). Summer and Winter ratios demonstrate a consistent
relationship. In 1940, the ratio of Spring to Fall turbidity was 5, however by 1966 the
ratio had decreased to 3. This finding reveals that as Spring values fell, the turbidity
between the months of September, October, and November rose.
The increase in Fall turbidity is explained by an analysis of the yearly maximum
turbidity for this time period. Records unveil a growth in the incidence of major storms
during the Fall seasons of 1948 to 1964. The increased storm events heightened runoff
and suspended solid delivery to SMC during the Fall season.
Changes from 1968 -1995
Graph 12 shows a consistent relationship between seasonal turbidity for 1968 to
1995. Although the graph seems to indicate an increase in turbidity, statistical analysis
demonstrates this increase to be numerically insignificant. However, data does suggest a
consistent relationship between the seasons. As in the previous time period, Spring and
Winter represent the highest turbidities, while Fall and Summer correspond to lower
turbidities.
Future Predictions
Using a least squares regression model, the seasonal turbidity for 2010 was
estimated (Graph 13). Data predict relatively constant turbidity levels for the water
entering the Ithaca Filtration Plant.
Conclusions
Turbidity in the SMCW is not likely to decrease because the land is not losing an
exorbitant amount of soil due to erosion. The current rate of erosion is 1.4 tons of soil
per hectare, characterizing erosion from a watershed which practices conservation
(Schwab, 1993). However, if major changes (i.e., increased urbanization) occur within the
watershed, the turbidity could significantly increase.
Graph 10: Seasonal Turbidity Changes from 1940 - 1966
300
250 .................
::.;.::.::............ ::.;::.....:::..:
• Spring
200
::::.:.::.:::::: ® Summer
...."...:....-.............:...;...:.:.,....:.....9...�:..,:..,',,:.I............–..:.:.
.....I..I..,,i,,,...::.1,..
........::::.:..::..... .............
::::................-:.::::.....
::::.:.::,::;:;:... . ........:
:<>::,.,:::...:.-....::: ::.;:... D Fall
.....::......
.... `» ::. Winter
::= 150 linear(Summer)
::::::,";>:<>::: .> Linear(Spring)
!t - - - — Linear(Fall)
100 'Linear(Winter)
X
•
�'!r'
.....
• s
0
1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964
Year
Graph 11: Ratio of Spring Turbidities from 1940 to 1995
.: .
.:.::.
::: ;; :;:::a;>:
12 ...
10
.: 8 • Ratio Sp/S
® Ratio Sp/W
8 D • ` A Ratio Sp/F
.°: Linear(Ratio Sp/S):...
- 'Linear(Ratio Sp/W)
6 ......*.... :.:..*.:.:... – - - Linear(Ratio Sp/F)
•
....:
.:.
..
4 ..:.::. ....:� ....w... ......
0 » •
fl
® ...—
0 _... _... .1
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Years
Graph 12: Seasonal Turbidity from 1968 - 1995
90 00 ...
80 00
70.00 :;< ♦ Spring
»::
® Summer
60.00 ..:::; ♦ -� D Fall
♦ t`
:::;;:.:.,: .. .....
X Winter
50.00 ...... :
Linear(Summer)
Z �+ ...w+ . "�:.'� ��. ...' _ —Linear(Spring)11
...� .. :. ....:.. X: + — - — Linear(Falq
X
30.00 :::.,..::..:.:.::.::.,:.,::::.::.::X::.: , .r� +'k '""m....',...m 'Linear(Winter)
....X .....:..: �1..
1000 L1 X }�
. .® ... d ..::a. 1.
............:R>E,.:.. .::
000 .....; .
1966 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1686 1989 1992 1999
Year
Graph 13: Predicted Seasonal Turbidity from 1995 -2010
90.00 . - . ...::. . . ..
80.00
:
70.00 .
♦ Spring
60.00 ummer
® S
O Fall
50 00 .� Lmeaef(Summer)
rr� ` ..m •+++� .
Z >::
...... — —Linear(Spring)
40 00 .. w►. '�'� s — - - — Linear(Fall)
30.00
..»
.... rtiwr+? ,rwww
.I.:...:...,—.
:Prof:!�.:.. ......;
k
20.00 ...
:..;:::.;..
10.00
r::::::::.Y::.:
:: ..:. i .:.: .:E
.
0.00 - .....
1995 1999 2003 2007
Year
Section 4 -- Soil Conditioners
One of the problems associated with soil erosion, mentioned above, is the
destruction of soil aggregates. During rain storms, soil aggregates are broken into mobile
colloids that are either beneficial or detrimental to surface runoff (Nadler, 1989).
Colloids can act as cementing agents that build a stable porous structure which encourages
infiltration of the surface runoff into the subsurface layers. Accumulations of soil particles
can also block porous openings and hinder water flow (Nadler, 1989). Soil conditioners
provide a solution to the prevention of accumulated particles. The conditioners are
chemicals applied to the ground to stabilize soil structure (Sojka, 1994), control seal
formation (Sheinberg, 1994), and improve soil properties (Nadler, 1989). Generally soil
conditioners are made up of organic polymers, phosphogypsum (Shainberg, 1994), or
polyacrylamides (PAM) (Sojka, 1994).
Soil conditioners have been used since World War II as a method of conserving
soil, particularly in layers subject to tillage practices. Literature exists explaining the
history of soil conditioners in agriculture and during WW II. Currently, the use of the
synthetic chemicals, such as PAM'S, are being studied for their effectiveness to reduce
irrigation induced erosion (Sojka, 1994). The result of this research should be useful for
SMC, because raindrop activity is very similar to the behavior of water being sprayed from
a big gun sprinkler system. A simple explanation on how soil conditioners work follows.
This information was taken from Sojka, 1994, Shainberg, 1994, and Nadler, 1989.
Polyanions, negatively charged molecules, make up most of the chemicals in soil
stabilizers. The negative charge prevents the adsorption of the compounds to clay
particles on the surface, allowing the chemical to penetrate deeper than the surface. Soil
colloids then bond with the linear polymer chains through mechanisms such as, hydrogen
bonding, charge neutralization bonding, and protonation. The bonds form stable porous
aggregations that enhance infiltration.
Phosphogypsum (PG) spread across a field does not become active until it is
dissolved by water. When PG dissolves it releases electrolytes into the water which slow
or prevent the formation of a protective seal. This action increases the amount of
rainwater penetrating the soil, and consequently reduces and slows the amount of runoff
going directly into a body of water (i.e., SMC). In addition, electrolytes prevent
aggregates from being broken-up by the impact of raindrops. This fact contributes to the
low dispersion of soil particles since larger aggregates are less likely to be transported by
runoff.
Section 5 -- Tier I Agricultural Practices Survey
AGRICULTURAL
LAND USE
PRACTICES
SIX MILE CREEK WATERSHED
TOMPKINS COUNTY
NY
Six Mile Creek Watershed Ag Practices 1
TOMPKINS COUNTY SOIL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
SIX MILE CREEK
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE SURVEY
Prepared by:
Harry Mussell
Agricultural Resounes Conserrafion Specialist
April-June, 1996
OVERVIEW
This survey was initiated to identify and evaluate agricultural nonpoint pollution problems that
might impact water quality in the Six Mile Creek Watershed. The agricultural tracts in the watershed
were identified using the aerial photos and farm records of the Faun Service Agency,USDA,farm
conservation plans from Natural Resources Conservation Service,USDA,input from the Tompkins
County Water Quality Coordinating Committee and field observations by District staff. The venue for this
survey was a modified Tier I Agricultural Practices survey. This survey was based on the Tier I/Tier II
system developed by the Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program(SLWAP),and was modified
by District staff to more accurately reflect agricultural practices and soil conditions encountered in
Tompkins county. The survey was completed by on-site interviews with owners and operators of 94%of
the lands in Six Mile Creek Watershed identified as agricultural operations. Participation in this survey
was on a voluntary basis,and all but one landowner contacted by the District participated in the survey.
(Three out of state landowners were not contacted,but their properties were visited by District staff.) The
information contained in this report was derived by summarization of the data obtained from the survey
forms combined with direct observations made during the inspections of the agricultural operations in the
watershed. The generalized information presented below is organized along the same lines as the risk
assessments utilized-in Tier II worksheets for agricultural practices.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
This survey has not revealed a single critical water quality issue relating to agricultural use of the
lands in the Six Mile Creek Watershed. Several minor instances relating to clean water management
were observed,however,taken in tolo,these issues do not represent a serious threat to the maintenance of
high water quality in the watershed. These issues,such as roof water runoff and clean water diversions as
located as sites far removed from perennial streams in the watershed.
Much of the agricultural in Six Mile Creek would be categorized as"nontraditional'as
exemplified by the fact that the most prevalent farm practice identified was boarding horses. In further
support of this observation is the fact that,of the 5 farm operations which indicated anticipating a change
in operation within the next 5 years,4 were going to shift their emphasis to horses or goats,while only
one farm indicated an anticipated reduction in operations.
Six Mile Creek Watershed Ag Practices 2
SALIENT FACTS
(1996)
SURVEY COVERAGE:
26 Active Properties
12 Inactive Properties
AREA COVERED BY SURVEY:
7,056 Acres (Total watershed acreage: 34,400)
TYPE OF OPERATION: (Some farms listed more than once)
Cash Crop 9 Replacement Dairy 2
Horses 8 Sheep 2
Beef 6 Hardwoods 2
Dairy 5 Winery 2
Hay 3 Bed&Breakfast 1
LAND USAGE
Pasture: 1,592 acres
Crop/Hayland:2,671 acres
Livestock Resident in the Watershed:
Cattle:
Dairy-333
Beef-304
Horses- 123
Sheep- 125
Pigs- 350
Goats-2
Twelve farms spread manure,however,only two spread daily.
20 properties have a stream on or within 50' of the property.
Of these: 7 have crops within 50' of the stream.
livestock have limited access to the stream on 6 farms.
PETROLEUM STORAGE:
14 farms store petroleum on the property.
There are 2 buried petroleum storage tanks on farms in the watershed.
There are 27 above ground petroleum storage tanks on the farms,only 4 have any sort of
spill containment.
BARNYARDS:
Eight farms have barnyards.
Surface water can potentially run through 4 barnyards.
Roof water enters 6 of the barnyards.
Six Mile Creek Watershed Ag Practices 3
RISK ASSESSMENT
SIX MILE CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES SURVEY
1. Environmental risk due to pathogens from farm operations.
All of the dairy farms in the watershed age manage their herds. Calves under six months old do
not come in contact with older livestock. In all manure spreading operations,consideration is given to the
location and timing of spreading of calf manure to minimize runoff risk.
2. Manure management.
Manure not spread on a daily basis is stored/composted in an environmentally benign manner on
all dairy farms. The horse farms all reported at least minimal composting of their manure before
application to fields or crops. All operations indicated reduced or no spreading on environmentally
sensitive frozen grounds.
3. Stream management.
All of the properties with streams flowing through them indicated that livestock have limited
access to the streams. In most instances,crossings are through restricted access points,and watering
points are also limited by fencing.
4. Milking center management.
There are only two milking parlors in the watershed,and the milkhouse waste from both is being
handled in such a way that it does not represent a water quality issue.
S. Silage storage.
Silage is stored on only 8 farms in the watershed. Silage leachate and seepage is acceptably
controlled on all farms,primarily through careful control of moisture content of the silage. The trend
within the watershed is to shift to Ag Bags for silage storage,greatly reducing the dangers of seepage.
6. Petroleum storage.
The farms surveyed contain 29 above ground petroleum storage tanks. Only 4 of these have any
type of spill containment installed,none have secondary spill containment. This represents potential
storage of 7,975 gallons of petroleum products in the watershed without adequate spill containment.
Above ground storage of petroleum products represents the greatest potential risk to water quality in the
watershed.
7. Fertilizer management.
Nine farm operations indicated that they apply fertilizer on an annual basis,however only 4
operators indicated that fertilizer application is determined by soil testing. Only one farm in the
watershed is attempting to coordinate fertilizer applications with manure spreading. Establishment of
sound nutrient management plans for the larger farms within the watershed should be a high be a priority
goal in watershed management for Six Mile Creek. District personnel are currently providing this
planning for several farms in the Owasco Watershed.,and could do the same for the farms in Six Mile
Creek.
8. Pesticide management.
Six farms indicated that they apply pesticides on at least a biannual basis. Farmers that apply
their own pesticides are all Certified Pesticide Applicators,as are the contractors employed by the other
operators. None of the operators use fungicides or insecticides on a regular basis. The two herbicides
mentioned most frequently were Roundup and Atrazine. Roundup is one of the most environmentally
acceptable herbicides for weed control. Those farmers using Atrazine indicated that they were in full
compliance with DEC regulations on the rates and locations for using this material.
Six Mile Creek Watershed Ag Practices 4
9. Waste disposal.
A. Solid waste: There are no active farm dumps in the Six Mile Creek Watershed. All
participants indicated that solid waste that is not recyclable is either picked up by contractors or is
delivered to approved land fills or solid waste pick up points.
B. Petroleum waste: Over 800 of the used crankcase oil generated on the farms in the
watershed is recycled. Roughly 12%is used for lubricating chains and equipment,and 8%is burned in
heating stoves specifically adapted to this purpose. None of the operators interviewed reported storing
used motor oil on their properties.
C. Used Antifreeze: The volume of used antifreeze generated by agricultural operations in the
watershed is small. However,as we have observed in other surveys of this type,the farm operators do not
have a clear understanding of acceptable methods for disposing of this waste. This problem is not unique
to Six Mile Creek,nor to Tompkins County;there is a clear need for the development of both national
and local policies relating to disposal of used antifreeze.
10. Soil management.
Soil erosion,usually associated with streambanks,was the most frequently encountered problem
illuminated in this survey. Due to the high proportion of the agricultural lands in Six Mile Creek
Watershed that are in permanent pasture,haylands and meadows,rill and sheet erosion were not
encountered as problems in this watershed. The erosion encountered along streambanks during this
survey reinforces the streambank erosion inventory carried out by the SWCD in 1994 in indicating that
the principal water quality issue in this watershed is sediment attributable to this streambank
deterioration.
oY
r
O P
Y
i <
m Y
E- RD
ONO
A �
w J2
U o o �� va
sD RD c
OWN m
O 110 O
u
e
o
s
VA o
c o a
U �
f�l rr�1 W „ O
F�1 �
> O
W W K Ito O i J F
`� O O �O ♦ O O �� A 110
� s
O o sxt
< m
PL
ag'
a S
d
Y44 O u a° J
r
0
� o
0
W 'H
w H ONO •
rs iaO
J
w N r�
O M r 6 = ► °
P p n O
rw
u �
o � s
T� O
Section 6 -- Contacts for the Six Mile Creek Watershed
Organization Contacts Phone Number
City of Ithaca Engineering Office Tom West 274-6530
City of Ithaca Forester Andy Hillman 272-1718
City of Ithaca Planner, Land Acquisition Doug Foster 274-6550
City of Ithaca Water Infiltration Plant Chuck Baker 273-4680
City of Ithaca Youth Bureau Rick Dietrick 273-8364
City of Ithaca Zoning Office Rick Eckstrom 274-6508
Cornell Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department Tammo Steenhuis 255-2489
Cornell Cooperative Extension Sharon Anderson 272-2292
Dave Gross 255-2237
Cornell Geology Department Dan Karig 255-3679
Cornell Rural Sociology Department Dave Allee 255-6550
Dryden Highway Department 844-8686
Finger Lakes Land Trust Betsy Landre 275-9487
Ithaca City Water and Sewer Plant Larry Fabbroni 272-1717
Ward Hungerford
Natural Resource and Conservation Service Linda Szeliga 257-3820
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Cortland Dave Lumner 753-3095
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Syracuse Scott Cook (315) 426-7500
Soil and Water Conservation District Barbara Demjanec 257-3820
Harry Mussel
Steuben County Soil and Water Conservation Service Jeff Parker 776-9631
Tompkins County Assessment 274-5517
Tompkins County Environmental Health Department John Anderson 274-6688
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council 274-5561
Tompkins County Highway Department 898-3032
Tompkins County Planning Office Jim Skaley 274-5560
Katie White
Tompkins County Public Works-Engineering Division 274-0300
Tompkins County Youth Bureau 274-5310
Town of Caroline Department of Highway 539-7610
Town of Ithaca Engineering Planning 273-1747
Town of Ithaca Highway Department 273-1656
Town of Ithaca Parks Department 273-8035
Town of Ithaca Planner, Supports SMC Path George Frantz 274-5560
Town of Ithaca Zoning Office 273-1783
US Geological Service Phil Zarriello 266-0217