INTRODUCTION 1
Willard ~. Harman
Jeane Bennett O·Dea. .'vlead .'vicCoy. .'vir. Da\id Ramsey. Scott Stanton and Da\"e \\"amer continued their graduate work with the \ascular flora at Greem\"oods. .'v10e Pond fish. Otsego Lake algae. Delaware Ri\"er salmonids and Otsego Lake alewi\es. respectiwly. Two high school students were supported \ia FHV .'vlecklenburg Consenation fellowships: Carrie .'v1iller from Cherry Valley-Springfield and Jennifer Lopez from Richfield Springs Central School. Emera Bridger from Cooperstown Central received support from the Village ofCoopersto\\"D to study water quality on the Susquehanna. Ta\"is Austin from Cooperstown was awarded a Lake and Valley Garden Club internship. Renee Ferguson from RichJield Springs Central. .'vlary.'vlinor from Cooperstown and Allison Barra from Cherry Valley - Springfield were supported by ~e\\ York Academy of Sciences Science Research Training internships.
John O'Conner and Brenda Hewett from SUNY Cobleskill were sponsored by Robert C. Mac\\'atters Internships in the Aquatic Sciences. Kristin France from Williams College receiwd a a Rufus 1. Thayer Otsego Lake Research Assistantship. Eric Jorczak from Binghamton University was sponsored by the Lake and Valley Garden Club to work in Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. Sarah Good from Vasser College and Rebek2.h Perlmutter from Colgate University were sponsored by the Village ofCooperstov,;n to work on the "Otsego Lake Homeov·;ners Sur\"ey" and the "Otsego Lake Management Plan". Robin Basile from SlJNY Oneonta was sponsored by the Peterson Family Conservation Trust to work at Greenv... oods Conservancy. The Lake and Valley Garden Club generously prO\"ided funding for materials and repairs to improve GoodSwamp Sanctuary.
Drs. L. P. Sohacki, W. L. Butts, and B.R. Da)10n continued long term studies in their areas ofexpertise. Dr. John Foster. from the SUNY Cobleskill Fisheries and Wildlife Technology Program, worked his fifth year as a BFS Visiting Researcher.
Students were enrolled in se\eral SC~Y Oneonta and SUNY Cobleskill on-campus courses and attended field exercises on site. Bio. 108. Ecology and Field Biology. was offered by B.R. Da,yton to selected high school students during the summer. :Ylore than 1,000 K-12 students visited the BFS and received hands-on experiences on Otesgo Lake and BFS woodlands over the year.
Several talented citizen volunteers again helped at the BFS during the year: They were Brian Bitteker. Kathy Ernst. Dan Rosen and Miriam Sharick.
We conducted the annual Otsego Lake Boat census on July nrd. Boats and personnel were provided for Otsego Lake Cleanup Day and Water Chestnut Day. The BFS provided a berth and personnel to engage in "Waterwatch" activities. 2
Recent Otsego Lake Boat Censuses
Types ofBoats 7/31/91 8/5/92 8/5/92 7/27/94 7/14/95 7/23/96
Sailboats 243 220 181 208 208 207 Rowboats 285 243 266 311 313 325 Canoes
Outboards 470 407 405 461 430 378
Inboards 60 22 27 16 13 36 Inboard- 213 219 215 227 267 260 Outboards
Misc. 61 47 51 62 84 66 TOTAL 1.332 1.158 1.145 1,285 1.315 1.272
Funding for BFS research and educational programs was procured in 1996 from many citizens and local funding organizations including The Clark Foundation. The Gronewaldt Foundation, the Lake and Valley Garden Club, the Peterson Family Conservation Trust, the OCCA, the SUNY Graduate Research Initiative Program. The SUNY Oneonta Foundation, the SUNY Office ofEducational Technology, the Village ofCooperstown, the Schuyler County Water Quality Coordinating Committee and the Mary Imogene Basset Hospital's Science Partnership Program.
Prof. and Directo 28/12/96 3
ONGOING S11JDIES: OTSEGO LAKE WATERSHED MONITORING:
1996 Otsego Lake Water Levels
Willard.\'. Harman K. S Ernst*
The following data were collected at the Biological field Station and illustrated by K. S. Ernst.
* BFS volunteer: Graphics and design. Present address: 13 Yard Avenue, farmingdale. NJ. 07727. Mar-96 Apr-96
4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 1
,------,---~T----.----r-r-,._,______,_____._____.______r_____,______,_·._"__.__r_,....__~--.______.____.____,______,___ 50 50
40 40
30 30 E E 0 0 20 .E 20 .E E E .!'!' 10 .~ 10 :r :r'" Q; 0 0 1ii :s:N :s: -10 -10 -20 -20 -30 -30 Days Days
May-96 Jun-96
4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 ,------,-----r,.,--,.--, -', 50 -,--r--r-,-, , , , --.-----.------.-.--T-' , , , 50
40 40
30 30 E E 0 0 .E 20 .E 20 E E .~ .~ 10 10 r ~ :r :r Q; 0 !i 0 iii ----- :s: :s:'" -10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
Days Days
.f::>. Jul-96 Aug-96
4 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 4 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 50 50
40 40
30 30 E E u u .!; 20 .!; 20 :c E .~ 10 ~10 :r :r ~..... ~ ~ ...... " 0 ------.--.....~ 0 • • • • • ;:.. ~ -10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
Days Days
Ocl-96
4 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 50
40
30
5 20 .!; E 10 Cl 'iii :r 0 .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••-e Oi ~ -10
-20
-30
-40
Days
VI 6
~ :N
to en U ~ '" oIII Cl'" :I ~ t ~ f ~ l~~_----,------,- o o o U'l ~ '7
co N
U'l N )
N N ~ I C ~ ~ C
to t '":> ~ L '" 0 I Cl'" z t ~ L I I ;: ~ r L ~ r r ~ L ~
~ r I 0 0 0 0 ;: 0 0 0 0 U'l .. '" N "! '7 W:l U! l4D!aH JalBM 7 Otsego Lake limnological monitoring, 1996
Matthew F. Albright
ABSTRACT
Limnological analyses of several abiotic factors were performed during 1996 at Otsego Lake, Cooperstown, N.Y. The purpose was to monitor the chemical and physical parameters affecting lake water quality for comparison with past findings. This work was part of an ongoing study begun approximately twenty-nine years ago. Throughout the year, profiles of water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity were measured using a Hydrolab Scout 2 at the deepest spot in the Lake (TR4-C). Water samples were collected to analyze total phosphorus, nitrite+nitrate, calcium, chloride, and alkalinity. Photic-zone composite samples were collected for chlorophyll a determinations. Secchi disk transparency was measured. The data, after comparison with earlier information, indicate water quality varies in relation to the volume of cold water fish habitat in late summer. These changes are attributed to fluctuations in nutrient loading and weather conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Otsego Lake is a glacially formed, dimictic lake supporting a cold water fishery. The Lake is generally classified as being chemically mesotrophic, although flora and fauna characteristically associated with oligotrophic lakes are present (Iannuzzi, 1991). Since the establishment in 1968 of the field station, limnological investigations have been ongoing (Clikeman, 1979; Godfrey, 1980; Harman, 1974; Harman and Sohacki, 1976; Harman, 1978; Harman, 1979; Harman, 1980; Harman and Sohacki, 1980; Homburger and Buttigieg, 1991; Iannuzzi, 1988; Monostory, 1972; Sohacki, 1970; 1971; 1972; 1973; 1974; 1975; Stamand Wassmer, 1969).
This study is the continuation of year-round work which began in 1991 to monitor lake water quality. The data collected in this report runs for the calendar year and is comparable with contributions by Homburger and Buttigieg (1992), Groff, et. al.(1993), Harman (1994; 1995) and Austin et al. (1996).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data collection began January 10 and continued until December 17, 1996. During winter months (Jan.-Mar.) while the ice covered the surface of the lake, readings were taken monthly. During periods of open water bi-weekly or weekly readings were collected.
Data were collected near the deepest part of the Lake (TR4-C) (Figure 1), which is 8
considered representative as past studies have shown the Lake to be spatially homogenous (Iannuzzi, 1988). Physical measurements were recorded at 2 m intervals between 0 and 20 m and 40 m to the bottom; 5 meter intervals were used between 20 and 40 m. Measurements of pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen and conductivity were recorded on site with the use of a multiprobe digital microprocessor. Samples were collected for chemical analyses at 4 m intervals between 0 and 20 m and 40 m and the bottom; 10m intervals were used between 20 and 40 m. Composite samples were collected through the photic zone (surface to the depth at which light equals 1% ambient levels, determined with a Protomatic photometer) for chlorophyll a determinations. These measurements were made using a Turner Designs TD-700 fluorometer following the methods ofWelschmeyer (1994).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temllerature
Surface temperature reached a high of 23 AOC on August 8 and lows of OOC when under Ice. The near-bottom temperatures ranged from 2.8 0 C on February 14 to 5.60 C on November 28.
The Lake froze January 4 and remained ice-covered until April 15. Summer stratification was apparent by mid-May. The thermocline was completely eliminated by December 13.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from surface readings of 14.0 mg/l on January 10 to 8.0 mg/l on September 17. Near-bottom readings ranged from 11.6 mg/l on May 2 to 2.5 mg/l on October 30 and November 11 (Figure 2). Bottom readings were less than 2 mg/l between October 13 and December 13.
Areal hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rates were slightly better than had been observed since 1992 (Table 1). This represents the first instance since 1988 that oxygen-loss rates exhibited some improvement from the previous year. However, current values still exceed the lower limit ofeutrophy (0.05 mg/cm2/day) suggested by Hutchinson (1957).
pH measurements in Otsego Lake ranged from 7.3 near the bottom throughout much of the summer to 8.6 through the epilimnion on June 27.
Alkalinity
Alkalinity averaged 112 mg/! (as CaC03) throughout the year. The minimum value of 86 mg/l was observed at the surface on July 5; the maximum value (125 mg/l) occurred at 48 m on March 13. These data are consistent with earlier findings (Harman et al., 1997). 9 CRIPPLE CREEK
CLARKE POND
( , \ 1,\ SUNKEN \~, 50-\ 'i ISLAND J Ii " 75 r~ / .... / \ \, CLARKE POINT // /' \: I '/1100 ~ / / HY.~E BAY SHADOW ~ /'-125\ ~\ \ ~, BROOK ~yfll" 150)~\"'. '--."J.') ~/I SIXMILE POINT I j . iff) I(;.I(.,I;~~SPOINT 11/;1/1 ).: l i ) ( , d. .../ GRAVELLY POINT r 11Rq \ i(W FIVEMILE POINT /~>! ... !/J'~ '/ TR4-C!JI ,./f/(;./;/1' /~~I~>j'~ /i l .' Ijl I A I (,50 I~
THREEMILE POI~IT ~1 \ J(~ 125-1 '//' 4~'1. II I l0~;:/fpOINT FLORENCE //
BLi>CKBIRD BAY
WILLOW BROOK SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Figure 1. Otsego Lake transects and sample stations. 10
1996 Otsego Lake oxygen (mg/l) profiles.
o.....,.------.--.------~------~
5
10
15
20 Depth In Meters 25
30
40
45
~--,---'/L--___._--I---___,__-----'--I_____,-_~t~L 50 --'----,------,-----.------.,.------.-I-J -,------' I I I January March May July September November
Figure 2. 1996 Otsego Lake dissolved oxygen profiles. Isopleths in mg/I. 11
Interval D.O. Deficit (mg/cm /'0. 2/day) 05/16/69-09/27/69 0.080 05/30/72-10/14/72 0.076 05/12/88-10/06/88 0.042 05/18/92-09/29/92 0.091 05/1 0/93-09/27/93 0.096 05/1 7/94-09/20/94 0.096 05/19/95-10/10/95 0.102 05/14/96-09/17/96 0.090
Table 1. Areal hypolimnetic oxygen deficits, Otsego Lake. Computed over summer stratification in 1969, 1972 (Sohacki, Unpbl.), 1988 (Iannuzzi, 1991), 1992-96.
10.------,
9
8
7 ~*'
~ *' *' *"'*' *' *' *'- *' 3 *' *' *' *' *' 2 *'*'" ~
O+------,----r---.-----r-----,----..,.----,------i 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Figure 3. Chloride concentrations at TR4-C, 1920-1996. Points later than 1990 represent yearly averages (modified from Peters, 1974). 12
Calcium
Calcium dynamics paralleled those of alkalinity. The year-long average was 45.5 mg/I. A low of 34.9 mg/l was encountered at the surface on September 18; a low of 51.6 was observed at 48 m on March 13.
Conductivity
Conductivity (an indirect measure of ions in solution) values in Otsego ranged from 298 mmhos/cm on March 13 at 48 m to 234 mmhos/cm on September 15 at the surface.
Chlorides
Chloride concentrations averaged 8.0 mg/l, exhibiting very little variation either temporally or spatially. The trend of increasing chloride levels, first recognized in the 1950s (Peters, 1987), presumably attributable to road salting, continues (Figure 3). Concentrations are approximately 1 mg/l higher than in 1994. Assuming sodium chloride is the source, this represents an addition of almost 600,000 kg (660 tons) of salt to the lake.
Nutrients
Total phosphorus-P ranged from 4.3 ug/l at 30 m on July 18 to 22.4 ug/l at the surface on March 13 and averaged 9.6 ug/I. Nitrite+nitrate-N ranged from 0.24 mg/l at the surface on September 18 to 0.68 mg/l at 40 m on August 22 and averaged 0.40 mg/I. The mean concentration of both nutrients was somewhat lower than had been reported in the 1990s. There was no evidence of phosphorus release from the sediments prior to fall turnover, as had been suggested following 1995 monitoring (Harman et aI., 1997).
Chlorophyll a
Photic-zone mean chlorophyll a concentrations ranged from 5.1 ug/l (August 15) to 11.0 ug/l (July 18). The mean value over the collection period (July 16-December 17) was 7.7 ug/I. These data are presented in full in Figure 4.
Secchi disk transparency
Water transparency ranged from 1.5 m on August 29 to a high of 5.0 m on April 30. Monthly mean transparencies for 1992-96 are graphically presented in Figure 5. 12-.------, 13
10+------+------1--\------··--
'ai 8-1------4'------''F'----+------·-- 2
>. 6+------\...,.--+-----~=---- .r:. a. ...o .Q .r:.o 4-1------·--···-··-·-·-..-·-·..·..·-·····
2+------·..-··--
O+------r----r----,-----r---.....------,----,----,------r----j 07/09 07/29 08/18 09/07 09/27 10/17 11/06 11/26 12/16 1996
Figure 4. Mean photic zone chlorophyll a concentrations, July-December, 1996.
O--y------ --1992 -1-!------·------/ 1993
-2 1994 6 > -.. 0 c 1995 ...(1l ·3 III a. (I) 1996 c III I- ·4 .r:. 0 0 (1l en -5
-6
·7...1.----r---.---..,...... ---r----r-----,---.---.,..-----.,---,------,---,---' JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 5. Mean monthly Secchi transparency, 1992-1996. 14
REFERENCES
Welschmeyer, N.A. 1994. Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll a in the presence of chlorophyll b and pheopigments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39: 1985-1992.
Clikeman, P. 1979. Preliminary petrography and chemical analysis of Otsego Lake surface sediments. In 11 th Annual Report (1978). SUNY Oneonta Bio. F1d. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 54-61.
Godfrey, P. 1. 1978. Otsego Lake Limnology: phosphorus loading, chemistry, algal standing crop, and historical changes. In 9th Annual Report (1976). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp.275-310.
Groff, A., 1. Joseph Homburger and W. N. Harman. 1993. Otsego Lake limnological monitory, 1992. In 24th Annual Report (1991). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.
Harman, W. N. 1974. Bathymetric map of Otsego Lake. Otsego County Conservation Association, Cooperstown.
Harman, W. N. 1978. 1978 Otsego Lake Water Levels. In 11 th Annual Report (1978). SUNY Oneonta Bio. F1d. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp.3-5.
Harman, W. N. 1994. Otsego Lake limnologica1 monitoring, 1994. In 26th Annual Report (1993). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 18-14.
Harman, W. N. and L. P. Sohacki. 1976. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (summary of research 1968-75). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta, Occasional Paper 3:1-50.
Harman, W. N., L. P. Sohacki, and P. J. Godfrey. 1980. The limnology of Otsego Lake. In Bloomfield, J. A. (ed.) Lakes of New York State. Vol. III. Ecology of East-Central N.V. Lakes. Academic Press, Inc., New York. pp.1-l28.
Homburger, J. Joseph and Gavin Buttigieg. 1991. Otsego Lake limno1ogical monitoring. In 24th Annual Report (1991). SUNY Oneonta Bio. F1d. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 60-64.
Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. A treatise on limnology. Vol. 1. Geography, physics and chemistry. Wiley, New York.
Iannuzzi, T. J. 1991. A model plan for the Otsego Lake watershed. Phase II: The chemical limnology and water quality of Otsego Lake, Occasional Paper #23, SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. 15
Monostory, L. (Edited L. P. Sohacki, W. N. Harman) 1972. Stream-lake productivity relations in the Otsego Lake watershed. In 4th Annual Report (1971). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 19-33.
Peters, T. 1987. Update on chemical characteristics of Otsego Lake water. In 19th Annual Report (1986). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 64-67.
Sohacki, L. P. 1970. Lirnnological research. In 3rd Annual Report (1969-70). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. p.44.
Sohacki, L. P. 1971. Lirnnologicai aspects of Otsego Lake. In 3rd Annual Report (1970-71). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. p. 44.
Sohacki, L. P. 1972. Limnological investigations. In 4th Annual Report (1971). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp.16-18.
Sohacki, L. P. 1973. Lirnnological studies on Otsego Lake. In 5th Annual Report (1972). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 54-58.
Sohacki, L. P. 1974. Lirnnological studies. In 6th Annual Report (1974). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 33-35.
Sohacki, L. P. 1975. Lirnnological studies on Otsego Lake. In 7th Annual Report (1975). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp.21-29.
Stam, J. and D. Wassmer. 1969. A lirnnological study of Otsego Lake and Moe Pond. In 1st Annual Report (1969). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. pp. 12 and 21. 16
Water quality monitoring and the benthic community in the Otsego Lake watershed
Brenda L. Hewett*
INTRODUCTION
During the surrraer of 1996 a water quality study of the five major tributaries in the Otsego Lake Watershed was undertaken by the SUCO Biological Field Station. The five streams, White Creek, Cripple Creek, Hayden Creek, Shadow Brook, and Mt. Wellington, contribute approximately seventy percent ofthe stream flow into Otsego Lake (Harman,Godfrey1980). The objective of the study was to assess voluntary agricultural Best Farm Management Practices recommended by the United States Department ofAgriculture. Water quality parameters of pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and conductivity were measured. Total phosphorus - P and nitrate/nitrites N concentrations were also assessed. Benthic sampling was collected at the Cripple Creek, Hayden Creek, and Shadow Brook sites in the summer of 1995 and identification of the benthos was undertaken in the summer of 1996.
Excessive nutrient loading represents one ofthe most serious threats to the ecological stability of Otsego Lake. The study area's agricultural land use, significant quantity of runoff, and limestone derived soils are all contributing factors to increased eutrophication of Otsego Lake ( Harman,Godfrey 1980). Whether we depend on Otsego Lake for our water supply, or for recreational use, preservation ofthe natural resource should take priority.
METHODS
Sampling sites \vere chosen based on access, stream characteristics, proxmuty to agricultural tracts, and general runoff patterns. A field inspection ofthe watershed yielded five sampling sites on White Creek ( WC 1-5), five sampling sites on Cripple Creek ( CC 1-5), eight sampling sites on Hayden Creek (HC 1-8), five sampling sites on Shadow Brook ( SB 1-5), and two sampling sites on Mt. Wellington ( MW 1-2 ). ( see figure 1 )
Parameters ofPh, dissolved oxygen, temperature and conductivity were measured using a Hydrolab Scout Reporter Water Quality Multiprobe. Sampling was done at 7-10 day intervals from June 10 through August 5.
*Robert C. MacWatters internship lin the aquatic sciences, summer 1996. Present address: Fisheries and aquaculture, SUNY Cobleskill Ag. And Tech., Cobleskill. NY. 17
~ Cripple Creek
s.c:.LLll"" IUlOU(fUI
Figure 1. Map of the Northern Otsego Lake watershed illustrating 1995 sample sites. Star symbols indicate property owners undertaking USDA cooperative farmyard improvement .projects. 18
Water samples for N02 and N03-N content were also obtained from each site. Analyses of the samples were conducted at the Biological Field Station under the direction of Matthew Albright. The cadmium reduction method. detailed in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, was utilized for determination of this analysis (Clesceri et. a!., 1989). Total phosphorus determination involved persulfate digestion followed by the single reagent ascorbic acid method (Clesceri et. aI., 1989). Appropriate methods of sampling and analysis procedures such as autoclave sterilization of sampling apparatus were employed.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE SITES
The following descriptions. derived form Heavey (1996), coincide with sampling site locations depicted in Figure 1.
WC 1 Adjacent to Allen Lake in the culvert which runs under Frank Patterson Road.
WC2 North side of Allen Lake Road. at the culvert betore White Creek branches off into two directions.
WC3 South side of Thurston Hill Road across from the Rum Hill entrance gate.
WC4 South side of Allen Lake Road adjacent to WC2.
WC5 West side of Rt. 80 after the intersection of Allen Lake Road.
CCI Weaver Lake. north ofRt. 20. The marsh-like conditions ofthe site result in extremely slow moving waters.
CC2 Young Lake. The shallowness of the shore front requires sampling be done approximately thirty yards from shore.
CC3 Crossing of Bartlett Road and is a combination of residential, forested, and limited agricultural land uses.
CC4 Crossing ofRt. 80, downstream from heavy agricultural land use.
CC5 Outflow of Clarke Pond just above the mouth of Otsego Lake.
HCl Rt. 80 approximately 1.5 miles north of the intersection ofRT. 20 and 80 on Summit Lake. 19
HC2 Beneath a bridge at the crossing of Domion Road and extensive agricultural use surrounds the site.
HC3 Culvert beneath Rt. 80 approximately % of a mile north of the intersection of Rt. 20 and 80.
HC4 North side of the culvert where Hayden Creek passes under Rt. 20.
HC5 Riffle below the pool formed by the Shipman Pond spillway.
HC6 East side of the culvert on Rt. 80 at the junction ofFr'1nk Smith Road.
HC7 South side ofthe culvert where Hayden Cr~eK passes under Count Rt. 53.
HC8 Adjacent to the Otsego Golf Club Clubhouse. At this site Hayden Creek runs into Otsego Lake.
SB 1 This site was intended to be the initial sampling site for Shadow Brook. Unfortunately low flow conditions rendered SBI inappropriate for sampling for most of the study.
SB2 State Rt. 20 bridge.
SB3 Small wooden bridge on a driveway ( Box 652 ) leading to an active farm.
SB4 Crossing of Rathbun Road. The stream passes over a combination of exposed bedrock and livestock wastes.
SB5 North side ofthe culvert crossing Mill Road, just before Shadow Brook enters Glirnmerglass State Park.
MWI Private driveway off ofPublic Landing Road, this site is in a cow pasture where the culvert crosses under the driveway.
MW2 Eastern side ofthe Otsego Golf Course, access is down MWI sites private drive and then by walking down a mowed path to a culvert underpass approximately 10 yards from where the creek flows into Otsego Lake.
RESULTS
Figures 2-16 illustrate dissolved oxygen, pH (Figures 2-6), temperature, conductivity (Figures 7-11), total phosphorus and nitrate+nitrite (Figures 12-16) on the 20
main stems ofthe tributaries studied. Table 1 is illustrative ofthe macrobenthic invertebrates collected in these streams by Fahey (l996)in 1995. Determinations have not yet been verified. Table 2 compares nitrogen concentrations in mg/1 at selected sites iln 1991, 1995 and 1996. Table 3 compares total phosphorus in ugll at selected sites in 19991,1995 and 1996.
Table 2. A comparison ofnitrate+nitrite concentrations in mg/1 at selected sites on the tributaries studied.
SB4 - 1991 6/25 6/30 7/9 7116 7/26 .58 .45 .54 .43 .43
SB4 - 1995 6/22 6/30 7/4 7/19 7/31 .37 .27 .27 .17 .05
SB4 - 1996 6/11 6/24 7/9 7/22 8/5 2.14 1.53 1.22 1.83
HC7 - 1991 6/25 6/30 7/9 7/] 6 7/26 .93 .91 .77 .60 .39
HC7 - 1995 6/22 6/30 7/4 7/19 7/31 .63 .56 .40 .44 .33
HC7 - 1996 6110 6/24 7/9 7/22 8/5 1.61 1.57 1.55 2.04
CC5 - 1991 6/25 6/30 7/9 7/16 7/26 .54 .45 .80 .35 .43
CC5 - 1995 6/22 6/30 7/4 7/19 7/31 .17 .10 .10 .08 .49
CC5 - 1996 6/1 0 6/24 7/9 7/22 8/5 .89 .99 1.00 1.06 12 I I 9
1-8.8
101---·----··-·---·-··---··----····-····--·-··--······------..--.-.- --.-.-.-.------. ---..--.----.--.------..-.- ---.--.------.1 1-8.6
---'*' ~ 8 4 8 _j- .__.__ __. .__.. .._._. ._ __ __.._._ _. _._. .__ . -- .__. -_.._- .._.. --- - .- ..._- _.._.... ------ . -::::::. Ol ~ E 1-8.2 -C Ql Ol >. >< 61····------·---·----·-······-··-·-·--···-·······-···..-.. -- -- - ..- .. -..------.-.------.-----.------..-..------..--.------..---.--.---.------..--.-1-8 I o a. lJ Ql > --- -- o 1-7.8 (JI (JI i5 1-7.6
1-7.2 WCI WC2 WC5 o I I I I I I I 17 o 1 234 567 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM)
1-7IE- Dissolved Oxygen --- pH I
Figure 2. Dissolved oxygen and pH values in White Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites", above. N...... 12 I I 9
>--8.8 10i---·--·-·----··----·----·-···-···--····-·-·---·----·...--.. '-'.-.---...-..-.-_.---. --...-.-.-.--.-.-.----.------.-...---...--.---.--.--...---_..-.- --.J 1-8.6
>--8.4 8--j····-··--·--····- ..-.-.-..- ..---...-...- ...---.. -- .-. --.- -- ..------..._--.. --..-.-.------..------~------.---- -::::::. ------=;¥------.- Ol -S l-8.2 c Cll Ol > I o1il> 6-1------. --- -.- - ...... _._------~------.----~-- J8 a. o >--7.8 f/l f/l is 1-7.6
7 4 2i..----.-.- - ..--.------.-..-.-...:.....-.--.- --_.- -.--..-- -.--.-- .. __ ------.__ .-._ --- -.-- .._ _. _ .._._ ._ 1 .
>--7.2 MWI MW2 o I I I I I I I I ~7 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM)
I"""*""" Dissolved Oxygen --- pH I
Figure 3. Dissolved oxygen and pH values in Mount Wellington tributary, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description t--J of sample sites", above. IV 12 I 1 9
1-8.8
1n -I···..·· · ·..· ········· · ··..· ., · · · - - -.- - ..- -.------.------.------..- -- - ..· -1 1-8.6 =
1-8.4 ::::::. 0) E 8.2 C 1 Ql 0) >. x ...... __ _ _ " _ _ _~ _.._._.._.._..- I o :8 a. "'C Ql ~ > o """ ~7.8 1Il 1Il is ...... " "...... -._ " " _ _ j 1-7.6
1-7.4
17.2 CCI ce2 CC3 CC4 CC5 I 01 I I I I I I I ---.I,-7 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM)
1-7+E- Dissolved Oxygen --- pH I
Figure 4. Dissolved oxygen and pH values in Cripple Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description or sample sites", above.
N W 12 I I 9
8.8
10-1···-· --·--·---· · -·-·--···-· ·· ··· - ···· ······.- -.--- ,-;-;- - -.- - --.-7""------,,-- -.- ---..------..- ---- ~ 8.6
8.4 E:' 84-·-· ·-·-·- ··-···· ·-- ·- ······-··----·-···· ····· -..- -- ~------.- -..------.-----..--..- ..-----.--..-.- - ..------..------..·······\··---·-·-·1 C> .s 8.2 c Q) C> > X 6-f---···-· -· ··-···· -··-· ···-·· --·-·· ······· · ------.------..------.--- -.------.------··-··_",··",--+-8 I o a. -c Q) > "0 7.8 rJ) rJ) i5 7.6
7.4 2-1····--··· ·· -···--- ····· ··· ····-···· - ·· ··-.------.- - -.- -.------..------···· ··· -···- -·-·-··-· ····-·· ·····1
7.2 HC] HC2 HC3 HC4 HC5 HC6 HC? HC8 O~ I I I I I I I I I ~7 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM)
r---'3+E- Dissolved Oxygen --- pH I
Figure 5. Dissolved oxygen and pH values in Hayden Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites", above.
tv ..j::>. 12 I i 9
8.8
1 }-+ _ - -- _ "'~._--.------.--.-..-.--- -- """' ..- -.------.._ - j 8.6
8.4 '- 8 0> .s 8.2 c CIl 0> >x 8 I 0 6 Q. "0 CIl > 0 7.8 1/1 1/1 is 4 7.6
-7.4
7.2 I SBI SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 I o I I I I I I 17 o 2 4 6 8 1lJ 1;> 14 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM)
1-7I Figure 6. Dissolved oxygen and pH values in Shadow Brook, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites". above. N VI 30 600 .__.__H.__....."..._____ ....._..__.H.______.. __._____.______.___.__...... 28 .~.~.._.._.-.._-----_...... _-_.__...._...... _.... _.-..---_._-_...... _-_.•..--_._.._._..__.~_._-_ .._._.. 550 26 _.__..__.---_..------_.__...... _-_._--_._---...-.__._.. _--_._--._--.-.------_._..-. ._---_...__._._-._.__ .._.---- ---_. 500 ••••____._.""...._ •• _.____H ...... ____•• __._•• _ ••___• ___...... H ..._ ••__._...._ •• __••• ___._ ...... _ ...... ___...... _ ••••_ ...._ ...... ___••______• _____••__• __...... _'.._._ E 24 _ 450 ~ 0 ~ ..s:: ~ WC2 WC5 E ::l wei 2. ...... _-,._------._--- III.... 22 ----_._ 400 ~ a> .:; a. :;::::; E 0 a> ::l I -c 20 ._-----, ------ ------ ------ 350 5 u ~ 18 __.__.._.__.. _._....____._...... _____._._._._...... _._·...... ____....._. __._.H.. _ ------_.._.~_.~_ ..-....__..~ ..__._..._._-_.._._-_._._-----_._._----_._ ..---.. 300 . .~._.~--_.~------. .~_._~--_ ...... 16 __ ---_._-----_.._.__ _.---_ _-_ __.. __ ._.__. .. ~...... _-~------_._ ..._-_.-----. 250 . • -'--' 14 200 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) I~ Temperature -- Conductivity I Figure 7. Temperature and conductivity in White Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites", above. N 0\ 30 I I 600 28-j···· ······· ······ ·· ················· ······-··· - ..-. --- - --.-- -. - - - - -. ·····-··t-550 26-j - - - _ - - .. - -.-.--. - - -.--.-.- --.- ..-.-- - .. - - - -+- 500 E 24-i···· ····················· ·················_···· · _ - - _ --._-. - -._-. - .._ _ -. - ..~-_ _----_ -_ _ - +- 450 ~ o 2 ..c w E ~ ~ 2~ 22 --.. - - - - - - _--. - _ _ - _._._ _- _- --. -_ - - _ _ -._ -.- -_ -_ - -.-_.. __ - - _... 400 -?; ~ ~ E U w ~ I 20 350 -go (J 1H -+ - _ _ - -- -_- - _ - --+ 1ti-+ - _ _ __ . - - - .. _ - _ -_..-_ _ _--. - _ _ - - _ - t- ~'t>l MWI MW2 14 I I I I I I I I I 200 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) 1-7+E- Temperature --- Conductivity I figure 8. Temperature and conductivity in Mount Wellington tributary, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above thc axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites", above. N -.l 30 600 28 ...___...... __•••_ ..H ...... ___...... __•••___._...•••__._...... _.___._RH ...... _.__••_._._•• _.___•••___._•••••___~._._•••• _.___•••____••__••_._____._._.____• __• __••_ •• ______••__~_... _ ••_____H _____...___, _____ 550 26 ...... _..----_..-,.__.__._---_...... _----.__..._...... ,"_...... ---..--.._-,------_._._..._-_._~-. __._----.._--_ .._-----.~._-,.- 500 -E ...._--_...... _...... _...... __ ._-_...... _...... __.....-- ...... _---_...... -.__........... __ ....-...... --,--.... ._.-----,-.. ...------...... _---... 24 __ _ ._---_ -_ -_._ __ ---_._-_ _._ _- _--_._._ _- 450 ~ 0 £ ..r::: ~ E ::J 2 .. ___..__.__..._____.______..__..______...... _...__···...··__··__·_·_·__~··___··_.._. ____·_·_._M.__.____·____ ·_···_M._____ ..-._----~--_ .._-_.._.._._._---._------_... ~ iiiL. 22 400 Ql .;:; c.. +:i E 0 Ql ::J ...... "U ._------~.- _--~ __._ I 20 ...... _--_..__ .. _-----_ ..__..._...._._._----._....__....-._-_._---_..._._..._._.__ ...... _._ .._--_._._.--_.--_ ...... _.._-_ .._---_.__ .._.._...._-- ...... _...._ 350 § () 18 ...... ~ .._.._•.. _....__._---_...... __...... _._.....__._._..... ~ ...... _... ~ ...... _...... ~ ..... ~_._._ ...... _..~_.- 300 ._~_ 16 ..._..... _...._..-..__.__.. _~---_ .._._.__._---_ .. ...._._._.._....._...._..--....._.__...... __ ...... ~ ...__._-..._...... _...... -.... ...... ...._...._---_.. _-_.._...... ... _._._.__._..'''''' ..·__....._...... __....·M··_.._.__.__·_____·__...._·...._..._____ .._.._._._.__ ..._.._ 250 eCl CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5 14 200 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) I~ Temperature -- Conductivity I Figure 9. Temperature and conductivity in Cripple Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites", above. N 00 30 I -,600 28-1 ----..-..-.-- --.--- .. _.------.-.- - ..-.- ,.- -.--- .. -, -, - -.-..---..,-.... .-.--. -~------..-.- --., ..-- --..--.-- ..- _------.----.---.------t--550 26-l········-··-·-·-·-··-····························· ------~-----.------.--..--..--- ..---.---.--.-- - -.--.- -.------..-.-.---.. -----.---.------·------········t--500 -E -.---- -.-..... -.------.---..------...... ----.------/------450 i~ Q:~ 24 ------_ 400 !~ --._.__ . -- ._._...._-. ------_ .._..._.._------]ii 22 ---- - ~~===~ -~~ ______~__ __ 350 § ! 20 ------.-...--. ------.- - ....-. ------..------+300 0 1cJ-- ..---- -.---..-.- -- -.. -..--- -- ..--.-.-.--.- -..--..- -?._. __••••_..... • ••H _ 16-+------·--·----·----··--··--····-···----·-··--·-·....---...-. . --.--.-.-.-.------.-.. -.--.----t--250 IIC] IIC2 HC3 HC4 IICS HC6 HC7 BC8 14 I I I I I I I I 8 I --+200 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) I~ Temperature --- Conductivity I Figure] o. Temperature and conductivity in Hayden Creek, summer] 995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites". above. tv \0 30 600 28 ••__• ______._·_.__• ____·_~.______• _____••ri______• ____•• ....__.__....------.. 550 26 ___R ___• __..__~..__...••• __• __•••___·_·__• __·._.··___··_·...... _._••_ ...._.__• __• __•• _ ••• ~.___...._.__• ______• ______••_____• ______••••___• ___• ______500 -E 24 ------_.------._------_. 450 ~ 0 Q: ..c. Ql.... E ~ 2. .._-_.-....._---.. ._-_._------_._------_._._._ iii.... 22 _-_.__ 400 ~ Ql .:;: a. :;::::; E 0 Ql ~ 'U I- 20 ._------_._------_._-_.. _-_...._---_._-_..-_. .._------._------. 350 5 () 18 .._------.- .... _.. _-_._--_...... - ...._.,,_ ...._-_.._...... _..- ...... ----_...._-----_._---_._----_...... __._------..__ ...-_._.... 300 16 ....___ri...••___•• ___•••••__••• __..·_··______·_··____• ...... __.....__...... _ ...... ____••___._... .------_.-.-.-_.------.....__._---_._--_...- 250 SBI SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 14 200 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) I~ Temperature --- Conductivity I Figure II. Temperature and conductivity in Shadow Brook, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of w sample sites", above. o 100 2 1.8 80 •• _ ••• _ ••••_H.....··.··_·...··_·••··_·..•• •••••••• _.___._••_._..... _ ••_ •••_ ...... _ ...... , ...... ____...... _ ...... __••••_ ...... _ ••____...... _ ...... _ ...... __• ___....___•• _ ••••••••__..._ ...... _ ••••••_._••••••~••__•••___••_ ••• __•••_ •••_ ...... _ ...... ____...... _ ...... __ •__ ••__• ____...... _ ...... ___ ••••••• _ ••••••__ •••••• _ 1.6 1.4 ::::::- Ol -:::::: ...... ,-_...... - ...... _...... -_ ....•.-.._.. ..._.. -._._-~ ...... ~...... -.__...... _._--_.. _... _-_..~--_...... _-_._...... __._._...._...... _.._...... _...... _._..__.._._.-~_ ...... __._....._..._.._...... -_. ::I 60 _ _ _- _--______1.2 E -l/l :::J -Ql L- +-' 0 cG ..c L c... 1 .'!:: l/l Z 0 + ..c Ql 0.. ~ 40 ...... - ...... _....- ...... _....._....._....._...... _...... " ..._..._...... _...... _...... •. - ...... _.._..._.._.__ ...... " ...._"._._...... _. 0.8 :c ~ .'!:: 0 z I 0.6 )1( 20 ...... ...... _..._..... _....._...... _...... _.... , ...... - ...... _...... _-_.. _._...... __...... -.. _...... _.._...... _.... 0.4 0.2 weI \Ve2 WC5 o -- I .0 o 1 2 3 4 --' 6 7 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) I---?+E- Tot. Phosphorus --- Nitrite+Nitrate I Figure 12. Total phosphorus and nitrate+nitrite in White Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description or w sample sites", above...... 300 4 280 ••• _~__~M ______.~___••••__••••• ~ ••__._••__M'~ ______..___.,______~~______._•••___••_.__• ____~______• __•• ______R __••______• __~~_ 3.8 3.6 ..._-_...." ..__..__.._--_....._.__._.._...... --._...... - ...... _..__._-_._---_...... _--.__...... __.-----_...._--_.------_._---_...,--._---_.. _- ...._--_...__...... --.._.__...._...... _-_._._--_ ...... -._...... _._-_ .._. 260 3.4 ~_ ~_ 240 ...._ •._...... _.__ ..... __ ...... ," ..__ ._..._ ...... _.__...... _ ...... __...."...... _ ...... _...... __.....__.______..______...... M_._.__...... ___"._.. . .__...._-_...... _~-_ ...... _.._.--~_. __ ..__...... __._--_. 3.2 220 ...... _-_._ ...... _.._.._...... _~ ...... __ ...- ...... _...... _...... _....._.. _....._.._--...__._..._.- ...... _---_...._...._...... _---_...... - ..._-_._...... -.._._-._.__.._-_...._._ ..._._....- ._--,..__._...... _-...... _~._ ..--~_ .._--_.-_. 3 2.8 _ 200 ..-_._...... _...-...._.._.. _.....__..._...... _-... _.._-._....._...... _...... _...._.._._._.. _ ...._--_._..--_..------_.._--~----~ ....---~_ .. ::::::. 2.6 _ m ::::::. ...- ..._...... _.....-...- ...... _.. ._...._...... _...... __....__...... - ...... _._----_...... -_._-...._~_._---_ ..._ .._..._..._.._._-- .... ._..__. ...._.-...... 2. 180 ._-_ __ _- ______2.4 E (Il :J ~ ~ "' ...... _--~--- ~... 2.2 ; o 160 ..._..-.-...._...... _...... _...... _..__.---- ...... _...... __._ - .._...__ ..._._.....__._--.__._-----_..._..--_...... _.. _._..._---_._ ...... __...._.._.-.._-_._ .. _...... __ .._-_..._.._-- .t= ~ a. 2 ...... _ .. .._...... _...... _...... ~-_...... _...... - ... .._...... _...... (Il --- ______-- _- __ __._---_.______--_ __._ __ _--- - _ _ ___-_ _ __---.----_._--- z a 140 1.8 + .t= Ql fl.. ..._...._...... _.. _...... -...... - ....__...... _-- ...... _.. _...... _...... _...... _.._...... _.....-_._...._...... _.._-_.--.. _.._----_._-_..._.._ .._.._._.._._...... _-_._...... _._ .._-_...-_... _._...._,_._.__.....-_...... __ .._.....-._-~-._ ..._...__ ..._-_. . 120 1 • 6 .'!:::.1:: a I-- 1.4 Z 100 ...... _.._._.... _...... _...... _.__._...... _.... _...... _...... _...... _.... __...... _.. _...... - ...... _.... __ ....__...... _...... __....._.._..... _-.._.... _---...... __...... _..... _._...... __ ...... _...__...... _...... _.._...... _..._..._._...... _..._...... _.._.. _._._.._.._-_. 1.2 ...._ri.._·__··_·.._·...• ..·_···_··__···_·...... __.._·__·_··_· .....__• __...... _._ ...... _ .....__~...... _ ..... _ .._ .. _ ...._ ...._._...__._.._.__.._.__• ___._...... _._..__...... _ ..__.....__...... _._.._ ...... _~______..._._.._ ...._ ...__..._ ..._ .....___• __._..___...... _._....._____.... 80 1 60 ...... _.._...._.._._....__....._...~ .... _._~ .... _.. _...... _...... _...... _...... -_... -.~ ...... _... _.._-.--_._-_...... _._.__...... _-_ ...- ... ~_ ...... ,._...... _...... _-~ ..__...... _....._...._...... - .... _...... __._...... ---_...__ ...... _.....-. 0.8 40 ....._ ...... _...... _. __...... _..... _ ..... _.... ~ ...... _ ...... _...... _ ..._ ...... _..·.._..·_...... _ ....._ .._ ....M______._.._ ..._...... ___.___.._____.__._...._ ...._ .._._.._._..... ___...__._....._...... ____..___~..__...... _ ... __. 0.6 0.4 ...... _...... _...... _...... _._...... _...... _._...... -...... _...... _._...... ""... ~ ..- ...... _..__..._...... _---.-._---._...-._~--_ ...... _-_ .. _-_ ...... _...--...._..._...... _..._....._...... _...... _...... - ...-..__ ...----- 20 0.2 MWI MW2 o .0 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) L--::+E- Tot. Phosphorus --- Nitrite+Nitrate I Figure 13. Total phosphorus and nitrate+nitrite in Mount Wellington tributary, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of sample sites", above. w N 100 I I 2 f-1.8 Hfl--+------.-----.-----.-- -- -..---.- --.- -.-.-.------.- --.--- -- .. ------..--.-..-.----.------..- -.-.-.---..-.---..--..- -.- ---..-.-.-.-.- '------.--·····-··---+-1 .6 f-1.4 ::::::::. Ol ~ __."_.H· __· ______"'_~" __"__'_' ~ :J 60 -..------..-----.. ------. .~_ ..~... ------_._-_. ------.._-- __ ------.,. __.._---, ·-----f-1'" .2 ::::::::.E l/l :J Lo ..c Q.. l/lo ..c __-~ ~ ~1 ~ , - a.. 40--1 ------.-. -_.'. .. _------.______c__ i...... o r 20--1----... -.- .. .--.... --.- - ..-----.-.------. 08 ~2 ___ _ . . .._.__.. .._... ._... ._ . f- 0.6 ------...--_...- - _._ -_ - 0)1..---·------+I 0.4- ./ 1-0.2 eCl ee2 CC3 CC4 CC5 o I I I I I I I I I 0 o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) ~TOt. Phosphorus --- Nitrite+Nitrate I Figure 14. Total phosphorus and nitrate+nitrite in Cripple Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance irom the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description or sample sites", above. w w 100 I !III ...... I 2 1.8 80~··-····"···-·_·_'··-·'··-···_··--·-·-··-····-·-··· - .. -- _-- _-._-_.- -,.. -. ...-. -.------.--.. - - _- -.- - ---..-.-.._-.-.~-_._ -'--t-1 .6 1.4 -:::::. :::::. 0) 0) :::l 60 1.2 - UI .s :::l.... Ql 0 eu .c -.... a.. 1 UI z- 0 + .c Ql a... 0.8 1: .; 40 .....0 -Z 0.6 ~ 20-j' --.-.. ------.------;( ---._... ~--~---··--·------·----·--l-0.4 0.2 lie) IIC2 IIC3 IIC4 IIe5 HC6 lIC? BC8 o I I I I I I I I I I 10 o 1 2 3 456 7 8 9 10 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) I""*- Tot. Phosphorus --- Nitrite+Nitrate I Figure IS. Total phosphorus and nitrate+nitrite in Hayden Creek, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical descripl ion of sample sites", above. v.~ +> 100 I I 2 1.8 - 1.6 1.4 -:::::::. :::::::. Ol - ::J 1.2 .[ (Jl ::J.... Ql o -....lU .!: 0 1 :'= (Jl Z o .!: + a... Ql 40-1...... - /-...... -.- -.. ------.~ 0.8 ~ 1: o Z- ~ 0.6 0.4 0.2 snl sn2 sin SI\c\ SBS 0, I I I I -I I I 0 o 2 4 6 8 1~) 12 14 01 STANCE FROM SOURCE (KM) 1-*- Tot. Phosphorus --- Nitrite+Nitrate I Figure 16. Total phosphorus and nitrate+nitrite in Shadow Brook, summer 1995. The x axis indicates the distance from the source to the most downstream collecting station. Designations above the axis indicate sampling sites keyed in "Physical description of VJ sample sites", above. VI Taxonomy (Order, Genus. Species) HC-Site . & 1995 Date CC-Site . & 1995 Date S8-Site . & 1995 Date Bivalvia, Unionidae, Elliptio complanata #7 - 8/7 Bivalvia, Unionidae, Lampsilis radiata #2 - 8/7 Bivalvia, Sphaeridae, Sphaerium #1 - 7/19, #2 - 7/13 & 8/7 Bivalvia, Sphaeriidae, Sphaerium #2 - 6/30 - 8/7 #1 - 6/30 - 7/31 #5 - 6/30 & 8/8 Gastropoda, Hydrobiidae, Amnicola integra #1 - 8/7 #1 - 6/30 &# 2 - 7/31 Gastropoda, Lymnaeidae, Lymnaea humilis #1 - 6/30 #2 - 8/7 Gastropoda, Lymnaeidae, Lymnaea humilis #4 - 8/8 Gastropoda, Lymnaeidae, Lymnaea columella #3 - 6/30 Gastropoda, Physidae, Aplexa elongata #5 - 6/30 Gastropoda, Physidae, Aplexa hypnorum #2 - 8/7 #2 - 8/8 Gastropoda, Physidae, Physa #2 - 6/30 #1 - 6/30 #4 - 7/31 Gastropoda, Physidae, Physa integra #4-7/19 Gastropoda, Planorbidae, Helisoma trivolvis #2 - 8/7, #4 - 7/19 Gastropoda, Planorbidae, Planorbula #1 - 8/7 Gastropoda, Sphaeridae, Pisidium #2 - 8/8, #3 - 8/8 Gastropoda, Viviparidae, Cipangopaludina chinesis #5 - 7/31 Gastropoda, Viviparidae, Viviparus georgianus #2 - 8/7 #1 - 7/19,# 2 - 8/7,# 4 - 7/13 Annelida, Glossiphoniidae, Rynchobdellida #5 - 7/31 Annelidia, Branchiobdellidae, Branchiobdella #2 - 8/7 lsopoda, Asellidae, Caecidotea #1-7/19 Amphipoda, Gammaridae, Gammarus #1 - 6/30 #1 - 6/30 #4 - 7/3 & 8/8 Amphipoda, Talitridae, Hyalella # Decapoda, Cambarellinae, Cambarellus #2 - 6/30 #5 - 6/30 Decapoda, Cambaridae, Orconectes Iimosus #2,#3,#5,#6 - 8/7,# 3- 7/31 #4-7/13 #2 - 8/8 Decapoda, Cambaridae, Orconectes obscurus #2 - 8/7 Decapoda, Cambaridae, Orconectes virilis #2 - 8/7, #3 - 7/31, #5 - 6/30 #1 - 7/19 & 6/30 Decapoda, Cambaridae, Procambarus acutus acutus #4 - 7/31, #f3 - 7/9,8/10,#7- 6/30,8/7 #3 - 8/8, #5 - 8/8 Decapoda, Orconectus rusticus #1 - 6/30, #2 - 8/7 #3 - 6/30 Plecoptera, Acroneuriinae, Atroperla ephyre #f3-8/10 Plecoptera, Peltoperlidae, Peltoperla #1 - 8/7 Plecoptera, Peltoperlidae, Peltoperla #4 - 7/13,#5- 6/30 #1 - 6/30 Plecoptera, Perlidae, Agnetina #3 - 6/30 Plecoptera, Pteronarcidae, Pteronarcella #3 - 7/31 Plecoptera, Pteronarcyidae, Pteronarcys #3 - 6/30 Ephemeroptera, Baetidae, Baetisca #5 - 6/30 Ephemeroptera, Baetidae, Traverella #5-8/10 Table I. Macrobenthic invertebrates of the Otsego Lake drainage basin: Hayden Creek, w Cripple Creek and Shadow Hrook collected by Fahey (1996) in 1995. 0\ Taxonomv (Order Genus, Species) HC-Site . & 1995 Date CC-Site . & 1995 Date S8-Site . & 1995 Date I Ephemeroptera, Baetidae, Tricorythodes #1 - 7/19 Ephemeroptera, Caenidae, Brachycercus #3 - 7/13 Ephemeroptera, Caenidae, Caenis #3 - 7/31 Ephemeroptera, Ephemerellidae, Ephemerella #3 - 7/3i #2 - 7/13 Ephemeroptera, Ephemeridae, Ephemera #7 - 8/7 Ephemeroptera, Heptaganidae, Stenonema #2 - 8/7 Ephemeroptera, Heptagenidae, Rhithrogena #6 - 8/7 Ephemeroptera, Heptageniidae, Epeorus #5 - 8/7 Ephemeroptera, Heptageniidae, Leucrocuta #5 - 8/7 Ephemeroptera, Heptageniidae, Macdunnoa #3 & #4 - 7/31 #2 - 7/13 #2 - 8/8 Ephemeroptera, Heptageniidae, Stenonema #1 - 7/19, #2 - 6/30 #3 - 8/8, #4 - 7/31 Ephemeroptera, Potamanthidae,Potamantus #7 - 6/30 #3 - 6/30 Ephemeroptera, Tricorythidae, Tricorythodes #4 - 8/8 Odonata, Aeshnidae, Aeshna #3 - 6/30 Odonata, Aeshnidae, Anax #4 - 7/13 Odonata, Aeshnidae, Basiaeschna #4 - 8/8 Odonata, Anisoptera, Libellulidae, Sympetrum #1 - 6/30 Odonata, Calopterygidae, Calopteryx #3 - 6/30,7/31 Odonata, Coenagrionidae, Chromagrion conditum #1 - 6/30 Odonata, Coenagrionidae, Lestes #2 - 8/7 Odonata, Coenagrionidae, Nahalennia #2 - 7/13 Odonata, Cordulegasteridae, Taeniogaster #2 - 8/7 Odonata, Corduliidae, Williamsonia #1 - 6/30 Odonata, Gomphidae, Hagenius #1 - 6/30 Odonata, Li bell ulidae, Helocordulia #4 - 8/8 Odonata, Libellulidae, Leucorrhinia #1 - 6/30 #3 - 7/31 Odonata, Libellulidae, Libellula #3 - 7/31 Odonata, Libellulidae, Tramea #1 - 6/30 Odonota, Gomphidae, Ophiogomphus #7 - 6/30 Hemipetera, Belostomatidae, Belostoma #1 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Belostomatidae, Lethocerus #1 - 7/19 #4 - 8/8 Hemiptera, Corixidae #3 - 7/31 #5 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Corixidae, Callicorixa #3 - 7/31 & 8/7 Hemiptera, Corixidae, Hesperocorixa #2 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Corixidae, Hesperocorxa #3 - 8/7 Hemiptera, Corixidae, Palmacorixa #4-7/19 W Table I. Macrobenthic invertebrates ofthe Otsego Lake drainage basin: llayden Creek, -....I Cripple Creek and Shadow Brook collected by Fahey (1996) in 1995. Taxonomv (Order, Genus Species) HC-Site . & 1995 Date CC-Site . & 1995 Date S8-Site . & 1995 Date Hemiptera, Corixidae, Sigara alternata #2 - 8/7 Hemiptera, Corixidae, Sigargallemit #3 - 7/31 Hemiptera, Corixidae, Trichocorixa #2 - 8/8 Hemiptera, Gelastocoridae, Gelastcoris #1 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Gerridae, Gerris #3 & #4 - 7/31& #6 - 8/7& #7 - 8/10 #3 - 6/30 & 7/31 #5 - 8/8 Hemiptera, Gerridae, Limnoporus #5 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Gerridae, Metrobates #5 - 8/8 Hemiptera, Gerridae, Neogerris #3 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Gerride, Rheumatobates #5 - 6/30 #3 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Hydrometridae, Hydrometra #5 - 8/7 Hemiptera, Mesoveliidae, Mesovelia #7 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Saldidae #4-7/19 Hemiptera, Saldidae #1 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Velidae, Rhagovelia obesa #2 - 8/7 Hemiptera, Veliidae, Microvelia #5 - 6/30 Hemiptera, Veliidae, Paravelia #3 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Sericostomatidae, Agarodes #3 - 8/8 Trichoptera, Glossosmatidae, Glossosoma #4 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Helicopsychidae, Helicopsyche #3 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae, Arctopsyche #3 - 8/7 Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae, Diplectrona #2 - 8/7 Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae, Hydropsyche #3 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae, Limnephilidae #4-7/13 Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae, Macronema #1 - 6/30 #4 - 8/8 Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae, Macrostomum #3 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Hydropsychidae, Potamyia #3 - 7/31 & 8/7 Trichoptera, Hydroptilidae, Agraylea #5 - 8/7 Trichoptera, Hydroptilidae, Leucotrichia #3 - 7/31 & #4 - 7/13 Trichoptera, Hydroptilidae, Stactobiella #3 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Limnephilidae, Astenophyla #5 - 6/30,#6-8/7 & 8/10,#7- 8/7 #3 - 6/30 #3 - 8/8 Trichoptera, Limnephilidae, Limnephilus consocius #7 - 8/7 #3 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Limnephilidae, Limnephilus submonilifer #3 - 6/30 Trichoptera, Limnephilidae, Neophylax concinnis #6 - 8/7 Trichoptera, Limnephilidae, Pycnopsyche #3 - 6/30 Trichoptera, Philopotamidae, Dolophilodes #3 - 8/7&# 6 - 8/7 Trichoptera, Polvcentropodidae, Nvctiophvlax #3 - 6/30 Table 1. Macrobenthic invertebrates ofthe Otsego Lake drainage basin: Hayden Creek, w Cripple Creek and Shadow Brook collected by Fahey (1996) in 1995. 00 Taxonomv (Order. Genus SlJeciesl HC-Site . & 1995 Date CC-Site . & 1995 Date 58-Site. & 1995 Date I Trichoptera, Polycentropodidae, Phylocentropus #7 - 6/30 , Trichoptera, Polycentropodidae, Phylocentropus 3 - 8/8 Trichoptera, Psychomyiidae, Lype #7 - 6/30 Trichoptera, Psychomyiidae, Psychomyia #5 - 6/30 Trichoptera, Rhyacophilidae, Rhyacophila fenestra #3 - 7/13, #4 - 7/31 Trichoptera, Uenoidae, Neophlax #4 - 7/31 Megaloptera, Corydalidae, Neohermes #4 - 7/31 Megaloptera, Corydalidae, Nigronia #4 - 7/13,7/31,# 7 - 8/7 Megoloptera, Corydalidae, Neohermes #3 - 6/30 #3 - 8/8 Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Desmopachria #2 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Dytiscus #2 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Hydroporus #1 - 8/7 #1 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Laccophilus #1 - 7/19 Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Oreodytes #5 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Thermonectus #3 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Elmidae, Microeylloepus #4 - 7/13 &# 5 - 7/30 Coleoptera, Elmidae, Optioservus #3 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Gyrinidae, Dinetus #4 - 7/19 Coleoptera, Gyrinidae, Gyrinus #1 - 6/30 #3 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Haliplidae, Amphizoa lecontei #4 - 7/31 Coleoptera, Haliplidae, Haliplus #2 - 8/7 #4 - 7/19 Coleoptera, Haliplidae, Peltodytes #1 - 6/30 #3 - 8/8 Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Helophoris #5 - 8/8 Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Hydrochus #5 - 8/8 Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae, Tropisterus #2 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Pryopidae, Heliehus #7 - 8/7 Coleoptera, Psephenidae, Psephenus #2 - 8/7, #5-7/30 & 8/7,#6-8/7,#7-8/7 #3 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Psephenidae, Psephenus herricki #3 &# 4 - 7/31 , # 5 - 6/30 Coleoptera, Psephenidae, Psephenus herricki #3 - 7/31 #3 - 8/13 Diptera, Anthomyiidae, Limnophora #2 - 8/7 Diptera, Ceratopogonidae, Dasyhelea #6 - 7/30 Diptera, Chaoboridae, Eucorethra #5 -6/30 Diptera, Chironomidae, Ablabesymyia #5 - 6/30 Diptera, Chironomidae, Chironomus #3 - 6/30 #2 - 6/30,# 5 - 6/30 Diptera, Chironomidae, Stenochironomus #5 - 8/8 Diptera, Ptehoptendae, Bittacomoroha #5 - 6/30 Table I. Maerobcnthie invertebrates ofthe Otsego Lake drainage basin: Hayden Creek, Cripple Creck 'Illd Shadow Brook collected by fahcy (1996) in 1995. w 1.0 Taxonomy (Order. Genus Species) HC-Site . & 1995 Date CC-Site . & 1995 Date S8-Site . & 1995 Date Diptera, Tabanidae, Chrysops #3 - 7/31 Diptera, Tabanidae, Hybomitra #3 - 7/31 Diptera, Tetanoceridae #2 - 8/8 Diptera, Thaumaleidae, Thaumalea #5 - 6/30 Diptera, Tipulidae, Phalacrocera #3 - 6/30 Diptera, Tipulidae, Prionocera #3 - 6/30 Diptera, Tipulidae, Tipula #3 - 7/31 Diptera, Tonyderidae, Protoplasa #5 - 6/30 Table I. Macrobenthic invertebrates of the Otsego Lake drainage basin: Hayden Creek, Cripple Creek and Shadow Brook collected by Fahey (1996) in 1995. ~ o 41 Table 3. A comparison of total phosphorus concentrations in ug/I at selected sites on the mainstems of the tributaries studied. SB4 - 1991 6/25 6/30 7/9 7/16 7/26 67 175 101 112 87 SB4 - 1995 6/22 6/30 7/13 7/19 7/31 51 68 97 107 153.5 SB4 - 1996 6/24 ill 7/9 7/15 7/2; 31 32.23 29.82 53.17 31.40 HC7 - 1991 6/25 6/30 7/9 7/16 7/26 39 44 65 32 48 HC7 - 1995 6/22 6/30 7/13 7/19 7/31 24 46.1 28.1 41.5 31. 7 HC7 - 1996 6/24 7/3 7/9 7/15 7/22 31 28.79 24.33 45.57 26.91 CC5 - 1991 6/25 7/7 7/9 7/16 7/26 35 90 93 63 177 CC5 - 1995 6/22 6/30 7/4 7/19 7/31 31 88 127.2 213.4 202.5 CC5 - 1996 6/24 ill 7/9 7/15 7/22 42.87 56.94 22.62 45.57 29.67 CONCLUSIONS Comparison of 1996 Hydrolab and nutrient data levels observed in Shadow Brook. Hayden Creek, and Cripple Creek show increase in nitrogen concentrations when compared with data compiled in 1991 (Albright, 1996) and 1995 (Healy,1996). Increases in nitrogen appear to be more prevalent and consistent than phosphorus concentrations which appear to be declining. MWI and 2 were studied for the ftrst time in 1996 and both nitrate and phosphorus concentrations are higher than any other site in the study. 42 Another important consideration is the drought-like conditions prevalent during the summer months of 1995, in comparison to the abundant rains in the summer of 1996. Increases in runoff due to precipitation are an important mechanism for nutrients being transmitted through a watershed ( Black, 1991). Given the flushing effect of precipitation on a watershed, it is reasonable to assume that increases in precipitation would cause increases in nutrient loading to the streams. The implication is that both nutrients and water volumes would increase as precipitation amounts increased. Further correlation of the data in terms of discharge amounts would be desirable. REFERENCES Black, Peter, 8., 1991, Watershed Hydrology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, Nl, 07632, pp. 117. Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Trussell. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20005, 17th edition. Harman, Willard, N., Godfrey, P.l., 1980, The Limnolugy ofOtsego Lake (Glimmer glass), Lakes ofNew York State, Volume III, Academic Press, III Fifth Ave. New York, NY, 10003. NOAA, 1991, Climatological Data, New York, June 1991, Vol. 103, Number 6, NOAA, Asheville, North Carolina. NOAA, 1991, Climatological Data, New York, July 1991, Vol. 103, Number 7, NOAA" Asheville. North Carolina. Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) 1995, Precipitation Data, Northeast Regional Climate Center, Cornell. NY. Peckarsky, Barbara L., et.al. 1990, Freshwater Microinvertebrates ofNortheastern North America, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. Pennak, Robert W., 1978, Fresh- Water Invertebrate ofthe United States, University ofColorado. United States 43 Analysis of fecal coliform concentrations of Otsego Lake's tributaries and the upper Susquehanna River, 1996 Carrie Miller* INTRODUCTION In previous years, studies h.;.ve been conducted on several tributaries of Otsego Lake and the upper Susquehanna River that analyzed the concentrations offecal coliforms. a group of bacteria found in the intestines ofwarm blooded animals and thus indic' ve offecal contamination. Research was conducted for the duration ofthe SUIll:.ler ,f 1996 on the upper Susquehanna River, Hayden Creek, Shadow Brook, Cripple Creek, \Vhite Creek. and the stream on Mount Wellington. The latter two streams were addition~ to the study conducted during the summer of 1995. These tributaries were included to obtain a wider spectrum ofdata on the quality ofwater entering Otsego Lake. Generally, the two main sources offecal coliform contamination are mismanaged agricultural waste and malfunctioning septic tank absorption fields. These sources also contribute to nutrient loading and the presence ofpotentially pathogenic bacteria: therefore, fecal coliforms are indicative of such pollution sources. Data collected in 1995 (Miller, 1996) have been used as a baseline for analyzing the progress of a program that was initiated in 1995 in the Shadow Brook drainage basin that encourages best management practices, such as manure management. The Otsego County Conservation Association. USDA, and NRCS are working in conjunction with the local farmers to better their land management practices. particularly those that could reduce nutrient loading to Otsego Lake. Through the comparison of data collected in previous years and those obtained this year, as well as in the future. the success of the program will be gauged and noted for use elsewhere. Best management practices are also being implemented in the Mount Wellington drainage area. which historically has exhibited high summer concentrations of phosphorous and other nutrients. Aside from agricultural activities, human waste is another source of fecal contamination. Throughout the watershed, particularly in the regions north of the lake. the soils have been found to be poorly suited for the use of septic tank absorption fields. In addition, it is believed that many of these septic tank absorption fields may be malfunctioning. Monitoring of this type of contamination has been fairly extensive, especially on Hayden Creek. *F.H.V. Mecklenburg Conservation Fellow. summer 1996. Present address: Cherry Valley / Springfield Central SchooL Cherry Valley, NY. 44 In addition, the quality ofwater leaving Otsego Lake is also a concern and has been monitored for several years. Testing for fecal coliform is just one aspect of the research being conducted to monitor the River's quality ofwater. The Village of Cooperstown Water Treatment Plant is required to maintain certain quality standards in the effluent and the river itself. What is permitted to be discharged by the treatment plant equals a major part of the River's assimilative capacity, therefore, it is imperative to eliminate any extraneous sources of pollution so the water quality of the River is not excessively degraded below the point of discharge. Monitoring offecal coliform concentrations has been conducted in previous years and is done so to isolate any problem areas. The main source of fecal coliform contamination on the River is believed to be human waste. Through the monitoring of fecal coliform concentrations on the five tributaries and the upper Susquehanna Rj"er, areas ofchronically high concentrations will be noted and mitigation planned. METHODS Throughout the summer of 1996, samples were collected from nine sites on the upper Susquehanna River, eight sites on Hayden Creek, four sites on Shadow Brook, two sites on Mount Wellington, and five sites on both Cripple Creek and White Creek. After collection, the samples were then brought back to the SUNY College at Oneonta Biological Field Station in Cooperstown, N. Y. for processing using the membrane filtf'r technique (API-IA, 1989). Every piece of equipment was sterilized including glassware, petri dishes, filter funnels, filter paper, and absorbent filter pads. Each ofthe petri dishes contained an absorbent filter pad, 2.2 mI of bacteria media, and the filter which had been aseptically transferred into the petri dish after filtration (Miller, 1995). Samples were filtered at three different dilutions in triplicate. Dilutions were made so that a range of the number ofcolonies found was between 20 and 80 colonies per filter. These petri dishes were then incubated for approximately 24 hours plus or minus two and at a temperature of 44.5 C plus or minus 0.2 C. Following incubation, the fecal coliform bacteria colonies were counted. The only colonies counted were those ofa sharp, distinct, shade of blue. These numbers were recorded, averaged, and reported in colonies per 100 mI. RESULTS The sites on Hayden Creek, Cripple Creek, Shadow Brook, White Creek, and Mount Wellington from which water samples were collected for testing for fecal coliform are shown in Figure 1. Fecal Coliform collection sites for the upper Susquehanna River are located in Figure 2. The fecal coliform concentrations are recorded in Tables 1-6 and displayed graphically in Figures 3-8 reported in colonies per 100 mI (note that y-axis ranges vary because ofhigh variability in coliform concentrations between streams). Data collected in 1995 are shown in Tables 7-10. 45 ~ Cripple Creek Figure 1. Map of the Northern Otsego Lake watershed illustrating 1995 sample sites. Star symbols indicate property owners undertaking USDA cooperative farmyard improvement projects. 46 47 Table 1. Fecal coliform concentrations in Hayden Creek, 1996. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml 06/25/96 07/10/96 07/24/96 08/06/96 Average HC1 137 170 0.7 28 84 HC2 433 33 37 357 215 HC3 3767 410 190 87 1114 HC4 2247 267 269 0 696 HC5 2233 537 277 0 762 HC6 2567 243 147 36 748 HC7 2233 333 420 50 759 HC8 1033 200 353 195 445 Total average 603 Table 2. Fecal coliform concentrations in Shadow Brook, 1996. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml 06/25/96 07/10/9C 07/24/96 08/06/96 Average SB2 4800 0 437 317 1388 SB3 470 0 253 0 181 SB4 4433 4667 5467 0 3642 SB5 467 0 530 387 346 Total average 1389 Table 3. Fecal coliform concentrations in Cripple Creek, 1996. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml 06/25/96 07/10/96 07/24/96 08/06/96 Average CC1 1100 7 51 o 290 CC2 203 30 o o 58 CC3 867 170 147 o 296 CC4 597 277 203 o 269 CC5 1367 37 145 203 438 Total average 270 48 Table 4. Fecal coliform concentrations in White Creek, 1996. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml 07/02/96 07/16/96 07/30/96 08/16/96 Average WC3 37 787 47 0.7 218 WC2 30 185 79 22 78 WC4 137 233 78 543 248 WC5 437 253 18 750 365 WC1 o 46 o 3333 844 Total average 351 Table 5. Fecal coliform concentrations in Mount Wellington, 1996. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml 06/25/96 07/10/96 07/24/96 08/06/96 Average MW1 30667 0 630 9933 10308 MW2 6567 0 2433 4300 3325 Total average 6816 Table 6. Fecal coliform concentrations in the upper Susquehanna River, 1996. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml 07/02/96 07/16/96 07/30/96 08/16/96 Average SR1 27 9 6 0 10 SR3 47 7 4 447 126 SR6 121 16 1 563 175 SR8 99 35 26 162 80 SR12 133 77 62 141 103 SR16 85 112 14 39 62 SR16a 122 87 49 91 87 SR17 92 88 21 66 67 SR18 73 97 5 59 59 Total average 86 49 4000 ---6/25 3500 ~ 7/10 3000 ~ 7/24 E --e 0 .....0 8/6 (J) -- ---.~ r:: 0 (5 1500 () 1000 500 3 4 5 6 7 Distance from source (km) Figure 3. Fecal coliform concentrations in Hayden Creek, summer 1996. 6000 ---6/25 5000 ~ 7/10 ~ 4000 7/24 E --e 0 .....0 8/6 (J) 3000 ---.~ r:: 0 (5 () 2000 1000 01~0~===~===~;;~2~==::i3~-----r4---E3-=;:5======::=6;===~st7 Distance from source (km) Figure 4. Fecal coliform concentrations in Shadow Brook, summer 1996. 50 1400 ---6/25 1200 ~ 7/10 1000 ._.. 1---·--1[~ 7/24 E 0 ....0 8/6 1/1 .!!!-- c 0 (5 0 400 . 200 ._----_._-_._----- 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from source (km) Figure 5. Fecal coliform concentrations in Cripple Creek, summer 1996. 35001 ------, --6/25 3000 ~ 7/10 2500------·------ 7/24 E -E3 ....g 2000-- 8/6 1/1 -Ql g 1500 ... (5 o 1000 500---·-----==---==---- 0,01::==~~==~~;;;;;a;;;;;&&EiiE~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~~~:::::::::~~====~~-- 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Distance from source (km) Figure 6. Fecal coliform concentrations in White Creek, summer 1996. 51 35,------, ---6/25 7/10 25 ...-.------~"""_------7/24 E o Ul --- 20 ------8/6 ~___ -g«l Ul Ul Ql :::J C 0 o ..c 15 ....------(5 t:.. () o~:::::::;::==~==;===::======~ o 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Distance from source (km) Figure 7. Fecal coliform concentrations in Mount Wellington, summer 1996. 600 --6/25 500 7/10 400 . 7/24 E 0 ,...0 8/6 Ul 300 --Ql C 0 (5 () 200 100 - 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Distance from source (km) Figure 8. Fecal coliform concentrations in the upper Susquehanna River, summer 1996. 52 Table 7. Fecal coliform concentrations in Hayden Creek, 1995. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100ml per 100 ml per100ml per 100 ml 07/12/95 07/19/95 08/02/95 08/16/95 Average HC1 63 237 157 533 248 HC2 523 1233 247 380 596 HC3 347 713 117 1430 652 HC4 1500 1567 1033 6067 2542 HC5 157 153 13 103 107 HC6 293 750 300 450 449 HC7 340 603 147 200 323 HC8 173 160 40 97 118 Total average 630 Table 8. Fecal coliform concentrations in Shadow Brook, 1995. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per100ml 07/12/95 07/19/95 08/02/95 08/16/95 Average SB2 1700 1123 1800 6700 2831 SB3 3467 423 350 243 1132 SB4 44333 51333 5367 7500 27058 SB5 890 417 57 153 379 Total average 7847 53 Table 9. Fecal coliform concentrations in Cripple Creek, 1995. Colonies SITE per 100 ml 08/02/95 CC1 27 CC2 117 CC3 513 CC4 43 CC5 57 Total average 151 Table 6. Fecal coliform concentrations in the upper Susquehanna River, 1996. Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies Colonies SITE per 100 ml per100ml per 100 ml per 100 ml per 100 ml 07/12/95 07/26/95 08/09/95 08/15/95 Average SR1 2 16 9 52 20 SR3 75 20 9 73 44 SR6 94 55 94 283 132 SR8 240 139 1053 363 449 SR12 180 290 203 483 289 SR16 120 213 115 132 145 SR16a NA 357 128 250 245 SR17 184 227 125 114 163 SR18 93 125 95 103 104 Total average 165 54 were increased after the first two sampling dates for the majority of sites so that between 20 and 80 colonies per filter developed. That the number ofcolonies counted for the first two samplings werc generally lowcr than the standard range at the same dilutions as last year may be due to the lower discharge encountered during the summer of 1995 than this summer; all else being equaL greater tlow would depress bacteria concentrations through dilution. Except for Cripple Creek. the total average concentration of fecal coliform for each tributary and the upper Susquehanna River was greater in 1995 than 1996. It was also noted that the tributary with the highest total average of fecal coliform conccntrations was Mount Wellington though levels were sporadic. On July 10. 1996. both Mount Wellington sites showed no sign of fecal coliform contamination. From that point on fecal colil()fm was found but at slightly lower levels than the first sampling. Roth sites on Mount Wellington displayed chronically high concentrations ofcoliforms. nitraks and phosphorous (Hewitt. In Prep.). These tactors together can imply that there may be ,. source of nutrient loading derived Irom lecal sources located along the tributary. This source could easily be either agricultural waste or a malfunctioning septic tank absorption field. These high levels of fecal colil(Hms are one of the reasons f()r the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). If levels are still high after some time. it could be noted that the source may not be agricultural. It should be noted that while concentrations of these parameters were high. flow by this stream is slight so impact to the Lake here may not be excessive. For the majority of sites on Hayden Creek the concentrations of fecal coliform were greater t()r the summcr of 1996 than 19~.5 though high variability was observed between and among sites (Figure 1 or Table 1). The increase at HC3 could imply that there is some type of source oftecal colif()rm contamination that was not there in 1996. Bet\veen HC4 and HC5 there was an increase in the concentrations which \vas opposite to what occurred last year. This would indicate that there is a source of fecal coliform contamination. potentially human waste since the area between is basically residential. At site HC6 at the bridge in Springfield Center. concentrations oftecal colit()rm decrease somewhat. Since HC6 is located in a residential area where the soil is knO\\l1 to be poorly suited f()r septic tank absorption fields. the likelihood of the tecal coli1()fJ11 contamination being of a hum;1l1 source is good. The total awrage concentration of fecal coliform displayed an increase between HC6 and He7 vvith many residences located there. When comparing sampling dates there was no site in particular that exhibited any sign of chronically high concentrations oftecal colitorm. Another tributary. Shado\v Brook. also displayed relatiwly high tecal coliform concentrations. although they \vere not as great as they were during the sununer of 1995. Once again. site SB4 exhibited the chronically highest concentrations of tecal colitorm. The average concentrations in 1995 at S134 \vere close to nine times greater than the 1996 total average. Although these concentrations are much lower than last year. they are still considerably high compared to the other sites on Shado\\ Brook. For the majority of sampling dates site SB4 \\as highest although on August 6. 1996 no tecal colitorms \vcre tound. Many of the sites on Shado\\ Brook are in agricultural areas suggesting that it is highly likely that tanlling activities may be contributing to fecal colit()fJll contamination. The relatively same patterns were tound tor the summer of 1996 as in 1995 \(11" the lecal colit()J'Jll concentrations along that tributary. They \vere 55 DISCUSSION Fecal coliform concentrations in the five tributaries and the upper Susquehanna River collected during the sununer of 1996 stand in sharp contrast to last year. The sample volumes were increased after the first two sampling dates for the majority of sites so that between 20 and 80 colonies per filter developed. That the number ofcolonies counted for the first two samplings were generally lower than the standard range at the same dilutions as last year may be due to the lower discharge encountered during the sununer of 1995 than this sununer; all else being equal, greater flow would depress bacteria concentrations through dilution. Except for Cripple Creek. the total average concentration of fecal coliform for each tributary and the upper Susquehanna River was greater in 1995 than 1996. It was also noted that the tributary with the highest total average of fecal coliform concentrations was Mount Wellington though levels were sporadic. On July 10, 1996, both Mount Wellington sites showed no sign offecal coliform contamination. From that point on fecal coliform was found but at slightly lower levels than the first sampling. Both sites on Mount Wellington displayed chronically high concentrations ofcoliforms, nitrates and phosphorous (Hewitt, In Prep.). These factors together ca:l imply that there may be a source of nutrient loading derived from fecal sources located along the tributary. This source could easily be either agricultural waste or a malfunctioning septic tank absorption field. These high levels offecal coliforms are one of the reasons for the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). If levels are still high after some time, it cnuld be noted that the source may not be agricultural. It should be noted that while concentrations ofthese parameters were high, flow by this stream is slight so impact to the Lake here may not be excessive. For the majority of sites on Hayden Creek the concentrations offecal coliform were greater for the sununer of 1996 than 1995 though high variability was observed between and among sites (Figure 1 or Table 1). The increase at HC3 could imply that there is some type of source of fecal coliform contamination that was not there in 1996. Between HC4 and HC5 there was an increase in the concentrations which was opposite to what occurred last year. This would indicate that there is a source offecal coliform contamination. potentially human waste since the area between is basically residential. At site HC6 at the bridge in Springfield Center, concentrations of fecal coliform decrease somewhat. Since HC6 is located in a residential area where the soil is known to be poorly suited for septic tank absorption fields, the likelihood ofthe fecal coliform contamination being ofa human source is good. The total average concentration of fecal coliform displayed an increase between HC6 and HC7 with many residences located there. When comparing sampling dates there was no site in particular that exhibited any sign of chronically high concentrations offecal coliform. Shadow Brook also displayed relatively high fecal coliform concentrations. although they were not as great as they were during the sununer of 1995. Once again, site SB4 exhibited the chronically highest concentrations of fecal coliform. The average concentrations in 1995 at SB4 were close to nine times greater than the 1996 total average. Although these concentrations are much lower than last year, they are still considerably high compared to the other sites on Shadow Brook. For the majority of sampling dates site SB4 was highest although on August 6. 1996 no 56 fecal coliforms were found. Many of the sites on Shadow Brook are in agricultural areas suggesting that it is highly likely that f~1fming activities may be contributing to fecal coliform contamination. The relatively same patterns were found for the summer of 1996 as in 1995 for the fecal coliform concentrations along that tributary. They were normally at lower concentrations in 1995 due to lesser discharges than in 1996. Cripple Creek, had the lowest total average concentration of fecal coliform. This was also true for the summer of 1995 in which only one collection occurred. When comparing last year to this year. fecal coliform concentrations are almost twice as great but since only one sampling was collected in 1995 there may not have been enough data to compare the two accurately. In 1996, the two main sites in which fecal coliform levels stayed greatest were CC5 and CC4. Site CC4 is located just below an area in agricultural use. while CC5 is close to one or two residence. The tributary with the second lowest in total average fecal coliform concentrations for the summer of 1996 was White Creek. White Creek from date to date had no particular site that was chronically high in concentration. On average site WC 1 displayed the highest concentration of fecal coliform. However, for two ofthe sampling dates no fecal coliforms were found. This may have been caused by either improper processing technique or there were no fecal coliforms. Comparing the upper Susquehanna River with the total average concentration offecal coliforms to the five tributaries. it is substantially lower. When comparing the average concentrations for the summer of 1995 to 1996 it can be noted that the majority of sites had greater concentrations in 1995 except for SR3 and SR6. Between SRI and SR3 there was a large jump in fecal coliform concentrations. This jump could easily indicate some type of contamination. more than likely human waste since there are several residences in close proximity. Last year there had been a jump at SR8 but this year instead it is lower than sites above and below the site. This would suggest that either the greater flow of the water is diluting more at that site or a problem oftecal coliforn1 contamination has been fixed. Basically. the same patterns found in fecal coliform concentrations for 1995 were found in 1996 throughout the upper Susquehanna River. In conclusion. although there were a fe\\! exceptions. the greater flow ofeach of the waterways studied caused there to be lower concentrations than the summer of 1995 but with the same general patterns.. The data collected during the summer of 1996 along with past years will help in finding any areas in whieh mitigation is needed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to the entire 1996 sununer staff at the Biological Field Station. I truly appreciated all of their help. 1 especially thank Dr. Willard Harman and rVlatt Albright for their time. Last. but not least. I would like to thank the Village of Cooperstown for the internship. It has been one of the best opportunities 1 have every been given. 57 REFERENCES APIIA, AWWA, WPCF. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17th ed. American Public Health Association, N.Y. Hewitt, B. 1996. In 29th Ann. Rep. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta, Oneonta, N.Y. Miller, C. 1996. Fecal coliform bacteria in m~or Otsego Lake tributaries and the Susquehanna River. In 28th Annual Report. (1995), SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. Oneonta. N. Y. 58 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER MONITORING: Monitoring the water quality of the upper Susquehanna River, summer 1996. Jennifer Lopez* Emera Bridger* * INTRODUCTION During the summer of 1996 the water quality ofthe Upper Susquehanna River was monitored between Otsego Lake and the River's confluence with Oaks Creek. This study was conducted to ensure that the water quality, particularly dissolved oxygen, remains at acceptable levels in this area ofthe Susquehanna. As the River's ability to assimilate pollution is restricted, it is critical to limit unauthorized point and non-point sources of contamination so that water quality below the point of discharge by the Cooperstown Sewage Treatment Plant remains adequate. Monitoring also entailed the possible identification of point sources ofpollution. This infonnation would be useful in identifYing areas requiring mitigation. METHODS Monitoring was conducted weekly at nine locations along the River (Figure 1; 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 16, 16a, 17,18) over a period of ten weeks. At each site data were collected, using a digital microprocessor, a Hydrolab Scout 2 Recorder Water Quality Multiprobe. Water samples taken were tested at the Biological Field Station for chloride, nitrate+ nitrite and total phosphorus concentrations. The mercuric nitrate method was used to fmd chloride levels (APHA, 1989), nitrate + nitrite concentrations were found using the cadmium reduction technique (APHA, 1989), and by using the persulfate digestion followed by single reagent ascorbic acid procedure, the total phosphorus concentration was attained (APHA, 1989). Temperature, pH. dissolved oxygen and conductivity readings were recorded in the field. In conjunction with this work, biweekly samples were taken to test for fecal colifonn bacteria (Miller, 1996). If a site demonstrates consistently high levels of bacteria and/or nutrients, such as phosphorus, it may indicate excessive agricultural runoff or faulty septic systems requiring attention. *F.H.V. Mecklenburg Conservation Fellow, summer 1996. Present address: Richfield Springs Central High School, Richfield Springs, NY. **Village ofCooperstown upper Susquehanna River Intern, summer 1996. Present Address: Cooperstown Central High SchooL Cooperstown. NY. 59 60 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Temperature In contrast to the summer of 1995 (Austin and Harman, 1996), the summer of 1996 was relatively cooler and significantly wetter. This could be one reason why water temperatures were lower. Compared to past data, the average temperatures of this year were also cooler than 1994 (Moriarty et ai, 1995), but warmer than 1992 (Vatovec et ai, 1993). The temperatures in 1993 (Hahn, 1994) were very similar to those recorded this summer. The highest temperature recorded during monitoring this year was 23.33 "c. taken at Site 6 on August 7. The low was noted at Site 12, on June 12 as being 16.01"C (See Figure 2). pH The pH remained constant throughout the summer. The pH probe on the Hydrolab was damaged during the week of August 12, thus pH readings could not be taken on August 14. The high reading for this summer was 8.89, taken at Site 3 on the 12 ofJune. The low was recorded as 7.66 at 16a on August 7. This sunm1er's pH levels were higher than those pH of 1992-93 and 1995, but were comparable to the levels of 1994. Even though the pH has varied annually, it remained basic throughout the duration ofthe study. This buffering may be due to the fact that the source ofthe Susquehanna River, Otsego Lake, lies in a limestone basin (Harman et ai, 1997). As the Lake empties into the river, high concentrations ofcalcium carbonate are dissolved, causing the water to be slightly basic (see Figure 3). Dissolved Oxygen The dissolved oxygen levels remained stable throughout the sununer. The first three sites seemed to have a higher dissolved oxygen concentration than the other six sites. This pattern may be due to the point at which the effluent from the Sewage Treatment Plant was discharged and the farm land which surrounds Site 16 (Clark property). The highest recorded reading during monitoring period was 12.65 mg/L on July 10 at Site I. The lowest reading was recorded at Site 12 on August 7 as 5.9 mg/L. The dissolved oxygen levels recorded in 1996 were higher than in 1993-95 and similar to the data collected in 1992. The fact that it is higher than the last two years can be the attributed to the increased rain which was experienced this summer (see Figure 4). Dissolved oxygen is a very important factor in water quality. Water with adequate dissolved oxygen will be able to support healthy aquatic fauna and flora. Decreases in dissolved oxygen are indicative oforganic decomposition, a process which utilizes ox')'gen. This is a concern regarding the Cooperstown Sewage Treatment Plant which discharges such organic material into the River. The dissolved oxygen must exceed 5 mg/L to maintain acceptable standards. 61 29 Summer 1995 ,Summer 1996 • 24 -I ~d~ G' -]:--_]r--_~I--_-C~-i-" --f ~ 19 n---'~TI---- Figure 2. Average temperatures in the upper Susquehanna River. Summer 1995 ., Summer 1996. 9 ,. . I 8.5 i i . ! i : 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Feet Figure 3. Average pH in the upper Susquehanna River. 62 13 12 Summer 1995 "Summer 1996. 11 10 'a; 9 ' -S r N 8 1 0 7 6 5 4 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Feet Station 1 3 6 8 12 16 16a 17 18 Figure 4. Average oxygen concentrations in the upper Susquehanna River. 63 Conductivity The conductivity varied little during monitoring with few exceptions. The higher readings can be associated with increased rainfall and runoff, which may carry highly soluble salts into the water. Higher concentrations of salts cause a higher conductivity reading. The highest reading was 309 (umho/cm), recorded at Site 16 on the 3rd ofJuly. The lowest reading was 119, taken on July 23 at Site 18. This extremely low reading may be due to the rapid water causing the Hydrolab probe to report an inaccurate reading (see Figure 5). Total Phosphorus The level of phosphorus remained low and constant between Site~ 1-8, but after a noticeable increase, it continued to escalate steadily. This increase might also be contributed to the Sewage Treatment Plant. The highest phosphorus concentration noted was 264ug/L, recorded on July 23 at Site 18. The low was 2ug/L taken at Site 1 on June 19. This years phosphorus levels were much lower than last year's levels. This change can be attributed to the increased precipitation and discharge. Assuming a constant release of effluent to the River, higher discharge would result in greater dilution of point-source derived nutrients. Chlorides The chloride concentrations seemed to be comparable to the data from previous years. The highest reading was 36.5 mg/L recorded at Site 16 on July 3. The lowest chloride level recorded was 7.7 mg/L at Site I on July 29 (see Figure 7). Nitrate + Nitrite Concentrations This was the first year that nitrate + nitrite analyses were perfomled on Susquehanna River samples. The readings varied from site to site. showing little to no noticeable patterns. In future monitoring of the Susquehanna. a pattern might emerge. The highest reading recorded was 1.03 mg/L on June 12 at Site 3. The low was 0.4 mg/L. recorded on July 10 at Site 8 and at Sites 3 and 12 on August 7. These readings also will vary depending on rainfall and discharge (see Figure 8). SUMMARY The data collected this year remains consistent with past reports. though variations existed. The differing weather conditions and discharge rates should be taken into consideration. The duration of monitoring period might also have an effect on the outcome. This study lasted tor ten weeks whereas the 1995 study only lasted for 7 weeks. The earlier reports were based on a monitoring period lasting into fall or even early winter. 64 Summer 1995 ,Summer 1996 • 300 ~ - I I E 250 au r .r: E .s ~r-yr-- ~ 200 .::: u :J "lJ C 0 II 150 L~--,---~-,-- 100 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Feet Station 1 3 6 8 12 16 16a 17 18 Figure 5. Average conductivity in the upper Susquehanna River. Summer 1995 • Summer 1996. 400 350 300 ~ 250 2. 200 3a. 100 50 o ~--~---~-_ --~ ...L o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Feel Slalion 1 3 6 8 12 15 15a 17 18 Figure 6. Average phosphorus concentrations in the upper Susquehanna River. 65 Summer 1995 ., Summer 1996 • 39 34 29 ~ E. 24 l1> U'" § 19 :c (.l 14 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Feet Figure 7. Average cWoride concentrations in the upper Susquehanna River. 1.1 Summer 1996 • 0.9 ~0.8 E M ~ 0.7 + Cl 0.6 z 0.5 0.4 ~ 0.3 I 20000 25000 30000 0 5000 10000 15000 Feet Figure 8.. Average nitrate + nitrite concentrations in the upper Susquehanna River. 66 Previous studies, and the research conducted this year. indicate that the assimilative capacity ofthe Susquehanna River is sufficient to handle the stress ofthe Sewage Treatment Plant providing that no additional sources ofloading exist. The project is a safeguard which ensures that such loading does not occur. REFERENCES Albright, M. 1996. Personal communication. SUNY Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta. Oneonta, NY. APHA. 1989. The Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Austin, T. 1996. Water Quality ofthe Upper Susquehanna River, 1995. In 28th Annual Report, SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta, Oneonta. NY. Hahn, 1. 1994. Water Quality ofthe Upper Susquehanna River, 1993. In 26th Annual Report. SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta, Oneonta, NY. Harman, W.N. 1996. Personal communication. SUNY Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta, Oneonta, NY. Miller, C. 1?,96. Fecal Coliform Analysis ofOtsego Lake's Tributaries and Upper Susquehanna River, 1996. In 29th Annual Report, SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta, Oneonta, NY. Moriarty, C. 1995. Water Quality ofthe Upper Susquehanna River, 1994. In 27th Annual Report, SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta, Oneonta, NY. 67 Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) monitoring progran1 in the upper Susquehanna River, 1996. Brenda L. Hewett* Renee Ferguson** INTRODUCTION Since their discovery in Lake St. Clair in June 1988, zebra mussels have successfully invaded the Great Lakes and adjoining waterways. Locally they have colonized Lakes Ontario and Erie, the St. Lawrence River, the Erie Canal, the Clyde, Seneca, Oswego, Oneida, Mohawk, and Hudson Rivers, Seneca and Canandaigua Lakes, and Lake Champlain (O'Neill, 1993). This exotic bivalve lends its success in the United States and Canada to its lack of predators, high fecundity, and its quick dispersal during its free-swimming planktonic larval stage, a characteristic unlike that of any other freshwater mollusk (Maxwell, 1992). Likelihood that the zebra mussels would invade Otsego Lake, the Susquehanna River, and the Chesapeake Bay region prompted the BFS to commence a monitoring program for these organisms in the spring of 1992. Since the spring of 1992, the Biological Field Station has annually conducted a program to monitor for the presence of adult zebra mussels and their veliger larvae at five sites along the upper Susquehanna River and Otsego Lake. Consultants at the New York State Electric and Gas Company's Goudey Station in Johnson City collected veligers late in 1991 and the spring of1992 and1993, but not since then (Goldberg, 1996). No adult mussels or veligers have been detected by BFS monitoring efforts on Otsego Lake, the Susquehanna River, nor any ofthe 63 river and tributary sites surveyed in 1994 (Harman,1992; 1993; Goldberg, 1996; Illsley, 1996). Sampling for veligers in the spring of 1994 at Endicott yielded none also (Goldberg, 1996). Total calcium content for the sites were determined on each monitoring date. Low calcium content in a waterway, as well as low pH levels have been shown to limit the growth and reproduction of Zebra Mussel (McCauley, 1993; Hincks,1993). *Robert C. MacWatters internship in the aquatic sciences, summer 1996. Present address: Fisheries and aquaculture, SUNY Cobleskill Ag. And Tech., CobleskilL NY. **New York Academy of Science High School Research Trainee, summer 1995. Present address: Richfield Springs Central School, Richfield Springs, NY. 68 METHODS Monitoring began on June 18, 1996 and continued bi-week1y through August 13, 1996. It took place at the same five sites that have been used since 1991. They are: 1. Otsego Lake at the BFS: 42°41'27" N. Lat. 71 °54'58" W. Long. 2. City of Oneonta Mill Race 42°23'05" N. Lat. auxiliary water intake, 75°2'38" W. LO"lg. Oneonta, N. Y. 3. Hallstead Pumping Station # 2, 41°1'.... 5" N.Lat. Great Bend, PA 75°43'45" W. Long. 4. Binghamton municipal water NLat. intake, Oneonta, N.Y. E. Long. 5. Athens-Sayre municipal 41°57'28" N. Lat. boundary, Athens, PA 76°30'58" W. Long. Artificial substrates with 15cm X 15 cm PVC plates were put into place on June 18, the day monitoring began. Plates were removed and placed in separate bags on ice for examination back at the Field Station under a dissecting microscope and replaced with new ones. The minimum and maximum exposure were 13 days and 55 days, respectively. Plankton sampling was modified so that at least 100 liters of water was poured through a 63u mesh size plankton net. The concentrated sample was poured into a collection jar. and a wash bottle was used to flush excess organisms and debris fi-om the sides ofthe collection cup into the sample. Plankton were examined immediately with a field microscope. To verifY results, samples were put on ice and transported back to the Field Station for examination under a compound microscope at 100x. A "Zebra Mussel Monitoring Report" was completed for each site indicating physical and chemical data. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH. and conductivity were measured using a Hydrolab Scout Reporter Water Quality Multiprobe which was calibrated weekly throughout the study. Current velocity was measured with a Marsh McBirney Model 201 D now meter. All precautionary measures used to prevent the accidental spread of zebra mussels were followed in accordance with standard past practices (Goldberg, 1996). Water samples were collected on each sample date from each ofthe five sites and Collection Site Date Temp. (C) pH 0.0, (mg/I) CONDo (umhos/cm) Calcium (mg/I) Velocity (m/sec,) Rat Cove 06/18/96 2109 8.24 7.73 252 44.53 NA Mill Race 21.50 8,27 8.87 164 26,72 0.31 Great Bend 21.00 7.84 7.52 144 21.86 0.10 Binghamton 22.28 8.11 8.54 143 21.86 0.15 Sayre 2144 7.93 7.92 222 30.77 0.03 Rat Cove 07/02/96 2.61 8.32 8.88 249 106.08 NA Mill Race 20.84 8.48 9.48 178 65.28 0.21 Great Bend 21,00 7.77 7.74 172 57.12 0.02 Binghamton 22.30 7.91 8.24 165 59.16 0.08 Sayre 23.24 8.46 9.45 228 71.40 0.02 Rat Cove 07/16/96 19,79 7.86 7.94 269 50.50 NA Mill Race 18.78 7.51 7.07 128 17.64 0.64 Great Bend 18.88 7.38 8.28 114 25.65 0.12 Binghamton 20.43 7.45 7.99 118 25.65 0.29 Sayre 21.60 7.75 7.84 179 25.65 0.13 Rat Cove 07/30/96 19.50 778 7.00 265 28.86 NA Mill Race 18.38 7.73 8.32 146 36.87 0.58 Great Bend 18.88 7.51 8.11 145 28.86 0.08 Binghamton 20,29 7,56 7.81 145 32.06 0.14 Sayre 21.51 8.33 9.56 239 48.10 0.02 Rat Cove 08/13/96 22.30 9.17 235 47.29 NA Mill Race 18.84 10.05 167 28.86 0.01 Great Bend 19.44 9.82 158 24.05 0.02 Binghamton 21.49 11.17 162 33.67 0.07 Sayre 22.96 12.62 220 39.28 0.02 Table 1. Water chemistry and physical characteristics at zebra mussel collecting sites, 0'1 summer 1996. \0 placed on ice until return to the Field Station where they were refrigerated until they could be analyzed. Total calcium (mg/l ) was determined using the EDTA Titrimetric Method (APHA, 1989). RESULTS Water chemistry and physical characteristics at zebra mussel collecting sites over the summer are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 below. CONCLUSIONS Although most chemical and physical data observed suggests a habitat suitable for zebra mussel colonization, no zebra mussels were detected during this study. All pH readings were at or above the lower borderline 6.8 - 7.4 level appropriate for mussel survival (McCauley, 1993). Most total calcium concentrations fell into the range suitable, but not ideal, to support zebra mussels (McCauley, 1993; Hincks, 1993 ). ACt~OWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all ofthe interns whose assistance I could not have done without. Special thanks to Matt Albright and BFS Director Willard Harman who provided both analytical and technical assistance. REFERENCES Austin. T. , and W.N. Harman. 1996. Otsego Lake lirnnological monitoring, 1995. In 28 th Ann. Rept. (1995). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. Oneonta. N.Y. APHA, AWWA, WPCF. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 1T h ed. American Public Health Ass. N.Y. Goldberg, M. 1966. Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) monitoring program in the upper Susquehanna River. 1994. Pp. 159-167. In 2Th Ann. Rept. ( 1994). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., Oneonta N. Y. Harman, W. N. 1992. Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) monitoring program. In 25 th Ann. Rept. (1992). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., Oneonta, N.Y. 70 June 18 1996 July 2 1996 July 16 1996 July 30 1996 August 13 1996 Mill Race 26.72 26.16 17.64 36.87 28.86 Great Bend 21.86 22.89 25.65 28.86 24.05 Binghamton 2186 2371 25.65 32.06 33.67 Sayre 30.77 28.62 25.65 48.1 3928 Rat Cove 44.53 42.52 50.5 32.1 4729 Table 2. Total calcium in mg/l at zebra mussel collecting sites, summer 1996. 71 Harman, W. N. 1993. Zebra mussel (Dressena polymorpha) monitoring program in the upper Susquehanna River, 1993. Pp. 44-48. In 26th Ann. Rept. (1993). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., Oneonta, N.Y. Hincks, S. and G. Mackie. 1993. The effects ofcalcium and alkalinity of the growth and reproductive success of Dreissena polymorpha. University of Guelph. In Agenda and Abstracts; Third International Zebra Mussel Conference '93. Westin Harbour Castle, Toronto, Ontatio, Canada. Illsley, K. (1996). Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) search in Susquehanna river tributaries, September, 1994. In 27th Ann. Rept. (1994). SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., Oneonta, N.Y. McCauley, R.W. and Kott. 1993. Lethal effects of hydrogen ion on adult zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), in relation to calcium concentration ofthe surrounding water. Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo. In Agenda and Abstracts: Third International Zebra Mussel Conference '93. Westin Harbour Castle. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 72 ARTHROPOD MONITORING: MOSQUITO STUDIES: Mosquito Studies - Survey of Upland Sites - Greenwoods William L. Butts Two upland areas ofthe Greenwoods Conservancy sites were surveyed for mosquito populations. A series of six sampling sites was established along the Snlpe Hill Trail between the town road and the Beaver Pond, and a series of six sampling sites was established on the lower end of the High Fields trail, the northern margin ofthe high fields and below this trail. Series of collections were attempted by sitting for twenty minutes at each ofthe sites and collecting all adult mosquitoes. Collections were made by ;nverting small killing vials over alighting mosquitoes. The Snipe Hill and High Fields sites were sampled as separate series. with some collections made in early morning and others in late evening. Some variation was made in the sequence of sites visited within each sampling route on different occasions. Table I lists the dates, time and sequence of site visitations for all collections during the summer of 1996. The small number ofmosquitoes collected is indicative of the low population levels of anthropophilic species in this area. (See Table 2) The major portion of the specimens collected are typical of the univoltine "Northern Aedes" type of developmental sequence that has been the dominant feature of populations in those areas of Greenwoods that have been surveyed previously (See Figure 1). With the exception of Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker). none of the species collected is confmed to permanent water habitats. The collection of several specimens of Anopheles punctipennis (Say)! on both the High Fields and Snipe Hill circuits in late summer may indicate a permanent source of development nearby (although this species develops in a variety of aquatic habitats). OveralL however, permanent water mosquitoes do not appear to be an important part ofthe local population. notwithstanding the extensive area of impoundments made by beavers. lAB specimens are believed to represent this species although some more closely resemble Anopheles perplexeus Ludlow. The apparent rather limited requirements for larval development of this species and the difficulty in separating adult specimens of the two species was considered in the determination. 73 HRIAR HILL II MARCY SOUTH POWER LINE /. , , lOCAL POWEI~ UNE ~::=====::::: MAINTAINED ROADS ------:::: ==:: tHllER ROADS TI~AILS WI:TI,ANDS OPEN WATER BOIINDARY 199] mosquito sampling sites * • \994 mosquito sampling sites D 1995 mosquito sampling sites o 1996 mosquito sampling sites Figure 1. Mosquito sampling silcs - (in,'ell\\oods. Il)l)J -I ')l)6, 74 Table l.Dates and sites ofsampling activities during 1996. Sequence in which numbered sites were visited is noted parenthetically. Site Date Time High Fields (1-6) Jun 13 6:30-10:00 a.m. (1-6) Jun 24 6:50-9:30 a.m. (1-6) Jul 12 6: 15-9:45 a.m. (1-6) Jul 17 5:10-7:50 p.m. ( 1.6-2) Jul31 6:25-9:35 a.m. (1-6) Aug 7 5:20-8:10 p.m. (1-6) Aug 16 6:35-9:55 a.m. (6-1) Aug 29 4-40-6:55 p.m. (1-6) Sep 5 7:10-10:30 a.m. Snipe Hill (1-6 ) Jun 20 6:50-10:00 a.m. (6-1 ) Jun 24 5:30-8:08 p.m. (2-6.1 ) Jul 3 6:40-10:00 a.m. (6-1) Jul12 5:05-7:40 p.m. (1-6) Jul 17 6:35-9: 10 a.m. (1-6) Aug 7 6:40-9:50 a.m. (1-6) Aug 29 6:40-10: I0 a.m. (1-6) ~ep 5 3:20-6: I0 p.m. (1-6) Sep 9 3:50-6:45 p.m. Table 2. Mosquitoes collected during 1996 High Fields Circuit Species Station (Number) Aedes puncto}" (Kirby) Jun 13 4 (1): 6 (2) JUI1 24 2 (I) Aedes canadensis (Theobald) Jun 13 6 (2) .lui 17 6 (3) .iedes hendersol1i (Cockerell) Aug 29 I (I) Anopheles punclipennis (Say) Aug 16 2 (3): 5 (I) Sep 5 2 (2) ('oquillettidia per!urhans (Walker) .luI 17 6 (I) 75 Snipe Hill Circuit Species Date Station (Number) Aedesfitchii (Felt & Young) Jun 20 4 (l) Aedes triserialus (Say) Aug 7 5 (l) Sep 5 4 (l) Anopheles punctipennis (Say) Aug 29 2 (l); 4 (1); 5 (l) REFERENCES CITED Butts. W. L. 1993. Anthrophilic mosquitoes - Deptera Culicidae - preliminary survey Greenwoods and Weaver Lake. In 26th Ann. Rept.. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta. SUNY Oneonta. N.Y. pp.18-21. Butts. W. L. 1994. Mosquito Studies - Greenwoods: Survey ofarea adjacent to Cranberry Bog. In 27th Ann. Rept.. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. N. Y. pp. 34 36. Butts. W. L. 1995. Mosquito Studies - Greenwoods. In 28th Ann. Rept., SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta, N.Y. in press. 76 Upper Site (Site record) William L. Butts Mosquito studies were confined to placement oflight traps (CDC miniature) at the Beaver Pond dock site and at the confluence with flooded Area IV environs on :'lI~e 24-25 and August 15-16. In addition, a larval survey (standard dipper) was conducted along the accessible shore line on July 17. No larvae were collected and adult light trap captures were as follows: AUG 16 Anopheles em'lei Vorgas (1) Coquillettidia perturbans (Walker) (1) Culex salinarius Coquillett (1) Culex salinarius (Coquillett) re;-resents a site record and is a species which is commonly found in (but not restricted to) permanent water. Its larvae develop in a wide variety ofaquatic situations. Eggs are deposited in rafts on the water surface and egg-to-adult development requires from 2-3 weeks. 77 VERTEBRATE MONITORING: Bird List - Greenwoods as of lOll 4/96 w. L. Butts I) Great blue heron Andrea herodias 8,T,B 2) Green-backed heron Blltorides striatus B 3) Canada goose Brallta canadensis T,B 4) Mallard Anas p!atyrhynchos 8,T,B 5) Blue-winged teal Anas Discors B 6) Wood duck Aix ,\pOlISa 8,T 7) Hooded merganser Lophodytes cllclI!!atlls 8 8) Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatlls B 9) Red-tailed hawk Buteo Jamaicensis 8,T,B 10) Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus B 11 ) Osprey Pal/diol/ haliaetus T 12) Ruffed grouse BOl/asa IIl/be!!us T 13) Turkey Mefeagris ga!!opavo 8,T 14) Killdeer Charadrius voc(fems 8,T 15) Spotted sandpiper Actitis macll!aria S 16) Least sandpiper Calidris mil/lllilla T 17) White-rumped sandpiper Ca!idrisfuscio!les S J 8) Mourning dove Zenaida macroura T,B 19) Black-billed cuckoo CoccyzlIs erythroptha!mlls Sh 20) Ruby-throated hummingbird Archi!ochlls co!ubris T 2 J) Belted kingfisher Cel).Je a!cyol/ T,B 22) Downy woodpecker Picoides pllhescens B 23) Hairy woodpecker Picoides vil!OSliS B 24) Northern flicker Co!aples auralliS S,T,B 25) Yellow-billed sapsucker !'J'phyropiclls vanus S,T,B 26) Eastern Kingbird Tyrall/l/fS tyranlllls S,T,B 27) Eastern Phoebe Sayomis phoehe S,T.B 28) Least Flycatcher ~'mpidonax millimlls S,T 29) Eastern Wood peewee COIlIOPIIS virells T 30) Tree swallow Iridoprocne hico!or S.T,B 31 ) Bam swallow Hirlllldo mstica S,B -'~" ')) American crow Cun'lfs brachyrhJ'llcllOS S,T 33) Bluejay (~valloci Ita crista!a T 34) Black-capped chickadee Pams alricapil!lIs S,T 35) Tufted titmouse Par"s bico!or T 36) White-breasted nuthatch Silla caro!illellsis S,T 37) Red-breasted nuthatch Silla calladensis T 38) Brown creeper C'erthia familiaris S,T 39) House Wren l,'og!odyles aedol/ B 40) Gray catbird Dllmele!!a caro!illellsis S,T 41 ) American robin {lIrdus migralorius S,T,B 78 40) Gray catbird f)umete/la carolinensis S,T 41 ) American Robin TlIn/us migratorius S,T,B, 42) Wood thrush H,y/ocich/a ml/slelil/a S,T 43) Hermit thrush CatharJfs gJflla/JfS S,T 44) Veery ( 'atharusjilscescens T 45) European starling S/ur/lus I'u/garis B 46) Cedar waxwing Bombyci//a cedrorum T,B 47) Yellow warbler Dendroica pelechia S,T,B 48) Black-throated blue warbler f)e/ldroica caerlf/escens S 49) Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens T 50) Yellow-rumped warbler lJendroica coronata S 51 ) Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pemyh'anica T 52) Nashville warbler Jrermivora ru(icapi//a P 53) Ovenbird Seiurlfs aurocapilllls S,T 54) Common yellowthroat GeothZypis trichas S,T,B 55) Canada warbler Wi/sonia canadensis T 56) American redstart c)'etophaga ruticilla T 57) Red-winged blackbird Age/aills phoeniceus S,T,B 58) Northern oriole Ictems ga/bu/a T 59) Common grackle Quisca/lfs ([lfisclI/a S,T,B 60) Brown-headed cowbird M%thms ater S.T 61 ) Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea T 62) Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticlls /udoviianus B 63) Rufous-sided towhee Pipi/o erythrophlha/mlfs S,T 64) Indigo bunting Passerilla cyallea T 65) American goldfinch (~ardllefjs tristis S,TB 66) Dark-eyed junco JIll/CO ~J'emalis S,T 67) Tree sparrow S'pi=ella arhorea T (8) Chipping sparroVv Spizella passerilla S.T 69) Field sparrow S/Jlze//a pusi//a T 70) White-throated sparrow ZOllotrichia a/bicollis S,T 71 ) Swamp sparrow A1e/o.\piza georgiana T 7'2) Song sparrow lvte/o.\piza me/odia S.T.B Observer key The above listing has been compiled from lists by Thomas Salo, Linda Taylor, W L Butts (with additions from field notes subsequent to initial list) and personal communications from Robert Phillips and Miriam Sharick S = Salo T = Taylor B = Butts Sh = Sharick P = Phillips 79 1996 Avian observations at Run1 Hill and the Upper Site Miriam A. Sharick* INTRODUCTION AND METHODS The bird observation season commenced on 1 May 1996 and ended on 29 August ofthat summer. This author was the sole observer. In all. fifteen sets ofobservations were conducted. nine at Rum Hill and six at the Upper Site. Lingering deep snow on the trails precluded an earlier start, and teaching schedules didn't permit all fall observations. There were no changes in observation techniques from recent years: the same tools of binoculars and field notebook were employed, and the data \vere duly transcribed to sheets for each species and filed by location after the author's custom (Sharick 1996). In the summer of 1997, the author expects to establish comparable bird 0 bservation series at Greenwoods. the Biological Field Station's recent large acquisition near Burlington Flats, New York, with W. L. Butts. Further. there will be two other. more remote, trail loops among the several explored earlier with Dr. Butts. Formal observations at Greenwoods should commence in 1998. This will necessarily reduce observations made at the traditional sites, but will supplement the overall picture of bird life in the Leatherstocking Country ofNew York State. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 presents the complete list of identifiable bird species composited from observations recorded at both the Upper Site and Rum Hill. Breeding status and behavior patterns are indicated according to Andrie and Carroll (1988), and both scientific and common names follow the AOU Checklist (1983). The author has noted two differences in observation patterns between this past year and previous years. One change is a drop in the overall number of species from the high 70s to the low 70s. In part this results from the shortened observation season and the consequent loss of tall migrant sightings, but it is additionally seen that birds long known to be resident in the area, such as the Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and the Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). were not observed at all. The second change also has to do with residents, and it emerges from the data sheets rather than from the table. The number of observations of resident birds has dropped significantly from previous years. The author has commented on the reduced number of sightings of the Ruffed Grouse and the Wild Turkey elsewhere (Sharick 1996); this reduction now includes lower numbers of the Blue Jay, the * BFS research associate. Present address: SUNY Delhi College of Technology, Stamford, NY. 80 Table 1. Birds Observed at the Upper Site and Rum Hill Key US =Upper Site RH =Rum Hill PO =possibly breeding PR = probably breeding: P =pair in suitable habitat S =singing male (or breeding call heard) on more than one date in the same place CO =confirmed breeding: T =bird (or pair) on territory D =courtship and display NE =identifiable nest AY =adult(s) with young FY =adult with food for young FL = recently fledged young Species Location Observation status 1. Great Blue Heron US PO nearby; seen on three dates Ardea herodias RH PR nearby; pair seen on two dates 2. Green-backed Heron US seen once on 2 July Butorides striatus RH not recorded 3. Canada Goose US CO: T, NE, AY -- "flat on the water" display Branta canadensis RH PO nearby; CO nearby in recent years 4. Wood Duck US CO:AY Aix sponsa RH not recorded 5. Mallard US PR I CO: P, T Anas platyrhynchos RH not recorded 6. Green-winged Teal US seen once on 16 August Anas crecca RH not recorded 7. Hooded Merganser US PO; CO in recent years Lophodytes cucullatus RH not recorded 8. Northern Goshawk US PO: seen on two dates; CO in previous years Accipiter gentilis RH not recorded 9. Red-tailed Hawk US not recorded; CO in previous years Buteo jamaicensis RH PO: seen on three dates 10. Osprey US not recorded Pandion haliaetus RH seen once on 1 May 11. Ruffed Grouse US PR: S Bonasa umbellus RH PR/CO: S, T, D, AY 81 12. Wild Turkey US CO:FL Meleagris gallopavo RH PR: S 13. Killdeer US CO: T, NE - "broken wing" display Charadrius voeiferus RH not recorded 14. Mourning Dove US seen once on 2 July Zenaida· maeroura RH seen once on 23 July 15. Barred Owl US not recorded Strix varia RH seen once on 29 May; CO in previous years 16. Ruby-throated Hummingbird US not recorded; PO in previous years Arehiloehus eolubris RH PO: seen on two dates; CO nearby 17. Belted Kingfisher US PR/CO: P, T Ceryle alcyon RH not recorded 18. Pileated Woodpecker US seen once on 23 May Dryoeopus pileatus RH seen once on 8 May 19. Yellow-bellied Sapsucker US heard rarely, not seen at all Sphyrapieus varius RH PR I CO: P, S, T, D, AY, FY 20. Downy Woodpecker US PR ICO: P, T, AY Pieoides pubescens RH CO:T 21. Hairy Woodpecker US CO:T Pieoides villosus RH CO:T 22. Common Flicker US CO: T, AY Colaptes auratus RH PR I CO: S, D - "tail-flashing" display 23. Eastern Wood-Pewee US PR I CO: P, S, T, AY Contopus virens RH PR ICO: S, T 24. Willow Flycatcher US PO: seen on 5 June Empidonax traillii RH CO: territorial male seen once on 23 July 25. Least Flycatcher US PO: seen once on 31 July Empidonax minimus RH PR/CO: S, T 26. Eastern Kingbird US PR I CO: P, S, T, D Tyrannus tyrannus RH not recorded 27. Eastern Phoebe US CO:AY Sayomis phoebe RH not recorded 28. Great Crested Flycatcher US not recorded Myiarehus erinitus RH CO:T 29. Tree Swallow US PRI CO: P, S, T, D Taehycineta bieolor RH not recorded 82 30. Barn Swallow US seen once on 31 July Hirundo rustica RH not recorded 31. Blue Jay US PR I CO: P, T, D Cyanocitta cristata RH PR/CO: S, T 32. American Crow US PR: S Corvusbrachyrhynchus RH PR ICO: S, AY, FL 33. Black-capped Chickadee US PR/CO: P, S, T, AY, FL Parus atricapillus RH PR I CO: P, S, D, NE 34. White-breasted Nuthatch US PR/CO: S, T Sitta carolinensis RH PR ICO: S, T, AY, FL 35. Brown Creeper US PR ICO: S, T Certhia americana RH PO: seen on three dates 36. Winter Wren US PR/CO: S, T,NE,FY Troglodytes troglodytes RH CO: FL 37. Ruby-crowned Kinglet US seen once on 16 August Regulus calendula RH mixed flock seen on 1 May 38. Veery US PR:S Catlzarus fuscescens RH PR/CO: S, D 39. Hennit Thrush US PO Catharus gllttatus RH CO: AY, FL 40. Wood Thrush US PR ICO: S, FL Hylocichla mllstelilla RH PR ICO: S, FL 41. American Robin US PR I CO: P, S, T, AY, FL Turdlls migratorilts RH PR I CO: P, S, T, AY, FL 42. Gray Catbird US PR I CO: P, S, T Dllmetella carolinensis RH PR I CO: P, S, T, FY 43. Cedar Waxwing US PR I CO: P, S, T Bornbycilla cedrortll71 RH PR:P,S 44. European Starling US PR I CO: P, S, T Stltmus vulgaris RH not recorded 45. Solitary Vireo US CO:T Vireo solitarius RH CO:T 46. Philadelphia Vireo US small flock seen once on 16 August Vireo philadelphicus RH not recorded 47. Red-eyed Vireo US PR I CO: P, S. T Vireo olivacelts RH PR I CO: P, S, T 83 48. Blue-winged Warbler US CO:T Vermivora pinus RH PR I CO: P, S, T 49. Yellow Warbler US PR ICO: S, T Dendroica petechia RH PR:S 50. Chestnut-sided Warbler US not recorded Dendroica pensylvanica RH PR:P 5 1. Magnolia Warbler US PR: P Dendroica magnolia RH not recorded 52. Black-throated Blue Warbler US not recorded Dendroica caerulescens RH PR ICO: S, AY, FL 53. Yellow-romped Warbler US PR:P Dendroica coronata RH PR/CO: P, S, T 54. Black-throated Green Warbler US PR I CO: P, S, T Dendroica virens RH PR I CO: P, S, T 55. Blackburnian Warbler US PR:P,S Dendroica fusca RH not recorded 56. Black-and-White Warbler US PR I CO: P, S, T Mniotilta varia RH PR I CO: P, S, T 57. American Redstart US not recorded Setophaga ruticilla RH PR I CO: P, S, T, D, FL 58. Ovenbird US PR I CO: S, T, AY, FL Seiurus aurocapillus RH PR ICO: P, S, T, AY, FY, FL 59. Northern Waterthrush US singing male seen once on 23 May Seiurus noveboracensis RH not recorded 60. Common Yellowthroat US PR I CO: P, S, T Geothlypis trichas RH PR I CO: P, S, T, FY 61. Scarlet Tanager US PR ICO: S, T Piranga olivacea RH PR I CO: P. S, T, D 62. Rose-breasted Grosbeak US CO: T, AY,FL Pheucticus ludovicianus RH PR/CO: P, T 63. Indigo Bunting US PR I CO: P, S , T Passerina cyanea RH PR: S 64. Rufous-sided Towhee US heard once on 2 July Pipilo erythrophthalmus RH PR/CO: S, T 65. Chipping Sparrow US PR: S Spizella passenna RH heard once on 8 May 84 66. Field Sparrow US heard once on 17 July Spizella pusilIa RH PR I CO: P, S, T, FY 67. Song Sparrow US PR/CO: S, T Melospiza melodia RH PR I CO: P, S, T 68. Dark-eyed Junco US PR I CO: P, S, AY, FL Junco hyemalis RH PR I CO: P, S, T 69. Red-winged Blackbird US PR/CO: S, T Agelaius phoeniceus RH heard once on 8 May 70. Brown-headed Cowbird US CO:T,D Molothrus ater RH PR I CO: P, S , T 71. Northern Oriole US CO: T, AY, FL Icterus galbula RH PR I CO: P, T, D, NE 72. Common Grackle US PR:P Quiscalus quiscula RH seen once on 23 July 73. American Goldfinch US PR ICO: S, T Carduelis tristis RH PR I CO: P, S, T 85 American Crow. and the Black-capped Chickadee. The severe winter of 1995-1996 was predicted to have caused some starvation ofturkeys and may have stressed small permanent and migrant winter residents as well; numerous anecdotal reports were received of reduced appearances of normally common wintering migrants at feeders. Furthermore, the wet spring of 1996 was believed to have caused widespread nesting failures among gallinaceous birds and other ground nesters (W. Sharick. DEC, pers. con1D1.). There are several other comparisons of interest in species composition between this past year and the previous year. The Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis), a confirmed breeder at the Upper Site in 1995. was not seen at all in 1996. Observations ofhole nesters generally were reduced; this may also have resulted from the same wet spring factors that affected ground nesters. for the third year in a row. a singing male Northern Waterthrush appeared in the same place and time at the Upper Site. but there was still no indication that the species attempted to breed. For the second year in a row. no White-throated Sparrows (Zonofrichia albicollis) were recorded at either location; although the author has informally confirmed their status as breeding birds at Greenwoods. they seem not to be passing through the Upper Site or Rum Hill on their way to local nesting parcels. The Pileated Woodpecker was officially recorded at both sites for the tirst time in recent years; the author has long observed fresh holes excavated in snags, which is a good reason to believe that this species breeds in both torests. but confIrmation of this belief remains elusive. In contrast to the sun1D1er of 1995. the summer of 1996 continued the wet trend ofthe spring. Fruiting fungi grew abundantly. and the headwaters of White Creek on the slopes of Rum Hill maintained a consistent tlow. Lush ground covers ofterns. club mosses. and hardwood seedlings have tIlled some of the gaps torn1ed by the recent losses oflarge trees from the canopies of both torests. At the Upper Site. across the beaver ponds near Area V. intense beaver activity has leveled many of the m:.lture trees. This has resulted in a sunny. shrubby hillside. where the author heard a Rufous-sided Towhee singing in July. This lone observation does not constitute enough evidence to declare that the species is breeding there. but the author can reasonably conclude that the habitat can now support shrub-nesting birds of several species. A final note on vegetation indicates the apparent loss of a species. For the second year in a row. the author has failed to find buttertlyweed (Asclepias tuberosa L.) t10wering in its expected spot at Rum Hill (Sharick 1996) and has concluded that this plant no longer grows there. REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds (6th ed.). American Ornithologists' Union. LavvTence. Kansas: Allen Press. 877 pp. Andric. R. F. and J. R. Carroll (eds.). The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Ithaca. New York: Cornell University Press. 551 pp. Sharick. M. A. 1996. 1995 Avian observations at Rum Hill and the Upper Site. In 28th Annual Report SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station. SUNY Oneonta. New York. 86 REPORTS: An estimation of the density, abundance, biomass and species composition of the Otsego Lake pelagic fish community and zooplankton and alewife phosphorus regeneration David Wamer*, Lars Rudstam**, and W.N. Harman ABSTRACT The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) is now the dominant fish in Otsego Lake. This study addresses two previously unexamined aspects of the alewife community; abundance and trophic impacts. Although previous monitoring of the pelagic fish community has provided some information concerning the seasonal distribution of alewife, no accurate estimates of abundance have been made. This study, through the use ofhydroacoustic technology, trawling, and gill netting, provides this information. Measurements ofzooplankton community structure and density allowed estimation of the role these animals play in nutrient cycling. Alewife density in September, 1996 was 6,796 fish /ha. with smelt present at 20.8 fish/ha. Alewife biomass was 51 kg/ha, or 87 metric tons. Fish were concentrated in the upper 12 meters ofthe water column. Zooplankton density was 77 animals/liter, with rotifers dominating the community. Initial estimates ofthe phosphorus content for zooplankton and alewives were 58.1 kg and 1538 kg respectively. Volumetric regeneration rates (during stratification) for zooplankton and alewives were 0.19 and 0.084 jJg p. L-1'd- j respectively. These regeneration rates indicate zooplankton and alewives my be important sources ofnutrients for phytoplankton. INTRODUCTION In approximately ten years the alewife has become the dominant fish species ofOtsego Lake. It is believed these fish were illegally introduced in 1986 (Foster, 1989). Of the issues faced by those currently developing a lake management plan, alewife introduction and its trophic impacts are ofparamount importance. The changes in Otsego Lake limnology since alewife introduction are detailed by Harman et al. (1997). This study is the first step in a project intended to provide information about the interaction among alewives, zooplankton. and phosphorus cycling in Otsego Lake. To do this it is necessary to first accurately estimate alewife abundance. Additional research will provide information regarding the distribution and abundance ofalewives in the lake throughout the summer. Kraft (1993) indicated these factors were influential in determining the role ofLake Michigan alewives in the cycling ofphosphorus during the 1970's. Alewives ofOtsego Lake behave similarly to those in the Great Lakes and other waters ofNew York (Smith, 1985; 0'Gorman et aI., 1991) in that they concentrate in inshore areas shortly after stratification and stay inshore until late July or mid August. *Graduate student: SUNY Oneonta, Biology Department. **Senior Research Associate: Cornell University Biological Field Station, Bridgeport. NY. 87 Concentration ofthese fish in epilimnetic waters during a period in which primary productivity depends on nutrient regeneration may have the effect of increasing algal production (Brabrand, 1990). Mean zooplankton size has been depressed in other lakes with alewives (O'Gorman el aI., 1991; Johannsson and 0'Gorman, 1991, Makarewicz el aI., 1995). This likely reduces the rate and capacity of grazing by the zooplankton community (Knoechel and Holtby, 1986). In essence, the abundant alewife population is likely having both bottom-up (nutrient regeneration) and top down (planktivory) impacts on the lake. Phosphorus regenerated by alewives and zooplankton is likely readily available for utilization by phytoplankton. Grazing on zooplankton by alewives has the effect of reducing zooplankton size. This reduction in size may increase the rate of phosphorus regeneration by zooplankton and reduce the grazing efficiency of the zooplankton community. The net resl11t in Otsego lake appears to be a large pool of phosphorus in phytoplankton and fish, with the linkage between the two large pools (zooplankton grazing) operating at low efficiency because of decreased grazing on phytoplankton. METHODS Acoustic sampling was conducted following guidelines found in MacLennan and Simmonds (1992) and Brandt (1996). Pelagic fish abundance was estimated using a SIMRAD EY 500 split-beam echo-sounder. The transducer was suspended over the side ofthe vessel at a depth of 30 cm. Acoustic data was collected at a steady speed along a straight-line south to north transect and a north-to-south transect zig-zag between major shoreline points (Figure 1). This data was stored digitally on a laptop computer, and later analyzed using SIMRAD EP500 echo processing software and a spreadsheet application. Concurrent with acoustic data collection, seven vertically suspended 12 meter gill nets were used to provide an estimate of the proportional abundances of the various pelagic fish species in the lake. As an addition to the gill net collections, fish were collected ten days later using a 3 meter lsaacs-Kidd mid-water trawl towed at 4.5 miles per hour, at depths between the surface and the thermocline (0-15m). Fish size and biomass data collected from the above netting methods were combined with data obtained throughout the summer of 1996 using a four foot Pennsylvania trap net in order to predict the expected minimum and maximum size ofalewives and smelt. Fish were measured to the nearest millimeter (n=839) and a random sample was weighed to the nearest 0.0 I g (n=317) within one hour ofcapture. Proportional abundances ofalewives and smelt from the gill net catch were used to differentiate between these two species in the acoustic data. Density and abundance were calculated as tollows: Ds=D(*Ps where Ds= species-specific density D(= density ofall pelagic fish combined Ps= proportion oftotal fish density ofgiven species, as predicted from species size range data from netting. 88 CRIPPLE CREEK CLARKE POND 25 S-, EE L ISLAND SUNKEN \_~, 50 ISU~ND ) / SHADOW --BROOK OTSEGO LAKE (GLiMMERGLASS) OTSEGO COuNTY. NEW VORl( STATE uNtVEMSrN Of NEW YO~K CGlllG£.AT ONEOJrirA EUOlDOIC.ll fiElD sr.AnON COOP[R5TOWN. ,. Y THREEMILE PDII'IT I E/\1HERST(Jl:KING CREEK POI~JT JUDITH KII\JGFISHER TOWER Figu rc 1: Zooplankton sample siLL (TR-l-C) and transects lIsed tiJr Seplel11her \ 6\h acousl ic sllmpling. 8!,·\CK8IRO BAY WILLOIN 8ROOK ~)USQUEHl\j\JNA RIVER 89 Numeric fish abundance was estimated by multiplying the areal density (fish/ha) of each species by the lake surface area. SIMRAD echo-processing software and a spreadsheet application were used to estimate the relative density and abundance of size classes within species based on target strength (decibels) distribution as calculated with the echo-processing software. Using a general relationship between fish target strength and length, TS=2010g10Iengt~cml-68 (Lindem and Sandlund, 1984) we estimated total alewife biomass by multiplying numerical alewife abundance by the mean alewife weight. Phosphorus (P) content and regeneration rate by alewives were estimated using methods prescribed by Kraft (1993). Weight-specific regeneration values of 1.7,0.95, and 0.39 /-1g P'mg dry weight'l'd'l were used for age -0 (young-of-the-year), age-1 and adult age classes respectively. Lake-wide regeneration was calculated by multiplying the rate for individual young of-the-year (yoy), age 1, and adult tish by the acoustic estimate of lake-wide abundance for each age class. Phosphorus content of the phytoplankton community was estimated based on the assumption that in the absence of detectable SRP. nearly all the P found is in particulate form (Harman el al.. 1997). The fraction of water column total phosphorus (TP) pooled in zooplankton on September 5, 1996 was subtracted from the estimated mass ofP in the pelagic zone on this same date to estimate the fraction ofP pooled in the phytoplankton community. As part ofa bi-weekly sampling program initiated in May 1996. zooplankton were collected on September 5, 1996 from TR4-C. a center-lake location from surface. 4, 8. and 12 meter depths using a 10 liter Vandorn bottle. One liter was collected from each depth and concentrated to a tinal volume ofbetween 25-40 ml using a 63/-1 nitex plankton cup. Zooplankton in three one-ml subsamples were identified to species, enumerated. and measured. Phosphorus content of zooplankton was estimated by multiplying the pelagic population by P content tor each taxon. Phosphorus content values were taken from Taylor and Lean (1991). Regeneration by zooplankton was estimated by multiplying the lakewide pelagic number of each genus by the regeneration rate of 1.7 P'mg dry weighrl'd'l. This rate was established by Scavia (1988) for Lake Michigan zooplankton and was also tound in Wetzel (1983) tor mixed epilimnetic cladocerans. copepods. and rotifers. Dry weights were based on values from Wetzel and Likens (1991). RESULTS Gill net catch consisted of 61. 38. 207, and 2 age O. age I. age 2, and age 3 aleviives respectively. In addition. 5 golden shiners. I rock bass. and 1 smelt were captured. Table I contains mean length and weights of tish by gear type. The density 0f fish that fall in the size range tor alewives. smelt. and golden shiners (3 ofthe species captured in the gill nets) was between 5,400 and 8,500 fish/ha with a mean of 6.951 tish/ha (CI=0.05). The gill net catch \vas dominated by alewives. The majority of the alewives captured were between 100-120 mm in length. Figure 2 shows the length frequency distribution of alewives captured from June to September 1996. Smelt comprised only 0.3% ofthe gill net catch and 2.3% ofthe trawl catch. while golden shiners made up 1.6% of the gill net catch. From the proportions ofalewives. smelt. 90 and golden shiners in the gill nets, this translates to 6,796 alewives, 20.8 smelt, and III golden shiners per hectare. The density ofthe pelagic zooplankton community was 77 organisms/liter. Rotifers were dominant. especially Polyarthra vul~ad~·. A combination of four species (in descending order of numerical abundance) including P. vulgaris, KerateUa cochlearis. Kellicotia longispina, and Asplanchna priodontus comprised 65% ofthe community numerically. The crustacean community was dominated by Bosmina longirostris, followed by Diac)'clops bicuspidatus and Ceriodaphnia reticulata. Figure 3 depicts proportional abundances ofthe various species captured. Annual phosphorus (P) regeneration by alewives is estimated to be 1.498 kg during the stratification period, or 0.08 /-lg p. L'I·d". The alewife population contains approximately 1,538 kg of phosphorus. The zooplankton population contained 58.1 kg ofP and regenerated 3,306 kg during stratitication. or 0.19 /-lg p. L-'·d- '. In comparison, the phytoplankton community contained 1197 kg of P. Of the P contained in living organisms, 2.0%, 42.9%, and 55.1 % was in zooplankton. phytoplankton, and fish respectively (Figure 4). Table 1: Average lengths and vveights tor fish captured with different gear types in Otsego Lake from June to September 1996. species trap net gill net trawl seme alewife 108mm.8.5g 93.9mm,7.5g 102mm.5.lg 107mm,7.5g go iden shiner NA 147mm, 39.3g NA NA smelt NA 95mm,3.5g 41 mm. NA NA DISCUSSION This study has provided new information pertaining to the abundance and composition of the Otsego Lake pelagic fish community. It must be noted that this study is preliminary in some respects. This is the tirst attempt to estimate the role of Otsego Lake alewives and zooplankton in phosphorus regcneration. As with any study based on acoustic data, absolute description of the composition of the pelagic tish community is difficult because of the overlap in sizes ofdifferent species and the uncertainties in target strength relationships. Use ofdata from gill nets on one date and location tor veritication of acoustic data does not account for possible spatial variation in tish distribution. Seasonal distribution patterns of the alewife community must be further examined to refine the analysis of their role in phosphorus regeneration. The location offish (inshore versus offshore) is ofvital importance to the impact they have on the lake. The location offish within the \vater colunm may be important as well. The use of published phosphorus content tor fish and zooplankton along with Kraft's (1993) regeneration model likely introduces error because the P content inl()fmation and model are not specific to Otsego Lake organisms or conditions. 91 4 3 . . , .-- -. -:--.-.----l.----...... J .---"--' -_.._--_._._---_.__._--1 I ..._-".-----,_._...---_._-----1 o 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 length (mm) Figure 2: Length- JI-cquency distribution of akwi\'es from Otsego Lake captured with gill nets. trap net. trawl. ;lnd seine in 1996. Asplanchna (777%) Polyarthra (28 24'%) Bosmma (19.42%) Cerlodaphnla (6.51% Kellicotla (1101%) Dlacyclops (8.61%) Keratella (18.45%) th Figu re J: Proportional abundances of zooplankton species captured on September 5 • 1996 li'om TR..J.-C in Otsego Lake 92 551% 2,0% 42,9% zooplankton phytoplankton • fish Figure 4: Percentages of phosphorus pooled by living organisms in the pelagic zone (0 12m) of Otsego Lake in September 1996. 10000 8000 6000 rn -C :£: If) ;;:: 4000 2000 "~',' ~.- ,.~. -----,~~-'''' -,... . ,',: ",',',' ,! D".,,~ ,': ":' " , 0 " ._ . 'h~~ __ ,,~, ,.~~_,_,_, Otsego Otisco Cayuta Figure 5: Comparison of areal densities of pelagic fish in 3 New York I,~akes. Values tt)r Otisco and Cayuta Lakes from Brooking el (/1. (1995). 93 Areal densities (figure 5) of alewives in Otsego Lake, Otisco Lake, and Cayuta Lake (Brooking et al.. 1995) are 6,951,1,815, and 8,168, fish/ha respectively. The biomass of pelagic 3 fish in Otsego Lake is approximately 87 metric tons (0.6 g/m ). The 1987 biomass ofthe Lake 3 Michigan pelagic fish community was 366,900 metric tons (0.15 g/m ) (Argyle, 1992) in a volume ofwater nearly 13,000 times greater than in Otsego Lake. The biomass of the Otsego Lake pelagic fish community is lower than that found by Brooking et al. (1995) in Cayuta Lake (128 kg/ha) but higher than that found in Otisco Lake (28 kg/ha). The mean length and weight of alewives in Otsego Lake is lower than in Otisco or Cayuta (Figures 6 and 7). Alewives from Otsico and Cayuta were captured in October. Because the sampling in Otsego Lake occurred in September, yoy alew·ives would be expected to have a lower mean length and weight. The difference in sampling dates should not have as much impact on mean length and weight for adult alewives. Overall it appears that alewife growth in Otsego Lake is slow. Mean lengths for yoy, age 1, age 2 and age 3 alewives were 53, 82, 110, and 139 mm respectively. The phosphorus regeneration rate for zooplankton during stratification is twice that for alewives. Kraft (1993) found that the quantity ofP regenerated by zooplankton in Lake Michigan during the 1970's was similar to the quantity regenerated by alewives. It is possible that the difference in quantities in Otsego Lake is a result ofthe very low mean size ofzooplankton and subsequently higher metabolic rate ofthese organisms. The zooplankton community composition provides additional significance to the quantity ofP regenerated by zooplankton. Otsego Lake is dominated by small rotifers. The absence of large zooplank~::Jl1 can increase algal sedimentation as a result of increased algal standing crop (Taylor, 1984). Our estimate ofP regeneration during the stratification period by zooplankton and alewives is more than the annual external phosphorus load estimated by Albright (1996). Consideration should be given to the length of time it would take for regenerated P to equal the quantity pooled by phytoplankton. Based on estimates from this study it would take 32.4 days for P regenerated by zooplankton and alewives to equal the amount contained in phytoplankton. The estimate ofthe quantity ofP contained in the phytoplankton community is probably high because P content ofnon-living seston was not measured. This over-estimation results in a higher value for the time required to replace algal P content completely. Regeneration rates provided in this paper are estimates and as such serve only as indication that further research is an important step in the right direction. Further retmement ofthe estimation processes may provide additional information and understanding of the relationship between phytoplankton, zooplankton, alewives, and phosphorus. ACKNO\VLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dr. John Foster for supplying the trawl for this project, John O'Connor and all the BFS interns for their assistance. 94 100 I 90 I 80 I------~---I 70 I -E E 60 ,------ti"f:€:'i ---t·3 ---- .r:.... 50 C'l C 1 ~ 40 1- 30 20 1-I,'1>{v 10 , Otsego Otisco Cayuta=i: 1;f~jJ yoy length IIIyoy weight Figure 6: Comparison ofmean alewife yoy lengths and weights for 3 New York Lakes. Data for Otisco and Cayuta Lakes from Brooking et al. (1995). 140 [------r--==------t __. J20 130 L...--o- -+_f L_·'--'--"-'~---+--i 15 120 1------+--1 L------t-i.. 110 L,~_ =1 3 10 . 1 5 80 --...... -_..JO ...... Q.tsego Oti. Cayuta U adult length adult weight Figure 7: Comparison ofmean adult alewife lengths and weights for 3 New York Lakes. Data for Otisco and Cayuta Lakes from Brooking et al.( 1995). 95 REFERENCES Albright. M. F.. L. P. Sohach and W. N. Harman. 1996. Hydrologic and nutrient budgets t(H Otsego Lake. N. Y. and relationships between land form/use and export rates of its sub-basins. Occasional Paper # 29. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. Argyle. Ray. L. 1992. Acoustics as a tool lor the assessment of Cheat Lakes forage fishes. Fisheries Research 14. pI 79-196. Brabrand. A. A B. :~aatcng. and J.P.M. Nilssen. 1990. Relative importance of phosphorus supply to phytoplankton production: fish excretion versus external loading. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:364-372. Brandt. Stephen B. ]996. Acoustic assessment of fish abundance and distribution. In B.R. Murphy and D. W. Willis. cds.. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda. Maryland. Brooking. T. E.. A.J. VanDeValk. L. G. Rudstam. and D. M. Green. 1996. Comparative survival of tTy. pond reared and advanced fingerling walleye in New York Lakes 1995. Cornell Warmwater Fisheries Unit New York Federal Aid Study VII. Foster. John R. 1991. The irruption oCthe alc\vife population of Otsego Lake. In n ,d Ann. Rep!.. 1990. Pp 56-59. SllNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. Ilarman. Willard N.. L.P. Sohacki. M.F. Albright. and D.L. Rosen. 1997. The State of Otsego Lake. 1936-1996. Occasional Paper # 30. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SllNY Oneonta. Joh'1I1nssoIJ. Ora. E. and R. O·Gorman. 1991. Roles of predation. food. and temperature in structuring the epilimnetic zooplankton populations in Lake Ontario. 1981 19X6. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120: 193-208. KnoL'chcL R.. and L. B. Holtby. 1986. Construction and validation of a body-length based model t(Jr the prediction of cladoceran community tiltering rates. Limnology and Oceanography 31 (I): 1-16. KratL C. L. 1993. Phosphorus rl'gcncration by Lake 1'v1ichigan alc\vi\l~s in the mid 1970's. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:7-+9-755. Lindem. T.. and o. T. Sandlund. 198-+. New method in assessment of pelagic tTeslmatcr tish stocks-coordinated use of echosounder. pelagic trawL and pelagic nets. Fauna 37: 105-111. (In Nonvegian \vith English summary). 96 Mackarcwicz. Joseph c.. P Bertram. T. Lewis. and E. H. Brown. Jr. 1995. A decade of predatory control 0 f zooplankton species composition of Lake Michigan. Journal orGreat Lakes Research 21 (4):620-640. Maclennan. David N.. and EJ. Simmonds. 1992. Fisheries Acoustics. Chapman & Hall. loondol1. O·Gorman. R.O.. E.L. Mills. and J.S. Degisi. 1991. Use ofzooplankton to assess the movcment and distribution ofalewife (A/osa pseudoharengus) in south-central Lake Ontario in spring. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Scienccs 4S :2250-225 7. Scavia. D.. and J. r. Kitchell. 19S5. Dynamics ofLake Michigan plankton: a model cva1uation ornutricnt loading. competition. and prcJation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:165-177. Smilh. c.L.. 19S5. Thc Inland Fishcs ofNcw York Statc. Thc New York State Ikpartmcnt of Environmental Conservation. Albany. New York. Taylor. W. D. and D. R. S. Lean. 1991. Phosphorus pool sizes and fluxes in the epilinlllion of a mesotrphic lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 4S: 1293-130 1. Taylor. W. D. 19S4. Phosphorus flux through epilimnetic zooplankton from Lake Ontario: Rclationship with boJy size and significance to phytoplankton. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41: 1702-1712. Wetzel. R. Ci. 19X3. Limnology. Saunders College Publishing. New York. \Vet;:L'!. R. (i .. and (i. F. Likens. 1991. Limnological A.nalyses. Springer-Verlag. Ne\\ York. 97 Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife in Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary, Otsego County, New York. Eric Jorczak* INTRODUCTION Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is a perennial wetland plant that is common throughout temperate North America. According to Stuckey (1980) it was inadvertently introduced from Europe in the early 1800's in ship ballast and also imported for medicinal and ornamental purposes (Stuckey. 1980). It commonly establishes in wet areas including marshes, shorelines. ponds, wet meadows, and roadside ditches. In North America. purple loosestrife is very invasive and forms large, dense monodominant stands. It continues to outcompete native wetland plants because it has no natural enemies (Malecki et al., 1993). Purple loosestrife is non threatening in its native range because it is fed upon by some 120 species of phytophagous insects and is kept in a natural system of checks and balances (Malecki et al.. 1993). Purple loosestrife is not a useful resource to most animals and replaces valuable native plants that are used for food and habitat (Haworth et al., 1993). Consequently purple loosestrife has degraded many wetlands. including the Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary, by significantly reducing the abundance of native vegetation and associated species of wildlife. Appropriate measures are being initiated to control purple loosestrife in order to preserve biodiversity and maintain healthy ecosystems. Purple loosestrife control programs of the past have generally been unsuccessful. Physical control of purple loosestrife includes hand pulling, mowing, draining, flooding, burning, and discing (Carroll, 1996). These methods are costly and labor intensive and must be repeated once purple loosestrife returns. Chemical control of purple loosestrife invo Ives application of a nonspecific herbicide that contains the active ingredient glyphosphate (Carroll. 1996). This method is costly, requires long term application, and has had detrimental effects on non target wetland plants (Skinner et al., 1993). Biological control offers the most promising method for combating purple loosestrite (Blossey, 1995). Biological control of weeds involves human use of a plant's natural enemies to reduce its populations to an acceptable level (Malecki et al.. 1993). Biological control of purple loosestrife has been extensively studied and years of research have identified insect species that are host-specific (will only attack purple loosestrife) and therefore will not harm native North American plants. In this case. control involves the introduction of two species ofleaf-feeding beetles (Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla) (Figure 1) from purple loosestrife' s native range. These beetles lessen the competitive ability of purple loosestrife by feeding on meristems and defoliating the plant resulting in impaired growth. decreased seed production. and increased plant mortality (Blossey et al., 1994). *Lake and Valley Garden Club College Intern. summer, 1996. Present address: Binghamton University, Binghamton. NY. 98 Biological control ofpurple loosestrife has been implemented on a wide scale throughout the United States and many areas in New York State including Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge in Cayuga county, Schoharie county, Greene county, Montgomery county, and Albany county (Sharick, 1996). Follow-ups on release sites report good success in controlling purple loosestrife and no harm to native plants (Blossey, 1996). Some unique advantages to biological control are that its environmentally safe, cost effective, nonpolluting, and self-sustaining. METHODS AND DISCUSSION With the assistance from Dr. Bernd Blossey (Director of biological control of non indigenous plant species at Cornell University), it is proposed to establish controlled study sites of leaf-feeding beetles in Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. Up to five sites containing purple loosestrife will be chosen in the swamp for the establishment of screened-in cages. Galerucella calmariensis and G. pusilla will be introduced into these cages and feeding progress will be monitored. Once it is clemonstrated that these beetles feed only on purple loosestrife, the cages can be lifted and the beetles will be allowed to further their consumption of purple loosestrife in surrounding areas while progress is monitored over the years. These beetles can successfully overwinter and attack purple loosestrife the following spring. The abundance of purple loosestrife will naturally regulate the abundance of the beetles, and this interaction provides a self-sustaining, balanced system (Malecki et al., 1993). As purple loosestrife is reduced, native wetland plants can have an opportunity to return and maintain biodiversity while contributing to the educational aspect of the swamp. A Figure 1. a. G. calmariensis (length 3.6-5.6mm), b. G. pusilla (length 3.5-4.6mm) (Manguin et al. 1993). 99 REFERENCES Blossey, B. 1996. Personal communication. Department ofNatural Resources. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Blossey, B. and D. Schroeder. 1995. Host Specificity of Three Potential Biological Control Agents Attacking Flowers and Seeds of Lythrum salicaria (Purple Loosestrife). Biological ControlS: 47-53. Blossey, B., D. Schroeder, S. D. Hight, and R. A. Malecki. 1994. Host Specificity and Environmental Impact of Two Leaf Beetles (Galerucella calmariensis and G pusilla) for Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Science 42: 134 140. Carroll, D. 1996. Biologists Use Beetles to Combat Purple Loosestrife at State Areas. New York State Ducks Unlimited. Spring/Summer: 19. Haworth, M. J., H.R. Murkin, and R.T. Clay. 1993. Effects of shallow tlooding on newly established purple loosestrife. Wetlands 13: 224-227. Malecki, R.A., B. Blossey, S.D. Hight, D. Schroeder, L.T. Kok, and 1. R. Coulson. 1993. Biological Control of Purple Loosestrife. Bioscience 43: 680-686. Manguin, S., R. White, B. Blossey, and S. D. Hight. 1993. Genetics, Taxonomy, and Ecology of Certain Species of Galerucella (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Sharick, B. 1996. Personal communication. Department of Environmental Conservation. Region 4, N.Y. Skinner. L. C.. W. 1. Rendall, and E. L. Fuge. 1993. Minnesota's Purple Loosestrife Program: history, findings. and management recommendations. Minnesota Dep. Natural Resources. Special Publ. 145. Stuckey, R.L. 1980. Distributional History ofLythrum salicaria (Purple Loosestrife) in North America. Bartonia 47: 3-20. 100 A floral survey of the yellow trail at Greenwoods Conservancy Allison E. Barra* ABSTRACT As a continuation of a floral study at Greenwoods, a survey of plants along the Yellow Trail was conducted. As the study began, a pattern of communities was recognized, which included wetlands, meadows, and forests. The purpose of further studying this succession at Greenwoods is to provide an overview ofthe soil and plant types. Studying succession can also give insight as to what might have occurred at Greenwoods in the past and may provide a basis for future research on natural and unnatural changes that may occur. INTRODUCTION Greenwoods Conservancy, located in Burlington, NY, is a preserve of over one-thousand acres. It is protected under conservation easement. and is used by the Biological Field Station for education and research purposes (Taylor. 1994). The purpose of this survey was to continue to learn more about Greenwoods Conservancy and it's environment. Previous studies have been conducted on the flora on and around Cranberry Bog, and expanding the area of study to include the entire Yellow Trail would increase our knowledge of the t1ora. as well as the environment of Greenwoods as a whole. By studying the complete traiL several communities will be observed, unlike previous studies that mainly focused on one community (King. 1994; Meyers. 1994). MATERIALS AND METHODS To survey plants along the Yellow TraiL each section of the trail was fIrst inspected to get an overview of what types ofplants characterize each area. After this was done, the plants that distinguish each area were identifIed using fIeld guides, (Peterson and McKenney, 1968; Petrides. 1958; Cobb. 1963) with the help ofa graduate student, Jeannie Bennett-O'dea. Following identifIcation ofall the distinctive plants representative ofeach community, a table was made. including scientifIc and common name ofeach plant (from fIeld guide), and what type of *New York Academy of Science High School Research Trainee, summer 1996. Present address: Cherry Valley-SpringfIeld Central School, Cherry Valley. NY. 101 ecosystem it was found in (Table 1). To locate these areas, a map ofthe Yellow Trail showing the various communities was constructed. RESULTS A variety offlora was identified during this study, representative of at least three different stages of succession (Table 1). The greatest species richness ofplants was found in the meadow community. An abundance ofLady Fern (Athyrium filix-femina) was found in forest stage of succession. Only one area ofthe Yellow Trail appeared to be in a wetland community. This area was located around Beaver Dam Pond (refer to Figure 1). A pattern ofthe different communities (e.g.. several stages) recognized generally alternated between meadow and forest. as depicted in Figure 1. DISCUSSION Many parts of Greenwoods Conservancy were once used as tamuands. which could be the reason why the pattern ofcommunities generally alternates between forest and meadow. Evidence that this land was once used for tarming includes an old foundation ofa bam at the intersection of the Yellow and Green Trails (Figure 1). Other evidence consists ofan additional foundation on the Red Trail. Farming is continuing at Greenwoods at the present time on Zakow Road. which also affects succession. Because areas ofmeadows contain few species of plants that block sunlight from others that are close to the ground, many types ofwildflowers grow there. The one area ofthe Yellow Trail that breaks the pattern ofmeadow and forest is the community around Beaver Dam Pond. This area contains such wetland species such as Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis, which is also found in the forest community bordering Cranberry Bog). and Welted Thistle (Carduus crispus). This survey could be used as a basis for future study on succession. By looking at the changes in tlora. the natural pattern of succession from meadow to old forest can be noticed. Observing the flora can also indicate any unnatural changes. such as construction or the establishment of some exotic species. that could occur. This survey has been done to add to the present knowledge about Greenwoods Conservancy. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Robin Basile and Jeannie Bennett-O'dea for introducing me to Greenwoods. I \vould also like to thank 1. Bennett-O'dea for her help with deternllning plant species. A special thanks to Dr. Harman and Matthew Albright for their help in writing this paper. 102 TABLE 1 Community Scientific Name Common Name Meadow I Vaccinium I Blueberry I I Crataegus I Hawthorn I Achillea Yarrow I millefolium I I I Spiraea latifolia I Meadowsweet I [Labiatae (family) I Mint I Lotus corniculatus Bird's Foot Trefoil I I Rosaceae (family) I Blackberry I Hieracium Orange Hawkweed/ aurantiacum Indian Paintbrush I [ Fragaria virginiana I Strawberry I [ Hypericum St. John's Wort I perforatum I I Malra neglecta Mallow Rudbeckia hirta Black-Eyed Susan I I Galium triflorum I Bed Straw I ITragopo'!on Goat's Beard I pratens~s I I I [ Asclepias syriaea I Milkweed I I [ Stellaria media I Chickweed I Rubus hispidus Dewberry Vicia americana Purple Vetch I I Rubus idaeus I Raspberry I I I Tanacefum vulgare ITansy I I I Potenilla norvegica ICinquefoil I I I Prunella vulgaris IHeal-all I I I Convolvulus sepium I Field Bindweed I Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle (family) 103 Community Scientific Name Common Name Forest Stellaria graminea Stitchwort Trifolium agrarium Hop Clover Trifolium hybridium Alsike Clover Erigeron annuus Fleabane Pilea pumila Clearweed Verbascum thapsus Mullein Linaria vulgaris Butter and Eggs Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Silene cucubalus Bladder Campion Chrysanthemum Daisy leucanthemum Clementis Virgin's Bower virginiana Wetland Ranunculus acris Buttercup Circaea Larger's Nightshade quadrisulcata Carduus Welted Thistle I I crispus I I Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted Fern Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern I I I I Forest Oxalis montana Common Wood Sorrel I IAcer pensylvanicum I Striped Maple Athyrium filix Lady Fern I I femina I I I Osmunda cinnamomea I Cinnamon Fern I I Monotropa uniflora I Indian Pipe I I Onoclea sensibilis I Sensitive Fern I I Fagus grandiflora I Beech I I Tsuga canadlesis I Hemlock I IBetula lutea I Yellow Birch Coptis groenlandica Goldthread 104 Community Scientific Name Common Name I Forest Acer I Maple I I Crataegus IHawthorn I I Corylus I Hazelnut I I Juqlans cinerea IButternut I I Pinus strobus I White pine I Carpinus Ironwood/Musclewood caroliniana I I Betula I Birch I I I Pinus resinosa I Red Pine I Mianthemum Canadian Mayflower canadense Prunus Cherry Fagaceae (family) Oak Pinaceae (family) Spruce Oleaceae (family) Ash Fagopyrum Buckwheat sagitratum Pinus banksiana Jack Pine Circaea Enchanter's quadrisulcata Nightshade Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla Epipactis Helleborine helleborine Podaphyll um Mayapple pel tatum Trientalis borealis Starflower pteridium aquilinum Braken Fern Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut .4cer rubrum Red Maple Epifagus virgiana Beechdroppings Actaea pachypoda Doll's Eyes (White Baneberry) 105 Community Scientific Name Common Name Forest Lycopdium Running Pine complanatun Forest Polystichum Christmas Fern acrostichoides Polygonum scandens Climbing Buckwheat ~===~~==-=106 ~/{IAR elll.L ~ I I HIGH FIELDS·:::...... I .. :: :tRAli; I ... t;f: ...... : : :~ '\\>~' .t\"'····· ;r _~\~. :Q~" " r- ~--- y.\~' ,*~\~'::::::::::' ~ II ...... 1;:...... u \' : : : BROAO •• 8- ~ ~ . : : :: MEADOW :. ., ~ ~ ...... ~g ~- £C> II MARCY SOlITH POWER LINE / • • I LOCAL POWER LINE MAINTAINED ROADS OTHER ROADS TRAILS ---~... WETLANDS --- ~"" ~----- OPEN WATER BOUNDARY ~-~ Forest cover along Yellmv Trail Wetlands along Yellow Trail Meadowlands along Yellow Trail Figure 1. Greenwoods Conservancy indicating land cover along the Yellow Trail. 107 REFERENCES Cobb, Boughton. 1963. A Field Guide to the Ferns. HoughtonlMifflin Company, Boston. 281 p. King, Darcy. 1994. A Floral Survey of Quadrants D2 and D3 ofGreenwoods Conservancy. In 27th Annual Report (1994). SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station. SUNY Oneonta. Meyers, Anne Mary. 1994. A Floral Survey of Quadrants El and E2 ofGreenwoods Conservancy. In 27th Annual Report (1994). SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta. Peterson, R.T. and M. McKenney. 1968. A Field Guide to Wildflowers. Houghton/Mifflin Company, Boston. 420 p. Petrides, G. 1972. A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs. Houghton/Mifflin Company, Boston. 428 p. Taylor. Linda. 1994. Biological Survey of Cranberry Bog, Sununer 1994. In 27th Annual Report (1994). SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta. 108 Biological survey of arthropods - Greenwoods Conservancy summer 1996 Robin K. Basile* INTRODUCTION Greenwoods Conservancy. a one thousand acre plus property located in Burlington, New York, has been placed under conservation easement by the Otsego Land Trust (Taylor. 1994). Biological Field Station personnel undertake research and environmental education under the provisions ofthe easement. The development of trails, roads and a dock area. providing access to undisturbed floral and faunal communities. makes Greenwoods a superlative place to study. The property includes the unspoiled 70-acre Cranberry Bog and its watershed, wetlands. forests. meadows and many more unique communities. all with in1portant ecological value. During the summer of 1996, an arthropod survey was conducted at various locations at Greenwoods centered about Cranberry Bog. This paper. a list of arthropod taxa. is the result of that work. METHODS AND MATERIALS Aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected at various microhabitats by the use ofa triangle net. The studies on Cranberry Bog on the bog mat (A), sedge meadow (B) and graminoid fen (C). were facilitated by use ofa small boat (Figure 1). These areas were surveyed twice, once in early and again in late summer. Aquatic arthropods were collected at the following additional sites: Road Pond. Beaver Dam Pond. Seldom Seen Pond, Red Trail Pond. and Woodchuck Pond on two dates during the Surnn1er (Figure 2). The organisms were brought to the BFS. preserved in 70% ETOH. identified to Genus and curated for further reference. Terrestrial arthropods were collected on areas adjacent to Cranberry Bog and Seldom Seen Pond. Six transects were established and samples were collected at 30m (100ft.) intervals along them (Figure 1). Two techniques were employed: sweeping with hand nets and the gathering of leaf litter from the forest Door. The leaf litter was placed in Berlese funnels for 24 hours to facilitate isolation of specimens. All Arthropods were preserved in 70% ETOB. These organisms were determined to Family. Determinations have not yet been verfied. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 provides a taxonomic list ofthe aquatic arthropods collected during this study. A total of9 Orders. 34 Families and 60 Genera were identified. The pond on the Red Trail east of the Bog had the greatest species richness. The bog mat(A) exhibited the greatest species richness within Cranberry Bog. Table:2 provides a taxonomic list of terrestrial arthropods. The samples of leaf litter showed an abundance of in1mature and adult mites. * PFCT college internship (Greenwoods Conservancy). summer 1996. Undergraduate student. SUNY Oneonta. Present address: PO Box#883. Franklin. NY 13775. Transect # 3 109 Transect ,if '") " · ~\y,- ,I "\ Transect If 1 ... ",1 • I \ . WI Figure I. CranhL'rry Bog illustrating transects (1-6) where terrestrial arthropods \vere collected. Aquatic arthropods were sampled at sited A. 11 and C throughout the Bog and at additional sites as Ilumbered (@) in figure 2.. A = the bog mat or dwarf shrub bog; B = sedge meadow commllllity; C = rich graminoid len; D = hemlock-hardwood forest. Delinitions as per ReschkL' (191)()). I. Beaver-dam rom!. 2. Road rond. .1. Seldl)m-seen pond. ..J.. Red-trail ponds. 5. \\/oodchuck pond. Creek \V2 is a pL'rmanent stream. Creek W..J. is dry in extreme weather. CrL'ck \\/2 is evcn more ephenk'ral and driwn by precipitat ion (f-.lodilied li'l)m Pagan and Ferluge. II )l)6)' // I J \ I 'I:I \ ,>, II' I II I', ,\~ I Ii I I" J ____ 11;\11'" \i I J I \ ~.I'\ ,'I':r-.;\\ \111; I, 1,,11 '.1;\:,\ ed ilocdctuck RJad 3ea','2: Dai:! S=i:jj~1 5~~:-: ~'Jg ~ 2c~ B E~? sms :ai; ~ond Pond ?~f:d ?;:.:J :)~d ======::::::= ~~== ==~=== ::: ~~ =~~: =~= ~= :1= ~= ~ ~=~:~. =~= ~=:~~= == ~ ~: =~===:=~= ~~===,= =~ :~~= := =:.~: =~: ~= :,~~=;I ~~=~=:=:~: =:~ ~ =': ==:~: =::;=::; =. :: =:~: =:~= PA~IL'I ; I =;: ==:; ORDER GEUUS .u-Jil .. iL.-uJ.I. J,l.-lla 1 \10 ",:1.:. J6-J~n i18-JU.1 I..J,;.-~a! jL-Jt.:. .... U4-J ....1 Id·~".l. , " .. -oJ"'u ~':':-Jl... /4.-,.1\..1. I~ .. --J Hyd:acarina Ephel1.eropcera 2aeCldae ~a! i:~aecis Baetidaa ~r:~::r~d;;:;1 Baetidae lliW Caenidae C;;S2:3 Epherneullidae Da:lo o 11a Siphlonur;dae Siphl2nu~~s Odonata Aeshri ae ~.Jl.a:( Aeshni ae .~p,hr,a Cordd ieae !2G.2c:rd::lia Cardul dae Cordulia Co:·1ul leaa S2~j=,:cslQ!a Libel;ulidae .El~r22mlS Lio21iul:dae L2u-:Qrrn:il~2 Litellulicae S';iTIQP~rll~ x Gmphidae ~ Odona ta Coenagriol'idae Enall=.~ma x CoeGagrionidae Nehalemlla x Lestidae Lest ;l:; X Hemiptera ~!esoveliidae Mesoveli g Gerridae Ge,ri, 1. x I x Notonectidae NQ\Q""eta :< x x x I x Pleidae NeJpl;o :< :< Ne~idae Rar.3;~a x Belostsmatidae E~:QstJ8a :< Bel st matidae LethQca:us x CJI X~ 6~ ilir.~ ~,;:~:xa 'f... f'.. Cor x: ~2 Tric~.):_Yr::(j :< Tahle 1. Taxonomic list of aquatic arthropods collected during this study. > o> F.~j ~·:J:dC; l:~ (~2d .. Eel':er :?-L:l S~~d:lil 322G 3~; :;:: :: ::~ ,.,. ~ : ~ (,jJj SiTES l c~ ... P::::i ?od P·~::d ;,,,0 :.:. =====:=:::: ==:: ::::::: ::::::.:.::::::::. =::;::.:::.-: =: :=::.:.::; =::::::::.::: ::::::=:.:.::: :=: :::::::=:: :::::::.: :;:: ===:::. ::::. :::; :.:.::::::.:::.::::.:: :::: :::: ::::::::.:::.:. I::::':':: :::;::: ::: ORm F~:~~L'r' G:~;::S ::~-:'l.: i:3-jul ~:-~a~: i::~jl;l 106-::.:r. !lBMj'",l }:-M~i ilf·j·.j~ Ij~-;l.:~. :~~-;'~l ~:-;;~~. :::-:~: ~~·::':L ,::-:~~ ::-~~:: ::-:~~ - - -- .. ~ - - -.. --. - .. ------. ------- - -... -. - . - ---- . ---. -- - ------. -.. -- -. -. --- . --- . - . -- .. ------.. ---- . ------. -- . .. - Mega lcpte ra Corycal iia2 Cbau~ icd;;s Sialid2e Sialis TrictJptcra Leptoce~idae Tdamd"5 J. Psyeho]! iiiae Psv;:,y]:a Limnephi I idae LilJn~ch11us Limneptilijje C~'/:a~d(i Br2c!:ycentrdae ).jlC~~D~.~es Coleovera Haliplidae ?eltod'l\;" Haliplidae Ha~ i~1L!3 J. Dytiscidae vytiscus Dycisciiae Hvdropar"JS Dytisci~ae Lmopl:il'" )<, Dyciscidie G[Jrh;d;~l1s Dytiscidae nerQ::ec~es ~ytiscidae Hydra-Iat;;s Dytiscidae lliill Dytiscidae CoptOtOIilUS Gyrinidae Dinetu; Gyrinidae Gvrir::.:s 1. aydrophilldae T::-Qpist~:n:.;s J. J. Hydrophilidas Hydropbiln X X Hydrophilidae Hydrochara Hydrophi 1idae Hvdromthus Diptera Tipulidae fu.lli x Stratiomyiidae Eup~lamh·m x Stratiolllyiidae ~ Stratiolllyiidae Qd,nt?lIlyia Tahanidae Chryso;s Tabanidae ~ Chi ronolilidae ~.tlabesvmvia Table 1. Taxonomic list of aquatic arthropods collected during this study. - 112 Insecta Insecta (cant.) Isopoda Orothoptera Acrididae Collembola Gryllacrididae Sminthuridae Homoptera Entomobryidae Defphacidae Plecoptera Hymenoptera Periodidae Bomdinae Odonata (Anisoptera) Ich neumonid ae Libellulidae Formicidae Odonata (Zygoptera) Mesostigmata Coenagrionidae Ixodidae Hemiptera Pseudoscorpiones Reduviidae Dactylochelifercopios Miridae Cheliferidae Nabidae Arachnida Gelastocoridae Oecobiidae Lygaeidae Pulpatore Lepidoptera Phalangidae Geometridae Diplopoda Tineidae Julida Pterophoridae Chilopoda Hesperiidae Geophilomorpha Coleoptera Lithobiomorpha Cassidinae Lithobiidae Caribidae Diptera Tipulidae Psychodidae Dixidae Culicidae Tabanidae Rhagionidae Sciomyzidae Lauxaniidae Anthomyiidae Muscidae Agromyzidae Chironomidae Cecidomyiidae Sciardae Doliochopodidae Table 2. Taxonomic list of terrestrial arthropods collected during this study. 113 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Earle Peterson for his generosity and vision in making this study and many others possihle. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. William L. Butts and the many others who assisted in this project. REFERENCES Borror. D..I., C.1\. Triplehorn. and N.F. Johnson. 1989. An introduction to he study ofInsects. 6th Ed. Saunders Collegc Pub.. New York. Cloudsley-Thompson, .I.L. 19()~t Spiders. scorpions ccntipedes and mitcs. Pergamon Press, London. McDaniel. B. 1979. Ilow to know the mites and ticks. Wm. C. Brown. Dubuque. Pcckarsky, B. L., P.R. Fruissinet. M./\... Penton and D.l Conklin. 1990. Freshwater macroinvertebratcs of northeastern North America. Comstock. Ithaca. Pcnnak. R. W. 1953. Freshwater invertehrates of the United States. Ronald Press. New York. Two new fish species captured in Otsego Lake tributaries John R. O'Connor* ABSTRA.CT Black Crappie (Pomox;s n;f1romaculalus) and the Central Mudminnow (Umhra hmn were captured tor the first time in Otsego Lake tributaries during a 1996 fisheries survey of Cripple Creek. This record was only the second time the central mudminnow was recorded from the Susquehanna drainage. INTRODUCTION While the Otsego Lake watershed supports a large diversity of fish species, the list present in the watershed has been continuously updated since the original publication by McWatters (1980,1983). New species have been documented by Hayes and Foster (1989), Foster (1989), Foster and ColIura (1990), and Brooking (1991) and the extinction of a species has also been reported by Lehman el al., (1990). The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the biology oftwo new fish species for the Otsego Lake watershed. These species were discovered during a qualitative tisheries survey conducted on Cripple Creek (Miner, 1996). It is a part ofa larger study describing the fisheries composition and distribution in Cripple Creek in the towns ofSpringJield and Warren. New York (Miner, 1996). The 1996 Cripple Creek survey revealed two species offish that had never been recorded within Otsego Lake or its tributaries. The Central Mudminnow was found in sites six. seven, and eight, while Black Crappie were only tound in site six (see figure 1). A total number of eight mudminnows were captured in 3.322 combined seconds of dectrotishing (55 min.; 21 sec.) and three crappie were caught in 1.032 seconds (17 min.; 12 sec.). * 1996 Robert C. tvIcWatters Internship in the aquatic sciences. Present address: Fisheries and aquaculture, SUNY Cobleskill Agricultural and Technical College, Cobleskill. NY. 114 Til!' CFNTRi\L Ml IDr-.lINN()\\ lllF 111.\('1'. CR:\l'l'IF £7igure I. Southern portion of the Cripple Creek sub-basin sho\\ing fish collecting sites used during this study. 115 THE CENTRAL MUDMINNOW (Scott and Crossman, 1973) The Central Mudminnow is a smalL robust, elongated, mottled fish (Smith, 1979). It has a generally dark brown color and is mottled with dark vertical bars along its sides (Scott and Crossman. 1973). Mudminnows resemble killifishes in size and shape, however mudminnows have a nonprotractile mouth while killifishes posses one with a distinct groove between the lip and snout. Mudminnows have a very distinct dark vertical bar at the base ofthe tail (Smith, 1985). Mudminnows are carnivorous bottom feeders (Lee et al., 1980). Like other members of the Order Esociformes. mudminnows are 1ie-in-wait predators (Moyle and Cech. 1996). Their diet consists of insect larvae and adults, mollusks, amphipods, isopods. and arachnids (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Smith, (1979) also found mudminnows to be feeding on plant material such as algae and duckweed. Mudminnows seem to be a very hardy fish. They live in sluggish backwaters, heavily vegetated ponds or pools of small creeks (Scott and Crossman. 1973), and swampy woodlands (Smith. 1985). Trautman (1981) reported that mudminnows have a preference for undisturbed clear water areas with soft bottoms ofmuck and peat. Smith (1979) found mudminnows to be highly tolerant of waters high in acidity, low in dissolved oxygen. and waters susceptible to heavy freezing. The central mudminnow ranges from the St. Lawrence to southern Manitoba. south along the Mississippi into western Tennessee and northern Arkansas (Smith. 1985). In New York. the central mudminnow has been expanding its range south (Daniels. pers. comm.. 1996). The central mudminnow is present in the Great lakes. and in the Genesee, Oswego. Mohawk-Hudson. Lake Champlain. St. Lawrence. and now. Susquehanna watersheds (Smith. 1985). The central mudminnow has only been recorded in the Susquehanna drainage once prior to this survey. It was found in Madison County, in a small stream that crosses under U.S. Rt. 20. three iles east ofMorrisville. on 28 Jine 1979 (Smith. pers. COIllin.. 1996). The stream is connected to the Old Chenango Canal. which is connected to the Mohawk 116 drainage. and may be one possible explanation for its occurrence in the stream. Another is that it may have been a bait bucket introduction (Daniels. pers. comm.. 1996). The occurrence ofthe centralmudminnow in Cripple Creek may also be from a bait bucket introduction since Cripple Creek runs through two popular fishing sites; Weaver Lake and Young Lake. Scott and Crossman (1973). describe the central mudminnow as good bait fish because of its tolerance of low oxygen conditions. common to bait buckets. It is sold as bait in Canada and the United States. However mudminnows are also good aquarium fish according to Scott and Crossman (1973). Smith (1985). believes that the mudminnow makes a poor bait fish because of its dark coloration and tendency to remain on the bottom. THE BLACK CRAPPIE (Smith. 1979) The black crappie has a highly compressed. deep diamond shape body. that resembles a typical sunfish. They arc paiL' sihery "hire on their sides and belly. and dark green to black abo\l~. They h~1\e patches ofdark scales that tl.)f\l1 irregular. chain-like bands and markings allover (Smith. 19S5: and Scott and Crossman. 1(73), They closely resemble white crappie (I)o!llOyjs llililli/aris) except the latter h~1\e six dorsal spines while black crappie hel\e seven or eight. and the dorsal tin base ofthe white crappie is shorter than the distance fi'om the eye to the dorsal tin origin. while the dorsal tin base of the black crappie is about the same length as the distance from the eye to the dorsal tin origin (page and Burr. 19(1). Adults t~ed 011 smalllish and insects. \vhile young crappie t~ed on plankton. Ivlost keding takes place at night and early morning (Smith. 19S5: and Scott and Crossman. 1(73), Black crappie he in almost all types of\\ater except n~ry small streams with strong current (Smith. 1(79), They arc usually tl.llll1d in clear. quiet. warm \vater and areas or low 1100v. They prekr areas or abundant aquatic n~getation and sandy to mucky 117 hottoms (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Black crappie arc less tolerant of silt and turbidity than white crappie arc (Smith. 1985). From this habitat description. it is easy to understand why we only found black crappie in site six. It was a large. deep. slow moving. heavily vegetated pool located heneath a farmer's 1 m high dam. Most of the other sites. although somewhat vegetated. had a swill current flowing through them. The original range of the black crappie was fresh water of eastern and central North America. It has heen so widely introduced throughout the United States that it is diflicult to determine the species' natural distribution (Scott and Crossman. 1973). Black crappic is Il.Hll1d throughollt New York. although it is not as common in the Adirondack Mountains as it is in the rest of the state (Smith. 1985). Ilntil this work. hlack crappie had only been recorded in Young Lake in the Otsego Lake watershed. Sampling oharious lakes within the watershed revealed se\en /ish in 1993 (Foster and Frost. 1996). It is unknown just how black crappie got into the Young Lakc. The hlack crappic in Cripple Creek probably moved dO\\l1stream trom Young Lakc. This implies luture collections in Otsego Lake. CONCLUSION The discovery of central mudminnows and black crappie in Cripple Creek pose unknown changes to the communities in Cripple Creek. Both fish ha\e the potential for reaching Otsego Lake and becoming established in the future. This discO\cry scn'cs as another example of the threat of biological pollution. Otsego lake has already sufkred from some disastrous exotic species introductions such as ale\\ ives (.1101"0 !1SClldO!IilI"t'II'.!IIS)(Foster. 1(90). and European rudd (Scordillills cn" !lmu!l'!lOIIIIIIS). ACKN()WLEDGEI\1ENTS I':lcctn)!ishing Sllrwys \vere conducted with the help of Dr. .John Foster. I\lary I\lincr. Carrie i'diller. .lenn Lopo. \1ilcs \\11ea1. Emera Bridger. and Eric .Jorczak. Special thanks to Dr. Foster fl.)\" his guidance. support. and editing this manuscripl. :\nothcr special thanks to Dr. Willard H~lrl11an Il.)r making my \\ork at the Field Station possible. REFERENCES BWl)king. T.E. Il)l) I. First report ofredsiJe dace 11'om Otsegl) Lake \\alersheJ. In ~-+th Ann. Rept. SIINY Oneonta Bin. Fld. Sta.. Sl iNY Oneont~1. Pages 96-97. 118 Daniels, R.A. 1996. Personal Communication. Curator of Ichthyology, New York State Museum, Troy, NY. Foster,1.R. 1989. Introduction ofthe alewife (Alosa Dseudoharengus)in Otsego Lake. In 22nd Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. Pages 107 Ill. Foster, 1.R. and T.C.N. Collura. 1990. Introduction of the European rudd(Scardinius erythroDhthalmus) into Otsego Lake. In 23rd Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. Pages 60-64. Foster, 1.R. and 1.A. Frost. 1996. Preliminary survey ofthe lakes in the Otsego Lake watershed. In 29th Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. Hayes, S. and 1.R. Foster. 1989. Two new fish species recorded for Otsego Lake watershed. In 22nd Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. Pages 99-102. Lee, D.S.. C.R. Carter, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister and 1.R. Stauffer. 1980. Atlas ofNorth American freshwater fishes. Publ-1980-12. North Carolina BioI. Survey. 854 pp. Lehman, K., W. Williams, and 1.R. Foster. 1990. Extinction ofwalleye(Stizostedion vitreum) in Otsego Lake. In 23rd Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. Pages 52-55. MacWatters, R.C. 1980. The fishes of Otsego Lake. Occas. PaperNo. 7, SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta. MacWatters. R.C. 1983. The fishes of Otsego Lake. Occas. PaperNo. 15. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta. Miner, M.M. 1996. A fisheries survey of the species composition and distribution of Cripple Creek. In 29th Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. Moyle, P.B.. and J.1. Cech, Jr. 1996. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology, 3rd edition. Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersy. 590 pp. Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. Peterson field guide to freshwater fishes. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 432 pp. Scott, W.B. and E.1. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fisher of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd of Canada 184. 966 pp. 119 Smith, c.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 522 pp. Smith, c.L. 1996. Personal communication. American Museum, Ichthyology Dept., NY, NY. Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes ofIllinois. University of Illinois Press. 314 pp. Trautman. M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. 782 pp. 120 A fisheries survey of Cripple Creek Mary M. Miner* ABSTRACT In recent years there have been studies of fish populations in the tributaries ofOtsego Lake. One of these streams, Cripple Creek was studied most recently in 1989 and 1985. A fisheries survey of Cripple Creek was again conducted in the summer of 1996. While electrofishing at preselected sites along the creek, 17 species and 7 families were captured. These fmdings, when compared with those of previous surveys, illustrates changes in species composition and location. Two species were recorded for the first time in the Creek, one new to the Otsego Lake watershed. INTRODUCTION Historically, the focus on water quality for Otsego Lake has began with its permanent tributaries. Studies of the fish populations ofthese tributaries have been conducted to gain some insight on the changing water quality of the Otsego Lake watershed (Hayes, 1989). Water quality is constantly monitored, checking mainly abiotic factors. However, very few studies have concentrated on the fish fauna (Bassista and Foster, 1994). Past studies conducted on Cripple Creek include qualitative fisheries surveys by the NYS Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC) in 1961 and 1985, as well as a quantitative survey conducted by Hayes in 1989 (Foster per. com., 1996). This survey was undertaken to gather information on Cripple Creek which can be used as a reference for future studies. The results ofthe study will be compared to previous surveys to provide more up-to-date data on the species composition and distribution ofone ofOtsego Lake's main tributaries. STUDY AREA A qualitative survey ofCripple Creek, in the towns of Springfield and Warren, New York, was conducted from July 26 through August 1, 1996. Cripple Creek is a permanent stream in the Otsego Watershed. It runs from Weaver Lake into Young Lake, in Warren, and out through Springfield and into Otsego Lake. Eight sites were selected on the basis ofaccessibility by car and foot (see figure 1). The sites were distributed through out Cripple Creek from the headwaters to the mouth. * New York Academy of Science, High School Research Trainee, summer 1996. Present address: Cooperstown High SchooL Cooperstown, NY. 121 TilE CENTRAL MlfDMINNO\v TIlE IlLACK CRAPPIE Figure 1. Southern portion of the Cripple Creek sub-basin s!Jo\ving fish colleLling sites lIsed during this study. 122 MATERIALS AND METHODS Using a Smith-Root type seven back-pack electrofisher, the sites were sampled for approximately 1,000 seconds. The technique used at each site was to pro be with the electrode near the bank of the creek and under overhanging brush, and then across the creek and through the riffles to the other bank. Three people would follow downstream to retrieve any stunned fish. The fish were collected in buckets by a fourth crew member to avoid additional shock. After the site was sampled for the required amount oftime, the fish were anesthetized. identified. measured. counted and then returned to the creek. Results were recorded in field books for later analysis. RESULTS In the eight sites sampled on Cripple Creek, 17 different species from 7 different families were caught. The Black Nose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) was the most numerous species caught while the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olrnstedi) was the least common. Five species ofwarm water fish centrarchids were captured. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) was the only salmonid found. Yellow perch (Perca flavescens), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lempomis macrochirus) and the central mudminnow (Umbra lirni) were recorded for the first time in Cripple Creek (Hayes. 1989). The chain pickerel (Esox niger), and the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus), which had been found by the DEC (unpub. data), in 1961, and in 1961 and 1985, respectively, were not found in this survey. DISCUSSION Originally, this survey was conducted for the purpose of locating the slimy sculpin, which was found by the NYS DEC in Cripple Creek in 1961 and in 1985. Sculpin like clean, cooL well oxygenated water. which makes them a good pollution indicating species. Sculpin are also frequently found with trout because they prefer the same water quality parameters (Smith, 1985). Although there were brown trout in the stream, no slimy sculpin were found. Later. the study was expanded to include an inventory of the other species in the Creek. as well as their distributions. Brown trout were the only cold water species found in Cripple Creek. Brown trout are able to tolerate higher water temperatures than brook trout. but prefer summer water temperatures less than 68 degrees Fahrenheit (Smith. 1985). Of the eight sites surveyed along the Creek, brown trout were absent from the three nearest the headwaters at Weaver Lake (see figure I). At the end of site 6 there was a two and a half foot dam. which would block any upstream movement. 123 Table 1: The Percentage of Each Species Caught Per Site SITE # Species 1 ') 3 4 5 6 7 8 total Brown Trout 3.6 12.5 8.7 2.1 6.52 0 0 0 2.9 Creek Chub 6 0 8.7 4.3 2.1 2.3 27.9 0 6.8 White Sucker 7.2 0 0 4.3 11.6 0 1.6 0 3.4 Tesselated Darter 1.2 0 0 2.1 0 0 0 0 .48 Yellow Perch 0 0 0 0 4.3 9.3 0 0 1.4 Black Nose Dace 59 54.2 21.7 46.8 47.8 0 34.4 0 31.8 Long Nose Dace 9.6 16.7 4.3 8.5 2.1 0 0 0 4.3 Cutlips Minnow 7.2 16.7 39.1 14.9 2.1 0 6.6 1.14 7.7 Common Shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.9 0 .72 Brown Bullhead 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1.6 6.9 1.9 Margined Madtom 2.4 0 4.3 4.3 0 0 8.2 2.3 2.9 Bluegill 3.6 0 4.3 8.5 4.3 65.1 8.2 17.2 14 Large Mouth Bass 0 0 8.7 2.1 19.6 0 4.9 58.6 15.9 Rock Bass 0 0 0 2.1 0 0 0 9.2 2.2 Pumpkinseed 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 .72 Crappie 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 .72 Central Mudminnow 0 0 0 0 0 7 1.6 4.6 1.9 total fish per site 83 24 23 47 46 43 61 87 414 total sec sampled 1070 918 822 851 1037 1032 1198 1182 8110 # of Families per 6 ') 5 6 5 5 5 4 7 site During the summer of 1995. there was a seyere drought which caused portions ofCripple Creek. lrom Weaver Lake dO\vn. to dry up. This drought would cause many of the trout to moye down stream to the deeper and cooler water. At the end of January 1996. there was a major t100d. which would have caused many of the young-of-the- year. as well as eggs. to be washed down stream. The combined result of the t100d and the drought would be that most ofthe trout would end up below the dam at site 6 (Foster per. com. 1996). 124 In the 1989 fisheries survey by Hayes (1989), brown trout were reported as very common in Cripple Creek. He even went as far as describing it as a "brown trout haven," where trout from 12-15 inches were common. In this year's survey, only 12 trout were found, those occurred at 5 of the eight collecting sites. The largest of these was 123/4 inches. More commonly, trout from 5-6 inches were caught. Trout, because they swim in deep pools, and are a larger fish, are more easily able to avoid being shocked and captured. This fact provides for some experimental error. At site 6, there were no trout, but two new species were found. The black crappie was recorded for the first time in Cripple Creek, while the central mudminnow was found for the first time in the Otsego Lake Watershed (O'Connor, 1996). The black crappie, a member of the family Centrarchidae, is mainly a warm water fish. The black crappie prefers areas with abundant vegetation (Smith, 1985). The central mudminnow is knO\\TI for being an "extremely hardy fish" and prefers areas with sluggish waters, dense vegetation and organic debris (Smith, 1985). The longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) and the margined madtom iliotrurus insignis) are both indicative of good water quality as they prefer clear, clean water with a rocky substrate (Smith, 1985). The longnose dace had the same range as the brown trout, being absent from sites 6, 7 and 8. The margined madtom was absent from sites 2, 5, and 6. These two species were found in significantly low numbers along the creek. The brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) prefers a sluggish current over soft substrate and is usually found in pools and backwaters (Page and Burr, 1991). In sites 1 through 5, the brown bullhead was absent, but it appeared in sites 6 through 8, the same sites where the longnose dace had disappeared. At the first few sites it was observed that many bluegill and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) were missing eyes. The cutlips minnow (Exoglossum maxillingua), is noted for behavior widely known as "eye-picking" (Page and Burr, 1991). The cutlips minnow prefers clear water streams. The largest numbers of this minnow were found at the first four sites of Cripple Creek. Although some fish were found missing eyes at the later sites, they were not as numerous as those near the mouth of the creek. Based on the past studies by the DEC (1961 and 1985) and Hayes (1989), it appears that warm water species have become dominant in Cripple Creek. Since the 1989 survey, there has been the appearance of such centrarchids as the rock bass, pumpkinseed, and the black crappie. The exact reason for this apparent shift is unknown, but it is possible that the recent drought in the summer of 1995, and the flood in the winter of 1996, are causal. More studies should be carried out to detennine if the trout return. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Electrofishing surveys were conducted with the help of Dr. IR. Foster, John O'Connor, Carrie Miller, Jenn Lopez, Miles Wheat, Emera Bridger, and Eric Jorczak. Special thanks to John O'Connor for his guidance on this project. 125 REFERENCES I3assista, T.P. and J.R. Foster. 1994. Relative Abundance and Species Composition ofFish in Shadow Brook, Otsego County, New York. In 27th Ann. Rept., 1994, pp. 37-44. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta. Departmcnt of Environmcntal Conservation, Unpublished Data. Region 4 Fisheries Office, Stanford, New York. Foster, J.L. 1996. Pcrsonal Communication. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. Hayes. S.A. 1989. Preliminary Fish Survey ofthe Otsego Lake Watershed. In 22nd Ann. Rept.. 1989 1989. pp. 88-98. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld Sta., SUNY Oneonta. O'Connor. J.R. 1996. Two new fish species captured in Otsego Lake tributaries. In 29th Ann. Rept.. 1996. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. Page, L.M.. and n.M. Burr. ]991. Petcrson Field Guides Freshwater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 432 pp. Smith. c.L. 1985. The inland fishes ofNew York State. Dept. ofEnvir. Cons. 522 pp. 126 Size, Age and Growth ofNesting Male Pumpkinseed Sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) in Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, NY l 3 4 John R. O'Connor , John R. Foster, John Urban , and Jim Hakala ABSTRACT Male pumpkinseed sunfish nesting in Rat Cove, Otsego Lake were angled from their nests, scales taken, aged, and back calculation of growth was determined for each fish. Nesting males were found to have a mean size of l18mm and a mean age of 4+ years. Age and growth ofnesting males was similar to research from other cold water bodies. INTRODUCTION Pumpkinseed prefer shallow, weedy expanses of warm water (Trautman, 1981). Otsego Lake is a deep, cold, steep-sided, mesotrophic lake. Its limited littoral zone is not well suited for pumpkinseed nesting. Suitable nesting habitat is limited and shared with many other warm water fish such as bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus), red-breasted sunfish (Lepomis auritus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and carp (Cyprinus carpio) (MacWatters, 1983). Furthermore, good pumpkinseed nesting habitat is continuously disturbed by spawning carp. The goal of this study was to determine ifthe population dynamics of nesting male pumpkinseed in a cold water lake with limited nesting sites were similar to that described for warm water lakes with extensive nesting sites. In order to meet this goal, size, age of sexual maturity and the growth ofnesting males were studied in Rat Cove. This paper is part ofa larger study examining the nest site selection and spawning success of pumpkinseed in Otsego Lake. MATERIALS AND METHODS Otsego Lake is located in Otsego County, New York at the headwaters ofthe Susquehanna watershed. The lake is 168 feet deep, 8.25 miles long and an average of 0.8 miles wide. This study took place in Rat Cove located along the southwest shore about one mile north of Cooperstown (Fig. 1). The study site was chosen because it supported the highest pumpkinseed density in the lake (Foster 1996). 1 3 4 1996 ,1995 , 1994 Robert C. MacWatters Internship in Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 2BFS Visiting Researcher, 1994-96. Fisheries and Aquaculture, SUNY College of Agriculture and Technology, Cobleskill, New York 12043 127 CRIPf'LE CREU BLACKBIRD 8AY WILLOW BROOII( SUSOUEHANNA AIVER Figure 1: Bathymetric map of Otsego Lake and a close-up of Rat Cove (depth in feet). 128 Data were collected from mid June through early August, 1994-1996 (mean water temperature 22°c). Small numbered rocks were to denote individual nests and fish. Nesting male pumpkinseeds were angled from their nests and anesthetized with 2 phenoxyethanol. Total length was measured and scales removed from behind the operculum. Fish were immediately returned to their nests. Scales were removed from behind the operculum, just above the pectoral fm and read on a micro-fiche reader (42X magnification). Age and back-calculation of growth was determined tor each fish following the guidelines ofRegier (1962), Lux (1971), Casselman (1987), and Jearld (1992). RESULTS 1994 1995 1996 41 45 48 Age range (in years) 3+ to 8+ 3+ to 6+ 2+ to 9+ Mean age (in years) 4+ 4+ 4+ Size range (in mm) 107-151 98-152 97-149 Mean size (in mm) 126 119 118 The mean age of nesting male pumpkinseed in Rat Cove has remained 4+ years for the duration ofthe study (Figure 3). The mean length has decreased by eight millimeters over the past three years, while the size range has remained relatively stable (Figure2). DISCUSSION Pumpkinseed usually reach maturity by age two (Scott and Crossman. 1973). In 1994 and 1995 the youngest nesting male was 3+, however in 1996, two ofthe nesting males were 2+ years. Both were large fish for their age but neither spawned successfully. These data suggest that the majority of male pumpkinseed sunfish don't reach sexual maturity until age 3+ in Rat Cove (Figure 4). Ten years ago, Otsego Lake pumpkinseed grew faster and larger than they do today (Austin et al.. 1986). This change in size and growth may be an indication of overpopulation and stunting, or may be due to a loss of valuable littoral zone habitat. Danylchuk and Fox (1994) described the age and growth of pumpkinseeds in Little Round Lake, a deep meromictic lake with limited littoral zone. Pumpkinseed there show very slow growth and only obtain a length around 100mm. Slow growth in the cold waters of Otsego Lake seems to result in a similar delay in maturity. Most other pumpkinseed studies have been conducted in warm, mesotrophic and eutrophic water 129 25 III C1l 20 n:l ~ en s:: :i:j 15 III C1l Z 10 -0... C1l .0 E 5 ::J Z 0 95-99 105-109 115-119 125-129 135-139 145-150 Total Length (mm) of Fish Figure 2: Length-frequency distribution of nesting male pumpkinseed sunfish (N=134) in Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, 1994-1996. 45 40 35 .J:::. III 30 LL 25 -0... C1l 20 .0 E ::J 15 z 10 5 0 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ Age (in years) Figure 3: Age-frequency distribution of nesting male pumpkinseed sunfish (N=134) in Rat Cove. Otsego Lake. 1994-1996. 130 Rat Cove Growth Curve 160 I I I I I I I 1 I I 140 ------I----~----T----f------I I I I I I I j I I I I . i I J ~ _ 120 ---- 1- ~ I __ I I I I I I I I - I I E I I I ---- 1- --- -J - _ E 100 ---T---- I- ---- i- - .- - -1- --- c I I I I :::.. I I .r: I j ... I I I I C) 80 ---'----T----r----r-----I--- c I I , I Q) I I r I ...J I I I I I I C 60 ------~------~------1---- ~ Q) I ::!: I j I I I I I I 40 ___ ! I ..J .1 L 1, I . I I I I I I I I I 20 ---- '- --- -I ---- -t ---- j - - - - ~ ---- ,- --- -, ---- I I I I I o 1+ 2+ 3+ 4+ 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9+ Age of Nesting Males Figure 4: Growth curve of nesting male pumpkinseed sunfish in Rat Cove, Otsego Lake. 131 bodies and report taster growth and larger sizes. This is shown by Deacon and Keast (1987) and Fox and Keast (1991) from five warm Ontario waters. ACKJ\JOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks go out to Mary Miner for her hard work and help in capturing fish. aging scales. and recording data. Thanks also to all the interns from 1994 to 1996 who aided in data collection. This study was supported by the Biological Field Station, Dr. Harman. and the OCCA. LITERATURE CITED Austin. IE.. RC. MacWatters. W.N. Harman and RM. Harman. 1986. Age and growth ofeleven fish species in littoral areas of Otsego Lake. In 19th Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. Pages 36-57. Casselman. J.M. 1987. Determination of age and growth. Pages 209-242. Chapter 7 in A.H. Weatherley and H.S. Gill. The biology offish growth. Academic Press. London. 433 pp. Danylchuk. A.J. and M.G. Fox. 1994. Age and size-dependent variation in the seasonal timing and probability ofreproduction among mature female pumpkinseed. Env. BioI. Fish. 39:119-127. Deacon. L.1. and J.A. Keast 1987. Patterns of reproduction in two populations of pumpkinseed sunfish with diftering food resources. Env. BioI. Fish. 19(4):281 296. foster. J.R. 1996. The fish fauna of Otsego Lake. In 28th Ann. Rept. SUNY Oneonta Bio. rid. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta. Pp. 202-220. Fox. M.G. and A. Keast. 1991. Eftect of ovenvinter mortality on reproductive life history characteristics of pumpkinseed populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 1792-1799. Jearld. A. jr. 1992. Age Determination. Pages 301-324. Chapter 16 in L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson cds.. Fisheries techniques. 4th edition. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda. Maryland. 468pp. Lux. F.E. 1971. Age determination of fishes. U.S. Dept. of Commerce fishery Leaflet 637. 7pp. MacWatters. RC. 1983. The fishes of Otsego Lake. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. 132 MacWatters, R.C. 1983. The fishes ofOtsego Lake. SUNY Oneonta Bio. Fld. Sta.. SUNY Oneonta, Occasional Paper #15. 59pp. Regier, B.A. 1962. Validation of the scale method for estimating age and growth of bluegills. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 91:362-374. Scott W.B. and E.J. Crossman 1973. Freshwater fishes ofCanada. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd of Canada 184. 966pp. Trautman. M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. 782 pp. 133 Macrobenthic invertebrate survey of Waneta and Lamoka Lakes, Schuyler County, New York, September, 1996. Matthew Albright Willard N. Harman INTRODUCTION Schuyler County encompasses 331 square miles of the Appalachian Plateau in the Finger Lakes region (Curatolo, 1991). The county's economy is largely tourism-based, relying heavily upon its aquatic natural resources. The eutrophication of some of these water bodies, including Waneta and Lamoka Lakes (Figure 1), has had detrimental impacts on traditional lakes uses. Macrophyte growth and algal blooms have negatively impacted swimming. fishing, boating, and the perceived aesthetic qualities oftheses areas. These changes are believed to have lead to a decline in both tourism activities and in lakeside property values. In order to address these concerns, Schuyler County initiated an aquatic vegetation control program in 1986 (Curatolo. 1991). This program was to serve as an integrated approach to manage the county's aquatic resources through monitoring, research, macrophyte harvesting, upland treatment. and public education. In 1990. a comprehensive study was undertaken in order to provide baseline iniormation upon which lake management plans would be based (Curato10. 1991). This work included a characterization ofthe physical qualities of local lakes. surveys oftheir macroinvertebrate benthic populations. a description of macrophyte harvesting activities, a determination of the feasibility of conducting dredging operations in selected areas. and addressed means of reducing nutrient inputs to these lakes. This document describes the tirst of a two part benthic survey of Waneta and Lamoka Lakes. conducted 16 September. 1996. A second sampling is planned for May, 1997 in order to ensure that various life stages of organisms are represented. This database. when compared to previous work (i. e. Curatolo. 1991) and future works, will indicate the impacts of macroph}te management on the benthic faunal communities. The background material for this report is derived almost exclusively from Curatolo. 1991. BACKGROUND Waneta Lake (Figure 2) covers 781 acres in surface area. of which over 90% is located in Schuyler County. The lake occupies a volume of approximately 10.860 acre-feet and has about 6.8 miles ofshoreline. This eutrophic lake has a maximum depth of<30 feet. Approximately 450 year-round and seasonal dwellings and a Boy Scout camp line the shore. The substrate varies 134 LAMOKA LAKE Figure I. The location of Waneta, Lamoka, and Seneca Lakes in Schuyler County, New York (modified from Curatolo, 1991). 135 '6'.. ::-.---.,', . --- .-.-...... ,,:1 5 "~ BoAT LAUNCH SITES i , • ~ UNLOADING SITES \I ._.-.... EXTENT OF VEGETATION .~ I EB SAMPLING STATION ;I~ !/~ o PUBLIC ACCESS I I~ i ~ i~1 ~ !~, rT\ \c.,) Q.7 • Point !~I 4 ! all J~ .\. , .\ . '~, N .'1\", ...... '.). '/ I i Scout Camp ',3 II ,, I.\ 1000 fl 1" I "\" Figure 2. Waneta Lake, Schuyler County, New York, showing sampling stations (modified from Curatolo, 1991). 136 from silty to organic clay. Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum Lamoka Lake (Figure 3) is interconnected with Mill Pond, located in western Schuyler County at 1099 feet in elevation. These shallow «47 ft) eutrophic lakes together occupy 826 acres in surface area, 16.410 acre-feet in volume, and have approximately 11.3 miles ofshoreline. In 1990, about 325 seasonal and year-round houses occupied the shoreline. Recreational activities include swimming, fishing, and boating (Curatolo, 1991). Substrates were dominated by anaerobic organic muds; a notable exception was observed at a drop-off at the northeastern shore, where compact sand was encountered. Here, evidence ofUnionid clams (i.e. shells) were seen. The predominating macrophytes ~ncountered were the nonindigenous Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum Access is provided to both lakes by boat launch sites maintained by the New York State Department ofConservation (NYSDEC). Neither lake is used as a potable water supply. Both lakes have been rated as moderately impaired on the NYSDEC 1989 Priority Problem List (NYSDEC, 1989). Despite inclement weather encountered throughout the day of sampling (45°-50° F, steady rain), bird activity was considerable. Large numbers oftree swallows (lridoprocne hieolor) were active on Waneta Lake, presumably feeding on emerging aquatic insects. Two ospreys (Pandion haliae/us) and parasitic jaeger (S/ercorarius parasi/icllS) were seen over Lamoka Lake; the latter seabird is extremely rare in this region and was likely displaced by recent tropical storms (Butts, 1996). MONITORING AND WATER QUALITY Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH. and conductivity were measured using a Hydrolab Scout II multiparameter water quality monitoring instrument which had been calibrated the day of data collection following manufacturer's operating manual (Hydro lab Corp., 1993). Readings were taken at I meter (m) intervals from the surface to the bottom. The maximum depth encountered at Waneta Lake was 8.1 meters (26.6 feet); that for Lamoka Lake was 12.2 meters (40.0 feet). Waneta was undergoing fall overturn, although slight. presumably temporary stratification was observed below 8 m. Here, temperature was approxin1ately 0.3 ° C less than the rest of the water column and dissolved oxygen was over 2 mg/lless than overlaying waters. Conductivity was between 198-202 mmho/cm throughout. Temperature, dissolved oxygen. and pH profiles are graphically presented in Figure 4a. 137 FLEET !A-...... -COVE /000 ft N t • • BOAT LAUNCH SITES PUBLIC ACCESS CREEK o ~ UNLOADING SITES -._.- EXTENT OF VEGETATION ffi SAMPLING STATION POND Figure 3. Lamoka Lake, Schuyler County, New York, showing sampling stations (modified from Curatolo, 1991). 138 A B 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 , l -----1._.J __ L-..--L_J._ I _L~....L_l_..L-l __ .l.----.l.-_.l _I~L~ I 1 1 I I 2 2 l I 3 3 l I i 4 4 I l I I 5 5 1 -., -., a a j '-' 6 '-' 6 oS oS I 0. 0. II) II) Cl 7 Cl 7 - 8 8 9 9 10 10 1'\ 11 I I I 12 .J 12 _. ------".------. - Temperature -pH _ Dissolved Oxygen Figure 4. Profiles of temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen for Waneta (A) and Lamoka (B) Lakes, 17 September, 1986. 139 Lamoka Lake was stratified at the time of sampling, with the thermocline located between 6 and 7 m. Hypolimnetic waters were essentially anoxic «0.3 mg/l), a situation similar to that reported by Curatolo (1991) for corresponding dates in 1988, 1989 and 1990. Conductivity was approximately 190 mmho/cm through the epi1imnion and increased below the thermocline to 213 mmho/cm at the bottom. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH profiles are graphically presented in Figure 4b. Water transparency was measured using a standard 20 cm Secchi disk. Transparency was 1.9 m (6.2 ft) in Lamoka and 2.0 m (6.6 ft) in Waneta. Values reported by Curatolo (1991) indicate that Lamoka was somewhat more transparent and Waneta twice as transparent in 1996 compared to similar dates in recent years. BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE ANALYSIS METHODS Macroinvertebrates were collected from nine sites on Waneta Lake and nine sites on Lamoka Lake. These sites included eulittoral, littoral benthic, littoral vegetative, and profundal areas. The objective was to obtain taxa diversity and density data for comparison with previous (e.g. Curatolo, 1991) and future surveys in order to ascertain any effects of macrophyte and algae control programs, as well as other changes in water quality, on these organisms. Benthic samples were collected in triplicate using either a 23X23 cm2 or a 15X15 cm2 Ekman dredge. Larger dredges, using a conventional cable and messenger, were used in deeper locations; in shallower areas, smaller dredges were employed using extension handles. Eulittoral samples, where the substrate tended to be stony, were acquired by manually gathering all material within a 23X23 cm2 quadrangle. Vegetative samples were collected by sweeping the macrophytes with a triangle net five times and rinsing the contents from the net. Effort was made to include the entire depth distribution of the macrophyte bed. Each sample was collected in quadruplicate. While it is recognized that these vegetative samples cannot be interpreted as truly quantitative. the attempt was made to standardize the method as much as possible so that future comparisons may be made. Upon retrieval, multiple samples were composited and passed through a #30 mesh brass screen. thus retaining all particles over 583 microns. This material was transferred to one-gallon plastic jars, to which 95% ethanol was added until a final concentration of approximately 70% ethanol was reached. Several milliliters ofrose bengal were added to each sample to later aid in the recognition ofbenthic organisms. Upon return to the laboratory. organisms were separated from the substrate by transferring each sample. spoonful at a time, into a white enamel pan and rinsing with adequate water to distribute the material. All benthic organisms were plucked and transferred to 6 dram vials containing 70% ethanol. Taxonomic identifications were made according to Pennak (1989), Peckarsky et al. (1990), and Merritt and Cummins (1996). 140 Organisms were enumerated and weighed by taxa. Wet weight was taken by removing the organisms from their vials and setting on blotting paper for 15 minutes prior to weighing to the nearest 0.1 mg on an electronic balance (Wheat, 1993). No attempt was made to count Oligochaetes, as they tended to fragment during processing. For benthic sites, where sample size was more standardized, data were converted to units per mete~ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A description ofeach sample site, including sample type, sampling method, substrate characterization, and dominant macrophytes, is summarized in Table 1 (refer to Figure 1 for site locations). This survey revealed a total of 58 taxa; 44 and 45 taxa were encountered in Waneta Lake and Lamoka Lakes, respectively (Table 2). Generally, diversity was greater in Lamoka, where the number of taxa per site averaged 15.0, compared to 12.2 taxa per site found in Waneta. The southernmost reaches of Lamoka Lake (sites L6-L9) exhibited the greatest diversity. Here, 32 taxa were discovered, with each site averaging 22.0. This area is relatively shallow and macrophytes were likewise diverse. OveralL the Order Trichoptera (caddis flies) showed the greatest diversity, with 7 genera representing 3 families being encountered. Tables 3-20 describe the macrobenthic invertebrates for each site visited, including numbers and wet weights of each taxa found in Waneta and Lamoka Lakes. For benthic sites, abundance and biomass have been projected to units/mete~. A more intensive interpretation of these data will follow a second sampling to occur in May, 1997. This later survey will complement the present data in that larval aquatic stages not present in the fall will be included. REFERENCES Butts, W.L. 1996. Personal communication. Biological Field Station, Cooperstown, NY. Curatolo, J. 1991. Final Report. The aquatic vegetation control program in Schuyler County, 1990. 66 p. Schuller County Soil and Water Conservation District, Montour Falls, NY. Hydrolab Corporation. 1993. Scout II operating manual. Hydrolab Corp. Austin, TX. Merritt, R.W., and K.W Cummins (eds.). 1996. Aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Dubuque, IA. New York State Dept. Of Envir. Cons., 1989. New York State water quality, 1989. Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment. Division of Water. NYSDEC. Albany, NY. Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and OJ. Conklin, Jr. 1990. Freshwater macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States, 3rd Ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 141 Site Sample Type Dominant Vegetation Substrate Characterization Waneta WI Sub., 3 small dredges Myriophyllum spicatum organic clay W2 Sub., 3 small dredges M spicatum organic clay W3 Veg. 4X5 sweeps M spicatum organic clay W4 Sub., 3 large dredges none fine silty clay W5 Veg. 4X5 sweeps organic clay organic clay W6 Sub., 3 small dredges M spicatum organic detritus W7 Sub., 1 quadrangle none stones (eulittoral) W8 Veg. 4X5 sweeps Ceratophyllum demersum organic clay W9 Veg. 4X5 sweeps Nuphar variegatum, Valisanaria organic mud americana Lamoka L1 Sub., 3 large dredges none organic mud (anoxic) L2 Sub., 3 small dredges none compact sand L3 Veg. 4X5 sweeps M spicatum organic mud L4 Veg. 4X5 sweeps M spicatum peaty organic mud L5 Sub., 3 small dredges M spicatum organic mud L6 Veg. 4X5 sweeps Ai spicatum organic mud L7 Veg. 4X5 sweeps N variegatm organic mud L8 Veg. 4X5 sweeps M spicatum organic mud L9 Veg. 4X5 sweeps Heteranthera dubia, C. demersum, organic mud V americana Table 1. Description of macrobenthic invertebrate sampling sites, Waneta and Lamoka Lakes, 16 2 September 1996. Sub.= substrate sample, Veg.= vegetative sample, small dredge= .0232 m , 2 large dredge= .0523 m , quadrangIe= .0523 m2• 142 All Sites, 9/16/96 TAXA Waneta Lamoka Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae • • Nemotoda • Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae • • Tubificidae • • Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae • • Hirudinea Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdella • Dina parva • Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae HeJobdeJJa • He/obdella fusca • HeJobdeJJa stagnalis • • Batracobdella • • PlacobdeJJa • Piscicolidae A4yzobdeJJalugubris • Mollusca Bivalvia Paleoheterodonta Unionidae • Lampsilis radiata • • E/Jiptio complanatl/s • Veneroida Sphaeriidae ... Sphaerium • Pisidium ... Gastropoda Basommatrophora Lymnaeidae Lymnaea coJumeJJa ... Table 2. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta and Lamoka Lakes, 16 September, 1996. 143 TAXA Waneta Lamoka Planorbldae Gyraulus parvus * * Gyraulus hirsutus * * Promentus exaeuous * Physidae Physa integra * Physa sayii * * Mesogastropoda Valvatidae Valvata triearinata * * Hydrobiidae Amnieo/a limosa * * Arthropoda Arachnida Acariformes Hyd rodromidae Hydrodroma * * Limnesiidae * Pionidae * Arrenuridae Arrenurus * Crustacea Isopoda Asellidae Caeeidotea * * Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus * * Talitridae Hyalella azteea * * Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Paraeloeodes * * Caenidae Caenis * * Odonata (Anisoptera) Libellulidae Erythemis * * Corduliidae Epitheea * Table 2 (cont.). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta and Lamoka Lakes, 16 September, 1996. 144 TAXA /Waneta Lamoka Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enallagma * * Lestidae Lestes * Hemiptera Pleidae Paraplea * Mesoveliidae Mesovelia * * Lepidoptera Nepticulidae * Pyralidae Acentria * * Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oecetis * Ylodes * Leptocerus * * Hydroptilidae Orthatrichia * * Oxythira * * Hydoptilla * Polycentropodidae Cemotina * Coleoptera Curculionidae * * Dytisicidae * Chrysomelidae Pyrrha/ta * Diptera Ceratopogonidae I Sphaeromias * * Probezzia * * Dasyhelea * Bezzia or Palpomyia * * Chaoboridae Chaoborus * * Chironomidae * * Table 2 (cont.). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta and Lamoka Lakes, 16 September, 1996. 145 Waneta Lake, Site 1 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/m"2 g/m"2 Platynelmlntnes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 2 0.0009 29 0.0129 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Tubificidae NA 0.0004 NA 0.0057 Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0231 NA 0.3319 Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae He/obdella stagnalis 4 0.0094 57 0.1351 Batracobdella 1 0.0004 14 0.0057 Placobdella 1 0.0004 14 0.0057 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnico/a limosa 2 0.0091 29 0.1307 Arthropoda Crustacea Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea 1 0.0002 14 0.0029 Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus 1 0.0021 14 0.0302 Talitridae Hyalella azteca 25 0.0083 359 0.1193 Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Sphaeromias 1 0.0008 14 0.0115 Chaoboridae Chaoborus 1 0.0004 14 0.0057 Chironomidae 6 0.0034 86 0.0489 Table 3. Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #1, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 146 Waneta Lake, Site 2 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/m"2 g/m"2 IPlatyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 3 0.0006 43 0.0086 Nematoda 2 0.0002 29 0.0029 Annelida Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0063 NA 0.0905 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 3 0.0193 43 0.2773 Arthropoda Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalel/a azteca 40 0.0054 575 0.0776 Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Orthotrichia 1 0.0002 14 0.0029 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Sphaeromias 9 0.0206 129 0.2960 Chaoboridae Chaoborus 1 0.0003 14 0.0043 Chironomidae 7 0.0468 101 0.6724 Table 4. Summary of macrobenthic invertehrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #2, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 147 Waneta Lake, Site 3 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample PlatyhelminThes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 17 0.0045 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0024 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus parvus 4 0.0051 Mesogastropoda Valvatidae Valvata tn'carinata 3 0.0035 Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 128 0.8070 Arthropoda Arachnida Acariformes Hydrodromidae Hydrodroma 2 0.0003 Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalella azteca 8 0.0039 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 1 0.0003 Diptera Chironomidae 307 0.1462 Table 5. Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #3,9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 148 Waneta Lake, Site 4 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/m"2 g/m"2 Annelida Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0536 NA 0.34162 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus 442 0.3812 2817 2.42957 Chironomidae 38 0.8414 242 5.36265 Table 6. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #4, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 149 Waneta Lake, Site 5 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample Platynelmlnthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 38 0.0102 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0009 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus paNus 6 0.0071 Physidae Physa 2 0.0021 Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 47 0.7885 Arthropoda Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hya/e/la azteca 39 0.0269 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Paracloeodes 4 0.0051 Caenidae Caenis 22 0.0047 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Ena//agma 18 0.0609 Lepidoptera Nepticulidae 4 0.0024 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Orthotrichia 1 0.0002 Oxythira 6 0.0009 Hydoptilla 2 0.0003 Coleoptera Curculionidae 3 0.0039 Table 7. Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #5, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 150 TAXA #/sample g/sample Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia or Palpomyia 2 0.0001 Chaoboridae Chaoborus 1 0.0002 Chironomidae 85 0.0587 Table 7 (cont.). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #5, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 151 Waneta Lake, Site 6 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/m"2 g/m"2 IPlatyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 3 0.0016 43 0.0230 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0002 NA 0.0029 Tubificidae NA 0.0084 NA 0.1207 Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0029 NA 0.0417 Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Helobdella stagnalis 4 0.0176 57 0.2529 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus parvus 3 0.0033 43 0.0474 Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 32 0.3842 460 5.5201 Arthropoda Arachnida Acariformes Hydrodromidae Hydrodroma 'I 0.0001 14 0.0014 Limnesiidae 1 0.0001 14 0.0014 Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalella azteca 106 0.0325 1523 0.4670 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 21 0.0046 302 0.0661 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enallagma 7 0.0084 101 0.1207 Table 8. Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #6, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 152 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/mI\2 g/ml\2 Lepidoptera Nepticulidae 3 0.0026 43 0.0374 Coleoptera Dytisicidae 1 0.0031 14 0.0445 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 1 0.0002 14 0.0029 Bezzia or Palpomyia 4 0.0003 57 0.0043 Chaoboridae ChaobonJs 1 0.0002 14 0.0029 Chironomidae 62 0.0310 891 0.4454 Table 8 (cont.). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #6, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 153 Waneta Lake, Site 7 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/m"2 g/m"2 IPlatyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 2 0.0008 38 0.0153 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0002 NA 0.0038 Tubificidae NA 0.0080 NA 0.1530 Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0004 NA 0.0076 Hirudinea Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdella 16 0.3397 306 6.4952 Arthropoda Crustacea Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus 12 0.0080 229 0.1530 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 10 0.0004 191 0.0076 Table 9. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #7, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 154 Waneta Lake, Site 8 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample Platyh-elmlnthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 21 0.0081 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0024 Hirudinea Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Dina paNa 1 0.0102 Rhynchobdellida Piscicolidae A4yzobdeNalugubris 1 0.0055 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus paNUS 10 0.0095 Physidae Physa integra 4 0.0206 Mesogastropoda Valvatidae Valvata tricarinata 6 0.0202 Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 73 0.4679 Arthropoda Arachnida Acariformes Pionidae 1 0.0001 Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae HyaleNa azteca 163 0.0694 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 15 0.0018 Table 10. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #8, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 155 TAXA #/sample g/sample Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enal/agma 7 0.0158 Lepidoptera Nepticulidae 1 0.0010 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia or Palpomyia 9 0.0006 Chironomidae 86 0.0364 Table 10 (cont.). Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #8, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 156 Waneta Lake, Site 9 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample rPlatynelmrnthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 1 0.0004 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium 1 0.0014 Gastropoda Basommatrophora Lymnaeidae Lymnaea columella 1 0.0109 Planorbidae Gyraulus hirsutus 2 0.0072 Physidae Physa sayii 3 0.0126 Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 14 0.0967 Arthropoda Crustacea Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea 1 0.0015 Amphipoda Talitridae Hya/ella azteca 99 0.0589 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 3 0.0007 Odonata (Anisoptera) LibelluJidae Erythemis 2 0.0259 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enallagma 18 0.0637 Table 11. Summary of macrobenthic inv~rtebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #9, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 157 TAXA #/sample g/sample Hemiptera Mesoveliidae Mesovelia 6 0.0043 Lepidoptera Nepticulidae 1 0.0004 Pyralidae Acentria 3 0.0034 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Leptocerus 2 0.0003 Coleoptera Curculionidae 1 0.0010 Chrysomelidae Pyrrhalta 9 0.0508 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia or Palpomyia 2 0.0003 Chironomidae 54 0.0168 Table 11 (cont.). Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Waneta Lake, Site #9, 9/16/96 (see Figure 2 for site locations). 158 Lamoka Lake, Site 1 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/m!l2 g/m!l2 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Tubificidae NA 0.0043 NA 0.02741 Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0074 NA 0.04716 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chaobol idae Chaoborus 198 0.1771 1262 1.12874 Chironomidae 26 0.4282 166 2.72913 Table 12. Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site # 1, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 159 Lamoka Lake, Site 2 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/mA2 g/ml\2 IAnnelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0003 NA 0.0043 Tubificidae NA 0.0011 NA 0.0158 Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0048 NA 0.0690 Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae He/obdella stagnalis 1 0.0020 14 0.0287 Mollusca Bivalvia Paleoheterodonta Unionidae * Lampsilis radiata (shells only) * Elliptio comp/anatus (shells only) Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium 1 0.0018 14 0.0259 Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnico/a /imosa 19 0.1516 273 2.1782 Arthropoda Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hya/ella azteca 11 0.0021 158 0.0302 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 2 0.0006 29 0.0086 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 1 0.0001 14 0.0014 Chironomidae 38 0.0115 546 0.1652 Table 13. Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #2, 9116/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 160 Lamoka Lake, Site 3 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample IPlatyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 3 0.0010 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0002 Hirudinea Rhynchobdedida Glossiphoniidae Helobdella stagnalis 3 0.0125 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium 1 0.0029 Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus parvus 5 0.0047 Promentus exacuous 2 0.0009 Physidae Physa sayii 3 0. 0150 1 Mesogastropoda Valvatidae Valvata tricarinata 23 0.0231 Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 174 0.4601 Arthropoda Crustacea Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea 7 0.0058 Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus 3 0.0206 Talitridae Hyalella azteca 85 0.0452 Table 14. Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #3, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 161 TAXA #/sample g/sample Insecta Odonata (Anisoptera) Corduliidae Epitheca 3 0.2118 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enal/agma 11 0.0126 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Leptocerus 10 0.0023 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia or Palpomyia 1 0.0002 Chironomidae 23 0.008'1 Table 14 (conL). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #3, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 162 Lamoka Lake. Site 4 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample IPlatyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 1 0.0002 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0003 Hirudinea RhynchobdelHda Glossiphoniidae Helobdel/a stagnalis 1 0.0011 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus parvus 15 0.0160 Physidae Physa sayii 6 0.0145 Mesogastropoda Valvatidae Valvata tricarinata 1 0.0016 Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 467 1.6991 Arthropoda Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalel/a azteca 3 0.0011 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 1 0.0002 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Ena/lagma 7 0.0523 Diptera Chironomidae 49 0.0151 Table 15. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #4, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 163 Lamoka Lake, Site 5 (benthic) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample #/m/l2 g/m/l2 IAnnellda Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae NA 0.0096 NA 0.13793 Arthropoda Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalella azteca 3 0.0005 43 0.0072 Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Sphaeromias 3 0.0079 43 0.1135 Chaoboridae Chaoborus 2 0.0012 29 0.0172 Chironomidae 6 0.0090 86 0.1293 Table 16. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #5, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 164 Lamoka Lake, Site 6 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample IPlatynelmlnthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 2 0.0003 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0002 Hirudinea Rhynchobdeilida Glossiphoniidae Helobdella fusca 1 0.0039 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium 4 0.0057 Pisidium 1 0.0021 Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus parvus 5 0.0016 Gyraulus hirsutus 3 0.0091 Promentus exacuous 2 0.0005 Physidae Physa sayii 7 0.0129 Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 336 1.1594 Arthropoda Arachnida Crustacea Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea 1 0.0004 Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalella azteca 153 0.0665 Table 17. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #6, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 165 TAXA #/sample g/sample Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Paracloeodes 1 0.0003 Caenidae Caenis 7 0.0008 Odonata (Anisoptera) Corduliidae Epitheca 7 0.0855 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enallagma 5 0.0067 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oecetis 1 0.0001 Leptocerus 15 0.0013 Hydroptilidae Oxythira 1 0.0003 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia or Palpomyia 3 0.0002 Chironomidae 114 0.0635 Table 17 (cont.). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #6, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 166 Lamoka Lake, Site 7 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 1 0.0001 Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae He/obdeJla stagnalis 5 0.0201 BatraeobdeJla 3 0.0082 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium 3 0.0032 Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyrau/us hirsutus 1 0.0053 Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnieo/a /imosa 20 0.0907 Arthropoda Arachnida Acariformes Hydrodromidae Hydrodroma 1 0.0001 Crustacea Isopoda Asellidae Caeeidotea 1 0.0007 Amphipoda Talitridae Hya/e//a azteea 143 0.0674 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Parae/oeodes 1 0.0001 Caenidae Caenis 3 0.0004 Table 18. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #7,9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 167 TAXA #/sample g/sample Odonata (Anisoptera) Libellulidae Erythemis 1 0.0172 Corduliidae Epitheca 1 0.0485 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Ena//agma 41 0.1229 Hemiptera Pleidae Parap/ea 1 0.0013 Mesoveliidae Mesove/ia 3 0.0037 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Y/odes 5 0.0006 Leptocerus 25 0.0044 Polycentropodidae Cemotina 8 0.0145 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Dasyhe/ea 1 0.0001 Bezzia or Pa/pomyia 28 0.0021 Chironomidae 66 0.0212 Table 18 (cont.). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #7, 9/l6/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 168 Lamoka Lake, Site 8 (vegetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample IPlatyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 9 0.0011 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0002 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pisidium 2 0.0015 Gastropoda Basommatrophora Physidae Physa sayii 2 0.0169 Hydrobiidae Amnico/a limosa 173 0.4403 Arthropoda Arachnida Acariformes Arrenuridae Arrenurus 1 0.0004 Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalel/a azteea 336 0.0723 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Parae/oeodes 1 0.0005 Caenidae Caenis 21 0.0025 Odonata (Anisoptera) Corduliidae Epitheea 3 0.0265 Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enallagma 21 0.0435 Table 19. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #8, 9/16/96 (see Figure J for site locations). 169 TAXA #/sample g/sample Lepidoptera Nepticulidae 1 0.0001 Pyralidae Acentria 1 0.0001 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oecetis 3 0.0004 Leptocerus 31 0.0056 Hydroptilidae Orthotrichia 2 0.0003 Oxythira 1 0.0002 Polycentropodidae Cernotina 1 0.0015 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Dasyhe/ea 4 0.0003 Bezzia or Palpomyia 11 0.0004 Chaoboridae Chaoborus 1 0.0005 Chironomidae 92 0.0214 Table 19 (cont.). Summary ofmacrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #8, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations). 170 Lamoka Lake,Site 9 (veQetative) 9/16/96 TAXA #/sample g/sample PlatYhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae 18 0.0093 Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida Naididae NA 0.0003 Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Helobdella 2 0.0039 Batracobdella 1 0.0046 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium 1 0.0018 Gastropoda Basommatrophora Planorbidae Gyraulus parvus 3 0.0075 Physidae Physa sayii 7 0.0142 Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 116 0.3011 Arthropoda Crustacea Amphipoda Talitridae Hyalella azteca 258 0.0958 Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 136 0.0611 Odonata (Anisoptera) Corduliidae Epitheca 6 0.1667 Table 20. Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #9, 9/16/96 (see figure 3 for site locations). 171 TAXA #/sample g/sample Odonata (Zygoptera) Coenagrionidae Coenagrion or Enallagma 28 0.0998 Lestidae Lestes 1 0.0203 Lepidoptera Nepticulidae 1 0.0002 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oeeetis 2 0.0003 Ylades 3 0.0007 Leptacerus 369 0.1362 Polycentropodidae Cematina 4 0.0072 Coleoptera Curculionidae 1 0.0007 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Dasyhelea 7 0.0012 Bezzia or Palpomyia 9 0.0005 Chaoboridae Chaoborus 1 0.0003 Chironomidae 275 0.1368 Table 20 (cont.). Summary of macrobenthic invertebrates collected from Lamoka Lake, Site #9, 9/16/96 (see Figure 3 for site locations).