Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 1 of 33
Year 1 Results: Phosphorus and
Sediment Concentrations from Select
Tributaries and Lake Water Quality
Monitoring
As part of the project:
Assessment of Total Phosphorus and
Sediment Impacts for the North End of
the Cayuga Lake Watershed
By
Roxanna L. Johnston, Technical Director
City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant
202 Water St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 2 of 33
Table of Contents
1. Partners and Data Recipients
3
2. Abstract
4
3. Introduction
5
4. Methods
7
a. Design
7
b. Field Methods
10
c. Laboratory Analyses
11
d. Quality Assurance/Control Program – Field
11
e. Quality Assurance/Control Program - Laboratory
13
5. Results
15
a. Sediment and Phosphorus Monitoring
15
b. Other Findings
21
6. Discussion
25
a. Data Gaps, Local Decision Making and Ambient Water Quality
25
b. Loading Data and a Mass Balance
25
c. Phosphorus Impacts
26
d. Other Findings
26
7. Conclusion
28
a. Data Gaps, Local Decision Making and Ambient Water Quality
28
b. Loading Data and a Mass Balance
28
c. Phosphorus Impacts
28
d. Other Findings and Comments
29
8. Bibliography
30
9. Acknowledgements
32
10. Appendices A,B – Maps and Data respectively
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 3 of 33
Partners and Data Recipients
Sharon Anderson, Watershed Steward, Cayuga Lake Watershed Network,
P.O. Box 303, Interlaken NY 14847.
e-mail: steward@cayugalake.org
Edward Bugliosi, Subdistrict Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, 30 Brown Rd.,
Ithaca NY 14850.
e-mail: ebuglios@usgs.gov
James Malyj, Soil and Water Conservation District, Seneca County. 12 N Park
St., Academy Square Building, Seneca Falls NY 13148 – 1422.
e-mail: james-malyj@ny.nacdnet.org
Tim Twoguns, Environmental Officer, Cayuga Nation, PO Box 11, Versailles,
NY 14168
e-mail: t2gns@buffnet.net
A. Tom Vawter, Ph.D., Chair Technical Committee, Cayuga Lake Watershed
Intermunicipal Organization (CLWIO), 29 Auburn Rd., PO Box 186, Lansing,
NY 14882.
email: info@cayugawatershed.org
Chair, Biological and Chemical Sciences, Wells College, Aurora, NY 13026
e-mail: tvawter@wells.edu
Paula Zevin, U.S.E.P.A. Region 2, DESA/MAB/MOS 2890 Woodbridge
Avenue, MS-220, Edison, NJ 08837
e-mail: zevin.paula@epa.gov
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 4 of 33
Abstract
This report covers the first year of a 3-year project. The overall goals of the
project are to:
1) address the data gap for water quality conditions at the north end of Cayuga
Lake,
2) measure the inputs from tributaries,
3) lay the framework for development of a mass balance for the lake, and
4) create a database that informs future management decisions.
Traditional monitoring was undertaken in year one on major tributaries and a lake
transect. This work was successful in collecting information about tributaries at
the north end of the watershed. This is the beginning of filling the data gap and
developing a database of information for local management decisions. Tributaries
in the middle and southern portion of the watershed were also sampled, so it is
possible to make comparisons of relative water quality.
The data from the first year was not sufficient to determine tributary loads.
Future years will use the traditional monitoring to continue to fill data gaps and
gather information useful for local management decisions, but the major effort
will be shifted towards automated sample collection and United States Geological
Survey (USGS) gages to measure flow for tributary load determinations. Load
determination will allow for the development of a mass balance for the lake.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 5 of 33
Introduction
This report covers the first year of a 3-year project. The overall goals of the
project are to address the data gap for water quality conditions at the north end of
Cayuga Lake, measure the inputs from tributaries, lay the framework for
development of a mass balance for the lake, and create a database for use in future
management decisions. The overall goals for the project are broad. It was not
immediately clear what techniques would be most useful, and practical, in
accomplishing the goals. Traditional monitoring was undertaken in year one on
major tributaries and a lake transect. The results from this monitoring and
adjustments planned for future work are presented in this report.
Cayuga Lake is located in central New York and is one of eleven Fingerlakes.
The Fingerlakes were created by glacial retreat and are so named because they are
long and narrow. Cayuga Lake is one of the largest Fingerlakes at 38 miles long,
up to 3.5 miles wide and 435 feet deep (Characterization, 2000). Its watershed
covers 864 square miles (Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, 2005). Most of the
inputs to Cayuga Lake are from the southern basin. A few smaller tributaries
contribute through the middle and northern portion of the Lake. The Seneca
River cuts through the northern end of the lake. The River flow into the lake is
controlled by locks and hydropower facilities. Its flow out of the lake is
controlled by a lock. At times, its flow into the northern portion of Cayuga Lake
can be sufficient to reverse the usual northward flow from the lake. On the
balance, Cayuga Lake flows north through the lock, into the Seneca River and
eventually into Lake Ontario.
Cayuga Lake is used for drinking water, fishing and recreation. The northern end
of Cayuga Lake has been listed on New York State’s Priority Waterbody List for
nutrients, silt, oxygen demand and pesticides (Characterization 2000). The
southern end of the lake is listed on the state’s 303(d) list as an impaired water
body. The pollutants of concern are phosphorus and sediment. This area has also
been targeted for development of total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations
addressing these pollutants.
In this study, tributaries were monitored across the watershed for water quality
parameters. The northern tributary monitoring will help fill the data gap that
exists in that portion of the watershed, which is a primary goal of this project.
Most lake monitoring efforts have focused on the southern portion. The
concentration of urban areas and academic institutions at that end are part of the
reason for the disparate attention. Another reason for the southern focus is due to
the fact that the major tributaries to the lake are all located there.
Very little monitoring, regardless of what portion of the watershed it took place
in, has included discharge calculations. This has seriously hampered the ability to
determine loads to the lake. In this study, discharge was calculated from flow
measurements made at the time of sampling. This will be a first step in
quantifying pollutant loading throughout the lake. It will also lay the framework
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 6 of 33
for development of a mass balance for the lake and will be useful information in
guiding regulation of discharges.
The project emphasis in the first year was monitoring of tributary flow and
analysis of tributary and lake suspended sediment and phosphorus. A suite of
other parameters were measured to assist in the interpretation of the sediment and
phosphorus data. A mid-lake transect was also monitored to give a snapshot of the
current lake water quality.
The proposed duration for this project is three years, with base-flow and storm
event sampling. This report covers the first year. The City of Ithaca Water
Treatment Plant Laboratory, United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
Tompkins County Soil & Water Conservation District collected the samples. The
City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant Laboratory and Community Science
Institute analyzed the samples. The USGS made flow measurements. The
Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (IO) and the Cayuga Lake
Watershed Network (Network), representing local government and individual
citizens respectively, are the primary users of the data.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 7 of 33
Methods
Design
Sampling was designed to measure concentrations and discharge over a range of
flow conditions from most tributaries contributing significant/measurable input to
Cayuga Lake. These include; Cayuga Inlet, Fall Creek, Taughannock Creek,
Salmon Creek (all southern), Yawger Creek and the Seneca River (both northern).
The Seneca River is a special case. The River carries water from Keuka and
Seneca Lakes and enters very near the exit point of Cayuga Lake. The general
direction of water through Cayuga Lake is south to north. However, due to the
artificial controls on its flow into and out of the lake, the River inputs sometimes
create a southward flow pattern in the upper portion of the lake. The output from
the lake was sampled in the same manner as the tributaries and is referred to as
the Outlet. An east-west (EW) lake transect off Frontenac Point was monitored
for the purpose of obtaining a snapshot of mid-lake conditions. Samples were
also taken at Cornell’s Remote Underwater Sampling Station (RUSS) to verify
chlorophyll measurements. See Table 1 for site coordinates. Figures A1-A6 in
Appendix A show sampling locations.
Table 1.
Sampling Locations
GPS Coordinates
Lower Cayuga Inlet
N 42026.434’, W 76030.894’
Cayuga Inlet
N 42025.556’, W 76031.236’
Taughannock Creek
N 42032.766’, W 76036.220’
Seneca River
N 42056.400’, W 76045.550’
Yawger Creek
N 42053.322’, W 76042.232’
Salmon Creek
N 42032.351’, W 76032.662’
Fall Creek
N 42027.256’, W 76029.956’
Lake Outlet
N 42057.563’, W 76044.290’
Cayuga Lake Transect
N 42033.649’, W 76037.254’
N 42033.824’, W 76036.985’
N 42033.989’, W 76036.705’
N 42034.090’, W 76036.530’
N 42034.203’, W 76036.352’
Remote Underwater Sampling Station
N 42028.754’, W 76031.056’
Note: The Cayuga Inlet was sampled at the lower location during storm events to catch inputs
from Six Mile Creek, a tributary of the Inlet. During base-flow, Six Mile creek is not a significant
contributor of flow due to the withdrawl of water for drinking purposes and the series of dams
impeding flow.
The sampling points capture drainage from approximately 541 square miles, or
63% of the Cayuga Lake watershed, as shown in Figure 1.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 8 of 33
Figure 1. Cayuga Lake Watershed. Drainage areas represented by sampling in this
study are labeled.
USGS personnel calculated discharge of the tributaries during sampling events.
Water quality parameters measured include total phosphorus, soluble reactive
phosphorus, suspended sediment, total coliforms, E. coli, turbidity, Secchi disk
and Hydrolab parameters (pH, temperature, depth, specific conductivity, total
dissolved solids, salinity, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll
alpha). See table 2 for the sampling methods and procedures.
Table 2. Sampling methods and procedures.
Parameter
Method
Streams
Lake
Epilimnion
Lake
Hypolimnion
Field/Lab
Total P
EPA
365.3
X
X
X
Lab
Sol.
React. P
EPA
365.3
X
X
X
Lab
Sediment
ASTM
D-3977
X
X
X
Lab
Coliforms
Colisure
X
X
X
Lab
Turbidity
SM 2130
B
X
X
X
Field
Secchi
Code
0171
Hydrolab
Hydrolab
X
X
X
Notes
Multiple grab
samples mixed
in a churn
Multiple grab
samples mixed
in a churn
Multiple grab
samples mixed
in a churn
Subsurface grab
Multiple grab
samples mixed
in a churn
Field
X
Field
Multiple
points/depths
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 9 of 33
Most tributary samples represented grab samples collected at several points across
the stream and through the depth of the water column. The grab samples were
composited in a churn for a whole water sample. Coliform samples were
collected below the surface of the water in the deepest part of the channel as a
grab. Vertical measurements were made at several points across the stream to
determine discharge. Hydrolab parameters were logged manually and
electronically for several points on each stream. The average of these readings is
reported.
The lake transect was sampled differently based on stratification. When the lake
was mixed, at least 3 whole water column samples were collected to the depth of
the Secchi reading. This was accomplished using a Core Sampler. These samples
were composited in a churn. When stratified, a Kemmerer sampler was used to
take at least 3 samples from each layer. The samples from the epilimnion (upper
layer of water), were then composited in a churn. The same process was followed
for the hypolimnion (lower layer of water). The Hydrolab temperature/depth
readings were used to determine whether or not the lake was stratified. As in the
tributaries, the coliform sample was a subsurface grab. No discharge
measurements were made for the transect. Hydrolab parameters were measured at
every meter to the depth of the Secchi reading. At least 3 measurements were
taken in the hypolimnion if the lake was stratified. Again, average values were
used for analysis. Cayuga Lake is generally stratified between July and
November (Callinan, 2001). During this study, the lake was stratified from
August through the end of the study in October.
Sampling at the RUSS unit was intended to serve as a quality control check on
turbidity and chlorophyll measurements. Only turbidity and Hydrolab parameters
were routinely recorded for that site.
Sampling occurred from May through October. Eight sampling trips were made.
Three of those trips occurred during fairly broad rainfall events. One localized
storm was captured at Taughannock Creek. Sampling events typically occurred
over three days. One day was allotted for north end tributaries and the lake outlet;
another day was used for south end tributaries. The lake transect was sampled on
a third day. Table 3 shows discharge calculations, sampling events time frames,
and relevant weather comments.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 10 of 33
Table 3. Discharge measurements in cubic feet per second (cfs) at the time of sample collection.
Sampling date/
Location
Taughannock
Inlet
Fall
Salmon
Yawger
Seneca
Outlet
5/12-13/2004
68.6
136
162
77.7
15.1
1560
3880
78.4
66.4
89.2
37.4
7.2
1760
2910
4.91
686
0
Comments
6/9-10/2004
Comments
7/7-8/2004
Comments
8/11-12/2004
Localized thunderstorm at Taughannock previous night
6.52
22.3
35.8
7.61
Localized thunderstorm at Yawger - started during sampling
18.1
51.1
79.4
24.2
7.61
815
1190
523
2040
2200
2640
106
930
1120
2300
1170
648
6.7
1910
3670
92.1
143
76.5
12.4
2230
3170
50.2
87.6
30.1
5.11
1060
3140
Comments
8/30-31/2004
Comments
9/8-9/2004
Comments
Hurricane Charlie
2390
Hurricane Frances
9/15-16/2004
46.2
Comments
Hurricane Ivan
10/6-7/2004
22.5
Comments
Field Methods
Sample collection equipment was rinsed prior to sample collection. Equipment
was cleaned and rinsed between sampling events. Phosphorus samples were
collected in acid washed plastic bottles. Sediment was collected in acid washed
glass bottles. Coliforms were collected in sterile 100 ml containers – opened and
closed below the surface of the water with the bottle opening against the current.
Turbidity vials were rinsed prior to sample collection and cleaned between events.
The Hydrolab and turbidimeter were calibrated in the lab before each event. The
Samples were assigned unique sample ID numbers and recorded in permanent
logbooks at the respective labs.
During high flow events, tributaries were sampled using equipment lowered from
bridges for both sample collection and flow measurements. Multiple readings
were taken as described previously for whole water samples and for calculation of
discharge. Collection of water samples was done using a US D-74 sampler off
bridges and a Kemmerer sampler in slower moving deep waters (including the
lake).
Discharge measurements were made with a current meter in shallow streams in
accordance with USGS Techniques Water Resources Inventory (Buchanan and
Somers, 1969). In deeper streams, an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)
was used. Measurements and procedures were followed as outlined in USGS
Technical Memorandum No. 2002.02 (Norris, 2002).
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 11 of 33
Laboratory Analyses
The total phosphorus concentration was determined by EPA method 365.3. The
concentration of phosphorus was determined in filtered and unfiltered samples.
Community Science Institute conducted the phosphorus analyses. The laboratory
is certified to perform this test under the National Environmental Laboratory
Approval Program (NELAP). Suspended sediments were analyzed by ASTM
method D-3977 (Table 4). The analyses were conducted at the City of Ithaca
Water Treatment Plant Laboratory. The laboratory holds certification to conduct
these tests from the USGS.
Table 4. Method and method specifications for phosphorus and sediment.
Sample
Total P
Sol. React. P
Sediment (0-50 mg/L)
Sediment (>50 mg/L)
Method Code
EPA 365.3
EPA 365.3
ASTM D-3977
ASTM D-3977
Detection Limits
0.004 mg/L
0.002 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
Accuracy
+/-15%
+/-15%
85%
95%
5 x Detection Limits
0.02 mg/L
0.01 mg/L
2.5 mg/L
2.5 mg/L
Quality Assurance/Control Program - Field
Duplicate samples were collected for 15% of the sediment and phosphorus
samples. The goal for duplicates was to meet 20% relative percent difference
(RPD). However, the variability of the method allows for RPDs of greater than
20% when the observed value is close to the detection limit. This problem was
most common on samples from the lake transect. In general, duplicate values that
were well above the method detection limit met the 20% RPD requirement
(Tables 5 and 6). Non-reportable data was excluded if it was known that the data
was erroneous. Otherwise, the data is reported but flagged. Sample sizes were
adequate to allow for a repeat analysis of phosphorus if needed. Due to the nature
of the sediment analysis (running the whole sample) there was no opportunity to
repeat a test. Three dissolved oxygen samples were collected for lab analysis
(SM18: 4500-O C) to check the Hydrolab readings (Table 7).
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 12 of 33
Table 5. Tributary duplicate analyses and Relative Percent Differences – collected from the lake
Outlet. Total and Soluble Reactive Phosphorus are measured as ug/L, Sediment is
measured as mg/L.
Date
Sediment mg/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
Total Phosphorus ug/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
Soluble Reactive P ug/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
6-9-04
7-8-04
8-11-04
8-31-04
9-8-04
9-15-04
10-6-04
5.09
5.51
7.92
3.60
3.54
1.68
9.54
Broken
NA
11.19
10.56
5.79
20.66
20.09
2.8
19.75
20.06
1.56
8.84
6.02
37.95
19.7
22.2
11.93
42.2
42.5
0.71
19.7
21.6
9.2
41.6
41.3
0.72
20.6
18.4
11.28
7.2
7.1
1.4
29.6
28.9
2.39
4.3
5.3
20.83
11.5
10.2
11.98
6.5
6.4
1.55
Table 6. Lake duplicate analyses and Relative Percent Differences – collected from a rotating
point on the transect. Total and Soluble Reactive Phosphorus are measured as ug/L,
Sediment is measured as mg/L.
Date
Epilimnion
Sediment mg/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
Total Phosphorus ug/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
Soluble Reactive P ug/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
Hypolimnion
Sediment mg/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
Total Phosphorus ug/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
Soluble Reactive P ug/L
Sample
Duplicate
RPD
6-11-04
7-9-04
8-13-04
9-1-04
9-10-04
9-17-04
10-8-04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
100.00
2.63
2.22
16.91
1.56
1.58
1.27
1.56
1.34
15.17
0.94
0.62
41.03
0.61
0.00
200.00
11.10
10.9
1.82
10.8
10.8
0.00
9.30
9.60
3.17
10.5
10.4
0.96
12.1
10.2
17.04
3.10
1.90
48.00
2.40
3.7
45.62
2.40
2.20
8.70
2.30
3.60
44.07
2.70
3.40
22.95
0.98
0.00
200.00
0.32
0.00
200.00
0.28
0.95
108.94
0.00
0.62
200.00
0.31
0.33
6.25
6.5
3.7
54.9
2.9
1.9
41.67
5.3
6.8
24.97
10.7
8.7
20.62
4.9
5.6
13.33
4.6
3.1
38.96
3.3
4.1
21.62
4.1
5.9
36
10.8
8.5
23.83
6.5
5.3
20.34
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 13 of 33
Table 7. Dissolved oxygen readings (mg/L). A comparison of Hydrolab and benchtop
results.
Location
Taughannock
Salmon
Inlet
Hydrolab
10.56
11.09
9.43
CSI
10.2
11.3
9.4
The Fall Creek Watershed Committee (FCWC) has been collecting samples near
the location used in this project since October of 2002. A draft report of their
work is available upon request. The FCWC is trained in appropriate sample
collection methods and analyses are performed by Community Science Institute –
the same lab used for this project. Their data has been included in table B2 along
side the Fall Creek results from this project (Appendix B). This serves as another
way to insure that the measurements made during this study are accurate and
precise. Table B1 lists the data used in this report.
Pilot sampling trips were made with the USGS and the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) (September 2003 and November 2003
respectively) in an effort to minimize error introduced through variation in sample
collection methods. Whenever possible, the same collection techniques were used
as those detailed in the Water Quality Study of the Finger Lakes (Callinan, 2001).
Another pilot trip was made in April of 2004 to practice methodology. Samples
were not collected for this project during these outings.
All routine sediment and phosphorus sampling was accomplished as outlined in
the Quality Assurance Project Plan (Johnston, 2004). The 6 tributaries and the
lake outlet were sampled 8 separate times; 2 of those were storm events. The lake
transect was sampled at 5 locations 8 separate times; 2 being after storm events.
The lake was sampled at appropriate depths based on stratification – as
determined by Hydrolab temperature readings. One duplicate sample was lost
due to breakage before analysis. The Hydrolab chlorophyll sensor did not work
satisfactorily during the study - see Results section, page 23. Transect sampling
was extended over 2 days (8/13,16/04) because sampling equipment did not
perform correctly on 8/13/2004. One hundred percent of the intended samples
were collected during this study.
Quality Assurance/Control Program - Laboratory
The QA/QC requirements for the suspended sediments include blanks for every
10 samples, at least two annual performance control sample sets, and periodic
field duplicate samples as provided by the USGS. If the blanks exceed a weight
change greater than +/-0.0005g or the control limits for duplicate samples or
control samples is exceeded, the data is considered non-reportable. The QA/QC
requirements for the phosphorus analyses include one preparation and one
laboratory control spike (LCS) sample blank per batch. Spiked matrix (MS)
samples are prepared for 5% of routine samples. Both LCS +/-20% and MS
samples must have +/-30% recovery. If the sample does not meet that requirement
it is judged out of control and the source of the problem is identified and resolved
before continuing analyses.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 14 of 33
The laboratories participate in NELAP and USGS quality control programs on an
continual basis. These programs verify accuracy and comparability. Satisfactory
results were obtained on all parameters of interest. Copies of the test results are
available upon request.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 15 of 33
Results
Sediment and Phosphorus Monitoring
Storm events deliver high amounts of sediment and phosphorus. A total of 8
sampling trips were made. Sampling of storm events occurred only 4 times over
the year – only two of these events affected most of the watershed. One storm
event had little impact on Salmon Creek and points north, and the remaining event
was localized to Taughannock Creek. Also, 19% of the area’s precipitation
occurs between December and February (Henson et al., 1961), this time-frame
was not sampled. Due to these limitations, loading figures cannot be presented
here. Hydrographs for Cayuga Inlet and Fall Creek are included (Figures 2,3).
The numbers 1-8 on the figures represent the time of sampling as well as the field
calculated discharge.
Figure 2. Annual hydrograph for Cayuga Inlet. Sampling event dates and discharge calculations are
indicated as 1-8 along the hydrograph.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 16 of 33
Figure 3. Annual hydrograph for Fall Creek. Sampling event dates and discharge calculations are
indicated as 1-8 along the hydrograph.
Mean concentrations of total phosphorus are shown in Figure 4, along with the
range of readings observed during the study period. No notable differences were
detected between the sampled tributaries. The transect concentrations (all
measurements) were well below the New York State guidance value of 20 ug/L,
the means were 9.2 ug/L for the epilimnion and 5.9 ug/L for the hypolimnion.
Figure 5 shows the sum of total phosphorus export measured during this study.
This value is shown on a per area basis. The north end tributaries have the lowest
per area export of total phosphorus while the south end streams, Salmon Creek in
particular, have the highest. The outlet is shown as negative as this data
represents the total phosphorus leaving Cayuga Lake.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 17 of 33
10000.0
1000.0
100.0
10.0
yp
o
La
ke
La
ke
H
Ep
i
ll
Fa
In
le
t
O
ut
le
t
on
Sa
lm
Se
ne
ca
ug
ha
nn
oc
Ta
Ya
w
k
1.0
ge
r
Total Phosphorus (ug/l)
Figure 4. Mean and range of Total Phosphorus over sampling period. Lake Epi
and Lake Hypo refer to transect epilimnion and hypolimnion respectively.
Figure 5. Sum of instantaneous total phosphorus export over study period.
4
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Fa
ll
In
le
t
O
ut
le
t
Sa
lm
on
Se
ne
ca
Ta
ug
ha
nn
oc
k
-0.5
ge
r
0
Ya
w
TP mg/hectare
3
Mean concentrations of soluble phosphorus are shown in Figure 6, along with the
range of readings observed during the study period. No notable differences were
detected between the sampled tributaries. The mean transect concentrations were
3.02 ug/L for the epilimnion and 5.40 ug/L for the hypolimnion. Figure 7 shows
the sum of soluble reactive phosphorus export measured during this study. This
value is shown on a per area basis. The Cayuga Inlet, Fall Creek and Yawger
Creek have the lowest per area export of soluble reactive phosphorus.
Taughannock Creek, Salmon Creek and the Seneca River have the highest export.
The outlet is shown as negative as this data represents the soluble reactive
phosphorus leaving Cayuga Lake.
Figure 6. Mean and range of Soluble Reactive Phosphorus over the sampling
period. Lake Epi and Lake Hypo refer to transect epilimnion and hypolimnion
respectively.
1000.00
100.00
10.00
yp
o
ke
La
ke
La
H
Ep
i
ll
Fa
le
t
In
t
le
ut
O
on
Sa
lm
ca
ne
Se
Ta
ug
h
an
no
w
ge
ck
r
1.00
Ya
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (ug/l)
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 18 of 33
Figure 7. Sum of instantaneous export of soluble reactive phosphorus over
study period.
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
ll
Fa
le
t
In
ut
le
t
O
Sa
lm
on
Se
ne
ca
Ta
-0.1
ug
ha
nn
oc
k
0
Ya
w
ge
r
SRP mg/hectare
0.4
Mean concentrations of sediment are shown in Figure 8, along with the range of
readings observed during the study period. The northern tributary concentrations
are an order of magnitude lower than the southern tributaries. The mean transect
concentrations were 0.90 mg/L for the epilimnion and 0.69 mg/L for the
hypolimnion. Figure 9 shows the sum of soluble reactive phosphorus export
measured during this study. This value is shown on a per area basis. The north
end tributaries have the lowest per area export of sediment while the south end
streams have the highest. The outlet is shown as negative as this data represents
sediment leaving Cayuga Lake.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 19 of 33
10000.00
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
yp
o
H
La
ke
La
ke
Ep
i
Fa
ll
et
In
l
t
ut
le
O
on
Sa
lm
ca
Se
ne
Ta
ug
ha
Ya
w
nn
oc
k
0.10
ge
r
Suspended Sediment (mg/l)
Figure 8. Mean and range of Sediment over the sampling period. Lake Epi and
Lake Hypo refer to transect epilimnion and hypolimnion respectively.
Figure 9. Sum of instantaneous export of sediment over study period.
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Fa
ll
et
In
l
ut
le
t
O
Sa
lm
on
ca
Se
ne
ck
nn
o
Ta
ug
ha
ge
-1000
r
0
Ya
w
Sediment mg/hectare
6000
Total phosphorus and sediment appear to behave in a similar fashion in the
tributaries. Figure 10 shows that there is a strong relationship between sediment
and total phosphorus measurements from this study.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 20 of 33
Figure 10. Correlation between Sediment and
Total Phosphorus
y = 1533.8x - 39.217
R2 = 0.9855
14000.00
12000.00
Sediment mg/L
10000.00
8000.00
6000.00
4000.00
2000.00
0.00
0.00
-2000.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
TP ug/L
Phosphorus values for the Lake transect are presented below (Figures 11 and 12).
The data points represent the average of the 5 points measured on the transect.
Total phosphorus is higher in the epilimnion, while soluble reactive phosphorus is
highest in the hypolimnion. This could be attributed to TP inputs from surface
runoff and the lack of organisms to consume the SRP in the deeper portions of the
lake respectively. The values for sediment are presented in figure 13. Most of
these values are at or within the variability of the analysis method (+/- 1.33
mg/L).
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 21 of 33
Figure 11. Average Total Phosphorus ug/L of the Lake transect over the
study period.
14
Total Phosphorus ug/L
12
10
8
Epilimnion
Hypolimnion
6
4
2
0
51404
61104
70904
81304
90104
91004
91704
100804
Sample Dates
Figure 12. Average Soluble Reactive Phosphorus ug/L of the Lake
transect over the study period.
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus ug/L
9
8
7
6
5
Epilimnion
4
Hypolimnion
3
2
1
0
51404
61104
70904
81304
90104
Sample Dates
91004
91704
100804
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 22 of 33
Figure 13. Average Suspended Sediment mg/L of the Lake transect over
the study period
2.5
Sediment mg/L
2
1.5
Epilimnion
Hypolimnion
1
0.5
0
51404
61104
70904
81304
90104
91004
91704
100804
Sample Dates
Other Findings
Nitrate levels were noticeably higher in Salmon, Yawger and Taughannock
Creeks (Figure 14), though not above drinking water standards. Conductivity was
much higher in Yawger Creek than other areas (Figure 15). Coliform numbers
rose dramatically in response to storm events (Table 8).
H
yp
o
La
ke
Ep
i
Fa
ll
et
In
l
ut
le
t
O
on
m
Sa
l
ec
a
Se
n
La
ke
Ta
ug
ha
n
no
ck
ge
r
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Ya
w
Nitrate (mg/l)
Figure 14. Mean and range of Nitrate over sampling period. Lake Epi and Lake
Hypo refer to transect epilimnion and hypolimnion respectively.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 23 of 33
H
yp
o
La
ke
La
ke
Ep
i
Fa
ll
In
le
t
t
ut
le
O
on
Sa
lm
ca
Se
ne
Ta
ug
ha
nn
oc
k
1600.0
1400.0
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
Ya
w
ge
r
Conductivity (uS/cm)
Figure 15. Mean and range of Conductivity over sampling period. Lake Epi and
Lake Hypo refer to the transect epilimnion and hypolimnion respectively.
Table 8. E. coli cfu/100 mls. The maximum number reported by this method is 2419.2 cfu/100
mls. Samples that exceeded the maximum are listed as >2419.2 cfu/100 mls. Larger storm
events occurred on August 31, September 9, and September 16, 2004. A localized storm event
occurred in the Taughannock watershed area on June 9.
12-May 9-Jun
25.6
224.7
Yawger
Taughannock 178.5 >2419.2
61.3
54.7
Seneca
26.3
93.3
Salmon
218.7
32.0
Outlet
111.9 >2419.2
Inlet
78.0
648.8
Fall
1.42
0.20
Lake
8-Jul
>2419.2
37
31.3
187.0
8.6
142
135.0
0.00
11-Aug
>2419.2
14.2
98.7
165.8
26.2
118.7
214.2
0.20
31-Aug
>2419.2
>2419.2
>2419.2
>2419.2
727
>2419.2
>2419.2
46.80
9-Sep
186.0
>2419.2
290.9
>2419.2
125.9
>2419.2
>2419.2
25.62
16-Sep
387.0
111.2
397.0
73.3
344.8
59.4
137.6
1.20
7-Oct
108.6
54.6
131.3
31.3
84.6
34.5
39.3
0.60
A volunteer from the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network took extra samples on
September 26th using a HACH Sension meter as well as taking extra nitrate
samples (analyzed by the NELAP certified WTP contract lab – Life Science
Laboratories). The results are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Results of extended Yawger Creek sampling.
Site
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Temp.
Deg. F
62.2
62.7
62.4
63.6
64.4
Cond.
(uS/cm)
1235
1148
712
632
675
Salinity
mg/l
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
TDS
mg/l
610
566
341
311
328
pH
units
8.17
8.12
7.89
8.08
8.18
NO3
mg/l
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
4.9
Y1 – North branch of Yawger, upstream of the confluence with the south
Branch.
Y2 – Joined branches, upstream of Route 90.
Y3 – South branch, upstream of first road crossing on tributary
Y4 – South branch, upstream of Route 326
Y5 – South branch, upstream of Route 34B
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 24 of 33
Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH showed no significant or unusual trends
in any of the tributaries or the lake transect. Turbidity and secchi depth readings
varied predictably with runoff conditions.
The chlorophyll probe did not function properly during the study despite apparent
successful calibrations and a manufacturer check of the unit. Several times during
the study, the RUSS chlorophyll probe was also not working properly. Data that
was received from the unit is not considered appropriate for use other than trend
analysis (Personal communication, Cayuga Lake RUSS Team, 9/8/04). Finally,
the RUSS probe moves through the water column over the course of a day. Due
to that fact, the RUSS probe and the Hydrolab were not sampling the same
fraction of water. Data from the RUSS unit are not presented in this report.
To give the data from this study a frame of reference, Table 10 is included below
listing water quality standards and assessment criteria.
Table 10 Water Quality Standards and Assessment Criteria. Table compiled by Cortland County Soil and Water
Conservation District, 2005.
Parameter
Coliform, E. coli
Coliform, Total
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
PH
Specific Conductivity
Temperature
Ammonia as Nitrogen (Ammonia as N)
Nitrate/Nitrite as Nitrogen (NO2/NO3 as N)
Organic Nitrogen as Nitrogen (Org N as N)
Units
cfu/100 ml
cfu/100 ml
mg/L
S.U.
uS/cm
celsius
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
NYS Median NYSDEC NYS Drinking Water
Regional
NYS Part
Concentration
RIBS
Standards
Average
703
for Surface Assessment
(1)
Standard
Water (2)
Criteria (3) Primary Secondary
10.3
0.08
0.56
10
7.7
255
0.043
0.48
2400 (4)
7 (5)
<5
<6.5 or >8.5
>25
0.34
0.0042
10
(6)
10
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 25 of 33
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as Nitrogen (TKN as N)
mg/L
0.33
0.27
Phosphorus, Soluble Reactive
ug/L
50
20
Phosphorus, Total
ug/L
56.6
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
24.6
Turbidity
NTU
17
(1) Mean values for rivers and streams in the Northeast Eco-region (Source: EPA)
(2) Based on a 1991 NYSDEC RIBS report.
(3) Assessment cirteria are intended to get a relative sense of adherence to standards rather than a precise determination of water quality
violations.
(4) Monthly median for Class B, C, andD waters.
(5) Applies to trout spawning waters.
(6) Applies to free ammonia (NH3) and varies with pH and temperature.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 26 of 33
Discussion
The overall goals of the project are to address the data gap for water quality
conditions at the north end of Cayuga Lake, measure the inputs from tributaries,
lay the framework for development of a mass balance for the lake, and create a
database for use in future management decisions.
Data Gaps, Local Decision Making and Ambient Water Quality
This first year of the study was successful in better defining individual
characteristics of the streams. Much of the monitoring occurred during low flows
and is therefore representative of water quality conditions for a majority of the
year. Also, as ground water makes up the major component of stream base-flow,
this data adds a valuable component to the body of knowledge around ground
water and will supplement what is already included in the Cayuga Lake
Characterization (Characterization, 2000). The data on the Seneca River, Yawger
Creek, and the lake outlet will begin to fill information gaps in the watershed. All
of the tributary data will be useful in determining local priorities and development
of municipal level watershed management approaches. Future monitoring efforts
should continue to track ambient water quality in the lake as Cayuga Lake’s
‘ability to effectively assimilate wastes is inherently limited’ (Callinan and
Kappel, 2001). Continuing to collect data from a more northern portion of the
lake would address the data gap.
Loading Data and a Mass Balance
The monitoring done in the first year of this study gives snapshot views of the
general state of water quality delivered by the tributaries and at the mid-lake
transect. The dataset is too small to extrapolate across flow regimes, particularly
storm events during which most of the pollutant loads are delivered. Monitoring
efforts using automated samplers are better suited to capture storm events and
develop loading data. Automatic samplers would also be able to sample during
the winter months more reliably than volunteers/staff. This is important due to
the nature of precipitation in the basin with much coming in the form of snowmelt
and early Spring rains. Gaging stations that collect flow data and suspended
sediment samples already exist on Six Mile Creek – a major tributary to the Inlet.
Gaging stations recording flow also exist on the Inlet and Fall Creek. Adapting
these stations to collect water quality data would be the best way to characterize
loads to Cayuga Lake. Adding a gaging station at the north end of the lake would
allow for watershed wide monitoring. USGS is currently discussing the
possibility of a gage on the Seneca River for 2005-2006. There is also interest in
having a gage on Salmon Creek. Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet and Six Mile Creek all
represent the extreme southern portion of the watershed and, while not identical,
all have similar landuse regimes and soils. Salmon Creek enters in the southern
portion of the lake, but it extends far into the upper half of the watershed.
Agricultural landuse changes and intensifies in this area. The geology of the area
also changes. For these reasons, having a gage on Salmon Creek might be more
valuable than modifying existing gages on Cayuga Inlet or Fall Creek.
Due to the fact that the first year data is insufficient to assess loads, it is also
insufficient to develop any kind of mass balance. Another factor confounding the
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 27 of 33
development of a mass balance at this point is the lack of knowledge of internal
mixing patterns and a lack of data to bridge the estimated 9-21 year travel time
for water through the lake (Wright 1969; Oglesby 1978; Michel and Kraemer
1995). Internal waves, seiches, in Cayuga Lake can be substantial (monitoring for
Cornell’s Lake Source Cooling attributed an 8 degree temperature drop over 1
hour to a seiche (UFI, 2003)), but are not well understood. Additional units like
the USGS ADCP could be used to gather important information about the general
wave patterns through a series of deployments. This information would be
valuable in understanding the transport and fate of pollutants and would inform
the decision-making process regarding watershed level issues. There are no
current plans to do this study as additional equipment would need to be acquired.
Phosphorus Impacts
Concern over water quality and possible future regulations have directed
increased attention to Cayuga Lake. The primary pollutants of concern are
sediment and phosphorus. The north end of the lake is listed as a priority water
body for these parameters while the south end of the lake is slated for TMDL
development.
The regulated form of phosphorus is total phosphorus (TP). The assumption
made in using TP is that it is highly correlated to phytoplankton growth that
occurs in the presence of excess phosphorus. The data emerging from several of
these monitoring efforts show that TP is instead highly correlated to sediment. A
report prepared by Upstate Freshwater Institute (2002) for Cornell’s Lake Source
Cooling monitoring program noted that TP and turbidity measurements on the
south shelf of Cayuga Lake are not related to the trophic state. Effler et. Al.
(2002) further showed that inorganic materials were the primary cause for clarity
issues, not phytoplankton biomass. He goes on to say that these particles
represent 60% of the particulate phosphorus in the system, indicating that the
phosphorus is not contributing to algal growth as expected. If this is the case,
then TP measurements do not represent growth but instead could indicate
sediment load.
Other Findings
The elevated nitrate levels in some creeks are still well below drinking water
limits. Salmon and Yawger creeks have extensive landuse in animal operations.
It would be of interest to determine if the nitrate levels are a result of landuse, and
if so, consider appropriate best management practices. Taughannock Creek is
largely undeveloped and has little land in large scale agricultural operations
There is a wastewater treatment discharge to the stream from the Village of
Trumansburg. As with Salmon and Yawger, it would be interesting to determine
the source of the nitrate and ameliorate if practical.
The elevated conductivity in Yawger Creek is coming from the north branch.
There are extensive gas wells in that area of the watershed (Figure 16,17)
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 28 of 33
Figure 16. Map of Cayuga County
Wells. West border is Cayuga Lake.
Other borders are neighboring
counties. This map was taken from
Bill Hecht’s web page (see citation).
Yawger Creek enters Cayuga Lake
halfway between the villages. The
north branch runs through the main
concentration of wells.
Village of
Cayuga
Village of
Union Springs
A brine solution is used in the gas exploration process. It is possible that the
solution is moving through the ground water into the creek. It would be
interesting to measure the water in the wells for conductivity and/or take other
steps to verify the source of the conductivity in Yawger Creek.
Figure 17. Yawger Creek subwatershed showing north and south branches.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 29 of 33
Conclusion
Data Gaps, Local Decision Making and Ambient Water Quality
Judging by the first-year data, it would be valuable to further define streams that
were assessed during the study period and to continue the process on streams that
were not included here. Towards that end, the City of Ithaca and partners will
follow-up on the findings from 2004 with respect to Yawger, Salmon and
Taughannock Creeks. New creeks will be added as personnel and/or trained
volunteers are available. The initial monitoring on new creeks will likely be
limited to Hydrolab parameters with spot sampling of sediment and phosphorus as
funding allows. Future monitoring efforts should continue to track ambient water
quality in the lake as Cayuga Lake’s ‘ability to effectively assimilate wastes is
inherently limited’ (Callinan and Kappel, 2001). The City of Ithaca will make a
limited number of sampling trips in 2005 to track lake water quality. New
partners will be sought to collect data from a more northern portion of the lake.
New funding will be sought to upgrade existing gaging stations and for new
gages. For 2005, the City of Ithaca and USGS are hoping to continue monitoring
on 1-2 tributaries as in 2004. This monitoring will be focused on Salmon and/or
Fall Creeks and will be done to maintain continuity in the data until automated
equipment is available. It will also reflect potential changes from year-to-year.
Loading Data and a Mass Balance
A model currently exists for the south end of Cayuga Lake assessing phosphorus
and sediment loads. This model was formulated based on landuse data and has
not been calibrated. The existing gage data for flow and sediment from Six Mile
Creek, a tributary to the Inlet, will be used to calibrating the model for the south
end. Some automatic samples from the existing gage will be analyzed for
phosphorus during 2005 in the hopes of using this information to improve the
model. Coliform samples will also be analyzed on these samples at the request of
the Cayuga Lake Watershed Network, as this is an emerging water quality
concern. With improved GIS information for the north end of the watershed, this
landuse model could be expanded. Gage data at the north end of the lake would
allow for calibration of an extended model.
Phosphorus Impacts
It is clear the southern shelf of Cayuga Lake is impacted after rainstorms. Part of
the problem is erosion along the streams. What role does phosphorus play? Is it
contributing separately to a degradation in water quality or is it merely bound to
the sediment? If it is contributing to the problem, then in what form? Future
monitoring needs to concentrate on the different forms of phosphorus along with
chlorophyll measurements to determine if and how phosphorus is related to water
quality before new regulations are developed. This type of work will be
encouraged among our partners. However, due to limited funding, this work is
not anticipated to happen in 2005.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 30 of 33
Other Findings and Comments
Nitrate, conductivity and coliform work will be expanded on in 2005. Nitrate will
be further investigated in Salmon, Yawger and Taughannock Creeks. High
conductivity readings will be followed-up on in Yawger Creek. Coliforms will be
tracked more regularly in the Six Mile Creek samples that will be used for model
calibration.
As a general recommendation for future monitoring efforts, the Cayuga Lake
Restoration and Protection Plan (2001) recommends retrospective studies
whereby existing data is reviewed and analyzed prior to the start of monitoring
activities. Extensive data exists on various portions of the Cayuga Lake
watershed but it is not readily accessible to the various groups interested in
monitoring. Not making use of historical data can result in projects that do not
make the best use of limited funds and resources. The Cayuga Lake Watershed
Network will take one set of historical data (bacteria) and attempt to perform a
retrospective study on it in 2005. Other parameters will be tackled in future
efforts. This project will make full use of results from this retrospective work in
order to determine monitoring priorities, to improve on the study design and to
maximize comparability between this data and historical data.
The impetus for this project was, and is, the possibility of the development of
Total Maximum Daily Load regulations targeting sediment and phosphorus for
Cayuga Lake. There are compelling reasons why more study should be done
before that type of regulation can be considered with any degree of credibility.
Very little data is available for water quality in the northern portion of the Lake.
No loading data exists for the majority of the tributaries, and where it does exist,
it is limited to sediment. Finally, there is not detailed information on the
circulation patterns within the lake – meaning that the transport and fate of
pollutant loadings cannot be predicted. Loading data can best be gathered by
strategically placing USGS gaging stations with automated samplers throughout
the watershed. Understanding the circulation patterns in the lake, which could
lead to an understanding of pollutant transport, would be greatly enhanced
through the use of USGS Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers deployed in the
Lake. The information above relates to why discussion of loads and load based
regulations are premature. There is another question that needs to be answered;
what is the role of phosphorus in the lake? That question is not addressed through
the current work but should be considered prior to development of regulations
based on assumptions regarding phosphorus and impairments in Cayuga Lake.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 31 of 33
Bibliography:
Buchanan, T.J. and W.P. Somer. 1969. USGS Techniques Water Resources Inventory,
Book 3 Chapter A8.
Callinan, C.W. 2001. Water quality study of the Finger Lakes. New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. Division of Water.
Callinan, C.W. and W. Kappel. 2001. Framework for a Cayuga Lake watershed
monitoring plan, M-1 – M-17. Appendix M. in Restoration and protection plan for
Cayuga Lake, 2001. Prepared by Genessee/FingerLakes Regional Planning Council,
Rochester, NY. and Ecologic, LLC., Cazenovia, NY.
Cayuga Lake Watershed Network. 2005. Personal communication Sharon Anderson,
Watershed Steward.
Cayuga lake watershed preliminary watershed characterization, Executive Summary.
2000. Prepared for the Town of Ledyard by Genessse/Finger Lakes Regional Planning
Council, Rochester, NY. and EcoLogic, Cazenovia, NY.
Cayuga lake watershed restoration and protection plan. 2001. Prepared for the Cayuga
Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization by Genessse/Finger Lakes Regional
Planning Council, Rochester, NY. and EcoLogic, Cazenovia, NY.
Cortland County Soil and Water Conservation District. 2005. Draft water quality data
report Fall/Virgil Creek monitoring, Tompkins and Cortland County, New York,
Summary of 2002 through 2004 sampling results.
Effler, S.W., D.A. Matthews, M.G. Perkins, D.L. Johnson, F. Peng, M.R. Penn and M.T.
Auer. 2002. Patterns and impacts of inorganic tripton in Cayuga Lake. Hydrobiologia
482:137-150.
Hecht, Bill. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/stuff.html
Henson, E. B., A.S. Bradshaw, and D.C. Chandler. 1961. The physical limnology of
Cayuga Lake, New York. Memoir 378, Cornell Univerity Agricutural Experiment
Station, NewYork College of Agriculture.
Johnston, R.L. 2004. Quality assurance project plan for assessment of total phosphorus
and sediment impacts for the north end of the Cayuga Lake watershed. Prepared for the
Division of Environmental Sicence and Assessment, US E.P.A., Region II.
Michel R.L. and T.F. Kraemer. 1995. Use of isotopic data to estimate water residence
times of the Finger Lakes, New York. J. Hydrol. 164: 1-18.
Norris, J. M. 2002. Policy and technical guidance on discharge measurements using
acoustic doppler current profilers, USGS Office of Surface Water Technical
Memorandum No. 2002.02, 4 pages.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 32 of 33
Oglesby, R.T. 1978. The limnology of Cayuga Lake, p. 1-120. In J.A. Bloomfield (ed.),
Lakes of New York State, v. 1. Ecology of the Finger Lakes. Academic.
Upstate Freshwater Institute. 2002. Cayuga Lake water quality monitoring related to the
LSC Facility: 2002. Prepared for Cornell University. Upstate Freshwater Institute,
Syracuse.
Wright, T.D. 1969. Hydrology and flushing characteristics, p. 42-72. In R.T. Oglesby
and D.J. Allee (eds.), Ecology of Cayuga Lake and the proposed bell station (nuclear
powered), publication 27. Cornell University Water Resources and Marine Science
Center.
Final Report
Rev. #: 05/05
Page 33 of 33
Acknowledgements
Stephen Penningroth, Community Science Institute, 284 Langmuir Lab/Box
1044, 95 Brown Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850
e-mail: director@communityscience.org
Craig Schutt, Soil and Water Conservation District, Tompkins County. 903
Hanshaw Rd., Ithaca, NY 14850
e-mail: Craigschutt@hotmail.com
Special thanks to Gordie Morgan and Ken Dziciewicz for all their help in sample
collection and analysis (and fishing advice).
Thanks also to:
Deborah Caraco and her family (Desiree Van Brunt, Devin Van Brunt, Rob Van
Brunt) for performing the extra monitoring on Yawger Creek.
Nicholas Hollingshead for preparing the GIS maps
John Hornlein for preparing the hydrographs on short notice
Leon Matthews for providing access to Yawger Creek.