The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducted a waterquality and biological survey of the Chemung Subbasin from June to August 2006.This survey is part of SRBC’s Subbasin Survey Program, which is funded in partby the United StatesE n v i r o n m e n t a lProtection Agency(USEPA). The SubbasinSurvey Program consistsof two-year assessmentsin each of the six majorsubbasins (Figure 1) ona rotating schedule.This report details theYear-1 survey, whichconsists of point-in-time water chemistry,macroinvertebrate, andhabitat data collectionand assessments of themajor tributaries andareas of interestthroughout the ChemungSubbasin. The Year-2survey will be conductedin the Cohocton RiverWatershed over a one-year period from spring2007 to spring 2008.Previous SRBC surveys of the Chemung Subbasin were conducted in 1997 (Traver, 1998)and 1984 (McMorran, 1985).

Subbasin survey information is used by SRBC staff and others to:• evaluate the chemical, biological, and habitat conditions of streams in the basin;

• identify major sources of pollution and lengths of stream impacted;

• identify high quality sections of streams that need to be protected;

• maintain a database that can be used to document changes in stream quality over time;

• review projects affecting water qualityin the basin; and

• identify areas for more intensive study.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Results/Discussion . . . . . . . .6 - 13

Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . .14 - 15

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 - 17

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

This technical reportwas produced by:

Susan L. BudaAquatic Ecologist

(717) 238-0426 ext. 104

sbuda@srbc.net

For more information on the methods orresults of this survey, contact Susan L. Buda.

For raw data, visit the web site atwww.srbc.net/pubinfo/publications/techreports.htm

For additional copies of this Subbasin surveycontact the Commission by email at

srbc@srbc.net.

Chemung Subbasin Survey: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment,

June - August 2006

Publication 251September 2007

Chemung River Walking Bridge in Corning, N.Y.

J. Z

imm

erm

an

Figure 1. The Susquehanna Subbasin

N. S

ylve

ster

J. Z

imm

erm

an

DESCRIPTIONof the Chemung Subbas in

The Chemung Subbasin is aninterstate subbasin that drainsapproximately 2,604 square miles ofsouthwestern New York and northcentralPennsylvania. Four major river watersheds,the Cohocton River, Canisteo River,Cowanesque River, and Tioga River,combine to form the mainstem of theChemung River. The primary countiesin this subbasin are Chemung, Steuben,Allegany, and Schuyler Counties inNew York, and Tioga and BradfordCounties in Pennsylvania (Figure 2).The major population centers includeHornell, Canisteo, Bath, Corning,Horseheads, and Elmira in New York,and Elkland, Mansfield, Blossburg,and Sayre in Pennsylvania. Ecoregionsthat fall within the Chemung Subbasinare (Figure 2):

• Northern Appalachian Plateau (Ecoregion 60)• Northern Central Appalachians (Ecoregion 62)

Ecoregion 60 is a combination ofagriculture and forestland. It is atransition ecoregion between the moreagricultural and urban ecoregions to thenorth and west and the more mountainousand forested ecoregions to the south andeast. The agricultural lands in Ecoregion60 are mostly used as pastures and tocultivate hay and grain to feed dairy cattle,and the wooded areas are comprised ofmostly oaks and northern hardwoods.Ecoregion 62 is more densely forested,and land use is tied largely to recreationor logging and gas and mineral extraction.The geology of this largely rugged areaconsists mostly of sandstone, shale, siltstone,conglomerates, and coal. Most of theChemung Subbasin is within Ecoregion 60with only a small portion in the southernpart of the basin in Ecoregion 62.

Land use in the Chemung Subbasinis depicted in Figure 3. The primaryland uses are natural vegetated areasand cultivated land. The largest urbancenter is the Horseheads/Elmira area.Some abandoned mine lands arefound in the headwaters of the TiogaRiver Watershed that correspond toEcoregion 62.

Numerous watershed organizationsare working in the Chemung Subbasinto educate and involve local citizens andto restore and protect watersheds. Table 1provides the names and contactinformation for some of those watershedgroups. Many other local entities, suchas county conservation districts andland conservation groups, protect andconserve land and water resources inthe subbasin. Also, in Pennsylvania,there is a group for active seniorcitizens interested in protecting andimproving watersheds called thePennsylvania Senior Environment Corps.The website for this organization ishttp://www.easi.org.

New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation will besampling water chemistry in theChemung basin during 2007 and 2008as part of the agency’s RotatingIntegrated Basin Studies. More detailson the program are available athttp://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/30951.html.Lakes/reservoirs and groundwater alsowill be sampled as part of this program.The information gathered in thissampling program will be used toupdate NYSDEC’s Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List (WI/PWL).

SRBC has additional monitoringand protection activities in the ChemungSubbasin. One of the programs is theenhanced monitoring program, whichinvolves monthly sampling of nutrientsand sediment on the Cohocton andChemung Rivers at Campbell, N.Y., andChemung, N.Y., respectively. Data atthese sites have been collected sinceOctober 2004 in the Chemung Riverand October 2005 in the CohoctonRiver, and are used to calculate nutrientand sediment loads and trends and tocalibrate watershed models. The data

Figure 2. Ecoregions, Sample Sites, and Counties in the Chemung Subbasin.2

J. Z

imm

erm

an(s

tatio

n na

mes

cor

resp

ondi

ng to

sam

ple

site

num

bers

on

map

are

loca

ted

in A

ppen

dix)

and more information on the projectcan be found on SRBC’s website athttp://www.srbc.net/programs/CBP/nutrientprogram.htm.

SRBC also is working on developingan Early Warning System (EWS) programthroughout the Susquehanna RiverBasin to protect public drinking watersupplies. This program allows for earlydetection of spills or threats to publicwater supply and alerts water intakefacilities. SRBC has implemented theEWS program in Pennsylvania andcurrently is working with Binghamtonand Elmira, N.Y., water suppliers tocreate this same monitoring andcommunication network in New YorkState. SRBC has been gatheringadditional data on the water quality andtravel times of the Chemung River forthe EWS program in recent months.The data collected from the ChemungSubbasin Survey Year-1 and Year-2 studieswill be used to establish the EWS network.More information on the EWS programis available on SRBC’s website athttp://www.srbc.net/programs/docs/EWSGeneral(2_07).pdf.

Figure 3.Land Cover, Sample Sites, and

Public Lands in the Chemung Subbasin.

Table 1. Contact Information for Watershed Organizations in the Chemung Subbasin

Organization Name County Contact Address Phone Email or WebsiteChemung Basin River Trail Par tnership All Jennifer Fais, Co-Chair STCRPDB 8 Denison Parkway East, Suite 310, (607) 962-5092 (Jennifer) http://www.chemungriver trai l .com

Linda Couchon, Co-Chair Corning, New York 14830 (Jennifer) (607) 734-4453 (Linda) email : j fais@stny.rr.com (Jennifer)Cornell Extension of Chemung County (Linda) email: LWC4@cornell .edu (Linda)

Corey Creek Watershed Association Tioga Jim Hufnagle 18475 Route 6 Mansf ield, PA 16933 (570) 662-3360 http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/cwp/view.asp?A=928&Q=435165

Cowanesque Valley Watershed Association Tioga Karl Kroeck, President RD 1 Box 990 Knoxvil le, PA 16928 (814) 326-4308Crooked Creek Coalit ion Tioga Harland Hilborn, President R.R. 2, Box 34 Wellsboro, PA 16901 (570) 724-8042 hrlybear@pa.netEllen Run Watershed Projects Tioga Chester Bailey 413 Valley Road Mansf ield, PA 16933 (570) 662-3152 http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/

cwp/view.asp?A=928&Q=435165Lake Demmon Association Steuben Michael Mooney, President 6074 Independence Way, Ontario, NY 14519 (315) 524-8029Lamoka Waneta Lakes Association Schuyler/ Gordon Shafer, President P.O. Box 55, Tyrone, NY 14887 (607) 292-6276 http://www.lamokawaneta.com/

SteubenLoon Lake Association Steuben Helen Sick 2968 Laf-A -Lot Rd, Wayland, NY 14572 (585) 728-5108 helened@frontiernet.netLoucks Pond Association SteubenMeads Creek Watershed Association Steuben Pat Darcangelo 4575 Meads Creek Road, Painted Post, NY 14870 (607) 936-4703 Pdarcangelo@stny.rr.comMill Cove Inc Tioga Tom Freeman (Blue Ridge Cable) 43 Acadamy Street, Mansf ield, PA 16933 (Tom) (570) 662-2935 (Tom) website: http://www.tiogacounty

Charl ie Fox RD 3 Box 445 Troy, PA 16947 (Charl ie) (570) 297-4642 (Charl ie) pa.us/tioga/cwp/view.asp?A =928&Q=435165email: eef@epix.net (Charl ie)

Penn-York Bentley Creek Watershed Chemung, Wilber Brown, Chairman 13278 Berwick Turnpike, Gil lett , PA 16925 (570) 596-2394 website: http://www.ridgeburyAssociation Bradford township.com/cwatershed.html

email : rbury@npacc.netSmith Pond Spor tsmen's Association Steuben Polly Nelson 8020 Smith Pond Road, Avoca, NY 14809 (607) 566-2870Tanglewood Lake Association Steuben Mary Woollatt 47 Tanglewood Trail , Campbell , NY 14821 (607) 527-8630 maryderek@aol.comTioga County Concerned Cit izens Tioga Charles Andrews, President P.O. Box 124 Blossburg, PA 16912 website: http://tcccc-inc.org/Committee email: tcccc@tcccc-inc.orgTioga River Watershed Reclamation Tioga Victor Otruba, President 19 Richmond Dr. Mansf ield, PA 16933 (570) 404-0548 http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/Projects cwp/view.asp?A=928&Q=435165

mtnbooks@epix.netTown of Southpor t Drainage Committee Chemung Bil l Baker, Chair 1139 Pennsylvania Avenue Southpor t, NY 14871 (607) 734-1548 http://www.townofsouthpor t.com/Upper Susquehanna Coalit ion All James Curatolo, Coordinator 4729 State Route 414 Burdett, NY 14818 (607) 546-2528 http://www.u-s-c.org/htmlUpper Susquehanna River Keeper All Paul Otruba 763 South Main Street Mansf ield, PA 16933 (570) 404 0548 http://environeers.net/

mtnbooks@quik.com

3

J. Z

imm

erm

an(s

tatio

n na

mes

cor

resp

ondi

ng to

sam

ple

site

num

bers

on

map

are

loca

ted

in A

ppen

dix)

METHODSUsed in the 2006Subbas in Survey

DATA COLLECTIONDuring the summer of 2006, SRBC

staff collected samples from 74 sitesthroughout the Chemung Subbasin.The appendix contains a list with thesample site number, the station name(designated by approximate streammile), a description of the samplinglocation, the latitude and longitude, thedrainage size, and reference category.All sites listed in blue were sampled in2006 and in the previous survey of 1997.The reference category designation wasbased on ecoregions and drainage areas.Ecoregion 60 was divided into twosmaller groups based on the darkerand lighter toned areas on Figure 2.

Staff collected macroinvertebratesamples and performed habitat assessmentsat 70 of the 74 sites. The four additionalsites could not be sampled due to deepwater or lack of riffle/run habitat. Siteswere sampled once during this Year-1sampling effort to provide a point-in-timepicture of stream characteristics through-out the whole subbasin. Samples werecollected using a slightly modified versionof USEPA’s Rapid BioassessmentProtocols for Use in Streams andWadeable Rivers (RBP III) (Barbourand others, 1999).

Water QualityA portion of the water sample from

each collection site was separated forlaboratory analysis, and the rest ofthe sample was used for field analyses.A list of the field and laboratoryparameters and their units is found inTable 2. Measurements of flow, watertemperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,conductivity, alkalinity, and acidity weretaken in the field. Flow was measuredusing standard U.S. Geological Surveymethodology (Buchanan and Somers, 1969).

Temperature wasmeasured in degreesCelsius with a fieldthermometer. A Cole-Parmer Model 5996meter was used tomeasure pH. Dissolvedoxygen was measuredwith a YSI 55 meter,and conductivity wasmeasured with aCole-Parmer Model1481 meter. Alkalinitywas determined bytitrating a knownvolume of samplewater to pH 4.5 with0.02N H2SO4. Aciditywas determined bytitrating a knownvolume of samplewater to pH 8.3 with 0.02N NaOH.

One 500-ml bottle and two 250-mlbottles of water were collected forlaboratory analyses. One of the 250-mlsamples was acidified with nitric acidfor metal analyses. The other 250-mlsample was acidified with sulfuric acidfor nutrient analyses. Water samples alsowere placed in two, 40-mL VOA ambervials with Teflon septa membranes andpreserved with 1:1 H2SO4 prior toanalysis for total organic carbon (TOC).Samples were iced and shipped tothe Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (PADEP),Bureau of Laboratories in Harrisburg, Pa.,for laboratory analysis.

MacroinvertebratesBenthic macroinvertebrates (organ-

isms that live on the stream bottom,including aquatic insects, crayfish,clams, snails, and worms) were collectedusing a modified version of RBP III(Barbour and others, 1999). Two kick-screen samples were obtained at eachstation by disturbing the substrate of

representative riffle/run areas andcollecting dislodged material witha one-meter-square 600-micron meshscreen. Each sample was preserved in95 percent denatured ethyl alcohol andreturned to SRBC’s lab, where thesample was sorted into a subsample ofat least 200 organisms. Organisms in thesubsample were identified to genus(when possible), except for midges andaquatic worms, which were identifiedto family.

HabitatHabitat conditions were evaluated

using a modified version of RBP III(Plafkin and others, 1989; Barbourand others, 1999). Physical streamcharacteristics relating to substrate,pool and riffle composition, shape ofthe channel, conditions of the banks, andthe riparian zone were rated on a scaleof 0-20, with 20 being optimal. Otherobservations were noted regardingweather, substrate material composition,surrounding land use, and any otherrelevant features in the watershed.

Field ParametersFlow, instantaneous cfsa Conductivity, µmhos/cmc

Temperature, °C Alkalinity, mg/lpH Acidity, mg/lDissolved Oxygen, mg/lb

Laboratory AnalysisAlkalinity, mg/l Total Magnesium, mg/lTotal Suspended Solids, mg/l Total Sodium, mg/lTotal Nitrogen, mg/l Chloride, mg/lNitr ite - N, mg/l Sulfate - IC, mg/lNitrate - N, mg/l Total Iron, µg/le

Turbidity, NTUd Total Manganese, µg/lTotal Organic Carbon, mg/l Total Aluminum, µg/lTotal Hardness, mg/l Total Phosphorus, mg/lTotal Calcium, mg/l Total Or thophosphate, mg/l

a cfs = cubic feet per secondb mg/l = mil l igram per l i terc µmhos/cm = micromhos per centimeterd NTU = nephelometric turbidity unitse µg/l = micrograms per l i ter

Stonefly (family: Perlidae)

Table 2. Water Quality Parameters Sampled in the Chemung Subbasin Survey

Caddisfly (family: Hydropsychidae)Midge Larvae (family: Chironomidae)4

DATA ANALYSISWater quality was assessed by

examining field and laboratoryparameters that included nutrients,major ions, and metals (Table 2). Staffcompared the data collected to waterchemistry levels of concern based oncurrent state and federal regulations,background levels of stream chemistry,or references for approximate tolerancesof aquatic life (Table 3). Laboratoryvalues were used when field and laboratorydata existed for the same parameter.The difference between each value andthe level of concern value from Table 3was calculated for each site, and if thevalue did not exceed the level of concernvalue, the site was given a score of zero.If the level of concern value was exceeded,the difference was listed, and an averageof all the parameters for each site wascalculated. All sites that received a scoreof zero (no parameters exceeded the limits)were classified as "higher" quality. Sites thathad a percentage value between zeroand one were classified as "middle" quality,and sites that had a percentage value greaterthan one were classified as "lower" quality.

Six reference categories were createdfor macroinvertebrate and habitat dataanalysis based on ecoregions and

drainage size( O m e r n i k ,1 9 8 7 ) .Ecoregion 62representeda smallnumber ofsites; there-fore, thosesites wereg r o u p e dt o g e t h e rregardless ofdrainage size.The sites inEcoregion 60were dividedby drainage size into small (<100 squaremiles), medium (100 to 500 squaremiles), and large drainage areas (>500square miles). The mainstem ChemungRiver sites were separated into an inde-pendent group, and small drainage areaswere divided into brown or tan sites basedon the darker and lighter toned areas inEcoregion 60. Based on the location of thesampling sites, the six reference categories usedwere: 62, 60s-brown, 60s-tan, 60m, 60L,and River, where "s" stands for small,"m" medium, "L" large, and "brown" and"tan" are the darker and lighter sections

on Figure 2, respectively. Benthic macroinverte-

brate samples were analyzedusing seven metrics mainlyderived from RBP III(Plafkin and others, 1989;Barbour and others, 1999):(1) taxonomic richness; (2)modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index;(3) percent Ephemeroptera;

(4) percent contribution of dominanttaxon; (5) number of Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera (EPT) taxa; (6)percent Chironomidae; and (7) Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index. Reference siteswere determined for each referencecategory, primarily based on the results ofthe macroinvertebrate metrics and secondarilybased on habitat and water qualityscores, to represent the best combinationof conditions. The metric scores werecompared to the reference scores, anda biological condition category wasassigned based on RBP III methods(Plafkin and others, 1989; Barbour andothers, 1999). The ratings for each habitatcondition were totaled, and a referencesite was chosen based on the highestscore of the habitat ratings in each referencecategory. A percentage of the referencesite was calculated, and the percentageswere used to assign a habitat conditioncategory to each site (Plafkin and others,1989; Barbour and others, 1999).

Taxonomic Richness: Total number of taxa in the sample. Number decreases with increasing stress.

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index: A measure of organic pollution tolerance. Index valueincreases with increasing stress.

Percent Ephemeroptera: Percentage of number of Ephemeroptera (mayfl ies) in the sample divided by the total number of macroinver tebrates in the sample.Percentage decreases with increasing stress.

Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxa: Percentage of the taxon with the largestnumber of individuals out of the total number of macroinver tebrates in the sample. Percentage increases with increasing stress.

EPT Index: Total number of Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), andTrichoptera (caddisfly) taxa present in a sample. Number decreases with increasing stress.

Percent Chironomidae: Percentage of number of Chironomidae individuals out oftotal number of macroinvertebrates in the sample. Percentage increases with increasing stress.

Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index: A measure of the taxonomic diversity of the community. Index value decreases with increasing stress.

Reference Code Reference

a http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter93/s93.7.htmlb Hem (1970) - http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/wsp2254/c Gagen and Sharpe (1987) and Baker and Schofield (1982)d http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/Watershed/KRB_AR/wq_standards.htme http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/Watershed/KRB_AR/krww_parameters.htmf http://www.hach.com/h2ou/h2wtrqual.htmg http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/education/catalog/pondstream.pdfh http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/appendix3.pdfi http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4590.html

j* http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/images/table.htmlk http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/circ-1136/h6.html#NITl http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/goldbook.pdf

m based on archived data at SRBC

* Background levels for natural streams

Table 3. Water Quality Levels of Concern and References

Parameters Limits Reference CodeTemperature >25 °C a,fD.O. <4 mg/l a,gConductivity >800 µmhos/cm d pH <5.0 c,fAcidity >20 mg/l mAlkalinity <20 mg/l a,gTSS >25 mg/l hNitrogen* >1.0 mg/l jNitr ite-N >0.06 mg/l f , iNitrate-N >1.0 mg/l e, jTurbidity >150 NTU hPhosphorus >0.1 mg/l e,kTOC >10 mg/l bHardness >300 mg/l eCalcium >100 mg/l mMagnesium >35 mg/l iSodium >20 mg/l iChloride >250 mg/l aSulfate >250 mg/l aIron >1,500 µg/l aManganese >1,000 µg/l aOr thophosphate >0.05 mg/l l , f , j ,kAluminum >200 µg/l c

5

6

RESULTS/DISCUSSIONWater quality, biological (macroin-

vertebrate) community, and habitat siteconditions for each sampling sitein 2006 throughout the ChemungSubbasin are depicted in Figure 4.Seven sites, BDWN 0.3, COWN 12.0,NFCR 0.1, POST 0.6, SOUT 2.0, TOBE1.9, and TUSC 0.4, demonstrated thebest overall conditions in each categorywith nonimpaired macroinvertebrates,“higher” water quality, and excellenthabitat. Twenty-one sites (28 percent)did not exceed levels of concern andreceived “higher” water quality ratings.Twenty-three sites (31 percent) slightlyexceeded levels of concern and receiveda “middle” water quality rating, and 30sites (41 percent) received a “lower”water quality rating. Nonimpairedbiological conditions were found at25 sites (36 percent), slightly impairedconditions were found at 31 sites (44 percent),moderately impaired conditions werefound at 11 sites (16 percent), and severelyimpaired conditions were found at threesites (4 percent). Habitat conditionswere excellent at 24 sites (34 percent),supporting at 31 sites (44 percent), partiallysupporting at 13 sites (19 percent), andnonsupporting at two sites (3 percent).

The parameters to exceed levelsof concern at the most sites werealuminum (29), sodium (19), and totalnitrogen (17) (Table 4). The sites withthe highest number of parametersexceeding levels of concern were BNTY5.7 (5), CANA 6.7 (5), CNST 33.0 (5),MORR 0.8 (9), TIOG 29.8 (5), TIOG35.4 (5), and TIOG 39.6 (6). The highestor lowest value for each parameter isprinted in bold on Table 4. The highestvalues for metals were manganese(11,900 µg/l), iron (11,000 µg/l), andaluminum (9,193 µg/l). The highestvalues for nitrogen forms were 4.07 mg/lfor total nitrogen, 2.0 mg/l for nitrate-n,and 0.04 mg/l for nitrite-n. Totalphosphorus and orthophosphate maximumvalues were 0.69 mg/l and 0.484 mg/l,respectively. The highest sodium valuewas 92.3 mg/l, and total suspended solidsand turbidity were 168 mg/l and 214.5NTU, respectively. The lowest pH was 3.2,

the highest acidity was 130 mg/l, andfour sites had an alkalinity of zero (Table 4).

Some of the streams in theChemung Subbasin Survey also weresampled as part of the InterstateStreams Monitoring Program, whichis an annual monitoring programconducted on streams that cross statelines in the Susquehanna River Basin.SRBC staff collected quarterly or annualwater chemistry, macroinvertebrates,flow, and habitat information onBentley Creek, Seeley Creek, SouthCreek, Troups Creeks, ChemungRiver, Cowanesque River, North ForkCowanesque River, and Tioga Riverat the Pennsylvania/New York stateline. Assessments of these interstatestreams from the 2006 InterstateStreams report http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/techdocs/Publication_244/techreport244.htm are compared to theSubbasin Survey Program assessmentsthroughout this report. An InterstateStreams Website is now available at

http://www.srbc.net/interstate%5Fstreams/,and includes the most recent data andassessments.

Section 303(d) of the Clean WaterAct requires a Total Maximum DailyLoad (TMDL) to be developed for anywaterbody designated as impaired, ornot meeting the state water qualitystandards or its designated use. Streamsin Pennsylvania are being assessedas part of the PADEP’s InstreamComprehensive Evaluation Program,and if found to be impaired, a TMDL iscalculated for the watershed. In NewYork, NYSDEC performs assessmentsthrough its Statewide Waters MonitoringProgram. Table 5 lists Pennsylvaniawatersheds that have been identified asimpaired, their impairment causes, thedates sampled, and the ChemungSubbasin Survey stations located inimpaired sections. Table 6 includes a listof Chemung Subbasin Survey streamson the WI/PWL that were determinedto have minor impacts, threatened, or

Figure 4. Water Quality, Biological, and Habitat Conditions in the Chemung Subbasin in 2006.

J. Z

imm

erm

an(s

tatio

n na

mes

cor

resp

ondi

ng to

sam

ple

site

num

bers

on

map

are

loca

ted

in A

ppen

dix)

impaired and the causes and sourceslisted. More information on thePennsylvania and New York TMDLprograms is available on the web athttp : / /www.dep.state .pa .us/watermanagement_apps/tmdl/default.aspand http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/31290.html, respectively .

COWANESQUE RIVER WATERSHEDThis watershed is mostly forested

and agricultural land cover with small

towns and villages. The overall qualityof the entire watershed was good;however, sections and tributaries ofthe Cowanesque River are listed asimpaired on the integrated list (Table 5).Only one of the samples from thissurvey (COWN 0.1) was sampled in asection that was on the integrated list.Some of these impairments are frompoint source issues, such as municipaltreatment plants and industrialdischarges, which may be working

towards compliance. Other impairmentsappear to be from agricultural practicesand possible mercury deposition. Also,the Cowanesque River is impoundedby the Cowanesque Reservoir nearLawrence, Pa., which impacts the riverbelow the dam.

The most upstream site sampled onCowanesque River was COWN 29.6 inWestfield, Pa. This site had a slightlyimpaired biological condition, "middle"water quality, and supporting habitat

Table 5. Chemung Subbasin Survey Streams Identified as Impaired Streams Requiring a TMDL on PADEP's Integrated List of All Waters

PA State Stations inWater Plan Watersheds Major Sources of Impairment Impaired Sections4A Cowanesque River Upstream Impoundment/Organic Enrichment/Low D.O.:2002, COWN 0.1

Source Unknown/Mercury:2002, Agriculture/Nutrients:2002, Municipal Point Source/Nutrients:2002, Industrial Point Source/Thermal Modif ications:2002, Industrial Point Source/Cause Unknown:2002, Removal of Vegetation/Siltation:2002.

4A Fellows Creek Abandoned Mine Drainage/Metals, pH:2002 FELL 0.14A Jemison Creek Golf Courses/Nutrients:20024A Johnson Creek Abandoned Mine Drainage/Metals, pH:2002 JOHN 0.14A North Branch Cowanesque River Agriculture/Siltation, Nutrients:20024A Tioga River Source Unknown/Mercury:2002, Upstream Impoundment/ MORR 0.8, TIOG 16.3,

Siltation:2002, Abandoned Mine Drainage/pH, Metals:2002, TIOG 29.8, TIOG 35.4,Atmospheric Deposit ion/pH:1998, Road Runof f/Siltation:2002, TIOG 39.6, TIOG 42.3Small Residential Runof f/Siltation:2002.

4B Chemung River Source Unknown/Mercury:2002 CHEM 2.5

7

Table 4.Chemung Subbasin Sites with Water Quality Values Exceedng Levels of Concern

* Most extreme values for each parameter are printed in bold.

conditions. This site had the highestnitrogen, total phosphorus, totalorthophosphate, and total organiccarbon in this survey (Table 4). Twotributaries were sampled downstream ofthat site: North Fork Cowanesque River(NFCR 0.1) and Jemison Creek. NFCR0.1 had overall good conditions in allcategories. Biological condition wasnonimpaired, water quality was“higher,” and habitat was excellent.This stream was monitored in theInterstate Streams Program upstreamfrom NFCR 0.1 at the Pennsylvania/New York state line. During the July2004 Interstate Streams Programsampling effort, biological and habitatconditions were nonimpaired andexcellent, respectively. The headwatersof Jemison Creek, JEMI 7.7, hadnonimpaired biological condition andexcellent habitat, but water quality wasconsidered “lower” due to a highaluminum value, potentially fromnaturally occurring aluminum. JemisonCreek served as a reference site for thosesites in Ecoregion 62. This stream islisted as impaired near the mouth dueto elevated nutrient levels.

The site on CowanesqueRiver downstream of JemisonCreek, COWN 20.5, still hadslightly impaired biologicalconditions; however, the waterchemistry parameters did notexceed levels of concern, andthe habitat in this location wasexcellent. Troups Creek entersthe Cowanesque River down-stream of COWN 20.5 withgood water quality conditions.The site at the mouth of TroupsCreek (TRUP 0.4) served asone of the reference sites forEcoregion 60, small drainage.TRUP 0.4 had nonimpairedbiological condition, "higher"water quality, and supportinghabitat, although the upstreamsite (TRUP 5.8) in New YorkState was slightly impairedpossibly due to habitatconditions, which were partiallysupporting. At TRUP 5.8, thecondition of banks was poor, and theriparian vegetated width was inadequate.The water quality was rated “lower” dueto elevated aluminum, which could

originate from soil eroding off the banks.There is also a wastewater treatment plantupstream that recently upgraded itstreatment system, which could improve

S. B

uda

Cowanesque Reservoir Dam near Lawrence, PA.

Table 6. Chemung Subbasin Survey Streams and Lakes on NYSDEC's WI/PWL as Threatened, Minor Impacts, Need Verification, or Impaired Segment

Stream Status Causes SourcesAlmond Lake Impaired Segment Silt/Sediment, Aesthetics Hydro Modif ication, Streambank ErosionBennetts Creek, Lower, and minor tribs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionBennetts Creek, Upper, and tr ibs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionCanacadea Creek, Lower, and tr ibs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment, Nutrients, Unknown Toxicity Municipal, Unknown Source, Urban/Storm RunoffCanacadea Creek, Upper, and minor tribs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionCanisteo River, Middle, and minor tribs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionCanisteo River, Middle, and minor tribs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionCanisteo River, Middle, and minor tribs Impaired Segment Water Level/Flow, Restricted Passage, Habitat Modif ication, Unknown Source

Unknown ToxicityChemung River, Lower, Main Stem Threatened Pathogens AgricultureCohocton River, Lower, and minor tr ibs Need Verif ication Nutrients AgricultureCohocton River, Middle, and minor tr ibs Threatened Nutrients AgricultureCohocton River, Middle, and minor tr ibs Threatened Nutrients AgricultureCohocton River, Upper, and minor tr ibs Threatened Nutrients AgricultureColonel Bil ls Creek Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionDemmons Pond Minor Impacts Algal/Weed Growth Habitat Modif icationDiven/Heller Creek and tr ibs Minor Impacts Unknown Toxicity Unknown SourceDry Run and tr ibs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionFivemile Creek, Lower, and tr ibs Minor Impacts Nutrients, Pesticides AgricultureKopper Pond Impaired Segment Priority Organics Industrial , Tox/Contam. SedimentLake Salubria Impaired Segment Algal/Weed Growth, Nutrients Habitat Modif ication, On-Site/Septic SystLamoka Lake and Mil l Pond Impaired Segment Algal/Weed Growth Habitat Modif icationLoon Lake Threatened Problem Species Habitat Modif icationMeads Creek, Lower, and minor tr ibs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Habitat Modif ication, Streambank ErosionMeads Creek, Upper, and tr ibs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Habitat Modif ication, Streambank ErosionMud Creek and tr ibs Need Verif ication Nutrients (phosphorus), Pathogens AgricultureNewtown Creek, Lower, and tr ibs Minor Impacts Nutrients, Unknown Toxicity Urban/Storm Runof fNor th Branch Newtown Creek and tr ibs Need Verif ication Nutrients AgriculturePurdy Creek and tr ibs Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment Streambank ErosionSeeley Creek and minor tr ibs Threatened Water Level/Flow Hydro Modif ication, Streambank ErosionSmith Pond Impaired Segment Algal/Weed Growth, Nutrients Habitat Modif ication, On-Site/Septic SystTioga River, Main Stem Minor Impacts Silt/Sediment, Water Level/Flow, Acid/Base (pH) Hydro Modif ication, Other SourceTobehanna Creek and tr ibs Need Verif ication Algal/Weed Growth, Nutrients, Si lt/Sediment AgricultureTuscarora Creek, Upper, and tr ibs Need Verif ication Aesthetics, D.O./Oxygen Demand, Ammonia, Nutrients Municipal Twelvemile Creek and tr ibs Minor Impacts Nutrients AgricultureWaneta Lake Impaired Segment Algal/Weed Growth Habitat Modif ication

*Additional suspected and possible causes and sources. See WI/PWL document for details.

Troups Creek after high water near the PA/NY state line.

D. S

itlin

ger

8

in-stream conditions. Troups Creek alsowas sampled quarterly as part of theInterstate Streams Monitoring Programat the Pennsylvania/New York state linefrom July 2004 to June 2005. Themacroinvertebrate community sampledin July 2004 was rated slightly impaired,and the habitat was supporting. ThisInterstate Streams Program site wassimilar in quality to the upstreamSubbasin Survey Program site, TRUP 5.8,and also had elevated aluminum andiron, possibly from eroding stream banks(see photograph on page 8).

COWN 12.0 in Elkland, Pa., hadoverall good conditions. The biologicalcondition was nonimpaired, the habitatwas excellent, and the water quality was“higher.” Downstream of CowanesqueLake at COWN 0.1, however, the condi-tions degraded slightly. The biologicalcondition was slightly impaired, thewater quality was rated “middle,” andthe habitat conditions remained excellent.The temperature at COWN 0.1 at thetime of sampling exceeded water qualitylevels of concern. COWN 0.1 and a siteupstream directly below the dam(COWN 2.2) are sampled in theInterstate Streams Program. SRBC staffrated the biological conditions atCOWN 0.1 as nonimpaired and thehabitat as supporting in July 2004;however, COWN 2.2 was ratedmoderately impaired with partiallysupporting habitat. These sites hadelevated iron and aluminum values atthe time of sampling. In previous years,COWN 0.1 was rated slightly or moderatelyimpaired, although usually had improvedconditions compared to COWN 2.2. Thisrecovery at COWN 0.1 in 2004 comparedto previous years’ conditions may be dueto water quality improvements to the damdischarge, which were implementedaround 2000 (Lazorchick, 2007).

CANISTEO RIVER WATERSHEDThe headwaters of Canisteo River

Watershed around Hornell andCanisteo, N.Y., had numerous impairedsites in this survey. Moderately impairedbiological conditions were found at fivesites in this area. Staff sampled at

two stations in Canacadea Creek, onetowards the headwaters and one at themouth; both sites had moderately impairedbiological conditions, “lower” waterquality, and supporting habitats. Totalnitrogen, total nitrate-n, total phosphorus,total orthophosphate, and total sodiumexceeded water quality levels of concernat the headwaters site (Table 4), whiletotal sodium and total aluminumexceeded levels at the downstream station.

Another tributary to Canisteo Riverwas Karr Valley Creek, which hadslightly impaired biological condition,“middle” water quality, and supportinghabitat. Purdy Creek and Colonel Bill’sCreek had moderately impaired biologicalconditions and “middle” water qualitydue to temperature exceeding standards;total phosphorus and orthophosphatealso exceeded levels of concern at PurdyCreek (Table 4). In addition, habitat wasimpaired at both sites with Purdy Creekconditions rated as partially supportingand Colonel Bill’s Creek as nonsupporting.Purdy Creek habitat was impaired dueto channel alteration and lack ofadequate riparian buffer and ColonelBill’s Creek due to excessive sedimentdeposition and poor condition of banks.Purdy Creek was channelized with riprap and a levee on the left bank.

Bennetts Creek had two samplesites, one near the headwaters, BENN8.3, and one at the mouth, BENN 1.2.BENN 8.3 was moderately impaired,while BENN 1.2 had only slightlyimpaired biological conditions. Bothsites had “middle” water quality; BENN8.3 exceeded orthophosphate andtemperature levels of concern, andBENN 1.2 exceeded temperature levelsof concern (Table 4). BENN 1.2 had alower habitat rating, with partiallysupporting habitat, whereas BENN 8.3was rated as supporting.

Although many of the tributarieshad impaired biological conditions, theCanisteo River site downstream ofHornell and Canisteo, N.Y., (CNST 33.0)had nonimpaired biological condition.However, at the time of sampling,total aluminum, total phosphorus,orthophosphate, sodium, and temperatureexceeded levels of concern. Upstream atCNST 38.7, where only water chemistrysamples were collected, total aluminum,sodium, and temperature exceededlevels of concern. The habitat at CNST33.0 was rated as partially supporting,mostly due to poor condition of banksand lack of adequate vegetated riparianbuffer. Downstream at a site in WestCameron, N.Y., (CNST 22.6), biological

S. B

uda

Tobehanna Creek near Tyrone, NY.

9

10

conditions were still rated asnonimpaired, but water chemistryimproved to “middle” and habitatto supporting. At CNST 22.6,sodium and temperature exceed-ed levels of concern. Thesesections of Canisteo River arelisted on NYSDEC’s WI/PWL asan “impaired segment” at CNST38.7 and as having minorimpacts at CNST 33.0 andCNST 22.6. This section of theCanisteo River warrants furtherstudy and monitoring.

Tuscarora Creek enters theCanisteo River near the mouth.Tuscarora Creek had slightly high totalaluminum and temperature, slightlyimpaired biological conditions, andsupporting habitat in the headwaters;however, the overall conditions at themouth (TUSC 0.4) were optimal withnonimpaired biological conditions,“higher” water chemistry, and excellenthabitat. This site at the mouth servedas a reference site for Ecoregion 60,medium drainage size. A tributary toTuscarora Creek, North BranchTuscarora Creek, was sampled in thissurvey and had slightly impaired biolog-ical conditions, “higher” water quality,and supporting habitat. Two additionalsites were sampled on the CanisteoRiver upstream and downstream ofTuscarora Creek. Only water qualityinformation was collected at theupstream site and revealed high totalaluminum, sodium, and temperature.Downstream of Tuscarora Creek, totalaluminum and temperature were stillhigh at the time of sampling, althoughbiological conditions were nonimpaired,and habitat was supporting.

TIOGA RIVER WATERSHEDThe headwaters of the Tioga River

Watershed are located in Ecoregion 62where there are numerous abandonedmine land areas (Figures 2 and 3).Abandoned mine drainage (AMD) fromthis area pollutes the Tioga River formost of its length. Numerous tributarieshave AMD influences, including FellowsCreek, Johnson Creek, and Morris Run,

which were sampled in this survey. Allthe sites had excellent habitat due to theforested nature of this area, except forCorey Creek, which had supportinghabitat. The sites on Corey Creek andFellows Creek had slightly impairedbiological condition and “lower” waterquality. The water quality at CoreyCreek exceeded levels of concern fortotal aluminum and total suspendedsolids, while at Fellows Creek parametersof concern were alkalinity, total aluminum,and pH. Problems with sedimentembedding the stream substrate werenoted during Corey Creek’s habitatassessment. This stream has sufferedfrom severe streambank erosion, andefforts are being made through theCorey Creek Watershed Association toimplement natural stream channel design(http://www.tiogacountypa.us/tioga/cwp/view.asp?A=928&Q=435165).

Many of the AMD tributaries hadacidic conditions and therefore did notsupport acid-sensitive mayflies. FellowsCreek had no mayflies, since thealkalinity was only 0.2 mg/l. JohnsonCreek at the mouth (JOHN 0.1) hadhigher alkalinity, although it still exceed-ed levels of concern. However, JOHN0.1 was rated nonimpaired, largely dueto the presence of a few mayfly taxa andmany stoneflies. A passive treatmentsystem was constructed in the headwatersof this watershed in Fall 2006, so futureimprovement may be noted. Morris Runwas severely impaired due to AMD.Alkalinity, aluminum, iron, magnesium,manganese, sulfate, acidity, pH, andconductivity exceeded levels of concern.

Morris Run had the highestaluminum, magnesium, man-ganese, sulfate, acidity (field),and lowest pH (field) of all thesites in the Chemung SubbasinSurvey. MORR 0.8 only hadtwo taxa in the sample, anacid-tolerant beetle (Dytiscidae:Agabus) and midge larvae.

Three samples from tributariesin the middle of the Tioga RiverWatershed had slightly impairedbiological conditions and sup-porting or excellent habitat

ratings. These sites were Crooked Creek,Hills Creek, and Mill Creek. CrookedCreek and Hills Creek were locatedupstream of the Hammond Reservoir.Crooked Creek had “lower” water quali-ty due to slightly elevated aluminum, butno water quality values exceeded levelsof concern at the sites on Hills Creekand Mill Creek.

The sites on the mainstem TiogaRiver were all biologically impairedexcept for the site at the mouth TIOG6.2, which was nonimpaired. This sitewas downstream of the CowanesqueRiver, which may have helped to dilutethe AMD. Aluminum still slightlyexceeded levels of concern at this site;however, the value was close to the levelof concern (239 µg/l) and might not havebeen representative of usual aluminumlevels. No other parameters exceededlevels of concern at TIOG 6.2. At TIOG16.3, only aluminum slightly exceededlevels of concern (212 µg/l). This site wasdownstream of the Tioga/HammondReservoir, which may have helpedprecipitate some metals in the watercolumn. All the sites upstream ofTioga/Hammond Reservoir had eithermoderately or severely impaired biologicalconditions, except for the headwater sitenear Chases Mills, Pa., which was slightlyimpaired. Alklinity and aluminumexceeded levels of concern at all ofthe sites upstream of the reservoir.Manganese and pH (field) exceededlevels of concern at TIOG 29.8, TIOG35.4, and TIOG 39.6, along with TSS atTIOG 29.8 and acidity at TIOG 35.4and TIOG 39.6. The worst site with

Tioga-Hammond Reservoir near Tioga, Pa.

J. O

rr

11

regard to water quality was TIOG 39.6in Blossburg, Pa., which also had highiron and the highest manganese andaluminum of the Tioga River sites.Additionally, habitat was degraded atthis site due to embeddedness ofsubstrate from AMD precipitate. Thebiological conditions at TIOG 35.4and TIOG 39.6 were severely impaired,containing only two taxa in themacroinvertebrate sample. The conditionsof the Tioga River also are monitored atLindley, N.Y., quarterly each year aspart of the Interstate Streams Program.Unfortunately, during the past twoyears, staff were unable to collect abiological sample due to high flows;however, in the past, this site has beenrated slightly impaired. Elevated ironand aluminum levels often have beennoted at this site.

COHOCTON RIVER WATERSHEDThe biological conditions throughout

Cohocton River Watershed were mostlynonimpaired and slightly impaired,except for the headwater site, which wasmoderately impaired. This site (COHO46.3) was in an area surrounded bywetlands and had slightly high aluminumand nitrogen. The habitat was supporting,but had low scores for sedimentdeposition, condition of banks, andvegetated riparian width. The macroin-vertebrate population improved atthe two sites downstream to slightlyimpaired north of Cohocton, N.Y.,(COHO 37.5), and nonimpaired south ofAvoca, N.Y., (COHO 25.0). Staff couldnot sample for macroinvertebrates atthe next two sites downstream

(COHO 14.6 andCOHO 4.0) duringthis survey; however,the site at the mouthof the CohoctonRiver (COHO 0.5)also had a nonim-paired biological con-dition. Water qualityproblems potentiallythreaten this river withhigh total nitrogennitrate, aluminum,and sodium levelsat various sites in thewatershed. The highesttotal nitrate value inthe survey was ata site on CohoctonRiver (COHO 37.5)and very high sodiumlevels were recordedat COHO 14.6 andCOHO 0.5. Thesehigh sodium values maynot be representativeof usual conditions;however, further sampling of sodiumas part of the Year-2 survey will beconducted on this river.

Three tributaries in the headwatersof Cohocton River Watershed that enterthe river from the east are Twelvemile,Tenmile, and Five Mile Creeks. Allthree tributary sites had slightlyimpaired biological conditions. Habitatconditions were supporting atTwelvemile and Five Mile Creeks andpartially supporting at Tenmile Creek.It appears that Tenmile Creek’s slightlyimpaired biological condition may be dueto habitat conditions. Embeddedness,velocity/depth regimes, sedimentdeposition, channel flow status, andriparian vegetated width all receivedlow scores in the habitat assessment.Water quality conditions at TenmileCreek were “higher” with no parametersexceeding levels of concern at the timeof sampling. The slight biologicalimpairment at Twelvemile and Five MileCreeks may be due to water qualityimpairments. Total nitrogen exceededthe level of concern slightly at Five Mile

and Twelvemile Creeks. Total nitratelevels at Twelvemile Creek and totalaluminum values at Five Mile Creekalso exceeded concern levels.

Goff Creek and Campbell Creek enterCohocton River from the west, and bothhad nonimpaired biological conditions.The habitat at these two sites wassupporting, and the water quality onCampbell Creek was “higher” quality.At Goff Creek, total nitrogen, totalnitrate, and total sodium slightly exceededlevels of concern. Stocking Creek alsoenters Cohocton River on the west bankand had a slightly impaired macroinver-tebrate condition, due to a dominanceof pollution-tolerant midge larva. Sodiumonly slightly exceeded levels of concern,but the habitat was partially supporting.

Mud Creek is the largest tributaryin the Cohocton River Watershed andincludes two large lakes, Waneta andLamoka Lakes, in the headwaters.Tobehanna Creek is a small tributary toLamoka Lake that was sampled duringthis survey. The site near the mouthindicated overall optimal conditions

Cohocton River near Avoca, NY.

L. S

teffy

Five Mile Creek near Kanona, NY.

S. B

uda

with nonimpaired biology, “higher”water quality, and excellent habitat.Downstream of these lakes, a site onMud Creek (MUDC 10.5) had slightlyimpaired macroinvertebrates, possiblydue to partially supporting habitat.None of the water quality parameterssampled during this survey exceededlevels of concern at the timeof sampling. This site had a largenumber of pollution-tolerant amphipods(Gammaridae: Gammarus) that mayhave influenced the biological conditionrating. This amphipod is often abundantin limestone streams; however, MUDC10.5 did not have many characteristicsof a limestone stream except for higheralkalinity. Possibly there was a springor groundwater influence at thesample site. The area surroundingMUDC 10.5 included numerouswetland areas. Downstream at MUDC1.1, biological conditions were stillslightly impaired, and habitat was stillpartially supporting.

Meads Creek Watershed is mostlyforested (Figure 3); however, turbidwater has been noted during high flows.The macroinvertebrate population wasrated slightly impaired at two sites onMeads Creek. The site at the mouth hadsupporting habitat, and temperatureslightly exceeded the level of concern. Itis possible that this creek is slightlyimpaired from times of high flows when

runoff contributes pollutants fromcertain land use practices that canaggravate impairment if not properlymanaged, such as logging and naturalgas drilling. The watershed is alsoknown to be flood-prone. This streamwill be sampled more intensively in theYear-2 subbasin survey project.

CHEMUNG RIVER WATERSHEDThe Chemung River Watershed had

a mixture of tributaries with optimalconditions as well as those that possiblywere impacted by pollutants, such asnitrogen and sodium. A few tributariesthat crossed the Pennsylvania-New Yorkstate line had sites that were rated indifferent condition categories in eachstate. The mainstem Chemung Riverhad mostly nonimpaired conditions.

Post Creek was one of the highestquality streams inthe Chemung SubbasinSurvey. The macroinver-tebrate community atboth sites sampled onPost Creek indicatednonimpaired biologicalcondition. The site in theheadwaters (POST 8.8)had slight nutrientenrichment and localizedhabitat impacts comparedto Post Creek near themouth (POST 0.6).

Overall optimal conditions were notedat POST 0.6. This stream may be a goodcandidate for protection from furtherhabitat degradation. Another stream inthe Chemung River Watershed withoverall optimal conditions of nonimpairedbiology, excellent habitat, and “higher”water quality was Baldwin Creek.BDWN 0.3 served as one of thereference sites for Ecoregion 60, smalldrainage areas.

Sing Sing Creek and NewtownCreek had nitrogen and sodium levelsthat exceeded levels of concern. SingSing Creek was slightly impaired andhad supporting habitat. The macroin-vertebrate sample from Sing SingCreek was dominated by filter-feedingcaddisflies and lacked stoneflies.Newtown Creek at the mouth (NEWT0.6) also lacked stoneflies and hadmoderately impaired biological conditions.Hardness, conductivity, nitrogen, andsodium exceeded levels of concern atthis site, which may warrant furtherstudy. The habitat was rated supporting,with embeddedness as a concern. Atributary to Newtown Creek, NorthBranch Newtown Creek, also had amoderately impaired biological condition.The macroinvertebrate sample wasdominated by midges and other toleranttaxa. This biological impairmentpossibly may be due to the habitatimpairment, which was rated partiallysupporting with low scores for riparianvegetated width and epifaunal (rifflehabitat) substrate. Channel flow was low atthe time of sampling, so the impairmentmay have been due to temporary low

Mud Creek near Bradford, NY.

S. B

uda

S. B

uda

Meads Creek near Meads Creek, NY.

12

flow conditions. Another source ofthe impairment may be due to a waterchemistry pollutant that was notincluded in the laboratory tests.Newtown Creek upstream of NorthBranch Newtown Creek was nonim-paired and had a supporting habitat.The sodium concentration (23.7 mg/l) atthe time of sampling was slightly higherthan the level of concern, but not as highas measured at NEWT 0.6 (67.8 mg/l).

South, Seeley, and Bentley Creeksall cross the Pennsylvania-New Yorkstate line from Pennsylvania into NewYork. During this survey, the sites sampledin Pennsylvania showed slight or moderateimpairment, although the sites down-stream in New York had nonimpairedbiological conditions. Seeley Creek hadmoderately impaired biological conditionsin the headwaters with slightly highnutrient levels. The habitat was ratedsupporting at both upstream and down-stream sites, although low flow conditionswere noted as a possible threat to thestream quality. South Creek is a tributaryto Seeley Creek and contained two sitesin Pennsylvania rated as slightlyimpaired during this survey. Aluminumexceeded levels of concern at both of

these sites, and the uppermost sitelacked adequate vegetated riparianzone width. The site at the mouth inNew York State (SOUT 2.0) had optimalbiological, water quality, and habitatconditions.

Bentley Creek also had nonimpairedbiological conditions and “higher” waterquality at the mouth in New York State.Conditions at both upstream sites inPennsylvania were slightly impaired,most likely due to habitat conditions,which were rated nonsupporting at themost upstream site. Dredging, regrading,and other such disturbances wereevident in Bentley Creek, resulting inlow scores for channel condition,instream cover, velocity/depth, channelflow status, and channel alteration.The water chemistry analysis atthe uppermost site indicated highturbidity, total suspended solids, totalphosphorus, iron, and aluminum values.The phosphorus and metals wereprobably from soil particles in thishighly turbid sample. Currently,impairment at the upstream sitesdoes not seem to impact the site atthe mouth of Bentley Creek, but mayin the future.

These streams are all sampled aspart of Interstate Streams Program atsites along the Pennsylvania/New Yorkstate line. Seeley and South Creeks bothhad slightly impaired biological conditionsand supporting habitat in July 2004.Bentley Creek had nonimpaired biologi-cal conditions and supporting habitat inJuly 2004. Aluminum and iron weresometimes elevated at these sites duringquarterly sampling, possibly due torunoff and higher flows.

Wynkoop Creek, a tributary nearthe mouth of the Chemung River, hada slightly impaired macroinvertebratecommunity, partially supporting habitat,and “higher” water quality. This sitenear the mouth of Wynkoop Creek haddegraded habitat conditions that mayhave impacted the biological conditionslightly. Staff noted excess sedimentin addition to a lack of desirable pooland riffle habitat and riparianvegetative zone. The water chemistryresults did not indicate any impairment,and the macroinvertebrate communitycontained numerous sensitive taxa.This stream site may be a candidate forprotection from further habitat degradation.

The mainstem Chemung River sitescontained mostly nonimpaired biologicalconditions, except for the site at WestElmira, N.Y., (CHEM 28.0). The habitatwas rated excellent at all the sites, exceptfor CHEM 39.8 in South Corning, N.Y.Sodium exceeded levels of concern atall four Chemung River sites, totalnitrogen at three sites, and aluminumat one site. The aluminum was elevatedat CHEM 39.8, which is the sitedownstream of where the Tioga andCohocton Rivers merge near Corning,N.Y. The elevated sodium levels mayhave been from the Cohocton River.The Chemung River is monitoredquarterly for the Interstate StreamsProgram. Unfortunately, a macroinver-tebrate sample was not collected overthe past two years due to samplingdifficulties; however, in the past theChemung River at Chemung, N.Y., hadslightly impaired or nonimpairedbiological conditions. Iron and aluminumwere sometimes elevated at this site.

13

Bentley Creek stream channel restoration project near the PA/NY state line.

S. B

uda

14

COMPARISONof 1997 and 2006 Data

Overall biological, habitat, andwater quality conditions in 1997 and2006 were indicative of a mostly healthysubbasin. The results for water quality,biological, and habitat conditions in the1997 Chemung Subbasin Survey(Traver, 1998) are depicted in Figure 5.One site, CNST 55.5, was sampledhistorically, but not in the current 2006survey. This site is listed in red print inthe Appendix as site number 75. Themethods have changed slightly throughoutthe years, and the methods for the 1997survey can be found in Traver (1998).Specifically, the number of macroinver-tebrates subsampled changed from 100to 200, the habitat assessment formchanged to assigning each parameter 20points instead of weighting the parameterswith different point ranges, and thewater quality assessment analysis haschanged. In the 1998 report, Traverassessed water quality using PrincipalComponents Analysis and cluster analysisand did not assign rating categories forsite conditions. For comparison purposes,the 1997 data were analyzed usingcurrent methodology to acquire waterquality site condition ratings. In addition,the reference categories have changeddue to advances in GeographicInformation Systems technology andcalculation of drainage size. Anotherdifference between the data sets wasflow, which varied from site to site fordifferent years.

A comparison of 1997 and 2006data showed mostly similar conditions;however, biological conditions appearedto be slightly better in 2006. The overallpercentage of each biological conditionin 1997 was very similar to the conditionsin 2006, although there was a slightlyhigher percentage of nonimpaired andslightly lower percentage of severelyimpaired in 2006 (Figures 6 and 7). In1997, 23 percent of the sites weremoderately and severely impaired, andin 2006, 20 percent of the sites weremoderately and severely impaired.Conversely, 77 percent were nonimpairedand slightly impaired in 1997 and 80

percent were nonimpaired and slightlyimpaired in 2006. Twenty-one sites hadthe same biological condition categoryin 2006 as they did in 1997. The biologicalcondition had degraded at thirteen sitesand improved at 19 sites. Five of the sitesthat improved had improved by morethan one step in condition category,specifically CNST 33.0, COWN 0.1,JOHN 0.1, MILL 1.4, and MUDC 1.1.

Habitat conditions improved insome categories, but degraded in others.Fifty-one percent were rated excellent in1997 while only 34 percent wereexcellent in 2006. Only three percentwere rated nonsupporting in 2006,whereas 11 percent were nonsupportingin 1997. Two sites degraded in habitatcondition by more than one conditioncategory from 1997 to 2006. Those twosites were COHO 25.0 and TENM 0.2.On the other hand, habitat conditions

improved at five sites from 1997 to 2006.Those sites were COWN 20.5, SEEL 2.8,SEEL 11.4, SOUT 2.0, and TIOG 29.8.

The water chemistry at the time ofsampling in 2006 was worse than at thetime of sampling in 1997. This may havebeen due to flow or unusual water chemistryconditions at the time of sampling.Twenty-eight percent were rated “higher”quality and 41 percent “lower” quality in2006, whereas 38 percent were “higher”and 22 percent “lower” in 1997. Thirty-two of the sites remained in the samewater quality condition category from1997 to 2006, while nineteen degradedand six improved. Seven sites degradedby more than one category step. Thosesites were BNTY 5.7, CORY 1.5, FMIL1.1, MUDC 1.1, SOUT 5.9, SOUT 9.1,and TIOG 6.2. Table 7 shows a comparisonof the total number of sites exceedinglevels of concern for the sites that were

J. Z

imm

erm

an

Figure 5. Water Quality, Biological, and Habitat Conditions in 1997 Sample Sites in the Chemung Subbasin.

(sta

tion

nam

es c

orre

spon

ding

to s

ampl

e si

te n

umbe

rs o

n m

ap a

re lo

cate

d in

App

endi

x)

15

sampled in both 1997 and 2006. The topthree parameters with the highestnumber exceeding levels of concernwere the same in 1997 and 2006. Theywere sodium (22), nitrogen (14), andaluminum (11) in 1997 and aluminum (29),sodium (19), and nitrogen (17) in 2006.The number of sites exceeding levels ofconcern for each parameter was verysimilar between the two surveys, exceptfor aluminum and temperature, whichincreased in 2006. The high temperaturesmay have been due to the fact that thesummer of 2006 was the secondwarmest on record (NOAA, 2006a;NOAA, 2006b). In particular, July wasthe second hottest on record (NOAA,2006c), and July or early August was thetime when most of the samples werecollected for sites that exceededtemperature levels of concern.

The sites that were impaired due toAMD in 1997 still were impaired in2006, except for Johnson Creek, whichimproved significantly, and FellowsCreek, which improved only slightly.Morris Run remained the most severelyimpaired AMD site from both surveys.

Cowanesque River showed improve-ment from 1997 to 2006 at COWN 0.1and COWN 12.0. Habitat and waterquality conditions at COWN 20.5improved, but biological conditions did

not. Biological and water quality condi-tions improved and the habitatremained excellent at North ForkCowanesque River. The CowanesqueRiver Watershed has been impactedin the past by problems with atannery, wastewater treatment systems,and agricultural runoff (Traver, 1998).The improvement seen may be dueto upgrades in treatment systemsand agricultural best managementprojects. Numerous Stream ReLeafProjects (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/WC/Subjects/StreamReLeaf/default.htm) are documentedin this watershed (eMap PA, 2007).Also, the improvement seen at COWN0.1, which is located downstream of theCowanesque Reservoir, may be attribut-able to the improvements made to thedam around 2000. During the late1990s, problems with the control mech-anisms for the low flow control gatesand intake structure gates resulted inlow flow releases coming off the bottomof the reservoir, which is water low indissolved oxygen. Since those repairshave been made, the water releasedfrom the dam can be mixed with otherlayers in the lake to produce better waterquality (Lazorchick, 2007).

Impairment of the Canisteo River inthe Hornell-Canisteo area was documented

in the 1997 sampling at CNST 33.0 andCNST 38.7 and appeared to continuein the 2006 survey. Habitat and waterquality degradation was attributed tothe urban land use and to poor qualityconditions on Canacadea Creek. The1997 survey also documented improvementin water quality on the Canisteo Riverdownstream at sites CNST 22.6 andCNST 7.7.

Year Alkalinity Aluminum T Hardness T Iron T

1997 8 11 1 32006 8 29 1 3

Magnesium T Manganese T Nitrate-N T Nitrogen TOT

1997 1 6 7 142006 1 4 7 17

Phos T Ortho Phosphorus T Sodium T Sulfate T

1997 6 1 22 12006 5 5 19 1

T Org Carbon T Susp Solid Acidity (Field) pH (Field)

1997 0 3 4 62006 1 3 3 5

Specific Conductivity (Field) Water Temperature (Field)

1997 2 02006 2 16

Moderately Impaired

16%

Slightly Impaired

44%

Nonimpaired

36%

Severely Impaired

4%

Slightly Impaired

47%

Nonimpaired

30%

Moderately

Impaired

11%

Severely Impaired

12%

Table 7. Number of Water Quality Values Exceeding Levels of Concern for the same sites in 1997 and 2006

Figure 6.Summary of Biological Conditions in the Chemung Subbasin in 2006

Figure 7.Summary of Biological Conditions in the Chemung Subbasin in 1997

CONCLUSIONSOverall, the streams sampled in the

Chemung Subbasin contained fairlygood biological, habitat, and waterquality conditions in 2006. A majority ofthe sites were rated either nonimpairedor only slightly impaired; however, thereare areas where improvement is neededin this watershed. AMD is a large sourceof impairment in the Tioga RiverWatershed. Another area in need ofimprovement is the headwaters ofCanisteo River around Hornell-Canisteo,N.Y. Problems in this area appear to befrom habitat degradation and possiblyother water quality problems that needfurther investigation. Impairment in theTioga River and Canisteo River head-waters has been documented in both1997 and 2007 reports.

Most of the moderate and severeimpacts in the Chemung Subbasin weredue to degraded habitat conditions,AMD, or elevated aluminum, sodium,and nutrients. Many of the habitatproblems identified in the habitat

assessments were due to a lack ofadequate vegetated riparian zone width.Vegetation on the banks and in theriparian zone is very important to thelife cycles and reproduction of aquaticinsects and fish inhabiting the stream.Numerous insects rely on leaf litter as afood source. Other insects that emergefrom the stream in the adult life stage toreproduce rely on the surroundingvegetation for activities such as layingeggs. Furthermore, vegetation createsshade that helps to maintain cool streamtemperatures and adequate dissolvedoxygen levels as well as providing bankstability to minimize erosion.

Another habitat problem identifiedin the assessments was low flow. Thecombination of low flow, lack of vegetatedriparian areas, and the second hottestsummer on record could have been asource of some of the impairment in thiswatershed. Other factors contributing toimpairment in this subbasin were waterquality issues, such as AMD, aluminum,sodium, and nutrients. The elevated

aluminum and sodium could be relatedto the erosion of streambanks or othersources; however, aluminum is not toxicto fish unless the pH of the waters is lessthan 5.2 when aluminum is present inthe dissolved form (Gagen and Sharpe,1987; Baker and Schofield, 1982).Possible sources of sodium could besalt deposits, natural gas wells, androad salt. Nutrients such as nitrogenand phosphorus may be a result ofagricultural runoff and in particular,phosphorus from soil erosion.

Some of the highest quality water-sheds in this survey were BaldwinCreek, Campbell Creek, Post Creek,Tobehanna Creek, Tuscarora Creek,and sections of the Cowanesque River.Efforts should be made to protect thesewatersheds from degradation. Some ofthe most degraded watersheds wereCanacadea Creek, Colonel Bill’s Creek,Newtown Creek, Purdy Creek, MorrisRun, and the Tioga River. Further studyis needed as to the source of impairmentin some of these watersheds; where

Organization Name County Contact Address Phone Email or Website

Chemung County Chemung Diane Fiorentino 425 Pennsylvania Avenue 607-734-4453 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ej/Environmental Elmira, NY 14904 region8groups.html#chemungManagement Council

Chemung County Water Chemung Mark Watts 851 Chemung Street 607-739-2009 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ej/Quality Committee Horseheads, NY 14845 region8groups.html#chemung

Southern Tier Environmental Chemung Lee Hanle Younge 141 Olcott Road 607-562-3988 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ej/Health and Safety Group Nor th Big Flats, NY 14814 region8groups.html#chemung

Upper Susquehanna Coalit ion Chemung Jim Curatolo Tioga Soil and Water 607-687-3553 http://www.u-s-c.org/Conservation District 183 Corporate Drive Owego, New York 13827-3249

Steuben County Environmental Steuben Amy Dlugos, Chair 3 East Pulteney Square 607-776-9631 http://www.steubencony.org/Management Council Bath, NY 14810 Ext. 2268 planning/emc.html

Steuben County Soil and Steuben Jef frey Parker, Steuben SWCD USDA 607-776-7398 velynda-risley@ny.nacdnet.orgWater Conservation District District Manager Service Center

415 W. Morris St Bath, NY 14810

Chemung County Soil and Chemung Mark Watts, Chemung SWCD 607-739-2009 markwatts@stny.rr.comWater Conservation District District Manager 851 Chemung St

Horseheads, NY 14845

Tioga County (PA) Tioga Ralph Brugger, 50 Plaza Lane 570-724-1801 http://www.geocit ies.com/tccdpa/Conservation District District Manager Wellsboro, PA 16901

Bradford County Bradford Michael Lovegreen, Stoll Natural Resource Center, 570-265-5539 http://www.bradfordcountypa.org/Conservation District District Manager RR 5 Box 5030C Ext. 6 OtherAgencies/ConservationDist.asp

Towanda, PA 18848

Pennsylvania Association PA Brian Snyder, PASA Headquar ters 814-349-9856 http://www.pasafarming.org/of Sustainable Agriculture Executive Director 114 West Main Street

P.O. Box 419 Mil lheim, PA 16854

16

Table 8. Information Resource Agencies in the Chemung Subbasin

the impairment source and cause areknown, restoration efforts are needed.

Additional information and assis-tance with water related issues can beobtained from numerous resource agencies.A few of the resource agencies in theChemung Subbasin are listed in Table 8.Agricultural Best Management Practicescan be used to limit the impactsassociated with farming operations.Information on these practices and otherconservation methods can be obtainedfrom County Conservation DistrictOffices (Table 8). Grant opportunities toalleviate AMD impacts and moreinformation on remediation technologiesalso are available from CountyConservation District Offices andthe Eastern Pennsylvania Coalitionfor Abandoned Mine Reclamation

(http://www.orangewaternetwork.org/).Urban stormwater problems can beminimized with low impact developmentand by allowing for groundwaterrecharge areas. More information onurban pollution remediation canbe obtained from the Center forWatershed Protection through its UrbanSubwatershed Restoration ManualSeries (http://www.cwp.org/) and fromthe PADEP's Pennsylvania StormwaterBest Management Practices Manual(http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/depu-tate/watermgt/wc/subjects/stormwater-management/BMP%20Manual/BMP%20Manual.htm).

SRBC staff is conducting theChemung Subbasin Survey, Year-2assessment in the Cohocton RiverWatershed. The streams sampled in this

survey are Twelvemile, Five Mile, Goff,Stocking, Mud, Meads, Tobehanna, andLittle Tobehanna Creeks in addition tomany unnamed tributaries to lakes andthe mainstem Cohocton River. Thesampling began in April 2007 and willcontinue through January 2008. Theproject includes quarterly water chemistrysampled at 27 sites throughout thewatershed, two rain-event episodessampled at selected sites, and macroin-vertebrate and habitat assessments. Thesurvey is focusing on nutrient sourcesand potential impacts from BTEX(Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, andXylenes mix, which are volatile organiccompounds found in petroleum-relatedproducts such as gasoline) in this watershed.More information on this project isavailable from SRBC.

ReferencesBaker, J.P. and C.L. Schofield 1982. Aluminum toxicity to fish in acidic waters. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 18:289-309.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Buchanan, T.J. and W.P. Somers. 1969. Discharge Measurements at Gaging Stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A8, 65 p. Washington, D.C.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2002. The Pennsylvania Code: Title 25 Environmental Protection. Fry Communications, Inc., Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. http://www.pacode.com

Gagen, C.J. and W.E. Sharpe. 1987. Net sodium loss and mortality of three Salmonid species exposed to a stream acidified by atmospheric deposition. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:7-14.

Hach Company. 2003. Important Water Quality Factors. http://www.hach.com/h2ou/h2wtrqual.htm

Hem, J.D. 1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. 2nd. Ed. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473. United States Department of the Interior. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/wsp2254/

Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. 2003. Kentucky River Basin Assessment Report: Water Quality Parameters. http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/Watershed/KRB_AR/krww_parameters.htm

____. 2003. Kentucky River Basin Assessment Report: Water Quality Standards. http://www.uky.edu/WaterResources/ Watershed/KRB_AR/wq_standards.htm

Lazorchick, G. 2007. Personal communication. Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

McMorran, C. P. 1985. Water Quality and Biological Survey of the Chemung Subbasin. Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Publication No. 99), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations. 6NYCRR Part 703. Division of Water, Albany, New York. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4590.html

NOAA Satellite and Information Service. 2006a. Climate of June 2006 - June in Historical Perspective. National Climatic Data Center. U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/jun/jun06.html

NOAA Satellite and Information Service. 2006b. Climate of August 2006 - August in Historical Perspective. National Climatic Data Center. U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/aug/aug06.html

NOAA News Online. 2006c. U.S. has its second-hottest July on record; drought conditions worsen. Story #2677 U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2677.htm

Omernik, J.M. 1987. Aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. emap PA. http://www.emappa.dep.state.pa.us/emappa/viewer.htm

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2003. Pond and Stream Study Guide. http://sites.state.pa.us/ PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/education/catalog/pondstream.pdf

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, D.P. Kimberly, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., EPA/440/4-89/001. May 1989.

Steffy, L.Y. and D. Sitlinger. 2006. Assessment of Interstate Streams in the Susquehanna River Basin, Monitoring Report #19, July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005. Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Publication No. 244), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. http://www.srbc.net/docs/Publication_244/techreport244.htm

Traver, C.L. 1998. Water Quality and Biological Assessment of the Chemung Subbasin. Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Publication No. 198), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. http://www.srbc.net/docs/Publications_1998/Chemung198.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water (Gold Book). EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water, Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/goldbook.pdf

____. 2003. Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABs); Potential Approaches (Draft). Appendix 3: EPA Summary Table of Current State Standards. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/appendix3.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. Circular 1225. U.S. Department of the Interior, Reston, Virginia. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1225/images/table.html

____. 2001. National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Nutrients in the Nation's Waters-Too Much of a Good Thing? Circular 1136. U.S. Department of the Interior, Reston, Virginia. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/circ-1136/NIT

17

Site Sample Site Location Description County Latitude Longitude Drainage Area Reference Category1 BDWN000.3 Baldwin Creek at Rt. 60 bridge in Lowman, N.Y. Chemung 42.0304 -76.7191 39.6 60s-tan2 BENN001.2 Bennetts Creek at community park in Canisteo, N.Y. Steuben 42.2670556 -77.6015 95.6 60s-tan3 BENN008.3 Bennetts Creek at bridge near Rock Creek south of Bennetts, N.Y. Steuben 42.1562778 -77.6378611 40.6 60s-brown4 BNTY000.4 Bentley Creek at Wellsburg, N.Y. Chemung 42.01694 -76.73194 55.3 60s-tan5 BNTY002.5 Bentley Creek at Mobile Acres Trailer Park, Pa. Bradford 41.98583 -76.72278 49.3 60s-tan6 BNTY005.7 Bentley Creek at Bentley Creek, Pa. Bradford 41.94361 -76.715 32.4 60s-tan7 CANA001.7 Canacadea Creek at gage at Rt. 21 bridge in Hornell, Steuben Co., N.Y. Steuben 42.33472 -77.6825 57.5 60s-brown8 CANA006.7 Canacadea Creek at Rt. 42 bridge south of Almond, N.Y. Allegheny 42.289 -77.74791667 16.7 60s-brown9 CHEM002.5 Chemung River at Tozer’s Landing in Athens, Pa. Bradford 41.95722 -76.52583 2577.3 60R10 CHEM018.5 Chemung River at Ashland Tollbridge Park in Wellsburg, N.Y. Chemung 42.017556 -76.725889 2450.3 60R11 CHEM028.0 Chemung River at Rt. 225 bridge in West Elmira, N.Y. Chemung 42.0816944 -76.86513889 2145.6 60R12 CHEM039.8 Chemung River at Denison Park in South Corning, N.Y. Steuben 42.1410833 -77.03475 2040.4 60R13 CMBL000.1 Campbell Creek downstream of Sinclair Creek near Knight Settlement, N.Y. Steuben 42.346556 -77.397889 32.6 60s-brown14 CNST001.0 Canisteo River at bridge near mouth in Erwins, N.Y. Steuben 42.10583 -77.15333 550.7 60L15 CNST007.7 Canisteo River at Addison, N.Y. Steuben 42.10639 -77.26667 390.1 60m16 CNST022.6 Canisteo River along Rt. 432 at gage at West Cameron, N.Y. Steuben 42.222583 -77.4182778 339.8 60m17 CNST033.0 Canisteo River just upstream of Colonel Bills Creek downstream of Canisteo, N.Y. Steuben 42.26389 -77.57833 309.7 60m18 CNST038.7 Canisteo River at bridge in South Hornell, N.Y. Steuben 42.30389 -77.65306 168.1 60m19 COHO000.5 Cohocton River at park upstream of Painted Post, N.Y. Steuben 42.1684722 -77.1061667 596.6 60L20 COHO004.0 Cohocton River at Main Street Bridge in Coopers Plains, N.Y. Steuben 42.18111 -77.15278 521.5 60L21 COHO014.6 Cohocton River at West Lamoka Ave Bridge in Savona, N.Y. Steuben 42.289 -77.2263 377 60m22 COHO025.0 Cohocton River at Rt. 415 crossing at fishing access downstream of Avoca, N.Y. Steuben 42.3922778 -77.4011667 192 60m23 COHO037.5 Cohocton River at Rt. 371 crossing and fishing access north of Cohocton, N.Y. Steuben 42.512889 -77.47644 42.6 60s-tan24 COHO046.3 Cohocton River at Parks Road bridge west of Atlanta, N.Y. Steuben 42.5544 -77.5058 26.7 60s-tan25 COLB000.8 Colonel Bill ís Creek at mouth near Canisteo Center, N.Y. Steuben 42.2618 -77.5814 27.7 60s-tan26 CORY001.5 Corey Creek at Route 549 bridge in Mansfield, Pa. Tioga 41.8006389 -77.0466389 15.3 60s-tan27 COWN000.1 Cowanesque River at Rt. 15 bridge near Lawrenceville, Pa. Steuben 42.001361 -77.127 300.1 60m28 COWN012.0 Cowanesque River at Rt. 49 bridge in Elkland, Pa. Tioga 41.98861 -77.30111 244.7 60m29 COWN020.5 Cowanesque River along Rt. 249 west of Knoxville, Pa. Tioga 41.95167 -77.44139 132 60m30 COWN029.6 Cowanesque River upstream of North Fork at Westfield, Pa. Tioga 41.91444 -77.58 48.2 60s-tan31 CRKD008.0 Crooked Creek at railroad bridge at Crooked Creek, Pa. Tioga 41.85611 -77.23472 83.4 62s32 FELL000.1 Fellows Creek at first bridge up from mouth near Chases Mills, Pa. Tioga 41.68556 -76.9375 6.3 62m33 FMIL001.1 Five Mile Creek upstream of Rt. 53 north of Kanona, N.Y. Steuben 42.390944 -77.3493611 66.3 60s-tan34 GOFF003.1 Goff Creek at Rt. 69 crossing north of Towlesville, N.Y. Steuben 42.3653 -77.4475 20.4 60s-brown35 HILL000.2 Hills Creek upstream of SR4039 at Crooked Creek, Pa. Tioga 41.85639 -77.22556 16.2 60s-tan36 JEMI007.7 Jemison Creek near Azelta, Pa. Tioga 41.8384 -77.4891 2.1 62s37 JOHN000.1 Johnson Creek at park in Blossburg, Pa. Tioga 41.6775 -77.06917 17.4 62s38 KARR000.1 Karr Valley Creek at mouth near Almond, N.Y. Allegany 42.31639 -77.74111 27.7 60s-brown39 MEAD000.1 Meads Creek upstream of Rt. 415 bridge near Coopers Plains, N.Y. Steuben 42.17528 -77.12139 69.9 60s-tan40 MEAD011.1 Meads Creek at Rt. 26 bridge downstream of Meads Creek, N.Y. Schuyler 42.255944 -77.11041667 37.4 60s-tan41 MILL001.4 Mill Creek at gate on State Game Lands No. 37 near Painter Run, Pa. Tioga 41.8738611 -77.1016389 75.1 60s-tan42 MORR000.8 Morris Run along SR 2014 at pipeline crossing near Blossburg, Pa. Tioga 41.66306 -77.03972 6.8 62s43 MUDC001.1 Mud Creek at Rt. 415 bridge in Savona, N.Y. Steuben 42.290556 -77.219944 80.7 60s-tan44 MUDC010.5 Mud Creek at Rabbit Road downstream of Bradford, N.Y. Steuben 42.3642778 -77.117944 47.8 60s-brown45 NBNC000.6 North Branch Newtown Creek upstream of Vargo Road near Slabtown, N.Y. Chemung 42.2013889 -76.7743611 15.9 60s-tan46 NBTC000.3 North Branch Tuscarora Creek at Old State Road near South Addison, N.Y. Steuben 42.08222 -77.30944 31.5 60s-brown47 NEWT000.6 Newtown Creek at Rt. 352 bridge in Elmira, N.Y. Chemung 42.09611 -76.78861 78.5 60s-tan48 NEWT009.7 Newtown Creek along Rt. 233 southeast of Slabtown, N.Y. Chemung 42.1811 -76.7748 31.3 60s-brown49 NFCR000.1 North Fork Cowanesque River near mouth at Westfield, Pa. Tioga 41.91806 -77.56028 21.7 60s-brown50 POST000.6 Post Creek at railroad bridge near mouth in Corning, N.Y. Steuben 42.15194 -77.045 34.3 60s-tan51 POST008.8 Post Creek at Rt. 414 bridge in Post Creek, N.Y. Chemung 42.2324 -76.9617 17.3 60s-brown52 PURD000.3 Purdy Creek at bridge near mouth at Canisteo, N.Y. Steuben 42.2604 -77.6129 22.7 60s-tan53 SEEL002.8 Seeley Creek near Rt. 427 bridge at Southport, N.Y. Chemung 42.0503333 -76.7745833 143.5 60m54 SEEL011.4 Seeley Creek at Bradford/Tioga county line upstream of Mosherville, Pa. Bradford 41.9675 76.92180556 11.8 60s-tan55 SING000.9 Sing Sing Creek at Route 352 near Harris Hill Manor, west of Elmira, N.Y. Chemung 42.10278 -76.92222 35.8 60s-tan56 SOUT002.0 South Creek at Rt. 26 bridge near Elmira, N.Y. Chemung 42.04361 -76.8225 43.5 60s-tan57 SOUT005.9 South Creek at Rt. 14 bridge in Fassett, Pa. Bradford 41.98889 -76.77417 22.4 60s-tan58 SOUT009.1 South Creek at Thompson Hill Road in Gillett, Pa. Bradford 41.94880556 -76.793944 15.6 60s-tan59 STOK000.3 Stocking Creek at Eagle Valley Road bridge south of Bath, N.Y. Steuben 42.3096 -77.2789 26.9 60s-tan60 TENM000.2 Tenmile Creek upstream of Rt. 7 north of Avoca, N.Y. Steuben 42.42825 -77.4310833 17.9 60s-brown61 TIOG006.2 Tioga River at Presho, N.Y. Steuben 42.08278 -77.14917 790.8 60L62 TIOG016.3 Tioga River at Tioga Junction, Pa. Tioga 41.95778 -77.11583 442.5 60m63 TIOG029.8 Tioga River upstream of Rt. 6 and Ellen Run near Mansfield, Pa. Tioga 41.796167 -77.079944 152.7 60m64 TIOG035.4 Tioga River upstream of Route 660 bridge north of Covington, Pa. Tioga 41.757889 -77.0833056 109.4 62m/L65 TIOG039.6 Tioga River at park in Blossburg, Pa. Tioga 41.67806 -77.0675 85 62s66 TIOG042.3 Tioga River near Blossburg, Pa. Tioga 41.6583 -77.0476 53.3 62s67 TIOG049.2 Tioga River at T433 bridge near Chases Mills, Pa. Tioga 41.7251944 -76.89430556 7.6 60s-tan68 TOBE001.9 Tobehanna Creek at Lamoka Lake Road near Tyrone, N.Y. Schuyler 42.4043889 -77.0663611 16.5 60s-brown69 TRUP000.4 Troups Creek at mouth at Knoxville, Pa. Tioga 41.95330556 -77.4416944 67.8 60s-brown70 TRUP005.8 Troups Creek along Rt. 36 north of South Troupsburg, N.Y. Steuben 42.0240833 -77.531667 39.1 60s-brown71 TUSC000.4 Tuscarora Creek at bridge in Addison, N.Y. Steuben 42.10389 -77.23306 128.3 60m72 TUSC012.9 Tuscarora Creek upstream of South Branch at Woodhull, N.Y. Steuben 42.07944 -77.40833 31 60s-brown73 TWVE000.5 Twelvemile Creek upstream of Rt. 415 at Wallace, N.Y. Steuben 42.44778 -77.46025 25.3 60s-brown74 WYNK000.8 Wynkoop Creek at Rotary Road near Chemung, N.Y. Chemung 42.0142778 -76.61 34.6 60s-tan75 CNST 55.5 Canisteo River above Arkport, N.Y. Steuben 42.39111 -77.70417

*Stations sampled in 1997 and 2006 appear in blue. Station only sampled in 1997 appears in red.

18

Appendix

19

J. Z

imm

erm

an

S U S Q U E H A N N A R I V E R B A S I N C O M M I S S I O N1 7 2 1 N o r t h F r o n t S t r e e t • H a r r i s b u r g , P e n n s y l v a n i a 1 7 1 0 2 - 2 3 9 1 • 7 1 7. 2 3 8 . 0 4 2 3 • 7 1 7. 2 3 8 . 24 3 6 f a x • w w w. s r b c . n e t

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

In 1971, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission was created as an independent agency by a federal-interstate compact among the states of Maryland, New York, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government. In creating the Commission, the Congressand state legislatures formally recognized the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin as a regional asset vested with local, state,

and national interests for which all the parties share responsibility. As the single federal-interstate water resources agency with basinwide authority, the Commission’s goal is to coordinate the planning, conservation, management, utilization,

development and control of the basin’s water resources among the public and private sectors.

New Yorkvacant, Commissioner

Kenneth P. Lynch, Alternate CommissionerScott J. Foti, Alternate Commissioner/Advisor

PennsylvaniaKathleen A. McGinty, Commissioner, Chair

Cathy Curran Myers, Alternate Commissionervacant, Alternate Commissioner/Advisor

MarylandDr. Robert M. Summers, Commissioner, Vice Chair

Herbert M. Sachs, Alternate Commissioner/Advisor

Commission OfficersPaul O. Swartz, Executive Director

Thomas W. Beauduy, Deputy DirectorDuane A. Friends, Chief Administrative Officer

Deborah J. Dickey, Secretary

United StatesBrig. General Todd T. Semonite, Commissioner

Colonel Peter W. Mueller, Alternate CommissionerColonel Christopher J. Larsen, Alternate Commissioner

Printed on recycled paper

2005 Chemung River Float.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

ST

CR

PD

B