U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2011–1318

National Water-Quality Assessment Program 

Toxic Substances Hydrology Program

Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury 

in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09
Cover: Sixmile Brook near Long Lake, New York, 

photograph by Dennis A. Wentz, U.S. Geological Survey. 
Environmental Settings of Streams 

Sampled for Mercury in New York and 

South Carolina, 2005–09 

By Barbara C. Scudder Eikenberry, Karen Riva-Murray, Martyn J. Smith, 

Paul M. Bradley, Daniel T. Button, Jimmy M. Clark, Douglas A. Burns, and 

Celeste A. Journey

National Water-Quality Assessment Program 

Toxic Substances Hydrology Program

Open-File Report 2011–1318 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Scudder Eikenberry, B.C., Riva-Murray, Karen, Smith, M.J., Bradley, P.M., Button, D.T., Clark, J.M., Burns, D.A., and 

Journey, C.A., 2012, Environmental settings of selected streams sampled for mercury in New York and South Carolina, 

2005–09: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1318, 36 p.
iii

Foreword

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is committed to providing the Nation with reliable scientific 

information that helps to enhance and protect the overall quality of life and that facilitates 

effective management of water, biological, energy, and mineral resources (http://www.usgs.

gov/). Information on the Nation’s water resources is critical to ensuring long-term availability 

of water that is safe for drinking and recreation and is suitable for industry, irrigation, and fish 

and wildlife. Population growth and increasing demands for water make the availability of that 

water, measured in terms of quantity and quality, even more essential to the long-term sustainability of our communities and ecosystems.

The USGS implemented the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program in 1991 

to support national, regional, State, and local information needs and decisions related to 

water-quality management and policy (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). The NAWQA Program 

is designed to answer: What is the quality of our Nation’s streams and groundwater? How are 

conditions changing over time? How do natural features and human activities affect the quality 

of streams and groundwater, and where are those effects most pronounced? By combining 

information on water chemistry, physical characteristics, stream habitat, and aquatic life, the 

NAWQA Program aims to provide science-based insights for current and emerging water issues 

and priorities. From 1991 to 2001, the NAWQA Program completed interdisciplinary assessments and established a baseline understanding of water-quality conditions in 51 of the Nation’s 

river basins and aquifers, referred to as Study Units (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/studies/

study_units.html).

National and regional assessments are ongoing in the second decade (2001–2012) of the 

NAWQA Program as 42 of the 51 Study Units are selectively reassessed. These assessments 

extend the findings in the Study Units by determining water-quality status and trends at sites 

that have been consistently monitored for more than a decade, and filling critical gaps in 

characterizing the quality of surface water and groundwater. For example, increased emphasis 

has been placed on assessing the quality of source water and finished water associated with 

many of the Nation’s largest community water systems. During the second decade, NAWQA is 

addressing five national priority topics that build an understanding of how natural features and 

human activities affect water quality, and establish links between sources of contaminants, the 

transport of those contaminants through the hydrologic system, and the potential effects of contaminants on humans and aquatic ecosystems. Included are studies on the fate of agricultural 

chemicals, effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems, bioaccumulation of mercury in stream 

ecosystems, effects of nutrient enrichment on aquatic ecosystems, and transport of contaminants to public-supply wells. In addition, national syntheses of information on pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nutrients, trace elements, and aquatic ecology are continuing. 

The USGS aims to disseminate credible, timely, and relevant science information to address 

practical and effective water-resource management and strategies that protect and restore 

water quality. We hope this NAWQA publication will provide you with insights and information 

to meet your needs, and will foster increased citizen awareness and involvement in the protection and restoration of our Nation’s waters. 
iv

The USGS recognizes that a national assessment by a single program cannot address all waterresource issues of interest. External coordination at all levels is critical for cost-effective management, regulation, and conservation of our Nation’s water resources. The NAWQA Program, 

therefore, depends on advice and information from other agencies—Federal, State, regional, 

interstate, Tribal, and local—as well as nongovernmental organizations, industry, academia, and 

other stakeholder groups. Your assistance and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

William H. Werkheiser

USGS Associate Director for Water

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to thank many USGS personnel who contributed their guidance, especially 

Terri L. Arnold (Illinois Water Science Center) and Todd D. Stuntebeck (Wisconsin Water Science 

Center) who provided comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Access was graciously 

provided to the Fishing Brook study area by The Nature Conservancy, Finch Pruyn & Company, 

and RMK Timberland, and to the McTier Creek study area by the family of Senator Strom Thurmond. The authors also thank the staff of the Adirondack Ecological Center (State University 

of New York–College of Environmental Science and Forestry) for field laboratory space used in 

sample processing.
v

Figures

1. Map showing locations of New York and South Carolina study basins..............................2

2. Photograph of Hudson River near Newcomb, New York (Site 27 in table 1 and 

figure 3) (summer).......................................................................................................................14

3. Map showing land use/land cover of Upper Hudson River Basin near Newcomb, 

New York, with nested outline of Fishing Brook Subbasin in headwaters .......................15

4. Photograph of Fishing Brook above County Line Flow near Long Lake, New York 

(Site 10 in table 1 and figure 3) (summer) ...............................................................................16

5. Photograph of Fishing Brook (County Line Flow outlet) near Newcomb, New York 

(Site 12 in table 1 and figure 3) (summer) ...............................................................................17

6A. Map showing detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for Fishing Brook 

Subbasin, New York: land use/land cover, based on National Land Cover Dataset 

for 2001 (NLCD01) .......................................................................................................................18

6B. Map showing detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for Fishing Brook 

Subbasin, New York: wetland cover, based on New York State Adirondack 

Park Agency data .......................................................................................................................19

7. Satellite image of Fishing Brook Subbasin, New York, showing sampling 

locations.......................................................................................................................................20

8. Photographs of (A) Sixmile Brook near Long Lake, New York (Site 7) (summer), 

major tributary to Fishing Brook and (B) Pickwacket Pond Inlet near Long Lake, 

N.Y. (Site 9) (summer).................................................................................................................21

9. Photograph of Edisto River Basin near Givhans, South Carolina (Site 54 in 

table 1 and figure 10) (winter)...................................................................................................23

10. Map showing detailed land use/land cover for Edisto River Basin near Givhans, 

South Carolina, with nested outline of McTier Creek Subbasin.........................................24

Contents

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................iv

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................vii

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

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

Environmental Setting and Mercury Cycling ............................................................................................1

Sources of Environmental Setting Data.....................................................................................................3

Environmental Setting of New York Streams ..........................................................................................10

Upper Hudson River Basin ................................................................................................................14

Fishing Brook Subbasin .....................................................................................................................16

Environmental Setting of South Carolina Streams.................................................................................22

Edisto River Basin...............................................................................................................................22

McTier Creek Subbasin......................................................................................................................25

Summary .......................................................................................................................................................30

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................30
vi

11. Photograph of McTier Creek near Monetta, South Carolina (Site 30 in table 1 

and figure 10) (summer).............................................................................................................25

12A. Maps showing detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for McTier Creek 

Subbasin: land use/land cover, based on National Land Cover Dataset for 

2001 ...............................................................................................................................................26

12B. Maps showing detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for McTier Creek 

Subbasin: wetland cover, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National 

Wetlands Inventory ....................................................................................................................27

13. Satellite image of McTier Creek Subbasin, South Carolina, showing sampling 

locations. Map numbers refer to sites listed in table 1. .......................................................28

14. Photograph of Gully Creek at Bridge on Shoals Road near Monetta, South Carolina, 

major tributary to McTier Creek (Site 31) (fall).......................................................................29

Tables

1. Map numbers and complete site names with basic basin characteristics 

for streams sampled in New York and South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey 

mercury studies, 2005–09 ............................................................................................................4

2. Sources of environmental-setting data for streams sampled in New York and 

South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.................................8

3. Selected locations in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program–Mercury 

Deposition Network (NADP–MDN) used to estimate atmospheric wet deposition 

of total mercury in the Hudson River Basin, New York, and the Edisto River Basin, 

South Carolina...............................................................................................................................9

4. Mean air temperature, precipitation, and atmospheric mercury data for primary 

stream basins sampled in New York and South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey 

mercury studies, 2005–09 ............................................................................................................9

5. Land use/land cover data for streams sampled in New York and South Carolina 

for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09 ..........................................................11

6. Hydrologic data for primary stream sites sampled in New York and South 

Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies for period of record and 

study period of 2005–09 .............................................................................................................13

7. Mean annual water temperature and range for primary stream sites sampled 

in New York and South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 

2005–09 .........................................................................................................................................13

Appendixes

Appendix 1. Detailed Geographic Information System data for selected streams 

sampled in New York for U.S Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09

Available online.

Appendix 2. Detailed Geographic Information System data for selected streams 

sampled in South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09

Available online.
vii

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Abbreviations 

and Acronyms

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2) 

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Flow rate

cubic meters per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic feet per second (ft3/s)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

unless otherwise noted.

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Latitude and longitude listed in table 1 and the appendixes are referenced to the North 

American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Water year: The 12-month period, October 1–September 30. The water year is designated by the 

calendar year in which it ends.
viii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

APA New York State Adirondack Park Agency

CY calendar year

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

GIS geographic information system

Hg mercury

KSAT areal-weighted saturated hydraulic conductivity

MDN Mercury Deposition Network of the National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program

MeHg methylmercury

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program

NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program

NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment Program

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NLCD National Land Cover Dataset

NLCD01 National Land Cover Dataset for 2001

NTN National Trends Network of NADP

NWI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory

PRISM Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model

SAGA System for Automated Geoscientific Analysis

SSURGO U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Geographic database

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WY water year
Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury 

in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

By Barbara C. Scudder Eikenberry, Karen Riva-Murray, Martyn J. Smith, Paul M. Bradley, Daniel T. Button, 

Jimmy M. Clark, Douglas A. Burns, and Celeste A. Journey

Abstract 

This report summarizes the environmental settings of 

streams in New York and South Carolina, where the U.S. 

Geological Survey completed detailed investigations during 

2005–09 into factors contributing to mercury bioaccumulation 

in top-predator fish and other stream organisms. Descriptions 

of location, land use/land cover, climate, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, hydrology, water temperature, and other 

characteristics are provided. Atmospheric deposition is the 

dominant mercury source in the studied basins where biota, 

sediment, soil, and water were sampled for mercury and for 

physical and chemical characteristics believed to be important 

in mercury methylation and transport. 

Introduction

In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National 

Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program began studies of mercury (Hg) in stream and river ecosystems (henceforth referred to as ‘streams’) across the United States. These 

streams spanned a large range in Hg source strength and 

environmental settings. Initial studies focused on environmental factors contributing to bioavailability and bioaccumulation 

of Hg in stream ecosystems from single locations in each of 

eight study basins—two in Oregon, three in Wisconsin, and 

three in Florida (Bell and Lutz, 2008; Brigham and others, 

2003, 2009; Chasar and others, 2009; Marvin-DiPasquale and 

others, 2009). Subsequent studies conducted during 2005–09 

examined mercury cycling, transport, and bioaccumulation 

at multiple sites across two stream basins in New York and 

South Carolina. The purpose of this report is to describe the 

environmental settings of study basins in New York and South 

Carolina (fig. 1) and to serve as a reference document for other 

reports associated with the 2005–09 Hg studies. 

Environmental Setting and Mercury 

Cycling

Both the New York and South Carolina study basins are 

in areas that are considered to be biologically sensitive to Hg 

from atmospheric sources, in that conditions are favorable 

for efficient conversion of inorganic Hg from atmospheric 

deposition to methylmercury (MeHg, the organic and bioavailable form of Hg) and its transport to adjacent streams (Evers 

and others, 2007; Bradley and others, 2011). MeHg is a potent 

neurotoxin that enters the base of aquatic food webs and is 

concentrated to increasingly higher levels by consumers. Thus, 

conversion of inorganic Hg to MeHg (a process known as 

methylation) is a critical step because it greatly increases the 

bioavailability of Hg. 

Hg transported by the atmosphere and deposited on the 

landscape is thought to be the dominant source of Hg to the 

study basins (New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 2008; South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control, 2010); Hg in wet atmospheric 

deposition (rain and snow) is moderate to high in the two 

basins relative to the rest of the Nation (National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program, 2010). 

Land use/land cover in the New York and South Carolina 

basins is mostly forested and woody wetland (“swamp”), and 

these types of land cover are known to be important in methylation of Hg (Driscoll and others, 1994; Hurley and others, 

1995; St. Louis and others, 1994, 1996; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1997; Kolka and others, 1999; Krabbenhoft and others, 1999; Chumchal and others, 2008; Brigham 

and others, 2009; Scudder and others, 2009). 
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

85° 80° 75°

45°

40°

35°

NEW YORK

NEW 

HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

MASS

CONN

RI

MARYLAND

DE

NEW 

JERSEY

PENNSYLVANIA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

GEORGIA

OHIO

TENN

KENTUCKY

MICHIGAN

NORTH CAROLINA

CANADA

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

Hudson River Basin

Santee River Basin

Charlotte

Greenville, S.C.

Columbia

New York

Albany Buffalo

Syracuse

Atlantic

Ocean

Lake Erie

Lake Ontario

lake

Huron

!

!

Upper Hudson River Basin

Fishing Brook Subbasin

Newcomb

Edisto River Basin

McTier Creek Subbasin

Givhans

Base from USGS Watershed Boundaries Dataset. Albers Conical Equal Area Projection, North American Datum of 1983.

0 75 150 KILOMETERS

0 75 150 MILES

0 30 60 MILES

0 60 KILOMETERS

0 6 12 KILOMETERS 

0 6 12 MILES

2 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Figure 1. Locations of New York and South Carolina study basins.
Sources of Environmental Setting Data 3

Indeed, fish from the New York and South Carolina 

basins are known to have Hg concentrations of concern for 

consumption by humans and wildlife (Yeardley and others, 1998; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001a, 

2001b; Evers and others, 2007; New York State Department 

of Environmental Conservation, 2008; Simonin and others, 

2009; Glover and others, 2010; South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control, 2010; National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2011; New York State Department of Health, 2011; South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control, 2011). Hg in top-predator fish is 

particularly high in the Edisto River of the Santee River Basin, 

South Carolina. In a study of top-predator fish from streams 

across the Nation, concentrations of Hg in a composite sample 

of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) from the Edisto 

River ranked above the 95th percentile, and a composite sample of largemouth bass from the North Fork Edisto River near 

Fairview Crossroads, S.C., contained 1.80 micrograms per 

gram (μg/g) wet weight Hg, a concentration that was exceeded 

only by a composite sample of fish from a stream in a mined 

basin (Bauch and others, 2009; Scudder and others, 2009). 

Several candidate basins were explored for inclusion at 

the outset of this study, and the Upper Hudson River Basin 

and Edisto River Basin were selected because each included 

regions, such as the Adirondacks in the Hudson and Coastal 

Plain in the Edisto, where high MeHg concentrations had been 

identified previously in surface waters and biota. Once these 

basins were identified for study, a smaller subbasin within 

each was selected for intensive study based on the premise 

that subbasins in the range of 50 to 100 km2 would be most 

appropriate for investigations focused on biogeochemical 

processes and bioaccumulation. Factors such as the presence 

of an existing streamgage or an appropriate streamgaging location, accessibility throughout the year, and landscape representativeness of the larger basin also were considered in subbasin 

selection. The two selected subbasins, Fishing Brook in New 

York and McTier Creek in South Carolina, are similar in size 

but differ in climate, atmospheric Hg loading, land use/land 

cover, aquatic species composition and community structure, 

and hydrology. The numerous synoptic sites sampled during the study were selected primarily based on representing 

a range of influence of landscape elements such as riparian 

wetlands, forested uplands, and lakes/ponds that were assumed 

likely to affect MeHg concentrations in surface water and 

biota. Reconnaissance included a total of 54 sites, 28 in New 

York and 26 in South Carolina; although most of the subsequent sampling was done at a subset of these sites. All sites are 

listed in table 1.

Sources of Environmental Setting Data

Environmental setting data for the sites described in this 

report were compiled from a variety of sources, which are 

listed in table 2. Total Hg concentrations and deposition were 

monitored at two National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

Mercury Deposition Network (NADP–MDN) monitoring 

locations near each study basin: Huntington Wildlife Forest 

(NY20) and Congaree Swamp (SC19) (National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program, 2010a; table 3). As part of NADP–MDN 

monitoring, precipitation samples were collected weekly 

and analyzed for total Hg using established protocols to 

quantify weekly precipitation and wet deposition loads of 

Hg at both sites (National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 

2006, 2010b; Latysch and Wetherbee, 2007). The Parameterelevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) 

was used for this investigation to determine basin-wide mean 

annual precipitation for the Edisto and Hudson River Basins. 

The PRISM is a system that uses point measurements of precipitation, temperature, and other climatic factors from across 

the United States to produce continuous, regularly spaced, 

digital-grid estimates of monthly, annual, and event-based 

climatic parameters (Daly and others, 1994, 2002; Daly, 2006; 

National Water and Climate Center, 2010; PRISM Climate 

Group, 2010). In a method modified from Latysch and Wetherbee (2011), PRISM grid estimates of mean annual precipitation were applied to mean annual Hg concentrations at the two 

NADP–MDN monitoring locations to produce mean annual 

wet-deposition estimates for total Hg in both basins (table 4). 

Data for atmospheric dry deposition of Hg are not available but dry deposition can be significant (Miller and others, 

2005; Sakata and others, 2006; Choi and others, 2008; Risch 

and others, 2011). Mean air temperatures for summer and 

winter near the primary USGS sampling sites were estimated 

using data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) 

(National Climatic Data Center, 2011a) for nearby NCDC sites 

(table 4). 
4 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Table 1. Map numbers and complete site names with basic basin characteristics for streams sampled in New York and South 

Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; km2, square kilometer; m, meter; km, kilometer; nd, no data; latitude and longitude are in decimal degrees, referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1927; elevation at basin outlet is from the National Elevation Dataset, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988; 

NADP–MDN, National Atmospheric Deposition Program–Mercury Deposition Network; NADP–MDN site NY20: latitude and longitude are 43.9731 and 

-74.2231, respectively; NADP–MDN site SC19: latitude and longitude are 33.8145 and -80.7809, respectively; primary sampling sites are shown in bold]

Map 

number 

(fig. 3)

USGS 

station 

number

USGS 

station 

name

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

County

Drainage 

basin 

area1

(km2)

Elevation 

at basin 

outlet (m)

Distance from 

NADP–MDN 

site NY20 to 

stream-water 

sampling 

location (km)

New York

1 01311985 Fishing Brook near 

Windfall Mountain 

near Long Lake, 

N.Y.

43.963833 -74.326528 Hamilton 15.9 560 8.3

2 01311989 Fishing Brook near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.972972 -74.328417 Hamilton 25.0 544 8.4

3 01311990 Fishing Brook at 28N 

near Long Lake, 

N.Y.

43.978056 -74.336667 Hamilton 27.1 540 9.1

4 0131199010 Sixmile Brook at 

28N near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.975667 -74.361306 Hamilton 4.56 546 11.1

5 0131199020 Sixmile Brook 

Tributary near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.991278 -74.351194 Hamilton 6.89 527 10.5

6 0131199021 Sixmile Brook below 

Sixmile Brook 

Tributary near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.987778 -74.345556 Hamilton 17.0 520 9.9

7 0131199022 Sixmile Brook near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.988194 -74.341000 Hamilton 17.7 522 9.6

8 0131199029 Pickwacket Pond 

Inlet near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

44.008250 -74.311722 Hamilton 1.32 549 8.1

9 0131199035 Pickwacket Pond 

Outlet at mouth near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.992841 -74.309047 Hamilton 8.42 505 7.2

10 0131199040 Fishing Brook 

above County Line 

Flow near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.987583 -74.291333 Hamilton 60.6 509 5.7

11 0131199045 Unnamed tributary 

to County Line 

Flow near 

Long Lake, N.Y.

43.979000 -74.285889 Hamilton 0.96 540 5.1

12 0131199050 Fishing Brook 

(County Line Flow 

outlet) near 

Newcomb, N.Y.

43.977389 -74.270417 Hamilton 65.6 504 3.8

13 435937074144301 Archer Creek near 

Newcomb, N.Y.

43.993611 -74.245278 Essex 1.32 516 2.9

14 01311992 Arbutus Pond Outlet 

near Newcomb, N.Y.

43.982286 -74.235433 Essex 3.50 513 1.4
Sources of Environmental Setting Data 5

Table 1. Map numbers and complete site names with basic basin characteristics for streams sampled in New York and South 

Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; km2, square kilometer; m, meter; km, kilometer; nd, no data; latitude and longitude are in decimal degrees, referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1927; elevation at basin outlet is from the National Elevation Dataset, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988; 

NADP–MDN, National Atmospheric Deposition Program–Mercury Deposition Network; NADP–MDN site NY20: latitude and longitude are 43.9731 and 

-74.2231, respectively; NADP–MDN site SC19: latitude and longitude are 33.8145 and -80.7809, respectively; primary sampling sites are shown in bold]

Map 

number 

(fig. 3)

USGS 

station 

number

USGS 

station 

name

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

County

Drainage 

basin 

area1

(km2)

Elevation 

at basin 

outlet (m)

Distance from 

NADP–MDN 

site NY20 to 

stream-water 

sampling 

location (km)

New York

15 0131199405 Flat Brook at mouth 

near Newcomb, N.Y.

43.973953 -74.230154 Essex 8.99 477 0.6

16 435840074141001 Fishing Brook 

downstream of 

Lilypad Pond near 

Newcomb, N.Y.

43.977842 -74.235710 Essex 131 478 1.1

17 0131199710 Fishing Brook (Rich 

Lake at dam) at 

Newcomb, N.Y.

43.973119 -74.180985 Essex 168 475 3.4

18 01311830 Hudson River at 

Tahawus, N.Y.

44.043670 -74.057925 Essex 74.4 521 15.4

19 0131184703 Henderson Lake Outlet 

above Calamity 

Brook near 

Tahawus, N.Y.

44.091168 -74.056260 Essex 44.8 557 18.7

20 0131185005 Calamity Brook 

at mouth near 

Tahawus, N.Y.

44.091168 -74.055704 Essex 13.4 537 18.8

21 0131185008 Hudson River (proper) 

below Calamity 

Brook near 

Tahawus, N.Y.

44.090890 -74.056260 Essex 58.3 531 18.7

22 01311940 Hudson River near 

Tahawus, N.Y.

44.016172 -74.053758 Essex 163 521 14.4

23 435757074030101 Hudson River at 

Tahawus Road 

crossing near 

Newcomb, N.Y.

43.965833 -74.050278 Essex 197 516 13.9

24 01311951 Hudson River near 

Winebrook Hills, 

N.Y.

43.958417 -74.093750 Essex 223 481 10.5

25 01311998 Woodruff Pond Outlet 

at Newcomb, N.Y.

43.969507 -74.163762 Essex 8.60 475 4.8

26 435808074065801 Hudson River below 

Newcomb River 

near Newcomb, N.Y.

43.968889 -74.116111 Essex 300 474 8.6

27 01312000 Hudson River near 

Newcomb, N.Y.

43.966174 -74.130704 Essex 493 468 7.4

28 01312005 Hudson River 

Tributary 

Number Nine at 

Newcomb, N.Y.

43.957285 -74.124315 Essex 3.37 483 8.1
6 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Table 1. Map numbers and complete site names with basic basin characteristics for streams sampled in New York and South 

Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; km2, square kilometer; m, meter; km, kilometer; nd, no data; latitude and longitude are in decimal degrees, referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1927; elevation at basin outlet is from the National Elevation Dataset, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988; 

NADP–MDN, National Atmospheric Deposition Program–Mercury Deposition Network; NADP–MDN site NY20: latitude and longitude are 43.9731 and 

-74.2231, respectively; NADP–MDN site SC19: latitude and longitude are 33.8145 and -80.7809, respectively; primary sampling sites are shown in bold]

Map 

number 

(fig. 10)

USGS 

station 

number

USGS 

station 

name

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

County

Drainage 

basin 

area1

(km2)

Elevation 

at basin 

outlet (m)

Distance from 

NADP–MDN 

site SC19 to 

stream-water 

sampling 

location (km)

South Carolina

29 334658081264400 North Fork 

Edisto River at 

Steedman, S.C.

33.782926 -81.445380 Aiken 213 95.8 61.5

30 02172300 McTier Creek (State 

Highway 209) near 

Monetta, S.C

33.753477 -81.601771 Aiken 40.5 106 76.2

31 3345100813509 Gully Creek at Bridge 

on Shoals Road near 

Monetta, S.C.

33.752778 -81.585833 Aiken 25.9 108 74.7

32 02172304 McTier Creek above 

Hunt Shed near 

New Holland, S.C.2

33.745833 -81.597222 Aiken 79.1 98.6 75.8

33 3344280813547 McTier Creek above 

Gully Creek near 

New Holland, S.C.

33.741111 -81.596389 Aiken 42.9 102 75.8

34 3344250813538 Gully Creek at 

McTier Creek near 

New Holland, S.C.

33.740278 -81.593889 Aiken 29.9 102 75.6

35 02172305 McTier Creek near 

New Holland, S.C.

33.717500 -81.607500 Aiken 79.4 96.5 77.2

36 334230081185600 North Fork 

Edisto River near 

Wagner, S.C.

33.708483 -81.315380 Aiken 401 78.4 50.8

37 334108081361300 South Fork 

Edisto River near 

Foxtown, S.C. 

33.685699 -81.603439 Aiken 340 90.3 77.4

38 333901081110700 North Fork 

Edisto River near 

Woodford, S.C.

33.650429 -81.185100 Orangeburg 889 69.2 41.6

39 333547081321900 South Fork 

Edisto River near 

Kitchings Mill, S.C. 

33.596534 -81.538439 Aiken 500 80.5 74.2

40 333455081021400 Bull Swamp Creek 

near North, S.C.

33.582098 -81.037039 Orangeburg 250 58.8 35.1

41 333434081021900 North Fork 

Edisto River near 

North, S.C.

33.576265 -81.038428 Orangeburg 1091 58.4 35.6

42 333315081290100 South Fork Edisto 

River at Aiken 

State Park, S.C. 

33.554313 -81.483439 Aiken 917 74.8 71.2
Sources of Environmental Setting Data 7

Table 1. Map numbers and complete site names with basic basin characteristics for streams sampled in New York and South 

Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; km2, square kilometer; m, meter; km, kilometer; nd, no data; latitude and longitude are in decimal degrees, referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1927; elevation at basin outlet is from the National Elevation Dataset, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988; 

NADP–MDN, National Atmospheric Deposition Program–Mercury Deposition Network; NADP–MDN site NY20: latitude and longitude are 43.9731 and 

-74.2231, respectively; NADP–MDN site SC19: latitude and longitude are 33.8145 and -80.7809, respectively; primary sampling sites are shown in bold]

Map 

number 

(fig. 10)

USGS 

station 

number

USGS 

station 

name

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

County

Drainage 

basin 

area1

(km2)

Elevation 

at basin 

outlet (m)

Distance from 

NADP–MDN 

site SC19 to 

stream-water 

sampling 

location (km)

South Carolina

43 333130080565000 North Fork Edisto 

River above 

Orangeburg, S.C.

33.525154 -80.947037 Orangeburg 1507 52.0 35.7

44 333015080531900 Caw Caw Swamp 

Creek near 

Orangeburg, S.C.

33.504320 -80.888426 Orangeburg 207 49.2 35.9

45 332935081191800 Dean Swamp Creek 

near 

Springfield, S.C.

33.493204 -81.321494 Orangeburg 163 63.6 61.5

46 332931081144400 Tampa Creek near 

Springfield, S.C.

33.492095 -81.245382 Orangeburg 97.5 62.4 56.0

47 332743081163400 South Fork Edisto 

River near 

Springfield, S.C. 

33.462095 -81.275938 Orangeburg 1493 59.1 60.3

48 332406080520900 North Fork Edisto 

River near 

Rowesville, S.C.

33.401822 -80.868983 Orangeburg 1830 41.6 46.6

49 332337081160000 Windy Hill Creek near 

Blackville, S.C.

33.393763 -81.266494 Barnwell 16.6 66.8 64.9

50 331849080575200 South Fork Edisto 

River near 

Bamberg, S.C.

33.313768 -80.964263 Bamberg 2195 37.6 58.2

51 331625080530300 North Fork Edisto 

River near 

Branchville, S.C.

33.273770 -80.883985 Orangeburg 127 32.2 60.9

52 330319080241600 Four Hole Swamp near 

Ridgeville, S.C.

33.055446 -80.404265 Dorchester 3485 9.92 91.4

53 02174175 Edisto River near 

Cottageville, S.C.

33.054612 -80.449266 Colleton 5341 10.8 89.9

54 02175000 Edisto River near 

Givhans, S.C.

33.027946 -80.391488 Dorchester 7071 6.24 94.6

1

Drainage basin areas for gaged sites were derived from delineations made as part of the process of determining land cover area in this study. In some cases, 

the drainage basin areas differed from those shown for these sites in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) and published in annual streamflow 

reports. Some of the papers and reports written as part of this study have used the NWIS values of 65.3 km2 for Site 12 and 497.3 km2 for Site 27, 40.4 km2 for 

Site 30, 79.5 km2 for Site 35, and 7070.7 km2 for Site 54.

2

Site 32 is about 800 meters upstream of site 35.
8 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Table 2. Sources of environmental-setting data for streams sampled in New York and South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey 

mercury studies, 2005–09.

Data Data source Reference

Atmospheric mercury deposition Mercury Deposition Network–National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program 

(MDN–NADP)

National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 

2010b (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn)

Drainage basin areas Watershed Boundary Dataset Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010 

(http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/

datasets/watershed/)

Elevation, 10 meter resolution National Elevation Dataset (NED)–

Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010a 

(http://ned.usgs.gov/)

Flow-path length, flow distance to 

channel network

System for Automated Geoscientific 

Analysis–Geographic Information 

System software (SAGA–GIS)

System for Automated Geoscientific Analysis 

Geographic Information System, 2007 

(http://www.saga-gis.org/en/index.html)

Frost-free period Freeze/frost maps National Climatic Data Center, 2011b 

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/

freezefrost/Freezefree32F.pdf)

Hydric soils, organic-matter content, 

KSAT1

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey 

(SSURGO)

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011 

(http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/

ssurgo/)

Land use/land cover National Land Cover Data for 2001 

(NLCD01)

Yang and others, 2002; Homer and others, 2004; 

http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2001.php

Precipitation (basin-wide means) Parameter-elevation Regressions on 

Independent Slopes Model (PRISM)

PRISM Climate Group, 2010 (http://prism.

oregonstate.edu; National Water and Climate 

Center, 2010 (http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/

climate/prism.html)

Satellite images U.S. Department of Agriculture–Farm 

Service Agency, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program (New York only), 

provided by Environmental Systems 

Research Institute

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2008 

(http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=5f

5f6b9ee5b4483f9767b118b7b99323)

Satellite images AEX Aerials Maps & Data (South Carolina 

only), provided by Environmental 

Systems Research Institute

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

2007 (http://www.aerials-gis.com/AEX_Site/

GIS_System.html)

Stream network base maps National Hydrography Dataset U.S. Geological Survey, 2010b 

(http://nhd.usgs.gov/)

Streamflow National Water Information System (NWIS) U.S. Geological Survey, 2010c (http://waterdata.

usgs.gov/nwis/measurements)

Temperature, air (seasonal means) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) National Climatic Data Center, 2011a 

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/

stationlocator.html)

Temperature, water Water-Data Reports, National Water 

Information System (NWIS)

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010c (http://wdr.water.

usgs.gov/; http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

measurements)

Wetness index, topographic System for Automated Geoscientific 

Analysis–Geographic Information 

System software (SAGA–GIS)

System for Automated Geoscientific Analysis 

Geographic Information System, 2007 

(http://www.saga-gis.org/en/index.html)

Wetland cover, detailed Wetlands in the Greater Upper Hudson 

River Watershed Dataset 

(New York only)

New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2007 

(http://www.apa.state.ny.us/gis/index.html)

Wetland cover, detailed National Wetlands Inventory Dataset 

(South Carolina only)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010 

(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/)

1

KSAT, areal-weighted saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Sources of Environmental Setting Data 9

Table 3. Selected locations in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program–Mercury Deposition Network (NADP–MDN) used to 

estimate atmospheric wet deposition of total mercury in the Hudson River Basin, New York, and the Edisto River Basin, South Carolina.

Study area

NADP–MDN 

monitoring 

location

Location name Period of record

Latitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Longitude 

(decimal 

degrees)

Elevation 

at location 

(meters)

Hudson River NY20 Huntington Wildlife Forest 12/10/1999–present 43.9731 -74.2231 500

Edisto River SC19 Congaree Swamp 3/5/1996–present 33.8145 -80.7809 34

Table 4. Mean air temperature, precipitation, and atmospheric mercury data for primary stream basins sampled in New York and 

South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.

[°C, degrees Celsius; mm, millimeter; μg/m2/yr, microgram per square meter per year; nd, no data; data in this table were obtained from several sources: air 

temperature data were summarized from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) datasets for nearest sites; NCDC site 305714 at Newcomb, N.Y.: latitude and 

longitude are 43.97 and -74.22, respectively; NCDC site 380074 at Aiken, S.C.: latitude and longitude are 33.50 and -81.70, respectively; National Climatic Data 

Center, 2011a); atmospheric mercury values are from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program–Mercury Deposition Network (NADP–MDN, National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program, 2010) and are precipitation-weighted values; precipitation values used for weighting were basin-wide means derived from 

Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) climate mapping system (PRISM Climate Group, 2010); location information for 

NADP–MDN sites NY20 and SC19 is provided in table 1.]

Year

Fishing Brook (County Line Flow) 

near Newcomb, New York

site 12, figs 3 and 10

McTier Creek near New Holland, 

South Carolina

site 35, figs 3 and 10

Mean winter-air temperature (Dec.–Feb.) (°C)

2005 -8.8 9.1

2006 -4.6 9.7

2007 -9.0 9.2

2008 -7.4 8.3

2009 -9.5 nd

Mean (2005–09) -7.9 9.1

Mean summer-air temperature (June–Aug.) (°C)

2005 20.0 26.4

2006 18.1 26.9

2007 16.9 27.0

2008 16.7 26.8

2009 16.1 nd

Mean (2005–09) 17.6 26.8

Mean annual precipitation, in mm

2005 1267 1226

2006 1320 1094

2007 1214 845

2008 1360 1147

2009 1183 1360

Mean (2005–09) 1269 1134

Mean total mercury in wet atmospheric deposition, 

in μg/m2/yr

2005 6.68 11.0

2006 6.96 9.85

2007 6.40 7.60

2008 7.17 10.3

2009 6.24 12.2

Mean (2005–09) 6.69 10.21
10 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Drainage basin areas were determined using the Watershed Boundary Dataset (Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, 2010), field checked, and adjusted when necessary. 

Drainage area and site elevations are shown in table 1. Elevations were obtained from the 10 m USGS National Elevation 

Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010a). Several elevationderived descriptive parameters were derived using System 

for Automated Geoscientific Analysis (SAGA) geographic 

information system (GIS), and these parameters included topographic wetness index, flow-path length, overland flow distance and horizontal flow distance to channel network, altitude 

above channel network, and riparian area and width (System 

for Automated Geoscientific Analysis Geographic Information 

System, 2007). Topographic wetness index is a ratio of natural 

upslope contributing area to slope and is used as a measure of 

soil wetness. Flow-path length is an average of flow lengths, 

or distances, from points in the basin along the direction of 

flow to the basin outlet; the flow path is defined using a multiflow direction algorithm. Overland flow distance is an average 

value that represents overland and shallow subsurface flow 

distances to the nearest point on the stream channel network, 

and it is also referred to as ‘Hydrologic Transport Distance’ in 

Riva-Murray and others (2011). Horizontal flow distance is the 

Euclidean distance from each point in the basin to the nearest 

point on the stream. Riparian area is the area within 0.65 m 

elevation of each stream point, excluding open water. The 

Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database was used for estimating areas of 

hydric soils, organic-matter content, and areal-weighted saturated hydraulic conductivity as shown in appendix 1 for New 

York and appendix 2 for South Carolina (Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, 2011). Land use/land cover data for all 

basins, provided in table 5, were based on the National Land 

Cover Dataset (NLCD) for 2001 (NLCD01) (Homer and others, 2004; Yang and others, 2002). Additional detailed wetland 

coverage, using a different method of delineation and based on 

aerial photogrammetry, was from the New York State Adirondack Park Agency (APA) for New York basins and from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory 

(NWI) for South Carolina; these data are summarized in table 

5, and details are provided in appendixes 1 and 2 (New York 

State Adirondack Park Agency, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Wetland percentages for sites may differ 

between NLCD01 and either APA or NWI due to methodological differences. 

Stream network base maps were created using the USGS 

National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2010b). Streamflow (discharge) and water temperature data at 

USGS streamflow-gaging stations are summarized in tables 6 

and 7, and all data are available in the USGS National Water 

Information System (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010c) and (or) 

as water-data reports, available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/. 

Figures provided in this report include photographs and 

maps (at several scales) of the study areas. Photographs show 

conditions at or near sampling sites during spring or summer when most biological samples were collected. Location of stream-basin boundaries, USGS streamflow-gaging 

stations, and sampling sites are shown within the context of 

their respective larger stream basins and their location in the 

United States. Maps showing detailed wetland coverage for 

New York streams are from the Wetlands in the Greater Upper 

Hudson River Watershed dataset (New York State Adirondack 

Park Agency, 2007), and those for South Carolina streams are 

from the NWI dataset (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). 

Satellite images for figures 7 and 13 were provided by the 

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI); images for 

the Fishing Brook/Upper Hudson River were taken by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture–Farm Service Agency, National 

Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) at 1-m resolution on 

October 11, 2008 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

2008); and images for the McTier Creek/Edisto River were 

taken by Aerials Express at 0.5-m resolution on March 15, 

2007 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2007).

Environmental Setting of New York 

Streams

The New York streams sampled for the 2005–09 

NAWQA Hg studies are in the Upper Hudson River Basin 

(fig. 1, table 1), which is defined here as the portion of 

the basin upstream of Hudson River near Newcomb, N.Y. 

(Site 27). Reconnaissance sampling was conducted throughout the Upper Hudson River Basin during 2005 (one of these 

sites, Site 28, was slightly downstream of the defined basin 

boundary at Site 27), after which more intensive sampling 

(2007–09) focused in the Fishing Brook Subbasin, in the 

western-most headwaters of the Upper Hudson River Basin. 

Seventeen sites were located throughout the Fishing Brook 

Subbasin and include locations on Fishing Brook, Sixmile 

Brook, several pond/lake inlets and outlets, and an un-named 

tributary. Elevations in the Upper Hudson Basin range from 

468 m above sea level near Newcomb (Site 27) to 1,624 m 

above sea level at Mount Marcy, the highest point in New 

York State. The Fishing Brook sites range in elevation from 

475 to 560 m above sea level (table 1). Topography is highly 

heterogeneous, across both the entire Upper Hudson River 

Basin and the Fishing Brook Subbasin, with relatively flat to 

steep slopes. Median basin slope ranges from 3.6 percent slope 

at Hudson River Tributary Number Nine at Newcomb, N.Y. 

(Site 28) to 31.8 percent slope at Calamity Brook (Site 20) 

(appendix 1). With the exception of Hudson River Tributary 

Number Nine at Newcomb, N.Y. (Site 28), sample sites in the 

Upper Hudson River Basin have predominantly (>70 percent) 

forested upland land cover. There is a wide range of wetland 

amount across sites (0 to 14 percent). For Site 28 only, ground 

truthing showed erroneously high NLCD01 wetland values 

that may be incorrectly categorized forested land in this small 

basin (3.37 km2), so NLCD01 wetland and forested values 

are not included in table 5. The amount of open water (lakes 

and ponds, both natural and man-made) also varies among the 

subbasins studied in the Upper Hudson River Basin, from 0 to 

15 percent.
Table 5. Land use/land cover data for streams sampled in New York and South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.[Land use/land cover data are based on the National Land Cover Dataset for 2001 (NLCD01; Yang and others, 2002; Homer and others, 2004) for basins that were delineated ussystem. More detailed wetland data, using a separate method of delineation, are included: APA wetland values for New York streams are from the Wetlands in the Greater Uppedataset (New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2007) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetland values for South Carolina streams are from the NWI dataset (U.S. Fisnd, no data. Additional detailed land-use data are provided in appendixes 1 and 2. Primary sampling sites shown in bold]

Map 

number 

(fig. 3)

Land use/land cover (percent of basin area)

Forest Wetland

NLCD01 

Open 

water

APA 

Open 

water

NLCD01 

Shrubland

NLCD01 

Herbaceous 

upland

NL

Agri

NLCD01 

Deciduous 

forest

NLCD01 

Evergreen 

forest

NLCD01 

Mixed 

forest

NLCD01 

Total 

forest

NLCD01 

Woody 

wetland

NLCD01 

Herbaceous 

wetland

NLCD01 

Total 

wetland

APA 

Total 

wetland

New York

1 52.12 31.21 10.62 93.95 4.74 0.82 5.56 4.41 0.16 0.49 0.16 0 2 48.08 35.54 10.26 93.89 4.87 0.62 5.49 5.18 0.10 0.41 0.21 0 3 47.46 34.74 9.86 92.06 5.55 0.86 6.41 5.84 1.05 1.15 0.29 0 4 40.34 41.48 11.36 93.18 5.11 0.57 5.68 6.82 1.14 0.57 0 0 5 72.56 11.28 6.39 90.23 7.14 1.13 8.27 6.77 0.75 1.13 0.75 0 6 51.22 25.99 6.99 84.19 11.85 1.82 13.68 13.22 0.91 0.61 0.46 0 7 51.39 25.40 7.15 83.94 11.82 2.04 13.87 12.99 1.02 0.58 0.44 0 8 76.47 13.73 5.88 96.08 1.96 0 1.96 0 0 0 1.96 0 9 73.23 5.54 4.31 83.08 4.62 0.62 5.23 4.62 11.4 10.5 0.62 0 

10 53.03 26.37 7.48 86.88 8.29 1.20 9.49 8.63 2.35 2.18 0.51 0.21 

11 64.86 21.62 13.51 100.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

12 53.75 25.30 7.26 86.31 8.17 1.14 9.31 8.25 3.00 2.68 0.47 0.20 13 56.86 13.73 21.57 92.16 5.88 0.00 5.88 9.80 0 0 0.00 0 14 43.70 14.81 16.30 74.81 10.37 0.00 10.37 4.44 14.8 14.1 0.00 0 15 65.13 16.71 6.63 88.47 8.93 1.44 10.37 7.20 0.00 0.58 0.29 0 16 55.61 18.78 7.22 81.61 10.32 1.20 11.52 7.61 5.90 5.35 0.47 0.10 17 56.29 18.07 7.50 81.87 9.81 1.14 10.95 7.29 6.18 5.70 0.37 0.08 18 21.84 48.38 17.49 87.70 3.97 1.11 5.09 2.61 3.38 3.20 3.17 0.24 19 23.64 56.47 13.82 93.93 2.25 0.06 2.31 2.89 3.24 2.95 0.35 0.12 20 4.05 56.76 34.56 95.37 2.32 0 2.32 2.12 0.19 0.00 2.12 0 21 19.11 56.62 18.58 94.31 2.27 0.04 2.31 2.71 2.53 2.27 0.80 0.09 22 22.07 49.35 16.63 88.06 4.52 0.78 5.30 2.93 2.68 2.11 3.17 0.25 23 26.83 44.68 15.75 87.26 5.62 0.80 6.42 4.28 2.88 2.27 2.64 0.21 24 27.52 42.99 15.02 85.54 7.36 1.10 8.46 5.11 2.67 2.15 2.33 0.19 25 52.71 16.57 3.31 72.59 14.46 1.20 15.7 9.9 4.82 4.52 0.00 0.30 26 34.18 37.68 13.61 85.47 7.83 1.00 8.83 6.29 3.08 2.59 1.77 0.15 27 42.49 30.09 11.15 83.73 8.73 1.04 9.77 6.71 4.38 3.90 1.21 0.12 28 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 13.8 0 0 0 0 
Table 5. Land use/land cover data for streams sampled in New York and South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.—Cont[Land use/land cover data are based on the National Land Cover Dataset for 2001 (NLCD01; Yang and others, 2002; Homer and others, 2004) for basins that were delineated ussystem. More detailed wetland data, using a separate method of delineation, are included: APA wetland values for New York streams are from the Wetlands in the Greater Upper dataset (New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2007) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetland values for South Carolina streams are from the NWI dataset (U.S. Fisnd, no data. Additional detailed land-use data are provided in appendixes 1 and 2. Primary sampling sites shown in bold] Map number (fig. 3) Land use/land cover (percent of basin area) Forest Wetland NLCD01 Open water NWI Open water NLCD01 Shrubland NLCD01 Herbaceous upland NLC

Agric

NLCD01 Deciduous forest NLCD01 Evergreen forest NLCD01 Mixed forest NLCD01 Total forest NLCD01 Woody wetland NLCD01 Herbaceous wetland NLCD01 Total wetland NWI Total wetland South Carolina 29 15.50 24.61 3.49 43.60 9.01 0.32 9.33 nd 1.09 nd 2.56 15.04 1

30 15.40 31.78 6.37 53.54 6.94 0.29 7.24 5.06 0.99 1.15 0.45 19.63 131 10.89 39.36 7.29 57.54 6.29 0.10 6.39 5.29 1.30 1.60 0.60 16.78 132 13.08 30.10 6.39 49.58 7.96 0.23 8.19 6.35 1.04 1.24 0.49 21.07 133 15.35 27.55 6.71 49.61 7.73 0.30 8.04 5.74 0.91 1.09 0.36 20.60 134 10.30 36.19 6.75 53.25 6.93 0.09 7.01 6.06 1.21 1.39 0.61 18.87 135 13.08 30.10 6.39 49.58 7.96 0.23 8.19 6.43 1.04 1.24 0.49 21.07 136 11.33 26.62 4.55 42.50 10.05 0.41 10.45 nd 0.93 nd 8.26 12.65 137 12.98 24.88 3.48 41.34 8.87 0.29 9.16 nd 1.21 nd 2.77 18.68 238 8.34 26.09 4.53 38.96 10.18 0.40 10.58 nd 0.90 nd 10.3 11.34 239 11.08 25.84 3.41 40.33 10.15 0.40 10.54 nd 1.13 nd 6.50 16.89 140 3.11 26.31 2.10 31.52 15.41 0.57 15.98 nd 0.73 nd 14.4 4.80 241 7.42 26.77 4.04 38.23 12.06 0.48 12.54 nd 0.88 nd 10.4 9.88 242 10.10 25.38 3.23 38.72 10.27 0.39 10.67 nd 1.05 nd 6.91 15.75 243 6.20 26.84 3.28 36.33 13.91 0.51 14.42 nd 0.88 nd 11.8 8.58 244 3.29 23.37 0.27 26.93 17.97 0.44 18.42 nd 1.37 nd 16.3 5.12 245 4.38 27.82 4.46 36.66 13.95 0.63 14.57 nd 0.50 nd 17.0 4.31 246 2.95 29.00 1.09 33.03 19.00 0.70 19.70 nd 0.55 nd 10.0 2.94 247 7.63 25.83 3.53 37.00 12.61 0.53 13.14 nd 0.81 nd 11.2 11.41 248 5.60 25.51 2.74 33.85 15.22 0.54 15.77 nd 0.95 nd 12.4 7.95 249 1.62 24.74 0.97 27.34 24.33 0.47 24.81 nd 0.34 nd 13.6 1.31 250 5.78 25.16 2.57 33.51 16.91 0.69 17.60 nd 0.80 nd 10.7 8.53 251 2.23 19.11 0.03 21.37 29.44 0.59 30.04 nd 0.82 nd 11.3 4.31 252 3.73 22.92 1.98 28.63 20.32 0.62 20.94 nd 0.67 nd 10.9 5.31 253 10.70 24.21 2.95 37.86 15.79 0.22 16.01 nd 0.62 nd 1.45 15.23 254 9.50 23.61 2.75 35.86 17.90 0.24 18.13 nd 0.54 nd 2.06 13.01 2

* In Riva-Murray and others (2011), urban and agricultural land cover/land use was combined under “developed.”
Environmental Setting of New York Streams 13

Table 6. Hydrologic data for primary stream sites sampled in New York and South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey mercury 

studies for period of record and study period of 2005–09.

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; WY, water year, the 12-month period, October 1–September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which 

it ends; nd, no data; partial, only partial record available; values in range are minimum and maximum daily mean for period of record; data available at 

http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/]

Map number

(figs. 3, 10)

Period of 

record (WY)

Mean annual streamflow (ft3/s)

Period of record WY 2005 WY 2006 WY 2007 WY 2008 WY 2009

New York

12 2007–09 58.8 (5.2–508) nd nd partial 61.8 55.9

27 1926–2010 411 (11–6,780) 413 604 532 603 498

South Carolina

30 1996–2010 16.4 (1.4–248) 18.2 14.2 12.5 9.94 12.7

35 2007–09 22.8 (2.6–163) nd nd partial 19.2 26.4

54 1939–2010 2,478 (150–24,100) 1,765 1,193 1,306 929 1,579

Table 7. Mean annual water temperature and range for primary stream sites sampled in New York and South Carolina for 

U.S. Geological Survey mercury studies, 2005–09.

[°C, degrees Celsius; CY, calendar year; nd, no data]

Map number

(figs. 3, 10)

Period of 

record (CY)

Mean annual water temperature (°C)

Period of record CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009

New York

7 2007–09 12.7 (-0.1–23.2) nd nd 10.3 12.7 15.1

12 2007–09 10.4 (-0.1–23.8) nd nd 11.0 10.1 10.2

27 2005–09 12.1 (0.0–23.0) 9.6 9.0 15.5 11.7 14.9

South Carolina

30 2005–09 18.0 (5.2–25.9) 17.8 19.1 17.4 16.4 19.5

35 2007–09 17.5 (3.0–25.7) nd nd 18.7 17.8 15.8

54 2005–09 21.1 (7.1–28.9) 18.9 18.9 19.8 26.9 21.1
14 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

The climate of this area in New York is temperate continental with relatively long, cold winters and a lengthy dormant 

season. Summers are cool and wet, and the growing season 

is fairly short with a frost-free period of less than 150 days 

(National Climatic Data Center, 2011b). Cold, dry air masses 

from the northern continental interior and warm, humid air 

masses from south and southwest drive most of the climate 

characteristics. Cool, damp air masses from the North Atlantic 

Ocean during storms can also affect the inland climate of New 

York. Moisture for precipitation originates generally from the 

Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean; however, Lakes Erie 

and Ontario contribute to the generally abundant snowfall of 

the study area (Pack, 1960). 

After reconnaissance sampling in 2006, sampling efforts 

focused in the Fishing Brook Subbasin, which is defined 

here as that portion upstream of the County Line Flow outlet 

(Site 12) as well as the Hudson River at Newcomb (Site 27). 

The following sections provide additional detail on the environmental settings of these stream sites.

Upper Hudson River Basin

The Hudson River near Newcomb (Site 27), in Essex 

County, drains about 493 km2 and lies at an elevation of 

468 m above sea level (table 1). This site and others in the 

Upper Hudson River Basin are in the mountainous Adirondack region, which also is part of the Northeastern Highlands 

ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2005). The Upper Hudson River Basin is entirely 

in the Adirondack Park, and is mostly undeveloped, with 

large portions of protected wilderness (fig. 2, Jenkins, 2004). 

Land use/land cover (fig. 3, table 5) is primarily forested, 

predominantly deciduous trees (sugar maple [Acer saccharum], yellow birch [Betula alleghaniensis], and American 

beech [Fagus grandifolia]) with evergreen trees (red spruce 

[Picea rubens] and balsam fir [Abies balsamea]) dominant at 

elevations above 1,000 m and adjacent to surface waters and 

wetlands (State University of New York—College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 2011). Part of the forested 

Figure 2. Hudson River near Newcomb, New York (Site 27 in table 1 and figure 3) (summer). Photograph by Dennis A. Wentz, 

U.S. Geological Survey.
Fishing Brook

Hudson River

Hudson

River

1

2 3

4

5 6 7

8

9

10

11 12

13

14

15 16 17

18

19

21 20

22

23

24

25 26 27

28

43°52'30"

44°7'30"

74°15' 74°

44°

EXPLANATION

In-channel sampling locationMercury Deposition Network SiteFishing Brook SubbasinUpper Hudson River Basin

National Land Cover Dataset 2001

WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityDeciduous ForestEvergreen ForestMixed ForestScrub/ShrubGassland/HerbaceousPasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetland

CANADA

PA

OH

MD

WV 

Base from US Geological Survey National Land Cover Dataset 2001. Universe Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 18N, North American Datum of 1983.

0 2 4 KILOMETERS

0 2 4 MILES

Figure 3. Land use/land cover of Upper Hudson River Basin near Newcomb, New York, with nested outline of Fishing Brook Subbasin in headwaterssites listed in table 1.
16 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

land is used for silviculture. There is a relatively high amount 

(about 10 percent) of wetlands, and woody wetland (including 

forest and shrub/scrub) is the dominant wetland type (fig. 3, 

table 5). Lakes, ponds, and low-head dams are prevalent. A 

small (5 km2) northeastern section of the basin was the site of 

mining for iron during 1827–57 and titanium during 1940–89 

(New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2011); this area 

now appears as shrub-scrub on land use/land cover maps 

(fig. 3). The river flows south from the Adirondack region, 

eventually reaching the City of New York metropolitan area 

and New York Harbor before flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. 

Data for mean air temperatures, precipitation, and mean 

total Hg in wet atmospheric deposition for the Hudson River 

at Newcomb, N.Y. (Site 27), are assumed to be similar to those 

measured or derived for the headwaters site at Fishing Brook 

(County Line Flow outlet) near Newcomb, N.Y. (Site 12) 

based on data from nearby NCDC and NADP–MDN sites 

(table 4). Mean annual streamflow for the period of record 

(water years (WYs) 1979–2010) at Site 27 was 411 cubic 

feet per second (ft3/s); mean annual streamflow ranged from 

413 ft3/s in 2005 to 604 ft3/s in 2006 (table 6). Daily mean 

streamflow was weighted by area to compute estimated runoff 

(millimeters per day) for a common metric of comparison 

between the New York and South Carolina study areas. During 

the period of study, mean water temperatures for the Hudson 

River near Newcomb, N.Y. (Site 27), ranged from 0 to 23.0°C 

with a mean annual water temperature of 12.1°C (table 7). 

Fishing Brook Subbasin

Fishing Brook lies in a small western subbasin of the 

Upper Hudson River Basin and is in Hamilton and Essex 

Counties near Newcomb, N.Y. (figs. 3 and 4, table 1). The 

most-downstream site studied within this subbasin, Fishing 

Brook near Newcomb (Site 12), drains 65.6 km2 and is at 

the downstream end of County Line Flow, an impoundment 

(fig. 5). The study area is upstream of Rich Lake and is just 

west of the 60-km2 Huntington Wildlife Forest (http://www.esf.

edu/aec/facilities/hwf.htm) in the central Adirondack Mountains. Site 12 is about 4 km west of the NADP–MDN site 

NY20, which is at the Huntington Wildlife Forest. Land use/

land cover for the Fishing Brook Subbasin upstream of Site 12

Figure 4. Fishing Brook above County Line Flow near Long Lake, New York (Site 10 in table 1 and figure 3) (summer). Photograph by 

Dennis A. Wentz, U.S. Geological Survey.
Environmental Setting of New York Streams 17

consists primarily (86 percent) of upland forests, with slightly 

over one-half of the land area as deciduous forest (dominated 

by northern hardwoods such as sugar maple, American beech, 

and yellow birch), about one-quarter of the land area as evergreen forest (dominated by red spruce and balsam fir), and the 

remaining forest area with a mix of evergreen and deciduous 

trees (figs. 6 and 7, table 5); logging is common. Wetland area 

is about 9 percent and is largely comprised of a combination 

of woody vegetation (evergreens, such as spruce, are dominant 

but with areas of deciduous shrubs, such as speckled alder, 

Alnus incana) and emergent herbaceous vegetation. 

During the study period, the mean winter-air temperature was -7.9°C, and the mean summer-air temperature was 

17.6°C at the primary Fishing Brook site (Site 12; table 4). 

Annual precipitation at the site during 2005–2009 averaged 

1,269 mm/yr, partly as snow. Based on 30-year averages 

(1971–2000) for the NCDC station at Newcomb, N.Y., conditions were slightly warmer and wetter than average during 

2007–09. For the NCDC station data, about 28 percent of 

the 30-year average annual precipitation (1,077 mm) was 

snowfall, based on 30-year average precipitation amounts for 

the winter months (December through March). 

Three NADP monitoring sites are located near the 

Fishing Brook Subbasin, including National Trends Network (NTN) site NY20 (table 3). Major ions and solutes are 

sampled on a weekly basis at these NTN sites. Site NY20 also 

has provided data on Hg in precipitation since 1999 as part 

of the NADP–MDN; it is located at the Huntington Wildlife 

Forest. During 2005–09, mean total Hg in wet atmospheric 

deposition was 6.69 μg/m2/yr based on computed values when 

PRISM-modeled precipitation values were combined with Hg 

values from NADP–MDN (table 4).

Mean annual streamflow for Fishing Brook (County Line 

Flow outlet) near Newcomb, N.Y. (Site 12) was 58.8 ft3/s 

(WYs 2008 and 2009) and ranged from 55.9 ft3/s in WY 2009 

to 61.8 ft3/s in WY 2008; only a partial streamflow record 

existed for WY 2007 at this site, so no annual statistics were 

computed for that year (table 6). Water temperatures ranged 

from −0.1 to 23.8°C, with a mean annual water temperature of 

10.4°C during 2007–2009 (table 7). 

Figure 5. Fishing Brook (County Line Flow outlet) near Newcomb, New York (Site 12 in table 1 and figure 3) (summer). Photograph by 

Dennis A. Wentz, U.S. Geological Survey.
#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12

74°24' 74°20' 74°16'

44°N

43°58'43°56'

PickwacketPond

County LineFlow

HAMILTON COUNTY ESSEX COUNTY

EXPLANATION

# In-channel sampling location

Fishing Brook Subbasin

National Land Cover Dataset 2001

WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityDeciduous ForestEvergreen ForestMixed ForestScrub/ShrubGassland/HerbaceousPasture/HayCultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous Wetland

LongLake

CatlinLake

Sixmile Brook Fishing Brook

Base from US Geological Survey National Land Cover Dataset 2001. Universe Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 18N, North American Datum of 1983.

Basin outlet

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 MILES

Figure 6A. Detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for Fishing Brook Subbasin, New York: land use/land cover, based on National Land Cove2001 (NLCD01) .
1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12

74°24' 74°20' 74°16'

44°

43°58'43°56'

PickwacketPond

County LineFlow

HAMILTON COUNTY ESSEX COUNTY

EXPLANATION

Fishing Brook Subbasin

Adirondack Park Agency Wetland Coverage 1999

Persistent emergentForest, broad-leaved deciduousForested, needle-leaved deciduousForested, evergreenForested, deadWaterBroad-leaved deciduous scrub/shrubNeedle-leaved deciduous scrub/shrubBroad-leaved evergreen scrub/shrubNeedle-leaved evergreen scrub/shruDead scrub/shrub

Sixmile Brook Fishing Brook

Base from US Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset. Universe Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 18N, North American Datum of 1983.

Basin outle

0 1 2 KILOMETERS0 1 2 MILES

Figure 6B. Detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for Fishing Brook Subbasin, New York: wetland cover, based on New York State AdirondaMap numbers refer to sites listed in table 1.
Figure 7. Fishing Brook Subbasin, New York, showing sampling locations. Map numbers refer to sites listed in table 1.

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

11

12

74°24' 74°20' 74°16'

44°

43°58'43°56'

PickwacketPond

County LineFlow

HAMILTON COUNTY ESSEX COUNTY

EXPLANATION

# In-channel sampling location

!( Villages

Fishing Brook Subbasin

!(

Long Lake

LongLake Catlin

 Lake

Sixmile Brook Fishing Brook

Base from ESRI Prime Imagery. Web Mercator Projection, North American Datum of 1983.

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 MILES
Environmental Setting of New York Streams 21

The major tributary to Fishing Brook—Sixmile Brook—

drains a basin of about 18 km2 and joins Fishing Brook 

between Sites 3 and 10 (figs. 3 and 8A). Based on NLCD01 

data, wetland percentages for downstream reaches of Sixmile 

Brook (Sites 6 and 7) are about 14 percent, slightly higher 

than for downstream reaches of Fishing Brook Subbasin near 

Site 12 (table 5). The Pickwacket Pond outlet (Site 9) is at 

505 m elevation and, although it drains a small basin of only 

8.4 km2, more than 11 percent of the basin area is open water 

and about 5.2 percent is wetland (figs. 3 and 8B, Pickwacket 

Pond Inlet). Its confluence with Fishing Brook is downstream 

from that of Sixmile Brook. Wetlands of the Sixmile Brook 

and Pickwacket Pond Subbasins are primarily wooded (evergreen forest and deciduous shrub/scrub dominant (table 5). 

County Line Flow, Sixmile wetland (formerly a flow), and 

Fishing Brook Flow were all a result of constructed features 

for transporting logs during historical logging activity 

(Jenkins, 2004).

Figure 8. (A) Sixmile Brook 

near Long Lake, New York 

(Site 7) (summer), major 

tributary to Fishing Brook and 

(B) Pickwacket Pond Inlet 

near Long Lake, N.Y. (Site 9) 

(summer). Photographs by 

Douglas A. Burns and Dennis 

A. Wentz, respectively, U.S. 

Geological Survey.

A

B
22 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Environmental Setting of South 

Carolina Streams

The South Carolina streams sampled for the 2005–09 

NAWQA Hg studies are in the Edisto River Basin, which is 

part of the larger Santee River Basin (fig. 1, table 1). Reconnaissance sampling (2005–06) was conducted throughout the 

Edisto River Basin, and intensive sampling (2007–09) focused 

in the McTier Creek Subbasin. Elevations in the Edisto study 

basin range from 8.5 m at the most-downstream site on the 

Edisto River near Givhans (Site 54) to 207 m near the town of 

Ward, S.C. (appendix 2). The McTier Creek sites range in elevation from 96 to 106 m. In contrast with the New York study 

area, the South Carolina streams are characterized by generally low slopes; the median basin slope is about 5.5 percent. 

Land use/land cover for the sample sites ranges from 

about 21 to 58 percent forested land cover (dominated by 

evergreens), and about 1 to 21 percent herbaceous upland 

(table 5, appendix 2). Wetland area (NLCD01) ranges from 

6 to 8 percent in the McTier Creek Subbasin (Site 35), up to 

30 percent at North Fork Edisto River near Branchville, S.C. 

(Site 51), and to about 18 percent at the most-downstream site 

on the Edisto River near Givhans (Site 54). The amount of 

open water (lakes and ponds, both natural and man-made) is 

less than 1 or 2 percent and varies little among the subbasins 

studied in the Edisto River Basin. About 13 to 29 percent of 

the land in some subbasins is agricultural (row crops of corn, 

soybeans, and cotton; pasture for hay and cattle), and 4 to 

12 percent of the land is developed (urban). 

The climate of this area in South Carolina is sub-tropical 

with relatively mild winters and distinct wet and dry seasons. 

The wet and dry seasons result in seasonally fluctuating water 

levels in riparian pools, wetlands, and streams of the area 

(Bradley and others, 2011). However, it should be noted that a 

drought of historical significance occurred in South Carolina 

in 2007 (Feaster and others, 2010). With a frost-free period 

of about 210 days, the growing season in South Carolina is 

long relative to the growing season in New York (National 

Climatic Data Center, 2011b). Warm, humid air masses from 

the Atlantic Ocean drive most of the climate characteristics. 

In addition, the Appalachian mountain range has an important 

influence on the climate because it serves as a barrier to many 

cold air masses from the northwest, moderating temperatures 

and affecting the prevailing wind direction. Prevailing winds 

are generally from the southwest and south in the spring/summer and from the northeast and southwest during the fall/winter (South Carolina State Climatology Office, 2011). 

After reconnaissance sampling in 2006, sampling efforts 

focused in the McTier Creek Subbasin, defined here as that 

portion upstream of New Holland (Site 35) and on the main 

stem Edisto River near Givhans (Site 54; biological sampling 

for the Edisto River was done upstream of Givhans near Cottageville, Site 53). The following sections provide additional 

detail on the environmental settings of these stream sites.

Edisto River Basin

The Edisto River is one of the longest free-flowing (no 

dams or levees) blackwater rivers in the United States. It flows 

over 300 km from its headwaters to its mouth at the Atlantic 

Ocean and lies within the Southeastern Plains and Middle 

Atlantic Coastal Plain Level III ecoregions (Omernik, 1987; 

Griffith and others, 2002; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2005). The Edisto is called a “blackwater” stream 

because of its clear and dark, amber-colored water resulting 

from plant tannins leaching out of abundant cypress forests or 

wetlands (fig. 9). Although the Edisto River Basin lies mainly 

within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of South 

Carolina, the uppermost portion of the basin lies in the Piedmont physiographic province. 

The Edisto River has a North Fork and a South Fork, 

and the McTier Creek Basin is the headwaters tributary to the 

South Fork of the Edisto River. The Edisto River near Givhans 

(Site 54), in Dorchester County, is downstream of the confluence of the two river forks. At this point, it drains 7,071 km2

and lies at an elevation of only 8.5 m above sea level (table 1). 

Land use/land cover (table 5, fig. 10) for Site 54 is about 36 

percent forested, mostly as evergreen forest that is used partly 

for silviculture in the McTier Creek Subbasin, and about 

18 percent wetland (based on NLCD01), mostly as woody 

wetland dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and 

swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora). Four Holes Swamp (Site 52) is 

a major tributary of the Edisto River.

Data for mean air temperatures, precipitation, and mean 

total Hg in wet atmospheric deposition were not measured 

directly but are assumed to be similar to those measured or 

derived for the headwaters site at McTier Creek near New 

Holland (Site 35) using data from the nearby NCDC and 

NADP–MDN sites (table 4). 

The hydrology of the Edisto River Basin is characterized 

by groundwater-flood events, which tend to promote upward 

transport of MeHg from wetland and floodplain sediment to 

the water column, thereby enhancing the bioavailability of Hg 

to stream organisms (Bradley and others, 2009, 2010; Feaster 

and others, 2010). Mean annual streamflow for the period of 

record (WYs 1939–2010) at the Edisto River near Givhans 

(Site 54) was 2,478 ft3/s; mean annual streamflow during water 

years 2005–2007 ranged from a low of 929 ft3/s in WY 2007 

to a high of 1,765 ft3/s in WY 2005 (table 6). During the study 

period, mean water temperatures for Site 54 ranged from 7.1 

to 28.9°C, with an annual mean of 21.1°C (table 7). 
Figure 9. Photograph of Edisto River Basin near Givhans, South Carolina (Site 54 in table 1 and figure 10) 

(winter). Photograph by Celeste A. Journey, U.S. Geological Survey.

Environmental Setting of South Carolina Streams 23
#

####

#

#

# #

#

##

#

# #

# #

# #

#

#

#

###

*#

54

53 52

51

50

49

48 47

46

45

44 43

42

41

39 40

38

37

36

35

33 34

32

31

29

30

81°30' 81° 80°30' 80

34°15'

34°

33°45'33°30'33°15'

EXPL

# In-ch

*# Merc

McTieEdisto 

National Land 

WaterDeveDeveDeveDeveDecidEvergMixed ScrubGasslPastuCultivWoodEmer

FL

AL GA

NC

KY

TN

VA

SC

MS

IL

IN WV

North Fork Edisto River

South Fork Edisto River

Base from U.S. Geological Survey National Land Cover Dataset 2001. Universe Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18N, North American Datum of 1983.

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

Figure 10. Map of detailed land use/land cover for Edisto River Basin near Givhans, South Carolina, with nested outline of McTier Creek Subbasin. Mto sites listed in table 1.
Environmental Setting of South Carolina Streams 25

McTier Creek Subbasin

McTier Creek lies in a small subbasin of the Edisto River 

Basin and is in Aiken County, S.C. (figs. 3 and 11, table 1). 

The most-downstream site studied drains 79.4 km2 and is 

near New Holland (Site 35), close to its confluence with the 

South Fork of the Edisto River. Site 35 is about 77 km from 

NADP–MDN site SC19. The creek lies within the Sand Hills 

area of the Coastal Plain (Griffith and others, 2002). The upper 

reaches of the McTier Creek Subbasin near Monetta (Site 30) 

are near the Fall Line, the boundary between the Piedmont and 

Southeastern Plains ecoregions (also Piedmont and Coastal 

Plain Physiographic Provinces), and the stream transitions 

from characteristics similar to Piedmont streams (high gradient with rock substrate) in the headwaters to characteristics 

similar to Coastal Plain streams (low gradient with sandy 

substrate) (Feaster and others, 2010; Omernik, 1987; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). The lower reaches 

of the McTier Creek Subbasin near New Holland (Site 35) 

exhibit lowland characteristics of the Southeastern Plains 

ecoregion (Feaster and others, 2010; Omernik, 1987; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Land use/land cover 

(NLCD01) for the McTier Creek drainage is about 50 percent 

upland forests, mostly evergreens such as loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda, as silviculture) or longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) with 

some deciduous trees (turkey oak [Quercus cerris]), and 21 

percent herbaceous upland (figs. 12 and 13, table 5). Agricultural land accounts for about 15 percent of the basin area. Wetland makes up about 7 percent of the total basin area at Site 

30 and about 8 percent at Site 35, which is slightly less than 

that for Fishing Brook near Newcomb, N.Y. (Site 12), with 

about 9 percent. Similar to the NY study basins, wetlands in 

the South Carolina basins are dominated by woody vegetation. 

Woody vegetation in the McTier Creek Subbasin is dominated 

by broad-leaved deciduous trees, such as red maple (Acer 

rubrum), mixed oaks (Quercus spp.), holly (Ilex opaca and I. 

vomitoria), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), black or sour gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora).

Figure 11. McTier Creek near Monetta, South Carolina (Site 30 in table 1 and figure 10) (summer). Photograph 

by Paul M. Bradley, U.S. Geological Survey.
# #

#

##

#

35

34

33

32

31

30

81°40' 81°30'

33°48'33°44'

AIKEN COUNTY EDGEFIELD COUNTY

SALUDA COUNTY LEXINGTON COUNTY

EXPL

# In-cha

McTie

National Land C

WaterDeveloDeveloDeveloDeveloDecidEvergrMixed Scrub/GasslaPasturCultivaWoody Emerg

Gul

yl

Creek

McTier Creek

Base from U.S. Geological Survey National Land Cover Dataset for 2001. Universe Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18N, North American Datum of 1983.

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 MILES

Basin outlet

Figure 12A. Detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for McTier Creek Subbasin: land use/land cover, based on National Land Cover Dataset refer to sites listed in table 1.
Figure 12B. Detailed land use/land cover and wetland cover for McTier Creek Subbasin: wetland cover, based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nati

Inventory. Map numbers refer to sites listed in table 1.

35

34

33

32

30 31

81°40' 81°30'

33°48'33°44'

AIKEN COUNTY EDGEFIELD COUNTY

SALUDA COUNTY LEXINGTON COUNTY

EXPLANATIO

In-channel sampling loMcTier Creek Subbasi

National Wetlands Inventory W

Persistent emergentForest, broad-leaved dForested, needle-leavForested, evergreenForested, deadWaterBroad-leaved deciduoNeedle-leaved deciduBroad-leaved evergreNeedle-leaved evergrDead scrub/shrub

Gu

lly

Creek

McTier Creek

Base from U.S. Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset. Universe Transverse Mercator Projection, Zone 18N, North American Datum of 1983.

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 MILES

Basin outlet
# #

#

##

#

35

34 33

32

30 31

81°40' 81°30'

33°48'33°44'

AIKEN COUNTY EDGEFIELD COUNTY

SALUDA COUNTY LEXINGTON COUNTY

EXPLA

# In-chan

McTier 

Gul

y

l

Creek

McTier Creek

Base from ESRI Prime Imagery. Web Mercator Projection, North American Datum of 1983.

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 MILES

Figure 13. McTier Creek Subbasin, South Carolina, showing sampling locations. Map numbers refer to sites listed in table 1.
Environmental Setting of South Carolina Streams 29

During the study period for the primary sampling site at 

McTier Creek near New Holland (Site 35), the mean winter-air 

temperature was 9.1°C and the mean summer-air temperature 

was 26.8°C. Mean annual precipitation during 2005–2009 

averaged 1,134 mm/yr, with no snow (table 4); however, as 

mentioned earlier, 2007 was an historic drought year for the 

area. 

For estimating atmospheric Hg deposition, NADP–MDN 

site SC19 is in the nearby Congaree National Park and is the 

closest NADP–MDN site to the McTier Creek Subbasin; the 

other nearest NADP site is NTN site SC06, which monitors 

concentrations of acids, base cations, and nutrients but not Hg, 

and is in the Santee National Wildlife Refuge (tables 2 and 4). 

Mean total Hg, precipitation-weighted, in wet atmospheric 

deposition was 10.2 μg/m2/yr, which is larger than the value of 

6.69 μg/m2/yr for Fishing Brook in New York. This does not 

consider dry atmospheric deposition, which can be significant 

in both study areas (Miller and others, 2005; Sakata and others, 2006; Choi and others, 2008; Risch and others, 2011). 

In contrast with the free-flowing Edisto River, there are 

at least a dozen small (less than 2 ha), man-made impoundments along McTier Creek upstream of the Monetta site. 

Mean annual streamflow was 16.4 ft3/s (WYs 2007–09) for 

McTier Creek near New Holland (table 6). McTier Creek near 

New Holland, S.C. (Site 35), had mean annual streamflows 

of 19.2 ft3/s in WY 2008 and 26.4 ft3/s in WY 2009. As with 

Fishing Brook, only partial streamflow record existed for 

2007, so no annual statistics were computed for that year. During 2007–09, daily mean water temperatures ranged from 3.0 

to 25.7°C, with a mean annual water temperature of 17.5°C 

(table 7). Mean annual water temperature and range were similar at McTier Creek near Monetta, S.C. (Site 30, table 7). 

The major tributary to McTier Creek is Gully Creek, 

which has shallow ponds from beaver activity (fig. 14). Gully 

Creek drains a basin of about 30 km2 and joins McTier Creek 

about 2 km downstream of the Monetta site. 

Figure 14. Gully Creek at Bridge on Shoals Road near Monetta, South Carolina, major tributary to McTier Creek (Site 31) (fall). 

Photograph by Celeste A. Journey, U.S. Geological Survey.
30 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Summary 

Mercury (Hg) bioaccumulation in streams draining 

contrasting environmental settings across the United States is 

the focus of studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

This report describes environmental settings of stream sites 

that were investigated with regard to Hg cycling and bioaccumulation: Upper Hudson River Basin in New York and its 

headwater subbasin, Fishing Brook; and Edisto River Basin 

in South Carolina and its headwater subbasin, McTier Creek. 

Atmospheric deposition is the dominant Hg source. Biota, 

sediment, and water were sampled for Hg and additional 

physical and chemical characteristics thought to be important 

to Hg cycling and bioaccumulation. The primary sampling 

areas were Fishing Brook and McTier Creek Subbasins. The 

Fishing Brook sites are in the mountainous Adirondack region 

of New York where the climate is temperate continental, and 

the McTier Creek sites are in the lowland Coastal Plain region 

of South Carolina where the climate is sub-tropical. Land use/

land cover in both is mostly rural, with higher percentages of 

forested upland in Fishing Brook Subbasin when compared to 

McTier Creek Subbasin. The percentage of wetland in Fishing 

Brook Subbasin was fairly similar to that of McTier Creek 

Subbasin; most wetland in both basins was wooded wetland. 

An important difference in the environmental settings of 

the two basins is the heterogeneity of Fishing Brook Subbasin in terms of landscape characteristics, such as slope and 

amounts of wetland and open water, in contrast to the much 

more homogeneous landscape characteristics of McTier Creek 

Subbasin. The USGS studies are designed to evaluate environmental characteristics that affect Hg bioaccumulation in these 

two Hg-sensitive ecosystems.

References Cited 

Bauch, N.J., Chasar, L.C., Scudder, B.C., Moran, P.W., Hitt, 

K.J., Brigham, M.E., Lutz, M.A., and Wentz, D.A., 2009, 

Data on mercury in water, bed sediment, and fish from 

streams across the United States, 1998–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 307, 33 p. 

Bell, A.H., and Lutz, M.A., 2008, Environmental settings of 

selected streams sampled for mercury in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida, 2002–06: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2008–1277, 34 p. 

Bradley, P.M., Burns, D.A., Riva-Murray, Karen, Brigham, 

M.E., Button, D.T., Chasar, L.C., Marvin-DiPasquale, 

Mark, Lowery, M.A., and Journey, C.A., 2011, Spatial and 

seasonal variability of dissolved methylmercury in two 

stream basins in the eastern United States: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 45, p. 2048–2055.

Bradley, P.M., Chapelle, F.H., and Journey, C.A., 2009, 

Comparison of methylmercury production and accumulation in sediments of the Congaree and Edisto River Basins, 

South Carolina, 2004–06: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5021, 9 p. 

Bradley, P.M., Journey, C.A., Chapelle, F.H., Lowery, M.A., 

and Conrads, P.A., 2010, Flood hydrology and methylmercury availability in Coastal Plain rivers: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 44, p. 9285–9290.

Brigham, M.E., Krabbenhoft, D.P., and Hamilton, P.A., 2003, 

Mercury in stream ecosystems—New studies initiated by 

the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 016–03, 4 p.

Brigham, M.E., Wentz, D.A., Aiken, G.R., and Krabbenhoft, 

D.P., 2009, Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems—1. 

Water column chemistry and transport: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 43, no. 8, p. 2720–2725.

Chasar, L.C., Scudder, B.C., Stewart, A.R., Bell, A.H., and 

Aiken, G.R., 2009, Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems—3. Trophic dynamics and methylmercury bioaccumulation: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 43, no. 8, 

p. 2733–2739.

Chumchal, M.M., Drenner, R.W., Fry, Brian, Hambright, K.D., 

and Newland, L.W., 2008, Habitat-specific differences in 

mercury concentrations in a top predator from a shallow 

lake: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 137, 

p. 195–208.

Choi, Hyun-Deok, Sharac, T.J., Holsen, T.M., 2008, Mercury 

deposition in the Adirondacks: A comparison between precipitation and throughfall: Atmospheric Environment, v. 42, 

p. 1818–1827.
References Cited 31

Daly, Christopher, 2006, Guidelines for assessing the suitability of spatial climate data sets: International Journal of 

Climatology, v. 26, no. 6, p. 707–721.

Daly, Christopher, Gibson, W.P., Taylor, G.H., Johnson, G.L., 

and Pasteris, Phillip, 2002, A knowledge-based approach to 

the statistical mapping of climate: Climate Research, v. 22, 

p. 99–113.

Daly, Christopher, Neilson, R.P., and Phillips, D.L., 1994, A 

statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological 

precipitation over mountainous terrain: Journal of Applied 

Meteorology, v. 33, p. 140–158, accessed September 7, 

2011, at http://prism.oregonstate.edu/pub/prism/docs/

jappclim94-modeling_mountain_precip-daly.pdf. 

Driscoll, C.T., Yan, Cheng, Schofield, C.L., Munson, Ron, and 

Holsapple, John, 1994, The mercury cycle and fish in the 

Adirondack lakes: Environmental Science and Technology, 

v. 28, no. 3, p. 136–143.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2007, Prime Imagery Data for McTier Creek, courtesy of AEX Aerials Maps 

and Data, 0.5 meter resolution, accessed March 2007, at 

http://www.aerials-gis.com/AEX_Site/GIS_System.html.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2008, Prime Imagery Data for Fishing Brook, courtesy of U.S. Department 

of Agriculture–Farm Service Agency, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program, 1.0 meter resolution, accessed October 

2008, at http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=5f5f6b9

ee5b4483f9767b118b7b99323.

Evers, D.C., Young-Ji, Han, Driscoll, C.T., Kamman, N.C., 

Goodale, M.W., Lambert, K.F., Holsen, T.M., Chen, C.Y., 

Clair, T.A., and Butler, Thomas, 2007, Biological mercury 

hotspots in the northeastern United States and southeastern 

Canada: BioScience, v. 57, no.1, p. 29–43.

Feaster, T.D., Golden, H.E., Odom, K.R., Lowery, M.A., 

Conrads, P.A., and Bradley, P.M., 2010, Simulation of 

streamflow in the McTier Creek watershed, South Carolina: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2010–5202, 61 p.

Glover, J.B., Domino, M.E., Altman, K.C., Dillman, J.W., 

Castleberry, W.S., Eidson, J.P., and Mattocks, Micheal, 

2010, Mercury in South Carolina fishes, USA: Ecotoxicology, v. 19, no. 4, p. 781–795.

Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., 

McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., 

and Shelburne, V.B., 2002, Ecoregions of North Carolina 

and South Carolina, (color poster with map, descriptive text, 

summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).

Homer, Collin; Huang, Chengquan; Yang, Limin; Wylie, 

Bruce; and Coan, Michael, 2004, Development of a 2001 

national land cover database for the United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 70, no. 7, 

p. 829–840.

Hurley, J.P., Benoit, J.M., Babiarz, C.L., Shafer, M.M., 

Andren, A.W., Sullivan, J.R., Hammond, Richard, and 

Webb, D.A., 1995, Influences of watershed characteristics 

on mercury levels in Wisconsin Rivers: Environmental 

Science and Technology, v. 29, no. 7, p. 1867–1875.

Jenkins, J., 2004, The Adirondack Atlas—A geographic 

portrait of the Adirondack Park: Syracuse, N.Y., Syracuse 

University Press, 275 p.

Kolka, R.K., Nater, E.A., Grigal, D.F., and Verry, E.S., 1999, 

Atmospheric inputs of mercury and organic carbon into a 

forested upland/bog watershed: Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 113, p. 273–294.

Krabbenhoft, D.P., Wiener, J.G., Brumbaugh, W.G., Olson, 

M.L., DeWild, J.F., and Sabin, T.J., 1999, A national pilot 

study of mercury contamination of aquatic ecosystems 

along multiple gradients, in U.S. Geological Survey Toxic 

Substances Hydrology Program—Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, S.C., March 8–12, 1999, Volume 

2 of 3—Contamination of hydrologic systems and related 

ecosystems: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 99–4018-B, p. 147–160.

Latysh, N.E., and Wetherbee, G.A., 2007, External quality assurance programs managed by the U.S. Geological 

Survey in support of the National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program/Mercury Deposition Network: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2007–1170, 33 p.

Latysh, N.E., and Wetherbee, G.A., 2011, Improved mapping 

of National Atmospheric Deposition Program wet-deposition in complex terrain using PRISM-gridded data sets: 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, DOI 10.1007/

s10661-011-209-7, accessed on July 5, 2011, at http://www.

springerlink.com/content/bg0vg56668j360j6/fulltext.pdf.

Marvin-DiPasquale, Mark, Lutz, M.A., Brigham, M.E., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Aiken, G.R., Orem, W.H., and Hall, B.D., 

2009, Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems—2. Benthic 

methylmercury production and bed sediment—Pore water 

partitioning: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 43, 

no. 8, p. 2726–2732.

Miller, E.K., Vanarsdale, Alan, Keeler, G.J., Chalmers, Ann, 

Poissant, Laurier, Kamman, N.C., and Brulotte, Raynald, 

2005, Estimation and Mapping of Wet and Dry Mercury 

Deposition Across Northeastern North America: Ecotoxicology, v. 14, p. 53–70.
32 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 2006, Mercury 

Deposition Network Quality Assurance Plan—Mercury 

Analytical Laboratory, 2006, accessed on August 23, 2011, 

at http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/lib/qaplans/qapHAL2006.pdf.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 2010a, Mercury 

Deposition Network sites, accessed October 14, 2010, at 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/sites/mdnmap.asp.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 2010b, Mercury 

Deposition Network data, accessed October 14, 2010, at 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn. 

National Climatic Data Center, 2011a, Local climatological data publication: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, 

and Information Service, accessed March 30, 2011, at 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/stationlocator.html.

National Climatic Data Center, 2011b, Freeze/frost maps—

Freeze free period, 90% probability of a longer duration 

(days) with temperatures above 32°F: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, accessed August 19, 

2011, at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/freezefrost/

Freezefree32F.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2011, Characterization of the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin, 

South Carolina: on CD–ROM, accessed July 8, 2011, at 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/acechar/esmodel.htm. 

National Water and Climate Center, 2010, Parameter-elevation 

Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM): Natural Resources Conservation Service, accessed on July 5, 

2011, at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/prism.html.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010, Watershed 

Boundary Dataset, accessed July 2010, at http://www.ncgc.

nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011, Soil survey 

geographic (SSURGO) database, accessed February 16, 

2011, at http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/.

New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2007, Wetlands in 

the Greater Upper Hudson River Watershed, accessed February 2007, at http://www.apa.state.ny.us/gis/index.html.

New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2011, Town of 

Newcomb, Essex County, Historic Tahawus Tract, accessed 

September 7, 2011, at http://www.apa.state.ny.us/Press/

OSI_Tahawus.htm.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 

2008, Strategic monitoring of mercury in New York State 

fish: Report 08–11 to New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority [variously paged].

New York State Department of Health, 2011, Chemicals in 

sportfish and game—2010–2011 Health advisories, 36 p., 

accessed August 2011, at www.health.ny.gov/environmental/

outdoors/fish/fish.htm.

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States, map (scale 1:7,500,000): Annals of the Association 

of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118–125.

Pack, A.B., 1960 (revised 1972), Climate of New York, in 

the series “Climate of the States—Climatography of the 

United States: Silver Spring, Md., National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Service 

Report 60-30, accessed December 29, 2010 at http://nysc.

eas.cornell.edu/climate_of_ny.html.

PRISM Climate Group, 2010, Oregon State University, 

http://prism.oregonstate.edu.

Risch, M.R., DeWild, J.F., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Kolka, R.K., 

Zhang, Leiming, 2012, Litterfall mercury dry deposition in 

the eastern USA: Environmental Pollution, vol. 161, 

pp. 284–290.

Riva-Murray, Karen, Chasar, L.C., Bradley, P.M., Burns, D.A., 

Brigham, M.E., Smith, M.J., and Abrahamsen, T.A., 2011, 

Spatial patterns of mercury in macroinvertebrates and fishes 

from streams of two contrasting forested landscapes in the 

eastern United States: Ecotoxicology, v. 20, no. 7, 

p. 1530–1542.

Sakata, Masahiro; Marumoto, Kohji; Narukawa, Masahiro; 

and Asakura, Kazuo, 2006, Regional variations in wet and 

dry deposition fluxes of trace elements in Japan: Atmospheric Environment, v. 40, no. 3, p. 521–531.

Scudder, B.C., Chasar, L.C., Wentz, D.A., Bauch, N.J., 

Brigham, M.E., Moran, P.W., and Krabbenhoft, D.P., 2009, 

Mercury in fish, bed sediment, and water from streams 

across the United States, 1998–2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5109, 74 p.

Simonin, H.A., Loukmas, J.J., Skinner, L.C., Roy, K.M., and 

Paul, E.A., 2009, Trends in mercury concentrations in New 

York State fish: Bulletin of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology, v. 83, p. 214–218.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 2010, South Carolina mercury assessment and reduction initiative: Columbia, S.C., 98 p. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control, 2011, South Carolina—Fish consumption advisories: Publication ML-004042, 36 p., accessed September 

9, 2011, at http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/library/

ML-004042.pdf. 
References Cited 33

South Carolina State Climatology Office, 2011, South 

Carolina Climate: South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources—South Carolina State Climatology Office, 

accessed November 14, 2011 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/

climate/sco/ClimateData/cli_sc_climate.php.

St. Louis, V.L., Rudd, J.W.M., Kelly, C.A., Beaty, K.G., 

Bloom, N.S., and Flett, R.J., 1994, Importance of wetlands 

as sources of methyl mercury to boreal forest ecosystems: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 51, 

no. 5, p. 1065–1076.

St. Louis, V.L., Rudd, J.W.M., Kelly, C.A., Beaty, K.G., 

Flett, R.J., and Roulet, N.T., 1996, Production and loss of 

methylmercury and loss of total mercury from boreal forest 

catchments containing different types of wetlands: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 30, no. 9, p. 2719–2729.

State University of New York–College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 2011, Adirondack forest communities: 

Syracuse, N.Y., Adirondack Ecological Center/Huntington 

Wildlife Forest, accessed May 17, 2011, at http://www.esf.

edu/aec/adks/forestcomm.htm.

System for Automated Geoscientific Analysis Geographic 

Information System (SAGA), 2007, System for automated 

geoscientific analysis, version 2.0: Department of Physical Geography, Gottingen, accessed September 9, 2011, at 

http://www.saga-gis.org/en/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Mercury study 

report to Congress, Vol. 3—Fate and transport of mercury 

in the environment: Washington, D.C., Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, EPA–452/R–97–005, 376 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001a, Total mercury 

daily limit (TMDL) for total mercury in fish tissue residue 

in the middle and lower Savannah River watershed: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency–Region 4, accessed 

February 2006 at http://www.epa.gov/Region4/water/tmdl/

georgia/final/savannah_hg_final.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001b, Water quality 

criterion for protection of human health—Methylmercury: 

Washington, D.C., Technical Report EPA/823/R–01/001 

[variously paged]. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Omernik’s level 

III ecoregions of the continental United States: Reston, 

Va., National Atlas of the United States, scale 1:7,500,000, 

accessed September 9, 2011, at http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/

ecoomrp.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, National Wetlands 

Inventory, accessed July 2010, at http://www.fws.gov/

wetlands/. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010a, National Elevation Dataset—

Digital Elevation Model, accessed July 2010, at http://ned.

usgs.gov/. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010b, National Hydrography Dataset, accessed July 2010, at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010c, National Water Information 

System, accessed December 2010, at http://waterdata.usgs.

gov/nwis/measurements.

Yang, Limin, Huang, Chengquan, Homer, C.G., Wylie, B.K., 

and Coan, M.J., 2002, An approach for mapping large-area 

impervious surfaces—Synergistic use of Landsat 7 ETM+ 

and high spatial resolution imagery: Canadian Journal of 

Remote Sensing, v. 29, no. 2, p. 230–240.

Yeardley, R.B., Jr., Lazorchak, J.M., and Paulsen, S.G., 1998, 

Elemental fish tissue contamination in northeastern U.S. 

lakes—Evaluation of an approach to regional assessment: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 17, no. 9, 

p. 1875–1884.
34 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09
Appendix 35

Appendix 1. Detailed Geographic Information 

System data for selected streams sampled in 

New York for U.S. Geological Survey mercury 

studies, 2005–09.

Appendix1.xlsx (Excel 68KB) is available on the HTML page in Excel format.

Appendix2.xlsx (Excel 48KB) is available on the HTML page in Excel format.

Appendix 2. Detailed Geographic Information 

System Data for Selected Streams Sampled 

in South Carolina for U.S. Geological Survey 

Mercury Studies, 2005–09.
36 Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09

Publishing support provided by the:

Columbus Science Publishing Network

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, Wisconsin Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

8505 Research Way

Middleton, WI 53562

(608) 828–9901

Or visit the Wisconsin Water Science Center Web site at:

http://wi.water.usgs.gov/ 

Scudder Eikenberry and others—Environmental Settings of Streams Sampled for Mercury in New York and South Carolina, 2005–09—Open-File Report 2011–1318