DOCSLIB.ORG

Surface Water Quality in Otsego County, NY, Prior to Potential Natural Gas Exploration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Surface Water Quality in Otsego County, NY, Prior to Potential Natural Gas Exploration Surface water quality in Otsego County, NY, prior to potential natural gas exploration 1 Sarah Crosier Abstract –Baseline water quality data was established for Otsego County, NY prior to potential natural gas exploration. Hydraulic fracturing may contaminate surface water with chemicals, salts and sediments. Averages for pH, total dissolved solids, and conductivity were calculated for 50 Otsego County streams from data collected using a YSI® multi-parameter probe from August 2010 – April 2012. Limestone bedrock sub-watersheds had significantly higher conductivity, TDS and pH than shale bedrock sub-watersheds. Winter and summer peaks and fall and spring lows occurred in conductivity and TDS. Road salt use, precipitation and evaporation likely caused seasonal variation. Sub-watershed size had no significant effect on parameters. These data will serve as a control for future water quality testing if hydraulic fracturing occurs in Otsego County, NY. INTRODUCTION This study was conducted to identify baseline water quality conditions at base flow for streams in Otsego County. Water quality varies between streams due to different physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics (Rajeshwari and Saraswathi 2009). These factors are dependent upon topography, geology, vegetative cover (Dosskey et al. 2010), land use in a watershed (Ou and Wang 2011) and watershed size (Landers et al. 2007). Stream chemistry varies naturally throughout the seasons due to changes in precipitation, evaporation, nutrient input, and biotic activity within the streams. Anthropogenic pollutants such as road salt (Jackson and Jobbágy 2005, Kaushal et al. 2005), urban storm water runoff and agricultural pesticides, nutrients, and sediments (Madden et al. 2007) also affect stream quality variably. Stream quality may differ between years, particularly due to changes in flow conditions due to higher or lower-than-average rainfall. The goal was to ascertain the range of water quality parameters common in pre-drilling Otsego County so that we may detect changes in water quality should natural gas exploration occur. Hydrofracturing for natural gas may cause water degradation due to chemical, salt, or sediment contamination (Balyszak 2011). Conductivity, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS) are basic water quality parameters used to identify contamination of water due to natural gas drilling (EPA 2011). We monitored these water quality variables monthly in 50 streams in Otsego County. If pollution occurs from potential natural gas activities, we expect conductivity and TDS to rise (due to more ions present) and for pH to decrease due to increased acidity from chemicals used for hydrofracturing. Various combinations of chemicals are used to facilitate the fracturing process. For example, pH may increase because acid, such as hydrochloric acid, is used to dissolve minerals and initiate cracks in rock from which gas may be extracted (EPA 2011). 1 Otsego County SWCD intern. Environmental Sciences, State University of New York College at Oneonta, Oneonta, New York 13820. By monitoring at base flow conditions, we identified the natural variation of stream water quality in Otsego County. We were able to observe when, how often, and how much water quality parameters vary throughout the year. Knowing these ranges can allow us to detect surface water quality issues in the future. Our focus was to establish baseline conditions prior to potential natural gas exploration, but the information gained can allow us to document other pollutions that may occur within the County. FIELD SITE DESCRIPTION We conducted this study in Central New York in Otsego County, which is located west of Albany, southeast of Utica, and northeast of Binghamton. Otsego County is part of the Upper Susquehanna River Watershed. Following protocols established by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission used in their Remote Monitoring Network, we selected 50 sites on low-order streams (Table 1) throughout Otsego County, NY. We chose low order streams that drain 170 square kilometers or less to account for the sensitivity of our field instruments. Figure 1 is a map showing monitoring site locations. Sites are located at the terminus of each sub-watershed and are easily accessible from or next to bridges. A sub-watershed in this paper refers to the area of land draining to a monitoring site. The watersheds in which the monitoring sites are located are defined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) and are listed in Table 1. METHODS Equipment A YSI Professional Plus® multi-parameter meter was used to collect pH, conductivity, temperature, and TDS data as well as time and date information. Monitoring SUNY Oneonta students and Otsego County Soil and Water District employees conducted water monitoring from August 13, 2010 - April 21, 2012. We visited each of the 50 sites monthly. Some sites were not monitored as frequently due to inaccessibility from ice formation, hazardous access, or time constraints. Analysis Sub-watershed area- ArcGIS® was used to display average conductivity and pH values for data collected from August 2010-August 2011 for each of the sub-watersheds. Relationships between the means of TDS, pH, conductivity and sub-watershed area were tested using Spearman’s Rank Correlation using SYSTAT®. Geology- Sites were divided into two categories: limestone, and shale (Figure 1), based on the geology of the area according to the Otsego County Soil Survey (Figure 2). Some sites were not included because their respective sub-watersheds were both shale and limestone based. A Mann-Whitney Test was run using Minitab® on data from 45 sub-watersheds to determine if bedrock was significantly correlated with conductivity. Stream monitoring location Primarily Limestone with some shale Shale, siltstone, and sandstone Figure 1. Sites sampled for water quality in Otsego County, NY from 13Aug10 – 21Apr12 with bedrock geology. See Table 1 for a list of stream names and the corresponding identification numbers. Table 1. Sites monitored for water quality in Otsego County, NY from 13Aug10 – 21Apr12. Sites listed by sub-watershed name. HUC codes are used by the NYSDEC, NRCS, and USGS for delineating watershed boundaries. The 12 digit code used here is the smallest unit of watershed depicted. Site ID refers to site number in Figure 1. Bridge location is where the site was accessed from. Area (km2) is the area of the sub-watershed. Sub-Watershed Site ID HUC Town Coordinates Bridge Area (km2) Geologya Area sq mi N W Aldrich Brook 17 020501010802 Morris 42.55701 75.22853 State Hwy 51, south Cty Hwy 49 18.1 S 7.0 Brier Creek 23 020501011102 Otego 42.37381 75.21772 State Rt 7, west of Cty Hwy 5 23.1 S 8.9 Cahoon Creek 14 020501010803 Butternuts 42.47196 75.31449 Bloom Street, east of Butternut Creek 27.4 S 10.6 Campbell Brook 24 020501010905 Plainfield 42.82387 75.23535 Cty Hwy 18, south of Cty Hwy 21, X Pritchard 12.5 L 4.8 Chase Creek 36 020501010604 Middlefield 42.6579 74.96046 State Hwy 28, across from SPCA 19.5 L 7.5 Cripple Creek 39 020501010603 Springfield 42.81396 74.9005 State Hwy 80, across from Bartlet Rd 40.6 L 15.7 Decatur Creek 42 020501010303 Worcester 42.5914 74.75387 State Hwy 7, east of Cty Hwy 39 34.9 L 13.5 Dunderberg Creek 15 020501010803 Butternuts 42.47233 75.31643 Bloom Street, west of Butternut Creek 16.2 S 6.2 Elk Creek 39 020501010302 Maryland 42.54499 74.84201 State Hwy 7, east of Valder Road 85.3 L 33.0 Flax Island Creek 10 020501011101 Otego 42.38968 75.18527 State Rt 7, west of Flax Island Road 13.1 S 5.1 Fly Creek 1 020501010103 Otsego 42.71806 74.98177 State Hwy 28/80 east of Village 36.6 L 14.1 Harrison/Cooper Creeks 6 020501010504 Laurens 42.48724 75.11815 Cty Hwy 11, North of State Hwy 23 22.6 S 8.7 Hayden Creek 8 020501010603 Springfield 42.82129 74.88303 Cty Hwy 53, East of State 80 24.1 L 9.3 Herkimer Creek 33 020501010102 Richfield 42.78866 75.0247 State Hwy 28, south of Taylor Road 22.8 L 8.8 Hinman Hollow Brook 37 020501010604 Milford 42.59509 74.0457 State Hwy 28, south of Oxbow Road 20.8 L 8.0 Hyder Creek 32 020501010102 Richfield 42.81657 75.01965 State Hwy 28, north of Wing Hill Road 24.2 L 9.4 Indian/Sand Hill Creeks 11 020501011103 Unadilla 42.37147 75.26382 State Hwy 7, east of Cty Hwy 3a 37.3 S 14.4 Lake Brook 3 020501010503 Laurens 42.53328 75.08913 Brook Street, south of Town Hall 16.8 S 6.5 Lidell Creek 26 020501010103 Exeter 42.75981 75.02778 State Hwy 28 south of Cty Hwy 16 * L * Middle Wharton Creek 35 020501010702 Edmeston 42.70475 75.24465 State Hwy 80, South of Burdick Ave 167.8 L 64.8 Mill Creek 23 020501010703 Edmeston 42.70471 75.24458 Cty Hwy 20, across from Bert White Road 24.8 L 9.6 Moorehouse Brook 21 020501010304 Maryland 42.53473 74.89551 State Rt 7, east of Cty Hwy 42 18.6 7.2 Morris Brook 16 020501010803 Morris 42.5088 75.28967 St Hwy 51, across from Dimmock Hollow Rd 20.2 S 7.8 O'Connel Brook 48 020501010203 Middlefield 42.6908 74.84377 Moore Road, South off State Hwy 166 8.5 L 3.3 Oneonta Creek 7 020501010606 Oneonta 42.45571 75.05533 Fair Street, under J. Lettis Hwy 21.5 S 8.3 Oquiniuos Creek 31 020501010102 Richfield 42.85014 74.99079 Elm Street, south of Town 52.7 L 20.3 Otsdawa Creek 9 020501011101 Otego 42.39995 75.17185 State Hwy 7, East of Cty Hwy 7 51.9 S 20.1 Palmer Creek 41 020501010303 Maryland 42.5652 74.78461 State Hwy 7, west of Gohan road 4.8 1.9 Pleasant Brook 45 020501010201 Roseboom 42.71973 74.76939 State Hwy 165, North of Pleasant Brook 56.5 L 21.8 Pool Brook
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • On the Formation of Fluvial Islands
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Joshua R. Wyrick for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering presented on March 31, 2005. Title: On the Formation of Fluvial Islands Abstract approved: Signature redacted for privacy. Peter C. Klingeman This research analyzes the effects of islands on river process and the effects river processes have on island formation. A fluvial island is defined herein as a land mass within a river channel that is separated from the floodplain by water on all sides, exhibits some stability, and remains exposed during bankfull flow. Fluvial islands are present in nearly all major rivers. They must therefore have some impact on the fluid mechanics of the system, and yet there has never been a detailed study on fluvial islands.Islands represent a more natural state of a river system and have been shown to provide hydrologic variability and biotic diversity for the river. This research describes the formation of fluvial islands, investigates the formation of fluvial islands experimentally, determines the main relations between fluvial islands and river processes, compares and describes relationships between fluvial islands and residual islands found in megaflood outwash plains, and reaches conclusions regarding island shape evolution and flow energy loss optimization. Fluvial islands are known to form by at least nine separate processes: avulsion, gradual degradation of channel branches, lateral shifts in channel position, stabilization of a bar or riffle, isolation of structural features, rapid incision of flood deposits, sediment deposition in the lee of an obstacle, isolation of material deposited by mass movement, and isolation of riparian topography after the installation of a dam.
    [Show full text]