Comprehensive lake management plan

Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, NY

Caitlin A. Stroosnyder

Occasional Paper No. 56

State University of New York

College at Oneonta

OCCASIONAL PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE BIOLOGICAL FIELD STATION

No. 1. The diet and feeding habits of the terrestrial stage of the common newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Raf.). M.C. MacNamara, April 1976

No. 2. The relationship of age, growth and food habits to the relative success of the whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and the cisco (C. artedi) in Otsego Lake, New York. A.J. Newell, April 1976.

No. 3. A basic limnology of Otsego Lake (Summary of research 1968-75). W. N. Harman and L. P. Sohacki, June 1976. No. 4. An ecology of the Unionidae of Otsego Lake with special references to the immature stages. G. P. Weir, November

1977. No. 5. A history and description of the Biological Field Station (1966-1977). W. N. Harman, November 1977. No. 6. The distribution and ecology of the aquatic molluscan fauna of the Black River drainage basin in northern New York.

D. E Buckley, April 1977. No. 7. The fishes of Otsego Lake. R. C. MacWatters, May 1980. No. 8. The ecology of the aquatic macrophytes of Rat Cove, Otsego Lake, N.Y. F. A Vertucci, W. N. Harman and J. H. Peverly,

December 1981. No. 9. Pictorial keys to the aquatic mollusks of the upper Susquehanna. W. N. Harman, April 1982. No. 10. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata: Anisoptera and Zygoptera) of Otsego County, New York with illustrated

keys to the genera and species. L.S. House III, September 1982. No. 11. Some aspects of predator recognition and anti-predator behavior in the Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus). A.

Kevin Gleason, November 1982. No. 12. Mating, aggression, and cement gland development in the crayfish, Cambarus bartoni. Richard E. Thomas, Jr., February

1983. No. 13. The systematics and ecology of Najadicola ingens (Koenike 1896) (Acarina: Hydrachnida) in Otsego Lake, New York.

Thomas Simmons, April 1983. No. 14. Hibernating bat populations in eastern New York State. Donald B. Clark, June 1983. No. 15. The fishes of Otsego Lake (2nd edition). R. C MacWatters, July 1983. No. 16. The effect of the internal seiche on zooplankton distribution in Lake Otsego. J. K. Hill, October 1983. No. 17. The potential use of wood as a supplemental energy source for Otsego County, New York: A preliminary examination.

Edward M. Mathieu, February 1984. No. 18. Ecological determinants of distribution for several small mammals: A central New York perspective. Daniel Osenni,

November 1984. No. 19. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins, February 1986. No. 20. The Chironomidae of Otsego Lake with keys to the immature stages of the subfamilies Tanypodinae and Diamesinae

(Diptera). J. P. Fagnani and W. N. Harman, August 1987. No. 21. The aquatic invertebrates of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary, Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York. Robert J. Montione,

April 1989. No. 22. The lake book: a guide to reducing water pollution at home. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report #1. W. N.

Harman, March 1990. No. 23. A model land use plan for the Otsego Lake Watershed. Phase II: The chemical limnology and water quality of Otsego

Lake, New York. Otsego Lake Watershed Planning Report Nos. 2a, 2b. T. J. Iannuzzi, January 1991. No. 24. The biology, invasion and control of the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in North America. Otsego Lake

Watershed Planning Report No. 3. Leann Maxwell, February 1992. No. 25. Biological Field Station safety and health manual. W. N. Harman, May 1997. No. 26. Quantitative analysis of periphyton biomass and identification of periphyton in the tributaries of Otsego Lake, NY in

relation to selected environmental parameters. S. H. Komorosky, July 1994. No. 27. A limnological and biological survey of Weaver Lake, Herkimer County, New York. C.A. McArthur, August 1995. No. 28. Nested subsets of songbirds in Upstate New York woodlots. D. Dempsey, March 1996. No. 29. Hydrological and nutrient budgets for Otsego lake, N. Y. and relationships between land form/use and export rates of

its sub -basins. M. F. Albright, L. P. Sohacki, W. N. Harman, June 1996. No. 30. The State of Otsego Lake 1936-1996. W. N. Harman, L. P. Sohacki, M. F. Albright, January 1997. No. 31. A self-guided tour of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. W. N. Harman and B. Higgins (Revised by J. Lopez),1998. No. 32. Alewives in Otsego Lake N. Y.: A comparison of their direct and indirect mechanisms of impact on transparency and

Chlorophyll a. D. M. Warner, December 1999. No.33. Moe Pond limnology and fish population biology: An ecosystem approach. C. Mead McCoy, C. P. Madenjian, V. J.

Adams, W. N. Harman, D. M. Warner, M. F. Albright and L. P. Sohacki, January 2000. No. 34. Trout movements on Delaware River System tail-waters in New York State. Scott D. Stanton, September 2000. No. 35. Geochemistry of surface and subsurface water flow in the Otsego lake basin, Otsego County New York. Andrew R.

Fetterman, June 2001. No. 36 A fisheries survey of Peck Lake, Fulton County, New York. Laurie A. Trotta. June 2002. No. 37 Plans for the programmatic use and management of the State University of New York College at Oneonta Biological

Field Station upland natural resources, Willard N. Harman. May 2003. Continued inside back cover Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at:

http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp

Comprehensive lake management plan

Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, NY

Caitlin A. Stroosnyder

Biological Field Station, Cooperstown, New York

bfs.oneonta.edu

STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

AT ONEONTA

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

Biological Field Station

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

Dr. Bill Harman

Dr. Daniel Stich

Holly Waterfield

Matt Albright

Gloria and George Bouboulis

Mark Cornwell

Dr. Leonard Sohacki

Francine and Vince Stayter

Scott Wells

Table of Contents

CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAKE

History/Background 1

Introduction 3

Goodyear Lake Watershed 8

Geology 9

Soils 12

Land use 14

Climate 16

Socioeconomic characteristics 16

Residential and commercial runoff 17

Tributary monitoring 17

Storm Event 22

Lake monitoring 26

Bacteria 26

Physical limnology 28

Temperature 30

Transparency 32

Dissolved oxygen 34

Chemical limnology 36

Alkalinity, pH, specific conductance and major ions 36

Nutrients 37

Phosphorus 37

Nitrogen 39

Ammonia 40

Historical nutrient data 40

Descriptive ecology 43

Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a 43

Aquatic macrophytes (plants) 45

Zooplankton 49

Macroinvertebrates 50

Fish 52

LAKE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction 59

Stakeholder survey 61

Management goals 63

Management plan 64

REFERENCES 76

APPENDIX A 80

APPENDIX B 82

APPENDIX C 83

APPENDIX D 84

APPENDIX E 87

1

Current Understanding of the Lake

History/Background

Goodyear Lake (N42°30’, W74°59’) in Otsego County, New York (Figure 1), was

formed in 1907 by impounding the Susquehanna River in the Town of Milford with the

construction of Collier’s Dam, a 10.97 m (36 ft) high and 60.96 m (200 ft) long structure.

Goodyear Lake is the third largest lake in the County and contains approximately seven percent

of its ponded water (Sanford 1981). The lake was created to generate hydroelectric power and

did so until 1969 when New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) Corporation, the owner of

the dam, ceased their unprofitable operation and proposed to dewater the lake and return the land

to riverfront. However, thanks to public outcry and the Goodyear Lake Association (GYLA), an

active group in the community, the dam was spared. The GYLA worked to create a deal

between NYSEG and Canadian firm, F.W.E. Stapenhorst, to restore the dam and reactivate the

hydroelectric facility. In 1978 Stapenhorst acquired the dam and was issued a license from the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to operate in 1979. According to the license

the elevation of the lake is not to drop below 30.48 cm (12 in) of the crest of the dam to facilitate

power generation. Its normal elevation above sea level is 351 m (1150 ft). The dam is currently

owned by Hydro Development Group, Inc., (HDG) a subsidiary of Enel Green Power North

America, Inc. and the power produced is sold to NYSEG (HDR Engineering, Inc. 2014). HDG

has renewed the 40 year operating license with FERC which will remain in place until 2059.

2

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

USGS 2012).

3

Introduction

In order to develop reasonable goals for a lake’s water quality and ecological condition,

reference conditions are often estimated, describing the conditions expected if the lake were in

its least-disturbed state. This allows managers to gauge a waterbody’s potential to attain certain

conditions and align management objectives with reality for the system in question. An

important consideration is the lake’s origin; in the case of Goodyear Lake, being an artificial

impoundment greatly influences the water quality conditions at any given time. Rivers are

conduits for the movement of water and all that it may carry from upstream sources, both

internal and external. These sources include both naturally occurring and human-influenced

inputs of organic material, mobilized nutrients, sediments, and debris. Watershed best

management practices (BMPs) may be implemented to reduce the human-derived component,

but some background level of input will remain.

A lake’s reference conditions are, in part, determined by its origin, morphometry and

watershed characteristics (USEPA 2011). An important estimated reference condition, in

Goodyear Lake’s case, is its manufactured origin. The way in which the lake was created lead to

its meandering river-shape, with larger pools and a maximum depth of 12 m (36 ft); it is

technically considered a “river-lake”, or reservoir. Goodyear Lake has a surface area of

approximately 148 ha (365 ac) and a total shoreline length of 16.43 km (10.21 mi) (Table 1).

Shallow slopes exist at the north (i.e. Stump lot) and south (i.e. Silliman Cove) ends, while steep

slopes prevail on the east and west sides (Figure 2).

4

Table 1. Morphological characteristics of Goodyear Lake

Maximum length 3.20 km 1.99 mi

Maximum effective length 1.55 km 0.96 mi

Maximum width 1.82 km 1.13 mi

Maximum effective width 0.72 km 0.45 mi

Mean width 0.46 km 0.29 mi

Maximum depth 12.00 m 39.36 ft

Mean depth 4.01 m 13.16 ft

Surface area 147.70 ha 364.80 ac

Volume 5.93 x 106

m3

1.57 x 109

gal

Total shoreline 16.43 km 10.21 mi

Shoreline development* 3.81 -

*When shoreline development is closer to 1, a lake is more circular. Subcircular and

elliptical lakes have a value close to 2 and the shoreline development value of lakes of

flooded river valleys is higher.

5

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

Stump lot

Silliman Cove

6

The north end or upper limit of the lake is considered to be the County Route 35A bridge

in Portlandville. However, the dam impounds the river a total of 11.26 km (7 mi) upstream of

the bridge; approximately to the mouth of the Cherry Valley Creek in the Village of Milford. An

additional 61 ha (150 ac) of lake water is ponded within this reach (Sanford 1981).

Eight tributaries (excluding the Susquehanna River), ranging in length from 0.3 to 11.7

km (0.2 to 7.3 mi) drain directly to it. Downstream from Portlandville the largest tributary,

Spring Brook, empties into the lake from the north (McBride 2008). The contributing watershed

is 91,167 ha (225,203 ac or 352 sq miles) (USGS 2012) (Figure 3), giving it a surface area to

watershed ratio of 1:617. At the downstream end, water level is controlled by the dam. Then

water flows from the lake via its outlet, the Susquehanna River, downstream.

7

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

8

Goodyear Lake is categorized by the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) as a Class B lake and as such is primarily used for contact recreational

activities (e.g. swimming, fishing and boating). It is not used as a drinking water source and has

somewhat less stringent water-quality standards than Class A lakes (NYSFOLA 2009).

Goodyear Lake was listed on the NYSDEC 2014 Impaired Waterbodies List for mercury

pollution from atmospheric deposition, along with many other segments of the Susquehanna

River in New York State. A 2014 study indicated that of 28 fished sampled in the lake 100% of

them had mercury concentrations above the United State Environmental Protection Agency’s

(USEPA) criterion level of 0.3 µl/l (microliters per liter) and 14% of those were above the

United States Food and Drug Administration’s (USFDA) action level of 1 µl/l (Snyder et al.

2016). Anthropogenic and natural sources have greatly impacted Goodyear Lake over the years,

but the specific sources of mercury are not well understood.

NYSDEC is required by the federal government to provide regular assessments of the

quality of water resources in the state. The Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List

(WI/PWI) is the database where this information is maintained. Previous studies referenced on

the WI/PWI (NYSDEC 2001) and “The Report on Goodyear Lake” in the USEPA’s 154th

Working Paper (1974) indicate that Goodyear Lake is a eutrophic, or highly productive, lake.

This means that in its natural state dense seasonal algal blooms have always occurred. Excessive

growth of rooted aquatic vegetation and very low deep water dissolved oxygen concentrations

are typical during the summer months. Other water quality problems indicated on the WI/PWI

include nutrients, silt/sedimentation and possibly pathogens.

Goodyear Lake is an important natural resource and this report will summarize its current

state providing a basic understanding of the lake’s ecology and surrounding watershed. Then,

based on that information, short and long-term management goals will be presented with specific

actions to achieve the desired outcomes expressed by members of the lake community.

Goodyear Lake Watershed

An important component of watershed management is watershed characterization. It

allows resource managers to plan and prioritize where in the watershed the most effective use of

limited financial and volunteer resources would be (Waterfield 2016). With the guidance of the

Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), “focus” sub-watersheds were

established for the purpose of the management plan (Figure 3). Limiting considerations of the

entire watershed, in this case omitting the Canadarago and Otsego Lake watersheds with

management plans already in place, allows efforts to focus on areas that would benefit the most

from management activities.

9

Geology

Geology of a watershed is an important piece of information to have when evaluating

which management strategies to implement. It determines the stability of landscape features,

mineral availability and influences the chemical composition of water, among other factors.

Knowledge of the nature and origin of surface deposits makes it possible to understand and

predict how water will interact with the landscape.

According to The Geology of New York (Isachsen et al. 1991), the Goodyear Lake

watershed lies along the Northern boundary of the Allegheny Plateau. The underlying geology

of the region is comprised of sedimentary rock formations of Devonion origin that have been

altered by glacial action during the Pliestocene glaciation, roughly 14,000 years ago. Bedrock in

the northern portions of the Canadarago Lake and Otsego Lake subbasins include limestone

formations and exposed shale bedrock (Figure 4). Moving southward through the watershed,

shale and sandstone bedrock predominate. Surface deposits are primarily glacial in nature, with

much of the valley bottoms associated with former glacial lake bottoms; these deposits are

generally flat and the silt and clay materials are particularly prone to erosion (Figure 5).

10

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

11

Figure 5. Surficial geology of the Goodyear Lake watershed.

12

Soils

The focus watershed is comprised of 12,213 total acres of streamside soils that are

considered to be moderately to highly susceptible to erosion (Figure 6). The Cherry Valley

Creek subbasin has the greatest area of streamside land within the focus watershed that is the

most vulnerable (Figure 7). In terms of the entire Goodyear Lake watershed, erodible soil within

the Otsego Lake subbasin occurs at the northern end of the lake and would settle out before

being transported downstream.

13

Figure 6. Susceptibility of streamside soils to water erosion within the Goodyear Lake

watershed (“erosion factor K” indicates the erodibility of the soil, including rock fragments).

14

Figure 7. Land area (acres) of soils of slight (light grey) and moderate/high (dark grey)

susceptibility to erosion by water (“slight susceptibility” = soils with Kws 0.01-0.24; “moderate to

high susceptibility” = soils with Kws 0.28-0.64).

Land use

Throughout the entire Goodyear Lake watershed and in the focus drainage basins, the

landscape consists mainly of forests and farmland (Table 2) (Figure 8). Approximately 45

percent of the land is forested and 31 percent is used for agricultural purposes in the total

watershed. Forests and agriculture account for 56 and 24 percent of the land cover in the focus

watersheds.

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

watershed and focus watersheds.

Watershed Total Focus Watersheds

Forest 45.6 56.2

Agriculture: Crops and Pasture 31.0 24.0

Woody Wetlands 8.7 9.1

Developed Open Space 4.0 3.8

Shrub/Scrub/Open Meadows 3.7 2.7

Emergent Wetlands 2.3 2.4

Open Water 3.7 1.0

Developed, All Intensities 1.0 0.8

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Red Creek Cherry ValleyCreek

Lower OaksCreek

Main StemRiver

CanadaragoLake

Otsego Lake

Are

a o

f St

ream

sid

e S

oils

(ac

res)

Watershed SubBasin

Slight Susceptibility

Moderate to High Susceptibility

15

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

16

Climate (BestPlaces 2016)

Milford, New York typically receives 104 centimeters (cm) (41 in) of rain and 198 cm

(78 in) of snowfall per year. These precipitation totals are slightly higher than the United States

average 93 cm (37 in) for annual rainfall and 64 cm (25 in) for snowfall. The total number of

days with any recordable precipitation is 156.

There are regularly 161 sunny days per year in Milford. During the month of July, the

high temperature is around 27 degrees Celsius (°C) (80 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)). In January the

low temperature is about -11°C (12°F). Milford scores 56 out of 100 on the comfort index,

which is based on humidity during the summer months. The higher the score on the index the

more comfortable. The United States average score on the comfort index is 44.

Socioeconomic characteristics (Town of Milford 2012)

While the Goodyear Lake Watershed is inhabited by many thousands of residents,

including several towns, hamlets and villages, the Town of Milford will be the focus of this

section given the probability they will be the population directly involved with lake management.

According to the 2010 census, there were 3,044 people, 1,290 households, and 820 families

residing in the Town of Milford, New York. The approximate population density is 24.6 people

per square kilometer (63.7 people per square mile). The median age is 46.3 years.

Of the 2,676 residents 16 years of age and over, 65.1% are in the labor force (Table 3),

with 61.4% employed and 3.7% unemployed. The median household income is $44,806.00

(Table 4) and 52% of the residents 25 years of age and over have had at least some college

experience or attained degrees (Table 5).

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

Management, business, science, and arts 35.4

Service 26.6

Sales and office 16.3

Natural resources, construction and maintenance 11.2

Production, transportation, material moving 10.5

17

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

Town of Milford 44,806.00

New York State 55,603.00

United States 51,914.00

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

Graduate or professional degree 4.3

Bachelor’s degree 15.5

Associate’s degree 12.7

Some college, no degree 19.5

High school graduate 36.4

Ninth to twelfth grade, no diploma 9.5

Less than ninth grade 2.0

Residential and commercial runoff (Town of Milford 2012)

Presently, there is no public sewer system in place in the Village and Town of Milford;

property owners maintain private septic systems. According to the Otsego County Property Tax

Map, there were approximately 247 residences surrounding Goodyear Lake in 2015, making

residential runoff a concern. Other examples of these type of inputs in the watershed include the

Village of Cooperstown wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge and stormwater and the

Village of Cherry Valley onsite systems leachate and stormwater.

Tributary monitoring

The intent of monitoring was to look at nutrient and sediment levels in Goodyear Lake

tributaries during a storm event. Within the focus sub-watershed, the Cherry Valley Creek,

Lower Oaks Creek, Red Creek and Main Stem Susquehanna River sub-basins (Figure 9) were

selected because they are within the entire Goodyear Lake watershed, but not a part of the

Canadarago Lake or Otsego Lake watersheds. The focus sub-watershed is 209 square miles

(Table 6).

18

Figure 9. Goodyear Lake watershed subbasins (red shading indicates a high priority for

management activities, followed by orange, light orange and yellow is the lowest priority)

(Waterfield 2016)

19

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

basins.

acres sq miles

Watershed total 225,203 352

Cherry Valley Creek 58,693 91.7

Lower Oaks Creek 23,962 37.4

Red Creek 8,192 12.8

Main Stem 42,880 67.0

Canadarago Lake 41,776 65.3

Otsego Lake 49,702 77.6

The river is the main source of water to the lake. There are three major tributaries, Red

Creek, Oaks Creek and Cherry Valley Creek, that contribute water to the river between the outlet

of Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, NY (the headwaters of the Susquehanna River) and the inlet of

Goodyear.

The three tributaries were monitored in the spring of 2013 and the river in the fall of

2014. All monitoring took place over a three-day period during a rain event using a SIGMA

automated composite sampler (Table 7 and Figure 10). Samples were analyzed for total

suspended solids (TSS) (gravimetric method (APHA 1989)), total phosphorus (molybdenum

blue ascorbic acid method following persulfate digestion (Liao 2001)), total nitrogen (cadmium

reduction method following persulfate digestion (Pritzlaff 2003, Ebina1983 et al.)) and nitrite +

nitrate (cadmium reduction method (Pritzlaff 2003)).

20

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

Site Description Coordinates Sample

Abbreviation

Susquehanna

River

Bassett Hospital lower parking lot off Mill

Street in Cooperstown

N42°41’35”,

W74°55’18” S.R. (Otsego)

Red Creek Just south of the bridge at the intersection of

County Hwys. 52 and 33 in Cooperstown

N42°41’10”,

W74°55’06” R.C.

Oaks Creek NYSDEC fishing access on Greenough

Road off County Hwy. 11 in Index

N42°40’11”,

W74°57’49” O.C.

Cherry

Valley Creek

Bridge on County Route 35 near intersection

of County Hwy. 35 and State Hwy. 166 in

Milford

N42°35’35”,

W74°55’39” C.V.C.

Susquehanna

River

Riverside Village and RV Park off of State

Route 28 in Portlandville just north of the

bridge

N42°32’13”,

W74°57’37”

S.R. (Goodyear)

21

Figure 10. Sites on major tributaries and stream network of the entire Goodyear Lake watershed

used in watershed monitoring during 2013 and 2014 (modified from Waterfield 2016).

S.R. (Otsego)

R.C.

O.C.

C.V.C.

S.R. (Goodyear)

22

Storm Event

A logarithmic scale for total suspended solids was required because of the large range in

concentrations (Figure 11). The figure provides an indication of where sediment loading may be

originating in the watershed. Water with a TSS concentration less than 20 mg/l is perceived to

be clear, if the level is between 40 and 80 mg/l it appears cloudy and anything over 150 mg/l

usually looks dirty (Klessig et al. 2004).

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

1

10

100

1000

10000

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00

tota

l su

spen

ded

so

lids

(mg/

l)

time

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

day 2 day 1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00

tota

l su

spen

ded

so

lids

(mg/

l)

time

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

day 1 day 2

23

Total phosphorus (Figure 12) results also required a logarithmic scale because of the

variation. Phosphorus is a major nutrient that contributes to the growth of algae and other

aquatic plants. Levels greater than 20 micrograms per liter (µg/l) may cause a body of water to

become eutrophic or highly productive (NYSFOLA 2009).

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

1

10

100

1000

10000

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00

tota

l ph

osp

ho

rus

(ug/

l)

time

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

day 2 day 1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00 12:00 0:00

tota

l ph

osp

ho

rus

(ug/

l)

time

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

day 2 day 1

24

Total nitrogen (Figure 13) is another major plant nutrient and elevated levels can

contribute to eutrophic situations as well. Nitrate and nitrite (Figure 14) are portions of the total

nitrogen aggregate and a 10 milligram per liter (mg/l) drinking water standard exists for nitrate

due to potential for public health risk at concentrations above this limit (NYSFOLA 2009).

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

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00

tota

l nit

roge

n (

mg/

l)

time

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

day 2 day 1

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00

tota

l nit

roge

n (

mg/

l)

time

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

day 1 day 2

25

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

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00

nit

rate

+ n

itri

te (

mg/

l)

time

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

day 2 day 1

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00 15:00 21:00 3:00 9:00

nit

rate

+ n

itri

te (

mg/

l)

time

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

day 2 day 1

26

Lake monitoring

Bacteria

Fecal coliform bacteria are a group of indicator organisms, naturally found in mammal

and bird intestines, used to evaluate water quality (APHA 1989). This group of bacteria, as a

whole, is not necessarily harmful to humans, but high levels may indicate the presence of

virulent strains (e.g. E. coli 0157:H7), and may also indicate elevated phosphorus and nitrogen

concentrations from inadequate wastewater treatment. The action level for restrictions on

contact recreation in a Class B lake for fecal coliform is 200 colonies/100 ml (NYSDEC 2016).

Fecal coliform bacteria were evaluated on a weekend during the peak of the summer

season adjacent to the shoreline. Two control samples (“K” and “L”) were collected from the

middle of the lake (Figure 15). The membrane filter technique (APHA 1989) was used to

determine fecal coliform abundance. Fecal coliform were determined to be the most abundant at

sample site "G" (Figure 16) with 35 colonies per 100 ml of sample present. Elevated levels of

bacteria have been linked to high levels of suspended sediment (Kaplan and Bott 1989), this

may be the reason site “G” yielded the greatest bacteria count. Sites “I” and “E” also displayed

increased fecal coliform counts; developed areas in close proximity to the water could be the

source of these higher levels.

Little is known about the current condition of lakeside wastewater treatment (“septic”)

systems around Goodyear. However, a 2005 inspection and monitoring program around nearby

Otsego Lake revealed that half of the lakeside septic systems required upgrades due to

antiquated/undersized designs, poor maintenance or proximity to restrictive soil and geologic

features (McIntyre 2009). Presently, there is no inspection or monitoring program in place at

Goodyear Lake to evaluate system performance.

27

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

A N42°30’22”, W74°58’31”

B N42°30’28”, W74°58’40”

C N42°30’31”, W74°58’51”

D N42°30’34”, W74°59’01”

E N42°30’38”,

W74°59’06”

F N42°30’56”, W74°59’01”

G N42°31’09”, W74°58’54”

N42°31’08”, W74°59’06” H

N42°30’51”,

W74°59’24” I

J N42°30’12”, W74°58’28”

N42°30’45”,

W74°59’21” K

N42°30’25”, W74°58’53” L

G

J

B

K C

D I

E

F

H

L A

28

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

Physical limnology

Physical water quality data were collected from the fall of 2012 through the winter of

2014 from three locations on Goodyear Lake (Figure 17). Sampling occurred mainly during the

warm months (e.g. May-October) and only near Collier’s Dam when conditions were safe.

Temperature, conductivity, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured from the surface to the

bottom of each monitoring site at one meter intervals using a Hydrolab® Scout 2 multiprobe

digital microprocessor calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Water

transparency at Silliman Cove, the deepest point in the lake basin, and Collier’s Dam monitoring

sites was measured using a Secchi disk.

0

50

100

150

200

A B C D E F G H I J K L

feca

l co

lifo

rm (

colo

nie

s/1

00

ml)

Goodyear Lake sample sites

NYS threshold = 200 colonies/100 ml

29

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

Deepest Point

Silliman Cove Collier’s Dam

30

Temperature

Goodyear Lake is dimictic. It stratifies (develops thermal layers) during the

summer and winter months and mixes in the spring and fall. Fall mixing occurred at all three

sampling locations towards the end of October and beginning of November with similar

temperatures (Tables 8-10) throughout the water column. Winter stratification was evident in

February and March. Spring mixing likely occurred during April. Summer stratification was

apparent by late May with bottom temperatures at the deepest point, in July through September,

ranging from 10.4°C to 13.6°C. The epilimnion (top thermal layer of water) depth during those

months was 7 m.

Table 8. Temperature profiles of Goodyear Lake at Silliman Cove in °C. Darker shading

indicates warmer temperatures. Ice cover was present during February 2013 and February and

March 2014 sampling.

depth 17 Oct

27 Feb

29 Apr

31 May

14 Jun

6 Jul

20 Jul

10 Aug

1 Sep

29 Sep

25 Oct

10 Nov

8 Feb

8 Mar

(m) 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014

0 13.19 0.33 11.90 23.77 19.69 28.10 28.42 23.66 23.73 17.74 11.80 7.31 -0.24 -

1 12.18 0.55 11.61 18.19 18.01 25.20 28.40 23.12 23.22 16.21 11.52 7.25 0.40 -

2 12.11 1.41 10.53 16.54 16.99 23.45 27.44 22.02 22.30 16.01 11.81 7.23 0.13 -

3 12.36 3.23 8.77 11.53 16.29 21.63 25.51 21.24 21.46 15.92 11.81 7.13 2.14 -

4 12.44 3.47 6.60 10.72 15.75 18.63 21.23 20.88 19.78 15.72 11.74 7.10 3.32 -

5 - - 5.91 - 13.55 14.11 - - - - - - - -

31

Table 9. Temperature profiles of Goodyear Lake at the Deepest Point in °C. Darker shading

indicates warmer temperatures. Ice cover was present during February 2013 and February and

March 2014 sampling.

depth 17 Oct

27 Feb

29 Apr

31 May

14 Jun

6 Jul

20 Jul

10 Aug

1 Sep

29 Sep

25 Oct

10 Nov

8 Feb

8 Mar

(m) 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014

0 12.87 - 11.54 23.75 17.74 25.36 27.76 22.42 23.62 16.93 11.80 6.86 -0.37 0.44

1 12.27 - 11.54 17.57 17.56 24.99 27.75 22.41 23.08 15.93 11.81 6.86 -0.25 0.81

2 12.12 - 10.94 16.99 16.99 24.80 27.73 22.39 22.81 15.57 11.80 6.86 -0.11 0.81

3 12.04 1.08 10.62 16.57 16.30 24.12 27.65 22.13 21.68 15.36 11.81 6.84 -0.13 0.80

4 12.00 1.31 10.46 16.20 14.70 23.30 26.30 22.05 20.58 15.23 11.81 6.61 -0.13 0.79

5 11.98 1.58 9.99 15.92 14.59 22.49 23.80 21.59 19.00 15.17 11.80 6.58 -0.09 0.81

6 11.97 1.85 9.31 12.42 14.36 22.44 22.63 20.55 17.98 15.13 11.79 6.57 0.22 1.01

7 11.97 2.00 8.97 9.86 14.29 21.81 20.43 19.44 16.64 14.95 11.76 6.57 1.70 2.48

8 11.95 2.84 7.73 8.62 13.97 13.39 12.79 15.56 13.56 14.58 11.37 - 2.23 3.34

9 11.95 2.97 6.93 - 11.77 10.39 9.65 10.96 - 12.90 - - 2.34 -

Table 10. Temperature profiles of Goodyear Lake at Collier’s Dam in °C. Darker shading

indicates warmer temperatures. Ice cover was present during February 2013 and February and

March 2014 sampling.

depth 17 Oct

27 Feb

29 Apr

31 May

14 Jun

6 Jul

20 Jul

10 Aug

1 Sep

29 Sep

25 Oct

10 Nov

8 Feb

8 Mar

(m) 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014

0 13.83 - - 22.00 15.15 24.50 27.74 22.17 24.06 16.33 11.65 6.75 - -

1 12.07 - - 18.31 15.09 24.19 27.72 22.03 23.30 15.94 11.65 6.72 - -

2 11.94 - - 17.83 15.07 23.89 27.67 21.96 22.93 15.73 11.65 6.70 - -

3 11.83 - - 17.75 15.05 23.09 26.72 21.39 21.54 15.62 11.64 6.69 - -

4 11.76 - - 17.55 15.06 22.89 26.00 20.60 20.20 15.20 11.64 6.69 - -

5 11.75 - - 17.36 15.09 22.74 24.20 20.52 18.65 15.07 11.63 6.69 - -

6 11.62 - - 15.02 14.98 22.56 22.76 20.43 17.93 14.83 11.45 6.70 - -

7 11.57 - - 13.46 14.96 - 21.65 20.30 - 14.72 11.13 - - -

8 - - - - 14.95 - - 20.05 - 14.71 - - - -

9 - - - - 15.04 - - - - - - - - -

32

Transparency

The visible clarity of water is related to the turbidity of that water body. Lakes

with low total suspended solids concentrations are clearer and less turbid than those with higher

concentrations. Decreased transparency can be caused by large amounts of algae or increased

sediment loading; it affects how far down the water column light can penetrate. This in turn

impacts rates of photosynthesis and the distribution of organisms within the water column

(Larson 1972).

Transparency is measured using a black and white disk on a marked rope called a

Secchi disk. The disk is lowered over the side of the boat until it is no longer visible and then

raised until it can be seen again; the average of the two depths is recorded. According to New

York State, a Secchi disk measurement of less than two meters can be one indicator of a

eutrophic body of water.

Seasonal trends in water clarity were observed at each sampling site (Figures 18-

20). During the spring, when winter runoff and rain events were frequent, the water transparency

was very low. In the late summer, when the weather was calmer and the lake was stratified,

transparency increased. Overall the site with the clearest water during this monitoring

timeframe was Silliman Cove. It is an isolated portion of the lake that is not as susceptible to the

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

Figure 18. Secchi transparency in Goodyear Lake, Silliman Cove

10

/17

/12

2/2

7/1

3

4/2

9/1

3

5/3

1/1

3

6/1

4/1

3

7/6

/13

7/2

0/1

3

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Dep

th (

m)

8/1

0/1

3

9/1

/13

9/2

9/1

3

10

/25

/13

11

/10

/13

2/8

/14

33

Figure 19. Secchi transparency in Goodyear Lake, Deepest Point

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

10

/17

/12

2/2

7/1

3

4/2

9/1

3

5/3

1/1

3

6/1

4/1

3

7/6

/13

7/2

0/1

3

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Dep

th (

m)

8/1

0/1

3

9/1

/13

9/2

9/1

3

10

/25

/13

11

/10

/13

2/8

/14

10

/17

/12

5/3

1/1

3

6/1

4/1

3

7/6

/13

7/2

0/1

3

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Dep

th (

m)

8/1

0/1

3

9/1

/13

9/2

9/1

3

10

/25

/13

11

/10

/13

34

Dissolved oxygen

Subsequent to the onset of summer stratification in dimictic lakes with moderately

high productivity, water in the hypolimnion (deepest thermal layer of water) begins to lose

dissolved oxygen due to organic decomposition. During periods of stratification the

hypolimnion is physically separated from the atmosphere, thus atmospheric oxygen cannot

diffuse to this layer of the water column. Hypolimnetic waters at the deepest point in Goodyear

Lake became anoxic (concentrations <1 mg/l) by the beginning of July (Figure 21) and the

bottom 3 m of water were completely without dissolved oxygen by 1 September 2013. The same

trend was observed in Silliman Cove (Figure 22) and at the face of Collier’s Dam (Figure 23). A

minimum of 3 mg/l of dissolved oxygen is required to support fish life; the growth rates of most

fish species are slowed without it (Meding and Jackson 2003).

Figure 21. Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Deepest Point, Goodyear Lake

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dep

th (

m)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/2013

6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013

9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/20132/8/2014 3/8/2014

35

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

Figure 23. Dissolved Oxygen Profile of Collier’s Dam, Goodyear Lake

0

1

2

3

4

5

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dep

th (

m)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/2013

6/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/2013

9/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/2013

2/8/2014

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Dep

th (

m)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)

10/17/2012 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/2013

7/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/2013

10/25/2013 11/10/2013

36

Chemical limnology

Alkalinity, pH, specific conductance and major ions

Geologic formations surrounding a lake strongly influence the water’s baseline

pH and specific conductance. pH is a measure of the degree to which a water body is acidic or

alkaline. Conductivity indicates the total amount of dissolved ions in the water and can be used

to identify spikes in concentrations. A spike in specific conductance may be observed in the

spring when salt-based compounds from accumulated road salts enter streams during spring

runoff. Conductivity and pH measurements collected from 2012 through 2014 imply that water

in Goodyear Lake is well buffered and high in dissolved ions (Table 11). No extreme low values

or spikes, indicating an isolated pollution event, were documented during this sampling period.

Table 11. Mean and extreme values measured for specific conductance and pH from fall 2012

through winter 2014 in Goodyear Lake at all monitoring sites (n=sample size)

pH Specific Conductance (umho/cm)

Sample site min mean max n min mean max n

Silliman Cove 6.98 7.78 8.23 63 191 253 303 68

Deepest Point 7.21 7.67 8.34 121 170 262 308 131

Collier’s Dam 7.09 7.78 8.30 82 145 252 313 82

Grab surface samples were collected October 2012, September-November 2013,

and February 2014 from the deepest point sampling location for major ion analysis. Similar to

the pH and specific conductance data, measurements for relevant water quality parameters such

as alkalinity, calcium, chloride and total hardness indicate relatively hard, alkaline water in

Goodyear Lake (Table 12). These conditions are particularly beneficial as a buffer against any

impacts from acid precipitation, but also may favor growth and survival of invasive species such

as zebra mussels, quagga mussels, or spiny waterflea (Cohen and Weinstein 2001).

37

Table 12. Alkalinity and major ions mean and extreme values collected from Collier’s Dam

monitoring site (n=sample size)

Parameter* min mean max n

Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO3) 106 110 115 5

Calcium (mg/l) 33.5 39.3 43.1 5

Chloride (mg/l) 13.6 15.7 18.1 5

Total Hardness (mg/l as CaCO3) 94.6 111.3 122.0 5

*Analysis performed by Phoenix Environmental Laboratories (NELAC NY #11301)

Nutrients

Samples for chemical analysis of nutrients were collected in acid-washed plastic bottles

from the surface to the bottom of the lake at each sampling location at approximately three meter

intervals using a Van Dorn water sampler.

Phosphorus

Phosphorus availability is looked upon as the most important water quality determinant in

lakes. Even if efforts are made to reduce external phosphorus loading, some lakes may exhibit a

delayed recovery response because of phosphorus that has accumulated in the sediment

(Søndergaard et al. 2003) or continues to cycle within the lake system/food web. Increased

phosphorus concentrations in the bottom waters can occur during the absence of oxygen when

iron/phosphorus complexes are reduced and the phosphorus is released into the overlying water.

Internal phosphorus loading or phosphorus being released from the sediment was most evident at

the deepest point during the end of February and beginning of June 2013 (Figure 24). This

circumstance was less apparent in Silliman Cove (Figure 25). External phosphorus loading from

the river is also somewhat evident following a wet weather event in late May 2013, when

phosphorus concentrations at the Collier’s Dam monitoring location were consistently high

throughout the water column due to the increased flows and runoff from the watershed (Figure

26).

38

Figure 24. Phosphorus profile of Deepest Point, Goodyear Lake

Figure 25. Phosphorus profile of Silliman Cove, Goodyear Lake

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120D

epth

(m

eter

s)

Total phosphorus (µg/l)

10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/20136/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/20139/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/20132/8/2014

0

1

2

3

4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dep

th (

met

ers)

Total Phosphorus (µg/l)

10/17/2012 2/27/2013 4/29/2013 5/31/20136/14/2013 7/6/2013 7/20/2013 8/10/20139/1/2013 9/29/2013 10/25/2013 11/10/20132/8/2014

39

Figure 26. Phosphorus profile of Collier’s Dam, Goodyear Lake

Nitrogen

Total nitrogen and nitrate+nitrite profiles were taken at each monitoring site on Goodyear

Lake from fall 2012 through winter 2014. Concentrations were mostly consistent throughout the

water column as indicated by the mean and extreme values (Table 13).

Table 13. Total nitrogen and nitrate+nitrite mean and extreme values collected from all

monitoring sites (n=sample size).

Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/l)

Sample site min mean max n min mean max n

Silliman Cove 0.30 0.47 0.64 26 0.05 0.22 0.49 26

Deepest Point 0.13 0.50 0.82 52 0.02 0.24 0.49 52

Collier’s Dam 0.12 0.48 0.73 32 0.07 0.21 0.34 32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Dep

th (

met

ers)

Total phosphorus (µg/l)

10/17/2012 5/31/2013 6/14/2013 7/6/20137/20/2013 8/10/2013 9/1/2013 9/29/201310/25/2013 11/10/2013

40

Nitrate is the most bioavailable form of nitrogen for algal uptake (NYSFOLA 2009).

Nitrate+nitrite surface concentrations peaked just prior to spring turnover and then began to

steadily decline at the commencement of summer stratification and throughout the rest of the

growing season (Figure 27).

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

Goodyear Lake

Ammonia

Ammonia has been reported to be toxic to freshwater organisms such as fish (Oram

2014). The level at which ammonia is toxic to fish is dependent upon the species. For example,

rainbow trout fry can only tolerate up to 0.2 mg/l of ammonia while hybrid striped bass may

endure 1.2 mg/l. Samples were analyzed for ammonia less frequently in Goodyear Lake than

phosphorus and nitrogen and averaged 0.06 mg/l or was below the detectable limit at all three

monitoring locations during most of this study. However, during sampling on 1 September 2013

and 29 September 2013 hypolimnetic ammonia concentrations spiked to 0.52 mg/l and 0.56 mg/l

respectively due to anoxic conditions in the bottom waters at that time.

Historical nutrient data

During the summer of 1999 Goodyear Lake physical and chemical water quality data

were collected by L. P. Sohacki (personal communication 2013) with the SUNY Oneonta

Biological Field Station. Surface water data was collected at 10 different sampling locations

(Figure 28) on three separate dates and vertical profiles of the water column were completed at

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

(m

g/l)

total nitrogen nitrate+nitrite

41

two sites used in the present study: Station 10 (deepest point) and Station 9 (Collier’s Dam)

(Appendix A). Phosphorus concentrations in the hypolimnion were higher than reported during

summer 2013 and dissolved oxygen depletion was apparent over the bottom 4-5 meters of water.

Secchi disk readings were similar to those recorded during summer 2013. Variables that may

account for improvements in some of the water quality parameters are zebra mussels, as they

were not established in Goodyear Lake in 1999, and decreases in phosphorus export from

upstream lakes and wastewater treatment facilities. According to SUNY Oneonta Biological

Field Station annual water quality monitoring of the upper Susquehanna River, total phosphorus

concentrations were approximately 120 µg/l in 1999 (Dietz 1999) and 40 µg/l in 2013

(Bianchine 2013) at the sampling location where Oaks Creek enters the main stem of the river.

42

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

43

Descriptive ecology

Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a

Phytoplankton are microscopic algae that float freely in open water. They are primary

producers, and through photosynthesis phytoplanktonic algae supply most of the food and

oxygen in a lake. The type and abundance of algae present in an aquatic system can be

indicative of a lake’s trophic status and nutrient availability/balance.

Clear lakes with low algal concentrations are generally populated with diatoms. When

diatoms are out competed they are typically replaced by green algae, the most common form.

Green algae prosper in waterbodies with elevated nitrogen levels (sources may include: spring

runoff and agricultural field fertilizer runoff). In productive lakes with low nitrogen:phosphorus

concentration ratios, green algae can be replaced by blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) in late

summer and early fall (NYSFOLA 2009).

Problems associated with excess algae in lakes include odor, taste, unsightliness and

hypolimnetic oxygen decline due to decomposition of dead algal cells. Increased levels of

cyanobacteria also are related to biotoxins (e.g. microcystins) that can lead to harmful algal

blooms (HABs) and are detrimental to humans and animals if exposed.

A Goodyear Lake composite sample from 0-3 meters depth was collected at the deepest

point on 22 August 2013 for phytoplankton identification. The sample was allowed to settle and

1 ml of the settled portion was placed on a Sedgwick-Rafter cell and examined using a

compound microscope with digital imaging capabilities. A number of diatoms, dinoflagellates,

and green algae ranging in size from 40-170 µm were identified during this study (Figure 29).

Cyanobacteria were not present in the sample analyzed.

44

a. b. c. d.

e. f.

Figure 29. Phytoplankton survey, Deepest Point, Goodyear Lake, surface water, 22 August 2013

a. Asterionella spp. (diatom), b. Ceratium spp. (dinoflagellate), c. Dinobryon spp. (golden-brown

algae), d. Fragilaria spp. (diatom), e. Volvox spp. (green algae), f. Staurastrum spp. (green

algae).

The quantity of algae in the water column is most commonly estimated by the amount of

chlorophyll a present. The average summer chlorophyll a concentration, in combination with

other factors, can also be used to characterize the trophic status of a lake. Peak summer

concentrations may range from 1.5 to 10.5 µg/l in oligotrophic lakes and from 20 to over 200

µg/l in eutrophic lakes (Holdren et al. 2001).

Chlorophyll a samples were collected from the Collier’s Dam monitoring site in

Goodyear Lake during seven sampling dates from October 2012 through February 2014.

Samples from various depths were obtained using the Van Dorn water sampler and analyzed for

chlorophyll a concentration using the Turner Designs®

fluorometric method (Welschmeyer

1994). Chlorophyll a concentrations (Table 14) were the highest in late summer and early fall at

or near the surface of the lake at the end of the growing season, just as one might predict based

on seasonal changes.

45

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

indicates higher concentrations.

Depth (m)

17 Oct

2012

31 May

2013

14 Jun

2013

10 Aug

2013

29 Sep

2013

10 Nov

2013

8 Feb

2014

0 9.45 3.58 1.09 8.03 - - 3.29

3 - - - - 9.63 1.58 2.38

6 - - - - 3.68 1.09 -

Aquatic macrophytes (plants)

The majority of rooted aquatic plants receive their nutrients from lake sediment, and not

from bio-available nutrients in the water column. These plants are generally restricted to the

littoral zone, or shallow area where enough light is available for photosynthesis. Aquatic

macrophytes play an important role in a lake’s ecosystem by protecting the shoreline from

erosion, providing habitat for fish, waterfowl and insects, and some with flowers or interesting

forms can be aesthetically pleasing (Holdren et al. 2001). Aquatic macrophytes typically fall

into three different categories based on their morphology: floating plants (i.e. duckweed),

submerged plants (i.e. coontail) and emergent plants (i.e. cattail), and Goodyear Lake supports

habitats optimal for all types.

In September and October 2012 a plant survey of Goodyear Lake was conducted by a

SUNY Oneonta Biology Department graduate student (Mazeres 2012). A garden rake on the

end of a cord was tossed six times per site (every throw was oriented in a random direction), at

13 sites (Figure 30) to determine plant abundance. The plants retrieved were identified by

species and their dry weight in grams was determined so that biomass could be estimated at each

site (Figure 31). It should be noted that these samples are not necessarily representative of all

lake wide communities.

46

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

7

1

2

5

9

8

6

4

3

10

11 12

13

47

Figure 31. Summary of estimated biomass (in grams) for each species of aquatic macrophyte

collected using a rake toss method for all sites during September and October 2012 (modified

from Mazeres 2012)

Eight species were found during the 2012 survey (Figure 32. a.-h.), and one emergent

(Sagittaria spp.) was observed but was not collected. Two of the plants collected during the

survey were non-native species (Myriophyllum spicatum and Potamogeton crispus).

Ceratophyllum demersum was the most abundant species overall, occurring at 10 out of 13

sample sites. By comparison, M. spicatum, the second most abundant species, total biomass

collected was 46% less than C. demersum.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Gra

ms

Site E. canadensis C. demersum M. spicatum P. crispus

H. dubia N. odorata P. pusillus

48

a. b. c.

d. e. f.

g. h. i.

Figure 32. Aquatic macrophyte survey, Goodyear Lake, sites 1-13, September and October 2012

a. Elodea canadensis (Elodea), b. Ceratophyllum demersum (Coontail), c. Myriophyllum

spicatum (Eurasian Watermilfoil), d. Potamogeton crispus (Curly-Leafed Pondweed),

e. Heteranthera dubia (Waterstargrass), f. Nymphaea odorata (White Water Lily),

g. Potamogeton pusillus (Small Pondweed), h. Sagittaria spp. (Arrowhead) (observed), i. Trapa

natans (Water Chestnut) (not collected) (Photos courtesy of: Texas A&M Department of

Wildlife and Fisheries Science (a, b, d-h) and Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel (c, i)).

Trapa natans (water chestnut) was not collected in this study (Figure 32. i.). In 2006 it

was noted that a population of T. natans was present in Goodyear Lake (Eyres 2009). The plant

became established, and has required an extensive ongoing volunteer hand harvesting effort by

the Otsego County Conservation Association (OCCA) and GYLA. If left unchecked this non-

native invasive species has the ability to form dense mats that cover the surface in shallow areas.

49

Zooplankton

Zooplankton are the primary consumers in a lake ecosystem. Simplistically, they

consume the phytoplankton or algae present and planktivorous fish consume them. Zooplankton

biomass is directly affected by chemical and physical water conditions, the quantity and quality

of food resources, and the level of predation. Large zooplankton, such as Daphnia, can ‘clear’ a

lake of phytoplankton during certain times of year (NYSFOLA 2009).

A zooplankton sample was collected from Goodyear Lake on 22 August 2013 using a 20

centimeter (cm) diameter plankton net with a 63 micrometer (µm) mesh on a weighted cup

(Figure 33). The net was lowered to a depth of 8 m (the approximate depth of the thermocline)

at the deepest point and retrieved. The sample was allowed to settle and 1 ml of the settled

portion was placed on a Sedgwick-Rafter cell and examined using a compound microscope with

digital imaging capabilities for zooplankton identification. Zooplankton, ranging in size from

140 µm to 3 mm, were present in the sample.

a. b. c.

d. e. f.

Figure 33. Zooplankton survey, Goodyear Lake, Deepest Point 8 m, 22 August 2013

a. Asplanchna spp. (Rotifer), b. Keratella spp. (Rotifer), c. Nauplius (Copepod larva),

d. Daphnia spp.(Cladoceran), e. Leptodora spp. (Cladoceran), f. Limnocalanus spp. (Copepod)

(Photos courtesy of: University of New Hampshire Center for Freshwater Biology (d-f))

50

Macroinvertebrates

By definition, benthic macroinvertebrates are organisms large enough to be seen with the

naked eye that do not have a backbone. They live in and around the bottom (benthic zone) of

lakes, rivers and streams. Macroinvertebrates require certain environmental conditions

throughout different stages of their life, therefore assemblages at a given location can provide

insight into long-term, predominating conditions there. For example, organisms that are most

sensitive to pollution and habitat disturbance include stoneflies, mayflies and caddisflies. High

abundance of those macroinvertebrates in an area is an indicator that water quality has been very

good there for some time. Organisms of intermediate tolerance to pollution and habitat

disturbance include dragonflies, damselflies, dobsonflies and blackflies. Organisms that can be

tolerant of pollution and habitat disturbance, and whose sole presence might be indicative of

historically poor water quality conditions include midges, snails and leeches (MDEP 2016).

A benthic macroinvertebrate sample was collected from the south side of Silliman Cove

in Goodyear Lake on 10 August 2013 using a 12 inch D-frame dip net with a 500 micron nylon

mesh. Specimens were preserved and identified to the family level according to Peckarsky et al.

(1995). Members of the damselfly and midge families were present in that sample (Figure 34),

but more sensitive species of stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies were absent. These results are

either indicative of some moderate degree of habitat disturbance in this isolated portion of the

lake that is not as susceptible to the apparently more degraded conditions prevailing in the

Susquehanna River, or typical of macroinvertebrates along the shore of a lake versus the riffle of

a stream.

Zebra mussels, an exotic nuisance macroinvertebrate, were also present in the Goodyear

Lake benthic macroinvertebrate samples. Zebra mussels were first documented in the lake

during the summer of 2004 (Armstrong 2005). It is most likely that the species was introduced

through transport of veligers (larval zebra mussels) to Goodyear from Canadarago Lake via Oaks

Creek and the Susquehanna River given their presence in those systems. Zebra mussels were

first noted in Canadarago Lake in 2002, but probably began colonization in 2001 after being

transported there by recreational boating (Horvath and Lord 2003).

Adult zebra mussels (Figure 35) outcompete native bivalves and colonize rocky, hard and

vegetative substrates in relatively shallow areas of lakes and rivers. They filter phytoplankton as

a food source, which may help improve the water clarity in a lake, but selectively avoid blue-

green algae (NYSFOLA 2009) leading to conditions that could potentially increase the chance of

HABs. Zebra mussels are a nuisance to recreational swimmers and those who own infrastructure

in and around the lake (e.g. docks, waterlines, hydropower intakes).

51

a.

b.

c.

Figure 34. Macroinvertebrate survey, Goodyear Lake, Silliman Cove, 10 August 2013

a. Lestidae (spread-winged damselflies) larva and adult, b. Calopterygidae (broad-winged

damselflies) larva and adult, c. Chironomidae (non-biting midges) larva and adult

(Photos courtesy of: Iowa State University Department of Entomology (adults) and University of

New Hampshire Center for Freshwater Biology (larva)).

52

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

Fish

Individual fish species, and the life history traits specific to those species, require

different habitats to fulfill important life functions including spawning, feeding, resting and

avoiding predators. A biotope’s chemical, physical and biological attributes affect the

population of each species, inasmuch as there exists an optimal and tolerance range for the

habitat conditions for each species of fish. Temperature will determine which species a lake can

support. Goodyear Lake is classified as warmwater fishery because it is relatively shallow and

can maintain an optimal temperature of 25°C (77°F), although the lake also supports fisheries for

cool water species such as walleye (Sander vitreus). A waterbody’s fertility determines the

number of fish present. Because Goodyear Lake is eutrophic, it can sustain a greater biomass of

fish than a lake of similar size with less available nutrients and energy (e.g. nitrogen,

phosphorus, and primary producers).

An electrofishing survey was conducted on Goodyear Lake on 24 September 2013 by

SUNY Oneonta BFS and SUNY Cobleskill Fisheries and Wildlife Department faculty and

students, with the use of the SUNY Cobleskill Smith Root-18 electrofishing boat. The survey

began at 7:30 pm and concluded at 12:00 am. Six different sites, from the stump lot to Silliman

Cove, on both sides of the Lake, were electrofished for 10 minutes each. The boat current

intensity was set to 12 amps at 340 volts with 50% power and all fish were collected at each site

by two people netting on the bow. The fish collected were identified, their total length was

measured in mm and they were released back into the lake.

Predator fish identified in the survey included walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass

and chain pickerel (Table 15, Figure 36). Prey fish identified included black crappie, bluegill,

pumpkinseed, redbreast and yellow perch. Bluegill, a species of sunfish, were the most

abundant. They are a forage (prey) fish and expected to be plentiful. Yellow perch were the

next most abundant, followed by smallmouth bass. Fish species identified in NYSDEC fish

53

surveys conducted in 1980 (Appendix B) and 2004 (Appendix C) were similar to those identified

in this study. However, alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) were notably absent from the 2013

electrofishing effort, while two had been identified in the 2004 survey.

Table 15. Goodyear Lake 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing effort

Common Name Scientific Name Quantity Relative

Abundance Size Range

(mm) Size Range

(in)

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 0.48 172-185 6.77-7.28

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 175 27.82 16-229 0.63-9.02

Brown Bullhead Ameirus nebulosis 1 0.16 351 13.82

Chain Pickerel Esox niger 7 1.11 293-433 11.54-17.05

Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 10 1.59 365-771 14.37-30.35

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 38 6.04 19-109 0.75-4.29

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 6 0.95 110-142 4.33-5.59

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 38 6.04 76-470 2.99-18.5

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 38 6.04 60-200 2.36-7.87

Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus 10 1.59 126-199 4.96-7.83

Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum 13 2.07 249-527 9.80-20.75

Rockbass Ambloplities rupestris 68 10.81 71-256 2.80-10.10

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 69 10.97 117-386 4.61-15.20

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 6 0.95 37-97 1.46-3.82

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 1 0.16 44 1.73

Walleye Sander vitreus 17 2.70 158-526 6.22-20.71

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 37 5.88 256-516 10.08-20.31

Yellow bullhead Ameirus natalis 5 0.79 207-312 8.15-12.28 Yellow perch Perca flavescens 87 13.83 26-311 1.02-12.24

Total 629 100.00 - -

54

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

electrofishing

Length frequency analysis (Figures 37-42) was done on eight fish species collected

during the 24 September 2013 electrofishing survey. This breakdown helps to gauge the size and

age structure of fish in the lake and would be an essential part of the assessment if a stocking

program was implemented in the lake. According to the length frequency histograms, it appears

that a high proportion of fish in Goodyear Lake are surviving to larger size classes and

harvestable sizes for anglers

Bluegill, 27.82

Yellow Perch, 13.83

Smallmouth Bass, 10.97

Rock Bass, 10.81

Emerald Shiner, 6.04

Largemouth Bass, 6.04

Pumpkinseed, 6.04

White Sucker, 5.88

Walleye, 2.70

Redhorse, 2.07

Common Carp, 1.59

Redbreast Sunfish, 1.59

Chain Pickerel,

1.11 Golden Shiner,

0.95

Spottail Shiner, 0.95 Yellow Bullhead,

0.79

Black Crappie,

0.48

Brown Bullhead, 0.16

Tessellated Darter, 0.16

55

Figure 37. Goodyear Lake bluegill length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing

(Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

Figure 38. Goodyear Lake yellow perch length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing

(Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

Fre

qu

en

cy (

#)

Length (in.)

0

5

10

15

20

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

Fre

qu

en

cy (

#)

Length (in.)

56

Figure 39. Goodyear Lake pumpkinseed length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat

electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

Figure 40. Goodyear Lake smallmouth bass length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat

electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

0

5

10

15

20

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

Fre

qu

en

cy (

#)

Length (in.)

0

5

10

15

20

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

Fre

qu

en

cy (

#)

Length in.

57

Figure 41. Goodyear Lake largemouth bass length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat

electrofishing (Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

Figure 42. Goodyear Lake walleye length frequency, 24 September 2013 boat electrofishing

(Photo courtesy of: NYSDEC)

Proportional Stock Density (PSD) is used by fishery managers to quantify length-

frequency data. It is a percentage that is defined as the number of fish greater than or equal to

quality length divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to stock length. Stock length is

defined as fish length at maturity, the minimum length effectively sampled by fisheries gear and

the minimum length that provides recreational fishing value (Willis et al. 1993). Quality length

is defined as the size of a fish that most anglers would like to catch (Gablehouse 1984).

Generally, PSD is a good index of the quality and balance within a fishery. In a balanced

pan fishery 20 to 60 percent of fish larger than stock size should be in the quality size category,

0

5

10

15

20

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

Fre

qu

en

cy (

#)

Length (in.)

0

5

10

15

20

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

Fre

qu

en

cy (

#)

Length (in.)

58

or size that an angler is allowed to keep (NYSFOLA 2009). Based on that information and the

24 September 2013 electrofishing effort, the Goodyear Lake fishery is balanced (Table 16).

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

Bluegill # ≥ Stock Size (4") # ≥ Quality Size (6") PSD

(Prey) 52 43 83

Pumpkinseed # ≥ Stock Size (4") # ≥ Quality Size (6") PSD

(Prey) 19 14 74

Yellow Perch # ≥ Stock Size (5") # ≥ Quality Size (8") PSD

(Prey) 68 35 51

Largemouth Bass # ≥ Stock Size (8") # ≥ Quality Size (12") PSD

(Predator) 22 10 45

Smallmouth Bass # ≥ Stock Size (7") # ≥ Quality Size (11") PSD

(Predator) 52 17 33

Walleye # ≥ Stock Size (9") # ≥ Quality Size (16") PSD

(Predator) 8 5 63

With a PSD of 33%, smallmouth bass may be trending toward an unstable state. If that is the

case, factors in the aquatic environment that are limiting their growth from stock size to quality

size should be examined.

59

Goodyear Lake and Watershed Management Plan

Introduction

This document is intended to serve as a comprehensive management plan for Goodyear

Lake and its watershed for the benefit of the public and the common good of the water body and

the surrounding environment. Preserving and protecting the natural beauty and ecological

integrity of the lake will prove mutually beneficial to the local economy, property owners, lake-

users and wildlife inhabitants. The plan takes into consideration the current state of affairs in the

lake based on the research presented and the perceptions and opinions of residents both lakeside

and in the upstream watershed. The Goodyear Lake focus sub-watershed is located solely in

Otsego County in Region 4 of the NYSDEC. It is mostly comprised of six towns including:

Milford, Hartwick, Middlefield, Otsego, Cherry Valley and Roseboom (Figure 1).

The development of a lake and watershed management plan for this important natural

resource was based on the supportive efforts of the following entities:

Goodyear Lake Association (GYLA)

NYSDEC Region 4 Bureau of Fisheries

Otsego County Conservation Association (OCCA)

Otsego County Planning Department

Otsego County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)

SUNY Cobleskill Fisheries and Wildlife Department

SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station (BFS)

Town of Milford

60

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

61

Stakeholder survey

Stakeholder surveys were generated to assess the perceptions and opinions of the

community members in the Goodyear Lake focus watershed (i.e. the total watershed minus the

Canadarago and Otsego Lake drainage basins). Electronic surveys were selected because a

traditional mailing to the six towns in the 209 sq mile focus watershed would have been cost

prohibitive to execute. The “Public Opinion Survey Concerning the Environmental and

Recreational Use of Goodyear Lake” (Appendix D) was directly emailed to 182 lakeside

residents, made available online and hard copies were accessible at the Milford Town Hall

(Figure 2) early May 2013. As a comparison, according to the Otsego County Property Tax

Map, there were approximately 247 residences surrounding Goodyear Lake in 2015. Of the 182

surveys that were emailed 129 electronic responses were received (a 70% return rate). The

“Goodyear Lake Watershed Survey” (Appendix E) was made available online and hardcopies

were left at the town halls in Cherry Valley, Hartwick, Middlefield, Milford, Otsego and

Roseboom (Figure 2). Additionally, an announcement was made in person about the surveys at

the board meeting of each of the six towns in early May 2013. A combination of 25 electronic

and hardcopy responses were returned from the watershed survey.

62

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

th. Thank you in advance for your contribution.

ATTENTION TOWNS OF CHERRY VALLEY, HARTWICK, MIDDLEFIELD, MILFORD, OTSEGO AND ROSEBOOM RESIDENTS:

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

th. Thank

you in advance for your contribution.

Figure 2. Announcements published in The Daily Star and The Oneonta-Cooperstown

Pennysaver and posted on the GYLA, OCCA and focus watershed town websites, early May

2013

Based on the results of the “Public Opinion Survey Concerning the Environmental and

Recreational Use of Goodyear Lake” emailed to lakeside residents, the three issues that were

ranked most important included: the condition of Collier’s Dam, algae and aquatic plant growth,

and loss of fish and wildlife (Figure 3).

63

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

2013 survey

Management goals

Goodyear Lake and its inhabitants are an integral part of the local culture. It is with that

sentiment, and a sense of stewardship, that a plan has been developed to perpetuate the natural

splendor, wildlife, and recreational activities of the lake for years to come. Specifically, the

goals of the plan are to:

1. Restore and maintain the physical condition of the lake.

2. Protect the lake’s natural beauty and ecological sustainability as a resource.

3. Maintain recreational opportunities on the lake and ensure the safety of the users.

It is anticipated that the practicality of the plan will allow for successful implementation so that

future generations may enjoy Goodyear Lake as past and present generations have.

30%

38%

41%

46%

52%

53%

63%

67%

69%

73%

73%

74% Condition of Collier's Dam

Algae & weed growth

Loss of fish & wildlife

Pollution from septic systems

Water clarity & condition

Filling in or sedimentation

Scenic viewscape -hills, valleys, etc.

Upstream agricultural practices

Road salts & gravel washing into lake

Water levels

Powered watercraft density

Density of homes

64

Management plan

A. DAM CONDITION

There is concern that the dam is in poor condition based on its appearance and aging

infrastructure and that this could have a negative effect on property values.

APPROACH - Communication between the GYLA, the Town of Milford, Enel (Kevin

Webb, kevin.webb@enel.com), owner of the dam, and HDR (Jim Gibson,

jim.gibson@hdrinc.com), consulting engineer, needs to be maintained and information on

dam integrity disseminated.

B. ALGAE AND ROOTED AQUATIC PLANTS

Algal blooms have been noted and photographed (Figure 4) by lakeshore residents. The

north (i.e. “the stump lot”) and south ends support extensive littoral areas, in addition to

other shallow portions of the lake that support rooted aquatic plant growth/habitat.

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

Vince Stayter)

APPROACH

1. Reduce excessive nutrient run-off: use a “bottom-up” management approach and

implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. controlling sprawl through land

use regulations, altering agricultural methods and creating nutrient retention ponds) in

the watershed (Table 1).

65

Table 1. Best Management practices used for various watershed land-use activities (modified

from Holdren et al. 2001)

BEST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

AGRICULTURE

Animal Waste Management Controls timing, amount and form of manure application to fields

Conservation Tillage Planting system that maintains at least 30% of soil surface covered by residue after

planting

Contour Farming Conducting plowing, planting, cultivating and harvesting on the contours of the field

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

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

Fertilizer Management Controls timing, amount and type of fertilizer to crops

Integrated Pest Management Reduces pesticide applications, improves effectiveness and uses more resistant

cultivars

Livestock Exclusion Excludes livestock from highly erodible land and land near lakes and streams

Range and Pasture

Management Maintains vegetative cover and reduces manure loading to streams

Terraces Shortens flow paths and improves drainage

URBAN

Flood Storage Reduces runoff and sediment by settling particles out of the water

Porous Pavement Allows rainfall to soak through pavement into underlying soil

Street Cleaning By removing pollutants from pavement they will not be washed into streams during

storms

FORESTRY

Ground Cover Management Maintains cover over soil so it is not exposed to raindrops or runoff

Pesticide/Herbicide

Management Controls timing, amount, form and location of application

Riparian Zone Management Maintains vegetation and ground cover along stream banks

Road/Skid Trail

Management Reduces length of runoff flow path and erosion

CONSTRUCTION

Disturbed Area Limits Restricts area of construction site that is disturbed or has ground cover removal

Nonvegetative Soil

Stabilization Use mats, mulch or similar ground cover over the soil to reduce rainfall erosion

Surface Roughening Reduces length of runoff flow paths to slow the water creating pools or depressions

and reduces the energy of water to dislodge and transport soil off-site

MULTI-CATEGORY

Detention/

Sedimentation Basins Retains runoff from flood peak and allows soil particles to settle in the basin

Grassed Waterways Runoff flows over a grassy area that protects soil and traps nutrients as it moves

toward a stream

Interception or Diversion

Practices

Intercepts runoff before the flow path becomes too long or divests the runoff away

from the lake

66

Maintenance of Natural

Waterways

Natural stream banks, riparian zones and wetlands trap sediment and nutrients and

limit streamside erosion

Riprap A layer of broken rock of sufficient size are put in place to resist the erosive forces of

flowing water

Streamside Management

Zones

Maintains vegetative and ground cover next to the streambank, typically strips are 30

to 100 feet wide

Streambank Stabilization Protects and maintains the streambank so it does not erode or fall into the stream

Vegetative Stabilization Maintains good vegetative cover at critical locations throughout the watershed

Zoning Legally enforceable regulations for permissible businesses, land uses and

management needs to protect lakes and streams

2. Financing for water quality protection projects is available through the NYS

Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) Clean Water State Revolving Fund

(CWSRF). Additional funding available locally for agricultural projects identified in

the watershed are the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) through the

US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Agricultural

Environmental Management (AEM) Program through the Otsego County Soil and

Water Conservation District. Both programs are voluntary and assist crop and

livestock producers in meeting their business goals through incentives, while making

environmental and conservation improvements on the farm. Since all the money that

comes through these programs requires matching funds, OCCA has already

contributed to EQIP monies at multiple sites in the greater Goodyear Lake watershed

that have instituted BMPs. For example, the SWCD could use the data in this report

to apply for grant money for agricultural BMP implementation along the Cherry

Valley Creek. Additionally, the GYLA could become the driving effort behind the

development of an “Upper Susquehanna Watershed Protection” tax district that

includes both Otsego and Canadarago Lakes; this could provide long-term steady

annual income to address watershed problems and implement BMPs.

3. Municipalities in the focus sub-watershed could establish a cooperative means by

which watershed goals are incorporated into local comprehensive plans based on

generally agreed upon standard regulations that affect the well-being of the lake.

States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have developed, and are now implementing,

Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) that indicate the contributions each state will

make to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. NYSDEC is currently in the

development of the next phase (Phase III) of New York's Watershed Implementation

Plan (WIP) and the process is currently underway to involve local governments in the

planning. Types of land use regulations that would benefit the lake include

development set-backs, clustering, stormwater runoff control and construction

67

activity oversight. Town and county planning boards and codes officers are the

appropriate agencies for the enforcement of these rules. Home rule local town laws

can be setup to establish BMPs in the watershed other than those relating to

agriculture. Implementing or modifying land use regulations requires Town Planning

Board attendance and membership.

4. Use in-lake techniques (Table 2) to address short-term plant removal. This may

include applying benthic barriers around docks, hand harvesting and/or hydroraking

aquatic vegetation if recreational use is inhibited. A taxable district within the Town

of Milford immediately surrounding the lake could provide income for large-scale, in-

lake management projects. Keep in mind, most in-lake management strategies are

only treating symptoms of the underlying causes of the problems that lake users

reported, and will be fruitless without acknowledging sources in the watershed.

68

Table 2. Management options for the control of algae, rooted aquatic plants and sedimentation

(modified from Holdren et al. 2001)

TECHNIQUE DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

PHYSICAL CONTROLS

Aeration or

Oxygen Addition

Mechanically adds air or

oxygen at varying depths to

relieve anoxic conditions

Oxygenated conditions

promote binding of

phosphorus and improves

aquatic organism habitat

May disrupt stratification and

supersaturate the water, both

disruptive to fish

Benthic Barriers

Mat of variable

composition laid around

swimming area or dock

Prevents plant growth and

reduces turbidity from soft

sediment

Gas buildup may cause barrier

to float, anoxic conditions

could exist and decrease fish

spawning and feeding

Circulation Mechanically uses water or

air to keep water in motion

Reduces surface algal scum

and disrupts growth

May spread local impacts and

increase oxygen demand at

greater depths

Dilution and

Flushing

Add better or similar

quality water

Dilutes nutrients and flushes

algal buildup

May wash zooplankton from

lake and have downstream

impacts

Drawdown

Lowering water level

allows for sediment

oxidation and compaction

Reduces available nutrients,

affects algal biomass and

allows for shoreline cleanup

and repair

Impacts on contiguous

wetlands and impairment of

well production

Dredging

Physically remove

sediment through dry or

wet excavation for

deposition and dewatering

in a containment area

Removes algae, aquatic plants

and pollutants and increases

water depth

Temporarily removes benthic

invertebrates, creates turbidity

and may be issues with

dredged material disposal

Dyes and Surface

Covers

Water-soluble dye mixed

with lake water or opaque

sheets added

Limits light penetration to

inhibit algal and plant growth

without increasing turbidity

May not control peripheral

rooted plants, also may create

anoxia at sediment-water

interface

Mechanical

Removal

Collection of algal scums

or plants with harvesters,

hand pulling or cutting

Highly flexible control, may

remove other debris and create

a balance between habitat and

recreational needs

May spread undesirable

species by fragmentation,

increase turbidity and is labor

intensive

Pollutant Capture

Creation of in-lake areas

like, forebays and wetlands,

to capture incoming

pollutants

Reduction in nutrient levels,

algae and multiple pollutants

Habitat value of new detention

areas and removal of sediment

from those areas

Selective

Withdrawal

Discharge bottom water

that may contain low

oxygen and excessive

nutrients

Efficiently removes targeted

water and initial phase of algal

bloom in deeper water

Creates poor water quality

downstream and can be an

unintended drawdown if

inflow does not match

withdrawal

CHEMICAL CONTROLS

Algaecides and

Herbicides

Add a liquid or pelletized

substance that is toxic to

algae and specific plants

usually once a year

Quickly removes algae from

water column with increased

clarity and kills submersed and

emergent plants

Toxicity to non-target species,

restrictions on water use after

treatment and may increase

oxygen demand from decaying

material

69

Phosphorus

Inactivation

Aluminum, iron or calcium

salts are added in liquid or

powder form

Binds to phosphorus in water

column and settles it,

minimizes release of

phosphorus from sediment and

increases clarity

May cause fluctuations in pH

during treatment, and if those

conditions exist may be toxic

to fish

Sediment

Oxidation

Add oxidants, binders and

pH adjusters to oxidize

sediment

Binds to phosphorus and

reduces nutrient supply to

algae and decreases sediment

oxygen demand

Affects benthic organisms and

longevity of effects are not

well known

Selective

Nutrient Addition

Nutrient ratio altered

through addition of selected

nutrients

Can change composition of

algal communities by altering

the nitrogen to phosphorus

ratio and reduce algal levels

Through uncertain biological

response algal abundance may

increase and it may require

frequent applications

BIOLOGICAL CONTROLS

Barley Straw

Input of barley straw may

cause chemical reactions

that inhibit algal growth

An inexpensive technique

where algae decline is more

gradual and therefore demands

less oxygen

Success linked to

uncontrollable water chemistry

characteristics and some forms

of algae may be resistant

Biomanipulation

Stock piscivorous fish to

remove planktivorous fish

to increase herbivorous

zooplankton or add

herbivorous insects to feed

on selected plants

Decreases algae and plants,

increases harvestable fish and

potentially provides continued

control with one treatment

without negative effect on

non-target plant species

Highly variable response, may

involve non-native species

introductions and incomplete

control may be likely

5. Additional BMP resources:

a. Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication (USDA Agriculture Research

Service/EPA).

b. Animal Waste Management Field Handbook: USDA NRCS National

Engineering Handbook (NEH): Part 651.

c. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for Establishing and

Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers (USDA/Forest Service).

d. Core4 Conservation Practices: the common sense approach to natural resource

conservation (USDA/NRCS).

e. Forest*A*Syst: A Self-Assessment Guide for Managing Your Forest.

f. National Handbook of Conservation Practices (USDA/NRCS).

g. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series (USDA/Forest Service).

C. FISHERY

Goodyear Lake supports a diverse fish community that is popular among anglers as an

open-water and ice fishing destination.

APPROACH – The fishery is periodically monitored by NYSDEC Region 4 Bureau of

Fisheries Stamford sub-office in Stamford, NY through electrofishing, trapnetting, and

gillnetting surveys. Based on the results of those studies the management strategy should

70

be updated as needed. According to NYSDEC, there is currently a daily creel limit of 25

for yellow perch and sunfishes in Goodyear Lake for any size fish all year long. This

differs from the daily catch limit of 50 for the same species for other NYS waterbodies

(NYSDEC 2017). Additionally, the NYS Department of Health currently advises that

women under 50 years of age and children under 15 years of age not consume any fish

from Goodyear Lake due to mercury contamination. Men over 15 years of age and

women over 50 years of age are not advised to consume more than one walleye > 22

inches per month or more than four walleye (or any other species) < 22 inches per month

from the lake (NYSDOH 2017).

D. SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Approximately 250 homes surround the lake and all rely on septic systems for waste

treatment.

APPROACH

1. The NYS Water Resources Institute at Cornell University held Homeowner

Education Workshops for Improved Wastewater Management at Canadarago and

Chautauqua Lakes in 2013. The information from those workshops is available on

their website and includes links to the presentations, informational handouts and

videos of the workshops themselves. Goodyear Lake shoreline residents should be

encouraged to visit the website or have applicable material made available to them.

2. The initiation of a septic system inspection program could be established through

Land Use Regulations (LURs) so that watershed residents may feel a sense of

unification on the front of improving lake water quality.

3. If localized problems are documented after investigating the nutrient retention of the

lakeside wastewater treatment systems, apply for a Water Quality Incentive Program

(WQIP) grant through the NYSDEC for septic system pollution abatement.

E. SEDIMENTATION

The lake receives excessive suspended solids or silt from the river and upstream

tributaries.

APPROACH

1. Identify areas in the watershed, through soils maps, observation and aerial

photography, prone to erosion for implementation of BMPs (Figure 5) to reduce

sediment loading to the lake. Hydroseeding and stream bank project assessments are

both services offered by the SWCD to local counties, municipalities and landowners

to protect erosion sensitive areas. An engineering study could address the feasibility

of installing sediment basins at key locations in the watershed.

71

2. Soil disturbance in the watershed can be associated with active land use activities

such as agriculture (grazing along streams, cultivated crops, intensive livestock

operations), forest operations (logging, road building), roadside ditching and

construction (particularly on steep slopes). Since the majority of the land in the

watershed is covered with forest, there is an opportunity to implement forestry BMPs

to improve water quality and prevent soil erosion through outreach. Additionally, soil

and stream bank disturbance could be minimized by pastured land grazing

optimization and attention to road maintenance and ditching.

3. Retain a qualified entity (e.g. SUNY Oneonta BFS) to construct a current bathymetric

map of the lake. Prioritize portions of the lake that would benefit the most from

localized dredging and acquire necessary permits through NYSDEC Region 4.

Although, specific sediment sources need to be identified and corrected before

dredging permits will be issued.

4. Encourage shoreline landowners to implement lakescaping (Figure 5) techniques to

prevent shoreline erosion, filter runoff, provide wildlife habitat and increase leisure

time.

5.

Figure 5. Buffer zone restoration with native vegetation (Photo courtesy of: Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources)

72

F. LAND USE PLANNING, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION

Residents and visitors wish to maintain the scenic viewscape of the lake and its

surroundings.

APPROACH

1. The Otsego Land Trust (OLT) is an organization that works with land owners to

establish a conservation easement (legal agreement between an owner and a qualified

non-profit organization or agency) on their property. These agreements generally

limit residential and/or commercial uses and restrict harmful land and water

management practices for years to come with financial benefits for the owner.

2. Lot size restrictions and set back guidelines already exist in LURs. They could be

modified to help the lake and safeguard sensitive areas. The Town of Springfield

started by creating a local law and then built it into a LUR. These regulations should

not be seen by property owners as a limitation, but instead a means of protection.

G. ROADWAY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

State Highway 28 runs adjacent to the lake and there is concern about salts and gravel

washing into the lake from that road and others in the watershed.

APPROACH – Review present town, county and NYS Department of Transportation

(NYSDOT) road maintenance practices; particularly those that pertain to the proper

storage of salt and other deicers. Encourage the use of alternative deicers that have lower

levels of chloride, silt and phosphorus. Local highway superintendents could assist with

best management practice training for road crews. This training is available through the

NYSDOT.

H. LAKE LEVEL

The level of the lake fluctuates, particularly during storm events.

APPROACH – The level of the lake is controlled by the dam. HDG, Inc., the owner of

the dam, is required to ensure that the lake does not drop below 12 inches of the crest of

the dam to facilitate power generation, but no mandate exists during periods of high

water. Shoreline flooding can be considerable during wet weather events and the

feasibility of increasing the flow through the dam when the level of the lake is excessive

should be discussed with HDG, Inc.

I. RECREATIONAL USE OF GOODYEAR LAKE

Swimming, power and motorless boating, water skiing and fishing are all popular

recreational activities on the lake.

APPROACH

1. Maintain and enforce the current 5 MPH no-wake zone with signage and/or buoys to

protect sensitive areas, reduce turbidity and provide a safer environment for all users

73

of the lake. Education of boaters as to the importance of no-wakes zones should be

displayed in the form of signage at all public and lake association access sites. Local

navigational regulations can be addressed by the Town of Milford Planning Board.

2. NYS Navigational Laws (particularly Sections 33 through 73, regulations for pleasure

boats) should be enforced by the Otsego County Sheriff’s Department and NYSDEC

in a cooperative effort.

3. Navigational hazards, such as fallen trees, should be marked or removed if they are

beyond the no-wake zone or across a channel or high traffic area. Otherwise fallen

trees provide excellent wildlife and fish spawning habitat.

4. Local town law can address “navigational use regulations” and take into

consideration future lake conflicts (i.e. noise, parasailing, boat size/speed and area

zoning, such as prohibiting water skiing in the stump lot). These laws can also

protect environmentally sensitive areas.

J. EXOTIC SPECIES

Over the years non-native species have invaded the lake, usually with highly damaging

consequences.

APPROACH –

1. Every effort should be made to try to prevent the establishment of “new” exotic

species in the lake. This is somewhat challenging because Goodyear is a “river-lake”

and at the mercy of upstream influences, but despite that boat washing signage should

be posted at all public and lake association launches.

2. Management of exotics that are already in the lake should continue. This includes the

coordinated water chestnut hand-harvesting volunteer effort between OCCA and the

GYLA that has already successfully removed many invasive plants. Thresholds (i.e.

50% removal as agreed upon by anglers, swimmers and other lake users) for the

control of other exotic plant species, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, could be

established.

3. Inhibiting the spread of known exotics from Goodyear Lake to other nearby or

downstream systems provides a great economic value (or service) and could be a way

to raise funds for invasive species prevention that would benefit the lake in the future.

Perhaps areas where exotic species have not been established would be interested in

contributing to boat washing stations and exit inspections for Goodyear Lake.

74

K. CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND EDUCATION

Future studies and ongoing education are key elements to the plan’s success.

APPROACH –

1. Monitoring of the lake and its tributaries by the SUNY Oneonta BFS or other

competent professionals should continue and that information be made available to

maintain the awareness of the status of the lake. If BMPs are implemented in the

watershed, their success should be evaluated quantitatively through periodic,

extensive plant and fish surveys and the use of staff gauges to measure amounts of

siltation. Additionally, volunteers who are interested in monitoring water quality

could enroll Goodyear Lake in the Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program

(CSLAP), a program managed by NYSDEC and NYSFOLA. The standards provided

in Table 3 should be used as a guide to evaluate all information collected on the lake

and to serve as “action thresholds” for management strategies.

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

PARAMETER STANDARD

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

Temperature Related to thermal discharges.

Taste-, color-, and odor-

producing, toxic and other

deleterious substances

None in amounts that will adversely affect the taste, color or odor thereof,

or impair the waters for their best usages.

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

Suspended, colloidal and

settleable solids

None from sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes that will cause

deposition or impair the waters for their best usages.

Oil and floating substances No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes, nor

visible oil film nor globules of grease.

Total Phosphorus Evaluate whether tertiary treatment is required for wastewater discharged

to lake if greater than 20 µg/l.

Nitrate Less than 10 mg/l in drinking water to prevent methamaglobanemia (blue

baby disease).

Phosphorus and nitrogen None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that

will impair the waters for their best usages.

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

Metal Unique standards for each metal.

75

2. The GYLA should consider becoming a member of NYSFOLA in an effort to

collaborate and support the protection of water resources across the state.

3. The public should remain informed of sensitive issues related to the well-being of

Goodyear Lake. Groups involved with the Lake’s management are encouraged to

communicate (e.g. newsletters, public media and forums) with residents in the

watershed and all users of the lake.

Organic Compounds General standard for all organic compounds without a specific standard is

50 µg/l.

Flow No alteration that will impair the waters for their best usages.

pH Shall not be less than 6.5 nor more than 8.5.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) For trout spawning waters (TS) the DO concentration shall not be <7.0

mg/l from other than natural conditions. For trout waters (T), the minimum

daily average shall not be < 6.0 mg/l, and at no time shall the

concentration be <5.0 mg/l. For non-trout waters, the minimum daily

average shall not be <5.0 mg/l, and at no time shall the DO concentration

be <4.0 mg/ l.

Dissolved solids Shall be kept as low as practicable to maintain the best usage of waters but

in no case shall it exceed 500 mg/l.

Total Coliforms

(number per 100 ml)

The monthly median value and more than 20 percent of the samples, from

a minimum of five examinations, shall not exceed 2,400 and 5,000,

respectively.

Fecal Coliforms

(number per 100 ml)

The monthly geometric mean, from a minimum of five examinations, shall

not exceed 200.

76

References

APHA, AWWA, WPCF. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.

12th

ed. American Public Health Association. Washington, D.C.

Armstrong, S. 2005. Survey of veliger and adult zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in

Goodyear Lake. In 37th

Ann. Rept. (2004). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY

Oneonta.

BestPlaces. 2016. Climate, Milford, NY.

http://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/new_york/milford. Accessed 23 February 2016.

Bianhcine, T. 2013. Monitoring water quality and fecal coliform bacteria in the upper

Susquehanna River, summer 2013. In 46th

Ann. Rept. (2013). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld.

Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Cohen, A.N. and A. Weinstein. 2001. Zebra Mussel’s Calcium Threshold and Implications for its

Potential Distribution in North America. San Francisco Estuary Institute, San Francisco,

California.

Dietz, M. 1999. Monitoring the water quality of the upper Susquehanna River, summer 1999. In

32nd

Ann. Rept. (1999). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Ebina, J., T. Tsutsi, and T. Shirai. 1983. Simultaneous determination of total nitrogen and total

phosphorus in water using peroxodisulfate oxidation. Water Res. 17(12):1721-1726.

Eyres, W. 2009. Water chestnut (Trapa natans L.) infestation in the Susquehanna River

watershed: population assessment, control, and effects. Occasional Paper No. 44. SUNY

Oneonta Biological Field Station. SUNY Oneonta. Cooperstown, NY.

Gablehouse, D.W., Jr. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:273-285.

HDR Engineering, Inc. 2014. Colliersville hydroelectric project (FERC no. 2788) pre-application

document, volume I of II. Syracuse, NY.

Holdren, C., W. Jones, and J. Taggart. 2001. Managing Lakes and Reservoirs. N. Am. Lake

Manage. Soc. And Terrene Inst., in coop. with Off. Water Assess. Watershed Prot. Div.

U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Madison, WI.

Horvath, T.G. and P.H. Lord. 2003. First report of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in

Canadarago Lake. In 35th

Ann. Rept. (2002). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY

Oneonta.

77

Isachsen, Y.W., E. Landing, J.M. Lauber, L.V. Rickard, and W.B. Rogers, eds. 1991. Geology of

New York A Simplified Account. New York State Museum / Geological Survey. Albany,

NY.

Kaplan, L.A. and T.L. Bott. 1989. Diel fluctuations in bacterial activity on streambed substrata

during vernal algal blooms: Effects of temperature, water chemistry, and habitat. Limnology and Oceanography 34(4): 718-733.

Klessig, L., C. Mechenich, and B. Shaw. 2004. Understanding lake data. Board of Regents of the

University of Wisconsin System, Madison, WI.

Larson, D.W. 1972. Temperature, transparency, and phytoplankton productivity in Crater Lake,

Oregon. Limnology and Oceanography 17(3): 410-417. Liao, N. 2001. Determination of ammonia by flow injection analysis. QuikChem® Method 10-

107-06-1-J. Lachat Instruments, Loveland, CO.

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

McBride, N.D. 2008. Goodyear Lake fisheries management: 2004 fisheries survey. New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 4 Fisheries Office. Stamford,

NY.

McIntyre, W. 2009. Otsego Lake management program for onsite wastewater treatment systems

(OWTS). Unpublished. Cooperstown, NY.

MDEP. 2016. Common aquatic macroinvertebrates in Maine streams and wetlands. Maine

Department of Environmental Protection. Augusta, ME.

Meding, M.E. and L.J. Jackson. 2003. Biotic, chemical, and morphometric factors contributing

to winter anoxia in prairie lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 48(4): 1633-1642.

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

Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

NYSDEC. 2016. Water quality standards and classifications. New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

NYSDEC. 2017. New York State freshwater fishing statewide angling regulations. New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY.

NYSDOH. 2017. New York State health advice on eating fish you catch. New York State

Department of Health. Albany, NY.

78

NYSFOLA. 2009. 2nd

ed. Diet for a Small Lake: The Expanded Guide to New York State Lake

and Watershed Management. New York State Federation of Lake Associations in coop.

with NYSDEC.

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

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

Center. Dallas, PA.

Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin. 1995. Freshwater

Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Comstock Publishing Associates-

Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

Pritzlaff, D. 2003. Determination of nitrate/nitrite in surface and wastewaters by flow injection

analysis. QuikChem® Method 10-107-04-1-C. Lachat Instruments, Loveland, CO.

Sanford, D.K. 1981. 1980 fishery survey of Goodyear Lake (P360s). New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 4 Fisheries Office. Stamford, NY.

Snyder, D.M., C.R. Parker and K. Yokota. 2016. Total mercury concentration in fish tissue

relative to length and weight. In 48th

Ann. Rept. (2015). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta.,

SUNY Oneonta.

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

Søndergaard, M., J.P. Jensen and E. Jeppesen. 2003. Role of sediment and internal loading of

phosphorus in shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 506-509:135-145.

Thornton, S.A. 1979. Bathymetric map of Goodyear Lake. In 12th

Ann. Rept. (1979). SUNY

Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

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

USEPA. 1974. National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper Series: Report on Goodyear

Lake, Otsego County, New York, EPA Region II, Working Paper No. 158. United States

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C.

USEPA. 2011. Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria: Technical Guidance

Document. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C.

USGS. 2012. StreamStats Program: New York State Interactive Map Application. United States

Geological Survey. http://streamstats.usgs.gov/new_york.html.

Waterfield, H.A. 2016. Watershed characterization for Goodyear Lake, New York: watershed

subbasins, land use and cover, surficial geology, and soils. In 48th

Ann. Rept. (2015).

SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

79

Welschmeyer, N.A. 1994. Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll a in the presence of chlorophyll

b and phaeopigments. Limnology and Oceanography 39: 1985-1992.

Willis, D.W., B.R. Murphy and C.S. Guy. 1993. Stock density indices: development, use, and

limitations. Reviews in Fisheries Science 1(3):203-222.

80

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

81

82

Appendix B. Total number and size of fishes collected by trap net, boat shocker and gill net from

Goodyear Lake 26 and 27 August and 24 September 1980 (Sanford 1981)

Game Fish

Species Quantity Size Range (in.)

Chain Pickerel 7 9.8-18.2

Largemouth bass 18 3.1-18.1

Smallmouth bass 30 3.2-14.1

Walleye 50 9.3-20.3

Panfish

Species Quantity Over 8 in.

Quantity Under 8 in.

Black crappie 50 38

Bullhead 41 3

Yellow perch 183 111

Species Quantity

Over 6.5 in. Quantity

Under 6.5 in.

Bluegill 56 6

Pumpkinseed 21 15

Redbreast sunfish 7 5

Rock bass 27 33

Other Fish

Species Quantity

American eel 1

Bluntnose minnow 5

Carp 5

Creek chubsucker 1

Golden shiner 26

Johnny darter 1

Northern hog sucker 3

Shorthead redhorse 30

White sucker 85

83

Appendix C. Total number and size of fishes collected during the Goodyear Lake all-fish

electrofishing collections in June 2004 (McBride 2008)

Game Fish

Species Quantity

Legal Quantity Sublegal

Chain Pickerel* - 2

Largemouth bass** 19 20

Smallmouth bass** 5 45

Walleye* 2 3

Panfish

Species Quantity Over 8 in.

Quantity Under 8 in.

Black crappie - 1

Brown Bullhead 6 -

Yellow perch 15 24

Species Quantity

Over 6.5 in. Quantity

Under 6.5 in.

Bluegill 39 102

Pumpkinseed 16 19

Redbreast sunfish 1 27

Rock bass 14 10

Other Fish

Species Quantity

Alewife 2

Bluntnose minnow 36

Common carp 8

Golden shiner 8

Northern hog sucker 3

Shorthead redhorse 2

Spottail shiner 3

Tesselated darter 4

White sucker 58

*legal limit 15 in. **legal limit 12 in.

84

Appendix D. Lakeside resident stakeholder survey with results

85

86

87

Appendix E. Watershed resident stakeholder survey with results

88

89

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

No. 38. Biocontrol of Eurasian water-milfoil in central New York State: Myriophyllum spicatum L., its insect herbivores

and associated fish. Paul H. Lord. August 2004.

No. 39. The benthic macroinvertebrates of Butternut Creek, Otsego County, New York. Michael F. Stensland. June 2005.

No. 40. Re-introduction of walleye to Otsego Lake: re-establishing a fishery and subsequent influences of a top Predator.

Mark D. Cornwell. September 2005.

No. 41. 1. The role of small lake-outlet streams in the dispersal of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) veligers in the

upper Susquehanna River basin in New York. 2. Eaton Brook Reservoir boaters: Habits, zebra mussel awareness,

and adult zebra mussel dispersal via boater. Michael S. Gray. 2005.

No. 42. The behavior of lake trout, Salvelinus namaycush (Walbaum, 1972) in Otsego Lake: A documentation of the

strains, movements and the natural reproduction of lake trout under present conditions. Wesley T. Tibbitts. 2008.

No. 43. The Upper Susquehanna watershed project: A fusion of science and pedagogy. Todd Paternoster. 2008.

No. 44. Water chestnut (Trapa natans L.) infestation in the Susquehanna River watershed: Population assessment,

control, and effects. Willow Eyres. 2009.

No. 45. The use of radium isotopes and water chemistry to determine patterns of groundwater recharge to Otsego Lake,

Otsego County, New York. Elias J. Maskal. 2009.

No. 46. The state of Panther Lake, 2014 and the management of Panther Lake and its watershed. Derek K. Johnson. 2015.

No. 47. The state of Hatch Lake and Bradley Brook Reservoir, 2015 & a plan for the management of Hatch Lake and

Bradley Brook Reservoir. Jason E. Luce. 2015.

No. 48. Monitoring of seasonal algal succession and characterization of the phytoplankton community: Canadarago Lake,

Otsego County, NY & Canadarago Lake watershed protection plan. Carter Lee Bailey. 2015.

No. 49. A scenario-based framework for lake management plans: A case study of Grass Lake & A management plan for

Grass Lake. Owen Zaengle. 2015.

No. 50. Cazenovia Lake: A comprehensive management plan. Daniel Kopec. 2015.

No. 51. Comprehensive lake management plan, Lake Moraine, Madison County, NY. Benjamin P. German. 2016.

No. 52. Determining effective decontamination methods for watercraft exposed to zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha

(Pallas 1776), that do not use hot water with high pressure spray. Eric A. Davis.

No. 53. The state of Brant Lake, & Brant Lake management plan. Alejandro Reyes. 2016.

No. 54. The state of Truesdale Lake & Truesdale Lake management plan. Christian Jenne. 2017.

No. 55. The state of Rushford Lake, 2017. Edward J. Kwietniewski.

Annual Reports and Technical Reports published by the Biological Field Station are available at:

http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/biofld/publications.asp