Chapter 9: Natural Resources A. INTRODUCTIONsuperfund.ciesin.columbia.edu/sfund_files/imported/downloads/9...Chapter 9: Natural Resources A. INTRODUCTION ... associated with installation

Chapter 9: Natural Resources

A. INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the potential for impacts resulting from the proposed construction and operation of the Proposed Project on terrestrial and aquatic natural resources and floodplains near the Project Sites.

This chapter of the DEIS includes the following sections:

Section B: Methodology, which describes the regulatory programs that protect floodplains, wetlands, wildlife, threatened or endangered species, aquatic resources, or other natural resources within the study area for the Proposed Project; and describes the methodology used to conduct the assessments of natural resources for this DEIS.

Section C: Existing Conditions, which describes the current condition of the floodplain and natural resources within the study area, including water and sediment quality, and biological resources (e.g., wetlands, aquatic biota, terrestrial biota, and threatened or endangered species and species of special concern).

Section D: The Future Without the Proposed Project, which assesses the potential impacts of both construction and operation of the Proposed Project on floodplain, water quality, and natural resources.

Section E: Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project, which discusses the measures that would be developed, as necessary, to mitigate and/or reduce any of the Proposed Project’s potential significant adverse effects on natural resources and floodplains.

Section F: References.

The chapter concludes that the Proposed Project would not cause any significant adverse impacts on terrestrial plant communities or wildlife, or on threatened or endangered species, floodplains, wetlands, or water quality in the Hudson River and Minisceongo Creek. Construction activities associated with installation of the shore-based intake pipe and the raw water transmission line using directional drilling, with the use of a cofferdam at the intake location within the Hudson River, would minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources of the Hudson River and Minisceongo Creek during construction of the Proposed Project. Implementation of the erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater management measures would minimize potential impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources associated with discharge of stormwater runoff during land-disturbing activities resulting from construction of the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project is being designed to minimize potential impacts to natural resources during operations of the water treatment plant. The water intake proposed for the Hudson River would be designed using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s best technology available, to minimize losses to the target fish species; no significant adverse impacts to regional target species populations or to regional populations of other fish, plankton or macroinvertebrates would occur. In addition, the discharge of reverse osmosis concentrate into the treated effluent of

9-1

Haverstraw Water Supply Project DEIS

the Haverstraw Joint Regional Sewage Treatment Plant would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality or aquatic biota of the Hudson River. The operation of the Proposed Project also would not result in significant adverse impacts to birds and other wildlife using the existing habitats adjacent to the Project Sites.

B. METHODOLOGY

OVERVIEW

This section presents the methodology used in this chapter to describe natural resources within the Project Sites under existing and future conditions, and to assess potential impacts on these resources from the Proposed Project.

Because the Proposed Project would not affect the surrounding terrestrial resources or the floodplain either directly or indirectly during construction or operation of the intake pumping station or water treatment plant, the study area is limited to the boundaries of the Project Sites, and their immediate vicinity, including Minisceongo Creek and associated wetlands of the Grassy Point marshes waterfowl winter concentration area. An exception was made for the identification of threatened or endangered species, which were evaluated for a distance of at least 0.5 mile from the Project Sites. The study area for water quality and aquatic resources included all of Haverstraw Bay and the portion of the Hudson River extending north of Haverstraw Bay to Indian Point power plant (approximately one mean flood tide excursion1), and the portion of the Hudson River extending south of Haverstraw Bay to about Tappan Zee (approximately one ebb tide excursion).

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the Proposed Project is being designed to deliver up to 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. When the facility opens for operation, it would deliver less water, potentially 2.5 mgd to 5 mgd. As Rockland County’s population grows and demand increases, the Proposed Project would be expanded to meet that demand, with the ultimate capacity at 7.5 mgd. Although full operation (i.e., 7.5 mgd production) would not occur until some time after 2015, to provide a conservative analysis of the Proposed Project’s effects on natural resources, the analysis considers the potential effects of full operation of the intake, intake pumping station, and water treatment plant to deliver 7.5 mgd of potable water by December 2015. Construction is anticipated to start in the spring of 2013.

METHODOLOGY FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS

Existing conditions for floodplain, water quality, and natural resources within the study area were summarized from:

• Existing information identified in literature and obtained from governmental and non-governmental agencies, such as the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) Harbor Water Quality Survey data; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory maps, federally listed threatened or endangered species for Rockland County, New York and Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed (USFWS 1997); the New York State Department of Environmental

1 Tide excursion is the distance traveled by a water parcel during one complete tidal phase, roughly 6.2

hours. Mean flood and ebb tide excursions in this portion of the Hudson River are approximately 4 and 7 miles, respectively.

9-2


Conservation (NYSDEC) Hudson River Estuary Program; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) STORET database; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow, salinity, and temperature data; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps; and NYSDEC Environmental Resources Mapper database (http://www.dec.ny.gov/ imsmaps/ ERM/viewer.htm); NYSDEC Breeding Bird Atlas Results from 1980-1985 and 2000-2005; the NYSDEC Herp Atlas results from 1990-2000; and the 2001-2006 Audubon Christmas Bird Count data from a site adjacent to the Haverstraw Landfill.

• On-site observations during an April 24, 2008 site visit. • Responses to requests for information on rare, threatened, or endangered species in the

vicinity of the Project Sites. These requests were submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), a joint venture of NYSDEC and the Nature Conservancy (TNC). NYSDEC maintains the NYNHP files. The NYNHP database is updated continuously to incorporate new records and changes in the status of rare plants or animals. In addition to the state program, the USFWS maintains information for federally listed threatened or endangered freshwater and terrestrial plants and animals, and the NMFS does the same for federally listed threatened or endangered marine organisms.

METHODOLOGY FOR THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

FLOODPLAINS, WETLANDS, AND TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

In the future without the Proposed Project, the Intake Site, Water Treatment Plant Site, and raw water transmission line route will remain as in the existing condition. Because much of the study area surrounding these Project Sites is already developed, any new development will occur as redevelopment of currently developed areas. Therefore, existing wetlands and surface water bodies within the study area would be unchanged from the existing condition.

WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

The assessment of water quality and aquatic resources for the future without the Proposed Project considered both ongoing and proposed projects in the vicinity of the Project Sites, including:

• Water quality and sediment quality improvements expected to occur as a result of regional and local programs such as the Hudson River Estuary Program, and sediment remediation activities associated with General Electric’s PCB contamination of the Hudson River below Hudson Falls.

• Habitat enhancement or restoration activities associated with the Hudson River Estuary Program.

• Beneficial effects on aquatic resources from the decommissioning of the Lovett power plant, implementation of additional measures to further reduce adverse effects to fish and other aquatic biota due to impingement and entrainment at the Bowline Generating Plant and possibly at other Hudson River power plants.

• For the foreseeable future, the Indian Point power plant will be operating as under the current condition.

9-3


METHODOLOGY FOR PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

OVERVIEW

Potential impacts on the floodplain, wetlands, aquatic, and terrestrial resources from the Proposed Project were assessed by considering the following:

• The existing floodplain, wetlands, water quality, and natural resources within the study area; • Temporary impacts on water quality and aquatic organisms during construction of the intake

pumping station, the launching pit to support the directional drilling and installation of the shore-based intake pipe, and to provide for dewatering of the intake tunnel, and possibly the raw water transmission line route along Beach Road and Ecology Lane. In-water construction of these project elements has the potential to result in the following: - Temporary increases in suspended sediment and release of contaminants during

sediment disturbance; and

- Temporary loss of fish breeding, nursery, or foraging habitat, or Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) identified by the NMFS, from temporary water quality changes;

• Temporary impacts on water quality and aquatic biota of the Hudson River from the discharge of stormwater during construction of the intake pumping station;

• Permanent adverse impacts to terrestrial resources due to the loss of habitat within the Project Sites;

• Temporary impacts on terrestrial resources associated with land clearing, grading, and other upland activities associated with construction of the Proposed Project;

• Potential long-term impacts to aquatic biota associated with the operation of the intake due to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms—the assessment methodology is described in greater detail below; and

• Potential long-term impacts to Hudson River water quality and aquatic biota associated with the discharge of the concentrate resulting from the desalination process (also referred to as reverse osmosis, or RO) from the water treatment plant to the effluent from the Haverstraw Joint Regional Sewage Treatment Plant (JRSTP).

ASSESSMENT OF ENTRAINMENT IMPACTS

Because the Proposed Project would withdraw water from the Hudson River through a wedge-wire screen incorporating the design parameters that have been found to minimize losses due to impingement on the intake (i.e., through-screen velocities of 0.5 feet per second [fps] with an approach velocity of less than 0.25 fps, and 2-millimeter (mm) vertical spacing of wire mesh screening), the quantitative evaluation only assessed the potential impact due to entrainment losses. A detailed discussion of the effectiveness of wedge-wire screens at minimizing losses due to entrainment is presented in section E, “Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project.”

Selection of Target Species Seven key fish species common to the Lower Hudson River estuary were selected for evaluation of the potential effect from losses due to entrainment: bay anchovy, river herring (i.e., blueback herring and alewife), American shad, Atlantic tomcod, striped bass, and white perch. These target species were judged to be sufficiently broad in representing the range of life history strategies for many of the other Hudson River species (e.g., pelagic and demersal spawners,

9-4


forage and predators, anadromous, and estuarine). Abundance data for these seven species (including blueback herring and alewife) were drawn from the 1974-2006 Hudson River Utilities Longitudinal River Ichthyoplankton Sampling Program (Long River Program). In the case of blueback herring and alewife, length-frequency information was not collected as part of the Long River Program. To complete this missing information, length-frequency information was used from a similar sampling program in the Delaware River. For all species, life history parameters and morphometric data were obtained from the scientific literature, particularly USFWS (1978).

Withdrawal Scenario As discussed in Chapter 2 of this DEIS, “Project Description,” depending on final designs for the Proposed Project, water may be withdrawn from the Hudson River through the water intake continuously throughout the day, or it may be withdrawn only approximately 12 hours per day during the ebb tide. Available ichthyoplankton data from prior Hudson River sampling programs would not support an evaluation of entrainment over various tidal stages (i.e., tide-specific density data were not available). Consequently, it is not possible to discern differences in density over various phases of the tide. Therefore, it was assumed that 10 milion gallons of water would be withdrawn each day at a constant rate (a rate of 10 mgd) on each day of the year. This is conservative because it assumes the plant would withdraw water at the maximum rate throughout the year. It was also assumed that the velocity through the 2-mm slots in the wedge-wire screens would be 0.5 fps at all times. This is conservative because actual through-slot velocities would be less when flows are reduced from the maximum.

Entrainment Assessment Methods Two methods were used to assess the effects of entrainment due to the withdrawal described above. The first method used information on life stage specific natural mortality rates and durations to convert the entrainment losses of early life stages into equivalent losses of one-year-old fish for each target species (i.e., equivalent losses). The second method expresses the potential losses due to entrainment as a fraction (i.e. conditional mortality rate) of the species population in the Hudson in the fall of the first year of life. The equivalent losses and conditional mortality rate models are generally accepted methods used in fisheries management and impact assessment for setting acceptable loss levels for specific activities that may adversely affect fish species and determining significance of impacts to fish populations.

• Equivalent losses—Early life stages of fish typically have very high natural mortality rates. These rates frequently differ vastly from one stage to the next. As a result, losses of juveniles, with a higher probability of survival to adulthood, are more critical to species populations than are losses of younger life stages such as eggs that suffer much lower rates of survival. This difference in survival probability makes it more difficult to accurately assess and compare the effect to fish populations due to losses across various life stages. To adjust for the influence of the high natural mortality rates among younger life stages, projected number of individuals of a particular life stage entrained (i.e., direct losses of fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles less than 1 year old), are converted into units of individual 1-year-old fish. This process allows for a straightforward comparison of losses among various life stages and places the losses in a frame of reference more familiar to fisheries managers.

• Conditional mortality rate (CMR)—The second modeling method expresses entrainment losses relative to the size of the source population. This is done by calculating the conditional mortality rate (CMR), i.e., the fraction of the population lost due to entrainment

9-5


in the absence of all other sources of mortality. The calculations are conducted using a modification of the Empirical Transport Model (ETM) (Boreman et al. 1978).

Appendix 9.1 provides a detailed discussion of the methodology and results of the entrainment analysis.

An alternative methodology was used to verify the accuracy of the estimates obtained from the entrainment assessment methods discussed above. This approach used actual entrainment estimates obtained at the Bowline Generating Plant from 1981-1987, and then scaled these estimates to a withdrawal rate of 10 mgd. These data were taken from the 1999 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (CHE&G et al. 1999) for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits for Bowline Generating Plant, Indian Point 2&3 power plant, and Roseton Steam Electric generating station. Details of the methods and results of this analysis which included adjusting for onshore-offshore abundance differences of fish subjected to potential entrainment are presented in Appendix 9.2.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS

FLOODPLAIN

Figure 9-1 presents the 100-year floodplain (area with a 1 percent chance of flooding each year) and 500-year floodplain (area with a 0.2 percent chance of flooding each year) boundaries within the Project Sites. The Water Treatment Plant Site is outside the 100- and 500-year floodplains. The Intake Site, and about 75 percent of the raw water transmission line route, are within the 100-year floodplain, with a small portion also in the 500-year floodplain.

WETLANDS

No NYSDEC-mapped freshwater wetlands (see Figure 9-2) or wetlands identified by the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (see Figure 9-3) occur on the Water Treatment Plant Site. No NYSDEC tidal wetlands are mapped within Haverstraw Bay. No NYSDEC-mapped tidal wetlands occur north of Tappan Zee on the Hudson River.

The USFWS NWI (see Figure 9-3) classifies the waters of the Hudson River within the vicinity of the Intake Site and proposed intake system as estuarine subtidal oligohaline (salinity of 0.5 to 5 parts per thousand [ppt]) wetlands with unconsolidated bottom (E1UBL6). Subtidal estuarine wetlands are continuously submerged areas with low energy and variable salinity, influenced and often enclosed by land. Unconsolidated bottoms have at least 25 percent cover of particles smaller than 6 or 7 centimeter (cm), and less than 30 percent vegetative cover. Water depths along the western portion of the intake pipeline route range from 5 to 12 feet at mean lower low water (MLLW) (NOAA Chart 12343, Edition 19, 10/1/2005). Because the waters at the intake location do not contain tidal wetland plants, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would likely regulate them as waters of the United States and would not be likely to classify portions of the study area as wetlands.

No NYSDEC-mapped freshwater wetlands occur within the raw water transmission line route within Beach Road, although NYSDEC does indicate that the area on either side of Beach Road should be evaluated for freshwater wetlands. The USFWS NWI classifies Minisceongo Creek where it is crossed by Beach Road as estuarine intertidal emergent persistent regularly flooded oligohaline wetlands (E2EM1N6) (see Figure 9-3). These wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants present for most of the growing season that normally remain standing

9-6

Mi n

i s c e o n g o C r .Water Treatment

Plant Site

Intake Site

Raw WaterTransmissionLine Route

Raw WaterTransmission Line Route

BEAC

H R

D (

CR

108

)

BEN

SON

ST

BLAU

VELT

AV

PE

CK

ST

KN

OX

ST

E RAILROAD AV (CR 94)

GAGAN RD (CR 109)

WAY

NE

AV

SAMSONDALE AV

HOLT DR

CLI

FF S

T

N W

AYN

E A

V

PHE

LPS

ST

NORTH ST

TAN

NEY

ANN

S LN

ECOLOGY LN

CA

RO

L ST

RIV

ER R

D (

CR

108

)

ZARIELLO LN

5TH ST

KWIECINSKI ST

ADLER CT

TOWN OF HAVERSTRAW

TOWN OF STONY POINT

Floodplains

0 750375

Feet

9-1Figure

Legend

Water Treatment Plant Project Area

Potential Property for Future Expansions/Easements

Intake Pipe

Raw Water Transmission Route

Potential Utility Route

Potential Site AccessFloodplains

100 Year

500 Year

Hudson R.

UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

Figure 9-1Floodplains

9.19

.08

Water TreatmentPlant Site

Intake Site


Raw Water

Transmission Line Route

BE

AC

H R

D (C

R 108)

HO

LT D

RBE

NSO

N S

T

ECOLOGY LN

5TH ST

GAGAN RD (CR 109)

ADLER CT

NYSDEC Wetlands - Water Treatment Plant Project AreaIntake, Raw Water Transmission Route and Plant Site

Figure9-2

0 250 500125

Feet

Legend

Water Treatment Plant Project AreaPotential Property for Future Expansions/EasementsIntake PipeRaw Water Transmission Line RoutePotential Utility RoutePotential Site AccessTown BoundaryNYSDEC Wetland

Intake, RawWater Transmission Route and Water Treatment Plant Site

Town of Stony Point

Town of HaverstrawTown of Stony Point

Town of Haverstraw

Village of Haverstraw

Village of Haverstraw

9.19.08

Figure 9-2NYSDEC WetlandsUNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

BE

AC

H R

D (C

R 108)

HO

LT D

RBE

NSO

N S

T

ECOLOGY LN

5TH ST

GAGAN RD (CR 109)

ADLER CT

National Wetlands Inventory - Water Treatment Plant Project AreaIntake, Raw Water Transmission Route and Plant Site

Figure9-3

0 250 500125

Feet

LegendTreatment Plant Project AreaPotential Property for Future Expansions/EasementsIntake PipeRaw Water Transmission Potential Utility RoutePotential Site AccessTown Boundary

Wetland TypeEstuarine and Marine DeepwaterEstuarine and Marine WetlandFreshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater Pond

Intake, RawWater Transmission Route and Water Treatment Plant Site


Raw WaterTransmission Line Route

Line Route

Town of Stony Point

Town of Haverstraw

Village of

Haverstraw

Town of Stony Point

Town of Haverstraw

Village of

Haverstraw

9.19.08

Figure 9-3National Wetland InventoryUNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project


at least until the beginning of the next growing season, and that are located between extreme low water and high water.

On the basis of the site visit, portions of the Water Treatment Plant Site appear to have hydrologic characteristics with the potential to be characterized as a series of wetlands, impoundments, and perched (shallow) water table areas. Plant communities within these areas are characterized as dominated by reedgrass/purple loosestrife, cattail, and open water (see Figure 9-4) and are described below. Using the hydrologic classification system presented in Cowardin et al. (1979), the approximately 0.2-acre open water area (i.e., stormwater basin) may be characterized as permanently flooded1 or artificially flooded.2 The small portion of the Water Treatment Plant Site dominated by cattails may be characterized as seasonally flooded wetland.3 The reedgrass/purple loosestrife communities observed within the Water Treatment Plant Site may be characterized as having a saturated regime.4 The vegetation communities found within these areas are described in greater detail below under “Terrestrial Resources.”

In coordination with the USACE and/or NYSDEC, the presence of freshwater wetlands under the jurisdiction of the USACE and/or NYSDEC at the Water Treatment Plant Site will be determined in accordance with the USACE three-parameter approach contained within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1), the New York Freshwater Wetlands Act (Environmental Conservation Law [ECL] Article 24) and NYSDEC 1995 Wetland Delineation Manual.

Additional wetland areas within the study area, but outside the Intake Site, Water Treatment Plant Site, and raw water transmission line route, are the complex of tidal marshes associated with Minisceongo Creek, identified by NYSDEC as the Grassy Point Marshes (see Figure 9-2). NYSDEC has classified these mapped freshwater wetlands as freshwater wetlands class I and II,5 and as a Waterfowl Winter Concentration Area under NYSDEC’s Natural Heritage Program, discussed below under “Terrestrial Resources.” Approximately 31 acres of the Grassy Point Marsh were acquired by Rockland County under a Hudson River Estuary Grant issued in 2000. The USFWS NWI (see Figure 9-3) classifies the Grassy Point wetlands near the Project Sites as estuarine emergent intertidal irregularly flooded oligohaline wetlands (E2EMP6). These wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants present for most of the growing season that normally remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season, and that are located between extreme low water and high water, and flooded less often than daily.

1 These areas are permanently covered with water, although they may be exposed during extreme

droughts. Open water bodies where the depth is less than 2 meters (6.6 ft). 2 Areas covered by water where the amount and duration of flooding is controlled by means of pumps or

siphons in combination with dikes or dams. 3 Areas with standing water visible for more than one month. Usually by late summer, such water is

absent. The water table remains within 0.4 meters (1.5 ft) of the land surface. 4 Areas containing a substrate that is saturated to the surface for extended periods during the growing

season, but surface water is seldom present. 5 6 NYCRR Part 664 classifies freshwater wetlands according to the degree of benefit they provide, with

Class I wetlands providing the greatest benefit and Class IV wetlands the least.

9-7

Elm

PineBlack

Willow

Water TreatmentPlant Site

Intake Site


Raw Water

Transmission Line Route

BE

ACH

RD

(CR

108)

HO

LT D

RBE

NSO

N S

T

ECOLOGY LNGAGAN RD (CR 109)

ADLER CT

Ecological Communities - Water Treatment Plant Project AreaIntake, Raw Water Transmission Route and Plant Site

Figure9-4

0 250 500125

Feet

Legend

Water Treatment Plant Project AreaPotential Property for Future Expansions/EasementsIntake PipeRaw Water Transmission Line RoutePotential Utility RoutePotential Site Access

Ecological CommunityWater Treatment Plant Site

Reedgrass / Purple LoosestrifeMine Spoil / Bare GroundMine Spoil / Common ReedMine Spoil / Indian GrassWater Recharge Basin / CattailWater Recharge Basin / Open WaterOak-Hickory Forest

Intake SiteMowed GrassUnconfined RiverSuccessional Northern HardwoodsPaved Road/PathBeachElm; Pine; Black WillowTown Boundary

Intake, Raw Water Transmission Route and Water Treatment Plant Site

Town of Stony Point

Town of HaverstrawTown of Stony Point

Town of Haverstraw

Village of

HaverstrawVillage of

Haverstraw

9.19.08

Figure 9-4Ecological CommunitiesUNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project


AQUATIC RESOURCES

The surface water resources within the vicinity of the Project Sites include the Hudson River and Minisceongo Creek. The Proposed Project would withdraw water from the Hudson River to meet the peak demand for water supply in Rockland County, and the raw water transmission line route would traverse Minisceongo Creek. The following sections describe the aquatic resources of these two surface water bodies.

HYDROLOGY

Hudson River The Hudson River originates at Lake Tear of the Clouds in the Adirondack Mountains and flows south 507 kilometers (315 miles) to its confluence with Upper New York Bay. The Hudson River drainage basin covers 33,835 square kilometers (13,064 square miles) and drains parts of New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. It is divided into three major sub-basins: the Upper Hudson (11,987 square kilometers or 4,628 square miles), the Mohawk (8,972 square kilometers or 3,464 square miles), and the Lower Hudson/Hudson River Estuary (12,876 square kilometers or 4,971 square miles). The Project Sites are located in the Lower Hudson/Hudson River Estuary. At Troy, north of Albany, the river is joined by the Mohawk River, the major tributary of the Hudson River, and the flow nearly doubles. Land cover within the Hudson River basin is approximately 62 percent forest, 25 percent agriculture, 8 percent urban and residential, 2.6 percent open water, and the remaining is miscellaneous. Land cover of the Lower Hudson/Hudson River Estuary is about 55 percent forest, 29 percent agriculture, and 13 percent urban (see Figure 9-5).

The lower Hudson River is a partially mixed estuary due to mixing of freshwater in the river with the Atlantic Ocean water. The river is tidally affected as far as the Federal Dam near Troy, which is 153 river miles upstream of the mouth of the Hudson at the Battery in New York City. The flow in the estuary can be in either direction depending on the tidal conditions and the seasons, which influence freshwater flow. The mixing of freshwater and ocean water results in brackish water in the lower reach of the estuary. The salinity and its vertical mixing or lack thereof (stratification) vary significantly with tides, season and weather. Semi-diurnal tides (i.e., two high tides and two low tides occur each day) affect salinity and mixing, particularly in the lower stretches of the river.

The average annual flow of the Hudson River at Green Island, which is just downstream of its confluence with the Mohawk, as gauged from 1947 through 2006 by USGS (Gage No. 1358000) is approximately 14,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Freshwater flow in the Hudson varies seasonally with the highest rates typically in the spring when rainfall combines with snowmelt particularly in the upper Hudson.

The average depth of the river varies from 16 feet at Haverstraw Bay to 35 feet at the Battery. The width of the river is largest at Haverstraw Bay (17,000 feet or 3.2 miles) and decreases downriver. Haverstraw Bay has extensive shallow areas (less than 15 feet deep at MLLW). The bay deepens in the navigation channel which is maintained at a depth of about 35 feet (New York State Department of State [NYSDOS] Undated, Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat Rating Form—Haverstraw Bay). Channel depths within the study area range from18 to about 61 feet at MLLW (NOAA Chart 12343, Edition 19, 10/1/2005). The mean tidal range, defined as the difference between high water and low water surface elevations, in the Hudson River at Haverstraw is 2.9 feet; spring tidal range, which coincides with the full and new moon, is 3.4

9-8

Hudson River Watershed Showing Land Use, Major Rivers and StreamsFigure

9-5

Source: Black & Veatch Corporation, Reference: USGS, 1998

9.19

.08

Figure 9-5Hudson River Watershed Showing

Land Use, Major Rivers and StreamsUNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project


feet. Average maximum flood current is 0.4 meters per second (m/s), or 1.3 fps/0.8 knots, and the average maximum ebb current is 0.7 m/s (2.3 fps/1.4 knots). The greater ebb velocity is attributable to the freshwater flow, which yields a net flow to the Battery and beyond it through New York Bay (Reference: Tides and Currents Pro software, except for spring tidal range which was obtained from Reed’s Nautical Almanac).

Minisceongo Creek The Minisceongo Creek flows out of the Ramapo mountains to its confluence with the Hudson River just southeast of the Intake Site. The Water Treatment Plant Site and the raw water transmission line route are located within the Minisceongo Creek watershed. The north branch of the Minisceongo Creek originates in the Palisades Interstate Park and the south branch originates about two miles south of the Mt. Ivy Swamp, near Hempstead. The branches meet at Letchworth Village. Except for the reach of stream in Letchworth Village, and several small impoundments on the stream, the Minisceongo has a moderate gradient and the streambed is characterized by stones (gravel to large rocks). The average stream flow for the period of October 1960 through September 1963 at Thiells, NY, northwest of Haverstraw, where the drainage area is 15.1 square miles (39.1 square kilometers), is 23.1 cfs1.

WATER QUALITY

Hudson River The Hudson River within the study area is designated as NYSDEC Class SB saline surface water. The best usages of Class SB waters are primary and secondary contact recreation (e.g., swimming, and water sports), and fishing. Class SB waters should be suitable for fish propagation and survival. Table 9-1 presents the narrative and numeric water quality standards for Class SB waters as contained in 6 NYCRR Part 703. Additional information on water quality near the Project Sites is provided in Chapter 2, “Project Description” and in Appendix 2 to this DEIS.

Appendix 9.3 presents water quality data derived from the USEPA STORET database. Table 9-2 summarizes water quality data collected for the Proposed Project. This Project-related water quality sampling of the Hudson River in the vicinity of Haverstraw started in April 2007, and was conducted weekly through May 2008. Four sampling stations between River Mile (RM) 40.5 (Station 1) and RM 36.0 (Station 4) were sampled at the outset of the sampling program. In August 2007, the number of sampling stations was reduced to two stations: Station 2 (RM 38.9) and Station 4. The sampling times were planned around the high water and low water according to tidal predictions. One sample was collected at either high or low water and a second sample was collected at the following low/high water, which was approximately six hours after the first sampling, on any weekly survey day. Depth-integrated samples were collected during unstratified conditions, and upper and lower layer samples were taken during stratified conditions. Because unstratified conditions were generally found, the data generally reflect depth-average water quality. Samples for oil and grease and volatile organic analyses (VOAs) and semi-VOAs were taken as grab samples at mid-depth (unstratified) or at mid upper/lower layer (stratified), as exceptions to the general sampling procedure. Approximately 200 laboratory analytes or water quality parameters were measured on either a weekly, monthly, or quarterly sampling basis. As the sampling stations were in a river reach of only five miles and spatial gradients were not found in the analytes, the sampling stations were “pooled” in the data summary presented in Table 9-2. 1 USGS http://waterdata.usgs/nwis/ dv/?referred_module=sw

9-9


Table 9-1Surface Water Quality Standards for Class SB Saline Surface Waters

SUBSTANCE STANDARD

(ug/L) TYPE Numeric Standards

Aldrin and Dieldrin 0.001 H(FC) Applies to the sum of these substances Ammonia and Ammonium 35 A(C) Applies to un-ionized ammonia as NH3 Ammonia and Ammonium 230 A(A) Applies to un-ionized ammonia as NH3 Arsenic 63 A(C) Dissolved arsenic form Azinphosmethyl 0.01 A(C) Benzene 10 H(FC) Boron 1,000 A(C) Cadmium 7.7 A(C) Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form Chlordane 2 X 10-5 H(FC) Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and Chlorinated dibenzofurans

6 x 10-10 H(FC)

Value is for the total of the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans that are listed in the table below as equivalents of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)

Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and Chlorinated dibenzofurans 3.1 x 10-9 W Applies only to 2,3,7,8-TCDD Chlorine, Total Residual 7.5 A(C) Chlorobenzene 400 H(FC) Chromium (hexavalent) 54 A(C) Applies to acid-soluble form Copper

* A(C)

Standard is 3.4 ug/L except in New York/New Jersey harbor where it is 5.6 ug/L; Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form

Copper

* A(A)

Standard is 4.8 ug/L except in New York/New Jersey harbor where it is 7.9 ug/L; Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form

Cyanide 9000 H(FC) Cyanide

1.0 A(C) As free cyanide: the sum of HCN and CN- expressed as CN

p,p'-DDD 8 x 10-5 H(FC) p,p'-DDD * W See standard for p,p'-DDT p,p'-DDE 7 x 10-6 H(FC) p,p'-DDE * W See standard for p,p'-DDT p,p'-DDT 1 x 10-5 H(FC) p,p'-DDT 1.1 x 10-5 W Applies to the sum of p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDT Demeton 0.1 A(C) Standards apply to the sum of these substances Dieldrin 6 x 10-7 H(FC) 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1000 H(FC) 2,4-Dinitrophenol 400 H(FC) Endosulfan 0.001 A(C) Endrin 0.002 H(FC) Heptachlor 2 x 10-4 H(FC) Heptachlor epoxide 3 x 10-4 H(FC) Hexachlorobenzene 3 x 10-5 H(FC) Hexachlorobutadiene 0.01 H(FC) Hexachlorobutadiene 0.3 A© Alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.002 H(FC) Beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.007 H(FC) Delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.008 H(FC) Epsilon-Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.008 H(FC) Gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane 0.008 H(FC) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.07 A©

9-10


Table 9-1 (cont’d)Surface Water Quality Standards for Class SB Saline Surface Waters

SUBSTANCE STANDARD

(ug/L) TYPE Numeric Standards (continued)

Hexachloroethane 0.6 H(FC) Hydrogen sulfide 2 A© Aquatic Type standards apply to undissociated form Lead 8 A© Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form Lead 204 A(A) Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form Malathion 0.1 A© Mercury 7 x 10-4 H(FC) Applies to dissolved form Mercury 0.0026 W Applies to dissolved form Methoxychlor 0.03 A© Methylene chloride 200 H(FC) Mirex 1 x 10-6 H(FC) Mirex 0.001 A© Nickel 8.2 A© Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form Nickel 74 A(A) Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form Octachlorostyrene 6 x 10-6 H(FC) Polychlorinated biphenyls 1.2 x 10-4 W Applies to the sum of these substances Toluene 6000 H(FC) Toxaphene 6 x 10-6 H(FC) Toxaphene 0.005 A© Trichlorobenzenes

5 A© Applies to the sum of 1,2,3-, 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 40 H(FC) Zinc 66 A© Aquatic Type standards apply to dissolved form

Narrative Standards Turbidity No increase that will cause a substantial visible contrast

to natural conditions Suspended, colloidal and settleable solids

None from sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes that will cause deposition or impair the waters for their best usages

Oil and floating substances No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes, nor visible oil film nor globules of grease

Garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, sludge and other refuse

None in any amounts

Phosphorus and nitrogen None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages

pH The normal range shall not be extended by more than one-tenth (0.1) of a pH unit.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) Chronic: Shall not be less than a daily average of 4.8 mg/L Acute: Shall not be less than 3.0 mg/L at any time

Total coliforms (number per 100 ml)

The monthly median value and more than 20 percent of the samples, from a minimum of five examinations, shall not exceed 2,400 and 5,000, respectively.

Fecal coliforms (number per 100 ml)

The monthly geometric mean, from a minimum of five examinations, shall not exceed 200

The total and fecal coliform standards shall be met during all periods

(1) when disinfection is required for SPDES permitted discharges directly into, or affecting the best usage of, the water; or (2) when the department determines it necessary to protect human health.

Types: H(WS): Health (Water Source); H(FC): Health (Fish Consumption); A(C): Aquatic (Chronic); A(A): Aquatic (Acute); W: Wildlife; E(WS): Aesthetic (Water Source); E(FS): Aesthetic (Food Source); R: Recreation. Source: New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Part 703: Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards

and Groundwater Effluent Limitations. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4590.html

9-11


Table 9-22007-2008 Hudson River Water Quality Data

Collected within the Study Area for the Proposed Project

Parameter Units Average Maximum Minimum

Drinking Water

Federal Standard

Drinking Water NYS Standard

Class SB Standard

Alkalinity mg/L as

CaCO3 58.2 100 5 - - NS

Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/L 2.4 4.4 2 - - NS Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 8.8 14.7 3.1 - - Chronic: 4.8

Acute: 3.0 Nitrate as N mg/L 0.8 3.5 0.26 10 10 NS Nitrite as N mg/L 0.03 0.16 0.011 1 1 NS Nitrogen, Total mg/L 2.4 3.5 1.2 10 10 See Table 9-1 Oil and Grease, total mg/L 3.5 7 1 - - See Table 9-1 pH --- 7.5 8.4 6.7 6.5-8.5 - See Table 9-1 Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.2 0.24 0.1 - - See Table 9-1 Salinity ppt 3.2 14.5 0.1 - - NS Settleable Solids mL/L 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - See Table 9-1 Specific Conductance at 25 degrees C

uS/cm 5,728 24,000 169 - - NS

Sulfate mg/L 0.255 0.770 0.002 250 250 NS Temperature degrees C 18.2 30.0 2.5 - - NS Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 3,517 11,000 8.3 500 - NS Total Organic Carbon mg/L 2.4 4.7 94 - - NS Total Suspended Solids mg/L 25.5 100 1.2 - - See Table 9-1 Total Volatile Suspended Solids mg/L 4.6 35 1 - - NS Turbidity NTU 22.5 85.0 2.0 - - See Table 9-1

Metals Aluminum mg/L 0.994 3.1 0.250 0.05-0.2 - NS Ammonia mg/L 1.7 1.9 1.6 - - Chronic: 35

Acute: 230 Boron ug/L 453.2 1300 5 - - 1,000 Bromide mg/L 7.4 27 50 - - NS Calcium ug/L 63,568 140,000 19,000 - - NS Chloride mg/L 2,068 40,000 0.08 250 250 NS Fluoride mg/L 0.3 0.29 0.22 2.0 2.2 NS Iron mg/L 1.16 3.60 0.112 0.3 0.3 NS Lead ug/L 5.6 6 5.1 - - Chronic: 8

Acute: 204 Magnesium ug/L 139,788 290,000 6,200 - - NS Manganese mg/L 0.72 0.13 0.035 0.05 0.3 NS Potassium ug/L 85,996 210,000 6,900 - - NS Silica ug/L 6,604 15,000 1,600 - - NS Silica Dissolved ug/L 2,825 5,300 1,300 - - NS Sodium ug/L 1,071,862 3,300,000 12,000 - - NS Zinc mg/L 0.028 0.050 0.022 5 5 66

Microbial Fecal coliform cfu/100mL 78.2 900 5 (1) Zero 200 Total coliform cfu/100mL 711 2,419 10 (1) Zero 2,400 Escherichia coli cfu/100mL 62.9 2,000 1.2 (1) Zero NS Notes: NS = no standard (1) Drinking water must be disinfected, and filtered or meet the criteria to avoid filtration to control contaminant to specified level.

For Total coliform, no more than 5.0% samples may test positive for total coliform in a month. (For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli if it has two consecutive total coliform-positive samples, and one is also positive for E.coli fecal coliforms, the system has an acute MCL violation.

Source: Black & Veatch 2008. Draft Conceptual Design Report Long-Term Water Supply Project. Prepared for United Water New York. June 2008.

9-12


Temperature has an effect on the spatial and seasonal distribution of aquatic species and affects oxygen solubility, respiration, and other temperature-dependent water column and sediment, biological, and chemical processes. Salinity fluctuates in response to tides and freshwater discharges. Salinity and temperature largely determine water density and can affect vertical stratification of the water column. Salinity is also an important habitat variable as a number of aquatic species have a limited salinity tolerance. Water temperatures recorded at USGS sampling stations located north (West Point at RM 51.6), and south (Hastings-on-Hudson at RM 21.5), of the Intake Site over the last 15 years range from close to 0ºC (32ºF) during winter to greater than 25ºC (77ºF) during summer.

The Hudson River Estuary can be divided into four salinity zones: polyhaline (18-30 parts per thousand [ppt]), mesohaline (5-18 ppt), oligohaline (0.5-5 ppt), and freshwater tidal (<0.5 ppt). Salinity zones in the Hudson are determined by a combination of hydrographic factors, primarily the tidal surge of saline water upriver from the ocean and the magnitude of freshwater flow into the upper estuary. Under an average runoff regime the salt front (0.5 ppt) reaches Newburgh by late summer/early fall. During conditions of high freshwater runoff, usually during spring, the salt front may be pushed downriver as far as the Bronx. Under low freshwater flow conditions, vertical mixing of salt water and freshwater is high, with only a 10 percent difference between surface and bottom water salinity. This differential may be as high as 20 percent under high flow conditions (Limburg and Moran 1986). Depth-averaged salinity values collected during water quality sampling conducted for the Proposed Project within Haverstraw Bay from April 2007 through May 2008, ranged from less than 0.1 ppt in the winter and spring months, to as high as approximately 9.0 ppt in the late summer and early fall. This salinity range is similar to the 0 to 10 ppt range reported by NYSDOS (undated) for Haverstraw Bay.

The presence of coliform bacteria in surface waters indicates potential health impacts from human or animal waste, and elevated levels of coliform can result in the closing of bathing beaches. As presented in Table 9-2, total and fecal coliform counts collected within the study area generally met the Class SB narrative standard. The average fecal and total coliform counts were about 78 and 711 colony forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100mL), respectively, and are less than counts recorded in the STORET data presented in Appendix 9.3.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column is necessary for respiration by all aerobic forms of life, including fish and invertebrates such as crabs, clams, and zooplankton. The bacterial breakdown of high organic loads from various sources can deplete DO and persistently low DO can degrade habitat and cause a variety of sublethal or, in extreme cases, lethal effects. Consequently, DO is one of the most universal indicators of overall water quality in aquatic systems. DO concentrations recorded during the 2007 to 2008 sampling program conducted for the Proposed Project were above the Class SB standard, averaging 8.8 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and were higher than those reported in the STORET data (Appendix 9.3). The average pH value for the water quality samples collected during the 2007 to 2008 sampling program was 7.5, and is similar to the pH values reported in the STORET data (Appendix 9.3). pH values will vary, depending on the degree of mixing between the freshwater with ocean water. Alkalinity concentrations varied more widely, ranging from 5 to 100 mg/L as CaCO3, with an average of about 58 mg/L, similar to the STORET data. Lower values are associated with high freshwater flow, which generally coincide with snow melt and heavy precipitation events, while higher values are associated with high salinity attributable to the ocean water.

Turbidity ranged from 2 to 85 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and was similar to the measurements reported in the STORET data. Turbidity depends on both rainfall runoff and the

9-13


tidal currents, which affect the sediment loading and resuspension of solids within the estuary. The total suspended solids concentration ranged between 1 and 100 mg/L, averaging about 26 mg/L. These values are higher than those reported in the STORET data.

Laboratory analysis of water quality samples collected for the Proposed Project from 2007 through 2008 found concentrations of trace metals boron, lead and zinc that are generally below the Class SB standard. There is no SB standard for many of the metals in the 2007-2008 samples.

USGS conducted an extensive evaluation of pesticide concentrations in the Hudson River Basin during 1992-1995 (USGS 1998). Water samples were collected from a basinwide network of 46 sites on 42 streams and rivers from late May through late June 1994, when pesticides are commonly applied to fields. Of the sites sampled, 85 percent had detectable concentrations of at least one pesticide and only four had detectable concentrations of more than five pesticides. Atrazine was detected at the greatest number of stations (85 percent of sites), followed by metolachlor (67 percent), deethylatrazine (52 percent), diazinon (30 percent), simazine (28 percent), cyanazine (17 percent), alachlor (9 percent), and carbaryl (7 percent). Others were detected in less than four percent of the sites. The maximum concentration detected for all of these pesticides was significantly less than the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or health advisory level set by the EPA. Nearly all of the pesticide, insecticide and herbicide analyses conducted on the water quality samples collected for the Proposed Project were below the detection limit.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have a very low solubility in water and therefore adhere to sediments, suspended organic matter and accumulate in fatty tissues of most organisms. Moving down the Hudson, PCB concentrations tend to decrease; this finding is supported by sediment samples evaluated by USGS in 1993. Furthermore, there are currently several drinking water facilities that draw water from the lower Hudson River, including the Poughkeepsie water treatment facility, that meet drinking water standards for PCBs.

Minisceongo Creek Minisceongo Creek within the study area is designated as NYSDEC Class SC/C surface water. The best usages of Class SC saline surface waters, and Class C fresh surface waters, is fishing. These waters should be suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality should be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes. Water quality standards for fecal and total coliform, DO, and pH for Use Class SC waters are as follows.

• Fecal coliform—Monthly geometric mean less than or equal to 2,000 colonies/100 mL. • Total coliform—Monthly median less than 2,400 colonies/100 mL. • DO—Never less than 5 mg/L.

Minisceongo Creek is not listed as an impaired surface water that requires development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or other restoration strategy in the Draft 2006 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Requiring a TMDL.

SEDIMENT QUALITY

There are only a limited amount of reliable analytical data of sediments at, and adjacent, to the Intake Site. However, the docking facility at U.S. Gypsum receives maintenance dredging on a

9-14


regular basis to remove an accumulation of silty material. The most recent maintenance dredging permit was issued in 2006 following an assessment of the effects of contaminants in the dredging material on biota at the disposal site. The U.S. Gypsum dredging material was placed at the offshore Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) to remediate former degradation by contaminated sediments. In order to qualify for ocean placement, U.S. Gypsum sediments were tested in bioassay and bioaccumulation studies with live organisms following EPA protocols. The U.S. Gypsum sediments passed the screening criteria which categorized them as suitable for HARS placement. A similar series of tests on sediments from a berthing area at the American Sugar plant in Yonkers in 2007 showed these sediments were also suitable for placement at HARS.

Sediment samples collected within Haverstraw Bay for the Hudson River Millennium Crossing project (“Predicted Sediment Contaminant Concentrations Hudson River Millennium Crossing Haverstraw Bay, New York” GAI Consultants, September 1998) were reported to have detectable levels of most trace metals. Selenium was not detected. Concentrations of metals appeared to be concentrated in the upper 3 meters (10 feet). A fraction of the arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and silver in the sediment was found to be soluble in water. Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) that were detected were predominately polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Pesticides, herbicides and PCBs were not present at concentrations above detection limits. PCBs have a very low solubility in water and therefore adhere to sediments, suspended organic matter and accumulate in fatty tissues of most organisms.

As discussed in Sediment Characterization Report for the Haverstraw-Ossining Ferry, Haverstraw Landside Improvement (HDR, January 2008), NYSDEC submitted a letter to HDR dated August 7, 2006 indicating the NYSDEC Sediment Assessment and Management sediment database includes samples within the vicinity of the project area with observed concentrations of PCBs (3.7 ppm) and DDT (0.037 ppm). However, these findings conflicted with data from another study which collected nine sediment cores on September 13, 2006, and reported non detectable levels of PCBs and pesticides. However, concentrations of PAHs and metals were reported with total PAH concentrations ranging from 153 µg/kg to 1,129 µg/kg. The report concludes “exceedances to the NYSDEC soil criteria in the raw sediment samples for one or more PAH and metal parameter.” Concentrations in the raw samples did not exceed the TCLP screen value.

AQUATIC BIOTA

Phytoplankton Phytoplankton are small (usually microscopic) plants, such as algae, that are found in open water systems, and whose movements within the waters of the Harbor Estuary are controlled by tides and currents. Phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and benthic macroalgae (multi-cellular algae that attach to surfaces) are the primary producers of energy in the ocean food chain. They require sunlight as their primary energy source, and their productivity, biomass, and depth distribution will be limited by light penetration. The most common of Hudson Estuary phytoplankton fall under four categories: diatoms, blue-green algae, green algae, and dinoflagellates.

Diatoms—Asterionella formosa is the most common diatom species found in the freshwater tidal Hudson. A. japonica is a marine species typically found downriver. Coscinodiscus excentricus is widely distributed along the entire estuary. C. lineatus is found in the lower estuary and C. lustris and C. rothii are found north of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Cyclotella is

9-15


widely distributed throughout the estuary. A spring and fall bloom of C. aliquantale is common. C. atommus occurs following the spring bloom of C. aliquantale. Other species of Cyclotella in the Hudson include C. boadnica, C. kutingiana, C. gloema, C. ocellata, C. pedostelligera, and C stylorum. Another common diatom in the Hudson Estuary is the genus Melosira. M. ambigua is abundant in spring and early summer. M. disan, M. granulata, and M. italica also occur in the estuary. M monoliformis and M. sulcata are typically present south of the Tappan Zee, but have been reported as far north as Bear Mountain. Skeletonema costatum is common, occurring in late summer and early fall (Boyce Thompson Institute 1977).

Blue-green algae—Blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) are common in estuarine waters and under certain conditions, some species may form harmful blooms toxic to fish and human bathers. Anacystis, a fresh to brackish water colonial genera is represented by two species in the Hudson, A. aeriginusa and A. incerta. Another toxin-producing blue green alga is Anabena, which may occur in a free floating or colonial form. A cicinalis, A. flos-aquae, and A. siroides are common in the Hudson Estuary. Toxic blooms of blue-green algae have not been reported in the Hudson Estuary.

Green algae—Free-floating green algae (Chlorophyta) include the genus Pediastrum, which are abundant in the mid-estuary during summer. Typical species include P. biradiatum, P. duplex, P. simplex, and P. tetras. Over 20 species of the genus Scenedesmus occur in the estuary, including S. quafirausa, S. bijuga, S. dimorphus, S. obliqus, and S. opoliensis. North of the Tappan Zee, the genus Ankistrodesmus occurs, with A. falcatus being the most common species. Others include A. barunii, A. convilus, A. fracus, and A. siralis.

Dinoflagellates—Dinoflagellates are single-celled protists distinguished by the presence of distinct flagella, or tails, used in locomotion. They are an important component of the Hudson River phytoplankton community. Typical species include Ceratium hinunella and C. tripos. Procentumis micans, a marine species, is found in the lower estuary.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds are subtidal plant communities that occur at water depths of up to six feet at low water (New York’s Sea Grant Extension Program undated). SAV is a critical component of aquatic ecosystems, both freshwater and marine. SAV communities exhibit high rates of primary productivity and are known to support abundant and diverse epifaunal and benthic communities. Many species of fish and macrocrustaceans use SAV beds as nursery and foraging habitats, and seek shelter in SAV beds to avoid predation. The dominant species of SAV in the tidal freshwater to brackish Hudson River Estuary is the native water celery (Findlay et al. 2006); however, Eurasian water-milfoil dominates the shallow, brackish aquatic beds of Haverstraw Bay (Menzie 1980). In a study of a vegetated tidal embayment of Haverstraw Bay, Menzie (1981) documented several species of SAV in the area with Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) reported as the dominant species. Additional SAV species included clasping-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton perfoliatus), curly pondweed (P. crispus), sago pondweed (P. pectinatus), water celery (Vallisneria americana), and Eurasian water chestnut (Trapa natans).

Through a collaborative partnership with Cornell University, The Institute of Ecosystem Studies (IES), New York Sea Grant, and Hudson River Estuary Program, the Hudson River Reserve has mapped the distribution of SAV in the Hudson River along a 200-km study area from Troy, NY south to Yonkers, NY using 1995 1997, and 2002 aerial photography. Four broad categories were used in the classification: 1) water celery/other SAV; 2) water chestnut; 3) open water; and

9-16


4) upland/intertidal. No attempt was made to distinguish among individual SAV species within the first category, although approximately 20 occur in the study area. SAV were found to occupy approximately 1,802 hectares in the Hudson River Estuary from Hastings to Troy (seven square miles). This represents some six percent of the total river bottom and approximately 18 percent of the tidal shallows (Nieder et al. 2004).

Light penetration is the primary determinant of SAV distribution in the Hudson River. The highest abundances of SAV in the Hudson River occurs in water less than 3 feet deep at low tide (New York’s Sea Grant Program undated). The increase in light penetration resulting from enhanced filtration of the estuary water column by invasive zebra mussels in recent years is believed to be changing the distribution of SAV in the freshwater portion of the estuary (Strayer et al. 1999), well upriver of the Project Sites. Other factors affecting distribution of SAV in the Hudson River Estuary include substrate type, flow velocities, ice scour, sediment disturbance [by common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina)], and grazing by waterfowl and muskrat. Longitudinal distribution patterns of SAV in certain reaches of the estuary have implications for distribution of early life stages of organisms which rely on SAV as critical habitat (e.g., larval and juvenile fish) and may result in differential habitat encounter rates for transient fish that seek out SAV habitat for feeding or predator avoidance.

SAV was not found in the nearshore area adjacent to the Intake Site.

Zooplankton Zooplankton are another integral component of the aquatic food web—free floating, they are primary grazers on phytoplankton and detrital (organic debris formed by decomposition of plants and animals) material, and are themselves consumed by fish such as bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and early life stages of commercially and recreationally important fish species such as striped bass and white perch. Zooplankton include life stages of other organisms such as fish eggs and larvae and decapod (group of crustacean invertebrates with five pairs of legs, e.g., shrimp, lobster and crab) larvae that spend only part of their life cycle as plankton.

Protozoans, rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods are the primary representatives of the zooplankton in fresh waters; a greater variety of zooplankton is known from marine systems. Zooplankton populations in Haverstraw Bay are variable, and the composition of the community varies seasonally, as a function of temperature, salinity, and phytoplankton productivity. Copepods are the dominant component of the zooplankton community in the Bay; however their relative contribution to total zooplankton densities decreases within increasing distance upriver from NY Harbor. Characteristic estuarine zooplankton species occurring in Haverstraw Bay include the copepods Eurytemora affinis, Acartia tonsa, and A. hudsonia. Other common taxa include species of Centropages, Pseudocalanus, Temora, and Oithona. Gelatinous zooplankton, such as the comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi), and the opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana) represent the predatory macrozooplankton. Meroplankton, those organisms which spend only a portion of their life cycle as plankton (e.g., fish eggs, larval fish and macroinvertebrates), can dominate the plankton assemblage of Haverstraw Bay during the summer, with densities as high as 1,000 – 400,000 per cubic meter (USFWS 1997).

Zooplankton abundance in the Hudson River Estuary has declined since the early 1990s, coincident with the introduction of the non-native zebra mussel (Dreissenia polymorpha), in areas well upriver of Haverstraw Bay. Microzooplankton such as rotifers and tintinnid ciliates were severely impacted by the zebra mussel invasion. However, larger zooplankton such as copepods, mysids, or amphipods did not experience significant declines (Pace et al. 1998).

9-17


Analysis of long-term data from NYSDEC finfish monitoring programs and the Hudson River Utilities monitoring programs provides evidence of a decrease in planktivorous fish species (e.g., American shad, alewife) concurrent with the zebra mussel invasion (Strayer et al. 2004). Saline conditions in the Haverstraw Bay prevent extensive colonization by zebra mussels, and they are not prevalent below about RM 60.

Benthic Invertebrates The benthic macroinvertebrate community of the mid-Hudson Estuary, upriver of Haverstraw Bay has undergone substantial change in recent years, since the invasion of the Hudson Estuary by the non-native zebra mussel in the early 1990s. Deep-water benthic macroinvertebrates, which depend on recently sedimented phytoplankton as a primary food source, declined 33 percent; however, in shallow littoral areas, benthic macroinvertebrate density increased by 25 percent, presumably due to an indirect positive effect of increased water clarity and increased macrophyte/algal production resulting from zebra mussel filter-feeding (Strayer et al. 1998). Native suspension-feeding bivalves (Unionidae: Elliptio complanata, Anodonta implicata, and Leptodea ocracea) have also declined in the Hudson due to the decrease in phytoplankton. Since 1992, native unionid (clam) densities have declined by 56 percent, and recruitment of young-of-year (YOY) unionids has declined by 90 percent (Strayer and Smith 1996; Strayer et al. 1998).

Menzie (1981) studied the chironomid (non-biting midge) fauna of a vegetated tidal embayment of Haverstraw Bay. The dominant chironomid species inhabiting the beds and adjacent shallow unvegetated areas was Crictopus sylvestris. Additional numerically dominant taxa included Dicrotendipes, Tanytarsus, Polypedilum, and Parachironomus. Chironomid density in vegetated areas was 16 times that of adjacent non-vegetated areas. Menzie (1981) estimated that the chironomid standing crops in the vegetated areas would represent 14 to 25 percent of that for Haverstraw Bay, serving as an important prey resource for juvenile and forage fishes, including alewife, which forage in shallows at night, and predatory invertebrates such as damselfly larvae (Enallagma durum), and gammarid amphipods, which are in turn consumed by fish.

Historically, extensive oyster beds occurred in the lower Hudson River as far north as Haverstraw Bay. Exactly how far up the Hudson River the oyster beds extended is difficult to determine. According to Ingersoll’s The History and Present Condition of the Oyster Industry (1882), Rev. Samuel Lockwood said that five miles above Teller’s Point, near Sing-Sing, is the uppermost point “where they ever flourished.” In the same work, Captain Metzgar mentioned Rockland Lake as the northern limit and “all the way it was almost continuous oyster bottom.” Despite the extent and magnitude of this habitat type, overharvesting and degraded water quality resulted in near extinction of oysters in the lower Hudson River during the early 20th century. Currently, there is considerable interest in restoration of oyster beds in Haverstraw Bay, and a NYSDEC-sponsored restoration effort is under way.

An introduced bivalve, the Atlantic rangia (Rangia cuneata), native to the U.S Gulf coast, has become established in the lower Hudson River Estuary and is abundant in the Tappan Zee and Haverstraw Bay regions. Prior to 1955, this species was unknown from East coast estuaries, but has become widespread in the Hudson and other mid-Atlantic waters within the past several decades. Potential vectors of introduction include ballast water, bait buckets, and oyster restoration program (using Gulf coast shells or live oysters). Atlantic rangia were first reported in the Hudson in 1988 (Strayer 2006). The long-term ecological significance of the Atlantic rangia’s introduction to Haverstraw Bay is poorly understood; however, there could be potential effects of a successful benthic suspension feeder on trophic dynamics, native bivalves, and plankton communities in this large, relatively shallow bay.

9-18


Very recently, another invasive benthic species has appeared in the Hudson River Estuary—the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis). Three specimens have been collected from the mid-lower estuary since June 2007. Native to East Asia, the Chinese mitten crab is an important food in its native waters and supports a large aquaculture industry. They were introduced and became widespread in European estuaries in the 1900s, and in the late 1990s a population became established in San Francisco Bay. Since 2006, a few specimens have been collected in Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay. The Chinese mitten crab is highly prolific and omnivorous, competing aggressively with native macrocrustacean populations where it has become established. Burrowing activity by Chinese mitten crabs has led to damage to native vegetation and increased shoreline erosion. NYSDEC has issued a “Mitten Crab Alert, seeking assistance from the public in reporting any additional sightings or collections” in New York waters (Dey 2008).

Finfish and Macrocrustaceans Haverstraw Bay is considered an important estuarine nursery, and provides foraging and nursery habitat for a variety of fish and macrocrustacean species, including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white perch (Morone americana), Bay anchovy, Atlantic tomcod, hogchoker, Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), and shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). These species spawn in various parts of the Hudson River estuary. Haverstraw Bay is an important wintering area for most of these species. Atlantic sturgeon are currently protected under a fishing moratorium that may extend until 2038. Shortnose sturgeon have been protected since the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973; however, the Hudson River population appears to be recovering and may be a candidate for de-listing under the ESA (Waldman 2006).

Marine finfish which spawn offshore also use the lower Hudson Estuary, including Haverstraw Bay, as a nursery. Notable estuarine-dependent finfish which may occur in the bay as juveniles include Atlantic menhaden, bluefish, weakfish, and winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus). Forage species, such as mummichog, and juvenile blueback herring, school in tidal shallows and in fringing estuarine marshes, and provide a forage base for predatory marine and estuarine species, as well as piscivorous birds. Hurst et al. (2004) reported that the most abundant fish species collected within Haverstraw Bay during 21 years of beach seine sampling conducted annually between late August and mid-November (1980 through 2000) to be Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia), striped bass, white perch, American shad (Alosa sapidissima), and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis).

In addition to finfish, grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), sand shrimp (Crangon spp.), opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana), and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) are abundant in Haverstraw Bay’s open waters and tidal shallows. The two shrimps and the mysid species are a critical food resources for many juvenile and adult finfish, including weakfish, striped bass and white perch. Blue crab zoea and megalopae (larval life stages) require relatively high salinities and are abundant in this portion of the lower Estuary.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Most of the Intake and Water Treatment Plant Sites and the raw water transmission line route have been disturbed. The Intake Site has been disturbed as a result of marina development and the raw water transmission line route as a result of road development. The Water Treatment Plant Site is a low-lying area that was used as a borrow area for the landfill closure and, in part, as a stormwater management facility for the landfill. It has also been recently disturbed as a result of the storage and removal of material, mostly sand, gravel, and ground glass. As a result,

9-19


most of the Water Treatment Plant Site (approximately 6.1 out of 9 acres) is devoid of vegetation, either being bare soil, material stockpiles, or access roads. The vegetated areas contain a mixture of successional grasses, forbs, shrubs and small trees that would be expected to provide limited habitat for wildlife. Figure 9-6 presents panoramic views of the Water Treatment Plant Site that show the landfill interspersed with vegetation. The following sections describe the terrestrial resources within the Intake Site, Water Treatment Plant Site, and the raw water transmission line route.

VEGETATION

The Project Sites are located along the western shore of the Hudson River within the predominantly broadleaf-deciduous forest classified by Braun (1950) as the oak-chestnut forest region. Others (Bray 1930; Nichols 1935; Lull 1968; and Kuchler 1964) refer to this area as a transition between oak-forest to the south and hemlock-pine-northern hardwood forest to the north. The Intake Site is predominantly paved with gravel and unvegetated, but does include a small area of trees, including three large trees. These trees include one large American elm (Ulmus americana).

The Water Treatment Plant Site has been severely disturbed and contains few mature trees. The few scattered small trees located on the Water Treatment Plant Site are mostly non-native small trees such as Russian olive (Eleagnus angustifolia), crab apple (Malus spp.) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Shrubs found in the Water Treatment Plant Site include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and pussy willow (Salix discolor). Most of the vegetated portions of the Water Treatment Plant Site are dominated by grasses and other herbaceous plants such as common reed (Phragmites australis), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans).

Using the habitat classification scheme presented in Reschke (1990) and updated by Edinger (2002), the habitat types present within the Intake Site and Water Treatment Plant Site are depicted in Figure 9-4, and described below.

Intake Site Two habitat types—successional northern hardwoods and mowed lawn with trees—are present at the Intake Site (see Figure 9-4) and are described below.

• Successional Northern Hardwoods—Most of this site is paved as part of the marina or consists of a small beach area along the Hudson River. A small area (0.13 acre) area of trees and shrubs dominated by black locusts (Robinia pseudoacacia), slippery elms (Ulmus rubra) and red mulberry (Morus rubra) of various ages occurs within Intake Site along the shoreline. Shrubby undergrowth consists mostly of multiflora rose and vines such as poison ivy (Toxidodendron radicans). Adjacent to the tree/shrub matrix are some large mature trees, including an American elm (Ulmus americana) (36” diameter at breast height [dbh]) and a double trunked (34.5” and 32” dbh) black willow (Salix nigra), a smaller, non-native pine. The elm is the only tree of significance on the Intake Site.

• Mowed Lawn with Trees—This category is characterized as containing landscaped areas dominated by mowed lawns with less than 50 percent canopy cover. The ground cover is dominated by clipped grasses and forbs and is shaded in areas by trees. Both ornamental (Japanese black pine) and native trees (black willow) and shrubs are present. The ground cover is primarily maintained by mowing.

9-20

Photo Number 1 Panoramic View of Water Treatment Plant Site Looking North from Southern Edge of the Site

Photo Number 2 Panoramic View of Water Treatment Plant Site Looking North from Edge of the Mine Spoil Area

Figure 9-6Ecological Communities on the Water Treatment Plant Site

Photo Number 3 Panoramic View of Water Treatment Plant Site Looking North Showing Detention Basin Site

UNITED WATER Haverstraw Water Supply Project

9.8.08


Water Treatment Plant Site

• Reedgrass/Purple Loosestrife Marsh (Dominated by Phragmites)—About 0.4 acres of this habitat type is found within the Water Treatment Plant Site, comprising approximately four to five percent of the site. It is dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis) other grasses and some shrubs, interspersed with patches of the successional northern hardwood forest, and spotted with several small depressional wetlands. Tree cover is less than 20 percent, consisting of Russian olive, common buckthorn, and crabapple species. Pussy willow and muliflora rose exists in patches with some of herbaceous cover, except where all vegetation has been removed resulting from dirt access roads. Additional herbaceous plants are scattered underneath the common reed monoculture such as woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), and Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pennyslvania). This community contains some possible wetland areas (particularly along the ditch at the bottom of the sloping sides) and upland communities along the steep sides of the site.

• Mine Spoil (Dominated by Indian Grass)—This cover type makes up approximately 15 to 20 percent of the site, about two acres. It is found throughout the flat lower area of the Water Treatment Plant Site and appears to be flooded irregularly. This habitat is characterized by a sparse herbaceous cover consisting mostly of one grass species, Indian grass (Sorghastrum natans) interspersed with open areas of bare soil. The cover grades into the phragmites community described above and appears to be mostly upland habitat.

• Water recharge basin (dominated by cattails or open water)—This wetland and aquatic community appears to have developed within a constructed depression. It consists of the open water pond community (approximately 0.2 acres) and two cattail communities (approx. 0.2 acres), comprising about four to five percent of the Water Treatment Plant Site. The area receives runoff from surrounding areas via culverts, and appears to allow the water to percolate into the underlying soil. There is a riser in the center of the pond that allows stormwater water to drain from the basin to an existing stormwater system that discharges to Minisceongo Creek. During larger storms, stormwater in excess of the capacity of the existing stormwater pond (i.e., over a set water elevation) is conveyed through a spillway to a 24-inch storm pipe, and ultimately to Minisceongo Creek via a natural drainage swale. In addition, the north-east edge of the basin has a separate overflow channel and outlet. This basin appears to be intermittently flooded during periods of heavy rains when the water extends to the adjacent habitat communities. The cattails and the open water appear to be saturated and or flooded permanently. The cattail community is dominated by broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia) but also has purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), common reed, spreading bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), northern sea-lavender (Limonium nashii) and mosses. The open water portion of the pond is devoid of emergent vegetation but is covered with algae.

• Bare earth/stockpiled material—Little or no vegetation occurs in this 6.1-acre portion of the Water Treatment Plant Site.

Raw Water Transmission Line Route Paved roadways cover the majority of the raw water transmission line route. However, an oak-hickory forest occurs along the raw water transmission line route west of Ecology Lane. This forested area is adjacent to the railroad line and shows signs of past disturbance. It is a secondary growth, uneven aged forest dominated by red oaks (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba) and black oak (Quercus velutina) of various ages. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and white ash (Fraxinus americana) are other tree species. Shrubby

9-21


undergrowth consists mostly of maple leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerfolium), multiflora rose and poison ivy.

WILDLIFE

Appendix 9.4 lists the mammalian, bird, and reptile and amphibian species with the potential to occur on the Project Sites on the basis of observations made during the April 24, 2008 site visit and existing information1. Species listed in these tables generally represent the species that are known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project Sites, and could be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project Sites if suitable habitat existed. Eight species of mammals, 30 species of birds, one reptile species, and three amphibian species were observed directly, or indirectly (e.g., tracks, scat, etc. ), at the Water Treatment Plant Site. Twelve species of birds were observed near the Intake Site. Wildlife with the potential to occur within the Project Sites are described in greater detail below.

Mammals On the basis of the existing habitats present on the Project Sites, the history of previous disturbance of the Water Treatment Plant Site, and the surrounding land uses, mammal species with the potential to use the Project Sites would generally be expected to comprise common species adapted to or tolerant of human development and disturbed habitats. The eastern cottontail, woodchuck, eastern chipmunk, eastern gray squirrel, meadow vole, white-footed mouse, muskrat, and white-tailed deer were observed at the Water Treatment Plant Site. Other mammals may also use the site, including opossum, house mouse, Norway rat, red fox, raccoon, striped skunk and other common species of shrews, mice, voles, moles, and bats. The Intake Site provides limited habitat for wildlife and is subject to more intense levels of human activity than the Water Treatment Plant Site. Consequently, fewer mammalian species would have the potential to use this site.

Birds While the New York Breeding Bird Atlas results from 1980 to 1985 and 2000 to 2005 suggest that as many as 90 species of birds might breed in the Project Sites if suitable habitat were present (see Appendix 9.4), suitable breeding habitat for many of these species is not present within the Project Sites. Most of the Water Treatment Plant Site is occupied by bare earth/stock-piled material. Vegetated habitat is limited to small patches of early successional (grassland), emergent marsh, and limited forest edge habitats. These remaining patches are limited in their ability to both support species of birds that require larger nesting areas and to support large numbers of birds known to nest in the types of habitats present on the site. The Project Sites provide limited stopover habitat for some migrating and winter residents that prefer early successional habitats (grasslands and emergent wetlands). A few species of birds (killdeer, redwing blackbirds, robins, song sparrows, and mallards) are expected to nest on or near the Water Treatment Plant Site. No Federal- or New York State-listed Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern species are expected to nest in the Water Treatment Plant Site, as discussed

1 Data sources included the New York Breeding Bird Atlas results from 1980 to 1985 and 2000 to 2005;

the New York Herp Atlas results from 1990 to 2000; the 2001 to 2006 Audubon Christmas Bird Count data from a site adjacent to the Haverstraw Landfill, and the Harriman—Bear Mountain State Park Database of mammals that occur in the relatively undeveloped Hudson Highlands to the north and west of the Project Sites.

9-22


below under “Endangered Species.” Examples of bird species with the potential to nest at the Intake Site include: rock pigeon, mourning dove, American robin, northern mocking bird, European starling, house finch, and house sparrow.

The Audubon Christmas Bird Count data from prior years includes 43 species identified as winter residents or late-fall migrants that use the landfill. Eighteen of these species were observed during the April 2008 site visit, and 28 of these species are identified as breeding in the vicinity of the Project Sites on the basis of the Breeding Bird Atlas data. Fifteen of the species listed in the Audubon Christmas Bird Count data are not believed to breed in the area and would primarily occur in the vicinity of the Project Sites as winter residents. These species include: snow buntings, peregrine falcon (Endangered), glaucous gull, ring-billed gull, northern harrier (Threatened), Cooper’s hawk (Special Concern), sharp-shinned hawk (Special Concern), dark-eyed junco, horned lark, eastern meadowlark, hooded merganser, short-eared owl (Endangered), American pipit, American tree sparrow, Savannah sparrow, white-throated sparrow, and winter wren.

Reptiles and Amphibians The New York Herp Atlas results from 1990 to 2000 includes a survey area much larger than the Project Sites. On the basis of the limited habitat found within the Project Sites, only a few of the species listed as occurring in this region of New York by the New York Herp Atlas (1990 to 2000) would be expected to occur on the Project Sites (see Appendix 9.4). Species observed on the Water Treatment Plant Site included bullfrog, green frog, and painted turtle. Other common species with the potential to occur on the site include snapping turtles, northern water snakes, northern brown snakes, eastern garter snakes, American toads, and red-backed salamanders. No Federal or New York State-listed threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern would be expected to occur on the Water Treatment Plant Site.

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND RARE SPECIES

Requests for information on rare, threatened, or endangered species within the immediate vicinity of the study area were submitted to NYNHP, USFWS, and NMFS. NYNHP identified the following three plant species listed as threatened or endangered by the NYNHP within the vicinity of the Project Sites. Two of these species are tidal wetland plants with historical records (1936) as having occurred in the Grassy Point Marshes just north of the Project Sites. None would be expected to occur within the Water Treatment Plant Site, Intake Site or raw water transmission line route.

• Heartleaf plantain (Plantago cordata), Threatened—Last report for this species was in 1936 within Grassy Point Marsh. This plant species typically occurs in grassy areas located at the high tide line. It prefers swamps, estuaries, and marshes, as well as freshwater shallow habitats (Brown et al. 1984).

• Spongy arrowhead (Sagittaria montevidensis var. spongiosa), Threatened—Last report for this species was also in 1936. This plant typically grows in freshwater tidal mud flats.

• Catfoot (Gnaphalium helleri var. micradenium), Endangered—Last report for this species was in 1936, in the tidal mud flats of Grassy Point Marsh.

Prior to the 1940s, the conservation status of these three plant species was as follows; heartleaf plantain (threatened), catfoot (endangered), and spongy arrowhead (threatened). Currently, there

9-23


is no historical information available to suggest the presence of these plant species within the Water Treatment Plant Site area and none of these species were observed during the site visit.

In addition to these three plant species, NYNHP also identified the Grassy Point Marshes to the north of the Project Sites as a Waterfowl Winter Concentration Area (Seoane 2008).

The USFWS list of federally threatened or endangered species and candidate species for Rockland County identifies four federally-listed wildlife species as occurring in the County: bald eagle, shortnose sturgeon, Indiana bat, and bog turtle. Of these species, only the shortnose sturgeon and bald eagle would have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Intake Site, and none would be expected to occur within the Water Treatment Plant Site or raw water transmission line route.

The NYNHP identified the endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) as potentially occurring in the Hudson River within the study area. Although not officially listed as endangered or threatened, the Atlantic sturgeon is a protected species that is known to occur in the lower Hudson River. The potential for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon to occur in the Hudson River within the study area, and for bald eagle to use the shoreline area in the vicinity of the Intake Site are discussed below.

Shortnose Sturgeon The federally and State-listed-endangered shortnose sturgeon is a semi-anadromous bottom-feeding fish that can be found throughout the Hudson River system. These fish spawn, develop, and overwinter in the mid-Hudson River up-estuary of the Project Sites (NYSDEC 2003). Shortnose sturgeon spend most of their lives in the Hudson River estuary and prefer colder, deeper waters for all life stages.

Although larvae can be found in brackish areas of the Hudson River, the juveniles (fish ranging from 2 to 8 years old) are predominately confined to freshwater reaches above the saline area. The primary summer habitat for shortnose sturgeon in the middle section of the Hudson River is the deep river channel (13 to 42 m deep, or 43 to 138 feet). The river channel downstream of this middle estuary area is 18 to 48 m deep (59 to 157 feet [Peterson and Bain 2002]).

The Hudson River shortnose sturgeon population was recently estimated to contain approximately 61,000 fish (Peterson and Bain 2002). These studies show that the population has increased approximately 450 percent since the 1970s. Size and body condition of the fish caught in these studies indicate the population is primarily healthy, long-lived adults. Although larvae can be found in brackish areas of the river, the juveniles (fish ranging from 2 to 8 years old) are predominately confined to freshwater reaches (Peterson and Bain 2002). The depth of water at the proposed intake location is about 20 feet, and would not be expected to provide optimal habitat for shortnose sturgeon. Individuals are only expected to occur near the Intake Site as transient individuals while traveling to or from Hudson River spawning, nursery, and overwintering areas.

Atlantic Sturgeon The Atlantic sturgeon, an NMFS candidate species, is also known to occur in the Hudson River and surrounding coastal waters. It is a large anadromous, bottom-feeding species that spawns in the Hudson River and matures in marine waters; females return to spawn at 18 years, males earlier (Bain 1997). In the Hudson River, Atlantic sturgeon are found in the deeper portions and do not occur farther upstream than Hudson, New York. Atlantic sturgeon migrate from the ocean upriver to spawn above the salt front from April to early July (Smith 1985, Stegemann 1999).

9-24


Their diet consists largely of benthic organisms (including worms and amphipods), plants, and small fish (Bain 1997, NYSDEC 2008). Overfishing, reduction of key spawning areas, and pollution have been suggested as reasons for the range-wide decline of this species (Smith 1985, Bain 2004). As discussed with respect to shortnose sturgeon, the approximately 20-foot depth of water in the vicinity of the proposed intake would not be considered optimal habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Individuals are only expected to occur near the Intake Site as transient individuals while traveling to or from Hudson River spawning, nursery, and overwintering areas.

Bald Eagle Over-wintering bald eagles (late December to early March) are known to forage in the nearby marshes, coves, inlets, and open-waters of the Hudson River. They often fly long distances from communal and day roost sites to forage at inland ponds, lakes and rivers with suitable prey (fish, waterfowl, and other injured and dead wildlife) during the winter. The Grassy Point marshes at the mouth of Cedar Pond Brook (NYSDEC Wetlands HS-3, 4, and 5) are identified as a waterfowl winter concentration area and have the potential to provide suitable foraging habitat for overwintering bald eagles. Waterfowl also use protected waters of coves, inlets, near-shore waters, and areas around manmade structures, including the Haverstraw Marina.

Over-wintering bald eagles occur along the Hudson River shoreline from Haverstraw to Stony Point; and have been observed to concentrate in the area of Bowline Pond and the Haverstraw Marina (HDR 2008 personal communication). At times 10 to 20 eagles may be using day roosts and foraging in these areas from late December to early March. Eagles have been observed using the large trees on the Intake Site for day roosts and foraging perches, as well as flow ice in the Hudson River and the roof of the U.S. Gypsum conveyor. Day roosts are also present on the edge of the Haverstraw Landfill, Haverstraw Marina property, shoreline trees, and trees in Grassy Point Marsh. Opportunistic foraging occurs in the Hudson River, Bowline Pond, the Haverstraw Marina, and in the Grassy Point Marsh as well in areas much farther from the proposed Intake Site.

In 2008, bald eagles successfully nested along the east side of the Hudson River a few miles north of the Intake Site in the vicinity of Stony Point. This was the first successful nest site confirmed in Rockland County and the adults are likely to use the same nest in following years. The adults from this site could forage in the vicinity of the Intake Site on a year-round basis. The two fledglings produced in 2008 are expected to forage in the Site vicinity through the winter and then would be expected to move out of the area.

Other Threatened or Endangered Species, or Species of Special Concern with the Potential to Occur in the Study Area In addition to the NYNHP list, several other species have been included in the impact assessment. These species were selected because they are currently listed by NYSDEC as either Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern and have been seen at or near the Project Sites at least once during recent surveys during the Rockland Audubon Society, Inc. (RAS) Christmas Bird Count. This survey is conducted as part of the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count and follows the national protocols. Christmas Bird Count data are generally only available for the 15-mile-diameter count circle. Data for the Haverstraw Landfill for the period 2003 to 2007, however, are available from RAS. The Audubon Christmas Bird Count data included five New York state listed species, winter residents or late fall migrants that use the Haverstraw Landfill adjacent to the Water Treatment Plant Site. These included the peregrine falcon (Endangered), northern harrier (Threatened), Cooper’s hawk (Special Concern), sharp-shinned

9-25


hawk (Special Concern), and short-eared owl (Endangered). The peregrine falcon, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk would be expected to use the area in the vicinity of the Project Sites as foraging habitat on an occasional basis. Short-eared owl, and northern harrier would be expected to use the area in the vicinity of the Project Sites as foraging habitat in the winter. In addition to these species, an osprey (Special Concern) was observed flying over the Project Sites during the April 2008 field survey, and American bittern (Special Concern) and pied-billed grebe (Threatened) have the potential to nest in the Grassy Point Marshes.

The checkered white butterfly (Pontia protodice) has the potential to use the Water Treatment Plant Site, although it has not been reported as occurring in the vicinity of the site. This species has been reported at Iona Island, 10 miles north of the Water Treatment Plant Site.

SPECIAL HABITAT AREAS

Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat NYSDOS has designated Haverstraw Bay as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The Haverstraw Bay Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat encompasses the entire river over this approximate six-mile reach, which is the widest section of the Hudson River. This brackish water portion of the river is highly productive and comprises a substantial part of the nursery area for striped bass, American shad, white perch, tomcod, and Atlantic sturgeon. Other anadromous species include blueback herring and alewife spawn in upstream freshwater areas but concentrate here before moving downriver in the fall. The bay is also a major nursery and feeding area for bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, and blueclaw crab. Depending on the location of the salt front, a majority of the spawning and wintering populations of Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson may reside here. The endangered shortnose sturgeon also overwinters here. Large numbers of waterfowl use the area for feeding and resting during spring and fall migrations. Despite various habitat disturbances, Haverstraw Bay possesses a combination of physical and biological characteristics that make it one of the most important fish and wildlife habitats in the Hudson River estuary (NYSDOS Undated).

The Lower Hudson River Estuary, the northern extent of which is the Haverstraw Bay, has also been designated as a USFWS Significant Habitat of the New York Bight. The lower Hudson supports regionally significant fish populations and wintering and migratory birds that feed there. It is the primary nursery and overwintering area for striped bass in the Hudson River estuary. There are 151 bird species and 80 fish species designated by the USFWS as of special emphasis (e.g., federally- and State-listed species) that use the Lower Hudson River Estuary (USFWS 1997).

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) The study area aquatic resources, generally Haverstraw Bay and the portions of the Hudson River immediately north and south of the Bay, is within a portion of the Hudson River Estuary/Raritan/Sandy Hook Bays, New York/New Jersey Estuary EFH (NMFS 2006). Table 9-3 lists the species and life stages of fish identified as having EFH in this broad area. Among the species listed in Table 9-3, the majority are marine species that would only be expected to occur in Haverstraw Bay on an occasional basis (see Appendix 9.5, the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment).

9-26


Table 9-3Summary of Federally Managed Species with

EFH Designations in the Project Sites

Species Eggs Larvae Juvenile Adult Spawning

Adult

Red Hake M,S M,S M,S

Winter Flounder M,S M,S M,S M,S M,S

Windowpane Flounder M,S M,S M,S M,S M,S

Atlantic Sea Herring M,S M,S M,S

Bluefish M,S M,S

Atlantic Butterfish M M,S M,S

Atlantic Mackerel S S

Summer Flounder F,M,S M,S M,S

Scup S S S S

Black Sea Bass M,S M,S

King Mackerel X X X X

Spanish Mackerel X X X X

Cobia X X X X

Clearnose Skate X X

Little Skate X X

Winter Skate X X Notes: S EFH designation includes the seawater salinity zone (salinity > or = 25ppt). M EFH designation includes the mixing water/brackish salinity zone (0.5 ppt < salinity < 25 ppt). F EFH designation includes the tidal freshwater salinity zone (0 ppt < salinity < 0.5 ppt). X EFH has been designated for a given species and life stage. Sources: NMFS 2006

D. THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT

FLOODPLAINS AND TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

In the future without the Proposed Project, floodplain, wetlands, and terrestrial resources within the Project Sites will remain in their current conditions and will continue to provide limited habitat to wildlife, as described in the previous sections.

WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

Proposed and ongoing projects aimed at improving water quality and aquatic resources in the Hudson River Estuary have the potential to improve water quality and aquatic habitat in the Hudson River within the study area for the Proposed Project. As described below, these projects are independent of the Proposed Project and the resulting improvements to water quality and aquatic resources will occur without the Proposed Project.

HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY PROGRAM

The Hudson River Estuary Program includes the portion of the Hudson River from the Troy Dam south to the Verrazano Narrows, and the surrounding watershed, also known as the Hudson

9-27


River Valley. This includes approximately 150 miles of the main stem of the lower Hudson River, upper New York Harbor, the Hudson’s tributaries, as well as upland areas. The Hudson River Estuary Program also gives consideration to pertinent issues in the upper Hudson, lower New York Harbor, the New York/New Jersey Bight, and the waters of Long Island Sound, as they influence the estuary and its resources.

The Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda 2005-2009 (the Action Agenda) (NYSDEC 2007) for the Hudson River Estuary Program develops long-range goals and measurable targets for the conservation and recovery of the Hudson River estuary and its surrounding watershed as called for in Section 11-0306 of the ECL. Development of the Action Agenda depends on partnerships for its implementation and success, recognizing the critical roles that local governments, non-profit organizations, federal agencies, citizens groups, and a wide range of economic interests must play to assure success.

The Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda Goals for 2005-2009 are as follows. For each goal, immediate actions were identified for completion by 2009, as well as additional actions to move significantly closer to the goals in the five to fifteen years that follow, by 2020.

• Signature Fisheries: Restore the signature fisheries of the estuary to their full potential, ensuring future generations the opportunity to make a seasonal living from the Hudson’s bounty, and to fish for sport and consume their catch without concern for their health.

• River and Shoreline Habitats: Conserve, protect, and, where possible, enhance critical river and shoreline habitats to assure that the life cycles of key species are supported for human enjoyment and to sustain a healthy ecosystem.

• Plants and Animals of the Hudson River Valley: Conserve for future generations the rich diversity of plants, animals, and habitats that are key to the vitality, natural beauty, and environmental quality of the Hudson River Valley.

• Streams and Tributaries of the Hudson River Estuary Watershed: Protect and restore the streams, their corridors, and the watersheds that replenish the estuary and nourish its web of life—a system critical to the health and well-being of Hudson Valley residents and the estuary.

• The Landscape: Conserve key elements of the human, pastoral landscapes that define the character of the Hudson River Valley and its setting of history and mystique.

• River Scenery: Conserve the key features of the world-famous river scenery—the inspiration for the Hudson River School of American painting and for the tales of Washington Irving—and provide new and enhanced vistas where residents and visitors can enjoy Hudson River views.

• Public Access: Establish a regional system of access points and linkages so that every community along the Hudson has at least one new or upgraded access point to the river for fishing, boating, swimming, hunting, hiking, education, and/or river-watching.

• Education: Promote public understanding of the Hudson River, including the life it supports and its role in the global ecosystem, and ensure that the public understands the challenges the Hudson River faces and how they can be met.

• Waterfront Revitalization: Revitalize all the waterfronts of the valley so that the Hudson is once again the “front door” for river communities, where scenery and natural habitats combine with economic and cultural opportunity, public access, and lively “green ports” and harbors to sustain vital human population centers.

9-28


• Water Quality: Ensure that the Hudson River will be swimmable from its source high in the Adirondack Mountains all the way to New York City.

• Pollution Reduction: Remove or remediate pollutants and their sources so that all life stages of key species are viable, and people can safely eat Hudson River fish, and so our harbors are free of the contaminants that constrain their operation.

• Celebrate Progress and Partnerships: Track the progress and celebrate the successes!

The Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) (NYSDEC 2005) prepared to assess the impacts, both beneficial and adverse, that may be associated with the development and implementation of the Action Agenda, concluded that the beneficial impacts of the Action Agenda, when implemented, will further the Estuary Program in its mission. Many of the program’s projects will contribute to meeting the Governor’s goals of protecting one million acres of open space in the state, ensuring adequate access to the river, and making the river swimmable from its source high in the Adirondack Mountains all the way to New York City. Other projects will ensure that New York State maintains compliance with regulatory and planning programs such as the Clean Water Act, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Endangered Species Act, the New York State Open Space Plan, the Hudson River Valley Greenway, and the State’s Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

Activities of the Estuary Program will result in an overall improvement in ecosystem health for the entire Hudson River watershed, including water quality in the estuary, its streams and tributaries, groundwater recharge areas, stormwater/flood management, and erosion control. A continued decline in the potential for exposure to contaminants of concern is expected as sources are identified and cleaned up and potential new sources are prevented through implementation of environmentally sound management practices. Proposed educational programs will create a more aware, pro-active community. Protection of the valley’s scenic and visual resources will preserve the area’s sense of place, its historic high quality of life and will contribute to the preservation of habitats.

While the implementation of the Action Agenda would result in beneficial effects, the FGEIS for the Hudson River Action Plan concluded that any course of action involving the management of natural resources may result in altered conditions that could be construed as having adverse effects. For example, management for some species may create conditions not favorable for other species. Increased human use as a result of improved access to and improved environmental condition of the river, may stress resources, resulting in negative impacts on the very resources being managed and conserved. This may create conflict within the program’s goals that aim to protect and restore critical habitats and species while improving access to and enjoyment of the river. Likewise, increased human activity in and along the estuary increases the potential for the introduction of invasive species. Habitat restoration activities may have unanticipated results, giving preference to some community types over others. To mitigate any adverse impacts that may result from Action Agenda activities, projects will incorporate a variety of best available management practices and technologies; appropriate training will be provided to Estuary Program partners involved in the stewardship of the area’s natural resources; and activities that involve other existing programs will comply with criteria set forth in these existing planning efforts, i.e., the Open Space Plan, the Hudson River Valley Greenway, and the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

9-29


HUDSON RIVER PCB SUPERFUND SITE PROJECT

From approximately 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company (GE) discharged as much as 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its capacitor manufacturing plants at the Hudson Falls and Fort Edward facilities into the Hudson River. The primary health risk associated with the site is the accumulation of PCBs in the human body through eating contaminated fish. Since 1976, high levels of PCBs in fish have led New York State to close various recreational and commercial fisheries and to issue advisories restricting the consumption of fish caught in the Hudson River. PCBs are considered probable human carcinogens and are linked to other adverse health effects. PCBs in the river sediment also affect fish and wildlife.

EPA’s February 2002 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site addresses the risks to people and ecological receptors associated with PCBs in the sediments of the Upper Hudson River. Phase I dredging activities to remove PCB-contaminated sediment are expected to start in 2009 (EPA Region 2, Hudson River PCBs, http://www.epa.gov/hudson/). PCB levels in fish are expected to decline in the future as a result of the cleanup project. The Project Sites for the Proposed Project are located in the Lower Hudson River portion of the Hudson River PCB site.

OTHER MEASURES

NYSDEC is working toward reducing fish mortality from impingement and entrainment at Hudson River power plants by imposing the “best technology available” (BTA) standard available under 6 NYCRR § 704.5 and the Clean Water Act (§ 316(b)). New plants (i.e., Athens, Bethlehem Energy Center, Bowline 3) and the Danskammer power plant have implemented BTA, and additional existing Hudson River power plants may implement BTA in the future. One plant (Lovett) has been recently decommissioned and is no longer in operation. By 2009, NYSDEC expects to reduce, or have schedules to minimize fish mortality at the six existing power plants by imposing the “best technology available” standard pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 704.5 and § 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, to minimize adverse environmental impact. Future Hudson River power plants will be required to reduce fish mortality over 2001 levels at once-through cooling plants, and reduce fish kills for all types of future water withdrawals compared to the impacts of unmitigated intake structures (NYSDEC 2007).

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

FLOODPLAINS

The intake pumping station and parking lot would be the only components of the Proposed Project within the 100-year floodplain. Construction and operation of the paved parking area, the intake pumping station building (approximately 4,500 square feet), and a driveway would not be expected to exacerbate flooding conditions near the Intake Site.

WETLANDS

CONSTRUCTION

The wetland features on the Water Treatment Plant Site would be lost during construction of the Proposed Project. These features are the result of prior stormwater management practices associated with the former landfill and, based on the current regulatory criteria, would probably

9-30


not be subject to USACE jurisdiction. Further coordination with the USACE will take place during the permitting phase of the Proposed Project. The use of Beach Road as the raw water transmission line route would minimize adverse impacts to the adjoining wetlands and watercourses. As currently envisioned, the pipe would be installed beneath Minisceongo Creek using a microtunneling technique, or traverse the creek adjacent to the existing bridge. Burying the pipe would not result in significant adverse impacts to the existing wetlands in the vicinity Beach Road. Placing the pipe adjacent to the bridge may result in loss of wetlands due to the placement of riprap at the edge of the creek in association with supports for the pipe. However, the area of wetlands affected by the placement of riprap would be minimal and would not result in a significant adverse impact to wetland resources.

The installation of the 60-inch casing pipe via a micro-tunnel technique from a launching pit on the shore would minimize the potential for disturbance of tidal wetlands during construction of the intake.

The Proposed Project would be covered under the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity Permit No. GP-0-08-001. To obtain coverage under this permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be submitted to NYSDEC. The SWPPP would comply with all of the requirements of GP-0-08-001, NYSDEC’s technical standard for erosion and sediment control presented in “New York Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control,” and NYSDEC’s technical standard for the design of water quantity and water quality controls (post-construction stormwater control practices) presented in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures, and stormwater management measures identified in the SWPPP would minimize potential impacts to tidal wetlands along the edges of the Intake Site and raw water transmission line route associated with discharge of stormwater runoff during land-disturbing activities resulting from construction of the Proposed Project.

OPERATION

It is anticipated that as part of the SWPPP prepared for the Water Treatment Plant Site, a new stormwater management basin would be developed in the northern portion of the Site (see Chapter 11, “Infrastructure”). Over time, this basin may develop habitat features similar to those lost as a result of construction of the Proposed Project. The operation of the intake, intake pumping station, and raw water transmission line would not directly affect tidal or freshwater wetlands, nor would the withdrawal of Hudson River water or discharge of RO concentrate to the Hudson River result in significant adverse impacts to the hydrology or water quality of Haverstraw Bay (see the discussion below under “Aquatic Resources”). Therefore, the operation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to tidal or freshwater wetlands.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

WATER QUALITY

Construction Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures (e.g., silt fences and straw bale dikes), and stormwater management measures as part of the SWPPP during construction and operation of the upland Project elements would minimize potential for significant adverse impacts to water

9-31


quality of the Hudson River and Minisceongo Creek associated with stormwater runoff during land-disturbing activities. More information on the SWPPP is provided in Chapter 11.

The primary in-water construction activity for the Proposed Project with the potential to result in sediment disturbance is the driving of sheet-pile cofferdam to be installed at the intake location in the Hudson River. As described in Chapter 15, “Construction Impacts,” all in-water construction work would be done using a barge-based crew using barge-mounted cranes. The work would be performed from a floating work platform created by connecting four barges1 together at the work zone. The barges would be in place for approximately 10 weeks. To create the cofferdam, sheet piling would be driven through the overburden to rock using a pile hammer or vibratory hammer. The enclosed area, or cell, would have a 30-foot diameter.

Before dewatering the inside of the cofferdam, the earthen material within the cofferdam would be excavated down to solid rock using a clamshell bucket, and the dredged material would be loaded onto a scow (a type of boat) anchored adjacent to the barges. Each time the scow is filled up, it would transport the dredged material back to shore, where it would be stockpiled on shore and subsequently trucked off-site for appropriate disposal.

Once all earth material is removed from the cofferdam, the inside of the cell would be dewatered and a concrete seal would be placed at the bottom of the cofferdam.

River water recovered during dewatering would be treated by a filter system to remove suspended particulates prior to discharge back into the Hudson River. Once the cofferdam is in place and dewatered, the trenchless tunneling techniques used to install the 60-inch steel casing and wedge-wire screen would be completed inside the cell and would have little potential to result in significant adverse impacts to water quality. Upon completion of raw water intake system, the steel sheets would be removed. In total, the construction of the intake is expected to be completed within five months. A small portion of the dredged material would be stored and replaced within the cofferdam to create substrate on top of the concrete. The dredged material would be replaced prior to removal of the sheet pile walls.

The installation and removal of the sheet piles, and the discharge of small amounts of river water recovered during dewatering, has the potential to result in disturbance of sediment, and consequently result in minor, short-term increases in suspended sediment, and resuspension and re-deposition of contaminants. These temporary effects would be localized and confined to the immediate vicinity of construction activity at the cofferdam. Any sediment resuspended during driving and removal of the sheet pile, or resulting from the discharge of river water recovered during dewatering, would move away from the area of in-water construction and would be expected to dissipate shortly after the completion of pile driving activity. Furthermore, the installation of the sheet piles, by encircling and containing the site for the installation of the water intake, would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to water quality associated with the construction of the intake structure and pipeline. Therefore, in-water construction activities would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality. Similarly, any contaminants released to the water column as a result of sediment disturbance would be expected to dissipate rapidly and would not result in significant long-term impacts to water quality.

1 It is anticipated the construction barges would comprise four 10.3- by 41.3-foot barges linked together to

form a 41.3- by 41.3-foot work area (1,705.7 sf, 0.04 acres). Barge draft would be 16.5 inches with no load and up to 60 inches with 59 ton load.

9-32


Operation At full build out (i.e., completion of Phase 3), the water treatment plant would be able to produce up to 7.5 mgd of potable water. As discussed in Chapter 2 of this DEIS, “Project Description,” depending on final designs for the Proposed Project, water may be withdrawn from the Hudson River through the water intake continuously throughout the day, or it may be withdrawn only approximately 12 hours per day during the ebb tide. In order to produce 7.5 mgd of potable water, approximately 10 million gallons of raw water must be withdrawn in a day. If the water is withdrawn over a 12-hour period rather than the full day, this may require raw water to be withdrawn at a peak rate of about 20 mgd during the 12-hour low tide period, depending on ambient river conditions (i.e., salinity and temperature). This water withdrawal would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to water quality of the Hudson River. At full build-out, the average daily inflow would be 10 mgd (6,944 gallons per minute [gpm]). The withdrawal may be operated during the late-ebb/early flood portion of the tidal period at 20 mgd (13,889 gpm) to obtain relatively low salinity water, or as a continuous withdrawal of 10 mgd when salinity variation is minimal. This withdrawal would not affect the Hudson River tidal flow, which reaches a maximum tidal flow of 67,329,000 gpm in the Haverstraw area.

The amount of water withdrawn for the Proposed Project would represent a minute fraction of the total freshwater flow of the Hudson River as it passes the Intake Site. According to USGS estimates, the annual mean flow rate of freshwater in the river as it passed Poughkeepsie in the years 1995 through 2004 ranged from a low of 12,000 cfs (5,385,970 gpm) to a high of 26,700 cfs (11,983,800 gpm) This does not account for the additional effect of saline water associated with tidal activity.

When considering the potential impact of the withdrawal of water for the proposed water treatment plant, the combined effect of the Proposed Project in addition to existing nearby facilities that withdraw water was considered. Two power generating plants are located within the area. The Bowline Generating Plant, located just south of the Proposed Project area, withdraws an average of 543,500 gallons of water per minute (782.6 mgd), while Indian Point Energy Center, located north of the Project area, removes an average 1,297,700 gallons per minute (1,868.6 mgd). The amount of Hudson River water withdrawn by the water treatment plant when operating would represent a fraction of the total amount of Hudson River water withdrawn for industrial purposes in Haverstraw Bay, and with appropriate siting analyses used to optimize the intake and wastewater discharge location, any impact associated with the proposed withdrawal of Hudson River water for the water treatment plant would be minimal.

The reverse osmosis (RO) process used for desalination would produce a concentrate that needs to be disposed. The Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and chloride (Cl) concentrations in the RO concentrate would be about six to seven times higher than the Hudson River water withdrawn through the intake. To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the aquatic resources of the Hudson River, the RO concentrate would be discharged into the treated effluent from the JRSTP, so that concentrate and non-saline effluent would be discharged together into the Hudson River through the JRSTP’s diffuser, under the JRSTP’s SPDES permit. The anticipated quantity of concentrate to be generated throughout the operational life span of the water treatment plant would not cause the JRSTP to exceed its permitted discharge volumes. JRSTP currently has an average plant flow of 4.3 mgd, minimum monthly flow of 3.4 mgd, and a minimum daily flow of about 2 mgd. At full build out, the water treatment plant is projected to generate approximately 1.32 mgd of RO concentrate. The salinity of the RO concentrate is estimated at 20 ppt. By 2015, the JRSTP is expected to generate approximately 8 mgd of effluent. Mixing the

9-33


RO concentrate with JRSTP effluent is projected to result in an effluent with a salinity of about 3.4 ppt. This salinity is well within the range of salinities that occur in Haverstraw Bay, but would be under some conditions, at or slightly above the concentrations within the Hudson River at the JRSTP diffuser. The 150-foot-long JRSTP diffuser is located in about 18 feet of water, approximately 800 feet from the shoreline. The results of hydrodynamic modeling conducted for the Proposed Project in order to select the best location for the raw water intake estimated that on average, the effluent from the JRSTP discharged to the Hudson River through the diffuser is diluted with the Hudson River at a ratio of 278:1. Therefore, during conditions when the salinity of the combined RO concentrate and JRSTP effluent would be higher than the Hudson River water, this high level of dilution achieved at the diffuser would minimize the potential for significant adverse impacts to water quality of the Hudson River.

As noted earlier in the discussion of existing conditions, the Hudson River within the study area is designated as NYSDEC Class SB saline surface water. The best usages of Class SB waters are primary and secondary contact recreation (e.g., swimming, and water sports), and fishing. Class SB waters should be suitable for fish propagation and survival. To allow use of this portion of the Hudson River as a drinking water source, it is possible that modifications may be made to the NYSDEC designation for this portion.

AQUATIC BIOTA

Construction Implementation of the SWPPP would minimize potential adverse impacts to aquatic biota from the discharge of stormwater during construction of the upland project elements. As described above under “Water Quality,” the only in-water construction activity with the potential to result in sediment disturbance and resulting increases in suspended sediment is the installation and removal of the sheet piles used to construct the cofferdam, and the discharge of river water recovered during dewatering. Increases in suspended sediment have the potential to result in temporary adverse impacts to fish and macroinvertebrates. However, as described previously, increases in suspended sediment would be localized and temporary and would not result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota of the Hudson River. While Hudson River sediments have been found to contain contaminants at concentrations that may pose a risk to some benthic macroinvertebrates, the resuspended sediments are expected to dissipate quickly, and redeposition within or outside the study area is not expected to adversely affect benthic macroinvertebrates or bottom fish.

Life stages of estuarine-dependent and anadromous fish species, bivalves and other macroinvertebrates generally are tolerant of elevated suspended sediment concentrations and have evolved behavioral and physiological mechanisms for dealing with variable concentrations of suspended sediment (Birtwell et al. 1987, Dunford 1975, Levy and Northcote 1982 and Gregory 1990 in Nightingale and Simenstad 2001, LaSalle et al. 1991). Fish are mobile and generally avoid unsuitable conditions such as increases in suspended sediment and noise (Clarke and Wilber 2000). While the localized increase in suspended sediment may cause fish to temporarily avoid the area where driving of the sheet pile is occurring, the affected area would be small. Similar nearby suitable habitats would be available for use by fish to avoid the area being disturbed. Fish also have the ability to expel materials that may clog their gills when they return to cleaner, less sediment laden waters. Most shellfish are adapted to naturally turbid estuarine conditions and can tolerate short-term exposures by closing valves or reducing pumping activity. Mobile benthic invertebrates that occur in estuaries have been found to be

9-34


tolerant of elevated suspended sediment concentrations. In studies of the tolerance of crustaceans exposed to suspended sediments for up to two weeks, nearly all mortality was caused by the extremely high suspended sediment concentrations (greater than 10,000 mg/L) (Clarke and Wilber 2000), which would not occur from the in-water work associated with the Proposed Project.

The installation of the sheet piles for the cofferdam has the potential to result in localized direct impacts to aquatic resources in Haverstraw Bay due to temporary noise and vibration effects during directional drilling, dredging, construction and pile-driving activities, and temporary loss of water column and benthic habitat from the installation of the cofferdam.

Directional drilling, dredging, construction and pile-driving activities would increase the noise levels in the surrounding waters. Noise impacts to fish have been documented in both freshwater and marine systems, although controlled experimental studies appear to be lacking (Hastings and Popper 2005). Fish are generally not affected by surface noise since most of it is reflected off the surface of the water. However, pile-driving can produce underwater sound pressure waves that can affect fish, with the type and intensity of sounds varying with factors such as the type and size of the pile, firmness of the substrate, depth of water, and the type and size of the pile driver. Larger piles and firmer substrate require greater energy to drive the pile resulting in higher sound pressure levels (SPL). Hollow steel piles appear to produce higher SPLs than similarly sized wood or concrete piles (Hanson et al. 2003). Impact hammers generate short pulses of sound with little of the sound energy occurring in the infrasound frequencies, the sound frequencies that have been shown to elicit an avoidance response in fish (Enger et al. 1993, Knudsen et al. 1994, and Sand et al. 2000 in Hanson et al. 2003). Therefore, fish have been observed exhibiting an initial startle response to the first few strikes of an impact hammer, after which fish may remain in an area with potentially harmful sound levels (Dolat 1997, NMFS 2001 in Hanson et al. 2003). While there is little data available on the SPL required to injure fish, fish with swim bladders and smaller fish have been shown to be more vulnerable (Hanson et al. 2003). The degree of damage to fish hearing organs from pile driving is not directly related to the distance of the fish from the pile, as underwater sound pressure levels do not necessarily decrease monotonically with increasing distance. Instead, it is related to the received level and duration of the sound exposure (Hastings and Popper 2005). Sound attenuates more rapidly in shallow waters than in deep waters (Rogers and Cox 1988 in Hanson et al. 2003).

During the construction of the intake and intake pumping station, the in-water construction period would be only five months, and the length of time during which sheet pile driving would occur for the cofferdam would expected to last no more than two weeks. The length of time for driving each new section of pile should be several hours. Because the length of time for driving each pile section is expected to be short, and the sound generated during pile driving intermittent, individual fish would not be exposed to potentially dangerous SPLs long enough to result in mortality. Therefore, the pile driving that would occur as a result of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota.

The installation of the cofferdam would result in the temporary loss of approximately 700 square feet (0.016 acre) of Hudson River bottom habitat and water column habitat within the dammed area. Benthic organisms unable to move from the vicinity of the cofferdam during driving of the sheet pile would be lost during dredging and dewatering activities. The loss of benthic organisms within this small area of river bottom would not have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to benthic invertebrate populations within the Hudson River, nor would the loss of these individuals result in significant adverse impacts to fish due to the loss of prey species. The

9-35


benthic macroinvertebrate community is expected to recover quickly upon completion of the intake structure, replacement of a portion of the dredged sediment, and removal of the cofferdam. Benthic abundance and diversity of benthic communities typically returns to reference or pre-dredging levels within a single year following cessation of dredging/construction activity, with species diversity and faunal similarity achieving pre-construction conditions rapidly. In cases where the disturbed area is not impacted by continued dredging/construction activity, unusually high sedimentation rates, or some other disturbance, natural succession should occur, restoring the original benthic community within one to five years (Van Dolah et al. 1992, Blake et al. 1996, Newell et al. 1998). Additionally, Bain et al. (2006) found little difference in the fish and benthic community between the area dredged at Pier 25 in Lower Manhattan following September 11, 2001, and other locations within the Hudson River Park in Manhattan in a two-year sampling study initiated in June 2002. This finding further suggests that long-term impacts to aquatic biota would not result from temporary increases in suspended sediment resulting from in-water construction activities for the Proposed Project.

The linked construction barges would result in adverse impacts to fish habitat due to shading but would be temporary (i.e., 10 weeks) and affect a small area, less than 0.04 acres. The temporary shading of this small area of aquatic habitat would not result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota.

Operation As discussed above, the discharge of RO concentrate into the treated effluent from the JRSTP, for discharge into the Hudson River, would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality of the Hudson River and would not, therefore, have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota. The permanent loss of bottom habitat would be small (approximately 707 square feet (0.02 acres) within the bottom of the 30-foot-diameter cofferdam that would be sealed with concrete), and the loss of this habitat would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to benthic macroinvertebrates or the fish community.

Because most brackish phytoplankton species are widely distributed and reproduce on the order of days, impacts of withdrawing 10 to 20 mgd of raw water through the wedge-wire screen would not result in a significant adverse impact to phytoplankton populations. Similarly, species of zooplankton that occur abundantly in Haverstraw Bay, such as A. tonsa, A. hudsonica, and E. affinis, are distributed over large portions of the estuary. For example, A. tonsa often dominates the zooplankton in salinities that range from oligohaline (0.5-5.0 ppt) to polyhaline (18-30 ppt). As such, withdrawal of 10 to 20 mgd from Haverstraw Bay would not result in a significant adverse impact to zooplankton populations.

The operation of the intake has the potential to result in long-term adverse impacts to fish and macroinvertebrates of the Hudson River due to:

• Impingement (i.e. trapping of fish on screens) and entrainment of aquatic organisms. • Loss of water column habitat and bottom habitat due to the footprint of the intake. • Localized (at least initially) changes in sedimentation due to alterations of bathymetric

contours and hydrodynamics

As described previously, the intake for the Proposed Project would be a wedge-wire screen designed to limit through-screen velocities to 0.5 fps with an approach velocity of less than 0.25 fps, and wire mesh screening with 2-mm vertical spacing. Wedge-wire screens have been shown

9-36


to virtually eliminate impingement (Hanson et al. 1978, Lifton 1979, Browne et al. 1981, and Great Lakes Research Division 1982) and have been shown effective for reducing entrainment of larval fish greater than 5 mm (0.2 inches) in length (Weisberg et al. 1987). Relying primarily on the hydrodynamics, EPA (2004b) determined that through-screen or through-slot velocities of 0.5 feet per second or less would virtually eliminate impingement and were best technology available. Studies available to EPA (2004a, 2004b) and more recent studies confirm that wedge-wire screens are also effective for reducing entrainment. EPA (2004a) has recognized wedge-wire screens as an effective technology for reducing impingement and, depending upon circumstances, for reducing entrainment. While EPA reached these conclusions regarding cooling water intake structures, they are applicable to water intakes, regardless of the purpose for which the water would be withdrawn.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has conducted recent studies assessing the efficacy of narrow slot wedge-wire screens for reducing entrainment (2003, 2006). EPRI (2003) reported on efficacy tests comparing 0.5 mm, 1.0, and 2.0 mm slot wedge-wire screens. The study concluded that cylindrical wedge-wire screens are capable of reducing entrainment to low levels for most species and life stages of fish; however, the effectiveness would vary based on slot size and of the fish. EPRI (2006) reached similar conclusions; however, this study only evaluated 0.5 and 1.0-mm slot screens.

The effectiveness of wedge-wire screens is related to: (1) physical exclusion based on the slot size of the wedge-wire screen; and (2) low through-slot velocity, which minimizes the hydraulic zone of influence of the intake (USEPA 2004). Bio-fouling and suspended sediment accumulation can cause problems for wedge-wire screen systems. However, passive (cylindrical) screens with wedge-wire mesh may be fitted with a pneumatic cleaning system, which utilizes a measured burst of air from inside the screen pod to remove debris. The intake for the Proposed Project would include such an air burst backwash system. The combination of low through-slot velocities and the cylindrical shape of the screens dissipates the velocity quickly and allows fish and other organisms to avoid the area of the intake. The design objective is to cause fish contacting the wedge-wire surface to roll off the screen and be carried away from the intake with the prevailing current. The proposed wedge-wire screen location would expose the intake to strong tidal currents that would create the conditions that have been found to result in very low impingement rates and reduced entrainment rates. The use of wedge-wire screen for the proposed intake represents best technology available and is intended to minimize any losses of fish and other aquatic biota due to impingement with the intake screen.

Appendix 9.1 contains the detailed assessment of potential impacts to the selected target fish species due to entrainment through the wedge-wire screen intake. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed withdrawal volume of 10 mgd of Hudson River water (potentially at a rate of 20 mgd over a 12-hour period) through a wedge-wire screen intake structure would result in some loss of aquatic organisms entrained at the intake. These losses would be minimized by incorporating the wedge-wire screen design parameters determined by EPA to constitute best technology available for minimizing impingement at intake structures, and recognized as effective for reducing entrainment—a through-screen velocity of 0.5 feet per second or less with an approach velocity of less than 0.25 fps, and 2.0-mm slot width. Under accepted standards for assessing potential impacts to aquatic organisms, the projected losses from the proposed withdrawal of Hudson River water through the wedge-wire screen would have minimal effects on the target fish populations in the Hudson River. The screen eliminates impingement impacts completely and minimizes entrainment by preventing juveniles and some post-yolk-sac larvae from entering the intake.

9-37


The use of the wedge-wire screen, considered best technology available for minimizing impingement, and reducing entrainment, would minimize losses to the target species, and would not result in significant adverse impacts to regional target species populations. The results of the analysis of each target species are summarized below.

• Bay Anchovy—Bay anchovy is a small forage fish generally frequenting the higher salinity portions of the estuary. It is most abundant during the spring and summer when spawning occurs. Based on the year-round 10 mgd scenario, density data from 1974-2006 yield an average total annual entrainment of 14.7 × 106 egg and larval bay anchovy. Using the more recent 2000-2006 data only, total losses average 9.4 × 106. These values correspond to 37,000 and 32,000 Age 1 equivalents, respectively. As a percentage of the total population, these losses represent approximately 0.10 percent and 0.09 percent of the population between RM 0 and RM 152. These are small absolute numbers and are also small compared to estimates of population size and yield to the fisheries which are in the millions. The bay anchovy losses are a very small portion of the large coastal population that is the source of the bay anchovy that enter the Hudson, and the small project loss would not result in significant adverse impacts to the Hudson River or coastal population of this species.

• American Shad—Adult American shad ascend the Hudson River in the spring to spawn in the upper reaches of the river and its tributaries. Most early life stages are found well upriver of the Croton-Haverstraw region. The juveniles emigrate in the fall, typically during late October through November. Based on the 1974-2006 density data, full year-round 10 mgd pumping yields an estimated average of 761 early life stage American shad entrained. In recent years, the American shad population has declined. Correspondingly, using just the 2000-2006 densities, an estimated 314 eggs and larvae would be entrained. In either case, the entrainment loss equates to only a single Age 1 equivalent. Based on the CMR results, these entrainment losses represent less than 0.0003 percent of the Hudson River American shad population. This small loss of the American shad population would not result in significant adverse impacts to the Hudson River population of this species, nor its ability to recover from its current reduced abundance.

• Striped Bass—Like American shad, adult striped bass ascend the Hudson River in early spring to spawn. Unlike shad, however, bass spawn in the mid regions of the estuary, including the Croton-Haverstraw region. After spawning, eggs and larvae begin drifting downstream, often following closely the salt front as it moves upstream and downstream with river flows and tides. Based on the 1974-2006 data, an estimated 2.5 × 106 eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screens. This equates to approximately 3,028 Age 1 equivalents. In recent years, the Hudson River striped bass population has been increasing. Using data from 2000-2006, therefore, yields somewhat higher losses—approximately 5.1 × 106 eggs and larvae or 5,681 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River striped bass population. Based on the 1974-2006 density data, those losses represent approximately 0.097 percent of the population. A similar fraction, 0.113 percent, was found for the 2000-2006 data suggesting that entrainment losses of striped bass are directly proportional to the size of the population in the river. This small loss of the striped bass population would not result in significant adverse impacts to the Hudson River population of this species.

• Atlantic Tomcod—Atlantic tomcod is a relatively small bottom-oriented species endemic to the cold waters of New England and Maritime Canada. In the Hudson River, it is near the southern limit of its distribution. Adult Atlantic tomcod ascend the Hudson River in mid-

9-38


winter with peak spawning during January and February. Early larval stages are generally found downstream of the salt front. Based on the 1974-2006 data, an estimated 0.276 × 106 eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screen. This equates to approximately 35 Age 1 equivalents. Using data from 2000-2006, yields somewhat higher losses—approximately 0.513 × 106 larvae or 60 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River Atlantic tomcod population, and would not result in significant adverse impacts to the Hudson River population of this species. Based on the 1974-2006 density data, those losses represent approximately 0.065 percent of the population. A similar fraction, 0.155 percent, was found for the 2000-2006 data.

• White Perch—White Perch is an abundant year-round resident of the Hudson River between New York City and Albany. During spring, white perch migrate upriver to spawn. Spent adults move back downriver to areas of higher salinity in the Croton-Haverstraw and Tappan Zee regions. Larvae begin to disperse downriver in July. By late summer and early fall, the young-of-year move to deeper offshore areas of the middle and lower estuary to overwinter (EA EST 1995; Klauda et.al. 1995). Based on the 1974-2006 data, an estimated 0.445 × 106 eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screen. This equates to approximately 1005 Age 1 equivalents. Using data from 2000-2006, yields somewhat lower losses—approximately 0.399 × 106 eggs and larvae or 894 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River white perch population. This small loss of the white perch population would not result in significant adverse impacts to the Hudson River population of this species. Based on the 1974-2006 density data, those losses represent approximately 0.026 percent of the population. A similar fraction, 0.025 percent, was found for the 2000-2006 data.

• River Herring—The alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) are closely related species with similar distributions, ecological roles and environmental requirements. The eggs and larvae of these species are often indistinguishable and are thus collectively referred to as Alosa spp. All of the abundance data collected in the long river program of the early life stages of these species are treated as such and this collective reference also includes river herring. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the alewife and blueback herring would be examined together as river herring. Within the Hudson River, alewife and blueback herring spawn primarily in the Catskill and Albany regions beginning in April (EA EST 1995). Yolk-sac and post-yolk-sac larvae are most abundant in the upper estuary, though the larvae would eventually disperse downriver. Post-yolk-sac larvae have been found as far south as the Battery region (RKM 1-19) in early June. By late June and July, juvenile alewife and blueback herring are found primarily in the middle estuary region (EA EST 1995). Based on the 1974-2006 data, an estimated 0.183 × 106 eggs and larvae would be entrained through the wedge-wire screen. This equates to approximately 254 Age 1 equivalents. Using data from 2000-2006, yields somewhat higher losses—approximately 0.171 × 106 eggs and larvae or 264 Age 1 equivalents. Conditional mortality rates indicate that the entrainment losses comprise only a very small fraction of the Hudson River river herring population. Based on the 1974-2006 density data, those losses represent approximately 0.0065 percent of the population. A similar percentage, 0.0081 percent, was found for the 2000-2006 data. This small loss of the river herring population would not result in significant adverse impacts to the Hudson River population of these species.

The results of the alternative entrainment analysis that used entrainment data from Bowline Generating Plant (Appendix 9.1) scaled to the proposed intake withdrawal volumes indicated

9-39


similar findings to those discussed above. In fact, the Bowline analysis suggests that the minimal levels of losses to the seven fish species may actually be overestimates of impact if adjustments for onshore-offshore differences in fish abundance patterns were accounted for. Actual losses are likely to be less than estimated above. Hence, the estimates discussed above are considered conservative and indicate that the operation of the intake would not result in a significant adverse impact to the fish resources of Haverstraw Bay.

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

The Proposed Project would permanently alter the habitat within the Project Sites and, therefore, has the potential to adversely affect the existing terrestrial communities. The following sections evaluate the potential project-related impacts to the vegetation on the Project Sites, and wildlife that may be impacted during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Project.

VEGETATION

Construction activities would disturb most of the habitats on the Intake Site, raw water transmission line route, and the Water Treatment Plant Site.

The construction of the intake pumping station, parking area, and shoreline launching pit required for the micro-tunnelling operation to be used to install the water intake would result in the clearing of most or all of the limited vegetation within the one-acre Intake Site. As a result of construction of the Intake Site, three large individual trees that have been observed being used by overwintering bald eagles, as perches during foraging activity would be removed. These trees include one American elm, diameter at breast height (dbh) approximately 36” that appears to be healthy and a size that is uncommon for the region; a large black willow with two trunks, one 34.5” dbh and the second 32” dbh; and a smaller, non-native pine. The elm is the only tree of significance on the Intake Site. Additional coordination with NYSDEC would be conducted with respect to overwintering bald eagles and use of the Intake Site for perching habitat prior to the anticipated start of intake pump station and intake structure construction.

The area of disturbance for the Proposed Project (area of buildings, roads and grading limits) would result in the loss of approximately 3 acres of vegetated habitat within the Water Treatment Plant Site, comprising a variety of early successional and/or previously disturbed communities, and approximately 6.1 acres of which is bare earth/stockpiled material. The loss of these disturbed habitats, which contain a high number of invasive and/or non-native plant species which are common to ruderal1 plant communities within the region, would not result in significant adverse impacts to regional vegetation resources.

The installation of the raw water transmission line would adversely impact approximately 1.38 acres of oak-hickory forest near Ecology Lane due to clearing and installation of the pipe. This minimal loss, while it is adverse, would not result in significant adverse impacts to this habitat type, which is distributed throughout the upstate New York region.

1 Ruderal communities are those growing where the natural vegetational cover has been disturbed by man.

9-40


WILDLIFE

Construction Potential project-related impacts to wildlife can be described as either short-term or long-term, and as either direct or indirect. Short-term impacts are those that occur during the construction phase but diminish or even disappear once construction is finished. Long-term impacts are those effects that remain well after construction is completed and/or during operation of the Proposed Project. Direct impacts are those that act upon the organism itself, such as disturbance, physical injury, or death. Indirect impacts, by contrast, are those effects that alter the individual’s habitat or food source. These types of impacts are discussed below.

Potential impacts to wildlife resources are discussed in terms of indicator species (i.e., species considered sensitive to disturbance or representative of other species) or groups of species that would respond similarly to project-related effects. Muskrat, small mammals, birds, waterfowl, bird assemblages typical of early successional habitats, painted turtles, and green frogs are discussed for wildlife. Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, northern harriers, short-eared owls, Cooper’s hawk, and special concern species are discussed for endangered and threatened species. Potential impacts are also discussed in terms of location within the Project Sites as appropriate.

Site clearing, grading, and construction within the Project Sites would have the potential to disturb wildlife using habitats within these areas and may result in the direct loss of individual wildlife that are less mobile and/or secretive species (e.g., small mammals, turtles, snakes, salamanders, frogs, and toads), due to collision with construction equipment, or burial during site clearing and grading. In particular, reptiles and amphibians, and mammals such as muskrat, observed or with the potential to use the stormwater management retention pond and other areas of the site containing wetland hydrology (e.g., bullfrog, green frog, painted turtle, snapping turtle, eastern garter snake, American toad, and red-backed salamanders) would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Project. The loss of wildlife individuals using the three-acre portion of the Water Treatment Plant Site containing wildlife habitat, while an adverse impact, would be low and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to regional populations of these species. Other mammals and birds using the portion of the Water Treatment Plant Site with wetland hydrology (e.g., eastern cottontail, mice, white-tailed deer, redwing blackbird, and robin) would likely move to nearby suitable habitats in response to disturbance and habitat loss in the Site. However, wildlife individuals unable to find suitable habitat nearby would be adversely affected by construction activities. The loss of these few individuals, while an adverse impact, would not result in significant adverse impacts to regional populations of these common species.

The Intake Site provides limited habitat for birds and other wildlife species common to habitats affected by human development and activity (i.e., rock pigeon, mourning dove, American robin, European starling, house finch, and house sparrow). Construction activities on the Intake Site would have the potential to disturb wildlife individuals using this area, adversely affecting those individuals unable to find suitable available habitat in the vicinity of the Intake Site. The potential loss of a small number of wildlife, while an adverse impact, would not result in significant adverse impacts to regional populations of these common species. Construction on this Site would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to concentrations of wintering waterfowl known to use the marsh and protected areas of the Hudson River (pier areas, coves, marinas, and near-shore areas) near the Intake Site, due to the limited area and

9-41


duration of disturbance associated with the construction of the intake, and the existing level of human activity already occurring within the vicinity of the Intake Site.

Depending on the schedule, construction may disturb some overwintering bird species using early successional habitats, or spring or fall bird migrants in the vicinity of the Water Treatment Plant Site. In addition, a portion of the raw water transmission line would be constructed through forested habitat and, as a result, may negatively affect some forest edge species.

Operations The operation of the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife resources. The stormwater management pond that would be constructed on the Water Treatment Plant Site would, over time, have the potential to provide habitat for some of the wildlife species currently using the ponded area within the site. Additionally, because the level of human activity at the Water Treatment Plant Site is expected to be limited, the operation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife currently using the habitats present on the landfill to the east of the Water Treatment Plant Site, or other adjacent habitat areas.

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND RARE SPECIES

By definition, Endangered and Threatened species have been negatively impacted to the extent that their numbers may not be secure and there is significant agency concern for their long-term survival. Special Concern species are species whose numbers/populations also appear to be declining, but are believed to be secure.

Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon The preference of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeons for deep water habitat suggests that it is unlikely that individuals of either species would occur in the vicinity of the intake location except perhaps as occasional transients. No shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon were collected during impingement or entrainment studies at the Lovett or Bowline power plant during the years available for this assessment (EA 1989, 1998; Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2002, 1998, 1997a, 1997b, 1994, 1993, 1992). Because water quality impacts associated with in-water construction activities for the Proposed Project would be localized, the deep channel habitat preferred by shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon would not be adversely impacted during installation or removal of the sheet pile for the cofferdam, or other in-water construction activities associated with the intake. Discharge of the RO concentrate through the JRSTP effluent would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality of the Hudson River (see previous discussion under “Water Quality”) and would not, therefore, have the potential to result in significant adverse impact to sturgeon.

Operation of the intake would not result in significant adverse impacts to sturgeon caused by impingement or entrainment due to the wedge-wire screen. As discussed previously, wedge-wire screens have been proven effective in minimizing impacts due to impingement, and sturgeon would not be expected to occur in the vicinity of the screen.

Shortnose sturgeon spawn in upriver freshwater portions of the Hudson, from the area below the Troy Dam to approximately RM 100 (Bain 1997), in a turbulent and relatively shallow waters (Bain et al. 2007). Eggs are approximately 3.5 mm (0.14 inches) in diameter and are demersal (i.e, they adhere to bottom material), increasing in size to approximately 4 mm (0.16 inches) (Kynard 1997). The eggs hatch in approximately two to three days, depending on water

9-42


temperature. Yolk-sac larvae are approximately 7 to 11 mm long (0.28 to 0.43 inches), have limited motility and seek cover during final development (Kynard 1997). Post yolk sac larvae develop in approximately 8 to 12 days, are about 15 mm in length (0.6 inches), and are fully motile, dispersing downstream (Kynard 1997). Eggs and larvae of Atlantic sturgeon are smaller than shortnose sturgeon, ranging in size between 2.4 and 2.9 mm (Vladykov and Greeley 1963, and NOAA and USFWS 1998). Newly hatched Atlantic sturgeon larvae are 11 mm long (0.43 inches) (Atlantic sturgeon Coastal Species Information System-Virginia Tech http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/macsis/lists/M010389.htm). Therefore, both the eggs and the larvae of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon would be expected to be large enough to be excluded by the proposed wedge-wire screen and would not be impacted due to entrainment.

Rare Vegetation As discussed previously, the NYNHP provided historical records of heartleaf plantain, catfoot, and spongy arrowhead within the vicinity of the Water Treatment Plant Site prior to 1979. Heartleaf plantain historically has been found to prefer swamps, estuaries, and marshes, as well as freshwater shallow habitats (Brown et al. 1984). The last report of heartleaf plantain in the Water Treatment Plant Site area was in 1936 within the Grassy Point Marsh. Catfoot was documented in 1938 on a small pasture overgrown by bushes and trees in Garnerville. Spongy arrowhead is another plant species documented in 1936 and was found in the tidal mud flats of Grassy Point Marsh.

Currently, there is no historical information available to suggest the presence of these plant species within the Project Sites, and the existing habitats within the Project Sites are not expected to be suitable for these species. None of these species were observed during the site visit. Consequently, the construction and operation of the water treatment plant would not adversely impact rare or threatened vegetation species.

Rare Wildlife Endangered Species

• Peregrine Falcon—The Proposed Project would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to peregrine falcon. This species is known to nest and hunt in urban environments and is therefore, unlikely to avoid the Project Sites during construction or operation of the Project. The area of disturbance due to the Proposed Project is small (i.e., less than five acres) and would not result in a significant loss of prey species.

• Short-eared Owl—Only one individual short-eared owl has been seen during five Christmas Bird Counts conducted at the location by Rockland Audubon Society, Inc. Although it nests on the ground in areas of short grass, there is no evidence that it nests on the Project Sites. The Project Sites provide limited wintering habitat for this species. The loss of these areas would not result in significant adverse impacts to short-eared owl. Additionally, the construction and operation of the water treatment plant would not be expected to adversely affect use of the landfill adjacent to the water treatment plant as wintering habitat. The Christmas Bird Count sightings of short-eared owl at the landfill were on the eastern quarter of the landfill. Threatened Species

• Bald Eagle—At the shoreline Intake Site, loss of over-winter habitat for bald eagles would occur due to the planned removal of several trees that could be used for day roosts and foraging perches. While the loss of these roosting trees would have the potential to adversely affect overwintering bald eagles due to a possible reduction in foraging activity within the

9-43


vicinity of the Intake Site, these impacts would not be significant due to the presence of other known roosting and perching habitats in the vicinity of the Intake Site. In addition to being observed roosting and perching during the day on the large trees at the Intake Site, eagles have also been observed using flow ice in the Hudson River when present, the roof of the U.S. Gypsum conveyor, day roosts at the edge of the landfill, at the Haverstraw Marina property, and on trees in Grassy Point Marsh. While construction of the intake and the intake pumping station during the winter would have the potential to adversely affect overwintering bald eagles and result in avoidance of foraging habitat in the vicinity of the site, it would not result in significant adverse impacts to overwintering bald eagles. Operations/maintenance at, and around, the Intake Site may result in disturbance to roosting/foraging bald eagles during certain periods (e.g., this would vary based on the projected periods of occupancy at the Intake Site, or times when an operator is on site), but would not result in significant adverse impacts as other known roosting sites are present in the vicinity of the Intake Site. In order to minimize potential adverse impacts to overwintering bald eagles, to the extent possible outside construction activities would be kept to a minimum in areas being used by bald eagles during the overwintering period. Additional coordination with NYSDEC would be conducted with respect to overwintering bald eagles and use of the Intake Site for perching habitat prior to the anticipated start of intake pumping station and intake structure construction. Installation of the raw water transmission line may also result in some disturbance as the route passes near several bald eagle roost sites along Minisceongo Creek (disturbance to roosting eagles could occur during winter construction). It is unlikely that any bald eagle roost trees/habitat would be lost along the raw water transmission line route. As currently envisioned, the raw water transmission line would be constructed beneath Minisceongo Creek using microtunneling technique, or would traverse the creek adjacent to the bridge, and would result in minimal disturbance of vegetation adjacent to the creek. The bald eagle nesting area north of the Intake Site would not be adversely impacted; however, foraging adults and fledglings from the nest may avoid foraging and perching near the Intake Site and raw water transmission line during construction. The treatment plant construction and operation is not expected to adversely impact foraging, roosting or nesting bald eagles.

• Northern Harrier—Development at the Water Treatment Plant Site would cause the long-term loss of a small portion of the wintering forage area for the northern harrier. Harriers tend to forage over very large areas and have been seen flying over Ecology Lane in order to reach adjacent fields. Installation of the raw water transmission line could cause a short-term disruption of this movement, but the area that would likely be avoided comprises a small portion of the wintering forage area and its loss would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to this species. Northern harrier would not be expected to use the habitats available at the Intake Site. Therefore, construction activities and operation of the intake pumping station at the Intake Site would not result in significant adverse impacts to this species.

Species of Special Concern • Cooper’s Hawk—Christmas Bird Counts have found Cooper’s hawk perched in the trees

along Minisceongo Creek and along Ecology Lane. The latter location is probably the result of the large numbers of potential prey (starlings, redwings, cowbirds, and grackles) that congregate near the JRSTP on Ecology Lane. The installation of the raw water transmission line would have the potential to result in short-term disturbance at the Ecology Lane

9-44


roosting/hunting area if it occurred during the winter. However, because similar foraging habitat is available in the vicinity of the pipe route, the temporary loss of this foraging area during construction would not result in significant adverse impacts to this species.

• Sharp-shinned Hawk—Sightings of this species during the Christmas Bird Count are generally of perched individuals in the trees along Minisceongo Creek and along Ecology Lane. Small birds such as white-throated sparrow, song sparrow, and dark-eyed junco are favored prey and overwinter in large numbers the region of the proposed Water Treatment Plant Site and along the forested section of Ecology Lane (west of the JRSTP) near the raw water transmission line route. Construction and operation of the water treatment plant could cause short-term disturbance to these hunting areas but would not be expected to result in a significant adverse impacts to sharp-shinned hawks due to the availability of other suitable foraging habitat in the vicinity of the Project Sites. Because operation of the water treatment plant would not result in significant increases in human activity at the Water Treatment Plant Site, the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in a significant loss of foraging habitat or prey species for sharp-shinned hawks. Both sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks have adapted to hunting around residential bird feeders and are not particularly disturbed by human presence.

• Osprey—In recent years, a pair of osprey has been seen throughout the summer in Grassy Point Marsh. Their summer occurrence suggests nesting in the vicinity, but nesting has not been reported. An osprey nesting platform has been erected in the marsh, but as of 2007, it had not been used. However, construction and operation would not adversely affect the potential for future nesting on this platform. The nest platform is located approximately 3,000 feet away from the Project Sites and all foraging activities would be over open water. Additionally, osprey appear to be tolerant of human activity, often nesting in exposed, heavily trafficked areas.

• Checkered White—It is unlikely that the Project Sites provide critical habitat for this species as the preferred host plants, members of the mustard family, are widespread throughout Rockland County. Therefore, the loss of a small area of habitat would not result in significant adverse impacts to this species.

SPECIAL HABITAT AREAS

Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat As discussed above, the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality during construction or operation, nor would it result in significant adverse impacts to the species identified as important for the Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat of Haverstraw Bay due to in-water construction activities.

The intake construction has been designed to minimize effects on the significant habitat. Measures to protect aquatic life and aquatic habitat during construction of the intake in the Hudson River would include the use of a sealed sheet-pile cell that would contain the dredging and all construction work in the river. The period when in-water construction would occur would be based on seasonal limitations developed in coordination with NYSDEC and NYSDOS to avoid adverse impacts to fish spawning and early development. There would be no significant loss of habitat quantity and only a temporary reduction of functional value during and immediately after construction. Restoration of the disturbed area through natural processes would result in a complete restoration of the functional values of the designated habitat. The construction activities would not alter the physical, biological, and chemical processes of

9-45


Haverstraw Bay; thus the habitat would recover as it has from the previous dredging operations that were not designed and conducted with the care applied to the proposed intake. While the construction of the intake has the potential to disturb waterfowl, the in-water construction period would be short and would not affect a large area of the Bay. Therefore, construction of the intake would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to waterfowl that use the area for feeding and resting during spring and fall migrations.

Operation of the raw water intake has also been designed to minimize adverse effects on the significant habitat. The use of the wedge-wire screen with 2-millimeter slot size and a through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps or less with an approach velocity of less than 0.25 fps are considered best technology available for minimizing impingement, and reducing entrainment, would minimize losses to the target fish species, and would not result in significant adverse impacts to regional target species populations, or to regional populations of other fish, plankton or macroinvertebrates. The use of a wedgewire screen intake represents the best technology available to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic life at a water intake of this size. In addition, as described earlier, the discharge of RO concentrate together with treated effluent from the JRSTP through the JRSTP’s diffuser into the Hudson River would not adversely affect salinity conditions in the Hudson River.

Early life stages of striped bass, American shad, white perch, tomcod, and Atlantic sturgeon using the Bay as a nursery area would not be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project due to impingement or entrainment. Other anadromous species known to use Haverstraw Bay, including blueback herring and alewife, before moving downriver in the fall would similarly not be significantly affected due to impingement or entrainment, nor would bay anchovy, Atlantic menhaden, or blueclaw crab. As discussed above, construction and operation of the intake would not result in significant adverse impacts to shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon.

Essential Fish Habitat The construction and operation of the intake would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality, nor would it result in significant adverse impacts to EFH. Table 9-3, earlier in this chapter, lists the species and life stages of fish identified as having EFH in the vicinity of Haverstraw Bay. As discussed under “Aquatic Resources,” the in-water construction activities associated with the construction of the intake would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality or to aquatic biota, and would not result in significant adverse impacts to EFH. Additionally, as discussed previously under “Aquatic Resources,” the operation of the intake and discharge of RO concentrate to the JRSTP effluent would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality, hydrology, or the physical habitats of Haverstraw Bay. The projected loss of aquatic biota through entrainment would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources, and would not result in a significant loss of forage to predatory fish using the habitats within Haverstraw Bay (e.g., striped bass). The permanent loss of benthic macroinvertebrates within the footprints of the intake support structure would not significantly impact the food supply for fish foraging in the area. Therefore, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to EFH.

Winter Waterfowl Winter Concentration Area NYNHP notes that the Grassy Point Marsh at the mouth of Cedar Pond Brook is a waterfowl winter concentration area. This conclusion was based on a 1986 report and carries no legal standing. The designated waterfowl concentration area borders part of the raw water transmission line route. Any winter disturbance along the route would be short-term and would

9-46


only impact a small portion of the eastern side of the area of the Grassy Point Marsh area. This limited amount of disturbance would not be expected to deter use of the Grassy Point Marsh area by waterfowl during spring or fall migration, or during the winter. Additionally, recent Christmas Bird Count data do not support the region as a concentration area. During the Christmas Bird Count years, only small numbers of mallard, American black duck, and hooded merganser were seen in the area during December. This observation does not, however, preclude higher waterfowl concentrations during the fall and spring migrations. Major concentrations of canvasback and common merganser overwinter in Stony Point Bay, just north of the proposed Intake Site. Typically, these ducks stay north of Grassy Point and would not be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the Proposed Project.

CONCLUSIONS

The Proposed Project would not cause any significant adverse impacts on terrestrial plant communities or wildlife, or on threatened or endangered species, floodplains, wetlands, or water quality in the Hudson River and Minisceongo Creek. Construction activities associated with installation of the shore-based intake pipe and the raw water transmission line using directional drilling, with the use of a cofferdam at the intake location within the Hudson River, would minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources of the Hudson River and Minisceongo Creek during construction of the Proposed Project. Implementation of the erosion and sediment control measures, and stormwater management measures identified in the SWPPP would minimize potential impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources associated with discharge of stormwater runoff during land-disturbing activities resulting from construction of the Proposed Project. The loss of approximately three acres of disturbed vegetated habitat within the Water Treatment Plant Site would not result in significant adverse impacts to regional terrestrial plant communities or wildlife resources.

The discharge of RO concentrate into the JRSTP effluent would not result in significant adverse impacts to water quality or aquatic biota of the Hudson River. The proposed withdrawal of Hudson River water at a rate of 20 mgd for a period of 12 hours each day through a wedge-wire screen intake structure would result in some loss of aquatic organisms entrained at the intake. These losses would be minimized by incorporating the wedge-wire screen design parameters determined by EPA to constitute best technology available for minimizing impingement at intake structures, and recognized as effective for reducing entrainment—a through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps or less with an approach velocity of less than 0.25 fps, and 2.0-mm slot width. Under accepted standards for assessing potential impacts to aquatic organisms, the use of the wedge-wire screen, considered best technology available for minimizing impingement, and reducing entrainment, would minimize losses to the target fish species, and would not result in significant adverse impacts to regional target species populations, or to regional populations of other fish, plankton or macroinvertebrates. The operation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to birds and other wildlife using the existing habitats adjacent to the Project Sites.

9-47


F. REFERENCES Able, K.W. and S.M. Hagen. 2000. “Effects of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Invasion

on Marsh Surface Macrofauna: Response of Fishes and Decapod Crustaceans.” Estuaries 23: 633-646.

Able, K.W., S.M. Hagan, and S.A. Brown. 2003. “Mechanisms of Marsh Habitat Alteration Due to Phragmites: Response of Young-of-the-Year Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to Treatment for Phragmites Removal.” Estuaries 26:484-494.

Abood, K.A., T.L. Englert, S.G Metzger, C.V. Beckers, T.J. Groninger, and S. Mallavaram. 2006. “Current and Evolving Physical and Chemical Conditions in the Hudson River Estuary.” Hudson River Fishes and Their Environment. J. Waldman, K. Limburg, and D. Strayer, eds. American Fisheries Society Symposium 51:39-61.

Angradi, T.R., S.M. Hagan, and K.W. Able. 2001. “Vegetation Type and the Intertidal Macroinvertebrate Fauna of a Brackish Marsh: Phragmites vs. Spartina.” Wetlands 21:75-92.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2006. American Shad: Life History & Habitat Needs. Available: www.asmfc.org.

Auld, A.H. and J.R. Schubel. 1978. “Effects of Suspended Sediment on Fish Eggs and Larvae: A Laboratory Assessment.” Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 6:153-164.

Ayer, Gordon R. and F. H. Pauszek. 1963. “Creeks, Brooks and Rivers in Rockland County, New York and Their Relation to Planning for the Future.” New York State Chamber of Commerce Bulletin No. 3.

Bain, M.B. 1997. “Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common & Divergent Life History Attributes.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:347-358.

Bain, M.B. 1997. “Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common and Divergent Life History Attributes.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:347-358.

Bain, M.B. 2004. April 2, 2004. Personal communication of Mark Bain (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY) with Jennifer Wallin (AKRF, Inc., Hanover, MD).

Bain, M.B., M.S. Meixler, and G.E. Eckerlin. 2006. “Biological Status of Sanctuary Waters of the Hudson River Park in New York.” Final Project Report for the Hudson River Park Trust. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY.

Bain, M.B., N. Haley, D.L. Peterson, K.K. Arend, K.E. Mills, and P.J. Sullivan. 2007. “Recovery of a U.S. Endangered Fish.” PLoS ONE 2(1): e168. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000168.

Barbour, J.G. and E. Kiviat. 1997. “Introduced Purple Loosestrife as Host of Native Saturniidae (Lepidoptera).” Great Lakes Entomologist 30(3): 115-122.

Birtwell, I.K., M.D. Nassichuk, H. Beune, and M. Gang. 1987. “Deas Slough, Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia: General Description and Some Aquatic Characteristics.” Can. Fish. Mar. Serv. Man. Rep. No. 1464.

Black and Veatch New York LLP. 2008. Conceptual Design Report Long-Term Water Supply Project. Prepared for United Water New York. June 2008.

9-48


Blake, N.J., L.J. Doyle, and J.J. Culter. 1996. “Impacts and Direct Effects of Sand Dredging for Beach Renourishment on the Benthic Organisms and Geology of the West Florida Shelf.” Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Office of International Activities and Marine Minerals (INTERMAR). OCS Report MMS 95-0005.

Blossey, B., and V. Nuzzo. 2004. “Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Biological Control Monitoring Program for the Lower Hudson River Valley.” Ecology and Management of Invasive Plants Program. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. 1-44.

Blossey, B., L.C. Skinner, and J. Taylor. 2001. “Impact and Management of Purple Loosestrife in North America.” Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1787-1807.

Boreman, J. and R.J. Klauda. 1988. “Distributions of Early Life Stages of Striped Bass in the Hudson River Estuary, 1974–1979.” American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:53-58.

Boreman, J., C.P. Goodyear, and S.W. Christensen. 1978. “An Empirical Transport Model for Evaluating Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms by Power Plants.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, National Power Plant Team, FWS/OBS-78/90. 67.

Boyce Thompson Institute. 1977. An Atlas of the Biologic Resources of the Hudson Estuary. Prepared by the Estuarine Study Group, the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc. Yonkers, NY.

Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forest of Eastern North America. Hafner Press. New York, NY. 595.

Brown, M.P., M.B. Werner, R.J. Sloan, and K.W. Simpson. 1985. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Hudson River.” Environmental Science and Technology 19:656-661.

Browne, M.E., L.B. Glover, D.W. Moore, and D.W. Ballangee. 1981. “In-site Biological and Engineering Evaluation of Fine-Mesh Profile-Wire Cylinder as Power Plant Intake Screens.” 34-46.

Caraco, N.F. and J.J. Cole. 2002. “Contrasting Impacts of a Native and Alien Macrophyte on Dissolved Oxygen in a Large River. Ecological Applications 12:1496-1509.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp (CHGEC). 1999. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits for Bowline Point, Indian Point 2 & 3, and Roseton Steam Electric Generating Stations.”

Clarke, D.G., and D.H. Wilber. 2000. “Assessment of Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations Due to Sediment Resuspension.” DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E9), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

Collette, B.B. and G. Klein-MacPhee, eds. 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 3rd Ed. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

Cooper, J.C., F.R. Cantelmo, and C.E. Newton. 1988. “Overview of the Hudson River Estuary.” American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 11-24.

Cowardin, et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Wetland Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

9-49


Dadswell, M.J. 1979. “Biology and Population Characteristics of the Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, Lesuerr 1818 (Osteichthys: Acipenseridae) in the Saint John River Estuary, New Brunswick, Canada.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:2186-2210.

Deed, R.F. 1979. Birds of Rockland County, NY and the Hudson Highlands 1844-1976. Rockland Audubon Society, Inc.

Dey, W. 2008. “Chinese Mitten Crabs: Alien Invader or Accidental Tourist?” Currents: The Newsletter of the Hudson River Environmental Society. 37:1. 8.

Dovel, W.L., A.W. Pekovitch, and T.J. Berggren. 1992. “Biology of the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum, Lesuerr, 1818) in the Hudson River Estuary, New York.” Estuarine Research in the 1980s. C.L. Smith, ed. The Hudson River Environmental Society Seventh Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. State University of New York Press. 187-216.

Dunford, W.E. 1975. “Space and Food Utilization by Salmonids in Marsh Habitats of the Fraser River Estuary.” University of British Columbia.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA EST). 1995. “Year Class Report for the Hudson River Estuary Monitoring Program.” Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

EA Science and Technology (EA). 1989. “Entrainment and Abundance and Unit Outage Evaluation for Bowline Point Generating Station.” Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

EA Science and Technology (EA). 1998. “1997 Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Monitoring Study at Lovett Generating Station.” Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero, eds. 2002. “Ecological Communities of New York State.” 2nd Ed. A revised and expanded edition of Carol Reschke's Ecological Communities of New York State. (Draft for review).

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). June 2006. “Field Evaluations of Wedge-wire Screens for Protecting Early Life Stages of Fish at Cooling Water Intake Structures: Chesapeake Bay Studies.” Technical Report 1012542.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). May 2003. “Laboratory Evaluation of Wedge-wire Screens for Protecting Early Life States of Fish at Cooling Water Intakes.” Technical Report 1005339.

Enger, P.S., H.E. Karsen, F.R. Knudsen, O. Sand. 1993. “Detection and Reaction of Fish to Infrasound: Fish Behavior in Relation to Fishing Operations.” ICES Maine Science Symposia 196:108-112.

Everly, A.W. and J. Boreman. 1999. “Habitat Use and Requirements of Important Fish Species Inhabiting the Hudson River Estuary: Availability of Information.”

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1981, 1982. Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Rockland County, New York.

Fell, P.E., S.P. Weissbach, D.A. Jones, M.A. Fallon, J.A. Zeppieri, E.K. Faison, K.A. Lennon, K.J. Newberry, and L.K. Reddington. 1998. “Does Invasion of Oligohaline Tidal Marshes by Reed Grass, Phragmites australis, Affect the Availability of Prey Resources

9-50


for the Mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus?” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 222:59-77.

Findlay, S.E.G., Wigand, C., Nieder, W.C. 2006. “Submersed Macrophyte Distribution and Function in the Tidal Freshwater Hudson River.” The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press. J.S. Levinton and J.R. Waldman, eds. 230-241.

Fisher, D.W., Y.W. Isachsen, and L.V. Rickard. 1970. “Geologic Map of New York State: Lower Hudson Sheet.” New York State Museum Map and Chart Series No. 15. 1:250,000.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly, eds. 2006. FishBase. Available: www.fishbase.org.

Geoghegan, P., M.T. Mattson, and R.G. Keppel. 1992. “Distribution of the Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River Estuary, 1984-1988.” Estuarine Research in the 1980s. The Hudson River Environmental Society Seventh Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. C.L. Smith, ed. State University of New York Press. 216-227.

Gibbs, J.P., A.R. Breisch, P.K. Ducey, G. Johnson, J.L. Behler, R.C. Bothner. 2007. The Amphibians and Reptiles of New York State—Identification, Natural History, and Conservation. Oxford University Press. New York.

Gilbert, Carter R. 1989. “Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight) Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons.” Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.122).

Great Lakes Research Division. 1982. “Evaluation of the Unit 3 Wedge-wire Screens in Lake Michigan at the James H. Campbell Plant.” Report to Consumers Power Company. Traverse City, Michigan.

Gregory, R.S. 1990. “Effects of Turbidity on Benthic Foraging and Predation Risk in Juvenile Chinook Salmon.” Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast Fishes. C.A. Simenstad, ed. Washington Sea Grant. Seattle, WA. 64-73.

Hanson, B.N., W.H. Bason, B.E. Beitz, and K.E. Charles. 1978. “A Practical Intake Screen Which Substantially Reduces the Entrainment of Early Life Stages of Fish.” Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. L.D. Jensen, ed. Ecological Analysts. Melville, New York. 392-407.

Hanson, J., M. Helvey, R. Strach, eds. August 2003. “Non-Fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Recommended Conservation Measures.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Version 1.

Hastings, M.C., and A.N. Popper. 2005. “Effects of Sound on Fish. Report to California Department of Transportation.” University of Maryland, Center for Comparative and Evolutionary Biology. College Park, MD.

Hattala, K. and A. Kahnle. 2008. “American Shad in the Hudson River: A Resource in Trouble.” Currents: The newsletter of the Hudson River Environmental Society 37:1. 1.

HDR|LMS. 2006. “Entrainment Location Credit Due to Bowline Pond Intake.” Prepared for Mirant-Bowline, LLC.

9-51


Hicks, A. and P.G. Novak. 2002. “History, Status, and Behavior of Hibernating Populations in the Northeast.” The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat Conservation International. Austin, TX.

Hitchcock, D.R., R.C. Newell, and L.J. Seiderer. 1998. “Investigation of Benthic and Surface Plumes Associated with Marine Aggregate Mining in the United Kingdom.” Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Contract No. 14-35-0001-30763.

Howe, A.B. 1971. Biological investigations of Atlantic Tomcod, Microgadus tomcod (Walbaum), in the Weweantic River Estuary, Massachusetts, 1967. M.S. Thesis: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Hudson River Valley Greenway. 2008. Available: www.hudsongreenway.state.ny.us.

Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. 2008. Available: www.hudsonrivervalley.com.

Hurst, T.P., K.A. McKown, and D.O. Conover. 2004. “Interannual and Long-Term Variation in the Nearshore Fish Community of the Mesohaline Hudson River Estuary.” Estuaries 27(4):659-669.

Ingersoll, E. 1882. The History and Present Condition of the Oyster Industry. J.L. Murphy. Trenton, NJ.

Isachen, Y.W., et al. 2000. Geology of New York: A Simplified Account. 2nd Ed. New York State Museum. New York, NY. 139-146.

Juanes, F., R.E. Marks, K.A. McKnown, and D.O. Conover. 1993. “Predation by Age-0 Bluefish on Age-0 Anadromous Fishes in the Hudson River Estuary.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:348-356.

Junkins, R. and J.S. Levinton. 2003. “Cadmium Resistance in Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri in Foundry Cove Following a Super Fund Cleanup.” Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2002. J.R. Waldman & W.C. Nieder, eds. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY.

Kiviat, E. 1996. “American Goldfinch Nests in Purple Loosestrife.” Wilson Bulletin 108(1): 182-186.

Kiviat, E. and K. MacDonald. 2004. “Biodiversity Patterns and Conservation in the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey: History, Ecology and Restoration of a Degraded Urban Wetland.” Urban Habitats: A Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Biology of Urban Areas 2: 3-35.

Kiviat, E. and M. Hummel. 2004. “Review of World Literature on Water Chestnut with Implications for Management in North America.” Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 42: 17-28.

Klauda, R.J., T.H. Peck, and G.K. Rice. 1981. “Accumulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Atlantic Tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) Collected from the Hudson River Estuary, New York.” 27:89-835.

Knudsen, F.R., P.S. Enger, and O. Sand. 1994. “Avoidance Responses to Low Frequency Sound in Downstream Migrating Atlantic Salmon Smolt, Salmo salar.” J. Fish Biol. 45:227-233.

9-52


Knutsen, A.B., P.L. Klerks, and J.S. Levinton. 1987. “The Fate of Metal Contaminated Sediments in Foundry Cove, New York.” Environmental Pollution 45:291-304.

Kynard, B. 1997. “Life History, Latitudinal Patterns, and Status of the Shortnose Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:319-334.

LaSalle, M.W., D.G. Clarke, J. Homziak, J.D. Lunz, and T.J. Fredette. 1991. A Framework for Assessing the Need for Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging and Disposal Operations. Department of the Army, Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Lathrop, R.G., L. Windham, and P. Montesano. 2003. “Does Phragmites Expansion Alter the Structure and Function of Marsh Landscapes? Patterns and Processes Revisited.” Estuaries 26:423-435.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly (LMS). 1994. “Effectiveness Evaluation of a Fine Mesh Barrier Net Located at the Cooling Water Intake of the Bowline Point Generating Station.” Report prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers LLP. PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG). 2005. “Fish Sampling Gear: A Review of Sampling Efficiency.” 73.

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1975. “1974 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies: Bowline Point and Lovett Generating Stations.” Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1978. “Roseton and Danskammer Point Generating Station Hydrothermal Analysis.” Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers (LMS). 1980. 1979 “Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies at the Lovett Generating Station.” Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Levy, D.A., and T.G. Northcote. 1982. “Juvenile Salmon Residency in a Marsh Area of the Fraser River Estuary. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:270-276.

Lifton, W.S. 1979. “Biological Aspects of Screen Testing on the St. Johns River, Palatka, Florida.” Proceedings of Passive Screen Intake Workshop. Johnson Division, UOP Inc. St. Paul, MN. 87-96.

Limburg, K.E. 1986. “PCBs in the Hudson.” The Hudson River Ecosystem. K.E. Limburg, M.A. Moran, and W.H. McDowell, eds. Springer-Verlag. New York. 83-130.

Limburg, K.E. and M.A. Moran. 1986. “The Hudson River Ecosystem.” The Hudson River Ecosystem. K.E. Limburg, M.A. Moran, and W.H. McDowell, eds. Springer-Verlag. New York. 6-39.

Limburg, K.E., K.A. Hattala, A.W. Kahnle, J.R. Waldman. 2006. “Fisheries of the Hudson River Estuary.” The Hudson River Estuary. J.S. Levinton, and J.R. Waldman, eds. Cambridge University Press. 189-204.

MacNeill, D. 1998. “Research Needs for the Blueback Herring: A New Invader?” Workshop, June 20, 1998. New York Sea Grant (mss.).

9-53


Mansueti, R.J. 1964. “Eggs, Larvae, and Young of the White Perch, Roccus americanus, with Comments on its Ecology in the Estuary.” Ches. Sci. 5:3-45.

Manuel S. Emanuel Associates, Inc., Community Planning and Development Consultants. August 13, 1990. Town Master Plan Report Town of Haverstraw, New York.

Menzie C.A. 1981. “Production Ecology of Cricotopus sylvestris (Fabricius) (Diptera: Chironomidae) in a Shallow Estuarine Cove.” Limnology and Oceanography 26:467–481.

Meyerson, L.A., K. Saltonstall, L. Windham, E. Kiviat, and S. Findlay. 2000. “A Comparison of Phragmites australis in Freshwater and Brackish Marsh Environments in North America.” Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:89-103.

Mirant Bowline, LLC. 2003. “SPDES Renewal Application Response to Request for Information.” Report prepared for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEP).

Morton, T. 1989. “Bay Anchovy—Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic).” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report No. 82(11.97).

Mullen, D.M., C.W. Fay and J.R. Moring. 1986. “Alewife/Blueback Herring—Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic).” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.56).

Nadeau, R.J. and R.A. Davis. 1976. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Hudson River (Hudson Falls—Fort Edward, New York State).” Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 16:436-444.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. “Biological Opinion for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project.” Santa Rosa, CA: Southwest Region. Admin. Rec. 151422SWR02SR6292.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). September 1998. “Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus).”

New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). May 29, 2008. Letter and attached report from Tara Seoane of NYNHP to Jack Hecht of HDR. Results of a file search request from HDR regarding the presence of ecological communities and endangered, threatened, special concern, and rare species in the project area. Albany, NY.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York Breeding Bird Atlas. 2007. Results from 1980-1985 and 2000-2005. Available: www.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/bba.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). New York Herp Atlas. 2008. Results from 1990-2000, including the Haverstraw, Thiells, and Popolopen Lake, New York USGS Quadrangles. Available: www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7485.html.

9-54

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=all&search_value=Cricotopus+sylvestris&search_kingdom=every&search_span=exactly_for&categories=All&source=html&search_credRating=All


New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). “Tell Me More About Streams, Rivers, Lakes and Ponds: Water Quality Classifications Maps of New York’s Water Bodies.” Available: www.dec.ny.gov/imsmaps/ERM/ streamsRivers Lakes Ponds.htm.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2008. “New York’s Sturgeon.” Available: www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7025.html.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2007. “Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda 2005-2009.”

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2005. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda 2005-2009.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2003. “NYSDEC, Endangered Species Unit, Shortnose Sturgeon Fact Sheet.” Available: www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/shnostur.html.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Fish & Wildlife Service (NYSDEC / USF&WS). February 21, 2006. Highlights from Kingston-Area Indiana Bat Radio Tracking Studies. Summary of Results.

Newell, R.C., L.J. Seiderer, and D.R. Hitchcock. 1998. “The Impact of Dredging Works in Coastal Waters: A Review of the Sensitivity to Disturbance and Subsequent Recovery of Biological Resources on the Sea Bed.” Annual Reviews in Oceanography and Marine Biology 36:127- 178.

Nieder, W.C., E. Barnaba, S.E.G. Findlay, S. Hoskins, N. Holochuck, and E.A. Blair. 2004. “Distribution and Abundance of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Trapa natans in the Hudson River Estuary.” Journal of Coastal Research 45:150-161.

Nightingale, B, and C.A. Simenstad. 2001. “Dredging Activities: Marine Issues.” White Paper, Research Project T1803, Task 35. Prepared by the Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC), University of Washington for the Washington State Transportation Commission, Department of Transportation in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-121.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2002. Lovett Generating Station 1999 Impingement Studies. Prepared for Mirant New York, Inc.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1992. Bowline Point Generating Station 1991 Impingement Studies. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.



Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1997a. Bowline Point Generating Station 1996 Impingement Studies. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

9-55


Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1997b. Lovett Generating Station 1996 Impingement Studies. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1998. Lovett Generating Station 1997 Impingement Studies. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Osgood, D.T., D.J. Yozzo, R.M. Chambers, D. Jacobson, T. Hoffman, and J. Wnek. 2003. “Tidal Hydrology and Habitat Utilization by Resident Nekton in Phragmites and non-Phragmites Marshes.” Estuaries 26:522-533.

Osgood, D.T., D.J. Yozzo, R.M. Chambers, S. Pianka, J. Lewis, and C. LePage. 2006. “Patterns of Habitat Utilization by Resident Nekton in Phragmites and Typha Marshes on the Hudson River Estuary, New York.” Hudson River Fishes and Their Environment. J. Waldman, K. Limburg, and D. Strayer, eds. American Fisheries Society.

Pace, M.L., S.E.G. Findlay, and D. Fischer. 1998. “Effects of an Invasive Bivalve on the Zooplankton Community of the Hudson River.” Freshwater Biology 39:103-116.

Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC). 2008. Harriman–Bear Mountain State Park Database (Unpublished List of Mammals).

Pequegnat, W.E., D.D. Smith, R.M. Darnell, B.J. Presley, and R.O. Reid. 1978. “An Assessment of the Potential Impact of Dredged Material Disposal in the Open Ocean.” Technical Report D-78-2. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Perlmutter, N.M. 1959. “Geology and Ground-water Resources of Rockland County, New York.” New York State Water Power and Control Commission Bulletin GW-42.

Peterson, D., and M. Bain. 2002. “Sturgeon of the Hudson River: Current Status and Recent Trends of Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon.” Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Baltimore, MD.

Pottern, G.B., M.T. Huish, and J.H. Kerby. 1989. “Bluefish—Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight).” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services FWS/OBS-82/11.94.

Raichel, D.L., K.W. Able, and J.M. Hartman. 2003. “The Influence of Phragmites (Common Reed) on the Distribution, Abundance and Potential Prey of a Resident Marsh Fish in the Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey. Estuaries 26:511-521.

Ratcliffe, Nicholas. January 1971. “The Ramapo Fault System in New York and Adjacent Northern New Jersey; A Case of Tectonic Heredity.” GSA Bulletin 82:1. 125-141.

Reschke, C. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. Prepared by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: Natural Heritage Program. Latham, NY.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC 403. March 3, 1899. Ch. 425, Section 9, 30 Stat. 1151.

Robert Geneslaw Co. Planning and Development Consultants. 1995. Master Plan Town of Stony Point Rockland County New York. II – 2, II – 31 & II – 90, III-2 & III-3, IV-2.

Rockland Audubon Christmas Bird Count Data. 2007. Unpublished List of Birds Observed on and Adjacent to the Haverstraw Landfill.

Rockland County Planning. 2001. Rockland County: River to Ridge a Plan for the 21st Century. II-10, II-15.

9-56


Rockland County Sanitary Code, Article II, “Drinking Water Supplies.” Section 2.8.0: “Well Construction, Operation, Maintenance & Decommissioning.”

Rogers, P.H., and M. Cox. 1988. “Underwater Sound as a Biological Stimulus.” Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. J. Atema, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga, eds. Springer-Verlag. New York. 131-149.

Rooth, J.E. and J. C. Stevenson. 2000. “Sediment Deposition Patterns in Phragmites australis Communities: Implications for Coastal Areas Threatened by Rising Sea-level.” Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:173-183.

Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. (S&S). October 2005. “Encore Haverstraw Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Prepared for WCI Communications, Inc.

Saltonstall, K. 2002. “Cryptic Invasion by a Non-native Genotype of the Common Reed, Phragmites australis, into North America.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99:2445-2449.

Saltonstall, K., P.M. Peterson, and R.J. Soreng. 2004. “Recognition of Phragmites australis Subsp. americanus (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) in North America: Evidence from Morphological and Genetic Analyses.” Sida, Contributions to Botany. 683-692.

Sand, O., P.S. Enger, H.E. Karlsen, F.R. Knudsen, and T. Kvernstuen. 2000. “Avoidance Responses to Infrasound in Downstream Migrating European Silver Eels, Anguilla anguilla.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 57:327-336.

Schaffner, L.C., C.H. Hobbs, and M.A. Horvath. 1996. “Effects of Sand-Mining on Benthic Communities and Resource Value: Thimble Shoal, Lower Chesapeake Bay.” Technical Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, VA.

Schmidt, R.E., and E. Kiviat. 1988. “Communities of Larval and Juvenile Fish Associated with Water-chestnut and Water-celery in the Tivoli Bays of the Hudson River: A Report to the Hudson River Foundation.” Hudsonia Ltd.. Bard College Field Station. Annandale, NY.

Schmidt, R.E., W.E. Chandler, and D. Strayer. 1995. “Fishes Consuming Zebra Mussels in the Tidal Hudson River.” Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 1994. E.A. Blair and J.R. Waldman, eds. Hudson River Foundation. New York, NY.

Seoane, T. 2008. May 29, 2008. Personal correspondence from Tara Seoane (NYSDEC NHP) to Jack Hecht (HDR LMS).

Shepherd, Gary R. and David B. Packer. 2006. “Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.” 2nd Ed. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-198.

Sloan, R.J., K.W. Simpson, R.A. Schreder and C.W. Barnes. 1983. “Temporal Trends Toward Stability of Hudson River PCB Contamination.” Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 3:377-385.

Smith, C.L. 1985. “The Inland Fishes of New York State.” The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

Snyder, G.R. 1976. “Effects of Dredging on Aquatic Organisms with Special Application to Areas Adjacent to the Northeastern Pacific Ocean.” Marine Fisheries Review 38:34-38.

9-57


Squires, D.F. 1992. “Quantifying Anthropogenic Shoreline Modification of the Hudson River and Estuary from European Contact to Modern Time.” Coastal Management 20: 343-354.

Stegemann, E.C. 1999. “New York’s Sturgeon.” NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. Available: www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/fishspecs/ sturtex.html.

Stern, E.M. and W.B. Stickle. 1978. “Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments—Literature Review.” Technical Report D-78-21. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Stevens, G., ed. 2001. “Natural Resource/Human Use Inventory of Six State-Owned Properties on the Hudson River in Columbia and Greene Counties.” Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation by Hudsonia, Ltd. Annandale, NY.

Strayer, D.L, N.F. Caraco, J.J. Cole, S. Findlay, and M.L. Pace. 1999. “Transformation of Freshwater Ecosystems by Bivalves.” Bioscience 49:19-27.

Strayer, D.L. 2006. “Alien Species in the Hudson River.” The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge University Press. 296-312.

Strayer, D.L. and L.C. Smith. 1996. “Relationships Between Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and Unionid Clams During the Early Stage of the Zebra Mussel Invasion of the Hudson River.” Freshwater Biology 36:771-779.

Strayer, D.L., K.A. Hattala, and A.W. Kahnle. 2004. “Effects of an Invasive Bivalve (Dreissena polymorpha) on Fish in the Hudson River Estuary.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:924-941.

Strayer, D.L., L.C. Smith, and D.C. Hunter. 1998. “Effects of the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) Invasion on the Macrobenthos of the Freshwater Tidal Hudson River.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:419-425.

The Hudson River Estuary Management Act. NYS Environmental Conservation Law 11-0306.

Title 6, New York Code. Environmental Conservation Law, Chapter 5, “Resource Management Services,” Subchapter D, Water Regulation, Part 608, “Use and Protection of Waters,” Section 301[2][m], 15-0501, 15-0503, 15-0505, 17-0303[3].

Title 6, New York Code. Environmental Conservation Law, Chapter 6, “Division of Water Resources,” Subchapter A, General, Part 664, “Freshwater Wetlands Maps and Classifications.”

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1995. “Hudson River Habitat Restoration, Hudson River Basin, New York.” Reconnaissance Report.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1990. Soil Survey of Rockland County, New York.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004a. “Technical Development Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule.” Office of Water. EPA 821-R-04-007 DCN 6-004. February 12, 2004.

9-58


United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities, Final Rule, Federal Register. 69:41575—41693. July 9, 2004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Record of Decision, Hudson River PCBs Site. New York, NY.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Development of the fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland. FWS/OBS-78/12. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Significant habitats and habitat complexes of the New York Bight watershed. Southern New England–New York Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program. Charlestown, RI.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. On-line file search of federally-listed species in Rockland County conducted using the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) database. Available: www.fws.gov.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). “Radon in Sheared Rocks.” Available: energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/shear1.html.

United Water New York Inc. May 2008. Annual Water Quality Report 2007. PWSID# NY43036731.

Urban Land Institute. 1994. Development Impact Assessment Handbook. 263.

Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt, R.M. Martore, M.V. Levisen, and W.A. Roumillat. 1992. “A Physical and Biological Monitoring Study of the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment Project.” Final Report to Town of Hilton Head, SC and the South Carolina Coastal Council.

Van Dolah, R.F., R.M. Martore, A.E. Lynch, M.V. Levisen, P.H. Wendt, D.J. Whitaker, and W.D. Anderson. 1994. “Environmental Evaluation of the Folly Beach Nourishment Project.” Final Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District. Charleston, SC.

Vladykov, V., and J. Greeley. 1963. “Order Acipenseroidei. Mem. Sear Found. Mar. Res. 1:Part 3.” Available: www.fishbase.org.

Waldman, J.R. 2005. “The Diadromous Fish Fauna of the Hudson River: Life Histories, Conservation Concerns & Research Avenues.” The Hudson River Estuary. J.S. Levinton and J.R. Waldman, eds. Cambridge University Press. New York, NY. 171-188.

Weinstein, M. P. and J. H. Balletto. 1999. “Does the Common Reed, Phragmites australis, Affect Essential Fish Habitat?” Estuaries 22:793-802.

Weisberg, Stephen B., William H. Burton, Fred Jacobs, and Eric A. Ross. 1987. Reductions in Ichthyoplankton Entrainment with Fine Mesh, Wedge-wire Screens. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:386-393.

Wilber, P. and M. Stern. February 12-14, 1992. “A Re-examination of Infaunal Studies That Accompany Beach Nourishment Projects.” New Directions in Beach Management:

9-59


9-60

Proceedings of the 5th Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, St. Petersburg, FL. Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, FL. 242-257.

Wilk, S.J. 1977. “Biological and Fisheries Data on Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus).” Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. Technical Report 11.

Wilson, K.A. and K.W. Able. 1992. “Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Habitat Utilization and Survival in the Hudson River.” Rutgers University, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences. Technical Report 92-49. New Brunswick, NJ.

Windham, L. and R.G. Lathrop. 1999. “Effects of Phragmites australis (Common Reed) Invasion on Above-ground Biomass and Soil Properties in Brackish Tidal Marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey.” Estuaries 22:927-935.

Wirgin, I.I. and J.R. Waldman. 1998. “Organismic Responses to Contaminated Aquatic Systems: Four Case Histories from the Hudson River.” Environmental and Occupational Medicine. 3rd Ed. Lippincott-Raven. W.H. Rom, ed. Philadelphia, PA. 1563-1579.

Chapter 9: Natural Resources A. INTRODUCTIONsuperfund.ciesin.columbia.edu/sfund_files/imported/downloads/9...Chapter 9: Natural Resources A. INTRODUCTION ... associated with installation

Documents