155>34]2:H 8(, Final Environmental Impact Statement Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary |v\/// STOCKPOI TIVOLI Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary in the State of New York IONA PIERMONT I ;>*$£< v wK_ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office Of Coastal Zone Management STATE OF NEW YORK Department of Environmental Conservation ^TOFco> 8 c x s ,** *^TES O* »" D- O o (ji a United States Department of Commerce Final Environmental Impact Statement PROPOSED ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR A HUDSON RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY August 1982 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini strati on Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 and State of New York Department of Environmental 2 Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12205 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/finalenvironmOOnati DESIGNATION: TITLE: ABSTRACT: APPLICANT: LEAD AGENCY CONTACT: Final Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of New York for a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary The State of New York has submitted an application for a grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management to establish an estuarine sanctuary on the Hudson River, New York. For the purposes of research and education, sites representative of the Hudson's estuarine gradient are appropriate. Four natural areas, the Hudson's highest quality tidal wetland complexes, are proposed for inclusion in the Sanctuary: Stockport Flats (1,184 acres), Tivoli Bays (1,481), Iona Island (556 acres), and Piermont Marsh (943 acres), for a total of 4,165 acres of land and water. The acquisition grant request to NOAA for $375,000, matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and services would be used for fee simple acquisition of wetlands, waters and shoreline at Stockport Flats (maximum 299 acres), Tivoli Bays (45 acres), and Piermont Marsh (73 acres), and to develop or renovate facilities at two or more of the four Hudson River sites. These facilities (buildings, roads, parking lots, trails, and boardwalk) will be used to accommodate research activities, educational programs, and visitors. All other land at the four sites is in public ownership. Approval of this grant application would permit the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary representing a subcategory of the Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary would be used primarily for research and education purposes, especially to provide information useful for coastal zone management decisionmaking. Multiple use would be encouraged to the extent that it is compatible with the proposed sanctuary's research and educational programs. Research and monitoring in and near the proposed sanctuary would provide baseline information against which the impacts of human activities elsewhere in the Hudson River and the Virginian biogeographic region could be assessed. New York Department of Environmental Conservation U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management Dr. Richard J. Podgorny Sanctuary Projects Manager Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 634-4236 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SUMMARY i PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 PART II: ALTERNATIVES (Including Proposed Action) 5 A. Preferred Alternative 5 1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands 6 2. Public and Private Access 6 3. Management 14 a. Management Plan 14 b. Management Structure 14 c. Sanctuary Staff 19 d. General and Specific Management Requi rements. . ..19 e. Enforcement of Existing Laws 20 f. Research Program: Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary 21 g. Existing Monitoring 24 h. Education and Public Awareness Program 25 B. Other Alternatives Considered 26 1. No Action 26 2. Alternative Sites and the Site Selection Process for New York State 27 3. Alternative Boundaries 31 a. Inclusion of Primary Resources 31 b. Adequate Protection and Manageability 31 c. Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Access 31 4. Alternative Management Scheme 32 5. Funding 32 PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 33 A. Hudson River - General Description 33 1. Natural Environment 40 a. Geology 40 b. Hydrology 43 c. CI imate 46 d. Biology 46 e. Estuarine Escosystem 61 2. Current Uses of the Sites 61 a. Commercial and Recreational Ff shi ng 61 b. Fur Trapping 64 c. Hunting 65 d. Forestry 67 e. Agriculture 67 SECTION PAGE f . Industry 67 g. Transportation 68 h. Recreation 70 i. Archaeologic Resources 71 j. Plant Resources 72 k. Esthetic Use 73 1. Research and Education 73 PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 81 A. General Impacts 81 B. Specific Impacts 82 1. Natural Environment 82 a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat 82 b. Soils and Vegetation 82 c . Water Qual i ty 83 2. Human Environment 83 a. Residents of the Towns and Counties 83 b. Scientific and Educational 84 c. State and Federal 84 C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects 85 D. Relationship Between the Proposed Action on the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 85 E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 86 F. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal , State, Regional and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Areas Concerned 86 1. Federal and Regional Plans 86 2 . State Plans 87 3. Local Plans 88 PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS 89 PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES OF THE DEIS 93 SECTION PAGE PART VII: WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS, AND NOAA' s RESPONSES 101 PART VIII: Appendices 275 Appendix 1: Bibliography and Literature Cited 276 Appendix 2: Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary 285 Appendix 3: List of Fishes Reported from the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Sites on the Hudson Ri ver 290 Appendix 4: Birds Reported In or Close to Proposed Sanctuary Sites 295 Appendix 5: Selected Data From New York Mid-Winter Area Water Fowl Survey 303 Appendix 6: Tidal Vascular Plants of the Proposed Sanctuary Sites 305 Appendix 7: Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977 317 Appendix 8: Memorandum of Understanding Among Five New York State Agencies 328 Appendix 9: Summary of Workshop to Generate Ideas on Research and Education Programs in the Sanctuary 337 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Stockport Flats Area: Approximate Property Ownerships and Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 7 Figure 2. Ti vol i Bays Area: Approximate Property Ownerships and Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 8 Figure 3. Iona Island Marsh Area: Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 9 Figure 4. Piermont Marsh Area: Approximate Property Ownerships and Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries 10 Figure 5. Hudson River Estuary 34 Figure 6. Stockport Flats Area 36 Figure 7. Ti vol i Bays Area 37 Figure 8. Iona Island Marsh Area 38 Figure 9. Piermont Marsh Area 39 Figure 10. Generalized Energy Pathways 62 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Ownership of Parcels within the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Boundaries 11 Table 2. Parcels Proposed for Acquisition 12 Table 3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee (Tentative Composition) 16 Table 4. Environmental Characteristics of the Four Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Sites 45 Table 5. Plants of the Proposed Sanctuary Sites Listed in Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant Species in New York State 50 Table 6. Animals Recorded at the Proposed Sanctuary Sites Either Currently Listed as Endangered by the State or Federal Government, or Included in the December 1981 "Tentative New York State Species List." 52 Table 7. Some Institutions and Agencies That Have Used the Hudson River for Research and Education 76 Table 8. Some Current Research Projects Involving the Proposed Sanctuary Sites 79 SUMMARY BACKGROUND Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583), as amended, established the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, which provides grants on a matching basis to States to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories. These areas are to be used primarily for long-term scientific and educational programs that will provide information essential to coastal management decisionmaking. Uses of estuarine sanctuaries are intended to serve objectives such as the following: -- To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological relationships within the estuarine environment; — To make baseline ecological measurements; -- To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem; -- To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine ecosystems, their values and benefits to man and nature, and the problems confronting them; and -- To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes of research and education. To ensure that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program includes sites that adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the program regulations established a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic, and biological characteristics. Eleven (11) biogeographic categories are defined in the program regulations. Subcategories of this basic system are developed and utilized as appropriate to distinguish different subclasses of each category. The total number of sanctuaries that will be needed to provide adequate representation of the various estuarine ecosystems occurring within the United States is currently under study. The proposed sanctuary is representative of the Virginian biogeographic region. The State of New York is committed to maintaining the resource productivity of its coastal zone. The Hudson River Estuary, a part of New York's coastal zone, supports an extremely valuable fishery resource and is a biological and esthetic treasure used and enjoyed by millions of people. In order to effectively protect and manage the Hudson River Estuary ecosystem, an understanding of estuarine ecology is essential. For this reason, establishment of an estuarine sanctuary in New York on the Hudson River would provide a valuable tool for enhancing the management of the Hudson River and associated coastal zone areas. 1 1 The Estuarine Sanctuary Program regulations, first published in 1974, and amended in 1977, authorize three kinds of 50 percent matching grants: (1) an optional, initial planning grant for such preliminary purposes as assessing the lands to be acquired, preparing an environmental impact statement, and developing management, research and education plans; (2) grants for acquisition of the real property within the sanctuary boundaries and development of interpretive/research facilities; and (3) operations grants for managing the established sanctuary's research and education programs. New York's involvement in the Estuarine Sanctuary Program is not new, but has spanned a period of approximately three years (see summary of site selection process in the Alternatives section). An initial proposal for a sanctuary on Long Island was impracticable, and New York was encouraged by the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management to propose a sanctuary on the Hudson River Estuary, the State's alternate choice. Representatives of involved State agencies met to select sites on the Hudson; the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) took the role of Lead Agency, with cooperation from the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, the Department of State, and the Office of General Services. For the purposes of research and education, sites representative of the Hudson's estuarine gradient are appropriate. Four natural areas, the Hudson's highest quality tidal wetland complexes, are proposed for inclusion in the Sanctuary: Stockport Flats in the Town of Stockport, Columbia County; Tivoli Bays in the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County; Iona Island Marsh in the Town of Stony Point, Rockland County; and Pier- mont Marsh in the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County. All four of these sites contain extensive high quality tidal marshes with comparable vegetation types, as well as adjoining tidal shallows and forested upland margins. The sites also contain typical plants and animals of tidal river wetlands of the Estuarine Sanctuary System's Virginian Biogeographic Region (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras), and productive ecological communities that are representative of the region. These areas also have a history of observation and research that provides basic information valuable to the initiation of a research and education program. On behalf of the State, DEC submitted a grant application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in May 1981 to gather information and plan the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at the above-named sites. In September 1981 , a pre-acqui sition grant of $50,000 was awarded by NOAA to DEC, to be matched by DEC funds and services. Work on the planning of the sanctuary began in earnest in January 1982 when the Federal money was received. PROPOSED ACTION The acquisition grant request to NOAA for $375,000, matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and services, would be used for establishment of a 4,165 acre sanctuary of which potentially 417 acres of wetlands, waters and shoreline would be purchased and to develop or renovate facilities at two or more of the four Hudson River sites. These facilities (i.e., buildings, i ii roads, parking lots, trails, and boardwalk) will be used to accommodate research activities, educational programs, and visitors. The great majority of land within the proposed sanctuary boundaries (see page 11) is already publicly owned or under negotiation for public acquisition under pre-existing programs. The chief importance of establishing the proposed sanctuary would be the development of a coordinated program of research and education that would not be otherwise realized. The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary is as follows (acreages are approximate): Stockport Currently publicly owned Proposed for acquisition Tivol i Currently publicly owned Under negotiation Iona Island Total area - 1,184 acres 692-804 acres (see Table 2, parcel 6) 187-299 acres (see Table 2, Parcel 6) Total area - 1 ,516 acres 1,436 acres 45 acres Total area - 556 acres Currently publicly owned Proposed for acquisition Piermont Marsh 556 acres 0 acres Total area - 934 acres Currently publicly owned Under negotiation The total area of al 1 are wetlands and shallows, total area of wetlands and MANAGEMENT 871 acres 73 acres four sites is 4,165 acres. Of this, 2,860 acres comprising 13% of the Hudson River Estuary's shallows (less than 6 feet deep at low tide). The DEC will administer the proposed sanctuary and will be directly responsible for the content and structure of the sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and the formulation and implementation of general program elements (such as research programs and educational programs) A sanctuary Steering Committee comprised of the five State agencies involved in the sanctuary (Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC), the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), the Department of State (DOS), and the Office of General Services (OGS)) has been formed. DEC will chair this Steering Committee. The Committee is advisory to DEC on issues related to the formulation and implementation of the sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and formulation and implementation of general program elements. Consistent with' the management plan, the State agencies will exercise prerogatives and make decisions regarding use of lands to which they hold title. IV A Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the agencies represented on the Steering Committee, outlines interagency arrangements for the administration and management of the sanctuary, and expresses the agencies agreement to carry out the management plan (see Appendix 8). Three citizens' advisory groups (Columbia, Dutchess, and Rockland Counties), representing local government and sanctuary user groups, will act as a Sanctuary Advisory Committee and make recommendations to the Steering Committee. The Advisory Committee will channel public support and criticism to the Steering Committee. Estuarine sanctuary programs would be closely coordinated with related programs on the Hudson River, particularly the DEC'S Hudson River Fisheries Unit and Fisheries Advisory Committee, and the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research. Sanctuary programs would also be coordi- nated with and would serve to enhance existing programs of research and education including those of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater and the Hudson Valley's colleges and universities. RESEARCH Estuarine sanctuary research programs would emphasize ecosystem-level understanding of the Hudson Estuary and especially its wetlands and shallows, as well as applied concerns of coastal management including the management of fish, game and fur resources, vegetation, endangered and rare species, and the reduction and mitigation of human impacts on the coastal zone. Much research has been done on the Hudson River Estuary, but efforts have generally been fragmented and there are many serious gaps in the knowledge needed to effectively manage the Estuary. The proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would help to coordinate and unify Hudson River research and to provide information to coastal managers at all levels of government and the private sector with the goal of wise resource management. EDUCATION The proposed estuarine sanctuary sites contain a variety of fauna and flora and estuarine habitats representative of the Hudson River Estuary, and are located within easy reach of millions of New York State and greater New York City area residents. The proposed sanctuary would provide an opportunity for many to learn more of the estuary's geology, ecology and resources. Estuarine sanctuary funds would be used to develop exhibit space at the Bear Mountain Trail side Museums complex near Iona Island Marsh for Hudson Estuary related exhibits; this complex is visited by over 600,000 people each year. Funds would also be used to set up facilities at the Tivoli Bays site for educational exhibits and for research work. Additionally, selected programs such as guided field trips, self-guided trail brochures, and educational media available to public groups and schools on loan could be developed. RECREATION The primary objective of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary is to provide long-term protection from developmental disturbances so the selected sites may be used for scientific and educational purposes. Primary emphasis at these sites will be on their use for estuarine studies; however, other existing water use activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, boating and wildlife observing which are compatible uses, will continue, subject only to existing State laws. Sanctuary designation will not add any Federal regulations to these areas. IMPACTS The overall and major impacts of designation of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary are expected to be positive through better scientific and public understanding of the estuary and its resources. The proposed estuarine sanctuary does not conflict with existing commercial or recreational uses of the Hudson River. Any conflicts that may arise with future uses of the river can be reduced through negotiation. Without an estuarine sanctuary, the Hudson River would not have areas dedicated specifically and permanently for research and education. However, with a sanctuary, present uses of the sites including hunting and other recreational uses where currently allowed, would continue. Furthermore, designation of the sanctuary and acquisition of lands, would provide additional public access to the riverfront for recreation and enjoyment. PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION In response to intense pressures on the coastal resources of the United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972, and amended in 1976 and 1980. The CZMA authorized a Federal grant-in-aid and assistance program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides financial and technical assistance to coastal States (including those bordering on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes) and U.S. territories to develop and implement State coastal zone management programs. The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to such States for purposes of: -- developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305); -- implementing and administering coastal management programs that receive Federal approval (Sec. 306); -- avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (Sec. 308); -- coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309); -- conducting research, study, and training programs to provide scien- tific and technical support to State coastal zone management programs (Sec. 310); and -- acquiring land for estuarine sanctuaries and island preservation (Sec. 315). Section 315 of the Act established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program to provide matching grants to States to acquire, develop, and operate natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries, so that scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine the ecological relationships within the areas over time. Section 315 provides a maximum of $3 million in Federal funds, to be matched by an equivalent amount from the State, to acquire and manage lands for each sanctuary. The regulations for implementation of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program are found at 15 CFR Part 921. Amend- ments were proposed on September 9, 1977, 42 Federal Register: 45522-45523 (see Appendix 7). Regulations are presently being prepared for the Island Preservation Program that is also included within Section 315 of the CZMA. Estuarine sanctuaries have the dual purposes of (1) preserving relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series of natural estuarine systems will always remain available for ecological research and education, and (2) ensuring the availability of natural areas for use as a control against which impacts of human activities in other areas can be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primarily for long-term scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide information useful to coastal zone management decisionmaking. Research purposes may include: -- Gaining a more complete understanding of the natural ecological relationships within the various estuarine environments of the United States; -- Making baseline ecological measurements; -- Serving as a natural control against which changes in other estuaries can be measured, and aiding in evaluation of the impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and -- Providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their benefits to people and nature, and the problems confronting these ecosystems. While the primary purposes of estuarine sanctuaries are scientific and educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries by the general public is encouraged to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes. Such uses may generally include low-intensity recreation, such as boating, fishing, she! lfishi ng, hunting, and wildlife photography or observation. Commercial fishing and shellfishing may also be compatible uses. The estuarine sanctuary regulations envision that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program will ultimately represent the full variety of regional and ecological differences among the estuaries of the United States. The regulations state that "the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary program. . .shal 1 be accomplished by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanctuaries which will be designated so that at least one representative of each estuarine ecosystem will endure into the future for scientific and educational purposes" [15 CFR 921.3 (a)]. As administered by OCZM, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program defined 11 different biogeographic regions based on geographic, hydrographic , and biological characteristics. Subcategories of this basic system are established as appropriate to distinguish different subclasses of each biogeographic region. The total number of sanctuaries that will be needed to provide minimal representation for the Nation's estuarine ecosystems is currently under study. Since 1974, OCZM has awarded grants to establish twelve national estuarine sanctuaries. These include: Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification South Slough Columbian Coos Bay, Oregon Sapelo Island Carolinian Mcintosh County, Georgia Waimanu Valley Insular Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Rookery Bay West Indian Collier County, Florida Old Woman Creek Great Lakes Erie County, Ohio Apalachicola River/Bay Louisianian Franklin County, Florida Elkhorn Slough Californian Monterey County, California Padilla Bay Columbian Skagit County, Washington Narragansett Bay Virginian Newport County, Rhode Island Chesapeake Bay (2 sites) Virginian Anne Arundel and Somerset Counties, Maryland Jobos Bay West Indian Puerto Rico Tijuana River Californian San Diego County, California The Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary, if established, would represent a major subcategory within the northern half of the Virginian biogeographic region. This region extends over 1,000 miles of Atlantic coastline from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, featuring lowland streams, marshes, and muddy bottoms and representative plants and animals. The proposed action under consideration by OCZM is providing a land acquisition grant to the State of New York to establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary in the Hudson River. This proposed sanctuary would consist of four individual sites representing different estuarine gradient zones in the Hudson River, and would contain approximately 4,165 acres of the Hudson's highest quality tidal wetland complexes. The acquisition grant request to NOAA for $375,000, matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and services, would be used for acquisition in fee simple or by easement of wetlands, waters and shoreline at Stockport Flats (187-299 acres), Tivoli Bays (45 acres), Piermont Marsh (73 acres), and to develop or renovate facilities at two or more of the four Hudson River sites. These facilities (buildings, roads, parking lots, trails and boardwalk) would be used to accommodate research activities, educational programs, and visitors. All other land at the four sites is in public ownership. Approval of this grant application would permit the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary representing a subcategory of the Virginian biogeographi c region. The proposed sanctuary would be used primarily for research and education purposes, especially to provide information useful for coastal zone management decisionmaking. Multiple use would be encouraged to the extent that it is compatible with the proposed sanctuary's research and educational programs. New York's proposal follows several years of interest in and concern for the Hudson Estuary by State and local officials, and university and conservation groups. The four sites to be included in the estuarine sanctuary--Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh, and Piermont Marshes--were selected by a New York Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee because they are essentially undisturbed, representative sites, and because publicly owned land and water comprising an estuarine system were available for research, education, and recreation purposes. In September 1981, NOAA awarded New York a $50,000 pre-acqui si tion grant for the proposed sanctuary, which enabled the State to initiate a real estate appraisal and environmental assessment of the sites, and to prepare management, research, education, and recreation plans. On June 8, 1982 a workshop was held in Annandale, New York at Bard College to generate ideas on research and education programs for the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. Their report is reproduced as Appendix 9. PART II: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR THE ESTUARINE SANCTUARY (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION) The action under consideration by NOAA is a proposal from the State of New York to establish a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary consisting of four sites representing estuarine areas on the Hudson River. The State of New York has applied to NOAA for an acquisition grant of $375,000 to be matched with an equivalent amount of State, local, or private funds, donations of land, and in-kind services (for example, surveys and appraisals) to establish a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary composed of approximately 4,165 acres of water, wetlands, islands and uplands in Columbia, Dutchess and Rockland Counties. Acquisition funds would be spent for acquiring property through easements or fee simple purchases. in these counties, as well as for developing facilities for research and education programs at the sanctuary. NOAA would serve as a temporary partner in the funding process for five years, after which the sanctuary would be wholly-State operated. The proposed sanctuary would be named the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary with each site being designated as the "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Stockport Flats," "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Ti vol i Bays," "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Iona Island Marsh," and "Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary at Piermont Marsh." Although this project is called the Hudson River Estuarine "Sanctuary," this does not mean that traditional uses will be changed. In fact, a multiple-use policy is clearly practicable. To insure this policy, the agencies presently administering these sites (Department of Environmental Conservation, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Palisades Interstate Park Commission, and Office of General Services) will continue to make the major management policy decisions for their respective sites, in coordination with the other agencies. This coordination will be achieved through a Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix 8). Representatives of these agencies and of the New York State Department of State are expected to confer annually to review the status of the program. A. Preferred Alternative for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary The $375,000 acquisition grant would be used for acquisition of lands and development of facilities at the Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh sites to provide the control necessary for the establishment of a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. Most of the lands included within the proposed Sanctuary boundaries are already owned by New York State. The Hudson River Estuary in eastern New York is a long narrow tidal river containing a diversity of near-pristine and high quality natural areas and nationally significant biological features. The area includes bald eagle and osprey feeding areas, a large shortnose sturgeon population, rare estuarine plant species, a flyway for waterfowl and other birds, brackish and freshwater tidal river marshes and swamps, undeveloped forested clay and rock bluffs, and rocky and sandy islands. The proposed sanctuary sites are the major remaining near-pristine areas on the Hudson Estuary and are characterized by relatively unpolluted air and water, moderate to low tidal ranges, large tidal wetlands, heavily forested shores, great diversity of fish, wildlife and plants, and low human populations. The purpose of this proposed sanctuary would be to manage and to maintain the Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh as they are now--healthy, productive, unspoiled estuarine natural systems, to encourage research and public education on these little-studied tidal river wetlands and associated environments, and to continue existing uses of the sites, including hunting, fishing, and trapping where presently permitted. 1 . Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands The proposed sanctuary would include approximately 4,165 acres of waters, wetlands, islands and uplands. The boundaries of the proposed sanctuary are shown in Figures 1-4. Most of the lands within the sanctuary boundaries are already owned by New York State. The presently State-owned areas and the areas proposed for acquisition are shown in Figures 1-4 and listed in Table 1. The grant request to NOAA would be matched by New York State, using such sources as Environmental Quality Bond Act and other State agency funds, value of donated land, bargain sales of the parcels to be acquired, donated money from fund raising, the value of easements granted, and the value of land acquisitions within the proposed sanctuary boundaries currently being negotiated Twelve specific parcels of private land are to be acquired as funds permit (not in priority order; see Figures 1 , 2, 4, and Table 2). In addition, the involved State agencies may acquire other parcels adjacent to the sanctuary boundaries in fee simple, or through conservation easements, as available funds permit. Furthermore, cooperative management agreements may be sought with adjoining private owners on a voluntary basis to further protect the areas surrounding the proposed sanctuary. 2. Public and Private Access Acquisition of public access points or protection of existing access points will be sought at Stockport and Tivoli. Access is adequate* at Iona and Piermont. All four sites are accessible by small boat from the river using put-in points at both public and private landings within a few miles of the sites. Land access is limited at Stockport and Tivoli and tradi- tionally has been largely along the railroad service roads at these sites, but Consolidated Rail Corporation has indicated that it plans to close off some access points on its land in the near future. Thus, access points within the proposed sanctuary would be even more important to the public. Fig. 1j Stockport Flats Area, approximate property ownerships. The Consolidated Rail Core, corridor not shown. ( See Tables 1 and 2 .) (Adapted from USGS Hudson North, N.Y. quadrangle.) Extent of tidal influence Proposed sanctuary boundary — Ownership boundary Priming Hook Tivoli N Magdalen island 8 DEC Cruger Island DEC one mi ie one km T — Cruger Development Corp (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. corridor — — — — — Proposed sanctuary boundary Ownership boundary Fig. 2 Tivoli Bays Area. ( See Tables 1 and 2 .) (Adapted from USGS Saugerties, N.Y. quadrangle.) Trailside Museums Bear Mtn. Doodletown Bight N J one mile one km Proposed sanctuary boundary Fig. 3 lona Island Marsh Area ( See Tables 1 and 2 .) (Adapted from USGS Peekskill, N.Y. quadrangle.) Ownership all PIPC 10 N Lamont Doherfy Geological Observatory Ownership boundary — — — — Proposed sanctuary bound* x x x x x x Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. easement one km one mile 1 — Fig. 4 Piermont Marsh Area. ( See Tables 1 and 2 .) (Adapted from USGS Nyack, N.Y.- N.J. quadrangle.) 11 Table 1. Ownership of Parcels Within the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Boundaries (see Figures 1-4)a (approximate acreages). Stockport Flats: Acres New York State Office of General Services (OGS) 692-804b New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) 193 Private (see Table 2) 187-299b Ti vol i Bays: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 707 New York State Office of General Services (OGS) 729 Private (see Table 2) 45 Iona Island Marsh: Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) 556 Piermont Marsh: Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) 871 Private (including The Nature Conservancy, see Table 2) 73 Stockport Flats approximately 1 ,516 acres Tivoli Bays approximately 1,481 acres Iona Island Marsh approximately 556 acres Piermont Marsh approximately 944 acres Total approximately 4,165 acres a The following ownerships are adjacent to, but will not be part of, the proposed sanctuary: corridors approximately 75 feet wide passing through or adjacent to Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays and Iona Island Marsh and owned by Consolidated Rail Corporation; a Y-shaped corridor (undeveloped) 200 feet wide crossing part of the Tivoli Bays State lands and owned by Cruger Development Corporation of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation; the Erie Pier properties at the north end of Piermont Marsh owned by the Village of Piermont, Clevepak Corporation, and Federal Paper Board Company. The ranges of acreage given are due to the incompletely determined size of the private holding on the unnamed island, the rest of which is owned by OGS. 12 Table 2. Parcels Proposed for Acquisition (not in priority order) At Stockport Flats: Parcel 1: An approximately 5-acre sandy islet owned by Joseph Nostrand between Fordham Point and Little Nutten Hook. Parcel 2:* An approximately 57-acre area of shallows and shoreline, a water grant known as the "Gay Grant," owned by Irving Domnitch. Parcel 3:* An approximately 18-acre area of water, marsh and shoreline, a water grant known as the "Judson Grant," owned by Irving Domnitch. Parcel 4: An approximately 10-acre area of water and marsh, a water grant known as the "Al vord Grant," owned by Robert L. Pierson. Parcel 5: An approximately 1-acre area of madeland adjacent to the rail- road and the mouth of Stockport Creek with an unimproved parking area and landing, owned by Consolidated Rail Corporation. Parcel 6. Portions of the "unnamed island" lying off the mouth of Stockport Creek owned by Porter Fearey, Jr. The extent of Mr. Fearey's ownership is believed to be between 7 and 119 acres, and to this extent the State is negotiating with h-im. Parcel 7: An approximately 54-acre area of water, marsh and shoreline, a water grant known as the "French Grant," owned by Algis C. Saurusaitis. Parcel 12: An approximately 35-acre area of land on the south side of Stockport Creek, owned by John P. and Sal lie Barrett, and currently under study as a potential public access point. At Tivoli Bays: Parcel 8: Approximately 45-acres of land including the approximately 9-acre Magdalen Island and additional area of upland at the north end of North Bay, owned by Tivoli Properties, Inc. This acquisition is under negotiation by the State and the exact size of the parcel has not been agreed upon. * Mr. Domnitch has indicated he does not want to participate in the sanctuary project. The State of New York is preparing an offer to him. If refused, his lands will be removed from the proposed boundary and will not be included as part of the sanctuary. 13 At Piermont Marsh: Parcel 9: An approximately 71-acre area of water and marsh now owned by DEC. This parcel consists of approximately 65-acres donated to this village of Piermont by Continental Group, Inc., and about 6-acres then owned by the village, both transferred to The Nature Conservancy and then to DEC during the preparation of this FEIS. Parcel 10: An approximately 0.04-acre area in the northwest corner of Piermont Marsh, owned by Louis Hurban, Jr. Parcel 11: An approximately 2-acre area in the northwest corner of Piermont Marsh owned by James J. MacMurray. Stockport. Existing access is mostly via the large unimproved parking area and unimproved boat landing on the ConRail property at the railroad crossing of Stockport Creek. Purchase of this access point would ensure its continued availability to the public. The need for an additional access point on tidal Stockport Creek near the proposed sanctuary site would be studied. This point would provide access for researchers, fishermen, and canoeists. Gay's Point and Stockport Middle Ground are accessible by boat. There are three improved public boat launch sites (at Coxsackie, Hudson, and Athens) within approximately two miles of the proposed sanctuary site. Tivoli . Most access now is via the railroad service road from the Cruger Island Road (both northward and southward), from Barrytown (northward), and from Tivoli (southward). The management plan being developed by the DEC for the Tivoli Bays area will include development of two unimproved boat landings using old roads, one at the south end of North Bay (from Cruger Island Road), and the other on the east side of North Bay at a point just north of Stony Creek. Additionally, an existing trail system around the east side of North Bay connecting Cruger Island Road and Kidd Lane will be renovated for foot access to the site. Three small primitive parking areas will be developed in conjunction with the access points, away from the margin of the wetlands. The proposed access system will provide access for researchers and educational groups as well as fishermen, hunters and outdoor recreationists. There is an unimproved river landing at the Village of Tivoli north of North Bay. Iona. There is access to the marsh from Rt. 9W and also from the dirt causeway connecting 9W to Iona Island. The Palisades Interstate Park Commission will repair the causeway in 1982 or 1983 as soon as PIPC funds are available. The causeway provides access for researchers and certain other users, but generally permits are required from the Park Commission. The Trail side Museums complex north of the site is accessible from the highway and will house the proposed sanctuary educational facility. The Appalachian Trail passes through this complex. Piermont. The Erie Pier, owned by the Village of Piermont, is used for launching boats and has parking space for about 40 vehicles. The Village is planning construction of a launching ramp. 14 The pier is also used by fishermen and birdwatchers. There is foot- path access to the marsh edge as well as to views over the marsh in Tall man Mountain State Park. 3. Management of the Proposed Sanctuary The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is not a new State or Federal regula- tory program. The proposed sanctuary would be managed using existing State laws and programs. The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is a State program; the Federal government is a partner in providing funds and guidance during the establishment phase. The principal goals of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary are to: (1) Manage the area's natural resources in a manner compatible with the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program goals and objectives in order to maintain, protect, and enhance the quality of the area's biological, physical , and cultural resources. (2) Encourage scientific research that focuses on both improving decisionmaking in coastal management and increasing understanding of estuarine ecosystems. (3) Increase national and local awareness of the significance of the estuarine resources within the proposed sanctuary and the Hudson River Estuary in general, and encourage wise use of these resources. (4) Allow traditional resource uses (including hunting, fishing and and trapping) in coordination with National Estuarine Sanctuary Program objectives. a. Management Plan A Management Plan for the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would be formulated within one year after the acquisition grant is received. This plan would be prepared under the direction of the Sanctuary Steering Committee in full consultation with the land-owning agencies, the Sanctuary Advisory Committee, and the public. The plan would provide a framework for conducting research and educational programs and for integrating public uses into broader National Estuarine Sanctuary purposes, while ensuring compatibility of the various Federal, State, and local programs already in effect on the Hudson River Estuary. The management plan would incorporate the management prerogatives of the various Sanctuary land-owning agencies. b. Management Structure The DEC will administer the proposed sanctuary and will be directly responsible for the content and structure of the sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and the formulation and implementation of general program elements (such as research programs and educational programs). A Sanctuary Steering Committee comprised of the five State agencies involved in the proposed sanctuary has been formed. 15 The Steering Committee consists of representatives from the following State agencies: 1. Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) including Regions 3 and 4 (lead agency, owner of certain sanctuary lands). 2. Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) (Saratoga-Capital District State Park and Recreation Commission) (owner of certain sanctuary lands); 3. Palisades Interstate Park Commission (PIPC) (owner of certain sanctuary lands); 4. Office of General Services (OGS) (owner of certain sanctuary lands); 5. Department of State (DOS) (responsible for N.Y. State's Coastal Management Program). DEC will chair this Steering Committee. The Committee is advisory to DEC on issues related to the formulation and implementation of the proposed sanctuary's management plan, the expenditure of program funds, and formulation and implementation of general program elements. Consistent with the management plan, the State agencies will exercise prerogatives and make decisions regarding use of lands to which they hold title. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would serve as an ex-officio representative to the Steering Committee. A Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the agencies represented on the Steering Committee, is reproduced as Appendix 8. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines interagency arrangements for the administration and management of the proposed sanctuary, and expresses the agencies' agreement to carry out the management plan. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) will represent local government, user groups, conservation organizations, researchers, educators, funding organizations, and adjoining land owners. The purpose of the SAC is to achieve coordination among the public and private groups participating in the sanctuary program, and to assist and advise the Sanctuary Steering Committee. The SAC will help in securing funding from the private sector, organizing volunteer efforts in education and management work, soliciting and channeling public input to the sanctuary planning process, reviewing the proposed sanctuary management plan and any changes in the plan, reviewing proposals for educational and research use and other activities within the proposed sanctuary, enhancing communication and cooperation among all interests involved in the proposed sanctuary. The SAC will function as three local committees for the three local counties containing proposed sanctuary sites (Columbia, Dutchess, and Rockland), with an executive committee that meets to coordinate the work of the three local committees. The committees will consist of local representatives as outlined in Table 3. The chairpersons of the three local committees will meet with the Steering Committee. 16 Coordination of the Steering Committee is assured by the Memorandum of Agreement among the agencies involved that they agree to the objectives and specifications of this Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Federal Guidelines for the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The purpose of the coordinated management -approach is to improve consistency, reduce conflicts, and provide better service to the public. The site-by-site organization of ownership and management responsibility follows. Table 3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee (Tentative Composition Stockport (Columbia Co.) Town Government County Environmental Advisory Group Sportsmen's Group Commercial Fisherman Conservation Group or Nature Club Adjoining Land Owner Scientific Researcher Educator Business Representative Ti vol i (Dutchess Co.) (This committee will be the same as the Tivoli Bays State Lands Advisory Committee.) Town Government Village of Tivoli Representative Town Conservation Council Dutchess County Trappers' Association Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club Adjoining Land Owner Scientific Researcher Bard College Educator Business Representative Local Waterfowl Hunter Piermont and Iona (Rockland Co.) Local Government Municipal Environmental Advisory Group Sportsmen's Representative Commercial Fisherman Conservation Group or Nature Club Adjoining Land Owner Scientific Researcher Educator Business Representative 17 Stockport Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Saratoga- Capital District Park and Recreation Commission: owns land at Gay's Point and Stockport Middle Ground and is responsible for any facilities at those areas. There is a management plan for the Gay's Point and Stockport Middle Ground elements of the Hudson River Islands State Park, and picnicing, camping, fishing and hunting are permitted at those areas in accordance with provisions in the management plan. Office of General Services: owns the remainder of the currently State-owned lands at the* Stockport site. Fishing, hunting and trapping are permitted on OGS lands, and these uses will continue. OGS has no facilities on its lands at Stockport. Department of Environmental Conservation; Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and Office of General Services together will plan and conduct whatever further acquisition of lands at the Stockport site is desired. Tivoli Department of Environmental Conservation: owns lands at Cruger Island, North Bay, and east of North Bay, and is negotiating further acquisition there. A management plan for the Tivoli Bays State lands is being prepared by DEC under a directive that predated the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. (This acquisition project was initiated in 1980 using on a 50-50 matching basis a Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service grant and New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act funds, and has also been called "Tivoli Bays Nature and Historical Preserve." The area will also serve as a wildlife management area.) Facilities constructed at the Tivoli site for the proposed estuarine sanctuary would be funded (construction and maintenance) with estuarine sanctuary funds and other funds as needed. However, DEC will be responsible for physical management of the site. 18 Office of General Services: owns lands in North Bay, the northern end of South Bay, and around Cruger Island and Magdalen Island which are to be transferred to DEC under an agreement which pre-dated the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. OGS also owns lands in the middle of South Bay and outside South Bay (west) which will remain in OGS ownership, but will be managed by DEC under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. OGS has no facilities at the Tivoli site. Iona Palisades Interstate Park Commission: owns the Iona Island Marsh and all surrounding areas west of the railroad, as well as the portions of Iona Island and Round Island east of the railroad, the shallows adjacent to the island, and the Bear Mountain State Park Trail side Museums complex. PIPC maintains a portion of the Appalachian Trail which passes within three-tenths of a mile of the marsh (this is the only point where the Appalachian Trail passes through the coastal zone). The United States Department of the Interior holds a reversionary interest in the portions of Iona Island and Round Island east of the railroad. PIPC patrols the entire site, and regulates use of the site in accordance with established PIPC management policies. PIPC will be responsible for the maintenance of all improvements, additions, and exhibits at the Trailside Museums built with estuarine sanctuary funds. PIPC is also responsible for the maintenance of the access road to Iona Island. Hunting and trapping have not been permitted for more than 65 years at Iona Islands on PIPC lands and permits are generally required for other uses. Piermont Palisades Interstate Park Commission: owns the major (central) portion of Piermont Marsh, and water rights grants adjacent to the eastern edge of the marsh. Hunting and trapping have not been permitted for more than 50 years on the PIPC lands, which are managed according to established PIPC policy. There are no structures on the PIPC lands included in the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Department of Environmental Conservation: is acquiring lands in the north end of Piermont Marsh between Sparkill Creek and the Erie Pier, and will manage the parcels to be acquired and any other parcels acquired in that portion of the marsh under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. 19 c. Sanctuary Staff The DEC in consultation with the Sanctuary Steering Committee would direct a staff consisting of at least one person, the Sanctuary Manager. The Manager will be an individual experienced in the environmental sciences and in grant proposal preparation. An alternative arrangement would be two individuals, a scientist and a grants writer. The Manager will occupy an office to be selected near the Ti vol i or Iona site or between these two sites. If only one person is appointed, arrangements would be made to secure the part-time services of at least one other person, so that one staff member resides near the up-river sites and one resides near the downriver sites. The part-time staff member could be a shared position with another Hudson River Estuary related job in the public or private sector. Additionally, the services of volunteers would be sought wherever possible. The sanctuary staff would be accountable to the DEC and the duties of the staff would be: (1) Coordinating research within or related to the proposed sanctuary, and sharing the research results with the State Coastal Management Program and other State Programs related to the Hudson River Estuary; (2) Coordinating the educational program for the proposed sanc- tuary and establishing a forum for open discussion between environmental and economic interests along the estuary; (3) Preparing grant proposals and managing the finances of the proposed sanctuary; (4) Performing other administrative duties for the proposed sanctuary, including maintenance of complete and detailed scientific and management records of the proposed sanctuary; (5) Working with the Steering Committee and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee; (6) Advising government agencies on issues, questions and projects that have an impact on the proposed sanctuary. d. General and Specific Management Requirements Management policies would be based on the primary objective of main- taining the proposed sanctuary in a natural condition to assure long-term protection of these four areas for research, education, and recreation. Development uses that would significantly alter the ecosystem or that are inconsistent with the purposes and goals of the proposed sanctuary would not be allowed on the proposed sanctuary lands. 20 Existing Federal, State, and local laws would, as in the past, control uses of the land and water areas within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Changes in management policies and regulations that affect the proposed sanctuary would be reviewed by the Sanctuary Advisory Committee. This Committee may provide advisory comments on policies and programs, but would have no regulatory authority. Major traditional uses of the lands and water within the proposed sanctuary boundaries are compatible with the research and education objectives of the proposed sanctuary. These traditional uses include fishing, hunting, and trapping (at Tivoli and Stockport), commercial shipping and recreational boating, rail and transportation, and recreational use of the Erie Pier at Piermont. The Experimental Ecological Reserve Program at Tivoli, the DEC Management Plan for the Tivoli Bays State Lands (in preparation), the National Natural Landmark status (U.S. National Park Service) of Iona Island Marsh, other State Park uses of the proposed sanctuary sites, and other established policies of the involved State agencies will remain in effect. Although some Experimental Ecological Reserves have programs of large-scale physical manipulation of habitats for experimental purposes, such manipulation would not be consistent with the goals of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. Experiments would be designed to assess, evaluate and expand knowledge of natural systems within the proposed sanctuary, or larger scale manipulations outside of the proposed sanctuary boundaries which would not alter the natural systems within the proposed sanctuary. Significant long-term or permanent habitat manipulation is generally considered incompatible with estuarine sanctuaries. e. Enforcement of Existing Laws Enforcement of existing Federal, State and local laws within the proposed sanctuary would continue as it has in the past. Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary does not bring any new Federal or State regulation to the area, but it emphasizes the importance of the area for research and education. The following laws, among others, would guarantee the integrity of the proposed sanctuary: Federal Clean Waters Act, Section 404; and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10; State Tidal Wetlands Act, Freshwater Wetlands Act; and Stream Protection Act; other parts of the State Environmental Conservation Law; New York State Parks and Recreation Law; and New York State Waterfront Revital i zation and Coastal Resources Act. A more detailed list of existing laws and jurisdictions is in Appendix 2. 21 f . Research Program: Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Estuarine sanctuary research would focus on estuarine studies and studies of the interaction of terrestrial and marine ecosystems with the estuarine ecosystem. Studies would be carried out in wetlands, shoreline, shallows and deepwater habitats with a special emphasis on shoreline and wetlands habitats because these habitats of tidal rivers have been least- studied, particularly in the Hudson River Estuary. Most research would be done by private laboratories, colleges, universities and State agencies. The Steering Committee would coordinate research objectives and priorities for the proposed sanctuary, and coordinate research activities. The State agencies represented on the Steering Committee would stimulate new research in the proposed sanctuary. Public interests, especially sanctuary user groups, would draw attention to practical problems of ecology and management in the Hudson River Estuary. Interaction between New York's Coastal Management Program (NYS Department of State), New York Sea Grant Institute, and the Steering Committee members would enable the Sanctuary Research program to function partly in an "experiment station" mode to identify and address the information needs of coastal management. A significant factor in future scientific research on the Hudson is the newly-established not-for-profit Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc., with an endownment of $12 million provided by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, and Orange and Rockland Utilities as a result of the landmark negotiated settlement involving the utilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, N.Y. State DEC, Scenic Hudson, Inc., Hudson River Fishermen's Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. A considerable amount of research has already been done on the Hudson River Estuary. The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program can provide the coordination needed to make the most efficient use of funds, existing data, and research opportunities, while facilitating the availability of information resulting from research and avoiding duplication within the proposed sanctuary. The goals of the proposed estuarine sanctuary are compatible with those of the Hudson River Environmental Society and the Hudson River Research Council (groups of scientists and educators formed to coordinate research and disseminate research results to the public). There is opportunity for improved sharing of equipment, facilities and personnel of the type shown by the two Hudson River Field Weeks in April 1977 and August 1978. Special opportunities also exist for the public (students, sportsmen, naturalists, etc.) to assist as volunteers in research projects; this approach was used successfully by Boyce Thompson Institute in collecting data on Hudson River Estuary fish, invertebrates, and marsh vegetation. This "volunteerism" will link research and education efforts in two ways: (1) educational field trips can collect samples and make observations useful to scientists, and (2) amateur naturalists can do field work under scientific supervision. Fishermen are already assisting in tagging projects, and a postcard reporting system is under study by the Hudson River Fisheries Advisory Committee to enable sportsmen and naturalists to contribute to a scientific data base information on observations of unusual events and species that would otherwise 22 be lost. The Fisheries Advisory Committee and the DEC Hudson River Fisheries Coordinator will work closely with the Steering Committee to stimulate and plan research, and exchange assistance and information. Ti vol i Bays was designated an Experimental Ecological Reserve (EER) in 1981 under the Institute of Ecology (Butler University) national system of Experimental Ecological Reserves. This is a non-funded system of reserves that are selected to serve as sites for long-term ecosystem- level studies. Some of the monitoring and research planned for the EER would be extended to cover all four estuarine sanctuary sites. The proposed sanctuary sites were selected to allow research on a cross-section of areas representing similar habitats (shoreline, marshes, shallows) along the ecological gradient of the estuary, and these sites are well-suited for long-term studies comparing stability and change in vegetation, animals and ecosystem function. New York's commitment to maintaining these natural areas will permit long-term ecological research not possible elsewhere. In connection with the proposed estuarine sanctuary, appropriate facilities (existing or new) would be designated to serve as respositories for published and unpublished reports, data, and voucher specimens of plants and animals in different reaches of the Estuary. It is expected that the planning of repositories would be coodinated with the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. and other active groups. Estuarine Sanctuary grant funds will not be adequate to support all research. Some operations funds may be used for environmental monitoring. Therefore, estuarine sanctuary staff would conduct an active fund-raising effort to support research, in conjunction with the preparation of grant proposals by independent researchers and other institutions. The specific research projects to be conducted would be determined later and would be carried out within the scope of available funding. In general, research would be encouraged that is relevant to effective coastal management and the wise use of Hudson Estuary resources. The following topics are examples. (1) Ecosystem-level studies of the flows of energy and nutrients within the wetlands, between the wetlands and the open estuary, and between the wetlands and the shores; (2) Studies of the role of terrestrial and acquatic plant detritus in the nutrition of estuarine organisms in the Hudson's fresh-tidal and brackish-tidal areas, and the effects of detritus from different sources of these processes; (3) Patterns and changes in vegetation of wetlands, shallows and shores, and effects on fish and wildlife populations, soils, and nutrient cycles; (4) Ecology of wildlife food plants such as water-celery, wild-rice and cattail ; 23 (5) Role of the Hudson River Estuary wetlands and the shallows in the spawning, juvenile development (nursery) and feeding of commercial and sport fishes; (6) Role of the Hudson River in the Atlantic waterfowl and shorebird flyway, and the value of the wetlands and shallows as resting, breeding, and wintering places for waterfowl; (7) Marsh bird (rail, gallinule, bittern, wren, blackbird and sparrow) populations and their relationship to marsh vegetation, food organisms, and other animals; (8) Muskrat ecology, populations, relationship to soil, vegetation and other wildlife, diseases, environmental contaminants, limiting factors, and economic value; (9) Invertebrates (benthic and planktonic) and their role as fish and wildlife food and in sediment processes and nutrient cycling in the wetlands and shal lows; (10) The species composition and production of Hudson River marsh vegetation compared to fresh-tidal and brackish-tidal marshes in other East Coast estuaries, and to saline-tidal marshes; (11) The ecology, vegetation, wildlife, and resource values of freshwater-tidal swamps; (12) Ecology of endangered species including shortnose sturteon, bald eagle, osprey, heartleaf plantain and Nuttall's micranthemum, and ecology of "estuarine endemics" such as cylindrical bulrush; (13) Effects of rising sea level on tidal wetlands; (14) Geologic character and history of wetland sediments and vegetational history of the wetlands; and (15) Microbial communities and role in ecosystem processes. In addition, the "experiment station" approach could address management problems elsewhere on the estuary such as: (1) Fish stocking potentials and policies; (2) The sources and cycling of toxic substances and the uses of plants and animals to monitor toxic substances; (3) Effects of introduced plant and animal species on the estuary and on native species; (4) Mitigation of effects of channel maintenance and dredged material disposal ; (5) Shoreline erosion and its management; 24 (6) The assimilation capacity of natural environments for nutrients and other waste materials; (7) Manipulative experiments on wetlands outside the proposed sanctuary sites, to study effects of management practices such as impoundment, water level control, pest control, and wildlife species management, and restoration of damaged wetlands; and (8) Experiments in mitigation and minimization of development and management impacts to include industry, marinas, railroad right-of-way management, and shoreline stabilization. g. Existing Monitoring Several State and Federal Agencies and private institutions conduct monitoring of physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the Hudson River Estuary. 0 (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 (7 (8 (9 (10 (11 (12 Tides and freshwater flow; Water quality^ Air quality and weather; Fisheries surveys and stock assessments; Commercial fishing activity; Levels of PCB and metals in fish; Distribution and abundance of endangered animals and plants; Mid-winter aerial water fowl surveys (see Appendix 5); Christmas Bird Counts (several locations): New York State Breeding Bird Atlas; Breeding birds and vegetation of the railroad right-of-way; and Seismic activity. The monitoring and research program at the proposed sanctuary would be designed for compatibility with similar work at the other existing National Estuarine Sanctuaries and coastal Experimental Ecological Reserves. It is anticipated that the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would be the site of regular workshops and conferences on ecology and management of estuaries and wetlands. A research prospectus would be circulated regularly to inform and attract potential researchers. 25 h. Education and Public Awareness Program While few people live next to the proposed sanctuary sites themselves, approximately 15 million people &re located within a 45- minute drive of the sites. Each year millions of people visit the shores of the Hudson River for recreation and other purposes. The Trailside Museums complex adjoining the Iona Island Marsh site has an estimated 600,000 visitors annually. At the Trailside Museums and at selected locations on or adjacent to the other three proposed sanctuary sites, it would be possible to accommodate many people for educational purposes without damage to the natural areas or conflicts with other uses. The proposed sanctuary staff and Sanctuary Advisory Committee would be active in public education. There is a growing body of scientific information on the Hudson River Estuary, but relatively little of it has been interpreted for the lay public. During the last 5-10 years, Hudson Valley residents have evidenced considerable interest in seeing and learning about the estuary and its life, and the wetland and shoreline environments represented in the proposed sanctuary lend themselves well to this purpose. These are examples of possible education programs: (1) Improvements to the Bear Mountain Trailside Museums to accommodate indoor and outdoor exhibits on the Hudson River Estuary and the Iona Island Marsh complex, oriented toward the general public with no prior knowledge of the estuary; (2) Facilities in an addition to the Bard College Field Station at Ti vol i Bays for graduate and undergraduate students, visiting scientists, and invited public class use; (3) A boardwalk accessible to the handicapped, through tidal marsh, swamp and pool habitats at the margin of the Tivoli Bays wetland, for the use by public and by researchers; (4) Traveling exhibits about the estuarine sanctuary for sportsmen's shows, elementary and secondary schools, nature and civic club meetings, county fairs, conferences, and other events; (5) Interpretive brochures describing the four proposed sanctuary sites and the Hudson River Estuary in general, with trail maps and guides to access points and special interest features (e.g., bi rdi ng "hotspots"); (6) A kit for teachers outlining estuary-related classroom activities for various age groups, coastal studies curricula, and do-it-yourself field trips to the proposed sanctuary sites or other Hudson River Estuary wetlands and shoreline locations; (7) Slide shows with pre-recorded taped narrations for loan to schools and public groups; (8) Posters interpreting the estuary and its life and management; 26 (9) Videotaped programs for cable television stations, other public television, and school use; (10) Organized field trips, guided by volunteer experts, at the proposed sanctuary sites and other locations, dealing with specific as well as general subjects; (11) A "speakers' bureau" for all public groups, consisting of persons with special knowledge of various Hudson River and general estuarine subjects (e.g., wetland ecology, fisheries, birds); and (12) A canoeist's guide to the proposed estuarine sanctuary. Estuarine sanctuary educational activities would be closely coordinated with ongoing programs at the Dutchess Community College Norrie Point Environ- mental Center, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Wave Hill Environmental Studies Center, and other institutions. The New York State Sea Grant Institute in cooperation with the County Extension service has just inaugurated the position of Hudson River Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Specialist to promote public understanding of and appreciation for the estuarine system. B. Other Alternatives Considered 1 . No Action Without a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary there would be no estuarine area specifically identified and protected within New York, and New York would lose the opportunity to participate in the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. New York and the Nation would be unable to derive the benefits from the research information and public awareness that would result from establishing and this area as an Estuarine Sanctuary. Although much of the land within the proposed sanctuary boundaries is already State-owned, under the "No Action" alternative New York would not be as readily able to acquire the remaining lands to fill in the public ownership gaps in the Piermont, Tivoli and Stockport marshes and these areas might not be manageable as State reserves. Furthermore, there would be less incentive for the several State agencies to work together to develop consistent management policies and practices with short-term and long-term benefits for natural area conservation, rare and endangered species, research, education, and recreation. Without designation of the estuarine sanctuary there would be less incentive for donation or bargin sales of lands adjacent to present State ownerships. Also, there would be no prestigious national program to attract research funds and highly qualified scientists from various fields to do long-term research with the confidence that their study area would remain protected. 27 Without the designation of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary, the National Estuarine Sanctuary System would lose the opportunity to study the extensive low salinity brackish and fresh-tidal estuarine marshes and swamps so little studied to date. Also the opportunity would be lost to inform the large urban populations of the New York Metropolitan Area and the State Capital District that have had little exposure to information about estuarine systems. The "No Action" alternative would not specifically prevent any single research project or land acquisition project, but the impetus for unification of management and coordination of research and education would be lost. The sanctuary designation plus the provision of management funds and the planning accompanying it, would establish a more comprehensive program as well as encourage additional research in the area, while such focus would likely not occur without designation. 2. Alternative Sites and the Site Selection Process for New York State The State of New York commenced its site selection process soon after receiving a memorandum from the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) sent in September 1979, inviting Mid-Atlantic States to nominate a candidate site. The Coastal Management Unit staff of the New York Department of State forwarded this invitation, along with the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary guidelines and case studies of Sanctuaries created in other parts of the country, to other State, regional and county agencies which had already been assisting in development of the New York Coastal Management Program. Representatives from these agencies, as well as from the New York Sea Grant Institute and the Marine Sciences Research Center of the State University were asked to review the Federal site selection criteria and consider possible candidate sites. Virtually all eligible sites had already been identified through the State's Coastal Management Program, and many were documented as Geographical Areas of Particular Concern or as Significant Habitats. New York' landmark Tidal Wetlands and Freshwater Wetlands regulatory laws also helped to identify candidates through the mapping required by those statutes. Information was also provided by the programs of the Department of Environmental Conservation to identify and acquire key tidal and freshwater wetlands with funds provided under the State Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972. All of these identification and registration programs and involved broadbased public input from sportsmen, scientists, naturalists, educators, politicians and other interested individuals and groups. In October 1979, representatives from these agencies met to discuss New York's possible involvement in the Program and to identify potential candidate sites. At this meeting the Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee was created (in a slightly different form than at present) to guide the Department of State in its selection of the best candidate site. The Steering Committee then consisted of the following persons: 28 Ms. Frances Dunwell, Center for the Hudson River Valley Mr. Francis A. Hyland, Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission Mr. Joe Ketas, City of New York Department of City Planning Mr. Ronald Killian, The Nature Conservancy Mr. Erik Kiviat, Bard College Dr. Lee E. Koppelman, Long Island Regional Planning Board Mr. James W. Morton, NYS Department of State Mr. John Muenziger, Westchester County Environmental Management Council Mr. Steven Resler, Town of Smithtown Planning Department Dr. Jerry R. Schubel , State University at Stony Brook Dr. Donald F. Squires, New York Sea Grant Institute Mr. Anthony Taormina, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Mr. Ivan Vamos, New York State Office of Parks and Recreation The Steering Committee evaluated a number of candidate sites using the selection criteria listed in the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary Program Guidelines. The three sites which best met the Federal criteria were: (1) The Peconic-Flanders Bays area; (2) The Hudson River marshes; and (3) The Nissequogue River. Short position papers describing each estuarine area were prepared and sent to OCZM for preliminary review. The object of this review was to determine in any of these sites would be clearly ineligible for the Program. OCZM staff deferred expression of preference for any one site in order to allow New York to make an independent decision on the State's best candidate. OCZM staff prepared a memorandum clarifying the current interpretation of the Federal selection criteria. Copies of this memorandum and all three position papers were sent to every Steering Committee member for review. 29 Early in December 1979 the Steering Committee held public information meetings in Hauppauge and New Paltz to publicize its interest in selecting a candidate site and to seek public comment on the selected sites. Shortly afterwards, members of the Steering Committee and a representative from Washington visited each of the three areas, making overflights and holding meetings with local public officials and interested groups. Later in December, the Steering Committee met to re-evaluate the sites in light of the OCZM memorandum on selection criteria, their observations during the site visits, and additional information provided at the public meetings. Each Steering Committee member had been asked to complete site evaluation forms prior to the meeting. Evaluation scores were compiled at the beginning of the meeting and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate followed. After considerable discussion, the Peconic-Flanders Bays area was selected as the State's best candidate for nomination in the Program, with the Hudson River Marshes as a strong second. When the primary nomination had to be withdrawn in early 1980 due to programmatic and local political difficulties, the Hudson River proposal became the primary candidate, and the pre-application process resumed, with a new lead agency (DEC) and a new Steering Committee (see list of preparers). The initial Hudson River proposal included five wetland complexes, from north to south: Tivoli Bays, Constitution Island Marsh, lona Island Marsh, Croton Marshes, and Piermont Marsh. OCZM and Hudson River ecologists suggested that Constitution be dropped from the proposal because of a localized pollution problem, and that Croton be dropped because of conflicting land uses. After- wards, Stockport Flats was added to the Hudson River proposal to represent the narrow and sandy upper reach of the estuary. The Federal guidelines require that the sites be representative of the estuary, and that the sites do not duplicate each other in character. The four Hudson River Estuary sites represent the salinity-vegetation-fauna gradient of the Hudson, and one site is located in each of the four differing geologic-ecol ogic segments of the estuary (see Affected Environment). The total (high tide) surface area of the Hudson River Estuary from Battery Park to Troy is approximately 82,800 acres, and the portion of this total which is composed of intertidal wetlands plus subtidal shallows (less than 6 feet deep at low tide) is 21,200 acres (26%). Thus, the total acreage of the wetlands and shallows of the four sites (Stockport, Tivoli, lona, Piermont) is approximately 2,860 acres or about 13% of the Hudson River Estuary's wetlands-shallows component, a fraction considered representative and adequate for the estuarine sanctuary purposes. All four Hudson River Estuary sites are large wetland complexes, among the Hudson's largest, and all four have subsystems that lend themselves to comparative research along the estuarine salinity gradient: extensive cattail stands cut by tidal creeks, associated tidal shallows and mudflats, and forested terrestrial zones. All sites include the wetlands-shallows and wetlands-uplands habitat combinations that promote wildlife use and allow study of ecosystem linkages. 30 The four Hudson River Estuary sites are among the Hudson's highest quality estuarine natural areas, and contain biological features of national significance including rare and endangered species. The sites are well-buffered by compatible adjoining land uses, ensuring manageability and future quality. All areas are conveniently near (for research and education) academic facilities, laboratories, and large urban populations, but retain their wildland character and offer secluded and pleasing environments for research and educational activities. All sites have suitable existing or potential access for the purposes of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The Hudson River Estuary is demographical ly central in New York State. A great amount of biological research has been done on the Hudson Estuary, in part because of its proximity to New York City and to numerous academic and scientific institutions, in part due to environmental analysis carried out in connection with land use planning and environmental management, and also due to the Hudson's inherent and urrique interest to biologists as a diverse and productive natural estuarine system. For at least 12 years private and public groups have called attention to the need for overall coordination of research, education, and management efforts on the Hudson. The Hudson River Research Council convened two conferences to address this problem in 1976 and 1977, and the Hudson River Environmental Society held a Hudson River Marsh' Workshop in 1976, five Hudson River Ecology Symposia from 1966 to 1980, and a Hudson River Fisheries Conference in 1981. Because of an excellent State land acquisition program during the last several decades, many of the ecologically significant Hudson River Estuary wetlands, islands, and shore natural areas are already in State ownership as parks, wildlife management areas, and preserves. Therefore, it was appropriate to propose the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary involving areas already predominantly State-owned and to use the program to fill out existing core public lands. Several alternatives were considered during the process of selecting sites on the Hudson River Estuary. One alternative was a sanctuary consisting of the entire Hudson River Estuary from Battery Park to Troy. This alternative has many advantages for management, research and education, but was rejected as being unworkable in the short-term due to constraints of funding and land use conflicts. Individual alternative sites were considered, and a number of sites were suggested by individuals and private groups. Several recommendations were received in favor of the addition of the Grassy Point wetland complex at Haverstraw to the proposal, but this seemed inappropriate because of the same standards of environmental quality to Constitution Island Marsh and Croton Marshes. Among many other areas considered were Con Hook Island and Marsh, Manitou Marsh, Moodna Marsh, Vanderburgh Cove, Suckley Cove, Kingston Point Marsh, Rogers Island Marshes, the Hudson North and South Bays, Inbocht Bay-Duck Cove, West Flats-Vosburgh Swamp, Ramshorn Creek-Livingston Marsh and Papscanee Creek Marshes. These areas were all rejected for one or more of the following reasons: small size, lack of representative sub- systems, localized environmental quality problems, incompatible land and water uses. Special consideration 31 was given to selecting a site in the northernmost section of the estuary between Troy and Saugerties, before settling on Stockport Flats as the best choice. Papscanee Creek Marshes have modified tidal circulation and the quality of the cattail stands is not as high; the West Flats-Vosburgh Swamp complex is partly diked off from tidal flow and the diversity in the remaining tidal portion is low; Hudson North and South Bays have been adversely affected by neighboring land uses; and the Rogers Island complex does not contain vegetation types comparable to the three southern sites although it is a high-quality natural area. Stockport Flats stood out as the site with the highest environmental quality and having subsystems appropriate to the overall representativeness of the Hudson River Estuary selection. 3. Alternative Boundaries Boundaries set for the individual sites represent a mix of these considerations: inclusion of the primary resources for research and education, adequate protection and manageability, sufficient terrestrial buffer zones, access, present ownership, availability of funding for acqui sition. a. Inclusion of Primary Resources. The extensive main wetland areas at all four sites are the focal points of the proposed sanctuary. The placement of the lower (river) boundaries of the sites near the minus-6 foot contour includes enough of the shallows for management purposes while acknowledging that research work can be carried out in the deeper waters where no specific protection is required. b. Adequate Protection and Manageability. The range of size of the four sites is within a range considered manageable yet still provides for the future integrity and protection of the sites. Inclusion of areas on both sides of the river at any one site (e.g., Stockport Flats and West Flats) was avoided because of logistical problems. Extension of site boundaries across zones with little or no shallow water was also avoided because it would have created unnecessary disjunction (e.g., Iona Island Marsh and the mouth of Popolopen Creek). c. Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Access. Extent of buffer zones was set depending upon status of adjoining lands and topography. At Iona and Piermont, the amount of terrestrial mainland included in the site boundaries was moot because of the stringent protection afforded the State Park lands. At Tivoli, a decision was made to include the entire State-owned uplands to achieve consistency in the boundaries of the State lands, Experimental Ecological Reserve, and proposed estuarine sanctuary, while creating a management unit. At Stockport, the primary considerations were access and reasonable size of management unit and proposed acquisitions, while affording protection for the main marsh and for endangered species. All of the terrestrial portions of Iona Island are included in the site boundary because of management consistency and protection of endangered species. At Piermont, it was decided to include the north end of the marsh to avoid management conflicts, to protect both sides of the mouth of Sparkill Creek, and to use the Erie Pier as an access point. 32 The proposed boundaries are the products of extensive Steering Committee discussions and meet the needs of all State agencies involved as well as the requirements of the Federal Program. The boundaries will permit workable administration and ease of management of the proposed sanctuary. 4. Alternative Management Scheme The proposed management scheme (separate State agency ownerships with integrated management agreement and management plan) is considered the best choice because it respects traditional agency prerogatives and enables the pooling of resources and expertise of all agencies and interests involved. Consideration was given to alternative schemes, for example, transfer of all lands to a single agency or administration of the proposed sanctuary by a private group. The other alternatives were rejected because of the lack of adequate mechanisms and the desire to retain traditional uses and policies as much as possible. The State's Coastal Management Program has involved strong cooperation among State agencies and has shown that collaborative management of the proposed sanctuary is the best alternative. 5. Funding Several sources of funds have been used in the past for the acquisition of natural areas in the Hudson River Estuary; these include Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, State Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 funds, and private initiatives including the donation of lands to conservation groups. At the present time, no adequate source of funds is available for an estuarine sanctuary project (acquisition and operation) other than the NOAA National Estuarine Sanctuary Program funds here considered. Special advantages of NOAA National Estuarine Sanctuary Program funding include: (1) The emphasis on research and education programs while retaining other traditional uses of the sites; (2) The prestige of the National Estuarine Sanctuary System which would attract national attention to New York, increase the chances of receiving substantial research grants from other public and private sources, improve research and education opportunities at the selected sites, and strengthen public support for continued pollution abatement and public enjoyment of the resource; and (3) The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program provides five years of matching operations funds which are needed to establish the proper management of the proposed sanctuary during its first years after establishment. Federal estuarine sanctuary grants are not available for other purposes. During the first years of sanctuary operation, plans would be made for funding of the proposed sanctuary after Federal funding expires. Sources of post- Federal funding may include one or more of the following: State agency funds; private donations or grants for sanctuary operations; interest from an endownment raised by a not-for-profit corporation; a possible State Legislative appropriation; equipment, services, and time donated to the proposed sanctuary by the private sector; and voluntary donations by users of the proposed sanctuary. 33 PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. Hudson River - General Description The Hudson River flows 315 miles through eastern New York State from the Adirondack Mountains southward to New York City. The Hudson is a tidal river for 152 miles from Troy to Battery Park at the tip of Manhattan Island where it empties into New York Harbor, Lower New York Bay, and the New York Bight. Tidal freshwater extends from Troy south to Hyde Park (Figure 5). The 0.1 parts-per-thousand salinity "salt front" shifts through the Hyde Park to Yonkers reach. The Hudson River is entirely in New York State except for 20 miles at its mouth where it flows between New York and New Jersey. The Hudson River watershed lies in New York State except for small areas in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. In New York, the Hudson Estuary flows through or past 14 counties and 41 townships. Geologic diversity is great in the Hudson River watershed and along the tidal Hudson itself. Sandstone, shale, limestone, gneiss, diabase, sand, clay and till are prominent along the tidal shores. Topography is also varied, with narrow shallow reaches, narrow deep reaches, and broad shallow reaches. River widths are about one-sixth to two-and-one-hal f miles; maximum depths 13-200 feet. The tidal Hudson is a long narrow estuary with an extended tidal -freshwater reach. Partial stratification occurs at times in the lower estuary where a layer of fresher water may flow outward over a layer of more saline water. The mean vertical tide range averages 3-4 feet. Ecologically, the Hudson River Estuary resembles other East Coast estuaries in the Virginian Biogeographic Region (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras). For example, wetlands and shallows vegetation, and communities of fish and wildlife resemble those found in the Connecticut River Estuary, the Delaware River Estuary, and Chesapeake Bay. Numerous habitat types are present in the Hudson Estuary. These include open deep water, shallows, marshes, swamps, rocky and sandy islands, silt bottom, peat bottom, clay banks, and rock cliffs. Extensive areas of the Hudson Estuary shores are forested with oaks, maples, beech, birches, hemlock, white pine and other trees. About 150 species of fishes occur in the Hudson. The four sites proposed for inclusion in the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary are distributed as shown in Figure 5, and mapped in Figures 6-9. These sites are, from north to south, Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, lona Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh. The great majority of lands (both estuarine and terrestrial areas) at these sites are already State-owned. 34 Hudson River Estuary Troy Hudson River drainage basin Extent of tidal influc Stockport 19 mi 45 min Tivoli 67 mi 120 min 49 mi 75 min lona 84 mi 160 min 66 mi 120 min 18 mi 45 min Piermont Distances (airline miles) and approximate driving times (minutes) between sites. Fig. 5 35 Stockport Flats, The northernmost site is in the Town of Stockport in Columbia County, near Col umbiavil le, 4 miles north of the city of Hudson and 22 miles south of Albany (Figures 5-6). The Stockport site comprises the mouth of a tributary stream (Stockport Creek) and a four-mile long series of peninsulas, islands, marshes and shallows along the east shore of the Hudson. Parts of the site are (or have been) known as Columbiavil le Creek, Stockport Marsh, East Flats, Priming Hook, Unnamed Island, Stockport Middle Ground, Gay's Point, and Fordham Point. Stock- port Middle Ground and Gay's Point are part of Hudson River Islands State Park. Stockport Flats was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Resources (Smith et al . nd) for rare plants, bird migration stopover, landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish & Wild- life Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program? 1977b). Ti vol i Bays. The next site to the south is in the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County, and stretches for two miles between Tivoli and Barrytown; it is 7 miles north of Rhinebeck and 19 miles north of Poughkeepsie (Figures 5, and 7). A small portion at the north end of the proposed site is within the jurisdiction of the Village of Tivoli. Tivoli Bays comprises two large coves on the east shore of the Hudson River, North Bay and South Bay, and includes Cruger Island and Magdalen Island and associated tidal shallows, as well as the mouths of two tributary streams, Stony Creek and Saw Kill. Parts of the site are (or have been) known as Tivoli Bay, North Tivoli Bay or Tivoli North Bay, South Tivoli Bay or Tivoli South Bay, North Cove, South Cove, DeKoven's Cove or Bay, the Vly or Fly, Goat Island, Slipsteen Island, South Curger Island, White Clay Kill and Stony Kill. North Bay and most of South Bay, Cruger Island, and a mainland area east of North Bay make up the Tivoli Bays State lands. (This acquisition project was initiated in 1980 using, on a 50/50 basis, matching funds from the U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service and New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act.) The area has also been called "Tivoli Bays Nature and Historical Preserve". The area has been designated an Experimental Ecological Reserve by the Institute of Ecology at Butler University. The Tivoli Bays is under consideration (1982) by the U.S. National Park Service as a potential National Natural Landmark. The entire Tivoli Bays site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is included in the Mid- Hudson Historic Shorelands State Scenic Area which extends from Clermont to Hyde Park. Tivoli Bays was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Resources (Smith et al . nd) for rare plants, bird migration stopover, landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish & Wildlife Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b); Hudson River Valley Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, 1979); Hudson River East Bank Natural Areas, Clermont to Norrie (Kiviat, 1978). Iona Island Marsh. The next site is in the Town of Stony Point, Rockland uounty, b miles south of West Point and 4 miles northwest of Peek- skill (Figures 5 and 8). The Iona Island marshes occupy a mile-long area between Iona Island and the west shore of the Hudson. Parts of the Iona Island site are (or have been) known as Salisbury Meadow, Ring Meadow, Doodletown Bight, Doodletown Brook, Round Island, Manahawagh, Salisbury Island, Weint's Island, and Beveridge's Island. The Iona Island site is it Little Nutten Hook Fordhom Point T Fig. 6 Stockport Flats Area. (Adapted from USGS Hudson North, N.Y. quadrangle.) Extent of tidal influence tidal wetlands tidal shallows deep water 37 deep water Fig. 7 Tivoli Bays Area. (Adapted from USGS Saugerties, N.Y. quadrangle.) 38 Trailside Museums Bear Mtn Doodletown Bight one km land tidal wetlands A tidal shallows deep water Fig. 8 lona Island Marsh Area (Adapted from USGS Peekskill, N.Y. quadrangle.) 39 N \Piermont & cs Rt. 9V\T •' Erie Pi **/$/// Tallmc State :£$ Piermont t:.:: Marsh in Mtn. \£:W: Park yM land Palisades Sneden' Landing) W$L t'c'a' wetlands yA// t'dal shallows deep water Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory one km one mile 1 — Fig. 9 Piermont Marsh Area. (Adapted from USGS Nyack, N.Y.— N.J. quadrangle.) (Areas shown as 'tidal wetlands' and 'tidal shallows' are both considered tidal wetlands under the State Tidal Wetlands Act.) 40 part of Bear Mountain State Park, an element in the Palisades Interstate Park system. The Iona Marsh has been designated a National Natural Landmark by the United States National Park Service. Iona Island Marsh was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Research (Smith et al . nd) for rare ecological niches, rare plants, bird migration stopover, and educational value; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish & Wildlife Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b); Hudson River Valley Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, 1979). Piermont Marsh. The southermost site is in the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, 4 miles south of Nyack (Figures 5, and 9). A portion at the north end of the proposed site is within the jurisdiction of the Village of Piermont. Piermont Marsh is one-and-one-half miles long, between Piermont and Sneden's Landing; it includes the mouth of a tributary stream (Sparkill Creek) and is surrounded by very extensive tidal shallows. Parts of the site are (or have been) known as Sparkill Marsh, and Taulman Landing or Point. The Piermont Marsh site is largely a part of Tallman Mountain State Park, an element of the Palisades Interstate Park system. Piermont Marsh was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Resources (Smith et al . nd) for rare ecological niches, rare plants, bird migration stopover, landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish and Wildlife Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b); Hudson River Valley Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, 1979). 1. Natural Environment a. Geology The Hudson River watershed is one of the most geologically complex regions in the United States, and the shores of the Estuary show great variety of bedrock, landforms and soils. After several geologic episodes of uplift, folding and faulting, alternating with periods of erosion, the Hudson Valley was overridden by the continental ice sheets. Glaciers gouged out the broad U-shaped valley of the Estuary, and left bare rock exposed in some locations and other areas covered with glacial and post- glacial deposits of till, sand and clay. The bed of the Estuary itself is filled with glacial deposits beneath recent estuarine sediments. Because of predominantly steep shores, the Hudson's floodplain is \/ery limited in extent. The Hudson River Estuary may be divided in four geologic-ecologic reaches (Kiviat, 1979): 1. Troy south to Saugerties, narrow and shallow with many islands and wetlands, bordered by low bluffs of sand, clay and shale; 2. Saugerties to Beacon, deep, of medium width, with scattered islands and wetlands, bordered by bluffs of clay or sedimentary rock (sandstone, shale, some limestone); 3. Beacon to Peekskill, the Hudson Highlands, narrow, twisting and deep, bordered by steep high hills of gneiss and granite; 41 4. Peekskill to New York City, at first broad and shallow, then narrow and deep, bordered on the west by a diabase ridge (the Palisades Ridge) and on the east by low hills and bluffs of various metamorphic rocks. The four proposed sanctuary sites, Stockport, Tivoli, lona and Piermont, respectively, lie one in each of the geol ogic-ecol ogic reaches listed above. Generalized soil types along the Hudson River Estuary are: limy soils on clay and silt deposits from postglacial lakes; usually acid soils on sands from terraces and deltas; acid (occasionally limy) soils on glacial tills (unsorted deposits containing clay, silt, sand, gravel and larger stftnes); soils on alluvium (stream-deposited material); and tidal wetland sediments. Stockport Flats. The bluff north of the mouth of Stockport Creek is Cambrian shale with thin layers of interbedded quartzite, and there are clay deposits farther inland. The bluff south of the creek is clay. Slate, conglomerate, and limestone are also present near the site. These steep bluffs rise to an elevation of 100 feet above the river, and then the land levels off. Small tidal coves are scalloped into the bluffs at several locations along the shore. There is evidence of a clay slide in at least one location on the south bank of Stockport Creek. Tidal influence in Stockport Creek extends inland to the Route 9 highway bridge, almost one mile. The mouth of the creek is dotted with islands of floodplain and tidal swamp at elevations of about 0-3 feet above high tide level, and these islands are interspersed with areas of tidal marsh, subsidiary stream channels, and the main channel of the creek. The wetlands and islands both inside and outside of the creek mouth comprise the tidal delta deposits of the creek. The main marsh (East Flats) lies just south of the mouth of Stock- port Creek in the river proper, between the unnamed island (north) and the point of Priming Hook (south). A sandy bar extends southward along much of the western margin of the main marsh, broken by one large and one small passage between the marsh and the main river. A few tidal creeks cut through the marsh. The marsh bottoms vary from fine sand to shallow or deep soft muck. A large island, Stockport Middle Ground, and a large peninsula, Gay's Point - Fordham Point, lie northwest and north of the creek mouth. Stockport Middle Ground, Gay's Point, Fordham Point, Priming Hook and the Unnamed Island are sandy and composed partly of old dredged material, and they have maximum elevations of about 5-20 feet above high tide level. Extensive shallows lie between Gay's Point - Fordham Point and the mainland, and there are small channels around Stockport Middle Ground. The dredged shipping channel west of the Stockport Flats site is 32 feet deep. Terres- trial soils of the site are derived from clay, sand and till. 42 Ti vol i Bays. Bedrock at this site is Ordovician gray sandstone and shale. The more resistant sandstone outcrops are on the islands, the points projecting into the bays, and in the waterfalls of the creeks. Bluffs east of the bays are composed largely of clay with small areas of sand; the bluffs rise steeply to an elevation of 100 feet above the river and then level off inland. The clays were deposited as thin alternating winter and summer layers of clay and silt in a postglacial lake. Gradual slumping is common on the clay bluffs. "Clay dogs," small ring-shaped concretions of limestone and clay that formed around the stems of marsh plants, occur in the clays. Cruger Island is one-half mile long, with a maximum elevation of forty feet above high tide level. Magdalen Island is smaller and lower. North Bay is predominantly intertidal marsh, with a wel 1 -developed network of tidal creeks and pools. The deepest creeks and pools are about five feet deep at low tide. A similar network of creeks and pools is beginning to form in South Bay, which is predominantly shallows and mudflats near low tide level. A few deep spots in South Bay are also about five feet at low tide. The bottom in the bays is largely soft muck, as much as 25 feet deep. The tidal swamp between North Bay and South Bay has 8 feet of peat overlying silt. Extensive tidal shallows lie north and south of Cruger Island, and much of this area is only 1-2 feet deep at low tide. Just west of Cruger Island, the main river is 50 feet deep. Terrestrial soils of the site are derived largely from clay, with sandy soil in local areas, and till soils farther east. Iona Island Marsh. Bedrock at this site is mostly Precambrian gneiss. This rock is very resistant to erosion and forms the bold hills that rise more than 1,000 feet within a half mile of the marshes (Dunder- berg and Bear Mountains) and the rocky knobs of Iona Island that project 100 feet above the river. The same steep slopes dive down under the marsh where the sediments are more than 100 feet deep. Iona Island is in the Hudson Highlands, a part of the Old Appalachians, and this is the only location where the Old Appalachians are breached by an estuary. Pegmatite dikes occur locally in the Iona Island area, and there is a great variety of minerals associated with these igneous intrusions. The Iona Island Marsh formed, in the shelter of the island, in a side channel of the Hudson River that was made larger by glacial erosion and glacial meltwaters. The marsh began to form at least 6,000 years ago according to radiocarbon dating of the peat, and some of the sediments uderlying the marsh are 12,500 years old. The marsh surface is peaty, but the sediments become increasingly silty beneath. Winding tidal creeks lace the marsh, with greatest depths at low tide about three feet. In Doodletown Bight, large areas of mud flats are exposed at low tide. The main river close to Iona Island has a maximum depth of 143 feet, and this is one of the narrowest reaches of the Hudson Estuary. Soils on Iona Island and the mainland are derived from glacial till and tend to be very shallow, acid, and nutrient-poor. 43 Piermont Marsh. The west shore of Piermont Marsh is formed by part of the Palisades Ridge, where an abrupt flat-topped 150-foot high cliff-and- sliderock formation close to the marsh. The cliff is Triassic diabase, a hard igneous rock. The ridge is underlain by Triassic sandstone and shale which outcrop in small areas close to the marsh. Sparkill Gap, the valley of Sparkill Creek just west of the north end of Piermont Marsh, is the only sea level break in the Palisades Ridge and was thought to be a former route of the Hudson River. However, the gap was more likely created by torrential glacial meltwaters. Sparkill Gap has been proposed as a geological National Natural Landmark (Butler et al . , 1975). The marsh sediments are peat and organic silt and are at least 40 feet deep in the western part where the marsh has been developing for 4-5 thousand years. A few well-defined tidal creeks cut the marsh, but their deepest portions are only a few feet deep at low tide. Piermont Marsh is located at the south end of the very broad and shallow segment of the Estuary known as the Haverstraw Bay and Tappan Zee, and very extensive shallows border the east side of the marsh. While these shallows are only 1-2 feet deep at low tide, the river channel farther east has 50-foot depths. Soils on shore near Piermont Marsh are derived from glacial till and are shallow and acid, with deeper, richer pockets close to the marsh. The Erie Pier borders the marsh on the north. b. Hydrology The Hudson River Estuary drains about 13,400 square miles of land, mostly in New York State but includes small areas of New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. The tidal river is 152 miles long from Troy south to the southern tip of Manhattan Island (Battery Park). Throughout this distance, the river bed is below sea level, allowing tidal penetration to Troy. Salt water, however, intrudes only half the length of the tidal river due to the Hudson's substantial and relatively dependable freshwater flow. Average freshwater flow (net discharge) in the tidal Hudson is 13 billion gallons per day, of which 60% enters from the mainstream of the Hudson-Mohawk above Troy and 40% comes in from 25 major and numerous minor tributaries below Troy. Peak freshwater flows occur in March or April with snow melt, and secondary peak flows often occur in November. Minimum flow is in summer and early fall. The reversing tidal flow moves about 30 times as much water as the average freshwater discharge. The average flushing rate for the tidal Hudson River (turnover time) is about 5 months. Salt water from the Atlantic Ocean moves upriver, mixing with the fresh water, and penetrating farther upriver at times of lower freshwater flow. Depending on freshwater flow, the 0.1 parts-per-thousand (ppt) salinity level ("salt front") may occur anywhere between about Yonkers and Hyde Park, but usually is somewhere in the region between Nyack and Beacon (Figure 5). Late summer and early fall are generally the periods of farthest intrusion of saline water. In the mid-1960s drought, the 44 salt front was recorded at the farthest known inland location in this century, definitely at Hyde Park and possibly at Kingston, but no farther. Freshwater flow from the Hudson River slightly dilutes sea water well out into the New York Bight. The Hudson is a partially stratified estuary. More saline water tends to move upriver under lighter outflowing fresh water in the New York City to Peekskill region. However, vertical salinity gradients are small with bottom waters only 0-20% more saline than surface waters. Vertical tidal fluctuation (tide range) is least in the middle of the estuary, about 3.1 feet at West Point, and greater at the two ends of the estuary, reaching a maximum of about 5.1 feet at Troy (National Ocean Survey 1982 Tide Tables for East Coast of North and South America). Individual tides can be considerably higher or lower than average levels, and maximum tide ranges for any one month may exceed 9 feet. Although extremely high tides flood the higher wetlands to greater depth and for longer times, these tides do not cover large areas of land because the steep banks of the estuary generally restrict the extent of the floodplain to small areas. There are two high tides alternating with two low tides in an approximately 25-hour period, but the time, duration, and height of both high and low tides are affected by wind and runoff (freshwater flow as well as by gravitational forces). Tides are less regular farther upriver. The estuary has reversing tidal currents. Downriver ebb currents are slightly faster than upriver flood currents. Peak current speeds during a normal tidal cycle are about 2 miles-per-houre All major estuaries in the Virginian biogeographic region have water quality problems. Quality in the Hudson River Estuary is remarkably good in view of the proximity of the Nation's largest metropolitan area. Dissolved oxygen may be in short supply at New York City during hot dry weather, but elsewhere in the estuary oxygen levels are almost always adequate for aquatic animals. Water quality has improved considerably in the last 15 years. Many health and esthetic problems associated with raw sewage discharges have been solved by construction of secondary treatment facilities. The generalized contamination of the Hudson by PCB discovered in the early 1970s has declined during the last 5 years as evidenced by reduced PCB levels in large samples of fish of several species monitored annually by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. There are persistent reports by longtime residents that the Hudson Estuary has become less turbid during the last few decades. Wetland hydrology in the Hudson is influenced most by the estuary's vertical tidal fluctuation, but also by runoff from tributary streams, wind, and the degree of shelter afforded by adjacent shallows, islands and bars. Incoming tides churn up sediments in the confines of marsh creeks creating high turbidity. Outgoing tides and dilution by clear water from tributaries, reduce turbidity greatly in the landward portions of the marshes. The downriver marshes are subject to higher salinity than the main river due to evaporation of water from the marsh surface: at Piermont Marsh, river salinity reaches a maximum around 12 ppt (Table 4) but on the intercreek marsh areas salinity may reach 15 ppt (nearly half the strength of sea water). 45 to OJ *-> •i— co >> £_ 1X3 -t-> U C to UJ ■o OJ o CL o £_ a. O Li- eu jC +-> <♦- o u •1— •M CO c CD •M U 13 L. rC .C rO <1) O > C a> rO JC l/l tO C ■a aj CO 0} OJ C c: O (/! to •> -*-> o a> to O) l/l (T3 OJ to o r— » ■O r— ,_ .o r— -a c_ ra H C K3 CD fl fl c ■a -C 1X3 £L c •-» SZ ro cu to > > ■M •— • . — c C •«— c r~~ •y* to «T3 to E O) ■p co 1 IA> JxC o U J CJ o o O *s y #* 1 — • "e a • •s-> r— r— r— i~ OJ •T— L_ ' — '7^ - — ••a 1 A3 1 — 4- •♦-> ra a. ••— 4-> +-> s *-> 8 +J r~— •UJ c_ C_ ro 4-> -t-> ra ra =3 +J Q. ■-a QJ ra (U a 3 u CL to CO u £_ U L. u u 3 T3 r— CO . — cu — a> •— CL CO CL CO o ■ ■ ro CO CNJ CNJ to •IS to o o 4-i +-> j-J JC 4J JC CL CO a. in Q. aj CL CU L. C CNJ CO to >> +-> ra t_ CO o a. .— _i^ to r O +-> o O ra > +-> r— •— • CO u_ 1— to c_ ■o ra c 2: ra +-> to c 1— 1 0 E