PUBLICATION
FINAL REPORT
LAKE GEORGE URBAN RUNOFF STUDY
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
James VI. Sutherland
Jay A. Bloomf ielci
James M. Swart
Bureau of Water Research
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-0001
December 1983
New York State/Department of Environmental Conservation
-------
FINAL REPORT
LAKE GEORGE URBAN RUNOFF STUDY
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
James W. Sutherland
Jay A. Bloomfield
James M. Swart
Bureau of Water Research
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-0001
December 1983
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Water Planning Division of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and approved for publica-
tion. This approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of USEPA, nor does mention of trade names or ccrmercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWARD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing public and government concern about environmental quality. The complexity of
our environment and the interplay among its components require concentrated and
integrated approaches to pollution problems.
The possible deleterious water quality effects of nonpoint sources in
general, and urban runoff in particular, were recognized by the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. Because of uncertainties about the true
significance of urban runoff as a contributor to receiving water quality problems,
Congress made treatment of separate stormwater discharges ineligible for Federal
funding when it enacted the Clean Water Act in 1977. To obtain information that
would help resolve these uncertainties, the Agency established the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program in 1978. This five-year program is intended to answer
questions such as:
• To what extent is urban runoff a contributor to water
quality problems across the nation?
• What is the effectiveness of controls short of treatment
in reducing water quality problems where they exist?
• Are best management practices for control of urban runoff
cost effective in comparison to alternative options?
This study was conducted to answer not only these questions posed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the national NURP level, but to address
the issue of the impact of urban stormwater runoff on the water quality of Lake
George, New York.
Carl Myers, Acting Director
Water Planning Division
Washington, D.C.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
During 1980, as part of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) entered into a cooperative
agreement (P002229-01-1) with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) to conduct a study of urban runoff at Lake George, New York,
located in the southeastern Adirondack Mountains. The purpose of the study was to
determine the effect of runoff from a developed watershed on the water quality of
the Lake and its tributaries.
More than forty storm events were sampled during a two-year period at
six tributary sampling stations to assess the loading of plant nutrients and other
contaminants from developed and undeveloped areas to the open waters of the Lake.
Additionally, the nearshore and open waters of Lake George were sampled during
storm and non-storm periods, to assess the impact of stormwater runoff on the
trophic conditions of the Lake.
Runoff from developed areas accounts for 14.0% of the annual phosphorus
loading to Lake George, which is 15.5% of the load to the South Lake and 6.6% of
the load to the North Lake. In addition, developed areas contribute 62.9% of the
annual phosphorus load to the study area at the south end of the Lake.
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page
1 Lake George and surrounding watershed 5
2 Drainages and sampling stations at the south
end of Lake George 10
3 Climatological stations in the Lake George region 23
4 Sunmary of precipitation and rraxiimjm-minimurn daily
air temperature for the study period 25
5 Sunmary of snowpack depth and water content for
the study period 27
6 Total monthly runoff at primary sampling stations
and at Northwest Bay Brook 32
7 Results from two special studies of discharge along
the Sheriff's Dock storm sewer conveyance 37
8 Monthly total phosphorus loads from atmospheric
deposition during 1981 at Lake George 41
9 Hydrograph for October 1982 event during which
priority pollutant samples were collected 43
10 Histograms of Event Mean Concentrations for total
phosphorus at primary sampling stations during
the study 52
11 Histograms of Event Mean Concentrations for chloride
at primary sampling stations during the study 53
12 Histograms of Event Mean Concentrations for total
suspended solids at primary sampling stations
during the study 54
13 Histograms of Event Mean Concentrations for total
lead at primary sampling stations during the study 55
14 Relationship between total phosphorus concentration
and direct runoff rates at the primary sampling
stations during the study 61
15 Areal total phosphorus load in total and direct runoff
during the study period and the relationship to per-
centage of developed land in the study drainages 67
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGUI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title
1 Morphcrnetric characteristics of Lake George 6
2 Average and peak seasonal population during 1975
for Lake George (Town & Village) and Bolton 8
3 Permanent population trends for Lake George (Town &
Village) and Bolton 9
4 Characteristics of drainage areas at the south end
of Lake George 11
5 Summary of land use and impervious areas for
monitored drainages 13
6 Summary data for monitored drainages 14
7 Estimates of total population and population densities
for drainages at the south end of Lake George 16
8 Runoff and atmospheric deposition sampling stations,
conveyance characteristics, and flow monitoring-water
sampling equipmenr 18
9 Test patterns and chemical parameters for the
Lake George Urban Runoff Study 19
10 Station operation periods and data periods of record 22
11 Mean monthly precipitation for climatological stations
in the Lake George region for the period of record,
1960 - 1982 24
12 Precipitation statistics for sampling stations during
the period 1 June 1980 through 1 November 1982 26
13 Long-term precipitation trends for the period 1961 - 1982,
summarized by water year into three periods 29
14 Direct runoff at primary sampling stations during the
sampled periods and during the total study 30
15 Baseflow runoff at primary sampling stations during
sampled periods 31
16 Total runoff at primary sampling stations during sampled
periods and during Water Years 80 - 81 and 81 - 82 33
vi
-------
LIST OF TAPT.F.S (con't.)
No. Title
17 Direct runoff coefficients at primary sampling
stations during sampled periods 34
18 Hydrologic surplus at the primary sampling stations
during the sampled periods 36
19 Annual total phosphorus loads from atmospheric
deposition. lake George, New York 39
20 Results for priority pollutants which were above the
detection limit during a storm on 7 and 8, October 1982....42
21 Cedar Lane storm sewer event summary. Event Mean
Concentrations 45
22 West Brook event summary. Event Mean Concentrations 46
23 Sheriff's Dock storm sewer event summary. Event
Mean Concentrations 47
24 Prospect Mountain Brook event summary. Event Mean
Concentrations 48
25 Marine Village storm sewer event sunmary. Event
Mean Concentrations 49
26 English Brook event summary. Event Mean Concentrations... .50
27 Results of total phosphorus loading calculations for
the primary sampling stations during the six time
periods of the study 57
28 Discharge-weighted average total phosphorus concentra-
tions in direct runoff at primary sampling stations
during the sampled periods 60
29 Relationship between total phosphorus concentration and
direct runoff rates at the priinary sampling stations
during the study 61
30 Total phosphorus load at primary sampling stations during
the sampled periods, and during Water Year 80-81 and
81 - 82 63
31 Period loading of total phosphorus at primary sampling
sites as percentage of the annual load for the time
interval October 1980 through September 1982 64
vii
-------
LIST OF TART.F.S (con't.)
No. Title
32 Areal loading of total phosphorus in direct runoff
at the primary sampling stations for the sampled
periods and for the total study 65
33 Areal loading of total phosphorus in total runoff at
primary sampling stations for the sampled periods and
for the total study 66
34 Areal loads of total phosphorus at the primary sampling
stations corrected for groundwater flow 69
35 Annual total phosphorus loading to south Lake George
from drainages in the study area south of Tea Island 71
36 Projected annual phosphorus loadings under various
development scenarios 74
37 Limnological characteristics, south embayment,
Lake George 77
38 Lake George annual phosphorus budget 79
Vlll
-------
AOOOflJEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals, without whose
support, this project would have never been completed.
First, frcm the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Daniel Barolo, Michael O'Toole, Tom Monroe, and Italo Carcich, for supporting this
project throughout the last three years, N.G. Haul, Donald Corliss, Gerald Rider
and Michael White, for help on various administrative aspects, and the technical
staff of the Department, particularly Denise Polsinelli, Scott Rasmussen, Melodee
Denham, William Glass, David Ids and Ken Soeder.
We also are indebted to Clifford Siegfried of the New York State Museum
and Science Service and Lindsay Wood of the New York State Department of Health,
and their respective staffs, for conduct of the lake sampling program.
Ife also would like to thank Robert Weinbloom of the New York State
Department of Health (Analytical Services), Steve Wolcott of the United States
Geological Survey (Hydrology), Chuck Barnes of the United States Geological Survey
lAurospheric Deposition) and the staff of the Queensbury Water Treatment Labora-
tory (Bacterial Analysis). We appreciate the support of our Advisory Conmittee
and, in particular, the efforts of hJary Arthur Beebe of the Lake George
Association.
Finally, a sincere thank you to Sharon Hotaling and Deborah Agresta who
processed all of the words in these and all of our previous reports, and without
whom, this project could not have been completed.
-------
INTRCDUCTICM
Lake George and the surrounding watershed have become a major tourist
and recreation area in New York State during the past decade. As a result, there
have been increases in the permanent and seasonal population of conmunities
situated along the Lake, land-use rezoning toward the tourist-commercial and
residential categories, and development throughout the watershed, especially in
the southern portion. The economy of communities in the watershed, being almost
totally tourist and recreation-related, is dependent upon a high level of water
quality in the Lake.
Recognizing Lake George as a unique resource, there have been local and
State commitments to protect and enhance the water quality. For example, the Lake
George Association, whose membership includes over 2000 area residents, has been
working since 1885 to preserve the water quality of the Lake. Association concern
for changes in water quality and the absence of long-term data led to the
establishment of a special fund which sponsors a limnological monitoring program
on the Lake. New York State has designated Lake George as a "Class AA-Special"
water body (the highest standard of water classification) and Title 17-1709 of the
New York State Environmental Conservation Law prohibits the fall, flow or
discharge of sewage matter or other deleterious matter or effluent into waters of
the Lake or any of its tributaries.
Widespread public concern for water quality has been partially respon-
sible for a large number of limnological investigations on Lake George during the
past fifteen years. Distinct differences in water quality indicators have been
reported, with the south, more-developed portion of the Lake exhibiting lower
transparencies (Ferris and Clesceri, 1977; Wood and Fuhs, 1979; Wood, 1982; Pope,
1981, 1982; Siegfried, 1982; Siegfried et al., 1983), lower hypolimnetic dissolved
oxygen concentrations (Wood and Fuhs, 1979; Siegfried, 1982; Siegfried et al.,
1983), higher phosphorus (Aulenbach and Clesceri, 1971; Siegfried et al., 1983)
and chlorophyll a_ concentrations (Wood and Fuhs, 1979; Wood, 1982; Siegfried
et al., 1983), and a trend toward seasonal blooms of blue-green algae (Monheimer
and Baker, 1982; Siegfried, 1982; Siegfried et al., 1983). These differences in
water quality indicators are associated with, or could result from, higher levels
of cultural activity (i.e., increased sources of phosphorus) in the southern
portion of the watershed and continued development will tend to accentuate these
differences (Dillon, 1983; Shapiro, 1983).
Several investigators have constructed nutrient budgets for Lake George
based on relatively little or non-existent data (Aulenbach, 1979; Aulenbach and
Clesceri, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977; Aulenbach, Clesceri and Mitchell, 1979; Gobble,
1974; Hetling, 1974; Wood and Fuhs, 1979). Although the estimates vary, all of
the budgets indicate that atmospheric deposition and surface runoff are the major
sources of nitrogen and phosphorus input to the Lake. In his evaluation of these
nutrient budgets, Dillon (1983) estimates that, on an annual basis, the mean
contribution of total phosphorus in runoff from developed areas is approximately
20 percent of the total loading to the south portion of the Lake. Unless certain
controls are implemented, phosphorus loading will increase as development
continues in this portion of the watershed. It would appear, therefore that any
water quality management program for Lake George should address the issue of
runoff control from developed areas.
-1-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLAIMER i
FORWARD ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ix
INTRODUCTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE ARE?.
Lake George and Surrounding Watershed 4
Study Area 7
METHODOLOGY 17
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Precipitation, Air Tenperature and Snowpack 21
Hydrology 28
Atmospheric Deposition 38
Priority Pollutants 40
Event Mean Concentrations 40
Total Phosphorus Loading Calculations 51
Annual Phosphorus Loadings 59
Annual Phosphorus Budget, South Lake George 68
Phosphorus-Trophic State Relationships 76
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 80
BIBLIOGRAPHY 82
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
-------
Although there have been numerous studies of Lake George water quality
during the past fifteen years, most have emphasized the physical and chemical
nature of the open water of the Lake. There was essentially no data base which
characterized runoff from developed and undeveloped areas and the extent of
adverse water quality impacts caused by runoff. A review of the literature prior
to 1980 shows that six studies of chemistry and one study of coliform bacteria
were conducted on Lake George tributaries (see First Annual Report). Other than
coliform bacteria data collected from culverts and near-shore areas of the Lake,
the information on water quality of storm runoff from developed areas was limited
to a single sampling at some culverts in the vicinity of Lake George Village
(Kasper, 1976; Palladine; 1976).
During 1979, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDBC) submitted an application for Federal assistance and a work plan to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the conduct of an urban runoff
study at Lake George, New York, as part of the National Urban Runoff Program
(NUKP). The specific objectives of the proposed study were to:
1. identify and quantify (in terms of concentration and load)
the major runoff contaminants transported to the Lake by streams
and storm sewers located in the developed, south portion of
the watershed.
2. test the effectiveness of control measures to prevent
or reduce the discharge of contaminants to Lake George.
3. determine the water quality response in south Lake George
to the total loadings of contaminants discharged from urbanized
areas under present levels of development with and without
control measures.
4. develop a management program for Lake George to
minimize the impact of runoff from developed areas
on water quality.
The NYSDEC intended to provide a stormwater runoff strategy for
developed areas and areas susceptible to development in the Lake George watershed
and an overall lake management program which would have application in other
similar situations in New York State and nationwide.
The Lake George Urban Runoff Study was approved for a three-year period
beginning March 1, 1980, for a total cost of $810,000 in Federal funds. An amount
of $310,000 was committed to the first year of the study to identify and quantify
the major runoff contaminants (Objective 1) and to determine the impact of runoff
on water quality of the Lake (Objective 3). The NYSDEC was responsible for
overall conduct of the study and the watershed sampling program. The program to
determine the impact of runoff on water quality of the Lake was conducted by the
New York State Departments of Education and Health.
Based upon the results from preliminary sampling, USEPA reduced the
level of funding from $499,200 to $250,000 for the remainder of the study and
indicated that control measure evaluation and development of a management program
should be deleted from the work plan. In addition, the portion of the study
-2-
-------
investigating the impact of runoff on water quality of the Lake was scheduled to
terminate after the first year. Thus, the second and third years of the study
were a continuation of the watershed sampling effort to determine load ings of
various contaminants from undeveloped and developed areas to South lake George.
The data presented and discussed here are results from the watershed
sampling program. The results of the Lake sampling program are presented in
Siegfried (1982) and Wood (1982). In addition, the final report for the Lake
George Clean Lakes Study (in preparation) will surmarize the Lake monitoring
results from the urban runoff study and review various structural measures for
reducing surface runoff and sediment loading to the Lake.
-3-
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
Lake George and Surrounding Watershed
Lake George is located in the eastern Adirondack Mountain Region of New
York State near the border with Vermont and within the Lake Charnplain Drainage
Basin. The watershed is within the boundaries of latitudes 43°22' and 43°51'
North and longitudes 73°24' and 73°47' Vfest. Ferris et al. (1980) have reviewed
the geographic features of Lake George and surrounding watershed.
The Lake is long and narrow and the major axis extends in a north-
northeast direction (Figure 1). It consists of two distinct basins which are
referred to as North and South Lake George and which are similar morphcmetrically
(Table 1). The average depth- is 18.0 m and the breadth varies from 0.7 km to
4.0 km along the 51.0 km length. The lake surface at mean level is 97 m above sea
level and encompasses 114 km2. The watershed surface area is 492 km2 and the
total catchment area is 606 km2, resulting in a tributary watershed to lake
surface ratio of 4.3. The Lake flows south to north, and a water retention tine
of 8 years has been calculated (Ferris and Clesceri, 1977).
Lake George lies in a glacial-scoured basin which is predominately
Pre-Cambrian metamorphic and igneous rock, with small patches of Cambrian deposits
at the southern end of the basin (Schoettle and Friedman, 1971). Most of the
watershed is covered with shallow soil from glacial debris and there are numerous
outcroppings. The Lake shore is irregular, rocky and sleep, with some elevations
of considerable height. The elongate shape of the basin and sleep topography have
resulted in a large number of tributaries with small drainage areas relative to
the size of the Lake. About 25% of the 80 tributaries flowing into Lake George
are intermittent.
The Lake George basin is located within the humid, continental climatic
region of the northeastern United States. Climatological records from Glens
Falls, New York (approximately 11 km south of Lake George) show a mean July
temperature of 21°C and a mean January temperature of -7CC. Precipitation is
moderate and well-distributed throughout the year. The average annual precipi-
tation for climatological stations surrounding the basin is approximately 89 cm.
Snowfall generally is sufficient to cover the ground from late November through
mid-April. The Lake generally freezes in late December, or early January, and
thaws during mid to late April.
The most recent land use data for the Lake George watershed was
presented by Hetling (1974) and was based upon 1968 aerial photography. According
to this report, 97% of the total watershed was undeveloped and about 75% of the
developed area was concentrated along the shoreline of South Lake George. This
developed area extends along the southwestern shore from Bolton Landing to Lake
George Village and then north along the eastern shore through Queensbury to Fort
Ann (see Figure 1). Most of the development is concentrated along the lake
shoreline due to the steep topography of the watershed.
The major economies of the Lake George basin are recreation and tourism,
and conrnunities such as Lake George and Bolton are subject to large variations of
population between permanent and seasonal residents. In 1975, the Lake Champlain-
Lake George Regional Planning Board prepared estimates of average and peak
-4-
-------
VT
Lake George Basin
URBANIZED AREA
Figure 1.
Lake George and surrounding
watershed.
10
SCALE IN KM
-5-
-------
TABLE 1, MDRPHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKE GEORGE*
SOUTH LAKE
LENGTH (KM)
MAX, BREADTH (KM)
MEAN BREADTH (KM)
AREA (KM2)
MAX, DEPTH (M)
MEAN DEPTH (M)
SHORELINE LENGTH (KM)
VOLUME (KM3)
WATERSHED AREA (KM2) (LAND)
CATCHMENT AREA (KM2)
22,4
4,0
2,6
57,6
58,0
15,5
76,0
1,02
313,2
370,8
NORTH LAKE
28,6
3,2
2,0
56,4
53,3
20,5
133,6
1,08
178,8
235,2
TOTAL LAKE
51,0
4,0
2,3
114,0
58,0
18,0
209,6
2,1
492,0
606,0
(INCLUDING LAKE)
*FROM AULENBACH AND Q.ESCERI, 1973,
-------
seasonal population for Lake George and Bolton which were based upon actual counts
of seasonal hones and cottages, commercial lodging facilities and canping
facilities (Table 2). The Town and Village of Lake George increased by approxi-
mately 515% on average summer days (from 3,015 persons to 18,508 persons) and 800%
on peak summer days (3,015 persons to 27,036 persons). Bolton increased by
approximately 405% on average summer days (from 1,663 persons to 8,422 persons)
and 690% on peak summer days (from 1,663 persons to 13,179 persons). These
estimates do not reflect the presence of day visitors or people camping outside of
public or private campgrounds.
Census data indicate that the south basin communities of Lake George and
Bolton have experienced significant increases in permanent population during the
past three decades (Table 3). Lake George (Town and Village) showed increases of
approximately 50% during the 1950's, 15% during the 1960's and 20% during the
1970's, whereas Bolton increased by approximately 20% during the 1950's and 12%
during the 1960's and 1970's. A trend toward year-round occupancy is largely
responsible for this increase. New York State population projections for the two
communities show increases to 6000 permanent residents and 66,000 seasonal
residents by the year 2000.
Study Area
The study area was located at the south end of Lake George and included
stream, storm sewer and direct drainage in the portion of the watershed south of
Tea Island (Figure 2). The total area of this section of the Lake George
watershed is 59.95 km2 and the land use characteristics include urban,
agriculture, forest and water, with the forest (87%) and urban (12%) categories
constituting the major land usages. Direct drainage along the shoreline has a
relatively small surface area (0.57 km2) when compared to the other drainages, but
has the highest proportion of developed area with approximately 97% urban land use
and 36% impervious area. Table 4 presents physical and land use characteristics
for drainage areas at the south end of Lake George.
In general, bedrock in this area consists of metamorphic and igneous
rock such as gneisses and schists, syenite, granite and gabbro. Glacial and
fluvial deposits from receding glaciers have formed natural sand beds predomi-
nantly in the southern basin. The topography of the region is characterized by
moderately to very steep slopes, with a range in elevation from 97 meters at lake
level to over 580 meters. The soils contain mostly granite and quartz material
and generally are shallow, coarse to medium textured, and low in fertility. The
erodability ratings are low for all soils within the study area. Permeability of
these soils are moderately rapid.
The most common forest cover is referred to as northern hardwoods and
generally consists of sugar maple, yellow birch and beech. Associated species
include red spruce, white pine, hemlock, white ash and red maple, with the
conifers more prevalent on the lower slopes.
Three stream drainages and three storm sewer drainages were monitored
during the Lake George Urban Runoff Study. Figure 2 shows these drainages; each
drainage is coded with a tw>-digit number that identifies the particular tributary
-7-
-------
TABLE 2, AVERAGE AND PEAK SEASONAL POPULATION DURING 1975
FOR LAKE GEORGE (TOWN & VILLAGE) AND BOLTON,
RESIDENCE
SEASONAL HOMES
AND COTTAGES
COMMERCIAL LODGERS
PUBLIC CAMPSITES
GROUP CAMP FACILITIES
SUBTOTAL
PERMANENT POPULATION
TOTAL
PERCENT INCREASE
(PERMANENT -" SEASONAL)
LAKE GEORGE
(TOWN
AVERAGE
848
13,370
1,275
0
15,493
3,015
18,508
514
& VILLAGE)
PEAK
2,142
20,509
1,370
0
24,021
3,015
27,036
797
BOLTON
AVERAGE
1,278
4,029
1,094
358
6,759
1,663
8,422
406
PEAK
3,228
6,165
1,675
448
11,516
1,663
13,179
692
SOURCES: A) LAKE CHAMPLAIN-LAKE GEORGE REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD, 1975,
B) NEW YORK STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1975,
-------
TABLE 3, PERMANENT POPULATION TRENDS FOR LAKE GEORGE
(TOWN & VILLAGE) AND BOLTON,
LAKE GEORGE
POPULATION (TOWN & VILLAGE) BOLTON
1950 1,621 1,184
1960 2,429 1,417
1970 2,806 1,589
1980 3,394 1,793
PERCENT CHANGE
1950 - 1960 49,8 19,6
1960 - 1970 15,5 12,1
1970 - 1980 21,0 12,8
SOURCE: UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980,
-9-
-------
Tea Island
west
Tea Island
east
41
40
39
38
37
I I
2.0 km
East Brook
English Brook
Marine Village
Sheriff's Dock
West Brook
Cedar Lane
Monitored drainage
Unmonitored drainage
Direct drainage
Primary sampling station
Atmospheric deposition
station
Figure 2. Drainages and sampling stations at the
south end of Lake George.
-10-
-------
1AIU.L" 1. CHAKAniklSllCS OT DRAINAGE AM.AS AT Till SOUTH END OF LAKL
DRAINAGES
rCNITOhED
CEDAR LANE CULVERT
NEST BROOK
• SHERIFF'S DOCK CULVERT
PROSPECT MOUNTAIN BROOK
MWINE VILLAGE CULVERT
ENGLISH BROOK
OTHER
DIRECT
A EAST BROOK
TEA ISLAND EAST
TEA ISLAND WEST
DRAINAGE TOTAL (WEIGHTED %)
KM2
AREA
(KM')
0.31
21.60
2.24
0.99
O.G6
21.24
0.57
9.08
2.58
1.98
59.95
rilF^ILI^L
CHANNEL
Ll.HT.TH
(KM)
0.5
8.0
1.6
0.9
0.6
11.2
-
1.4
-
-
SLOPE
U)
1.6
1.2
9.1
18.5
3.8
2.9
-
1.5
-
-
URBAN
42.02
7.17
27.9U
4.89
76.87
4.77
96.56
21.97
18.15
12.96
11.73
7.03
uwxu
AGRIC.
-
0.05
-
-
-
0.15
-
0.46
-
6.91
0.18
0.29
UDC.
FORtST
"
57.98
91.69
72.10
95.11
23.13
91.46
3.44
77.00
81.85
80.10
87.31
52.32
WATER
-
0.79
-
-
-
0.32
-
0.57
-
-
0.18
0.29
IMPERVIOUS
8.60
1.57
9.02
3.61
17.97
1.90
35.76
2.72
2.32
3.62
2.71
1.61
INCLUDES PROSPECT MKJNTAIN BROOK
INCLUDES CtDAR LANE ClILVLRT
-------
(as listed in the Water Quality Classification for New York State), e.g., West
Brook (38), Sheriff's Dock Culvert (39), etc. The catchment for the Cedar Lane
storm sewer (Drainage £3702) is a part of the East Brook drainage system (see
Figure 2). The catchment for Prospect Mountain Brook (Drainage #3950) is the
section of the Sheriff's Dock storm sewer drainage (#39) that is west of Lake
George Village (see Figure 2). Detailed basin plans for each drainage are
presented in Appendix A.
The study drainages include 46.05 km2 (77%) of the total watershed area
(59.95 km2) south of Tea Island and range in size from 0.31 km2 (Cedar Lane
Culvert) to approximately 21.5 km2- (Vfest Brook and English Brook) (see Table 4).
The proportion of developed, or urbanized, land in these drainages ranges from
approximately 5% for English Brook to 77% for the Marine Village Culvert. Urban
land use in this area includes residential, commercial, industrial, parkland, open
space, and other (highways, public and service facilities). A summary of land use
for the monitored drainage areas is presented in Table 5.
The proportion of impervious surface in the study drainages ranged frcn
approximately 1.5% for West Brook to 18% for the Marine Village Culvert (see
Table 4). However, these figures are based upon the total surface area of
drainages which, except for Marine Village Culvert, are predominately undeveloped
arid forested (5b% - 95%). In addition, the relative location of the developed and
forested areas is an important factor. With the exception of Prospect Mountain
Brook, the developed area of the drainages is adjacent to the lake shore and the
major conveyance which drains to the lake, while the forested region is beyond the
developed area and furtlier removed from the lake. In view of the above, it seems
more appropriate to describe the impervious surface in terms of the developed, or
urbanized, land in each drainage, and the proportions range from approximately 15%
(West Brook) to 29% (English Brook). Table 5 presents a summary of impervious
characteristics in the study drainages based upon land use, and a table of
impervious structures (buildings, streets, etc.) and surface areas is presented in
Appendix A.
Representative slopes of the study drainages range from 144 m/krn (I-iarine
Village Culvert) to 506 m/km (Prospect Mountain Brook) whereas the representative
slope of the channels or storm sewer conveyances within these drainages range from
39 m/km (English Brook) to 335 m/km (Prospect Mountain Brook). Table 6 summarizes
this slope information and additional characteristics for the drainages including
the proportion of total arid urban area served by storm sewers and the proportion
of total street length with swales and ditches or curbs and gutters.
Major soils groups in the study drainages include the Charlton and
Colrain series, the Hinckley-Plainfield and Colrain-Wcodstock Associations, and
the Woodstock-Rock Outcrop Complex. A soils map and table summarizing soils types
in the drainages are presented in Appendix A.
The total permanent population of the Lake George watershed south of Tea
Island is estimated to be 2,743 persons. Individual drainages within this area
have permanent populations which range frccn 24 persons in the direct drainage to
681 persons in the drainage of the Sheriff's Dock storm sewer. Seasonal residents
for the south end of Lake George are estimated to be 9,524 persons on an average
summer day and 14,842 persons on a peak summer day. These figures represent a
-12-
-------
TABLE 5.
SlWVRY (IF LAND USE AND iMPirVIOIir, AKEAS F(K< MwiTiftED DRAINAGES -
LAKI U.ORGE llKHAN RllMlFF
00
I
DRAINAGE
3702
38
'39
3950
10
ITA
IA
XI
m
TA
IA
Zl
ZTI
TA
IA
Zl
ZTI
TA
IA
Zl
ZTI
TA
IA
Zl
ZTI
TA
IA
Zl
Zll
RESIDENTIAL
(1120)
1.81
0.11
22.65
15.17
8.92
1.51
16.93
1.15
28.8G
7. 42
25.71
36.79
_
_
_
-
11.50
5.31
36.62
11.71
12.95
2.16
16.b8
5.36
CoftCRCIAL
(1202)
11.11
2.21
20.11
81.53
18.31
9.56
19.79
28.19
12.95
7.67
38.76
38.03
_
_
_
-
6.99
2.81
10.20
23.67
25.20
3.98
15.79
9.87
uminn
OUTDOOR
tec.
(1KJO)
.
-
_
-
6.31
0.17
2.69
0.50
1.09
2.17
53.06
10.76
1.09
2.11
52.32
59.11
6.22
0.18
2.89
1.52
3.63
O.d)
0.1)0
0.00
INACTIVF.
tX INACTIVE
(ISO))
_
-
-
-
67.26
0.32
0.1)8
0.91
1/J'
o.m
(MU
o.uo
.
-
-
-
5.96
O.Ob
1.01
0.51
1.66
1.1'3
!"(.(«
2.85
Pim., Cow..
HIGHWAYS
UUJU)
_
-
-
-
30.17
12.23
W.11
30.08
11.51
2.r»>
17. 85
10.21
0.71
O./'l
im.oo
20.%
17.10
3.31
19.36
27.88
51.91
21.80
39.70
51.15
TOTAL
12/5
2.65
20.16
1(10.00
161.27
23,79
11.75
70. 16
62.56
16.67
26.73
95.79
1.83
2.88
59.63
80.110
50.77
11.67
22/19
98.32
101.35
29.09
28.70
72.13
AGRICULTURE
(2000)
.
-
-
-
1.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
_
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
9.58
o.m
0.00
0.00
PUREST
(1000)
17.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
1980.67
10.12
0.51
29.81
161.16
0.85
0.53
1.21
91.02
0.72
0.77
20.00
15.28
0.20
1.31
1.68
2006.00
11.21
0.56
27.87
WATF.R
(5000)
_
-
-
-
17.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
WETLANDS
(6000)
.
.
.
-
_
.
-
_
-
.
-
_
.
-
-
_
.
-
-
5.95
0.00
0.0)
0.00
TOTAL
30.82
2.65
8.60
-
2160.15
33.91
1.57
-
223.52
20.17
7.81
-
98.85
3.60
3.60
-
66.05
11.87
17.97
-
2123.63
10.33
1.90
-
1 TA = TOTAL AREA (HECTARES), IA = IMPERVIOUS AREA (ttCTAHLS), Zl = PERCENT IMPERVIOUS, ZTI = PERCENT OF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS
2 INCLUDES 3950
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY DATA FOR MONITORED DRAINAGES - LAKE GEORGE URBAN RUNOFF STUDY
CHARACTERISTIC
TOTAL AREA OF DRAINAGE (KM2):
REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE OF
DRAINAGE AREA (M/KM):
LENGTH OF MAIN CHANNEL (KM):
REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE OF CHANNEL
OR STORM SEWER (M/KM) :
PORTION OF TOTAL AREA WITH
STORM SEWERS (%) :
PORTION OF URBANIZED AREA WITH
STORM SEWERS (%) :
PORTION OF TOTAL STREET LENGTH
3702
0,31
214.1
0.5
188.0
9.64
22.98
VI
u
38
21.60
202.5
8.0
81.9
0.34
4.96
51
rwiwwjc
39
2.24
242.9
1,6
115.6
3.66
13.37
49
3950
0.99
505.6
0.89
335.3
0
0
100
40
0.66
143.9
0.6
168.0
7.31
9.50
68
41
21.24
212.2
11.2
39.2
0.10
1.00
98
WITH SWALES AND DITCHES (%):
PORTION OF TOTAL STREET LENGTH 56 49 51 0 32
WITH CURBS AND GUTTERS (%):
-------
population increase of approximately 350% (from 2,743 persons to 12,267 persons)
on average sunnier days and 550% (from 2,743 persons to 17,585 persons) on peak
summer days. These seasonal population data consider only overnight residents and
do not account for day visitors which may increase the total numbers on average
and peak days by three and four times, respectively. Table 7 summarizes the
estimates of permanent and seasonal populations and population densities for
drainages at the south end of Lake George. The drainage of Prospect Mountain
Brook has neither permanent nor seasonal residents and is not included in Table 7.
-15-
-------
TABLE 7. ESTIMATES OF TOTAL POPULATION AND POPULATION DENSITIES FOR DRAINAGES AT THE SOUTH END OF LAKE GEORGE.
DRAINAGE
CEDAR LANE CULVERT
NEST BROOK
SHERIFF'S DOCK CULVERT
MARINE VILLAGE CULVERT
ENGLISH BROOK
DIRECT
EAST BROOK
TEA ISLAND EAST
TEA ISLAND WEST
UKAINAGE TOTALS
PERMANENT
62
301
681
357
443
24
195
213
187
2,7i)3
MBER OF PERSOf
SEASONAL
-AVERAGE
-PLAK
3147
533
1,534
2,359
1,373
2,188
725
1,154
1,055
1,023
1.457
2,321
1,527
2,348
819
1,259
687
1.1157
9.524
14,842
TOTAL*
4(19
5'J5
1.835
2,lO)
2,054
2,809
1,062
1.491
1,498
2,
-------
METHODOLOGY
Each study drainage had a primary station where surface runoff was
monitored for flow and sampled for physical and chemical parameters. The primary
station for most drainages was located along the stream or storm sewer conveyance
near its outflow to lake George. Prospect Mountain Brook is a section of the
Sheriff's Dock storm sewer that drains a forested region and was included as a
"control" in the study. The station was located west of Interstate Highway 87,
before the conveyance enters the developed area of the Village of Lake George.
The study drainages and general location of the primary stations are shown in
Figure 2; more detailed plans of the sampling station location and surrounding
area are presented on the drainage basin maps in Appendix A.
Atmospheric deposition was monitored at two sites during the study. All
of the equipment was situated near the field station during the first year. The
wet/dry collector and weighing bucket recording precipitation collector were moved
to an area near the Cedar Lane storm sewer during May, 1981. The location of the
atmospheric deposition sites are shown on Figure 2 ("99" stations) and the
drainage basin maps for the Cedar Lane storm sewer and West Brook (Appendix A).
Equipment at the storm sewer and stream sampling stations and the
atmospheric deposition station was run with AC-power. The type of equipment of
each station is listed in Table 6. Information on conveyance characteristics of
the sampling stations also is presented in this table.
The criteria for sampling during dry weather and during storm events are
presented in the Quality Assurance Project Plan for this study (NYSDEC, 1981).
The types of data collected during the study included: flow, water chemistry,
field measurements, suspended sediment and atmospheric deposition. Most of the
chemical analyses for the study were conducted at laboratories of the Environ-
mental Health Institute (EHI) of the New York State Department of Health.
Standard test patterns were established to facilitate sample collection in the
field and sample handling prior to, and following, delivery to the EHI laboratory.
Each test pattern consists of a specific set of analyses performed on subsamples
of an original water sample, which have been processed according to EHI require-
ments. The test pattern codes and the chemical parameters that were analyzed for
each pattern are presented in Table 9. Samples generally were submitted to EHI
for analysis under either test pattern 58 or test pattern 71 during the first year
of the study, and under either test pattern 21 or test pattern 71 during the
remainder of the study.
Field measurements, which were performed on all water chemistry samples
by NYSDEC personnel at the field station in Lake George, included pH, alkalinity
and specific conductance. Total suspended sediment, which was run on most
samples, was analyzed by NYSDEC personnel at Adirondack Community College in
Glens Falls, New York during the first year of the study and then at the field
station in Lake George during the remainder of the study.
Atmospheric deposition was collected in the form of wetfall, dry fall and
bulk precipitation samples. Field measurements were performed on these samples by
NYSDEC personnel and the samples then were submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and EHI for chemical analysis. Additional information concerning sample
-17-
-------
TABLL8.
Riworr AND ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION SAMPLING STATIONS. rnNvrvAWF CHARACTIRISTICS, AND
FLOW MUNI10RING-WATLR SAMPLING (.(JUIPMTNT - LAKt Gt.URU HRIiAII UUNOFK STUDY.
'
3702
3801
1101
LOCATION
CEDAR LANE STORM SEWER
WEST BROOK
ENGLISH BROOK
DISTANCE TO OUTFLOW
(METERS)
90
1)00
90
TYPE
CORRUGATED PIPE
(CIRCULAR)
OPEN CHANNTL (SAND)
OPEN CHANNEL
DIMENSIONS
53 CM DIA.
M.3 M WIDE
5.5 li WlOt.
SLOPE
< 1
< 1
2
EOlllPTtNT
53 CM PALMER-BUWLUS FLUME, ISCO
1700 FLOW METER WITH ISCO 1710
PRINTER, ISCO 1680 AUTOMATIC FLOW
PROPORTIONAL SAMPLER.
STACOM-7735 GAS PURGE SERVO-
MANUMETER, FlSHER PORTER ADR-35D,
I
I—•
CD
3901 SHERIFF'S DOCK STORM SEWER
¥101 MARINE VILLAGE STORM SEWER
3950 PROSPECT MOUNTAIN BROOK
3799 ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AT
CEDAR LANE
3899 ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION AT
NYSUtC FIELD SIAIION
35
800
NA
NA
(COBBLES, STONE)
CORRUGATED PIPE
(ELIP1ICAL)
150 CONCRCTE PIPE
(SQUARE)
1.8 M WIDE
91 X (J1 CM
OPEN CHANNEL 1.5 M WIDt.
(COBBLLli. STONE. SAND)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
STFVENS CHART RECORDER (TYPE A35).
MANNING S-<<050 AUTOMATIC SAMPLER
MARSH-ftBlRNEY MoDEL 250 FLOW
MLTFR ADAPTED FOR A KW CM (HEIGHT)
ARCHED PIPE. MANNING S-H050-2
AUTOMATIC SAMPLER, LIQUID-LEVEL
ACTIVATED OR FLOW PROPORTIONAL
MARSH-ftBlRNEY MODEL 250 FLOW
METER ADAPTED FOR A 91 CM SQUARE
PIPE, MANNING S-i4050 AUTOMATIC
SAMPLER, LIQUID-LEVEL ACTIVATED
OR FLOW PROPORTIONAL
91 CM M-FLUME, ISO) 1700 FLOW
METER WITH ISCO 1710 PRINTER,
ISCO 1680 AUTOMATIC FLOW PRO-
PORTIONAL SAMPLER
AEROCHEM-METRICS INC. WET/DRY
Dl POSIT ION COLLECTOR AND
WEIGHING BUCKET RECORDING PRE-
Pl TAT ION COLLECTOR
BULK PRECIPITATION COLLECTOR
NA = NUT APPLICABLE
-------
TABLE 9
TEST PATTERNS AND CHEMICAL PARAMETERS FOR
THE LAKE GEORGE URBAN RUNOFF STUDY
TEST PATTERN CHEMICAL PARAMETER
23 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
REACTIVE PHOSPHORUS
DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS
71 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
NITRATE AND NITRITE NITROGEN
CHLORIDE
BI SAME PARAMETERS AS 71 ABOVE, PLUS,.,
SOLUBLE KHELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KHELDAHL NITROGEN
DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS
AMMONIA NITROGEN
21 SAME PARAMETERS AS BI, PLUS,,,
REACTIVE PHOSPHORUS
SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
LEAD
58 SAME PARAMETERS AS 21, PLUS,,,
REACTIVE SILICA
SULFATE
SODIUM
NITRITE NITROGEN
METALS (POTASSIUM, IRON, MANGANESE,
MAGNESIUM, CALCIUM)
51 SAME PARAMETERS AS 23, PLUS,,,
TOTAL KHELDAHL NITROGEN
AWONIA NITROGEN
NITRATE AND NITRITE NITORGEN
REACTIVE SILICA
SODIUM
CHLORIDE
-19-
-------
analysis methodology is available in the Quality Assurance Plan for this study
(NYSDEIC, 1981) .
The Quality Assurance/Quality Control program for the Lake George Urban
Runoff Study consisted of duplicate, blank and spiked chemistry samples submitted
to the Environmental Health Institute (EHI), duplicate field measurements,
including total suspended sediment analysis, and periodic maintenance and calibra-
tion of electronic equipment. The quality assurance objectives, sampling
procedures and quality control data for 1980 and 1981 are presented in the Second
Annual Report for this study (Sutherland et al., 1982). The quality control data
for 1982 will be available as a supplement to this Final Report.
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data collection for the project began 1 June 1980 and continued until 1
November 1982. As a result of problems related to the purchase, installation and
operation of equipment, each station had different periods of operation and each
type of data had different periods of record. Table 10 details this information.
Precipitation, Air Temperature and Snowpack
Meterological data collection was limited to the measurement of precipi-
tation, air temperature and snowpack. The primary meterological stations were
located in the Battleground Park near Lake George Village (see Methodology
Section). In addition, climatological stations operated by the United States
Weather Service (NOAA, 1960-1982) provided data. The locations of these stations
are shown in Figure 3.
Table 11 is a summary of monthly precipitation for climatological
stations in the Lake George region for the period 1960 through 1982. The
precipitation is spread evenly throughout the year and the average annual
precipitation at the stations ranges from 82ontoll6cm for the various periods
of record. Most of the precipitation that falls between December and early March
is in the form of snow. Thus, it is evident that the hydrologic cycle at Lake
George is, to a great extent, governed by the dynamics of the snowpack.
Precipitation data for the study period at the Lake George stations
(3899, 3799) is summarized in Figure 4. In general, the early part of the study
period was dry and the winter of 1980-1981 saw little snowfall. The later half of
the study period was more typical in terms of precipitation, temperature and
snowfall.
Precipitation intensity and duration data is summarized in Table 12.
Storms of high intensity and short duration are associated with Sunnier events,
while storms of high volume and long duration predominate during the Spring and
Fall. Appendix B presents a summary of precipitation events that occurred during
the study.
Figure 4 also contains a summary of maximum and minimum daily air
temperatures for the study period. The data were compiled from the stations at
the Glens Falls Airport.
Figure 5 is a compilation of snowpack data for the study period. Both
pack depth and water content are plotted. During the winter of 1981-82, a consi-
derable volume of water was retained in the snowpack and this contributed to the
large amount of surface runoff during the Spring of 1982.
long-term precipitation trends for the period 1961 - 1982 were
summarized by Water Year (WY) into three periods: October - November (Autumn
rainfall), December - June (snowfall - snowmelt) and July - September (Summer
rainfall). These are the source periods that correspond to the sampling periods
October - January, February - June and July - September. Some discrepancies can
occur due to mid-winter rainstorms or early thaws, but only a detailed analysis ofl
long-term precipitation and air temperature records would resolve this problem. "
-21-
-------
TABLE 10, STATION OPERATION PERIODS AND DATA PERIODS OF RECORD -
LAKE GEORGE URBAN RUNOFF STUDY
DATATYPE
STATION
PERIOD OF RECORD
REMARKS
I
ro
ro
i
1. PRECIPITATION VOLUME
2, AIR TEMPERATURE
3, SNOWPACK
-------
TiconderogOj
Ticonderoga B Mill
0 Precipitation, non-recording
• Precipitation, recording
o Precipitation and temperature
N
Riverbank
Warrensburg
Whitehall
Glens Falls Farm
•o
Glens Falls FA A Airport
o
8 km
Figure 3. Climatological stations in the Lake George region.
-23-
-------
TABLE 11.
ftAN MUNTHY riCCIPITATIlJN (IN CM) POR CLIWTOLOGICAL Si AT IK IS IN TII1I LAW. (illlKGI; IfllOUlN
HM THt ItRIUU UF Kl.UMJ, I960 - I'.KL'
STATION
GLENS FALLS Y
FAA S (N)
GLENS FALLS Y
FARM S (N)
KIVEKBANK Y
1 S (N)
f- TICONUEROGA Y
1 S (N)
WARRENSBURG Y
S (N)
WHITEHALL Y
S (N)
LAKE GEORGE Y
VILLAGE S (N)
JAN
5.72
3.56(21)
6.65
1.01(22)
6.53
1.75(18)
5.31
3.56(20)
10.01
5.13(19)
6.32
3.76(21)
10.51
5.66(8)
FEE MAR
6.07 7.29
2.95(21) 3.63(20)
6.68 8.81
H. 11(22) 3.99(22)
6.25 7.11
1.60(17) 3.38(18)
1.93 6.60
3.23(21) 2.79(20)
8.33 11.00
1.22(19) 3.81(19)
5.99 7.11
3.35(22) 3.33(22)
7.62 11.61
5.19(8) 3.10(7)
APK
7.19
2.19(21)
8.92
3.18(22)
7.17
3.28(17)
6.58
2.62(20)
9 %
1.32(19)
7.51
2.92(22)
9.17
2.92(7)
MAY
7.91)
3.58(20)
9.83
1.39(21)
7.95
3.18(17)
7.31
3.33(20)
8.66
2.87(19)
8.38
3.13(21)
9.32
1.57(8)
JUN
8.03
1.57(21)
9.98
8.11
1.62(18)
6.15
3.112(20)
9.11
1.62(19)
8.28
3.18(22)
8.97
3.71(8)
JUL
7.26
2.72(21)
3:53(22)
9.01
3.73(18)
7.17
2.82(20)
8.1.1
3.15(20)
8.05
3.18(22)
8.11
3.35(8)
AIIG
t;.26
'..12(21)
l!31(21)
9.32
1.11(17)
'.'.12
5.30(20)
'1.73
•i. 81(20)
'1.91
3.99(22)
K.5I
2.19(8)
SEP
7.17
1.85(21)
9.80
5.71(22)
8.89
1.37(18)
7.11
1.1X1(19)
8.33
1.60(20)
8.53
1.83(22)
12.17
5.31(8)
OCT
6.93
1.11(20)
8.00
1.67(22)
7.26
3.89(18)
6.22
3.81(20)
7.16
1.62(19)
7.75
1.70(22)
11.23
1.52(8)
NOV
7.01 _
9.50
1.37(22)
9.01
3.63(18)
7.90
3.71(19)
11.91
5.92(18)
8.03
3.38(21)
7.21
2.57(8)
DEC ANNUAL
7.39 86.82
7.39(19) 17.01(18)
8.91 108.23
1.52(21) 21.95(20)
8.36 91.11
3.02(16) 13.61(11)
7.31 81.66
3.99(19) 11.15(18)
12.11 116,33
1.11(18) 17.35(17)
7.19 91.79
3.76(20) 15.67(20)
8.05 113.61
3.23(7) 17.50(6)
1, X = AVF.RAOT
S = STANDARD DEVIATION
(N) = NUMHi:H (IF YEAHS IN RECOkD
-------
Lake George
Precipitation Station
-4Q
JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1980
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1981
5
4
3
2
I
0
40
J,
1
.1,1 Jill
..ill ,
nliL,
i,
Mil.lJlL
Mi.
-40
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1982
Figure 4. Summary of precipitation and maximum-minimum daily
air temperature for the study period.
-------
TABLE 12, PRECIPITATION STATISTICS FOR SAMPLING STATIONS DURING THE PERIOD
1 JUNE 1980 THROUGH 1 NOVEMBER 1982
omi IUNO
3702
3801
3901
3950
4001
4101
ALL EVENTS
DURATION
(MIN)
813±756
(555)
7961742
(565)
753+663
(555)
9681744
(780)
7241514
(620)
792+725
(565)
7241600
(560)
AMOUNT
(CM)
2.02H.63
(1.37)
2.07U.59
(1.52)
2.0911.60
(1.52)
2.40H.69
(2.16)
1.9811.24
(1.63)
2.1111.56
(1.57)
1.6611.32
(1.09)
AVERAGE INTENSITY
60 MINUTE
(CM/HR) (CM/HR)
0.2410.23
(0.16)
0.2410.23
(0.17)
0.2410.23
(0.18)
0.2010.13
(0.17)
0.2U0.13
(0.18)
0.2510.22
(0.20)
0.2310.27
(0.15)
0.6210.50
(0.48)
0.6210.48
(0.48)
0.6410.50
(0.48)
0.6310.49
(0.50)
0.7U0.53
(0.56)
0.6310.41
(0.50)
0.5210.43
(0.41)
MAXIMUM INTENSITY
15 MINUTE 5 MINUTE
(CM/HR) (CM/HR)
1.2911.36
(0.80)
1.3011.32
(0.81)
1. 35tl. 37
(0.87)
1.18U.OO
(0.81)
1.44H.09
(1.22)
1.32H.31
(0.81)
1.13H.19
(0.80)
2.0612.78
(1.20)
2.0712.72
(1.20)
2.1412.80
(1.20)
1.71U.34
(1.37)
2.06U.44
(1.80)
2.0712.67
(1.20)
1.8112.32
(0.96)
KEY; AVG 1 S.D.
(MEDIAN, 50TH PERCENTILE)
-------
14
1"
10
e
e
4
2
I
vx
I Depth
I
HjO Content
DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
I960 1981
SO
25
20 1
L>
^ I
U
10 S.
DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
1961 I9B2
APRIL
MAY
Figure 5. Summary of snowpack depth and water content
for the study period.
-27-
-------
The long-term precipitation results are shown in Table 13. Prior to
January, 1975, the record is from the Glens Falls FAA Office at the Glens Falls
Airport, about 11 km south of Lake George Village. More recent results are from
Station 3899 near Lake George Village. During the 1960's, New York State
experienced sub-normal precipitation. The 1970's were wetter than average, and
the 1980's have been about average, with about 100 cm of precipitation annually.
The two Water Years included in the study period totalled 95.32 cm (1980-81) and
104.72 on (1981-82). WY 80-81 consisted of an average fall and a dry winter,
coupled with a wet sunnier. WY 81-82 consisted of an average fall, a wet winter
and a dry summer. In fact, the winter of 1981-82 was the second wettest in the
period of record (71.42 cm).
The study period deviations from the long-term averages are as follcws:
October-November +0.55 cm (3.67% wetter)
December-June +5.87 cm (10.91% wetter)
July-September +0.55 on (2.27% wetter)
Annual +6.97 on (7.49% wetter)
Thus the study period represents slightly wetter conditions than the average of
the long-term record.
Hydrology
Stream discharge was measured continuously at all sites with 5 minute
resolution at Stations 3901 and 4001, 15 minute resolution at Stations 3702, 3801,
and 4101, and 60 minute resolution at Station 3950. Previous Annual Reports for
this project have presented typical individual event hydrographs.
Tables 14 and 15 present the direct runoff and baseflow runoff (mm/day),
respectively, for the sampled periods during the study. In general, runoff rates
were greatest during the spring (see Figure 6). Table 16 summarizes total runoff
(ram) per sampled period. Again, the largest volume of runoff occurred during the
spring. The percentage of total runoff which occurred during the spring ranged
from 62.5% at Station 4001 to 78.4% at Station 3702. Restated, two-thirds to
three-quarters of the annual runoff occurred between February and June.
Table 17 presents Direct runoff coefficients for each sampled period.
These coefficients are the ratio of direct runoff to water input for the period.
Water input is defined as rainfall plus snowmelt (see note on Table 14). Again,
the spring periods represent the time when the largest fraction of available water
becomes direct runoff, usually from 20 to 30%. During certain periods, these
coefficients and also baseflow runoff rates were estimated due to incomplete
continuous discharge records. These estimates were based on values at adjacent
similar sites or similar periods at the same site, with continuous records. In
turn, the estimated direct runoff coefficients were used to fill in values for
direct discharge during certain periods. This estimation procedure allows
development of discharge and loading values at all sites for the entire study
period. Thus, the loadings and discharge summaries for the Nbrine Village storm
sewer (4001) should be viewed more critically, due to the lack of a complete
continuous discharge record during the early parts of the study.
-28-
-------
TABLE 13, LONG-TERM PRECIPITATION TRENDS (IN CM) FOR THE PERIOD
1961-1982, SUMMARIZED BY WATER YEAR INTO THREE PERIODS
WATER-YEAR
OCTOBER-NOVEMBER DECEMBER-JUNE JULY-SEPTEMBER
TOTAL
STATION
ro
10
i
1961-62
62-63
63-61
64-65
65-66
66-67
67-68
68-69
69-70
70-71
71-72
72-73
73-711
71-75
75-76
76-77
77-78
78-79
79-80
80-81
81-82
(N DAYS)
7
8,16
12.12
8.53
1,17
15,21
7.77
11.96
23.60
13,13
10.92
10.16
29.03
12.07
12,88
20.10
21.11
25.27
15.95
19.56
11.02
17.01
61
11,98
16,30
13.15
37.11 L
30.68
10.26
11.91
55.78 L
18.31
13.89
12,21
68.25 L
62.81
65.38
56.69
76.33 L
62.26
67.92
67.67
53.31 L
17.90
71.12
212(213) L
53.79
23.52
22.68
12.62
22.78
30.33
20.37
9.78
17.88
19.51
30.58
16.69
17.98
31.29
15.80
36.25
25.10
19.76
30.71
23.17
33.10
16.26
92
21.28
78.28
78.25
58.26
57,93
85.83
70.05
77.52
89.82
76.53
83.51
95.10
109.85
111.71
115.37
132.98
131.02
112.95
111.33
96.31
95.32
101.72
93.05
GLENS FALLS FAA
«
a
a
H
n
H
n
u
H
H
H
H
LAKE GEORGE (1/75)
»
H
It
H
H
H
U
NOTES: L = LEAP YEAR
-------
TABLE 14. DIRECT RUNOFF AT PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS DURING THE SAMPLED
PERIODS (IN MM/DAY) AND DURING THE TOTAL STUDY (IN M3).
PERIOD
CO
o
STATIONS
3702
3801
3901
3950
4001
4101
•PRECIPITATION (MM/DAY)
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - 6/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
TOTAL STUDY
DIRECT RUNOFF
(M3)
(0.016E)
0.268
0.125
0.102
0.340
(0.018E)
36,336
0.050
0.431
0.160
0.274
0.986
0.027
5,823,489
0.084
0.201
0.226
0.444
0.782
(0.011E)
524.604
(0.138E)
(0.452E)
0.515
0.691
1.241
0.011
400,266
(0.230E)
(0.565E)
(0.327E)
(0.559E)
1.148
0.052
256,651
0.184
0.693
0.263
0.490
1.349
0.033
8,845,058
2.298
2.259
3.360
2.793
3.369
1.767
NOTES: * OCT-JAN RUNOFF => PPT, FROM OCT-NOV, FEB-JUNE RUNOFF => PPT. FROM DEC-JUNE
E = ESTIMATED
-------
TABLE 15, BASEFLOW RUNOFF (MM/DAY) AT PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS
DURING SAMPLED PERIODS
CO
I—'
I
PERIOD
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - 6/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
3702
(0.050E)
0.494
0.110
0.180
0.678
(0.080E)
3801
0.621
1.219
0.706
1.090
1.985
0.890
OIHI 11
3901
0.011
0.429
0.006
0.132
0.952
(0.020E)
JHO
3950
(0.030E)
(0.700E)
0.050
0.624
0.995
0.034
4001
(0.700E)
U.200E)
(0.350E)
(l.OOOE)
1.698
0.469
4101
0.545
1.199
0.203
1.254
1.777
0.274
NOTES: E = ESTIMATED
-------
10
I "
"5
B
0.1
—— S9OI
5T02
4001
J J A S 0 N DJJFMAMJJASONDjjFM A M J J AS
I960 1981 1962
10
IX)
O.I
JjASONoLFHAMJJASONDjjrMAMJJAS
tttO 1*81 1962
Figure 6. Total monthly runoff (cm) at primary sampling stations
and at Northwest Bay Brook (6505).
-32-
-------
TABLE 16, TOTAL RUNOFF (IN MM) AT PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS
DURING SAMPLED PERIODS AND DURING WATER YEARS 80-81
AND 81-82, TOTAL RUNOFF DURING STUDY PERIOD is IN MJ
I
CO
co
i
PERIOD
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - 6/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
W 80-81
WY 81-82
TOTAL STUDY (M3)
3702
(8.118E)
111.300
21,620
31.686
152,700
(9.016E)
111.038
196.102
105,536
3801
82.533
217.500
79.672
153.750
115.650
(82.892E)
109,705
682.292
23,587,135
OIHIIUH
3901
11.685
91.500
21. 311
70.818
260.100
(2.852E)
127.529
333.800
1,033,376
3950
(20.661E)
(172.800E)
51,980
161.715
335,100
1.110
215.111
501.285
739,262
1001
(111,390E)
(261.750E)
(62.281E)
(191.757E)
126,900
17,101
(H1.121E)
665.761
730,712
1101
89.667
283,800
12.872
211,881
168.900
28.211
116,339
712,025
23,966,151
NOTES: E = ESTIMATED
-------
TABLE 17. DIRECT RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (UNITLESS) AT PRIMARY
SAMPLING STATIONS DURING SAMPLED PERIODS
co
.t*
i
PERIOD
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - 6/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
3702
(0.007E)
0.119
0.031
0.037
0.101
(0.010E)
3801
0.022
0.191
0.011
0.098
0.293
0.015
"' • OIHI 11*10
3901
0.037
0.089
0.062
0.159
0.232
(0.005E)
3950
(0.060E)
(0.200E)
0.112
0.217
0.368
0.006
4001
(0.100E)
(0.250E)
(0.090E)
(0.200E)
0.311
0.029
1101
0.080
0.307
0.072
0.175
0,100
0.019
E « ESTIMATED
-------
Table 18 sunmarizes the catchment "hydro-logic surplus", which is defined
as the difference between rainfall plus snowmelt and total runoff. The hydrologic
surplus can be characterized as the sum of evapotranspiration, groundwater losses
and catchment storage changes. If it is assumed that the last term is negligible
over the study period for these sirall catchments (< 25 km2 in area), then the
hydrologic surplus is equal to the first two terms. Additionally, if one assumes
for Vfest Brook (3801), English Brook (4101) and Marine Village storm sewer (4001),
that groundwater losses to lake George are negligible, then annual evapotrans-
piration can be estimated. By this process, the annual evapotranspiration is
estimated as 422 mn/yr. Using this estimate, the following amount of water is
estimated as annual groundwater seepage:
Site Groundwater Seepage (mm/yr)
3702 385
3901 324
3950 181
There is some question whether these numbers are plausible. However,
each of these three drainages have features which make them unique hydrologically.
First, due to the sandy nature of the soils, the channels in the drainage of the
Sheriffs Dock storm sewer (3901) tend to exhibit large amounts of exfiltration.
Special surveys at approximately five sites in the main channel between sites 3950
and 39U1 show considerable channel "leakage" during non-storm periods. Figure 7
shows the results of two such studies. Also, above Cooper Street, a large rip-rap
cascade tends to act as a sink for water leaving Station 3950. Often during storm i
events, runoff was observed to enter the rip-rap but did not emerge below. This
phenomenon was common during periods of low antecedent rainfall. Even during
runoff events, water leaving 3950 would account for much of the discharge at 3901.
It would be tempting to blame this paradox on difficulties with flow monitoring,
however much of the discrepancy was at low flow, and very little baseflow was
noted visually at Station 3901 during the warm months. It is quite clear that
considerable seepage from drainage 39 enters the water table of Lake George
directly and never appears in the channel. By using chemical balances for
Stations 3901 and 3950 and estimating the sub-period concentration for each
constituent, it appears that 25 to 30% of the potential direct runoff from
drainage 39 enters the Lake indirectly.
The problem at Cedar Lane storm sewer (3702) is somewhat similar. Here,
there is a probable difference between the topographic watershed and the hydro-
logic watershed. Much of the upland area never contributes direct runoff to the
channel, and apparently seeps under Route 9L to the Lake, north of the gaging
station. The hydrologic watershed area of 3702 is probably about one-half of the
topographic watershed area. At both 3702 and 3901, a considerable amount of fill
has been introduced, disrupting natural drainage patterns.
Several other points should be made:
1) A certain amount of baseflow at West Brook is indirectly due to
seepage from the Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant. The actual
tijne-of-travel of this seepage is unknown, but on an annual basis
accounts for 3.5 nm/yr of the baseflow runoff during the study
period, only a small percentage of the total runoff.
-35-
-------
TABLE 18. HYDROLOGIC SURPLUS (IN W/DAY) AT THE PRIMARY SAMPLING
STATIONS DURING THE SAMPLED PERIODS
u>
CTi
I
PERIOD
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - 6/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
3702
(2.232E)
1.197
3.395
2.511
2.351
(1.741E)
3801
1.627
0.609
2.764
1,429
0.398
0.850
OIMIIUMJ
3901
2.203
1.629
3.398
2.217
1.635
(1.736E)
3950
(2.130E)
(1.107E)
3.065
1.478
1.133
1.722
4001
(1.368E)
(0.494E)
(2.953E)
(1.Q34E)
0.523
1.255
4101
1.569
0.367
3.164
1.046
0.243
1.460
* SEE TEXT FOR DEFINITION OF HYDROLOGIC SURPLUS
E = ESTIMATED
-------
3950
187 riprap
3945
Station
3940
3935 3930
3901
4.0
E 3.0
10
E
2.0
1.0
Q
4/5/83
3/31/81
(note no flow, north branch]
800 700 600 5OO 400 300 200 100
Distonce from 3901 (m)
Figure 7. Results from two special studies of discharge along the
Sheriff's Dock storm sewer (3901) conveyance. (See text
for further explanation)
-37-
-------
2) Prospect Mountain Brook tends to stop flowing entirely during dry
periods. Virtually no flow was observed there from 15 June to 25
October 1981, precluding any need for sampling. This portion of the
drainage probably was contributing water, but through subsurface
seepage. It is likely that drainage area affects only the annual
amount of channel runoff, rather than total water production and it
is clear from the geomorphometric literature (see, for example,
Gregory and Walling, 1975) that small watersheds produce less
channel runoff annually then large watersheds. The analogy is to a
small meadow. It is unlikely that the meaaow will produce channel
runoff, except under conditions of high runoff (thunderstorms,
frozen soil). However, since each meadow is part of a large
watershed, water must seep through the soil laterally, to emerge
later as a channel. The problem of comparing loadings from
watersheds of varying sizes cannot be ignored.
3) None of the study drainages represent truly urban areas with high
levels of imperviousness. Marine Village storm sewer is only 17.97%
impervious. Despite this, flooding commonly occurs in all drainages
except Prospect Mountain and English Brooks, due to the intermittent
design of the storm sewer system in Lake George Village. Continued
upland land development has apparently increased both peak
discharges and direct runoff at the developed sites.
4) Just east of Station 3901 is King Phillip's Spring, a concrete pipe
which flows rather constantly year-around with a discharge of about
0.20 mVmin. This spring could account for some of the seepage in
the Sheriff's Dock storm sewer system.
In summary, the hydrology of the study area is complicated and requires
further study. However, since most of the sampled constituents are concentrated
in the direct runoff, estimates of seepage modify the constituent loads at the
developed sites only marginally.
Atmospheric Deposition
The NYSDiE, in cooperation with the USGS, has monitored atmospheric
deposition at Lake George, New York since 13 June 1980. Wetfall, dryfall, and
bulk samples were analyzed for chemical constituents by the USGS. Vfetfall samples
of sufficient volume were split and a duplicate sample sent to the EHI for
analysis. Annual loads for atmospheric deposition were calculated for the period
September 1980 to September 1982. Monthly total phosphorus loadings for wet, dry,
and bulk deposition were calculated for the year 1981. Loadings for wetfall
samples were calculated for both USGS and DCS! data.
Total phosphorus loads from wetfall deposition for the study period were
8.5 mg/m2/yr (USGS) and 12.9 mg/m2/yr (EHI) (see Table 19). Dryfall and bulk
total phosphorus loads were 6.1 mg/m2/yr and 25.3 mg/m2/yr, respectively. Annual
loadings of all the chemical constituents for wet, dry, and bulk deposition are
presented in Appendix D. The lower detection limits by the USGS laboratory for
total phosphorus, ammonia, lead, and the cations and anions contribute to the
lower deposition loadings for these constituents.
-38-
-------
TABLE 19, ANNUAL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS FROM
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION1,
LAKE GEORGE/ NEW YORK
SAMPLE
TYPE
WETFALL
WETFALL
DRYFALL
BULK
LAB
EHI
USGS
USGS
USGS
NUMBER
SAMPLES
49
41
14
17
£ LOAD
(MG/M2)
14,88
10,90
7,76
35,58
LOAD
(MG/M2/YR)
12,92
8,54
6,11
25,30
1, ANNUAL LOADS BASED ON RESULTS FROM STUDY PERIOD
SEPTEMBER 1980 TO SEPTEMBER 1982,
-39-
-------
Monthly total phosphorus loads from atmospheric deposition for 1981 (see
Figure 8) are calculated in units of mg/m2/day. Major nutrient inputs of wet,
dry, and bulk deposition occur seasonally in the spring and fall. These peaks are
associated with terristrial inputs of pollen, dust, insects, bird droppings, and
leaf litter. Loadings for wetfall and dryfall prior to June, 1981 represent
samples collected behind the NYSDEC field station. The sampler then was moved to
an open field near Cedar lane storm sewer (3702) to minimize contamination from
nearby cedar trees. Using the data from 1981, annual total phosphorus loads were
calculated to be 9.5 mg/m2/yr and 13.3 mg/m2/yr for the USGS and EHI wetfall data,
respectively, 6.8 mg/m2/yr for dryfall, and 28.1 mg/m2/yr for bulk deposition.
Priority Pollutants
Priority pollutants were sampled at the Marine Village storm sewer
(4001) during an event which occurred on 7 and 8 October 1982. Four discrete
samples were collected and submitted, together with a field blank, to the EHI on 8
October 1982. Organic samples were extracted by the EHI on 8 October and analyzed
on a gas chromatograph 12 October 1982. The results of the analysis, presented in
Table 20, are for only those parameters that were reported above the detection
limits. The detection limits for the 114 parameters analyzed by the EHI are
presented in Appendix C. Figure 9 is a hydrograph for the event which shows the
time of sample collection.
Event Mean Concentrations
Tables 21 through 26 summarize the discharge-weighed average concen-
tration (EMC's, or event mean concentrations) for the six sampled sites. Each
table lists the type of sample collection technique (D = discrete samples, C =
discharge-weighted composite samples), the time and duration of each event, the
mean discharge and the EMC's for the twelve constituents t sample^ mos£ frequently.
Additional analyses were conducted for major cations (Ca , Mg , Na ,
K ), anions (SO. , NO,, , reactive silica, total alkalinity), metals (Fe,
Mn), pH, specific conSuctance, water temperature and dissolved oxygen.
In general, constituents associated with particulate material (total
phosphorus, total suspended sediment, lead, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total organic
carbon) are significantly elevated in the three storm sewer systems (3702, 3901
and 4001). The same result is obtained for most of the dissolved constituents,
although the results are less dramatic. An exception to this rule is the elevated
nitrate-nitrogen levels in West Brook (3801) which are attributed to seepage from
the Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant. This result is in agreement with the work
of Fuhs (1972).
The impact of land development on tributary water chemistry is in the
following order: 3702 > 4001 > 3901 > 3801 > 4101 > 3950. Prospect Mountain
Brook (3950) can be considered as a "natural" tributary. English Brook (4101)
exhibits slightly higher levels of total phosphorus, chloride, total suspended
sediment, lead and nitrate nitrogen than 3950, but, in terms of this dataset, has
been affected only slightly by land development. The remaining four drainages
show a gradual progression from natural to impacted water quality, with the storm
sewers at Cedar Lane and Marine Village exhibiting EMC's for each constituent
typical of many urban areas.
-40-
-------
1.0
^ .8
o
TJ
CM .6
E
I .4
Q.
"5
£ .2
0
•
"
•
f
.
*
-
h
D
*<^^*
••H
1.0
Wetfall
EHI -8
—
J FMAMJ J
.08 r
1* '°6
CM
E
^ .04
J
D_
o -02
£
n
MM
A
"~~i
S
.6
.4
•2
NN
D,D, ^
•
•
•
^
•
•
OND J
•24r
.23
«
IR'
Dryfall ,~
-
-
_
-
-
rT
^^
USGS -IH
SI
D
.07-
f-
.05
.03
1 ni
r
^
^
^
.
-
-
•
F
^H
Mi
"L_
MAMJ J
Bulk
USGS
—
Wetfal
uses
t^m
^ ^^
N
D
ASOND
•fe
"™
1 —
— i
—
JFMAMJJASOND J FMAMJJ ASOND
ND= no data
Figure 8. Monthly total phosphorus loads from atmospheric
deposition during 1981 at Lake George.
-41-
-------
TABLE 20, RESULTS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WHICH WERE ABOVE THE
DETECTION LIMIT DURING A STORM ON 7 AND 8 OCTOBER 1982
PARAMETER
UNITS
COPPER MG/L
SILVER MG/L
ZINC MG/L
CHROMIUM MCG/L
LEAD MCG/L
BlS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE MCG/L
2-METHYL-4/6,-
DINITROPHENOL MCG/L
CHLOROFORM MCG/L
TIME OF MILITARY
SAMPLING HRS
FLOW M3/MIN
OHT
1 2
0,05
0,02
0,52 0,21
500, 110,
18,
3,
2140 2235
3,45 5,85
IP LLO
3
0,02
0,07
28,
3,
0440
1,33
4
0,02
0,07
32,
3,
0645
2,13
BLANK
0,02
-42-
-------
c
E
\
ro
E
2000 2200
October 7
02OO 0400 0600 0800 1000
October 8
Figure 9. Hydrograph for October 1982 event during which
priority pollutant samples (S) were collected.
See Table 20 for results of parameters that
were reported above the detection limit.
-43-
-------
KEY FOR EMC TABLES
Q
MRP
TSP
TOTP
SKN
TKN
NiyN02-N =
NH^-N
SOC
TOC
CL
PB
TSS
FLOW
MOLYBDATE REACTIVE PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SOLUBLE KJELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN
NITRATE + NITRITE NITROGEN
AMMONIA NITROGEN
SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
CHLORIDE
LEAD
TOTAL SUSPENDED SEDIMENT
-44-
-------
TABLE 21.
CEDAR LANE STORM SWR (3702) EVTNT SIWIAKY
fvl.NI MEAN CONCLNIRATIONS
tn
i
TYPE
SAMPLE'
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C.D
C
C.D
C
EVENT
DAY
802*
80277
81053
81041
81049
81054
81089
81090
81103
81106
81131
81145
81160
81165
81167
81170
81184
81207
81209
81217
81223
81226
81235
81251
81252
81264
81278
81291
81295
81297
81300
81322
82(J03
82033
82069
82098
START
TIME
1710
2350
1524
1743
0819
0631
0955
0905
0855
1330
0220
2027
2122
0715
0845
0725
0100
1830
1200
0400
0800
2130
0854
0430
1050
2300
0040
0500
1611
0801
0905
1144
0222
1617
1425
1455
EVENT
DAY
80246
80278
81034
81043
81052
81057
81090
81093
81105
81)08
81134
81152
81)60
8)166
81)68
81173
81184
8)208
81210
81218
81223
81228
81236
8)252
81254
81270
81281
81291
81297
81300
81301
81327
82007
821)39
82095
82106
END
TIME
2105
0730
1620
1140
0335
0741
0800
0847
0937
2253
0732
0744
1033
0654
0745
0809
1356
0355
0651
0348
1959
1006
1416
0311
0735
0341
2159
2300
0801
0842
0833
1242
0728
0421
0801
1119
DURATION
MlN
235
250
2936
2517
4034
4390
1345
4320
2922
3442
4632
9137
791
1419
1380
4364
776
565
1131
1428
719
2396
1762
1331
2685
7'I81
5599
1020
23'JO
4361
1348
7258
«»*
7924
37IJ56
11304
0
M'/MIN
0.580
0.119
0.630
l.OTO
0.590
0.658
0.316
0.350
U. 192
0.159
0.504
O.Olil
0.143
0.088
0.282
0.062
0.264
0.510
0.284
O.W.5
U.2U6
0.226
0.048
0.500
0.068
0.221
0.065
0.222
0.154
0.151
0.652
0.055
0.178
0.2)4
0.4)4
0.599
MRP
UG/L
54
15
49
28
6
36
4
49
3
-
19
3
10
6
17
2
48
11
21
2
14
5
6
-
4
.
-
71
47
39
27
12
11
14
11
4
ISP
UG/L
124
20
61
39
16
48
7
244
11
-
30
12
22
21
-
-
50
20
280
11
29
12
20
-
8
-
86
50
39
33
18
12
15
17
7
TOTP
UG/L
1312
87
456
314
190
186
220
460
%
110
1094
240
160
%
750
52
420
420
320
280
2'W)
436
2'lO
652
52
108
67
280
120
120
100
138
489
110
104
?2
SKN
MG/L
.461
.190
1.101
.592
.300
.535
.120
.184
.220
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
.30)
.460
.31.0
.250
.480
.707
.620
-
.260
-
.360
.260
.220
.320
.280
.287
.219
.167
.141
TW
MG/L
2.317
.412
2.932
2.012
1.200
.649
.800
.697
.380
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
1.800
1.7(0
1.3UO
1.300
5.210
1.564
.760
-
.480
-
-
.960
.380
.510
.540
.506
.754
.682
.431
.186
MVNLVN
HG/L'
.284
.mi
.757
.4f,9
.240
.311
.3(0
.314
.20
.210
.2/5
.010
,2'«
.180
,?0
.2'0
.150
.270
.250
.050
.410
.382
.140
.156
.250
.374
.130
.130
.050
.070
.160
.161
.3)4
.345
.367
.243
ML-N
MG/L
,048
.016
.698
.163
.046
.0/0
.017
.027
.034
.091
.051
.010
.027
.052
.020
.036
.071
.041
.013
.077
.051
.023
.007
.
.013
.009
.016
.009
.038
.037
.069
.027
.11)7
SOT,
MG/L
8.8
4.6
5.1
6.3
4.0
3.8
4.0
2.7
3.0
5^0
_
_
_
_
10.0
9.0
6.0
11.0
10.0
7.0
14.0
5.0
.
14.0
7.0
5.0
7.0
2.4
2.0
3.0
2.2
1.5
TOC
MG/L
25.3
6.8
16.9
17.7
15.0
7.1
11.0
7.8
5.0
46*1
_
_
.
_
19.0
24.0
18.0
16,0
40.0
16.6
24.0
6.0
_
19.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
5.1
7.3
7.3
5.3
2.0
CL
MG/L
17.3
10.2
81.6
111.3
50.0
48.3
99.0
90.8
55.0
46.0
27.0
50.0
33.0
39.0
24.0
51.0
21.0
23.0
20.0
49.0
25.0
18.4
44.0
10.8
39.0
29.2
41.0
32.0
28.0
27.0
15.0
156.6
99.3
56.3
28.5
25.0
PB
UG/L
57
45
94
97
20
22
30
36
10
128
60
20
20
160
10
130
130
90
40
300
126
70
10
_
43
14
21
25
22
19
22
22
< 10
TSS
MG/L
2050
32
300
225
87
126
44
614
157
80
50
670
31
433
255
209
118
1589
128
589
19
53
120
28
49
47
65
85
188
106
10
* D = DISCRETE. C = COMPOSITE
-------
TMLE22.
WEST RHTOK (3801) EVTNT SIMWY
EvtNl l"tAN C(INCr.NIKATI<)NS
O>
TYPE
SAMPLE
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C.D
C,D
EVENT
DAY
80216
80299
80529
80337
81033
81011
81051
81089
81101
81107
81131
81160
81166
81167
81171
81181
81201
81207
81209
81217
81217
81223
81227
81227
81236
81251
81265
81279
81291
81296
81321
82005
82033
82070
START
TIME
1715
1330
1900
2100
0215
1735
1615
0915
1000
1800
0830
0100
0100
1600
1500
0700
1600
1900
1900
0530
1630
1330
0700
1115
1215
1815
0200
1815
1300
1100
0930
0850
0815
1150
EVENT
DAY
80216
80299
80331
80338
81035
81015
81058
81092
81106
81108
81135
81160
81166
81168
81172
81185
81202
81208
81210
81217
81217
81223
81227
81229
81236
81253
81270
81281
81293
81506
81327
82007
82039
82123
END
TIME
2033
1915
1330
2015
1219
2330
1015
0730
1100
0600
0930
0915
0930
0315
1215
1100
0100
0715
0630
0800
2050
1915
0815
1015
1500
0600
1750
1900
0615
1115
20(0
0315
1030
0815
DURATION
MlN
168
375
2550
1125
3181
6115
5130
3990
3120
720
5820
195
510
675
1275
1860
720
735
690
150
110
315
75
2085
165
2115
8130
2895
2505
11115
1950
2565
8715
76155
.0
M3/MIN
16.89
11.00
16.30
20.18
27.10
11.51
73.18
26.00
23.29
26.55
57.75
16.81
16.f«
22.11
17.99
16.03
13.26
16.78
21.58
15.51
18.79
35.85
21.15
21.07
15.M
33.'*
31.%
18. «
18,"J
18.11
26.13
38.;!2
10.13
71. '.18
MRP
UG/L
8
17
-
-
6
5
2
1
3
1
7
1
1
2
1
2
1
6
9
2
8
1
3
2
7
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
TSP
UG/L
12
19
-
-
9
10
5
3
1
„
7
10
7
12
5
6
7
1
12
15
6
15
10
7
8
12
5
7
1
2
1
3
1
TOTP
UG/L
95
16
11
25
116
112
25
37
8
8
10
20
20
92
13
19
11
29
15
37
11
210
290
37
78
213
31
13
13
11
15
10
11
17
SKN
MG/L
.231
-
-
.212
.277
.168
.131
_
-
.180
.170
.150
.110
.200
.180
.180
.260
.160
.260
.580
.202
.220
.237
.118
.170
.179
.111
.173
.150
.100
TKN
MG/L
.518
-
-
.152
.561
.315
.239
-
-
-
.260
.220
.310
.150
.272
.180
.280
.380
.100
.100
.820
1.000
.375
.500
.691
.208
.210
.119
.173
.197
.112
.251
NO^N02-N
1.132
.885
.5116
.519
.813
.561
.262
.181
.627
.650
.292
1.100
1.100
.780
.920
1.021
1.500
1.200
.970
1.200
1.000
l.GOO
1.100
.979
1.300
.586
.510
.800
.110
.292
.621
.601
.718
.275
NIL-N
MT,7L
.063
.005
-
.031
.015
.010
.020
.021
.007
.031
.027
.011
.019
.018
.025
.038
.032
.009
.071
.038
.031
.015
.011
.030
.015
.as
.011
.015
.020
.013
SOC
MG/L
2.5
-
-
2.8
3.1
1.8
1.7
1.1
3*6
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
9.0
6.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1*0
1.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.2
TOC
MG/L
5.3
_
_
6.9
6.1
2.8
2.0
1.1
1 1
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
6.0
5.0
9.0
9.0
3.7
5.0
8.6
1.1
1.0
1.6
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.9
CL
MG/L
35.1
29.9
23.6
10.6
60.9
35.6
8.3
15.5
17.1
18.0
9.5
28.0
27.0
13.0
26.0
29.5
37.0
33.0
26.0
37.0
30.0
28.0
30.0
25.9
36.0
11.9
13.8
21.7
25.0
10.9
19.7
13.7
30.2
12.7
PB
UG/L
65
_
.
57
39
26
_
-
-------
TABLF. 23. SHLRIFF's KICK STORM SKWF.R (3901) FVENT SUWIRY
LVLNT MAN CONCENTRATIONS
TYPE EVENT
SAMPLE DAY
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
1)
D
D
U
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
C
D
1)
80246
80269
80277
80299
81055
81042
81089
81091
81104
81151
81132
81150
81160
81165
81167
81167
81171
81184
81201
81202
81209
81217
81217
81223
81227
81256
81251
81264
81279
81291
81296
81299
81324
82054
82070
START
TIME
1700
1600
23U)
1200
0100
0300
1000
1900
0900
1105
1045
1800
0100
2100
0300
22uD
1200
0700
1100
0000
1700
05UO
1500
1500
0600
0300
lOfO
Z2UO
17(D
1100
0800
1200
0956
OHIO
OJOO
EVENT
DAY
80246
80270
80278
80300
81035
81044
81090
81092
81105
81132
81133
81151
81160
81166
81107
81168
81172
81184
81201
81202
81210
81217
81217
81223
81Z29
81236
81252
81267
81280
81291
81298
81505
81526
82057
82109
END
TIME
2155
0855
1055
0555
2500
1055
0955
0955
1055
1045
09PO
0840
1255
0855
0755
0555
0155
1555
1955
0555
0655
0855
1955
2055
1055
1455
1855
1955
0555
1545
1255
1255
0016
0036
1510
DURATION
MlN
295
1015
715
1075
4200
5555
1435
895
1555
1905
2775
880
715
715
295
555
855
535
535
555
835
235
295
475
3175
715
1015
4i;6
285
3175
5815
2200
43%
571)60
0
M3/MIN
2.755
1.4'J9
1.188
2.645
6.654
11.858
0.742
2.655
1.281
3.108
6.052
0.593
0.792
0.807
0.8U6
5.001
0.701
1.156
1.042
0.752
2.075
1.605
1.925
1.775
2.174
0.501
5.289
5.424
1.812
1.486
3.521
8.478
2.395
5.291
4.971
MRP
UG/L
44
24
21
188
45
50
4
16
14
6
7
5
24
17
16
5
6
46
7
5
28
48
32
8
7
51
10
8
55
240
20
8
5
4
4
TSP
UG/L
57
31
25
226
47
41
10
22
25
12
8
17
59
24
-
10
15
56
22
17
45
79
45
18
14
65
14
11
41
300
24
10
6
6
7
TOTP
UO/L
488
73
43
342
159
.188
100
192
64
64
78
160
152
194
565
605
131
338
206
178
234
503
857
1268
207
223
218
104
171
450
65
57
55
22
50
SKN
MG/L
.542
.221
.251
.272
.456
.442
.420
.284
.210
.135
.160
l.UUO
.828
.79")
.4-J3
.21,7
.574
.464
.572
.499
.315
.668
.299
.536
.545
.750
.215
.Z27
.252
.600
.185
.152
.Ib6
.199
.117
TKN
MG/L
1.352
.318
.322
.500
.726
.840
.440
.512
.311
.324
.440
1.500
.998
1.455
1.482
1.558
.979
1.009
1.284
1.122
.953
1.084
2.827
2.057
.981
1.404
.857
.305
.729
.911)
.260
.278
.240
.243
.248
mgfc*
.422
.297
.198
.166
.091
.577
.250
.189
.151
.059
.050
.290
.587
.647
.490
.486
.586
.279
.517
.624
.459
.499
.199
.680
.504
.455
.125
.141
.518
.820
.055
.047
.145
.140
.110
1 NH..-N.
MG/L
.123
.OHO
.057
.025
.098
.078
.024
.046
.033
.005
.010
.034
.090
.118
.114
.056
.064
.044
.038
.059
.087
.027
.027
.076
.070
.060
.018
.056
.048
.014
.007
.(1)5
.026
.022
.017
SOC
MG/L
17.9
3.4
3.1
12.1
5.4
4.7
3.0
2.6
2.2
3.1
4.0
6.0
7.3
5.3
6.5
5.0
5.8
9.0
10.5
6.8
4.0
14.9
5.9
9.4
3.9
25.1
2.9
3.6
4.0
24.0
5.4
4.4
1.7
2.9
2.0
TOC
MG/L
24.8
5.1
3.7
16.9
8.3
10.8
4.0
5.9
3.7
5.4
4.0
10.0
10.5
9.4
14.1
14.8
10.1
16.1
16.3
12.5
9.4
26.7
22.7
23.9
7.5
34.7
9.8
4.9
8.7
24.0
5.1
5.1
2.7
3.6
3.8
CL
MG/L
12.5
18.8
20.3
7.9
121.0
84.4
35.0
9.0
19.1
6.9
4.1
35.0
31.1
26.6
32.2
9.5
24.2
14.1
26.7
24.8
11.4
17.9
9.3
13.3
13.7
32.9
4.1
3.4
20.6
26.0
8.1
3.5
13.6
87.7
19.4
PB
UG/L
30
40
48
119
77
139
40
95
36
22
40
160
65
100
178
262
114
203
218
194
146
306
375
438
139
212
95
29
99
83
34
26
22
< 10
26
TSS
MG/L
302
25
9
47
63
524
1070
162
31
128
51
53
88
283
597
118
241
89
132
877
667
3375
1435
183
89
471
172
121
34
78
182
11
52
410
-------
TABLE 24.
PROGIVCT MTN. i;«nOK (3950) IMNT SIJMWY
fiVim Ml.AN CONULNTRATIONS
00
I
TYPE
SAMPLE
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
C
C.D
C.D
C.D
D
C.D
C
C
C
C
C,D
C
C
C
EVENT
DAY
81033
81042
81104
81210
81227
81251
81265
81279
81296
81299
81324
82005
82034
82069
82104
82109
82116
82138
82146
82165
82175
82181
START
TIME
0200
0420
1125
0000
0000
OUUO
0000
OUUO
1100
0800
0810
0845
OOIJO
MO
0858
0635
1024
2134
1213
0805
19116
0750
EVENT
DAY
81035
81044
81105
81211
81232
81254
81271
21282
81299
81306
81326
82009
82041
82095
82106
82116
82123
82144
82165
82171
82180
82189
END
TIME
1130
1010
1400
0400
1500
2300
1600
OUUO
0400
0500
1520
1952
2100
0253
1035
0833
0528
1329
0529
2KB
2136
0938
DURATION
MlN
3450
3230
1595
1680
8100
5700
9MIO
48fiO
3900
9900
3310
6427
11340
36653
2977
10198
9784
8155
26956
94; '3
7350
11628
0
M'/MIN
2.972
13.303
2.047
O.IJK7
0.642
1.730
3.278
0.8*
2.273
4.674
1.436
1.893
1.851
3.421
3.993
2.648
1.273
0.542
O/W
0.8' 10
0.473
0.5K3
MRP
UG/L
3
3
3
5
3
4
5
3
4
4
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
-
-
TSP
uG/L
4
5
6
5
7
7
6
4
5
4
2
5
4
-
3
2
3
3
3
-
-
TOT P
UG/L
11
23
7
41
12
20
24
6
7
21
3
12
5
11
5
4
5
15
8
10
20
12
SW
MG/L
.207
.218
.084
.259
.232
.192
.11*
.079
.140
-
.117
.127
.105
-
_
.130
.118
.108
-
-
TKN
MG/L
.271
.358
.107
.665
.300
.280
.297
.142
-
.227
.233
.176
.112
.107
.005
.063
.150
.183
.123
-
-
"fcfr*
.404
.229
'.050
.264
.097
'.0*10
'.050
.063
'.050
.044
<.050
<.050
.067
.053
.050
.050
<.050
< (f,(}
<.050
<.050
.500
.343
ML-N
MG7L
.003
.012
.009
.OKI
.01'2
.0)6
.011
.016
.011
.010
.013
.010
.003
!oi4
.014
.012
.IPO
.015
-
-
soc
MG/L
3.3
3.6
1.8
2.2
3.1
2.9
3.5
2.0
3.0
3.5
1.5
2.0
2.8
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.9
2.0
-
-
TOC
MG/L
3.4
5.1
1.9
5.2
3.6
3.6
4.6
2.2
3.0
4.3
2.0
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.9
2.0
-
-
CL
MG/L
2.2
2.1
<2.0
2.0
<2.0
<2.0
2.0
'2.U
<2.0
<2.0
2.0
2.0
«2.0
<2.0
'2.0
<2.0
<2.0
<2.0
•2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
PB
MG/L
<10
•10
•10
•10
•10
•10
28
•10
'10
'10
•10
•10
'10
'10
'10
•10
'10
10
TSS
MG/L
2
22
_
8
8
68
\
-
4
6
35
5
1
1
-------
1AHLE 25. IWIM VIllAGC (4(01 > IVI Ml 3M1AHY
I VI.NT M.AN (UMUN1KAI IUNS
I
•C*
UD
I
TYPE EVENT
SAMPLE DAY
D
D
D
I)
D
D
D
D
D
U
D
U
U
80298
81251
82070
82143
82153
82164
82173
82180
82209
82221
82266
82270
8/280
START
lift
1245
18(0
J700
OIIIJ
U2(0
11UO
231.0
II HJ
1IUU
JUI)
(MJU
0500
2030
EVENT
DAY
80299
81252
82109
82144
82153
82IG5
821714
82181
82209
82222
822T.6
82270
82281
EM)
UK
0105
OH JO
2300
12(10
2355
07(0
2355
2355
1GOO
0200
wn
1100
1UO
DURATION
(MIN)
740
720
5f.5:'0
21(10
1315
121 11
14' fj
2275
3(0
WO
3(0
3(0
810
0
(M'/MIN)
2.%2
^.^
2.««j
1.7-J3
O.W7
1.013
1.I4'J2
2.182
l.OI.J
0.3'0
2.»j(J
2.116
1.51X4
MRP
(ur.A)
182
-
3
13
14
5
10
32
10
27
56
TSP
(nc./i.)
2(12.
-
7
25
-
'I
13
It
47
78
514
513
128
208
SKN
(MG/l )
.306
-
.162
.43'4
-
.282
.21.5
.304
.517
,4(.7
.430
.204
.'.131
TKN
(m,/L )
.577
.232
.723
.54(.
.37'J
.028
1.803
1.720
1.4X8
,7'J5
1.251
NO,»Mrx,-N
(Ho/i.1
,1'JI
.2H.
.2%
.308
.276
.HI
.301
.231
.275
.421
.202
.125
.918
NIL-N
(M-,7L )
.041
.023
.Ull
,(F28
.(f.2
.087
.126
.(Bl
.077
.017
.728
SOC
(M(-,/L )
11.6
2*0
4.6
3.4
3.7
2.9
6.1
6.1
4.5
3.9
6.9
TOC
(MT./L)
17.2
3~5
8.1
7.8
4.7
5.3
18.4
18.7
11.4
9.7
10.5
Ci
(MG/L)
13.3
8.1
32.2
43.6
60.4
45.1
59.7
30.6
18.0
19.6
19.2
10.7
14.5
PB
(UG/L)
115
18
56
36
36
33
179
234
155
230
95
TSS
(MG/l)
114
124
914
1152
174
%
24(1
3110
930
1278
1584
153
-------
TABLE 26.
ENGLISH WflOK (4101) EVENT SIWIAKY
LvtNI MjiAN CflNCENTRAI IONS
I
cn
o
TYPE
SAMPLE
D
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C.D
C.D
EVENT
DAY
80211
80218
802%
80209
80299
80329
80332
81033
811X1
81054
81089
81104
81107
81131
81151
811G6
81167
81171
81184
81202
81207
81208
81209
81217
81218
81223
81227
81228
81251
81265
81279
81291
812%
81324
82005
82034
82070
START
lift
1515
2035
1745
0430
1400
1945
1845
0100
1700
2m
1100
1200
2000
0800
1200
0100
2345
1700
0800
0315
2000
0900
1900
1700
0000
1400
0700
1100
1915
0500
1400
1630
1100
0745
0740
051)5
1230
EVENT
DAY
80212
80218
8U247
80269
80300
80330
80333
81037
81046
81063
81093
8J106
81108
81135
81152
81167
81168
81172
81185
81202
81207
81209
81211
81218
81219
81223
81227
81231
81254
81270
81282
81293
81306
81 329
82006
87039
82135
END
TIME
1120
2235
0800
0515
OU15
2100
2245
1032
1000
1445
1445
1045
0730
0915
0015
0830
02(10
22(1)
2345
0830
2338
0745
0615
0445
twit
2IH6
1'OJ
2UU
l'u«)
17' I)
tfUl
OV
10*;
0945
ijim
07:^1
091'.
DURATION
NlN
1205
120
855
45
615
1515
1680
6332
6780
12195
5700
2805
690
5835
735
1890
135
1740
2355
315
218
1365
2115
705
1380
405
720
4860
4005
8040
3975
2475
14370
7320
1680
7305
76125
0
M3/MIN
7.47
6.1-1
15. 94
17.13
22.18
29.37
35.17
21.18
77.93
77.42
47.30
32.61
36.97
84.89
15.38
9.29
17.67
11.71
8.15
7.95
5.35
6.40
12.47
7.40
6.29
5.20
6.78
6.97
20.04
38.51
15.61
19.
-------
Figure 10 presents histograms of EMZ's for total phosphorus for each
primary sampling site. The gradual progression from natural to developed
conditions is quite noticeable. The same pattern is shown in Figures 11 through
13 for chloride, total suspended sediment and lead, respectively. Again, Prospect
Mountain and English Brooks represent the most natural conditions, while West
Brook and the storm sewers seem the most impacted by land development.
Several additional points should be made concerning the EMC results.
First, the seepage from the Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant causes an elevation
in chloride levels in West Brook. Second, the differences between developed and
undeveloped drainages would be more pronounced, if the baseflow components were
subtracted. Baseflow chemistry varies only slightly among the six sites, but the
annual baseflow runoff (in cm) is substantial at West Brook, moderate at English
Brook, Prospect Mountain Brook and Marine Village Storm sewer and low at Sheriff's
Dock and Cedar Lane storm sewers (see Hydrology) . Previous results presented for
total phosphorus (Sutherland et al. , 1982) show the seasonal relationship between
EMC and discharge. A more detailed examination of this relationship will be
presented later in the report.
Total Phosphorus Loading Calculations
One of the main objectives of this study was to improve estimates of the
phosphorus contribution to Lake George from the surrounding watershed. To this
end, a detailed analysis of the phosphorus data was conducted.
Approximately thirty runoff events were sampled from each of the six
drainages from 1 October 1980 to 30 September 1982. The event mean concentration
(EMC) data have been presented for all constituents in the previous section.
Approximately 20 chemistry samples also were collected at each site during
non-event periods. For total phosphorus, an arithmetic average of these values
was used for each site to calculate the baseflow phosphorus component. There was
no evidence of seasonal or discharge relationships with non-event phosphorus
concentrations at any site. The baseflow phosphorus concentrations used were as
follows :
Site Baseflow Total P
3702 22
3801 8
3901 10
3950 3
4001 14
4101 4
The duration of the study was divided into six periods, connencing the
first days of October, February and July in each of the two water-years. These
periods were chosen to represent fall and winter conditions, Spring snowmelt and
hot-weather conditions, respectively. During each period, at each site,
hydrograph separation (Chow, 1964) was used to separate "direct runoff" from
"baseflow" for both individual sampled events and the total period. The total
phosphorus load (in grams) for the sampled events then was calculated by summing
the individual loads for each event during a period. Then the baseflow phosphorus
load was calculated for both sampled events and the total period.
-51-
-------
10 50 100 500
10 50 100 500
10 50 100 500
o>
Ld
10 50 100 500
10 50 100 500
Totol Phosphorus (pg/l)
10 50 100 500
Figure 10. Histograms of Event Mean Concentrations for total phosphorus
at primary sampling stations during the study, (n = number
of events sampled)
-52-
-------
100
80
60
40
20
0
n = 36
3702
n*35
3901
10 25 50 75
10 25 50 75
10 25 50 75
I
10 25 50 75
n* 13
4001
10 25 50 75
Chloride (mg/l)
10 25 5O 75
Figure 11. Histograms of Event Mean Concentrations for chloride at
primary sampling stations during the study, (n = number
of events sampled)
-53-
-------
-------
tn
I
UJ
100
80
60
40
20
0
3702
n=28
3801
10 25 50 100
10 25 50 100
3901
10 25 50 100
10 25 50 100
n= II
4001
10 25 50 100
Totol Lead (yg/l)
10 25 50 100
Figure 13. Histograms of Event Mean Concentrations for total lead at
primary sampling stations during the study, (n = number
of events sampled)
-55-
-------
At this point, the phosphorus load in the direct runoff component for
the sampled events was calculated by subtracting the baseflow load from the total
load. The direct runoff phosphorus concentration was calculated by dividing the
direct runoff load by the direct runoff volume for the sampled events. This
concentration was then used to calculate the direct runoff load for the entire
period. In mathematical notation:
where:
= total phosphorus load for the period (ing)
= total direct runoff during the period (n3)
= average basef low phosphorus concentration (mg/m3)
P = total baseflow during the period (m3)
CT = event mean total phosphorus concentration for event i (mg/m3)
q, . = baseflow runoff for event "i" (m3)
q.1 = total event runoff event "i" (m3)
n = number of sampled events
There are two assumptions inherent in this calculation technique. They
are:
1) The "baseflow" phosphorus concentration is relatively
constant and does not change substantially during events.
This appears correct for total phosphorus.
2) A sufficient volume of water has been sampled during
the period, such that the calculated direct runoff
phosphorus concentration is representative of the
direct runoff during the entire period.
The technique presented is probably the simplest way of determining
phosphorus loadings during a period. However, it is not the only way. In the
Second Annual Report for this project (Sutherland et al., 1982), a more detailed
method for load-calculation was presented which involved estimation of the total
phosphorus concentration in the gaps between sampled events. Results from
Station 3702 during 1981 were presented. The present method eliminates potential
subjectivity in estimating "gap" phosphorus concentrations.
The results of the phosphorus loading calculations are presented in
Table 27. A dash in a given column indicates that the data were considered
insufficient to perform the calculation.
On the far right of the Table are three sampling statistics. They are
1) the percentage of the direct runoff that was sampled, 2) the percentage of the
total flow that was direct runoff, and 3) Eq., the water sampling efficiency,
which is defined as the ratio of the sum of the total basef low and the sampled
direct flow to the total flow. This represents the total volume of water that was
sampled by event-oriented sampling and baseflow sampling during a period. In
-56-
-------
Table 27.
RESULTS OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING CALCULATIONS FOR THE PRIMARY
SAMPLING STATIONS DURING THE SIX TIME PERIODS OF THE STUDY.
(SEE TEXT FOR EXPLANATION)
PERIOD: fJCT 1. 1980 - M 51. HRJ
5702
3801
5901
3950
4001
4101
PERIOD: FEB 1. iqp] - JU» 3D. 19RJ
5702
3801
tn 5901
^j
• 5950
4001
4101
PttlOD: JLl 1. iqfil . sn. w( 1QO)
5702
5801
5901
5950
W01
4101
•
C
?
S
1
?
f
?
?
?
?
j
s
BASEFLON
].£:&
90
5.125
0
-
29.553
1,423,000
5.490
22,974
618,781
5,950,000
4.038
144.091
0
975.785
5,821.000
588
5.128
212,871
1.403.000
494
1.502
2.047
4.564
107.745
39/.000
IWTIR mj»
DIRECT RUWF TOTAL
27.4
155.-SS
£88
0
-
87,690
482.000
11.275
12.470
732.624
1,597.000
67.397
252.290
0
1.564,576
2,209,000
3.482
3.574
250.977
518.000
43,025
46.536
44,b29
46,947
594.867
515,000
75,571
1.782,000
3,692
26.138
0
2,192
117.225
1.905,000
16.765
55.444
1.515.405
5.347,000
71,485
396.382
56.487
0
2,540,159
6,030.000
4.070
6,702
463.848
1.721, OHO
43.519
47.838
46.676
51,511
3.302
502,612
910,000
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (G)
BASEFLOK DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL
2.4
.3.fi
0.9
51.2
0
-
118
5,692
121
505
4.950
51,600
40.9
1.441
0
5.903
15.284
12.9
68.8
1,703
11,224
4.9
13.0
6.1
13.7
430
1,588
1.065
4.522
1,007
6.2W
0
_
2.235
12.050
4,189
4.659
66.583
127.127
10.967
41,125
0
69,839
99.405
1.524
1,564
14.962
19,080
8,255
8,955
1.014
l.OBO
23.078
29.754
1.418
17.714
I.OUS
6.291
0
715
2.555
17,742
4.510
5.144
71.533
158.727
11. OUR
42.564
1.124
0
114.'fiR9
1.557
1.655
16.665
30.3U4
8.260
8.948
1.070
1,094
2,113
23,508
31,342
i%
n
BASEFLOM
22
8
8
10
10
Id
it
4
22
22
8
>§
10
-
4
4
22
22
8
8
10
10
14
4
4
i CONCENTRATION (UG/L)
DIRECT RUNOFF
54
34
272
272
25
25
572
372
91
,6-3
163
45
45
458
458
60
60
192
25
58
58
TOTAL
87
19
10
273
241
326
20
9
154
107
20
29
19
578
244
18
190
187
22
21
640
47
54
• SwniNG STATISTICS •
X DIRECT RIMIFF X DIRECT RUOFF
S/mu> OF TOTAL FLGM
25.64
15.65
18.19
90.40
52.44
26.71
70.82
97.45
78.92
92.46
95.06
76.97
7.46
88.04
25.30
35.18
26.15
65.65
56.65
55.55
18.48
97.28
91.14
56.57
EQ
.945
.257
.795
.966
.876
.554
.895
.996
.961
.927
.955
.870
KEY: "S" = SAMPLED EVENTS; "T" = TOTAL FOR SUB-PERIOD; EQ - WATER SAMPLING EFFICIENCY
= TOTAL BASEFLOW+SAMPLED DIRECT FLO)
TOTAL FLOW
-------
TABLE 27 (CON"T.)
PERIOD: OCT 1. 1981 - JAN 31. 1982
3702
3801
3901
3950
0001
0101
PERIOD' FEB 1. 1982 - JW 30, 1982
3702
3801
3901
3950
0001
0101
PERIOD- JU. 1. 1*12 - SEP 30, 1982
3702
3801
3901
3950
0001
0101
f
S
c
|
y
s
I
T
S
T
j
f
5
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
j
S
f
BASEFIOM
1.500
6.806
098.275
2.896.000
1.885
36.259
76 031
' 0
669.653
3,285.000
11.571
25.211
3.826.007
6.032.562
118.135
255.780
100.072
107.709
77.262
168,116
3,067,090
5.661.630
0
0
1.768.006
0
1.850
3.100
205
27.902
0
530.006
WATER IM'I -
DIRECT RUNOFF
2. OliO
3,881
529.630
727.000
65.613
122.025
55.705
80.083
0
870,262
1.281.000
9.976
12.662
2.236,781
3,195.592
179.806
210,323
135.663
180,272
98.080
113.610
3.598.057
0.297.167
0
-
0
53.262
0
_
725
998
1,232
3.178
0
60.023
TOTAI
3.960
10.727
1.027,105
3.623,000
67.098
158.680
76.150
160,110
0
1.539,915
0.566.000
21.507
37.873
6.062.788
9.628.150
297.981
066.102
236.135
331.981
175,302
281.726
6.6H5.551
9,958.801
0
-
0
1,821.708
0
_
2.579
0,102
1,077
31.080
0
598.869
10
BASEFLOM
33.1
150
3.S86
23,168
18.8
363
61.3
228
0
2,679
13,100
255
555
30.608
51.060
1.181
2,558
301
003
1,082
2.550
12.308
22,607
0
-
0
10,108
0
_
5.6
9.3
3.0
391
0
2.138
TAL mOSPHOKUS
-------
general, Eq is between 0.85 and 0.95, indicating excellent sampling coverage and
enhancing the validity of the load calculation technique.
Annual Phosphorus Loadings
The purpose of this section is to develop annual phosphorus loadings for
the study period. Table 28 summarizes the discharge-weighted average total
phosphorus concentrations in the direct runoff. Figures in parentheses are
estimates based on relationships between phosphorus levels and direct runoff rates
presented in Figure 14. With the exception of West Brook (3801), all drainages
exhibit a dilutional relationship between phosphorus and direct runoff rates.
This indicates a finite source of phosphorus in each drainage which, during
periods of high runoff such as the spring snowmelt, can be diluted. West Brook,
in contrast, exhibits increasing phosphorus levels with runoff rate. This result
could be due to several factors:
1. Land development and lumbering operations have resulted in increased
soil loss. At high discharges during the spring and fall (> 75
m3 /minute), channel velocities are large enough to temporarily
suspend much of this disturbed soil and its associated phosphorus.
2. The soil interstitial water between the Lake George Sewage Treatment
Plant and West Brook serves as a source of phosphorus which is not
diluted significantly during high flows.
3. The bed sediments in West Brook below the Lake George Sewage
Treatment Plant may be enriched in phosphorus which is desorbed or
resuspended during high flows.
Additional field work and a more detailed examination of the chemical loadings of
West Brookxare necessary in order to determine which factor is the cause of this
phenomenon.
When the direct runoff phosphorus loads (Table 29) are combined with the
baseflow phosphorus loads, the total phosphorus loads (in Kg) can be calculated
for each site. These results are shown in Table 30. When the period loadings are
recalculated as percentages of annual load (Table 31), the importance of the
spring snowmelt is quite evident, with this period accounting for 46.04% to 81.15%
of the annual phosphorus load at the six sites. When all gaged drainages are
combined, 76.73% of the annual phosphorus load occurs during the spring.
When the direct runoff and total runoff loads are standardized by
drainage area, the areal loads (g/ha/day) in the direct runoff (Table 32) and
total runoff (Table 33) can be determined. For the total study period, the areal
total phosphorus loads are linearly related to the percentage of developed land in
each drainage (Figure 15).
Even the deviation from the linear relationship of individual drainages
has significance. Cedar Lane storm sewer (3702) has an areal loading that is too
low due to the apparent discrepancy between its topographic and hydrologic
watershed. West Brook's (3801) areal loading maybe too high due to influences of
the Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant. Prospect Mountain Brook (3950) is
probably below the regression line because it really has no development. The
-59-
-------
TABLE 28. DISCHARGE-WEIGHTED AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (wG/L) IN
DIRECT RUNOFF AT PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS DURING THE SAMPLED PERIODS
en
o
i
PERIOD
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - G/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
3702
(475E)
372
438
345
163
(475E)
3801
34
91
60
59
109
(34E)
0
3901
272
163
192
62
74
(380E)
mi imio
3950
(31E)
(25E)
23
21
13
35
4001
(260E)
(165E)
(230E)
(165E)
75
343
4101
25
45
58
38
43
(ICE)
E = ESTIMATED
-------
5OO
^a.
v>
3
j? 100
o.
o
o
10
3801
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Direct Runoff (mm/day)
1.2
Figure 14. Relationship between total phosphorus concentration
and direct runoff rates at the primary sampling
stations during the study.
-61-
-------
TABLE 29. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS (KG) IN DIRECT RUNOFF AT PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS
DURING THE SAMPLED PERIODS, AND DURING WATER YEAR (WY) 80-81 AND 81-82
ro
i
PERIOD
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - 6/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
WY 80-81
WY 81-82
3702
(0.290E)
4.639
1.561
1.339
2.577
(0.244E)
6. 493
4,160
3801
4.522
127.127
19.080
42.601
348.320
(1.824E)
150.729
392.745
3901
6.260
41.123
8.935
7.590
19.433
(0.861E)
56.318
27.894
^IHI IUHO
3950
(0.521E)
(1.678E)
1.080
1.766
2.396
0.035
(3.279E)
4.197
4001
(4.855E)
(9.229E)
(4.567E)
(7.488E)
8.521
1.090
(18.651E)
17.099
4101
12.050
99.405
29.754
48.678
184.778
(2.579E)
141.209
236.035
3901-3950
5.739
39.445
7.855
5.824
17.047
0.826
53.039
23.697
E = ESTIMATED
-------
TABLE 30. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD (KG) AT PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS
DURING THE SAMPLED PERIODS, AND DURING WATER YEAR 80-81 AND 81-82
to
I
PERIOD
10/80 - 1/81
2/81 - 6/81
7/81 - 9/81
10/81 - 1/82
2/82 - 6/82
7/82 - 9/82
WY 80-81
WY 81-82
3702
(0.332E)
5.144
1.633
1.489
3.271
(0.294E)
7.109
5.054
3801
17.714
158.727
30.304
65.769
399.780
(15.973E)
206.745
481.522
3901
6.291
42.564
8.948
7.953
22.642
(0.902E)
57.803
31.497
— ilHI IUN3
3950
(0.532E)
(1.990E)
1.094
1.994
2.839
0.044
(3.616E)
4.877
4001
(5.651E)
(10.892E)
(4.865E)
(8.625E)
10.875
1.481
(21.408E)
(20.981E)
4101
17.742
114.689
31.342
61.818
207.425
(4.721E)
163.773
273.964
3901-3950
5.759
40.574
7.854
5.959
19.803
0.858
54.187
26.620
E = ESTIMATED
-------
TABLE 31. PERIOD LOADING OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AT PRIMARY SAMPLING SITES
AS PERCENTAGE OF THE ANNUAL LOAD FOR THE TIME INTERVAL
OCTOBER 1980 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1982
PERIOD
OCT-
FEB-
JUl -
JAN
JUN
SEP
3702
14.97
69.19
15.84
3801
12.13
81.15
6.72
OIHI l
3901
15.95
73.02
11.03
UNO
3950
29.74
56.86
13.40
4001
33.68
46.04
20.28
4101
18.18
73.59
8.23
GAGED CATCHMENTS
COMBINED (%)
15.33
76.73
7.94
-------
TABLE 32. AREAL LOADING OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (G/HA-DAY) IN DIRECT RUNOFF
AT THE PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS FOR THE SAMPLED PERIODS
AND FOR THE TOTAL STUDY
tn
i
PERIOD
10/80
2/81
7/81
10/81
2/82
7/82
TOTAL
- 1/81
-6/81
-9/81
- 1/82
-6/82
-9/82
STUDY
3702
(0.076E)
0.998
0.518
0.351
0.555
(0.086E)
0.171
3801
0.017
0.392
0.096
0.160
1.075
0.009
0.315
3901
0.227
1.221
0.131
0.275
0.579
(0.012E)
0.515
3950
oooooo
0
.013E)
.113E)
.119
.115
.161
.001
.103
1001
oooooo
0.
598E)
932E)
752E)
922E)
861
180
763
1101
oooooo
0.
016
312
152
186
580
013E)
213
3901-3950
0.373
2.101
0.683
0.379
0.909
0.072
0.811
E = ESTIMATED
-------
TABLE 33, AREAL LOADING OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (G/HA-DAY) IN TOTAL RUNOFF
AT PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS FOR THE SAMPLED PERIODS
AND FOR THE TOTAL STUDY
PERIOD
10/80
2/81
7/81
10/81
2/82
7/82
TOTAL
- 1/81
-6/81
-9/81
- 1/82
-6/82
-8/82
STUDY
3702
(0.087E)
1.106
0.573
0.391
0.704
(0.103E)
0.537
3801
0.067
0.490
0.152
0.248
1.234
(0.080E)
0.436
3901
0.228
1.267
0.434
0.289
0.674
(0.044E)
0.546
— aiHi ivna —
3950
(0.044E)
(0.134E)
0.120
0.164
0.191
0.005
0.118
4001
(0.696E)
(1.100E)
(0.801E)
(1.062E)
1.098
0.244
0.880
4101
0.068
0.360
0.160
0.237
0.651
(0.024E)
0.282
3901-3950
0.375
2.164
0.683
0.388
1.056
0.075
0.886
E = ESTIMATED
-------
O
"i
o
en
o.
10
O
g
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Total Runoff (•)
LT= 0.238*0.0080
r2=0.84
Direct Runoff (A)
LT=0.203*0.0070
r2 =0.85
I I I
40.0
30.0 E
\
CT>
20.0
in
O
10.0 CL
D
0>
20 40 60 80 100
% Developed
Figure 15. Area! total phosphorus load in total and direct
runoff during the study period and the relationship
to percentage of developed land in the study
drainages. (See text for explanation).
-67-
-------
small percentage that was considered developed is a seasonal highway that provides
access to the sunmit. This highway cannot be ccnpared to roads used all year
which are sanded, salted and plowed in the winter, and receive a substantial
amount of vehicular and related pedestrian traffic. Marine Village storm sewer
(4001) falls below the line because a smaller number of events were used to
develop the loading estimates. This results from the increased probability of
sampling a large event, with increasing sampling frequency.
Rather than a linear relationship, it is more likely that the areal
loads of the drainages with > 40% developed land are between 0.75 and 0.90 g P/ha/day.
It should also be noted that the areal load of the drainage representing the
difference between Stations 3901 and 3950 has a total areal load of 0.886 g/ha/day
and is 46.16% developed.
Annual Phosphorus Budget, Lake George South of Tea Island
The area of Lake George south of Tea Island (see Figure 2) was chosen
for development of an annual phosphorus budget because of the reduced water
quality in this region of the Lake (Siegfried, 1982; Siegfried et al., 1983).
Information on areal phosphorus loadings from gaged drainages was ccrpared to the
level of development in each drainage (see Table 4), and this relationship was
used to develop phosphorus loads from ungaged areas.
Phosphorus areal loads were standardized in drainages 3702, 3901 and
3950 for "groundwater seepage", using the assumption that these areas have average
daily runoff equal to the average of drainages 3801, 4001 and 4101 (1.520 mm/day),
although the channel runoff of the former drainages is less. The phosphorus
concentrations in the groundwater flow was assumed to be equal to the base flow
concentrations. The results are presented in Table 34, and it can be seen that
there is direct relationship between corrected areal loading and percent
development (Figure 16). The regression line that describes this relationship is:
= -0.149 + 0.241 Ln (%D) (r2=0.952, n = 6)
where L-_ = corrected total phosphorus areal loading rate (g P/ha/day)
%lr = percent catchment developed (unitless)
When this relationship is used to estimate the phosphorus loadings fron ungaged
drainages (Table 35), there is an annual loading of 908.0 kg P/yr to the area of
Lake George south of Tea Island. This corresponds to a watershed areal loading
rate of 0.415 g P/ha/day for the study area. Figures 17 and 18 summarize the
total and areal loadings, respectively, for the study area.
Table 36 compares the present loading of phosphorus with various
development scenarios, from undeveloped conditions (L-p = 0.100 g P/ha/day) to
the watershed 100% developed. The small amount of atmospheric loading to the Lake
surface, 37.7 kg P/yr, also is considered and lake areal phosphorus loading rates
are presented. If the south embayment of the Lake is assumed to behave according
to Vollenweider and Dillon (1974), the various areal loading rates can be plotted
as to trophic status (Figure 19). The letters correspond to the scenarios in
Table 36. The present loading (scenario d) is in the transition region, while all
scenarios with > 25% development are in the "eutrophic" range. Undeveloped
scenarios (a and b) are in the "oligotrophic" range.
-68-
-------
TABLE 34. AREAL LOADS OF TOTAL ROSPHORUS (G/HA-DAY) AT THE PRIMARY SAMPLING STATIONS
CORRECTED FOR GROUNDWATER FLOW (SEE TEXT FOR EXPLANATION)
STATION
3702
3801
3901
(3901-3950)
3950
4001
4101
DIRECT FLOW
0.161
0.369
0.321
0.136
0.554
0.533
0.570
nuiiur r
(MM/DAY)
TOTAL FLOW BASEFLOW
0.466
1.496
0.632
0.323
1.023
1.517
1.546
0.305
1.127
0.311
0.187
0.469
0.984
0.976
GROUNDWATER
FLOW"
1.054"
0.000
0.888"
1.197"
0.497"
0.000
0.000
rru:
DIRECT FLOW
0.471
0.345
0.515
0.841
0.103
0.763
0.243
>rnunua HKC/U.
(G/HA/DAY)
TOTAL FLOW
0.537
0.436
0.546
0.886
0.118
0.880
0.282
LUttU
CORRECTED
TOTAL
0.765
0.436
0.635
1.176
0.134
0.880
0.243
NOTE* - ESTIMATED ANNUAL TOTAL RUNOFF (AVERAGE OF 3801, 4001, 4101), 0,. = 1.520 MM/DAY.
-------
i
-vl
o
i
8
Q.
in
O
o
0)
1.2
10
08
06
04
02
LAP= -0.149*0.241 Ln (% D)
r2 = 0952, n = 6
i
_i
10
% Developed
100
Figure 16. Relationship between total phosphorus areal loading corrected for grcundwater
seepage and percent development in the study drainages. (See text for explanation)
-------
TABLE 35. ANNUAL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO SOUTH LAKE GEORGE FROM DRAINAGES
IN THE STUDY AREA SOUTH OF TEA ISLAND, THE ESTIMATES FOR 3702 AND
3950 ARE INCLUDED IN DRAINAGES 37 AND 39, RESPECTIVELY.
DRAINAGE
37
(3702)
38
39
(3950)
40
41
TEA IS, EAST (TIE)
TEA IS. WEST (TIW)
DIRECT DRAINAGE (DO)
TOTAL STUDY AREA (I)
AREA
(KM2)
9.08
(0,31)
21.60
2.24
(0.99)
0.66
21.24
2.58
1.98
0.57
59.95
DEVELOPED
(X)
21.97
(42.02)
7.47
27.90
(4.89)
76.87
4.77
18.15
12.96
96.56
11.73
IMPERVIOUS
(%)
2.72
(8.60)
1.57
9.02
(3.64)
17.97
1.90
2.32
3.62
35.76
1.64
rnu;
ARIAL LOAD
(G /HA/DAY)
0.596*
(0.765)
0.436
0.635
(0.134)
0.880
0.243
0.549*
0.468*
0.951'
0.415
>rnu«ub
TOTAL ANNUAL LOAD
(KG/YR)
197,5
(8.7)
343.7
51,9
(4.8)
21.2
188.4
51.7
23.8
19.8
908.0
NOTES: 'FROM EQUATION:
LAp = -0.149 + 0.241 IN (%D) (R2 = 0,952, N = 6)
-------
2.5 km
Figure 17. Annual total phosphorus loads (kg/yr) from drainages
at the south end of Lake George.
-72-
-------
Area I Loading Rotes
(QP/ha/yr)
0.000-0.299
0.300-0.499
0.500-0.749
i 0.750
2.5 km
figure 18.
-73-
-------
TABLE 36. PROJECTED ANNUAL PHOSPHOHUS LOADINGS UNDER VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
SCENARIO WATERSHED AREAL
LOADING RATE
(GP/HA/DAY)
A) UNDEVELOPED CONDITIONS
B) ENTIRE WATERSHED LIKE 3950
c) ENTIRE WATERSHED LIKE 4101
D) PRESENT CONDITIONS
E) 25% DEVELOPED
F) 50% DEVELOPED
G) 75% DEVELOPED
H) 95% DEVELOPED
1 ) 100% DEVELOPED
0.100
0.134
0.243
0.415
0.626A
0.7926
0.890A
0.947 A
0,959*
ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS
LOAD FROM WATERSHED*
(KGP/YR)
218.8
293.1
531.7
908.0
1,369.8
1,733.0
1,947.5
2,072.2
2,098.5
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
LOAD*
( KGP/YR)
256.5
330.8
569.4
945.7
1,407.5
1,770.7
1,985.2
2,109.9
2,136.2
LAKE AREAL
LOADING RATE*
GP/M2/YR
0.098
0.126
0.217
0.361
0.537
0.676
0.758
0.805
0.815
NOTES: * - FROM EQUATION IN TEXT.
* - INCLUDES ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION ON LAKE (1001 WETFALL
+ - WATERSHED AREA = 59.95 KM2, LAKE AREA = 2.62 KM2
25% DRYFALL, 14.4 MG P/M2/YR)
-------
I
-si
in
i
10
(VI
E
\
Q.
0»
1.0
.01
.1
"Eutrophic"
b
a
'/
10
(Z/TW) =
Dangerous
Permissible
"Oligotrophic"
100
1000
Figure 19. Areal loading rates of total phosphorus under various development scenarios
(a - i; see Table 36) vs. mean depth - lake hydraulic retention time relationship
; see Table 37) to give Lake trophic status.
-------
Phosphorus-trophic State Relationships
Study Area
The study area and the south "embayment" of Lake George have the
characteristics shewn in Table 37. In a fashion similar to Wood and Fuhs (1979),
the relationships between spring total phosphorus and phosphorus loading rates:
(Vollenweider, 1976)
where: TPepp = spring total phosphorus (mg/m3)
Up = areal phosphorus loading (mg/m2/yr)
g = areal water loading (m/yr)
z = lake mean depth (m)
and between sunnier chlorophyll a_ and spring total phosphorus (Dillon and Rigler,
1974) :
Log10 (CHLA) = 1.449 Log (TP) - 1.136
where (CHLA) = average sunmer chlorophyll a (mg/m3)
oTJuTl """"
were used to assess the trophic status of the study area of the Lake. The use of
the two equations yields values for (TP)_ =14.4 mg/m3 and (CHLA) =3.5
mg/m3. These values are slightly above those actually measured by Siegfried
et al. (1983) at Station 1, in the study area, during 1981 (Table 37). This
result makes sense, since much of the phosphorus load in the study area is
particulate phosphorus, and the loss of the material due to sedimentation in the
littoral zone may lead to the violation of Vollenweider's assumption of all inflow
reaching the pelagic zone.
By using Siegfried's measured summer chlorophyll a value and the Dillon
and Rigler (1974) equation, one obtains a value of (TP) = 11.8 mg/m3, indi-
cating a slight over-estimation of the effective phosphorus loading (22.0% too
high). This over-estimation could be due to several factors:
1) Atmospheric phosphorus loadings are over-estimated
2) The south embayment cannot be considered to behave as a lake
3) Watershed phosphorus loads do not completely reach the pelagic
zone due to nearshore sedimentation. (See for example,
Sutherland et al., 1981, concerning the buildup of deltaic
material off of English Brook
4) General uncertainties in various measurements and calculations
Despite this result, the loading estimates correspond with observed
phosphorus and chlorophyll a levels quite well. In general, the work of Siegfried
(1982) and Siegfried et al. (1983) show North-South gradients in phosphorus,
chlorophyll a_ and Secchi disk depth corresponding to land development patterns and
watershed area - lake volume ratios.
-76-
-------
TABLE 37, LIMNOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS, SOUTH EMBAYMENT, LAKE GEORGE
SYMBOL MEANING
AL LAKE SURFACE AREA
AWS WATERSHED SURFACE AREA
VL LAKE VOLUME
R WATERSHED RUNOFF RATE
IQ ANNUAL RUNOFF
QS LAKE INFLOW RATE
Z LAKE MEAN DEPTH
LAKE HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME
ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
(WATERSHED+ATMOSPHERIC)
AREAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
SPRING TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SUM SUMMER CHLOROPHYLL A
SOURCE
VALUE
UNITS
'H
LP
IP
(TP>SPR
(CHLA)
HUTCHINSON ET AL., (1981)
THIS STUDY
HUTCHINSON ET AL., (1981)
THIS STUDY
THIS STUDY
THIS STUDY
THIS STUDY
THIS STUDY
THIS STUDY
THIS STUDY
SIEGFRIED ET AL., (1983)
SIEGFRIED ET AL., (1983)
2.62
59.95
3-llxlO7
0.555
3.34X107
12.75
11.87
0.93
908.1
361
9.4
2.6
KM2
KM2
M'
M/YR
M'
M/YR
M
YRS
KG/YR
MG/M2/YR
MG/MJ
MG/M3
-------
Lake George
Table 38 is an annual phosphorus budget for Lake George divided into
zones, north and south of the area known as the Narrows (see Figure 1).
Estimates of morphcmetry, phosphorus transfer and outflow are identical to those
of Wood and Fuhs (1979). Their estimate for the Bolton Landing Sewage Treatment
Plant also was used even though this number (570 kg P/yr) is probably several
times too high. Only additional field studies on this facility will allow
refinement of this estimate.
The estimate of atmospheric deposition and watershed contributions are
results from the present study. An atmospheric loading of 14.4 mg P/m2/yr was
applied to the lake surface area estimates by basin presented in Wood and Fuhs
(1979). The annual loads arrived at are very close to the Wood and Fuhs (1979)
estimates, but about one-half of the estimates of Dillon (1983).
Loading of phosphorus from developed areas was calculated by applying
the 100% developed loading rate (0.959 g P/ha/day) to estimates of developed land
in the North basin (6 km2) and the South basin (15 km2). These estimates of
developed area loading are the lowest reported for Lake George to date, and the
only values based on data collected using event-oriented sampling at the Lake.
These estimates are about one-half those projected by previous investigators,
including Dillon (1983). This discrepancy probably is due to previous investi-
gators considering that the developed area in Lake George to be equivalent to
typical urban and suburban land in North America. The area around Lake George is
a seasonal recreational community, with intense use for several months and light
use during most of the year.
The loadings from undeveloped areas were calculated using the areal
loading measured at Prospect Mountain Brook (0.134 g P/ha/day) and applying this
value to the estimates of undeveloped land in the North (172.8 km2) and South
Basins (298.2 km2). These results are significantly higher than all previous
investigators except Dillon (1983), probably because the present study utilized
event-oriented, instead of fixed interval, sampling of the tributaries. The
estimates for undeveloped runoff are virtually identical to those of Dillon
(1983).
-78-
-------
TABLE 38, LAKE GEORGE ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS BUDGET
(KGP/YR)
SOURCE
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
WATERSHED, DEVELOPED
WATERSHED, UNDEVELOPED
BOLTON LANDING SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
TRANSFER FROM SOUTH LAKE
TOTAL SOURCES
OUTFLOW
PHOSPHORUS RETENTION
SOUTH LAKE
829
525
1,458
NORTH LAKE
812
210
845
570
—
3,382
1,300
2,082
1,300
3,167
1,550
1,507
TOTAL % TOTAL
31,3
735
2,303
570
43,9
10,9
5,249 100,0
1,550 31,5
3,589 58,4
-79-
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, runoff from developed areas accounts for 14.0% of the annual
phosphorus loading to lake George, which is 15.5% of the load to the South lake
and 6.6% of the load to the North Lake. In addition, developed areas contribute
62.9% of the annual load to the study area at the south end of the Lake. Almost
one-half (45.5%) of the annual phosphorus loading to the whole Lake can be
attributed to the undeveloped portion of the watershed, with the next largest
source being atmospheric deposition (31.3%).
Approximately three-quarters of the annual phosphorus loading to the
lake occurs between February and June, indicating the dominant effect of snowmelt
on the hydrology of the area. The areal phosphorus load (g P/ha/day) of any
catchment could be directly related to the percentage of its developed area. By
use of this relationship (see page 68), if the study area was 50% developed, it
would have an annual phosphorus loading 1.87 times the present loading. As a
consequence, the study area region of the lake would likely possess
characteristics of a moderately eutrophic lake. In general, the loading estimates
to the Lake correspond closely with the observed water quality of Lake George
(Siegfried, 1982; Siegfried et al., 1983). Siegfried showed in these studies that
North-South gradients in phosphorus, chlorophyll a_ and Secchi disk depth
correspond to land development patterns and watershed area - lake volume ratios.
Although annual loadings are not presented in this report, runoff from
developed areas also exhibits elevated levels of total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total
suspended sediment, total organic carbon, fecal bacteria, chloride, lead, anmonia
nitrogen, total soluble phosphorus and lead. Limited sampling indicated that
runoff from developed areas did not appear to be enriched in synthetic organic
compounds or trace metals. In surmary, tributaries draining developed catchments
exhibited considerably different water quality than tributaries in undeveloped
catchments. However, since only 4.3% of the Lake George watershed is presently
developed, there has been little impact on the Lake water quality to date, and
certainly no use impairment. Given the present rate of land development in the
watershed, there is strong reason to believe that a significant decline in water
quality could occur within the next twenty years, particularly at the southernmost
end of the Lake. The following recommendations are offered to avert this
condition:
1) The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDBC)
should develop a Management Plan for Lake George and its watershed.
The focus of such a plan would be to preserve the present condition
of Lake George in the face of increased human activities.
2) Uniform regulations should be developed throughout the Lake George
watershed for limiting the amount of soil loss and surface runoff
produced as a result of land development. Specifically, any
alteration of land in the watershed shall not increase the surface
runoff over existing conditions.
3) New York State and local governments shall make every effort to
reduce the impact of roadway deicing operations on Lake George.
-80-
-------
Increased street-cleaning during March and April coupled with the
reduced application of sand to roadways should be major components
this effort.
4) NYSDBC should examine the feasibility of reducing the total
suspended sediment load from the Sheriff's Dock and Marine Village
storm sewers by use of an in-lake flow-balancing treatment system.
5) NYSDBC should encourage Warren, Essex and Washington Counties to
form a Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District for Lake George.
6) NYSDBC should develop a State land acquisition policy for the Lake
George watershed in order to permanently reduce the overall
development rate in the watershed. Land in the watershed should be
categorized as to purchase priority.
7) The New York State Department of Transportation should prepare a
plan designed to reduce surface runoff and pollutant loadings from
US Route 9 in Lake George Village (Canada Street). Such a plan
could range from constructing recharge basins (marginal utility) to
reducing the sidewalk and pavement areas of Canada Street, by
construction of a landscaped median strip (maximum utility).
8) NYSDBC should undertake an effort to determine the best way of
financing the above recommendations.
-81-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aulenbach, D.B. 1979. Nutrient budgets and the effects of development on
trophic conditions in lakes. Fresh Water Institute Report No. 79-2,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Troy, New York.
Aulenbach, D.B. and N.L. Clesceri. 1971. Results of lead time studies of
baseline chemical nutrients in Lake George and nitrogen and phosphorus cycles
in the Lake George ecosystem. Eastern Deciduous Forest Biome, IBP, Oak
Ridge, Tenn., EDFB - IBP Memo Report No. 71-121.
Aulenbach, D.B. and N.L. Clesceri. 1972. Sources and sinks of nitrogen and
phosphorus: Water quality management of Lake George. Fresh Water Institute
Report No. 72-35, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Troy, New York.
Aulenbach, D.B. and N.L. Clesceri. 1973. Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in
the Lake George drainage basin: a double lake. Fresh Water Institute Report
No. 73-1, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Troy, New York. 21 pp.
Aulenbach, D.B. and N.L. Clesceri. 1977. Means for protecting the drinking water
quality of Lake George, New York. Fresh Water Institute Report No. 77-1,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Troy, New York. 18 pp.
Aulenbach, D.B., N.L. Clesceri, and J.R. Mitchell. 1979. The impact of sewers on
the nutrient budget of Lake George, New York. Fresh Water Institute Report
No. 79-8. Troy, New York.
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York.
Dillon, P.J. 1983. Nutrient budgets for Lake George, New York. In C.D. Collins
(Ed.), The Lake George Ecosystem 3. In press.
Dillon, P.J. and F.H. Rigler. 1974. The phosphorus-chlorophyll relationship in
lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 19:767-773.
Ferris, J.J. and N.L. Clesceri. 1977. A description of the trophic status and
nutrient loading for Lake George, New York. Pages 135-181 in North American
Project - a Study of U.S. Water Bodies. EPA-600/3-77-086, Corvallis, Oregon.
Ferris, J.J., N.L. Clesceri, and D.B. Aulenbach. 1980. The limnology of Lake
George, New York. Unpublished manuscript. 188 pp.
Funs, G.W. 1972. The chemistry of streams tributary to Lake George, New York.
Environmental Health Report No. 1, Environmental Health Center, Division of
Laboratories and Research, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New
York. 100 pp.
Gibble, E.B. 1974. Phosphorus and nitrogen loading and nutrient budget of Lake
George, New York. Masters Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New
York. 104 pp.
-82-
-------
Gregory, K.J. and D.E. Walling. 1973. Drainage basin form and process. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hetling, L.J. 1974. Observations on the rate of phosphorus input into Lake
George and its relationship to the lake's trophic state. Technical Report
No. 36. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New
York. 20 pp.
Hutchinson, D.R., W.M. Ferrebee, H.J. Knebel, R.J. Wold, and Y.W. Isachsen. 1981.
The sedimentary framework of the southern basin of Lake George, New York.
Quat. Res. 15:44-61.
Kasper, J.R. 1976. Comparison of nitrogen loading in the West Brook and
Northwest Bay Brook watersheds, Lake George, New York. M.S. Thesis.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
lake Champlain - Lake George Regional Planning Board. 1975. Seasonal population
growth in the Lake Champlain - Lake George Region. Lake George, New York.
Monheimer, R.H. and M. Baker. 1982. Phytoplankton community changes in Lake
George (N.Y.), 1975-1979. Pages 41-47 in M. Schadler (Ed.), The Lake George
Ecosystem 2.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1960 - 1982. Climatological
Data - New York. Volumes 72 thru 94.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1981. Quality assurance
project plan for the Lake George Urban Runoff Project. 64 pp. + Appendices.
New York State Economic Development Board. 1975. Demographic projections for New
York State Counties. Albany, New York.
Palladine, R.M. 1976. Comparison of phosphorus loadings in the West Brook and
Northwest Bay Brook watersheds, Lake George, New York. M.S. Thesis.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Pope, D.H. 1981. Data from Lake George monitoring program for the year April
1980 - April 1981. Report to the Lake George Association. 54 pp.
Pope, D.H. 1982. Report on second year of the. Lake George monitoring program,
April 1981 - November 1981. Report to the Lake George Association. 56 pp.
Schoettle, M. and G.M. Friedman. 1971. Sediments and sedimentation in a glacial
lake: Lake George, New York. Eastern Deciduous Forest Bicme, IBP, Oak
Ridge, Tenn., EDFB - IBP Memo Report No. 71-122B.
Shapiro, J. 1983. An analysis of Lake George, N.Y. In C.D. Collins (Ed.), the
Lake George Ecosystem 3. In press.
Siegfried, C.A. 1982. Water quality and phytoplankton of Lake George, New York:
Urban storm runoff and water quality gradients. Technical Paper No. 66,
Bureau of Water Research, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York. 64 pp.
-83-
-------
Siegfried, C.A., J.A. Bloomfield, and J.W. Sutherland. 1983. Final report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Lake George Clean Lakes
Diagnostic/Feasibility Study. New York State Museum and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, New York. In preparation.
Sutherland, J.W., J.A. Bloomfield, J.M. Swart, N..G. Kaul, and G.J. Rider. 1981.
First annual report: Lake George urban runoff study, nationwide urban runoff
program. Bureau of Water Research, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. 131 pp. + Appendices.
Sutherland, J.W., J.A. Bloomfield, and J.M. Swart. 1982. Second annual report:
Lake George urban runoff study, nationwide urban runoff program. Bureau of
Water Research, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, New York. 83 pp. + Appendices.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1950. Census of population and housing.
Washington, D.C.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1960. Census of population and housing.
Washington, D.C.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1970. Census of population and housing.
Washington, D.C.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1980. Census of population and housing.
Washington, D.C.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for
phosphorus in Lake eutropnication. Mem. Inst. Ital. Idrobiol. 33:53-83.
Vollenweider, R.A. and P.J. Dillon. 1974. The application of the phosphorus
loading concept to eutrophication research. Canada Centre for Inland Waters,
Burlington, Ontario. 42 pp.
Wood, L.W. 1982. Trophic gradients and nutrient loadings in Lake George, New
York 1979 - 1980. Final report to the New York State Department of Education
for work under the U.S. EPA Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Environmental
Health Institute, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York.
66 pp.
Wood, L.W. and G.W. Fuhs. 1979. An evaluation of the eutrophication process in
Lake George based on historical and 1978 limnological data. Environmental
Health Report No. 5, Environmental Health Center, Division of Laboratories
and Research, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York. 73 pp.
-84-
-------
APPHOIX A
Drainage Basin Maps
Soils Map - Monitored Drainages
Soil Types - Monitored Drainages
Impervious Structures - Monitored Drainages
-------
-------
-------
NEW YORK STATE
OERWTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT)*. CONSBMOTON
LAKE GEORGE
Motionol Urban Rwiofff
Sub4owi 39 Plan
(portion at of 1-871
0 400
apaaomatF tcato (feel)
0 -an Di7D
j I Buitdinfv,
or tOI
•—•Catch tamint, ttorm
x—^ drdint
(39)Sub-bofin
••Suta-botin boundar*
LAKE GEORGE
-------
-------
LEGEND
Sompinc •»«•»
BviMingt, imp«r¥iaw arm
"•Ceteti bo>ina.fi«iii«rain>
Btoch
^4105
GWrO*C>™. CBOWV4TBN
GEORGE
Sot tarn 40*41 ta
(portion at of 1-87)
i (tot)
LAKE
GEORGE
4101,
-------
-------
Soils Map of Monitored Drainages
(see accompanying table for
description of map units)
-------
SimvRY OF Son TVPF.S FOR Mm i TORI n DRAINAGES
LAKE GEORGE URBAN RUNOFF SIUDY
MAP UNIT
19 AB
31 B
31 C
31 E
01 OE
«6C
51 A
56
10BB
108 C
10RD
108 E
115 B
138
115 A
115 B
115 C
JUIL lire
DESCRIPTION
FLUVAQUENTS-UDIFLUVENTS COMPLEX, FREQUENTLY FLOODED
HlNCKLEY COBBLY SANDY LOAM. 3 TO 8% SLOPES
HlNCKLEY COBBLY SANDY LOW. 8 TO 15T SLOPES
HlNCKLEY COBBLY SANDY LOAM. 15 TO 15X SLOPES
PlAINFIELD AND OAKVILLE SOILS, 15 TO 15T SLOPES
PL A INFIELD LOAMY SAND. 8 TO 15X SLOPES
ELNORA LOAMY FINE SAND, 0 TO 31 SLOPES
HAREHAM LOAMY SAND
CHARLTON FINE SANDY LOAM. 3 TO 81 SLOPES
CHARLTON FINE SANDY LOAM, 8 TO 152 SLOPES
CHARLTON FINE SANDY LOAM. 15 TO 251 SLOPES
CHARLTON FINE SANDY LOAM, 25 TO 15Z SLOPES
SUTTON FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 5X SLOPES
LEICESTER FINE SANDY LOAM, 0 TO 51 SLOPES
OAKVILLE LOAMY FINE SAND, 0 TO 31 SLOPES
OAKVILLE LOAMY FINE SAND, 3 TO 8% SLOPES
OAKVILLE LOAMY FINE SAND, 8 to 15% SLOPES
3702 38
•TOT" I HA
9.35
- 122.81
- 79.73
.
- 59.39
.
2.57
8.80
8.27 26.83 20. 1G
8.28 26.87 0.92
.
.
.
.
- 18.88
- 142. 12
- 17.%
"I
0.13
5.69
3.69
-
2.75
-
0.12
0.11
0.93
0.01
-
-
-
-
0.87
6.59
0.83
urvmivHjL Hr^m ~
39 3*0 10 11
IK I HA I HA X HA
8.19
11.05 1.91 - - 7.83 11.85 39.57
16.21 7.27 3.57 3.61 10.60 16.05 39.71
- 1.62 1.61 -
-
1.70
.
7.98
- 12.63
60.29
- 21.12
10.87
1.12
3.06
-
_--_---
I
0.10
1.86
1.87
-
-
O.OB
-
0.38
2.01
2.81
1.11
0.51
0.21
0.11
-
-
-
-------
MAP UNIT DESCRIPTION 3702 38 39 3950 10 41
•HA 1 HA ~I HA 1 HA 1 HA Z HA Z
155 SAPRISTS AND AQUEPTS, INUNDATED - - - ------- 9.35 p.46
161 CARLISLE MUCK, NEARLY LEVEL - - 3.12 0.11 -------
041 C HINCKLEY-PLAINFIELD COMPLEX, 3 TO 15* SLOPES - - 35.74 1.66 30.7013.73 - - 23.65 35.81 2.89 0.14
041 E HINCKLEY-PLAINFIELD COMPLEX, 15 TO 45% SLOPES - - 88.90 4.12 13.97 6.25 2.76 2.79 1.96 2.97 18.51 0.87
0112 C WOODSTOCK-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 3 TO 15% SLOPES - - 8.80 0.41 ------ u/.gg 2.26
0112 E WOODSTOCK-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 15 TO 45% SLOPES 4.05 13.14 103.56 4.79 20.30 9.08 8.42 8.52 - - 388.92 18.31
0115 E SUTTON BOULDERY FINE SANDY LOAM, 15 TO 45% SLOPES - - 3.66 0.17- -- --
0143 LEICESTER STONY FINE SANDY LOAM, NEARLY LEVEL - - 7.15 0.33 7.81 0.37
0143 B LEICESTER STONY FINE SANDY LOAM, 3 TO 15* SLOPES _ _ _ .---.-. 5,94 g.28
0152 ROCK OUTCROP, SLOPE VARIES - - 18.88 0.87 --
0161 CATHRO AND GREENWOOD MUCKS. NEARLY LEVEL - - 7.51 0.35
0208 C foRAIN BOULDERY FINE SANDY LOAM. 3 TO 15% SLOPES 0.49 1.59 513.23 23.76 8.94 4.00 7.29 7.38 18.42 27.89427.99 20.15
0208 E COLRAIN BOULDERY FINE SANDY LOAM. 15 TO 45% SLOPES 9.73 31.57 537.06 24.86 57.5025.7332.73 33.11 - - 650.47 30.63
0308 C COLRAIN-WOODSTOCK BOULDERY FINE SANDY LOAM, - - - - - 86.28 4.06
3 TO 15% SLOPES
0308 E COLRAIN-WOODSTOCK BOULDERY FINE SANDY LOAM, - - 328.10 15.19 64.8229.0042.46 42.95 3.59 5.43172.72 8.13
15 TO 15% SLOPES
GP PITS, GRAVEL - - 16.32 0.76 - - - - - 4.59 0,22
It UNDORTHENTS, SMOOTHED - - 1.47 0.07 56.90 2,68
SL DUMPS, LANDFILL - - 3.66 0.17-
AREA TOTAL 30.82 100.00 2160.15 100.00 223.53 100.00 98.85 100.00 66.05 100.00 2123.63 100.00
•HA = HECTARES, % = PERCENT OF TOTAL AREA
-------
SlWVRY OF IMPERVIOUS STRUCTURES IN MONITORED DRAINAGES
LAKE GEORGE IIRIIAN RUNOFF STUDY
DRAINAGE
3702
38
'39
3950
40
41
'TA
Z
TA
Z
TA
Z
TA
Z
TA
Z
TA
Z
BUILDINGS
6449.5
24.36
47236.8
13.94
41232.0
20.44
-
27249.6
22.97
47715.7
11.83
PARKING
PAVED
4264.1
16.11
44623.8
13.16
43369.1
21.50
26542.6
73.70
11315.2
9.54
16199.0
4.02
AREAS
UNPAVED
5499.7
20.78
1803.5
0.53
8022.8
3.98
.
3857.0
3.25
951.3
0.24
II fL.ni n
DRIVEWAYS
PAVED UNPAVED
1623.4
6.14
9009,8
2.66
4636.2
2.30
-
4599.9
3.88
8073.6
2.00
794.3
3.00
6081.2
1.79
1412.7
0,70
-
2841.6
2.40
5724.5
1.42
m 10 o 1 nut, i uni_*y— ^
POOLS DECKS
55.7 179.8
0.21 0.68
1262.7 3291.5
0.37 0.97
424.7 829.7
0.21 0.41
-
772.2 1070.6
0.(>5 O.'JO
533.6 961.3
0.13 0.24
WALKWAYS STRTFIS
PAVI.D PAVED UNPAVED
32.1 4366.3
0.21 16.49
1161.3 107250.1
0.34 31.63
- 49258.7
24.42
-
997.0 36416.2
0.84 30.69
697.1 63976.5
0.17 15.86
2824.2
10.67
10007.6
2.95
.
_
1532.7
1.29
18153.0
4.50
SIDEWALKS
278.7
1.05
2702.3
0.80
9557.8
4.74
_
3264.7
2.75
^
HIGHWAYS OTHER TOTAL
104.0 26471.8
0.39 100.00
97545.0 7082.4 339058.0
28.77 2.09 100.00
42649.3 315.2 201708.2
21.14 0.16 100.00
9473.2 - 36015.8
26.30 - 100.00
21182.2 3551.6 118650.5
17.85 2.99 100.00
239682.0 677.8 403345.4
59.42 0.17 100.00
1 TA = TOTAL AREA IN SQUARE METERS, Z = PERCENT OF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA
2 INCLUDES 3950
-------
APPENDIX B
Precipitation Suimary
-------
PRECIPITATION SIW1AHY, 1<»RO TlinouJI 1982
IAKT: um;i: IIKIIAN WINOFF .'ntniv
omi
DAY
80221
80243
80246
80246
80258
80261
80267
80269
80276
80277
80292
80299
80312
80314
80322
80329
80333
80337
80350
81016
81032
81038
81041
HI 050
81054
81089
81090
81095
81104
81107
81108
81113
81131
81132
8 1 1 35
Ki1
•roe
2310
1500
0020
1710
1935
2005
0140
1550
1430
2350
0355
1245
1810
1000
2115
0740
0130
2040
2210
1225
1835
1700
2125
2225
2330
1320
1905
0345
0955
1410
0315
1800
0200
1245
1940
OIVi
DAY
80221
80244
80246
80246
80258
20262
80267
80270
80276
80278
80292
80300
80313
80314
80323
80329
80334
80338
80351
81017
81034
81038
81043
81051
81057
81090
81092
81U96
81104
81107
81108
8)113
81132
81113
RII36
v
TOE
2355
0355
0245
2050
2030
0035
0235
0500
2220
0600
1130
0900
0255
1325
1315
2255
2330
0145
1725
0615
0115
2305
0055
1855
0200
0350
0430
0345
1520
2045
0425
2305
0615
onoo
0155
DURATION
(min)
45.
775.
145.
220.
55.
270.
55.
790.
470.
370.
455.
1095.
525.
205.
960.
915.
1310.
305.
1155.
950.
1845.
365.
1650.
1210.
3030.
870.
565.
1440.
325.
395.
70.
305.
1615.
675.
37b.
VOUME
(on)
1.68
3.12
0.53
1.22
0.53
1.02
0.76
3.61
0.43
0.97
0.81
3.66
0.53
0.97
1.30
2.18
2.11
1.19
1.02
0.51
5.84
0.69
3.23
2.72
4.14
1.02
2.11
0.84
1.24
O.R9
0.58
0.71
4.24
3.07
0.56
JflTTRM
WAN
(cm/hr)
-
0.24
0.22
0.33
-
0.23
-
0.27
0.05
0.16
0.11
0.20
0.06
0.28
0.08
0.14
0.10
0.23
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.11
0.12
0.14
O.OH
0.07
0.22
0.04
0.23
0.14
0.50
0.14
0.15
0.27
0.09
1 hr 15 min
(cn/hr) (on/hrl
-
1.60
0.36
0.89
-
0.56
-
0.76
0.13
0.23
0.33
0.69
0.23
0.58
0.15
0.28
0.41
0.36
0.15
0.08
0.58
0.20
0.43
0.33
0.69
0.28
O.H6
0.20
0.53
0.43
0.53
0.2R
0.64
2.36
0.36
4.08
5.60
0.60
2.H4
1.12
0.91
2.84
1.12
0.20
0.32
0.71
1.32
0.41
0.81
0.20
0.51
0.81
0.72
0.20
0.10
0.80
0.30
1.00
0.60
1.32
0.92
1.00
0.40
0.80
0.60
1.22
0.40
0.80
6.00
1.00
5 min
(on/hr)
4.56
10.32
0.96
4.56
2.74
1.22
7.62
1.20
0.60
0.36
1.22
l.flO
0.61
1.22
0.30
0.61
0.91
0.96
0.30
0.30
0.96
0.30
2.16
0.60
2.16
1.56
1.20
0.60
0.96
0.96
1.83
0.60
1.20
14.1.4
1.%
SINCE IAST
Kvratr
(mins)
.
900
555
870
845
4300
1470
2760
9210
1470
9725
10090
360
1800
11870
8235
3300
7050
1360
4320
41r,5
2880
4155
11370
4595
4690
2355
1250
4135
4320
395
7950
6350
3R5
4000
IAST EVWT PREVIOUS PREVIOUS
•- 0.5 0
24655
.1H5
4000
_
0.05
0.08
0.58
0.41
0.0
0.05
0.03
0.0
0.43
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.08
0.0
0.0
0.89
0.0
0.0
4.24
0.0
..
0.10
3.40
4.50
0.41
0.0
0.05
0.86
0.0
0.43
0.0
0.0
0.13
0.58
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.05
0.08
1.09
0.0
2.49
0.33
1.02
0.20
0.18
1.30
0.89
0.0
0.0
4.24
4.29
PREVIOUS
7 DAYS
(on)
_
0.10
3.45
4.55
0.56
0.94
1.02
0.91
3.61
1.83
0.20
0.91
0.15
0.61
0.0
1.30
2.34
2.26
0.81
0.05
0.15
5.92
1.09
0.08
2.72
0.38
1.35
3.53
0.43
1.47
2.31
1.47
0.30
4.55
7.32
-------
biro
CAY
81150
81157
81160
81165
81167
81167
81171
81184
81)85
81201
81201
81207
81209
81217
81217
81223
81227
81236
81245
81251
81253
81264
81270
81275
81279
81291
81296
81299
81J01
81310
HI 324
81335
81.142
81349
•81357
81361
0.5 cm
(mills)
20005
8970
3600
B2IO
1475
2660
4755
17690
1770
20880
395
8580
2415
10260
10690
8350
3680
11520
12670
7320
2155
15605
2035
6655
4570
16160
6205
2935
895
12010
19325
15045
9415
9940
9490
5480
wi rrcn-irj i/
PREVIOUS
DAY
(cm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.0
0.91
0.15
0.0
1.88
0.13
0.89
0.0
0.18
0.0
0.41
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.43
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
2.90
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.0
PREVIOUS
3 DAYS
(cm)
0.23
0.18
0.74
0.38
0.94
1.12
0.41
0.0
1.88
0.46
1.35
0.0
2.01
0.03
0.44
0.15
1.52
0.0
0.0
0.43
5.21
0.36
0.0
0.40
0.15
0.0
0.05
2.24
5.05
0.0
0.20
0.29
0.03
0.0
0.05
0.03
PREVIOUS
7 DAYS
(on)
0.23
1.14
0.91
1.42
2.29
2.44
2.90
0.0
1.88
0.46
1.35
1.65
2.64
0.28
0.69
1.12
1.68
0.0
0.08
1.30
5.77
0.41
7.24
3.00
1.19
0.05
1.63
2.29
7.21
0.0
0.40
0.29
1.19
0.51
1.47
1.78
-------
OIHI
CAY
81362
82001
82004
82016
82023
82031
82034
820SO
82063
82065
82072
82075
82085
82090
82090
82093
82107
82116
82139
82143
82149
82153
82156
82164
82167
82168
82173
821 BO
82193
82209
82212
82214
82221
82229
82237
82245
B2266
82270
*r
Tire
2045
0035
0130
-
-
1320
0055
0345
1445
2335
1215
2140
0440
0705
1915
1105
2025
1620
1515
0915
0600
0200
1150
0450
0840
0215
1925
0850
0145
0400
1600
1540
1620
1835
0915
0345
0100
0300
O1VI
DAY
81363
82001
82005
-
-
82032
82034
82050
82064
82066
82072
82076
82085
82090
82090
82093
82108
82117
82140
82144
82149
82153
82158
82165
82 167
82168
82174
821RO
82)93
82209
82212
82214
82222
82229
82237
82245
82266
82270
'!•
TIM:
0935
1740
0705
-
-
0650
2335
2300
0840
2320
1350
1455
1250
1100
2055
2250
0130
0200
0235
1035
1235
0655
0250
0010
1040
0845
1155
1750
0655
1950
1R30
1655
0155
1910
1410
0745
12.10
1955
DURATION
(mini
775.
1025.
1825.
-
-
1050.
1415.
1155.
1075.
1425.
90.
10.15.
490.
235.
100.
705.
305.
5BO.
680.
1520.
395.
295.
2340.
1160.
120.
390.
990.
540.
310.
950.
210.
135.
575.
35.
295.
240.
690.
1015.
VOUJME
(on)
0.71
1.30
3.96
0.51
4.17
3.94
4.09
1.09
0.97
2.01
0.51
2.16
1.37
0.86
1.07
2.87
1.02
1.22
2.41
3.91
1.19
0.91
3.48
1.09
0.66
1.40
1.17
2.64
0.81
2.36
0.97
0.53
1.73
0.89
0.84
1.09
1.63
1.83
STORM
MFAN
(c3n/hr»
0.05
0.08
0.13
-
-
0.23
0.17
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.34
0.13
0.17
0.22
0.64
0.24
0.20
0.13
0.21
0.15
0. IB
0.19
0.09
0.06
0.33
0.40
0.07
0.29
0.16
0.15
0.39
0.24
0.18
-
0.17
0.27
0.14
0.11
1 lir 15 nun
(on/lirl
0.20
0.13
0.53
-
-
0.43
0.48
0.20
0.13
0.23
0.30
0.33
0.56
0.2.B
1.04
0.94
0.41
0.25
1.70
1.30
0.25
0.23
0.41
0.20
0.61
0.43
0.33
0.79
0.69
O.r,l
0.71
0.36
0.53
-
0.43
0.97
0.76
0.94
tcm/hr)
0.30
0.20
0.71
-
-
0.51
0.71
0.30
0.30
0.41
0.71
0.41
0.81
0.51
2.44
1.22
1.02
0.30
3.15
2.54
0.41
0.30
0.61
0.41
1.32
0.61
0.81
1.42
1.22
0.91
2. 84
0.61
1.83
3.45
1.42
-
1.12
2.24
5 min
lon/hr)
0.61
0.30
0.91
-
-
0.91
1.22
0.30
0.61
0.61
0.91
0.61
0.91
0.61
3.96
1.52
2.13
0.30
4.57
3.35
0.61
0.30
0.61
0.61
2.13
0.61
2.44
2.13
1.52
1.22
3.96
0.61
2.44
6.40
3.35
-
1.22
3.05
SINCE IfST
Evmr
(niins)
605
3750
33SO
•V2B80
M320
1110
620
M1640
3670
2335
5285
4855
V7200
6915
495
3790
6075
7860
•V14400
31RO
6925
2610
4615
7875
3350
935
•V1440
1015
•v.5760
M2960
4090
2710
9HO
4430
•>-28HO
•vl440
•v.4320
5190
1AST EVWT PRLVIOUB PREVIOIE
> 0.5 cm DftY 3 DAYS
(mi MS)
1425
37SO
3.T-0
M5H40
MOOBO
MOOHO
2525
21H50
18225
2.1)5
80.15
4855
17200
6915
495
37')0
21455
12410
31035
3720
6925
5125
4615
8765
3350
915
7840
84S5
17755
28865
4090
2710
99H5
11070
10925
10B95
29H15
5190
(on)
0.58
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.30
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.86
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.66
0.23
0.18
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.36
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.0
0.0
(cm)
1.47
0.41
1.30
0.23
0.13
0.41
3.99
0.0
0.30
0.97
0.0
0.51
0.0
0.0
0.86
1.93
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.33
0.0
0.46
0.91
0.0
1.09
0.69
0.46
0.46
0.0
0.0
2.36
0.97
0.36
0.13
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.0
PREVIOUS
7 DAYS
Ion)
3.25
2.18
2.50
0.30
0.64
0.48
4.39
0.15
0.30
1.27
2.49
0.99
0.74
1.37
2.24
1.93
0.66
0.25
0.0
2.62
.9)
.65
.57
.93
.09
.75
2.51
1.63
0.15
0.0
2.36
3.33
0.89
1.17
0.25
0.10
0.41
1.65
-------
APPQOIX C
- Annual Loadings of Chemical Constituents
for Wetfall, Dryfall and Bulk
- Priority Pollution Detection Limits
-------
Annual Atmospheric Deposition - Vfetf all * •
Lake George, New York
(USGS Laboratory)
Parameter
Tot. P2'
SKN
N03-N
NH.-N
4
Cl
so4
Ca
K
Mg
Na
Pb2«
Number
Samples
41
30
58
57
55
55
52
52
52
52
17
E Load
(g«nf2)
10.90
0.39
0.84
0.37
0.81
4.47
0.45
0.13
0.20
0.56
6.07
Load _
8.54
0.45
0.47
0.21
0.48
2.66
0.28
0.08
0.12
0.35
12.64
1. Collector open 7.56% during_study period
2. Results of loadings in nrpm 2* and rag-rn 2*yr 1
-------
Annual Atmospheric Deposition - Wetfall1'
lake George, New York
(DQH Laboratory)
Parameter
MRP2'
TSP2-
TOT P2-
SKN
TKN
N03-N
NH4-N
soc
TOC
CL
so4
Ca
K
Mg
Na
Pb2-
Number
Samples
41
42
49
38
42
49
42
41
41
48
17
16
16
16
17
24
Z Load
(g-m"2)
4.50
7.60
14.88
0.32
0.46
0.58
0.26
1.75
2.42
'2.78
2.04
0.26
0.05
0.05
0.36
9.68
Load _
(g-m 2-yr *)
4.63
7.74
12.92
0.37
0.47
0.50
0.26
1.79
2.48
2.45
4.45
0.53
0.09
0.09
0.71
17.53
1. Collector open 9.08% for study period
2. Results of loadings in rog-m 2 and mg-nT
-------
Annual Atmospheric Deposition - Dryfall1'
Lake George, New York
(USGS Laboratory)
Parameter
MRP2'
TOT P2-
SKN
N03-N
NH4-N
CL
so4
Ca
K
Mg
Na
Pb2-
Number
Samples
5
14
8
21
21
22
23
22
16
22
23
9
I Load
(g*m 2)
38.20
7.76
0.09
0.14
0.15
0.26
1.15
0.46
0.22
0.14
0.24
1.22
Load _
(g-m 2-yr *)
89.28
6.11
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.57
0.24
0.10
0.07
0.10
1.42
1. Collector open 92.44% during study period
2. Results of loadings in mg«m 2 and mg«m 2«yr J
-------
Annual Atmospheric Deposition - Bulk
Lake George, New York
(USCS Laboratory)
Parameter
TOT P1'
SKN
N03-N
NH4-N
CL
so4
Ca
K
Mg
Na
Pb1'
Number
Samples
17
9
23
22
23
23
21
21
21
20
9
I Load
(g'lrf2)
35.58
0.67
0.84
0.49
0.83
8.08
0.87
0.26
0.33
0.48
13.07
Load _
(g«m 2-yr~1)
25.30
0.91
0.44
0.27
0.44
4.23
0.48
0.15
0.18
0.29
17.37
1. Results of loadings in mg-m 2 and mg*m 2>yr 1
-------
Priority Pollutant Detection Limits
NYSDOH
PARAMETER
DETECTION LIMIT
UNIT
Beryllium
Copper
Mercury, total
Silver
Zinc
Antiirony
Nickel
Thallium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (b) f luoranthene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (g , h , i ) pery lene
Benzidine
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-chloronaphthalene
Chrysene
Dibenzo ( a , h ) anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalate
3,3' -dichlorobenzidine
Diethylphthalate
Dime thy Iphthalate
2 , 4-dinitrotoluene
2 , 6-dinitrotoluene
Diocty Iphthalate
1 , 2-diphenylhydrazine
Fluorene
Ifexachloroe thane
Ideno ( 1 , 2 , 3-cd) pyrene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
N-nitrosodimethylainine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitroscdiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
0.02
0.05
0.4
0.02
0.05
0.5
0.05
1.
10.
2.
10.
10.
5.
10.
10.
10.
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
200.
10.
30.
10.
30.
30.
10.
30.
10.
10.
10.
10.
30.
10.
10.
10.
30.
10.
10.
10.
na1*
10.
10.
10.
rog/1
mg/1
mcg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
ncg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
-------
PARAMETER
DETECTION LIMIT
UNIT
Pyrene
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
2-chlorophenol
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
2 , 4-dinethy Iphenol
2 , 4-dinitrophenol
2-nitrqphenol
4-nitrqphenol
Penthachlorqphenol
Phenol
2,4, 6-trichlorophenol
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Bis (2 ethylhexyl) phthalate
Fluoranthane
Bis-2-chloroisopropyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenylether
4-chlorophenyl phenylether
2-methyl-4 , 6-dinitrqphenol
Bis 2-chloroethoxymethane
Aldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDT
4,4'-DDE
4, 4 '-ODD
B.H.C.- a
B.H.C.- e
B.H.C.- 6
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
1,2, 4-trichlorobenzene
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyc lopentadine
1 , 3-dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Endrin
B.H.C.-y (lindane)
Chlorcrne thane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
1 , 1-dichloroethene
Bromome thane
Trans- 1 , 2-dichloroethene
1 , 1-dichloroethane
1 , 2-dichloroethane
Chloroform
1,1, 1-trichloroethane
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
30.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
16.
18.
21.
6.
13.
16.
13.
16.
ND2«
3.
5.
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
-------
PARAMETER
DETECTION LIMIT
UNIT
Trichloro fluoronethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Brcrnodichlorome thane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Trans- 1 , 3-dichloropropene
Cis-1 , 3-dichloropropene
1 , 2-dichloropropene
Chlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
1,1,2, 2-tetrachloroethane
Dibromochlorome thane
Bronoforn
2,4, 5-trichlorophenol
1,1, 2-trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
6.
4.
ND2-
4.
11.
3.
8.
8.
6.
8.
4.
9.
6.
ND2-
10.
4.
4.
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
mcg/1
1. na - not analyzed
2. nd - not determined
-------
APPENDIX D
Public Participation
-------
Public participation for the Late George Urban Runoff Study was
coordinated through the Lake George Park Commission, an advisory and regulatory
unit of the NYSDEC which has certain authority to preserve, protect and enhance
the natural scenic beauty of the Lake and surrounding watershed. The Park
Comnission would guide the public participation program, be responsible for
activities such as public meetings, workshops, newsletters and press releases,
disseminate study information, and encourage public interest in the urban runoff
study.
As a preliminary task, the Park Commission formed an Advisory Group to
review and conrnent on all phases of the urban runoff study. This group included
fifteen members and represented, in somewhat equivalent proportions, the four
categories of interest required by USEPA - private citizens, public interest
groups, public officials and organizations with economic interest in the study.
The following is a summary of public participation activities during the
study:
1) The Advisory Group held 10 meetings between June, 1980 and May, 1982.
2) Public information meetings were held on August 21, 1980 and August
12, 1982. A public information meeting and final report review was scheduled on
August 11, 1983, and the minutes from this meeting are included in this Appendix.
3) An informational brochure explaining the Lake George Urban Runoff
Study was prepared during the first year of the project (see First Annual Report)
The brochure was distributed to the 35 lake associations in the Lake George basin
-------
and to local officials and planning boards in the eight towns and two villages
that lie within the boundaries of the Lake George basin.
4) A newsletter was prepared during 1981 and provided information
concerning the Lake George Urban Runoff Study, the Clean Lakes Program of Lake
George and other topics of interest in the Lake George area (see Second Annual
Report). The newsletter was mailed to approximately 900 local residents and to
local news media. An area radio station provided coverage of the newsletter on
several occasions and project personnel were interviewed for a radio talk show
which provided additional exposure for the study.
5) Project personnel attended Annual Meetings of The Lake George
Association during 1980, 1981 and 1982, to explain the study and some of the
findings, and to answer questions. Articles concerning the study have appeared in
"The LGA Reporter", a quarterly publication of the Association. As part of a
public education effort, project personnel prepared an article for "The LGA
Reporter" concerning the impact of pool cleaning activity in the basin on water
quality (see Second Annual Report).
6) At least 10 different articles concerning the Lake George Urban
Runoff Study have appeared in local newspapers. Articles concerning the study
also have appeared in "New York State Environment" and the "Water Bulletin",
publications of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
7) Project personnel have attended meetings of special interest groups,
such as the Bolton Chamber of Commerce and Lake George Kiwanis, to explain the
study. Related articles have appeared in the Lake George and Bolton Chamber of
Comerce newsletters.
-------
Minutes
Lake George NURP Advisory Croup
Meeting No. 11
Lake George Town Center
August 11, 1983
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Smith at 7:46.
Mr. Smith expressed his appreciation to the members of the Advisory Group
for their involvement over the past three years and noting the turnout, thanked
all for their Interest and attendance at tonight's meeting.
The Chairman indicated that this would likely be the last meeting of the
Advisory Group and said that it would be appropriate for the group to establish
some future course as a result.
The amendments to the agenda were noted and the Chairman introduced Drs.
Janes Sutherland, Jay Bloomfield and Cliff Siegfried.
DR. JAMES W. SUTHERLAND, PROJECT MANAG5R;
Dr. Sutherland expressed his thanks to Don Smith, the Lake George Park
Commission and members of the public for assistance and support in the public
participation portion of the study. He noted that the Final Report is being
circulated for comments and therefore should be considered as preliminary and
subject to change.
Dr. Sutherland said that he would give a general overview of the study and
that Drs. Bloomfield and Siegfried would detail the results of the watershed
sampling and the lake monitoring, respectively.
Dr. Sutherland presented an overview of the interest in Urban Runoff over
the last decade, the factors leading to the development of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.E.P.A.), National Urban Runoff Program, and
of the institutional arrangements which resulted in the project at Lake George.
He noted the respective roles of DEC Region 5, the Lake George Park Coraroiasion,
and the NURP Advisory Group. Be explained the amounts and method of funding and
that due to E.F.A. budget cuts, money for testing of urban runoff control and
techniques was eliminated furing the first part of the study.
Dr. Sutherland used a series of slides to describe the Lake George Watershed,
to characterize and define the study area and specific drainage basins and to
demonstrate the methods of sampling and gaging. He described what the samples were
tested for and noted the Technical Reports, Mini Study Reports and Documents which
were produced as part of the program. (These are enumerated in the list of reports
to be produced).
-------
- 2 -
DR. CLIFFORD A. SIEGFRIED, BIOLOGICAL SURVEY. STATE SCIENCE SERVICE.
NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM;
Dr. Siegfried explained that his presentation would describe the resultant
effect of storm water on lake quality as well as other results of the NURP
sister study, the Clean Lakes Study which is interrelated and also under final
review.
Dr. Siegfried highlighted the study method and described the locations
of lake sampling stations. He detailed what the samples were tested for and
highlighted the findings from several study reports. (These are enumerated
in the forthcoming list of reports under Dr. Siegfried's name)
Dr. Siegfried explained that as expected phosphorus was identified as the
Halting nutrient in Lake George and described the .relative impact of different
ways in which phosphorus is made available to phytoplanton in the lake. He
quantified phytoplanton productivity in lake samples collected in proximity
to storm water outfalls systems during storm events. Considerable information
was provided on the organisms and plants present and the relationships of these
within the food chain.
DR. JAY A. BLOCMFIELD. COORDINATOR, NEW YORK STATE CLEAN WATERS PROGRAM:
Dr. Bloomfield was introduced and thanked the members of the Advisory
Group. He presented the findings of the watershed monitoring component of
the study.
Dr. Bloomfield compared weather figures for the study period with historic
data and detailed the precipitation and atmosphere deposition results of the
study. He described slides which contained histograms of concentrations of
certain constituants. Dr. Bloomfield discussed the relationship between direct
runoff and total phosphorus and described several factors which affect
phosphorus loading.
Dr. Bloomfield described the correlation between phosphorus loading and
percentage of developed land within drainages and presented a phosphorus budget
for Lake George.
Several other findings also contained in the final report were presented.
At the conclusion of Dr. Bloomfield's remarks the Chairman announced a short
break. Thereafter, the floor was open for questions. Chuck Hawley asked if a
layman's synopsis of the results would be prepared. Jay Bloomfield answered
saying that a newsletter is being prepared for that purpose. Mr. Hawley asked
about control techniques as part of the proposed shore front improvement in the
study area. Several possibilities were discussed.
-------
- 3 -
Dr. Bloomfield explained that a lake management plan for Lake George will
be prepared by the Division of Water Research and that the plan will attempt
to Bort-out alternative approaches to problems* identified in the NUR? and Clean
Lakes Studies. He characterized the lake quality as good but indicated that
the appropriate tine to protect the lake is in the preventive stage.
It was explained that comments on the report will be received over ths
next several weeks and that finalization of the report is expected about
October 1, 1983.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael P. White
-------
Attendance
Anne Arsenault
Roger Gebo Warren County Highway
Gardner A. Finley Bolton Planning Board
Jo-Anne Rugge
Ruth £. Hawley Village Planning Board
Margaret Stewart L.G.P.C.
Roger Hogan L.G.P.C.
Morgan Smith L.G.P.C.
Jack Ryder L.G.A.
Charles £. Hawley L.G.P.C.
Eugene J. Kusky Lake George Planning Board
Tracy Clothier L.C.A.
Jay Bloomfield D£C
Dean R. Long RPI/FWI
Jin Sutherland DEC
Mary-Arthur Beebe L.C.A.
Mona Deepe L.G.A.
Marilyn Patton
Clifford A. Siegfried
Lucas P. Hart L.G.A.
Marilyn Cassidy Soil Conservation Service
Richard Park FWI
Joseph Rota Dresden Town Supervisor
Kevin Hart Putnam Town Supervisor
Dick Roberts Queensbury Planning Board
Lovell Martin
Don Smith
Charles Adamson Assembly Ft. Assoc.
------- |