Comprehensive Lake Management Plan Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, NY

Comprehensive lake management plan Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, NY

Caitlin A. Stroosnyder

Occasional Paper No. 56 State University of New York College at Oneonta

OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION

No. 1. The diet and feeding habits of the terrestrial stage of the common newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Raf.). M.C. MacNamara, April 1976 No. 2. The relationship of age, growth and food habits to the relative success of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the cisco (C. artedi) in Otsego Lake, New York. A.J. Newell, April 1976. No. 3. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (Summary of research 1968-75). W. N. Harman and L. P. Sohacki, June 1976. No. 4. An ecology of the Unionidae of Otsego Lake with special references to the immature stages. G. P. Weir, November 1977. No. 5. A history and description of the Biological Field Station (1966-1977). W. N. Harman, November 1977. No. 6. The distribution and ecology of the aquatic molluscan fauna of the Black River drainage basin in northern New York. D. E Buckley, April 1977. No. 7. The fishes of Otsego Lake. R. C. MacWatters, May 1980. No. 8. The ecology of the aquatic macrophytes of Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, N.Y. F. A Vertucci, W. N. Harman and J. H. Peverly, December 1981. No. 9. Pictorial keys to the aquatic mollusks of the upper Susquehanna. W. N. Harman, April 1982. No. 10. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Anisoptera and Zygoptera) of Otsego County, New York with illustrated keys to the genera and species. L.S. House III, September 1982. No. 11. Some aspects of predator recognition and anti-predator behavior in the Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus). A. Kevin Gleason, November 1982. No. 12. Mating, aggression, and cement gland development in the crayfish, Cambarus bartoni. Richard E. Thomas, Jr., February 1983. No. 13. The systematics and ecology of Najadicola ingens (Koenike 1896) (Acarina: Hydrachnida) in Otsego Lake, New York. Thomas Simmons, April 1983. No. 14. Hibernating bat populations in eastern New York State. Donald B. Clark, June 1983. No. 15. The fishes of Otsego Lake (2nd edition). R. C MacWatters, July 1983. No. 16. The effect of the internal seiche on zooplankton distribution in Lake Otsego. J. K. Hill, October 1983. No. 17. The potential use of wood as a supplemental energy source for Otsego County, New York: A preliminary examination. Edward M. Mathieu, February 1984. No. 18. Ecological determinants of distribution for several small mammals: A central New York perspective. Daniel Osenni, November 1984. No. 19. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins, February 1986. No. 20. The Chironomidae of Otsego Lake with keys to the immature stages of the subfamilies Tanypodinae and Diamesinae (Diptera). J. P. Fagnani and W. N. Harman, August 1987. No. 21. The aquatic invertebrates of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary, Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York. Robert J. Montione, April 1989. No. 22. The lake book: a guide to reducing water pollution at home. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report #1. W. N. Harman, March 1990. No. 23. A model land use plan for the Otsego Lake Watershed. Phase II: The chemical limnology and water quality of Otsego Lake, New York. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report Nos. 2a, 2b. T. J. Iannuzzi, January 1991. No. 24. The biology, invasion and control of the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in North America. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report No. 3. Leann Maxwell, February 1992. No. 25. Biological Field Station safety and health manual. W. N. Harman, May 1997. No. 26. Quantitative analysis of periphyton biomass and identification of periphyton in the tributaries of Otsego Lake, NY in relation to selected environmental parameters. S. H. Komorosky, July 1994. No. 27. A limnological and biological survey of Weaver Lake, Herkimer County, New York. C.A. McArthur, August 1995. No. 28. Nested subsets of songbirds in Upstate New York woodlots. D. Dempsey, March 1996. No. 29. Hydrological and nutrient budgets for Otsego lake, N. Y. and relationships between land form/use and export rates of its sub -basins. M. F. Albright, L. P. Sohacki, W. N. Harman, June 1996. No. 30. The State of Otsego Lake 1936-1996. W. N. Harman, L. P. Sohacki, M. F. Albright, January 1997. No. 31. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins (Revised by J. Lopez),1998. No. 32. Alewives in Otsego Lake N. Y.: A comparison of their direct and indirect mechanisms of impact on transparency and Chlorophyll a. D. M. Warner, December 1999. No.33. Moe Pond limnology and fish population biology: An ecosystem approach. C. Mead McCoy, C. P. Madenjian, V. J. Adams, W. N. Harman, D. M. Warner, M. F. Albright and L. P. Sohacki, January 2000. No. 34. Trout movements on Delaware River System tail-waters in New York State. Scott D. Stanton, September 2000. No. 35. Geochemistry of surface and subsurface water flow in the Otsego lake basin, Otsego County New York. Andrew R. Fetterman, June 2001. No. 36 A fisheries survey of Peck Lake, Fulton County, New York. Laurie A. Trotta. June 2002. No. 37 Plans for the programmatic use and management of the State University of New York College at Oneonta Biological Field Station upland natural resources, Willard N. Harman. May 2003.

Continued inside back cover Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at: http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp

Comprehensive lake management plan

Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, NY

Caitlin A. Stroosnyder

Biological Field Station, Cooperstown, New York bfs.oneonta.edu STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AT ONEONTA

The information contained herein may not be reproduced without permission of the author(s) or the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

Dr. Bill Harman Dr. Daniel Stich Holly Waterfield Matt Albright Gloria and George Bouboulis Mark Cornwell Dr. Leonard Sohacki Francine and Vince Stayter Scott Wells

Table of Contents

CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAKE

History/Background 1 Introduction 3 Goodyear Lake Watershed 8 Geology 9 Soils 12 Land use 14 Climate 16 Socioeconomic characteristics 16 Residential and commercial runoff 17 Tributary monitoring 17 Storm Event 22 Lake monitoring 26 Bacteria 26 Physical limnology 28 Temperature 30 Transparency 32 Dissolved oxygen 34 Chemical limnology 36 Alkalinity, pH, specific conductance and major ions 36 Nutrients 37 Phosphorus 37 Nitrogen 39 Ammonia 40 Historical nutrient data 40 Descriptive ecology 43 Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a 43 Aquatic macrophytes (plants) 45 Zooplankton 49 Macroinvertebrates 50 Fish 52

LAKE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction 59 Stakeholder survey 61 Management goals 63 Management plan 64

REFERENCES 76 APPENDIX A 80 APPENDIX B 82 APPENDIX C 83 APPENDIX D 84 APPENDIX E 87

Current Understanding of the Lake

History/Background

Goodyear Lake (N42°30’, W74°59’) in Otsego County, New York (Figure 1), was formed in 1907 by impounding the Susquehanna River in the Town of Milford with the construction of Collier’s Dam, a 10.97 m (36 ft) high and 60.96 m (200 ft) long structure. Goodyear Lake is the third largest lake in the County and contains approximately seven percent of its ponded water (Sanford 1981). The lake was created to generate hydroelectric power and did so until 1969 when New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) Corporation, the owner of the dam, ceased their unprofitable operation and proposed to dewater the lake and return the land to riverfront. However, thanks to public outcry and the Goodyear Lake Association (GYLA), an active group in the community, the dam was spared. The GYLA worked to create a deal between NYSEG and Canadian firm, F.W.E. Stapenhorst, to restore the dam and reactivate the hydroelectric facility. In 1978 Stapenhorst acquired the dam and was issued a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to operate in 1979. According to the license the elevation of the lake is not to drop below 30.48 cm (12 in) of the crest of the dam to facilitate power generation. Its normal elevation above sea level is 351 m (1150 ft). The dam is currently owned by Hydro Development Group, Inc., (HDG) a subsidiary of Enel Green Power North America, Inc. and the power produced is sold to NYSEG (HDR Engineering, Inc. 2014). HDG has renewed the 40 year operating license with FERC which will remain in place until 2059.

Figure 1. Topographic map of Goodyear Lake and a portion of its watershed (modified from USGS 2012).

Introduction In order to develop reasonable goals for a lake’s water quality and ecological condition, reference conditions are often estimated, describing the conditions expected if the lake were in its least-disturbed state. This allows managers to gauge a waterbody’s potential to attain certain conditions and align management objectives with reality for the system in question. An important consideration is the lake’s origin; in the case of Goodyear Lake, being an artificial impoundment greatly influences the water quality conditions at any given time. Rivers are conduits for the movement of water and all that it may carry from upstream sources, both internal and external. These sources include both naturally occurring and human-influenced inputs of organic material, mobilized nutrients, sediments, and debris. Watershed best management practices (BMPs) may be implemented to reduce the human-derived component, but some background level of input will remain. A lake’s reference conditions are, in part, determined by its origin, morphometry and watershed characteristics (USEPA 2011). An important estimated reference condition, in Goodyear Lake’s case, is its manufactured origin. The way in which the lake was created lead to its meandering river-shape, with larger pools and a maximum depth of 12 m (36 ft); it is technically considered a “river-lake”, or reservoir. Goodyear Lake has a surface area of approximately 148 ha (365 ac) and a total shoreline length of 16.43 km (10.21 mi) (Table 1). Shallow slopes exist at the north (i.e. Stump lot) and south (i.e. Silliman Cove) ends, while steep slopes prevail on the east and west sides (Figure 2).

Table 1. Morphological characteristics of Goodyear Lake

Maximum length 3.20 km 1.99 mi Maximum effective length 1.55 km 0.96 mi Maximum width 1.82 km 1.13 mi Maximum effective width 0.72 km 0.45 mi Mean width 0.46 km 0.29 mi Maximum depth 12.00 m 39.36 ft Mean depth 4.01 m 13.16 ft Surface area 147.70 ha 364.80 ac Volume 5.93 x 106 m3 1.57 x 109 gal Total shoreline 16.43 km 10.21 mi Shoreline development* 3.81 - *When shoreline development is closer to 1, a lake is more circular. Subcircular and elliptical lakes have a value close to 2 and the shoreline development value of lakes of flooded river valleys is higher.

Stump lot

Silliman Cove Figure 2. Bathymetric map of Goodyear Lake (modified from Thornton 1979)

The north end or upper limit of the lake is considered to be the County Route 35A bridge in Portlandville. However, the dam impounds the river a total of 11.26 km (7 mi) upstream of the bridge; approximately to the mouth of the Cherry Valley Creek in the Village of Milford. An additional 61 ha (150 ac) of lake water is ponded within this reach (Sanford 1981). Eight tributaries (excluding the Susquehanna River), ranging in length from 0.3 to 11.7 km (0.2 to 7.3 mi) drain directly to it. Downstream from Portlandville the largest tributary, Spring Brook, empties into the lake from the north (McBride 2008). The contributing watershed is 91,167 ha (225,203 ac or 352 sq miles) (USGS 2012) (Figure 3), giving it a surface area to watershed ratio of 1:617. At the downstream end, water level is controlled by the dam. Then water flows from the lake via its outlet, the Susquehanna River, downstream.

Figure 3. Map of entire Goodyear Lake watershed and focus sub-watersheds (Waterfield 2016)

Goodyear Lake is categorized by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as a Class B lake and as such is primarily used for contact recreational activities (e.g. swimming, fishing and boating). It is not used as a drinking water source and has somewhat less stringent water-quality standards than Class A lakes (NYSFOLA 2009). Goodyear Lake was listed on the NYSDEC 2014 Impaired Waterbodies List for mercury pollution from atmospheric deposition, along with many other segments of the Susquehanna River in New York State. A 2014 study indicated that of 28 fished sampled in the lake 100% of them had mercury concentrations above the United State Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) criterion level of 0.3 µl/l (microliters per liter) and 14% of those were above the United States Food and Drug Administration’s (USFDA) action level of 1 µl/l (Snyder et al. 2016). Anthropogenic and natural sources have greatly impacted Goodyear Lake over the years, but the specific sources of mercury are not well understood. NYSDEC is required by the federal government to provide regular assessments of the quality of water resources in the state. The Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List (WI/PWI) is the database where this information is maintained. Previous studies referenced on the WI/PWI (NYSDEC 2001) and “The Report on Goodyear Lake” in the USEPA’s 154th Working Paper (1974) indicate that Goodyear Lake is a eutrophic, or highly productive, lake. This means that in its natural state dense seasonal algal blooms have always occurred. Excessive growth of rooted aquatic vegetation and very low deep water dissolved oxygen concentrations are typical during the summer months. Other water quality problems indicated on the WI/PWI include nutrients, silt/sedimentation and possibly pathogens. Goodyear Lake is an important natural resource and this report will summarize its current state providing a basic understanding of the lake’s ecology and surrounding watershed. Then, based on that information, short and long-term management goals will be presented with specific actions to achieve the desired outcomes expressed by members of the lake community.

Goodyear Lake Watershed An important component of watershed management is watershed characterization. It allows resource managers to plan and prioritize where in the watershed the most effective use of limited financial and volunteer resources would be (Waterfield 2016). With the guidance of the Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), “focus” sub-watersheds were established for the purpose of the management plan (Figure 3). Limiting considerations of the entire watershed, in this case omitting the Canadarago and Otsego Lake watersheds with management plans already in place, allows efforts to focus on areas that would benefit the most from management activities.

Geology Geology of a watershed is an important piece of information to have when evaluating which management strategies to implement. It determines the stability of landscape features, mineral availability and influences the chemical composition of water, among other factors. Knowledge of the nature and origin of surface deposits makes it possible to understand and predict how water will interact with the landscape. According to The Geology of New York (Isachsen et al. 1991), the Goodyear Lake watershed lies along the Northern boundary of the Allegheny Plateau. The underlying geology of the region is comprised of sedimentary rock formations of Devonion origin that have been altered by glacial action during the Pliestocene glaciation, roughly 14,000 years ago. Bedrock in the northern portions of the Canadarago Lake and Otsego Lake subbasins include limestone formations and exposed shale bedrock (Figure 4). Moving southward through the watershed, shale and sandstone bedrock predominate. Surface deposits are primarily glacial in nature, with much of the valley bottoms associated with former glacial lake bottoms; these deposits are generally flat and the silt and clay materials are particularly prone to erosion (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Bedrock geology of the Goodyear Lake watershed (Waterfield 2016).

Figure 5. Surficial geology of the Goodyear Lake watershed.

Soils The focus watershed is comprised of 12,213 total acres of streamside soils that are considered to be moderately to highly susceptible to erosion (Figure 6). The Cherry Valley Creek subbasin has the greatest area of streamside land within the focus watershed that is the most vulnerable (Figure 7). In terms of the entire Goodyear Lake watershed, erodible soil within the Otsego Lake subbasin occurs at the northern end of the lake and would settle out before being transported downstream.

Figure 6. Susceptibility of streamside soils to water erosion within the Goodyear Lake watershed (“erosion factor K” indicates the erodibility of the soil, including rock fragments).

16000

Slight Susceptibility 14000 Moderate to High Susceptibility 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000

Areaof Streamside Soils (acres) 0 Red Creek Cherry Valley Lower Oaks Main Stem Canadarago Otsego Lake Creek Creek River Lake Watershed SubBasin

Figure 7. Land area (acres) of soils of slight (light grey) and moderate/high (dark grey) susceptibility to erosion by water (“slight susceptibility” = soils with Kws 0.01-0.24; “moderate to high susceptibility” = soils with Kws 0.28-0.64).

Land use Throughout the entire Goodyear Lake watershed and in the focus drainage basins, the landscape consists mainly of forests and farmland (Table 2) (Figure 8). Approximately 45 percent of the land is forested and 31 percent is used for agricultural purposes in the total watershed. Forests and agriculture account for 56 and 24 percent of the land cover in the focus watersheds.

Table 2. Watershed land use and cover (in percent of land area) for the entire Goodyear Lake watershed and focus watersheds.

Watershed Total Focus Watersheds Forest 45.6 56.2 Agriculture: Crops and Pasture 31.0 24.0 Woody Wetlands 8.7 9.1 Developed Open Space 4.0 3.8 Shrub/Scrub/Open Meadows 3.7 2.7 Emergent Wetlands 2.3 2.4 Open Water 3.7 1.0 Developed, All Intensities 1.0 0.8

Figure 8. Land use and cover within the Goodyear Lake watershed.

Climate (BestPlaces 2016) Milford, New York typically receives 104 centimeters (cm) (41 in) of rain and 198 cm (78 in) of snowfall per year. These precipitation totals are slightly higher than the United States average 93 cm (37 in) for annual rainfall and 64 cm (25 in) for snowfall. The total number of days with any recordable precipitation is 156. There are regularly 161 sunny days per year in Milford. During the month of July, the high temperature is around 27 degrees Celsius (°C) (80 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)). In January the low temperature is about -11°C (12°F). Milford scores 56 out of 100 on the comfort index, which is based on humidity during the summer months. The higher the score on the index the more comfortable. The United States average score on the comfort index is 44.

Socioeconomic characteristics (Town of Milford 2012) While the Goodyear Lake Watershed is inhabited by many thousands of residents, including several towns, hamlets and villages, the Town of Milford will be the focus of this section given the probability they will be the population directly involved with lake management. According to the 2010 census, there were 3,044 people, 1,290 households, and 820 families residing in the Town of Milford, New York. The approximate population density is 24.6 people per square kilometer (63.7 people per square mile). The median age is 46.3 years. Of the 2,676 residents 16 years of age and over, 65.1% are in the labor force (Table 3), with 61.4% employed and 3.7% unemployed. The median household income is $44,806.00 (Table 4) and 52% of the residents 25 years of age and over have had at least some college experience or attained degrees (Table 5).

Table 3. Town of Milford, NY employed occupation type (in percent).

Management, business, science, and arts 35.4 Service 26.6 Sales and office 16.3 Natural resources, construction and maintenance 11.2 Production, transportation, material moving 10.5

Table 4. Median household income (in U.S. dollars).

Town of Milford 44,806.00 New York State 55,603.00 United States 51,914.00

Table 5. Town of Milford, NY residents 25 years and over educational attainment (in percent).

Graduate or professional degree 4.3 Bachelor’s degree 15.5 Associate’s degree 12.7 Some college, no degree 19.5 High school graduate 36.4 Ninth to twelfth grade, no diploma 9.5 Less than ninth grade 2.0

Residential and commercial runoff (Town of Milford 2012) Presently, there is no public sewer system in place in the Village and Town of Milford; property owners maintain private septic systems. According to the Otsego County Property Tax Map, there were approximately 247 residences surrounding Goodyear Lake in 2015, making residential runoff a concern. Other examples of these type of inputs in the watershed include the Village of Cooperstown wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge and stormwater and the Village of Cherry Valley onsite systems leachate and stormwater.

Tributary monitoring The intent of monitoring was to look at nutrient and sediment levels in Goodyear Lake tributaries during a storm event. Within the focus sub-watershed, the Cherry Valley Creek, Lower Oaks Creek, Red Creek and Main Stem Susquehanna River sub-basins (Figure 9) were selected because they are within the entire Goodyear Lake watershed, but not a part of the Canadarago Lake or Otsego Lake watersheds. The focus sub-watershed is 209 square miles (Table 6).

Figure 9. Goodyear Lake watershed subbasins (red shading indicates a high priority for management activities, followed by orange, light orange and yellow is the lowest priority) (Waterfield 2016)

Table 6. Land area (in acres and square miles) of the entire Goodyear Lake watershed and subbasins.

acres sq miles Watershed total 225,203 352 Cherry Valley Creek 58,693 91.7 Lower Oaks Creek 23,962 37.4 Red Creek 8,192 12.8 Main Stem 42,880 67.0 Canadarago Lake 41,776 65.3 Otsego Lake 49,702 77.6

The river is the main source of water to the lake. There are three major tributaries, Red Creek, Oaks Creek and Cherry Valley Creek, that contribute water to the river between the outlet of Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, NY (the headwaters of the Susquehanna River) and the inlet of Goodyear. The three tributaries were monitored in the spring of 2013 and the river in the fall of 2014. All monitoring took place over a three-day period during a rain event using a SIGMA automated composite sampler (Table 7 and Figure 10). Samples were analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS) (gravimetric method (APHA 1989)), total phosphorus (molybdenum blue ascorbic acid method following persulfate digestion (Liao 2001)), total nitrogen (cadmium reduction method following persulfate digestion (Pritzlaff 2003, Ebina1983 et al.)) and nitrite + nitrate (cadmium reduction method (Pritzlaff 2003)).

Table 7. Sites employed during 2013-2014 tributary, outlet and inlet sample collections

Sample Site Description Coordinates Abbreviation Susquehanna Bassett Hospital lower parking lot off Mill N42°41’35”, S.R. (Otsego) River Street in Cooperstown W74°55’18”

Just south of the bridge at the intersection of N42°41’10”, Red Creek R.C. County Hwys. 52 and 33 in Cooperstown W74°55’06”

NYSDEC fishing access on Greenough N42°40’11”, Oaks Creek O.C. Road off County Hwy. 11 in Index W74°57’49” Bridge on County Route 35 near intersection Cherry N42°35’35”, of County Hwy. 35 and State Hwy. 166 in C.V.C. Valley Creek W74 55’39” Milford ° Riverside Village and RV Park off of State N42°32’13”, Susquehanna Route 28 in Portlandville just north of the W74 57’37” S.R. (Goodyear) River ° bridge

S.R. (Otsego) R.C. O.C.

C.V.C.

S.R. (Goodyear)

Figure 10. Sites on major tributaries and stream network of the entire Goodyear Lake watershed used in watershed monitoring during 2013 and 2014 (modified from Waterfield 2016).

Storm Event A logarithmic scale for total suspended solids was required because of the large range in concentrations (Figure 11). The figure provides an indication of where sediment loading may be originating in the watershed. Water with a TSS concentration less than 20 mg/l is perceived to be clear, if the level is between 40 and 80 mg/l it appears cloudy and anything over 150 mg/l usually looks dirty (Klessig et al. 2004).

10000

1000

100

10 totalsuspended solids (mg/l) 1 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 day 1 day 2 time

O.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 R.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 C.V.C. 5/25/13-5/26/13

10000

1000

100

10 totalsuspended solids (mg/l) 1 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 day 1 day 2 time S.R. (Otsego) 10/17/14-10/18/14 S.R. (Goodyear) 10/17/14-10/19/14

Figure 11. Total suspended solids concentrations at the 2013-2014 tributary monitoring sites.

Total phosphorus (Figure 12) results also required a logarithmic scale because of the variation. Phosphorus is a major nutrient that contributes to the growth of algae and other aquatic plants. Levels greater than 20 micrograms per liter (µg/l) may cause a body of water to become eutrophic or highly productive (NYSFOLA 2009).

10000

1000

100

10 totalphosphorus (ug/l)

1 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 day 1 day 2

time

O.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 R.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 C.V.C. 5/25/13-5/26/13

10000

1000

100

10 totalphosphorus (ug/l)

1 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 day 1 day 2 time

S.R. (Otsego) 10/17/14-10/18/14 S.R. (Goodyear) 10/17/14-10/19/14

Figure 12. Total phosphorus concentrations at the 2013-2014 tributary monitoring sites

Total nitrogen (Figure 13) is another major plant nutrient and elevated levels can contribute to eutrophic situations as well. Nitrate and nitrite (Figure 14) are portions of the total nitrogen aggregate and a 10 milligram per liter (mg/l) drinking water standard exists for nitrate due to potential for public health risk at concentrations above this limit (NYSFOLA 2009).

1.60 1.40

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40

totalnitrogen (mg/l) 0.20 0.00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 day 1 day 2

time

O.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 R.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 C.V.C. 5/25/13-5/26/13

1.60 1.40

1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60

0.40 totalnitrogen (mg/l) 0.20 0.00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 day 1 day 2 time

S.R. (Otsego) 10/17/14-10/18/14 S.R. (Goodyear) 10/17/14-10/19/14

Figure 13. Total nitrogen concentrations at the 2013-2014 tributary monitoring sites

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40 nitratenitrite + (mg/l) 0.20

0.00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 day 1 day 2 time

O.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 R.C. 5/25/13-5/27/13 C.V.C. 5/25/13-5/26/13

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40 nitratenitrite + (mg/l) 0.20

0.00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 day 1 day 2

time

S.R. (Otsego) 10/17/14-10/18/14 S.R. (Goodyear) 10/17/14-10/19/14

Figure 14. Nitrate + nitrite concentrations at the 2013-2014 tributary monitoring sites

Lake monitoring Bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria are a group of indicator organisms, naturally found in mammal and bird intestines, used to evaluate water quality (APHA 1989). This group of bacteria, as a whole, is not necessarily harmful to humans, but high levels may indicate the presence of virulent strains (e.g. E. coli 0157:H7), and may also indicate elevated phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations from inadequate wastewater treatment. The action level for restrictions on contact recreation in a Class B lake for fecal coliform is 200 colonies/100 ml (NYSDEC 2016). Fecal coliform bacteria were evaluated on a weekend during the peak of the summer season adjacent to the shoreline. Two control samples (“K” and “L”) were collected from the middle of the lake (Figure 15). The membrane filter technique (APHA 1989) was used to determine fecal coliform abundance. Fecal coliform were determined to be the most abundant at sample site "G" (Figure 16) with 35 colonies per 100 ml of sample present. Elevated levels of bacteria have been linked to high levels of suspended sediment (Kaplan and Bott 1989), this may be the reason site “G” yielded the greatest bacteria count. Sites “I” and “E” also displayed increased fecal coliform counts; developed areas in close proximity to the water could be the source of these higher levels. Little is known about the current condition of lakeside wastewater treatment (“septic”) systems around Goodyear. However, a 2005 inspection and monitoring program around nearby Otsego Lake revealed that half of the lakeside septic systems required upgrades due to antiquated/undersized designs, poor maintenance or proximity to restrictive soil and geologic features (McIntyre 2009). Presently, there is no inspection or monitoring program in place at Goodyear Lake to evaluate system performance.

GG N42°31’09”, W74°58’54”

N42°31’08”, W74°59’06” H H FF N42°30’56”, W74°59’01”

EE N42°30’38”, W74°59’06”

N42°30’51”, W74°59’24” I I DD N42°30’34”, W74°59’01”

N42°30’45”, W74°59’21” KK CC N42°30’31”, W74°58’51” BB N42°30’28”, W74°58’40”

N42 30’25”, W74 58’53” ° ° LL AA N42°30’22”, W74°58’31”

J N42°30’12”, W74°58’28”

Figure 15. Sites employed during 19 July 2014 Goodyear Lake fecal coliform sample collection

200 NYS threshold = 200 colonies/100 ml

150

100

0 fecal coliform (colonies/100 ml) (colonies/100 coliform fecal A B C D E F G H I J K L Goodyear Lake sample sites

Figure 16. Fecal coliform concentrations at the 19 July 2014 monitoring sites

Physical limnology Physical water quality data were collected from the fall of 2012 through the winter of 2014 from three locations on Goodyear Lake (Figure 17). Sampling occurred mainly during the warm months (e.g. May-October) and only near Collier’s Dam when conditions were safe. Temperature, conductivity, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured from the surface to the bottom of each monitoring site at one meter intervals using a Hydrolab® Scout 2 multiprobe digital microprocessor calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Water transparency at Silliman Cove, the deepest point in the lake basin, and Collier’s Dam monitoring sites was measured using a Secchi disk.

Deepest Point

Collier’s Dam Silliman Cove

Figure 17. Bathymetric map of Goodyear Lake showing monitoring sites.

Temperature Goodyear Lake is dimictic. It stratifies (develops thermal layers) during the summer and winter months and mixes in the spring and fall. Fall mixing occurred at all three sampling locations towards the end of October and beginning of November with similar temperatures (Tables 8-10) throughout the water column. Winter stratification was evident in February and March. Spring mixing likely occurred during April. Summer stratification was apparent by late May with bottom temperatures at the deepest point, in July through September, ranging from 10.4°C to 13.6°C. The epilimnion (top thermal layer of water) depth during those months was 7 m.

Table 8. Temperature profiles of Goodyear Lake at Silliman Cove in °C. Darker shading indicates warmer temperatures. Ice cover was present during February 2013 and February and March 2014 sampling.

17 27 29 31 14 6 20 10 1 29 25 10 8 8 depth Oct Feb Apr May Jun Jul Jul Aug Sep Sep Oct Nov Feb Mar (m) 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 0 13.19 0.33 11.90 23.77 19.69 28.10 28.42 23.66 23.73 17.74 11.80 7.31 -0.24 - 1 12.18 0.55 11.61 18.19 18.01 25.20 28.40 23.12 23.22 16.21 11.52 7.25 0.40 - 2 12.11 1.41 10.53 16.54 16.99 23.45 27.44 22.02 22.30 16.01 11.81 7.23 0.13 - 3 12.36 3.23 8.77 11.53 16.29 21.63 25.51 21.24 21.46 15.92 11.81 7.13 2.14 - 4 12.44 3.47 6.60 10.72 15.75 18.63 21.23 20.88 19.78 15.72 11.74 7.10 3.32 - 5 - - 5.91 - 13.55 14.11 ------

Table 9. Temperature profiles of Goodyear Lake at the Deepest Point in °C. Darker shading indicates warmer temperatures. Ice cover was present during February 2013 and February and March 2014 sampling.

17 27 29 31 14 6 20 10 1 29 25 10 8 8 depth Oct Feb Apr May Jun Jul Jul Aug Sep Sep Oct Nov Feb Mar (m) 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 0 12.87 - 11.54 23.75 17.74 25.36 27.76 22.42 23.62 16.93 11.80 6.86 -0.37 0.44 1 12.27 - 11.54 17.57 17.56 24.99 27.75 22.41 23.08 15.93 11.81 6.86 -0.25 0.81 2 12.12 - 10.94 16.99 16.99 24.80 27.73 22.39 22.81 15.57 11.80 6.86 -0.11 0.81 3 12.04 1.08 10.62 16.57 16.30 24.12 27.65 22.13 21.68 15.36 11.81 6.84 -0.13 0.80 4 12.00 1.31 10.46 16.20 14.70 23.30 26.30 22.05 20.58 15.23 11.81 6.61 -0.13 0.79 5 11.98 1.58 9.99 15.92 14.59 22.49 23.80 21.59 19.00 15.17 11.80 6.58 -0.09 0.81 6 11.97 1.85 9.31 12.42 14.36 22.44 22.63 20.55 17.98 15.13 11.79 6.57 0.22 1.01 7 11.97 2.00 8.97 9.86 14.29 21.81 20.43 19.44 16.64 14.95 11.76 6.57 1.70 2.48 8 11.95 2.84 7.73 8.62 13.97 13.39 12.79 15.56 13.56 14.58 11.37 - 2.23 3.34 9 11.95 2.97 6.93 - 11.77 10.39 9.65 10.96 - 12.90 - - 2.34 -

Table 10. Temperature profiles of Goodyear Lake at Collier’s Dam in °C. Darker shading indicates warmer temperatures. Ice cover was present during February 2013 and February and March 2014 sampling.

17 27 29 31 14 6 20 10 1 29 25 10 8 8 depth Oct Feb Apr May Jun Jul Jul Aug Sep Sep Oct Nov Feb Mar (m) 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014

0 13.83 - - 22.00 15.15 24.50 27.74 22.17 24.06 16.33 11.65 6.75 - - 1 12.07 - - 18.31 15.09 24.19 27.72 22.03 23.30 15.94 11.65 6.72 - - 2 11.94 - - 17.83 15.07 23.89 27.67 21.96 22.93 15.73 11.65 6.70 - - 3 11.83 - - 17.75 15.05 23.09 26.72 21.39 21.54 15.62 11.64 6.69 - - 4 11.76 - - 17.55 15.06 22.89 26.00 20.60 20.20 15.20 11.64 6.69 - - 5 11.75 - - 17.36 15.09 22.74 24.20 20.52 18.65 15.07 11.63 6.69 - - 6 11.62 - - 15.02 14.98 22.56 22.76 20.43 17.93 14.83 11.45 6.70 - - 7 11.57 - - 13.46 14.96 - 21.65 20.30 - 14.72 11.13 - - - 8 - - - - 14.95 - - 20.05 - 14.71 - - - - 9 - - - - 15.04 ------

Transparency The visible clarity of water is related to the turbidity of that water body. Lakes with low total suspended solids concentrations are clearer and less turbid than those with higher concentrations. Decreased transparency can be caused by large amounts of algae or increased sediment loading; it affects how far down the water column light can penetrate. This in turn impacts rates of photosynthesis and the distribution of organisms within the water column (Larson 1972). Transparency is measured using a black and white disk on a marked rope called a Secchi disk. The disk is lowered over the side of the boat until it is no longer visible and then raised until it can be seen again; the average of the two depths is recorded. According to New York State, a Secchi disk measurement of less than two meters can be one indicator of a eutrophic body of water. Seasonal trends in water clarity were observed at each sampling site (Figures 18- 20). During the spring, when winter runoff and rain events were frequent, the water transparency was very low. In the late summer, when the weather was calmer and the lake was stratified, transparency increased. Overall the site with the clearest water during this monitoring timeframe was Silliman Cove. It is an isolated portion of the lake that is not as susceptible to the

conditions prevailing in the Susquehanna River as is the main body of the lake.

7/6/13

9/1/13

4/29/13

6/14/13

2/27/13

9/29/13

10/17/12

5/31/13

7/20/13

8/10/13 2/8/14 10/25/13 0.0 11/10/13

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Depth (m) Depth 3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Figure 18. Secchi transparency in Goodyear Lake, Silliman Cove

9/1/13

2/27/13

5/31/13

4/29/13 7/6/13

7/20/13

9/29/13

6/14/13

10/17/12

8/10/13 2/8/14 10/25/13 0.0 11/10/13 0.5 1.0

1.5

2.0 2.5

Depth (m) Depth 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Figure 19. Secchi transparency in Goodyear Lake, Deepest Point

7/6/13

5/31/13 6/14/13

9/1/13 9/29/13

7/20/13

10/17/12

8/10/13 10/25/13 0.0 11/10/13 0.5 1.0

1.5

2.0 2.5

Depth (m) Depth 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Figure 20. Secchi transparency in Goodyear Lake, Collier’s Dam

Dissolved oxygen Subsequent to the onset of summer stratification in dimictic lakes with moderately high productivity, water in the hypolimnion (deepest thermal layer of water) begins to lose dissolved oxygen due to organic decomposition. During periods of stratification the hypolimnion is physically separated from the atmosphere, thus atmospheric oxygen cannot diffuse to this layer of the water column. Hypolimnetic waters at the deepest point in Goodyear Lake became anoxic (concentrations <1 mg/l) by the beginning of July (Figure 21) and the bottom 3 m of water were completely without dissolved oxygen by 1 September 2013. The same trend was observed in Silliman Cove (Figure 22) and at the face of Collier’s Dam (Figure 23). A minimum of 3 mg/l of dissolved oxygen is required to support fish life; the growth rates of most fish species are slowed without it (Meding and Jackson 2003).

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0 1 2

4 5

6 Depth (m) Depth 7 8 9 10 10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/2013 2/8/2014 3/8/2014 Figure 21. Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Deepest Point, Goodyear Lake

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0

3 Depth (m) Depth

5 10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/2013 2/8/2014

Figure 22. Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Silliman Cove, Goodyear Lake

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0 1 2

3 4 5 Depth (m) Depth 6 7 8 9 10/17/2012 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/2013 Figure 23. Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Collier’s Dam, Goodyear Lake

Chemical limnology Alkalinity, pH, specific conductance and major ions Geologic formations surrounding a lake strongly influence the water’s baseline pH and specific conductance. pH is a measure of the degree to which a water body is acidic or alkaline. Conductivity indicates the total amount of dissolved ions in the water and can be used to identify spikes in concentrations. A spike in specific conductance may be observed in the spring when salt-based compounds from accumulated road salts enter streams during spring runoff. Conductivity and pH measurements collected from 2012 through 2014 imply that water in Goodyear Lake is well buffered and high in dissolved ions (Table 11). No extreme low values or spikes, indicating an isolated pollution event, were documented during this sampling period.

Table 11. Mean and extreme values measured for specific conductance and pH from fall 2012 through winter 2014 in Goodyear Lake at all monitoring sites (n=sample size)

pH Specific Conductance (umho/cm) Sample site min mean max n min mean max n Silliman Cove 6.98 7.78 8.23 63 191 253 303 68 Deepest Point 7.21 7.67 8.34 121 170 262 308 131 Collier’s Dam 7.09 7.78 8.30 82 145 252 313 82

Grab surface samples were collected October 2012, September-November 2013, and February 2014 from the deepest point sampling location for major ion analysis. Similar to the pH and specific conductance data, measurements for relevant water quality parameters such as alkalinity, calcium, chloride and total hardness indicate relatively hard, alkaline water in Goodyear Lake (Table 12). These conditions are particularly beneficial as a buffer against any impacts from acid precipitation, but also may favor growth and survival of invasive species such as zebra mussels, quagga mussels, or spiny waterflea (Cohen and Weinstein 2001).

Table 12. Alkalinity and major ions mean and extreme values collected from Collier’s Dam monitoring site (n=sample size)

Parameter* min mean max n

Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO3) 106 110 115 5 Calcium (mg/l) 33.5 39.3 43.1 5 Chloride (mg/l) 13.6 15.7 18.1 5

Total Hardness (mg/l as CaCO3) 94.6 111.3 122.0 5 *Analysis performed by Phoenix Environmental Laboratories (NELAC NY #11301)

Nutrients Samples for chemical analysis of nutrients were collected in acid-washed plastic bottles from the surface to the bottom of the lake at each sampling location at approximately three meter intervals using a Van Dorn water sampler.

Phosphorus Phosphorus availability is looked upon as the most important water quality determinant in lakes. Even if efforts are made to reduce external phosphorus loading, some lakes may exhibit a delayed recovery response because of phosphorus that has accumulated in the sediment (Søndergaard et al. 2003) or continues to cycle within the lake system/food web. Increased phosphorus concentrations in the bottom waters can occur during the absence of oxygen when iron/phosphorus complexes are reduced and the phosphorus is released into the overlying water. Internal phosphorus loading or phosphorus being released from the sediment was most evident at the deepest point during the end of February and beginning of June 2013 (Figure 24). This circumstance was less apparent in Silliman Cove (Figure 25). External phosphorus loading from the river is also somewhat evident following a wet weather event in late May 2013, when phosphorus concentrations at the Collier’s Dam monitoring location were consistently high throughout the water column due to the increased flows and runoff from the watershed (Figure 26).

Total phosphorus (µg/l) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 1

3 4 5

6 Depth (meters) Depth 7 8 9 10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/2013 2/8/2014 Figure 24. Phosphorus profile of Deepest Point, Goodyear Lake

Total Phosphorus (µg/l) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0

2 Depth (meters) Depth 3

4 10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/2013 2/8/2014

Figure 25. Phosphorus profile of Silliman Cove, Goodyear Lake

Total phosphorus (µg/l) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0

Depth (meters) Depth 5

7 10/17/2012 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/2013 Figure 26. Phosphorus profile of Collier’s Dam, Goodyear Lake

Nitrogen Total nitrogen and nitrate+nitrite profiles were taken at each monitoring site on Goodyear Lake from fall 2012 through winter 2014. Concentrations were mostly consistent throughout the water column as indicated by the mean and extreme values (Table 13).

Table 13. Total nitrogen and nitrate+nitrite mean and extreme values collected from all monitoring sites (n=sample size).

Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/l) Sample site min mean max n min mean max n Silliman Cove 0.30 0.47 0.64 26 0.05 0.22 0.49 26 Deepest Point 0.13 0.50 0.82 52 0.02 0.24 0.49 52 Collier’s Dam 0.12 0.48 0.73 32 0.07 0.21 0.34 32

Nitrate is the most bioavailable form of nitrogen for algal uptake (NYSFOLA 2009). Nitrate+nitrite surface concentrations peaked just prior to spring turnover and then began to steadily decline at the commencement of summer stratification and throughout the rest of the growing season (Figure 27).

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70

0.60

0.50 (mg/l) 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

total nitrogen nitrate+nitrite

Figure 27. Surface water total nitrogen and nitrate+nitrite concentrations, Deepest Point, Goodyear Lake

Ammonia Ammonia has been reported to be toxic to freshwater organisms such as fish (Oram 2014). The level at which ammonia is toxic to fish is dependent upon the species. For example, rainbow trout fry can only tolerate up to 0.2 mg/l of ammonia while hybrid striped bass may endure 1.2 mg/l. Samples were analyzed for ammonia less frequently in Goodyear Lake than phosphorus and nitrogen and averaged 0.06 mg/l or was below the detectable limit at all three monitoring locations during most of this study. However, during sampling on 1 September 2013 and 29 September 2013 hypolimnetic ammonia concentrations spiked to 0.52 mg/l and 0.56 mg/l respectively due to anoxic conditions in the bottom waters at that time.

Historical nutrient data During the summer of 1999 Goodyear Lake physical and chemical water quality data were collected by L. P. Sohacki (personal communication 2013) with the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station. Surface water data was collected at 10 different sampling locations (Figure 28) on three separate dates and vertical profiles of the water column were completed at

40 two sites used in the present study: Station 10 (deepest point) and Station 9 (Collier’s Dam) (Appendix A). Phosphorus concentrations in the hypolimnion were higher than reported during summer 2013 and dissolved oxygen depletion was apparent over the bottom 4-5 meters of water. Secchi disk readings were similar to those recorded during summer 2013. Variables that may account for improvements in some of the water quality parameters are zebra mussels, as they were not established in Goodyear Lake in 1999, and decreases in phosphorus export from upstream lakes and wastewater treatment facilities. According to SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station annual water quality monitoring of the upper Susquehanna River, total phosphorus concentrations were approximately 120 µg/l in 1999 (Dietz 1999) and 40 µg/l in 2013 (Bianchine 2013) at the sampling location where Oaks Creek enters the main stem of the river.

Figure 28. Bathymetric map of Goodyear Lake showing Sohacki’s 1999 monitoring sites

Descriptive ecology Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a Phytoplankton are microscopic algae that float freely in open water. They are primary producers, and through photosynthesis phytoplanktonic algae supply most of the food and oxygen in a lake. The type and abundance of algae present in an aquatic system can be indicative of a lake’s trophic status and nutrient availability/balance. Clear lakes with low algal concentrations are generally populated with diatoms. When diatoms are out competed they are typically replaced by green algae, the most common form. Green algae prosper in waterbodies with elevated nitrogen levels (sources may include: spring runoff and agricultural field fertilizer runoff). In productive lakes with low nitrogen:phosphorus concentration ratios, green algae can be replaced by blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) in late summer and early fall (NYSFOLA 2009). Problems associated with excess algae in lakes include odor, taste, unsightliness and hypolimnetic oxygen decline due to decomposition of dead algal cells. Increased levels of cyanobacteria also are related to biotoxins (e.g. microcystins) that can lead to harmful algal blooms (HABs) and are detrimental to humans and animals if exposed. A Goodyear Lake composite sample from 0-3 meters depth was collected at the deepest point on 22 August 2013 for phytoplankton identification. The sample was allowed to settle and 1 ml of the settled portion was placed on a Sedgwick-Rafter cell and examined using a compound microscope with digital imaging capabilities. A number of diatoms, dinoflagellates, and green algae ranging in size from 40-170 µm were identified during this study (Figure 29). Cyanobacteria were not present in the sample analyzed.

a. b. c. d.

e. f.

Figure 29. Phytoplankton survey, Deepest Point, Goodyear Lake, surface water, 22 August 2013 a. Asterionella spp. (diatom), b. Ceratium spp. (dinoflagellate), c. Dinobryon spp. (golden-brown algae), d. Fragilaria spp. (diatom), e. Volvox spp. (green algae), f. Staurastrum spp. (green algae).

The quantity of algae in the water column is most commonly estimated by the amount of chlorophyll a present. The average summer chlorophyll a concentration, in combination with other factors, can also be used to characterize the trophic status of a lake. Peak summer concentrations may range from 1.5 to 10.5 µg/l in oligotrophic lakes and from 20 to over 200 µg/l in eutrophic lakes (Holdren et al. 2001). Chlorophyll a samples were collected from the Collier’s Dam monitoring site in Goodyear Lake during seven sampling dates from October 2012 through February 2014. Samples from various depths were obtained using the Van Dorn water sampler and analyzed for chlorophyll a concentration using the Turner Designs® fluorometric method (Welschmeyer

1994). Chlorophyll a concentrations (Table 14) were the highest in late summer and early fall at or near the surface of the lake at the end of the growing season, just as one might predict based on seasonal changes.

Table 14. Chlorophyll a profile of Collier’s Dam site in Goodyear Lake in µg/l. Darker shading indicates higher concentrations.

17 Oct 31 May 14 Jun 10 Aug 29 Sep 10 Nov 8 Feb Depth (m) 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 0 9.45 3.58 1.09 8.03 - - 3.29 3 - - - - 9.63 1.58 2.38 6 - - - - 3.68 1.09 -

Aquatic macrophytes (plants) The majority of rooted aquatic plants receive their nutrients from lake sediment, and not from bio-available nutrients in the water column. These plants are generally restricted to the littoral zone, or shallow area where enough light is available for photosynthesis. Aquatic macrophytes play an important role in a lake’s ecosystem by protecting the shoreline from erosion, providing habitat for fish, waterfowl and insects, and some with flowers or interesting forms can be aesthetically pleasing (Holdren et al. 2001). Aquatic macrophytes typically fall into three different categories based on their morphology: floating plants (i.e. duckweed), submerged plants (i.e. coontail) and emergent plants (i.e. cattail), and Goodyear Lake supports habitats optimal for all types. In September and October 2012 a plant survey of Goodyear Lake was conducted by a SUNY Oneonta Biology Department graduate student (Mazeres 2012). A garden rake on the end of a cord was tossed six times per site (every throw was oriented in a random direction), at 13 sites (Figure 30) to determine plant abundance. The plants retrieved were identified by species and their dry weight in grams was determined so that biomass could be estimated at each site (Figure 31). It should be noted that these samples are not necessarily representative of all lake wide communities.

8 9

3 1

10 13 11 12

Figure 30. Bathymetric map of Goodyear Lake showing Sep and Oct 2012 plant survey sites

300

250

200

150 Grams 100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Site E. canadensis C. demersum M. spicatum P. crispus H. dubia N. odorata P. pusillus

Figure 31. Summary of estimated biomass (in grams) for each species of aquatic macrophyte collected using a rake toss method for all sites during September and October 2012 (modified from Mazeres 2012)

Eight species were found during the 2012 survey (Figure 32. a.-h.), and one emergent (Sagittaria spp.) was observed but was not collected. Two of the plants collected during the survey were non-native species (Myriophyllum spicatum and Potamogeton crispus). Ceratophyllum demersum was the most abundant species overall, occurring at 10 out of 13 sample sites. By comparison, M. spicatum, the second most abundant species, total biomass collected was 46% less than C. demersum.

47 a. b. c.

d. e. f.

g. h. i.

Figure 32. Aquatic macrophyte survey, Goodyear Lake, sites 1-13, September and October 2012 a. Elodea canadensis (Elodea), b. Ceratophyllum demersum (Coontail), c. Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian Watermilfoil), d. Potamogeton crispus (Curly-Leafed Pondweed), e. Heteranthera dubia (Waterstargrass), f. Nymphaea odorata (White Water Lily), g. Potamogeton pusillus (Small Pondweed), h. Sagittaria spp. (Arrowhead) (observed), i. Trapa natans (Water Chestnut) (not collected) (Photos courtesy of: Texas A&M Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science (a, b, d-h) and Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel (c, i)).

Trapa natans (water chestnut) was not collected in this study (Figure 32. i.). In 2006 it was noted that a population of T. natans was present in Goodyear Lake (Eyres 2009). The plant became established, and has required an extensive ongoing volunteer hand harvesting effort by the Otsego County Conservation Association (OCCA) and GYLA. If left unchecked this non- native invasive species has the ability to form dense mats that cover the surface in shallow areas.

Zooplankton Zooplankton are the primary consumers in a lake ecosystem. Simplistically, they consume the phytoplankton or algae present and planktivorous fish consume them. Zooplankton biomass is directly affected by chemical and physical water conditions, the quantity and quality of food resources, and the level of predation. Large zooplankton, such as Daphnia, can ‘clear’ a lake of phytoplankton during certain times of year (NYSFOLA 2009). A zooplankton sample was collected from Goodyear Lake on 22 August 2013 using a 20 centimeter (cm) diameter plankton net with a 63 micrometer (µm) mesh on a weighted cup (Figure 33). The net was lowered to a depth of 8 m (the approximate depth of the thermocline) at the deepest point and retrieved. The sample was allowed to settle and 1 ml of the settled portion was placed on a Sedgwick-Rafter cell and examined using a compound microscope with digital imaging capabilities for zooplankton identification. Zooplankton, ranging in size from 140 µm to 3 mm, were present in the sample.

a. b. c.

d. e. f.

Figure 33. Zooplankton survey, Goodyear Lake, Deepest Point 8 m, 22 August 2013 a. Asplanchna spp. (Rotifer), b. Keratella spp. (Rotifer), c. Nauplius (Copepod larva), d. Daphnia spp.(Cladoceran), e. Leptodora spp. (Cladoceran), f. Limnocalanus spp. (Copepod) (Photos courtesy of: University of New Hampshire Center for Freshwater Biology (d-f))

Macroinvertebrates By definition, benthic macroinvertebrates are organisms large enough to be seen with the naked eye that do not have a backbone. They live in and around the bottom (benthic zone) of lakes, rivers and streams. Macroinvertebrates require certain environmental conditions throughout different stages of their life, therefore assemblages at a given location can provide insight into long-term, predominating conditions there. For example, organisms that are most sensitive to pollution and habitat disturbance include stoneflies, mayflies and caddisflies. High abundance of those macroinvertebrates in an area is an indicator that water quality has been very good there for some time. Organisms of intermediate tolerance to pollution and habitat disturbance include dragonflies, damselflies, dobsonflies and blackflies. Organisms that can be tolerant of pollution and habitat disturbance, and whose sole presence might be indicative of historically poor water quality conditions include midges, snails and leeches (MDEP 2016). A benthic macroinvertebrate sample was collected from the south side of Silliman Cove in Goodyear Lake on 10 August 2013 using a 12 inch D-frame dip net with a 500 micron nylon mesh. Specimens were preserved and identified to the family level according to Peckarsky et al. (1995). Members of the damselfly and midge families were present in that sample (Figure 34), but more sensitive species of stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies were absent. These results are either indicative of some moderate degree of habitat disturbance in this isolated portion of the lake that is not as susceptible to the apparently more degraded conditions prevailing in the Susquehanna River, or typical of macroinvertebrates along the shore of a lake versus the riffle of a stream. Zebra mussels, an exotic nuisance macroinvertebrate, were also present in the Goodyear Lake benthic macroinvertebrate samples. Zebra mussels were first documented in the lake during the summer of 2004 (Armstrong 2005). It is most likely that the species was introduced through transport of veligers (larval zebra mussels) to Goodyear from Canadarago Lake via Oaks Creek and the Susquehanna River given their presence in those systems. Zebra mussels were first noted in Canadarago Lake in 2002, but probably began colonization in 2001 after being transported there by recreational boating (Horvath and Lord 2003). Adult zebra mussels (Figure 35) outcompete native bivalves and colonize rocky, hard and vegetative substrates in relatively shallow areas of lakes and rivers. They filter phytoplankton as a food source, which may help improve the water clarity in a lake, but selectively avoid blue- green algae (NYSFOLA 2009) leading to conditions that could potentially increase the chance of HABs. Zebra mussels are a nuisance to recreational swimmers and those who own infrastructure in and around the lake (e.g. docks, waterlines, hydropower intakes).

Figure 34. Macroinvertebrate survey, Goodyear Lake, Silliman Cove, 10 August 2013 a. Lestidae (spread-winged damselflies) larva and adult, b. Calopterygidae (broad-winged damselflies) larva and adult, c. Chironomidae (non-biting midges) larva and adult (Photos courtesy of: Iowa State University Department of Entomology (adults) and University of New Hampshire Center for Freshwater Biology (larva)).

Figure 35. Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussels) (Photo courtesy of: USGS).

Fish Individual fish species, and the life history traits specific to those species, require different habitats to fulfill important life functions including spawning, feeding, resting and avoiding predators. A biotope’s chemical, physical and biological attributes affect the population of each species, inasmuch as there exists an optimal and tolerance range for the habitat conditions for each species of fish. Temperature will determine which species a lake can support. Goodyear Lake is classified as warmwater fishery because it is relatively shallow and can maintain an optimal temperature of 25°C (77°F), although the lake also supports fisheries for cool water species such as walleye (Sander vitreus). A waterbody’s fertility determines the number of fish present. Because Goodyear Lake is eutrophic, it can sustain a greater biomass of fish than a lake of similar size with less available nutrients and energy (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus, and primary producers). An electrofishing survey was conducted on Goodyear Lake on 24 September 2013 by SUNY Oneonta BFS and SUNY Cobleskill Fisheries and Wildlife Department faculty and students, with the use of the SUNY Cobleskill Smith Root-18 electrofishing boat. The survey began at 7:30 pm and concluded at 12:00 am. Six different sites, from the stump lot to Silliman Cove, on both sides of the Lake, were electrofished for 10 minutes each. The boat current intensity was set to 12 amps at 340 volts with 50% power and all fish were collected at each site by two people netting on the bow. The fish collected were identified, their total length was measured in mm and they were released back into the lake. Predator fish identified in the survey included walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass and chain pickerel (Table 15, Figure 36). Prey fish identified included black crappie, bluegill, pumpkinseed, redbreast and yellow perch. Bluegill, a species of sunfish, were the most abundant. They are a forage (prey) fish and expected to be plentiful. Yellow perch were the next most abundant, followed by smallmouth bass. Fish species identified in NYSDEC fish

52 surveys conducted in 1980 (Appendix B) and 2004 (Appendix C) were similar to those identified in this study. However, alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) were notably absent from the 2013 electrofishing effort, while two had been identified in the 2004 survey.

Table 15. Goodyear Lake 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing effort

Relative Size Range Size Range Common Name Scientific Name Quantity Abundance (mm) (in) Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 0.48 172-185 6.77-7.28 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 175 27.82 16-229 0.63-9.02 Brown Bullhead Ameirus nebulosis 1 0.16 351 13.82 Chain Pickerel Esox niger 7 1.11 293-433 11.54-17.05 Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 10 1.59 365-771 14.37-30.35 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 38 6.04 19-109 0.75-4.29 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 6 0.95 110-142 4.33-5.59 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 38 6.04 76-470 2.99-18.5 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 38 6.04 60-200 2.36-7.87 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus 10 1.59 126-199 4.96-7.83 Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum 13 2.07 249-527 9.80-20.75 Rockbass Ambloplities rupestris 68 10.81 71-256 2.80-10.10 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 69 10.97 117-386 4.61-15.20 Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 6 0.95 37-97 1.46-3.82 Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 1 0.16 44 1.73 Walleye Sander vitreus 17 2.70 158-526 6.22-20.71 White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 37 5.88 256-516 10.08-20.31 Yellow bullhead Ameirus natalis 5 0.79 207-312 8.15-12.28 Yellow perch Perca flavescens 87 13.83 26-311 1.02-12.24 Total 629 100.00 - -

Spottail Chain Shiner, 0.95 Yellow Bullhead, Pickerel, 0.79 Brown Bullhead, 0.16 Redbreast Golden 1.11 Sunfish, 1.59 Shiner, 0.95 Black Crappie, Tessellated Common Carp, 1.59 0.48 Darter, 0.16 Walleye, 2.70 Redhorse, 2.07

White Sucker, 5.88 Bluegill, 27.82 Pumpkinseed, 6.04 Emerald Shiner, 6.04

Largemouth Bass, Yellow Perch, 13.83 6.04

Rock Bass, 10.81 Smallmouth Bass, 10.97

Figure 36. Relative abundance (%) of fish in Goodyear Lake, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing

Length frequency analysis (Figures 37-42) was done on eight fish species collected during the 24 September 2013 electrofishing survey. This breakdown helps to gauge the size and age structure of fish in the lake and would be an essential part of the assessment if a stocking program was implemented in the lake. According to the length frequency histograms, it appears that a high proportion of fish in Goodyear Lake are surviving to larger size classes and harvestable sizes for anglers

Frequency Frequency (#) 10

9.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

12.0 10.0 11.0 Length (in.)

Figure 37. Goodyear Lake bluegill length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

5 Frequency Frequency (#)

9.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

12.0 10.0 11.0 Length (in.)

Figure 38. Goodyear Lake yellow perch length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

5 Frequency Frequency (#)

9.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

12.0 10.0 11.0 Length (in.)

Figure 39. Goodyear Lake pumpkinseed length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

5 Frequency Frequency (#)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 Length in.

Figure 40. Goodyear Lake smallmouth bass length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

5 Frequency Frequency (#)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

10.0 15.0 20.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 21.0 22.0 Length (in.)

Figure 41. Goodyear Lake largemouth bass length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

5 Frequency Frequency (#)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 Length (in.)

Figure 42. Goodyear Lake walleye length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

Proportional Stock Density (PSD) is used by fishery managers to quantify length- frequency data. It is a percentage that is defined as the number of fish greater than or equal to quality length divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to stock length. Stock length is defined as fish length at maturity, the minimum length effectively sampled by fisheries gear and the minimum length that provides recreational fishing value (Willis et al. 1993). Quality length is defined as the size of a fish that most anglers would like to catch (Gablehouse 1984). Generally, PSD is a good index of the quality and balance within a fishery. In a balanced pan fishery 20 to 60 percent of fish larger than stock size should be in the quality size category,

57 or size that an angler is allowed to keep (NYSFOLA 2009). Based on that information and the 24 September 2013 electrofishing effort, the Goodyear Lake fishery is balanced (Table 16).

Table 16. PSD of Goodyear Lake fish species from 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing effort

Bluegill # ≥ Stock Size (4") # ≥ Quality Size (6") PSD (Prey) 52 43 83 Pumpkinseed # ≥ Stock Size (4") # ≥ Quality Size (6") PSD (Prey) 19 14 74 Yellow Perch # ≥ Stock Size (5") # ≥ Quality Size (8") PSD (Prey) 68 35 51 Largemouth Bass # ≥ Stock Size (8") # ≥ Quality Size (12") PSD (Predator) 22 10 45 Smallmouth Bass # ≥ Stock Size (7") # ≥ Quality Size (11") PSD (Predator) 52 17 33 Walleye # ≥ Stock Size (9") # ≥ Quality Size (16") PSD (Predator) 8 5 63

With a PSD of 33%, smallmouth bass may be trending toward an unstable state. If that is the case, factors in the aquatic environment that are limiting their growth from stock size to quality size should be examined.

Goodyear Lake and Watershed Management Plan

Introduction This document is intended to serve as a comprehensive management plan for Goodyear Lake and its watershed for the benefit of the public and the common good of the water body and the surrounding environment. Preserving and protecting the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the lake will prove mutually beneficial to the local economy, property owners, lake- users and wildlife inhabitants. The plan takes into consideration the current state of affairs in the lake based on the research presented and the perceptions and opinions of residents both lakeside and in the upstream watershed. The Goodyear Lake focus sub-watershed is located solely in Otsego County in Region 4 of the NYSDEC. It is mostly comprised of six towns including: Milford, Hartwick, Middlefield, Otsego, Cherry Valley and Roseboom (Figure 1). The development of a lake and watershed management plan for this important natural resource was based on the supportive efforts of the following entities: . Goodyear Lake Association (GYLA) . NYSDEC Region 4 Bureau of Fisheries . Otsego County Conservation Association (OCCA) . Otsego County Planning Department . Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) . SUNY Cobleskill Fisheries and Wildlife Department . SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station (BFS) . Town of Milford

Figure 1. Municipalities in Goodyear Lake focus sub-watersheds (Otsego County SWCD 2013)

Stakeholder survey Stakeholder surveys were generated to assess the perceptions and opinions of the community members in the Goodyear Lake focus watershed (i.e. the total watershed minus the Canadarago and Otsego Lake drainage basins). Electronic surveys were selected because a traditional mailing to the six towns in the 209 sq mile focus watershed would have been cost prohibitive to execute. The “Public Opinion Survey Concerning the Environmental and Recreational Use of Goodyear Lake” (Appendix D) was directly emailed to 182 lakeside residents, made available online and hard copies were accessible at the Milford Town Hall (Figure 2) early May 2013. As a comparison, according to the Otsego County Property Tax Map, there were approximately 247 residences surrounding Goodyear Lake in 2015. Of the 182 surveys that were emailed 129 electronic responses were received (a 70% return rate). The “Goodyear Lake Watershed Survey” (Appendix E) was made available online and hardcopies were left at the town halls in Cherry Valley, Hartwick, Middlefield, Milford, Otsego and Roseboom (Figure 2). Additionally, an announcement was made in person about the surveys at the board meeting of each of the six towns in early May 2013. A combination of 25 electronic and hardcopy responses were returned from the watershed survey.

ATTENTION TOWN OF MILFORD RESIDENTS: The Goodyear Lake Association has sponsored a graduate student from the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station to create a management plan for Goodyear Lake and its watershed. An important part of this study involves gathering the sentiments of watershed residents so that the greater community may reap the benefits of cleaner water resources as a whole. To learn more about the lake management plan visit www.goodyearlakeny.org. If you would like to electronically participate in the “Public Opinion Survey Concerning the Environmental & Recreational Use of Goodyear Lake” visit http://gyla.weebly.com/. Alternatively, if you prefer to fill out a hard copy of the survey they are available that the Milford Town Hall during regular hours. Please limit two surveys per household and have them completed by June 15th. Thank you in advance for your contribution.

ATTENTION TOWNS OF CHERRY VALLEY, HARTWICK, MIDDLEFIELD, MILFORD, OTSEGO AND ROSEBOOM RESIDENTS: The Goodyear Lake Association has sponsored a graduate student from the SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station to create a management plan for Goodyear Lake and its watershed. An important part of this study involves gathering the sentiments of watershed residents so the greater community may reap the benefits of cleaner water resources as a whole. To learn more about the lake management plan visit www.goodyearlakeny.org. If you would like to participate electronically in the “Goodyear Lake Watershed Survey” visit http://gyla.weebly.com/ and click on that tab. Alternatively, if you prefer to fill out a hard copy of the survey they are available at your Town Hall during regular hours. Please limit two surveys per household and have them completed by June 15th. Thank you in advance for your contribution.

Figure 2. Announcements published in The Daily Star and The Oneonta-Cooperstown Pennysaver and posted on the GYLA, OCCA and focus watershed town websites, early May 2013

Based on the results of the “Public Opinion Survey Concerning the Environmental and Recreational Use of Goodyear Lake” emailed to lakeside residents, the three issues that were ranked most important included: the condition of Collier’s Dam, algae and aquatic plant growth, and loss of fish and wildlife (Figure 3).

Condition of Collier's Dam 74% Algae & weed growth 73% Loss of fish & wildlife 73% Pollution from septic systems 69% Water clarity & condition 67% Filling in or sedimentation 63% Scenic viewscape -hills, valleys, etc. 53% Upstream agricultural practices 52% Road salts & gravel washing into lake 46% Water levels 41% Powered watercraft density 38% Density of homes 30%

Figure 3. Percent of Goodyear lakeside residents who ranked item as “very important” in May 2013 survey

Management goals Goodyear Lake and its inhabitants are an integral part of the local culture. It is with that sentiment, and a sense of stewardship, that a plan has been developed to perpetuate the natural splendor, wildlife, and recreational activities of the lake for years to come. Specifically, the goals of the plan are to: 1. Restore and maintain the physical condition of the lake. 2. Protect the lake’s natural beauty and ecological sustainability as a resource. 3. Maintain recreational opportunities on the lake and ensure the safety of the users. It is anticipated that the practicality of the plan will allow for successful implementation so that future generations may enjoy Goodyear Lake as past and present generations have.

Management plan A. DAM CONDITION There is concern that the dam is in poor condition based on its appearance and aging infrastructure and that this could have a negative effect on property values. APPROACH - Communication between the GYLA, the Town of Milford, Enel (Kevin Webb, [email protected]), owner of the dam, and HDR (Jim Gibson, [email protected]), consulting engineer, needs to be maintained and information on dam integrity disseminated.

B. ALGAE AND ROOTED AQUATIC PLANTS Algal blooms have been noted and photographed (Figure 4) by lakeshore residents. The north (i.e. “the stump lot”) and south ends support extensive littoral areas, in addition to other shallow portions of the lake that support rooted aquatic plant growth/habitat.

Figure 4. Green algae, east-side of Goodyear Lake, 2 May 2013 (Photo courtesy of: Vince Stayter)

APPROACH 1. Reduce excessive nutrient run-off: use a “bottom-up” management approach and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. controlling sprawl through land use regulations, altering agricultural methods and creating nutrient retention ponds) in the watershed (Table 1).

Table 1. Best Management practices used for various watershed land-use activities (modified from Holdren et al. 2001)

BEST MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTION PRACTICE AGRICULTURE Animal Waste Management Controls timing, amount and form of manure application to fields Planting system that maintains at least 30% of soil surface covered by residue after Conservation Tillage planting Contour Farming Conducting plowing, planting, cultivating and harvesting on the contours of the field

Contour Stripcropping Strips of grass or close-growing crops are alternated with those in cultivated crops

Crop Rotation Alternating crops with nitrogen-fixing legumes such as alfalfa

Fertilizer Management Controls timing, amount and type of fertilizer to crops Reduces pesticide applications, improves effectiveness and uses more resistant Integrated Pest Management cultivars Livestock Exclusion Excludes livestock from highly erodible land and land near lakes and streams Range and Pasture Maintains vegetative cover and reduces manure loading to streams Management Terraces Shortens flow paths and improves drainage URBAN Flood Storage Reduces runoff and sediment by settling particles out of the water

Porous Pavement Allows rainfall to soak through pavement into underlying soil By removing pollutants from pavement they will not be washed into streams during Street Cleaning storms FORESTRY Ground Cover Management Maintains cover over soil so it is not exposed to raindrops or runoff Pesticide/Herbicide Controls timing, amount, form and location of application Management Riparian Zone Management Maintains vegetation and ground cover along stream banks Road/Skid Trail Reduces length of runoff flow path and erosion Management CONSTRUCTION Disturbed Area Limits Restricts area of construction site that is disturbed or has ground cover removal Nonvegetative Soil Use mats, mulch or similar ground cover over the soil to reduce rainfall erosion Stabilization Reduces length of runoff flow paths to slow the water creating pools or depressions Surface Roughening and reduces the energy of water to dislodge and transport soil off-site MULTI-CATEGORY Detention/ Retains runoff from flood peak and allows soil particles to settle in the basin Sedimentation Basins Runoff flows over a grassy area that protects soil and traps nutrients as it moves Grassed Waterways toward a stream Interception or Diversion Intercepts runoff before the flow path becomes too long or divests the runoff away Practices from the lake

Maintenance of Natural Natural stream banks, riparian zones and wetlands trap sediment and nutrients and Waterways limit streamside erosion A layer of broken rock of sufficient size are put in place to resist the erosive forces of Riprap flowing water Streamside Management Maintains vegetative and ground cover next to the streambank, typically strips are 30 Zones to 100 feet wide Streambank Stabilization Protects and maintains the streambank so it does not erode or fall into the stream

Vegetative Stabilization Maintains good vegetative cover at critical locations throughout the watershed Legally enforceable regulations for permissible businesses, land uses and Zoning management needs to protect lakes and streams

2. Financing for water quality protection projects is available through the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Additional funding available locally for agricultural projects identified in the watershed are the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) through the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program through the Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District. Both programs are voluntary and assist crop and livestock producers in meeting their business goals through incentives, while making environmental and conservation improvements on the farm. Since all the money that comes through these programs requires matching funds, OCCA has already contributed to EQIP monies at multiple sites in the greater Goodyear Lake watershed that have instituted BMPs. For example, the SWCD could use the data in this report to apply for grant money for agricultural BMP implementation along the Cherry Valley Creek. Additionally, the GYLA could become the driving effort behind the development of an “Upper Susquehanna Watershed Protection” tax district that includes both Otsego and Canadarago Lakes; this could provide long-term steady annual income to address watershed problems and implement BMPs. 3. Municipalities in the focus sub-watershed could establish a cooperative means by which watershed goals are incorporated into local comprehensive plans based on generally agreed upon standard regulations that affect the well-being of the lake. States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have developed, and are now implementing, Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) that indicate the contributions each state will make to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. NYSDEC is currently in the development of the next phase (Phase III) of New York's Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) and the process is currently underway to involve local governments in the planning. Types of land use regulations that would benefit the lake include development set-backs, clustering, stormwater runoff control and construction

activity oversight. Town and county planning boards and codes officers are the appropriate agencies for the enforcement of these rules. Home rule local town laws can be setup to establish BMPs in the watershed other than those relating to agriculture. Implementing or modifying land use regulations requires Town Planning Board attendance and membership. 4. Use in-lake techniques (Table 2) to address short-term plant removal. This may include applying benthic barriers around docks, hand harvesting and/or hydroraking aquatic vegetation if recreational use is inhibited. A taxable district within the Town of Milford immediately surrounding the lake could provide income for large-scale, in- lake management projects. Keep in mind, most in-lake management strategies are only treating symptoms of the underlying causes of the problems that lake users reported, and will be fruitless without acknowledging sources in the watershed.

Table 2. Management options for the control of algae, rooted aquatic plants and sedimentation (modified from Holdren et al. 2001)

TECHNIQUE DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES PHYSICAL CONTROLS Oxygenated conditions Mechanically adds air or May disrupt stratification and Aeration or promote binding of oxygen at varying depths to supersaturate the water, both Oxygen Addition phosphorus and improves relieve anoxic conditions disruptive to fish aquatic organism habitat Gas buildup may cause barrier Mat of variable Prevents plant growth and to float, anoxic conditions Benthic Barriers composition laid around reduces turbidity from soft could exist and decrease fish swimming area or dock sediment spawning and feeding May spread local impacts and Mechanically uses water or Reduces surface algal scum Circulation increase oxygen demand at air to keep water in motion and disrupts growth greater depths

May wash zooplankton from Dilution and Add better or similar Dilutes nutrients and flushes lake and have downstream Flushing quality water algal buildup impacts Reduces available nutrients, Lowering water level Impacts on contiguous affects algal biomass and Drawdown allows for sediment wetlands and impairment of allows for shoreline cleanup oxidation and compaction well production and repair Physically remove Temporarily removes benthic sediment through dry or Removes algae, aquatic plants invertebrates, creates turbidity Dredging wet excavation for and pollutants and increases and may be issues with deposition and dewatering water depth dredged material disposal in a containment area May not control peripheral Water-soluble dye mixed Limits light penetration to Dyes and Surface rooted plants, also may create with lake water or opaque inhibit algal and plant growth Covers anoxia at sediment-water sheets added without increasing turbidity interface Highly flexible control, may May spread undesirable Collection of algal scums Mechanical remove other debris and create species by fragmentation, or plants with harvesters, Removal a balance between habitat and increase turbidity and is labor hand pulling or cutting recreational needs intensive Creation of in-lake areas Habitat value of new detention like, forebays and wetlands, Reduction in nutrient levels, Pollutant Capture areas and removal of sediment to capture incoming algae and multiple pollutants from those areas pollutants Creates poor water quality Discharge bottom water Efficiently removes targeted downstream and can be an Selective that may contain low water and initial phase of algal unintended drawdown if Withdrawal oxygen and excessive bloom in deeper water inflow does not match nutrients withdrawal CHEMICAL CONTROLS Toxicity to non-target species, Add a liquid or pelletized Quickly removes algae from restrictions on water use after Algaecides and substance that is toxic to water column with increased treatment and may increase Herbicides algae and specific plants clarity and kills submersed and oxygen demand from decaying usually once a year emergent plants material

Binds to phosphorus in water May cause fluctuations in pH Aluminum, iron or calcium column and settles it, Phosphorus during treatment, and if those salts are added in liquid or minimizes release of Inactivation conditions exist may be toxic powder form phosphorus from sediment and to fish increases clarity Binds to phosphorus and Add oxidants, binders and Affects benthic organisms and Sediment reduces nutrient supply to pH adjusters to oxidize longevity of effects are not Oxidation algae and decreases sediment sediment well known oxygen demand Can change composition of Through uncertain biological Nutrient ratio altered Selective algal communities by altering response algal abundance may through addition of selected Nutrient Addition the nitrogen to phosphorus increase and it may require nutrients ratio and reduce algal levels frequent applications BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS An inexpensive technique Success linked to Input of barley straw may where algae decline is more uncontrollable water chemistry Barley Straw cause chemical reactions gradual and therefore demands characteristics and some forms that inhibit algal growth less oxygen of algae may be resistant Stock piscivorous fish to Decreases algae and plants, remove planktivorous fish increases harvestable fish and Highly variable response, may to increase herbivorous potentially provides continued involve non-native species Biomanipulation zooplankton or add control with one treatment introductions and incomplete herbivorous insects to feed without negative effect on control may be likely on selected plants non-target plant species

5. Additional BMP resources: a. Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication (USDA Agriculture Research Service/EPA). b. Animal Waste Management Field Handbook: USDA NRCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH): Part 651. c. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers (USDA/Forest Service). d. Core4 Conservation Practices: the common sense approach to natural resource conservation (USDA/NRCS). e. Forest*A*Syst: A Self-Assessment Guide for Managing Your Forest. f. National Handbook of Conservation Practices (USDA/NRCS). g. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series (USDA/Forest Service). C. FISHERY Goodyear Lake supports a diverse fish community that is popular among anglers as an open-water and ice fishing destination. APPROACH – The fishery is periodically monitored by NYSDEC Region 4 Bureau of Fisheries Stamford sub-office in Stamford, NY through electrofishing, trapnetting, and gillnetting surveys. Based on the results of those studies the management strategy should

be updated as needed. According to NYSDEC, there is currently a daily creel limit of 25 for yellow perch and sunfishes in Goodyear Lake for any size fish all year long. This differs from the daily catch limit of 50 for the same species for other NYS waterbodies (NYSDEC 2017). Additionally, the NYS Department of Health currently advises that women under 50 years of age and children under 15 years of age not consume any fish from Goodyear Lake due to mercury contamination. Men over 15 years of age and women over 50 years of age are not advised to consume more than one walleye > 22 inches per month or more than four walleye (or any other species) < 22 inches per month from the lake (NYSDOH 2017). D. SEPTIC SYSTEMS Approximately 250 homes surround the lake and all rely on septic systems for waste treatment. APPROACH 1. The NYS Water Resources Institute at Cornell University held Homeowner Education Workshops for Improved Wastewater Management at Canadarago and Chautauqua Lakes in 2013. The information from those workshops is available on their website and includes links to the presentations, informational handouts and videos of the workshops themselves. Goodyear Lake shoreline residents should be encouraged to visit the website or have applicable material made available to them. 2. The initiation of a septic system inspection program could be established through Land Use Regulations (LURs) so that watershed residents may feel a sense of unification on the front of improving lake water quality. 3. If localized problems are documented after investigating the nutrient retention of the lakeside wastewater treatment systems, apply for a Water Quality Incentive Program (WQIP) grant through the NYSDEC for septic system pollution abatement. E. SEDIMENTATION The lake receives excessive suspended solids or silt from the river and upstream tributaries. APPROACH 1. Identify areas in the watershed, through soils maps, observation and aerial photography, prone to erosion for implementation of BMPs (Figure 5) to reduce sediment loading to the lake. Hydroseeding and stream bank project assessments are both services offered by the SWCD to local counties, municipalities and landowners to protect erosion sensitive areas. An engineering study could address the feasibility of installing sediment basins at key locations in the watershed.

2. Soil disturbance in the watershed can be associated with active land use activities such as agriculture (grazing along streams, cultivated crops, intensive livestock operations), forest operations (logging, road building), roadside ditching and construction (particularly on steep slopes). Since the majority of the land in the watershed is covered with forest, there is an opportunity to implement forestry BMPs to improve water quality and prevent soil erosion through outreach. Additionally, soil and stream bank disturbance could be minimized by pastured land grazing optimization and attention to road maintenance and ditching. 3. Retain a qualified entity (e.g. SUNY Oneonta BFS) to construct a current bathymetric map of the lake. Prioritize portions of the lake that would benefit the most from localized dredging and acquire necessary permits through NYSDEC Region 4. Although, specific sediment sources need to be identified and corrected before dredging permits will be issued. 4. Encourage shoreline landowners to implement lakescaping (Figure 5) techniques to prevent shoreline erosion, filter runoff, provide wildlife habitat and increase leisure time. 5.

Figure 5. Buffer zone restoration with native vegetation (Photo courtesy of: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)

F. LAND USE PLANNING, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION Residents and visitors wish to maintain the scenic viewscape of the lake and its surroundings. APPROACH 1. The Otsego Land Trust (OLT) is an organization that works with land owners to establish a conservation easement (legal agreement between an owner and a qualified non-profit organization or agency) on their property. These agreements generally limit residential and/or commercial uses and restrict harmful land and water management practices for years to come with financial benefits for the owner. 2. Lot size restrictions and set back guidelines already exist in LURs. They could be modified to help the lake and safeguard sensitive areas. The Town of Springfield started by creating a local law and then built it into a LUR. These regulations should not be seen by property owners as a limitation, but instead a means of protection. G. ROADWAY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE State Highway 28 runs adjacent to the lake and there is concern about salts and gravel washing into the lake from that road and others in the watershed. APPROACH – Review present town, county and NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) road maintenance practices; particularly those that pertain to the proper storage of salt and other deicers. Encourage the use of alternative deicers that have lower levels of chloride, silt and phosphorus. Local highway superintendents could assist with best management practice training for road crews. This training is available through the NYSDOT. H. LAKE LEVEL The level of the lake fluctuates, particularly during storm events. APPROACH – The level of the lake is controlled by the dam. HDG, Inc., the owner of the dam, is required to ensure that the lake does not drop below 12 inches of the crest of the dam to facilitate power generation, but no mandate exists during periods of high water. Shoreline flooding can be considerable during wet weather events and the feasibility of increasing the flow through the dam when the level of the lake is excessive should be discussed with HDG, Inc. I. RECREATIONAL USE OF GOODYEAR LAKE Swimming, power and motorless boating, water skiing and fishing are all popular recreational activities on the lake. APPROACH 1. Maintain and enforce the current 5 MPH no-wake zone with signage and/or buoys to protect sensitive areas, reduce turbidity and provide a safer environment for all users

of the lake. Education of boaters as to the importance of no-wakes zones should be displayed in the form of signage at all public and lake association access sites. Local navigational regulations can be addressed by the Town of Milford Planning Board. 2. NYS Navigational Laws (particularly Sections 33 through 73, regulations for pleasure boats) should be enforced by the Otsego County Sheriff’s Department and NYSDEC in a cooperative effort. 3. Navigational hazards, such as fallen trees, should be marked or removed if they are beyond the no-wake zone or across a channel or high traffic area. Otherwise fallen trees provide excellent wildlife and fish spawning habitat. 4. Local town law can address “navigational use regulations” and take into consideration future lake conflicts (i.e. noise, parasailing, boat size/speed and area zoning, such as prohibiting water skiing in the stump lot). These laws can also protect environmentally sensitive areas. J. EXOTIC SPECIES Over the years non-native species have invaded the lake, usually with highly damaging consequences. APPROACH – 1. Every effort should be made to try to prevent the establishment of “new” exotic species in the lake. This is somewhat challenging because Goodyear is a “river-lake” and at the mercy of upstream influences, but despite that boat washing signage should be posted at all public and lake association launches. 2. Management of exotics that are already in the lake should continue. This includes the coordinated water chestnut hand-harvesting volunteer effort between OCCA and the GYLA that has already successfully removed many invasive plants. Thresholds (i.e. 50% removal as agreed upon by anglers, swimmers and other lake users) for the control of other exotic plant species, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, could be established. 3. Inhibiting the spread of known exotics from Goodyear Lake to other nearby or downstream systems provides a great economic value (or service) and could be a way to raise funds for invasive species prevention that would benefit the lake in the future. Perhaps areas where exotic species have not been established would be interested in contributing to boat washing stations and exit inspections for Goodyear Lake.

K. CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND EDUCATION Future studies and ongoing education are key elements to the plan’s success. APPROACH – 1. Monitoring of the lake and its tributaries by the SUNY Oneonta BFS or other competent professionals should continue and that information be made available to maintain the awareness of the status of the lake. If BMPs are implemented in the watershed, their success should be evaluated quantitatively through periodic, extensive plant and fish surveys and the use of staff gauges to measure amounts of siltation. Additionally, volunteers who are interested in monitoring water quality could enroll Goodyear Lake in the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP), a program managed by NYSDEC and NYSFOLA. The standards provided in Table 3 should be used as a guide to evaluate all information collected on the lake and to serve as “action thresholds” for management strategies.

Table 3. NYS surface water quality standards (modified from NYSDEC 2016)

PARAMETER STANDARD

Water Clarity To site a new swimming beach, secchi depth must be 4 ft.

Temperature Related to thermal discharges.

Taste-, color-, and odor- None in amounts that will adversely affect the taste, color or odor thereof, producing, toxic and other or impair the waters for their best usages. deleterious substances

Turbidity No increase that will cause a visible contrast to natural conditions.

Suspended, colloidal and None from sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes that will cause settleable solids deposition or impair the waters for their best usages.

Oil and floating substances No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes, nor visible oil film nor globules of grease.

Total Phosphorus Evaluate whether tertiary treatment is required for wastewater discharged to lake if greater than 20 µg/l.

Nitrate Less than 10 mg/l in drinking water to prevent methamaglobanemia (blue baby disease).

Phosphorus and nitrogen None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages.

Ammonia Less than 2 mg/l in drinking water, separate standard for ammonium only.

Metal Unique standards for each metal.

Organic Compounds General standard for all organic compounds without a specific standard is 50 µg/l.

Flow No alteration that will impair the waters for their best usages. pH Shall not be less than 6.5 nor more than 8.5.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) For trout spawning waters (TS) the DO concentration shall not be <7.0 mg/l from other than natural conditions. For trout waters (T), the minimum daily average shall not be < 6.0 mg/l, and at no time shall the concentration be <5.0 mg/l. For non-trout waters, the minimum daily average shall not be <5.0 mg/l, and at no time shall the DO concentration be <4.0 mg/ l.

Dissolved solids Shall be kept as low as practicable to maintain the best usage of waters but in no case shall it exceed 500 mg/l.

Total Coliforms The monthly median value and more than 20 percent of the samples, from (number per 100 ml) a minimum of five examinations, shall not exceed 2,400 and 5,000, respectively.

Fecal Coliforms The monthly geometric mean, from a minimum of five examinations, shall (number per 100 ml) not exceed 200.

2. The GYLA should consider becoming a member of NYSFOLA in an effort to collaborate and support the protection of water resources across the state. 3. The public should remain informed of sensitive issues related to the well-being of Goodyear Lake. Groups involved with the Lake’s management are encouraged to communicate (e.g. newsletters, public media and forums) with residents in the watershed and all users of the lake.

References

APHA, AWWA, WPCF. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 12th ed. American Public Health Association. Washington, D.C.

Armstrong, S. 2005. Survey of veliger and adult zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in Goodyear Lake. In 37th Ann. Rept. (2004). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

BestPlaces. 2016. Climate, Milford, NY. http://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/new_york/milford. Accessed 23 February 2016.

Bianhcine, T. 2013. Monitoring water quality and fecal coliform bacteria in the upper Susquehanna River, summer 2013. In 46th Ann. Rept. (2013). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Cohen, A.N. and A. Weinstein. 2001. Zebra Mussel’s Calcium Threshold and Implications for its Potential Distribution in North America. San Francisco Estuary Institute, San Francisco, California.

Dietz, M. 1999. Monitoring the water quality of the upper Susquehanna River, summer 1999. In 32nd Ann. Rept. (1999). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Ebina, J., T. Tsutsi, and T. Shirai. 1983. Simultaneous determination of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in water using peroxodisulfate oxidation. Water Res. 17(12):1721-1726.

Eyres, W. 2009. Water chestnut (Trapa natans L.) infestation in the Susquehanna River watershed: population assessment, control, and effects. Occasional Paper No. 44. SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station. SUNY Oneonta. Cooperstown, NY.

Gablehouse, D.W., Jr. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:273-285.

HDR Engineering, Inc. 2014. Colliersville hydroelectric project (FERC no. 2788) pre-application document, volume I of II. Syracuse, NY.

Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. N. Am. Lake Manage. Soc. And Terrene Inst., in coop. with Off. Water Assess. Watershed Prot. Div. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Madison, WI.

Horvath, T.G. and P.H. Lord. 2003. First report of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in Canadarago Lake. In 35th Ann. Rept. (2002). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Isachsen, Y.W., E. Landing, J.M. Lauber, L.V. Rickard, and W.B. Rogers, eds. 1991. Geology of New York A Simplified Account. New York State Museum / Geological Survey. Albany, NY.

Kaplan, L.A. and T.L. Bott. 1989. Diel fluctuations in bacterial activity on streambed substrata during vernal algal blooms: Effects of temperature, water chemistry, and habitat. Limnology and Oceanography 34(4): 718-733.

Klessig, L., C. Mechenich, and B. Shaw. 2004. Understanding lake data. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Madison, WI.

Larson, D.W. 1972. Temperature, transparency, and phytoplankton productivity in Crater Lake, Oregon. Limnology and Oceanography 17(3): 410-417.

Liao, N. 2001. Determination of ammonia by flow injection analysis. QuikChem® Method 10- 107-06-1-J. Lachat Instruments, Loveland, CO.

Mazeres, E. 2012. Personal communication. 25 August 2013.

McBride, N.D. 2008. Goodyear Lake fisheries management: 2004 fisheries survey. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 4 Fisheries Office. Stamford, NY.

McIntyre, W. 2009. Otsego Lake management program for onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). Unpublished. Cooperstown, NY.

MDEP. 2016. Common aquatic macroinvertebrates in Maine streams and wetlands. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Augusta, ME.

Meding, M.E. and L.J. Jackson. 2003. Biotic, chemical, and morphometric factors contributing to winter anoxia in prairie lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 48(4): 1633-1642.

NYSDEC. 2001. Susquehanna River WI/PWL, Goodyear Lake. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

NYSDEC. 2016. Water quality standards and classifications. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

NYSDEC. 2017. New York State freshwater fishing statewide angling regulations. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

NYSDOH. 2017. New York State health advice on eating fish you catch. New York State Department of Health. Albany, NY.

NYSFOLA. 2009. 2nd ed. Diet for a Small Lake: The Expanded Guide to New York State Lake and Watershed Management. New York State Federation of Lake Associations in coop. with NYSDEC.

Otsego County SWCD. 2013. Personal communication. 14 January 2013.

Oram, B. 2014. Ammonia in groundwater, runoff and streams. Water Research Watershed Center. Dallas, PA.

Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin. 1995. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Comstock Publishing Associates- Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

Pritzlaff, D. 2003. Determination of nitrate/nitrite in surface and wastewaters by flow injection analysis. QuikChem® Method 10-107-04-1-C. Lachat Instruments, Loveland, CO.

Sanford, D.K. 1981. 1980 fishery survey of Goodyear Lake (P360s). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 4 Fisheries Office. Stamford, NY.

Snyder, D.M., C.R. Parker and K. Yokota. 2016. Total mercury concentration in fish tissue relative to length and weight. In 48th Ann. Rept. (2015). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Sohacki, L.P. 2013. Personal communication (607) 282-0091. 18 May 2013.

Søndergaard, M., J.P. Jensen and E. Jeppesen. 2003. Role of sediment and internal loading of phosphorus in shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 506-509:135-145.

Thornton, S.A. 1979. Bathymetric map of Goodyear Lake. In 12th Ann. Rept. (1979). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Town of Milford. 2012. Town of Milford comprehensive plan. Milford, NY.

USEPA. 1974. National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper Series: Report on Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, New York, EPA Region II, Working Paper No. 158. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C.

USEPA. 2011. Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria: Technical Guidance Document. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C.

USGS. 2012. StreamStats Program: New York State Interactive Map Application. United States Geological Survey. http://streamstats.usgs.gov/new_york.html.

Waterfield, H.A. 2016. Watershed characterization for Goodyear Lake, New York: watershed subbasins, land use and cover, surficial geology, and soils. In 48th Ann. Rept. (2015). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Welschmeyer, N.A. 1994. Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll a in the presence of chlorophyll b and phaeopigments. Limnology and Oceanography 39: 1985-1992.

Willis, D.W., B.R. Murphy and C.S. Guy. 1993. Stock density indices: development, use, and limitations. Reviews in Fisheries Science 1(3):203-222.

Appendix A. Goodyear Lake water quality data, summer (Sohacki 1999)

Appendix B. Total number and size of fishes collected by trap net, boat shocker and gill net from Goodyear Lake 26 and 27 August and 24 September 1980 (Sanford 1981)

Game Fish Species Quantity Size Range (in.) Chain Pickerel 7 9.8-18.2 Largemouth bass 18 3.1-18.1 Smallmouth bass 30 3.2-14.1 Walleye 50 9.3-20.3 Panfish Quantity Quantity Species Over 8 in. Under 8 in. Black crappie 50 38 Bullhead 41 3 Yellow perch 183 111 Quantity Quantity Species Over 6.5 in. Under 6.5 in. Bluegill 56 6 Pumpkinseed 21 15 Redbreast sunfish 7 5 Rock bass 27 33 Other Fish Species Quantity American eel 1 Bluntnose minnow 5 Carp 5 Creek chubsucker 1 Golden shiner 26 Johnny darter 1 Northern hog sucker 3 Shorthead redhorse 30 White sucker 85

Appendix C. Total number and size of fishes collected during the Goodyear Lake all-fish electrofishing collections in June 2004 (McBride 2008)

Game Fish Quantity Quantity Species Legal Sublegal Chain Pickerel* - 2 Largemouth bass** 19 20 Smallmouth bass** 5 45 Walleye* 2 3 Panfish Quantity Quantity Species Over 8 in. Under 8 in. Black crappie - 1 Brown Bullhead 6 - Yellow perch 15 24 Quantity Quantity Species Over 6.5 in. Under 6.5 in. Bluegill 39 102 Pumpkinseed 16 19 Redbreast sunfish 1 27 Rock bass 14 10 Other Fish Species Quantity Alewife 2 Bluntnose minnow 36 Common carp 8 Golden shiner 8 Northern hog sucker 3 Shorthead redhorse 2 Spottail shiner 3 Tesselated darter 4 White sucker 58 *legal limit 15 in. **legal limit 12 in.

Appendix D. Lakeside resident stakeholder survey with results

Appendix E. Watershed resident stakeholder survey with results

OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION (cont.)

No. 38. Biocontrol of Eurasian water-milfoil in central New York State: Myriophyllum spicatum L., its insect herbivores and associated fish. Paul H. Lord. August 2004. No. 39. The benthic macroinvertebrates of Butternut Creek, Otsego County, New York. Michael F. Stensland. June 2005. No. 40. Re-introduction of walleye to Otsego Lake: re-establishing a fishery and subsequent influences of a top Predator. Mark D. Cornwell. September 2005. No. 41. 1. The role of small lake-outlet streams in the dispersal of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) veligers in the upper Susquehanna River basin in New York. 2. Eaton Brook Reservoir boaters: Habits, zebra mussel awareness, and adult zebra mussel dispersal via boater. Michael S. Gray. 2005. No. 42. The behavior of lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum, 1972) in Otsego Lake: A documentation of the strains, movements and the natural reproduction of lake trout under present conditions. Wesley T. Tibbitts. 2008. No. 43. The Upper Susquehanna watershed project: A fusion of science and pedagogy. Todd Paternoster. 2008. No. 44. Water chestnut (Trapa natans L.) infestation in the Susquehanna River watershed: Population assessment, control, and effects. Willow Eyres. 2009. No. 45. The use of radium isotopes and water chemistry to determine patterns of groundwater recharge to Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York. Elias J. Maskal. 2009. No. 46. The state of Panther Lake, 2014 and the management of Panther Lake and its watershed. Derek K. Johnson. 2015. No. 47. The state of Hatch Lake and Bradley Brook Reservoir, 2015 & a plan for the management of Hatch Lake and Bradley Brook Reservoir. Jason E. Luce. 2015. No. 48. Monitoring of seasonal algal succession and characterization of the phytoplankton community: Canadarago Lake, Otsego County, NY & Canadarago Lake watershed protection plan. Carter Lee Bailey. 2015. No. 49. A scenario-based framework for lake management plans: A case study of Grass Lake & A management plan for Grass Lake. Owen Zaengle. 2015. No. 50. Cazenovia Lake: A comprehensive management plan. Daniel Kopec. 2015. No. 51. Comprehensive lake management plan, Lake Moraine, Madison County, NY. Benjamin P. German. 2016. No. 52. Determining effective decontamination methods for watercraft exposed to zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas 1776), that do not use hot water with high pressure spray. Eric A. Davis. No. 53. The state of Brant Lake, & Brant Lake management plan. Alejandro Reyes. 2016. No. 54. The state of Truesdale Lake & Truesdale Lake management plan. Christian Jenne. 2017. No. 55. The state of Rushford Lake, 2017. Edward J. Kwietniewski.

Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at: http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp