Final environmental impact statement proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award to the state of New York for a Hudson River estuarine sanctuary

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Final Environmental
Impact Statement
STOCKPORT

Hudson River lak
Estuarine Sanctuary TIVOLI

Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
Grant Award for Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary in the
State of New York

IONA

PIERN16NT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 0j.%A-r Or co,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office Of Coastal Zone Management

kTE OF NEW YORK
541.5 )artment of Environmental Conservation
.E8
2 56
1-982

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
Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER Washington, D.C. 20235
22344 SOUTH HOPSON AVENUE and
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
State of New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road

Property of CSC Library

DESIGNATION: Final Environmental Impact Statement

TITLE: Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of
New York for a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary

ABSTRACT: 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
reseaech 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 wi.th 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.

APPLICANT: New York Department of Environmental Conservation

LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management

CONTACT: 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 ............................... I

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 Requirements .... 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. Climate ......................................... 46
d. Biology ......................................... 46
e. Estuarine Escosystem ............................ 61

2. Current Uses of the Sites ........................... 61
a. Commercial and Recreational Ffshing ............. 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 Quality ................................ 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 ...............

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 ...

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
River .......................................... 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. Tivoli 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. Tivoli 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
deci sionmaki ng .

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.

i i

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-acquisition 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 sit@e's. These facilities (i.e., buildings,

i i i

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 I I)
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 Total area - 1,184 acres

Currently publicly owned 692-804 acres (see Table 2, parcel 6)
Proposed for acquisition 187-299 acres (see Table 2, Parcel 6)

.Ti vol i Total area 1 516 acres

Currently publicly owned 1,436 acres
Under negotiation 45 acres

Iona Island Total area 556 acres

Currently publicly owned 556 acres
Proposed for acquisition 0 acres

Piermont Marsh Total area 934 acres

Currently publicly owned 871 acres
Under negotiation 73 acres

The total area of all four sites is 4,165 acres. Of this, 2,860 acres
are wetlands and shallows, comprising 13% of the Hudson River Estuary's
total area of wetlands and shallows (less than 6 feet deep at low tide).

MANAGEMENT

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.

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 DECs 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 Rive@r 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 Trailside 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
deci sionmaki ng.

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, shellfishing, 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 ... shall 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 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.

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
sanctua ry- -Stock port 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-acquisition 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
Tivoli 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. freferred 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. 1) Stockport Flats Area, approximate properly
owernships. The Consolidated Rail Corp. corridor
is not show. (See Tables 1 and 2.)
(Adapted from USGS Hudson North, N.Y. quadrangle.)

Proposed sanctuary boundary

Ownership boundary

Tivoli

low

101"

DEC

magdolen
Island 8
DEC
C I OGS OGS
aL I DEC
(A I North Bay 17
0
3

< r

DEC DEC

Cruger island DEC DEC I Jj

OGS

DEC I % Rt. 9G
OGS South Bay

OGS
Bard College

sotv

one mile

Cruger Development Corp (Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corp. corridor
---Proposed sanctuary boundary
Ownership boundary
Tivoli Boys Area. .(See Tables I and 2
(Adopted from uSGS Saugerties, N.Y. quadrangle.)

Trailside
Museums

Bear Mtn.

01>
Doodletown
Bight

Iona
Island

0
0 % Roun Island

1
0 Marsh
% Iona island %
000 V16 % %%

Rt. 9 W

Dunderberg Mtn.

one mile
one km

Proposed sanctuary boundary Fig. 3 Iona Island Marsh Area( See Tables I and 2
(Adapted from USGS Peekskill, N.Y. quadrangle.)
Ownership all PIPC

Piermont
10/// Erie Pier
9

Piermont
Marsh

PIK

Tallman Mtn.
State Park

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxi
Rt. 9W PIK

Palisades
Sneden
Landing

ownership boundary
Proposed sanctuary boundary
x x x x x x Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co.
Lamont easement
Doherty
Geological one mile
observatory I one km

Fig. 4 Piermont Marsh Area. ( See Tables I and 2
(Adopted from USGS Nyack, N.Y. -N.J. quadrangle.)

'VIT 01 CO
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CONIMEACE
Mational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
g 0
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

August 20, 1982

Dear Reviewer:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing for your review and
consideration the final environmental impact s@atement prepared by the
Office of Coastal Zone Man'agement, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce, on the proposed Hudson River
National Estuarine Sanctuary.

Any written comments or questions you may have should be submitted to
the contact person identified below by September 26, 1982. Also, one
copy of your comments shoul.d be sent to me in Room 5813, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

CONTACT PERSON

Dr. Richard-J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Projects-Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
Telephone: 202/634-4236

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
@A/

Joyce M. T. Woo
Director
Office of Ecology and Conservation

Enclosure
d

Table I 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

Tivoli 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.
b 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.

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 "Alvord Grant," owned by Robert L. Pierson.

Parcel 5: An approximately I-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 him.

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 305-acre area of land on the south side of Stockport
Creek, owned by John P. and Sallie Barrett, and currently under
study as a potential public ac'Oess 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.

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 Isl-and 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 Trailside 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.

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 Tallman
Mountain State Park.

3. Management of the Proposed SanctuaU

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 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, reviewi*ng
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 Tocal 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 outl-ined in Table 3. The chairpersons of the three
local committees will meet with the Steering Committee.

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 or,ganization 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

Tivoli (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

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 theo
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.

Office of General Services:

owns lands in North Bay, the aorthern 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 Trailside 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.

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 Tivoli 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.

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 Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. A more detailed
list of existing laws and jurisdictions is in Appendix 2.

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 Lfnder 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

be 1 ost. 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.

Tivoli 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-suitod
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 planni ng 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 de tritus 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;

(5) Role of the Hudson River Estuary wetlands and 'he 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 shallows;

(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;

(6) The assimilation capaci,.y of natural environments for nutrients
and other waste materials;

(7) Manipulative experiment-; 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 mitigati(,)n and minimization of development and
management impacts to include indt.istry, marinas, railroad right-of-way
management, and shoreline stabili;,?ation.

g. Existing Monitoring

Several State and Federal Agencies and private institutions conduct
monitoring of physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the
Hudson River Estuary.

(1) Tides and freshwater flow;

(2) Water quality,-

(3) Air quality and weather;

(4) Fisheries surveys and-stock assessments;

(5) Commercial fishing activity;

(6) Levels of PCB and metals in fish;

(7) Distribution and abundance of endangered animals and plants;

(8) Mid-winter aerial water fowl surveys (see Appendix 5);

(9) Christmas Bird Counts (several locations):

(10) New York State Breeding Bird Atlas;

(11) Breeding birds and vegetation of the railroad right-of-way; and

(12) 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.

h. Education and Public Awareness Program

While few people live next to the proposed sanctuary sites themselves,
approximately 15 million people are 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
actwive 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
Tivoli 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 resea@rchers;

(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., birding "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;

(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 variou,4; Hudson River and general estuarine subjects
(e.g., wetland ecology, fisheriei, 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.

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 desi.gnation 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:

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 @ork Department of City Planning

Mr. Ronald Killian, The Natve Conservancy

Mr. Erik Kiviat, Bard Colle@,e

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.

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, Iona 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-ecologic 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, Iona,
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 sanciuary 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.

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 demographically 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 Hud-son 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 19 '76,
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
Greek 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

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. Terrestri al Buffer Zones and Access. Extent of buffer
zones was set dep ing 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 Pierinont, 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.

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. Fundinq

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 proje ct (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.

PART III: AFFECTED EW IRONMENT

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-half
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, Iona
Island Marsh and Piermont Marsh. The great majority of lands (both
estuarine and terrestrial areas) at these sites are already State-owned.

Fludson River Estuary

Troy
Albany
Hudson River drainage basin
Extent of tidal influence

Stockport Flats

Hudson

Tivoli Bays

Kingston *Rhinebeck
Apo yde Park

Maximum salt intrusion
Poughkeepsie
Hudson River Estuary Newburgh Beacon

N West Point
Iona Island Marsh Peekskill

0 mi 30
Nyack i I I
\Piermont Marsh 0 km 50

Yonkers

New York City

-Stockport

19 mi Tivoli
45 min.

67 mi 49 mi Iona
120 min 75 min

84 mi 66 mi 18 mi Piermont
160 min 120 min 45 min

Distances (airline miles) and approximate driving times (minutes) between sites.

Fig. 5

Stockport Flats. The northernmost site is in the Town of Stockport
in Columbia County, near Columbiaville, 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
Columbiaville 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).

Tivoli 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 we'll 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, 19711b); 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 County-,-B-ImMiTes 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

36
Hook
Little Nutten

. . . . . . . . . . .

Fordharn Point
Fig. 6 Stockport Flats Area.
(Adopted from USGS Hudson North, N.Y. quadrangle.)

Gays Rt. 9.1
Z: Point Rt. 9
C
a-
(A
0

Rt. 9

Stockport Columbiaville
Middle
Ground EiKtent of
Ztidal influence

e.
e
av@
joc

Unnam
Island

-S one mile

one krn

land

tidal wetlands

West
Flats tidal shallows
Priming
Hook deep water

Tivoli

Magdalen 4Z,
Island

.... .......
1 00.

..... ay
........ ..

..........
..........
. ............
.......... .. ".-
.. . ............. ... ..
.*.-'.*.'.*-.'.*.'--'.*.* ..... ...............
....... . . .

..............
............ *.

............

. ................ .
.. . .. ..
. . .. . ....
... ....... '.*---.* .....
. .... ..........
............
Cruger Island

..........
.............

.... .. . .. .

Rt. 9G

South Bay Bard College

Saw

one mile

one km

land

tidal wetlands
Is jjj@@/th/B

tidal shallows

Fig. 7 Tivoli Bays Area.
deep water (Adopted from USGS Saugerties, N.Y. quadrangle.)

Trailside
Museums

Bear Mtn.
Of

Doodletown
Bight Iona
island

-Xv.
. . . ...........
0 Round Island

..........

% .... .
0
-Xv:

'Do

91V

Dunderberg Mtn.

one mile
one km

land

tidal wetlands

tidal shallows

ll@ deep water Fig. 8 Iona Island Marsh Area
(Adapted from OSGS Peekskill, N.Y. quadrangle.)

Piermont

Erie Pier

Piermont
Marsh

Tallman Mtn.
State Park

Rt. 9W

Palisades
land Sneden
Landing

tidal wetlands

tidal sha I lows Lamont
Doherty
Geological
deep water observatory

one mile i Fig. 9 Piermont Marsh Area.
one km (Adapted from USGS Nyack, N Y - N J idrangle.)
wetlan sand @a ows are
(Areas shown as'tidal d 'ti Tshall
both considered tidal wetlands under the State
Tidal Wetlands Act.)

part of Bear Mountain State Park, iin element in the Palisades Interstate
Park system. The Iona Marsh has bf!en 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 plant!;, 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 Valloy Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine
and Weiner, 1979).

Piermont Marsh. The southermos@t site is in the Town of Orangetown,
Rockland County, 4 miles south of r1yack (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, landfoms 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 very 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;

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, Iona and
Piermont, respectively, lie one in each of the geologic-ecologic
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 sttnes); soils on alluvium (stream-de@osited material); and
tidal wetland sediments.

Stockport Flats. The bluff north of 'he 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 bl'uffs 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 Po-int 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.

Tivoli Bays. Bedrock at this site is Ordovician gray sandstone and
shale. The more resistant sands,tone outcrops are on the islands, the
points projecting into the bays, and in the waterfalls of the creeks.
Bluffs east of the bays are comp@)sed 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 i,:Iays 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 inter-tidal marsh, with a well-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 63.000 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.

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 Pierynont 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. Minimumflow 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
fldw-. DependinI 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

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 slight'y 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-hour.

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 PC3 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).

Table 4. Environmental Characteristics of the Four Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Sites

Salinity in Tide range
Site main river (feet) Bedrock Sediments Marsh

Stockport fresh 4.0 shale, muc k, cattail, Cn
Flats etc . sand wild-rice

Tivoli Bays fresh 3.9 sandstone, muck cattail,
shale purple loose-
strife,
spatterdock
Iona Island fresh to 2.8 gneiss peat, cattail,
6 ppt silt reed

Plermont Marsh fresh to 3.2 diabase, peat, cattail.,
12 ppt shale, silt reed, etc.
Sandstone

4r6

Ice forms first and remains longest on the wetlands, and the constant
grinding of ice lifted and lowered by the river's tides is highly erosive.
Ice covers the wetlands from one to four months per year, depending on the
severity of the winter. The downriver wetlands have less ice cover than
upriver areas. Ice a foot or more thick may form on tidal creeks and pools
in the wetlands. However, in dense upper intertidal zone vegetation (such
as cattail, purple loose-strife, or woody plants) thick dense ice does not
normally form, but rather many layers of thin ice are produced. The surface
of the main river in the vicinity of Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats usually
freezes solid; but the Coast Guard keeps open the shipping channel.

C. Climate

Average annual precipitation along the Hudson River Estuary is about
37-46 inches, tending to be higher southward. Monthly averages for Poughkeepsie
(39 inches annually) range from 2.7 inches in February to 4.1 inches in
July. Average annual snowfall is about 39-50 inches miO-estuary.

January average air temperature is 23-29* F, and July average 71-73' F.
Average temperatures are slightly lower northward, higher southward. Growing
season is in the range of 150-200 days. The large water mass of the estuary
warms more slowly in spring and cools more,slowly in the fall than the air.
This temperature lag moderates the climate in wetlands and shoreline areas
relative to sites off the river. The Hudson River Estuary is to some extent
a climatic arm of the coast where coastal weather mixes with inland weather.

Prevailing winds are north or northwest in winter, and south or southwest
in summer. Average wind speeds are highest in March and lowest in August.
Winds are highly variable, and sudden squalls, summer thunderstorms, and
occasional hurricanes affect the river. Day-to-day weather is variable and
shoreline areas and wetlands are exposed to extremes of sunshine, temperature,
freezing and thawing, wind, waves and spray, and other factors. Temperature
inversions with night and morning fogs are frequent in summer and fall.

d. Biology

Vegetation. Lists of plants found in the four proposed sanctuary sites
are in Appendix 6.

The tidal shallows, from low tide level down to about 6 feet below low
tide level (Figures 6-9), and the subtidal creeks and pools in the wetlands,
support communities of submerged plants. There are some patches of bare
mud.

Wetlands of the upper intertidal zone (between average tide level and
high tide level) are mostly covered by grass-like plants 1-10 feet tall,
often growing in extensive and dense patches of one or a few species. Locally,
a few kinds of broadleaved plants are also common, and there are many less
common or smaller secondary species of plants that occur scattered or in
small patches especially on creek and pool banks and near the high tide
shoreline.

Lower intertidal wetlands (average tide level to low tide level) are
mostly bare mud in downriver more saline marshes, but in fresher upriver
marshes are covered with broad-leaved plants with large heartshaped or
arrowhead-shaped leaves 2-3 feet tall and some grass-like plants.
Predominant species vary, but the communities in the proposed sites are
typical of the Hudson River Estuary in general in the four geologic-ecologic
reaches of the river.

Near the high tide level, flooded by the higher high tides, are localized
areas of tidal swamp, especially upriver in tidal freshwater. These areas
are covered by trees and/or shrubs.

Tidal freshwater and low-salinity marshes are similar in the Hudson
and other Virginian Region estuaries, with the most abundant species generally
including the following: narrowleaf cattail (Upha angustifolia), wild-rice
(Zizania aquatica), river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis), spattWrdock (Nuphar
advena), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica),
Tr-oa-UTeaf arrowhead (Sagittaria r tifolia), tall cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides), swamp rose malloW-TH-ibiscus palustris), tidewater-hemp
(Amaranthus cannabinUs), bur-marigolds (Bidens spp.), water-millet
(Echinochloa walteri)9- jewelweed (Impatiens -biflora), rice cutgrass (Leersia
oryzoides),-p-ur-ple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), smartweeds (EajXq@onum
ipp.), and common reed (Phragmites communis). Tb-oveground standing crops
reported for Hudson River marshes are similar to those reported for Delaware
and Chesapeake Bay estuary marshes. Plant communities of fresh-tidal and
low-salinity shallows are also similar in the Hudson River Estuary and other
Virginian Region estuaries, with the most abundant species generally water-
celery Vallisneria americana), pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.) and watermilfoil
4
Myriophyllum spicatum). Freshwater tidal swamps also occur in other Virginian
gion estuaries KT7ave been the subject of virtually no research.

Terrestrial vegetation along the Hudson River Estuary in undeveloped
areas is generally deciduous forest. On the dry rocky slopes of the
Palisades Ridge and Hudson Highlands the most abundant trees are red oak
(Quercus borealis), chestnut oak (Q. prinus), and a few other deciduous
species. Mid-Hudson and upper estuary deeper-soil areas, as well as moist
ravines down-river, support oaks, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black birch (Betula 1-entaT, -beech (Fagus grandifolia).
White pine (P nus stro7us), hemlock (Tsd-gacana-d-ensis) and fldw-ering dogwood
(Cornus florl'-dia. All four proposed sanctuary sites have very well developed
ro-rested-SUff-e-F zones on most of the upland frontage and particularly on
steeper slopes. These buffer forests range in width (map distance) from 100
yards to well over one-half mile.

The railroad rights-of-way, away from the tracks, tend to be thickly
grown with herbs, shrubs and sometimes trees. Among the most common larger
species are false-indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), sumacs (Rhus glabra, R. typhina),
silky dogwood (Cornus amo , hoii_i@y_suckle (Lonicera !i@T and brambles
(Rubus spp.). Vegetation-OT the Erie Pier at Piermont is similar with the
addition of white mulberry (Morus alba).

Stockport Flats. Water-celery is very abundant in the shallows. The
intertidal marshes are dominated )y narrowleaf cattail, wild-rice, spatter-
dock and pickerelweed. The wild-r-ice stands are very lush and appear to be
the most extensive stands of wild-rice anywhere on the Hudson; wild-rice
has increased greatly in the last 5 years both in Stockport and elsewhere
on the Hudson Estuary and now app-oximates former (1930s-40s) levels.

Tidal swamps and floodplain swamps are dominated by red ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), ilver maple (Ace,, saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), sycamore (Platanus oc(:-l , willows (Salix ssE.T-and
silky dogwood. Some of the tidal swamps have many large -trees-Cstems 1-3
feet or more in diameter-at-breas-t-height).

The bluffs along the south side of Stockport Creek and east of the
main marsh are covered by deciduoijs forest with oaks and other trees, and
localized areas of white pine. The sandy islands and points have abundant
cottonwood, black-locust (Robinia eseudoacacLa) red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), oaks, staghorn sumac (KMus typhina@' etc.

Tivoli BaZs. Water-celery, waterynilfoil, and waterchestnut (Trapna
natans) are the most abundant plants in the shallows. The interti@ial
marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail, spatterdock, and purple
loosestrife. The tidal swamps are predominantly red maple (Acer rubrum),
red ash, black ash (Fraxinus nigra), silky dogwood, willows, buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occide_n_ta_r1T`sTa_nT -smooth alder (Alnus serrulata). The Tivoli
tidal swamps cover 45 acres and are very rich in shrub and moss species.

The cl.ay bluffs and rocky islands support well-developed forest with
sugar maple, hemlock, red oak, white oak, chestnut oak, white ash (Fraxinus
americana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), shagbark hickory (@- 'ovata),
white pine and flowering dogwood. A grove of particularly large oaks and
hemlocks borders the tidal mouth of Stony Creek.

Iona Island Marsh. Water-celery is very abundant in the shallows.
The intertidal marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail, with small
amounts of swamp rose mallow and common reed. A small area of tidal swamp
is dominated by crack willow (Salix fragilis).

The island and mainland slopes are covered with deciduous forest with
abundant red oak, chestnut oak, and pignut hickory.

Piermont Marsh. Pondweeds are present in the shallows. The intertidal
marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail and common reed, with lesser
amounts of tall cordgrass, saltwater cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), salt-
meadow cordgrass (I. patens), saltgrass (Distichlis spicaLa), swamp rose
mallow, and purple loosestrife. There is no appreciable area of tidal swamp.

The mainland forest at the base of the Palisades Ridge has abundant
and large beech, tulip tree, red oak, black birch and flowering dogwood.
The cliff-and-sliderock has red oak, black birch and other trees.

Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants. Several species listed in
the New York State Museum's Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant Species in
New York State (Mitchell et al., 1980) have been found in the proposed
sanctuary sites and are listed in Table 5. Heartleaf plantain (Plantago
cordata), proposed in the Federal Register for Federal Endangered status,
is present at the Stockport and Tivoli sites. Potential for continued
survival of the plantain, and for research on it, is excellent at these
locations.

Nuttall's micranthemum (Micranthemum micranthemoides) is known from
Tivoli Bays. This is the only recorded station for this species in New York
and one of about 20 localities known in the world (all in East Coast tidal
freshwater habitats). Although the micranthemum was last seen in 1936,
some botanists think the species may still survive at Tivoli; it is a
small plant and difficult to identify. Nuttall's micranthemum was proposed
in the Federal Register for Federal Threatened status. It has not been
found recently at other East Coast locations.

Most of the other species listed in Table 5 are restricted to brackish-
tidal or fresh-tidal wetlands, and are the subject of concern by botanists
because of the general vulnerability of these types of ecosystems on the
East Coast.

Numerous other species of wetland and terrestrial plants that are not
considered threatened or endangered, but are rare in New York and have
special interest to scientists are (or may be) found at the proposed
sanctuary sites. One example is goldenclub (Orontium aguaticum), a
species common in the southeastern United States in inland wetlands, but
declining in northeastern estuaries. Goldenclub occurs at Stockport Flats
and Tivoli Bays, and is sought out as an esthetic attraction during its
May flowering period. A list of "Plants Concentrated in the Tidal Marshes
of the Hudson River" prepared by the late Stanley J. Smith in 1974 includes
21 species of mostly rare (and a few common) plants; many of these 21 have
been recorded from the proposed sanctuary sites.

Because of the large size and environmental complexity of the proposed
sites, thorough botanical studies in the future may discover many more
rare plants and unusual plant communities than are now known.

Fish and Wildlife. The deep waters, shallows, wetlands, and shores of
the Hudson River Estuary act as a migration and dispersal pathway for many
kinds of fish and wildlife. These environments provide suitable corridors
for-movements of animals northward and southward, and suitable stopover
habitats with shelter and food. Many kinds of animals also find habitats
on the estuary where they reside seasonally or permanently (NYS DEC 1978).

Of Hudson River Estuary animals, many do not remain in a single type
of habitat, but more back and forth between two or more habitat types in
tidal, daily or seasonal cycles. These species require combinations of

Table 5. Plants of the ProposeJ Sanctuary Sites Listed in "Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plant Specie3 in New York State" (Mitchell et al., 1980).

Species Site Significance (NY)a

Spatulate arrowhead, Stockport HAB
Sagittaria spatulata

Ovate spikerush Stockport R, SERL
Eleocharis ovata Tivoli, Iona

Cylindrical bulrush, Iona, SPOR
Sc i rpus cyl i nd ric us Plermont

Parker's pipewort, Stockport, R, VULN
Eriocaulon parkeri Tivoli

Sea pink, Iona EXT?, NRL, SNYS?
Sabatia dodecandra

Nuttall's micranthemun Tivoli *EXT?, R, SNYS,
Micranthemum micranthernoides SPOR, VULN

Heartleaf plantain, Stockport, *R, DECL, SPOR
PI antago cordata Tivoli

.Eaton's bur-marigold, Tivoli R, HAB, END
Bidens eatonii

Estuary beggar-ticks, Tivoli SRL
Bidens hyperborea

aDECL = Observed to be declining in New York State; END = Highly
rest7r@tcted range, endemic; EXT? = Possibly extirpated il@_New York State;
HAB = Restricted to habitats rare in the State; R = Rare throughout its
range; SNYS = Single New York station; SPOR = Sporadic: scattered popu-
lations':,@LN = Vulnerable to commerciaT -or private exploitation or
imminent 7a-nd development; SRL, SERL, NRL = Southern, southeastern, or
northern range limits or nearing the periphery of their distributions.

* Listed in the Federal Register (proposed for Federal Endangered or
Threatened listing).

habitat types to fulfill their life requirements: for example, the wood
duck that nests in a hollow tree in the forest, but raises its brood in the
marsh, and the striped bass (Morone saxatilis) that moves from the river
channel into the marsh, pools, and creews to feed. The most important
habitat combinations are the marsh-shallows combination, and the marsh-forest
combination. These patterns of animal use emphasize the special nature
of the shall ows-wetl a nds- forest complexes at the four proposed sanctuary
sites.

Some Hudson Estuary habitats support unusual abundance or diversity of
animals. Some examples are: abundance and diversity of chironomid midge
larvae in submerged vegetation in the Haverstraw Bay - Tappan Zee; abundance
and diversity of burrowing animals in sandy soils; abundance of post
breeding humming birds in jewelweed in the marshes; abundance of certain
breeding birds (least bittern, long-billed marsh wren) in extensive
cattail stands (Kiviat, 1979).

Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Animals. Species currently
on Federal or New York State Endangered Species lists, or on the Tentative
New York State Species List (a proposed revision of the existing State list),
and which occur at the proposed sanctuary sites, are shown in Table 6. The
Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior has affirmed,
by letter dated March 25, 1982 that no Federally listed Endangered or
Threatened Species, under their jurisdiction, apart from occassional transients,
are known to exist in the project area. The Tentative State List has three
categories (in decreasing order of endangerment): Endangered, Threatened,
and Special Concern.

Endangered. The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is listed
on both Federal and New York State Endangered Lists, and has a sizeable
resident population in the Hudson River Estuary. Early in the spring, those
individuals that are ripe for spawning migrate north as far as Troy, New York.
Spawning occurs from April 15 to May 15 from Coxsackie to the dam above Troy.
After spawning (generally late in May), the spawning population disperses
and feeds throughout the summer. In early fall, those individuals that are
ripe enough to spawn the next spring migrate to an overwintering area in the
Esopus Meadow-Kingston Flats area, approximately 2-9 miles below Tivoli Bays.
Individuals that are not ripe for spawning migrate further south to the
Haverstraw Bay area between Piermont Marsh and Iona Island. The proposed
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary is consistent with the draft Shortnose
Sturgeon Recovery Plan dated May 1982, with respect to maintaining natu al
populations; preventing further modifications or destruction of essential
habitat; developing a public information/education program; and determining
natural population dynamics.

The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) has been reported from locations
within a few miles of two of the proposed sites (early-mid 1900s) and could
occur at the sites, but the nature of the available habitats makes this
unlikely. This species is listed as Endangered by New York State.

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) records are few, and it is not clear
if they occur regulirly at any of the proposed sites.

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was common on the Hudson

5@)

Tabl e 6. Animals Recorded at the Proposed Sanctuary Sites either Currently
List s Endangered by the State or Federal Government, or Included in the
December 1981 "Tentative New York State Species List" (Endangered, Threatened
Special Concern). Additional spe,--ies have been recorded near the sites and
are discussed in the text.

Spec i es Site Status

Shortnose sturgeon, (see text) Endangered (US,NY)
Acipenser brevirosturm

Spotted turtle, Clemmys guttata Tivoli Special Concern

Common loon, Gavia immer all Special Concern

Double-crested cormorant, all Special Concern
Phalacrocorax auritus

Least bittern, all Special Concern
Ixobrychus exil is

Cooper's hawk, Accip-iter cooperii all Special Concern

Red-shouldered hawk, all Threatened
Buteo lineatus

Golden eagle, Tivoli, Iona, Endangered (NY)
Aquila chrysaetos Piermont

Bald Eagle, all Endangered (US, NY)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Marsh hawk, all Threatened
Circus cyaneus
Osprey, Pandion haliaetus all Endangereda (NY)

Peregrine falcon, Iona, Endangered (US,NY)
Falco peregrinus Piermont

Common tern, Tivoli, Iona,
Sterna hirundo Pierinont Threatened

Black tern, Tivoli, Special Concern
Chlidonias niger Piermont

Table 6 (Continued)

Species Site Status
Common raven, Tivoli Special Concern
Corvus corax
Grasshopper sparrow, Tivoli Special Concern
Ammodramus savannarum Piermont
Henslow's sparrow, Tivoli Special Concern
A. henslowil
Vesper sparrow, Tivoli, Special Concern
Pooecetes gramineus Iona
aThe osprey is currently on the New York Endangered List, but the
"Tentative List" proposes a change to Threatened status.

may see one or more bald eagles yearly, and there are slight indications
that numbers have increased in the last two years. There are regular
sightings at the proposed sanctuary sites mostly when the waters are partly
frozen. Some eagles have been seen during other seasons as well, but
there have been no nesting attempts. Bald eagles require open water and
dead fish or other carrion for food. Iona Island has the potential to
become a regular winter roosting area.

Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are commonly seen in small numbers (1-4
at once) along the Hudson in April and May, and occasionally in summer and
fall. There are isolated historical records of osprey.breeding along the
Hudson River Estuary, but it is not clear to what extent ospreys nested
successfully here. Possibly the high natural turbidity of Hudson River
waters makes it difficult for nesting osprey to catch enough fish to feed
their young. The sizeable Long Island Sound osprey population declined
severly after World War II due to DDT contamination of their food, but in
the last few years Long Island Sound ospreys have begun a remarkable
comeback. Unverified reports of nesting attempts along the Hudson could
indicate a spillover from the sound. Osprey occur at all four proposed
sanctuary sites where they catch fish in the shallows and marsh pools and
and-retire to eat in large (often dead) tree. A late -1950s nest was
reported at Tivoli Bays, and a possible 1970s nest near Iona Island, but
no details are available for verification.

Several pairs of peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) nested along
the Hudson River Estuary on the Palisades and Hudson Highlands cliffs for
many years until the nationwide population decline in the 1950s. None
of these nesting sites is active at present. Peregrine falcons are being
reintroduced experimentally to former nest sites at other northeastern
locations and there is potential for re-establishment at one or more of the
Hudson River eyries. The peregrine falcon occurs now as a rare transient
along the Hudson.

Threatened. The mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) has been reported
from B@'ar -Mountain State Park, but no verifl'ca on is available. There is
a single specimen of this species from Ossining, but mud turtle distribution
in the lower Hudson region is a mystery (Craig et al., 1980). Mud turtles
could occur at Iona or Piermont; they have been found in tidal marshes
outside of the Hudson Estuary.

Red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus) are seen along the Hudson during
migration, and nests have 6e_enf6"u_ndat a small number of off-river localities
in the 1970s. Nesting is possible at the proposed sanctuary sites.

The marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus) is seen regularly at Hudson River
marshes including the proposed sanctuary sites in late summer and fall,
rarely in winter, and occasionally in spring. There is no evidence of
nesting although the species formerly nested at inland localities in the
Hudson Val I ey.

The common tern (Sterna hirundo) is seen occasionally as a windblown
wanderer at the proposed sanctuary sites, more often downriver. There does
not seem to be any breeding potential.

Special concern. The Jefferson salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum)
is found at a few locations inland and could occur near nontidal woodland
pools at the proposed sanctuary sites. Spotted turtles (Clemmys guttata)
are quite rare in tidal wetlands, but nesting has been ve-ri-MET-a-t-T-east
at Tivoli Bays; the species is more common at certain inland locations.
Hognose snakes (Heterodon platyrhinos) have not been reported from the sites
although found here and there offriver; the hognose could be found wherever
toads (their food) are abundant and especially in sandy soils.

Common loons (Gavia immer) are seen occasionally as migrants on the
estuary, including the proposea sites; there is no breeding potential.
Double crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) occur regularly downriver,
sporadically upriver; they are quite rare near the two upriver sites.
There does not appear to be any breeding potential. The least bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis) is known from the extensive cattail marshes of the
proposed sanctuary sites as a breeding species. It is a rare bird in the
Hudson Valley because of the scarcity of large cattail stands. Semiquantitative
data suggest a stable breeding population of perhaps a dozen pairs at
Tivoli Bays during the period 1973-81. The Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
is seen occasionally at the proposed sites, and recent inland breeding
records suggest potential breeding in the forests of the proposed sanctuary.
The black tern (Chlidonias niger) is 6 rare spring migrant on the Hudson
River Estuary; there are no DreFding records, although black terns breed
in large inland marshes in central New York. The barn owl (Tyto alba) is
rare along the Hudson where availability of nest sites may be a IT'miting
factor. Barn owls could occur, and there is some breeding potential at
the proposed sanctuary sites. Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) could
occur in winter at the proposed sites as there a@_e -af_e`w-_r_eg`uTar wintering
areas offriver in the Hudson Valley. The common raven (Corvus corax) seems
to be increasing in the northeast, but there is only one record from the
proposed sanctuary. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Henslow's
sparrow (A. henslowii) and vesper sparrow gramineus) formerly
bred in rields near Tivoli, and there may be breeding potential at Tivoli
and Iona.

Blue List Birds. Some other species that are not included in the
Tenta7t-ive New York List, but were in the American Birds "Blue List for 1981"
(Tate, 1981) and occur at one or more of proposed sanctuary sites are:
great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax), Ameri-Ean bittern (B-otaurus lentiginosus), sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipiter striatus), king rail-TR-aTT-us elegans), screech owl (Otus asio),
ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), cliff sAfallow-TP-etrochelidon
pyrrhon ota), purple martin (Progne su15i_sT,_s_Fo_rtbilled marsh wren (Cistothorus
elatensis), golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna), black duck (Anas--FuE-ripses), and canvasback (Aythaya
valisineria'). These are species that seem to be undergoing (or have recently
undergone) noncyclical decline in the Northeast.

Marine Mammals. Few species penetrate the Hudson River Estuary above the
New York Bay complex. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) occasionally appear almost
anywhere in the Hudson River Estuary, in recent years as in the 1800s. There
were reports of the harbor porpoise (Phocoena ehocoena) in the lower estuary
in the 1800s. A single well-documented i-ncursion of -common dolphins

(Delphinus delphis) up the Hudson Estuary nearly to Albany took place in
1936. There is no evidence that any specific locations or habitats in the
Hudson are significant to marine mammal populations.

Wetland and Terrestrial Mamm@ils. At least 31 species of wild mammals
have been recorded on or close to the proposed sanctuary sites (other than
marine mammals). The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) is the most characteristic
mammal of the Hudson River Estuary marshes and i@ present at all the proposed
sanctuary sites in numbers that vary considerably from year to year. The
mink (Mustela vison) also occurs at the sites. The river otter (Lutra
canadensi-s@is_rare in the Hudson, but transient individuals have been seen
at Iona and Tivoli in the marshes.

The whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is very common along the
Hudson including at the four proposed sites. Deer frequently enter Iona
Island Marsh, probably to feed. Deer have been seen in Pierynont Marsh in
winter, and occasionally in the marsh at Tivoli North Bay, but they are
common upland at these sites and at Stockport.

Some other mammals that enter the tidal wetlands are: white-footed
mouse (Peromyscust leucopus) mostly in winter; eastern cottontail (S@lvilagus
floridanus), in tidal swamps in winter; gray squirrel (Sc urus carolinensis)
and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), tidal swamps and shoreline;
meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus);-s7orttail shrew (Blarina brevicauda);
x U
raccoon (Pprocyon lotor); gray fo@ ocyon cinereoargenteus); red fox Vulpes
fulva); and oposs-um--TiLelphis vir Tniana).

Birds. Many species of land, wetland and water birds are found along
the Hudson River Estuary. Marine and coastal species penetrate upriver
varying distances, becoming less diverse and less abundant upriver. All
four proposed sanctuary sites attract rare birds wandering through or
settling in the Hudson Valley. Common species also tend to concentrate in
the proposed sites. The four sites are well known as excellent birding
areas--among the best in the Hudson Valley (Drennan, 1981.) A list of birds
recorded at the proposed sanctuary is in Appendix 4.

Herons. A dozen great blue herons is not an unusual sight at Tivoli
South Bay or Stockport Flats during late summer on a low tide. Great egrets
(Casmerodius alba) are also common in some years. Apart from the bitterns,
the only nesting heron at the proposed sanctuary sites is the green heron
(Butorides striatus).

Waterfowl. The proposed sanctuary sites are concentration areas for
waterfowl-dwring migration. Wintering waterfowl occur wherever there is
open water, mostly downriver. Numbers of breeders are small, probably because
suitable nests sites are scarce on the intertidal marshes. At least 30
species of ducks, geese, and swans have been recorded at the proposed sites.
The most abundant migrants are Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard
(Anas elatXrhynchos), black duck, green-winged teal (A. crecca), blue-winged
tea7-(A. discors)-,wood duck (Aix sponsa), and canvasEacT.-IT-undreds of
canvasbacks feed in the Iona Island shallows, and probably thousands winter
in some years in the Haverstraw Bay Tappan Zee. (See Appendix 5 for data
on wintering waterfowl.) The most abundant nesting species are black duck,
mallard, and wood duck; the Tivoli Bay site supports about a dozen pairs of
of each of three species each year.

Raptors. The shores of the Hudson River, including the proposed
sites, are moderately attractive to birds of prey. Migrating hawks cross
the Estuary at a number of locations, but there is an area of concentrated
crossing especially in fall at Anthony's Nose and Dunderberg Mountain by
Iona Island, and concentrated migration along Hook Mountain just north of
PierTnont Marsh.

Regular residents at or near the proposed sanctuary sites include red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel Falco sparverius), great
horned owl (B-@_bovirginianus) and screech owl (Otus 'asio). Rough-legged
hawks (Bute@ lagopus) frequent the Iona Island Tiel s in winter. (See
discussion of Endangered Animals, above.)

Marsh Birds. Several species of marsh-nesting birds use the extensive
cattail stands and associated vegetation at the proposed sites. Regular
breeders are the least bittern (discussed under Endangered Animals) and long
billed marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris). Irregular breeders are the American
bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus-), clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), king rail
(R. elegans), Virginia rail (R limicola), sora (Porzana carolina), and common
g7llinule_T@allinula chlorop Hudson Valley, the least bittern,
long-billed marsh wren, common gallinule and king rail are nearly restricted
to large (many acres) cattail marshes as breeding habitat, although a few
other wetland plant communities are used for nesting elsewhere in United
States.

The sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammospiza caudacuta) and seaside sparrow
(A. maritima) have nested at Piermont Marsh. These species are associated
Wiftfi_s_P_eTiTiv*@ saline marsh plant communities and are quite rare away from
the immediate coast in New York.

In addition to the obligate marsh species, red-winged blackbirds
(Agelaius phoeniceus), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), swamp sparrow
(Melospiza georgiana), and song sparrow (M. melodia)'also nest in the
tidal marshes.

Shorebirds. The Hudson River Estuary marshes and mudflats, including
the proposed sanctuary sites, are good habitat for migrating shorebirds. The
most commonly seen species are killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), common snipe
(Caeella gallinago), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia), greater yellowlegs
(Tringa melanoleu-ca), lesser yellowlegs (T. flaviees), and least sandpiper
(Calidri_s-m-Tn_`=til T). At least eleven ofFer species are seen at times.
TTe-FT-yCr-eeding shorebirds at the proposed sites are American woodcock
(Philohela minor), killdeer, and spotted sandpiper.

Gulls and Terns. The Hudson River Estuary is good habitat for non-
breeding gulls, but attracts few terns due to the inland location. No
gulls or terns breed on the Hudson. The herring gull (Larus argentatus)
is the most common gull and is a conspicuous feature of-t-Fe-proposed sanctuary
sites nearly all year round. Ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis) and great
black-backed gull (-L. marinus) are common . Laughing gull (.L. atricilla)
and Bonaparte's gull (L. philadelehia) are uncommon and usually seen only
downriver. A few other species or gulls and terns are seen occasionally,
mostly downriver.

Other Birds. Ruffed grouse (t1onasa umbellus) are resident in the
terrestiral forests, and feed in tlie' tidal swamps in winter. Woodpeckers
are common in the tidal swamps and forest, including the pileated woodpecker
DrXocopus pileatus). Winter bird!; of the marshes include downy woodpecker
Picoides pubescens), black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus), winter
wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), trt!e sparrow (-@pizel7a_arborea), white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichii albii,.ollis) and song sparrow. Very large
flocks of tree swallows (IrT_d6`p-roci,7e -bicolor), bank swallows (Riparia
riparia), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), red-winged blackbirds, and common
grackles (Quiscalus quiscula) roosf_`T@ the marshes, especially in late
summer and-e-a-F-Ty-fa-1 I .Bre ing birds of the tidal swamps are many, in-
cluding willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillifl, great crested flycatcher
(Myiarchus crinitus), blue jay (Lyanocitta cristata), black-capped
chickadee, veery' Fcatharus fuscescens), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia)
and common yellowthroat (Geo hlypis trichas).

There are many species of small birds in the terrestrial forests.
Breeding bird communities are typical of northeastern forests, including
warblers, vireos, thrushes and others. The cerulean warbler (Dendroica
cerulea) nest here and there and is much sought-after by birdwatchers.
Spring-and fall warbler migrations also attract birdwatchers to the proposed
sites.

The railroad right-of-way supports a very interesting breeding bird
community (Stapleton and Kiviat, 1979). The most abundant species are
gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), yellow warbler, and song sparrow.
Population density of alTEreeding species combined is among the highest
reported for any breeding bird communities of the United States.

Reptiles and Amphibians. About two dozen species of reptiles and
amphibians occur along the Hudson River Estuary and almost all are present
at one or more of the proposed sites. Tidal fluctuation and salinity prevent
some species from living in the estuary itself. The most important habitats
for reptiles and amphibians are the tidal marshes and shallows, woodland
pools and ponds, and the terrestrial forests.

The snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) is common in the wetlands
and shallows at all four sites. The map turtle (Graptemys 2eographica)
maintain small scattered populations in the estuary and has been found
at Stockport and Tivoli. The diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin),
the ecological equivalent of the map turtle in brackish areas, is rare
in the Hudson River E-stuary and has been found at Iona and Piermont.

The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) occurs on land near the Iona
Island Marsh, and there are unverified reports of the fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus) which is better known from the east bank of the estuary in
the Hudson Highlands.

Several snakes occur at the sites. Those that most often enter the
tidal wetlands are water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis).

Amphibians are not abundant in the tidal habitats probably because
tidal wetlands are not favorable for amphibian reproduction. The green
frog (Rana clamitans) is present at low densities at Tivoli and Iona,
and probably-Stockport. Bullfrogs (E. catesbeiana), pickerel frogs (R.
palustris), American toads (Bufo americanus), spring peepers (Hyla c@_ucifer),
and -gray ireefrogs (H. versicoloL) ent-e-r-t-he wetlands to some _e_xffent,
but are more common in nearby nontidal wetlands where the woodfrog (Eana
sylvatica) also occurs. Few salamanders have been found in Hudson Estuary
ti" Uahibitats, but several species occur in the terrestrial forests and
tributary streams at the proposed sites.

Fishes. About 150 species of fish have been found in the Hudson River
Estuary in the last 15 years, and the fish community of the Estuary is
probably one of the best-studied estuarine fish communities in the world.
Like coastal birds and marine mammals, marine and estuarine fishes penetrate
up the Hudson in relation to salinity intrusion and distance from its
mouth. Also, many freshwater fish species inhabit the upper estuary.
The Hudson is a very important nursery area for many fish species including
several very valuable food and game fishes: striped bass (Morone saxatilis),
white perch _. americana), American shad (Alosa sapidissim_a_T,__a7e_w1-' fe@
herring ( P d-olia-rengus , blueback herrinT"CA-. -aestivalis), tomcod
(Microgadus tomcod), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrUnchus), American
eel (Anguil-1-57-6-sTrata), and rainbow smeTf (usmerus moraax).

Important nursery areas for some migratory fishes in the estuary are
in the Haverstraw Bay Tappan Zee region within a few miles of Nyack
(Figure 5), where conditions of salinity, shelter and food availability
in the tidal shallows are very favorable for juvenile fish. Additionally,
shad, alewife, blueback herring, and other species use the upper estuary
for spawning and as a nursery.

Much remains to be learned about the role of the Hudson River wetlands
and tributary mouths in the support of the estuary's fishery resources. Many
fish species reside in or temporarily enter the wetlands and tidal stream
mouths. For example, of 59 species that have been found in the vicinity
of the Tivoli Bays complex, 34 have been found in the wetlands and stream
mouths. Banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus) and mummichog (F. heteroclitus)
are very abundant in the marshes and apparently reside there American
eels of all sizes live in the marshes. Alewife spawn in the upriver
shallows, and alewife, rainbow smelt and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
spawn in the tributary stream mouths. Striped bass and white perch enter
the marshes to feed, and are particularly common at locations around the
tidal inlets connecting the marshes and the main river. Juvenile striped
bass have been found in tidal creeks in Iona Island Marsh in early fall
and are reported to occur in other marshes as well.

Among the more unusual records of fishes from the proposed sanctuary
sites are blue-spotted sunfish (Enneacanthus qloriosus) reported from Iona;
American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) and northern hog sucker
(Hypentelium nigricans) fro@ the mouth of the Saw Kill at Tivoli South Bay;
and a population of central mudminnow (Umbra limi) in ponds on Cruger Island
(Tivoli). A list of fishes known from the proposed sanctuary sites is in
Appendix 3.

Invertebrates. Important gr)ups of larger invertebrate animals in
benthic communities of the Hudson River Estuary include polychaete worms,
oligochaete worms, chironomid midge larvae, snails and clams, crabs and
crayfish, Gammarus and other amphipods, and isopods. Zooplankton communi-
ties include rotifers, crustaceans, and other groups. The most economically
important invertebrate, the blue :rab (Callinectes sapidus), moves upriver
in summer and fall as salinity in:reases and may become common as far as the
Hudson Highlands (Peekskill to Beacon).

The red-jointed fiddler crab (Uca minax) is common in Piermont Marsh.
Several species of land and aquatic-snaT Tsoccur at the proposed sites,
but most have not been definitively identified. In fact, the invertebrates
of the marsh are very poorly known. Estuarine invertebrates are a very
important link in food chains between, on the one hand, algae and detritus,
and on the other hand, fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Invertebrates
are particularly important in the nutrition of young and adult fish,
including the endangered shortnosed sturgeon and the economically important
American.shad, striped bass, and other species. Invertebrates occur on
and in the sediments, in the water, on plants, and in the air, as well
as on land. Invertebrate ecology of the proposed sanctuary is a very
important field for research.

The wetlands support many invertebrates on the aerial parts of plants.
Some of the most conspicuous or abundant species are a snail (Succinea ovalis);
the waterlily leaf beetle (Pyrrhalta nymphaeae) on spatterdock and other
plants; the cattail moth (Lymnaecia phragmitelia) on cattails; a caterpillar
of genus Mompha in purple loosestrife stalks; the weevil Smicronyx in dodder
(Cuscuta gronovii ; and scale insect (Chaetococcus phragmitis) on common reed.
Monarchs (Danaus lexippus) and other butterfiles, and various bees (including
honeybees (Apis mellifera) are attracted to blossoms of pickerelweed
and other plants.

A rare bug (Bellonochilus numenius) has been found on sycamore fruits
at Stockport. A newly-describeT-c-r-a-yTi-sh (Orconectes kinderhookensis)
has so far been found only in Kinderhook Creek, a tributary of Stockport
Creek. It is not known if it occurs downstream as far as the proposed
sanctuary sites.

In late spring and early summer, mosquitos can be annoying on the marshes
on calm nights, and in moist woods and tidal swamps day or night, but mosquitos
do not bite in the marshes by day, Deer flies (Chrysops) may bite for a few
weeks in June and July during the day around the edges of the marshes, but
rarely fly far out onto the marshes. "Shad flies" (Simuliidae) and punkies
(Ceratopogonidae) bite on calm days in April and their numberi vary from
year to year; they also do not fly out on the marshes. Scheduling of
field activities or use of insect repellents mitigates biting fly nuisances
and no problems are anticipated for the proposed sanctuary research and
education programs.

e. Estuarine Ecosystem

Generalized patterns of energy flow (production and feeding) for
the proposed sanctuary sites are shown in Figure 10. These diagrams
represent many interwoven food chains (for example spatterdock to leaf
beetle to songbirds to birds of prey, or vascular plants to detritus to
crustaceans to small fish to striped bass), and there are many species
that feed on more than one type of food. In general, using energy from
the sun, green plants produce matter which is consumed while alive by
grazing animals or after death by detritus-feeding animals. These primary
consumers in turn are eaten by larger and larger animals, culminating in
the highest-level consumers such as striped bass, snapping turtle, herons,
hawks, mink and man. The great abundance of plants, small invertebrates
and small fish in the Hudson River Estuary provides a rich food base for
economically important larger animals such as sport and commercial fishes,
waterfowl, blue crab, etc.

The major producers in the Hudson are phytoplankton in the waters,
and vascular plants in the shallows and wetlands. Turbidity limits
phytoplankton populations but these producers are important in the
Haverstraw Bay - Tappan Zee region. Zooplankton and benthic invertebrates
feed on phytoplankton and on detritus (dead plant particles) from the
plants of the marshes and shallows as well as from terrestrial sources.
The zooplankton and benthic invertebrates are food for larger invertebrates
and small fish, which in turn are eaten by larger fish, birds, and other
animals. Estimates of the relative importance of terrestrial and estuarine
energy (food) sources vary.

Research done in other estuaries suggests that Hudson River wetlands
may absorb nutrients from the main river, but it is not clear to what
extent these nutrients may be returned to the river with the decomposition
of dead plants. The vegetation of the wetlands and shallows is a nutrient-
recycling system that channels nutrients into food chains that yield
resources for society in the form of fish, crabs, ducks, and furbearers.
At the same time this vegetation is improving water quality in the river.

2. Current Uses of the Sites

a. Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Fishing has been an important activity along the Hudson River
Estuary from Indian times to the present day. Catch records were first
kept in the late 1880s. From that time, the commercial fin-fishery grew
until the late 1930s-early 1940s, then declined. Average annual commercial
finfish catch from 1913-1964 was 847,000 lbs., with the largest catch 2.3
million lbs., reported in 1945. Average annual catch from 1965-74 was 170,000
lbs., including 275,000 lbs. in 1974. Shad represented 86% of these catches.
Reported catches are minimum and Sheppard (1976) estimated actual 1976 catch
at around 600,000 lbs. Sheppard felt that the commercial fisheries of the
Hudson River Estuary could be increased to perhaps 1-2 million lbs. per year.
In 1978, there were 47 licensed commercial fishermen on the Hudson.

Fig. 10

Energy Source A. Generalized energy patkways

Primary Secondary Tertiary
live Consumers Consumers
Producers (plants) (grazers) (small Consumers
predators) (large pred-
ators)

Detritus Consumers
Complex (detritivores)

Sun, Wind, B. Terrestrial pathways
Rain

Deer, Spiders,
Plants Rodents, Insects, Raptors,
Insects, Birds, Carnivores,
Birds Amphibians Man

Detritus,
Export to estuary Complex Invertebrates

Sun, Tides, C. Estuarine pathways
Waves, Rain

Fish,
Zooplanton, Fish, Spi Fish,
Vascular Plants, Muskrat Birds, Raptors,
Algae, Mosses Turtles, Mammals' Turtles,
Waterfowl, Insects Carnivores,
Songbirds, Man
Insects
@Dee
r'
Rodents,

D n
@uary
C:t
ml

Worms'
Detritu Insects,
Terrestrial cletritus Comp Mal lusks,
Zooplankton
etc.

The Hudson River Estuary contributes to marine fisheries of striped
bass, shad, bluefish, butterfish, winter flounder, summer flounder, menhaden,
weakfish, tidewater silversides and sea robin (Sheppard, 1976). In 1974, New
York marine landings were about 7 million lbs. The average Hudson River
contribution to the marine striped bass fishery alone has been estimated
at about 700,000 lbs. in the period 1965-74.

During the period 1970-74 between Troy and the Tappan Zee Bridge
(Nyack), there were an estimated 165,000 person-days spent in recreational
fishing on the Hudson (Sheppard 1976). Sheppard felt that the estuary was
capable of supporting perhaps 2 million angler-days of recreational fishing
per year. The major recreational species include striped bass, white perch,
alewife and btueback herring, brown bullhead, largemouth and smallmouth bass,
yellow perch, smelt, bluegill, and pumpkinseed sunfish.

In 1978, the Hudson River Estuary generated an estimated $150-200,000
from the commercial sector and $1.65 million from the recreational sector,
as well as a contribution to the marine fin fishery worth $20 million (com-
mercial plus recreational). These figures do not include blue crab
fisheries, nor the recreational fin fishery in the Hudson south of the
Tappan Zee Bridge. A summer 1980 survey of anglers b7etween Troy and the
George Washington Br*idge (just north of Manhattan) estimated over 16,000
individual recreational fishermen using the estuary. The creel
survey showed that in August 33% of anglers had caught white perch,
23% had.caught blue crab, and 9% had caught catfish (New York*State
Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River Unit, 1980).

In 1976, the Hudson River Estuary was closed to commercial fish-
ing of all species except American shad, Atlantic sturgeon, and blue
crab, due to PCB residues in some species exceeding the Federal
allowable limit for interstate commerce of 5 parts-per-million. In-
tensive monitoring of Hudson River fish since then has shown significant
declines of PCB levels. The Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) is lifting the bans on commercial fishing for alewife, blueback
herring, smelt and tomcod in 1982. It is hoped that the ban on striped
bass can be lifted during the next few years.

Shad enter the Hudson River in early spring and migrate up-river
to spawn in tidal shallows from the Kingston area northward. Commercial
(staked and drift gillnets) and recreational fishing for shad takes place
almost throughout the estuary. In 1981, the DEC published a leaflet "A
Guide to Angling for Hudson River Shad" which has been successful in pro-
moting hook-and-line fishing for shad and a concomitant increase in
interest in the Hudson River and its management among recreational
fishermen.

Fishing for blue crab (blue-claw crab) with pots and lines is
popular as far up the Hudson River Estuary as Beacon. There is also a
small commercial crab fishery. Both blue crab and shad appear to have
increased in numbers in the Hudson in the last 15 years, probably due
partly to improved water quality.

The commercial fishery for A,;lantic sturgeon is very small. There
is a small commercial seine fishey for baitfish, primarily killifish
and shiners, in the shallows and inarshes.

A few commercial shad fisheriren operate in the shallows near Pier-
mont Marsh. There is a recreational fishery for blue crab and fin fish
(including tomcod in winter) off -.he tip of the Erie Pier, and some
recreational fishing by boat near the marsh and in the mouth of Sparkill
Creek.

There is virtually no canmercial fishing near Iona Island. The marsh
itself is closed to all fishing. Limited crabbing and recreational fin
fishing take place along the railroad.

Considerable commercial shad fishing takes place in the Kingston Flats
area a few miles south of Tivoli Bays, but little shad fishing is done close
to the bays. One commercial fisherman seines baitfish in the Tivoli Bays.
Recreational fishing is concentrated at the stream mouths (Saw Kill and Stony
Creek) and th- railroad bridges, with some boat fishing. Species fished at
'7
Tivoli are primarily alewife (scap-netted), striped bass, white perch,
yellow perch, largemouth bass, white sucker, catfish and eel. There are
approximately 500 person-days per year of recreational fishing in the
Tivoli Bays area.

Some commercial shad fishing occurs in the areas near Stockport Flats.
One commercial fisherman seines bait fish in the wetlands and shallows. The
tidal mouth of Stockport Creek is an excellent recreational fishing area best
known for striped bass. Most of the recreational fishing is concentrated at
the railroad bridge area and the Route 9 highway bridge, with some fishing
by boat. Fishing from small craft also takes place on the river side of
Stockport Middle Ground and Gay's Point.

The carrying capacity of the Hudson River Estuary for fisheries is far
greater than the present harvest. The DEC is prepared to carefully regulate
fishing for striped bass when commercial fishing for this species is once
again permitted. Hudson River commercial fishing operations are currently
licensed and monitored, but there is no license required for recreational
fishermen on the estuary. Such a license is under consideration by the DEC.
There is no foreseeable conflict between fishing and scientific or educational
use of the proposed estuarine sanctuary. Hudson River fish stocks and
fisheries are under continued study.

b. Fur Trap_pinq

Historically, fur trapping was a mainstay of the Hudson Valley's economy.
Today trapping is a source of supplementary income for a number of Valley
residents.

The primary furbearer along the Hudson River Estuary is the muskrat,
although raccoon, mink, red fox, and gray fox are also trapped in very
smal I numbers.

Muskrat population fluctuate considerably over several-year periods
and trapping effort and harvest also vary. In tidal marshes, muskrats
make tunnels connecting the tidal creeks and pools to the intercreek
areas, and also construct winter lodges (houses) in the intercreek
areas. Much trapping is done in the tunnel entrances; a few trappers
also use floating trap platforms. Leghold traps and conibear traps are
used on the Hudson.

The 1980-81 and 1981-82 muskrat trapping season ran November 15 to
March 15. As of February 1982, good muskrat pelts were selling for $4-5
each, down markedly from a year before. During the late 1960s - early
1970s, muskrat populations were high in Hudson River marshes, and estimated
annual catch at that time was 500-800 muskrats at Tivoli Bays and perhaps
a similar number at Stockport Flats. Several trappers are active in
each area, but catch has been lower in the last few years. The Palisades
Interstate Park areas at Iona and Piermont are closed to trapping.

Sharp fluctuations in muskrat numbers are normal in most muskrat habitats
in North America, with or without trapping. Muskrats are important in
the marsh ecosystem as diggers of tunnels that aerate the sediments, and
creators of clearings around their winter lodges that increase variety in
the vegetation. In general, fur trapping is not in conflict with existing
or potential scientific and educational uses of the proposed sanctuary
sites.

c. Hunting

Hunting along the Hudson River Estuary is primarily waterfowl hunting
and deer hunting. Hunting is not permitted in the Palisades Interstate
Park areas at Iona and Piermont, but hunting is permitted on State-owned
lands at Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats.

There is limited hunting for Canada geese on the Hudson but most
waterfowl hunting is duck hunting. The primary game species are mallard,
black duck, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, wood duck and canvasback.
Canvasbacks are shot on open waters as this species rarely enters the
wetlands; there is little hunting of canvasbacks or other diving ducks at
Tivoli and Stockport.

Duck hunting season on the Hudson Estuary usually opens in the first
half of October and runs (with or without a closed period) until sometime
in December or January. Lack of open water and ducks upriver in December
and January effectively limits the season to October-November. Duck season
usually opens on a Wednesday. The heaviest hunting is on opening day, and
hunting may be fairly heavy the Thursday and Friday after opening day and
the first 2-3 weekends. Hunting is thus concentrated into the equivalent
of about a week's time. Furthermore, there is little shooting between about
10 a.m. and 5 p.m.

There are four types of shooting on the wetlands and shallows at
Sto,ckport and Tivoli: shooting from blinds, pass shooting on foot on
land, shooting on foot in the wetlands, and shooting from boats in the

wetland creeks and pools and along the shorelines of the shallows. At
Tivoli Bays, almost all shooting is from blinds or boats; at Stockport
Flats, most shooting is done on foot.

At Tivoli Bays, at opening day dawn of the duck season, Wednesday,
15 October 1981, there were 45 hun-ters' vehicles parked around the area,
indicating a total of about 90 hunters that morning. There were about
40-45 active duck blinds in Tivoli Bays in fall 1981, almost all of them
in North Bay where most of the hunting occurs. On opening day, 25 parties
of hunters interviewed by DEC bagged 140 ducks, of which 19 were black
ducks or mallards and the rest mostly teal.

It is estimated that the number of hunters in the Stockport Flats
area on opening day 1981 was approximately the same as at Tivoli. There
were only 7 blinds in the main marsh at Stockport in fall 1981. Reports
of hunters indicate a considerable decline in hunter numbers at Stockport
since the 1940s or 1950s, and a continued decline during the last 10
years. Car counts at Tivoli indicate a reduction in the hunter numbers
on opening day since the early 1970s when the season opened on weekends
instead of Wednesdays.

The upper Hudson River Estuary, including Tivoli and Stockport, was
restricted to the use of steel shot for waterfowl hunting for the first time
in the 1981 season. This rule was based on a finding of ingested lead
shot in approximately 10% of ducks bagged on the upper estuary. Steel
shot use should reduce the incidence of lead poisoning in ducks from
ingesting lead shot pellets while feeding on organisms in the mud.

Concentration of duck hunting in early morning and late afternoon
,during October reduces potential conflicts between hunting and other uses
of the marshes. Research field work has been conducted for 11 years at
Tivoli North Bay during duck season with relatively few problems. The
management plan for Tivoli Bays will include measures to further reduce
conflicts or potential conflicts between hunting and other uses of the
area. This is important because of the mix of different uses existing and
anticipated at Tivoli, and would occur regardless of the sanctuary designation.
At Stockport Flats, differences in use patterns and the proposed emphasis
in the sanctuary program on spring and summer research (as opposed to
year-round research and educational activities) insures that major problems
with use conflicts will not arise.

There is a moderate amount of deer hunting at Stockport and Tivoli
on terrestrial areas. Deer populations have been high throughout the
1970s-80s and are very high now (1982). Deer hunting season usually opens
in mid-November and runs for 3 weeks.

There is a moderate amount of hunting for upland small game (ruffed
grouse, pheasant, gray squirrel, eastern cottontail, raccoon, red and
gray foxes). The various small game seasons run through much of the fall
and winter. There is virtually no hunting of rails, gallinule, snipe or
woodcock at Stockport or Tivoli.

d. Forestry

The Hudson River Valley has had an increasing amount of forest
cover over the last century, and now is about half covered by forest.
Forest cover is much more than 50% on most slopes immediately adjacent to
to the estuary. Shore forests at some locations are selectively harvested
for timber and fuel. There is no harvest in the Palisades Interstate Park
system, including the Iona Island and Piermont areas.

Portions of the State lands at Tivoli Bays were selectively logged
in 1080 before State acquisition. Very little was cut within 100 yards
of the estuarine habitats and most cutting was well over 200 yards east
.of the North Bay; there was no cutting on Cruger Island or along the tidal
mouth of Stony Creek. The last time the forests close to North Bay had
been extensively cut was around 1906. There has been virtually no recent
cutting on private forests adjoining the Tivoli Bays.

There has been no recent logging at the Stockport Flats area. Some
fuelwood has been cut on a few small private areas near the wetlands.

e. Agriculture

Field corn, grain, hay, apples, peaches, grapes and a few other crops
are cultivated atop the bluffs along the Hudson River Estuary, in the
middle and upper regions from about Beacon to Albany. Recent years have
seen a resurgence of grape culture in the Mid-Hudson region, and continued
strength in the apple industry. Stock are grazed on the bluff tops in some
areas. Non-agricultural (usually wooded) zones generally exist between
agriculture and the shoreline, especially where shore slopes are steep
(over 10% slope); rarely is agriculture less than 100 yards from the shore-
line and usually the distance is much greater.

Crops and stock are raised on farms east of Stockport Flats. Hay,
field corn and oats were grown on the fields east of Tivoli North Bay until
1979, and the DEC expects to permit hay cutting again on some of these fields.
Thoroughbred horses are raised on the private property north of North Bay, and
apples and peaches are grown commercially east of South Bay. In all cases at
Stockport and Tivoli, substantial areas of forested slopes (map distance of
100 yards to one-half mile wide) separate agriculture from the tidal shoreline.
There is no agriculture near the Piermont and Iona Island marshes.

f. Industry

In the 1800s, many industries stood right on the Hudson River Estuary
shoreline, among them brickworks, ice houses, and grist, saw, and textile
mills. Most of these structures are gone with little trace. Contemporary
industry along the Hudson includes cement and aggregate plants, petroleum
terminals, manufacturing plants, and electric power stations. However,
virtually no heavy industry is visible from the proposed sanctuary sites,
with the exception of Piermont.

Stockport. The nearest heavy industry to the main marsh is one and
one-half miles- to the southwest across the river, not visible from the marsh.
A locality near the proposed sanctuary site was included on a DEC list of
possible sites for a toxic waste treatment facility.

It is anticipated that once the estuarine sanctuary is designated and
a management plan has been adopted, that use of areas near the sanctuary
and within the State Coastal Area Boundary as a hazardous waste treatment
facility would be a noncompatible use. The treatment facility proposal
is inactive now.

Tivoli. The nearest heavy industry is more than two miles to the
northwest, at Saugerties, and not visible from the proposed sanctuary site.

Iona Island. The portion of the island east of the railroad was a Navy
supply depot from about 1900 to 1965, when it was acquired by the Palisades
Interstate Park Commission (PIPC). All, but five of the buildings were removed,
along with railroad sidings, docks, and roads, and the occupied areas were
restored to field. The remaining buildings are used by PIPC for part
of its maintenance and storage operations, the rest of which is located
on the mainland near Doodletown Bight. This is the only existing industry
near the site. The nearest heavy industry is across the river in Peekskill
one and one-half miles to the east. The Indian Point nuclear power station
is across the river and over two miles southeast (downriver) of Iona Island;
the power station is hidden from the proposed sanctuary site by Dunderberg
Mountain.

Piermont. A paper recycling plant and a carton factory are loca ted
at the base of the Erie Pier just north of the proposed sanctuary site and
visible from the marsh. Other industry and a railroad siding formerly
occupied the rest of the pier, but have been removed. There is no other
industry adjacent to Piermont Marsh; the next nearest industry is over
one mile east of the marsh across the river. The factories on the Erie
Pier are monitored by the State DEC and Department of Health for potential
pollution. A former municipal landfill adjacent to the pier has recently
been bored and the levels of metals and pesticides found in the pore water
were very low.

9. Transportatton

The Hudson River Estuary has been a primary transportation route
throughout historic and prehistoric human occupancy of the northeast. In
the 1900s, much transportation shifted to highway routes off the river,
but the Hudson is still an important transportation corridor.

Shipping. A Federally marked and maintained shipping.route extends
the length of the Hudson River Estuary. Most of this route has naturally
sufficient depths, but the portions of the route between Nyack and Peekskill
in Haverstraw Bay, and between Saugerties and Troy, have been deepened and
are periodically maintained by dredging. The dredged channel passes close
to the Stockport Flats proposed site. None of the proposed sites, however,
includes any part of the shipping routes; the proposed site boundaries in
all four cases extend downward only to the six foot depth contour below low
tide level.

Formerly, some wetlands, islands, and shoreline areas on the upper
Hudson Estuary were used for dredged material disposal. The United States
Army Corps of Engineers (1981) has published a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the next decade of channel maintenance and spoil disposal
along the Hudson, in which a commitment is made to upland disposal and to
avoidance of sensitive natural areas. Dredged material from the shipping
channel is expected to be sandy and low in PCB content (less than one part-
per-million) so that toxic substance problems are not anticipated. Analyses
will be performed just before dredging any reach, and contingency plans
will be available for safe landfilling if high-contaminant material is found.

Ship traffic in the narrow and relatively shallow upper estuary produces
wakes and swash that have been blamed for shoreline erosion and other problems.
The matter is currently under study by the Hudson River Fisheries Advisory
Committee to DEC. Most estuaries in the United States that are used for
shipping have speed limits; the Hudson is an exception. Commercial ships on
the Hudson carry fruit, cement, petroleum, and other products. Small craft
are discussed under Recreation, below. The Erie Pier at Piermont is used
for infrequent docking of the Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory ocean-
going research vessel, but not for other large craft.

Railways. Two ConRail railroads parallel the Hudson River Estuary
and border the shoreline in places, the Hudson Division line on the east
shore and the West Shore line across the river. These railroads were
built circa 1850 and 1880, respectively. The east shore railroad carries
both freight and passenger service; along the upper estuary about 8 passenger
trains and a similar number of freight trains pass daily each way. The west
shore railroad carries only freight.

The railroads pass through the proposed sanctuary sites at Stockport,
Tivoli and Iona, but not at Piermont. The railroad at Stockport is between
the major wetlands and the uplands; at Tivoli and Iona, the railroads pass
mostly between the wetlands and the main river. The railroad at Tivoli was
built on a fill causeway with several small openings for tidal flow; at Iona,
the railroad was built partly on pilings and has much larger openings. The
railroad at Stockport has a single large opening where it crosses the mouth
of Stockport Creek. The openings in the railroads are sufficient to allow
complete flooding and draining of water onto and off the wetlands with
each tidal cycle, much as occurs in wetlands which are not bordered by the
railroads.

Ecologically, the railroad causeways, where they lie between the
wetlands and the main river, resemble baymouth bars. The tidal openings
(bridges) are much used for feeding by predatory fish, especially striped
bass, and are well known recreational fishing spots. Large portions of the
causeways (rights-of-way) have dense belts of herbaceous or woody vegetation
25 or more feet wide on both sides of the tracks, and these belts support a
diversity of plant species, breeding birds, and small mammals. The vegetation
also screens the wetlands from the train disturbance. Even where there is no
vegetation, migrating ducks on the shallows do not flush when a train passes
unless they are within about 50 yards of the tracks.

h. Recreation

Hiking, ski-touring, birdwatching, and related activities are discussed
here; hunting, trapping and fishing were discussed in section 3a-c.

Birdwatching. The four prc,posed sanctuary sites are very well known
birding areas and received high ratings in Where to Find Birds in New York
State; The Top 500 Sites (Drennan , 1981 ) an-d-o-tTe@[email protected]@y-l@i @rdWaitchers
regaFd T-he proposed sites among the five most productive sites along the
Hudson River Estuary for water od wetland birds as well as land birds (the
5th area is Crofton Point).

Most birdwatching takes place in spring and fall, with less in
summer and little in winter. Almost all birding is done by foot from
the shoreline and the railroads (and Erie Pier); a few birders use
canoes. Birders generally come from the counties containing the proposed
sites, either in organized field trips or individually, but birders also
come from other Hudson River counties, as far away as New York City and
Albany, and farther. A minimal estimate of the number of person-days spent
annually birdwatching at the proposed sites is 200 person-days per year per
site on the average (10 organized field trips of 10 people each plus an
equal amount of individual or small party use). Thus the amount of bird-
watching use at Tivoli and Stockport is approximately equal to the amount
of hunting use.

Birdwatching has little impact on the sites. There is occasional
disturbance of nesting birds through close observation or the playback
of recorded bird calls to locate birds.

Other nature recreation occurs at the sites, but is difficult to
separate quantitatively from birdwatching, hiking, etc. Some individuals
and occasional organized groups come specifically to botanize, and a
number of persons visit the areas soley to photograph nature.

Hiking. There are existing foot trails at or near the sites at Piermont,
Iona, and Tivoli, and trails are planned for the Gay's Point portion of Hudson
River Islands State Park at the Stockport site. A network of hiking trails
connects Tallman Mountain State Park and Bear Mountain State Park (Webster,
1971), effectively linking the Piermont and Iona Marshes. The hub of this
trail system is the Long Path which begins at the George Washington Bridge
in New Jersey, passes near Piermont Marsh and west of Bear Mountain, and
will eventually extend to the Adirondacks - nearly the course of the Hudson
River itself.

The Appalachian Trail, from Georgia to Maine, passes through the Bear
Mountain State Park Trailside Museums complex, and crosses the Hudson River
on the Bear Mountain Bridge about two miles north of Ion Island. This is
the only place where the Appalachian Trail crosses an estuary in its 2,000
mile length.

Old trails on the State and Bard College lands at the Tivoli Bays
are well-used for walking, cross-country skiing, and some snowshoeing
and running. Skiing is also popular on the trails near the Piermont and

Iona sites. These activities offer rewarding access to views of the
marshes, with little impact. Public transportation allows access to the
sites for non-car owners. Buses from New York City stop at Piermont and
Bear Mountain; Amtrak trains from New York City and Albany run to Hudson
and Rhinecliff, about 8 road-miles from the Stockport and Tivoli sites,
respectively.

Miscellaneous Recreation. Occasional groups (e.g., scout encampments)
use the Iona Island fields during the warm season, under special permits
from PIPC. Otherwise the Island is closed to the public.

A bicycle trail paralleling the west shore of the estuary passes by
the Piermont and Iona Island Marshes, partly on highways and partly on
old roads reserved for bicycle and pedestrian use and affording good
views of the marshes. The Dunderberg section of the bicycle trail is
currently (1982) closed for repairs.

Ice boating originated on the Hudson River in the 1860. Ice boats
resemble elongated sailboats on sled -runners, and are still built and sailed
by a few residents in the Mid-Hudson area, particularly near Barrytown and
Rhinecliff. Ice boating occurs on the main river during periods of smooth
solid ice, often near Tivoli Bays and sometimes on South Bay. Skaters also
occasionally use South Bay. Tidal ice can be dangerous, but these activi-
ties have no ecological impact.

There are no safe swimming beaches, and swimming in the Estuary is not
permitted on public lands at the proposed sites.

Small Craft. Recreational boating by canoe, kayak, sailboat, and
powerboat is popular on the Hudson River Estuary. Improved and unimproved
boat landings are available to the public at locations near the proposed
sanctuary sites. Primitive landings and a semi-improved landing are
adjacent to Piermont Marsh (the Erie Pier). There are no improved landings
within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. All boating is prohibited in the
Iona Island Marsh, except for research purposes.

The ideal way to see the wetlands and shallows is by canoe. Different
habitats of the wetlands are accessible, depending on the tide and the season.
Canoeists can view wildlife and vegetation with minimal disturbance. The
Sparkill Creek, the main river near Iona Island, the Tivoli Bays and the Saw
Kill, and Stockport. Creek and its tributaries are described in Aepalachian
Water 2: The Hudson River and its Tributaries (Burmeister, 1974), a canoeing
guide. Th@_emiifln -river is descrl@bed_Tn_ FThe -Iustrated Hudson River Pilot
(Wilkie, nd).

i. Archaeological Resources

The Hudson River Estuary corridor, especially stream mouths, points,
and islands, is rich in archaeological sites. Several Native American
cultures inhabited the region, and some sites were in use as far back as
10,000 years ago. Food remains from estuary sites show a considerable

use of estuarine productivity, particularly sturgeon, mollusks, and turtles
as well as deer and other terrestrial species. The Indians were attracted to
the same sites as modern hunters, fishermen, and birdwatchers--for the
same reasons.

Archaeological sites at Iona Island and Tivoli Bays have been scienti-
fically excavated and documented, as have several sites across the river
from Stockport. Much remains to be learned about these sites, and the
archaeological resources need protection from illegal "scavenging" of
artifacts. A substantial amount of "pot hunting" (non-scientific destruction
of archeological information) has taken place and continues today throughout
the Tivoli Bay properties, specifically Cruger and Magdalen Islands.

The New York State Education Law, Section 233, Parts 4 and 5 provide
protection of these sites. Parts 4 and 5 are reproduced below to further
inform the public regarding prohibited and permitted activities:

"4. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three of this section
no person shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any object of
archaeological and paleontologica@ interest, situated on or under lands
owned by the state of New York, without the written permission of the
commissioner of education. A violation of this provision shall constitute
a misdemeanor. The discovery of such objects shall be forthwith reported
to the commissioner by the state department or agency having jurisdiction
over such lands.

5. Permits for the excavation or gathering of archaeological and
paleontological objects upon the 'lands under their respective jurisdictions
may be granted by the heads of state departments or other state agencies to
persons authorized by the commissioner of education for the purposes of the
state museum and state science service, with a view to the preservation of
any such objects worthy of permanent preservation and, in all cases, to the
acquisition and dissemination of knowledge relating thereto."
L.1947, c.820; amended L.1958, c.121, eff. March 6, 1958.

It should be noted that future expenditures of State and Federal funds
will not adversely impact these National Register Archaeological Sites.

j. Plant Resources

There has been no commercial harvest of plant material from the Hudson
Estuary. Although wild-rice is abundant at Stockport Flats and a few other
upriver marshes, the amount potentially available for harvest is tiny
compared to the wild-rice marshes of Great Lakes that sustain commercial
harvest. Hudson Estuary wild-rice ripens over several weeks and only a
portion of the crop is harvestable at any one time; furthermore, tidal
fluctuations means that access to these middle-intertidal zone plants is
difficult.

k. Esthetic Use

The Hudson River has a three-century tradition of esthetic apprecia-
tion of the natural landscape, and the wetlands and shores are an intimate
part of this scenic resource. Artistic interest in the estuary reached
a high level in the 1800s with the Hudson River School of landscape
painting. Many contemporary artists, including painters, photographers
and filmmakers, use the estuary as a source of inspiration and a subject
for their works.

In an article titled "Some International Values of Wetlands" Jorgensen
(1980) said, "Wetlands are important in bringing visitors from many lands
together to enjoy a common interest while promoting a better understanding
among people." International visitors have shown interest in the Hudson's
wetlands and shores throughout the river's history, and there is great
potential for increased tourist appreciation of the estuary in keeping
with the interest of Hudson Valley communities in tourism as an industry
with relatively little environmental impact. Related to this are the
burgeoning activities in regional historic preservation and excursion
boat operation.

1. Research and Education

Research. Past research on the Hudson River has emphasized sport and
commercial fish species; roughly $50-100 million has been spent by the public
utilities alone in work on fisheries and related aspects of Hudson River
ecology. Other research subjects have been wetlands plants, bottom inverte-
brates, plankton, marsh and land birds, reptiles, mammals, sediments, economic
geology, hydrology, water quality, and endangered species. A program tilted
"The Hudson River Field Weeks" was organized by the Hudson River Research
Council in 1977 and 1978, and involved coordination of efforts among a
dozen different research institutions in a study of water quality under
high-flow and low-flow conditions in the entire estuary. Most of the
intensive research to date has focused on the main river and relatively
little work has been done in the wetlands. Although there is a hydraulic
model of the Hudson Estuary at the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, there are no quantitative
models of the Hudson River Estuary ecosystem or of marshes and shallows
subsystems. References to published work on the proposed Sanctuary sites
appear in a bibliography in the Appendices. Available information on the
four sites is being synthesized in more detail and will be published later
this year as a basic reference for research workers.

Institutions currently active in Hudson River Estuary research are
listed in Table 7, and current research projects involving the four
sites are listed in Table 8. A program for future research in the proposed
estuarine sanctuary is outlined in the Alternatives section of this FEIS;
the program would emphasize long-tern environmental monitoring, ecosystem-
level studies, and applied problems of management of resources including
such topics as shoreline erosion, sedimentation, waterfowl, fisheries,
furbearers, wetlands and aquatic vegetation, rare and endangered species,
and the impacts of human activities on estuarine resources.

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program would enhance coordination and
communication in Hudson River resoarch. A program extending the length
of the estuary and setting priorii,,,ies for certain types of work would
encourage fuller and more efficient use of existing facilities, equipment,
and collections, perhaps on a time-sharing basis among research institutions.
Availability of existing data and its effective use could be enhanced,
and a system for indexing and shai@ing published and unpublished information
could be set up. It is expected that planning and conducting research
would be closely coordinated with the new Hudson River Foundation for
Science and Environmental Research, Inc. resulting from the settlement
between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the public
utilities, as well as with older groups set up to coordinate research
and communicate research results (Hudson River Environmental Society and
Hudson River Research Council). 'There are ample opportunities for public
involvement in certain types of research, e.g., fish tagging by recreational
fishermen, and reporting of observations on estuarine animals and plants
by sportsmen and naturalists.

Education. Schools, nature clubs, conservation organizations and other
groups use the Hudson for educational activities. Most colleges in the New
York City to Troy region have courses that take field trips to the estuary.
Subjects include geology, botany, fish, wildlife and history, and the numbers
of class trips vary from one to 25 per college per year. Class trip time is
divided about evenly between the main river and the wetlands. Vassar College,
Rockland Community College, and the New School for Social Research have
offered courses specifically on the Hudson Estuary. A few schools maintain
small laboratories on the shoreline: Dutchess Community College, Bard
College, and Marist College. A few elementary schools and a number of
secondary schools have also used the estuary for field tri.ps. North
Rockland High School has for several years had a program of education
and data collection focusing on the Grassy Point marsh complex at Haverstraw.
Boyce Thompson Institute used teacher and student volunteer groups very
successfully for data collection in its multi-year intensive studies of
the lower estuary wetlands and shallows. Graduate students from New
York University and other schools have written master's and doctoral
theses on the estuary.

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater has the largest public education program
on the estuary. The Sloop, a replica of early commercial vessels, sails up
and down the Hudson several months each year, making scheduled stops at
many cities and taking groups of children and adults aboard for half-day
educational trips. The on-board program involves short lectures, and sampling
or water, benthos, or fish.

About 20 nature clubs offer their members and the general public field
trips and lectures relating to the Hudson Estuary. Some of the most active
groups are bird clubs, but clubs with other specific interests (e.g., botany)
and general purpose nature clubs also use the estuary. Each club has from one
to 10 field trips per year on the Hudson.

Several museums and galleries have featured exhibits on Hudson River
Estuary biology and history, including the New York State Museum, American

Museum of Natural History, Museum of the Hudson Highlands, Hudson River
Museum, Wave Hill Environmental Studies Center, and the gallery at Hudson
River Sloop Clearwater's Fire House.

The last 13 years have seen an extensive popular educational literature
on the Hudson River. A major contribution is Robert Boyle's (1969) The
Hudson River; a Natural and Unnatural History. This book and the HuTs-on
River Sloop Clearwater have been predominant influences on the burgeoning
public interest in the Hudson during the 1970s-80s.

Table 7. Some Institutions and Agencies that Have Used the Hudson River
for Research and Education.

Institution or Agency Type of Use

American Museum of Natural Histo,^y Research and Education
New York, NY

New York State Museum Research
Albany, NY

Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory Research
of Columbia University, Palisade:;, NY

Cary Arboretum of the New York Research
Botanical Garden, Millbrook, NY

Stonykill Environmental Education Education
Center, Fishkill, NY (DEC)

Cornell University Research (planned)
Ithaca, NY

Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research
Research, Ithaca, NY

Rockefeller University Center for Research
Field Research, Millbrook, NY

Academy of Natural Sciences, Research
Philadelphia, PA

Museum of the Hudson Highlands Research and Education
Cornwall, NY

Wave Hill Environmental Studies Education
Center, Bronx, NY

New York University, Institute of Research
Environmental Medicine, New York, N.Y.

State University of New York Research
Stony Brook, NY

Marist College Education
Poughkeepsie, NY

State University College Education
New Paltz, NY

Table 7. (Continued)

Institution or Agency Type of Use

Queens College Research and Education
Flushing, NY

Manhattan College and College Research and Education
of Mount St, Vincent, Riverdale, NY

Bard College, Research and Education
Annandale, NY

United States Military Academy Education
West Point, NY

Vassar College Research and Education
Poughkeepsie, NY

Columbia-Greene Community College Education
Hudson, NY

The New School for Social Research Education
New York, NY

Dutchess Community College Education
Staatsburg, NY

Ulster Community College Education
Stone Ridge, NY

New York State Department of Research and Management
Environmental Conservation
Albany, NY

New York State Department of State Research and Management
Coastal Management Program
Albany, NY

New York State Office of Parks Research and Management
Recreation, and Historic Preservation
Albany, NY

United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Management
New York, NY

Scenic Hudson, Inc. Research and Education
Poughkeepsie, NY

The Oceanic Society Research
Stanford, CT

Table 7. (Continued)

Institution or Agency Type of Use

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Education
Poughkeepsie, NY

National Audubon Society Education
New York, NY

Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club Education
Poughkeepsie, NY

Alan Devoe Bird Club Education
Chatham, NY

Rockland Audubon Society Education
New City, NY

Jo-hn Burroughs Natural History Education
Society, Olive Bridge, NY

New Jersey Audubon Society Research
Ramapo Research Group
Mahwah, NJ

Project L.O.S.T. Research and Education
Mountainville, NY

Table 8. Some Current Research Projects Involving the Proposed
Sanctuary Sites. (Proposed research is outlined in the
Alternatives section.)

Flora and fauna sur vey updates

Fish surveys of the marshes

Rare and endangered plant and animal distribution and abundance

Muskrat populations, muskrat ecology

Waterfowl nesting

Duck blind ecology

Vegetation patterns and changes in wetlands

Vegetation structure and bird populations

Toxic substances in sediments, plants and animals

Wetland sediment structure and history of marshes

Insects associated with marsh plants

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. General Impacts

An acquisition grant from NOAA would enable the State of New York
to acquire lands and develop facilities (i.e., buildings, roads, parking
lots, trails, boardwalk). These lands and facilities, combined with
other lands already owned by the State and existing facilities, would
constitute a National Estuarine Sanctuary representative of the Hudson
River as a subcategory of the Virginian Biogeographic Region. The
proposed action would have a variety of environmental and economic
consequences. It is important to understand the overall effect of the
estuarine sanctuary designation. The sanctuary designation would not
change existing ownerships, uses, or activities at the proposed sites,
but would offer significant future benefits. These benefits would include
additional protection of the marshes, and improved and better coordinated
research and education opportunities.

The most important overall effect would be to better protect areas
included within the sanctuary from development pressures and to improve
access to wildland and estuarine natural areas for research and educational
purposes. The sanctuary would require very little development because
most facilities already exist in some form; little change would be caused
in the existing natural environment. The sanctuary would not significantly
affect current uses or activities in or near the proposed sanctuary sites.

The greatest environmental benefit of this sanctuary would be the
long-term protection of the natural resources of the tidal wetlands, shallows,
shoreline, and islands of Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh
and Piermont Marsh. The sanctuary would serve as an area for people to
use for esthetic and recreational enjoyment as well as for scientific and
educational purposes. Information collected in the sanctuary would increase
knowledge of East Coast estuarine ecosystems and provide an important link
with existing National Estuarine Sanctuaries and other coastal research
and educational reserves. The estuarine sanctuary designation would complement
and enhance existing ecological, scenic, and historical management programs.

Including a representative of this type of estuary within the Virginian
Biogeographic Region would also improve understanding of estuarine species
and processes peculiar to tidal river systems along the Atlantic Coast.

The establishment of the proposed estuarine sanctuary would have
minimal adverse effects on the natural environment. An increased number
of visitors to the sites should be anticipated. The sanctuary management
plan would describe sanctuary facilities, including trails and access
points. The management plan would also describe educational uses in
areas of the sites where such use would not damage the environment,
disturb adjoining landowners, or interfere with other uses of the sanctuary.

Traditional uses vary from one proposed sanctuary site to another.
These uses include (in certain areas): waterfowl and upland hunting,
sport and commercial fishing, fur trapping, recreational boating, bird
watching and other forms of nature recreation.

B. Specific Impacts

1. Natural Environment

a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Many species of fish and wildlife, both resident and migratory, use
the proposed sanctuary sites for feeding, reproduction, and other purposes.
Establishment of this proposed sanctuary would ensure long-term protection
of important fish and wildlife habitats including tidal wetlands, shallows,
shorelines and islands. This protection of habitats could benefit
endangered species including bald eagle, osprey, possibly the shortnose
sturgeon, and also the other endangered, threatened, and "special concern"
species discussed in the Affected Environment (Part III) section of this FEIS.
Additional information on endangered species is being collected to assist
in developing the sanctuary management plan.

With respect to the shortnose sturgeon, Section 7 consultation under
the Endangered Species Act has been initiated with the National Marine
Fisheries Service. It is believed that this action will not adversely
impact this species.

The proposed sanctuary would have a positive impact by protecting high
quality ecosystems in the Hudson River Estuary. Increased visitor use of
the sanctuary sites for educational, recreational, and research purposes
would have a minimal adverse effect on the proposed sanctuary's value as a
fish and wildlife habitat. Hiking, cross-country -skiing, boating and other
recreational activities would not increase greatly over levels anticipated
without the establishment of the proposed sanctuary, and fishing, trapping
and hunting are expected to remain at present levels in areas where these
activities are currently allowed. Existing management policies at Piermont
and Iona protect fish and wildlife in those areas. The management plan
under development by DEC for Tivoli Bays takes into account the protection
of fish and wildlife habitat. At Stockport, there is no evidence of any
threat to habitat from existing recreational uses or from research activities
proposed under the proposed sanctuary program.

b. Soils and Vegetation

Adverse impact on soils within the proposed sanctuary would be minimized
by taking appropriate precautions. Trail construction and improvement will
be largely confined to locations of former or existing trails or roads, and
steep slopes and poorly drained soils will be avoided. A boardwalk may be
constructed at Tivoli North Bay after studies are made to determine the
appropriate design and location to avoid degradation of soils, vegetation,
or fish and wildlife habitats. A boardwalk would allow visitors and researchers
to experience wetland habitats with minimal detrimental effects. The impacts
of any construction activities would be assessed and appropriate permits
obtained.

Vegetation would not be significantly altered by establishing the
proposed sanctuary. Parking would occur in existing parking areas or
in the case of Tivoli Bays, in small areas which are not wooded or near
the shoreline. Sanctuary programs, such as research and education,
would provide increased opportunities to monitor human activities which
could damage the environment--for example, potential theft of fuelwood.

c. Water Quality

Establishing the proposed sanctuary would prevent potential impacts
from water pollution that might otherwise occur due to further industrial
or residential development within the proposed sanctuary sites. Increased
recreational boating due to sanctuary establishment would be mostly
non-motorized craft, and the use of motorized craft in the proposed
sanctuary areas is expected to remain at low impact levels. Vigilance
associated with research and educational activities would speed detection
and clean-up of any pollution incidents that might occur.

2. Human Environment

a. Residents of the Towns and Counties

There are no residences in the areas proposed for-inclusion in the
proposed sanctuary, and no displacement of residents would result. The
public has limited access to the shoreline and waters of the Hudson
River Estuary, and the establishment of the proposed sanctuary would
benefit people by protecting existing access points in the proposed
sanctuary areas and providing additional access at Tivoli and possibly
Stockport. Assessments of properties adjoining the proposed sanctuary
would not change as a result of sanctuary establishment.

The proposed estuarine sanctuary would help preserve the Hudson River's
scenic and historic uniqueness and already great attraction to tourists.
Visitors from all over the United States and indeed the world visit the,
Hudson River for enjoyment of esthetic, historic, and recreational resources.
This tourism is part of the Hudson's rich tradition and is an environmentally
sound source of income to communities along the estuary. Research and
education activities associated with an estuarine sanctuary would contribute
to local economies: users of the sanctuary would require transportation,
housing, food, and supplies from area merchants.

An estuarine sanctuary on the Hudson River would encourage a more
thorough examination and understanding of the relationships between
human activities and the environment. There would be increasing public
knowledge and awareness of natural resources, ecosystems, sensitivities,
and conservation needs. The proposed sanctuary would increase the support
for and public understanding of coastal management programs and activities.

Residents would benefit from long-term protection of sport and commercial
fishing, and (at Tivoli and Stockport) fur trapping and hunting, by protection
of the estuary. The impacts of these activities would remain unchanged.
The integrity of fish and wildlife habitats and populations would be

protected by preserving the natural areas of the proposed sanctuary
sites from adverse development. Protection of water quality and habitat
quality and improvements in the quality of fishing and hunting experiences
would go hand-in-hand. Furthermo,-e, increased research resulting from
sanctuary establishment would ver,t probably result in better management
of fish and wildlife populations and their habitats along the entire
Hudson River Estuary.

b. Scientific and Educational

Existing research and educat-@on programs would be enhanced by
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary, and new opportunities would be
created for research and education both within the proposed sanctuary
and elsewhere along the Hudson River. There would be increased coordination
and improved effectiveness of the now disparate and often fragmented
programs on the estuary, especially research on the wetlands and shallows.
Protection of high-quality natural ecosystems and improved access would
allow school groups and the general public of all ages easier access to
educational and scientific resources. It would be an advantage to scientists
and students of science to have areas set aside as an estuarine sanctuary
for long-term ecological research and environmental monitoring.

C. State and Federal

Establishment of a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would protect for
New Yorkers and other Americans natural areas to enjoy and use for science
and education. The sanctuary designation would especially benefit
people from urban areas who have difficulty finding coastal areas for
these activities.

Establishment and management of the proposed sanctuary would have a
relatively slight and short-term financial impact on the Federal Government.
Since long-term operation of the proposed sanctuary would be based on
retention of its natural features, expenditures would be minimal. All
facilities would be designed for minimal maintenance. Volunteer efforts
could assist in the upkeep and management of trails and other features of the
sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary Advisory Committee's fund-raising activities
could provide an appropriate blend of private sector and public sector
support for the perpetuation of suitable sanctuary operation. Sanctuary
programs would be closely coordinated with other government programs as
well as private programs of research, education, and conservation.

Sanctuary goals would be compatible with the protection of wetlands,
floodplains, shorelines and other estuarine environments in accordance
with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, the State Coastal Management plan,
and other Federal and State laws listed in Appendix 2.

The United States Department of Defense shall not be prohibited from
conducting any activity that is essential for national defense or because
of emergency. This includes military flights above or in the vicinity of
the proposed sanctuary sites. Such activities shall be conducted consistent
with all regulations, to the maximum extent practicable.

C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects

Except for the minor problems listed earlier, there are no adverse
environmental effects associated with this proposed action. With regard
to the alternatives (except for the No Action Alternative), none have
significantly different environmental impacts. However, the Preferred
Alternative would create an excellent estuarine sanctuary for research
and education. If the No Action alternative were chosen, the net
benefits presented in the proposal would be foregone.

Unavoidable adverse economic effects would include the loss of tax
revenue if additional land acquisition takes place. The following figures
are approximate, but they are the best available estimates on potential loss
of property tax revenues in connection with proposed sanctuary acquisitions
on the Hudson River:

Stockport Marsh area - Approximately $1,141/year

.Tivoli Bays area - Approximately $ 780/year

Iona Island area - No Acquisition proposed

Piermont Marsh area - Approximately $1,000/year

The total potential loss of property tax revenues is estimated at $2,921
per year. Some or all of this lost property tax revenue would be offset
by new spending from sanctuary visitors, scientists, and educators.

Some of this tax loss may also be reduced by employing alternative
preservation techniques such as purchase of development rights, conser-
vation easements, or reserved life estates.

Establishment of this proposed sanctuary could result in minor
disturbances to the environment through the construction or improvement
of trails and parking areas, and renovation of existing buildings. Any
proposed construction in wetland areas would require an environmental
assessment.

D. Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

Sanctuary designation would provide long-ten-n assurance that the
natural resources and resulting benefits of the area would be available for
future use and enjoyment. Without sanctuary designation, intensive uses
such as residential subdivisions or commercial-industrial development
might take place in some parts of the proposed sanctuary. However, such
uses would result in a loss of ecological benefits due to disruption and
degradation of natural resources.

Research information collected from the proposed estuarine sanctuary
over the long-term would assist Federal, State and local government in
making better coastal management decisions. Better management would in
turn help resolve use conflicts and mitigate adverse impacts of human

activities in the coastal zone, saving both money and resources. Research
in the proposed estuarine sanctuary might well allow more efficient and
safer use of resources in the coastal zone, and this research might also
result in the discovery of prev,,ously unknown resources (medical, nutritional,
esthetic, recreational) for humn use. A public education program would
provide a grassroots foundation for wise public use of estuarine resources.

E. Irreversible or Irretr"'@evable Commitment of Resources

Within the proposed sanctu@iry, there are no resources that will be
irreversibly or irretrievably lost. The intent of the proposed action
is to protect, enhance, and manage the natural resources for research,
education, and recreation. If these resources are protected and managed
instead of altered, they would be available for future use. It is also
believed that establishment of the proposed sanctuary could insure the
future harvest by commercial and sport fishermen and also hunters and
trappers through scientific research and proper management of resources,
without resulting in loss of other potential benefits such as nonconsumptive
enjoyment of the resource.

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

No conflicts are anticipated between this proposed action and the
objectives of Federal, State, regional or local land use plans, policies,
and controls for the area concerned.

1. Federal and Regional Plans

The entire Tivoli Bays site is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places as part of a historic district that stretches along the
the east bank of the Hudson River from Germantown south to Hyde Park. A
special procedure is required before structures existing on the property
may be altered. However, none of the several buildings on the upland area
away from the wetlands has any great historic value and it is planned by
DEC to raze these buildings which are in too poor condition to use, except
for the concrete barn. A private cemetery of less than one-fourth acre
in size, dating from approximately the 1930s-40s, is located on the
uplands more than 300 yards east of the wetlands. This cemetery will be
protected and marked as part of the DEC management of the property. A
small (less than 50 feet square) ruins on South Cruger Island was built
for ornamental reasons in the mid-1800s and will be left as is.

The establishment of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary in
and of itself would not interfere with the maintenance or enforcement of the
U.S. Coast Guard rules and regulations. The proposed sanctuary would also
not interfere with commercial shipping use or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
maintenance of the Federal Shipping Channel. The proposed sanctuary sites
would not be available for disposal of dredged material from the navigation
channel. Alternative disposal sites are available upland outside of the
proposed sanctuary boundaries. The Corps of Engineers in their DEIS
and 10-year management plan for Federal channel maintenance dredging has
indicated that spoil disposal in marshes is no longer acceptable. There

is a small, long disused silted-in mapped spur channel within the proposed
sanctuary boundary at Stockport. The proposed sanctuary would not interfere
with existing railroad operations and maintenance.

A five mile stretch of the Hudson River between Barrytown and Malden
has been included in the Final List of Potential Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational Rivers by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

CRITERIA OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
(Public Law 90-542, as amended)

The Final List of Potential Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers constitutes
the results of the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Identified are natural
and undeveloped rivers and river segments that meet the minimum criteria
for further study and/or potential inclusion under the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. The Inventory has focused on those rivers nominated by
government agencies, private groups and/or individuals, which are
significant for their recreation, cultural and natural values. Each of
these rivers met the minimum criteria of Public Law 90-542 and related
guidelines which specified that an eligible river must:

1. Be five miles or more in length.

2. Be a free-flowing river or stream (rivers may have undergone
some impoundment or diversion in the past).

3. Be generally undeveloped. (River corridors may be developed for
full range of agricultural uses and can include small communities
as well as dispersed or cluster residential housing.) Be readily
accessible by road or railroad or be largely undeveloped. (Rivers
or sections or rivers with shorelines or watersheds essentially
primitive or largely undeveloped.)

4. Be adjacent to or within a related land area that posesses an
outstanding remarkable geologic, ecologic, cultural, historic,
scenic, botanical, recreational or other similar value.
(Interpreted to near an area of multi-state or national
significance.)

No conflict between the proposed estuarine sanctuary status and this
designation is foreseen.

Sanctuary management policies would not interfere with existing
regulations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, or any other Federal regulatory agency.

2. State Plans

The purposes and objectives of the proposed estuarine sanctuary are
consistent with the programs of the Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion (DEC), the Department of State (DOS), the Office of Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), and the Palisades Interstate Park Com-
mission (PIPC). All of these agencies, as well as the Office of General

Services, are involved in planning the proposed estuarine sanctuary and are
represented on the Sanctuary Steer,ng Committee. DEC, DOS, OPRHP and PIPC
were all involved in the statewide and the Hudson River site selection
processes for the proposed sanctuary.

The proposed sanctuary is consistent with the objectives and plans
of the developing State Coastal Management Program.

The Tivoli Bays site lies ent'irely within the DEC-designated Mid-
Hudson Historic Shorelands State S(:enic Area, which stretches from
Germantown to Hyde Park and is approximately conterminous with the National
Register of Historic Places histor-ic district. The proposed sanctuary
objectives are consistent with the objectives of the Scenic Area, and
both programs would be mutually supportive.

At Stockport and Tivoli, portions of State Agricultural Districts
approach or adjoin the proposed sanctuary sites. No portion of any
Agricultural District is within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. The
management of the proposed sanctuary would not interfere with agricultural
land uses.

Proposed and potential estuarine sanctuary research and education
programs are complementary to, and would not interfere with, any research
or education programs conducted by State agencies, or within the State
educational system, or by private groups or schools. Indeed, sanctuary
programs and other research and education programs would be mutually
enchancing.

3. Local Plans

The proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would not interfere with
any known county, town, or village plans, policies, or regulations (see
Appendix 2). The proposed sanctuary management plan would take into
account all county, town, and village laws and regulations governing
portions of the proposed sanctuary that lie within these political
divisions. Protection of scenic, recreational, historic, and archaeological
resources within the proposed sanctuary is consistent with local plans
and policies as well as with State policies. Existing uses of the proposed
sanctuary would continue, including hunting, fishing, trapping, recreational
boating, bird watching and other recreational uses where permitted.

It is not anticipated that the establishment of the proposed sanctuary
would interfere with existing or potential industrial or commercial land
uses near or adjoining the proposed sites. Such uses include: the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company corridor at Piermont, the Clevepak Corporation
and Federal Paper Board Company plants on the Erie Pier at Pierynont, the
thoroughbred horse breeding farm of Tivoli Properties, Inc., other agricultural
activities at Tivoli and Stockport, the Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation corridor at Tivoli, and the railroads. If problems should
arise, negotiated agreements would be sought.

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Dr. Richard J.__Podgorny -- U.S. Department of Commerce
Dr. Podgorny ho both B.A and Ph.D. degrees in Biology and a M.S.
degree in the earth sciences. He is the Project Manager for the Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary proposal. Also, he is the Regional Sanctuary Projects
Manager for the Great Lakes, portions of the East Coast, and the Gulf of
Mexico for both of NOAA's National Estuarine and Marine Sanctuary Programs.
His background includes serving as Director of Marine Education for the
District of Columbia Public School System, Science Professor, and Peace
Corps Volunteer in Ethiopia.

His responsibilities in the preparation of the FEIS included overall
direction, organization, and preparation of the report for publication.
Dr. Podgorny had assistance from Ms. Gloria Thompson, Program Specialist,
Ms. Jaunice Yates, Program Support Specialist, and Ms. Lois Mills,
Clerk/Typist, Sanctuary Programs Office.

Mr. Edward Radle -- 'New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Mr. Edward adle oversaw the preparation of the FEIS. Mr. Radle is
the Hudson River Fishery Management Coordinator with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. He has a master's degree in
fisheries biology and lives in Clifton Park, New York.

Mr. Erik Kiviat -- Director, Hudsonia Limited
Mr. Er7k-Kivia prepared the Affected Environment, Alternatives, and
Consequences sections, and edited the appendices. Mr. Kiviat taught
natural history at Bard College 1970-78 and was director of the College
Field Station; he is now Research Associate in Ecology at Bard, and a
director of Hudsonia Limited. He has done research on the Hudson Estuary
since 1970. Mr. Kiviat has a master's degree in biology, and lives in
Barrytown, New York.

Mr. James J. Stapleton -- Director, Hudsonia Limited
Mr. James J. St@`plet6-n -assisted in the preparation of the entire FEIS.
Mr. Stapleton teaches at the New School for Social Research in New York City,
is Director of the John Burroughs Sanctuary, and is a director of Hudsonia
Limited. He has master's degrees in biology and physics, and lives in
West Park, New York.

Dr. Robert E. Schmidt -- Director, Hudsonia Limited
Mr. Robert E. SThmidt edited the hydrology section and compiled the fish
list of the FEIS. Dr. Schmidt teaches at Upsala College in Sussex, New
Jersey, and has taught at Manhattan Community College, New York City;
Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, New York; and Fordham University, Bronx, New
York. He is a director of Hudsonia Limited and has done research on
Hudson River fish populations for several years. Dr. Schmidt has a
Ph.D. in ichthyology and lives in Newton, New Jersey.

Ms. Suzanne Blatter -- Hudsonia Limited
Ms. Suzanne Blatter prepared the illustrations for the FEIS. Ms. Blatter
has a bachelor of fine arts degree, and lives in Kingston, New York.
She is an affiliate of Hudsonia Limited.

Ms. Nancy Zeising -- Hudsonia Limit(!d
Ms. Nancy Zeising compiled the plant list and assisted with other portions
of the FEIS. Ms. Zeising teaches environmental education in the Hyde Park,
New York, school district and is involved in Hudson Estuary research. She is
an affiliate of Hudsonia Limited and lives in Clinton Hollow, New York.

Mr. Clarence T. O'Brien--- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Mr. Clarence T-.-O-TB-rien resear( d property ownerships at the Stockport
Flats site. Mr. O'Brien is Regional Land Surveyor, Region 4, with the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. He has an Associate
Degree in Electric Power Generation and Transmission from Alfred University,
SUNY, and lives in Guilderland, New York.

The following members of New York's Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee
contributed significantly to the preparation of the FEIS:

J. W. Aldrich (DEC) James Morton (DOS)
Harry Earle (OPRHP) Nancy Pierson (OPRHP)
Peter D. Gregory (UrKnr) John Renkavinsky (DEC)
Paul Keller (DEC) Joseph Steeley (DEC)
David McCoy (PIPC) Nancy Tobin (OPRHP)
Robert T. McLean (OGS)

In addition, valuable information or comments were received from the
following State agency administrators or staff members:

Nash Castro (PIPC) Phillip Hulbert (DEC)
Glenn Cole (DEC) Alan Mapes (DEC)
Salvatore Cozzolino (DEC) Eugene McCaffrey (DEC)
James Davis (DEC) John Meade (PIPC)
Herbert Doig (DEC) Richard Mitchell (NYS Museum)
Wayne Elliot (DEC) Jack Ryan (DEC)
Patrick Festa (DEC) Fred Slater (DEC)
Jack Focht (PIPC) Ronald Sloan (DEC)
Richard Guthrie (DEC) Anthony Taormina (DEC)
Dennis Haight (PIPC) John Troy (PIPC)
Howard Haight (PIPC) Ivan Vamos (OPRHP)
Edward Horn (DEC)

The following individuals provided information or assistance:

Lawrence Biegel (Greene Co. EMC)
Maurice Brignull (Hudson, NY)
Robert Deed (Rockland Audubon Society)
Kate Dunham (Alan Devoe Bird Club)
Frances Dunwell (Scenic Hudson, NY)
Richard Griffiths (Bard College)
William Hogan (Dutchess County Cooperative Extension)
John Holsapple (New York Power Pool)
William Kivlen (Columbia County Sportsmen's Federation)
Lee LaBuff (Ithaca, NY)
Wade Linden (North Chatham, NY)
Steve Lopez (New York Sea Grant)
William T. Maple (Bard College)
Donna Matthews (Tivoli, NY)

Grace Meyer (Piermont, NY)
Joe Murell (Hudson, NY)
Everett Nack (Claverack, NY)
Beth Yanuck Platt (The Nature Conservancy)
Ruth Piwonka (Kinderhook, NY)
Michael Rosenthal (Bard College)
David Seeley (North Chatham, NY)
C. L. Smith (American Museum of Natural History)
Robbe P. Stimson (Hudson River Shorelands Task Force)
Roland Vosburgh (Columbia County Department of Planning)
Lynn Wayand (DEC)
Anne Williams (The Nature Conservancy)

Special recognition is due to Scenic Hudson, Inc. for sponsoring
research on the Hudson River Estuary that contributed to the development
of this proposal.

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES
OF THE DEIS

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
National Park Service
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Ene'rgy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing & Urban Developement
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Depa rtinent of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Conrail

National Interest Groups

A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N.
AFL-CIO
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Industrial Development Council
American Institute of Architects
American Petroleum Institue
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.
American Society of Planning Officials
American Waterways Operators
Amoco Production Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Atomic Industrial Forum
Boating Industry Association
Bultema Dock and Dredge Company
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Natural Areas
Center for Urban Affairs
Center for Urban and Regional Resources
Chamber for Commerce of the United States
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Cities Service Company
Coast Alliance

Conservation Foundation
National Interest Groups (Cont'd.'l

Continental Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencie!;
The Cousteau Society
CZM Newsletter
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
EXXON Company, U.S.A.
Friends of the Earth
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S.
Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Refining Company
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America
Institute for the Human Environment
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Lake Michigan Federation
Marathon Oil Company
Marine Technology Society
Mobil Oil Corportation
Mobil Exploration and Producing, Inc.
Murphy Oil Company
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Counties
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Realtors
National Audubon Soci ety
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Fishermen
National Fisheries Institute
National Forest Products Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Ocean Industries Association
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Recreation and Park Association
National Research Council
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Waterways Conference
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natural Resources Law Institute
The Nature Conservancy
Norfolk Dredging Company
Outboard Marine Corporation
Resources for the Future
Rose, Schmidt & Dixon
Shell Oil Company

Sierra Club
National Interest Groups (Cont'd.)

Skelly Oil Company
Soil Conservation Society of America
Sport Fishing Institute
Standard Oil Company of Ohio
State University Law School
State University of New York
Sun Company, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Texas A & M University
Union Oil Company of California
University of Pittsburgh
Urban Research and Development Association, Inc.
Western Oil and Gas Association
Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Society
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

State/County Government

New York City Department of City Planning
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Office of General Services
New York State Department of State
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Bear Mountain State Park
New York Department of Public Service
Saratoga Capital District State Park Commission
Palisades Interstate Park Commission
New York State Department of Transportation
New York State Governor's Offfice
Department of Education
State Museum and Science Service
Taconic State Park and Recreation Commission
New York Fish and Wildlife Management Board
Tallman Mountain State Park
Dutchess Co. Department of Planning
Town of Red Hook Conservation Council
Town Planning Board of Red Hook
Rockland County Legislature
Rockland County Environmental Management Council
Stony Point Town Planning Board
Orangetown Planning Board
Dutchess County Environmental Management Council
Columbia County Environmental Management Council
Rockland County Department of Planning
Red Hook Town Board
Stockport Town Board
Stony Point Town Board
Orangetown Town Board
Piermont Village Board

State/County Government (Cont'd.)

Tivoli Village Board
Heritage Task Force for the Hudson River Valley
Piermont Conservation Advisory Cormission
Rockland County Planning Departmert

State and Local Interest Groups

Red Hook Rotary Club
West Branch Conservation Associat"M
West Hudson Environmental Association
Rockland County Cooperative ExtentJon
Piermont Civic Association
Hudson River Conservation Society
Hudson River Heritage, Inc.
Manitoga Hudson River Center
American Littorial Society
Rockland Audubon Society
Central Westchester Audubon Society
New Jersey Audubon Society
Ralph T. Waterman Bird Club
Federation of New York State Bird Clubs
The Nature Conservancy
Hudson River Environmental Society
Hudson River Shorelands Task Force
National Audubon Society
Putnam Highlands Audubon Society
Alan Devoe Bird Club
Linnaean Society of New York
Sierra Club
Torrey Botanical Club
Federated Garden Clubs of New York
Marshlands Conservancy
Federated Conservationists of Westchester Co.
Commerical Fisherman's Association of New York
New York Bass Chapter Federation
John Burroughs Natural History Society
Dutchess County Garden Clubs
Palisades Nature Association Greenbrook Sanctuary
The Wildlife Society
Hudson River Fishermen's Association
Trout Unlimited
Columbia County Sportsmen's Federation, Inc.
Federated Sportmen's Club of Ulster County Inc.
Federation of Dutchess County Fish and Game Club
Hudson River Waterfowlers
Upper Catskill Fur Takers
New York-New Jersey Trail Conference
Dutchess County Landmarks Association
Ducks Unlimited
Dutchess County Trappers' Association
Dutchess County Archeological Society
Project L.O.S.T.

State and Local Interest Groups (Con't.)

The Georgia Conservancy
Tappan Zee Sloop Club
Buccaneer Boat Club, Inc.
Julius Petersen, Inc.
Chelsa Marina
Norrie Point Marine Corporation
Hudson River Pilots Association
Tappan Zee Marina
Lighthouse Yacht Center
Sailhaven
Poughkeepsie Yacht Club
Beacon Sloop Club
Scenic Hudson
Rockland County Conservation Association
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater
The Nature Conservancy, Lower Hudson Chapter
Sierra Club, Mid-Hudson Chapter
New York State Coastal Coalition
New York State Conservation Council
Sparkill Creek Watershed Protection

Congressional

Daniel P. Moynihan
Alphonse M. D'Amato
William Carney
Thomas J. Downey
Gregory W. Carman
Norman F. Lent
Raymond J. McGrath
John LeBoutillier
Joseph P. Addabbo
Benjamin S. Rosenthal
Geraldine Anne Ferraro
Mario Biaggi
James H. Scheuer
Shirley Chisholm
Stephen J. Solarz
Frederick W. Richmond
Leo C. Zeferetti
Charles E. Schumer
Guy V. Molinari
Bill Green
Charles B. Rangel
Ted Weiss
Robert Garcia
Jonathan B. Bingham
Peter A. Peyser
Richard L. Ottinger
Hamilton Fish, Jr.
Benjamin A Gilman

Congressional (Cont'd.)

Matthew F. McHugh
Samuel S. Stratton
Gerald B. Solomon
David O'B. Martin
Donald J. Mitchell
George C. Wortley
Gary A. Lee
Frank Horton
Barber B. Conable, Jr.
John J. La Falce
Henry J. Nowak
Jack Kemp
Stanley N. Lundine

Individuals

Kenneth R. Ingenito
Lucien H. Conklin
Josephy Colello
John Deans
Wi 11 i am Goswi ck
Philip J. Rotella
Kevin Alger
Robert L. Bard
Tom Burke
David Chiarelli
Marcella Appell
Robert Bartholomew
Eleanor Burlingham
Ed Cocker
John Cronin
Peter C. Derven
Charles A. Galyon
Alan Gussow
Robert Hodor
Sherwood Kreig
Richard Leggett
Scott Longe
John Makoske
William G. Medn
Everett Nack
John Rossi
David Seeley
J. Herbert Dahm, Jr.
Roger Edgley
Robert Greig
Wesley J. Hennessy
Harold Hoffman
Lee LaBuff
Wade Linden
Robert Main

Individuals (Contd)

Bonnie Mac Giffert
Theodore B. Merrill
Leif Reichelt
Samuel Sage
Mike Selender

Copies of the DEIS were sent to the agencies and groups and individuals
listed above for their review and comments during a 45 day comment period.
All comments received on the DEIS are presented in Part VII of this
document.

101

PART VII: WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE HUDSON RIVER
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
AND NOAA's RESPONSES

This section presents the written and verbal comments received on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and provides NOAA's response
to these comments. Generally, responses are made in one or more of the
following ways:

1. Expansion, clarification, or revision of the DEIS,

2. General response to comments raised by several reviewers, and

3. Specific responses to the individual comments made by each
reviewer.

The written comments received are arranged in the following order:

1. Federal Agencies

2. State and Local Government

3. Environmental Organizations

4. Research Organizations

5. Fish and Game Clubs

6. Industries and Private Individuals

The written comments are followed by a section containing a verbatum
transcript of speakers at the four public hearings. They appear in the
order of their presentation at the hearings.

For the convenience of the reader, all comments appear on the left
side of the page and corresponding responses appear on the right side of
the page.

The following are some of the most common issues raised by reviewers.

GENERAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

A. Concern that the use of the term "santuary" to describe the program
- I
is inappropriate and ml-sTe-ading. The implied negative effects of the
title "sanctuary" are contradictory to the hunting, fishing and trapping
heritage of the Huds6in @River Valley.

Many reviewers expressed concern about the authority of the Federal
government to regulate activities in the area within the proposed Hudson
River Estuarine Sanctuary sites. Because a Federal grant is being requested
by New York to establish and manage the sanctuary, it is feared that the
Federal government could control or prohibit recreational activities such as
hunting, fishing, trapping and boating if these activities interfered either

101-A

with research or educational programs being conducted within the sanctuary.
I
This concern'is directly related to Section 921.5 of the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program Guidelines published on Oune 4, 1974 [15 CFR Part 921, Federal
Register 39 (105): 19922-19927].

Section 921.5 Multiple Use, paragraph (b) states: "There shall be no
effort to balance or optimize uses of an estuarine sanctuary on economic
or other bases. All additional uses of the sanctuary are clearly secondary
to the primary purpose and uses, which are long-term maintenance of the
ecosystem for scientific and educational uses. Non-compatible uses,
which would cause significant short-term or long-term ecological changes
or would otherwise detract from or restrict the use of the sanctuary as a
natural field laboratory, will be prohibited".

The intention of the Federal guidelines cited above is to help States
understand what an estuarine sanctuary is to be used for so they will
know how to establish criteria and set-priorities for selecting potential
sanctuary sites that will qualify for Federal assistance. Section 921.5
attempts to distinquish compatible from non-compatible uses and provides
some examplesi again with the intention of helping States to decide which
areas would qualify as potential sanctuary sites and which would not, for
Federal funding pruposes. Thus, States are informed clearly in the
beginning that areas proposed to NOAA as sanctuary sites must be relatively
undisturbed and available for long-term research and educational programs
as primary objectives.

There is no Federal law or regulations to implement the sanctuary
that would supercede State law. Section 921.5 does not give the Federal
government any new authority in the implementation phase of an estuarine
sanctuary program. An estuarine sanctuary is designated by law, and the
guidelines referred to above, to be State owned and State managed.
Provision is also made for citizens or organizations which are concerned
about improper use or restriction to petition the State management agency,
and if necessary the Office of Coastal Zone Management directly, for
review of the managment program. In Section 921.31, the pubic is assured
that approved boundaries and management policy, including permissible and
prohibited uses, may only be changed after public notice and public review
and participation.

With these provisions to safeguard continuing public involvement in
decisions, plus the establishment of Sanctuary Advisory Committees for
the estuarine sanctuary on the Hudson River, with local citizens and
groups represented, every feasible step has been taken to assure citizens
maximum access to any decisions that would be made concerning the use of
the sanctuary waters or adjacent waters. The Federal government's role
in any conflict situation over use or restriction would be to assure
that all parties had an opportunity to express their views and that the
final decision was clearly in the public interest and consistent with
the original agreement in setting up the sanctuary in the first place.

However, in the case of the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary,
there is very little existing or potential conflict of traditional
consumptive activities (hunting, trapping, fishing, crabbing, etc.) with
proposed research or public education. Hunting and trapping are

101-B

prohibited by PIPC regulations at Piermont and Iona Island Marshes
(at Piermont on the portion of the marsh owned by PIPC). At Tivoli and
Stockport, hunting and trapping are permitted on State lands. At these
two areas, waterfowl hunting as presently practiced is concentrated on
opening day of the duck season (usually a Wednesday) and on the first one
or two weekends of the duck season. Relatively little hunting occurs on
other days during the season. The duck season usually opens in mid-
October. Very little shooting occurs between about 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM
during the duck season, even on opening day. Research on a variety of
topics has been done during duck hunting season at Tivoli in the past.
There is no problem with hunting being the predominant activity during the
times of greatest concentrated hunting. The midday hours and the midweek
days (except opening day) are still available to researchers with relatively
little shooting on the marshes. Under a directive which preceded the
Estuarine Sanctuary proposal, DEC is preparing a management plan for its
land at the Tivoli Bays site. This plan wil establish regulations for
the use of the property for traditional activities including research,
hunting, and birdwatching. Options under consideration for the Tivoli
plan include closing the area to duck hunting on certain days each week
or setting aside a small part of the marshes as a "no hunting" area.
These regulations, if adopted, could have the effect of improving duck
hunting (by reducing the "hazing" of ducks from the area due to very
intense hunting early in the season) while setting aside times and places
where non-consumptive uses of the marsh could occur separately from
hunting. This type of "zoning" of the Tivoli Bays site could be important
because of the diverse mixture of consumptive and non-consumptive activities
there. At Stockport, there is no plan,for site-specific regulations.
Stockport, while heavily hunted early in the duck season, does not attract
the intensity of non-consumptive uses that Tivoli does. Late winter,
spring, summer and early fall are still available to researchers at
Stockport with no duck hunting in progress, and certain days and times of
day are also available during the duck season with relatively little
shooting. Stockport is envisioned in the Estuarine Sanctuary proposal as
a low-intensity public use area that is available for research but which
would not be used as much for this purpose as Tivoli. Therefore, little
conflict between hunting and research is anticipated.

Trapping, fishing, and crabbing, where presently permitted, would not
interfere with research and public education. One function of research
in the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary would be to assess the role and impact
of these activites in the balance of wild populations and of the ecosystem.
DEC as lead agency, and the Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee, are
committed to maintaining high-quality hunting, trapping, fishing and
crabbing experiences in those portions of the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
site where these activities are currently permitted. These consumptive
uses of the marshes are indeed an important part of the heritage of the
Hudson River Estuary. It is anticipated that the interactions between
sportsmen and non-sportsmen, including researchers and educators, can
enhance the effectiveness of the sanctuary for recreation as well as for
research and education. Sportsmen and non-sportsmen alike have a common
interest in the protection of these marhses, and much to gain from
cooperating in the programs of the proposed sanctuary.

101-C

B. Positive statements in the DEIS regarding consumptive uses are lacking
and/or inadequate.

There are two ownerships in tie Piermont Marsh. The DEC property is
located between the Erie Pier and Sparkill Creek (north of Sparkill Creek,
see DEIS p. 10). It is the intention of DEC to open this parcel to hunting,
trapping, fishing and crabbing. The marsh and shallows south of Spa.rkill
Creek are owned by PIPC and are part of Tallman Mountain State Park.
Firearms are prohibited in the Palisades Interstate Park system unless
specific exceptions are made. Huting and trapping are not permitted in
the PIPC portion of Piermont Marsn or in Iona Island Marsh. In these two
areas, fishing and crabbing are allowed by permit, subject to the discretion
of PIPC. These policies have been in effect for many years. Whatever
hunting may have occurred on the O,IPC-owned portion of Piermont Marsh was
in violation of park regulations. Within the Village of Piermont boundary
(including most of the DEC parcel) under most circumstances Village law
prohibits shooting within 500 feet or any building or playground, but shooting
is legal otherwise. Most of the DEC land is not within 500 feet of a building
or playground, which leaves any policy regarding hunting to the discretion
of DEC. There are no laws in the Town of Orangetown or Rockland County
specifically prohibiting the use of rifles for hunting but State Conservation
Law prohibits the use of rifles for hunting deer in Rockland County and
Dutchess County. All of the discretionary policies of the involved State
agencies are under review.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

1. FEDERAL AGENCIES

Statement of Air Force Position
On The Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
And Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

We have reviewed the proposal for the Hudson River Estuarine
Sanctuary and DEIS and offer the following comments:

a. According to the 8 July 1982 DOD Area Planning Chart for
1-1 Military Training Routes, the proposed sanctuary area does not 1-1 Comment accepted. No response necessary.
underlie any existing military training routes or military
operating area. However, training routes and operating areas are
changed frequently for mission-essential purposes.
b. Paae 82. Paraaraph 2.c., State And Federal - We request 1-2 Comments accepted. The statement is included
1-2 that the designation document for the Hudson River Estuarine
Sanctuary include the following statement: in the FEIS.
Defense Activities. The regulation of those activities
listed in this designation document shall not prohibit
any activity conducted by the Department of Defense that
is essential for national defense or because of emergency.
This includes military flights above or in the vicinity
of sanctuaries. Such activities shall be conducted
consistent with all regulations, to the maximum extent
practicable.
CD

U.S.Department Commandant Washington. DC
n United States Coast Guard
of Tronsportatio Staff Symbol:
Phone: 202-426-2262
United States
Coast Guard

JUL 2 1 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

My staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
2-1 proposed Hudson River Escuarine SanCEUary and offer rhe following comment.
On page 110, "Existing Jurisdiction"- under Department of Transportation, 2-1 Change has been made in the FETS.
U.S. Coast Guard, change the "Legislation" cite from 14 USC 89 to 14 USC 2,
Primary Responsitillities of the Coast Guard.

The opportunity to review this document Is appreciated.

Sincerely,

C:)

20330

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny 3 0 JUL 1982
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U. S. Department of Commerce
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny

Attached is a statment of the Air Force position on the Proposed
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) . We appreciate the opportunity to review this
document. Please provide us with a copy of the Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement (FEIS) and designation document when
completed.

Sinc ly CD
Ln
BERT L. KL'N E TH, Colone:@, USAF
Chief, Enviro nt 1 Division
Directorate of r and Services
I Atch
Air Force Position
Statement
6
nc
1q ly
BERT
@Chief @n
irec Ora

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20426

IN REPLY REFER TO:

July 27, 1982

Ms. Joyce M. T. Wood
Director, office of Ecology
and Conservation
U. S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C. 20230

Dear Ms. Wood:
3-1 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commi ssion staf f has revi ewed the Draf t Environ-
3-1 No response nece
mental Impact Statement an the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary.
Staff has no comments at this time. The opportunity to review the DEIS is

appreciated.

Sincerely,

Carl N. Shu ter, Jr. - Ph.D.
C oordinator,-Coastal Zone Affairs
Task Force

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROtECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
16 JUN 1982 1982 JUN 24 AR 8: 6

OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR

Dear Dr. Podgorny:
I am writing to verify the official filing of the EIS entitled:
Draft: Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award, Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary, New York (#820385)

This EIS was received by the Office of Federal Activities on June 10, 1982.
4-1 It has been determined the above document meets the requirements for filing
a EIS as set forth under Section 1506.9 of the CEQ Regulations. 4-1 No response nece
Accordingly, EPA has scheduled publication of the Notice of Availability
in the Federal Register dated June 18, 1982 and the public review

period is scheduled to terminate on August 2, 1982.
If you have any questions or concerns relating to this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me or Ms. Jan Lott of my staff on 245-3006.

Sincerely,

Kathi L. Wilson
Management Analyst
Office of Federal Activities (A-104)

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Projects Manager

Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
US Department of Commerce
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, DC 20235

UNITED S-I ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 11
r, vrDEnAL rLAZA
NEW 171RK, NEW YORK 1027S

I JUL 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny Class: L0-2
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

Wb have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) concerning
the proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award to the State of New York for
the creation of a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary *stem at Stockport,
Tivoli, Iona and Piermont marshes. According to the Estuarine Sanctuary
Guidelines, Section 921, grants may be awarded on a matching basis to states
to acquire, develop and operate natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in
order that scientists and students have the opportunity to examine ecological
relationships within the area over a period of time.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no objections to the concept of CD
establishing an estuarine sanctuary but we believe that additional analysis 00
and evaluation of the alternative locations is needed. The following comments
are offered to assist you in preparing such an analysis for inclusion in the
final EIS.
5-1 To fulfill the requirements of an EIS, the alternative sites, the Peconic-Flanders 5-1 NOAA feels that the discussion
Bay area and the Nissequogue River, need to be fully described and evaluated. presented on alternative sites
Location maps and the evaluation of the state's sanctuary evaluation steering in Part 11, B.2. is adequate
committee should be presented to aid in review of the EIS. We are particularly within the scope of this EIS
interested in the evaluation of the Peconic-Flanders Bay area as it is a unique since the proposed action concerns
and threatened area, whereas the proposed Hudson River sites are already the Hudson River site, and because
publically owned. the Peconis-Flanders Bay area was
thoroughly reviewed in 1980 by the
The final summary should clearly state that while scientific, educational, State and was withdrawn by the
aryl multiple use are the intended uses of the estuarine sanctuary, the primary State because of lack of local
purpose of the sanctuary is to provide long-term protection for natural areas. support. The residents of eastern
5-2 Use of the sanctuary Is allowed according to the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines Long Island did not want an Estuarine
to the extent that use does riot prevent the long term protection or adversely Sanctuary at Peconis Bay.
impact the continuing existence of the ecosystem. To adequately review the
proposed program, the final EIS should contain the following:

5-3 1) Provide proposed locations and plans for construction of buildings, roads,
parking lots, trails and boardwalks within the sanctuary sites.

5-4 2) Evaluation of the intended research in terms of its effect on law intensity 5-2 Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 921.3
recreation such as fishing, etc. Would the proposed research cause potential "Objectives and Implementation of
use restrictions or conflicts now or in the future? the program. General. The purpose
of the estuarine sanctuaries program
3) Provide for monitoring tailored to determine the effects over time of is to create natural field laboratories
5-5 the specific research proposed. Monitoring results that indicate negative in which to gather data and make studies
of the natural and human processes
effects to the ecosystem should result in termination or alteration of occuring within the estuaries of the
the causative research and restoration of any adversely affected sites. coastal zone ... the primary use of
5-6 4) Plan for appropriate nationwide distribution of sanctuary research and estuarine sanctuaries shall be for
studies. research and educational purposes,..."
5-7 5) Determination of hydrological systems that each proposed estuarine sanctuary Statements appear throughout the
document (ex. pages 1,2,4,6,14,20,79,
area is dependent upon for its continued existence. It must be determined and appendix 7) which clearly present
if the proposed boundaries encompass the entire estuarine hydrologic system the purpose of establishing an estuarine
or if the sanctuary area may be threatened by changes in the hydrology of the sanctuary.
area surrounding the sanctuary. A discussion of potential threats to
the sanctuary should be provided. An additional statement has been added
5-8 6) Archaeological sites should be identified. Protection of these sites from on page v of the summary.
potential impacts by the proposed uses should be discussed by the final EIS. Additionally, given the way our desig-
nation process works right now, all this
5_9 7) Determine to what extent public use of the santuary will increase with information will be provided during the
the provision of facilities and additional access and what impacts this development of the sanctuary's management
may have on the area. Should the proposed sanctuary encourage public visits plan. The Research Plan, which will be
in excess of that expected, and determined to be adversely affecting the developed as part of the management plan, CD
sanctuary, we recommend that provisions be made to limit access. is a plan based on information needs of
The proposed estuarine sanctuary sites are termed "among the Hudson's highest the area, including monitoring, the
identification and protection of archeo-
quality estuarine natural areas." We have reservations concerning a few of the logical sites. Public use and access will
5-10 possible research projects listed as examples in the draft EIS and request more also be described in the management plan.
information to provide a review. Should consideration be given to implementing NOAA does not fund the Research plan, it
these studies, careful evaluation must be made of the possible impacts in order is funded whenever the State has money
to ensure that the estuarine ecosystem is not adversely affected. 7hese projects available. Items 1 through 7 plus many
include: other issues will be addressed in the
1) sources and cycling of toxic substances. We recommend that studies sanctuary's management plan, which will
be conducted on toxins already existing in the wetland ecosystem. be formulated within one year after the
acquisition grant is awarded. The plan
2) effects of introduced plant and animal species. will be prepared under the direction of
the Sanctuary Steering Committee in full
3) assimilative capacity of natural environments for nutrients and other consultation with @tate agencies, the
waste materials. Sanctuary Advisory Committees, and the
public. The plan will provide a frame-
4) manipulative experiments on wetlands. work for conducting research and educa-
tional 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. There
will be a distribution of the management
plan to everyone that is interested.

Based on the above, and in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency 5-3 Locations and plans of buildings, roads,
5-11 policy, we have rated this EIS as LO-2, indicating that we lack objections UO) parking lots, trails and the boardwalk
to the proposed project but that more information (2) on the alternative plans will be discussed in the Sanctuary
is required to more fully evaluate them. Management Plan. No new buildings will
be built as currently envisioned.
Any questions regarding our oannents should be directed to Christine Yost of Existing buildings, at the Bear Mountain
my staff at FTS 264-0722. Trailside Museums complex (Iona Island
area) and at the Bard College Field
Sincerely yours, Station (Tivoli Bays), would be renovated
and/or enlarged as appropriate,,to house
sanctuary research and educational
facilities. These improvements will not
' Wkin Iler, Chief require clearing new sites, and are located
Environmental Impacts Branch away from the margins of the tidal wetlands
and waters. New roads will probably not
cc: Joyce M.T. Wood, Director be built; road improvements currently
Office of Ecology and Gonservation anticipated would be to existing or old
roads or trails. All trails under consid-
eration are existing or old trails with
the exception of a proposed nature trail
on the Gays Point area of the Stockport site;
this area is on old dredge spoil. Parking
areas under ronqidpratinn wn.0d hp qmall
(approximately 6-12 cars each) and con-
structed in existing openings or site of
former intensive use. No parking lot
construction is anticipated at Iona or
Piermont. The boardwalk at Tivoli would
be sited at the edge of the North Bay
marsh in a location that would be
examined for potential conflict with
protection of rare species.

5-4 Conflicts of research with recreation
see responses to comments presented at
the hearings. Very little conflict
is anticipated because there are many
times and places where research can be
done that are not permissible or
desirable times/places for recreation
or consumptive uses.

5-5 Monitoring impacts of research is
appropriate.

5.6 Distribution of research results would
occur through a newsletter and con-
ferences of the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program, scientific journals,
and the pop ular press, as well as other
educational media suggested on DEIS
p. 25-26, as appropriate.

5-7 Hydrological interactions and hydro-
logical sufficiency of the proposed
sanctuary will be addressed in the
Sanctuary Management Plan and in the
sanctuary's environmental monitoring
program. Potential threats to the
proposed sanctuary will also be dis-
cussed in the management plan.

5-8 Pl.anning-for uses of the Proposed
sanctuary will take into account
information on locations of archeo-
logical sites.

5-9 The areas under consideration for the
more intensive types of public use
(e.g., waterfowl hunting, interpretive
exhibits) are either already being
used for these purposes, or will be
determined through additional siting
studies to be appropriate for these uses.
If public use grows beyond the "carry-
ing capacity" of parts of the proposed
sanctuary, measures will be taken to
reduce impact or restore habitats (e.g.,
closing parking areas or gates,
reducing numbers of permits, closing
the boardwalk at certain seasons).

5-10 The possible research projects listed
on DEIS p. 22-24 are examples of
research that could be done in the
proposed sanctuary. A research pro-
spectus will be included in the
Sanctuary Management Plan or in a
separate document that could be issued
after sanctuary designation. Research
permits would not be issued for quality
of the sanctuary sites. Specifically:
toxic substance research would be
directed towards substances present in
the environment (not introduced for
research purposes); introduced species
research would be directed towards
species already present such as purple
loosestrife, water-chestnut, and carp;
studies of assimilative capacity for
nutrients already entering the system,
or fertilization studies on small plots
if this is deemed safe; manipulative
experiments as listed in item (7) on
DEIS p. 24 would be performed on sites
outside of the proposed sanctuary, with
permission of the landowners (uninten-
tional "experiments" of this sort are
being done now and there is a need to
know the impacts).

c5-10 NOAA agrees that every research project
ont.)@ust be carefully evaluated, before
implementation to ensure that the
estuarine ecosystem is not adversely
affected.

5-11 It would be academic to further evaluate
the Peconic-Flander Bay area as a
potential estuarine sanctuary because
it was withdrawn by the State in 1980
because of lack of support and lack of
willing participation in the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program. NOAA has
no new information to indicate the
situation has changed.

Also, it would be academic to further
evaluate the Nissequogue River site
since it is rated a lower status by the
State than the Hudson River site
because of several factors including
size, representdiive suib-sys@ems,
environmental quality, compatible land
and water uses, potential for research
and willing local support and partici-
pation. If granted the award, the State
may establish only one sanctuary system. N)
The State has elected to pursue
designation of the Hudson River
sites as its National Estuarine
Sanctuary.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SEOFIETAAY FOR
COMMUNITY PLANNNO AND DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street NIN
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Manage-
6-1 ment Plan for the proposed Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary. The 6-1 Comments accepted. No response
anticipated sanctuaries from Stockport to Permont do not interrelate with necessary.
properties or jurisdictional boundaries coincidental with RM Community
Development Block Grant or housing program projects. We do not anticipate
infringement of HUD interests or requirements through approval of these
sites. Management plans and usages projected for the Sanctuaries
indirectly enchance local property values in the long run and, through
protection of Hudson River amenities, increase the desirability of local
jurisdictions as places of residence.
We endorse the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary plans and 6-2 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
6-2 recommend approval. Further information may be secured from our HUID New
York Area Office CZM Coordinator, Bernard Levine.

Sincerely,

Richard H. Brom
Director
office of Environment and Energy

cc: Joyce E. T. Wood, Director
Office of Ecology and Conservation, NDAA
Dept. of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

1982

In Reply Refer
to: ER 82/1167

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary, Columbia, Dutchess and
Rockland Counties, New York, and have the following comments.

Promotion and coordination of research and education toward a better
understanding of the ecology of the Hudson River Estuary and proper
management are stated as reasons for establishing a sanctuary under the
7-1 7-1 There is no fonnal relationship
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. This is also a function of the 4@-
Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, between the Hudson River Foundation
Incorporated. The national program will be restricted to operation in and the proposed Hudson River
four distinct areas of the estuary; the latter can operate in the entire Estuarine Sanctuary. No relation-
estuary. In order to properly reflect the nature of potential impacts, ship would be appropriate since
the final impact statement should clarify the relationship between the the Foundation has made no
Hudson River Foundation program and the National Estuarine Sanctuary financial or program commitments
Program. Also, the relationship between existing and proposed levels and and the Sanctuary has not yet
types of use and access needs to be discussed in more depth. been designated. Nevertheless
the administration of the
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter of March 25, 1982, documents Foundation and the proposed
Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as management of the Sanctuary
7-2 amended), however, the letter is neither referenced nor included in the are aware of the commonality
draft statement. A copy is provided so that it may be included in the of interests and doubtlessly
final statement (Enclosure 1). will be discussing implementation
of mutual goals in the months
Segments of the Hudson River have been included in the Final List of ahead.
Potential Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers which have been considered The relationship between existing
under criteria of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542, as and proposed levels and types
amended). The segment in the study area being considered for potential of use and access will be
inclusion in the System is the five mile stretch north of Barrytown to described, in depth, in the
south of Malden on Hudson. Qualities which afford this designation are sanctuary management plan,
the significant fish habitat areas at the confluence of Esopus Creek and which DFC wil I prepare after
Tivoli Bay; the hydrology of this southernmost remaining free-flowing, receiving the estuarine sanctuary
sparsely developed segment of the Hudson River; and the historic value of grant award.
Clermont, the home of Robert Livingston, a National Historic Landmark.

Dr. Richard Podgorny 2
7-2 Comments accepted. The letter
The draft statement describing designation of the estuarine sanctuary has been included in the FEIS
7-3 does not appear to conflict with these resources. However, the final
statement should acknowledge and briefly discuss the Nationwide Rivers and referenced in Part 111,
Inventory designation and how these resources will be affected by the A. 1. d.
proposed action. Specific criteria are provided at Enclosure 2. Please
contact the Natural Resources Division, Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic 7-3 Comments accepted. This informa-
Region, National Park Service, 143 South Third Street. Philadelphia, tion has been added to the FETS
Pennsylvania 19106, telephone 215/597-7013, for further information. in Part IV. F. 1.
The document states that the recreational qualities of the sites will 7-4 Comments accepted. The DEC,
be protected through the Memorandum of Agreement with State agencies. when formulating the sanctuary
Inasmuch as the recreational properties of Iona Island and Tivoli Bay management plan, will take these
have received Land and Water Conservation Fund monies, we would encourage facts into account. The Memorandum
7-4 planning compatible with their recreational activities and values. It of Understanding (see Appendix 8)
should be noted that Iona Island was purchased in 1965 through the embodies the concurrence of all
Federal Surplus Property Program pursuant to Public Law 91-485, as relevant State agencies, including
amended, for recreational use in perpetuity. The final statement should the State Office of Parks, Recreation,
incorporate the views and concurrence of the New York State Parks and and Historic Preservation.
Recreation and Historic Preservation Agency. 7-5 Comments accepted. DEC will
Iona Island Marsh in Rockland County is designated a National Natural contact the North Atlantic Regional
Landmark. This program encourages preservation of areas that illustrate Director upon finalization of
the ecological and geological character of the United States, to enhance the grant award.
the educational and scientific value of the areas preserved, to
strengthen cultural appreciation of natural history, and to foster a 7-6 Specific impacts are discussed
7-5 wider interest and concern in the conservation of the nation's natural in Part IV. B. The proposed
heritage. The establishment of a sanctuary could enhance this landmark areas are available for research Ln
designation. For additional information contact the Regional Director, and education, but these programs
North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, 15 State Street, will be facilitated and implemented
Boston, Massachusetts 02109, telephone 617/223-3769. by the proposed sanctuary, as
outlined in Part II. A. 3. f-h
Specific Comments in the DEIS.

Page 5, 1st paragraph - The nature of potential impacts should be 7-7 Comments accepted. The term
7-6 discussed at least in general terms. Additionally, since most of the "unspoiled" here means: relative
acreage proposed for inclusion in the sanctuary is already in State to other areas in the industrial
ownership, the reason why the areas would not be available for research Northeast and along the Hudson
and education without the sanctuary program should be explained. specifically. This is made clear
in the preceeding paragraphs
Page 6. 2nd paragraph - The use of the adjective "unspoiled" is not in the DEIS.
7-7 entirely proper since all the areas have been subject to recreational,
agricultural or industrial uses and river-borne contaminants such as 7-8 Comments accepted. "NYS DEC 1978"
PCB's and DDT. has been added in part Ill. A. 1. d.
of this FEIS.
Pages 35 through 40 - The Hudson River Fish and Wildlife Report for the
7-8 Hudson River Level B Study cited in the bibliography should also be 7-9 There is no real contradiction:
referenced. some work on archaeological
excavation has been done, and
Page 72, 2nd paragraph - The apparent contradiction of two statements more work remains to be done.
7-9 regarding archeological sites made in this paragraph should be resolved.

Unitad4@ates Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
HARRISBURC ARLEA OFFICE
100 CHESTNUT STREET, ROOM 510
HARAISBURC. PENNSYLVANIA 17101

ER-82/467 March 25, 1982

Dr. Nancy Foster, Deputy Director
Sanctuary Programs Office
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Foster:

This responds to your Notice of Intent, as published in the Federal Register,
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Hudson Viver
Estuarine Sanctuary, New York.

Except for occasional transient species. no federally listed or proposed
threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction are known to
7-13 exist in the pr6ject impact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment 7-13 Comments accepted. Please see
or further Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act response 7-2.
(87 Stat. 834, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Should project plans change, or if
additional information on listed or proposed species becomes available,
this determination may be reconsidered. A compilation of federally
listed endangered and threatened species in New York is enclosed for
your information.

This response relates only to endangered species under our jurisdiction.
It does not address other FWS concerns under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act or other legislation.

Sincerely,

Norman R. Chupp
Area Manager

Enclosure
Siinificant Habitat Unit, NYSDEC, Delmar, NY
Director, FWS, Washington, D.C. (DEC)
Regional Director, FWS, Newton Cornerg MA (AFA/SE)
Field Supervisor, ES, Cortland. NY
Asst. Field Supervisor, ES, Upton, NY

HAO-.014Busch-lk 3/25/82

ENCLOSUTT

CRITERIA OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
(Public Law 90-542, as amended)

The Final List of Potential Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
constitutes the results of the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Identified
are natural and undeveloped rivers and river segments that meet the
minimum criteria for further study and/or potential inclusion under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Inventory has focused on those rivers
.nominated by government agencies, private groups and/or individuals,
which are significant for their recreation, cultural and natural values.
Each of these rivers meet the minimum criteria of Public Law 90-542 and
related guidelines which specified that an eligible river must:

1. Be five miles or more in length.

2. Be a free-flowing river or stream (rivers may have undergone
some impoundment or diversion in the past).

3. Be generally undeveloped. (River corridors may be developed
for the full range of agricultural uses and can include small
communities as well as dispersed or cluster residential
housing.) Be readily accessible by road or railroad or be
largely undeveloped. (Rivers or sections or rivers with
shorelines or watersheds essentially primitive or largely
undeveloped.)

4. Be adjacent to or within a related land area that possesses an
outstandingly remarkable geologic, ecologic, cultural,
historic, scenic, botanical, recreational or other similar
value. (Interpreted to near an area of multi-state or national
significance.)

ENCLOSURE 2

Dr. Richard Podgorny 3

Page 84 - The reference to the buildings to be razed is too general to
7-10 assess the impact on the Tivoli Bay Historic District. The final
statement should give more Information on these specific sites and 7-10 The final disposition of the
Section 106 planning with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation buildings at the Tivoli Bays
pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act. Documentation of site will be decided during
concurrence for this sanctuary from the State Historic Preservation the formulation of the sanctuary
Officer should also be incorporated into the final statement. management plan.
7-11 P ge 100, etc. - The use of the letters S, T, I and P should be explained Concurrence for sanctuary designa-
either at the beginning or the end of the bibliography. tion from the State Historic
Preservation officer was obtained
7-12 P ge 110, Appendix 2 - Section 10 should also be cited under the listing during the pre-acquisition applica-
f:r the Amy Corps of Engineers. tion process and is on file.

We thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. 7-11 The symbols S, T, 1, P are explained
at the beginning of the biblio-
Sincerely, graphy in the DEIS.

7-12 Comments accepted. Change made
in FEIS.

Bruce Blanchard, Director
Environmental Project Review
Enclosures (2) co

(404) 262-6649
1982 AUG -2 All 10.1
July 30, 1982
11AIL RCCA

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Podgorny:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of New York for the
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. We are responding on behalf of the U.S.
Public Health Service and are offering the following comments for your con-
sideration in preparing the final document.
8-1 In general, we support the proposed grant award and proposed sanctuary desig- 8-1 Comments accepted. No response
nation. However, the designation and management of this sanctuary should not necessary.
preclude the use of any control measures in the sanctuary for public health
purposes.

8-2 Since it is foreseeable that mosquitoes could be a problem from the proposed
sanctuary areas, the State and local public health department should be 8-2 NYS Department of Environmental
contacted for information on existing and future vector control measures. Conservation, the State's lead 9.0
agency for this project, has
8-3 With regard to the proposed research topics (page 22), consideration should contacted the appropriate public
also be given to including research about mosquitoes or other vectors of health agencies and requested
public health importance in the sanctuary. A study of the effects of past this information.
dredged material disposal upon mosquito propagation may be helpful to many
Federal and State agencies involved in water resources activities. 8-3 Research related to mosquitoes
and/or other vectors of public
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send us one health importance in the sanctuary
copy of the final document when it becomes available. will be considered during the
formulation of the sanctuary
Sincerely yours, management plan. Also, please
see response #5-3.

Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

2. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Dutchess County
Environmental Management Council
P.O. Box 259
Farm & Home Center, Millbrook, NY 12545
(914)677-1488

July 12, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Products Manager
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny,

I am writing in support of the application of the U.S. Department of
9-1 Commerce and the State of Now York for an Estuarine Grant, as expressed in 9-1 Comments accepted. No response
the draft EIS issued in June 1982. It is my opinion and the unanimous necessary.
opinion of the Dutchess County Enviromental Management Council that the
Estuarine Sanctuary will provide a unique educational opportunity for the
citizens of Dutchess County, a fact which will greatly enhance the value of
the estuary an a resource. This qreater personal involvement in the Hudson
estuary will, by heightening public awareness, help develop a citizenry
more responsive to public issues in regard to the Hudson River.

We feel that the draft EIS is sound, and we urge that the grant be
awarded.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Rosenthal, Ph.D.
Chairman

MR: dm

Cooperative Extension in New York State provides equal program and employment opportunities.

@TATF, 0 11' CO N N E' CTI Ct IT
C714
1111.VA1y I NIFN F OF F1111.111HONNIFIN'FAL ['1101 V('I ION
I A I\ 1@. I I N '@A I NI I N I PR M i I? A Ni 1982 AUG -2 All 9: U5
MAIL R811

July 29, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and commenL mi the draft Environ-
10-1 mental Impact Statement for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. The State 10-1 Comments accepted. No response
of Connecticut endorses the efforts of New York State to designate fresh and necessary.
brackish tidal systems on the Hudson River. If these selected sites mirror
the biophysicalconditions found on the Connecticut River, they are truly out-
standing and unique systems, at least from a regional perspective.

Our support for the Hudson Estuarine Sanctuary is tempered, however, by
concern for the future fate of the sanctuary program for the southern New
England region, particularly in light of the practical blueprint outlined by
10-2 Clark (1982) for an effective sanctuary program. In our opinion, it would 10-2 Your concerns regarding the State N)
be regrettable if the Hudson River Estuary was the only sanctuary to be of Connecticut's participation
designated in the region. Rather, we feel that it would be prudent to develop in the National Estuarine Sanctuary
a holistic program to address the full range of natural system variation worthy Program have been forwarded to the
of inclusion throughout the entire region. It is our contention that typological North Atlantic Regional Sanctuaries
representatives from both the Hudson and Connecticut Rivers should be designated Projects Manager in NOAA's Sanctuary
in order to fulfill the directive of the sanctuary program and assure.inclusion Programs Office for further action.
of the full spectrum of natural variation.

I am including for your information specific comments from my staff
ecologist with regard to the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary from this
perspective. Also included is a brief ecological description of the salient
characteristics of fresh and brackish tidal marshes associated with the
Connecticut and Housatonic Rivers. A conclusion and recommendation of the
report from which they are exerpted is to designate and manage all fresh and
brackish tidal marshes in these river systems as a collective natural area.
Sanctuary designation of at least selective ones might facilitate that goal.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIS for the Hudson
River Estuary. We look forward to providing your agency with technical
assistance in developing a truly representative and holistic program for the

Dr. Richard Podgorny -2- July 29, 1982

southern New England region. We would also appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the merits of assigning the Long Island Sound regional status similar
to the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound estuaries. Please direct any questions
or comments to my staff ecologist, Mr. Ronald Rozsa; he may be reached at (203)
566-7404.

Sincerely,

Arthur J. docqlue,-5r.
Director

AJR/RR/mic

Enclosure

CONNECTICUT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary

16-3 One apparent omission from the DEIS process is interstate coordination 10-3 Please see response #10-2. The
and consultation to determine the representativeness and quality of the Hudson National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
River designations. At this time we cannot judge whether 1) this designation has been reaching out to all States
is representative, although it clearly is for New York State, 2) higher quality since 1974 to encourage their
and therefore more desirable sites exist in the region and 3) there exists identification of appropriate
sites in the region that are eminently threatened and in greater need of protec- estuarine areas for participation
in the Program. NOAA does not have
tion through acquisition. According to Appendix 3 (Clark , 1982)*, the Connecticut
River is acknowledged as 'an estuary of current high national interest' and, the responsibility to identify these
as signified by an asterisk, is felt to represent one of the best candidates areas, but relies on interested
for such designation. An obvious though unfortunate exclusion from this list States to submit nominations. NOAA
is the Hudson River. (Another seemingly inconsistent recommendation is the does evaluate, from a regional
inclusion of major estuaries such as Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound and the perspective all estuarine sanctuaries
blatant omission of the similarly large and productive Long Island Sound estuary. nominations submitted and selects
Before Clark's regions are cast in concrete, we would like an opportunity to the most appropriate site, based on
discuss the merits of assigning Long Island Sound and its estuarine rivers site selection criteria stated in
[email protected] This Subpart C - Selection Criteria, 921-20
to regional I I / I would seem to indicate that there has been little in the Estuarlne Sanctuary -Guidelines.
or no attempt to understand either the Hudson or Connecticut Rivers in a re-
gional framework.

To resolve some of these concerns and to assure that the best sites are
eligible for inclusion in the Southern New England Region sanctuary program,
we propose the following long-term strategy:

1. Establish a holistic sanctuary program for the region as suggested
10-4 by Clark (1982). This will require the reclassification of the Hudson 10-4 Please see response #10-2.
River designations to subsanctuary status (i.e. typological systems)
within the Southern New England Region. This will establish a flexible
program for the inclusion of other typological conditions not represented
on the Hudson and to include all significant natural variations that
currently exist in the region. Therefore, the significant variation
observed on the Connecticut River can supplement and compliment the
Hudson River designations.

2. Proceed with the designation of the Hudson River sites since these
represent a segment 9f the variation that exists for large tidal rivers. 10-5 Please see response #10-2.
10-5 Only combined nominatiobs from both the Hudson and Connecticut*Rivers
can provide the region with a full compliment of fresh and brackish
tidal system variation for large river systems. Such segmentation
may be necessary as is encouraged by Clark (1982). Ecologists studying
the Connecticut River and its intrinsic variation from site to site
strongly contend that designations from both rivers is essential to
the sanctuary program. That designations from both rivers is warranted

*Clark, John 1982. Assessing the Natural Estuarine Sanctuary Program
Amprican Littoral Society, New Jersey

-2-

is based upon the following:
A. No two wetland complexes, particularly such as those found 10-6 Please see response #10-2 and #10-3.
10-6 in fresh and brackish water sections of either the Hudson
or Connecticut Rivers are identical. Given the geographic
isolation of the Hudson and Connecticut Rivers, and as the
result of basic hydrogeological differences, it is reasonable
to expect that there are some profound distinctions between
their estuarine ecosystems. Only site inspections and de-
tailed observation by scientists from both states will fa-
cilitate identification of salient differences and viable
new candidates for the purposes of including natural varia-
tion in the sanctuary program.
B. The Connecticut River estuary supports a different assemblage
of rare and endangered species (refer to Appendix I and 2)
While seven of the listed plants are shared by both rivers
nine apparently occur only on the Connecticut River (not
including the rarities associated with alluvial, non-tidal
deposits). The practical aspect to including sites from
both rivers is to include a larger assemblage of rare taxa,
so as to protect a greater degree of genetic variation and
safeguard certain species in the event of disaster, natural
or otherwise, causing a local extinction on one River.
3. In cooperation with regional scientists, reassess the merits of as-
10-7 Please see response #10-2. NZ,
10-7 signing regional status to the Long Island Sound (at least if the
sanctuary program is intended to be scientifically sound and complete
in its approach).
4. Reformulate a sanctuary program of broader scope so that additional
10-8 typoloqical types can be nominated and designated for the purposes 10-8 Please see response #10-2. NOAA
of complimenting existing nominations in order to fulfill the require- appreciates your comments regarding
ments of the estuarine sanctuary program; namely, to "reflect regional redesigning and reformulating the
differentiation and variety of ecosystems so as to cover all s.!3nificant National Estuarine Sanctuary Program,
natural variations...". Concurrently, early participation by and- however, these matters are beyond the
coordination between the states of the Southern New England Region scope of this EIS.
is important so that a practical list of range of typological condi-
tions can be compiled and selection of the most exemplary sites can
proceed. Unless such cooperation is established, substandard sites
might be inadvertently designated.
Appendix III contains a preliminary list of four sites and their salient
features which in our opinion are clearly of New England regional value, partic-
ularly when viewed as a holistic system. At this time, and based upon Clark's
rerommendations, the areas proposed would not require acquisition funds (this
is not to state that other equally valuable areas might not require acquisition
funds or an alternative management strategy to less than fee simple acquisition).
Those nominated are owned by the D.E.P. or the Connecticut Chapter of the Nature
Conservancy. All have a history of research but many significant scientific
queetions remain unanswered.
There exists at least one general potential threat to all these areas;

-3-

namely, proposed diversion of water from the Connecticut River in Massachusetts
for the purposes of supplementing water supplies to the Boston Metropolitan
area. This diversion proposal of long standing would inevitably be resurrected
during the next drought. An Estuarine Sanctuary designation might safeguard
these valuable resources, particularly those located at the fresh/brackish
water-tension zone.

RR/mic

7/29/82

APPENDIX I - RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER

SPECIES STATUS.

Equisetum palustre L. CTR-slr
Isoetes eatonii Dodge CTR-vuln;NEE/T; pUST
ZJnichellia palustris L. var major CTR
(Boenn.7W .D.J. Kocii
Sagittaria montevidensis C. &.S. ssp. CTR-vuln; NER
spongiosus (Engelm.) Bogin
Diplachne maritima (Bickn.) GI. CTR
CTR
CTR-nlr; NEE/T
(Holm.) Fern. & CTR-sing; NER
(Scribn. & Merr.)
Fern. & Weath.
Eleocharis diandra C. Wright CTR-slr; NER
Scirpus torr Olney CTR-slr
Orontium aguff-licium L CTR-nlr; NEE/T
*Arisaema dracontium jL.) Schott CTR-nlr; NER
Eriocaulon parkeri Robins. CTR-vuln; NER
*Populus heterophylla L. CTR; NEE/T
*Salix inlerior Rowlee CTR
Nymphaea tuberosa Paine CTR
*Polanisia -do-decandra (L.)DC. CTR
*@-Prunus allegheniensis Porter CTR-nlr; NEE/T
*Vitis novae-angliae Fern. CTR
*Ludwigia polycarpa Short & Peter CTR-elr; NEE/T N)
Sabatia L.) BSP. CTR-nlr: NEE/T 14
*Stachys tenuifolia Willd. var. CTR
platyphylla Fern.
*Teucrium occidentale Gray var. CTR
boreale (Bickn.) F ern.
Limosella subuldtA Ives CTR
ValerianelTa -radiata (L-) Dufr. CTR-nlr; NEE/T
var. fernaldii Dyal
*Bidens Z-aronata (L.) Britt. CTR-nlr
Bidens eatonii Fern. var. simulans Fassett CTR-end; NER

*signifies taxa generally associated with the alluvial portions of the
Connecticut River (these may occur on the alluvial levees associated with
the fresh tidal wetlands)

CT - Connecticut p - a potential candidate
E - endangered sing - single station
end - endemic slr - southern limits of range
elr - eastern limits of range T threatened
NE - New England US United States
nlr -northern limits of range vuln - vulnerable
R - rare

Sources! 1. Crow, G. et al. 1981. Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant
Species In New England. Rhodora 83:259-299.

2. Mehrhoff, L. J. 1978. Rare and Endangered Vascular Plant
Species in Connecticut. The New England Botanical Club.

APPENDIX 11 - RARE AND ENDANGERED ANIMALS OF THE CONNECTICUT RIVER

SPECIES STATUS

Pisces:
American Brook Lamprey (Lampetra Indeterminate
lamottei LeSueur)
Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser CTR; USR
brevi rostrum LeSueur)
Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus CTR;UST
Mitchill)
Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program
Shad best concentration in state,
of commercial significance

Aves:
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) CTR
Marsh Hawk (Circus cyaneus) CTR
Osprey (Pandion halietus) CTR

Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) CTR
Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis) CTR
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus CTR
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) CTR
Least Tern (Sterna albi frons) CTR
Sedge Wren (Cistothorus plat ensis) CTR

CT - Connecticut
R -rare
T threatened
US United States

Source: Dowhon, J. J. and Craig, R. J. Rare and Endangered Species of
Connecticut and Their Habitats. Conn. Geol. Nat. Hist. Sur.,
Rpt. Invest, No. 6.

APPENDIX III - POTENTIAL CANDIDATE SITES ON THE CONNECTICUT RIVER
FOR THE ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM

1. Griswold Point/Great Island Complex
a. Griswold Point is an exemplary barrier beach spit typical for the
embayed Long Island Sound. Site contains exemplary coastal grassland
vegetation and is the critical breeding habitat for the state rare
Least Tern and Piping Plover. Historically, the state rare grass,
Panicum amarum, grew here.

b. Great Island Salt Marsh and Intertidal Flats - This is an extensive
salt marsh which functions as the critical breeding habitat for
Ospreys and Willets. The rare northern wetland plant, S_pergularia
canadensis, probably grows here. Associated brackish wetfa-n-ds-Fi-storically-,
supported the following rare plants: Puccinellia paupercula, Bidens
eatonii var. simulans (the var. major grows on the Hudson R.) and
S-aFaFi-a dodecandra. Also present is coastal woodlands on rocky
knolls containing Post Oak, a tree nearing its norther range limits.

2. Lords Cove Brackish Wetland and Cove System
Brackish cattail wetland with a lower intertidal zone of Spartina
alterniflora and S. cynosuroides. This zonation is unique to this site.
de at least Zanichellia agi aria
Rare'plants inclu palustris and S
montevidensis. Potential rare animals for this and the freshwater
tidal wetlan are Yellow and Black Rails, Sedge Wrens, Least and
American Bitterns.

3. Seldens Cove Freshwater Tidal Wet] and/ Cove/ Up] and Forest
This site supports an extensive freshwater tidal wetland. Particularly r-J
conspicuous is Wild Rice (Zizania palustris). Intertidal habitat
historically supported 10 rare plants, one of which is Isoetes
eatonii) which represents a potential candidate for U.S. En(Ta-ngered/
Threatened status. An extensive upland bedrock hill and associated
forest also occur on this site.

4. Chapmans Pond
Chapmans Pond consists of extensive freshwater tidal wetlands and a
deep, tidal freshwater pond interior to a levee. At least two rare
plants occur here, Scirpus torreyi and Lophotocarpus spongiosus.
This is one of the few such systems with a deep pond that serves as
a finfish concentration area and refuge for overwintering fish

5. General Mainstem River
The Connecticut Rivet, serves as a regionally significant biological
corridor for Shortnose Sturgeon, perhaps Atlantic Sturgeon,
Atlantic Salmon and commerically significant runs of Shad.

Vol. 10(1): NEWSLETTER OF THE
March, 1982 CONNECTICUT
BOTANICAL SOCIETY

CONNECTICUT BOTANICAL SOCIETY, INC. is formed to secure a thorough knowledge of the _ _ ora of the State, to accomodate hold, and _ _ _ _ _ such spe_ _ _ _ and documents
_ _ necessary for a permanent record of such flora; to identify and recommend for protection and management ares of botanical _ _ _ _ and to _ _ _ _ on such _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
may conduce to teh above objects and to hold and administer funds for such purposes.

VEGETATION OF FRESH AND BRACKISH TIDAL MARSHES IN CONNECTICUT

The purpose of this article is to describe briefly
the vegetation of fresh and brackish tidal marshes,
an outstanding and uncommon class of tidal wet-
lands. These wetlands attain their optimal devel-
opment on large river systems charactrerized by
gentle slope gradients coupled with tidal influ-
ence over considerable distances. The marshes of
the Connecticut and Housantonic Rivers are the most
exemplary cases in Connecticut. Tidal inundation
is the main factor shared by salt, brackish and
fresh marshes, with dissimilarity in major flor-
istic elements and physiognomy correlated to vari-
ations in salinity. As a rule of thumb, areas
with salinities greater than 15 ppt (parts per
thousand) and less than 0.5 ppt will support salt
and fresh marshes respectively. Brackish marshes
occupy the salinity zone between the fresh and
salt marsh zones. The distribution of brackish
and fresh marshes on the Connecticut and Housa-
tonic Rivers is illustrated in Figure 1. Note
that fresh tidal marshes on the Connecticut River
north of the Salmon River have been excluded due
to space limitations here.

In brackish marshes gradual salinity gradients can
be observed in changes in floristic ocmpostion,
vegetation pattern and physiognomy over short dis-
tances. The contrast between Great Meadow marsh
in Essex and the Lord Cove marsh in Lyme illustrates
this point. Although this may be an oversimplifi-
cation, the zonation or mosaic of vegetation
across any frequency of tidal flooding, as well as
to salinity.

Figure la illustrates the typical zonation of veg-
etation commonly encountered on theses marshes.
The capital letters in the figure refer to the
corresponding vegetation zones described below.
Nomenclautre follows Dowhan (1).

A. RUPPIA ZONE (Brackish subtidal aquatic bed).
Rooted aquatics such as Ruppia maritima L., Val-
lisneria americana Michx., and Potamogeton pectin-
atus L. prevail in brackish subtidal creeks, pools
and coves. Zanichellia palustris L. is often
locally abundant. The Ruppia Zone differs from
fresh subtidal aquatic beds by the absence of
freshwater subtidal species and by the relative
abundance of Ruppia maritima, Zanichellia palus-
tris, and numerous brackish water algae.

B. ELODEA ZONE (Fresh subtidal aquatic bed).
Fresh subtidal aquatic beds are dominated by
rooted aquatics, especially Elodea spp., Vallis-
neria americana, and a variety of pondweeds
(Potamogeton spp.). Ceratophyllum demersum L., a
floating aquatic, is also found in this zone as
well as in brackish waters.

C. SAGITTARIA-UNVEGETATED ZONE (Lower inter-
tidal flat). Regularly exposed lower intertidal
flats are typically devoid of vegatation. How-
ever, Sagittaria montevidensis C. & S. ssp.
spongiosus (Egelm.) Bogin, and S. subulata (L.)
Buchenau, often form local, somethimes extensive
colonies. On strictly freshwater tidal flats,
Ludwigia palustris (L.) E11., Scirpus smithii Gray,
and Elodea nutallii (Planch.) St. John, also are
found. Rare taxa historically collected in this
zone are Tillea aquatica L., Heteranthera reni-
formis R. & P., Limosella subulata Ives, and
Eriocauon parkeri Robins.

D. SPARTINA ZONE (Midtidal brackish marsh). The
Spartina Zone is restricted to regularly flooded
in both floristic composition and midtidal posi-
tion to its salt marsh counterpart. Although
dominated by Spartina alterniflora Loisel., vari-
ous admixtures of S. cynosuroides (L.) Roth,
Hibiscus palustris L., Amaranthus cannabinus (L.)
Sauer, and Agrostis stolonifera L., var. palustris
(Huds.) Farw., often occur. In general, this zone
is a useful indicator of the summer salinity condi-
tions of the adjacent coastal waters. While
brackish marshes with higher salinity have a mid-
tidal area dominated by Spartina alterniflora, the
corresponding zone in lower salinity marshes will
contain dense colonies of Scirpus pungens Vahl,
Zizania aquatica L., or both.

E. SCIRPUS COMPLEX ZONE (Midtidal marsh border).
The Scirpus Complex occurs as a narrow zone in reg-
ularly exposed midtidal flats of fresh to slightly
brackish sites. The vegetation is complex, rang-
ing from almost pure stands of Scirpus pungens
to mixtures of this plant with Amaranthus canna-
binus, Bidens Laevis (L.) BSP., B. comosa (Gray)
Weig., Polygonum punctatum E11., Sium suave Walt.,
Helenium autumnale L., and Spartina pectinata
Link. Zizania aquatica locally forms pure colo-
nies.

continued, p. _

3
WETLANDS, cont'd.
THE NEWSLETTER OF THE CONNECTICUT BOTANICAL
combine to elevate their overall significance: SOCIETY is pubnlished quarterly by the Conn-
1) physiognomic and species diversities are mark- ecticut Botanical Society, Inc., Donald 14.
edly greater in these marshes than salt marshes, Swan, President; or. Michael Wm. Lefor, Editor.
a fact which contributes to increased wildlife Newsletter Committee: Leslie J. Mehrhoff,
use of the former; 2) these are critical habitats, Joe D. Pratt, and Dorothy Swan.
for a variety of rare plants and animals; 3) no INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTRIBUTORS: This newsletter
two marshes are identical; 4) wild rice marshes welcomes unsolicited material. manuscripts
are an outstanding type which function as signi- should be typed and double-spaced whenever
ficant resting and feeding areas for waterfowl, possible. Illustrations should be in black
shorebirds, and especially Sora Rails; and 5) ink on stiff white stock, photographs are
productivity can equal or exceed that of salt acceptable -- black-and-white glossy prints.
marshes. For these reasons, it is recommended All illustrative materials should be suitable
that fresh and brackish tidal marshes be managed for reduction to a maximum of one-half their
as collective, natural areas of state and re- original size. All manuscripts are subject
gional import. to review, especially those of a technical
nature. All manuscripts are subject to editing
Note: The Quinnipiac River obviously once sup- for syntax, etc. style will be left alone
ported fresh and brackish marshes (2) at the turn as much as possible. Authors will be shown
of this century. However, this region has been final copy before the issue In which it is
omitted from this report since the status of to appear goes to press. Originals submitted
these wetlands and their relationship to those for publication remain the property of the
described above is currently unknown. newsletter unless we arrange otherwise, so
it is adviseable to keep a copy of anything
- Ken Metzler and Ron Rosza you submit. ADDRESS MANUSCRIPTS TO:Dr. Mich-
ael Wm. Lefor, The Botany Section, U-42, The
LITERATURE CITED: University of Conne@cticut, Storrs, Connecticut,
06268.
(1) Dowhan, J. J., 1979. Preliminary Checklist VVV
of the Vascular Flora of Connecticut. Conn. Geol.
& Nat. Hist. Surv.. Rept. Invest. No. 8. Hartford. This issue marks the second anniversary of
176 pp. my editorship.- I should like to thank all
of those who have helped, commented, carped,
(2) Fassett, N. C., 1928. The vegetation of the written, typed, drawn, and printed as this
Estuaries of Northeastern North America. Proc. L0
publication has progressed to its present
Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 39:73-130. form. My personal thanks to all of you. -Ed.

VVV

MUSEUM FORMED
Recently, the Board of 'Trustees of the Univer-
sity of Connecticut voted into existence a
@IUSEIIM 01: NA1URAL HISTORY (MNH). The Museum
embraces the collections of the Vertebrate
Museum (one of the best in the Northeast); PLANT LIST
the entomological collections, the 6. Safford
Torrey Derbarium. and the General Collection A LIST OF' PLANTS has been published by the
of living plants in the Biology Greenhouses. University of Connecticut's Biological Sciences
'Taken together, these systematic collections Group. The list, a systematic listing of the
are an extremely useful tool for teaching and living plants in the Biology General Collections
research at all levels at the University and Greenhouses, was compiled by Mr. Eric A.
throughout the state. Christenson, a graduate student pursuing
taxonomic work in tropical Orchidaceae, and
All of the collection.% listed above are housed edited by Dr. M. W. Lefor of the Botany Section.
in the Torrey Life Sciences building on the 'The 41) pages list some 2000 species under
Storrs Campus. There is no separate building cultivation for use in teaching and research.
for the collections; instead, the Museum is The collection ),.a., grown somewhat recently
3 new and unifying administrative framework by exchange of excess materials with other
for obtaining funding to maintain and upgrade botanical institutions and individuals. Copies
the systematic collections. The Director, Dr. of the list are available free of charge by
Carl W. Rettenmeyer (also Head of the System- writing to the Editor of this newsletter.
atic and Evolutionary Biology Section of the 'The Greenhouses are open to the public during
Biological Sciences Group) . anticipates that normal business hours, and an appointment
the existence of the new @tuseum will lead to to visit may be made by contacting the Super-
continuing improvement in teaching and research visor, Ms. Pamela Liliquist, at (20.1)-486-4OS2.
in Zoology and Botany, and in service to the or by mail -It Biology, 11-42, University of
scientific and general public. Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 06268.

VVV VVV

WETLANDS, contd.

F. ZIZANIA ZONE (Midtidal flat). In fresh to
slightly brackish waters, Zizania aquatica forms
extensive, monospecific stands on midtidal flats.
Associates Include Pontederia cordata L., Scirpus
pungens, S. validus Vahl, Sagittaria latifolia
Willd., and NuPhar variegatum Engelm. Locally,
Orontium aquaticum L. can be found. The Zizania
Zone attains its greatest development In the
lower reaches of the freshwater tidal zone. This
vegetation is acknowledged for its great impor-
tance as resting and feeding areas for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and a variety of terrestrial birds,
particularly during their fall migration.
G. TALL REED ZONE (Upper Brackish marsh) . Typ-
ically, Tall Reed marshes are dominated by Typha
angustifolia L. with admixtures of Phragmites
australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud., Hibiscus palus-
tris, Amaranthus cannabinus, Scirpus robustus
Pursh, and Bidens laevis. Locally, phragmites
becomes an aggresive weed on disturbed sites
created by mowing, burning and dredge spoil dis-
posal. Floristic composition varies markedly
from almost pure stands of Typha in the more
saline reaches to a remarkably diverse and lush
reed vegetation in the nearly freshwater loca-
tions.

H. MIXED FORB ZONE (Uppertidal fresh marsh).
The Mixed Forb Zone is an extremely variable type
of fresh marsh vegetation. It is composed of a
number of co-dominant taxa which form an intri-
cate mosaic over the marsh surface. Important
species are Scirpus fluviatalis (Torr.) Gray,
Acorus calamus L., Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.)
Nutt., Typha angustifolia, T. latifolia L.,
Onoclea sensibilis L., Sagittaria latifolia, and
an endless list of grasses, sedges and forbs. OLD
Shrub thickets are locally found and consist pri- LYME
marily of Alnus spp., Rosa palustris Marsh.,
Fraxinus pensylvanica Marsh., Amorpha fruticosa
L., Viburnum recognitum Fern., Salix spp., and
Acer rubrum L.

Fresh and brackish marshes are indeed an uncommon
to rare class of tidal wetlands in Connecticut.
The area of fresh and brackish marshes on the Con-
necticut River is approximately 1,040 and 1,080
acres, respectively. In contrast to this are the
figures for fresh and brackish marshes on the
Housatonic River, namely 57 and 320 acres, respec-
tively. Combined acreage of fresh and brackish
marshes reported here represent a mere 6.3% and
8.0% of the total acreage of tidal wetlands,
respectively. Reduction of wetlnd acreage by
SO since 1914 further magnifies their importance
from the perspectives of their ecology and natur-
al heritage. From a regional standpoint, the
nearest estuaries known to support similar exten-
sive fresh and brackish marshes are the Hudson
River. New York, and the Merrimac River, Massa-
chusetts (2). Aside from their restricted range
adn occurrence, the following characteristics

- continued, p. 3.

OFFICERS
Chairmen Now York State
Ire Reed, Jr.
314 Turkey Hill Road FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Ithaca, Now York 14850
(607) 273-7408
Vice-chairman
Deane G. Wlnsor
Milford, Now York 13870
(607) 2864601
Secretary
C:ark E. Pell
D vision of Fish and Wildlife
Now York State
Department of Environmental Conservallon
60 Wolf Road, Albany, Now York 12233
(518) 457-5410 July 12, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager'
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

The Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Management Board reviewed and discussed the
Draft Enviro=ental Impact Statement of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuaries
program at the regular June meeting in New Paltz. Regional FWM Boards are
charged by law with the preservation and development of the fish and wildlife
L4J
resources of the State and with maintaining and improving access opportunities
for recreational purposes by the people of the State of New York.

It is a continued concern of the Board that the use of the term "sanctuary" 11-1 Please see General Response A
11-1 to describe the program is inappropriate and misleading. The implied negative regarding the term "sanctuary" and
effects of the title "sanctuary" are contradictory to the hunting, fishing and multiple use.
trapping heritage of the Hudson River Valley. Parts III and IV of the DEIS are
11-2 yell written, however, positive statements regarding the consumptive uses are 11-2 Please see General Response B
lacking and/or inadequate. Educational and research programs are supported by regarding consumptive uses in the
the Board only if there are no adverse impacts on current recreational oppor- sanctuary.
tunities. The potential for conflicts between these permits is apparent and
11-3 nowhere in the DEIS is a clear-cut statement of priorities described. 11-3 Please see response #5-2 regarding
Specifically, the DEIS is inaccurate in its statement regarding hunting on development of the management plan.
Piermont Marsh. Waterfowl hunting has been ongoing on that area since before
1940 and has continued through the past year. Fishing and limited trapping 11-4, Please see General Response B
11-4 opportunities can also be continued with no adverse impact and the DEIS should regarding hunting on Piermont Marsh.
be more explicit.

t@nvisont ....... ...
" 111. .. ..... .....
, .. . 1-1.1. .. .............. . . C. ......
. .. ... .. ...... . ........ .... ..... . I@; . :, @ :1 -!h:- ......... .1,

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Page Two
July 12, 1982

The DEIS can only be enhanced with a clearer reference to the implication 11-5 These comments have been considered
that hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities are a bona-fide concern of the and addressed in the above responses.
controlling authority. The nebulous statement of continuation of these recre-
ational pursuits, coupled with the questionable theme of sanctuary designation,
are not accepted by the Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

Sincerely,

Peter Nuzzolese
Chairman
Region 3 FWM Board

PT; db

OFFICERS
Chair an New York State
Ira Reed, Jr.
314 Tu'key Hill Road FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-7408
Vice-Chairm n
Deane G. Winsor
Milford, New York 13870
(607) 286-7601
Secretary
Clark E. Pell
Division of Fish and Wildlife
New York State
Depatt,oent of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 July 12, 1982
(518) 457-5410

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

The Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Management Board reviewed and discussed the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuaries
program at the regular June meeting in New Paltz. Regional FWM Boards are
charged by law with the preservation and development of the fish and wildlife
resources of the State and with maintaining and improving access opportunities (.71
for recreational purposes by the people of the State of New York.
12-1 It is a continued concern of the Board that the use of the term "sanctuary" 12-1 Same response as 11-1.
to describe the program is inappropriate and misleading. The implied negative
effects of the title "sanctuary" are contradictory to the hunting, fishing and
trapping heritage of the Hudson River Valley. Parts III and IV of the DEIS are
12-2 well written, however, positive statements regarding the consumptive uses are 12-2 Same response as #11-2
lacking and/or inadequate. Educational and research programs are supported by
the Board only if there are no adverse impacts on current recreational oppor-
tunities. The potential for conflicts between these pursuits is apparent and 12-3 Same response as #11-3.
12-3 nowhere in the DEIS is a clear-cut statement of priorities described.

12-4 The present levels of utilization at Tivoli Bays and Stockport Flats are 12-4 Hunters will be able to continue
-!W
satisfactory, however, more positive assurances should be jiti(Iiij -in -Che DEIS. hunting where hunting is currently
Hunting, fishing and.trapping activities are a primary conc4rn of the sportsman permitted on the proposed Estuarine
of the Hudson Valley, and a more forthright guarantee of their continuation is Sanctuary sites. Some additional
needed. regulations for the Tivoli site are
being developed by DEC in their site
management plan. That plan was
required.by DEC's recent land acqui-
sition at the site, and the plan will

... ..........

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Page Two
July 12, 1982

12-4 be written and implemented whether or
121-5 The DEIS can only be enhanced with a clearer reference to the implication (cont.) not the estuarine sanctuary is desig-
that hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities are a bona-fide concern of the nated. The Tivoli site requires more
controlling authority. The nebulous statement of continuation of these recre-
ational pursuits, coupled with the questionable theme of sanctuary designation, careful management precisely because
are not accepted by the Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Management Board. DEC will allow the continuatjon of
traditional uses of the property
Sincerely, -including hunting, fishing, and
trapping, and because of the variety of
uses and numbers of people involved at
P&, OuveQW-l" Tivoli.
Peter Nuzzolese
Chairman 12-5 Same response as #11-5
Region 3 FW14 Board

PN:db

OFFICERS
Chairman New York State i(
Ira Reed Jr.
314 Turkey Hill Road FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-7408
Vice-Chairman
Deane G. Winsor
Milford, New York 13870
1607) 286-7601
Secretary
Clark E. Pell
Division of Fish and Wildlife
New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road. Albany, New York 12233
(518) 457-5410 July 12, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

It is a continued concern of the Board that the use of the term "sanctuary"
13-1 to describe the program is inappropriate and misleading. The implied negative 13-1 Same response as #11-1.
effects of the title "sanctuary" are contradictory to the hunting, fishing and
trapping heritage of the Hudson River Valley. Parts III and IV of the DEIS are
13-2 well written, however, positive statements regarding the consumptive uses are 13-2 Same response as #11-2.
lacking and/or inadequate. Educational and research programs are supported by
the Board only if there are no adverse impacts on current recreational oppor-
tunities. The potential for conflicts between these pursuits is apparent and 13-3 Same response as #11-3.
-13-3 nowhere in the'DEIS is a clear-cut statement of priorities described.
Specifically, fishing opportunities should be continued at Iona Island. 13-4 Comments accepted and will be
Limited trapping opportunities, perhaps under a controlled permit situation, given due consideration during the
13-4 is a legitimate form of recreation and should be considered. development of the sanctuary
The DEIS can only be enhanced with a clearer reference to the implication management plan.
13-5 that hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities are a bona-fide concern of the
controlling authority. The nebulous statement of continuation of these recre- 13-5 Same response as #11-5.

ADVISORY mFmsFns. I- -o i..... . .......... .. I r- ... .............. .;...... I . ... ... A N". 1.1-.1.1'... Mi-,
,,, , ", , I @, 1.1.111-1., ". I........... I-. .. ..........I I .....
K.,'d 11, 1 Y," . ....... ...0
. ...... .. .... ....... ..... .

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Page Two
July 12, 1982

ational pursuits, coupled with the questionable theme of sanctuary designation
are not accepted by the Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

Sincerely,

Peter Nuzzolese
Chairman
Region 3 FWM Board

PE:db

STATE OF NEW YORK
PARKS AND RECREATION
ra- ALBANY
ORIN LEHMAN
CO--S-O.E@@ July 12, 1982

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

I am writing to endorse the concept and goals of the Hudson River Estuarine
Sanctuary as detailed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted to
your agency in June 1982 by the New York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation.
The four non-contiguous areas are tidal marshes owned by the State of New York 14-1 Comments accepted. No response
14-1 and managed for the protection of their natural resources as well as for limited necessary.
recreational activities. Dedication of these marshes and shallows as part of a
National Estuarine Sanctuary will further assure ecological dixersity and high
biological productivity and will allow the State to enhance and extend existing
management opportunities in the areas of research, education and recreation.

The New York State office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
owns and manages land at three of the four sites identified for inclusion in
this sanctuary. While management responsibilities will continue to rest with 14-2 Comments accepted. No response
14-2 this agency, we intend to cooperate fully with the Sanctuary Advisory Committee, necessary.
a variety of citizens groups and sister agencies with ownership responsibilities
in the furtherance of this program.

We are enthusiastic and proud to be an integral part of this challenging
14-3 program. We stand ready to participate in any way we can. 14-3 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Project Coordinator
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
office of Coastal Zone Management
2001 Washington Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

GERMANTOWN PARK COMMISSION

TOWN OF GERMANTOWN GERMANTOWN, NEW YORK 12520

518-537-6687

EDWARD A. ZAJAC, JR., Chariman
518-537-6570

BRUCE C. FINN 518-537-4520 ALLAN J. TYMCZUCK 518-537-6603
CHARLES E. RAMSEY 518-537-6007 WESLEY LORENZ III 518-537-6096

January 27, 1982

Mr. Eric Kiviat
Hudsonia
Bard College
Annandale on Hudson, New York

Dear Mr. Kiviat:

A recent article in the Hudson Register Star indicated
that you are involved in a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
Project. This letter is to offer our assistance and cooperation
as _ _ _ _ _ _ _ by the Germantown Town Board.

The park commission operates two river access points.
One called Cheviot Landing on the south side of town and
the Half- Koon Anchorage in North Germantown.

If you have any questions regarding these access facilities,
please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
GERMANTOWN PARK - - - ISSION

Edward A. Zajac, Jr.
Chairman

E_/flo

PIERMONT CIVIC ASSOCIATION

Piermont, New York

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sancturay Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear sir,

16-1 The Piermont Civic Association supports the proposed Hud- 16-1 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
son River Estuarine Sanctuary as presented in the Draft Environ-

mental Impact Statement.

The PCA has frequently expressed support for the rpeserva-

tion and study of the Piermont Marsh as shown by the enclosed

16-2 clippings from our Newsletter. At our June, 1982, regular meeting, 16-2 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
the PCA sponsored a slide show and talk by Mr. Jim Stapleton of

Hudsonia on the sanctuary program and it was very well received.

On the question of hungtin and trappign in the Piermont

marsh, we favor enforcement of existing regulations banning such

16-3 activity in the Palisades Interstate Park area and banning firearms
16-3 Comments accepted. Please see
on the Village pier property. Given the intensive recreational use General Resonses A and B.

of the pier and Tallman Park, the discharge of firearms presents

a clear danger to the public. Hopefully, the sanctuary program

policy of continuing past uses of lands will not include the past

practice of ignoring hunting and trapping violations in areas

where it is not permitted.

Very truly yours,

Enclosure
Bob Heitman-President
Piermont Civic Association

=I 1
PERKfTS ISSUED FOR VEHICLES ON PIER and on the other hand, there are those who
feel that the pier should be open to anyone all-powerful computer system. "The Ugly
who wants to go out there at any time. 0&1
As of July 15th a permit system was instituted The 4 Little Boy" has been brought to earth from
on the pier to regulate vehicular use. A permit system is a good compromise. It will Al the Neanderthal Age. Attempts at communi-
permit costs Piermont residents $10 and can be reviewed in a year to see how effective it cation and understanding still remain dif-
has been or if any changes or improvements need ficult even though scientists have succeeded
be obtained at the Village Hall. People o
outside of Piermont must pay a higher fee -- to be made. -And remember, if you want to walk in breaking the time barrier. Both films
Orangetown residents $25 and all others $50. or bike the most beautiful view on the Hudson should be of interest to sciende fiction buffs
River is still free.0 and film buffs alike.
After one month, 32 permits have been issued
-- 1 for $50, 4 for $25 and the rest to Pier- During the summer, the Library has been re-
mont residents. Mary Hardy reported that one viewing its record collection very carefully,
man outside of Piermont who comes to fish replacing old or worn recordings with more
-to-date versions, and adding many standard
considers this his vacation spot. He was up
happy to pay the fee. Who can have a vaca- classics that had previously been missing.
tion anywhere for under $50? at the Libmry.. The result is a superb selection of the finest
The recordings available of the top classical
The permit entitles you to drive out on the Opening seven days a week a year ago proved music. These new records will be the focus
pier from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the summer Ecological to be a very welcome service to the community. of our October display. On Sunday, October
until Labor Day. After Sept. 7th, the pier Our weekend hours will be beginning again the 18th, the afternoon will be devoted to lis-
gate will be closed at 6:00 p.m. Plans are Penpecti first weekend after Labor Day -- Sept. 12th tening to these recordings at your request
In the offing to build a small beat launching and f3th. The Library Board Is again making while enjoying refreshments and talking to
pad at the end of the pier on the south side. a plea to anyone interested in donating a the Library staff and others about music.
few hours of their time to working a Sunday
When this is completed, motorists who want PIERMONT MARSH CONSIDERED FOR SANCTUARY STATUS afternoon from time to time during the year. Firth Haring, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. James
to launch boats in addition will be charged
an added fee. In the March, 1980, issue of the Piermont The weekend hours are: Saturday and Sunday Haring of Piermont, has just published her
Newsletter, it was reported that the Piermont from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; weekday hours: fourth novel, Mle Woman Who Went Away. It
AM 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. has been selected as a Literary Guild Alter-
Marsh and other Hudson River marshes just
missed being designated a national Est(tarine nate. Please leave your name at the desk
Sanctuary through a Federal Program. An area Tuesday afternoon film programs for school if you would like to be put on the waiting
children uill n1w t,_- re-c=Lng 15t!i lf.t f- thf@ -,0- 1-k- W@ h.-
on Larig Island vas ctoae7a I-astead, but the
Committee made this decision with great dif- at 3:45 p.m. Look for the schedule of films the novels of two Grand View authors --
IT ficulty as they felt the Hudson River marshes being shown either at the Library, the Bank, XgL Baby, by Toni Morrison and Morgans's
were of highest priority, also. In the Post Office or on the bulletin board on the Fault, by Susan Lukas.
ensuing months, it was found that the cam- front of the Village Hall. Several good friends of the Library have
'8-DEC. ity support needed for such a program was
6pm -
LEFT AFTER CiWNG BE mUn
j@-@@WWASY AT OW@KM lacking In the chosen Long Island area and The Library is proud to present a beautiful recently donated invaluable historical
NW- FEW3 A[ IRLAGE MIL NIL fft their selection had to be withdrawn. That display during the month of September. Eloise material to its collection. The Scheffolds
Stafford of Hudson Terrace has been working of Piermont Place found boxes of material
for years on needlepoint versions of the stored in the attic from the previous owner
Am-Nwo. 2-4 rk m v pix put the Hudson River estuary next in line.
AYE FUM ILT. A public hearing was held at Lamont Doherty French tapestry series, "The Lady and the of their house, Miss Main. In them were
Geological Observatory on July 28th to gather Unicorn." These exquisite tapestries were found many interesting papers pertaining to
F-W 7R7' Z 79ORM112 -on loan to this country years ago and could the beginning of the Piermont Library and
local opinion again for this program on the Miss
be seen at the Cloisters or at the Metropol- the Piermont Improvement Association.
river. The meeting was attended by Donald
Main was the daughter of the family who owned
itan Museum of Art. They are now back home
Hardy, Chairman of Piermont's Conservation in the Museum of Cluny in Paris. Mrs. Stafford the present library building and devoted many
Advisory Commission, as well as Nash Castro,
New sign at the entrance to the pier. has recreated three of the six large tapestries hours of loving service to the Library in her
Pier permits are still available. Director of the Palisades Interstate Park -- hearing, eight and adoration -- plus sev- younger years. These papers can be seen by
Commission. Donald Hardy reiterated Pier- eral small inserts from them. The glowing red asking Grace Meyer, the Director.
mont's interest and support of the program, background laden with flowers enhances the
The permit system was devised by the Village as did Mr. Castro. magical quality of each scene. These repro- A scrapbook of Florence Ripley Mastin was
Board to allow access to Piermont residents ductions are truly works of art in themselves. also donated to the Library. It includes
and at the same time create some control over If accepted, the Hudson River estuary would If you missed the exhibits of the originals, clippings of her poems from newspapers and
this access so that the pier can be better receive federal money for acquisition of some Mrs. Stafford's hangings will prove to be magazines, as well as a few pictures, letters
maintained and policed. Already more litter land plus, more Importantly, money for much- just as exciting. and words written in the author's own hand-
containers have been placed on the pier and needed research. We need to know much more writing. The Library now has quite a complete
pick-up is every Monday after the weekend. how the marshes in our unique estuary inter- On Wednesday, September 16th, the Library collection of Miss Mastin's poetry -- much of
A light is going to be placed by the gate to re#ct within the system as a whole. This will be showing the film versions of two it devoted to Piermont and the Hudson River.
knsure better security in that critical area. understanding is particularly vital to the short stories by Isaac Asimov. "All the If you have never read any of her poems,
fishing industry. We must learn how to min- Troubles of the World" is a science fiction come and check them out to see her charming
There are those in Piemont who would like to imize pollutants and their effect on all tale of a civilization run by Multivacp an vision of this area years ago.
see no motorized traffic on the pier at all forms of Hudson River life.�
10
9

4ta
N)

~2pR~~pME, STATE now owns the north side of the pier from 1~ by Grace Meyer mouth of the pier road, plus the ball field
*tea and ~pt Park. ~ate DEC o~ If you were to ~ ~ to name the south side by Nature Conservancy turning
~h~te spot& in the Village, over their share to this agency so that the
many p~~l~w~ier." out the -marsh might be preserved. This latter trans-
pier has never really belonged to th~action was something the ~ working
Even though many ~o~ve bow out towards for quite ~# time.
there for a walk or to fish, they have really
been trespassing all these years because the In Match of 1~Spring, former Chair-
property has belonged to Continental Can. man of the Planning board, learned that the
state had some money available for purchase
Now$ as of February ~the most of wetlands and called ~to took at
part) officially belongs to Pi~t. That the ~1pt marsh to ~ would be
was an unexpected ~pot~o interested in purchasing and preserving it.
many residents of P~nt and lovers of the They def~nd had been working
rivet. The turn of events happened out of since that time to remove obstacles for ~ the blue. Some high echelon members of the ~t~ recent d~p~2pa
~
Continental Group ~~er pro- ver~ th~ead
perty ~pu~n an asset ~ of purchasing it, Nov Its preservation ~ approached the Village to see if it would ~ured.
interested in receiving It to a ~course,
the Village was more than i~1ped, ~ Hopefully, with this change of ownership we
realized that it ~ just a piece will see a marked difference In the ~~ of land, but the responsibility ~f of the pier. In years post with ~pbi~ v ~ maintaining it. All of these factors had to landlord owning the property, it van vi~1
be weighed in its acceptance. impossible to insist that they maintain it

longs to us. opinions or ideas, please let them ~
While it is all very exciting that this large A questionnaire was recently circulated asking
portion of the pier ~elongs to Pier- for your opinion on several pressing issues in
~ must also realize that Its future Is the Village. Please include your opinions on
also In our hands, ~ Board and the this newly-acquired pier property as well. if
Planning Board will be working on this planning you have not received a copy of the question-
in the Months ahead. If you have any strong naive, inquire at the Village Hall. a

The President of the Continental Group, being property. Now that the Village aims it, The Reformed Church congregation ~,
~alist, was also concerned about pier will be P~nt~ity, b~ including a youth group ~po~ay
the marshes on the south side of the ~ so it should also be the responsibility of all ~OPLE evenings, a Missionary Society ~1pe~ Nature Conservancy and the New York State Dept. us who love and enjoy it to start treating it League noted for the~cke~
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) were also better now that it belongs to us. The litter The Reverend Walter Van P~ new functions include Sunday school at 9~.
brought into the pi~meeting took place over the ~ hate been appalling. For many pastor at the Reformed Church. He was pre- and church service at ~~l ~ to June with all groups involved to discuss how years the Pi~onservation Advisory Com- viously serving an interim pastor at the Fort services in c~1pl~oring
a reasonable settlement could he reached that mission (CA~nnual clean-up in Washington Collegiate Church in Manhattan, churches are planned.
would be satisfactory to all interested parties. an effort to alleviate the problem, but it ~ after serving for five years at the First
A tentative agreement was drawn up. ~ ~always just a temporary relief. Days later, Reformed Church in New Hyde Park an Long Reverend Va~ offers that he is a fanat-
logistics have changed over the months, t~oked as ~een c~d~ ~nd~pn~ years before that at the ical bridge player and will respond to any In-
final outcome has ~pned the same. ~~ all make a better effort ~ ~ ~~por~rch ~e~ ~1pn for a fourth ~~ 3 (ro~ 4

The data cooperatively shared by York Services
T~8qhe with the CAC are a priceless "~w~indf~a~ir for the WIND, cant. one
~2qE~8qco~qlo~8qg~8qk~'~-~q1~8q01 village which could never afford the expense of In this ca~sep the reckless ~mi~s~u~o of f~i Tal
the recording device and computer analysis of ice a rearms any
the hourly readings. (The printout sheets for destroyed an expensive scientif in trument~p
~8qPe~qr~4qs eat long.) but a fool with a weapon ~i~s not just dangerous
One of firearms on the pier is banned before some- new
WHICH WAY ~T~HE WIND IS SLOWING to property. Let us hope that the discharge The
by Tom Mitchell I suspects that the pier is a good site since
is exposed to both wind funneled up and down
the river and wind funneled through the Spot- ZONING IN P~IER~N~O~NT UNDER REVIEW In
The ~P~lerm~ont Conservation Advisory Commission kill wind ~g~ap between Cleveland Mountain and by Ken Barnes pub
has obtained detailed information an wind speed the State Line. But a good suspicion does not dis
and direction on the pier during the period ~6f
March through July, 19~80. provide the hard numbers needed to make accu- Within the Village boundaries there are severe I fac
rate predictions of power output and the York different kinds of zoning.~Ea~ch kind of zoning n~qo
data has enabled the C~AC to ask both th~e state permits a different type of use according to mer
On March 7, 19~80, the York Services Corporation Department of Energy and a manufacturer for set guidelines which are made in order to spell nee
of Stamford. Connecticut ins tolled a device ~o~n their ass~ess~m~e~m~it~so~f the pier site. out the permi~s~s~able and non-permissable uses on Jud
a utility pole on the Ferry Road that monitors a certain piece of property. In recent times, the
both wind speed and direction and records the
average for each hour. local governments have found it necessary to rep
~qD~0qU~qV~q*~L ~qWN~qD ~0qW~q"~, ERIE ~qNER reevaluate the present zoning to determine if uni
changes are needed. This process i~s currently I
Conservation Advisory C~omi~s~sion members noticed PIERMONT~6qA~qY~, ~4qK~4qWH-JU~qLY~. WOO underway in Piermont. Tho
the device ~and made inquiries as to its owner, nor
being interested in the data. F~i~n~ally~s it was The Pi~erm~ont Zoning Code has eleven different a
traced to York Services through Con ~Ed~i~so~ns classifications: R~-40, R~-20~@ R-15p R-10~p R-7.5~1 ize
which had let a contract to collect and
analy~s~e the wind date. R-1.25~, R~-~M~2 W~F-1~1 W~F-2, BB and BA. The "R~" don
classification means residential and the num- in~qg
ber following ~i~f~t~d~i~c~at~e~a ~t~he mini=-- ~c~i~m~e ~-~2f t~h~t ~qP~q*~q--
One possible applic~acion o~f this does concerns lot~.Thi~s formula to broken down by multiplying at
accident studies for the nuclear power site the number times 1000. Therefore, R~-40~would con
upr~iver. But the wind data is interesting to mean that the minimum lot size for R~-40 zoning
P~i~er~mont~er~s for other reasons than to note would be 40,000 square feet (about one acre). Wh~qo
that at noon ~i~n March~,Apr~il and Kaysthe wind R~-~M zoning is multi-family residential such as wi
is usually bloving towards us from Indian Point R~oundtree~, Lawrence Park and Diplomat. W~F ble
at a speed carrying particles to us in about means waterfront properties and any use for
one hour-and-a-~b~alf. these areas are by special permit only as it
granted by the Village Board of Trustees. BA may
Local sailor@ a~nd all boaters have noted wind and BB indicates either business area A or B. and
shifts on their own obser~v~at~i~o~n.The data show A is heavy industrial and B is light commer- may
that the wind is usually from the vast before cial use such as Main Street. of
down and shifts into the north ~i~n t~h~e spring ex~qi
but into the south in ~t~h~e~'~su~n~m~er during the Anyone who is interested in what area they live the
mor~nin~g(~s~e~e graph). Peak wind speed is usually, can check with the Village Hall on the Zoning a n
about 4:00p.~m.and the greatest recorded wind Map. A rough map of the village zoning as it fut
speed was 32 mph o~qn March 21. stood ~i~n~l969on the opposite page shows areas
I that have changed uses and need rezoning. The
Romantics whose heads seem to spin in April pr
may be charmed to know that during Apr~il~.1980~, ~6A~qX ~NO~O~M 6~PK The two areas which are of considerable imp~c~f~r- the
the wind direction spun completely around the tance are the occupied portion of the pier and For
compass over the course of the average day, the South orangetown School District propertyp ove
LEGEND which includes the Tappan Zee Elementary School . wou
coming from the west at 3:00 a.m., the north 0~0 ~G~qq ~4~5~6~6qr on a lot that totals about 37 acres. the
at 8:00 a.m., the east at 1:00 p.m. and the ~M~W
south at 6:00 p.m.~ As everyone know~s,the occupied portion of the its
pier is presently used and owned by Federal A n
The Conservation Advisory Commission values ~t~h~e U~nf~ortunat~ely~@ at the and of September, 19~80, Paper Board and ~Clevepak. They are zoned as to~q@
wind data an a basis for evaluating the potential the recording device was vandalized and has
Business A. The Planning Board is considering thr
~.0f.th~e pier as a site for ~windp~ow~er alternate not yet been repair~edp so that the wind data changing this zoning from BA to something else 84
energy projects. The C4~,C is also collecting over ~t~hese months has been lost to us. It that is already in the Village zoning or maybe the
information on several other sites in the vil- appears that a rifle or shotgun was used to creating an entirely new classification which eel
lage with ~its own wind odometer. blast off the rotating anemometer cups. would be unique for that area. pro
~5 (cont. p~-6) 6

exists between people and the biotic commun-
ities that occupy a stream environment.
THE PIERMONT NEWSLETTER On the day of the trip, students were accom- ;P.
panied by their teacher, Clarence Branch, Jr.,
:nd Tom Mitchell, a parent, amateur naturalist
VOLMM XIV, No. 4 PUBLISHED BY THF PIERMONT CWIC ASSDOATION DECEMBER, 1980 nd close observer of the creek. Our first
stop was the main headwaters of the creek, a
pond near the top of Clausland Mountain.
Drought conditions had reduced the pond to
puddles of slimy water. But the students
w They were able to collect
w:re undaunted.
ter samples and bottom sediments with ease.
There was lively discussion among some mem-
bers of the group about the unfortunate misuse
of the creek by some people who use It as a
dumping place for refuse. Their expressions
were more than idle talk. These students, on
their own initiative, removed cans, bottles
and other litter from the stream and pond sees The source of the creek on Clausland Mountain
and placed them in refuse containers. Soon we had arrived at our next stop near the
Our next stop was a creek site along Route 303 intersection of Ferdon and Valentine Avenues.
near the intersection of Mountain View Avenue. Those students who live in -the area were now
Here, the students measured an appreciable in familiar territory and declared themselves
:ntream flow. They observed a school of minnows to be "expertd' on scouting this section of
.44 d a few trout that were readily visible in the creek. Following their lead, the group
the shallow clear water against the silt bottom. first explored the creek along William Street
They soon discovered that catching fish with a from the A.M.E. Zion Church to the Sparkill
.4
seine is not always easy. However, diligence Fire House. They compared physical features
paid off. After several attempts, one of them of the creek with those observed at previous
made a quick scoop of the stream and netted a sites. While some students busied themselves
sample to take back to the classroom. with such activities as measuring stream flow
rates and collecting plant specimens, others
Student interest and excitement over the wild- conducted chemical tests on water samples,
life,of the stream was obvious. But their in- seined the stream and chased salamanders that
terest included the "lifeless" conditions disappeared under stones and into mud flats.
along the stream bank as well. They inquired
about the recent bulldozing operations which Students noticed signs of occasional flooding
had removed all of the vegetation from the and stream bank erosion in the immediate area.
east side of the stream for more than 50 One student pointed out the stream flow gauge
meters. They asked about the effects of that is monitored by the United States Geo-
these changes on the stream and its wildlife. logical Survey. The class was reminded that
Shouldn't the exposed soil be re-seeded for
readings taken from gauging stations can pro-
plant growth or protected by shrubs? This vide useful informations when records are kept
Clarlmce Branch, Jr. leading field trip along the Sparkill Creek -photo by Roger PellegrinL and other questions made it clear that the over a given period of years.
field trip was indeed serving its intended
Important, is itr' Other-students cha Ilenged purpose' students were raising Important Our nextalte was just across the street from
TI-ie this uncertain view. They considered the questions about the natural environment in the gauging station where the creek overflows
Ecologidd AM crack to be important for such things as fish- their own community. They were also recog- into the skating pond when there is heavy
Lug, winter ice-skating and drainage. further nizing and collecting the kind cf@data that rainfall. This stop turned out to be the high-
Fterspecit,w discussion and related assignments on other could he useful in finding answers. light of the trip as students explored the
waters In,t1te tunnel and the diversity of
ways in which streams are important prompted The group returned to the 'bus and traveled plants and animalsin the wildlife sanctuary
plans for a class trip to several points along to our next creek site in Sparkill. Along along the creek. The excitement among the
STUDMITS EXPLORE the creek.
by Clarence Brauchp Jr. the way, students noted the meandering course students seemed to spread to passersby who
of the stream near business and industrial stopped to observe the group and to inquire
Of what importance is the Sparkill. Creek to Our main objective was to.collect firsthand establishments and wondered aloud about about their activities.
the commurities along its path? When this information about the creek that could help possible problems of stream pollution from
question was raised in a ninth grade Science students to understand some basic principles such places.. Before leaving the areax part of the excite-
class at the South Orangetown junior high of science. We also wanted to increase stu-
school, one student replied. "It'snot really dent awareness of the interdependence that 2
(cant. p.2)

Lri

sent shifted to puzzlement as the group stared dried flowers.
at the unsightly condition of the skating pond.
The shallow basin was completely void of water lwilDecgemberg,ivtheeytradgitfioiadleaCsharivastimlaabs display
le from
and plant growth, largely as the result of our local shops in Piermont. Many of these
another bulldozing operation. Workmen at the @ifts are handmade and relatively inexpensive.
site explained that the project was undertaken Shop Piermone, is more of a pleasure each
to deepen the pond so that it could contain year with the continual addition of new shops.
a higher level of water for freezing during
the ice skating season. "But what*will happen The annual Christmas party for the children
to the animals that normally Inhabit the pond?" will be on Tuesday, December 16, at 3:45 p.m,
asked one of the students. The answer became Handmade ornaments will be made to decorate
apparent as the group watched a large snapping the tree In the Children's Room. Refresh-
nt ,l 1 e served. This party is always a
me a b
turtle, recently unearthed by the bulldoxer,
lot of fun. Be sure to mark it on your
struggling to find a new home. After a brief L@e
discussion.of these engineering activities
and their possible consequence to people as cal:nda
Gra e Meyer, Director of the Piermont Public
T
well as the ecological setting, it was time I " -.,
Library, is helping work on a cooperative
for lunch.
project initiated by the Tappan Zee Eleen-
Subsequently, the group observed the waterfalls Bulldozer in the skating pond tpry School to get children acquainted with
the communities in which they live. Along with
along the creek and probed stream depth below Mark Sfnger, TZE librarian, Dr. Holland, prin-
the dam. Noting the pumping station nearby, SEE PAGE 4 "AT THE LIBRAIM FOR THE cipsl@ and Dr. Lowris, music teacher, she took
students asked about the use of creek water CHIUDRENS ARM CHRIMM PARTY a group of nine children for a walk on the
for industrial purposes. "How much water to pier in October when the Clearwater was docked
used by the factory? Who regulates the amount for its pumpkin festival. The children learned
of water that can be taken from the creek? Halloween celebrants in the Chemical Bank of the history of the pier and its importance
to the water cleaned tip before it is returned in the Hudson River ecosystem. They are now
to natural streamarl Again, the students' p-.;-..' -pe- UL cne pier --
quaativ-as pxv-da lrlioughL ior adults as well N as , present and future -- which will be
as learning projects for the classroom. 'N' at the Library.. presented in the form of reports, maps and
constructions that may be viewed at the Pier-
Our last stop on the tour was the Hudson River. by Grace Meyer mont Library during the month of January.
Time limitations and logistics would not per- The Board of Trustees of the Piermont Public VHS videotapes are now available through the
mit us to follow the creek to the point where Library has been very pleased with the response Piermont Library and other libraries in the
it joins the river. However@ an alternate
to the Library's new hours and Sunday openings. Ramapo Catskill Library System. Ask to see
route by way of the pier road was eventful. the catalog the next time you are at the
Both the number of people using the Library
Students were able to observe the marablan4a and the circulation figures increased consid- Library. Some new feature films are avail-
which form a picturesque background for the 06
meandering creek in the final part of its erably during the first month of this expanded able as well as some older classic titles.
service. Requests must be made at least two weeks
journey to the Hudson.
prior to showing date.
Presently, Board members themselves are volun-
After a bumpy rLde over the pier road, we teerLng their time to make Sunday openings Ewan MacQueen was re-elected Trustee of the
possible. Other members of the community are Ramapo Catskill Library System at their
arrived at the edge of the river where a few welcome to volunteer a Sunday afternoon in Annual Meeting in October. Mr. MacQueen will
people were relaxing and enjoying the river
order to keep the Library open seven days a
view from the pier. Others were fishing In be serving a five year term as one of four
the shallow water nearby. The setting was week. Contact Grace Meyer, Directorx at trustees representing Rockland County on
tranquil. It seemed a perfect place to re- 359-4595 for further information.The Library's the Board. The Ramapo Catskill Library
new hours are Monday through Friday from 3p.m. S stem serves four counties -- Rockland,
flect on the activities of the day and to to 10 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from I y
P-m- Orange, Sullivan and Ulster. Through the
discuss with students some of the important to 5 p.m. System many services are available that
Is-1sons that nature has taught us about rivers
and tributary streams like the Sparkill Creek. could never be afforded on an individual
Mardy Allen will haveher dried flower pic- basis. Inquire what these services are the
When thise resources are treated with the care tures and arrangements on di splay at the Libra rY next time you come to the Library.8
and respect which they deserve, they enhance during the month of November. Many of the items
our welfare. But our failure to observe We are from her shop next to the Piermont Exchange JOIN US!
simple truth c"n, and often does, result in on Piermont Avenue. Her pictures are unique 1981 PCA RES ARE NOW BEING COLLEC111)
sdch no.rors as flooding and pollution and in that they are a combination of collage and
all of the attendant problems that flow from -.aim
these perils.8 Chemical Bank/photo by Jeff Weiner 4
3

ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, lont* to concentrate any poisons, though luckily
Crabs shed their shells periodically in order for us not in the meat. The marsh itself is
THE PIERMONT NEWSLETTER s to grow and you may catch one that is a "bus- a natural filter which collects all manner of
, tee' beginning to open up. Kept alive until debris and discharge in the stalks of the
VOLUME XIV, No. 3 PUBLISHED BY THE PIERMONT CIVIC ASSOCIATION SEPTEMBER 1980 it sheds, it is a soft crab delicacy. At low marsh grass, fraginites. Often you can see an
tide the remains of the shed shells can be oil-slicked sludge flowing up the creek as the
,a flood tide comes in, releasing matter that has
en along the bank. collected in the marsh. A section of the
Almost all of the crabs caught in the shallows Crumkill Creek in the marsh has changed its
course and the stagnant pool remaining is col-
are Sales, having a "T'l-shaped piece an the
The underside of the shell. Females have a tri- lecting a sample of this scm as it deposits
-gularly-shaped piecep but they spend most of onto the marsh. It is difficult to locate
Ecological i their lives in deeper more saline water. the source of this pollution, whether it is
Should you catch a female with a spongy egg from the factory discharge, the Orangetown
mass attached to the underside, release her sewer pipe, coming in from the river itself,
P@qpectiv -iftwe
at once.
or a combination of all three.

TO CATCH A BLUE CRAB
by Tom Mitchell Why are the crabs getting scarce? There is Also, because of the life history of the crab,
no sure answer. Probably the decline has we feel the effects here of trouble crabs may
Callinecte, Seamus, the scientific name of been caused by a combination of things. encounter elsewhere along the coast. Adult
crabs have a pair of swimmer fins and may
the blue crab, means savory, graceful swimmer, Sure, there is a natural periodic rise and travel as much as a mile at a time with the
certainly an apt description. It is also -bearing females head out to deeper,
fierce and clever, as any who have pursued it fall of the local crab population according tide. Egg
for the table will tell you. to variations in natural conditions, making saltier water and even onto the continental
or good years and bad, but the good years shelf to hatch the young which then migrate
f
The blue crab ranges all along the east coast are no longer as good or as frequent. back into the estuarial shallows, so that
of the United States and beyond, ing when crabs get scarce around the Piermont
Th!n It may he that the old days of collecting by marsh, it does not necessarily mean the source
occu;r the bushel resulted in overharvesting and in of the problem is local.
greatest numbers in the Chesapeake Be .
Creeks and mud flat off the Piermont marsh are
n ideal habitat for it and crabs have been time the population of crabs will rebuild
a Ar itself if commercial crabbing declines. Recreational crabbing is great fun, not only
taken in great numbers here for many years. Overnight pats are also used, but require Maybe. In the meantime, by some estimates for the crabs you will catch. Going crabbing
While many of the fish in the river are con- Ingenuity to construct and a boat to got to there are as many as a thousand overnight pots will take you into the marsh and along the
taminated@ particularly with PCB91 the blue them. These pots have funnel-shaped throats In the Tappan Zee. Crabbers should have the river edge and let you see the fantastic vari-
crab has a remarkably efficient filter system to let Cho crabs Lneidep much like Lobster consmon sense to limit their catch rather than ety of plant and animal life that lives here,
of gills and does not metabolize this poison Pots- Commercial Crabbers have a sizable increasing their collection of traps. producing more food per acre than some of the
into the meat. But you can't enjoy this culi- investment in manufactured pots, but recre- beat cultivated farmland. Over a period of
nary treat unless you catch one first. ational crabbers usually make their own It may also be that pollution is gradually timep you will also become aware of the local
according to their various skills and notions reducing the carrying capacity of the marsh. 11 tateof the environment and hopefully seek
Used to be, crabbers in Fiermont would return of a better crabtrap. Crabs are high up on the food chain and tend to me ntain it for future generations.0
from a day's effort with bushels of crabs, but Having a rowboat and access to the Sparkill
not often in recent years, Unless the late Creek, I have tried the overnight pot method
umer crab run improves dramatically this as a novice this year with some success. I
;ear, commercial crabbers may begin to aban- prefer low tide for going through the marsh
don their pursuit since the return does not b
ecause motorboats dare not risk encountering
pay. But recreational crabbers can still
come up with enough to provide a meal if not the many snags@ leaving me to appreciate the
a feast upon this delicacy. undisturbed wading birds feeding along the N t;
mud banks. I use killifigh from the creek _t - ,
for bait and can expect to return from a plea-
There are many methods used to catch crabs,
sent hour to an hour-and-a-half raw out to
including baited hand lines, nets, seines, the river with a couple of keepers from a 8 p
collapsing traps and overnight pots.
The couple of pots.
collapsing traps with folding sides that snap
shut when pulled in are most popular here. A blue crab measuring Six inches pob
Crabbers will set out a dozen or more from point is what I consider a keeper, w7t-to
altore, favoring the end of the pier and the Eth 9;ven- IL
and-@-half my largest catch. Five Inches
ends of docks along the waterfront. Fish or does not yield much meat and is beat returned Und:rwater rescue demonstration by the Piermont
chicken parts are commonly used for bait. to the river. PCA table staffers at the Bluegrass Fair: Bob Fir Department at the Small Craft Association
Reitman, Liz Barnes, Tom Mitchell festival
@A@_

(cOnt. P.2) 2

MAR, 19ac

CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITrZE SEEKS FUNDS concerned with childcare, health, drug
The abuse, education, welfare and recreation
by Bob Heitman The above listing is far from complete, but
Ecological
gives you a general Idea of the far-reaching
scope of programs available through HUD.
T,
0i
%rvedW_@ P."Mm", Plermont a village steeped in history, a
7? 1- .. r@ "z 1,4.@4; I.,
mixture of varied age and ethnic groups, a Now, down to the nitty-gritty. Believe It or
lace of Lifelong residents and many new- not, folks, our village has been an area
by Grace Meyer . . . . . . . . . p
comers# an active, caring citizenry -- a good frontrunner in applying for and getting HUD
place to live. funds since the program was first created.
The Piermont Marsh just missed getting national .-"a-, And yet, in spite of this, there are numerous This program, like most involving the federal
recopition at the close of last year. It had things that can and should be done in our vil- government, requires much planning and paper-
been selected, along with four other marshes lage to further improve and enhance the quali- work. Without going Into all the gory details
In the Hudson River, to be a possible estuarine ty of our lifestyles. Two major Items are of how funds are acquiredi I'll try to show
sanctuary. The final selection was made by required: a desire and willingness of people how it works in Piermont.
the federal Coastal Zone Management group and to work together (which we have) and the money
other members of a Steering Committee. TW to fund projects that are needed or desired First, ideas and/or requests for projects
Hudson River marshes were in competition with (which we don't have)! start with uss the citizenry, by submitting
two proposals from Long Island. The Peconic/ View of the Plarmont Marsh and Sparkill' Croak them to the Village Board. The Village Board
Flanders Days Area on Lou$ Island was chosen. Obviously, in our already highly-taxed com- I hao'been required by Uncle Sam to create a
One reason given for the rejection of the munity, further taxation in not a pleasant Citizens' Advisory Committee, composed of a
Hudson River marshes was their high love, of thought. But@ there is another way! cross-sectLan of local citizens@ to act as a
pollution. The Estuarine Sanctuary Program 2. That secondary status for the Hudson watchdog, clearing house and advisor to the
to interested in more pristine areas. as an estuarine sanctuary under the About five years ago, the federal government Village Board. It is responsible for recom-
federal program be pursued; created a program under the aegis of the mending eligible activities for the HUD funds.
There are currently seven estuarine sanctu- Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)
aries in the United States, but non* in the 3. That state legislation establishing a to prompt local governing bodies to get in- once a program has been agreed upon for a
Northeast. it was the job of this Committee special Rudman River marsh complex volved In worthwhile prgj(!ct@,. furnishing the given year, the village submits its request
to select the most appropriate site. Once sanctuary with the same objective and funds to accomplish these. to the county consortium (composed or ID mem-
selected federal money is available for purposes as described for the federal ber towns and villages within Rockland County)
I and hopefully, after much discussion and bar-
acquisition on a watching funds basis, plus program be enacted in 1980. If you're like me, most likely you have heard
additional money each year for maintenance the acronym HUD many times without ever really gaining, the request is sent to HUD, monies
and research. So, even though this round was lost, it looks knowing about its many and varied worthwhile are allocated and filter down for local use.
like It my have been just the start of a aims. The following is a partial listing of
The Center for the Rudman River Valley In concerted effort to seriously look at the some of the areas in which HUD funds.can be All rights you ask, what has been done so far
Poughkeepsie learned of this program and got Hudson River marshes. A program like this is used on the local level: in Piermont with HUD money? In 1976, $100,000
together the proposal for the Hudson River so important, not only for preservation but 1. Acquisition, construction, reconstruc- was received for Piermont's sewer project.
marshes. Members of Piermant's Conservation ato for the much-n:ededd ::"rch that would tion or installation of 1978 saw an additional $20,000 for completion
Advisory Commission and Village officials r!ault. While Isol to rre arch has been done a. Neighborhood facilities and senior of the sewer project plus rehabilitation of
were very pleased that the Piermont marsh was on several of the marshes along the river, centers six homes for eligible families in the village.
chosen to be included in' their proposal. there is a great need to study the inter- b. Historic properties
Grace Keyer attended-several meetings expres. relationships of these marshes and their c. Utilitiesp streets, street lights, 1980 brings a much-needed project to fruition,
sing Fiermont's interest in the program. Then functions In the Hudson River ecosystem an water and sewer facilities the rehabilitation of the Community Center,
on December 10 both she and Mayor Bryan met a whole. d. Pedestrian malls and walkways which initially involves installing new therm-
with the Steering Committee at Bear Mountain a. Parks, playgrounds and other rec- opane windows on the east side of the building
to discuss the project further and *new r an The Plermont CAC Intends to keep in close reational facilities and a complete redesign and refurbishing of
6 y a f. Flood and drainage control
questions they had about the Plermont marsh ontact with the many fine people involved the grounds and walkways onthe sloping prop-
area. in this project: Fran Dunwell and Eric Kivist g. Parking facilities erty adjacent to the centers creating a new
from the Center for the Hudson River Valley., 2. Acquisition of real property which is a. (Drop by the
Tom Whyatts Chairman of Management Committee a. Blighted, deteriorated or undev lo d parklike recreational are
The Committee's decision was mode several days P:._ Village He 11 and t. ke a look at the plans.)
Latar@ with great difficulty. They had to for the Hudson River and J. Winthrop Aldrich, b. Appropriate for rehabilitation :r c
stay within the guidelines of the federal Special Assistant to the Commissioner of the servation activities As to the futurep the Advisory Committee is
program, yet recognized the importance of the State Department of Environmental Conservation, c. Needed for the provision of eligible currently considering projects for 1981 and
Hudson River marsh system. An a result, the just to mention a few. Having local, state public works 1982, including:
following resolutions were made by the en tirs and now federal interest in the Piermant marsh 3. Special projects to remove barriers I Reh:::IitatLan of Kane Park
Committeal emphmsixes the point made In the PIERMONT NEWS- restrictive to the mobility of elderly 2: Acc to the Sparkill Creek for small
LETTER 4 year and a half ago -- the extreme and handicapped people craft launching
1. That the Hudson River - mazzhes be given importance of that awaepy-lookins piece of 4. Provision of public services not other- 3. New windows for the west aide of the
priority for acquisition ,under appLlc@ land that just-happens to be in our backyard -- wise available in areas such as facilities Community Center and a new gym floor.
able state and federal progrAms; the Piermont marsh.m 8
7

4@h
00

A now book by the Piermont author, Woody's stay has been a most 4-OLY 19-19
Auitin Ferguson, Random Track to memorable and enjoyable one over nd havetthree to five young per litter..
Peking, may be had from cLAUsLA the years, but he almost didn't The ery lit le is known about the sociil
BOOKSHOP. A previous book, Jet last the first year of employment. life of these animals,but pairs may
Stre , came from the same a-Mor. His first year, 1947, was when Ecological spend the winter together.
Piermont received its share of the Perspe Bats are among the most beneficial
HELEN SKJERDING, Licensed Real Estate "Big Snow of 147,lt'vith some 26 mammals. There are several species
Broker reports a very busy season in her inches deposited on the ground. that occur locally, somewhat un-
"Hudson River View Properties" business, He says that this was the only time By Mary Evensen imaginatively named little brown
and welcomes your listings and inquiries. that he ever had any serious reserva- bat, big brown bat, pygmy bat and
For appointment call 3S8-04SI or tions about the job. His love for the Among Piermont's many pleasures is red bat. All our bats are insectiv-
3S9-llll. childrep has made his stay a most the abundance of local wildlife. orous and may consume up to a
pleasurable one. Birds are most commonly observed, quarter of their weight each night.
and one occasionally sees the larger Bats are inactive during the day,
New, at SJOSTROM SILVERSMITH on Main Woody's love of children also mammals such as deer, foxes, raccoons roosting in crevices, caves, trees,
Street, are handmade sterling silver reached out into the community with and skunks, but there are also many attics or abandoned buildings. At
chains from lS11to3011 long; and, as al- his involvement in many other small mammals which are rarely seen. twilight they emerge and begin to
ways, handmade pieces of silver and gold.
activities throughout the years. In spite of their inconspicuous lives, hunt. They use a form of sonar,
set with ivory and semiprecious stones. He was one of the founders of they play important roles in the local emitting a series of high-pitched
ELISE PICARD-GASTON is happy to announce Piermont's T-shirt League, of which ecology. sounds which are bounced back from
that all of her designs ar; now being he remained active with for 16 objects in their path. This
sold through the Piermont xchange.She years. He was also director of The short-tailed shrew is slate gray -allows them to track insects and
St. John's Church C.Y.O. program and looks much like a stubby-tailed avoid obstacles. They either
will be devoting all of her time to for 18 years and is still active mouse. It is quite a ferocious catch the'insects in the mouth or
dl:igning and manufacturing.Elise also in the Church Council. creature for its sizteithaving an al- scoop them out of the air with the
w hes to thankeveryone who'had endured e
the frustration of never finding her in, most insatiable appe . Although wing membranes. The prey is
and hopes all will enjoy the wonderful The political system of Piermont it generally feeds on ground insects usually eaten in flight.
is no stranger to Woody either. and earthworms, it can kill mice and
new look The Exchange has given her.s He was Democratic Committeeman and other small vertebrates. It is the Because their food supply is cut
Chairman for 15 years, and also only mammal to have poisonous saliva. off in the fall, bats must either
Served as Trustee for 10'years on hibernate or migrate. Those that
the Village Board. The common shrew is much smaller, hibernate build up fat reserves in
we.ighing only a fraction of an ounce. the late summer and early fall and
If all this hasn't been enough, he and is a dull brown color. Its diet gather In small groups. They under-
PEOPLE is an active member of the V.F.W., includes invertebrates and carrion. go extensive metabolic changes which
Knights of Columbus and Plermont's Both shrews are common in wooded are characteristic of true hiberna-
Fire Department. areas. They make runways under the tors and rouse when the first warm
WOODY RETIRES leaf litter where there is an days of spring.bring out the insects
When asked what he will do now abundance of food. Shrews are again. Migrating bats travel south
William Lynch, better known as that he will be receiving a active at all times of the day in the late summer and return in the
Woody to most Piermonters, will pension, he says that he w9uld throughout the year. Because of spring.
retire from the South Orangetown like to trave to places such as their high metabolic r1t;lthe must
School District's Tappan Zee Ireland and Chifornia. He feed frequently, espec a y t Ke Typically bats only have one off-
Elementary School on September 1. also wants to catch up on many common shrew, which can starve to spring per year. Young bats are
Woody has been custodian of TZE other things that he never had death in a few hours. fairly well developed at birth and
since it opened 10 years ago and a chance to do in his very active grow rapidly. They occasionally are
was custodian at the old Sparkill life. Shrews breed several times a year, carried by their mother, clinging to
school for 22 years before that. with up to eight young in a litter. the fur on her underside, but usually
Woody is a veteran of WN II and Thank you, Woody, for such The babies grow rapidly and are on remain in the roost while she is off
attended Pace University for devotion over the years in the their own in a month. Shrews have hunting. In communal roosts the
two.,years. Woody first joined many activities you have been active lives but rarely survive females recognize their own young
the school system in 1947 before involved with and we hope that into their second winter. by sound. So far as is known, males
it was centralized. He says he our retirement is a long and play no part in raising the young.
was offered the job by Mr. Barone, Kappy one.w Moles are related to shrews, differ-
but he wasn't sure if he would Ing mainly in their larger size and
be satisfied with the job if he uecializations for underground The most visible local mammals are
ccepted it. Mr. Barone told him NEW ARRIVAL ing. The starnosed mole is named the members of the squirrel family.
IL for the circle of tentacles on the The gray squirrels are the most
t
i: try It for a while and that
just what Woody did, except Weicome to Pieriftont, Kate Louise, end of its nose. It inhabits wet common; they at least pass through
11for a while" has lasted for 32 born June 7 to Gene and Nancy areas and eats invertebrates, mainly every yard. Other squirrels have
years. Weinberg [Sjoftrom Silversmithl.m earthworms. Moles breed in the spring more specific requirements. Red
9 10

squ.irrels usually live in pine thrive in marshes, eating the roots, Every pound of new paper and glass
trees, chipmunks prefer rocky areas buds and young stems of aquatic that you recycle helpss two ways: it
and woodchucks are generally found vegetation and building their houses Nota A=W theVillak
0- saves Village labor costs and it
in grassy spots (or in gardens). from the unpalatable parts. Muskrats enables the Fire Department and Lions
Unfortunately the mo:t,lppealing usually have two or three litters a FIRE DEPARTMENT ELECTS OFFICERS Club to undertake projects which bene-
of our squirrels, th ying year with six to eight young per FWT777- fit the Village.
squirrel, is nocturnal and there- litter. The young do not remain with
fore rarely seen. They live in their parents but strike off on their Empire Hose Co. 91 officers: Who to thank department:
hollow trees and glide from branch own when they are about six weeks old.
to branch, using flaps of skin There is very little suitable habitat President L. Goswick The Oakleys and Bullocks for the
that stretch between their front here except for the marsh and creek so Vice President H. Brawner lovely garden on the wall along South
and back legs. many perish while looking for a Rec. Secretary G. Bryan Piermont Avenue.
homesitd. Financial Secretary A. Lynch
Most squirrels are basically Directors L. Pagliaroli, Sa nie nd Alise Gaston for the
vegetarian but occasionally include The mammals discussed here are not E. Scott, :ttrawctiveafence which screens equip-
insects or small animals in their all that are found in Piermont, but R. Codello ment at the Village Garage.
diet. Squirrels give birth in the they are the most common ones. There
spring and may have another litter are other small mammals and many Piermont Fire Dept. Line Officers@ Phyllis Brunson for the improvements
in the summer if the food supply is larger ones such as the ones mentioned in the kitchen at the Community Center.
plentiful. in the beginning paragraph. These Chief A. R. Bartley
animals have been studied more ex- lst Asst. Chief C. Pagnozzi The coaches in the T-Shirt League
When rats and mice are mentioned, tensively and books about them are 2nd Asst. Chief F. Taulman 'for their caring abour our children.
the house mouse, Norway rat and available at the Library.m Foreman K. Fagan
black rat usually come to mind. Asst. Foreman D. Hardy, Jr. Clevepak for use of their parking
These animals are not native species, Captain H. Aubut lot for overflow during special events,
they came over from Europe with the Asst. Captain A. Puryea and during the Fire Department
early settlers and have been a Lieutenant J. B. Alise carnival.
nuisance ever since. Our native Asst. Lieutenant J. Mercurio
rats and mice are more engaging VIAL OF LIFE" Chief Chauffeur A. Sisolak BLOOD PRESSURE CLINIC
creatures. The most common mice Commissioners L. Goswick,
are the aba! moi:.56 axid the rueadow The free "Via!-of-Lifell program could A, Lynch
vols. Deer mice are handsome little save your life--if you are 60 or over. ment Ambulance Corps will be trained
animals with glossy dark fur on the Al Puryea, Assistant Captain of Pier@t Reminders from the Police Department by Rockland County Health Department
back and white underside and feet. mont.Fire Department's Ambulance Corps, * An engraving tool to be used for to run a Blood Pressure Clinic in
They have prominent ears and large urges all senior citizens to pick up identifying your valuables is avail - Piermont. The Clinic will be on
dark eyes. Their diet consists their "vial" at the Piermont Village Saturday afternoons. Dates to be
mainly of se:ds, but they also eat Hall, Piermont Liquor Store or at his able--call the Police Dept. to borrow
it. announced. Records will be kept at
insects. Th y breed throughout the home, 663 Piermont Ave. at the foot of Rockland County Health Complex. After
summer, producing as many as four Bay Street. The form inside the vial When your vacation time comes testing, follow-up letters will be
litters a year. is simple to fill out--name, address yo sent with any suggested treatment that
notify the Police Dept. when uIll might be necessary. This will be a
Voles are about thq same size as mice and telephone number of senior citizen. be away. Simply call 359-0240 or Yee service to all Piermont residents.
but are more compactly built with next of kin, who to call in case of stop in the station and fill out a f
emergency, and doctor. along with any card. See "VIAL-OF-LIFE" under the
short cars and a short tail The pertin nt medical information (i.e. Seniors' column.0
most common one locally is ihe heart condition, allergies, etc.). Curfew means that children under
meadow vole. These animals always After the form is filled out, it is 16 should not be on the streets, parks,
live in grassy areas making their to be placed inside the vial, stopper docks, etc. after 9:30 p.m. unless
homes out of cut grass and grass also replaced and put inside refrigerator
forming an important part 01, their in upper right-hand COTner. In that accompanied by parent or guardian. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN TRUCKING
diet. They are prolific bleeders,' way, if a person is unconscious or un- * Mini-bikes and mopeds are illegal CUNTROVERSY
capable of producing litters every able to answer questions, the Ambulance unless properly registered and insured. By Julio Alonso, 'III
three weeks throughout the summer Corps will have the answers necessary They are completely prohibited on A new ruling by State Supreme
months. Voles undergo population to aid in emergency treatment. All Fire Roads. Court Justice Theodore A. Kelly
cycles and sometimes are very information is kept confidential and has caused further controversy
abundant. never leaves the home. This program And from the DPW. . . in the lawsuit against the
was originally started in Minnesota by Piermont Zoning Board of Appeals.
The muskrat, despite its large size State police. District 1 in Rockland Do not put out garbage in flimsy Justice Kelly ruled in March
and name, is closely related to the County is promoting it statewide, plastic bags and do not put garbage at that the Zoning Board must re-
voles. The fur ot'the muskrat is after a successful pilot project was the curb more than 12 hours ahead of consider variances granted 'to
dark brown and thick, insulating the completed in Spring Hill in northern collection time. Rene's Mini Coffee Shop and the
animal from the cold water. Muskrats Spring Valley. 12

C:)

TOWN OF RED HOOK CZM
REC'D
107 SOUTH BROADWAY, RED HOOK, NY. 12571 1302 AUG 2 10 16
MAIL ROOM

JULY 28, 1982
SUEPRVISOR
SAMUEL F. LORE

COUNCELMEN
ROBERT GREIG
HERBERT DAY
DWIGHT WILLIAMS
G. CARL PACK

TOWN JUSTICES
ELMORE FRALEIGH
RICHARD GRIFFITHS

TOWN CLERK &
TAX COLLECTOR
MARGARET DOTY

SUPT. OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE H. HILDENBRAND

ASSESSOR
RICHARD TROTTI

Dear Dr. Richard Podgorny:

RE: TIVOLI BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

We note that in addition to the approximately 1,436 acres
currently awned by the state, it is planned to purchase
an additional 45 acres at the north and of Tivoli Bay to
be maintained as a buffer zone for the protection of the
wetlands. Since these 45 acres would be a protective

17-1 buffer zone, the Town of REd ook sees no need for fee
title acquisition of this land. The town believes that
utilizing a conservation easement mechanism would enable the
state to protect the sanctuary at less cost to the state
and would not furthur erode the town tax base.

17-2 the acquiaition of the 1,436 acres, the acquisition of the
45 acres will cost another $780 per year.

17-1 In the process of land acquisi-
tion for the proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary, the negotiating State
agencies(DEC and OPRHP) will
consider, on a case-by -case basis,
all available techniques including
fee simple acquisition, conservation
easements, and reserved life estates.
In each case, the State will use the
most appropriate instrument.

17-2 Bill no. 11814 was introduced in the
New York State Assembly on March 30, 1982
If passe, the Bill would require State
agencies owning lands in New York to make
payments in lieu of taxes. THis Bill,
at the time of printing this feis is report-
edly still in committee. Payments in lieu
of taxes would be beneficial to local com-
munities in reducing the burden of tax
exemption of large State land holdings.

Sincerely,
Samuel f. Lore
supervisor

...'- 7.: '@ @

Ag�@7 Zgis

RED HOOK CENTM SCHOOL DWMICT
Mill Road a Red Hook, New York 12671 a Telephone 914 /7W2241
Carl W. Thompson, Superintendent of Schools B Rosemarie Puglisse, Business Manager

July 28, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny Re: Tivoli Bay Esturine Sanctx@
Sanctuary Project Manager Tivoli, New York
office of Coastal Zone Management Dutchess County
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

It has cat to our attention that the State of New York plans to purchase
45 acres of land at the northern end of Tivoli Bay to be maintained as a
buffer zone for the protection of the 1,436 acres of wetlands the State
par-chased a year ago.

Since additional acreage would serve only as a protective buffer zone,
Ln
the Red Hook Central School District sees no need for fee title acquisition
of this land. The School District supports the contention that the
utilization of a conservation easement mechanism would. enable the State of 18-1 Please see response
New York to provide the necessary protection of the sanctuary which would
be at less cost to the State and would not further erode the tax base of
the Town and School District.

We urge your. careful consideration of this matter.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly

Carl W. Thonpson, Bd.D.
Superintendent of Schools

cc: Dr. John vosburgh, President, Board of Education
U.S. Deparbrertt of Cmwxoe, Washington, D.C.

The Legislature of Rockland County
County Office Building
New City, New York 10956

JOHN T. GRANT 914-425.500O
Chairmen 914-421-5100
VICTORIA K. SEIGERMAN
Clerk

MEMORANDUM

TO: Barbara Porte, Executive Director
R.C. Environmental Management Council
FROM: Ms. Victoria K. Seigerman, Clerk tothe Legislature

DATE: July 15, 1982

Attached herewith please find the following resolution (s)

adopted by the Legislature of Rockland County at. Its meeting on

July 13,1982 which pertains to your office.

RES. NO. 492 - Legislature of Rockland County States
19-1 Its Approval and Endorses the Designation of Plermont
Marsh Area and Iona Marsh Area comprised of Wetlands
Shallows and Shorelands to Be Included In the Establish-
ment of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary.

19-1 comments accepted. no response
necessary.

VICTORIA K. SEIGERMAN
VKS:CHB
enclosure

cc: Hon. John T. Grant
N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation

I I E

New Business Referral No.
Introduced by: July 13, 1982
I-Ion. John F. Meehan

RESOLUTION NO. 492 OF 1982
LEGISLATURE OF ROCKLAND COUNTY STATES ITS APPROVAL
AND ENDORSES THE DESIGNATION OF PIERMONT MARSH AREA
AND IONA MARSH AREA, COMPRISED OF WETLANDS, SHALLOWS
AND SHORELANDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE HUDSON RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY.

Meehan/Colman, unanimous

WHEREAS, the Hudson River Estuary supports an extremely valuable fishery
resource and is a biological and esthetic treasure used and enjoyed by millions of people,
and

WHEREAS, an estuarine sanctuary on the Hudson River would be a valuable tool
for enhancing the management of the Hudson River and the Hudson River Estuary
ecosystern which is part of New York's coastal zone, and

WHEREAS, four natural areas have been proposed for inclusion in the Sanctuary
and which includes Piermont Marsh Area and Iona Marsh Area located on Rockland
County's shoreline, Tivoli Bay in Dutchess County and Stockport Flats in Columbia
County, and

WHEREAS, these four sites have been deemed appropriate for purposes of research
and education, as they contain extensive high quality tidal marshes, comparable
vegetation types, adjoining tidal shallows and forested upland margins, and are productive
ecological communities representative of the region, and

WHEREAS, the New York State Deportment of Environmental Conservation
submitted an acquisition grant application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Office of Coastal Zone Management for funds and services to
purchase and establish a 4,130 acre sanctuary, and prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed sanctuary, and

WHEREAS, the Environmental Management Council of Rockland County supports
the proposed designation and acquisition of these sites, now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Legislature of Rockland County hereby declares its
unqualified recognition of the beneficial ecological factors of its Hudson Shoreline, and
be it further

RESOLVED, that the Legislature of Rockland County approves of and endorses
the designation of Piermont Marsh Area and Iona Marsh Area, comprised of wetlands,
19-2 shallows and shorelands, to be included in the establishment of the Hudson River 19-2 Comments accepted. No response
Estuarine Sanctuary, and be it further necessary.

New Business Referral No.
Introduced by: July 13, 1982
Han. John F. Meehan

RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Legislature of Rockland County be and she
19-3 hereby is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Rockland County Environmentol
Management Council; the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 19-3 NOAA received a copy of this
and the National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Coastal resolution on July 19, 1982.
Zone Management..

MLP/mbr

Ln
Ln

cooperative and encouraging partner in recognizing the importance of the Marsh
and the need to provide long term protection and management.

In 1979 the EMC and the County Planning Board hosted a public meeting
with the NY Department of State on determining Geographic Areas of Particular
Concern within the lower Hudson River Estuary. Recommendations were then made
for specific site locations to be included in the Estuarine Proposal. Cne
of these was Grassy Point Marsh in Stony Pointt an endangered tidal marsh of
120 acres and important, ecologically, for fish spawning and feeding grounds.
The Hudson River Study had included Grassy Point for consideration but deleted
the site in the final acquisition recommendation.

We do not wish to see the Grassy Point Marsh forgotten and possibly fall
prey to further infringement, pollutionand possiblydestruction. We suggest
that Grassy Point - and other viable GAPCs that were previously recommended - be
20-3 listed In the DEIS and FEIS an areas for study under the research and educa- 20-3 The Grassy Point (Haverstraw marshes
tion programs of the Proposal. Grassy Point Marsh has been an Important bio- were considered during the site
logical study area for schools, Project L.O.S.T., and individual scientists selection process for the Hudson
because of Its location and as a laboratory of natural resources. By listing River Estuarine Sanctuary. In Detem-
it in the Proposal, it might be reconsidered in U,& Duture for inclusion in the Ler 1979 a repprp@P_nt;4tivp from OUM
Sanctuary. flew the Hudson River with members
of New York's site selection committee.
OCZM discouraged the inclusion of the
Grassy Point site because of industriali-
- Barbara Ports, Director zation. Later, Croton marshes and
Rockland County
Constitution Island Marsh were also elimi-
Environmental Management Council nated from the Hudson River proposal
because of industrialization and local
July 19, 1982 pollution. All of these areas are im-
portant for research and education and can
be studied in comparison with the currently
proposed sanctuary sites. However, an
Estuarine Sanctuary should comprise areas
of high environmental quality to act as
scientific "control" areas for comparison
with areas that have been modified more
by human activities. NOAA appreciates local
concern about the future of the Grassy Point
marshes. This area is under study by DEC
for potential inclusion in the State's
wetland acquisition program.

rockland county health complex bldg D room 173 pomone now york 10970

Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
Piermont Marsh. Iona Island Marsh,
rockland county (Tivoli, Stackport) & DEIS
environmental
management Public Hearing, July 19, 1982 - Piermont NY, 7sOO PM
Council

COMMENTS SUBMIT= BY BARBARA PORTA, DIRECTOR EMC
(Resolution by Environmental Management Council
is attached)

The Rockland County Environmental Management Council has long been an
enthusiastic supporter of coastal zone management, and more particularly for
the protection and management of New York's Hudson River Estuary.

We commend the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, federal and state Offices of Coastal Zone Management,
and, the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation for their persistance
and dedication in making estuarine sanctuaries a reality. We are also indebted
to the NY State Legislature and Governor for their past support of the State
Coastal Management Program.

The EMC enthusiastically endorses the proposal for a Hudson River Est-
uarine Sanctuary, and approves of the specific site locations which include
Piermont Marsh and Iona Island Marsh in Rockland County. We are pleased that 20-1 Comments accepted. No response
20-1 the Rockland County Legislature endorsed the Proposal on July 1) and last Friday necessary. U1
- July 16 - the 12th Division of the Soil Conservation District Association -4
also endorsed the Sanctuary Proposal. Resolutions of these endorsements have
been sent to the appropriate departments and agencies.

Rockland County is unique in that, though small in size, the Hudson River
shoreline borders the entire eastern boundary, the longest segment of its tri-
angular shape. Rapid land use development during the past twenty years con-
tributed to the doubling of Rockland's population and was a direct result of the
20-2 construction of Tappan Zee Bridge and Palisades Interstate Parkway. From Bear 20-2 Comments accepted. No response
Mountain Circle to Sneden's landing in Palisades, the Hudson is now lined with necessary.
energy plants, manufacturing, dye works, yacht basins, condominiums, parks, and
private homes. During the rapid growth period, conservation groups expressed
their concerns for the disruption of and the environmental impact to the tidal
wetlands, the shallows, and the ecology of these biologically sensitive areas.
It must be stated that growth in the county has been desireable, and will con-
tinue to take place, but protection is needed for the survival of these important
'living' science communities.

The Piermont Marsh has long been an important site for research and ed-
ucation on every kind of flom and fauna, water quality. geology and other
areas of scientific study for many years. The Village of Piermont has been a

telephone (914) 354-0200 ext 2637

rockland county health complex bldg 0 room 173 pomons now york 10970
em

rockland county RESOLUTION # 3-82 July 13, 1982
environmental
management
council
The Environmental Management Council of Rockland County
Endorses Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary locations which
Include Piermont Marsh Area and Iona Island Marsh Area

WHEREAS, the Hudson River Estuary supports an extremely valuable fishery
resource and Is a biological and esthetic treasure used and enjoyed by millions
of people, and

WHEREAS, an estuarine sanctuary on the Hudson River would be a valuable
tool for enhancing the management of the Hudson River and the Hudson River
Estuary ecosystem which is part of New York's coastal zone, and

WHEREAS, four natural areas have been proposed for Inclusion in the Sanc-
tuary and which includes Piermont Marsh Area and Iona Marsh Area located on
Rockland County's shoreline, Tivoli Bay In Dutchess County and Stockport Flats
in Columbia County, and

WHEREAS, these four sites have been deemed appropriate for purposes of re-
search and education, as they contain extensive high quality tidal marshes,
comparable vegetation types. adjoining tidal shallows and forested upland margins,
and are pro&uctive ecological communities representative of the region, and 00

WHEREAS9 the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation submitted an
acquisition grant application to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ-
ration (NOAA) Office of Coastal Zone Management for funds and services to purchase
and establish a 4,130 acre sanctuary, and prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed sanctuary, and

WHEREASt the Environmental Management Council of Rockland County supports
and endorses the proposed designation anacquisition of these sites. now,
therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the EMC urges the Legislature of Rockland County to de-
clare Its unqualified recognition of the beneficial ecological factors of its
Hudson River Shoreline. and be It further

20-4 RESOLVED, that EMC urges the Legislature of Rockland County to approve and 20-4 CoMments accepted. No response necessary.
endorse the designation of, Piermont Marsh Area and Iona Marsh Area, comprised of
wetlands, shallows and shorelands, to be included in the establishment of the
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary.

A,
telephone (914) 354-0200 ext 2537

VILLAGE OF TIVOLI

NEW YORK
12583
INCORPORATED 1672

July 29, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgonny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Abliagement
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary

I would like to comment on the socioeconomic effects raised in the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Estuarine Sanctuary.
Since the Village of Tivoli mould be greatly affected by any further
land acquisition for the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary in the Tivoli North
21-1 Bay area, it is my opinion that the significant loss of tax revenue to the 21-1 Please see response #17-2.
Village makes fee title acquisition of property undesirable. 'ibis is
especially true in the case of a Village approximtely one square InUe
in area.

#.0
The property in question within our Village limits is presently in
21-2 the ownership of Mr. Jean de Castilla de Delley, one of our most significant 21-2 Please see response #17-1.
landowners and taxpayers. Since public access (with the exception of ftgdalen
Island) is not involved in such an acquisition of land, but which would
merely serve as a buffer for the Sanctuary, it is far more reasonable and
certainly less economically disruptive that conservation easements be utilized.
This approach would achieve the same goal, yet alleviate the tax burden
that muld otherwise result for the residents of the Village of Tivoli.

Edwa-rd Neese Jr.
Mayor, Village of Tivoli

COUNTY OF ULSTER

244 FAIR STREET
BOX 1800 E C." e.
KINGSTON, NEW YORK 12401
1902 AUG -2 AM 1(@
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT I L 11 C 0; 1914'- 331 -Z300
COUNCIL Ext. 97

July 13, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Projects Manager
Office Of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington D. C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny;

The Ulster County Environmental flanagement Council
received from your office the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed Hudson River National Estuarine
Sanctuary. On June 23rd the full Council heard a presen-
tation on the proposed Sanctuary and on July 7th the Council's
Executive Board passed.. the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Ulster County Environmental Management Council C)
has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary, and

WHEREAS we have found it to be beneficial to the
interests of the residents of New York State and
particularly to the people of the Hudson Valley,
in that it offers an opportunity to enhance to
research and educational activities along the
estuary,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Executive Board
22-1 of the Ulster County Environmental Management Council 22-1 Comment accepted. No response
endorses the proposed Hudson River National Estuarine necessary.
Sanctuary.

Sincere4y

David B. Straus
Chairman

UJIM
SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT

FRED ZWICK
Chairman

SUSAN WEISMAN
District Manwr@

July 19, 1982
Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
330 White Haven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

23-1 Please be advised that the attached Resolution in support of the four Hudson 23-1 Comments accepted. No response
River estuarine sanctuary areas was adopted by Division XXI of the New York necessary.
Soil Conservation Districts Association at its July 16. 1982 meeting.

if you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact our
office at (914) 682-7622.

Sincerely,

]Fred 15.; Zwick
Division XII Director

FZ/ST/dcb
enclosure

216 Central Avenue Vihite Plains, N.Y. 10606 - 914 8112-76112

DIVISION XII

NEW YdRK SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRIC%S ASSOCATION

JULY 16, 1982

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Hudson River Estuary is an important biologicil and ecological
resource within the lower Hudson region, and

WHEREAS, there are four specific locations of unspoiled tidal wetlands,
shallows and adjacent uplands comprising approximately 4,000 acres, and

WHEREAS, these wetlands, shallows and uplands are unique environmental
assets, and woul@d provide an area for environmental research and education,
and

WHEREAS, this area has been proposed as an estuarine sanctuary by the
U. S. Office of Coastal Zone Management of the National oceanic and-Atmospheric
Administration, and

WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has
submitted an application for acquisition of the four locations - Pierinont
Marsh area and Iona Island Marsh area (Rockland County), Tivoli Bays (Dutchess
County) and Stockport Flats (Columbia County), now therefore, be it

23-2 RESOLVED, that the Division XII of the New York Soil Conservation 23-2 comments accepted. No response
Districts Association endorses the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Proposal, and be necessary.
it further

?3-3 RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the New York Soil Con-
servation Districts Association, the New York State Department of Environmental 23-3 NOAA received a COPY of this
Conservation, the County Chairman/Executive of Rockland, Dutchess and Columbia reSOlUtion on July 27, 1982.
Counties, and to the National oceanic and Atmospheric Commission of the U. S.
Coastal Zone Management Division.

163

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

June 25, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Projects Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
@300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

At its annual June meeting the John Burroughs Natural
History Society reviewed and endorsed the Hudson River
24-1 National Estuarine Sanctuary proposal. 24-1 Comments accepted. No response

We are particularly pleased that there will be an enhanced
24-2 public education program dealing with the natural values of 24-2 Comments accepted. No response
the Hudson estuary. The Society offers its cooperation in necessary.
the development of this program.

Sincerely,

Anne Altshuler, Pre sident
Krumville Road
Olive Bridge NY 12461

Columbia County
Environmental Management Council
71 North 3rd Street
Hudson, Now York 12534

July 21, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

I am pleased to provide a copy of the Council comments on the proposed Hudson
River Estuarine Sanctuary presented at the public hearing held on July 21,
1982 at the Stockport Town Hall.

The reasons for the Council's support and a recommendation to pass a resolu-
25-1 tion in support of the sanctuary were transmitted to the Columbia County 25-1 Comments accepted. No response
Board of Supervisors Planning and Community Affairs Committee at their meet- necessary.
ing on July 15, 1982. This committee voted to recommend passage of a Board
of Supervisors resolution supporting the sanctuary for action at the August 14,
1982 meeting. Unfortunately, this aetion will occur after the August 2, 1982
deadline. However, I believe that it is important that you be aware of that
potential support. We will forward a copy of any Board of Supervisors reso-
lution to you in any event.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important proposal.
iincerely,
1441-i'll /U@
Roland R. Vosburgh
Planner

for Frances Y. Szasz, Chai man

RRV:gg

STATEMENT Oil THE HUDSON RIVER

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

My name is Roland R. Vosburgh. I am a Planner working for

the Columbia County Development and Planning Department. I

am making this statement on behalf of the Columbia County

Environmental Management Council. The Council is a duly

appointed body of volunteer citizens who are charged with

advising the Columbia County Board of Supervisors on envi-

ronmental matters affecting Columbia County.

The Columbia County Environmental Management Council strongly supports
25-2 the creation of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary comprised of four 25-2 Comments accepted. No response
separatp Hudson River estuarine ecosystems. While supporting the entire necessary.
proposal, one of tile four sit(..s, the Stockport Marshes, is located in
COILIrlibia County and, therefore, the Council gave particular attention in
its review to the potential impacts of the inCILISiOn of this area for
Columbia County.

A careful review of the draft environmental impact. statement for the
25-3 saiictuary has caused the Council to conclude that there will be no adverse 25-3 Comments accepted. No response
Pnvironmcmtal or societal impacts for Columbia County. Significant posi- necessary.
tive benefits will be realized as follows:

(1) Protection of this valuable and productive environment from unwise
development. The Council agrees with the sanctuary objectives of
scientific research and education. The only way to assure that
these unique ecosystems are available for research and public edu-
cation and recreation is to provide the long term protection and
status which sanctuary designation will provide. Public educat',on
and environmental awareness will be enhanced by the results of tile
research program.

(2) Preservation of open space and assurance of public access to the
estuary and the Hudson River. The Council is particularly pleased
that public use of the Stockport Marshes for traditional and com-
patible uses such as hunting, fishing, trapping, nature study, and
low level forms of recreation is to be allowed. The Council sup-
ports the concept of compatible multiple use and without this
assurance the Council Would not have supported the proposal.
(3) Creation of a formal management plan with input from a local sanc-
tuary advisory committee. A significant feature of the proposal
is that four local sanctuary advisory committees will be named
which will guarantee local representation ard input to be used for
sanctuary management. In addition, the Council is pleased that
the various state agencies with jurisdiction in the sanctuary will
be required to adhere to the approved management plan.

In summary, the Council is pleased and honored that the Stockport Marshes
25-4 of Columbia County were judged to be important and unique enough to be 25-4 Comments accepted. No response
included in this proposal. Inclusion of the Stockport Marshes is consis- necessary.
tent with Council objectives to protect valuable ecosystems from unwise
development. The Council believes that this proposal is not a special
interest issue with appeal only to scientists or sportsmen, but rather
will provide widespredd benefits for the residents of Columbia County,
the Hudson Valley and New York State and that it deserves the Public's
full support. Therefore, the Council recommends that the Fedcral Office
of Coastal Zone Management review this application favorably and approve
the creation of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary.

ALAN DEVOE BIRD CLUB

CHATHAM NEW YORK 12037
JULY 21, 1982

The Alan Devoe Bird Club was incorporated in 1957 as a non-profit
organization in Columbia County. Since then, club memebers have
made many visits to the stockport flets are, sometimes for the
purpose of censusing migratory and resident bird populations,
sometimes for the purpose of teaching field indentification to
both old and young observers, and sometimes simply for enjoyment
of the area.

26-1 Over the years, the wide diversity of both plant and animal life
at stockport has become more and more apparent to the bird club
members. equally apparent has become the interconnection between
the health and vitality of the Hudson river and the health and
vitality of its tidal norahes. These obeservations must indeed
be shared by the birders who have visited the stockport flats
the cenceists, hunters and fishermen who have found the
area a resource meeting their own interests and needs.

26.2 A few years ago, local groups expressed their oppisition to a
plan of the U.S. Army corps of Engineers to use sewerd's Island
as a fill area for a river dredging operation. Local voices were
ineffective in protectin a valued island. Just this week the
corps of Engineers accounced a plan to loosen its protection of
national wetlands. the rules changes the corps proposes would
exempt millions of sores of wetland from current regulations
that require individual permits for any dredging and fillin that
would effect the wetlands. If local voices were ineffective
earlier in protecting our river habitats, what can we expect in
the future? The regulation by the State of New York of the 4 more
proposed for inclusion in the Hudson River Estuarine sanctuary
the protection of our land closer to us and the proposed
of a looslly constitated advisory commitee for the overseeing of
the proposed monotuaery
to cast a yes vote for the sanctuary plan.

The Alan Devoe Bird club owns nearly 140-acres of wildlife
senctuary in northern Columbia County which it makes open to the
public year-round, free of charge. Thus addo members are familier
with both responsibilites and rewards of sanctuary development
and ongoing life. The club's membership is drawn from Columbia'
Renssoleer, Albany, Greene and Dutchess counties.

26-3 The membership of the Alan Devoe Bird Club reports the astablishment
of the Hudson River esturine Sanctuary in the State of New York.

26-1 comments accepted. it has
been said that tidal marches
"track" the ecology of the
estuary. Tidal marches are
valuable as indicators of
the envorionmental health of
the estuary, and as study
sites for monitoring this
health. The marches are also
useful as an educational
"key" to the estuary -they
are more comprehensible and
easier for the public to
appreciate because of their
smaller size and the greater
visibility of their plants
and animals than of the
plants and animals in the
deeper waters.

26-2 commets accepted. no
responce necessary.

26-3 comments accepted, no
response necessary.

Kate Dunham
repromoting the Alan Devoe Bird Club.

GREENE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mountain Avenue, cairo, New York 12413 Telephone 622-3251 943-9119

BY HAND
July 21,1982

Dr. Richard Podgomy
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
330 Whitehaven Street, nw
Washington, DC 20235

RE: Draft Environmental impact Statement on Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
Dear Dr. podgomy:

27-1 The Greene County Environmental Management Council would lie to express its
support for the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for the Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary. While not contained within Greene County, the sanctuary
at stockport Flats is on the COunty's border and being located opposite two state-
owned public boat launch sites is rapdily accessible to Greene County residents.

27-2 We endorse the emphasis on research and education programs during spring and

27-3 summer (pg 66) to ensure that conflits with hunting and trapping use of the site
are kept at a minimum. While Greene County contains nearly 80,000 acres of
the hudson are available for public use or are slated for preservation as are the
Stockport Flats.

27-4 Our one main comment on the DEIS is that no mention is made of the fate of a number
of existing seasonal residences located on the "unamed island" portion of the proposed
sanctuary, although it is stated on page 81 that there are no rersidences in the areas
proposed for inclusion. This overnight should be clarified.

27-5 if appropriate, the Greene county ENvironmental Management Council would like
to request representation on the Stockport Flats Advisory Committee for the develop-
ment of a sanctuary management plan.

sincerely,
Carl D. Hedley
Chariman

CDH mc
cc: Columbia County EMC
Greene County Federal Sportmens Clubs
HUdsonian limited
Joyce Wood, Us dept. of commerce

27-1 comments acdepted. no
response necessary.

27-2 comments accepted. The
State-owned public boat
launch sites mentioned
are at coxsackle and Athens.

27-3 Concerning resolution of
potential conflicts between
research and hunting and
trapping, please see
General Response b.

27-4 There are about 5 seasonally-
occupied cabins on the Unnamed
island." These cabins or
"camps" are believed to be
there without the landowener's
permission. A preliminary
title search indicates over-
lapping claims to this island
(New York State Office of
General Services, and
Mr. Porter Feargy. Jr.)
and it has not yet been determined
exactly where the ownership
boundary is. The question of
ownership, acquistition. and the
future of the cabins will be
furthur addressed in the
Sanctuary Management Plan.

27-5 Nominations for the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee, with
documentation, should be sent
to r. Edward Radle, NYS DEC,
50 wolf rd., Albany, ny 12233

Heritage Task Force for the Hudson River Valley. Inc.
N.Y.S Department of Environmental Conservation
Region 3 Headquarters
21 South pull corners road
New Paltz New York 12561 telephone 914-255-9187

July 14, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.c. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

28-1 Ther Heritage Task Force supports the formation of the hudson
Estuarine Sanctuary. Created in 1980 by the commissioner
of the Department of Environmental Conservation at the direc-
tion of Governor Carey, the Task Force mandate is to preserve,
protect, and enhance the natural, scenic, historic, cultural,
and recreational resources of the Mid-Hudson Valley and to
serve as a liason between local and State government.

28-2 THe Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would serve in part to
protect natural, scenic, and recreational resources of
importance on a local, state and national level. Its function
as a research and educational facility is important ot in-
creasing our understanding of the river as cimmunities return
their attention to the waterway that was central to the develop-
ment of this region.

28-3 The use of citizens' advisory groups representing local govern-
ment and sanctuary user groups in the management of each sanc-
tuary area conforms with the Task Force goals of stimulating
local participation in resource preservation as a key to
continuing public support. The Task Force agrees with the
conclusions of the DEIS that the major impacts from designa-
tion will be positive and will be of lasting benefit to the
region and the state.

28-1 comments accepted. no
response necessary.

28-2 The commetn on the return of
attention to the Hudson is
appropriate. The Hudson River
Estuary was the focus of life
in the valley for centuries.
With renewed interests in the
waterway for torism, drinking
water, and other uses, it is
particularly important to
better understand the estuary's
workings both at the level
of general public apprecia-
tion and at the level of
scientific knowledge.

28-3 Comments accepted. no
response necessary.

Sincerly,

LOretta M. Simon
Principal consultant

LS: ls
cc: Joyce M. T. Wood, Director

THE HUDSON RIVER CONSERVATION SOCIETY, Inc.
Founded 1936

BaK 25, Barrytown, NeW York, 12507

July l4th, 31982
Dr. Richard Podgorny
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitchaven Street* N.W.
washington, D.C. 2023

Dear Dr. Podgorny,

At the Annual Membership Meeting of the Hudson River Conservation
Society, Inc. held in Cold Spring, N.Y., an June 26, 1982, the following
Resolution was enanimously adopted:

"WHEREAS the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation has requested of the Federal Office of
Coastal Zone Management National Estuarine Sanctuary
29-1 designation for certain areas along the Hudson River, and, 29-1 Comments acce
WHWEAS, this designation would enhance estuarine research
and education in the Hudson Valley, response nece
Therefore, HE IT RESOLVED, that the Society supports the
programs of the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and more particularly strongly endorsee the joint efforts
of that Office and agencies of the State of New York to
establish, as proposed, a Hudson River element with the
National Estuarine Sanctuary System."

29-1 Comments accepted. no
response necessary.
Sincerely,

Mrs. John D, Graham
Secretary

BCC- JWA

~@~qC~0qR~v~z~% ~0qE~ju~y~qi~qw~qw~qn~qw~8qa ~I~-~4qS~qo~2qd~0qd~8qy~, ~4qf~4qf~n~e~-
~8q4~4q"~0
~qREC~4qT

~q1~q98~qZ AUG -2 ~qM~qi ID ~v~q5 ~f~G4~7~f
~qP~O~-~q8~1- ~i~l~s
MAIL ~qR~q9~q0~q1~q4 I. it ~S~.~- I
~-~3 /1 ~j

~8q6~qj

~2qP~@

30-1 Comments accepted; ~0qH
30-1 response necess~arY~q.
~8qv~q@~q-

~L ~C. ~C~.

~0~.2 Please see General
30~-2 Response A regarding
multiple use.

Z ~qC~,

30~-3 30~-3 Please see response 20
I L

~--~ ~-~_e ~,~

~2qZ~q4

~2q7~,~q-

L I

30~-4 30~-4 Comments accepted
response necessar~q.~q,

~qR~- E~- INC.
~q3~0qbrr~en H~* McKeon, Exec. D~i~r~~.
~P~- 0~- BOX 535
.-,,,)low ~qPaltz~, ~qM. Y~. 12~,561

hudson river heritage
July 6@,1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
sanctuary Projects Manager
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street,N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. PodgorTiy,

i am writing to you in support of the proposal.submitted by the
31-1 U.S. Department of Commerce and the State of New York to establish 31-1 Comments accepted. No
a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary, as described in the draft E.I.S. response necessary.
of June,1982.

Hudson River Heritage,IncAB a 150 member organization committed
to environmental protection and historic preservation in this
region. We are strongly supportive of this application to establish
31-2 ur, Est-ciurine Sanctuary in the 'I'ludson, @faeling that 'it advances our 31-2 Historic preservation will
goals, and that our goals of historic preservation in the region be addressed in the
are fully consistent with the Sanctuary's announced objectives. sanctuary's management
plan.
We feel that the Management Plan for the Sanctuary, when written,
should address historic preservation as a factor. Historic preservation
4@b
and protection of the environment have been closely allied interests
in this region, and we feel that the Sanctuary can serve as a positive
force in the further development of that very effective alliance.

Sincerely yours,
k@7 T. V"k- -1
Kay T. Verrilli
Vice-President

hudson river heritage inc., box 287, rhinebeck, new york 12572

Hudson
River
k-7111[orelands
Task Force
tn c-)
(914) 876-7484 BOX 29, RED HOOK. N.Y. 12571 C3 rz;

3ul.y 30, 1982

Dr. Richard 3. Podgavipy
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitshaven Street NW
Washington OC 20235

Re: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Hudson
River Estuarine Sanctuary

Dear Dr. Podgarwy,

The Hudson River Shorelands Task Force is a
not-for-profit organization which works very closely
with affected property owners and local government
officials to manage over 20,000 acres of land on the
east bank of the Hudson River that is listed an the
National Register of Historic Places.

The Tivoli Bay and adjacent Ward Manor
properties are being considered for the Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary. The Hudson River Shorelands Task
Force supports the Estuarine Sanctuary designation for
the Tivoli Bay property; however, iZ rgi3wingo the
32-1 draft environmental impact atat a..n ( IS we have 32-1 Comments accepted. No
noted several serious problems - as follows: response necessary.

Page 71 1. Archaeological Resources
The date for Native American utilization of
this area may extend as far back as 10,000 years, not
5,000 years. A substantial amount of "pot hunting"
(non-scientific destruction of archaeological informa-
32-2 tion) has taken place and continues today throughout
the Tivoli Bay properties, specifically Cruger and 32-2 New York State Education
Magdalen Islands. The EIS has to reference the appro- Law, Section 233, Parts 4
priata state and federal laws which protect these and 5 have been incorporated
in this FEIS.

cont.

Dr. Richard J. Podoormy
July 30, 1982
Page 2

resources and insure that future expenditures of state
and federal monies will not adversely Impact these No-
t1oaml,@i Register Archaeological Site*. Now York State
Education.Law, Sedtion 233, Parts 4 and 5, should be
referenced In the report:

04. Except.ae otherwise provided
in subdivision three of this section,
no person shall appropriate, excavate,
Injure or destroy any object of archas-
ological and paleontological interest,
situated on or under lands owned by the
state of Now York, without the written
permission of the commissioner of edu-
cation. A violation of this provision
shall conaLtuto a miademeanor. The
discovery of such objects shall be
forth-with reported to the commissioner
by the state department or agency having
jurisdiction over such lands.
5. Permits for the excavation or
gathering of archaeological end paleon-
tological objects upon the lands under
their respeotive jurisdictions may be
granted by the heads of state depart-
ments or other state agencies to persons
authorized by the commissioner ofeduca-
tion for the purposes of the state
.museum and state science service, with a
view to ths'proservatLon of any such
objects worthy of permanent preservation
and, in all cases, to the acquisition
and dissemination of knowledge relating
thereto."
L.1947, c.820; amended L.1950, c.121,
off. March 6, 1958.

32-3 Due to the fact that significant archaeological site& 32-3 Comments accepted. There
are located throughout the Tivoli Say property and that was not sufficient time to
the property is listed on the National Register of contact these persons from
Historic Place, the EIS writers should contact the when your comments were
following state archaeologists: received and the time this
Phil Lord, NYS Museum, Albany FEIS went to print. However,
Bruce Full a MYS Dept. of Parks, Rec- these persons will be con-
reati:n' & Historic Preservation tacted when the management
Louise Base, NYS Dept. of Environmental plan is formulated.
Conservation, Albany
to establish management procedures that can be incorpo-
rated Into the final EIS.

cant.

32-3 Sanctuary designation will
Dr. Richard 3. Podgarmy (cont.) protect the archaeological
July 30, 1962 resources as well as the
Page 3 natural resources of the site,
and also facilitate further
,tudy of archeology. Location
and extent of archaeological
Page 82 C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or material will be taken into
Socioeconomic Effects account in planning for any
development or improvements
It appears inappropriate to discuss proposed to trails, roads. parking
32-4 sanctuary acquisitions in terms of only fee title acquLs- areas, and the like.
ition of property. Both the Village of Tivoli and the
Town of Red Hook have taken a significant lose of tax
bass this past year with the Ward Manor Property being
taken over by the State. This lose of tax bass is further
aggravated by a plan to acquire more land for the State 32-4 Please see responses 17-1
from an adjacent property owner. It is explained in the and 17-2.
draft EIS that except for Magdalen Island the additional
acreage to be acquired is not for public access, but is
to function as a buffer for the Estuarine Sanctuary. A
buffer could be established with a conservation easement
that would cost the federal or state taxpayer less and
provide the same buffer protection, while keeping the
land an the tax rolls. The mechanism of utilizing a can-
servatLon easement would substantially reduce the socio-
economic effects noted in the draft EIS. Alternatives to
fee title acquisitions must be addressed.in the final EIS.

Please advise me as to how these comments will
be incorporated into the final EIS.

Sincerely,

Robbe P. Stimson
Executive Director

RPS:js

cc: J. Winthrop Aldrich, Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Marcella Appall, Red Hook Zoning Board
Bruce Fullem, Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
Robert Greig, Red Hook Town Board
Paul Keller, Regional Director, DEC
Erik Kivist, Hudsonia
Phil Lord, NYS Musuem
Samuel Lore, Red Hook Town Supervisor
Sally Mazzarella, Chairman, Hudson River Shorelands
Task Force
Edward Neese, Village of Tivoli Mayor
Michael Rosenthal, Heritage Task Force for the Hudson
River
Richard Wiles, Tivoli Planning Board

;@5 2E

A
COUNIC11
A- NA7URA)L AREA

950 THIRD AVENUE. NEW YORK. N. Y. 10022

212 546-9282

RICHARD H. POUGH, Projident July 23, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
US. Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

I appreciate being sent a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
113-1 State-pitent on tile Proposed Hudsua Rivcr Natiunal Estuarine Sanctuary 33-1 Comments accepted. No response
and congratulate those who prepared it on an excellent job. necessary.
In my opinion the need for an ongoing research program along the
33-2 Hudson should be stressed. We really know very little about the 33-2 Please see General Response A
unique low salinity ecosystems that occur along the Hudson. regarding the sanctuary's
It is to be hoped that the two southern marshes can continue as no- focus on research.
33-3 hunting areas and that the ban on lead shot can be continued on the
two northern marshes. 33-3 Please see General Response B 00
regarding hunting in the southern
We certainly need more data on how best to handle the problems that sanctuary marshes.
33-4 arise relative to the handling of dredging spoil and additional
marinas. The lead shot ban is not specific
to the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
Having been one of the original members of the Corps of Engineers sites at Stockpoort and Tivoli, but
Environmental Advisory Board and currently a trustee of the Sapelo rather applies to a long stretch
Island Research Foundation of Georgia, I have had some experience of river that contains these two sites.
with these problems.

Yours sincerely, 33-4 These issues will be considered when
the management plan is formulated.
4<. 0 ' '
Richard H. Pou7gh@

ADVISORS ON LAND PRESERVATION/ COUNSELORS ON IMAGINATIVE PHILANTHROPY

Natuira Resources Defense Council, hic.
122 EAST 42ND STREET UN
M_
NEW YORK, N.Y. ioi6li
sit 949-0049 19,0? AUG -2 tM, 10
Washirigs" O#ke Western office
17*531UST:RZT. N.W. 11ML P 3'@M 25 KRARNT STREET
IT 600 SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF. 94108
WASHINCTON, D.C. XOoo6 416 4*a-656i
.02 MSS-8210
July 30, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) strongly sup-
ports the establishment of the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
at Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island, and Piermont Marsh. 34-1 Comments accepted. No response
34-1 These sanctuary sites are excellent representatives of the variety
of shallows and wetlands in the Hudson River estuary. necessary.

The $375,000 in Federal matching funds made available through
the Estuarine Santuary Program are necessary to enable the state
to complete acquisition of the Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays,
and Piermont Marsh sites, and continued funding should be guaran-
34-2 teed to allow the state to set up a competent management program. 34-2 Comments accepted. No response
NRDC endorses the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary program's necessary.
efforts to encourage and coordinate scientific research and ed-
ucational activities on its lands and attract funding for estu-
arine research essential to the restoration and maintenance of
the river's natural systems. Having read the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (DEIS), we have several concerns.

The lines of authority in the DEIS's sanctuary management
structure are too vague. While DEC is to "administer the...
sanctuary and ... be directly responsible for the content and
structure of the sanctuary's management," the other four agencies 34-3 NYS Department of Environmental
represented on the Steering Committee (office of Parks, Rec- Conservation is the State's lead
reation, and Historic Preservation; Palisades Interstate Park agency for this project and as such
Commission; Office of General Services; and Department of State) is ultimately responsible for all
will also "exercise prerogatives and make decisions regarding activities within the sanctuary.
the lands to which they hold title." * NRDC believes that the Single agency land ownership is not
34-3 sanctuary's purpose will be best served if all authority over possible at this time. However, all
sanctuary lands were vested in a single agency, DEC. In any @articipating State agencies have
event, specific, binding guidelines for management of the sanc- joined together, via their Memorandum
tuary should be promulgated as soon as possible. of Understanding (see appendix 8), and
committed their support to achieving
(DEIS pp. 14-15) the sanctuary's goals and objectives.
Additionally, the management plan will
New England Office: 17 ERIE DRIVE - NATICK, M A. 0176o - 617 6.,,5-2(156 clearly state guidelines for management
.JW 73 Ptiblic Landi hutilute: 1657 PENMYLVANIA STREET - DENVER, CO. 80203 - 303 831-7101 of the sanctuary.
wa% Recycled Pap"

-2-

The sanctuary management program as explained in the
DEIS will endeavor to accommodate traditional uses of the
sanctuary lands including hunting, fishing, trapping and
other recreational and economic activities. It should be
made clear in the FEIS that when irreconcilable conflict
occurs between scientific and educational activities and 34-4 Please see General Response A
34-4 other uses, they will be resolved in favor of the scientific
and educational activities. This caveat is in accordance regarding multiple uses and non-
with the Entuarine Sanctuary Guidelinesi "All additional uses of compatible uses.
the sanctuary are clearly secondary_ to the primary purposes and
uses, which are long-term maintenance of the ecosystem for
scientific and educational uses. Noncompatible uses...
will be prohibited." (15 CFR S921.5)
Where access to sanctuary lands is improved or ex-
34-5 panded, the sanctuary manager should take special care to 34-5 This issue will be given due consid-
monitor the number of visitors and its effect on the sanc-
tuary. If increased use has detrimental impacts, steps eration during the,formulation of the
should be taken to regulate activities and, if necessary, management plan.
to limit the number of visitors to the sanctuary.

The DEIS states that the chairpeople of the three
34-6, local Sanctuary Advisory Committees will meet with the Steer- 34-6 DEC will prepare a schedule of meet-
ing Committee. NRDC believes that these meetings should be
made mandatory and regular. This goal can best be accom- ings after designation of the
plished by appointing the three local committee chairpeople sanctuary.
to the Steering Committee as voting members able to attend
and contribute to all meetings. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee, is
advisory only, and will represent local
NRDC appreciates this opportunity to comment on the government, user groups, conservation
34-7 DEIS and looks forward to the completion of the FEIS and the organizations, researchers, educators, 1-"
swift establishment of the Hudson River Sanctuary. sportsmen, funding organizations and 00
adjoining land owners. The purpose of CD
Sincerely, the Sanctuary Advisory Committee is to
achieve coordination among the public
and private groups participating in the
sanctuary program, and to assist and
Robert M. Klingon advise the Sanctuary Steering Committee.
RMK/tw
34-7 Comments accepted. No
response necessary.

Lower Hudson Chapter
of
The Nature Conservancy

David L. Weld RFD 2 Chestnut Ridge Road
Executive Director Mount Kisco, N.Y. 10549
Telephone (914) 666-5365
Board of Trustees
Chairm n
Mrs. Thomas Keesse
vice-chairman
Mr. Ronald R. Atkins June 15, 1982
Mu C. Waller Nichols III
Mrs. Thomas M. Waller
Trees rer Dr Richard Podgorny
Mr. Timothy M. Smith Sanctuary Project Manager
Secretary Office of Coastal Zone Management
Mr. Douglas F. Williamson. Jr. 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Mr. Robe" C. Beffelt Washington, DC 20235
M:. Jesse M. Bontecou
M . Leland S. Brown
Mrs. Francis H .Cabot Dear Dr Podgorny,
Mrs. Malcolm D. Clarke, Jr.
Mrs. Donald K. Clifford. Jr. I have just finished reading the DUS for the Hudson River
Mr. R. Eugene Curry
Mt. Peter J deVries Estuarine Sanctuary and find it to be a well thought out
Mr. John C. Homed and complete document.
Mrs. Hobart Lewis
Mrs. Mary Hope Lewis As The Nature Conservancy is an organization committed to
MI: G,.,e, O'Neill * the preservation of areas such as those mentioned in this
Mr . Frederick H. Osbom. Jr. 35-1 st -1
Mr Oakisigh 8. Theme udy, I, for one, certainly urge the granting of monies 35 Comments accepted. No response 00
Mrs. Rodman K. TK Jr. to help protect these unique-ecological areas before it is necessary.
Mr. Gary H. Toonniousen too late.
Mr. Edward Zimmerman
Slincerely

David L Weld
Executive Director
DLW/mm

cc : Joyce M T Wood

National Office, 1800 North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209

The Nature Conservancy
New York Field Office
36 West 44th Street, Room 307, New York, New York 10036
(212) 869-9532
1736 Western Avenue Alban9, New York 12203
(518) 869-6959

July 21, 1992

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

The DEIS for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuarv has been reviewed by
The Nature Conservancy's New York Field-Office and Eastern New York
Chapter. While we find the document to be very thorough, the following
could aid In its improvement.

With respect to the management summary, we feel that there should be
greater focus on the rare species that are listed in the ETS and we are
therefore making the following recommendations:
1. The Botany Office of the New York State Museum (NYSM) is
36-1 the state agencv best nualified to deal with rare plants. 36-1 The Botany Office of the New York
We, therefore, feel that thev should be represented on the State Museum was consulted during 00
Steering committee. the preparation of the DEIS.
Further interaction between the
2. While we agree that DEC is the obvious agency to be re- State Museum and the Sanctuary
sponsible for the sanctuary's management plan, and it is Steering Committee is appropriate,
36-2 qualified to deal with the management of the rare animals and the mechanism for this coopera-
listed in the ElS, It is our feeling that the management tion will be addressed in the
and research of the rare plants should be handled by the Sanctuary Management Plan.
NYSM. If they are given that responsibilltv they must, of
course, also be given the necessary funding to carry out
that mission. 36-2 Same response as 36-1.
3. While the advisory committee, which is made up of citizen 36-3 Each local subcommittee of the
36-3 groups, Is important for the entire program, biological Sanctuary Advisory Committee has
experts should be represented on this committee to advise a position for a representative of
on the subject of rare species. the scientific community (Scientific
Researcher, see p. 16 of the DEIS).
In terms of research needed, it is clear that the several listed rare Additional input from scientists is
36-4 plants need to be searched for nnd their locations determined before welcome.
any management plans can be formulated. This should be given priority
so that other plans will not adversely affect these rare species. 36-4 Comments accepted. The management
plan will be drafted in September
4641@ 1982, and refined afterwards.

Nation.il Office, 18M North Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209

Recydd P@r,,

36-4 Locating rare plants can be an
Dr. Richard Podgorny (cont.) extremely time-consuming task and
DEIS Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary Comments the management plan will have to be
July 21, 1992 flexible enough to accomodate addi-
Pape Two tional knowledge as this type of
field work is accomplished. Avail-
able information on known localities
of rare plants or animals will be
taken into consideration in the
management plan so that road and
Other comments: trail maintenance, boardwalk siting,
P. 21 - we would urge that no specimens of the rare plants and other activities can be kept out
36-5 listed here be collected without permission of the of these sensitive areas.
New York State Botanist. 36-5 The New York State Botanist will be
P. 31 - when discussing the terrestrial buffer zone and consulted concerning collections of
36-6 access at Stockport, the primary consideration should rare plants listed in Table 5, p. 50
be protection of rare species while also affording of the DEIS. Very little need, if any,
some protection for the main marsh and still allow- for collection of these species is
Ing access and a reasonable size management unit. anticipated in the Sanctuary Program.
P. 50 - Table 5. Plants of the Proposed Sanctuary Sites...
to provide more complete information, this table 36-6 Comments on buffer zone and
36-7 should include the dates of the most recent sitings access accepted.
of the rare plants. Since many of these records
are historical and have not been updated, the dis- 36-7 Additions, corrections, and
tinction of historical vs. current needs to be refinements to the DEIS plant
clearly defined. species lists are welcome. These
lists are intended to be sugges-
The overall impacts of designation will indeed be positive if the necessary tive and of course are not complete
36-8 precautions are taken to protect the rare species In the sanctuary. Em- because certain types of field work
phasis should be placed on the Plantago cordata because the locations remain to be done after sanctuary
of its populations are known. designation.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS. The Nature Conser- 36-8 Heartleaf plantain (Plantago
vancy stands rendv to assist the NvS Department of Environmental Con- cordata) will be considered in the
36-9 servation and the NYS Museum now and in the future. Moreover, we would management plan.
be delighted to serve as a representative on the Steering committee if
deemed necessary or appropriate.
36-9 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
Sincerely,

Beth Yanuck-Platt Anne E. Williams
Preserve Selection & Design Executive Director
New York Field Office Eastern New York Chapter

cc: Joyce M. T. Wood
Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation
Room 5813
U. S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

July 25, 1982

Mr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Podgornyo

I would like to take this opportunity to offer comment on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Hudson
River Estuarine Sanctuary Program.

Since Its creation in the early 70's, the Town of Red Hook
Environmental Conservation Commission has recognized that
the Tivoli Bays area is our town's most valuable natural
resource area. These freshwater tidal wetlands offer a
diversity of animal and plant life that makes the bays an 37-1 Comments accepted. No response
37-1 ideal place for hunting, trapping, fishing, birdwatching, necessary.
canoeing and hiking as well as for research and education.
Over the years, we have come to realize that this area Is
important on a state and federal level because of its unique
aualities. For almost a decade, we have supported state
acquisition of the Tivoli North Bay and we are pleased that
this acquisition has become a reality. Now, we would like
to support the federal interest in this area as it has been
expressed through the Estuarine Sanctuary Proposal from
the Commerce Department's Office of Coastal Zone Management.
The Tivoli Bays are certainly an appropriate sanctuary site.
This healthy estuarine system can provide an excellent set-
ting for the research and education that are such an integral 00
part of the Coastal Zone Management Program.

I would like to comment on a few aspects of the Draft statement.
First, the creation of a Sanctuary Advisory Committee is com-
mendable. Public participation in the management of this
sanctuary is essential, particularly in light of the numerous
i7-2 and diverse groqDs and individu ls that have an interest in ents accepted. This committee
this area. Our Commission haawd will continue to take the 37-2 Comm
position that people from the local area who are most familiar will be valuable in providing
with this site can offer valuable insight into its management. recommendations to DEC and the
Every attempt should be made to make this advisory group a Sanctuary Steering Committee for
viable, active group--not just a committee that exists on resolution of conflicts in the uso
paper to fulfill public participation guidelines. of the proposed sanctuary.
We have noted that the Draft Statement emphasizes that traditional
uses of the area will not be changed to the extent that they
are compatible with the sanctuary's goals of research and edu- 37-3 Comments accepted. There will be
cation. While this proposal deserves merit, we feel that the many opportunities to reduce potential
37-3 potential for conflict among users is quite strong. We hope conflicts through the scheduling of
that in formulating the management plan for the sanctuary, the research and education activities,
Department of Environmental Conservation will address this issue through good public relations and
by striving to minimize potential conflicts while insuring that public participation in the research
no one Individual's or group's use of the area will be unduly program, through the design and loca-
restricted. This Is no easy taskl It will require some very tion of trails, roads, parking lots,
creative management techniques. If the Department can success- the boardwalk at Tivoli, placement of
scientific equipment, management Of

-2- 37-3 vegetation, and other aspects of the
(cont.) operation of the proposed sanctuary.
It Is anticipated that the Advisory
fully address this problem. then the management plan has the Committee through its knowledge of the
potential for enhancing rather than impeding the use of the sites and the local user groups will
property by all interested groups and Individuals. be extremely helpful in the design of
sanctuary programs. Furthermore, the
One particularly appealing aspect of the proposal is that It committee will also have an opportunity
will increase public access to the Hudson River. In recent to assist in assessing research and
years, access to the river has declined significantly. With- education needs, and to assist in
37-4 out sufficient points of access, the river is no longer a obtaining funds for research and educa-
resource that belongs to the people. In view of the possi- tion projects. Creative management
bility,that ConRail will close off railroad service roads is indeed necessary, and welcome. The
to the public, the question of access becomes even more press- Advisory Committee will help in meeting
ing. The increased access proposed in this plan would be the challenges of environmental problems,
an important advantage for all users. protection of resources, public relations
The designation of the Tivoli Bays area as an estuarine sanc- and communications, and funding.
tuary will clearly have a positive environmental impact on 37-4 Comments accepted. Concerning the
this site. Much needed funds will be provided for management
and facilities development. Research andeducational use of railroad service roads and access
the site will be greatly expanded and coordinated while tra- points at Tivoli, DEC has been
ditional uses continue. Finally, an additional level of pro- informed by Consolidated Rail
tection would be provided for the area. There may be times Corporation that the railroad
37-5 1 suspect when those of us who have known this property so well service roads will be closed off
for so long will wish we had kept it to ourselves. Yet, the to vehicle access in the near future,
unique sense of place that makes us care so deeply for this but no date was provided. This closure
area is something that should be enjoyed by as many people as will enhance DEC% capability to regu-
t
ossible in as many ways as possible without diminishing the late use of the state lands when such
ntegrity of the property. Thoughtful, intelligent management regulation is needed. The closure also
with meaningful citizen participation can help to insure this. necessitates providing alternative access
points for public use of the North Bay
Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments. If I may marsh for research, hunting, fishing, and
be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. other forms of recreation. The location
of these alternative access points has
not been definitely decided yet, but the 00
Sincerely, access roads will follow existing old
roads or trails to points in the marsh
0 WLJ@k r-A or shallows formerly used for boat access.
The development will be limited to dirt-
Connie Bard Fowls ramp, hand-carry launching of canoes,
Red Hook Conservation Commission duck-boats, and similar sized craft.
42 Prince Street Users of these landings will be able to
Red Hook, NY 12571 drive their vehicles to, or close to the
landings, put their boat in, take their
vehicle to parking lots at locations away
from the edges of the wetlands where
esthetic disturbance from vehicles is
minimal. The potential impact on private
adjoining landowners is under considera-
tion,in the siting of these access
facilities. The use of cars or trucks
will be restricted to the access roads and
parking areas.

37-5 Commnets accepted. No response necessary.

CZM
RECD ROckland Audubon Society, Inc.

1982 AUG-2 an 101 PO Box 404 New City N.Y. 10956
Organized 1947
MAIL ROOM A chapter of National Audubon Society. Inc.

July 30, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, n.w.
Washington, D.C. 20235

REE Deis HUdson RIver
Estuarine Sanctuary

Dear Mr. Podgorny:

38-1 As affirmed by several Rockland Audubon Society (RAS)
members at the two public information meetings held in 1981 at
Lamont Doherty (rs Piermont Marsh) and at Stony Point Battlefield
Runoun (re Iona Island), RAS gives its full support to inclusion
of Iona Island and piermont Harsh in the National Estuarine
Sanctuary System. We particularly endorse the use of those two
areas for research and education, and hope that any use to which
they will be put will be of a "passive" nature and will not
affect fragile ecosystems existing at either location. of spec-
ial concern are such varieties as the prickley pear on Iona (to
which I'll refer later in this letter) which may suffer under
the feet and acquiaitive hands of human invaders. Hopefully,
38-2 such flora and fauna can be adequately protected, We are pleased
that hunting and trapping will not be permitted at either loca-
tion. as current protection of the pallisades interstate park
commission mandates.

RAS has long experience with these two areas and has
conducted numerous field trips, both bird and botanical, to both
over the 35 years that we've been in existence.

38-3 As stated on previous occasions, our resource people
are available, perhaps through the proposed Sanctuary Advisory
committee, so that their expertise and long experience with
Iona and piermont may be tapped. Robert Deed's extensive re-
cords were used in preperation of your DEIS of June 1982, and
we would certainly propose his name for memebership in the advis-
ory Committee, as well as the names of Wesley Hennesey and Peter
Derven.

We have a few small additions we would like to make for
your final EIS:
(1) The name of RObert Nyack ny should be added to "indivi-
duals who provided information", pp. 88-89
(2) Robert Deed's extensive work Birds of Rockland
38-4 County N.Y. and the Hudson Highlands 1844-1976, 220 pp.
should be listed so that people know of its existence. It
is available in all Rockland public libraries, at Trailside

38-1 comments accepted. No response
necessary.

38-2 Please see General Responses a
and B.

38-3 Comments accepted, nonimations
for this committee should be
sent to Mr. Edward Radle.
NYS DEC, 50 Wolf ROad, Albany,
NY 12233

38-4 These have been included in this
FEIS.

Rockland Audubon Society on Iona and Piermont -2-

Nature Museum, the State Museum in Albany, and the Museum of
Natural History in New York City.
(3) One plant species seems to be missinR from your listina
for Iona Islandi Prickly Pear Cactus (Opuntia humifusa) is rather
38-5 abundant atop a southeastern slope. For future use, a book was 38-5 Comments accepted. NOAA would
written which we are trying to track downi Plants (or Flora?) appreciate this information.
of Iona Island, by a Harry Layre (name 7pelling uncertain). If
you wish. we shall let you know further when we locate it. Let
us know.

(4) 1 see from the list of agencies, groups, etc. that re-
ceived copies of the DEIS, Rockland Audubon is listed. We did
not receive a copy at our mailing address, though three of our
38-6 Individual members did. May we receive a copy of the final EIS 38-6 The address on your letterhead
when it is completed, plus any other relevant information on has been added to our FEIS mailing
this project, at the address on our letterhead? list.
(5) 1 see also that another Rockland organization with long
experience In conservation was inadvertently omitted, perhaps
they have so notified yout the Rockland County Conservation
38-7 Association. Several of their mambers have been present at your 38-7 Three members of the Rockland
hearings and meetings on this subject. County Conservation Association
attended the public hearings,
We are delighted that these valuable areas have been desig- according to our records. Those
38-8 nated for protection and certainly hops that all will go as persons will receive copies of
planned. the FE15.

38-8 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
Sincerely,
co

Sudith Kessler
President

SCENIC
HUDSON inc
9 vASSAR STREET. POUGHKEEPSIE NY-12601 (914)473-4440
July 1, 1982
Officers and Directors
Chariman
Mrs. Willis Reese

President
Kenneth R. Toole

Vice-President
Stephen T. Lindo

Treasurer
Richard D. derham

Secretary
Ross Sandler

REcording Secretary
Mrs. Alexander Saunders

Assistant Secretary
Albert K. Butzel

Jane Burdick
Nash Castro
Stephen P. Duggan
Mrs. Stephen Duggan
Mrs. R. Dana Gibson
George W. Gowen
Mrs. E. Cuyler Hammond
Charles T. Keppel
Mrs. Judith Kessler
Charles Kommanoff
Angela Magill
W. Barnabas Mchenry
CHarles P. Noyes. 111
Frederick H. Osborn, jr.
R. J. Piermont
Richard H. Pough
Mrs, Emerson Pugh
Laurance Rockefeller
Mrs. James j. Rorimer
Chauncey Stillman
Esty Stowell
William Taggart
William H. Whyte

Honorary Directors
Robert H Bovie
John French, 111
Benjamin w. Frazier
David Sive
Rod Vandivert

EXECUTIVE Director
Klara B. Sauer

Dr. Richard J. Prodgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
White Haven Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

RE: Hudson RIver Estuarine Sanctuary

39-1 I am writing on behalf of Scenic Hudson and its 12,000
members to express our strong and unequivocal support for
the funding proposal for the Hudson River National Estuarine
Sanctuary.

Scenic Hudson has been concerned about the future and
long-term management arrangements for these marshes for
over five years. What makes the above captioned proposal
unique is the diversity of the marshes in question and the
opportunity which the grant would offer for developing
Creative approaches towards the varied uses of these lovely
natural areas. There is also much renewed interest in
39-2 the Hudson River both locally and nationally. The proposed
study woudl thus constitute of fine and much needed com-
plementary effort to others being carried out.

39-3 As you can see, Scenic Hudson is very strongly in
favor of the program and we hope that you will be able
to approve the grant request.

39-1 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

39-2 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

39-3 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

Sincerely,

Klara B. Sauer
Executive Director

188

SCENIC
HUDSONINC
9 VASSAR STREET - POUGHKEEPSIE NY- 12601 19141473-4440

Offirers and Dircciors Scenic Hudson supports establishment of the Estuarine Sanctuary
Chainnan 40-1, Program for the Tivoli Bay area as one of the fou/most natural 40-1 Comments accepted. No response
Mrs. Willi, R... areas of the highest quality tidal wetland complexes in the necessary.
President Hudson River Valley.
Kenneth R. Toole The Hudson River marshes are an extremely important resource 40-2 Comments accepted. One of the
Vice-President serving as a natural control against which changes in other
Stephen T, Linda 40 - 2 most important roles of the proposed
estuaiies can be measured, and aiding in evaluation of the Estuarine Sanctuary is to serve
Treasurer impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems.
Richard D. deRhom as a scientific "control area"
against which changes in other areas
Secretary In reviewing the draft EIS we would like to state that we feel may be measured. The advantages of
A an Sandie, the research liteeportion of the proposed study is of particular permanent protection for the proposed
Recording Secretary 40-3 importance. it would help to coordinate and unify Hudson River sanctuary sites include comparisons
Mrs. Alexander Satmders research as well as share information with all levels of govern- with areas subject to greater stresses
Assistant Secretary ment and the private sector with a goal toward wise resource from human modification, and the poten-
Albert K. Butzel management. tial for scientists to establish long-
J-8-dick term monitoring and research projects
Nash Ca tro We would suggest that as little woodcutting as possible be done with the knowledge that their study
Stephen P. Duggars within the Tivoli Bay site. areas will not be turned into parking
Mrs. Stephen Duggan
Mrs. R. Dime G lb,.n
W. Go-. lots or spoil disposal areas in 10 or
Mrs. E. C.yla, Hammond 40-4 It is valuable to research to have existing forest areas re- 20 years. Clearly, these assurances
Charles T. Keppel main to provide comparisons for harvested forest areas.
Mrs. Judith Kessler of permanency also benefit other users
Chad,., K.m-.ff of the sites - particularly the sports-
Anqpda Magill Designation of the sanctuary and acquisition of lands would 00
W. Barnabas McHenry men. Pollution and other changes in
Ch.d,,,, P. Noyes, 111 40-5 provide additional public access to the riverfront for re- habitats are damaging to sportsmen and
Frederick H, Osborn, Jr. creation and enjoyment. scientists alike. The four propdsed
R_ J. Piemont
Richard H. Pough sanctuary sites have withstood the
Mo. E..,,- Push The one@@ that appears to remain constant throughe the report
Laurence Rockefeller stresses of 20th century culture and
Mrs. J. ., J. R.6m., is that the greatest benefit of this sanctuary would be the remain in good condition to support
Esity St=l) long-term protection of the natural resources of the tidal wet-
William Taggart natural vegetation and wildlife, for
William H. Whyte lands; an area for people to use for aesthetic and recreational study and for use.
11onoraFy Directors enjoyment as well as for scientific and educational purposes.
Robert H. Boyle
Job French, 111 It is a pleasure to be supportive of a proposal where state
gann 40-3 Comments accepted. Estuarine Sanctuary
jaminW.Frazier agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation research would address problems of
DaOdShn,. 40-6 the Office of Parks and Recreation and the landowners have been practical importance in coastal manage-
Chauncey Stillman
Rod V-di-t able to achieve an agreement/and have so stateythat no sig- ment. For example, how can It weeds" that
Execotive Director nificant change in land use will occur. compete with native plants and animals be
Kla,a B. Saue, reduced in abundance without injuring other
kinds of life? How fast do Hudson River
shorelines erode, and what contribution do
vessel wakes make to this erosion? Could
natural or artificial marshes help to slow
shoreline erosion? How can dredge spoil
be disposed of without damaging habitats?
What effects do human activities have upon
populations of fish and wildlife, and how
can fish and wildlife resources be main-
tained and harvested in the face of
increasing human impact upon estuaries?

40-3 What has caused the ups and downs
(cont.) in wild-rice in the Hudson over the
last two decades? How can this
valuable wildlife food plant be
encouraged? How do tidal wetlands
affect water quality in the estuary,
and can this function be modified
Where there has been hunting and fishing, hunting and fishing will continue. to advantage in maintaining high
quality? What techniques can be used
American sportsmen have always been some of our best conservationists. Here is for wetland research with minimal
40-7 an opportunity to expand research network to those who routinely observe damage to the wetlands themselves?
the lands. What role does land vegetation play
The beauty of a program such as this is that it is an opportunity for preser- r in protecting water quality and wild-
, 1,@ va@ life of the estuary? The answers to
40-8 vationists, conservationists and sportsmen to join together to save the land these questions, as they become avail-
r fight the common enemy of pollutants and development of able, will be extremely useful in
'@a&t "area so beneficial to all of mankind. planning use and development of the
Hudson River Estuary and other estuaries
and wetlands.
r c WC be Y- 40-4 An unharvested forest buffer zone at
;t/ the Tivoli Bays site would make this
area more useful for study of the
effects of timber and fuelwood harvest
upon forests and wetlands elsewhere in
the Hudson Valley. There is no lowland
riverside forest protected specitically
for research anywhere on the Hudson
River Estuary. The forest is also
important as a buffer for the wetlands
and shallows, by slowing the movement
of water, nutrients, and soil material
down the slopes and into the waters.
That is why sites were chosen for the
proposed sanctuary that are bordered by
forests. C:)

40-5 Comments accepted. Public access to the
riverfront is very limited along the
Hudson. The proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
would help to protect existing access,
and would in some cases improve access or
create new or better access points.

40-6 Comments accepted. No response necessary.

40-7 Comments accepted. Sportsmen and
non-sportsmen have worked together,
for example, to facilitate the DEC's
acquisition of lands at Tivoli. The
Estuarine Sanctuary would provide a
forum for sportsmen and non-sportsmen
to work together in education and
research projects that would improve
our understanding and ability to
manage the Hudson River Estuary for
all citizens.

40-8 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

SCENIC
HUDSON inc
9 VASSAR STREET. POUGHKEEPSIE,NY 12601 (914)473-4440

July 21, 1982

Officers and DIrectors

Chariman
Mrs. Willis Reese

President
Kenneth R. Toole

Vice-President
Stephen T. Lindo

Treasurer
Richard D. __rham

Secretary
Ross Sandler

Recording Secretary
Mrs. Alexander Saunders

Assistant Secretary
Albert K Butzel

Jane Burdick
Nash Castro
Stephen P. Duggan
Mrs. Stephen Duggan
Mrs. R. Dana Gibson
George W. Gowen
Mrs. E. Cuyler Hammond
Charles T. Keppel
Mrs. Judith Kessler
Charles Komanoff
Angela Magill
W. Barnabas Mchenry
Charles P. NOves III
Frederick H. Osborn, Jr.
R.J. Pierpont
richard H. Pough
Mrs. Emerson Pugh
Laurance rockefeller
Mrs. James J rorimer
Esry Stowell
William Taggars
William H. Whyte

Honorary Directors
RObert H. Boyle
John French, III
Benjamin W. Frazier
David Sive
Chauncey Stillman
Rod Vandiver

EXecutive Director
Klara B. Sauer

HUDSON RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY AT STOCKPORT FLATS
Comments

Scenic Hudson is a non-profit environmental organization
with a membership of 12,000 concerned with the development
and enhancement of the HUdson River Valley, its river and
the shorelands.

We support the establishment of the Estuarine Sanc-
tuary Program and the inclusion of the stockport Flats as
one of four of the most healthy, productive, unspoiled es-
41-1 tuarine areas within the Hudson River Valley. It is an
area against which changes in other estuaries can be
measured and aides in eveluation of impacts of human ac-
tivities on estuarine ecosystems.

Throughout the report the purpose of the program is
restated again and again: To manage and to maintain the
Stockport FLats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh and Pier-
41-2 mont Marsh areas as they are now and to encourage research
and public education on the little-studied tidal river
wetlands and to continue existing uses of the sites, in-
cluding the continuation of hunting, fishing and trapping
where hunting, fishing and trapping is presently permitted.

Much concern has been expressed over the use of the
41-3 word "sanctuary" as part of the title for this program.

The dictionary defines sanctuary as a holy place,
one of refuge or protection.

Some have interpreted this to mean exclusion.
clusion of the hunter yet to students and general
public word "sanctuary" could mean that an area so desig-
nated is very special. There is a reason for its pro-
tection.

41-1 Comments accepted. Please see
response 40-2.

41-2 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

41-3 Please see General Response A
regarding use of the word "sanctuary".

To the ______ it should _______ prevention _______
indanger land and with it the natural ________ of the land.

The majority of American sportsmen hve been know to be some of our
best conservationists.

Every hunter knows that the reason for licensing and rules of law and
order regarding numbers of kill and seasons for hunting is to insure that
the sport will remain.

With the numbers of human beings inhabiting the earth constantly in-
creasing and with it the need for space to live on, some of the land we
must keep. It is not our right to use it all. We must provide for our
Children and our choldrens children.

Therefore, all must abide by the law so we support the ______ of __ development of families
________ public _______ to the Stockport governing that the land may
survive.

The Deis management plan calls for full consultation of the Sanctuary
steering committee, the land owning agencies, the Sanctuary Advisory Com-
mittee and the public.
41-4 We support this concept to the fullest. It behoves us all to continue
to participate as a part of the democratic process.

41-5 The beauty of a program such as this is that it is an apportunity
for preservatioinists, conservationists and sportsmen to join together to
save the land for futre generations. It is a sharing of values which
permits us to fight the common enemy of pollutants/ and development of
an area so beneficial to all of mankind.

41-4 Comments accepted. NO response
necessary.

41-5 COmments accepted. No response
necessary.

Patricia w w___

Community Dir

192

SIERRACLUB ATLANTICCHAPTER

198 Morton Avenue Albany, Now York 12202 (518) 482-9812

July 21, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
US Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven St., NW
Washington, DC 20235

Re: Proposed Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

We have reviewed the proposal and draft environmental impact statement
42-1 for a Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary. We strongly support the 42-1 Comments accepted. No response
program and hope it will be approved and implemented as soon as possible. necessary.

The Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club together with its local groups,
especially the Mid-Hudson Group based in Poughkeepsie, is interested in be-
42-2 coming involved as you develop a more detailed managemnt plan and program- 42-2 Comments accepted. NOAA and
ming for the area. For instance, our Inner-City Outings Program might be DEC encourage your participation.
willing to bring city children and young adults to the area for environment-
al education programs.

With the successful implementation of this program we hope you will once
again turn attention to the proposed sanctuary at Peconic Bay on Eastern Wng
42-3 Island. 7his special habitat and uniquely preserved area deserves formal 42-3 Please see responses 5-1 and 5-11.
designation and protection as a scientific study area and educational preserve.

Sincerely,

Samuel H. Sage
Executive Director

SHS:CD
cc: Senator Moynihan
Senator D'Arnato
Congressman Fish
Congressman Soloman
Congressman Gilman
Commissioner Flacke
Secretary Patterson
Assemblyman Hinchey
Senator Dunne

SIERRA CLUB

MID-HUDSON GROUP - ATLANTIC CHAPTER
BOX 1012 POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12602

July 3, 1982

Dr. Rick Podgorny
Sanctuary Projects Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

SUBJECTB Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

The Executive Committee of the Mid-hudson Grou
of the Sierra Club has reviewed the Draft EnvirorunenM
Impact Statement for the proposed Hudson River National
Estuarine Sanctuary that your office forwarded to us.

We heartily endorse the concept of the Sanctuary
as outlined in the DEIS and are especially enthusiastic
about the emphasis that will be placed on improved co-
43-1 ordination among estuarine educational efforts within 43-1 Comments accepted. No response
the valley. The Sierra Club has long been involved in necessary.
public education to the values of environmental resources
and we look forward to participating in this regard.
110
Sincerely. 4:@b

Paul Lowy.' Chairman
Mid-Hudson Group
Atlantic Chapter
piijlk Sierra Club

cot Ms. Joyce Wood
Nat.Oc. & At.Ad.

To explore, enjoy, and protect the natural scene

JoHN P. O'NcILL
4 PLATT STREET
POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK 12601

July 29, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
RE: Proposed ESTUARINE SANCTUARY AWARD
For A HUDSON RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
Dear Dr. Podgorny:
in accordance with the notification letter of June 10, 1982
from Joyce M. T. Wood and verbal instructions received at the
Public Hearing in Red Hook, N. Y. on July 20, 1982 concerning
the above, I am sending this letter to reach you by Aug. 2, 1982.
As Legislative Chairman of the Mid-Hudson Chapter of Trout Un-
limited, I attended the above Public Hearing and have reported
back to the Chapter officers. Because of the vagueness of the
44-1 Draft nvironmental Impact Statement, and the lack of time to 44-1 The DEIS clearly states the
have 4full membership meeting, it is felt that no position on proposed action.
the Statement can be taken at this time.
It is the general consensus of those of us that have discussed 44-2 As early as December 1979, a
the matter that, as an organization interested in improving the public meeting regarding site
environmenrlwe would support estuarine areas on the Hudson to be selection was held in New Paltz,
used for long term scientific studies for developing programs NY. In the summer of 1981, DEC
for better use and management of the Hudson and the coastal areas held a series of four public
44-2 which it affects. Unfortunately, we have not had sufficient no-
information workshops near each LTi
tice to investigate the matter. In addition, like many of the site. These workshops were both
Sportsmen organizations who spoke at the Public Hearings, we are announced and reported on in local
44-3 concerned with the word "Sanctuary". You stated that there is a
-583. Unfortunately, we have there have been several news
definition of the word in P.L.92 newspapers. Since January 1982
not been able to find that definition. It most certainly must stories about the sanctuary pro-
be made clear what is meant by the word in the Final Impact posal in the Poughkeepsie Journal
Statement, in such a way that it is binding on the authorities and other Hudson Valley newspapers.
who will be managing these areas. If the word is merely an ex-
cuse to prohibit Hunting and Fishing in these areas, our organ- Twoledgral Register Notices, in
zation would have to be opposed to it. March and Ju-ne 198-T, announced the
There is also a general agreement that these areass4ould really project
be used for worthwhile scientific projects to increase our know-
ledge of the Hudson and the fish and animals which inhabit it and Approximately 800 DEIS's were dis-
its shores. There have been so many projects voted in the last tributed to local and national interest
thirty years that have turned into useless "boondoggles" it has groups, most to groups and individuals
made many true conservationist organizations wary. in the Hudson Valley. Like all inter-
44-4 Aside from the above observations, our chapter feels it can take ested parties, Trant Unlimited was sent
no more decisive stand until more information is made available. a copy of the DEIS in the third week of
May (see p. 94 of the DEIS) to
Ed Ostapczuk, Shokan, NY 12481.
Very tr@@ Qurs,1_1
NOAA feels that every reasonable effort
was made to notify interested persons, in
John F. O'Neill a timely manner, of the project. Your
Legislative Chairman name has been added to our mailing list.
Mid-Hudson Trout Unlimited

44-2 During an informal question and answer
(cont.) session following the public hearing,
you were given the following reponse
(as transcribed from the hearing's tape
recording):

"You're concern about the word sanctuary
is shared by many across the country.
People don't like the word. We, at the
office, also anticipate from past
experience, that people, as you say,
go to the dictionary and quote us Webster.
Clearly, the definition of the word sanc-
tuary, as defined by the Congressional Act,
is different than the one that is in the
dictionary. Basically, o 'n the establish-
ment of the Hudson sanctuaries sites is
outdoor field laboratories and their com-
patible uses, I think the DEIS states time
and again the words "compatible uses",
specifically hunting, specifically fishing,
specifically trapping. I know we could go
so far to say that this would not be called
a "sanctuary". Its a Congressional Act.
That's the language the Congress choose to
have it called."

44-3 Please see General Response A regarding
the use of the word "sanctuary"

44-4 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
k.0

197

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

4. RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS

A College of the Liberal Arts and Sciences Office of the Executive Vice President

July 19, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Products Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

I am writing in support of the application of the State
of New York and the U.S. Department of Commerce for an co
Estuarinb Sanctuary grant as expressed in the draft 45-1 Coments accepted. No response
E.I.S. issued in June, 1982. The College, which borders necessary.
on the Tivoli Bays, is solidly supportive of this proposal
and urges its implementation. The proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary will provide enhanced opportunity for educa-
tional activities, protection of vitally important tidal
wetlands, and needed recreation for this region. We have
full confidence in the wisdom of this proposal, as
expressed in the draft E.I.S. and we therefore recommend
its approval.

Sincerely,

Dimitri B. Papadimitriou
wq@]D

Executive Vice President

DBP/sh

0oherty Gcological Observatorv I At 1i -f N. 1'. 109 V I
-1111nhia Univr-rsiq

July 6, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

I am writing regarding the proposed Hudson River National Estuarine
46-1 Sanctuary. The Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory is a large,
not-for-profit- research institute devoted to the marine and 46-1 Comments accepted. No
earth sciences. We support the formation of the HRNES. response necessary.

However, we make infrequent use of the docking facilities at
the end of the Erie Pier when our research ship the R/V` Conrad
returns to port. Through an arrangement with the Town of Piermont, 46-2 The Erie Pier is owned by
46-2 we have been granted free use of the dock, which was constructed the Village of Piermont and
by us some years ago. It is the only accessible pier within by the industries located
reasonable distance of the Observatory, which is located as at the base of the pier.
shown in Figure 9, p.39 in the text of the draft environmental The docking facilities used
statement. by Lamont-Doherty are on the
Village Parcel. Your
The Observatory wishes to retain use of the Erie Pier access and institution's desire for
dock facilities. We have no objection to use of the dock facility continued unobstructed use
by vessels conducting research under HRNES, provided there is no of these facilities will be
interference with our normal usage. addressed in the sanctuary
management plan. Scientists
Yours sincerely, at Lamont-Doherty are
encouraged to become involved
in research in the proposed
C&"a* sanctuary, as appropriate.
Barry Raleigh
Director

CC: Mr. Landriau

QUEENS COLLEGE
of the city university of new york
flushing New York 11367

DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND TELEPHONE 212-520-7267
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
23 JUNE 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

I have several comments conerning the proposed Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary as expressed in the Draft Environmental Impact
statement.

Page 29 of the statement notes that the splendid Constitution
Inland Marsh be dropped from consideration bacause "of a localized
polution problem". As a matter of fact, the problem in confined
to Factory Cove north of the Marsh. The marsh itself is in rather
good shape and may, in fact, be the most representative (and breath-
taking beutiful) marsh on the estuary. I deplore its oumision.

47-1 The con Hook marsh is an unusual anomoly and , I believe, also
belongs in the Estuarine Sanctuary. The island itself appears
to possess interesting archacology.

47-2 Otherwise, my compliments to the comilers of this statement.
THe did a fine job.

47-1 Although most of the cadnium
contamination at constitution
Island is in Foundry Cove
(the north end of the site),
cadmium has moved southward
well into the central marsh.
Con Hook marsh was also considered
during th site selection
process, but was not included
in the current proposal because
of its small size. Both these
areas, and many other Hudson
ares, and many other Hudson
River estuary sites, deserve
permanent protection and
research. Under the proposed
Estuarine Sanctuary Program,
research and public education
can be encouraged at non-
sanctuary sites along with
the primary focus on the four
proposed sites. The four
sitets proposed are represent-
ative of the estuary, do not
duplicate one another, and
comprise a manageable and
valuable complex for expanded
research and education efforts.
This does not diminish the
importance of the Hudson's
other wetlands.

Also, please see response
20-3.
47-2 Comments accepted. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Walter S. Herman
Professor

CC. Joyce M. W. Wood, director
office fo Ecology and conservation
KOAA
Washington, U.S. 20230

200

16 July 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
US Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

Ile have been asked to comment on the Draft Environmental
for the proposed Hudson River Estuarine
Impact Statement
Sanctuary. While we certainly support the concept of such
a program for this area, the document evidences that little
has been accomplished in defining the management,
education, and research plans that would make the sanctuary
a living, breathing entity. The expected paucity of funds
to support development of new educational and research
programs for the Sanctuary requires that these programs
rely on creative collaboration with existing programs of
similar types, using the several marshes as field sites. A
C)
management plan should spell out these collaborative
arrangements. 48-1 Management, research and educa-
48-1 tion programs will be defined
I understood the preparation of management, research and
education plans to be among the purposes of the pre- in the sanctuary management
acquisition grant. Without these, the proposed sanctuary plan, to be drafted in fall
remains a concept--which is what is presented in this DEIS. 1982. The proposed sanctuary
1 suggest that the Steering Committee develop such plans in program would emphasize the
the FEIS. kind of creative collaboration
with existing and other new
I would be happy to elaborate on these thoughts if you so programs that you mention,
desire. and this will indeed be
addressed in the management
plan. Preparation of drafts
of all of these plans (collec-
Sincerely, tively considered as the
sanctuary management plan)
is part of the Pre-Acquisition
planning, and it is underway.
William M. Wise
Assistant Director for Programs

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
A private uniTaity n hc blh@ servioe
_L_L___Eu _ _
Institute of Environmental Medicine
550 FIRST AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016
AREA2iz34o 7300 ext 885-5231 or 914-351-5355

ANTHONY 1. LANZA RESEARCH LABORATORIES AT UNIVERSITY VALLEY
LONG MEADOW ROAD, STERLING FOREST, TUXEDO, N.V. 10907
MAIL AND TELEPHONE ADDRESS: $50 FIRST AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.V. 1W16

49-1 Comments accepted. No
June 23, 1982 response necessary.

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager 49-2 The four sites selected were
Office of Coastal Zone Management judged as having the best
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. overall environmental quality
Washington, D.C. 20235 of large marshes on the Hudson
River Estuary, taking into
Dear Dr. Podgorny: account a number of criteria
including the lack of any
I wish to thank you for the copy of the Draft Environmental Impact known local contamination
Statement on the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. This letter contains problems. It is true that
my comments in regard to the statement and the Grant Proposal. the entire estuary has environ-
mental contamination from PCB
'The concept and plan for this sanctuary are excellent. As noted in and other substances. But
49-1 the draft, a number of organizations have been doing research on the river this is also true of all of
over the years, but no stable base or overall plan has existed to focus these the larger estuaries on the
efforts. I believe the sanctuary program should resolve that question, and Atlantic Coast's Virginian
it has my full support.
Biogeographic Region, although C=)
the specific pollutants vary
There are a few points in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement from estuary to estuary,. No
which are potentially misleading. In selecting the sites for the really unpolluted baseline
sanctuary, locations with known local pollution problems were ruled out, exists in these types of
49-2 e.g., the Constitution Island march. The selected sites have then been ecosystems. The best that
designated as unspoiled, and are proposed as sites for "baseline" studies. is available is the areas that
It must be noted that the entire estuary has been exposed to a number of are relatively unspoiled,
contaminants and all sediments are at a "baseline" of current contamination. such as the high-quality natural
None of the areas chosen can be expecteA to be free of hydrocarbons, PCBs areas at Stockport, Tivoli,
of toxic elements. For this reason the baseline studies will be done on Iona and Piemont. It is
more or less contaminated sites which are not truly "unspoiled" or pristine. necessary to use areas like
It is true that changes can be observed versus time, but these may be this for comparison with other
improvements as contamination decreases. sites - in the Hudson River
Estuary and in other estuaries
This aspect of the statement and the proposal would have been clearer that have been relatively more
if the scientific literature on the river were fully covered and less of the modified by human activities.
49-3 gray literature was used. No data is given covering sediment studies in the
estuary and particularly at the sites selected. It would be difficult to 49-3 Data from sediment studies
study ecological effects of contamination if the areas were truly unspoiled. at the proposed sites and
It would be helpful to have some published data rather than anecdotal at other Hudson River sites
information on this aspect of the proposal. will be discussed in the
sanctuary management plan.
Past experience has shown that access can be obtained for research
49-4 and/or recreational uses at many locations along the estuary. Some of the 49-4 Comments accepted. No
proposed studies will require continued access to locations outside of the response necessary.
SESQUI! sanctuary sites. This should not be a problem.
L-ENTEN
NK!
ME

Page 2
Dr. Richard Podgorny (continued) 6/23/82

However, the concept of multiple uses has a serious impact on 49-5 It is expected with cooperation
research studies. Our past experience indicates that field sites, from sportsmen and other users
49-5 equipment and implanted organisms are subjected to vandalism if the of the proposed sanctuary
public has access to research areas. Successful completion of research sites that potential theft
in such a case is extremely difficult and in some cases impossible. I and vandalism problems with
believe that some arrangement is necessary and should be possible to research equipment and materials
prevent this problem in the controlled sanctuary sites. will be reduced as the sanctuary
sites become established as
49-6 1 believe the locations chosen are excellent and will encourage research areas. Improved
cooperation of the various research groups in future efforts. communication with the general
public, and the use of students
and local residents as assistants
;er and guides in certain types
yours of research, should help improve
public relations. There is
a need to study the impacts
Theo. J. K Ph.D. tl of uses of these sites (for
Deputy Dir example, hunting, trapping,
Laboratory for Environmental Studies educational activities) upon
the sediments, plants and animals
TJK/emcc of the tidal wetlands, and such
studies could not be done CD
cc: Joyce M. T. Wood if the public were excluded
from the sites. It is not
the presence of the general
public per se, but the quality
of public relations and the
sense of stewardship of the
users that influence the safety
of research equipment and
materials.

49-6 Comments accepted.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

5. FISH AND GAME CLUBS

i101 G
A,@,'.&- a/ _q-lek,,

July 29, 1982 50-1 Comments accepted. No
response necessary.
Dr. Richard Podgorny 50-2 DEC is preparing a management
Sanctuary Project Manager plan specifically for the
Tivoli site which provides
Office of Coastal Zone Management for hunting of waterfowl and
33 00 Whitehaven Street, N. W. upland game, fur trapping,
Was !h. D. C. 20235 fishing, bird watching and other
forms of nature study, education
Dear Sir: and research, and other activities.
While the Estuarine Sanctuary
We, the six thousand members of the Federation of Dutchess County Fish & Game program emphasizes research
50-1 Clubs, Inc., do hereby take exception and a position of non-support to the Environmental and education, the size and
diversity of habitats at the
Impact Report on Tivoli Bay as presented. Tivoli site allows opportunities
for a mixture of many kinds
C. While we favor Lnd are in support ol the protecti,on ()f die environment and the of uses with relatively little
estuary, the lack of priority for multiple use is our major coneern. We feel the opportunity for conflicts. The
50-2 sportsmen were instrumental in the drive to purchase the Tivoli Bay area. Therefore management plan will address
our assessment is that the sportsmen are the potential losers in the Plan as presented. areas of potential conflict
and incorporate regulations
designed to reduce these conflicts.
We feel that Hunting, Fishing, Trapping and Bird-Watching should have the prime This applies to the reduction N)
50-3 priority. and that Research and Education be implemented only if it did not impact of interference to consumptive C)
the previously mentioned activities. uses as well as the reduction
of interference to research.
We feel that the matching grants by the Federal Government are insignificant to the 50-3 Please see General Response A
50-4 overall purchase price and that the potential loss of multiple use too dear a price for regarding multiple use, and the
the implitnentation of this program.
primary purpose of the sanctuary.
Respectfully yours 50-4 The acquisition of land from
Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation by DEC in 1981
ANTI1 SIKORSIC cost $750,000, of which 50%
President was Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund money and
50% was New York State Environ-
ex: Ji)yce M. T. Wot)d mental Quality Bond Act money,
Director the latter equally divided
Office of Ecology and Conservation between Unique Areas and Tidal
0 Wetlands funds categories.
po: It in our recom ndation that we, the awnbers of the Federation of Dutchess County The State Office of General
Fish & Clam Clubt, Inc., be represented on the Steering Comittee. Services (OGS) is turning
over their lands in North Bay
to DEC at no cost to DEC.
The acquisition by DEC of a
small parcel at the north
end of North Bay is in negotia-
tion, and the exact boundaries
and cost of this parcel have
not been decided.

50-4
(Cont) Of the $350,000 in Federal
(OCZM) funds applied for by
New York for the proposed Hudson
River Estuarine Sanctuary,
money will be spent at all four
of the Hudson River sites for
-lands, facilities, and other
aspects of the proposed
sanctuary's research and education
program as described in-the
DEIS. Some of this money will
be spent on an addition to
the Existing Ba.rd.College
Field Station on South Bay to
provide a research facility
where scientists from outside
the college can work on estuarine
sanctuary research projects
in the Tivoli Bays and also
in the other three sanctuary
sites. Some of the money
will be spent on a partial
renovation of the Bear Mountain
Trailside Museums complex near
the Iona Island Marsh, for C)
the sanctuary's primary public
education facility. This
facility accomodates more than
one-half million visitors per
year, who will be able to
enjoy and learn from exhibits
on the Hudson River Estuary
and the Iona Island Marsh.
Other fundi will be spent on
educational brochures, signs,
equipment, and other materials
for public education and research.
The Federal Operations Grants
of $50,000 per year for five
years will pay for the salary
of an Estuarine Sanctuary
Manager, and for other main-
tenance costs of the sanctuary.
Both the $375,000 Acquisition
Grant and the$50.000 per year
Operations Grants will be

50-4
(cont)matched by an equal value
of state agency goods and sevrvices
and also by some land acquisition
funds from the Environmental
Quality Bond Act for acquisition
at the Stockport sitet. Thus,
the Estuarine Sanctuary grant
funds would be distributed
among the four proposed sanctuary
sites. It is also expected
that the Federal funds and the
State's match will act as
"seed money" to stimulate
grants from other public and
private sources to fund specific
research projects in the proposed
sanctuary.

207

The Federated Sportsman's Clubs
of ulster County, inc.
34 EAST ROAD HIGH FALLS, N.Y. 12440
OFFICE: 338-4070 RES: 687-9267

JULY 21, 1982
A 8000 Member Organization
Algonquin Bowman
Bushkill Rod & Gun club
Dwaarkill Rod & Gun club
East Kingston Rod & Gun club
Eight Sportsmen Inc.
Esopus Township Sportsmen's Club
Gardiner Rod & Gun club
Highwoods Sportsmen's club, inc.
High point Mt. Sportsmen's Assoc.
HOmowak Fish & Game Assoc.
Lackawack Fish & Game Assoc.
Lake Hill Sportsmen's Club
Lkae Katrine Rod & Gun club
Landowners Sportsmen Assoc. Inc.
LLoyd Rod & Gun club
Marakill Rod & Gun club
Marbletown Sportsmen's Club
Modena Rod & Gun Club
MOrgan Hill Game Assoc.
New Paltz Rod & Gun club
Peterskill Sportsmen's Club
Phoenicia Fish & Game Assoc.
Plattekill Rod & Gun
Plutarch Sportsmen's Club
Remington Sportsmen's Club
Ridge-Runners Rod & Gun club
Rondout Valley Rod & Gun club
Rosendale Sportsmen's Assoc.
Ruby Rod & Gun club
Saugerties Fish & Game club
Shokan Archers & Landowners Assoc.
Southside Rod & Gun club
Ulster Heights Rod & Gun club
Ulster County Trappers
Upper Esopus Fish & Game Assoc.
vly Sportsmen's Assoc.
Walker Valley Sportsmen's Assoc.
Wallkill Rod & Gun club
Wawarsing Sportsmen's Association
West Esopus Landowners Assoc.
GLasco Gun Club
Mid-Hudson Water Fowl Assoc.

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven St N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr Podgorny:

The meeting held on July 20'82 at Red Hook N.Y
on Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary on Tivoli Bay

51-1 The Federated Sportsmen's Clubs of Ulster County
and the N.Y. state brotherhood of sportsmen have made
Public Statements against the word Sanctuary being us
in the Title of this program.

51-2 THe Iona. Piermont, part of this program does not
allow hunting and the word SANCTUARY can some day app
to TIVOLI bay the same way

We realize The Act was passed by Washington in the
early 70's but feel a sub title on certain areas like
Tivoli Bay, and Stockport could be named (Hudson River
Estuarine, Fish and Game, educational, and Research
management Centers.)

51-3 By using a sub Title such as this it would create
a feeling from sportsmen and others of being part of
the total Program

51-4 At present Sportsmen feel at any time in the future
they can be left out of the program.

This feeling was expressed by 70 to 80% of the
people speaking that evening

The word fish and game give the sportsmen a true
feeling that their rights are not being placed on a
fine line and some day could be taken away

The word wildlife could replace game. but sport
in general feel more secure with the word game, because
hunting is associated with that word.

51-1 Please see general response a
regarding the use of the word
"sanctuary".

51-2 Same response as 51-1.

51-3 The idea of a "subtitle" is
appropriate and will be given
due consideration. Particularly
at the Tivoli Bays site, where
the area is used for harvest
of fish, game, and fur, for
historic, archeologic and
biologic preservation, and for
an experimental Ecological
Reserve, "subtitles" would be
appropriate on signs and
literature in the proposed
Estuarine Sanctuary.

51-4 The estuarine Sanctuary proposal
calls for the establishment
of sanctuary Advisory Committees.
The purpose of these committees
is to achieve coordination
among the public and private
groups participating in the
sanctuary program, and to
assist and advise the Sanctuary
steering committee. It would
be entirely appropriate for
sportsmen to send their repre-
sentatives to serve on each of
the advisory committees
Nominations for the Sanctuary
Advisory committee should be
sent to Mr. Edward Radle,
NYS DEC 50 WOLF Road, Albany,
N.Y. 12233.

-2-

Over the years Sportsmen have become very concerned with how Govern-
51-5 ment and elected officials have tried to pass laws against our rights
We feel by naming a Sub Title such as suggested above would be showing
the sportsmen you are extending your hand and we will extend ours to
helping to make this program work for all, not just a few.

Sportingly yours

Frederick G. Faerber III
pres.

51-5 Comments accepted. Please
see response 51-3 and General
Response A.

209

Sponsored by
FEDERATION OF SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS
OF SULLIVAN COUNTY, INC.

Member of New York State Conservation Council
_urtobor, N.Y. 12790
July 30, 1982 p.O. box 502

Dr. Richard Podzarny
Dear Sir.

52-1 This is letter of suport of the Hudson River estuarie Sanctuary
sites.

52-2 The fedartion of sportsmens club belive that is near time the
might Hudson river is cleaned up both for hunting, fishing
and recreation also for trapping. If in any way we can be of furthur
help in this project please be free to call on us.

52-3 Will your please sent us the final report on this matter

Federation of Sport's Clubs
of sullivan County, INc.

Arthur S. Blakeeley
Fish chairmen.

52-1 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

52-2 Comments accepted. Please
see response 51-4

52-3 A copy of this FEIS has been
mailed to you

210

211

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

6. INDUSTRIES AND PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS

July 26, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

The Consolidated Rail Corporation has reviewed the draft
environmental impact statement on the proposed Hudson
River National Estuarine Sanctuary. Conrail takes no
53-1 exception to the report and will cooperate fully when 53-1 Comments accepted. No response
the project is finalized. Sufficient time is requested necessary.
to review specific plans to ascertain the impact on con-
tinued safe operation of our railroad. Additionally,
Conrail expects fair market value for any property appro- DO
53-2 priated for this project. 53-2 In the process of land acquisition
for the proposed Estuarine
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft proposal. Sanctuary, the negotiating
agencies (DEC, OPRHP) will
er t ul r consider,on a case-by-case
K Y yov 8, basis, all available techniques
including fee simple acquisition,
con'servation easements, and
reserved life estates. In
J. Samuels, Ph D each case, the most appropriate
Assistant Vice-President, Industrial Engineering technique will be used. Fair
market value is the rule for
Room 601, 6 Penn Center Plaza any property appropriated.
Philadelphia, PA 19104

cc: Joyce M. T..Wood
Director, Office of Ecology and Conservation
Room 5813, US Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

TIVOLI PROPERTIES.
P.O Box 172. DOCK ROAD
TIVOLI NEW YORK 12583-(914 757

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Project manager
Office of coastal zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street nw
Washington, D.C. 20235

RE: Draft Environment Impact
Statement, Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary.

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

It was great pleasure to meet you just before the hearing
in Red Hook on July 20th, 1982 regarding the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary.

54-1 To develop furthur the statement I made at the hearing i
would like to add that Tivoli Farms, consists of approximately
500 acres and employs 29 full-time employees. The horse breeding
operation has been increased during a three year effort on the part
of the corporation to restore the main house, establish barn facilities
and reclaim 400 acres of land.

The Tivoli mansion which was formerly know as Callendar House
is an 18th Century Building built by the livingston family. The
mansion and its environment included a refined landscape with several
vistas over the Tivoli Bay area and the Hudson River. Any action
effecting the integrity of the buildings, landscape and the land would
significantly impact the properties real estate value and the security
of the horse breeding operation.

54-2 Having reviewed the above mentioned Estuarine Sanctuary EIS I
would like to make reference to the recent aquisition by the State
of New York of 1,436 acres adjacent to the Tivoli Farms property. As
a result of discussions with local governments, (Village Town and
County), over the need of the State to furthur acquire 45 plus acres
of additional property, the response has indicated that the local com-
munity wil not condole any furthur reduction of their tax base.

54-1 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

54-2 please see responses 17-1 and
17-2

In general the agencies negoti-
ating for land acquisition for the
Hudson RIver Estuarine Sanctuary
will consider all available land
preservation techniques, includ-
ing fee simple acquisition,
conservation easements, reserved
life estates, and sale or transfer
of development rights. This case
is complicated by the fact that
the relevant agency (the DEC) has
been involved in negotiations for
this parcel within the framework
of the TIvoli Bays State-lands
acquisition program, which pre-
dates the consideration of the
Estuarine Sanctuary (see Part II,
a,3,b "Tivoli").

TIVOLI PROPERTIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 172 DOCK ROAD
TIVOLI NEW YORK 12583-(914) 787-4128

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny Page Two

54-3 Please note the attached Resolutin #314-1981 which shows
the support of County Gaerment to a negotiable settlement that
will not impact the tax base of the area.

It is my recollection that the proposed additional fee title
acquisition of 45 acres of our land, with the exception of magdalen
Island is to be acquired as a protective buffer for the Estuarine
Sanctuary.

My understanding of land preservation mechanism leads me to
recognise conservational casement as a tool which would maintain
the property on the tax rolls and protect wet lands area from any
future development. It is imperative for the success of the horse
breeding operation that the security of my land is insured by the
same buffer area.

54-4 It concerns me that the state and Federal Government would
utilize our tax money to acquire land through eminent domain which
is so much more expensive than the purchase of my developed rights
through a conservation Easement. I view this preservation alternative
as the most cost effective investment for the protection of the buffer
area to a significant wet land and historic landscape. I feel that
this alternative should be addressed in the final environmental impact
statement as discussed on page 12 item c Unavailable Adverse Environmental
or Socieconomic Effects.

54-5 Another point dealing with the security of my horse breeding
operation is to be noted in the third paragraph on page 13, which
discusses two public access points from the ward Manor property to
cruger Island Road and from Stony Creek. Following the opening
of these two additional accesses, the state should close the RR service
road to unauthorized motor vehicles between cruger Island and Tivoli
Dock area. This will facilitate better management and control of the
area.

54-3 Comments accepted. The needs and
wishes of local municipalities
will certainly be weighed heavily
in any decision regarding the
specific means for protecting the
proposed Estuarine Sanctuary.

54-4 Please se responses 17-1, 17-2,
and 53-2. Reference to the use
of conservation easements as
an alternative method to acquire
land is made at numerous places
throughout the DEIS, and in the
National Estuarine Sanctuary
guidelines. The brief period
of time remaining from receiving
your comments to the date the
FEIS was sent to the printer
did not allow for the presentation
of an accurate example of
comparison of values and costs
of the various methods of
appropiationg land. However,
additional language has been
added to item C.

54-5 This issue will be given due
consideration during the formulation
of the sanctuary's management plan.

The railroad service road is
conrail property. Conrail had
indicated it intends to close
this road to the public.

214

TIVOLI PROPERTIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 172 DOCK ROAD
TIVOLI, NEW YORK 12583-(914) 757-4126

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny Page two

54-3 Please note the attached resolution #314-1981 which shows
the support of County Government to a negotiable settlement that
will not impact the tax bse of the area.

It is my recollection that the proposed additional fee title
acquisition of 45 acres of our land, with the exception of Magdalen
Island is to be acquired as a protective buffer for the Estuarine
Sanctuary.

My understanding of land preservation mechanism leads me to
recognise conservational easement as a tool which would maintain
the property of on the tax rolls and protect wet lands area from any
future development. It is imperative for the success of the horse
breeding operation that the security of my land is insured by the
same buffer area.

54-4 It concerns me that the state and Federal Government would
utilize our tax money to acquire land through eminent domain which
is so much more expensive than the purchase of my developed rights
through a conservation Easement. I view this preservation alternative
as the most cost effective investment for the protection of the buffer
area to a significant wet land and historic landscape. I feel that
this alternative should be addressed in the final environmental impact
statement as discussed on page 82 Item c Unavoidable Adverse Environmental
or Socieconomic Effects.

54-5 Another point dealing with the security of my horse breeding
operation is to be noted in the third paragraph on page 13, which
discusses two public access points from the ward Manor property to
Cruger Island Road and from Stony Creek. Following the opening
of these two additional accesses, the state should close the RR service
road to unauthorized motor vehicles between Cruger Island and Tivoli
Dock area. This will facilitate better management and control of the
area.

54-3 Comments accepted. The needs and
wishes of local municipalities
will certainly be weighed heavily
in any decision regarding the
specific means for protecting the
proposed Estuarine Sanctuary.

54-4 Please see responses 17-1, 17-2,
and 53-2. Reference to the use
of conservation easements as
an alternative method to acquire
land is made at numerous places
throughout the DEIS, and in the
National Estuarine Sanctuary
Guiedelines. The brief period
of time remaining from receiving
your comments to the date the
FEIS was sent to the printer,
did not allow for the presentation
of an accurate example of
comparison of values and costs
of the various methods of
appropriating land. However,
additional language has been
added to item C.

54-5 This issue will be given due
consideration during the formulation
of the sanctuary's management plan.

The railroad service road is
conrail property. conrail had
indicated it intends to close
this road to the public.

215

TIVOLI PROPERTIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 172, DOCK ROAD
TIVOLI NEW YORK 12583-(914) 757-4126

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny Page Three

54-6 I fully relized that this proposal for $375,000. grant by the
Federal Government is to be primarily used fo rthe proposed control
of my lnds which is listed on the National Register of Historic
places.

54-7 I would like to be assured that the expenditures of these Federal
or State (NEPA, SEQR) funds whoudl not adversely impact my property as
well as the surrounding community. Should my concern be incorporated
in the finale EIS, I will continue to support the concepts of the
Hudson RIver estarine Sanctuary Proposal and negotiate a mutually
agreeable settlement.

Sincerly Yours,

Jean de Castella de Delley

President

JCD/dug
cc:comm Robert FLack, Dept. of ENvironmental Conservaton
Paul Keller, Regional Director, DEC, NEw Paltz, New York
Lucille p. Pattison, County Executive
Samuel Lore, Red Hook town supervisor
Sally Mazzarella, chariperson, Hudson River shorelands Task Force
Edward A. Neese, Jr. Village of Tivoli Mayor.

54-6 comments accepted. no response
necessary.

54-7 Please see General Response A
regarding the purpose and
impact of the proposed sanctuary.
NOAA understands, that at the
time of this FEIS printing,
that NYS DEC is preparing
an offer to present to you
Additional language regarding
conservation easements has been
incorporated in this FEIS.

Your concern in the above sense is
duly noted. Thank you for your
expression of conditional support
for th Hudson River Estuarine
Sanctuary proposal.

216

3 1 4
RESOLUTION NO. 1981

RE: MEMORIALIZING THE D.E.C. TO RENEGOTIATE THE
PROPOSED TAKING LINE WITH MR. JEAN DE CASTELLA

Legislators Quinn, White and Sipperley offer the following and
move its adoption:

WHEREAS, it appears that the State of New York and the
Department of Environmental Conservation intends to condemn
certain land bordering the Tivoli North Bay presently owned by
Mr. Jean deCastilla, doing business as, "Tivoli Farms", and

WHEREAS, it is advantageous to all County taxpayers to keep
as much property on the tax rolls as possible, and

WHEREAS, Mr. Jean deCastilla has inves ted large sums of
money and much labor in developing an old Hudson River Estate into
a working farm which now gainfully employs a number of people who
might otherwise be unable to find work, and

WHEREAS, Tivoli Farms is used for the purpose of breeding
horses and advancing the horse industry within the State of New
York, and

WHEREAS, the land in question is marginal land consisting of
rough terrain and marshes and Mr. Jean deCastilla has no intention
of developing such land, now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature does hereby
memorialize the State of New York and the Department of Environmental
Conservation not to condemn the aforesaid land owned by Mr. Jean
deCastilla bordering the Tivoli North Bay and, instead, to renegotiate
with Mr. jean deCastilla an agreement whereby the land in question
would not be developed and would remain in its present state for the
mutual benefit of both the owners of Tivoli Farms and the people of
the County and State.

APPROVED

/lb
5-2881 LUCILLE P. PATTISON
Amended in Committee 6-4 81 County Executive

Dote.
STATE OF NEW YORk I
COUNTY of DUTCHESS I

This to certify that 1. the __ _gned. Clerk of the Legislature of the County of Dutches, have compared the
foregoing resolution with the origional resolution now on file in the office of said clerk. and which ws adopted by said
legislature on the jun _ 1981 day of 19 , and that the same is a true and corrected tran-
script of sasid original resolution and of the whole therof.
In witness whereof i have hereunto set my hand and seal of said Legislature this day
of Jun 8 1981
BR-3 Jan a Trover
Clerk of the Legislature

Raymond Beecher
RR. 1 box IOA Beecher RD.
Coxsackie, New York 12081

July 10, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Sir:

The west shore propoerty owners, an informal group
of families residing along the west bank of the Hudson
55-1 in Greene County has demonstrated a sustained interest
in this section of the Hudson River. The proposed Hudson
River Estuarine Sanctuary which includes Stockport Flats
receives its unqualified support. It would like to be
kept informed of subsequent developments leading, hope-
fully, to the proper management of these tidal flats.

55-2 The Draft Environmental Impact statement is a com-
prehensive, tehcnical document. It is a document somewhat
dificult for the average layman to constructivaly criticize.
It certainly details the problem and sets up immediate and
longer range solutions which will prevent the continued
deterioration of this estuarine escosystem. The effort
should not be delayed. Our group particularly likes the
idea of using the sites for field work for educational
groups. the cost for the entire project is moderate.

55-3 The citizens Advisory committee need not be limited
to members from those counties in which the tidal flats
are located. For example, the stockport Flats is equally
important to individuals in Greene County opposite colum-
bis.

It should be noted that if Mr. E. Porter Fearery, Jr.
claims so much of the disputed Stockport FLats, he should
have been paying taxes on an additional 50 or more acres.

In closing we comend the completeness of the report,
one which points out both positive and negative aspects.
It certainly spells out a reasonable management plan with
limited cost to the taxpayer.

Yours truly,
West shore property owners
Raymond Beecher, secretary

55-1 Comments accepted. Your name
has been included on this
project's mailing list.

55-2 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

55-3 Comments accepted. Please
see response 27-5.

218

TW.N.M.

CWFICKS or
IRVING DOMNITCH
BUiLDEF4

J109-

June 21, 1982

New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
21 Sopth Putt Corners Road
New Paltz, New York 12561

Attention: Edward Radle
Hudson River Program Coordinator

Gentlemen:

I have just received notification that the
State would like to negotiate an acquisition by 56-1 The New York State Office
easement or In fee simple for a portion of my of Parks,* Recreation and
56-1 property along the Hudson River. I wish to Historic Preservation (OPRHP),
notify one and all that I am not surrendering nor has said that in the specific
am I interested in selling this property to the case of the properties at the
State or the Federal government. Should any
Stockport site which are identified
action be taken against me, I will contest it as parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 on p. 7
and go to court as I feel this whole matter is of the DEIS, OPRHP would acquire
being handled unfairly. these parcels only through
willing-seller negotiations.
At one time years ago I recelved a notice Parcels 2 and 3, owned by
from New York State asking me to permit a contrac- Mr. Domnitch, have been left
tor who was dredging the Hudson River to dump in the proposal (FEIS) because,
silt on my property. Wanting to be a good citizen even though Mr. Domnitch has
I agreed to this, and the end result was that I stated his lack of willingness
lost mi ingress and egress. My understanding At to sell it is possible that
the time wap that the peninsula created by this in the iuture Mr. Domnitch
dumping would then belong to me as It was then might change his mind about
the only way to get to the Hudson River from my selling, or that a future
property. Since that time I have received noti- owner of the property might
fication from the State that they-are contesting decide to sell to OPRHP.
some of my ownership of the peninsula. I have
spent a great deal of money trying to clarify
this situation and even now am in the process of
once again surveying the property and most parti-
cularly, some of the water frontage.

I have been the sole owner of this Stockport
property for many years (this was formerly the
Empire Brick Company and the brick kilns are still

Twining 9.8615

OFFICES OF
IRVING DOMNITCH
BUILDER
80-15 Fourty. First Avenue Elmhurst. N.Y. 11373

June 21, 1982 Page 2

there plus there was established usage by barges
coming in and out to the brickyard for over 50
years). I have kept the property vacant, pur-
chased adjacent land (the Holmes Farm, etc.),
paid for surveys, spent money for seed, posted
the property, paid all taxes promptly and I have
not, in anyway, destroyed the ecological or envir-
onmental balance of the area.

Having now heard how my dealings with the
State have proceed thus far, I feel you will under-
stand my negative reaction to the proposal contained
in your letter of June 9, 1982.

fully yours,,

ID/mj
encls.

cc: President Ronald Reagan
Governor Hugh Carey
Republican National Committee
Republican Inner Circle
Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, The State Assembly
Dr. Richard Podgorny, Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Joyce M. T. Wood, Director
Office of Ecology and Conservation
United States Dept. of Commerce

Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation A
21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, New York 12561-1696 Iftle
914-255-5453 MW
Robert F. Flock*
Commissioner
June 9, 1982

Mr. and Mrs. Irving Domnitch
80-15 Forty-first Avenue
Elmhurst, NY 11373

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Domnitch:

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is acting as lead agency in
establishing sanctuarl'es along the Hudson River as part of the National Estuarine Sanc-
tuaries Program. Thit sanctuaries program seeks to preserve outstanding examples of
estuarine environments in the approximately 20 bio-geographic regions of the United States.
The areas set aside will have national significance for education and research in these
extremely valuable but threatened ecological resources as well as preserving them so that
they can continue to perform their vital role in the estuary. Enclosed for your infor-
mation'is the U.S. Department of Commerce brochure on the' program.

There are a total of four separate areas proposed for inclusion in this estuarine sanctuary:
Piermont Marsh, Iona Island Marsh, Tivoli Bays, and Stockport Flats Marsh. The bulk of
the land to be dedicated as a sanctuary is owned by the State of New York. The State agency
presently exercising jurisdiction will continue so there should be no significant changes.
Coordinated Management, Research, and Education Plans for the sanctuary will be developed
in the months ahead. However, in general, activities currently allowed in these areas
will continue. Once the general areas for inclusion withi'n the sanctuary were identified,
program goals and the need to establish manageable units dictated the actual boundaries
selected. Our records indicate that you own property within the proposed sanctuary
boundary; a map of the sanctuary. with your property highlighted, is enclosed. Although
private inholdings within the sanctuary are not inc(xnpatible, tie State would like to
L
ne .by_,@asement ov: in eit im r the i nai-caireW -property
_L__pj e fo
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that will provide extensive information on this
proposed action is now in preparation, and will be distributed about mid-June 1982.
Public hearings on the DEIS will be held on July 19, 20, and 21, 1982 at times and places
to be announced. Your name has been placed on the mailing list to receive the DEIS
and Hearing Notice. If you do not receive this by late June, please contact me and I
will see that you are provided copies.
I will be contacting you in the near future to discuss possible acquisition of the indi-
cated properti, and to provide you with any further information you wish on the program.

Sincerely,

Edward Radle
Hudson River Program Coordinator
518-457-6178

ER:sp
Enclosure

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington. D.C. 20230

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

June 10, 1982

Dear Reviewer:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing for your. review and
consideration the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management,.National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce, on the proposed Hudson River
National 'r'stuarine Sanctuary.

Any written comments or questions you may have should be submitted to
the contact person identified below by August 2. 1982. Also, one
copy of your comments should be sent to me in Room 5813, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

CONTACT PERSON

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. 01)
Washington, D.C. 20235
Telephone: 202/634-4236

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
?Joyce M. T. Wood
Director
Office of Ecology and Conservation

Enclosures

171V 0 " - ". t( k
----------

.9 1 SI, I i -or I I lit& A! va, c,ppIO,;mfj!c 1". i,c! ty
f c'. flic Cof%tcl;,J,.j!A Rail Corp. cr,,t;clof
S '01
.-::p c ho:@ LISGS Wdson No,Ih, N.Y.
d

or's
KI "I

91
C@c ys Rt. 9
Poinf

OPR lip Rt. 9

colu ... S;@Mle

sto(kporl
Wddle
G,ound E Oent of
ti+31 infl-it-nce

OGS

04 o1%

U mon-cl
Islond

Mrs'sh one mile
o ne Imn

OGS
- - - - - - Ptopo%ed soncluory trounclory

7 Ownerskip 6oundary

Pr il"411,

223 Fellows Avenue
Syracuse, NY 13210
July 26, 1982

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

I wish to submit my comments concerning the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary program.
57-1 1 at As both a private citizen and a professional aquatic biologist, 57-1 Comments accepted. No response
rongly favor the proposed sanctuary program. I grew up in, and necessary.
often return to, Rhinebeck, NY, which is near one of the sanctuary sites,
Tivoli Bays. I used to camp and swim near Crugers Island at this site
and loved exploring the marshes and woodlands there. As a private
citizen, I would like to be able to continue this activity with my
family when I vacation in the area. My enjoyment of Tivoli Bays would
57-2 be enhanced by the creation of a sanctuary program with interpretive 57-2 Campinq and swimmino will hp
services. A sanctuary program would ensure that this marshland addressed in the DEt's site
would remain in its undeveloped state. management plan for the Tivoli
Bays area of which Cruger
As an aquatic biologist, I believe that creation of a sanctuaries Island is a part. The policies
program in these unique freshwater and brackish tidal areas would foster on these activities have not N)
scientific research which would be of both local and national importance. been finalized yet.
Scientific interest in Hudson River studies is increasing, as shown by
creation of Hudson River programs at local colleges ( notably the
renovation of a laboratory at Norrie Point by Dutchess Community College,
57-3 and the research conducted at Marist College, Bard College, and SUNY at 57-3 Comments accepted. No response
New Paltz) and the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental necessary.
Research ( which will fund about $1 million each year in Hudson River
research). Encouragement of Hudson River research by the sanctuaries
program can lead to practical benefits for the Hudson River sport and
commercial fishery as well as enhancement of our knowledge in many areas
of.aquatic biology. The presence of sanctuaries will encourage the type
of long-term research interest which is crucial for elucidation of ecosystem
structure and function.

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute my voice in support of
this valuable program.

Sincerely ourr,
Richard H. Sugp'rtPh.D.

copy: Joyce M.T. Wood

,7.
-4eled llll@
-V"@

,74,z:@,

ed@
, &)

tZoo CIL. d&@

Ic, W.

CC,

42w,

27 =-'I
-,4' .7

F\3

58-1 Please see General Response A
58-1 regarding multiple uses in the
proposed sanctuary.

Also, please see responses 34-3,
and 27-5.

ep,

227

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Based on public requests and remarks received at the Public
Hearings, transcripts have been prepared of each speaker's
remarks and are presented on the following pages. Introductory
remarks by the Hearing Officer and the State's representative,
and the narrative of the slide/tape presentations have not been
included to save space- however, these can be made available
on written request to iOAA.

July 19, 1982 10:15 a.m. - 10:37 a.m. 2 speakers 9 persons present

The Cliff House at Bear Mountain State Park - Piermant, N.Y.

Persons present :

1. Richard J. Podgory - Public Hearing Officer
2. Edward Radle
3. Erick Kiviat
4. Jim Stapleton,
5. David P. McCoy - speaker
6. Fred Slater - speaker
7. Harold Hoffman
8. John Winthrop Aldrich
9. Charles L. Keene

N)
00

Transcript of Comments
Public Hearing
July 19, 1982 10:15 a.m.
The Cliff House at Bear Mountain State Park, N.Y.

David P. McCoy - Palisades Interstate Park Commission

"Thank you Dr. Podgorny. I'd like to introduce myself, I am David McCoy,
I'm with the PIPC and I'm here representing Mr. Nash Castro, our General
Manager who unfortunately couldn't be here and he wished me to welcome you
all. All he wished me to say that we're glad to have you here at Piermont,
and glad to have you here in the vicinity of the Iona Island Marsh; one of
the marshes scheduled for inclusion on the National Estuarine Sanctuary.
The other marsh that we're vitally interested in here at Bear Mountain is
the Piermont Marsh, a substantial portion of which we also own.

I have just one or two brief comments and the first being, is that, we
59-1 are in total support of the National Estuarine Sanctuary and we welcome the 59-1 Comments accepted. No response
inclusion of the Iona Island Marsh and the Piermont Marsh into this program. necessary.

The second being, that we will work as best we can with National
Estuarine Sanctuary Committee and with all other people involved so that we
may go ahead and protect these marshes for the research/education and all
other aspects of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Thank you." N)
to

Fred Slater - New York State Fish and Wildlife Management Board

"I'm here on behalf of the Chairman of the Board of the FWMA and I'd like
6U-1 to read a letter that Mr. Nuzzolese has written to the Sanctuary Project Manager. 60-1 Please see comments and responses
It indicates their attitude towards the proje(Tzand some of their concern. 13-1 to 13-5.
SEE LETTER SUBMITTED

July 19, 1982 7:15 p.m. 8:46 p.m. 15 speakers 26 persons present

The Piermont Village Hall Piermont, N.Y.

Persons present:

1. Richard J. Podgorny Public Hearing Officer
2. Edward Radle
3. Erik Kiviat
4. John Winthrop Aldrich
5. Barbara Porter - speaker
6. Eleanor Burlingham - speaker
7. James W. Morton - speaker
8. Kathryn Smith - speaker
9. Alan Gussow - speaker
10. Dennis Haight speaker
11 Lois E. Jessup speaker
12. Fred Slater - speaker
13. William Goswich - speaker
14. Grace Meyer speaker
15. Hill Herguth speaker
16. Robert B. Ewald - speaker
17. Theodore B. Merrill Jr- speaker
18. Betsy Pugh - speaker
19. Tom Mitchell - speaker
20. Mike Slender
21. Roberta McVeigh
22. Mrs. W. E. Lenz
23. Christine Marie Teisl
24. Don Crocker
25. Paul Keller
26. Jim Stapleton

Transcript of Comments
Public Hearing
July 19, 1982 7:15 p.m.
The Piermont Village Hall, N.Y.

Barbara Porta - Executive Director of the Rockland County
Environmental Management Council - Pa_no_n_a_,_N_._T_.

61-1 1 do have a prepared statement which I'll read. That seems like the
best way to do it. 61-1 Please see comments and
SEE LETTER SUBMITTED responses 20-1 to 20-4.

Eleanor Burlingham - E.M.C., R.C.C.A., S. & W. D., Suffern, NY

"Mr. Chair-man before I make my comments I'd like to explain where I
come from. I have lived in Rockland County since 1945 and I am a County
tax payer,but I live way over in the west where we dearly wish the State
of New York would take a great interest, which we find missing in the
Paysaic System. And we really need environmental and conservation help
upon those two rivers.

I am very, very thrilled about the proposal to save the Piermont Marsh.
62-1 and the one at Iona Island. However, I wish to point out that Rockland
County is unusual in many ways. One is that the local conservation 62-1 Comments accepted. No response
association is the oldest in New York State, dating.back to the same time necessary. N)
as the Museum of Science in Buffalo in the late 20's and early 30's. And
this group has been beating the drums years for things like this. And as
long as you have money to spend on education, there'd be no better use of
it than to help these groups that are many in the county, not just the
Conservation Association, but many groups who whould like this education
from you particularly, for example in the case of Grassy Point. We know
enough to know that there is pollution from the gypsun company, there is
pollution from Kay-Freeze Chemicals. There probably is pollution from
where the power station in Haverstraw that cuts through the brook there to
go out to the Hudson; but we really need your help if we want to save these
areas. And unless we're educated we can't do it. Thank you.

James W. Morton - New York State Department of State, Albany, N.Y.

My name is Jim Morton and I am here presenting testimony on behalf of
the New York State Department of State, which is the State's lead agency
for the New York Coastal Management Program.

I worked as a coastal resource specialist for the Department for the
past five years and my involvement in the Sanctuary Program began as early
as 1979, when OCZM, Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management first approached
us seeking candidate sites for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary Program.
Since that time I have been directly involved in two major sanctuary proposals:
The Paconic Bays system, the otherthe Hudson River Marsh areas.

As you learned in the slide show, the Sanctuary Prugram was established
under the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. And it
was created in response to a National study, an estuarine study, which
document the awesome and rapid destruction of our Nation's estuaries. The
expressed purpose of the Sanctuary Program is to preserve estuaries which
are still in reasonably natural conditions so that we can conduct long term
studies and education programs to establish the kinds of information needed
to solve coastal management problems. Because of our responsibility for
implementing the State's Coastal Management Program, the Department of
State, therefore, has a keen interest in the establishement of the Hudson
River Estuarine Sanctuary.

As you know, many of us at state and local levels have had to grapple
with difficult and complex questions such as whether a project will cause NJ
significant and major impact on a wetland, or where we can safely dispose W
of PCB laden dredge spoils. We often find overselves in a position of N)
having to make decisions without sufficient information. So. we feel that
the creation of the sanctuary will be a major step in providing the
opportunities to gather the information we need to solve these problems.

The four marsh areas include in the proposal provide an ideal array of
wetland systems which exist along the 120 mile tidal stretch of the Hudson
River that we're stu(yng. In these areas studies can be undertaken to
address such questions as: 1) just how vulnerable or resilient are our
wetlands, 2) to what extent should we try to clean up a contaminated marsh
as opposed to letting it clean itself up; 3) What is happening to the toxic
materials such as PCB's known to be in the sediments; will they remain
safely trapped in the sediment or will they be remobilized into the
environment through natural biological and hydrologic processes? Answers
to questions such as these will help direct the State's coastal management
efforts.

This program will also help to increase public awareness and appreciation
63-1 of an estuarine ecosystem. "Hands-on" learning experiences will be available 63-1 Comments accepted. No response
at the Trailside Museum and at self-guiding nature trails at the other necessary.
marsh sites. Excellent research facilities will be created at Tivoli Bays.
Through improved access to these marsh areas, a larger constituency will be
built to help assure the protection and wise management of these natural systems.

63-2 Comments accepted. No response
Lastly, the Department of State favors this project because it will necessary.
63-2 provide an excellent opportunity for collaborative decision-making in the 63-3 Comments accepted. No response
management of these four marsh areas. We have already experienced the necessary.
excellent cooperation of several State agencies represented on the Steering
Committee which helped develop this proposal. We have consulted with local
government officials, user groups, environmentalists, educators and scientists 64-1 The Erie Pier is owned by the Village
and they will all be represented on each of the four Sanctuary Committees. of Piermont. The Pier is used for
They will have a say on how the Sanctuary is to be managed once it is parking now, and there is no conflict
established. This cooperative approach involving local officials, private between this parking and the proposed
interest groups as well as other State agencies, reflects the strategy that sanctuary. In fact, the pier would
we at the Department of State used in developing the State Coastal Management serve as a point of access to the
Program. As you know, the accommadation of these diverse interests is Piermont Marsh site. The Village
essential to building a consensus on how the Program should be structured Board has indicated interest in
and implemented. developing a marina on the north
side of the pier. Uevelopment of
The Department of State, therefore strongly endorses the creation of such a facility would be subject to
63-3 the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary. We look forward to our continued existing laws, parti 'cularly the State
participation on the Steering Committee as a means of providing our support Environmental Quality Review Act,
and helping to assure the coordinated implementation of both the Estuarine Stream Protection Act, possibly the
Santuary and Coastal management Program. Thank you. Tidal Wetlands Act and Section 4U4
of the Federal Clean Water Act. The
purpose of these laws is to ensure
Kathryn Smith - Member of the Piermont Village Board that development is harmonious with
natural resource values. If the
I am a member of the Village Board here at Piermont and I'm a resident Village applies for State and Federal
of the village and I would like to speak as a private individual, as well permits for a marina, the compatibility
as a representative of the people of Piermont. of the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
and the proposed marina will be
I have several concerns. One is whether or not this project will considered by the regulatory agencies. N)
prevent the Village government from execising its responsibilities as it It is likely that agreement could be
64-1 sees those responsibilities. Specifically, I am speaking about things reached on a marina design which
like parking on the pier; perhaps we might want to install a boat launch would not adversely affect the
on the pier, a muncipal boat yard; we have other concerns such as a sewer Piermont Marsh.
out fall line on the south side of the pier, which sometimes seems to be
malfunctioning, and thats a great concern of us. Perhaps we can get -some 64-2 The derelict barges south of the pier
help this way. are within the proposed sanctuary
boundary. The relation of these
Other concerns are sunken barges. There-are a couple on the south barges to the proposed sanctuary is
side of the pier. There is one in very dangerous position on the north under study. At the present time
64-2 side of the pier. We have not been able to get it removed and this has there is no evidence that these barges
been going on for years and years. We have other sunken barges in the past would be harmful to the sanctuary, or
that we've been able to get rid of. that their removal would cause damage
to Piermont Marsh. The removal of
We're concerned about the Sparkill Creek. The mud-flats on the south the barge north of the pier would
side of the creek are such that you can not get from the creek to the river not be harmful.
64-3 except at the highest of tides. If we have the resources we might want to
dredge that area and we are i@oncerned that we might be prevented from doing 64-3 It is natural for the mouth of a
so, if this project goes through. With regard to the management plan called stream like Sparkill Creek to shoal.
for in the Draft that I read, I would strongly urge that where you identify, Furthermore, small craft use of the
for example you want the expertise of a commercial fisherman, you will creek mouth at lower stages of the
select somebody from the Village. The same with a scientist. The same tide is restricted not only by silt
with a conservationist, etc. There is a list in your Draft. deposits where the creek crosses

64-3 the marsh, but also by hard bottom at
(Cont) the western margin of the marsh. It
is not possible to say without further
study whether dredging of the creek
mouth would be compatible with the
proposed Estuarine Sanctuary. A
dredging proposal would have to be
reviewed along with information
on the dredging history of the creek.
Preliminary information from the
U.S. Army Engineers indicates that
no permits were issued for dredging
the creek mouth for the last 2U years
or more; the creek mouth has apparently
been in a inore-or-less natural state
for at least that length of time.
The tidal mouth of the creek is
reported to be important habitat for
the blue crab, as well as for wintering
waterfow.

The Estuarine Sanctuary proposal calls
for a Rockland County Sanctuary
Advisory Subcommittee to handle public
input and communications for the
PierTnont and Iona Island sites. It
would be entirely appropriate for r*.)
W
some of the user group representatives 4@%
to this subcommittee to be Piermont
residents. Nominations for the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee, with
documentation, should be submitted
to Mr. Edward Radle, NYS DEC, 50 Wolf
Road, Albany, N.Y. 12233.

64-4 The parcel at the north end of Piermont
Last, but not least, I would urge or request, perhaps a better word, Marsh now owned by DEC was apparently
64-4 that DEC and the other State, perhaps New York State is what I should be exempt from taxes when owned by
addressing with so many agencies, I don't know who I should be addresing, Continental Group. If DEC acquires
that they pay a fee in lieu of taxes, I'm talking Village taxes only, I'm the two small pritave parcels (#10 and
not speaking for the school district or the Town of Orange Town, this il on DEIS p. 10), there would be
Village has a very smal I tax base. I noticed in your Draft you say that some loss of taxes to the Village
the loss is very little in taxes. -We would appreciate, it would be very of Piermont. A bill (11814, introduced
nice to make up that little bit. Thank you very much. in Assembly March 30, 1982) is in
committee in the New York State
Legislature that would require State
Alan Gussow - Congers, N.Y. agencies owning lands to make payments
in lieu of taxes to the local communities.

I have a few notes. I should say for the record that I was a member
of the consultant to the study that Raymond Parish, Pine and Wiener did
relative to designation of certain areas have scenic and historic and
ecologic significance a few years ago.

I am here speaking as an individual.

It is always intimidating when Eleanor Burlingham comes up a little
earlier because she goes back much further than most people here in Rockland
County. I can at least say that I remember about 20 years ago walking
with my sons, young then, along the edge of the Piermont Marsh and while they
were looking for tiger tail swallow butterflies I was drawing scenery. I
am an artist by profession. I probably'should have said that first off.
And I later did a very large painting called "Mid-Summer Marsh in Distances"
Which had reproduced widely, shown in galleries in New York and was really
a very significant work for me. So, I have a long standing and abiding N)
affection for the Marsh.

It also happens in 1966, when Holiday Magazine did a very extensive
story on the Hudson River, they had Iona Island and a steam boat on the
cover and very kindly they wanted to picture me doing some sketching.
There was no question that it would be that Piermont Marsh where I would
chose to be, and where in fact they did a number of pictures.

So that, my sense is that you've struck an area maybe is not only
important to us as individuals, but its likely to emerge because it is not
widely appreciated in-one sense, but I think its an extra-ordinary area of
great beauty.

In terms of the notes I've made, the first thing I would say that I
would praise the pinciple that at least one representative of each estuarine
sanctuaries be preserved. I think the idea of seeking out things to preserve
them because of their uniqueness and their importance is a very good
principle.

In the past when people thought about the Hudson River, they very
quickly seemed to go right past the Piermont Marsh, they also go right past
Iona Island, and it was always the Hudson Highlands. It was always the
dramatic element, much like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon it was kind of a
geologic freak that lurred people and that was designated as worthy of

study, worthy of response, and worthy of appreciation. I don't think that 65-1 The term "management" as used in
15 or 20 years ago, you would have had that kind of public support for the the DEIS and other National Estuarine
acquisition of these kinds of places. Sanctuary Program documents is very
broad, and includes the "hands-off"
Now I have two concerns. option as a form of management.
The first has to do with the word management, Because when I see the In fact, Estuarine Sanctuary management
word management and its written right into this EIS, I get concerned about stresses maintaining sanctuary sites
65-1 human intervention. The first responsibility is not to design strategy for in as near-natural a condition as
restructuring the visual and ecological environment. It seems to me that possible. There are no plans for
the firs,t presumption should be to identify quality where quality exists any facilities in or on the edge of
and to accept the idea that interventio 'n does'nt begin with management the Piermont or Iona Island marshes;
strategies, it begins by looking and appreciating. So that on a general no boardwalks or buildings or parking
concern that I would not want management to suggest lack of humility and a lots, Anticipated development at
kind of comming in and rearranging of things, and what I would term excessive the Piermont site is presently
management. limited to signs and possibly a
small outdoor display back from
I think the report reads very well. I frankly am reassured. So I'm the edge of the marsh,, if this is
65-2 making the statement more for the record thenl am out of legitimate concern. determined to be acceptable to the
I think it ought to be at least through out that management is not necessarily park staff from the viewpoint of
what we've talking about. At least lets say we're looking for enlighment. esthetics and security. Development
at Ioni Island centers around a
The second has to do with the true appreciation for one of the stated partial renovation of the Bear
objectives. The report in its summary statement, and I'm quoting at this Mountain Trailside Museums complex
point - it says to increase public knowledge and awareness of the complex to house estuarine exhibits, including
nature of estuarine ecosystems, the values and benefits to man and nature all outdoor exhibit at "Geology Point"
and the . The words that came out to me as I read them is to increase which overlooks the river near the
__-0-values. A woman who has written widely on environmental Bea
awareness an r Mountain docks; there would be
issues, Edith Cobb, once wrote that all knowledge begins in sensory no development in or on the edge of
experience. And I'm concerned that we'll confuse data with knowledge. the Iona Island marsh. A boardwalk
That we're going to confuse data with experience. The public does not only is being planned for the Tivoli
need information. And I am aware that it is important to get baselines to Bays site, and will be largely
get data to come in a scientific way and study this. But it also needs to, restricted to the margin of the
the public that is, needs to experience these places and to really know marsh in a location that is deter"ined
them. And maybe its self interest, but I'm not arguing narrowly for myself, to be suitable from the viewpoint
more for what I feel a part of, is here precisely that poets, artists, of esthetics, engineering design,
writters and others to play a very vital role. So I would like to make a and minimal disturbance to wildlife
65-3 scientific suggestion, that part of the grant funds, and I am thinking ofa and to the ecosystems. There will
very modest amount to be sure, might be provided to artists, poets, dancers, be no other construction in or on
and film makers, photographers and folk singers, persons who do not the edge of the Tivoli Bays marslies,
necessarily experience more than the average person but nevertheless have a although improvements to existing
gift of commutfication what everybody feels. trails and roads (off the.wetiands)
are planned, as are several small
It seems to me that these estuaries are too important to be viewed primitive parking lets in areas
merely as outdoor laboratories for scientific research, but most of all that are not visible from the marshes).
they ought to be responded to. So that as I read through all of these An addition to the existing Bard
reports, what I see lacking is the recognition of how you going to communicate College field Station located 100
the important human value and human awareness which is part of the stated yards iniand from the edge of Tivoli
objectives. What I am asking is a little lifting of ones eyes and saying South Say is planned for an Estuarine
that maybe we can use either in the local schools, the local community Sanctuary research center; this site
college, or other groups, there are other people out there who can help you is also screened by trees from the
achieve the goals which I think are very noteworthy and very desirable. bay. No construction is planned for
Thank you. the Stockport site, but consideration
is being given to an overpass or
underpass for safe crossing of the
railroad tracks.

65-2 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.

65-3 Consideration will be given to your
idea of providing small grants to
artists to aid in expressing or
interpreting the proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary to the general public.
Perhaps also funding could be available
from sources outside the program for
this purpose.

M)
W
-4

66-1 Please see response 65-1 regarding
Dennis Haight - Sparkill, N.Y. management, and General Response A.
Well, I'd just like to say that the best manager I've seen as a results 66-2 Concerning techniques for education
66-1 of that marsh out there is mother nature. I would like to note for the and research: the DEIS focuses on
record one concern, that nowhere in this environmental statement is there the impacts of Estuarine Sanctuary
66-2 any specific, shall I say, techniques in terms of research and education. designation, not on the details of
It's a very ecologically sensitive area. Everybody heti.is aware of that operating the sanctuary. Lists of
and I'm afraid right now that as a result of this draft statement that potential research and education
man's intrusion will interrupt these baseline ecological studies that they activities are included in the DEIS
plan on doing. as examples of the types of uses
the sanctuary is intended for. A
I hope that somewhere in the final statement that specific techniques, more detailed plan for research,
in terms of education and research might be shown to us that are people environmental monitoring, and public
concerned. Thank you. education will be proposed in the
draft sanctuary management plan.
This draft management plan will be
Lois E. Jessup - Rockland Co. Conservation Association, Monsey, N.Y. available for your review and input.
Persons like yourself who are thoroughly
I am the President of the Rockland County Conservation Association familiar with one or more of the
that Elenor Burlingham was telling you the history of, and she was president proposed sanctuary sites may be able
before me for many years. to suggest specific non-damaging
techniques that could be used to
I was quite shocked today when I was looking at a copy of this report help attain the objectives of the
67-1 to find that our organization was not listed as an interested organization proposed sanctuary.
and I'm sure there are many people in this room that can tell you that
we've sure been interested. (And where is Paul Keller - I told him) we 67-1 The Rockland County Conservation
have been interested right from the very beginning. Association has been added to the
list of interested organizations. N)
I also worked on the Hudson River study that Alan Gussow mentioned. W
67-2 Public education and interpretive 00
One of the things that I am concerned about - I am going to go a step projects will be described in the
further to the areas surrounding the marsh. How are we going to teach sanctuary's management plan.
people in those surrounding areas to do the things that are going to preserve
the marsh? Because, how much control are we goi *to have over what,
certainly not Piermont we would expect Piermont to do anything, but Iona
Island is protected I expect because of the Park. How protected are some
of these areas from what migh@t happen to them by somebody deciding to put a
big factory near the marsh, this kind of thing?
I think that it'.is going to be not only the idea that we educate people
that use the marsh, enjoy the marsh, look at its beauty and feel for the
marsh, but its also going to be a job to be sure that the people in the
area understand when they do something, like a sewer out fall, or whatever
It is, what effect can it have on the marsh? and what will happen to the
marsh if they do that.

I would like to see some of the money used for this kind of thing, not
necessalrily all for Just deciding what plants are in the marsh, what fish
.67-2 are hatched there, or what is going to be very important. This county
grows and grows by leaps and bounds. We suddently find out these awful
things are happening on us before we even know it. And so it's going to
take somebody with alot of knowing whats going on in various villages and
towns in our county to know how the two marshes within our county are to be
affected.

Perhaps by boating, you know just the mere fact that perhaps that
people are misusing their boats as they go around. All kinds of things
where the public will have to be educated in order to preserve thse places.

We, naturally, are for preserving them in anyway that we possibly can.
So, I'd like to see our name in here somewhere.
And our last this is that I think that since two of the marshes are in 67-3 Please see response 27-5.
67-3 Rockland County that we ought to have pretty good representation on this
committee from Rockland County. Thank you.

Fred Slater - New York State Fish and Wildlife Management Board

I'm representing the Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Management Board
68-1 Chai.rman, Peter Nuzzolese, who was unable to make it and asked me to read
this letter, the Board's letter, to Mr. Podgorny. SEE SUBMITTED LETTER 68-1 Please see comments and responses
11-1 to 11-5.
William Goswick - Mayor, Village of Piermont

I am William Goswick, Mayor of the Village of Piermont.

One of the major concerns that I have, not with the estuary itelf, is
expansion of the county sewer plant. At a recent meeting that I was at
their Intentions are to expand that at least two times the size it is now.
Right now there are 25 million gallons of water going into that Hudson a
day, in a 24 hour period. The Town of Orangetown and the county tried to N)
assure me that they're not contributing to the slumping problem that we're W
having on the north side of the pier. I don't beilieve it, and I'm sure ko
they don't believe it themselves. 25 million gallons of water going through
a pipe with terriffic turbulance out at the end of it and its even with the
end of the pier and if they do any expansion over there at all-before that
they should be made to extend that pipeline near the channel were all of
that will be tak6-n downstream or up stream - just get it out of Piermont.
That's all I want to say.

Another concern, most of my concerns have been taken care of, I was a
little worried about the whole project, I've gotten infoniiation since that
69-1 things won't change; they will stay basically as they are. I've hunted out 69-1 Comments accepted. No response
there. I've trapped out there in the marsh. I'm a commercial fisherman necessary.
from the time I was 12 until I had sense enough to get away from the hard
work a,few years back. Ad one of the reasons I gave it up was because of
the ban on striped bass.

One of the things, I think all these agencies should get together is
to go after these big people that are ruining our river. They're putting
all that junk in there and we can't do anything with it.

I eat striped bass out of the river every year, and I look pretty
healthy - I might not feel it, but I look. If something could be done to
clean it up, get rid of the PCB's and any other contaminants in there, were
that people could eat the striped bass out of the river and the commercial
fishermen could thrive much better on it - in other words, they woul 'd make
a lot more money than they do right now, cause they really have to work for
every penny they make.

We have talked in the Village for quite a number of years of the
possibility of a marina on the north end, but I wouldn't want to see that 69-2 Please see response 17-2.
69-2 idea scrapped mainly becuase we just went through a 11 year tax suit with
these two factories over here and we went to the cleaners on it. They come
out on the good end of it and our taxes went up 17.4%, 10% was due to the
fact of winning the law suit. Now, we have to get some kind of tax money
into this village or some type of revenue if we're going to survive. I've
been here since I've been 8 years old, and I'm going to say here a few more
I'm not going to tell you how old I am, but I'd like to stay here the rest
of my life and I live on the river, and I've been involved in it from 8
years unil now. Thank you.

Grace Meyer - Director, Piermont Library

I am the Director of the Piermont Public Library and a former Piermont
Conservation Association Commission member and former trustee of the
Villiage.
When I first started getting interested in the marsh and doing research N)
on it for an article I was doing for the Piermont Newsletter I realized 4@:-
that there really wasn't that much available because a lot of it was done C)
70-1 by private institutes that really it was hard to know that they had done
research in time, to gather all this information and get it together for a 70-1 Comments accepted. No response
clear picture of what is going on in the Hudson River; that's when I really necessary.
saw a need for some concerted effort to gather all this information together
and make it available to all those people who are interested to learn about
the Hudson. And I was very excited to read the DEIS and thought it was an
excellent job. And an excellent start on the work that needs to be done.

The other comment, several years ago when the Hudson River was being
considered for the Estuarine Sanctuary Program, I was on the Village Board
and the current Mayor, Mayor Brant and myself, attended several these
meetings where we were very interested in getting Piermont Marsh included
in the Program.

The Village Board It that time, was quite supportive of Piermont being
70-2 in the Program. And I was very happy to see when it was included and hope
that it goes through. And I would like to help in any way I can. Thank 70-2 Comments accepted. No response
you. necessary.

Bill Herguth - Conservation Advisory Commission, Piermont, N.Y.

My family has been on the River for four generations. My great
grandfather was an oysiterman from Yonkers. The oysters died from pollution.
The -rest of my ancestors just walked around the marsh. They did fishing
and whatever there was to do out there. They taught me that one of the
moft valuable things about the marsh was its natural protective system -
that only the winter could one navigate and negotiate the mud, which is a
very valuable asset of the marsh, because its protected it for hundreds of
years. It can't be manuvered in the summertime, you'd sink.

My concern is catwalks. I fear that public access such as catwalks
71-1 would do a great deal of harm. It may bring revenue to Piermont if you
put toll booths on catwalks. I don't think anybody would do that, but 1 71-1 Concerning catwalks (boardwalks), there
really feel, that speaking myself, but just for the marsh - that to allow are no plans for boardwalks at Piermont
catwalks would be very detrimental to the marsh and what lives there. If Marsh, only at the Tivoli site.
someone would want to go to the marsh they can do so by boat or in the Please see response 65-1.
winter time. They could walk across it when the ice is frozen. Its quite
safe and there's less mosquitos.

I think that the education would be of Hudsonia is very important.
Being an old timer of Piermont, we were always taught to stay away from the
marsh because there were snakes, the mud, mosquitos, muskrat traps, snapping
turtles, a great deal of mishaps out in the marsh for some reason or other.
One of my ancestors fell down out there and caught pneumonia and died. That
doesn't happen to everyone. I lose my point.

My concern would be to going to view it and lovely pictures of the N)
marsh, they were fantastic, and I think they Were done without catwalks
because there are no catalks. The need for catwalks doesn't seem to be
71-2 warranted for the situation, but education surely does. We were taught to 71-2 Educational projects will be described
burn down the marsh with kerosene and laterns due to the mosquito infestation in the sanctuary management plan.
and all it did was make it worse because it killed off the birds and chased Information, such as the example
them away and the mosquitos of the marsh would come right back and we'd you presented regarding the impact
have another rash of mosquitos without the birds to eat them, and the fish of human activity on food web relation-
and a number of other things. ships, will be prepared as part of
the public educational materials to
It's natural protective system. My concern is the catwalks. I think be developed for the Hudson River
that should be evaluated. Thank you. (catwalk = boardwalk) estuarine sanctuary sites.

Robert B. Ewald - Pine Bush, N.Y.

I represent a diverse point ofv:Uw. First of all Fred Slater has
72-1 spoken vividly by to the sportsmen's point of view. I know that throughout
the Draft that the traditional uses has been emphasized. However, in looking
at research, and listening to the Mayor, and listing to Fred, there appears 72-1 Please see responses 11-1 to 11-5,
to be a conflict and I want to bring this point to your Atention, that the and 13-1 to 13-5.
use of the Piermont swamp itself by sportmen has been mistated in the study,
unless the Mayor, Fred, and the sportsmen that hunted and fished here are in
error themselves.

That brings the second point, and that is lets not overlook the fdlk-
law part of these areas that are going to be taken understudy. To squash
them, that the folklaw is an important aspect of these marsh lands that I
guess that take, that shows the riches of the uplands are nurtured in the
marshes.

So please when speaking from a sportsmen point of view, look deeply
into the present use. the traditional use of the hunting, fishing and
trapping, because it is my feeling that in those uses, which include the
catching of herring in springtime further up, not so'much here, I'm not 72-2 Comments accepted. No response
72-2 familiar with what happents to our herrings here, there is an ethic , a necessary.
sportsmen ethic, a group of people that develop between themselves and God
and nature, a right and a wrong that no matter what we do in education, and
I'm an educator, you just can't duplicate. The sportsmen ethic, the land
ethic as 3 people you may remember, John Burrows, John Muir, and Alex
Leopold emphasized in their writing. This ethic is the thing that I think
we really have to pin down. If we acquire these sanctuaries-, and I don't
use the term in, any derogatory way, "sanctuary of ethics" I think we will
have accomplished a great deal.

The DEIS says hunting was banned and that's its nonexistant here
quote the Mayor, Mr. Slater, Mr. Nuzzolese, gentlement from Rockland County
who does hunt with retriever and duck beat and he said when we discussed
this at the FWM he couldn't believe that statement was valid.

I came here earlier, but I was late, because I was talking with people
on the main street as to what goes on in your town and none of them were
72-3 inebriated, they were all Sober individuals, sportsmen a few said they 72-3 Response same as 72-1.
4@h
didn't like the hunting and fishing, and few said they took lettuce down N)
and fed the rabbits, on the Piermont pier, but waterfowl hunting and muskrat
trapping Is something that exists. I think we are being misquoted and
misguided when we are told it does not exist.

Theordore B. Merrill, Jr., Piermont, N.Y.

I am a resident of Piermont and a member of the Board in Clearwater, I
am not speaking for Clearwater.

I would just like to say a couple of things about sanctuaries.

I think some sanctuaries are necessary. I don't think that a square
mile or two of river front free from firearms is bad at all. And I had to
73-1 say that simply because I almost had my head blown off by a hard bullet last 73-1 Please see General Response B
year while I was canoeing. And I don't think firearms mix with parks on regarding existing policies and laws
two sides. I sympathize with the hunters, passive hunting yes, firearms affecting hunting and shooting at
not in this area. If it is a sanctuary, it is a sanctuary without firearms, Piermont Marsh.
with all due respect to the hunters. Times have changed, populations are
up. There are a lot of people out there in the marsh, you can't see them
in 8 foot grass. And I ,m lucky to have my head.

Betsy Pugh - R.C.C.A., Spring Valley, N.Y.

Just a couple of things I wanted to bring to your attention, ladies
and gentlemen.

First of all, the report is excellent. We're tickled to death to have
two of these marshes in Rockland County.
74-1 We wonder if perhaps there had been a member from Rockland County on 74-1 Please see response 20-3.
the Steering Committee, if indeed Grassy Point Marsh might have also been included.

I have to keep repeating what other people have said because to me it
is terribly important. We worked on this, again I have to go back in
history since 1974, when the Environemtnal Management Council worked closely
with the Stony Point Advisory Council (CAC) about having Grassy Point bought
by environmental bond money. Remember there used to be money in the 70's?
Tivoli Marsh won out. How could Grassy.Point win out? No way. We worked
desparately. We worked on the rating sheet. We went to DEC headquarters
and at the time we found out that perhaps there was some misunderstanding
as to what we considered the Grassy Point Marh. The part that we wanted
was in the Township of Stony Point, 80 acres. The part that we wanted
didn-'t have to take the picture toward U.S. Gypsium, you could take it
exactly 1800 around and look up to where the brook comes down and where
there is a town park. So that you have this, 80 acres plus this town park.
and you have the estuary. We canoed it along with DEC members, we submitted
all of the evidence, whatever was required. But we didn't win out over
Tivoli Marsh and at that point there was no more money. Again, I put in a F\)
plea. I want to say that since 1974 there have been exactly the kinds of -P.
programs you're talking about. Science programs, project LOST, Federal W
funds have been given to extension programs and summer programs for
disadvantaged youth, and more recently CETA funds have been used there for study.

Again I stress the fact that this is a densely populated area. The
more marshes we can save the better.

The reason why Grassy Point Marsh is not being considered in because
it lacks some of the amenities. It's true that the Haverstraw treatment
plant is right there. Look the other wayl After all they have been.giving
extra treatment to that water. It's true that Kay-Freeze is there. And
Kay-Freeze is indeed polluting the place, and if it is we should know it, we
should be told. The Rockland County Conservation Association wishes to be
told that the most recent evidence is that the marsh is being polluted and
we want to work on that, even if we never get it to be accepted into this
program. We're supposed to be watch dogs of that. So, please tell us, not
just yes, but we really want the evidence. Do give this some though and I
guess the rating sheets are in the DEC headquarters.

The other thing I want to talk about is the trapping. Zippy Fleischer,
who cannot be here tonight, she is member of the west branch conservation 74-2 Please see General Responses A and
74-2 association and also the Rockland County Association. She has submitted B, and responses 11-1 to 11-5, and
some information on trapping. She is totally opposed to trapping. I have to 13-1 to 13-5 regarding trapping
be half way. One page 65 it mentions that hunting is not allowed in any of and multiple uses.
the PIPC property, but it seems to me that if we are going to allow trapping,

and trapping is truly a traditional industry of our marshes, that the least
we can do Is to have traps that are humane. It talks about using leg hold
traps; how could we call it a sanctuary when you allow leg traps? I know
there's talk about domesticated animals shouldn't be wandering around
sanctuaries. As I understand it, only trapping would be allowed in the
other two marshes.

74-3 But I do not put in a plea that a sanctuary use humane methods for 74-3 Comments accepted. This issue will
trapping. Thank you very much. receive due consideration during
the formulation of the sanctuary
management plan.
Tom Mitchell, Sparkill, N.Y.

My name is Tom Michell and I am a member of the Conservation group at
Piermont. I speak as*a person who uses the marsh for individual recreation.

I did want to make a comment on the hunting question. having been out
in the marsh quite a bit. I think the term folklaw was a good term because
75-1 while hunting and trapping exist, it is not permitted as far as I know. 75-1 Please see General Response B
There was a discussion that cam 'e up in a conservation commission there had regarding hunting and trapping
been a notion to suggest making a small sanctuary on the north side of the at Piermont MarOes.
pier and an old timer from Piermont was upset about creeping sanctuarism.
Following the discussion it was clarified that if indeed since that part of
the pier, is in the Villiage hands handguns, firearms, are not permitted on
the pier. The only firearms I've seen since then are in the police cars.
And to see the duck blinds here and there are fewer, but some traps for
muskrats. You'll see, so it exists. There's no enforcement of it and the N)
I think that these exist at a very low level. It really hasn't been a 4@-
problem up til now. And perhaps some consideration should be given to
trying to set up some kind of permit system that could keep track of how
heavy this activity was.

I don't think we want firearms on the pier at this point because there
is so many people out there. That's a question because that's a situation
that exists, I don't believe its permitted and I don't think its going to
be a situation will change unless someone were out there saying no.

I very much like the Draft statement. It's an excellent document.

I want to submit to you, I'm not a speaker, but I do a little more
75-2 writing. Th-is is an article on the crabs, which I haven't noticed too many 75-2 Comments accepted. The population
of them out there this year and that was part of this discussion,and its a dynamics of the blue crab at Piermont
couple of years old, on the decline of the crabs. I think crabbing is a would be a suitable subject for
very important recreation to Piermont. It would be very good fur us to research in the proposed Estuarine
have some study on what's happening with the Crab population' Thank you. Sanctuary. Crabbing is an important
recreational and commercial activity
on the Hudson River. Juvenile
blue crabs have been found in
Piermont Marsh, and the marsh could
have some importance as a nursery
area.

July 20, 1982 7-15 p.m. - 8:47 p.m. 19 speakers 35 present

Red Hook Village Hall

Persons present

1. Richard J. Podgorny - Public Hearing Officer
2. Edward Radle
3. Erik Kiviat
4. John Winthrop Aldrich
5. Warren H. McKeon - speaker
6. Jean de Castella de Delley - speaker
7. Fred Slater speaker
B. James Morton speaker
9. John F. O'Neil - speaker
10. Robbe P. Stimson speaker
11. Michael Rosenthal speaker
12. Anthony W. Sikorski - speaker
13. LeRoy Fein speaker (2 times)
14. Pat Weber speaker
15. Ralph Johnson speaker
16. Harry Ferris speaker
17. Connie Bard Fowle - speaker
18. Sam Lore - speaker
19. Janet Graham - speaker (2 times)
20. Frederick G. Faerber speaker
21. Bartholomew C. Stuart speaker
22. Dennis Kysp N)
23. Joseph Steeley (XI
24. James Veatch
25. Patricia A. Magee
26. Virginia Karl
27. Russell Blair
28. Bill Sherrod
29. Mrs. Sharon Sherrod
30. Ray A. Van Hoesen, Jr.
31. Marvin Cole
32. Marcella Appell
33. Nancy Zeising
34. Larry Lee Holt
35. Jim Hosie

Transcript of Comments 76-1 Comments accepted. No response
Public Hearing necessary.
July 20, 1982, 7:15 p.m. 76-2 Please see General Response A regarding
Red Hook Village Hall, Red Hook, N.Y. multipie use of the sanctuary. An
expanded research and education
Warren H. McKeon - Hudson River Environmental Society, New Paltz, N.Y. program of the proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary would not infringe upon
I represent the Hudson River Environmental Society and want to give a any traditional legal use of the
wetlands. With proper planning,
brief description of what our society consists of. We are a non-profit there is space and time enough for
membership.organization dedicated to the collection and dissemination to research and education to coexist
76-1 the general public unbiased research information concerning the Hudson with birdwatching, recreational
River ecosystem. Our position, in general, is that we favor the Estuarine boating, hunting, fishing and other
Sanctuary Program. We have about IUO members from all streches of the traditional uses of the sites.
River. We have some reservations, in that we do not want to see any of the Furthermore, these traditional
likes of any individuals or organizations who are currentlyinvolved in the recreational and educational uses
76-2 usuage of the wetlands infringed upon. We would prefer to see that the will benefit from the permanent
Sanctuary Program itself has some expression that gives that impression to protection granted the marshes by
the general public. the Estuarine Sanctuary program.
Also, research under the proposed
The only other comment that we have is the fact that we were sort of program could provide information
dismayed.that the Constitution Island marsh was not included in the leading to more effective management
76-3 Estuarine Sanctuary Program. I am intimately familiar with all these and protection of natural resources,
marshes up and down the Hudson, some 37 of them and Constitution Island and public education would inform
Marsh I realize its had damage to its system, a battery company dumped the general public of the ecological
cadminum on the wetland, but it has a lot of interesting and unique features values of the marshes in their
that I think deserve attention.
natural condition.
The research program for those wetlands is very important and should 76-3 Constitution Island Marsh was included
go forward and the people involved I think are dedicated enough so that in an earlier version of the Estuarine
they will hot restrict the uses to other types of activities. Thank you. Sanctuary proposal. At that time, OCZM
discouraged New York State from including
Constitution Island Marsh because of the
Jean de Castella de Delley - Tivoli, N.Y. local polution problem (cadmium).
However, Constitution can and should
The only thing I want to say basically that I am concerned that the be a useful adjunct area for research
purpose of these estuarine sanctuaries at Tivoli is not to be achieved by - on the effects of cadmium upon the
have been proposed to me -as the discussion is open and I would like to see ecosystem and the plants and animals,
77-1 it probably more concerted - conservation easement being used as a way to and for comparison with the wetlands
acquire - and not affect the community the way the already purchase of included within the sanctuary boundaries.
central Hudson property has affect Red Hook and Tivoli by losing large The National Audubon Society has expanded
amounts of taxes. Thank you. their program of education and research
at Constitution, and there is opportunity
for interaction between Audubon and the
Fred Slater - NYS - FWMA BD, New Paltz, N.Y. Estuarine Sanctuary. For example,
I am here to represent or substitute for the Chairman of the Fish and Audubon is planning to build a boardwalk
at Constitution; Audubon and the Estuarine
78-1 Wildlife Management Board and read a letter. What we've been doing is, Sanctuary staff can share information
during the letter, address the concerns of basically each individual marsh. leading to better engineering design
I have been at the other two hearings, and this mainly concerns the Tivoli for ice-resistance, and also information
and Stockport. This addressed to Mr. Podgorny and it says: for minimizing impact on wildlife in the
S.EE LETTER SUBMITTED marsh.

77-1 In the process of land acquisition
for the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary,
the negotiating agencies (DEC, OPRHP)
will consider, on a case-by-case
basis, all available techniques
including fee simple acquisition,
conservation easements, and reserved
life estates. In each case, the
most appropriate technique will be
used. Also, please see comments
and responses 54-1 to 54-7.

78-1 Please see comments and responses
12-1 to 12-5.

James Morton - NYS - Department of State, Albany, N.Y.

SEE LETTER SUBMITTED AT PIERMONT HEARING

John F. O'Neil - Trout Unlimited, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

I am here representing Trout Unlimited, but unfortunately it was
unknown to us al I of the comments had to be in to you by August 2nd. This
79-1 is now 8:00 on July 20th and in order for us to get any comments into you
they would have to be mailed before 5:00 on Friday July 30th. It makes a 79-1 Please see comments and responses
hearing like this almost a farse. Because its almost impossible for a 44-1 to 44-4.
group of citizens to take that time in less than 10 days and come up whether
they are going to decide to support or reject it. I can only speak for
myself, but I don't understand how the Department of State of New York State
could support this with giving their own citizens only 10 days to reply to
you. That's not fair. I don't know whether its good or bad. I do know we
have got the time, we don't even have a meeting until August 10th.

I happen to see the legal notice in the Poughkeepsie Journal and we
79-2 brought it up at our last meeting, our July meeting. We never though we'd 79-2 Same response As 79-1.
have such a short period of time to even arrive at any conclusion. I don't
understand how the Department of State got all this information so that
they could support it. They haven't notified us.

Is there anyone else here, did any body receive any information about
this?
(Response from Fred Faerber: We've been working on this for over a N.)
I got 00
year. I don't know where Trout Unlimited has been, we've been here.
all the information from that book).
79-3 Why isn't it disseminated to the public earlier? 79-3 Same response as 79-1.

If you could see the number of people here tonight and that's going to
be representing Dutchess County, this is the only hearing in Outchess County 79-4 Same response as 79-1.
79-4 for the whole project. To me its unfair. That the only thing I can say
and I'll try to rush comments in the mail by July 3Uth

Robbe P. Stimson - Executive Director, Hudson River
Shorelands Task Force, Red Hook, N.Y.

I am Robbe Stimson, executive director of the Hudson River Shorelands
Tasks Force. It's a organization that represents the interests of local,
governments that happen to be within the 18 mile national register property,
going from southern Columbia County down to Hyde Park. We're funded with
non-for profit money, private sector money, and I reviewed this application
this afternoon and I have the following comments.
I will submit this in writing next week. Our concern is the land use
controls as well as the general interest of local government, private
property owners, and coastal resources within the area.

On page 71 , Item i - There is a discussion on archaeological resources
80-1 in the district. Estuaries primarily created a very easily obtainable food 80-1 Please see comments and responses
resources for over 10,OUO years. I do feel that due to the fact the pruperty 32-1 to 32-4.
is on the national register that under NEPA and . The expenditure
of any Federal/State Funds should assess any type of impact on archaeological
resources. I do feel that there ShoUld be more extensive definition of the
resources that are located within these upland areas that are being
incorporated into the estuarine program as well as safeguards for these
resources, terms of any type of development in the as well as safeguards
for these resources in tenns of any type of development in the future.

My written comments, I will submit a bibliography if iather reports
that deal with this type of issues for your staff to work on.

Another, page 82 - Item C Unadvoidable Adverse Environmental or Socio-
economic Impacts throughout the entire DEIS discussion about land ac(luisition,
80-2 by the State of Tivoli Bays area which took a substantial amount of land 80-2 Same response as 80-1.
off the tax rolls and we do feet there maybe other more irnovative alternatives
mechanisms, that would be less expensive to the tax payer than actual land
acquisition and would be able to create the same type of safeguards, and
maintain the property on the tax rolls. One example, just one example would
be conservation easements and I do feel in a DEIS that this type of
alternative could be addressed, very seriously. Presently the State of New
York is in negotiations with an adjacent property owner in the Tivoli Bay
a@ea and we would like to see more flexibility, not only in that negotiation,
but also in this type of written document that may be referred to in the future.

Another point was p. 13 - dealing with public access. There have been N)
4@-
concerns on the part of the adjacent private property owner that the new ko
80-3 roads coming into the property to obtain more access for the sportsmen and 80-3 Please see response 37-4.
naturalist will be using the area will create adverse impacts on the adjacent
horse racing activity. One of the things we would like to see considered
in the EIS is the possibility of the creation of those 2 accesses with some
consideration given to limiting vehicle access on the railroad maintenance
road. I think this would facilitate better control on part of the management
interests for this property in the future and certdinly at a reduced expense.

That's all. Thank you very much. I'll get those comments to you in
the future.

Michael Rosenthal - Bard College, Annandale, N.Y.

I am representing Bard College at which I am a faculty member and an
administrator and also representing the views of the Dutchess County
Environmental Management Council, of which I serve as Chairman.

I'll take some comments separately from the college and the EMC.

The college in the nearest neighbor to the Tivoli Bays, our lands
actually borders on South Bay and adjacent to land on North Bay. We've
always felt the Bays are very important to us for both education and
recreation, and research. Our students wander of those lands and have heerf
very much concerned. We are very concerned with their usuage. We are satisfied

with DEIS in general. We feel it is consistent with our goals and appropriate
81-1 goals of land management. The college is supportive of the continued use 81-1 Comments accepted. No response
of the lands for sportmen, hunting, fishing and tiaping, as long as the law necessary.
is appropriately maintained since we do have a concern for our students
wander across land. The conclusion is therefore that the college is
supportive of the Federal program and is quite pleased at the mechanism by
which the Federal and State will interact in the Program.

The Environmental Management Council has long been interested in the
Tivoli Bays. We have an ongoing project in which we register significant 81-2 Comments accepted. No response
81-2 areas of Dutchess County. And the Tivoli Bays for a variety of reasons are necessary.
high on our list of important significant areas. We find that this is one
of the most valuable sites in the County and tremendously worthy of protection
of all sorts. Again, the EMC is happy with the DEIS. We have no serious
arguments with any aspect of it.

We too are happy with the mechanism by which the Federal monies are
passed on to the State and the cooperative arrangements with the State and
local interests to manage the properties.
I should also add that the EMC has long in Dutchess County been a very 81-3 Comments accepted. PleaseI see
81-3 successful coalition of both traditional environmental interests and General Response A regarding multiple
sportsmen's interests. We have sportsmen who are very active on our uses in the sanctuary.
council and we too feel very very good about maintenance of current hunting,
fishing, and trapping in the Tivoli Bays. We have no desire to see that
the future success of environemental protection in New York State, in
particular this region, depends very strongly on continued cooperation N)
between those that consider themselves traditional environmentalists and Ln
those who consider themselves primarily sportsmen. C)

Anthony W. Sikorski - Federation of Dutchess County Fish and Game Clubs,
Pok, N.Y.

From what I have been hearing tonight and the presentations received,
it seems almost unAmerican to talk about anything that is against the
82-1 ecology, but in reviewing your document I find it unacceptable in the manner 82-1 Please see General Response A
that it is presented. The reason for this is there are no assurance of regarding multiple use in the
multiple use that have been our right for a significant period of time. I sanctuary.
reviewed the supposed matching grants between the Federal and State agencies
and am concerned that the citizens of the State of New York, and I have
been led to believe, spent somewhere in the neighborhood in the course of
the year about 3 million dollars for the Tivoli Bay facility. Here what
we've talking about in excluding the the 50,000, when this program gets in .82-2 Please see comments and responses
82-2 place, if it does get in place, really dividing it up among the four systins 50-1 to 50-4.
around 18,000. Just bothers me. To quote your publication, it says, I'm
quoting the statements made here, there will be nothing changed with Tivoli
Bay, but only to the surrounding facilities and buildings at Bard and the
Museum. The thing that I'm concerned about is, you talk about multiple
use, it's only encouraged if its compatible with the proposed sanctuary
research, and educational program. - A number of people have said this over
and over again, but there Is no assurance, either by the Federal government
or the State that those of us who use the facility will always have this
opportunity.

A number of organizations have stood up and said that they support the 82-3 A Sanctuary Advisory Committee will
continued use, but as long as this document always reserves the right to me be constituted by DEC, with a
its sounds like it was written by a Philadelphia lawyer, gives you the committee for Outchess County (Tivoli
escape clause and it always puts us in a position where we are always site). Nominations for this committee
subject to your organization and the DEC. should be sent to Mr. Edward Radle,
NYS DEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY
What I'm also proposing is that the Outchess County Federation of Fish 12233. See p. 15 of the DEIS.
82-3 and Game become a member of the five organizations that control this
opportunities. So we have imput and opportunity to protect the rightsof
the sportsmen as they stand today. And you'll receive a more in depth 83-1 Please see comments and response
comment at a later date. I didn't come with a prepared statement because 29-1.
I'm going to give you an opportunity to present your program tonight.
84-1 Please see General Response A
With that I'll sit down. regarding the use of the word
$'sanctuary. "

Janet Graham - Hudson River Conservation Society, Inc. 84-2 Thank you for your suggestions on
T
Barryto n, N.Y., and the Hudson River Heritage, n-c. the slide presentation. Both water-
chestnut and muskrat trapping are
Dr. Podgorny this resolution has already been mailed to your office in important concerns in public education.
83-1 Washington, but I'd like to have it entered in the Record on behalf of the Water-chestnut is an introduced
Hudson River Conservation Society, Inc., a non profit organization founded pest plant that interferes locally
in 1936, approximately 13U members. with boating and with the natural
SEE LETTER SUBMITTED growth of more valuable waterfowl
food plants. The ecology of water-
chestnut in the Hudson River Estuary,
Frederick Faerber - NYS Brotherhood of Sportsmen Federated Sportsmen Clubs and the potential for developing r1)
c.n
of Ulster, High Falls, N.Y. biologically safe means of reducing
its abundance, are important subjects
Yes, we was probably one of the first groups supportive of your program. for research in the proposed Estuarine
Which you have decided to leave sanctuary in the program. We can't tolerate Sanctuary. Trapping and sale of
84-1 sanctuary. We can not support Federal grants, State grants, as longs as pelts of muskrat, mink, and other
sanctuary is left in the program. Sanctuary (the word) has to come out. furbearers are important activities
Because the word basically it says is that hunting, fishing and trapping and significant sources of income for
would not be part of the sanctuary. many persons in the Hudson Valley.
Thelhealth of the populations of
That's why we're concerned about that word. The word makes the whole muskrats and other furbearers in the
thing wrong. Now we can support it-we understand land management, we estuary is also an important subject
understand educatioA, we can get along with all those thing except the word for potential research in the proposed
sanctuary. Estuarine Sanctuary. The primary
objective of the proposed sanctuary is
And we will do whatever is necessary to cause rumbles in Washington, scientific research, and the sanctuary
as high up as we must go, to fight the word sanctuary. designation would help in attracting
research grants and qualified scientists
I'd like to speak on the slide presentation, propaganda is nice, lets to address resource management
84-2 tell it like it is. Lets put a slide in there about waterchestnuts and problems such as water-chestnut, and
what its doing to the estuary in general, and lets take another slide and muskrat numbers, as well as many other
discuss fur trapping brings in the Hudson Valley, especially Tivoli Bay. questions in coastal management. This
It brings in a considerable amount of money. research would be very valuable to
the people of the Hudson Valley and
also the rest of the Atlantic Coast.

Another part is, if we're going to teach, things, if we're going to 84-3 Comments accepted. You are correct
84-3 teach education, we should teach people-at college level, at least, not to that young people, including college
roam around just because they think its a free land. They have to abide by students, are subject to the same laws
laws, they have to abide by poster signs just like the hunter and fishermen and regulations governing the use of
and trapper have to abide. And this has to be taught at high school level, the State lands as are other persons.
grade level, at the college level, then it gets out in the environment However, at the present time, the
because people just think they can walk around free. That's not what this Tivoli Bays State lands are open to
ballgame is all about. largely unrestricted use for most
purposes, including walking. There is a
The word sanctuary has to come out. small area (about lU acres) that is
posted as a restricted area. This
Bartholomew C. Stuart - Kingston, N.Y. area is located adjacent to some of
the Bard College dormitories and
The only question I got to ask a question about everytime New York State acts as a buffer zone between the
85-1 does it they like to come up with some restrictive rules. We've got a fond State lands and the college. At
example where the Palisades took over a piece of land and booted off the Tivoli Bays, and elsewhere, enforcement
hunters. They were hunting up there for years. I'm afraid this will happen of regulations will not favor any
if you use the work sanctuary. user group over any other group-
enforcement will be fair to all
I think we should still be allowed to use and not have so many rules persons using the area.
and regulations that will strangle us.
85-1 Hunters will be able to continue
But biology itself is always changing. And what they're proposing to hunting where hunting is currently
85-2 do is that you want to keep things still, which won't happen. permitted on the proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary sites. Some additional
As far as I'm concerned there should be some rules and regulations, regulations for the Tivoli site are
85-3 there should be a lot more freedom of access to be used by all people. being developed by the DEC in their N)
site management plan. This plan was L"
required by DEC's recent land acqui- N)
LeRoy Fein - Poughkeepsie, N.Y. sition at the site, and the plan will
be written and implemented whether
I think you might want to note there right in the very beginning, it or not the Estuarine Sanctuary is
86-1 says "sanctuary grant award." You'd have to get that title changed before - designated. The Tivoli site requires
I don't know if you agree with me - the "sanctuary" is right in there. more careful management precisely
Thats the title of the grant. because DEC will allow the continuation
of traditional uses of the property
some people may not realize it. Maybe we just need to have more hearings. including hunting, fishing, and
Im basically here to bring up a pet peeve, for about five years I trapping, and because of the variety
I of uses and the numbers of people
have attended numerous state DEC hearings on this or that, the Hudson Valley involved at Tivoli.
or the Hudson River. Incidentally, I am coordinator of the Hudson Valley
Flood Group. We are about 40 years old, but I am speaking for myself. 85-2 The proposed Sanctuary's general
management plan would have a degree
I attended hearings at Bear Mountain, Poughkeepsie and at New Paltz of flexibility to accomodate the
and brough up the fact that, as far as I know to this date, there is still changing biology of the sites that
raw sewage going into the Hudson River at Rhinecliff. And I brought this you mention, and the same will be
86-2 to the State's attention and it was verified to me in writing by the DEC in true of DEC's site management plan
the White Plains Uffice and this has been going on for many, many, many for the Tivoli Bays. For example,
years. And that I guess the answer from the State DEC is for a monumental if an endangered species takes up
sewage treatment plant for the Town of Rhinbeck and I bring this to your residence on a site, it might be
attention cause I have received no answer. The person contact for the necessary to close a small portion
State has informed me about two weeks ago that as far as he knows, this is of the site in Winter or Spring
still going on, this dumping of the raw sewage into the Hudson. It is a to protect that species from disturbance.
problem with the geology here, being on. limestone or whatever.

85-3 Access to the sites will be open to
the public as much as possible. There
have to be some restrictions to
protect natural resources and
reduce potential conflicts among
different types of users. At the
Iona Island Marsh, a permit is required
to do research in the marsh and
public access is generally restricted
to the causeway, the bicycle path,
and to the shallow waters (by boat).
At Tivoli Bays, when alternative
access points are developed and the
railroad service roads are closed
(by ConRail), access will be regulated
to some extent by the amount of parking
space available; this will be done to
avoid concentrating large numbers of
people in small portions of the site.

86-1 Please see General Response A regarding
the use of the word "sanctuary."

86-2 The issue of effective sewage treatment
at Rhinecliff is not directly within the
scope of this EIS. However, it is
possible that research at the proposed
Estuarine Sanctuary could address
questions such as the capacity of the
Hudson River Estuary to assimilate
treated sewage, and the most ecologically
appropriate form and degree of treatment
/for the protection of the estuary.

I think that this is like this is third base and before you get to
third base have to get to base second base, before you get to second you
got to get to first.

I believe that this one situation should be cleared up, although I am
86-3 for this estuary plan and I just want you to know that I am concerned about 86-3 Comments accepted. No response
the Hudson. I think a lot of the comments brought up here tonight were necessary.
educational in away. And yet, I have to agree with Mr. O'Neil , Poughkeepsie,
that, if this is the first time that this has been put in the hands of the
86-4 organizations, it really doesn't especially in the summer time, give much 86-4 Please see response 44-2.
time for anybody to call a meeting, read this thing over and make a statement.
Thats the reason why I have to speak for myself, not for my organization.

But I can see your plans, but I guess you have to understand some of
our views, on entire organization making a committment.
It's obviously true that the word sanctuary stays in, that hunting 86-5 Same response as 86-1. Also,
86-5 would be barred. Hunting and rifles. please see response 85-1.

(The following remarks were presented simultaneously.)

(Fred Faerber)

(I looked up the word and it doesn't "say anything about hunting".
Instead of going off half cocked, you should make sure that we know
what we're taking about tonight before we start making comments.)

Plus, we might throw out a good thing away real quick. I know in the r@a
ILn
Flood Group, I know many times that monies was lost through Congress because 4@h
people jumped the gun and statred getting mad about this project and then
Congress took the money away.

(If we had a letter from the President saying hunting was ok. (Fred Faerber)

I don't you, you can write the President.

(How do you get the answer?)
(How are you going to get the answer about the word Sanctuary tonight?)

Think his said more or less ..........................

(You got to get it from the government. You said don't knock it out, 86-6 Please see General Response A
86-6 and we'll get the answer tonight, just as what the State means as sanctuary. regarding use of the word
What do they mean? They're not going to answer any questions. Now how can It sanctuary."
(John ONeil)

(We will answer questions at the end of the Hearing.) (Richard Podgorny)

Pat Weber - Scenic Hudson, Inc. Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 87-1 Please see comments and responses
4U-1 to 40-8.
1 am here representing Scenic Hudson, a non profit organization, 12,000
members and we're concerned with the development and enhancement of the Valley. 87-2 Comments accepted. No response
87-1 SEE LETTER SUBMITTED necessary.
We would like to support the establishment of the Estuarine Sanctuary 88-1 Please see General Response A regarding
87-2 Program. multiple uses and priority uses of
the sanctuary. It is true that the
Estuarine Sanctuary guidelines give
Ralph Johnson - Mid-Hudson Waterfowl Association, Kingston, N.Y. first priorities to research and
education. However, DEC as lead
I represent the Mid-Hudson Waterfowl Association, Kingston, N.Y. agency in New York's proposal is
strongly committed to the continuation
I attended open hearings, just a year ago at Bard College, that's when of hunting, trapping, fishing and
I first received the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program copies here. Arid crabbing in those areas of the
I have to go along with the gentlemen from the Dutchess Sportsmen Association. proposed sites where'these activities
are currently permitted. Hunting
Sanctuary utilization, the very last sentence there, also multiple and other consumptive uses will
88-1 uses can take place in a sanctuary as long as the activities do not detract continue in the Hudson River Estuary
from their research and educational uses. And to take this one step further, Sanctuary if the sanctuary is designated.
on page 66 in the booklet I just received, the Hudson River estuary including There is plenty of space in the
Tivoli and Stockport was restricted to the use of steel shot for water fowl proposed sanctuary for the coexistence
hunting for the first time during the 1981 season. This rule is based on a of multiple uses, including consumptive
finding of ingested lead shot in approximately lOw. of ducks tagged in the uses. Furthermore, most of the lands
88-2 upper estuary. Steel shot use should reduce the incidence of lead poisoning in existing Estuarine Sanctuaries in
in ducks when ingesting lead pellets while feeding on organisms in the mud. other States is open to consumptive N)
uses, and these uses (including hunting, Vi
Now, I don't like to bring this up, but we have a class action suit commercial and recreational fishing and
against DEC, the Department of the Interior. They have never proved this shellfishing, and fur trapping)
shot ingestion fatality. They did'nt do the proper tests, village drainage generally reflect the patterns of
or anything like that. IU% issue, the studies we have, the studies they traditional uses existing before
had, Incidentally, we gave them the gizzards to use for their own study. sanctuary designation.
It looks to me like between last year and this year, that the DEC on 88-2' The steel shot zones for waterfowl
the State, as you may, and Federal government got in bed together on draftin4 hunting in New York were established by
88-3 this impact statement. You write half and we'll write the other half. Arid DEC independently from the Estuarine
we'll just let it go at that. Sanctuary proposal. There is ample
evidence from analyses of gizzard
Its just that, I know we've called county officials that were in charge contents of waterfowl on the Hudson
of pollutants on the other side of the river, and far as I'm up to date on, River Estuary, and from other studies
nothing has been done about the river. of the relationship of lead shot to
waterfowl health, to support the
To no avail, we've screamed and yelled and tried everything, except designation of the upper Hudson Estuary
get the camera crews there. as a steel shot zone. The relationship
between lead shot, wetland sediments,
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't have much faith in this, shot pellets and tissue lead levels
88-4 where they say, as long as it does not detract from the research and in waterfowl and other animals is an
educational uses, which could be brought up at any time and barr everybody, appropriate research topic for the
not only the hunter and fishermen, but the birdwatcher, the boaters - proposed Estuarine Sanctuary. Lead
anytime at the drop of a hat they could say - look it - you had it. is toxic, potentially, to all animals
(not just waterfowl). There has been
little research on the effects of
lead Shot on other kinds of animals.

Harry Ferris - Federation of Dutchess County, Fish and Game,
Staatsburg, N.Y.

I am opposed to this thing the way its written. The basic plan is
89-1 good. But again it says recreational uses will be permitted if they don't 89-1 Please see General Response A.
interfere with the other programs. And this is not what we want. All it
takes is one liberal judge, one cort ruling because its not spelled out in
here. The one liberal judge that makes a court ruling and that's it. The
region is closed, whether its the bird watcher, the wild flower picker, the
hunter, tile fishermen, whomever it may be. An I feel if this thing is
going to go through, its got to be spelled out where everybody knows where
the whole thing stands.

I didn't come prepared to make a statement. I come to listen. As far
89-2 as I can see right now we can't take the word of DEC; their credibility is 89-2 Concerning the credibility of DEC
gone, as far as I'm concerned. There is nobody there in the Federal as the lead agency in the Estuarine
government in this thing who has any credibility to say that all these Sanctuary proposal:, provision is
rights will remain. made in the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary
guidelines for citizens or organizations
So, I think it has to be down in black and white. And I think the which are concerned about improper
89-3 rest of the sportsmen Will agree with me, I think the bird clubs, everybody use or restriction to petition the
that's going to utilize this thing has the same feeling. State management agency, and if
necessary the Federal Office of Coastal
That's about the only statement I have to make onto it. I think you Zone Management directly, for review
89-4 better go back and sort of rewrite it. of the management program. In Section
921.319 the public is assured that
approved boundaries and management
Connie Bard Fowle - Town of Red Hook, Environmental policy, including permissible and r13
Ln
Conservation Commission, Red Hook, N.Y. prohibited uses, may only be changed 4
after public notice and public review
I am here representing the Town of Red Hook Environmental Conservation and participation. In this respect, the
Commission, an advisory council to local governments. EIS is a contract between the State
and Federal governments regarding the
Since its creation in the early 70's, we have recognized that the future use of the sanctuary lands.
Tivoli Bays area is our town's most valuable natural resource area.
89-3 Same response as 89-1.
Its an ideal place for hunting, trapping, fishing, bird Watching and
hiking as well as for research and education. Over the years we have come 89-4 Please see all responses to all comments.
to realize that this area is important on a State and Federal level because
of its unique qualities. For almost a decade we have supported State
acquisition of Tivoli North Bay, and we're please this acquisition has
become a reality. 90-1 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
Now we would like to support the Federal interest in this area as it
90-1 has been expressed through the Estuarine Sanctuary Proposed from the
Commerce's Department Office of Coastal Zone Management.

The Tivoli Bays are certainly an appropriate sanctuary site. It's
healthy estuarine system can provide an excellent setting for the research
and education that are such an intergral part of the Coastal Zone ManaUement
Program.

I would like to comment on a few aspects of the draft environmental
impact statement.

First, the creation of a Sanctuary Advisory Committee is commendable.
Public participation In the management of the sanctuary is essential,
particularly in light of the numerous and diverse groups and individuals
that have an interest in this area.

Our Commission will continue to take a position that people from the
local area, who are most familiar with this site can offer valuable insight
into its management. Every attempt should be made to make this Advisory
group a viable active group, not just a committee that exists on paper to
fulfill public particpation guidelines.

We have noted that the draft EIS emphasizes the traditional uses of
this area, will not be changed to the extent that they are compatible with
the sanctuary's goals of research and education. While this proposal 90-2 Comments accepted. This committee will
90-2 deserves merit, we feel that the potential for conflict among users is be valuable in providing recommendations
quite strong. We hope that in formulating the management plan for the to DEC and the Sanctuary Steering
sanctuary, the DEC will address the issue by striving to minimize the Committee for resolution of conflicts
potential conflicts while ensuring that no one individual, or groups, use in the use of the proposed sanctuary.
of the area will be unduly restricted. This is no easy task. And will
require some creative management techniques. If DEC can successfully Also, please see response 37-3.
address this problem, then the management plan has the potential of enhancing
rather than impeding the uses of the property by all interests.

Une particularly appealing aspect of the proposal is that it will
increase public access to the Hudson. Recent years, access to the River
has declined significantly; without sufficient points of access, the river
is no longer a resource that belongs to the people. N)
U1
In view of the possibility that Con-Rail would close off railroad 00
service roads to the public, the question of access becomes even more 90-3 Some of the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary funds
90-3 pressing. The increased access proposed in the plan would be an important would be used to improve access to the
advantage for all users. proposed sanctuary sites for research
and education, and these improvements will
The designation of the Tivoli Bays area as an Estuarine Sanctuary, also have immediate benefits to
9U-4 clearly would have a positive impact on this site. Much need funds would sportsmen and other sanctuary users
be provided for management and facilities development. who need better access to these areas
The reseprch and educational use of the site will be greatly expanded by boat, on foot, or by car.
and encouraged while traditional uses will continue. Also, please see response 37-4.

In addition, environmental protection will be provided through this
designation. There may be times, I suspect, that those of us who know this 90-4 Comments accepted. No response
property so well for so long will wish we had kept it to ourselves, yet the necessary.
unique sense of this place is so deep that this area should be enjoyed by
as many people as possible and as many ways as possible without detracting
from the integrity of the property.

. Thoughtful, intelligent management with meaningful citizen participation.
can help to ensure this.

Janet Graham - Hudson River Heri@a it, Inc.. Barrytown. N.Y. 91-1 Comments accepted. No response
necessary.
I speak as President of Hudson River Heritage, which was formed tn
protect the environment both architectual and ecological within a limited 91-2 A Bill (11814) was introduced in the
area along the Hudson River, particularly including Tivoli Bays. State Assembly on March 30, 1982, which
would require State agencies owning lands
And I would like to put the society on record as supporting the draft in New York to make payments in lieu of
91-1 statement. taxes. This Bill, at the time of this
FEIS printing, was reportedly still in
Committee. Payments in lieu of taxes would
Sam Lore - Supervisor, Red Hook, N.Y. be beneficial to local communities in
reducing the burden of tax exemption of
I would like to say a few words. large State land holdings.

I am supervisor for the Town of Red Hook. I just want you people to Although it is not possible to put dollar
92-1 know, this is all on the expense of our tax base. We get nothing. As a values on uses of the proposed sanctuary
matter of fact, from Bard College all the way up to Tivoli is all tax exempt sites right now, it is clear that the
in the Town of Red Hook. And I think we should be, between the State and existence of accessible reserves for public
Federal governments, spending thousands of dollars that we should be use for hunting, research, and other
reimbursed in some sort of taxes for this Tivoli Bay area. activities has economic benefits to the
local @ommunities. Sportsmen and non-
sportsmen buy equipment such as guns,
Larry Hoigt - Red Hook Rod and Gun Club, Red Hook, N.Y. fishing tackle, traps, binoculars, books,
outdoor clothing, and supplies such as
I represent the Red Hook Rod and Gun Club and I would like to go on gasoline. Scientists using the proposed
93-1 record that we are against the word sanctuary. sanctuary will need gasoline, meals,
lodging in some cases, and other supplies. r1l)
Some of these goods and services will he Ln
Jim Hosie - Viola Rod and Gun Club, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. purchased in the local communities.
Protection of the wetlands from environ-
Our club is opposed to that fact that you seem to be omitting that mental damage will maintain the economic
94-1 sportmen have a right to be there, or they could be deleted in the near future. values of the wetlands and their associated
environments in maintaining good water
quality in the estuary, maintaining the
Le Roy Fein - (more comments) natural beauty of the countryside, and
helping to maintain wildlife and fish that
We can speak until all spoken. You see, that's what it says. migrate in and out of the proposed sanctuary
sites. Scientists and economists are
There was a hearing conducted, I believe by the Army Corps of Engineers beginning to assess the economic values
on at Poughkeepsie about six months ago concerning the proposal dredging of this "free work of nature" and they
project near Hudson Falls. And we're talking about run off of whatever are finding that it can add up to large
and the officials at that meeting didn't seem to know anything about the amounts of dollars in some areas. Perhaps,
existing former Shots landfill dump at Poughkeepsie which has been proven this type of econimic study can be done in
to have PCB's in it, which flows into the Hudson River. the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
as well.
They were talking about dredging the river and that was stalemated. I
brought up to the Hearing advisor's attention the fact that the PBC's were
going to be buried in a PCB landfill dump near Hudson Falls, which is near
the Banks of the Hudson River. One of the answers that I got. They did
admit that the PCB's, there maybe a minimal runoff into the river and I
bring this up as whatever kind of concern you want to accept it as, because
if they're going to go to all that trouble of removing most of the PCB and
putting them into the landfill there adjacent to the river and admitting
that there will be some runoff, however minimal, they didn't describe what

93-1 Please see General Response A regarding use
of the word "sanctuary."

94-1 Please see General Response A and other
responses to fish and game clubs. The
sportsmen do indeed have a right to use the
areas where consumptive activities are
currently permitted, along with the rights
of other user groups for other activities.
The EIS and the Sanctuary Management Plan
(in preparation) will help to assure
these rights.

N)
(or)
CD

they meant by minimal and the fact that the Shoats stuff is still under
investigation and experts are determined that tere are PBC's that this
still be a concern.

I still want to make known I'm for this sanctuary project, estuary
project. I don't know how the name could be changed at this late date. I
think that, on a wild guess, you would lose the grant because if the time
and you have to change the name. And that there. I understand there is a
citizen's advisory group out of the DEC in New Paltz and if you contact
95-1 them, Paul Keller, I believe that you can be placed on that citizens 95-1 The Sanctuary Advisory Committee is described
committee which also includes certain names of private firms. on p. 15-16 of the DEIS. Members will be
appointed by DEC. Nominations (including
I'm sure that, you know, we talked about Nixon and his 18 minutes of documentation) should be sent to Mr. Edward
missing tapes. I'm sure that you yourself, Sir, are for this project. And Radle, NYS DEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY
I'm sure that there isn't anybody that's going to question you whether any 12233. The committee will act as a channel
18 minutes segment of this meeting is going to be left out. We have no of communications between the public and
control over what you're going to put in, or what you're going to get from the State agencies involved in this program.
your tape recorder. The committee will make recommendations
on the use and management of the sanctuary,
Personally, and I have spoken it Milbrook at New Paltz, DEC meeting, as well as recommendations on research and
and I have been highly critical over the fact there was not a secretary education activities; it will also assist
taking notes. I believe that with all the money that New York spends, in fund-raising. The local subcommittee
we're talking about legal stuff, and what people are saying and you are for the Tivoli Bays site will be the sank-
actually playing the role of secretary. That shouldn't be your job, Sir; as the management advisory committee being
it really shouldn't. constituted by DEC in conjunction with
I really believe that there is enough money, and you're not with the DEC's site management plan. N)
DEC, right? (No, I'm with the Federal Government) Right. (But do I hear 95-2 Each speaker's comments, from each of four
you making a request for a written transcript) No, I believe that future public hearings, have been transcribed
95-2 hearings, and you can write this down, do whatever you want with it, but and are included here.
there should be a recording secretary. A secretary who's going to record
the minutes, all the minutes of the meetings, so that its put in this
transcript. Because how can we know that my comments or Mr. O'Neills, the
gentlement here from Ulster County are not going to be left out?

You're going to put the important, what you think the important things
in; you may think its important, maybe.

(Fred Faerber: "I'm going to write him a letter - I'm going to put it in writing.")

I'll bet you 10 to I he's going to leave that part out.

(Fred Faerber: Oh, I wouldn't doubt it.")

Sure. Ok. So thats my comments. I just trying to take the work, not
only take the work load off of you, but I am strongly, encouraging, not only
you, but the DEC start having these secretaries.
Thank you.

July 21. 1982 7:15 p.m. - 8:32 p.m. 15 speakers 42 present

Stockport Town Hall in Stottville, N.Y.

Persons Present:

1. Richard J. Podgorny - Public Hearing Officer
2. Edward Raddle
3. Erik Kiviat
4. John Winthrop Aldrich
5. John P. Barrett
6. Joyce Sourusaitis (Mrs. Algis)
7. Jim Morton - speaker
8. Richard A. Brady - speaker
9. Donald R. Hilton - speaker
10. Gerald D. Hilton - speaker
11. Joel W. Meltz, Sr.
12. Sigrin Newell - speaker
13. Kate Dunham speaker
14. Larry Biegel speaker
15. John Mylod - speaker
16. Bob Mac Giffert - speaker
17. Robert B. Ewald - speaker
18. Donald Lynk - speaker
19. Ms. Patricia Weber - speaker
20. qoland R. Vosburgh - speaker
21. JohnRossi r.)
Cn
22. Mr. John Mac Giffert DO
23. Mrs. John Mac Giffert
24. George B. Wolfe
25. Scott Longe
26. Alfred Hilton - speaker
27. Anna Hilton
28. Jane Hilton
29. Nancy Pierson
30. Joan S. Hilton
31. Joel W. Meltz, Jr.
32. Janet Mdltz
33. Peter T. Gregory
34. Harry E. Earle
35. Matt Kusewich
36. Doug Hindle
37. Don Hamm
38. John Leach
39. Robert T. Leach
40. Donald Taube
41. David K. Wolfe
42. Terry M. Norsic

Transcript of Comments Public Hearing
July 21, 1982
7:15 p.m.
Stockport Town Hall at Stottsville, N.Y.

Roland R. Vosburgh - Columbia County Environmental Management Council
Hudson, N.T. -
My name is Roland Vosburgh and I am a planner working for the Columbia 96-1 Please see comments and responses
96-1 County Department of Development and Planning and I am making a statement
on behalf of Columbia County Environmental Management Council. The EMC 25-1 to 25-4.
is a duly appointed group of citizens, volunteers, who are charged with
advising Columbia County supervisors on environmental matters that effect
Columbia County. SEE LETTER SUBMITTED.

James Morton - NYS Department of State Albany, N.Y.
97-1 SEE LETTER SUBMITTED AT PIERMONT/RED HOOK HEARINGS 97-1 Please see comments and responses
63-1 to 63-3

Richard A. Brady - Heritue Task Force of Hudson River Valley
Hudson,, N.Y.
98-1 My name is Richard A. Brady and I am a Commissioner of Public Works 98-1 Please see comments and responses
for Columbia County and I am an appointed member to the Heritage Task 28-1 to 28-3.
Force of the Hudson River Valley. I like to read a lett 'er on our stationery
from our principal consultant, Loretta M. Simson, to Dr. Podgorny.
SEE LETTER SUBMITTED.

Donald Hilton - Copake, N.Y.

I don't have a prepared statement, just some notes I put down.
I guess mainly because I'm a local Stockport Columbiaville boy. I went
to a'one-room school house and I happen to be a duck hunter. I don't
have everything typed up ahead of time. If its alright if I go through
what I have here without being prepared.

I will make it clear to everyone here, I am not representing any
organization, I am an ex-member Chainnan of The Board Columbia County
Federation of Sportsmen, ex-member Waterfront Representatives for the
Columbia County Federation of Sportsmen, Charter member of Sportsmen
Club, and Rod and Hunting Club.

99-1 How I stand on this, P I I make myself clear before we start. I am 99-1 Comments accepted. No response
about 150% against it. Mainly, these are my reasons: an unprepared necessary.
statement.

Week ago Saturday I cruised up and down the river, brother and a
few other relatives, went past the middle grounds, Grays Point. I think
the Peconic Parks Commission is taking this land over. What have you
done with it? They claim they don't have money to fix it up. There is 99-2 Regarding safe access to the Stockport
absolutely nothing been done whatsoever. Flats site: Access is now either by boat,
or by foot across the railroad bridge.
Another thing is, mentioned in the beginning here, so much of this The possibility of constructing an overpass
land is supposed to be sanctuary. First of all the name sanctuary... or underpass for pedestrian access across
I am not against any advancement, development, saving stuff for the future. the railroad will be explored with Consolidated
But the Hudson River stil I has the PCB's and I think that's the poly- Rail Corporation; this might be funded
chlorinated biphenyls, mirex. I think if we're going to spend $375,000 from the Estuarine Sanctuary grants.
of our money, and $375,000 of Federal money, which is also our money- Whether or not it will be possible to build
I think we ought to clean up the river first. It seems to me that its a walkway, permanent boat access is needed
more or less the horses tail wagging the horse. I think we ought to close to the site. DEC will negotiate with
get first things first. And again I'll say this is my personal thing. ConRail to acquire the parking area and
unimproved boat landing at the former
I noticed the hunting fees, my wife and I both hunt, sportsman site of Stockport Station, on the north
license last year was $15.50, correct me if I'm wrong, I think this year side of the mouth of Stockport Creek east
$23.50. 1 know of no sportsmen's group in Columbia County, anyplace in of the-tracks (parcel #5, DEIS p.7). DEC
New York State, at least I haven't heard of it they're not against it will also examine the possibility of boat
they was for the raise. Because the State needs more money. We don't access from the Barrett property on the
have the money. And I think when we get right down to it, we can watch south side of the creek, a possibility that N)
moving' pictures, we can watch anything we want, we get right down to it the Barretts suggested informally after 0)
we're talking about dollar bills, too. If you don't have it, you don't the Stockport hearing (see parcel #12, 4h
have it. DEIS p.7). Both of these sites are inside
(east of) the railroad, and the area around
Another thing is, I have hunted the Stockport Flats, this will be the railroad bridge is very shallow at
99-2 my 42nd year. Anyone from aroung Stockport knows that railroad down low tide. However, hunters, fishermen, and
there is a dangerous place. Now you're talking about putting a boat other users have been launching boats here
launch down there. I have not heard anybody here from Con-Rail, but the for years for access to Stockport Flats and
State evidently has got the permission that nobody seems to know about. nearby areas. The need for dredging is
That launch down there for the past few years does belong to Con-Rail . not anticipated. Uredging could have
negative effects on fish and plant populations
Another thing is, I am against the Stockport Flats Sanctuary. in the area. Additional boat access is
We're going to encourage more people to be walking across that car available at improved public landings at
bridge, the railroad bridge, we always refer to it as a car bridge. Athens, Coxsackie, and Hudson, all within
I lost one dear friend on the car bridge, I think there's quite a few about two miles of Stockport Flats.
other ones had been killed going across it.

Not to get off the subject, we went through almost the same thing in
parallel with the steel shot on the Hudson River. We don't study what
other people have done. We got a steel shot gun act, this is the law--
we obey it. I obey it, my wife hunts with me, she obeys it. Maryland
and Delaware they had steel shot, they abandoned all this money to study
the gizzards of ducks and everything else. Why don't they find out why
Maryland and Delaware eliminated the project.

'Another thing I seen here in your picture, and this may sound like 99-3 The Slide referred to shows wild-rice at
99-3 nit picken, I'm sorry if it does. It said wild rice on Stockport Flats- Stockport Flats. In 1980 and 1981 , when
I hunted down there this year, I see somebody down there laughing I don't field work was done for the Estuarine
know who it is - you hunt Stockport Flats? What wild rice? Where did Sanctuary proposal , extensive stands of
you take that picture? I seen a couple, maybe 3 or 4. This is the wild-rice were found in the southern half
reason I am against it. of the "main marsh" at Stockport Flats
(see DEIS p. 36) as well as in the Stockport
I think its a dangerous thing, the money should be spent other Creek mouth. According to the reports
places, and I'd like to say there are people here and I have nothing and of botanists, wild-rice was abundant in
I don't mean to put anybody down, its not my intent. They have their the upper Hudson River Estuary in the 1930s
prepared statements and I don't have one, maybe one from a rod and gun and 1940s. Since then there has been a
club, Calconi's here, maybe he has a prepared statement. decline followed by an increase in the
wild-rice population of the estuary.
But I think if we had more people that would get up and speak as Wild-rice is one of the important features
they feel, that I think the money is going to the wrong place. Thank of the Stockport site from a research
you very much. point of view, because wild-rice is one
of the most productive tidal marsh plants
known, and a very important food for
Gerald Hilton - Hudson, N.Y. muskrats, ducks, rails, and other birds. M
The reasons for the great changes in V1
The whole think is this. The property owners down in Stockport wild-rice abundance in the Hudson are
Creek, there's a lot of camps down there. And they're talking about a not understood.
boat launch by the railroad track. Well this isn't going to go over.
So, there's properties on the railroad tracks up. And the way this looks
to me you're proposing that you're going to move, move, more like 100-1 There are no plans for the sanctuary boundaries
Afganistan. And you are going to take all this property. Now this is to expand farther into the mouth of Stockport
what I want to know, is this going to be true, is everything down here Creek. However, if property owners there
100-1 now, or are you going to move on and take more property? This is the are willing to sell , the Estuarine Sanctuary
question I want to find out. Are these boundaries going to expand in Steering Committee would consider acquisition
the future? How far are they going to go with this? I mean they go so in fee simple or by easement. Since the
many thousands, and all of a sudden we'll be pushed right out, and DEIS was written, the Barretts have expressed
you'd take over without even firing a shot. That's the whole thing. interest in selling their property on the
That's my only question right there. south side of Stockport Creek, and this
possibility is under study by DEC.

Mr. Joel Meltz, Sr. - Hudson, N.Y.

101-1 1 feel about the same ways Mr. Hilton does. 101-1 No response necessary.

Sigrin Newell - The Nature Conservancy, Albany, N.Y.

My name is Sigrin Newell, I am the chairman of the New York Chapter
of the Nature Conservancy. Tonight I speak both for our local chapter
and our State field office.

The Nature Conservancy is an organization nationally which is dedicated 102-1 Comments accepted. The Estuarine Sanctuary
to protecting America's wild lands, so there will be wild lands in the future. proposal Offers a special opportunity for
And locally, the Nature Conservancy Eastern New York Chapter has various the conservation of rare pldnts in the
preserves. We have about 27 preserves from the Capital district and Hudson River Estuary. These plants need
down into your area. protection so that their populations will
be available for scientific research,
our basic concern is protecting rare and endangered plants. And since esthetic enjoyment, and any potential
102-1 you saw in Erik Kiviat's projections, there are some rare and endangered usefulness to humanity. Many valuable
plants in the area we are concerned that they should be protected. drugs and other substances have been
discovered in wild plants, and it is
So the Nature Conservancy has turned in a written statement to the important to conserve rare species for these
102-2 preparers of the plan about our specific detail technical comments. potential resources. Rare species also
are important elements in natural diversity
For tonight I'd like to say for the Nature Conservancy is in favor of and in the genetic resources for future
having the estuarine sanctuary system because we think it's important that evolution. Some of the noteworthy rare
102-3 people experience outdoors in a way that makes them want to preserve them plants of the proposed sanctuary sites
for the future. And this seems to be a very well put together design in are listed in DEIS p.,50.
which people can do exactly that.
It doesn't interfer with the basic rights of hunters and other people 102-2 Please see comments and responses 36-1 to 36-9.
who have been using the land traditionally for their purposes. And it does 102-3 Comments accepted. No response necessary.
make it possible to be sure that the land will be protected and that more
people, who can learn about the land, will be able to be on it. 102-4 One of the incentives to selection of the
four proposed sanctuary sites, in addition
Since the State already owns most of the land which is being proposed to their superb environmental quality,
102-4 within this system, it will cost the taxpayers very little money, and we was the fact that most of the land is
think that's a very important thing. It would be giving a new focus to land already in State ownership. Thus an
which is already part of the'State system.
Estuarine Sanctuary can be established
that does not involve removing large
So, in general, I think I would just like to say that the Nature Conservancy additional parcels from the tax rolls.
does feel that protecting land is important and that this is a good way Even though much of the land is already
102-5 of doing it with the cooperation of the local people who will be serving on State-owned, the establishment of the
these various advisory committees and will be able to put their input into Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary would
the whole planning process. Thank you. create a new focus and a new program that
emphasizes research and education - both
Kate Dunham - Alan Devoe Bird Club, Chatham, N.Y. needed in the Hudson River estuarine wetlands.
)02-5 Comments accepted. No response necessary
103-0 1 represent the Alan Devoe Bird Club. SEE LETTER SUBMITTED.
103-0 Please see comments and responses 26-1 to 26-3.

Larry Biegel - Greene County Environmental Management Council
Cairo, N.Y.

I live across the county in Greene County in Cornwallville. I spend
quite a bit of time slopping around the Stockport swamps there. I didn't
read the whole environmental impact statement, but I read most of it.

First of all, I would like to say on my own behalf as a hunter,
fishermen and trapper and birdwatcher, I do all of those. I am in favor
of this proposal. I would not be in favor of this proposal if it would 103-1 Comments accepted. No response necessary.
103-1 try and stop hunting and fishing, but I'm not so worried about that.
In Green County we have over 80,000 acres, owned by the Department of
Environmental Conservation. And they are the people who would be
administering this sanctuary program. And you can hunt on every single
acre of that, so I don't see any problem.

1 a] so have a statement from the Green County Environmental Management 103-2 Please see comments and responses 27-1 to 27-5.
103-2 Council, who I sometimes work with. I'd like to read.
SEE LETTER SUBMITTEO.

John Mylod - Hudson River Sloop Clearwater
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

My name is John Mylod and I am the Director of Clearwater, and I
am a member of the States' Hudson River Fishery Management Advisory
Committee, and I'm also a commercial shad fisherman out of the Poughkeepsie
area.

And I'd like to make some written comments later on for submission
to the record.

I think there was a comment earlier by Mr. Vosburgh that interested
me especially in terms of special interests. We all are here for various
special interests, whether its commercial fishing and the value that these
habitats play in the development of the fish and spawning and nursery 104-1 Comments accepted. No response necessary.
104-1 of those fish, hunting and fishing and bird watching and research. But
I think that in terms of the excellent DEIS, which I think should be
proceeded within terms of the way its outlined here, is the key about
protection.

What we have here is four discrete marshes from the Piermont area to
Stockport Flats is an opportunity to preserve these four areas. I think
that's critical at a time that the Army Corps of Engineers is beginning
to change some of its priorities,--in the West--area where 220 acres--
what happens there. Changes in the permit process all these could lead
to the ultimate destruction of these very vital critical wetland areas
of the Hudson. I think that the important areas is the notion of protection,
not only of the wetland areas, but the shallows area of the river. The
shallows are very important, very important for the productivity of the
area for the spawning, important for fish like striped bass and shad.

I think the other point I'd like to make too is that this Hudson
River is really not just here, its a national river, its a regional river.
What we do to the Hudson in general, we do to the whole coastal zone.

I think in terms of productivity, its critical that it be preserved.

I would like to make one final comment, something that someone said
earlier in terms of spending money unnecessarily for these marshes. I
certainly support the notion of cleaning up the Hudson River, in terms of
PCB problems. It is more important to know that 18 million dollars is
available to start cleaning up the PCB's in the Hudson River right Flow.
If the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington would release those
funds that were appropriated by Congress, DEC has a program to clean up
the river by dredging the hot spots above Troy. I think that if we all in
this room lean on our elected officials and get them to move, its critical
to the restoration of commercial and sport shad fishing. Thank you.

Bob Mac Giffert - Hudson, N.Y.

105-1 1 just had one question, page ,13 talks about the boat launch site by 105-1 An additional or alternative boat landing
Con-Raii. It says in the next paragrdph that future acquisition planned might be desirable on Stockport Creek.
along the Creek, what are they thinking about, another access for boat No specific location has been chosen,
launch or fishing. I was wondering specifically they plan on putting this and this will depend on the availibility
in along the fronts of the Creek, they must have some area in mind or they of property. The possibility of using
wouldn't have put in this book here. Where along the Creek do they plan the Barrett property for a landing is
on putting this in? under study.

Robert B. Ewald - FWMA - Region 3, Pine Bush, N.Y. F\)
M
106-1 SEE LETTER SUBMITTED AT PIERMONT/RED HOOK HEARING 106-1 Please see comments and responses 12-1 to 12-5. 00

Pursuing this point I was not available for the Iona Island Hearing.
106-2 It was one that I was not available for and as much I did not know it was 106-2 Both the Bear Mountain (Iona Island)
going to exist and it had not been published as part of the original DEIS. hearing and the Piermont hearing were set
This is the type of thing which the sportsmen has to always feel a little up for comments on either of those two
uneasy about. Granted that Iona Island under PIP control is something proposed sites. The Bear Mountain hearing
in terms of hunting & trapping, something we really look at. But in terms was scheduled as a convenience to residents
of a boat ramp for striped bass recreational fishing, or a recreational of the Town of Stony Point; the information
fishing for shad, I think that its something I'd like to have entered was not relayed to Washington in time to
into the record, and this is the 4th of four hearings. be announced in the DEIS. However, all
comments received at any of the four hearings
The sportsmen would like to have an answer to that question. The are summarized here in the FEIS, it doesn't
106-3 ramps are there, why can't they be used? There's adequate access once matter which hearing comments were presented
the causeway is made strong enough to support vehicles. There are boat at.
launching ramps which I don't think would interfer with the pristine
status that the PIP hopes to include for educational purposes. Thank you.
106-3 Regarding public use of boat ramps at Iona
Island: There are no boat ramps at Iona
Island. The periphery of the land is
Donald Lynk - Columbia County Sportsmen Federation fenced.
Hudson, N.Y.

I just came more for information than anything on the controversy on
the Stockport purchase.

I am the delegate for Columbia County for region 4.
also the word sanctuary and if there will be the continua-n-ce--o-f -hunting
107-1 and fishing and trapping. 107-1 Please see General Response A regarding
multiple uses, and use of the word
I'm also President of Columbia County Sportsmen Federation. .,sanctuary."
I don't have any prepared statement, there may be some questions
I have. I didn't have the time.

Patricia W. Weber - Scenic Hudson, Inc., Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

I'm representing scenic Hudson, Inc. Scenic Hudson is a non-profit
environmental organization with amembership of approximately 12,000
persons. We are concerned for the development and enchancentent of the
Hudson River Valley, its river and shorelands.
108-1 We support the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary program 108-1 Comments accepted. No response necessary.
and using both Federal and State Funds, and the inclusion of the Stockport
108-2 Flats. SEE LETTER SUBMITTEU. 108-2 Please see comments and responses 41-1 to
41-5.

Roland R. Vosburg - (more comments)
The recommendations of the county EMC is gone to Columbia County N)
supervisors through the Planning and Community Affairs Committee, they aN
met on July l5th and voted to recommend that the full board supervisors ko
109-1 support this proposal. So we have an indication that there is supervisors' 109-1 Comments accepted. No response necessary.
support. The only unfortunate situation is that the Board Supervisors
won't be meeting until August 14, and I understand the deadline for
comments is the 2nd. You will be receiving a copy of any resolution
they pass even though its after August 2nd. I wanted you to know that.

question for the record - Alfred Hilton

Is that boat launch that goes in down at Con-Rail, do they plan on
110-1 dredging the creek or the river, or are they just going to carry the boats 110-1 Please see response 99-2.
through the mud because there is no water there?

270

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

The following comments were received while the HIS was at
the printers. There was not enough time and space remaining
to provide responses.

06 T114k, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 271
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

REGION ONE
Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building
Ninth Floor August 9, 1982
Albany, New York
12207

IN REPLY REFER TO:

HB-NY

Dr. Richard Podgorny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary on the Hudson River. We
have consulted with the New York State Department of Transportation and have
no comments to offer at this time. The New York State Department of Trans-
portation has informed us that they also have no comment on the proposed
action.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. Please keep us
advised if conditions change.

Sincerely yours,

Victor E T r
Division Ad istrator
r

272

Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233

Robert F. Flacke
July 28, 1982 Commissioner

Dr. Richard Pod9orny
Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street
Washington, D. C. 20235

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

My staff has completed a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed Estuarine Sanctuary grant award for Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary in the
State of New York.

As I am sure you are aware, much of these proposed areas have traditionally been
utilized for fishing, both recreational and commercial. In the cases of Piermont
Marsh and Iona Island Marsh, shellfishing for blue crab primarily on a recreational
basis has also been a long-standing use. Certain sites within the boundaries of the
proposed sanctuary areas are also periodically visited by sampling crews for the
purpose of monitoring Hudson Estuary fish populations. It is of considerable concern
that these uses of the proposed sanctuary areas be continued with minimal additional
constraints. Perhaps the sanctuary designation implies a more aggressive regulation
than would be desirable in relation to these activities.

The fact that each Hudson Estuary site proposed for inclusion in the Estuarine Sanc-
tuary Program currently supports high quality vegetative and faunal communities, is
indisputable. However, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement makes frequent refer-
ence to proposed sanctuary areas as "es'sentially undisturbed" or "nearly pristine".
The impact of mans' activity; dredging, construction of railroad causeways, development
of shipping facilities, among others is clearly evident and has significantly altered
characteristics of each site from their original state.. Perhaps a more accurate descrip-
tion of the characters of the sites would benefit unfamiliar readers.

In addition to the above general comments, I would also offer the following specific
comments:

page 5 - final paragraph refers to a "large" shortnose sturgeon Acipenser
brevirostrum population. This species is currently listed as endangered by
both the U. S. Department of Interior and New York State. Until such time

273

as a review of the population status of shortnose sturgeon relative to the
Hudson River has been completed, this species should receive all due considera-
tion as an endangered species. "Uncommon" might be a more accurate character-
ization of the occurrence of shortnose sturgeon in the Hudson Estuary.

page 21 - second paragraph makes reference to the participants in the establishment
of the Hudson River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research Inc. The
Power Authority of the State of New York should be included among contributions
to the endowment fund.

page 29 - fourth paragraph refers to the surface area of the Hudson Estuary as
approximately 82,000 acres. DEC staff has determined a surface area approximately
25 percent smaller.

I wish to thank you for an opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Should
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Bruce D. Shupp
Chief, Bureau of Fisheries

State Llniver,/;itv of New York

College at New Paltz
New Paltz, N@w York 12561 I;j

August 3, 1982

Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Podgorny:

After carefully reviewing the Draft E.I.S. regarding the
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary proposal, I applaud the
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of CZM and the State of
New York DEC for their efforts and for the succinct, yet
thorough preparation of this document.

I have nothing to add to the document. I would only say
that the establishment of this estuarine sanctuary would be
only positive, no groups of the private sector would
experience any hardships and the educational aspects should
be most beneficial to private citizens, nature clubs and
educational institutions in the Mid-Hudson area.

erely,

Selden J .S nce
Professor of Biology

SJS:vla
@hc

275

PART VIII: APPENDICES

Page

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
River ................................................ 290

Appendix 4: Birds Reported In or Close to Proposed
Sanctuary Sites ...................................... 295

Appendix 5: Selected Data From New York Mid-Winter
Area Waterfowl Survey ....................... o ........ 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 ........... o ............................ 337

277

Appendix 1. Bibliography and literature cited. The annotations S
(Stockport), T (Tivoli), I (Iona), and P (Pieriiiont) indicate
references specifically treating the indicated sites.

Aldrich, J. W. 1979. A brief account of Cruger's Island, Magdalen Island, the
North Bay, and adjoining uplands. Year Book Dutchess County
Historical Society 64:72-86. T

Anonymous. nd. Bear Mountain Trailside Museums, Nature Trails & Zoo.
Trailside Museums, Bear Mountain NY. 10 p. brochure. I

1968. The Bear Mountain Trailside Museums and Nature Trails.
Palisades Interstate Park Commission. Trailside Museums, Bear Mountain
NY. 10 p. brochure. I

1975. Hudson River Recreationway: Master Development Plan for
Gays Point, Stockport Middle Ground Islands and Middle Ground Flats.
New York State Office of Parks and Recreation. 7 p. unpubl. rept. S

. 1977? Bear Mountain Trailside Museums, Nature Trails & Zoo.
Palisades Interstate Park Commission. Bear Mountain State Park, NY. 12 p.
brochure. I

. 1979. 2 river island parksites planned. Hudson Register-Star, 19
July: Al , back page. S

� 1980a. The Tivoli Bays. Hudson River Heritage News 5(2):4-5. T

� 1980b. Bear Mountain State Park. Iona Island - Program of utilization.
New York State Office of Parks and Recreation. 26 p. unpubl. rept. I

1981. Tidal marsh saved. Land Lines (Lower Hudson Chap. Nature
Conservancy), spring:l.P

Arbib, R. S., Jr., O.S. Pettingill, Jr. and S. H. Spofford. 1966. Enjoying
birds around New York City. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 171 p. T, 1, P

Averill, S. P., R. R. Pardi, W. S. Newman and R. J. Dineen. nda. Late
Wisconsin - Holocene history of the lower Hudson region: new evidence
from the Hackensack and Hudson River valleys. Pp. 160-186 in Warren
Manspeizer, ed. Field Studies of New Jersey Geology and Gu@ide to Field
Trips: 52nd Annual Meeting of the New York State Geological Association.
I, P

Barlow, M. 1981. Company giving pier to Piermont. Bird's-eye view of Piermont
Marsh. West Nyack Journal-News, 4 Jan.:Al, back p. P

Beauchamp, W. M. 190U. Aboriginal occupation of New York. New York State
Museum Bulletin 32, 187 p. S, T, I

Boyle, R. H. 1969. The Hudson River; a natural and unnatural history.
W. W. Norton, NY. 304 p. S, T, P

278

Brown, D. 1981. Tivoli Bay to be kept for nature. Albany Times-Union,
2 Aug. T

Buckley, E. H. and S. S. Ristich. 1976. Distribution of rooted vegetation
in the brackish marshes and shallows of the Hudson River Estuary.
Paper 20, 30 p. in Fourth Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. Hudson River
Environmental Society, Bronx NY.

Burmeister, W. F. 1974. Appalachian waters 2: the Hudson River and its
tributaries. Appalachian Books, Oakton VA. 488 p. S, T, I, P

Butler, J.R., E. S. Custer, Jr., and W. A. White. 1975. Potential geological
Natural Landmarks Piedmont Region, eastern United States. Dept. Geology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 240 p. P

Carr, W. H. 1940. Birds of Bear Mountain Park; A check-list. Bear Mountain
Trailside Museum, 31 p.

Cinquemani, L. J., W. S. Newman, J. A. Sperling, L. F. Marcus and R. R. Pardi.
In press. Holocene sea level changes and vertical movements along the
East Coast of the United States: a preliminary report. (Dept. Earth
and Environmental Sciences, Queens College, Fl.ushing, NY.) I

Clarke & Rapuano, Inc. 1976. Iona Island Bear Mountain State Park entrance
road environmental assessment design feasibility. Palisades Interstate
Park Commission. 90 p. + maps. I

Coastal Zone Management Study Program. 1977a. Final report on Geographic
Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC) recommendations. (Task 7.3).
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Land
Resources and Forest Management, Coastal Zone Management Study Program,
Albany, NY. S, T, I , P

. 1977b. Final report on significant coastal related fish and wildlife
habitats of New York State (Task 7.3). New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Land Resources and Forest
Management, Coastal Zone Managment Study Program, Albany, NY. S, T, I, P

Connor, J. 1978. Osprey trapped by water chestnut. Auk 95:610-611. T

Craig, R. J., M. W. Klemens, and S. S. Craig. 1980. The northeastern
range limit of the eastern mud turtle Kinosternon s. subrubrum (Lacepede).
Journal of Herpetology 14(3):295-297.

Dalmas, J. 1980. Eye on Iona. Of an isolated island in the Hudson. West
Nyack Journal-News, 12 Oct.:3M-4M. I

Deed, R. F. 1959. Birds of Rockland County and the Hudson Highlands. 44
p. Rockland Audubon Society, West Nyack, NY. I, P

0 1968. Supplement to Birds of Rockland County and the Hudson Highlands.
27 p. Rockland Audubon Society, West Nyack, NY. I, P

.Birds of Rockland County N.Y. and the Hudson Highlands, 1844-1976,
220 p.

279

1976. Rockland County's on-again, off-again resting places for
shorebirds. Linnaean News-Letter 29(7): 1-3. 1, P

. 1981a. The endless change in a local checklist. Linnaean News-Letter
34(7-8):1-2. 1, P

1981b. The Piermont Pier and marsh. The Observer 34(2):1-2. P

Dovel, W.L. 1981. The Endangered Shortnose Sturgeon of the Hudson Estuary;
Its Life History and Vulnerability to the Activities of Man. Final
Report. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Contract No. DE-AC
39-79 RC-10074. 139 pages. '

Drennan, S. R. 1981. Where to find birds in New York State; the top 500
sites. Syracuse University Press, 499 p. S, T, 1, P

Duch, T. M. 1976. Aspects of the feeding habits of Viviparus georgianus.
Nautilus 90(l):7-10. T

Dutchess County Environmental Management Council Significant Areas
Committee. In press. Significant areas. In Natural Resources of Dutchess
County, New York. Dutchess County Department of Planning, Poughkeepsie,
NY. T

Faulds, C. A., ed. 1969. The Piermont study. Rockland Community College
(Suffern, NY) and the Hudson River Valley Commission. np. P

Ferren, W. R., Jr., and A. E. Schuyler. 1980. Intertidal vascular plants
of river systems near Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia 132:86-120.

Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. and J. F. Pickett, Sr. 1980. A new crawfish of
the genus Orconectes from eastern New York (Decapoda: Cambaridae).
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 93:373-382. S

Foley, D. D. and R. W. Taber. 1951. Lower Hudson waterfowl investigation.
Pittman-Robertson Project 47-R. New York State Conservation Department,
Albany, NY. 796 p. S, T, I, P

Funk, 1967. The Hudson; archeological sites. A report on archeological
resources in the Hudson River Valley. State of New York Hudson River
Valley Commission, Iona Island, Bear Mountain, NY. 19 p. S, T, I

1976. Recent contributions to Hudson Valley prehistory. New York
State Museum Memoir 2, 325 p. S, T, I

Garlinghouse, H. M. 1976. William Seward Teator (1860-1930). Nautilus
90(4):148-149. T

Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Van Nostrand, Princeton,
NJ . 861 p.

Goldhammer, A. 1981. Canoeing the.Hudson's marshes. Clearwater Navigator
12(6): 4-6

280

Goldring, W. 1943. Geology of the Coxsackie quadrangle, New York; with a
chapter on glacial geology by J. H. Cook. New York State Museum Bulletin
322, 374 p. + maps. S

Griscom, L. 1933. The birds of Outchess County, New York. Transactions of
the Linnaean Society of New York 3, 184 p. T

Hall, A. J. 1978. The Hudson: "That river's alive". National Geographic
153(l):62-89. T, P

Hickey, J. J. 1969. Peregrine falcon populations; their biology and decline.
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 596 p. I, P

Hudson River Research Council. 1980. Results of Hudson River Field Weeks
April 1977 and August 1978. Water temperature, conductivity, dissolved
oxygen, and total suspended solids at spring high flow and summer low
flow. HRRC, Bronx, NY. 50 p. S, T, P

Jorgenson, S. E. 1980. Some international values of wetlands. Parks 5(3):5-8

Key, M. C. 1981. Fulvous whistling duck. Wings over Dutchess 22(5):8. T

Kiviat, E. 1973. Down along the cove. Bard Review, spring:21-23. T

. 1974. A fresh-water tidal marsh on the Hudson, Tivoli North Bay. Paper 14,
33 p. in Third Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. Hudson River Environmental
Society-, Bronx, NY. T

. 1976a. Goldenclub, a threatened plant in the tidal Hudson River. Paper 21,
13 p. in Fourth Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. Hudson River Environmental
Society-, Bronx, NY. S, T

. 1976b. (Notes on Hudson River Tidal Marsh Workshop, 2 June 1976 at Bard
College, sponsored by Hudson River Environmental Society). Currents (HRES)
6(2): 1, (3): 3-4.

. 1977. Reptiles and amphibians of the Hudson Estuary. North River Navigator
__7Hudson River Sloop Clearwater) 8(9):4-5.

0 1978. Hudson River east bank natural areas, Clermont to Norrie. Nature
Conservancy, Arlington, VA 115 p. T

. 1979a. Hudson Estuary shore zone: ecology and management. Master's
thesis (unpubl.), State University College at New Paltz, NY. 159 p. T, 1, P

. 1979b. Cattail marshes, birds, good water, and people. Dutchess Life
8:13. T

. 1980a. A Hudson River tidemarsh snapping turtle population. Transactions
of the Northeast section,, Wildlife Society 37:158-158. T

1980b. Low tides and turtle trails. Hudson Valley 9(5):27-29.T

281

1981a. Hudson River Estuary shore zone annotated natural history
bibliography with index. Scenic Hudson, Poughkeepsie, NY. 76 p. S, T, 1, P

� 1981b. Profile of the Hudson. Hudson Valley 9(9):24-28. T, 1, P

� 1981c. Profile of the Hudson: the air. Hudson Valley 9(12):39-41. T

� 1981d. A Hudson River fresh - tidal marsh: management planning. Restoration
and Management Notes l(l): 14-15. T

. 1982. Eastern bluebird remote natural nest sites. Kingbird 32(l): 6-8.1

. and F. Dunwell. 1981. The marshes stand watch. Hudson Valley 10(5):
33-37. S, T, I, P

Lehr, J. H. 1967a. The plants of Iona Island; a field report. Sarracenia
(New York Botanical Garden) 11:35-38. 1

. 1967b. The marshes at Piermont, New York; a field report. Sarracenia
__TNew York Botanical Garden) 11:31-34. P

McKeon, W. Ca. 1974. An appraisal of the current status of marshes or wetland
areas along the Hudson River. Hudson River Environmental Society, Bronx,
NY . 7 p. unpubl . ms. T, I , P

McVaugh, R. 1958. Flora of the Columbia County area, New York. New York State
Museum and Science Service Bulletins 360-360A. 433 p. 5, T

Merrill, T. B. 1981. Piermont double donation "worth a celebration".
Clearwater Navigator (Hudson River Sloop Clearwater,), April:3. P

Meyer, G. 1980. The ecological perspective. Piermont Newsletter 14(l):7. P

Mitchell, R. S., C. J. Sheviak and J. K. Dean. 1980. Rare and endangered
vascular plant species io New York State. New York State Museum, Albany.
38 p. T, I

Muenscher, W. C. 1935. Aquatic vegetation of the Mohawk watershed. Supplement,
24th Annual Report of the New York State Conservation Department, Biological
Survey 9 (Mohawk-Hudson Watershed):228-249. S

. 1937. Aquatic vegetation of the lower Hudson area. Supplement, 26th
Annual Report of the New York State Conservation Department, Biological
Survey 11 (Lower Hudson Watershed):231-248. S, T, I, P

Muenscher, W. C. 1944. Aquatic plants of the United States. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY. 374 p. T

Mylod, J. 1969. Biography of a river; the people and legends of the Hudson
Valley. Bonanza Books, New York. 244 p. I

282

Newman, W. S. 1973. Iona Island - the last fifteen millenia. Communicator
(Journal of the New York State Outdoor Education Association) 5(l):28-
30. 1

, 0. H. Thurber, H. S. Zeiss, A. Rokach and L. Musich. 1969. Late
Quaternary geology of the Hudson River estuary: a preliminary report.
Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, Series 2, 31(5):548-
570. 1

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Hudson River fish and wildlife report;
Hudson River Level B Study. NYS DEC, Albany NY.

Nicholas, G. L. 1900. The swallow-tailed kite at Piermont, New York. Auk
17:386. P

Nordstrom, C. 1973. Frontier elements in a Hudson River village. Kennikat
Press, Port Washington, NY. P

Oceanic Society. 1980. Hudson River Fishery Management Program Study. A
Report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

(Orth, J. C.) (Ca. 1965.) Vertebrates of Iona Island and vicinity. Bear
Mountain State Park Trailside Museums. 17 p. I

Pink, E. and 0. Waterman. 1967. Birds of Dutchess County 1933-1964. Ralph T.
Waterman Bird Club, Dutchess County, NY. 124 p. T

and . 1980. Birds of Dutchess County 1964-1979. Ralph T. Waterman Bird
Club, Dutchess County, NY. 93 p. T

Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc., and A. Gussow. 1979. Hudson River
Valley Study. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
New Pal tz, NY. 18U p. T , I , P

Ritchie, W. A. 1958. An introduction to Hudson Valley prehistory. New York
State Museum Science Service Bulletin 367, 112 p. T

Rockland County Planning Board. 1974. Piermont community development goals
and Erie Pier assessment. Piermont Planning Commission, Village Hall,
Piermont NY. 22 p. P

Romero, A. B., et al. 1977. Where to bird in Dutchess County. Ralph T. Waterman
Bird Club, Moores Mills, Pleasant Valley, NY. T

Rosenthal, M. 1977. Monitoring prevents creek deterioration. New York State
Association of Conservation Councils 3(4):4-5. T

. 1977-present. The Sawkill Newsletter. Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson,
NY. Monthly.

Rubinstein, L. C. 1969. Historic resources of the Hudson: a preliminary inventory
January 1969. Hudson River Valley Commission. 96 p. I

283

Saratoga Capital District State Park and Recreation Commission. nd. Hudson
River Islands State Park. Master Plan. Gays Point. Stockport Middle Ground.
Middle Ground Flats. Unpubl. rept.

Schuyler, A. E. 1975. Scirpus cylindricus: an ecologically restricted eastern
North American tuberous bulrush. Bartonia (43):29-37. 1, P

Sheppard, J. D. 1976. Valuation of the Hudson River Fishery Resources: Past,
Present and Future. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
51 p.

Smith, D. G. 1981. A note on the morphological variability of Orconectes
kinderhookensis (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Hudson River system in
New York. Journal of Crustacean Biology 1(3):389-391.S

Smith, S. J., J. A. Wilcox, and E. M. Reilly, Jr. (1967?). The Hudson;
biological resources. A report on areas of biological significance in the
Hudson River Valley. State of New York Hudson River Valley Commission,
Iona Island, Bear Mountain, NY. 43 p. S, T, 1, P

Stapleton, J. and E. Kiviat. 1979. Rights of birds and rights of way; vegetation
management on a railroad causeway and its effects on breeding birds.
American Birds 33(l):7-10. T

Stone, W. B., E. Kiviat and S. Butkas. 1980. Toxicants in snapping turtles.
New York Fish and Game Journal 27(l):39-50. T, I, P
Svenson, H. K. 1935. Plants from the estuary of the Hudson River. Torreya
35(5):117-125. T

Tate, J., Jr. 1981. The Blue List for 1981. American Birds 35(l): 3-10.

Tauber, G., ed. 1976? Conference on the enhancement of environmental research
in the Hudson Bai n region. 16-18 June 1976 at Bard College. Report of
the Bard Conference: Proceedings of a Conference on the enhancement of
environmental research in the Hudson Basin region. State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 63 p.

Teator, W. S. 1890. Collecting land shells in eastern New York. Nautilus
3(10):109-110; (11):129-132. T

Torrey, R. H. 1931. Trip of August 2. Torreya 31:153-154. 1 (plants)
. 1932. Lichen observations on winter walks of the Club. Torreya 32:45-
47. 1

Webster, W., ed. 1971. New York walk book. 4th ed. With an introduction to
the geology of the region by C. J. Schuberth. New York - New Jersey
Trail Conference and American Geographical Society. Doubleday/Natural
History Press, Garden City, NY. 326 p. + 23 maps. I, P

Weinstein, L. H., ed. 1977. An atlas of the biologic resources of the Hudson
Estuary. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Yonkers (now Ithaca),
NY. 105 p. I, P

284

Wilkie, R. W. The illustrated Hudson River Pilot; being a smallcraft sailor's
pictorial guide to the tidewater Hudson Aloany to New York. Three City
Press, Albany, NY. 183 p. S, T, 1, P

Williams, S. C., H. J. Simpson, C. R. Olsen and R. F. Bopp. 1978. Sources of
heavy metals in sediments of the Hudson River. Marine Chemistry 6(1978):
195-213. P

Worley, I. A. 1974. Natural landmark brief. Iona Island Marsh, Rockland
County, New York. unpubl. rept.

285

APPENDIX 2

Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary

286

Appendix 2. Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary

AGENCY JURISDICTION LEGISLATION (if any)

Federal:

Army Corps of Engineers dredging, filling, Sec. 404 of Clean Water
dumping, hazards to Act, Rivers & Harbors Act,
navigation, wetlands Section 10, as amended
in river and larger
tributaries

Dept. of Commerce: oversight of National Coastal Zone Management
Office of Coastal Estuarine Sanctuary Act, as amended
Zone Management Program

National Marine marine fishery resources, Fishing Conservation and
Fisheries Service endangered species, Management Act of 1976,
marine mammals Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act of 1934, Endangered
Species Act of 1972,
Commercial Fisheries Research
and Development Act of 1964,
Anadromous Fish Conservation
Act of 1965, all as amended

Sea Grant Program research, education, Public Law 94461
and conservation in
the coastal zone

Dept. of the Interior: migratory birds, endan- Migratory Bird Treaty
Fish & Wildlife gered species, marine Act, Endangered Species
Service mammals, interstate Conservation Act, Lacey
commerce of organisms Act, Marine Mammal
Protection Act, all as
amended

National Park Service Natl. Register of His- Historic Preservation
toric Places, Natl. Act, as amended
Natural Landmarks, Natl .
Trust for Historic
Preservation

Dept. of Transportation: maintenance of navigable 14 USC 2, Primary
Coast Guard waters, shipping, small Responsibilities of the
craft, aids to naviga- Coast Guard
tion search and rescue

287

AGENCY JURISDICTION LEGISLATION (if any)

State (cont.):

Environmental Protection air and water quality Clean Air Act, Clean
Agency guidelines, solid waste Water Act, TOSCA, RCRA,
and toxic materials FIFRA, Superfund, NEPA,
guidelines, spills all as amended
noise pollution, PCB
reclamation demonstration,
environmental review of
projects

Nuclear Regulatory oversight over operation Energy Reorgani-
Commission Indian Point power plants zation Act

Consolidated Rail right-of-way improvement
Corporation and maintenance

State:

Department of Environ- lead agency in Hudson River Environmental
mental Conservation Estuarine Sanctuary Program, Conservation Law
landowner at Tivoli Bays & and regulations
Piermont, fish & game, pro- promulgated
tected animals, collecting thereunder (as amended)
and marking licenses, including the Fish &
freshwater and tidal wet- Wildlife Law, Water
lands, water and air quality Resources Law,
solid water & toxic substances Freshwater Wetlands
pesticides, mining, scenic Act, Tidal Wetlands
areas, project review. The Act, Resource
Heritage Task Force for Conservation and
the Hudson River Valley, Inc. Recovery Act, and
Wild, Scenic, and
Recreational River
System, State
Environmental
Quality Act

Department of Commerce tourism developement Tourist Promotion
Act

Department of Health food quality (e.g., fish) Public Health
Law

.Department of State cooperating agency in Waterfront
Hudson River Estuarine Revitalization
Sanctuary Program, & Coastal Re-
coastal management sources Act

288

AGENCY JURISDICTION LEGISLATION

State (cont.):

Department of navigation channel, Transportation
Transportation spoil disposal, roads, Law
bridges

Office of General cooperating agency in Public Lands Law,
Services Hudson River Estuarine Art. 6
Sanctuary Program, landowner
at Stockport and Tivoli

Office of Parks, cooperating agency in Parks, Recreation,
Recreation and Hudson River Estuarine and Historic
Historic Sanctuary Program, land- Preservation Law,,as
Preservation owner at Stockport, park amended
land management, historic
preservation, promotion
and regulation of pleasure
boating

Palisades Interstate cooperating ageny in Hudson Parks, Recreation and
Parks Commission River Estuarine Sanctuary and Historic Preservation
Program, landowner at Law, as amended
Piermont & Iona, management
of the interstate park

State Energy Office energy policy Energy Law, as amended

Public Service energy facility Public Service Law
siting and regulations

County:

Departments of Health facility safety and General Municipal Law,
sanitation, water supply, NYCR&R, as amended
landfills, pest control laws of various counties

Environmental Manage- advice'to legislatures, General Municipal Law
ment Councils natural resource inven- (as above)
tories, public information

Highway Departments county roads (as above)

289

AGENCY JURISDICTION LEGISLATION

County (cont.):

Planning Departments review of Federal spending (as above)
(A-95), planning recommen-
dations and coordination of
planning activities

Town:

Planning, Zoning, and planning, zoning, advice (as above)
Conservation Boards & to town boards on environ- also town ordinances
Commissions mental issues, natural including zoning
resource inventories, ordinances*
conformance to existing
laws

Highway Departments maintenance of town roads
and town landfills

Village:

Piermont owner of pier, portion of See under Town
marsh within'its jurisdiction

Tivoli small portion of Tivoli Bay See under Town
within its jurisdiction

*Zoning classifications for the four Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary areas:

Piermont - Village of Piermont - - - Use by special perinit from Village
Town of Orangetown - - - Residential, 2 acre minimum

Iona - wholly within the Palisades Interstate Park

Tivoli - Town of Red Hook - - - Agricultural (uplands), Land Conservation
(wetlands and Cruger Island)
Village of Tivoli

Stockport - no zoning ordinances

290

APPENDIX 3

List of Fishes Reported From the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
on the Hudson River, New York

291

Appendix 3. List of fishes reported from the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
sites or, the Hudson River, New York. Letters in the Ecological
Classification column refer to the relationship of the fish
to the estuary following McHugh (10): A=Freshwater fishes
that enter brackish water, B=Truly estuarine species, C=Anadromous/
catadromous species, D=Seasonal adult marine species, E=Estuarine
nursery species, and F=Adventitious marine species. Numbers listed
under the proposed sanctuary areas indicate presence of the species
in that area and the source of the data; only one source is
listed although several sources may have reported that
species.

Common Scientific Ecological Sites
name name Classification (EC) S T I P

PETROMYZONTIDAE

American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix A I
Sea lamprey Petronlyzon marinus C I

ANGUlLLIDAE
American eel Anguilla rostrata C 8 1 2 5

CLUPEIDAE
Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis C 1 2 4
Alewife A. pseudoharengus C 9 1
American shad sapidissima C 9 2 7
Menhaden -9-revoortia tyrannus E 7

ENGRAULIDAE

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli B 7

SALMONIDAE

Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri A I
Brown trout S. trutta A 9 1
Bruok trout 9-alVe-linus fontinalis A I

OSMERIDAE

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax C 9 1

UMBRIDAE

Central mudminnow Umbra limi A 1
Eastern mudminnow U. pygmaea A 5

ESOCIDAE

Redfin pickerel Esox americanus A 3 1 2 6
Northern pike E. lucius A 9
Chain pickerel E. niger A 1

292

Common Sci enti f i c Sites
name name S T I P

CYPRINIDAE

Goldfish Carassius auratus A 4 1 2
Carp Cyprinus carpio A 8 1 2
Cutlips minnow Exoglossum maxillingua A 1
Eastern silvery minnow Hyboqn@"t-hus regius A 3 1
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas A 3 1 2 7
Satinfin shiner Notro T-s -anJI-ostanus A 1
Bridle shiner N. bifrenatus A 3 1
Common shiner ff. cornutus A 3 1
Spottail shiner T4. sonius A 8 1 8 7
Spotfin shiner ff. spilopterus A 3
Blacknose dace Rhinichthys a:Fratulus A 1 5
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus A I
Fallfish S. corporalis A 3 1

CATOSTOMIDAE

White sucker Catostomus commersoni A 4 1 2 5
Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus A 6
Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans A 3 1

ICTALURIDAE

White catfish Ictalurus catus A 4 1
Yellow bullhead 1. natalis A 2
Brown bullhead T. nebulosus A 4 1 2

GADIDAE

Atlantic tomcod Microgadus tomcod B 2 7

FUNDULIDAE

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus A 8 8 1 7
Mummichog T. -heteroclitus B 8 1 8 8

ATHERINIDAE

Tidewater silversides Menidia beryllina E 7
Waxen siversides M. menidia E 7

GASTEROSTEIDAE

Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus B 8 1 8 7
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus B 2

293)

Common Scientific Sites
name name S T I P

SYNGNATHIDAE

Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus D 7

PERCICHTHYIDAE

White perch Morone.americana B 9 1 8 8
Striped bass M. saxatilis C 4 1 8 7

CENTRARCHIDAE

Rock bass Ambloplites rueestris A 1
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus A 2
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus A 3 1 8 8
Pumpkinseed L. gibbosus A 3 1 2 6
Warmouth gulosus A 1
Bluegill macrochirus A 9 1 7
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui A 9 1
Largemouth bass M. salmoides A 4 1 2 7
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus A 1

PERCIDAE

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi A 3 1 2 5
Yellow perch Perca flavescens A 3 1 8

POMATOMIDAE

Bluefish Pomotomus saltatrix E 7

ACIPERSERIDAE
Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum C S T I P

SCIAENIDAE

Weakfish Cynoscion regalis E 7

SOURCES

1. Kiviat, E. In press. Natural history of the fish fauna of Tivoli Bays.
Hudson River Fisheries Symposium, Hudson River Environmental
Society. (Includes a few species found in nontidal waters close
to the proposed site.

2. Orth, J. D. ca. 1965. Vertebrates of Iona Island and vicinity.
Bear Mountain State Park Trailside Museums. 17 p.

294

3. Greeley, J. R. 1937. Fishes of the area with annotated list, pp. 45-85.
In. Anonymous. A biological survey of the lower Hudson watershed.
In. Anonymous. A biological survey of the lower Hudson watershed.
Supplement to 26th Annual Report, New York Conservation Department,
Part II.

4. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,.1971 Stream
Survey.

5. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Sparkill
Creek Stream Surveys.

6. Bailey, R. M. 1936. Stream survey records. New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.

7. Smith, C. L. Stream survey records, American Museum of Natural History.

8. Hudsonia Limited. Miscellaneous collections, 1981 and 1982.

9. Observations by Everett Nack (Claverack, New York), Salvatore Cozzolino
(Department of Environmental Conservation), or Louis Gerrain (DEC).

10. McHugh, J. L. 1967. Estuarine Nekton, pp 581-620.
In. G. H. Lauff (Ed.) Estuaries. AAAS Publ. No. 83, Washington, D.C.

11. Letter from Ruth Rehfus (National Marine Fisheries Service) to
Richard B. Mieremet, dated June 4, 1982.

12. Tom Lake, personal communication.

13. Texas Instruments, Inc., beach seine survey, beach 99 (Cruger Island).

295

APPENDIX 4

Birds Reported In or Close to Proposed Sanctuary Sites

296

Appendix 4. Birds reported in or close to proposed sanctuary sites.
Sources of data are listed at end of this appendix.

Common Scientific Sites
name name S T I P

Common loon Gavia immer S T I P
Red-throated loon G. stellata s T I P
Red-necked grebe podicepts grisegena S T I
Horned grebe P. auritus S T I P
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps s T I P
Gannet Morus bassanus T
Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo P
Double-crested cormorant P. auritus s T I P
Great blue heron Ardea herodias S T I P
Green heron Butorides striatus s T I P
Little blue heron Florida caerulea T I P
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis
Great egret Casmerodius albus s T I P
Snowy egret Egretta thula T I P
Louisiana heron Hydranassa tricolor P
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax s T I P
Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea P
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis T I P
American bittern Botaur ntiginosus S T I P
Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus T P
Mute swan Cy gnus olor S I P
Whistling swan Olor coTumbianus T
Canada goose Branta canadensis S T I P
Brant B. bernicla s T I P
White-fronted goose Anser albifrons P

Snow goose Chen caeru escens S T I P
Fulvous whistling duck Dendrocygna bicolor T
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S T I P
Black duck A. rubripes S T I P
Gadwall A. Strepera S T I P
Pintail A acuta S T I P
Green-winged teal A. crecca crecca S
American green-winged teal A. crecca carolinensis S T I P
Blue-winged teal A. discors S T I P
European wigeon A. penelope T
American wigeon A. americana S T I P
Northern shoveler A. clypeata S T
Wood duck Aix sponsa S T I
Redhead Aythya americana s T I
Ring-necked duck A. collaris s T I P
Canvasback A. valistineria S T I P
Greater scaup A. marila s T I P
Lesser scaup A. affinis S T I P
Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula S T I P
Bufflehead B. albeola s T I P
Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis s T I P
White-winged scoter Melanitta deglandi s T I P

297

Common Scientific
name name S T I P

Surf scoter M. perspicillata s T I P
Black scoter M. nigra s T I
Ruddy duck 0xyura jamaicensis T I P
Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus S T I P
Common merganser Mergus merganser S T I P
Red-breasted merganser M. serrator s T I P
Turkey-vulture Cathartes aura S T I P
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis S T I P
Sharp-shinned hawk A. striatus s T I P
Cooper's hawk A. cooperil S T I P
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis S T I P
Red-shouldered hawk B. Lineatus S T I P
Broad-winged hawk B. platyterus s T I P
Rough-legged hawk B. lagopus s T I P
Golden eagle Aquila chr saetos T I P
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S T I P
Marsh hawk Circus cyaneus S T I P
Osprey Pandion haliaetus S T I P
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus T
Peregrine falcon F peregrinus T I P
Merlin F. columbarius T I P
American kestrel F. sparverius S T I P
Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus S T I
Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus s T I P
Gray partridge Perdix erdix T
King rail Rallus elegans s T I P
Clapper rail R. 1ongirostris P
Virginia rail R. limicola s T I P
Sora Porzana carolina s T I P
Common gallinule Gallinula chloropus s T I P
American coot Fulica americana s T I P
Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus T P
Killdeer C. vociferus S T I P
American golden plover Pluvialis dominica T
Black-bellied plover P. squatarola T P
Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres T P
American woodcock Philohela minor S T I P
Common snipe Capella gallinago s T I P
Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda I P
Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia S T I P
Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria s T P
Willet Catoptrophorus semi almatus P
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca S T I P
Lesser yellowlegs T. flavipes S T I P
Red knot Calidris canutus P
Pectoral sandpiper C. melanotos S T P
White-rumped sandpiper C. fuscicollis P
Least sandpiper C. minutilla s T P

298

Common Scientific
name name S T I P

Dunlin C. alpina S T P
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus T P
Long-billed dowitcher L. scolopaceus P
Semiplamated sandpiper Calidris pusillus T P
Western sandpiper C. mauri P
Sanderling C. alba T P
Northern phalarope Lobipes lobatus I P
Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus s I P
Iceland gull L. glaucoides S I
Great black-backed gull L. marinus S T I P
Herring gull L. argentatus S T I P
Ring-billed gull L. delawarensis S T I P
Laughing gull L. atricilla T I P
Bonaparte's gull L. philadelphia s T I P
Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla T
Forster's tern Sterna forsteri P
Common tern S. hirundo s T I P
Roseate tern S. dougallii P
Sooty tern S. fuscata I P
Least tern S. albifrons P
Royal tern S. maximus S P
Sandwich tern S. sandvicensis P
Caspian tern S. caspia T P
Black tern Chlidonias niger s T I P
Rock dove Columbia Livia S T I P
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura S T I P
Monk parakeet Myiopsitta monachus P
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus s T I P
Black-billed cuckoo C. erythrophthalmus s T I P
Barn owl Tyto alba s T
Screech owl Utus asio s T I P
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus S T I
Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca P
Barred owl Strix varia T I
Long-eared owl Asio otus T P
Short-eared owl A. flammeus S P
Saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus s T
Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus s T I P
Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor s T I P
Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica S T I P
Ruby-thruated hummingbird Archilochus colubris s T I P
Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon S T I P
Common flicker Colaptes auratus S T I P
Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus s T I P

Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus s T P
Red-headed woodpecker M. erythroCephalus T
Yellow-bellied sapsucker sphyrapicus varius T I P
Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus s T I P

299

Comn, on Scientific
name name S T I P

Downy woodpecker P. pubescens S T I P
Black-backed three-
toed woodpecker P. arcticus T
Eastern kingbird Tyr-annus tyrannus S T I P
Western kingbird T. verticalis T
Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus s T I P
Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe S T I P
Yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris T I
Acadian flycatcher E. virescens T
Willow flycatcher E. Tr-aillii s T I P
Alder flycatcher E. alnorum P
Least flycatcher E. minimus s T I P
Eastern wood pewee Contopus virens s T I P
Olive-sided flycatcher NuttallorTi@sborealis T I
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris s T I P
Tree swallow Iridoprocne bicolor S T I P
Bank swallow Riparia riparia S T I
Rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis s T I P
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica S T I P
Cliff swallow PetrocheT-ido-npyrrhonota s T I P
Purple martin Progne ubis s T I P
Blue jay CyanociTta cristata S T I P
Common raven Corvus corax T I
Common crow C. brachyrhynchos S T I P
Fish crow C. ossifragus s T I P
Black-capped chickadee Tarus atricapillus S T I P
Boreal chickadee P. hudsonicus T P
Tufted titmouse T. -bi-co7or S T I P
White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S T I P
Red-breasted nuthatch T.-canadensis s T I P
Brown creeper Certhia familiaris S T I P
House wren rog o ytes jedon s T I P
Winter wren T troglodytes S T I P
Carolina wren T;royothorus Tudovicianus s T P
Long-billed marsh wren Cistothorus palustr s S T I P
Short-billed marsh wren Cistothorus platensis P
Mockingbird Mimus po yglottos s T I P
Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis S T I P
Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum s T I P
American robin Turdus migratorius S T I P
Wood thrush Ca-tharus mustelina s T I P
Hermit thrush C s T I P
.: guttata
Swainson's thrush ustulata s T I P
Gray-cheeked thrush T. minima T I
Veery C. escens s T I P
Eastern bluebird 3ialia siali@ T I P
Blue-gray gnatcatcher ila caerulea S T I P
Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa s T I P
Ruby-crowned kinglet R. calendula s T I P
@ger pipit Anthus spinoletta s T I P
e ar waxwing TO-MEY-cilla cedrorum s T I P

300

Common Sci enti f i c
name name S T I P

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor T P
Loggerhead shrike L. ludovicianus T P
Starling _@turnus vulgaris S T I P
White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus T I
Yellow-throated vireo V. flavifrons s T I P
Solitary vireo V. solitarius s T I P
Red-eyed vireo V. olivaceus s T I P
Philadelphia vireo V* philadelphicus T P
Warbling vireo V. gilvus s T P
Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia s T I P
Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea T P
Worm-eating warbler -Fe-lmitheros vermivorus T I P
Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera T I
Blue-winged warbler V. pinus T I P
Tennessee warbler V. peregrina T I P
Orange-crowned warbler V. celata T P
Nashville warbler V. ruficapilla T I P
Northern parula Var-u-Ta americana T I P
Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia s T I P
Magnolia warbler D. magnolia s T I P
Cape May warbler -9. Ti gri na s T I
Black-throated blue warbler D. caerulescens s T I P
Yellow-rumped warbler ronata s T I P
Black-throated green warbler -v`1rens s T I P
Cerulean warbler cerulea s T I
Blackburnian warbler Fusca s T I P
Yellow-throated warbler dominica T
Chestnut-sided warbler D. pensylvanica s T I P
Bay-breasted warbler castanea s T I P
Blackpoll warbler riata s T I P
Pine warbler -pi-nus s T I
Prairie warbler D. discolor s T I P
Ovenbird 3ei-urus aurocapillus s T I P
Northern waterthrush S. noveboracensis s T I P
Louisiana waterthrush tacilla s T I P
Kentucky warbler 'Uporonis formosus T P
Connecticut warbler 0 agIlis T
Mourning warbler U: philadelphia T
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas S T I P
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens T I P
Hooded warbler WilsonTa citrina T I P
Wilson's warbler W. pusilla s T I P
Canada warbler W. canadensis s T I P
American redstart 3etophaga ruticilla s T I P
House sparrow Passer domesticus s T I P
Bobolink b-olichonyx oryzivorus s T I P
Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna s T I P
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanth@'ce-ph-aTus-xanthocephalus T

301

Common Scientific
name name S T I P

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S T I P
Orchard oriole Icterus spurius s T P
Northern oriole T. -galbula S T I P
Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolina s T I P
Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula S T I P
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus aler S T I P
Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea s T I P
Summer tanager 15. rubra T
Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S T I P
Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus s T I P
Blue grosbeak Uraca Cderulea T
Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea s T I P
Evening grosbeak Hesperiphona vespertina s T I P
Purple finch Carpodacus.purpureus S T I P
House finch C. mexicanus S T P
Pine grusbeak Tinicola enucleator T I P
Hoary redpoll Acanthis hornemanni T
Common redpoll A. flammea. s T I P
Pine siskin Carduelis Rj22s s T I P
American goldfinch C. tristis S T I P
Red crussbill Loxia curvirostra T
White-winged crossbill L. leucoptera T I
Rofous-sided towhee Tipilo e.ryth-rophthalmus S T I P
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis s T I P
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum T P
Henslow's sparrow A. henslowii T
Sharp-tailed sparrow Ammospiza caudacuta T P
Seaside sparrow A. maritima P
Vesper sparrow Pooecetes qramineus T I P
Lark sparrow 5ondestes grammacus P
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis S T I P
Tree sparrow Spizella arborea S T I P
Chipping sparrow S passerina s T I P
Field sparrow -S: pusilla s T I P
White-crowned sparrow fonotrichia leucophrys s T I P
White-throated sparrow Z. albicollis s T I P
Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca s T I P
Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza 1-in-co-1-nii s T I P
Swamp sparrow M, qeorqiana S T I P
Song sparrow _M: Wo2ia S T I P
Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus T
Chestnut-collard longspur C. ornatus T
Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis S T I P

302

a) Sources of data:

Stockport: Richard Guthrie, William Cook and Erik Kiviat. S (upper
case) indicates sight record of the site; s (lower case) indicates species
likely to occur based on records from nearby areas.

Tivoli: from Kiviat (1978) (includes a few species recorded from areas near,
but not within, the proposed sanctuary boundaries); and Richard Gunthrie.

Iona: from Orth (1965).

Piermont: Robert Deed, includes species of land birds observed within about 50
yards of the landward edge of the marsh (landward boundary of the proposed
sanctuary site); all sight records. Short-billed marsh wren datum from
Joseph Hickey field notes.

303

APPENDIX 5

Selected Data From New York Mid-Winter
Aerial Waterfowl Survey

304

Appendix 5. Selected Data from New York Mid-Winter Aerial Waterfowl
Survey (Hudson Estuary only).a

Commo n Scientific 1978-1982 Counts
name name -Average (Range)

Mute swan Cygnus olor 42(0-77)
Canada goose Branta canadensis 251(150-401)
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 464(0-896)
Black duck A. platyrhynchosq 829 (25-2172)
Canvasback Aythya valisineria 886(0-3585)
Scaups Aythya 7(0-15)
Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula 19(0-85)
Mergansers Mergus 230(84-550)
Unidentified 12(0-60)

Total (all species) 2740(259-7841)

a), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation data.

305

APPENDIX 6

Tidal Vascular Plants of the Proposed
Sanctuary Sites

306

Appendix 6. Tidal wetlands and shallows vascular plants of the sites.
Sources of data are listed at end of this appendix.

.Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

ACERACEAE

Boxelder Acer negundo S T
Red maple A. rubrum T I
Silver maple saccharinum S T

ALISMATACEAE

Water-plantain Alisma sp. T
Water-plantain A. subcordatum I
Arrowhead '@,agittaria eatoni S T I
Broadleaf arrowhead S. latifolia S T
Stiff arrowhead S ri ida S T
Arrowhead' is-pEtNata S
Subulate arrowhead subulata S T I

AMARANTHACEAE

Tidewater-hemp Amaranthus cannabinus S T I P

ANACARDIACEAE

Smoke tree Continus coggygria T
Poison ivy Rhus, radicans T
Poison sumac Rhus vernix I

AQUIFOLIACEAE

Winterberry Ilex verticillata T I

ARACEAE

Sweet flag Acorus calamus S T
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisa&a triphyllum T
Goldenclub Orontium aquaticum S T
Arrow arum -----ro- ra virgini a S T I P
Skunk cabbage Symp carpus foeti-dus S T I
Swamp milkweed Asc eTas incarnata T I

BALSAMINACEAE

Jewelweed Impatiens biflora- T I P

307

Fami I y
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

BETULACEAE

Speckled alder Alnus rugosa
Smooth alder A. serrulata T I
Yellow birch -getula lut a T
Gray birch B. popu ifolia T
American hornbeam Tarpinus caroliniana T
Hazel Corylus s .P. T
Hop hornbeam Ostrya virginiana T

BORAGINACEAE

Forget-me-not Myosotis sp.

CAESALPINIACEAE

Wild senna Cassia hebecarpa S

CALLITkICHACEAE

Water starwort Callitriche verna T

CAPRIFOLIACEAE

Bell's honeysuckle Lonicera x. bella S T
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis S T I
Arrow-wood Viburnum dentatum T I
Nannyberry lentago T

CARYOPHYLLACEAE

Water chickweed Stellaria aquatica T

CELASTRACEAE

Bittersweet Celastrus scandens T

CERATOPHYLLACEAE

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum S T I

CLETHRACEAE

Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia I

COMMELINACEAE
Dayflower Commelina communis T

308

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

CHENOPODIACEAE

Spearscale Atriplex patula p

COMPOSITAE

Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida T
Aster Aster T
Aster A. subulatus p
Beggar-ticks _ffid-ens bidentoides S T I
Bur-marigold B. cernua S T
Eaton's bur-marigold -ff. eatoni T
Beggar-ticks B. frondosa T
Estuary beggar-ticks ETid hyperborea T
Beggar-ticks B. laevis T
Fireweed Tr6_chtites hieracifolia p
Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus T
Joe Pye-weed Eupatorium maculatum T
Boneset E. perfoliatum S T
Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale S T
Marsh elder Iva frutescens p
Climbing hempweed Mikania scandens T I
Marsh fleabane Pluchea purpurascens I p
Greenhead coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata T
Groundsel Tenecio aureus T
Goldenrod Solidago sp. S
Goldenrod S. sempervirens p
Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium S

CONVOLVULACEAE

Bindweed Convolvulvus sepium T
Dodder Cuscuta cephalanthi I
Dodder C. gronovii T

CORNACEAE

Silky dogwood Cornus amomum S T I
Gray dogwood C. racemosa T
Red-osier dogwood T. lonifera T

CRASSULACEAE

Ditch stonecrop Penthorum sedoides T

309

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

CRUCIFERAE

Garlic-mustard Alliaria officinalis T
Wintercress Barbarea vulgaris T
Bittercress Cardamine pensylvanica T
Cuckoo flower C. pratense T
Dame's rocket ffesperis matronalis T
Marshcress Rorippa islandica T

CUCURBITACEAE

Balsam-apple Echinocystis lobata S
Bur-cucumber Sicyos angulatus S

CUPRESSACEAE

Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis T

CYPERACEAE

Sedge Carex grayii T
Sedge C. stipata' T
Tussock sedge stricta T
Galingale Cyperus rivularis T
Galingale C. strigosus T
Three-way sedge -gulichium arundinaceum T
Spikerush Eleocharis acicularis S
Spikerush E. ovata S T
Spikerush E. TT_a_n_d r a S T I
Spikerush E. palustris S T
Bulrush 3cirpus acutus S
Threesquare S. americanus S T I P
Bulrush S. atrovirens T
Cylindrical bulrush S. cylindricus I P
River bulrush S. fluviatilis S T P
Bulrush S. maritimus P
Threesquare S. olneyi I P
Salt marsh bulrush S. robustus I P
Bluntscale bulrush S. smithii S T I
Bulrush S. validus S T I P

DIOSCOREACEAE

Wild yam Dioscorea villosa T

ELATINACEAE

Waterwort Elatine americana S T

310

Fami I y
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

EQUISETACEAE

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense T
Horsetail Equisetum fluviatile T

ERICACEAE

Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum T

ERIOCAULACEAE

Pipewort Eriocaulon parkeri T

FABACEAE

False-indigo Amorpha fruticosa T
Hog-peanut Amphicarpa bracteata T
Groundnut Apios americana T
Wild pea LathyLus F_
pa ustris T

FAGACEAE

Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor T

GENTIANACEAE

Closed gentian Gentiana andrewsii T
Floating heart Nymphoides cordata T

GRAMINEAE

Redtop Agrostis alba P
Wood-reed Cinna arundinacea T
Saltgrass Distichlis spicata P
Barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli T
Water-millet E. walteri T I P
Wild-rye 'Elymus virginicus T
Rice cutgrass Leersia.ouzoides T
White grass L. virginica S T
Panic grass Tanicum @a@ lare S
Panic grass P. dichotomiflorum S T
Panic grass T. virgatum P
Common reed communis S T I P
Saltwater*cordgrass Spartina alterniflora P
Tall cordgrass -S. cynosuroiTe-s
Saltmeadow cord9rass T. patens P

311

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I

Freshwater cord9rass S. pectinata S T P
Wild-rice Tizania aquatica S T I P

HALORAGACEAE

Watermilfoil Myriophyllum sp. S I
Waterm.ilfoil M. humile T
Eurasian watermilfoil M. spicatum S T I

HYDROCARYACEAE

Water-chestnut Trapa natans S T I
Waterweed Elodea canadensis S T I
Waterweed E. nuttallii S T I
Water-celery Val7i"-s-neria americana S T I P

IRIDACEAE

Yellow iris iris pseudacorus T I
Blue flag I. versicolor T I

ISOETACEAE

Quillwort Isoetes riparia T

JUNCACEAE

Rush Juncus brachycephalus T
Black-g rass J.. gerardi P
Path rush J. tenuis T

LABIATAE

Stoneroot Collinsonia canadensis T
Bugleweed Lycopus americanus T
Bugleweed L. europaeus T
Field mint ffentha arvensis T
Skullcap Scutellaria galericulata I
Skullcap S. lateriflora T
Hedge-nettle Stachys palustris T
Wood sage Teucrium canadense P

312

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

LAURACEAE

Spicebush Lindera benzoin S T

LEMNACEAE

Common duckweed Lemna minor S T I P
Great duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza S T

LENTIBULARIACEAE

Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris S I

LILIACEAE

Day-lily Hemerocallis fulva T
Canada lily Lilum canadense T
Greenbrier Smilax herbacea T
Greenbrier S. hispida T

LOBELIACEAE

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis T I
Great blue lobelia L. siphilitica T

LYTHRACEAE

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria S T I P

MALVACEAE

Swamp rose mallow Hibiscus palustris T I P

MORACEAE

Hops Humulus lupulus T

NAJADACEAE

Naiad Najas flexilis S T I
Naiad N. guadalupensis S
Naiad N. minor S T
Muenscher's naiad N.muenscheri S T I
Curlyleaf pondweed potamogeton crispus T I
Pondweed P epihydrus S T
Leafy pondweed P. foliosus S T I

313

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

Long-leaved pondweed P. nodosus S T
Sago pondweed Tectinatus S I P
Pondweed perfoliatus S T I P
Pondweed P. pusillus S
Pondweed T. richardsonii S T I
Flat-stemmed pondweed P. zosteriformis S T
Horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris S T I

NYMPHAEACEAE

Spatterdock Nuphar advena S T I
White water-lily Nymphaea sp. T

OLEACEAE

Ash Fraxinus sp.
Black ash F. nigra S? T
Red ash penns lvanica S T

ONAGRACEAE

Willow herb Epilobium glandulosum P
Water-purslane Ludwigia palustris S T
Evening-primrose Oenothera sp. S

ORCHIDACEAE

Helleborine Epipactis helleborine T

OSMUNDACEAE

Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea I
Interrupted fern 0. cl5-ytoniana I
Royal fern regalis T I

PINACEAE

White pine Pinus strobus T

PLANTAGINACEAE

Heartleaf plantain Plantago cordata S T

PLATANACEAE

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis S

314

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

POLYGONACEAE

Tearthumb Polygonum arifolium T I P
Smartweed P. caespitosum T
Japanese knotweed P cuspidatum S
Seabeach knotweed P: glaucum P
Water-pepper T. hydropipe T
Swamp smartweed P. hydropiperoides
Dotted smartweed punctatum S T I P
Tearthumb sagittatum S T I
Jumpseed P. virginianum T
Dock ffumex mexicanus
Water dock R. verticillatus T

POLYPODIACEAE

Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris S
Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis S T I
Marsh fern Thelypteris palustris I P

PONTEDERIACEAE

Mud-plantain Heteranthera reniformis S T
Pickerel-weed Pontederia cordata S T I
Water star-grass Zosterella dubia- S T I

PORTULACACEAE

Spring beauty Claytonia virginica T

PRIMULACEAE

Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata T
Moneywort L. nuiiFi-ularia T
Water pimpernel _@,affFqjlus parviflorus I P

RANUNCULACEAE

Marsh-marigold Caltha palustris S T
Virgin's bower _CTemati's virginiana S T
Crowfoot Ranunculus abortivus T
Cursed crowfoot R. sceleratus T
Buttercup R septentrionalis S T
Tall meadow-rue T;alictrum polygTmum S T

315

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I

RHAMNACEAE

Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica T

ROSACEAE

Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius T
Swamp-rose Rosa palustris T I
Meadowsweet Spiraea latifolia
Hardhack S. tomentosa

RUBIACEAE

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis T I
Bedstraw Galium trifidum T
Bedstraw G. palustre T

SALICACEAE

Cottonwood Populus deltoides S I P
Quaking aspen P. tremuloides T
Willow Salix sp. S T I
Crack willow S. fragilis T I
Black willow nigra I
Basket willow purpurea I
Heart-leaved willow rigida T

SCROPHULARIACEAE

Turtlehead Chelone glabra T
Mudwort Limosella subulata S T
False-pimpernel Lindernia dubia S T
Nuttall's micranthemum Micranthemum micranthemoides T
Monkey f 1 owe r Mimulus rinaens T

SOLANACEAE

Climbing nightshade Solanum dulcamara T

SPARGANIACEAE

Burreed Sparganium americanum T
Big burreed S.. eurycarpum S T

316

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

TILLIACEAE

Narrowleaf cattail Typha angustifolia S T I P
Broadleaf cattail T. latifolia S T I p
Hybrid cattail T. x. glauca S T I

TYPHACEAE

Basswood Tilia americana S T

ULMACEAE

Elm Ulmus sp. I
American elm U. americana S

UMBELLIFERAE

Angelica Angelica atropurpurea T
Bulb-bearing water-hemlock Cicuta bulbifera T I
Water-hemlock C. maculata T
Lilaeopsis Cilaeopsis chinensis P
Mock bishop weed Ptilimnium capillaceum P
Water-parsnip Sium suave S T I P

URTICACEAE

False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica T I
Wood nettle Laportea canadensis S T
Clearweed Pilea fontana I
Clearweed P. pumila T

VIOLACEAE

Blue violet Viola sp. T

VITACEAE

Virginia-creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia S T

Sources of infonnation: Buckley & Ristich (1976), Foley & Taber (19-5
Kiviat (1978) and unpublished data, Lehr (1967a, b), McVaugh (1958),
Muenscher (1935, 1937), John C. Orth (unpublished data at Bear Mountain
State Park Trailside Museums), Schuyler 1975 and Torrey (1931). These
records span approximately the last 50 years. Nomenclature has been
adjusted to conform with Gleason & Cronquist (1963) where practicable.

317

APPENDIX 7

National Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines

1974 and 1977

318

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Volume 39 Number 108

PART IV

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

National Oceanic and.
Atmospheric Administration

Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines

no. 108-Pt. IV_1.

319
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 15- commerce and foreign Trade
Chapter ix-National Oceanic And
Atmospheric Administartin, De-
PARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 921-ESTURAINE SANCTUARY
GUIDELINES

The National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA) on
March 7. 1974 proposed guideliens (15
CFR Part 921) pursuant to section 312 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 (pub. L. 92-583. 86 Stat, 1280),
hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for
the purpose of establishing the policy
and procedures for the nomination, se-
lection and management of estuarine
sanctuaries.
Written comments were to bo sub-
mitted to the office of Coastal ENviron-
ment (now the office of Coastal Zone
Management), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administratin, before
April 8, 1974, and consideration has been
given those comments.
The Act recongnizes that the coastal
Zone is rich in a variety of natural, com-
mercial, recreational, industrial and
esthetic resources of immediate and po-
tential value to the present and futre
well-being of the nation. States are en-
couraged to develop and implement
management programs to achieve wise
use of the resources of the coastal zone,
and the Act authorizes Federal grants to
the States for these purposes (sections
305 and 306)
In addition, under section 312 of the
Act, the secretary of commerce is
authorized to make available to a coastal
State grants of up to 50 per centum of
the cost of acquisition, development and
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. The
guidelines contained in this part are for
grants udner section 312.
In general, section 312 provides that
grants may be awarded to States on a
matching basis to acquire, devlop and
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc-
tuaries in order that scientists and stu-
dents may be provided the oppurtunity
to examine over a period of time ecologi-
cal relationships within the area. The
purpose of these guideliens is to establish
the rules and regulations for implemen-
tation of this program.
The national oceanic and Atmospheric
administration is publishing herewith
the final regulations describing the pro-
cedures for applications to receive grants
for estuarine sanctuaries under section
312 of the Act. The final regulations and
criteria were revised from the proposed
guidelines based on the comments re-
ceived. A total of fifty (50) States, agen-
cies, organizations and individuals sub-
mitted repsonses to the proposed. Sec-
tion 312 guideliens published in the
Federal REgister on March 7, 1974. Of
those respones received, eight (8) of-
fered no comment of were wholly favor-
able as to the nature and content of the
guidelines as originally proposed. Forty-
two (42) commentators submitted sug-
gestions concerning the proposed section
312 guideliens.
The following summary analyses by
comments received on various sections of
the proposed rugulatosn and presents
the rationale for the responses made.
Section _212 Definitions. Three com-
ments requested that the term "estuary"
be defined although the term is defined
in the Act and also in the regulations
dealing with Coastal Zone Management
Program Development Grants (part 920
of this chapter) publsihed November 29.
1973, it has been added to these regula-
tions and broadened slightly to include
marine lagoons with restricted fresh-
water input such as might occur along
the south Texas coast.
Two other comments requested that
the "primary purpose" referred to in
921.2(b) be claerly defined. Although
elabroated upon in 921.3 (a), for the
purpose of clarity this change has been
made.
Section 921.3 objectives and imple-
mentation. Several comments suggested
that the estuarine sanctuary program
objectives were too narrowly defined and
specifically that they should be broad-
ened to include the acquisition and pres-
ervation of unique or endangered estu-
aries for wildlife or ecological reasons.
Although the Act (section 302) declares
it the nation's policy to preserve, protect,
develop, and where possible, to restore or
enhance coastal resources, this is per-
ceived to be achievable through State
actiosn pursuant to sections 305 and 305.
While it is recognized that the crestion
of an estuarine sanctuary may in fact
serve to preserve or protect an area or
biological community, the legislative his-
tory of section 312 clearly indicates the
estuarine sanctuary program was not in-
tended to duplicate existing broad pur-
pose Federal preservation programs, such
as might be accommodated by use of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
Instead, both in the Act as well as its
legislative history, the objective is de-
fined as preserving representative estu-
arine areas for long-term research and
educational uses.
Three other comments suggested the
objectives of the program should be en-
larged to include the restoration of en-
viromentally degraded areas. This, too,
is perceived to be a State requirement
separate from section 312. In addition,
adequate authority for restoring de-
graded water areas now exists (for ex-
ample, pub. l 92-500 in addition to
sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Act).
No significatn additional benefit would
appear to result from declaring an area
an estuarine sanctuary for the purposes
of restoration.
A few comments indicated that the
examples of sanctuary use were too heav-
ily weighted toward scientific uses to
the exclusion of educational uses. Public
education concerning the value and ben-
efits of, and the nature of conflict within
the coastal Zone, will be essential to the
success of a coastal zone management
program. The section has been changed
to reflect an appropriate concern for
educational use.
Some commentators suggested changes
in or additions to the specific examples
of sanctuary uses and purposes. These
examples were taken from the Senate
and House committee Reports and are
considered sufficient to reflect the kinds
of uses intended within an estuarine
sanctuary.
Several comments were received per-
taining to 921.3(c) involving the re-
strictions against overemphasis of de-
structive or manipulative research. Ten
comments indicated that the section was
too weak and would not provide sufficient
long-term protection for the sanctuary
ecosystem. Several commentators spe-
cifically recommended deleting the words
"would not normally be permitted" and
inserting in their place "will not be per-
mitted." In contras, three respondents
indicated that the potential use of estu-
arine sanctuaries for manipulative or
destructive research was too restricted.
and that these uses should be generally
permitted if not encouraged.
The legislative history of section 312
clearly indicates that the intent of the
estuarine sanctuary program should be
to preserve representative estuarine
areas so that they may provide long-
term (virtually permanent) scientific
and educational use. The uses perceived
are compatible with what has been de-
fined as "research natural areas." In
an area of rapidly degrading estuarine
environments, the estuarine sanctuary
program will ensure that a representa-
tive series of natural areas will be avail-
able for scientific or educational uses
dependent, on that natural character, for
example, for baseline studies, for use in
understanding the functiioning of natural
ecological systems, for controls against
which the impacts of development in
other areas might be compared, and as
interpretive centers for educational pur-
poses. Any use, research or otherwise,
which would destroy or detract from the
natural system. Would be inappropriate
under this program.
In general, the necessity of or benefit
from permitting manipulative or de-
structive research within and estuarine
sanctuary is unclear. While there is a
legitimate need ofr such kinds of re-
search, ample opportunity for manipu-
lative or destructive research to assess
directly man's impact or stresses on the
estuarine environment exists now with-
but the need for creation or use of an
estuarine sanctuary for this purpose. In
contrast. a clear need exists for natural
areas to serve as controsl for manipula-
tive research or research on altered
systems.
The section on manipulative research
has been changed to reflect the concern
for continued maintenance of the area
as a natural system. However. the modi-
fier "normally" has been retained be-
cause. within these limits, it is not felt
necessary to preclude all such uses; the
occasion may rarely arise when because
of a thoroughly demonstrated direct ben-
efit, such research may be permitted.
Several comments suggested that the
program should include degraded estua-
rine systems, rather than be limited to
areas which are "relatively undisturbed
by human activities," Such areas would
permit research efforts designed to re-
store an estuarine area. As indicated

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

320
RULES AND REGULATIONS

above the ample legislative mandate to
restore environmentally degraded areas
already exists; the benefits to be derived
from declaring such areas estuarine
sanctuaries would be marginal. Indeed,
it would appear that if restoration ef-
forts cannot occur without estuarine
sanctuary designation, then, given the
limited resources of this program, such
efforts would not be feasible.
A few commentators suggested that
the phrase (921.3)(e) " if sufficient per-
manence and control by the State can
be assured, the acquisition of a sanctu-
ary may invovle less than the acquisition
of a fee simple interest" be more clearly
defined. Explanatory language has been
added to that section.
Section 921.4 Zoogeographic Classifica-
tion. Because the classification scheme
utilized plants as well as animals, two
commentators suggested that zoogeo-
graphic be changed to biogeographic.
This change is reflected in the final
regulations.
One comment suggested that selection
of sanctuaries should depend on the pres-
sures and threats being brought to bear
upon the natural areas invovled even if
this meant selecting several sanctuaries
from one classification and none from
another.
The legislative history of section 312
clearly shows the intent to select estu-
arine sanctuaries on a national basis
which would reflect regional differentia-
tion and a variety of ecosystems. The bio-
geographic classification system. which
reflects geographic, hydrographic, and
biologic differences, fulfills that inten-
tion. A scheme which would abandon
that system, or another similar one, and
would not fulfill the requirements of pro-
viding regional differentiation and a
variety of ecosystems, would not be con-
sistent with the intended purpose of the
Act.
A few comments received suggested
that the biogeographic classification
scheme be enlarged by the additon of a
new class reflecting an area or state of
special concern or interest to the re-
spondent. (No tow commentators sug-
gested the same area.) It is felt that
adequate national representation is pro-
vided by the biogeogrpahic scheme pro-
posed, and that the changes offered were
in most cases examples of sub-categories
that might be utilized.
One comment suggested a specific
change in the definition of the "Great
Lakes" category. POrtions of that sug-
gestion have been incorporated into the
final rules.
Two commentators requested assur-
ance that sub-categories of the biogeo-
graphic scheme will in fact be utilized,
THe final language substitutes "will be
developed and utilized" for "may be de-
veloped and utilized".
Section 921.5 Multiple use. Several
commetns were received pertaining to
the multiple use concept. Three com-
mentators suggested that the multiple
use directive was contrary to or absent
from the Act and should be omitted. Ten
respondents felt the concept should be
more explicitly defined and restricted so
that the primary purpose of the sanc-
tuary would be more clearly protected.
In contrast, two commentators felt that
the definition might prove too restrictive
and should be broadened. Several com-
mentators suggested that examples of
anticipated multiple use might be
appropriate.
While recognizing that it is not always
possible to accommodate more than a
single use in an environmentally sensi-
tive area, it is not the intention to un-
necessarily preclude the uses of sanc-
tuary areas where they are clearly com-
patible with and do not detract from the
long-term protection of the ecosystem
for scientific and educational purposes.
The language of 921.5 has been changed
accordingly.
Section 921.6 Relationship to other
provisions of the Act and to Marine
Sanctuaries. Several comments were re-
ceived which commended and stressed
the need for close coordination between
the development of State coastal zone
management programs, especially and
land and water use controls, and the
estuarine sanctuary program.
The relationship between the two pro-
grams is emphasized: estuarine sanctu-
aries should provide benefit-both short-
term and long-term- to coastal zone
management decision-makers; and State
coastal zone management programs must
provide necessary protection for estu-
arine sanctuaries. This necessary coordi-
nation is discussed not only in the estu-
arine sanctuary regulations, but will also
be addressed in an appropriate fashion
in guidelines and rules for coastal zone
Management Program Approval Criteria
and Administrative Grants.
Three commentators discussed the
need for swift action by both State and
Federal governments to establish and
acquire estuarine sanctuaries. The office
of Coastal Zone Management intends to
pursue the program as swiftly as avail-
able manpower restraints will permit.
A few comments sought reassurance
that the estuarine sanctuaries program
will in fact be coordinated with the
Marine Sanctuaries Program (Title III,
pub. L. 92-532). The guidelines have
been changed to reflect that both pro-
grams will be administered by the same
office.

Subpart B-APPLICATION FOR GRANTS
Section 921.10 General. One reviewer
indicated uncertainty about which state
agency may submit applications for
grants under section 312. Although indi-
vidual states may vary in the choice of
individual agencies to apply for an es-
tuarine sanctuary, because of the neces-
sity for coordination with the State
coastal zone management program the
entity within the State which is the cer-
tified contact with the office of Coastal
Zone management, NOAA, responsible
for the administration of the coastal
zone management program must en-
dorse or approve an estuarine sanctuary
application.
Appropriate language has been in-
cluded to ensure this coordination.
Section 921.11 initial Application for
Acquisition, Development and Operation
Grants. Two comments requested that
the sources and nature of acceptable
matching funds should be explicitly
identified.
OMB circular A-102 generally defines
and identifies legitimate "match" for
federal grant projects. In general, refer-
ence should be made to that document.
However, the section has been expanded
in response to some specific and frequent
questions.
Two comments stressed the need for
increased availability of research funds
to adequately utilize the potential of es-
tuarine sanctuaries. While not an ap-
propriate function of the estuarine sanc-
tuary program, the office of Coastal Zone
Management is discussing the necessity
of adequatet funding with appropriate
agencies.
One comment suggested that the term
"legal description" of the sanctuary
(_ 921.11(a)) is not appropriate for all
categories of information requested. The
word "legal" has been omitted.
three reviewers indicated that the Act
provides no basis for consideration of
socio-economic impacts (921.11(1))
and that this criterion seemed inappro-
priate to selecting estuarine sanctuaries.
Apparently these reviewers misunder-
stood the intention of this requirement.
The information in this section is neces-
sary for preparation of an environmental
impact statement which will be prepared
pursuant to NEPA. Although required in
the application, such information is not
a part of the selection criteria, which are
addressed in subpart c, 921.20.
One similar comment was received
with regard to consideration of existing
and potential uses and conflicts (921.-
11(h)). This item is also discussed under
selection criteria (921.20(h)). It is in-
tended that this criterion will only be
considered when choosing between two
or mor sanctuary applications within
the same biogeographic category which
are of otherwise equal merit.
One comment drew attention to an
apparent typogarphic error in 921.11
(m) where the term "marine estuaries"
seems out of context. This has been cor-
rected.
Two commentators suggested that
public hearings should be required in the
development of an estuarine sanctuary
application. Although such a hearing is
deemed desirable by the office of Coastal
Zone management, it would not always
seem to be necessary. The language in
920.11(1) has been changed to reflect
the sincere concern for the adequate in-
volvement of the public, which is also
addressed under a new 920.21.
One respondent suggested that a new
section be added requiring the appli-
cant to discuss alternative methods of
acquisition or control of the area, includ-
ing the designation of a marine sanctu-
ary, in place of establishing an estuarine
sanctuary. A new section (920.11(n))
has been added for this purpose.
Section 921.12 subsequent application
for development and operation Grants.
Three commentators expressed concern
that the intent of 921.12 be more clearly
expressed. Appropriate changes have
been made.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39. NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

321
RULES AND REGLUATIONS

One comment was made that a pro-
vison should be included to use existing
Federally owned land for the purpose of
the estuarine sanctuary program. A sec-
tion has been added for that purpose.
Section 921.30 Criteria for Selection.
One comment suggested that the con-
sideration of conflict with existing or po-
tential competing uses should not be in-
cluded as a selection criterion. As dis-
cussed above, this criterion is considered
appropriate.
Another reviewer suggested the addi-
tion of a new criterion, consideration of
"the need to protect a particular estuary
from harmful development." As dis-
cussed earlier, this criterion is not con-
sidered appropriate. Such a basis for
determining selection would lead to a
reactionary, random series of estuarine
sanctuaries, rather than the rationally
chosen representative series mandated
in the legislative history.
Two reviewers commented that the
limitation on the Federal share ($2,000,-
000 for each sanctuary) was too low and
would severely restrict the usefulness of
the program. However, this limitation
is provided by the Act.
Another commentator suggested that
921.20(g) was unnecessarily restrictive
in that it might prevent selecting an
estuarine sanctuary in an area adjacent
to existing preserved lands where the
conjunction might be mutually benefi-
cial. The language of 921.20(g) does
not preclude such action, but has been
changed to specifically permit this pos-
sibility.
Two commentators inquired whether
the reference to a "draft" environmental
impact statement (921.20) last para-
graph) indicated an intention to avoid
furthur compliance with NEPA. It is the
firm intention of the office of coastal
zone management to fully comply in all
respects with NEPA. The word "draft"
has been struck.
Three reviewers addressed the prob-
lems of providing adequate public par-
ticipation in the review and selection
process. In addition to the change in
920.11(1), a new section has been added
to address this issue.

SUBPART D-OPERATION
Section 921.30 General, One commen-
tator suggested that during contract
negotiations, there should be a meeting
between the applicant agency and pro-
posed sanctuary management team, and
representatives of the office of coastal
Zone Management. The general pro-
visions have been broadened to provide
for this suggestion.
Two comments were submitted which
urged that some discretion be exercised
in the use and access to the sanctuary
by scientists and students. Two other
comments were received which requested
specific protection for use by the general
public. The guideliens have been changed
to include these suggestions.
One coment was received suggesting
language to clarify 921.30 (g), This was
incorporated into the guidelines.
Two commentators expressed concern
for enforcement capabilities and activi-
ties to ensure protection of the estuarine
sanctuaries. A new section has been
added which addresses this issue.
Finally, one suggestion was received
that a vehicle for cahnge in the manage-
ment policy or research programs should
be provided. A new section has been
added for that purpose.
Accordingly, having considered the
comments received and other relevant
information, the secretary concludes by
adopting the final regulations describing
the procedure for applications to receive
estuarine sanctuary grants under section
312 of the Act, as modified and set forth
below.

Effective date: June 3, 1974
Dated: May 31, 1974
Robert M. White
Administrator.

Subpart A-General
sec.
921.1 Policy and objectives.
921.2 Definitions.
921.3 Objectives and implementation of
the program.
921.4 Biogeographic classification.
921.5 Multiple use.
921.6 Relationship to other provisons of
the Act and to marine sanctuaries.

Subpart B-Application for Grants
921.10 General
921.11 Application for initial acquisition,
development and operation grants.
921.12 Application for subsequent develop-
ment and operation grants.
921.13 Federally owned lands.

Subpart C-Selection Criteria
921.20 Criteria for selection.
921.21 Public participation.

Subpart D-operation
921.30 General.
921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary,
management policy or research
program
921.32 Program review.

Authority: Sec. 312 of the Coastal Zone
Managent Act of 1972 (pub. L. 92-583, 86
Stat. 1280).

SUBPART A-GENERAL
921.1 POLICY AND OBJECTIVES.

The estuarine sanctuaries program will
provide grants to States on a matching
basis to acquire, develop and operate
natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in
order that scientists and students may be
provided the opportunity to examine over
a period of time the ecological relation-
ships within the area. The purpose of
these guideliens is to establish the rules
and regulations for implementation of,
the program.

921.2 Definitions.
(a) In addition to the definitions
found in the Act and in the regulaltions
dealing with Coastal Zone Management
Program Development Grants published
November 29, 1973 (Part 920 of this
chapter) the term "estuarine sanctuary"
as defined in the Act. means a research
area which may include any part or all
of an estuary. adjoining transitional
areas, and adjacent uplands. constituting
to the extent feasible a natural unit, set
aside to provide scientists and students
the opportunity to examine over a period
of time the ecological relationships with-
in the area.
(b) For the purposes of thsi section,
"estuary" means that part of a river or
stream or other body of water having un-
impared connection with the open sea
where the seawater is measureably diluted
with freshwater derived from land drain-
age. The term includes estuary-type
areas of the Great lakes as well as la-
goons in more arid coastal regions.
(C) The germ "multiple use" as used
in this section shall mean the simulta-
neous utilization of an area or resource
for a variety of compatible purposes or
to provide more than one benefit. The
term implies the long-term, continued
uses of such resources in such a fashion
that other uses will not interfere with,
diminish or prvent the primary purpose,
which is the long-term protection of the
area for scientific and educational use.

921.3 Objectives and implementation
of the program.

(a) General The purpose of the es-
tuarine sanctuaries program is to create
natural field laboratories in which to
gather data and make studies of the
natural and human processes occurring
within the estuaries of the coastal zone.
This shall be accomplished by the estab-
lishment of a series of estuarine sanc-
tauries which will be designated so that
at least one representative of each type
of estuarine ecosystem will endure into
the future for scientific and educational
purposes. The primary use of estuarine
sanctuaries shall be for research and
educational purposes, especially to pro-
vide some of the information essential to
coastal zone management decision-mak-
ing. Specific examples of such purposes
and uses include but are not limited to:
(1) To gain a thorough understanding
of the ecological relationships whithin the
estuarine environment.
(2) To make baseline ecological meas-
urements.
(3) To monitor significant or vital
changes in teh estuarine environment.
(4) TO assess the effects of man's
stresses on the ecosystem and to forecast
and mitigate possible deterioration from
human activities.
(5) TO provide a vehicle for increasing
public knowledge and awareness of the
complex nature of estuarine systems,.
their values and benefits to man and na-
ture and teh problems which confront
them.
(b) The emphais within the program
will be on the designation as estuarine
sanctuaries of areas which will serve as
natural field laboratories for studies and
investigations over an extended period.
The area chosen as an estuarine sanc-
tuary shall, to the extent feasible, in-
clude water and land masses constituting
a natural ecological unit.
(c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
tuary will be available for future studies.
research involving the destruction of any
portion of an estuarine sanctuary which
woudl permanently alter the nature of
the ecosystem shall not normally be

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

322
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Permitted. in the unusual circumstances
where permitted, manipulative field re-
search shall be carefully controlled . No
experiment which involves mnaipulative
research shall be initiated until the ter-
mination date is specified and evidence
given that the environment will be re-
turned to its condition which existed
prior to the experiment.
(d) It is anticipated that most of the
areas selected as sanctuaries will be rel-
atively undisturbed by human activities
at the time of acquisition. Therefore,
most of the areas selected will be areas
with a minimum of developement, indus-
try or habitation.
(e) If sufficient permanence and con-
trol by the State can be assured. the
acquisition of a sanctuary may involve
less than the acquisition of a fe simple
interest. Such interest may be, for ex-
ample, the acquisition of a conserva-
tion easement, "development rights", or
other partial interest sufficient to assure
the protection of the natural system.
Leasing, which would not assure perma-
nent protection of the system, would not
be an acceptable alternative.

921.4 Biogeographic classsification.

(a) It is intended that estuarine sanc-
tuaries should not be chosen at random,
but should reflect regional differentia-
tion and avariety of ecosystems so as
to cover all significant variations. To
ensure adequate representation of all es-
tuarine types reflecting regional differ-
entation and a variety of ecosystems;
selectons will be made by the secretary
from the following biogeographic class-
ifications:

1. aroodism. Northeast Atlantic coast
south of cape cod. giaciated shoreline sub-
ject to winter icing; well developed _igal
florm; borsal biota.
2. virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from
Cape cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland streams,
coastal marshes and muddy bottoms; char-
acteristis trnsitional between 1 and 3;
biota primarily temerate with some borsal
representatives.
3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast. from
Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy; extensive
marshes and swamps; waters turbid and
productive; biota temparate with seasonal
tropical elements.
4. West indian. South Florida coast from
Cape Kennedy to cedar kay; and caribbean
islands; shoreland low-lying limestones;
calcareous sands, maris and coarl reefs;
coastal marshes and mangroves; tropical
biota.
5. Louisianian. Norhtern Gulf of Mexico,
from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics
of 3 with componants of 4; strongly influ-
enced by tarrigenous factors; biota primarily
temperate.
6. Californian South Pacific coast from
Mexico to Cape Mandonino; shoreland influ-
enced by coastal mountains; rocky coasts
with reduced fresh-water runoff; general
absense of marshes and swamps; biota
temperata.
7. Columbian. NOrth pacific coast from
Cape Mondooino to Canada: mountainous
shoreland: rocky coasts; extensive algai com-
munities; biota primarily temperate with
some borval.
8. _lords. South coast Alaska and Aleu=
tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries,
some with glaciers; shoreline heavily in-
dented and subject to winter icing; biota
bareal to sub-artic.
9. subarctic. West and north coasts of
Alaska; Ice stressed coasts; biota Arctic and
sub0Arctic.
10. Insular. Larger islands, sometimes with
precipitous mountains; considerable wave
motion; frequently with andemio species;
larger island groups with tropical
biota.
11. Great lakes. Great lakes of north
America; bluff-duen or rocky, glaciated
shorelie; limited wetlands; freshwater only;
biota a mixture of boreal and temperate
species with anadromous species and some
marine invaders.
(b) Various sub-categories will be de-
veloped and utilized as appropriate.

921.5 Multiple use.

(a) While the primary purpose of es-
turiane sanctuaries is to provide long-
term protection for natural areas so that
they may be used for scientific and edu-
cational purposes, multiple use of estu-
arine sanctuaries will be encouraged to
the extent that such use is compatible
with this primary sanctuary prupose.
The capacity of a given sanctuary to ac-
commodate additional uses, and the
kinds and intensity of such use. will be
determined on a case by case basis. While
it is anticipated that compatible uses
may generally include activities such as
low intensity recreation, fishing, hunt-
ing, and wildlife observation, it is rec-
ognized that the exclusive use of an area
for scientific or educational purposes
may provide the optimum benefit to
coastal zone management and resource
use and may on occasion be necessary.
(b) There shall be no effort to balance
or optimize uses of an estuarine sanctu-
ary on economic or other bases. All addi-
tional uses of the sanctuary are clearly
secondary to the primary purpose and
uses, which are long-term maintenance
of the ecosystem for scientific and educa-
tional uses. Non-compatible uses, includ-
ing those uses which would cause sig-
nificant short or long-term ecological
change or would otherwise detract from
or restrict the use of the sanctuary as
a natural field laboratory. will be pro-
hibited.

921.6 Relationship to other provisions
of the act and to marien sanctuaries.
(a) The estuarine sanctuary program
must interact with te overall coastal
zone management program in two ways:
(1) the intended research use of the
sanctuary should provide relevant data
and conclusions of amistance to coastal
zone management decision-making. and
(2) When developed, the State's coastal
zone management program must recog-
nize and be designed to protect the estu-
arine sanctuary: appropriate land and
Water use regulations and planning con-
siderations must apply to adjacent lands.
Although estuarine sanctuaries should
be incorporated into the State coastal
zone management program, their desig-
nation need not await the development
and approval of the management pro-
gram where operation of the estuarine
sanctuary would aid in the developement
of a program.
(b) THe estuarine sanctuaries program
will be conducted in close cooperation
with the marine sanctuaries program
(Title III of the Marine protection, re-
search Act of 1972, pub. L. 92-532, which
is also administered by teh office of
coastal zone Management, NOAA
Which recognizes that certain areas of
the ocean waters, as far seaward as the
outer edge of the continental shelf,__
other coastal waters where the tide eb_
and flows, or of the Great lakes and
their connecting waters, need to be pre
served or restored for their conservation
recreational, ecologic or esthetic values
It is anticipated that the Secretary of
occasion may establish marine sanctu-
aries to complement the designation b
States of estuarine sanctuaries, when
this may be mutually beneficial.

SUbpart B- Application for Grants
921.10 General
Secton 312 authorizes Federal Grants
to caostal States os that the States may
establish sanctuaries according to regu-
lations promulgated by teh secretary
coastal states may file applications for
grants with the DIrector, Office of Coast
Zone Management, Nationial Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. de-
partment of Commerce, Rockville, Mary-
land 20852. That agency which has been
certified to the office of COastal Zone
Management as the entity repsonsible
for administration of the State Coastal
Zone management program may either
submit an application directly, or must
endorse and approve applicationis sub-
mitted by other agencies within the
state.

921.11 Application for initial acquisi-
tion, development and operation
grants.
(a) Grants may be awarded on
matching basis to cover the costs of
acquisition, development and operstio
of estuarine sanctuaries. States may use
donations of land or money to satisfy a
or part of the matching cost require-
ments.
(b) In general, lands acquired pur-
suant to this section. including state
owned lands but not State owned sub-
merged lands or bay bottoms, that occur
within the proposed sanctuary boundary
are legitimate costs and their fair market
value may be included as match. How
ever, the value of lands donated to or b
the State for inclusion in the sanctuary
may only be used to match other cost
of land acquisition. In the event the
lands already exist in a protected status
their value cannot be used as match for
sanctuary development and operation
grants, which will require their own
matching funds.
(c) Development and operation cost
may include the administrative expense
necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to
ensure its continued viability and to pro
tect the integrity of the ecosystem. RE
search will not normally be funded by
section 312 grants, it is anticipated the
other sources of Federal, State and

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

323

RULES AND REGULATIONS

private funds will e available for re-
search in estuarine sanctuaries.
(d) Initial applications should contain
the following information:
(1) Description of the proposed sanc-
tuary include location, boudnaries, size
and cost of acquisition. operation and de-
velopment. A map should be included, as
well as the serial photogrph, if available.
(2) Classification of the proposed
sanctuary according to the biogeographic
scheme set forth in 921.4.
(3) Description of the major physical,
geographic and biological characteristics
and resources of the proposed sanctuary.
(4) Idnetification of ownership pat-
terns; proportion of land already in the
public domain.
(5) Description of intended research
uses, potential research organizations or
agencies and benefits to the overall
coastal zone management program.
(6) Demonstration of necessary au-
thority to acquire or control and manage
the sanctuary.
(7) Description of proposed manage-
ment techniques, including the manage-
ment agency, principles and proposed
budge including both state and Federal
shares.
(8) Description of existing and poten-
tial uses of and conflicts within the area
if it were not declared an estuarine sanc-
taury, potential use, use restrictions and
conflicts if the sanctuary is established.
(1) Assessment of the environmental
and socio-economic impacts of delcaring
the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ-
ing the economic impact of such a desig-
nation on the surrounding community
and its tax base.
(9) Description of planned or antici-
pated land and water use and controls
for contiguous lands surrounding the
proposed sanctuary (including if appro-
priate an analysis of the desirability of
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent
areas).
(10) List of protected sites, either
within the estuarine sanctuaries program
or within other Federal, State or private
programs, which are located in the same
regional or biogeographic classification.
(1) It is essential that the opportunity
be provided for public involvement and
input in the development of teh sanctu-
ary proposal and application. Where the
application is controversial or where
controversial issues are addressed, the
State should provide adequate means to
ensure that all interested parties have
the opportunity to present their views.
this may be in the form of an adequately
advertised pulbic hearing.
(11) During the development of an
estuarine sanctuary application, all land-
owners within the proposed boundaries
should be informed in writing of the pro-
posed grant application.
(111) The application should indicate
the manner in which the State solicited
the views of all interested parties prior
to the actual submission of the appli-
cation.
(a) In order to develop a truly repre-
sentative scheme of etuarine sanctu-
aries, the States should attempt to coor-
dinate their activities. This will help to
minimize the possibility of similar estu-
arine types being proposed for dsigna-
tion in the same region. The application
shoudl indicate the extent to which
neighboring States were consulted.
(f) Discussion, including cost and
feasibility, of alternative methods for
acquisition, control and protection of the
area. to provide similar uses. Use of the
Marine sanctuary authority and funds
from the land and Water conservation
Fund Act should be specifically ad-
dressed.

921.12 Application for subsequent de-
velopment and operation grants.

(a) Although the initial grant applic-
cation for creation of an estuarine sanc-
tuary should include initial development
and operation costs, subsequent appli-
cations may be submitted following ac-
quisition and establishment of an estua-
rine sanctuary for additional develop-
ment and operation funds. As indicated
in 921.11. These costs may include ad-
ministrative costs necessary to monitor
the sanctuary and to protect the integ-
rity of the ecosystem. Extensive manage-
ment programs, capital expenses, or re-
search will not normally be funded by.
section 312 grants.
(b) After the creation of an estuarine
sanctuary established under this pro-
gram, applications for such development
and operation grants should include at
least the following information:
(1) Identification of the boundary.
(2) Specifications of the management
program including managing agency and
techniques.
(3) Detailed budget.
(4) Discussion of recent and projected
use of the sanctuary.
(5) Perceived threats to the itegrity
of the sanctuary.

931.13 Federally owned lands.

(a) where Federally owned lands are
a part of or adjacent to the area pro-
posed for designation as an estuarine
sanctuary, or where the control of land
and water uses on such lands is neces-
sary to protect the natural system within
the sanctuary, the State should contact
the Federal agency maintaining control
of the land to request cooperation in pro-
viding coordinated management polocies,
Such lands and State request, and the
Federal agency response, should be iden-
tified and conveyed to the office of
Coastal Zone Management.
(b) Where such proposed use or con-
trol of Federally owned lands would not
conflict with the Federal use of their
lands, such cooperation and coordination
is encouraged to the maximum extent
feasible.
(c) Section 312 grants may not be
awarded to Federal agencies for crestion
of estuarine sanctuaries in Federally
owned lands; however, a similar status
may be provided on a voluntary basis for
Federally owned lands under the provi-
sions of the Federal committee on Eco-
logical Preserves program.

Subpart C-Selection Criteria
921.20 Criteria for selection.

Applications for grants to establish
estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed
and judged on criteria including:
(a)Benefit to the coastal Zone man-
agement program. Applications should
demonstrate the benefit of the proposal
to the development or operations of the
overall coastal zone management pro-
gram, including how well the proposal
fits into the national program of repre-
sentative estuarine types; the national
or regional benefits; and the usefulness
in research.
(b) The ecological characteristics of
the ecosystem, including its biological
productivity, diversity and representa-
tiveness. Extent of alteration of the
natural system, its ability to remain a
viable and healthy system in view of the
present and possible development of ex-
ternal stresses.
(c) Size and choice of boundaries. To
the extent feasible, estuarine sanctuaries
should approximate a natural ecological
unit. The minimal acceptable size will
vary greatly and will depend on the na-
ture of the ecosystem.
(d) Cost. Although the Act limits the
Federal share of the cost for each sanc-
tuary to $2,000,000. it is anticipated that
in practice the average grant will be sub-
stantially less than this.
(e) ENhancement of non-competitive
uses.
(f) Proximity and access to existing
research facilities.
(g) Availability of suitable alternative
sites already protected which might be
capable of providing the same use or
benefit. Unnecessary duplication of ex-
isting activities under other programs
should be avoided. However, estuarine
sanctuaries might be established adja-
cent to existing preserved lands where
mutual enhancement or benefit of each
might occur.
(h) Conflict with existing or potential
competing uses.
(i) Compatibility wiht existing or pro-
posed land and water use in contiguous
areas.

If the initial review demonstrates the
feasibility of the application, an environ-
mental impact statement will be pre-
pared by the office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
implementing CEQ guidelines.

921.21 Public participation.

Public participation will be an essen-
tial factor in the selection of estuarine
sanctuaries. In addition to the participa-
tion during the application development
process (921.11(e)), public participa-
tion will be ensured at the Federal level
by the NEPA process and by public hear-
ings where desirable subsequent to NEPA.
Such public hearings shall be held by the
office of Coastal Zone Management in
the area to be affected by the proposed
sanctuary no sooner than 30 days after it
issues a draft environmental impact

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

324
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Statement on the sanctuary proposal. It
will be responsibility of the office of
Coastal Zone Management, with the as-
sistance of the applicant State, to issue
adequate public notice of its intention
to hold a public hearing. Such public no-
tice shall be distributed widely, espe-
cially in the area of the proposed sanc-
tuary; affected property owners and
those agencies, organizations or individ-
uals with an identified interest in the
area or estuarine sanctuary program
shall be notified of the public hearing.
The public notice shall contain the
name, address and phone number of the
appropriate Federal and Satate officials to
contact for additional information about
the proposal.

Subpart D-Operation

921.30 General.
Management of estuarine sanctuaries
shall be the responsibility of the appli-
cant state or its agent. However, the
research uses and management program
must be in conformance with these
guideliens and regulations, and others
implemented by teh provisions of indi-
vidual grants. It is suggested that prior
to the grant award, representatives of
the proposed sanctuary management
team and the office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement meet to discuss management
policy and standards. It is anticipated
that the grant provisions will vary with
individual circumstances and will be
mutually agreed to by the applicant and
the granting agency. As a minimum. the
grant document for each sanctuary
shall:
(a) Define the intended research pur-
poses of the estuarine sanctuary.
(b) Define permitted, compatible, re-
stricted and prohibited uses of the sanc-
tuary.
(c) Include a provison for monitoring
the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure com-
pliance with the intended uses.
(d) Ensure ready access to land use
of the sanctuary by scientists, students
and the general public as desirable and
permissible for coordinated research and
education uses, as well as for other com-
patible purposes.
(e) Ensure public availability and res-
sonable distribution of research results
for timely use in the development of
coastal Zone management programs.
(f) Provide a basis for annual review
of the status of the sanctuary, its value
to the coastal zone program.
(g) Specify hwo the integrity of the
system which the sanctuary represents
will be maintained.
(h) Provide adequate authority and
intent to enforce management policy and
use restrictions.

921.31 Changes in the sanctuary
boundary, management policy or
research program.
(a) The approved sanctuary boundar-
ies: management policy, including per-
missible and prohibited uses; and re-
search program may only be changed
after public notice and the opportunity
of public review and participation such
as outlined in 921.21.
(b) Individuals or organizations which
are concerned about possible improper
use or restriction of use of estuarine
sanctuaries may petition the State man-
agement agency and the office of coastal
Zone Management directly for review of
the management program.

921.32 Program review.
It is anticipated that reports will be
required from the applicant State on a
regular basis, no more frequently than
annually, on the status of each estuarine
sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary
program will be regularly reviewed to
ensure that the objectives of the program
are being met and that the program it-
self is scientifically sound. The key to
the success of the estuarine sanctuaries
program is to essure that the results of
the studies and research conducted in
these sanctuaries are available in a
timely fashion so that the States can
develop and administer land and water
use programs for the coastal zone. Ac-
cordingly, all information and reports,
including annual reports, relating to
estuarine sanctuaries shall be part of
the public record and available at all
times for inspection by the public.
(FP doc. 74-12775 filed 5-31-74;9;57 am)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

325

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977
PART IV

gas

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

Guidelines

326

PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospherse
Administration
(15 CFR Part 921)

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES
Policies and Procedures for Selection
Acquisition and Management

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmo=
pheric Administration, Department of
Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule will
allow the National oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration to make a pre-
liminary acquisition grant to a State to
undetake a fair market value appraisal,
and to develop a uniform relocation act
plan, a detailed management plan and a
research framework for a proposed estu-
arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act of 1972, as amended.

DATE: Comments must be received on or
before October 1.1977.

FOR FURTHUR INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

ROBER R. KIFER. Physical scientists,
policy and Program Development of-
fice, Office of coastal Zone Manage-
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page
One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235
(202-634-4241).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ON JUNE 4. 1974 The National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines"
pursuant to them section 312 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended, for the purpose of establish-
ing policy and procedures for the selec-
tion, acquisition, and management of
estuarine sanctuaries.
Under new subsection 315 (1) of the
Act, the secretary of Commerce is au-
thorized to make available to coastal
States grants of up to 50 per centum of
the cost of acquisition, development, and
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In
general, subsection 315 (1) provides that
grants may be awarded to States on a
matching basis to acquire, develop, and
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc-
tuaries in order that scientists and stu-
dents may be provided the opportunity
to examine over a period of time ecologi-
cal relationships within the area. The
purpose of these guideliens is to imple-
ment this program.
As a result of two years of program
implementation, the regulations are pro-
posed to be modified to specifically au-
thorize the granting of acquisition
money to States in two Stages:
(1) An initial grant for such prelimi-
nary purposes. as surveying and assess-
ing the land to be acquired, and the de-
velopment of management procedures
and research programs: and
(II) A second grant for the actual ac-
quisition of the land. The Federal share
of the sum of the two grants shall not
exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs
involved. Any State receiving an initial
grant shall be obligated to repay it if.
due to any fault of the State, the sanctu-
ary is not established.
As a result of this new grant procedure,
much more information relating to costs,
values, management procedures, and re-
search programs will be available at the
time of the publication of a draft en-
vironmental impact statement. Proposals
made public to date in the form of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
have been criticized for lack of spcificity
in these areas. By making a small pre-
liminary acquisition grant to a State,
the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be
more fully developed and the public can
become more aware of the costs and the
exact nature of the long-term manage-
ment.
In response to State questions about
estuarine sanctuary research, the pro-
posed regulations provide that such re-
search can be funded if it can be shown
to be related to program administration.
NOAA has reviewed these proposed
regulations pursuant to the National EN-
vironmental Policy Act of 1989 and has
determined that promulgation of these
regulations will have no significant im-
pact on the environment.
Compliance with Executive order
11821. The economic and inflationary
impact of these proposed regulations has
been evaluated in accordance with OMB
Circular A-107 and it has been deter-
mined that no major inflationary im-
pact will result.

Dated: August 25, 1977.

T.P. Gletter,
Assistant Administrator
for Administration.

It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part
921 as follows:
(1) By revising the table of contents
and authority citation to read as follows:

Subpart a-General
sec.
921.1 Policy and objectives.
921.2 Definitions.
921.3 Objectives and implementation of
the program.
921.4 Biogeographic classification.
921.5 Multiple use.
921.6 Relationship to other provisions of
the act and to marine sanctuaries.

Subpart B-Application for Grants

921.10 General
921.11 Application for preliminary acquisi-
tion grants.
921.12 Application for land acquisition
grants.
921.13 Application for operational grants.
921.14 Federally-owned lands.

Subpart C-selection criteria

921.20 Criteria for selection.
921.21 Public participation.

Subpart D-operation

921.30 General
921.31 Changes in the snctuary boundary,
management policy, or research
program.
921.32 Program review.

Authority: sec 3__ (1). Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat.
1030, (15 U.S.C 1461) Pub. L. 94-370).

(2) By revising Subpart B-Applica-
tion for Grants- as follows:

Subpart B-Application for Grants

921.10 General
Section 315 authorizes Federal grants
to coastal States so that the States may
establish sanctuaries according to regu-
lations promulgated by the Secretary.
Coastal States may file applications for
grants with the Associate Administrator
for Coastal Zone Managemetn (OCZM),
office of Coastal Zone Management, Page
1,3300 Whitehaven Parkeway NW, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
has been certified to teh office of Coastal
Zone Management as the entity respon-
sible for administration of the State
Coastal Zone management program may
either submit an applicatin directly, or
must endorse and approve applications
submitted by other agenciese within the
State.

921.11 Application for preliminary
acquisitin grants.

(a) A grant may be awarded on a
matching basis to cover costs necessary
to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
As match to the Federal grant, a State
may use money, the cost of necessary
services, the value of foregone revenue.
and/or the value of land either already
in its possession, or acquired by the State
specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
the land to be used as match already is
in the State,s possession and is in a pro-
tected status, the State may use such
land as match only to the extent of any
revenue from the land foregone by the
State in order to include it in the sanc-
tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
quisition grant shall be made on form
SF 424 application for Federal assistance
(non-construction programs).
(b) A preliminary acquisition grant
may be made for the defrayal of the
cost of:
(1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
value of any foregone use of the land,
to be used in the sanctuary;
(2) The development of a Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act plan;
(3) The development of a sanctuary
management plan;
(4) The development of a research and
education program; and /or
(5) Such other activity of a prelimi-
nary nature as may be approved in writ-
ing by OCZM. Any grant made pursuant
to this subsection shall be refunded by
the State to whatever extent it has spent
in relation to land not acquired for the
sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
refund.
(C) The application should contain:
(1) Evidence that the State has con-
ducted a scientific evaluation of its estu-
aries and selected one of those most rep-
resentative.
(2) Description of the proposed
sanctuary including location, proposed
boundaries, and size. A map(s) should
be included, as well as an serial photo-
graph if available.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175-FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

327
PROPOSED RULES

(3) Classification of the proposed
sanctuary according to the biogeo-
graphic scheme set forth in 921.4.
(4) Description of the major physical,
geographic, biological characteristics and
resources fo the proposed sanctuary.
(5) Demonstration of the necessary
authority to acquire or control and man-
age the sanctuary.
(6) Description of existing and poten-
tial uses of , and conflicts within, the
area if it were not declared an estuarine
sanctuary; and potential use restriction
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab-
lished.
(7) List of protected sites, either with-
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or
within other Federal, State, or private
programs, which are located in the same
region or biogeographic classification.
(8) The manner in which the State
solicited the views of interested parties.
(9) In addition to the standard A-95
review procedures, the grant application
should be sent to the state Historic Pres-
ervation office for comment to insure
compliance with section 106 of the Na-
tional preservation Act of 1966.
(d) In order to develop a truly repre-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu-
aries, the States should coordinate their
activities. This will help to minimize the
possibility of similar estuarine types be-
ing proposed in the same region. The
extent to which neighboring States were
consulted should be indicated.

921.12 Application for land acquisi-
tion grants.
(a) Acquisition grants will be made to
acquire land and facilities for estuarine
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly
described in a preliminary acuisition
grant application, or where equivalent
information is available. Application for
an acquisition grant shall be made on
SF 424 application for Federal assist-
ance (construction program).
In general, lands acquired pursuant to
this subsection are value, developed ac-
cording to Federal appraisal standards.
may be included as match. The value of
lands donated to the State and cash do-
nations may also be used as match. If
the State already owns land which is to
be used in the sanctuary, the value of
any use of the land foregone by the State
in order to include such land in the
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20
years, may be used by the State as
match. The value of lands purchased by
a State within the boundaries of pro-
posed sanctuaries while an application
for a preliminary acquisition grant or
land acquisition grant is being consid-
ered may also be used as match.
(b) An acquisition application should
contain the following information:
(1) Description of any changes in pro-
posed sanctuary from that presented in
the preliminary acquisition grant appli-
cation. If such an application has not
been made, then, information equivalent
to that required in such a gratn applica-
tion should be provided.
(2) Identification of ownership pat-
terns, proportions of land already in the
public domain: fair market value ap-
praisal and uniform Relocation Act plan.
(3) Descrition of research programs,
potentianl and committed research or-
ganizations or coastal zone management
program.
(4)Description of proposed manage-
ment techniques, including the manage-
ment agency and proposed budget-in-
cluding both State and Federal shares.
(5) Description of planned or antici-
pated land and water use and controls
for contiguous lands surrounding the
proposed sanctuary (including, if appro-
priate, an analysis of the desirability of
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent
areas).
(6) Assessment of the environmental,
and socio-economic impacts of delcaring
the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ-
ing the economic impact on the sur-
rounding ocmmunity and its tax base.
(7) Discussion, including cost and
feasibility of alternative methods for ac-
quisition and protection of the area.

921.13 Application for operation
grants.
(a) Although an acquisition grant ap-
plication for creation of an estuarine
sanctuary should include initial opera-
tion costs. subsequent applications may
be submitted folling acquisition and
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary
for additional operational funds. As in-
dicated in 921.11. these costs may in-
clude administrative costs necessary to
monitor the sanctuary and to protect the
integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive
management programs, capital expenses,
or research will not normally be funded
by section 315 grants.
(b) After teh creation of an estuarine
sanctuary established under this pro-
gram, applications (Form SF 424) for
Federal assistance (non-construction
program). for such operational grants
should include at least the following in-
formaiton:
(1) Identification of the boundary
(map).
(2) Specifications of the research and
management programs, including man-
aging agency and techniques.
(3) Detailed budget.
(4) Discussion of recent and projected
use of the sanctuary.
(5) Perceived threats to the integrity
of the sanctuary.

(a) Where Federally-wopned lands are
a part of or adjacent to the area proposed
for designation as an estuarine sanc-
tuary, or where the control of land and
water uses on such lands is necessary to
protect the natural system within the
sanctuary, the State should contact the
Federal agency maintaining control of
the land to request cooperation in provid-
ing coordinated management policies.
Such lands and State request, and the
Federal agency response, should be iden-
tified and conveyed to the office of
Coastal Zone Management.
(b) Where such proposed use or con-
trol of Federally-owned lands should not
conflict with the Federal use of their
lands, such cooperation and coordination
is encouraged to the maximum extent
feasible.
(c) Section 315 grants may not be
awarded to Federally -owned lands; how-
wver, a similar status may be provided on
a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
lands under the provisions of the Federal
COmmittee on Ecological perserves
program.

921.20 (Amended)
(4) Subpart C-Selection Criteria-is
amended by changing the firs sentence
in 921.20 to read "Applications for
preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
tuareis will be reviewed and judged on
criteria including:"
(5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol-
lows:

921.21 Public participation.
(a) Public participation in the selec-
tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
quired. In the selection process, the se-
lecting entity (see 921.10) shall seek
the views of possibly affected landown-
ers, local governments. and Federal
agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
sibly interested other parties and orga-
nizations. The latter would include, but
need not to be limited to, private citizens
and business, social, and environmental
organizations in the area of the site be-
ing considered for selection. THis solici-
tation of views may be accomplished by
whatever means the selecting entity
deems appropriate, but shall include at
least one public hearing in the area. No-
tice of such hearing shall include infor-
mation as to the time, place, and subject
matter, and shall be published in the
pricnipal area media. The hearing shall
be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
ing the publication of notice.
(b) THe office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
and final environmental impact state-
ments pertaining to the site finally se-
lected for teh estuarine sanctuary fol-
lowing public participation in the selec-
tion of that site. and shall distribute
these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a
public hearing in the area of such site at
which both the draft environmental im-
pact statement (DEIS) adn the merits
of the site selection may be addressed by
those in attendance. OCZM shall hold
such a hearing if: (1) In its view. the
DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap-
pears to be a need for furthur informing
the public with regard to either the DEIS
or one or more aspects of the site se-
lected. or (3) if such a hearing is re-
quested in writing (to either the select-
ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
terested party, or (4) for other good
cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
no sooner than 80 days following the is-
suance of the DEIS and no sooner than
15 days after appropriate notice of such
hearing has been given in the area by
OCZM with the assistance of the select-
ing entity .
"(__ ___ __ _____ fund _ _ 77;8:45 am)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175-FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

328

APPENDIX 8

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG

FIVE NEW YORK STATE AGENCIES

329

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

This Memorandum serves as an expression of intent among five
parties-in-interest hereinafter called the Signatories: the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (Lead Agency), the New
York State Office of General Services, the Palisades Interstate Park
Commission, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation., and the New York State Department of State.

Witnesseth:

WHEREAS, New York State has received a grant from the United States
Secretary of Commerce for acquisition, development and operation of
certain portions of the Hudson River Estuary (see AppendixA) as the
Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary (the Sanctuary), and

WHEREAS, the purpose of such grant is to create new opportunities
for coordinated Hudson River research and public education (the
Program), and

WHEREAS, such Program has wide public support, and

WHEREAS, the Signatories have already evidenced support for such
Program through the formation in 1981 of a Hudson River Estuarine
Sanctuary Steering Committee which has met regularly to coordinate the
efforts of the Signatories in establishing the Sanctuary,

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be
derived from implementing this Program, the Signatories agree to the
following:

1. The lands described in Appendix A are hereby designated as the
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary.

2. There shall be a Management Plan for the Sanctuary, which
Management Plan shall provide a framework for conducting research and
educational programs. The Management Plan shall be developed by the
Estuarine Sanctuary staff and reviewed by the Steering Committee. Such
Management Plan shall set forth compatible and non-compatible uses for
each site in the Sanctuary. The Management Plan shall not take effect
except upon unanimous approval of the Signatories. The Management Plan
shall be reviewed annually and shall be revised as needed, but no
revisions shall take place except upon unanimous approval of the
Signatories.

3. No land ownership and management prerogatives in the Sanctuary
shall be changed except as specified in the Management Plan.

4. The purpose of the Program is the protection of such lands for
use as a natural field laboratory in which to gather data and make
studies of the natural and human processes occurring within the Hudson
River estuary.

330

5. The Signatories shall adhere to the Management Plan in their
land ownership and management activities within the Sanctuary.

6. Multiple uses of such lands are encouraged to the extent such
uses are compatible with the Program and its purpose as expressed in the
Management Plan. These areas are being managed to facilitate ecological
research and education. Uses and/or levels of use, which are not
compatible with the use of the Sanctuary as a natural field laboratory,
shall be prohibited or limited to the greatest extent feasible, by the
agency having jurisdiction.

7. Management Structure

a. There shall be a Sanctuary Steering Committee, comprised
of one member from each of the Signatories, which shall review the
recommendations of Sanctuary Advisory Committees and shall submit them
to the agencies having jurisdiction over lands in the Sanctuary. The
Steering Committee shall review the Management Plan annually and shall
advise the Lead Agency regarding its implementation. The chairman of
each Sanctuary Advisory Committee and a representative of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall serve as non-voting,
ex-officio representatives to the Steering Committee.

b. There shall be three Sanctuary Advisory Committees
appointed by the Lead Agency, in consultation with the Steering
Committee, which shall meet regularly to discuss the progress of the
Sanctuary and to make recommendations to the Steering Committee.

c. The Lead Agency shall implement the Program by hiring and
directing Estuarine Sanctuary staff, supervise and coordinate
implementation of the provisions of the Management Plan, and by
receiving and acting upon the recommendations of the Steering Committee.

d. The Estuarine Sanctuary staff, hired by and reporting to
the Lead Agency, is immediately responsible for Program coordination
with the agencies having jurisdiction over respective Sanctuary sites.

8. No projects shall be carried out on Sanctuary lands without the
approval of the agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Such agency
shall maintain all facilities built on its lands in furtherance of a
project, and shall cooperate with Sanctuary staff in carrying out the
Program.

9. The Lead Agency and the Department of State shall confer
regularly to ensure coordination between the Estuarine Sanctuary Program
and the Coastal Management Program.

10. This Memorandum shall not be construed so as to preclude
additional transfers of property among the Signatories, or to preclude
additions of appropriate lands to the Estuarine Sanctuary.

331

11. This Memorandum shall continue in effect in perpetuity;
additional Signatories may join by unanimous approval of existing
Signatories, and the Memorandum may be amended or terminated by majority
vote of the Signatories at any time. Nothing in this Memorandum shall,
however, preclude the unilateral withdrawal of any of the Signatories.
In such latter eventuality is understood that the lands of such
withdrawing Signatory would be dedesignated from the Sanctuary, and it
is understood that the federal Office of Management and Budget will take
appropriate action with respect to grant funds as may be indicated by
its regulations.

Signed,

Depa nt f E ronmen al Conservation

By,
Date T i t I g.-:,- 62W

Offi Gen r Serv* es

Dat 2- Titl

Palisades Interstate Park Commission

Date Title

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservat,
.71 n
By
Date ?. 12-16 Title/
r@@t onmen al

Department of State

Date Title-

332

1
1

APPENDIX A

to the Memorandum of Understanding
(The following maps and their symbols are described fully
in Part II of this FEIS.)

333

OGS
Fig. 1 Stockport Flats Area, approximate Property
Fordhorn Point ownerships. The Consolidated Rail Coro. corridor
is not shown.(See Ta6les I and 2 .)
n@ 2 (Adapted from USGS Hudson North, N.Y. quadrangle.)
OGS

Rt. 9.1
Gays f Rt. 9
Point

OPRHP 4
Rt. 9

Columbiaville

Stockport
Middle
Ground Extent of
tidal influence

OGS

.66
01%

1%
is
I Unnamed, is
Island is
6

Main Marsh one mile
one km

OGS

Proposed sanctuary boundary
West
Flats 7 Ownership boundary

OGS
Priming
Hook

334 Tivoli

101"

DEC

Magdalen
island 8
I DEC
X
C OGS
OGS DEC
CL
North BOY 17
0

r
<
0

DEC DEC

Cruger island DEC DEC L--j

- ---'0GS

DEC I Rt. 9G
OGS South BOY \1

OGS
Bard Cal lege-

% I tv

on, mile

one km

Cruger Development Corp (Central Hudson C.'as &
ndI

Electric Corp- corridor
- - - - - - - Proposed scinctOory boundary
Ownership boundary nd 2
Fig.@ 2@ Tivoli Bays Area. ( S-ee Tables 43 rangle.)
(Adapted from USGS Saugerties, N.Y. quad

335

Trailside
Museums

Bear Mtn.

%r
01)
Doodletown
Bight
Iona A
island \ \

0
0 Round Island

1%0 Iona island Marsh
Ne
0008

Rt. 9W

Dunderberg Mtn.

one mile
one km

Proposed sanctuary boundary Fig. 3 Iona Island Marsh Area( See Tables I and 2
(Adopted from USGS Peekskill, N.Y. quadrangle.)
Ownership all PIPC

336

-7
10 Piermont Erie Pier

0 0

70
Piermont
Marsh

PIPC

Tallman Mtn-
State Park

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Rt. 9W PIPC

Palisades
Sneden
Landing

ownership boundary
Proposed sanctuary boundary
@01 x x x x x x Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co.
Lamont easement
Doherty
Geological
Observatory one mile
i one km

Fig. 4 Piermont Marsh Area. ( S-ee Tables I and 2
(Adapted from USGS Nyack, N.Y.- N.J. quadrangle.)

337

APPENDIX 9

Summary of Workshop to Generate
Ideas on Research and Education

338

Summary of a Conference held 8 June 1982 to Generate

Ideas on Research and Education Programs for the

Proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary

The conference was co-sponsored by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, Bard College, and Hudsonia, and held
at Bard. It was chaired by Dr. Michael Rosenthal, Professor of
Chemistry at Bard, Affiliate of Hudsonia, and Chairman of the
Dutchess County Environmental Management Council. Most of the
conference was spent in general discussion of the Sanctuary program,
and the Hudson River proposal. The conference was attended by more
than 60 Hudson Valley scientists, educators, and conservationists.
At the close of the conference the chairman asked for a show of
hands to express support for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
proposal; support was nearly unanimous, no one expressed opposition.

This summary was prepared by Erik Kiviat and Jim Stapleton of
Hudsonia. The purpose is to highlight the discussion and select the
most relevant and constructive suggestions for the consideration of
the public agencies involved in the program. Special attention was
paid to ideas not covered in the DEIS. This summary represents
Hudsonia's interpretation of the conference, and any inaccuracy is
the responsibility of Kiviat and Stapleton.

Four major ideas.emerged from the discussion:

1. The Hudson River National Estuarine Sanctuary should provide
a meeting ground for cooperative effort among existing Hudson Ri*ver
research, education, sportsmen and conservation groups.

2. Research in the sanctuary should address specific needs and
problems. Available information should not be duplicated. Data
collection on the Hudson River Estuary should be coordinated.

3. Research should solve problems perceived by decision makers
(e.g., local government officials) and the general public. If the
sanctuary does not contribute to problem-solving in coastal
management, it will be difficult to obtain long-range funding.

4. A stable long-range funding mechanism (or mechanisms)
is needed to ensure the continuation and continuity of research.
Long-term protection of the sites is critical, but not enough
without funding.

Additionally, a number of specific suggestions were made by
attendees and also verbally or in writing by persons invited who

339

coul d not attend. These suggestions are listed under the headings
"Research", "Education", and "General".

Research

1. The Estuarine Sanctuary can guarantee a researcher study sites
that will not be damaged in future. Long-term control over the sites
will allow many people to collaborate for a Tong time in collection
of data that will be very valuable for management and legal purposes.
Most research projects last for a year or two; 10 or 20- year projects
are rare and little information is available on changes in natural
systems over decade-length periods, with continuous data collection.

2. Unlike the well-studied saline-tidal ecosystems, very little
research has been done on freshwater-tidal and low salinity
,brackish-tida'l wetlands. The Hudson River sites are almost virgin
territory for science. What is the plant and animal productivity
of these systems, their relation to fisheries production, their
resource values?

3. The sanctuary could be a clearinghouse for scientific and
natural history information on the hudson River Estuary marshes
and shores, including bibliography, unpublished reports, and
records of observations. The sanctuary's permanence could support
a long-term effort to collect small pieces of information which
can eventuall 'y be synthesized into a meaningful picture. One
element of a clearinghouse could be a toll-free telephone number
and/or a pre-printed postcard reporting system for short-lived
phenomena and unusual observations (e.g., rare species, early and
late occurrences, extralimital occurrences, extremes of environ-
mental conditions, natural trauma or damage).

4. Institutions should cooperate not compete; the sanctuary can
catalyze collaboration. Existing facilities should serve (when
appropriate) as repositories for specimens or certain types of data,
or as facilitles specializing in certain types of technology or
research. Avoid duplication of research facilities and services.
Colleges and research institutions near the sanctuary sites can
cooperate in ;anctuary research through internships, theses,
sharing of equipment and workspace, shared time on vessels, etc.

5. The Estuarine Sanctuary should collaborate with other reserves,
parks and sanctuaries in research programs. Other sites, such as
Constitution ':sland Marsh, could be compared to the sanctuary sites
for insight into the effects of pollution and other stresses on

340

areas that have been more modified by human activities that the
sanctuary sites. Also, other sites may be used for research on
species or phenomena that do not occur at the sanctuary sites -
no selection of four sites can include all of the species of the
estuary. Areas outside the sanctuary could also provide information
on how much the results of.research within the sanctuary may be
generalized.

6. The sanctuary sites should be thought of as a long-term
11control area" for evaluation of human-caused changes in other
sites outside the sanctuary.

7. The States's Sanctuary Steering Committee should plan ahead
so that adequate funding is available after the 5-year federal
operations funding is used. Funding from Hudson Valley industries
should be explored, among oother potential sources. Incentives,
especially financial incentives, are needed to stimulate long-term
monitoring of the sanctuary environment.

8. Mechanisms are needed to insure that research findings become
useful in coastal management decision-making. The sanctuary staff
must be able to "translate" research results for decision makers
in local government, state agencies, and business-industry. Some
of the mechanisms for facilitating this communication could be
regular forums where management problems and research findings are
discussed by sanctuary staff, Sanctuary Advisory Committee members,
and other representatives of business, industry, sportsmen,
conservation groups and government; communication of research results
in non-technical language in the popular media. including newspapers,
magazines, radio and television; efforts to publicize research
projects in progress on the sanctuary sites so that the public is
aware of what scientists are doing; and involvement of the public
and students in research through volunteer assistance and sharing
of information.

9. Sanctuary activities and programs should be evaluated at
regular intervals to see if program goals are being met. Such
evaluations should include the Steering Committee and the Advisory
Committee.

10. Concern was expressed about the possible impacts of research
and education activities upon the environment at the sanctuary sites.
Care must be taken in designing and siting facilities (e.g. the
boardwalk at Tivoli) and planning and carrying out projects to
minimize environmental impact.

341

11. A number of research questions or projects were mentioned:

How do educational experiences affect human behavior?
Sociology of Users of Marshes:

How does use of the marshes for education and researh affect the
environment?

Is there a role for marsh "creation" in the Hudson River Estuary?
Would it be feasible to reestablish shellfisheries in the lower
estuary?

What effect does fire have on marsh vegetation?

Nutrient cycles in tidal marshes.

Metals accumulation in tidal marshes and relation to sedimentation.

Role of plant communities in nutrient and metals distribution.

Effects of toxic substances on animals, e.g., cadminum at Constitution Island
Marsh.

Wild-rice is making a comeback in the Hudson - what conditions are favorable?

Purple loosestrife invasion of cattails.

Relation of fine grade suspended sediment transport and contaminant
distrbution.

Lead shot ingestion by waterfowl.

Does acid precipitation affect the estuary?

Primary productivity of marsh plants.

Blue crab relation to salinity.

Damage done by dredge spoil disposal; how to manage disposal sites.

Bank erosion by tides and boat wakes.

Mapping glacial deposits.

A historical overview of utility - hudson River - fish interactions.

Potential peregrine falcon use of the marshes as feeding areas.

342

Erection of osprey nesting platforms in the marshes,

Archeological resources, past inhabitants of the areas, and past
ecological relationships; species that were formerly present.

12. The sanctuary should maintain an inventory of scientific
support services potentially available to researchers on the estuary,
for example, specimen collections, water quality laboratories, research
vessels.

13. Solid funding will ensure that useful research is conducted, that
researchers will collaborate, and that results will be interpreted for
the public.

Education

1. Several "target groups" were mentioned: elementary school classes,
high school students, non-school groups such as scouts and 4-H, sportmen,
other recreationists, decision makers and college students.

2. Several communications media were mentioned: a traveling exhibit for
museums and larger schools; short video programs; fact sheets for decision
makers such as legislators; a generalized publication to advertise the
sanctuary;. and personal contact; a summer session for advanced high school
students; and self-guided trails.

3. Ways of bringing sportsmen and non-sportsmen users of the sites
together for education or work on projects could include: sportsmen taking
birdwatchers on boat tours (this is done at Stockport); non-sportsmen
joining fish and game clubs; interpretive articles in sportsmen's magazines.
Sportsmen and non-sportsmen could work together to protect habitats and
solve pollution problems and other probems in the sanctuary.

4. Access problems were discussed. Getting across the railroad at
Stockport is a problem. Transportation for school groups may not be
covered in school budgets. A user constituency for the sanctuary can
be built by improving access opportunities, for example, public boat
landings. Commercial tour boats might serve for viewing or access to
the sites.

5. There should be an education subcommittee of the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee.

6. There can be cooperation be between education and'research
projects. This can be done by using high school students to make
environmental measurements under supervision of a scientist; by
establishing a "clearinghouse" system for receiving and analyzing
public observations on natural history; by using specimens obtained
from sportsmen's bags for scientific studies of animals; by using
sportmen and naturalists as "guides" for scientists; and by
press releases and interviews on the inception and progress of
research projects in the sanctuary.

343

7. The sanctuary's education program should stress public
obligations in land use decisions (e.g., State Environmental Quality
Review Act, various wetlands laws, zoning ordinances).

General

1. How can the Estuarine Sanctuary be used to take a positive
(constructive) approach to environmental management?

2. It is important to involve the public (including local
government, business-industry, sportsmen, etc.) in decisions about
the use and function of the sanctuary.

3. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee could assemble a research
agenda that meets the information needs of river users (industry,
sportsmen, etc.) and then help raise funds to get the research done.

4. The sanctuary will appeal more to the public through
involvement in community-action projects such as reconstructing
docks.

5. The Sanctuary could publish a newletter for a coalition of
Hudson River environmental organizations.

6. Good connections should be made with existing facilities such
as the Dutchess Community College Norrie Point Environmental Laboratory,
Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Stony Kill
Environmental Education Center, Bard College, and Columbia-Greene
Community College, for collaboration in research and education programs.

7. The sanctuary should be used as an example of the best
preserved wetlands.

8. The Estuarine Sanctuary program has a role - to make the
results of scientific research available locally to make a better
case for protecting wetlands outside of the sanctuary. How far
will this effect go beyond the sanctuary? Will there be spin-off to
the protection of wetland resources in general, on the Hudson and
along the Atlantic Coast?

IINIIIIIIIIIIIII @
3 6668 00000 5167 @