DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Invasive Species Present in Otsego County, NY Water Bodies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Invasive Species Present in Otsego County, NY Water Bodies Aquatic invasive species present in Otsego County, NY water bodies Annie Yoo1, Kaylee Herzog2, and Holly Waterfield CLM3 INTRODUCTION Otsego County, located in central New York, experiences increased populations in the summer months largely related to tourism and outdoor recreation. Abundant water resources in the county, combined with this increase in summer traffic contribute to the risk of invasive species transport between water bodies and major watersheds. Knowledge of the current distribution of invasive species will allow natural resource managers to prioritize transport prevention and population control measures. Exotic invasive species are those not native to an area that outcompete native species. Such exotic, non-native species typically possess traits which, in combination with lack of natural disease and/or predators, allow them to out-compete native species (Santos et al. 2011) and in-so-doing have negative ecological and economic impacts. Some of these impacts include productivity losses in agriculture, forestry, and other segments of the U.S. economy (Pimentel 2005). Aquatic invasive species (AIS) pose major threats to biodiversity in ecosystems. They often overtake important native aquatic plants and animals, cause habitat degradation and loss, and interfere with water-based recreational activities (Zhang and Boyle 2010). Pimentel (2005) suggests it is difficult to estimate the full extent of the environmental damages caused by invasive species and the number of species extinctions they have caused because little is known about each of the ~750,000 species present in the United States. In most cases AIS are initially introduced to watersheds through recreational boating activities or unintentional “hitchhiking ” (Horvath 2008), which can occur through international trade, with invaders stowed in ships, planes, trucks, or packing materials (McNeely 2001). Aquatic invasive species and their impacts have been the subject of BFS research since its inception in 1968. In terms of surveys to document AIS distribution, surveys were conducted in 2011 to assess AIS in the Catskills region (Harman 2012), but no studies have involved a county-wide assessment in Otsego County. This study was conducted to evaluate the presence/absence of aquatic invasive algae, vascular plants, zooplankton, and invertebrate benthos present in the water bodies of Otsego County, New York. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighteen lentic systems and 9 lotic systems (Table 1, Figure 1) were assessed for the presence of 24 exotic species (Table 2). Survey sites were chosen based on accessibility and also to achieve relatively even coverage of water bodies across the county, ensuring that the major water ways and water bodies were assessed. Sites chosen for the survey included NYS DEC Boat Launches and Public Fishing Access Points, as human traffic (and associated activities and 1 BFS Intern, summer 2013. Current affiliation: SUNY Oneonta. Funding provided by Otsego Land Trust. 2 SUNY Oneonta Biology Department Intern, summer 2013. Current affiliation: SUNY Oneonta. Funded, in part, by NSF. 3 Research Support Specialist, Biological Field Station (CLM = Certified Lake Manager). equipment) is the main vector for transport of invasive species from one locale to another. Additional survey sites for lotic systems were included at all accessible road-crossings. A complete listing of all site locations is provided in Appendix 1. Species not listed in Table 2 were not specifically searched for, though would have been noted if found. Bottom composition and substrate conditions were characterized for each site, and the presence of a Department of Environmental Conservation angling access or boat launch site was noted. GPS coordinates (datum: NAD 1987) for each survey site were recorded using a Garmin GPSmap 76CSx. Table 1.Otesgo County water bodies surveyed in 2013 for the presence/absence of 20 aquatic invasive species; Lentic (left) and lotic (right) systems Number of Lentic Systems (Lakes & Ponds) Lotic Systems (Rivers & Streams) Sites Sampled Allen Lake (Richfield Springs, NY) Butternut Creek 13 Arnold Lake (Hartwick, NY) Cherry Valley Creek 8 Basswood Pond (Burlington, NY) Oaks Creek 8 Belvedere Lake (Cherry Valley, NY) Otego Creek 10 Canadarago Lake (Richfield Springs, NY) Schenevus Creek 8 Crumhorn Lake (Milford, NY) Susquehanna River 9 Gilbert Lake (New Lisbon, NY) Unadilla River 13 Goey Pond (Hartwick, NY) Unnamed creek, Lull Hill Rd. (Laurens, NY) 1 Goodyear Lake (Portlandville, NY) Wharton Creek (tributary of Otego Creek) 6 Hunt Union Pond (Oneonta, NY) Larchwood Lake (New Lisbon, NY) Neahwa Pond (Oneonta, NY) Otsego Lake (Otsego, NY) Silver Lake (New Berlin, NY) Summit Lake (Springfield, NY) Susquehanna State Park Pond (Milford, NY) Wetland, unnamed (Oneonta, NY) Wilber Lake (Oneonta, NY) Lentic Systems Sixteen of the 18 lentic systems in this survey were examined via canoe. Permission was sought for access from private sites or onto water bodies with restricted public access (i.e., reservoirs, private residential communities). Observations were also made on shore. Presence of invasive emergent plants was assessed along shorelines, and benthic species were assessed by scanning the available hard substrates. Submerged vegetation was collected by hand-picking shallow rake tosses (two to four sites per system, dependent upon water body size and variability of substrate). Plankton samples were gathered using tow nets (80µm mesh). Otsego and Canadarago Lakes were not directly sampled during this survey due to the size and complexity of the systems; presence of invasive species was determined based on recent surveys by BFS personnel (i.e., Canadarago: Albright and Waterfield 2012; Otsego: McShane and Mehigan 2013, Tanner and Albright 2014, Vanassche and Wong in prep). Figure 1. Map depicting all sites surveyed in the 2013 AIS survey. White dots represent lentic, or still-water systems, black dots indicate lotic, or flowing water, systems. Lotic Systems Several locations were sampled along each of the nine lotic systems in this survey, resulting in a total of 76 sampling sites. Riparian areas were assessed at each site for the presence of invasive emergent plants. Seining, dip-netting, hand-sieving and hand-picking were also employed at each site to assess the presence of invasive invertebrates. Equipment Sterilization and Sample Preservation At the conclusion of sampling in each location, all equipment was removed from the water and rinsed on-shore with a diluted bleach or rock salt solution. Any organisms which were inconclusively identified on site were saved, marked with collection data, and transported on ice to the laboratory for definitive identification. Plankton samples were transported on ice to the laboratory, preserved with 70% ethanol, and analyzed under a dissecting microscope. Mapping and Data Portrayal Waypoints stored at each site were uploaded electronically using Global Mapper™ software. Information regarding the presence or absence of invasive species at each site was attached to each waypoint and graphically represented using ESRI ArcMap software. Data will also be uploaded to iMapInvasives, an online, GIS-based data management system used by citizen scientists, researchers, and natural resource managers to document, assess, and coordinate the management of invasive species. Table 2. Invasive species for which presence or absence was assessed at each survey site. Algae Didymosphenia germinate Didymo Nitellopsis obtusa starry stonewort Vascular Plants Egeria densa Brazillian elodea Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum aquaticum parrot’s feather Myriophyllum heterophyllum variable-leaved watermilfoil Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife Phragmites australis common reed Trapa natans water chestnut Hydrocharis morsus-ranae European frog bit Potamogeton crispus curly leaf pondweed Zooplankton Bythotrephes cederstroemi spiny water flea Cercopagis pengoi fish hook water flea Invertebrate Benthos Cordylophora caspia freshwater hydroid Corbicula fluminea Asiatic clam Dreissena polymorpha zebra mussel Dreissena bugensis quagga mussel Bithynia tentaculata faucet snail Cipangopaludina chinensis Chinese mystery snail Potamopyrgus antipodarium New Zealand mud snail Orconectes rusticus rusty crayfish Eriocheir sinensis Chinese mitten crab Figure 2. Survey sheet used to document observations of AIS presence/absence at each site surveyed in the 2013 AIS Survey of Otsego County. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Observations are summarized graphically in Figures 3-7 and in tabular form in Tables 3 and 4. Eight of the 24 surveyed species were observed in at least one location; this survey did not document the presence of any species previously undocumented in the county, though water chestnut, a high-priority species, was found in a new location. The species found were Orconectes rusticus, Trapa natans, Fallopia japonica, Myriophyllum spicatum, Lythrum salicaria, Potamogeton crispus, Nitellopsis obtusa, and Dreissena polymorpha. Of the sites surveyed, invasive species were found at 48 stream sites, representing 8 of the 9 lotic systems, and in nine of the 18 surveyed lentic waterbodies (Figure 3, Tables 3 and 4). Sites containing the greatest number of AIS were lentic systems, the top three of which were the three largest lakes included in the survey, Canadarago Lake (7 spp.), Goodyear Lake (5 spp.), and Otsego Lake (7 spp.). A brief overview of each species observed is provided
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Otsego County Soil & Water Conservation Di
    _________________________________________________________________________________ Otsego County Soil & Water Conservation District 967 CO HWY 33 – RIVER ROAD – COOPERSTOWN, NEW YORK 13326-9222 – PHONE (607) 547-8337 ext. 4 OTSEGO COUNTY SWCD BOARD MEETING MINUTES Thursday, June 20, 2019 Members Present: Staff Present: Les Rathbun, Chair, Grange Rep. Jordan Clements, District Mgr. Meg Kennedy, Vice Chair, Cty. Rep. Sherry Mosher, District Secretary Roseboom Sr, Farm Bureau Michelle Farwell, Cty. Rep. Absent: Ed Lentz, Member @ Large Doris Moennich, Land owner Guest: None I. -Les called the meeting to order @ 10:00 am. II. –Approval of May Minutes, motion to approve made by Michelle, seconded by Meg, seconded by Larry. III. -Approval of May treasurer report, motion to approve made by Michelle, seconded by Larry. - Approval of paid bills, motion to approve made by Meg, seconded by Larry. IV. – District Reports: Sherry -Sherry stated that she opened a new checking account for Part C funds only, allowing separate designated line item names with their balances. -The new credit cards arrived for Mark & Jessica. -Sherry asked the board for approval to attend a 2 day QuickBooks training in Albany for the updated QuickBooks pro 2019, a motion was made to approve by Larry and 2nd by Michelle, motion carried. -District Reports: Jordan: -Jordan stated that he would like a resolution to apply for the NRCS CIG grant (Conservation Innovation Grant). The federal grant would be getting money for implementing cover crops with a self-propelled sprayer, renting
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices
    Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices Draft (V6) March 2007 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Table of Contents Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan A1 Appendix B 2006 Update: Public Input B1 Appendix C 2006 Update: Profile and Inventory of Town Resources C1 Appendix D Zoning Build-out Analysis D1 Appendix E Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis E1 Appendix F 1987 Master Plan F1 Appendix G Ancillary Maps G1 See separate document for Comprehensive Plan: Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Summary of Current Conditions and Issues Section 3 Vision Statement Section 4 Goals Section 5 Strategies to Implement Goals Section 6 Mapped Resources Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan APPENDIX A-1 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Appendix A. Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan This section includes strategies, actions, policy changes, programs and planning recommendations presented by the consultants (included in the plan as reference materials) that could be undertaken by the Town of Otsego to meet the goals as established in this Plan. They are organized by type of action. Recommended Strategies Regulatory and Project Review Initiatives 1. Utilize the Final GEIS on the Capacities of the Cooperstown Region in decision making in the Town of Otsego. This document analyzes and identifies potential environmental impacts to geology, aquifers, wellhead protection areas, surface water, Otsego Lake and Watershed, ambient light conditions, historic resources, visual resources, wildlife, agriculture, on-site wastewater treatment, transportation, emergency services, demographics, economic conditions, affordable housing, and tourism. This document will offer the Planning Board and other Town agencies, background information, analysis, and mitigation to be used to minimize environmental impacts of future development.
    [Show full text]
  • A Characterization of the Riparian Corridor of the Oaks Creek Blueway Trail with Emphasis on Otsego Land Trust Properties
    A characterization of the riparian corridor of the Oaks Creek Blueway Trail with emphasis on Otsego Land Trust properties Nicole Pedisich1 and Donna Vogler2 INTRODUCTION The Otsego Land Trust Blueway is a series of Land Trust owned and protected parcels that provide fishing, hiking, paddling, bird watching, and educational opportunities from Canadarago Lake to the Susquehanna River including Brookwood Point on Otsego Lake. (Otsego Land Trust 2014). The trail consists of Fetterly Forest, Deowongo Island, Oaks Creek Preserve, Crave, Parslow Road, Greenough Road, and Compton Bridge. For this project, an assessment of the riparian vegetation communities of Oaks Creek was conducted along a section of the Blueway Trail starting in Schuyler Lake and ending in Cattown. More in-depth characterizations of plant communities were done at Oaks Creek Preserve, the Crave property, and Parslow Road Conservation Area. Oaks Creek is a stream located in Otsego County, NY. It flows from Canadarago Lake southeast into the Susquehanna River, a distance of approximately 13.8 miles. (Hingula 2004). A majority of the stretch of stream assessed is state-regulated freshwater wetlands (Figure 1, NYSDEC). Oaks Creek Preserve is a 28-acre parcel located along its namesake between Schuyler Lake and Oaksville. Downstream are Crave, a parcel recently acquired by the Otsego Land Trust and Parslow Road Conservation Area, an 86-acre parcel located on the northern edge of Oaksville running a half-mile along Oaks Creek (Figure 2). 3 1 BFS Intern, summer 2015. Current affiliation: SUNY College at Oneonta. Funding for this project was provided by the Otsego Land Trust. 2 Professor.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
    'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
    [Show full text]
  • Otsego County Baseline Water Quality Monitoring1
    1 Otsego County baseline water quality monitoring Scott Fickbohm2 INTRODUCTION The following is a preliminary report of water quality data collected between May 2009 and December 2010 at the outflow of Otsego County’s fourteen 11-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes watersheds (HUC’s). While extensive water quality monitoring is currently taking place in the County in specific waterbodies, this effort is meant to be a first step towards being able to characterize baseline water quality across Otsego County by means of direct measurement. Otsego County is 1,007 square miles in area. Estimates of land use are 71% forest, 27% in agriculture and 2% other (urban/developed). From the 11-digit HUC perspective, that area is divided between 14 distinct watersheds. The boundaries of these watersheds extend beyond the County borders and total an area of 1,390 square miles that all drain to the Susquehanna River and, ultimately, to the Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 27 square miles (5%) of Otsego County drains to the Mohawk River Basin through Canajoharie Creek and Cobleskill Creek. These Creeks were not sampled. An exception to the 11-digit HUC approach is the Butternut Creek & Lower Unadilla watersheds. At the 11 HUC level, the Butternut is limited to the area above Morris, NY with the lower portion being considered part of the Lower Unadilla watershed. In order to capture watershed specific data to the greatest extent possible, the Butternut was sampled just north of its confluence with the Unadilla River. The area for each of these watersheds was recalculated based on this sampling point. The names of each watershed sampled, along with their HUC number and area, are provided in the Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Otsego County Water Quality Coordinating Committee Annual Report 2010 & 2011
    Otsego County Water Quality Coordinating Committee Annual Report 2010 & 2011 Prepared by: Otsego County Water Quality Coordinating Committee 967 County Highway 33 Cooperstown, NY 13326 6/18/2012 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION OF WATER QUALITY COORDINATING COMMITTEE 2 COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS 2 COMMITTEE MISSION, PURPOSE AND PRIMARY FUNCTIONS 3 2010 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 2011 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 7 ATTACHMENTS: #1 Water Quality Coordinating Committee By Laws #2 2011 Otsego County Nonpoint Source Water Quality Strategy #3 Susquehanna Headwaters Nutrient Report #4 Otsego County Soil & Water Conservation District 2011 Report #5 Otsego County Conservation Association 2011 Report #6 Goodyear Lake Association 2011 Report #7 Otsego Lake Watershed Supervisory Committee 2011 Report #8 SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station 2011 Staff Activity Report #9 Village of Richfield 2011 Water Quality Report 1 INTRODUCTION OTSEGO COUNTY WATER QUALITY COORDINATING COMMITTEE Non-point pollution (NPS) by definition is any form of pollution not being discharged from a distinguished point or source. Sources of NPS, being so diffuse and variable, will often require multi-agency involvement to remediate the existing water pollution problems. Understanding that the responsibility and interest in water quality issues are represented by a wide range of parties, a committee was formed and is known as the Otsego County Water Quality Coordinating Committee (the Committee) and functions as a subcommittee of the Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District. The Committee is responsible for the preparation of the Otsego County Non-point Source Water Quality Strategy. The Strategy attempts to ensure that the individual efforts of local, county, state, and federal agencies regarding water quality programs and educational outreach events are coordinated for maximum effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Fishing Rights Maps: Otego Creek
    Public Fishing Rights Maps Otego Creek Fish Species Present About Public Fishing Rights Brown Trout Public Fishing Rights (PFR’s) are permanent easements purchased by the NYSDEC from will- ing landowners, giving anglers the right to fish and walk along the bank (usually a 33’ strip on Brook Trout one or both banks of the stream). This right is for the purpose of fishing only and no other purpose. Treat the land with respect to insure the continua- tion of this right and privilege. Fishing privileges may be available on some other private lands with Description of Fishery permission of the land owner. Courtesy toward the land-owner and respect for their property will Otego Creek flows for 29 miles before entering the insure their continued use. Susquehanna River west of Oneonta. The lower 10 miles supports a low quality warmwater fish- These generalized location maps are intended to ery for walleye, smallmouth bass, and rock bass. aid anglers in finding PFR segments and are not From Laurens upstream to Hartwick, the wild trout survey quality. Width of displayed PFR may be population in this 14.6 mile reach is supplemented wider than reality to make it more visible on the with the stocking of approximately 2,900 yearling maps. Please look for this PFR sign to ensure that and 125 two year old brown trout annually. Brown you are in the right location and have legal access trout abundance is higher in the lower reach and to the stream bank. brook trout in the upper reach. Many of the tribu- taries to Otego Creek are dominated by wild brook trout.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: a Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007
    Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducted a water quality and biological survey of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin from June to September 2007. This survey is part of SRBC’s Subbasin Survey Program, which is funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Subbasin Survey Program consists of two- year assessments in each of the six major subbasins (Figure 1) on a rotating schedule. This report details the Year-1 survey, which consists of point-in-time water chemistry, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data collection and assessments of the major tributaries and areas of interest throughout the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin. The Year-2 survey will be conducted in the Tioughnioga River over a one-year time period beginning in summer 2008. The Year-2 survey is part of a larger monitoring effort associated with an environmental restoration effort at Whitney Point Lake. Previous SRBC surveys of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin were conducted in 1998 (Stoe, 1999) and 1984 (McMorran, 1985). Subbasin survey information is used by SRBC staff and others to: • evaluate the chemical, biological, and habitat conditions of streams in the basin; • identify major sources of pollution and lengths of streams impacted; • identify high quality sections of streams that need to be protected; • maintain a database that can be used to document changes in stream quality over time; • review projects affecting water quality in the basin; and • identify areas for more intensive study. Description of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin The Upper Susquehanna Subbasin is an interstate subbasin that drains approximately 4,950 square miles of southcentral New York and a small portion of northeastern Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications
    Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Waterbody Type Segment ID Waterbody Index Number (WIN) Streams 0202-0047 Pa-63-30 Streams 0202-0048 Pa-63-33 Streams 0801-0419 Ont 19- 94- 1-P922- Streams 0201-0034 Pa-53-21 Streams 0801-0422 Ont 19- 98 Streams 0801-0423 Ont 19- 99 Streams 0801-0424 Ont 19-103 Streams 0801-0429 Ont 19-104- 3 Streams 0801-0442 Ont 19-105 thru 112 Streams 0801-0445 Ont 19-114 Streams 0801-0447 Ont 19-119 Streams 0801-0452 Ont 19-P1007- Streams 1001-0017 C- 86 Streams 1001-0018 C- 5 thru 13 Streams 1001-0019 C- 14 Streams 1001-0022 C- 57 thru 95 (selected) Streams 1001-0023 C- 73 Streams 1001-0024 C- 80 Streams 1001-0025 C- 86-3 Streams 1001-0026 C- 86-5 Page 1 of 464 09/28/2021 Waterbody Classifications, Streams Based on Waterbody Classifications Name Description Clear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Mud Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to Long Lake total length of all tribs to lake Little Valley Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Elkdale Kents Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Crystal Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Forestport Alder Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Bear Creek and tribs entire stream and tribs Minor Tribs to Kayuta Lake total length of select tribs to the lake Little Black Creek, Upper, and tribs stream and tribs, above Wheelertown Twin Lakes Stream and tribs entire stream and tribs Tribs to North Lake total length of all tribs to lake Mill Brook and minor tribs entire stream and selected tribs Riley Brook
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]