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]

Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
STOCKPORT

@s, Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary TIVOLI

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

I&hiA

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER PIERMONT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
tkT OF CO
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -100
fice Of Coastal Zone Management

QH
541.5 'ATE OF NEW YORK -4rES-O*
E8 ipartment of Environmental Conservation
P76
1982

//r576

United States

Department of Commerce

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

PROPOSED

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD

TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK

FOR

A HUDSON RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

June 1982 U . $ . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
tHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

Property of CSC Library

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Off-ice of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

and

State of New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12205

Nil-

0C)

PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD

On this Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary on:

July 19, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. - Piermont Village Hall (comments on
Piermont and Iona Island)

July 20, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. - Red Hook Town Hall
(comments on Tivoli)

July 21, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. - Stockport Town Hall at Stottville
(comments on Stockport)

Comments or presentations will be scheduled on a first-come,
first-heard basis, and may be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. No
verbatim transcript of the hearing will be prepared, but the hearing
staff will record and summarize the comments. All comments received at
the hearing, or in writing, will be considered in the preparation of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement.

DESIGNATION: Draft 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 Hudsonis highest quality tidal wetland complexes,
are proposed for inclusion in the Sanctuary: Stockport Flats
(1 149 acres), Tivoli Bays (1 481 ), Iona Island (556 acres),
and Piermont Marsh (943 acres), for a total of 4,130 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
264 acres), Tivoli Bays (45 acres), and Piermont Marsh (73 acres),
and to develop or renovate facilities at two or more of the
four Hudson River sites. These facilities (buildings, roads,
parking lots, trails, and boardwalk) will be used to accommodate
research activities, educational programs, and visitors.
All other land at the four sites is in public ownership.

Approval of this grant application would permit the establishment
of an estuarine sanctuary representing a subcategory of the
Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary would
be used primarily for research and education purposes, especially
to provide information useful for coastal zone management
decisionmaking. Multiple use would be encouraged to the extent
that it is compatible with the proposed sanctuary's research and
educational programs.

Research and monitoring in and near the proposed sanctuary would
provide baseline information against which the impacts of
human activities elsewhere in the Hudson River and the Virginian
biogeographic region could be assessed.

APPLICANT: New York Department of Environmental Conservation

LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Department of Commerce
National- c d..Atmospher-ic--Admi-n-i-st-rat--ion
MR -a n
&-ifice'of Coastal Zone Management

CONTACT: Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Projects Manager
Office of Coastal 2one Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 634-4236

Individuals receiving copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
will NOT automatically receive copies of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement unless specifically requested, or unless they submit oral or
written comments on the Draft Environmental I-mpact St-ateme-nt-.-

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 ....................................... 13
a. Management Plan .............................. 14
b. Management Structure ......................... 14
c. Sanctuary Staff .............................. 19
d. General and Specific Management Requirements.20
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
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.
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 ......... 000060000.33

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 Fishing .......... 61
b. Fur Trapping ................................. 64
c. Hunting ........ ......... 65
d. ......... 66
e. Agriculture .................................. 66

SECTION PAGE

f. Industry ..................................... 67
g. Transportation ............................... 68
h. Recreation ................................... 70
i. Archaeologic Resources ....................... 71
j. Plant Resources .............................. 72
k. Esthetic Use ................................. 72
1. Research and Education ....................... 72

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................... 79

A. General Impacts ...................................... 79

B. Specific Impacts ..................................... 80

1. Natural,Environment .............................. 80

a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat .................... 80
b. Soils and Vegetation ......................... 80
c. Water Quality ................................ 81

2. Human Environment ................................ 81

a. Residents of the Towns and Counties .......... 81
b. Scientific and Educational ................... 82
c. State and Federal ............................ 82

C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental
or Socioeconomic Effects ........................... 82

D. Relationship Between the Proposed Action on the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-term Productivity ............................. 83

E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources .......................................... 84

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 ................................. 84

1. Federal and Regional Plans ....................... 84
2. State Plans.i .................................... 85
3. Local Plans ...................................... 85

PART V: List of Preparers ......................................... 87

PART VI: List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons
Receiving Copies ....................................... 91

PART VII: Appendices ............................................... 97

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 ............................ *... 00.34

Figure 6. Stockport Flats Area ................................... 36

Figure 7. Tivoli Bays Area ..................................... 0.37

Figure 8. Iona Island Marsh Area ........................ 0 ........ 38

Figure 9. Piermont Marsh Area .... o ..................... *0 ..... *..39

Figure 10. Generalized Energy Pathways ....................... o .... 62

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Ownership of Parcels within the Proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary Boundaries ................................

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.... ..................... o... -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.".... .......... o........... o..52

Table 7. Some Institutions and Agencies That'Have Used the Hudson
River for Research and Education .............. oo ......... 75

Table 8. Some Current Research Projects Involving the Proposed
Sanctuary Sites ..... ....... ...........

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583),
as amended, established the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, which
provides grants on a matching basis to States to acquire, develop, and
operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories.
These areas are to be used primarily for long-term scientific and educational
programs that will provide information essential to coastal management
decisionmaking.

Uses of estuarine sanctuaries are intended to serve objectives
such as the following:

To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological
relationships within the estuarine environment;

To make baseline ecological measurements;

To serve as a natural control in order to monitor
changes and assess the impacts of human stresses on
the ecosystem;

-@`To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge
and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine
ecosystems, their values and benefits to man. and
nature, and the problems confronting them; and

-- To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries
to the extent that such usage is compatible with the
primary sanctuary purposes of research and education.

To ensure that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program includes sites that
adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the program
regulations established a biogeographical classification scheme that
reflects geographic, hydrographic, and biological characteristics.
Eleven (11) biogeographic categories are defined in the program regulations.
Subcategories of this basic system are developed and utilized as appropriate
to distinguish different subclasses of each category. The total number of
sanctuaries that will be needed to provide adequate representation of
the various estuarine ecosystems occurring within the United States is
currently under study. The proposed sanctuary is representative of the
Virginian biogeographic region.

The State of New York is committed to maintaining the resource
productivity of its coastal zone. The Hudson River Estuary, a part of
New York's coastal zone, supports an extremely valuable fishery resource
and is a biological and esthetic treasure used and enjoyed by millions
of people. In order to effectively protect and manage the Hudson River
Estuary ecosystem, an understanding of estuarine ecology is essential.
For this reason, establishment of an estuarine sanctuary in New York on
the Hudson River would provide a valuable tool for enhancing the management
of the Hudson River and associated coastal zone areas.

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
4,130 acre sanctuary of which potent-tally 382 acres of wetlands, waters and
shoreline would be purchased and to develop or renovate facilities at two
or more of the four Hudson River sites. These facilities (i.e., buildings,

iii

roads, parking lots, trails, and boardwalk) will be used to accommodate
research activities, educational programs, and visitors. The great
majority of land within the proposed sanctuary boundaries (see page 11)
is already publicly owned or under negotiation for public acquisition
under pre-existing programs. The chief importance of establishing the
proposed sanctuary would be the development of a coordinated program of
research and education that would not be otherwise realized.

The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary is
as follows (acreages are approximate):

Stockport Total area - 1 149 acres
Currently publicly owned 692-804 acres (see Table 2, parcel 6)
Proposed for acquisition 152-264 acres (see Table 2, Parcel 6)

Tivoli Total area - 1,481 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 4,130 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).
I
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 relatod 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.

i V

A Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the agencies represented on the
Steering Committee, will be appended to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement. The Memorandum of Agreement will outline interagency arrangements
for the administration and management of the sanctuary, and express the
agencies agreement to carry out the management plan.
Three citizens' advisory groups (Columbia, Dutchess, and Rockland Counties),
representing local government and sanctuary user groups, will act as a Sanctuary
Advisory Committee and make recommendations to the Steering Committee. The
Advisory Committee will channel public support and criticism to the Steering
Committee.

Estuarine sanctuary programs would be closely coordinated with related
programs on the Hudson River, particularly the DEC's Hudson River Fisheries
Unit and Fisheries Advisory Committee, and the Hudson River Foundation for
Science and Environmental Research. Sanctuary programs would also be coordi-
nated with and would serve to enhance existing programs of research and
education including those of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater and the Hudson
Valley's colleges and universities.

RESEARCH

Estuarine sanctuary research programs would emphasize ecosystem-level
understanding of the Hudson Estuary and especially its wetlands and shallows,
as well as applied concerns of coastal management including the management
of fish, game and fur resources, ve'getation, endangered and rare'species,
and the reduction and mitigation of human impacts on the coastal zone. Much
research has been done on-the Hudson River Estuary, but efforts have generally
been fragmented and there are many serious gaps in the knowledge needed to
effectively manage the Estuary. The proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
would help to coordinate and unify Hudson River research and to provide,
information to coastal managers at all levels of government and the private
sector with the goal of wise resource management.

EDUCATION

The proposed estuarine sanctuary sites contain a variety of fauna and
flora and estuarine habitats representative of the Hudson River Estuary,
and are located within easy reach of millions of New York State and greater
New York City area residents. The proposed sanctuary would provide an
opportunity for many to learn more of the estuary's geology, ecology and
resources. Estuarine sanctuary funds would be used to develop exhibit
space at the Bear Mountain 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 or near
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.

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 border-Ing 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 ing 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 understand-Ing 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 BiogeographicClassification

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 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 4,130 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 fee simple acquisition of wetlands, waters and shoreline
at Stockport Flats (152-264 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.

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.

New York's proposal follows several years of interest in and concern
for the Hudson Estuary by State and local officials, and university and
conservation groups. The four sites to be included in'the estuarine
sanctuary--Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays, Iona Island Marsh, and Piermont
Marshes--were selected by a New York Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee
because they are essentially undisturbed, representative sites, and because
publicly owned land and water comprising an estuarine system were available
for research, education, and recreation purposes. In September 1981, NOAA
awarded New York a $50,000 pre-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.

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 4,130 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 Agreement. Representatives of
these agencies and of the New York State Department of State are expected
to confer every 3 years to review the status of the program.

A. Preferred Alternative for the Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary

The $375,000 acquisition grant would be used for acquisition of
lands and development of facilities at the Stockport Flats, Tivoli Bays,
Iona Island Marsh and Plermont 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
fo'rested 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 Pierynont
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 4,130 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.

Eleven 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.

7
A %...9
70) CGS
Fig. I Stockport Flats Area, approximate property
Fordharn Point ownerships. The Consolidated Rail Cora. corridor
is not shown.( See Tables I and 2 -)
(Adapted from USGS Hudson North, N.Y. quadrangle.)
2

OGS
2

Rt. 9.1
Gays Rt. 9
Point

OPRHP 4 Rt. 9

Columbiaville

Stockport
Middle
Ground Extent of
tidal influence

OGS

Unnamed,
Island

Main Marsh one mile
one km

OGS
- - - - - - -Proposed sanctuary boundary
West --- --% Ownership boundary
Flats 7

Priming
Hook

Tivoli

DEC

magdalen
island 8 DEC
C I OGS OGS DEC
L7
North Bay

DEC
DEC I
cruger island DEC DEC &__j
INN

_,OG5

Rt. 9G
DEC I
OGS South Bay

OGS
Barcl College

one mile

one km

Cruger Development Corp (Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corp- corridor
..--Proposed sanctuary boundary
ownership boundary and 2
Vig..2 Tivoli Boys Area. (See Tables quadrangle.)
(Adopted from U5GS Saugerties, N.Y.

Trailside
Museums

Bear Mtn.
4
*%
01
Doodletown
Bight
Iona A
island %

% Round Island

Iona Island Marsh

In.. GOP

Rt. 9 W

Dunderberg Mtn.
one krn one mile

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

-7
10 Piermont Eri Pier

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
x x x x x x Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co.
Lamont easement
Doherty
Geological
Observatory one mile
one km T

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

Table I . Ownership of Parcels Within the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
Boundaries (see Figures 14)@ (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) 152-264b_

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 1,149 acres
Tivoli Bays approximately 1,481 acres
Iona. Island Marsh approximately 556 acres
Piermont Marsh approximately 944 acres

Total approximately 4,130 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 I 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.

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.

At Piermont Marsh:

Parcel 9: An approximately 65-acre area of water and marsh donated to the
Village of Piermont by Continental Group, Inc., together with
about 6 acres previously owned by the Village, was transferred to
The Nature Conservancy and the entire 71 (plus or minus) acres is
being transferred to the New York State DEC.

Parcel 10: An approximately 0.04 acre area in the northwest corner of PierMOnt
Marsh, owned by Louis Hurban, Jr.

Parcel I I : 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 land-Ing on the ConRall 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 upstream
from 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) with-in approximately two
miles of the proposed sanctuary site.

Tivoli. Most access now is via the railroad service road from the
Cruger Island Road (both northward and southward), from Barrytown (northward),
and from Tivoli (southward). The management plan being developed by the DEC
for the Tivoli Bays area will include development of two unimproved boat
landings using old roads, one at the south end of North Bay (from Cruger
Island Road), and the other on the east side of North Bay at a point just
north of Stony Creek. Additionally, an existing trail system around the
east side of North Bay connecting Cruger Island Road and Kidd Lane will be
renovated for foot access to the site. Three small primitive parking areas
will be developed in conjunction with the access points, away from the
margin of the wetlands. The proposed access system will provide access for
researchers and educational groups as well as fishermen, hunters and outdoor
recreationists. There is an unimproved river landing at the Village of
Tivoli north of North Bay.

Iona. There is access to the marsh from Rt. 9W and also from the
dirt causeway connecting 9W to Iona Island. The Palisades Interstate Park
Commission will repair the causeway in 1982 or 1983 as soon as PIRC 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 Sanctuary

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is not a new State or Federal regula-
tory program. The proposed sanctuary would be managed using existing State
laws and programs. The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is a State program; the
Federal government is a partner in providing funds and guidance during
the establishment'phase. The principal goals of the proposed Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary are to:

(1) Manage the area's natural resources in a manner compatible with
the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program goals and objectives in order
to maintain, protect, and enhance the quality of the area's biological,
physical, and cultural resources.

(2) Encourage scientific research that focuses on both improving
decisionmaking in coastal management and increasing understanding of estuarine
ecosystems.

(3) Increase national and local awareness of the significance of the
estuarine resources within the proposed sanctuary and the Hudson River
Estuary in general, and encourage wise use of these resources.

(4) Allow traditional resource uses (including hunting, fishing and
and trapping) in coordination with National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
objectives.

a. Management Plan

A Management Plan for the proposed Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary
would be formulated within one year after the acquisition grant.is received
(i.e., approximately Fall 1983). 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 Environme'ntal 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. Off-ice 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,
would be appended to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The Memorandum
of Agreement would outline interagency arrangements for the administration
and management of the proposed sanctuary, and express the agencies' agreement
to carry out the management plan.

The Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) will represent local government,
user groups, conservation organizations, researchers, educators, fund-Ing
organizations, and adjoining land owners. The purpose of the SAC is to
achieve coordination among the public and private groups participating in
the sanctuary program, and to assist and advise the Sanctuary Steering
Committee. The SAC will help in securing funding from the private sector,
organizing volunteer efforts in education and management work, soliciting
and channeling public input to the sanctuary planning process, reviewing the
proposed sanctuary management plan and any changes in the plan, reviewing
proposals for educational and research use and other activities within the
proposed sanctuary, enhancing communication and cooperation among all
interests involved in the proposed sanctuary.

The SAC will function as three local subcommittees 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 subcommittees. The subcommittees will consist of local
representatives as outlined -in Table 3. The chairpersons of the three
local committees will meet with the Steering Committee.

Coordination of the Steering Committee will be assured by the Memorandum
of Agreement among the agencies involved that they agree to the objectives
and specifications of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Federal
Guidelines for the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The purpose of
the coordinated management approach is to improve consistency, reduce conflicts,
and provide better service to the public. The site-by-site organization of
ownership and management responsibility follows.

Tab I e 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 subcommittee 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 the
Stockport site. Fishing, hunting and trapping are permitted on
OGS lands, and these uses will continue. OGS has no facilities on
its lands at Stockport.

Department of Environmental Conservation; Office of Parks,
Recreation and Hist5TI-c -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 northern end of South Bay, and around
Cruger Island and Magdalen Island wtdch 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, trapping
and fishing 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.

Office of General Services:

owns all lands under water east of Piermofft Marsh with the exception
of water rights granted to PIPC in certain areas. OGS will retain
its lands and enter into a management agreement with the proposed
estuarine sanctuary. There are no structures on the OGS lands.

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 at a State-owned facility to be selected near the Tivoli or Iona
site or between these two sites. If only one person is appointed, arrange-
ments 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 s-ites 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:

(I ) 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 s,anctuary 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 facilitiating 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 tyupe shown by the two
Hudson River Field Weeks in April 1977 and August 1978. Special opportunities
also exist for the public (students, sportsmen, naturalists, etc.) to assist
as volunteers -in research projects; this approach was used successfully by
Boyce Thompson Institute in collecting data on Hudson River Estuary fish,
invertebrates, and marsh vegetation. This "volunteerism" will link research
and education efforts in two ways: (1) educational field trips can collect
samples and make observations useful to scientists, and (2) amateur naturalists
can do field work under scientific supervision. Fishermen are already
assisting in tagging projects, and a postcard reporting system is under study
by the Hudson River Fisheries Advisory Committee to enable sportsmen and
naturalists to contribute to a scientific data base information on observations

of unusual events and species that would otherwise be lost. The Fisheries
Advisory Committee and the DEC Hudson River Fisheries Coordinator will work
closely with the Steering Committee to stimulate and plan research, and
exchange assistance and information.

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-suited
for long-term studies comparing stability and change in vegetation, animals
and ecosystem function. New York's commitment to maintaining these natural
areas will permit long-term ecological research not possible elsewhere.

In connection with the proposed estuarine sanctuary,, appropriate
facilities (existing or new) would be designated to serve as respositories
for published and unpublished reports, data, and voucher specimens of
plants and animals in different reaches of the Estuary. It is expected
that the planning of repositories would be coodinated with the Hudson
River Foundation for Science and Environmental Research, Inc. and other
active groups.

Estuarine Sanctuary grant funds will not be adequate to support all
research. Some operations funds may be used for environmental monitoring.
Therefore, estuarine sanctuary staff would conduct an active fund-raising
effort to support research, in conjunction with the preparation of grant
proposals by independent researchers and other institutions.

The specific research projects to be conducted would be determined
later and would be carried out within the scope of available funding. In.
general, research would be encouraged that is relevant to effective coastal
management and the wise use of Hudson Estuary resources. The following
topics are examples.

(1) Ecosystem-level studies of the flows of energy and nutrients
within the wetlands, between the wetlands and the open estuary, and between
the wetlands and the shores;

(2) Studies of the role of terrestrial and acquatic plant detritus
in the nutrition of estuarine organisms in the Hudson's fresh-tidal and
brackish-tidal areas, and the effects of detritus from different sources
of these processes;

(3) Patterns and changes in vegetation of wetlands, shallows and
shores, and effects on fish and wildlife populations, soils, and
nutrient cycles;

(4) Ecology of wildlife food plants such as water-celery, wild-rice
and cattail;

(5) Role of the Hudson River Estuary wetlands and the shallows in
the spawning, juvenile development (nursery) and feeding of commercial
and sport fishes;

(6) Role of the Hudson River in the Atlantic waterfowl and shorebird
flyway, and the value of the wetlands and shallows as resting, breeding,
and wintering places for water fowl;

(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 fish-tidal and brackish-tidal marshes in other
East Coast estuaries, and to saline-tidal marshes;

(11) The ecology, vegetation, wildlife, and resources 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 use.s 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 capacity of natural environments for nutrients
and other waste materials;

(7) Manipulative experiments on wetlands outside the proposed sanctuary
sites, to study effects of management practices such as impoundment,
water level control, pest control, and wildlife species management, and
restoration of damaged wetlands; and

(8) Experiments in mitigation and minimization of development and
management impacts to include industry, marinas, railroad right-of-way
management, and shoreline stabilization.

g. Existing Monitoring

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

(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
active in public education. There is a growing body of scientific information
on the Hudson River Estuary, but relatively little of it has been interpreted
for the lay public. During the last 5-10 years, Hudson Valley residents
have evidenced considerable interest in seeing and learning about the estuary
and its life, and the wetland and shoreline environments represented in the
proposed sanctuary lend themselves well to this purpose.

These are examples of possible education programs:

(1) Improvements to the Bear Mountain Trailside Museums to accommodate
indoor and outdoor exhibits on.the Hudson River Estuary and the Iona Island
Marsh complex, oriented toward the general public with no prior knowledge of
the estuary;

(2) Facilities in a renovated barn at the Tivoli Bays site for under-
graduate and graduate student and public class use;

(3) A boardwalk accessible to the handicapped, through tidal marsh,
swamp and pool habitats at the margin of the Tivoli Bays wetland, for
the use by public and by researchers;

(4) Traveling exhibits about the estuarine sanctuary for sportsmen's
shows, elementary and secondary schools, nature and civic club meetings,
county fairs, conferences, and other events;

(5) Interpretive brochures describing the four proposed sanctuary
sites and the Hudson River Estuary in general, with trail maps and guides
to access points and special interest features (e.g., 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 various Hudson River and general estuarine subjects
(e.g., wetland ecology, fisheries, birds); and

(12) A canoeist's guide to the proposed estuarine sanctuary.

Estuarine sanctuary educational activities would be closely coordinated
with ongoing programs at the Dutchess Community College Norrie Point Environ-
mental Center, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Wave Hill Environmental Studies
Center, and other institutions. The New York State Sea Grant Institute in
cooperation with the County Extension service has just inaugurated the
position of Hudson River Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Specialist to
promote public understanding of and appreciation for the estuarine
system.

B. Other Alternatives Considered

1. No Action

Without a Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary there would be no estuarine
area specifically identified and protected within New York, and New York
would lose the opportunity to participate in the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program. New York and the Nation would be unable to derive the benefits
from the research information and public awareness that would result from
establishing and this area as an Estuarine Sanctuary.

Although much of the land within the proposed sanctuary boundaries
is already State-owned, under the "No Action" alternative New York would
not be as readily able to acquire the remaining lands to fill in the public
ownership gaps in the Piermont, Tivoli and Stockport marshes and these areas
might not be manageable as State reserves. Furthermore, there would be less
incentive for the several State agencies to work together to develop
consistent management policies and practices with short-term and long-term
benefits for natural area conservation, rare and endangered species,
research, education, and recreation. Without designation of the estuarine
sanctuary there would be less incentive for donation or bargin sales of
lands adjacent to present State ownerships. Also, there would be no
prestigious national program to attract research funds and highly qualified
scientists from various fields to do long-ten-n 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 designation plus the provision of management funds and the planning
acompanying it, would establish a more comprehensive program as well as
encourage additional research in the areaj 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 York Department of City Planning

Mr. Ronald Killian, The Nature Conservancy

Mr. Erik Kiviat, Bard College

Dr. Lee E. Koppelman, Long Island Regional Planning Board

Mr. James W. Morton, NYS Department of State

Mr. John Muenziger, Westchester County Environmental
Management Council

Mr. Steven Resler, Town of Smithtown Planning Department

Dr. Jerry R. Schubel, State University at Stony Brook

Dr. Donald F. Squires, New York Sea Grant Institute

Mr. Anthony Taormina, NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation

Mr. Ivan Vamos, New York State Office of Parks and Recreation

The Steering Committee evaluated a number of candidate sites using
the selection criteria listed in the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary Program
Guidelines. The three sites which best met the Federal criteria were:

(1) The Peconic-Flanders Bays area;

(2) The Hudson River marshes; and

(3) The Nissequogue River.

Short position papers describing each estuarine area were prepared
and sent to OCZM for preliminary review. The object of this review was to
determine in any of these sites would be clearly ineligible for the Program.
OCZM staff deferred expression of preference for any one site in order to
allow New York to make an independent decision on the State's best candidate.
OCZM staff prepared a memorandum clarifying the current interpretation of
the Federal selection criteria. Copies of this memorandum and all three
position papers were sent to every Steering Committee member for review.

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 shallow 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 sanctuary purposes.

All four Hudson River Estuary sites are large wetland complexes, among
the Hudson's largest, and all four have subsystems that lend themselves to
comparative research along the estuarine salinity gradient: extensive
cattail stands cut by tidal creeks, associated tidal shallows and mudflats,
and forested terrestrial zones. All sites include the wetlands-shallows
and wetlands-uplands habitat combinations that promote wildlife use and
allow study of ecosystem linkages.

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 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 bi.ological 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 unique interest to biologists as
a diverse and productive natural estuarine system.

For at least 12 years private and public groups have called attention
to the need for overall coordination of research, education, and management
efforts on the Hudson. The Hudson River Research Council convened two
conferences to address this problem in 1976 and 1977, and the Hudson
River Environmental Society held a Hudson River Marsh Workshop in 1976,
five Hudson River Ecology Symposia from 1966 to 1980, and a Hudson River
Fisheries Conference in 1981.

Because of an excellent State land acquisition program during the last
several decades, many of the ecologically significant Hudson River Estuary
wetlands, islands, and shore natural areas are already in State ownership
as parks, wildlife management areas, and preserves. Therefore, it was
appropriate to propose the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary involving
areas already predominantly State-owned and to use the program'to fill out
existing core public lands.

Several alternatives were considered during the process of selecting
sites on the Hudson River Estuary. One alternative was a sanctuary
consisting of the entire Hudson River Estuary from Battery Park to Troy.
This alternative has many advantages for management, research and education,
but was rejected as being unworkable in the short-term due to constraints
of funding and land use conflicts. Individual alternative sites were
considered, and a number of sites were suggested by individuals and
private groups. Several recommendations were received in favor of the
addition of the Grassy Point wetland complex at Haverstraw to the proposal,
but this seemed inappropriate because of the same standards of environmental
quality to Constitution Island Marsh and Croton Marshes. Among many
other areas considered were Con Hook Island and Marsh, Manitou Marsh,
Moodna Marsh, Vanderburgh Cove, Suckley Cove, Kingston Point Marsh, Rogers
Island Marshes, the Hudson North and South Bays, Inbocht Bay-Duck Cove,
West Flats-Vosburgh Swamp, Ramshorn Creek-Livingston Marsh and Papscanee
Creek Marshes. These areas were all rejected for one or more of the following
reasons: small size, lack of representative sub-systems, localized environmental
quality problems, incompatible land and water uses. Special consideration

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
acquisition.

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 between the
minus-6 foot contour and the navigation channel includes enough of the
shallows for management purposes while acknowledging that research work
can be carried out in the deeper waters where no specific protection is
required.

b. *Adequate Protection and Manageability. The range of size
of the four sites is within a range considered manageable yet still provides
for the future integrity and protection of the sites. Inclusion of areas
on both sides of the river at any one site (e.g., Stockport Flats and West
Flats) was avoided because of logistical problems. Extension of site
boundaries across zones with little or no shallow water was also avoided
because it would have created unnecessary disjunction (e.g., Iona Island
Marsh and the mouth of Popolopen Creek).

c. Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Access. Extent of buffer
zones was set depending upon status of adjoining lands and topography.
At Iona and Piermont, the amount of terrestrial mainland included in
the site boundaries was moot because of the stringent protection afforded
the State Park lands. At Tivoli, a decision was made to include the
entire State-owned uplands to achieve consistency in the boundaries of
the State lands, Experimental Ecological Reserve, and proposed estuarine
sanctuary, while creating a management unit. At Stockport, the primary
considerations were access and reasonable size of management unit and
proposed acquisitions, while affording protection for the main marsh and
for endangered species. All of the terrestrial portions of Iona Island
are included in the site boundary because of management consistency and
protection of endangered species. At Piermont, it was decided to include
the north end of the marsh to avoid management conflicts, to protect
both sides of the mouth of Sparkill Creek, and to use the Erie Pier as
an access point.

The proposed boundaries are the products of extensive Steering Committee
discussions and meet the needs of all State agencies involved as well as the
requirements of the Federal Program. The boundaries will permit workable
administration and ease of management of the proposed sanctuary.

4. Alternative Management Scheme

The proposed management scheme (separate State agency ownerships with
integrated management agreement and management plan) is considered the best
choice because it respects traditional agency prerogatives and enables the
pooling of resources and expertise of all agencies and interests involved.
Consideration was given to alternative schemes, for example, transfer of
all lands to a single agency or administration of the proposed sanctuary
by a private group. The other alternatives were rejected because of the
lack of adequate mechanisms and the desire to retain traditional uses and
policies as much as possible. The State's Coastal Management Program has
involved strong cooperation among State agencies and has shown that -
collaborative management of the proposed sanctuary is the best alternative.

5. Funding

Several sources of funds have been used in the past for the acquisition
of natural areas in the Hudson River Estuary; these include Federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund, State Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972
funds, and private initiatives including the donation of lands to conservation
groups. At the present time, no adequate source of funds is available for
an estuarine sanctuary project (acquisition and operation) other than the
NOAA National Estuarine Sanctuary Program funds here considered.

Special advantages of NOAA National Estuarine Sanctuary Program funding
include:

(1) The emphasis on research and education programs while retaining
other traditional uses of the sites;

(2) The prestige of the National Estuarine Sanctuary System which
would attract national attention to New York, increase the chances of
receiving substantial research grants from other public and private sources,
improve research and education opportunities at the selected sites, and
strengthen public support for continued pollution abatement and public
enjoyment of the resource; and

(3) The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program provides five years of
matching operations funds which are needed to establish the proper management
of the proposed sanctuary during its first years after establishment.

Federal estuarine sanctuary grants are not available for other purposes.
During the first years of sanctuary operation, plans would be made for funding
of the proposed sanctuary after Federal funding expires. Sources of post-
Federal funding may include one or more of the following: State agency funds;
private donations or grants for sanctuary operations; interest from an
endownment raised by a not-for-profit corporation; a possible State Legislative
appropriation; equipment, services, and time donated to the proposed sanctuary
by the private sector; and voluntary donations by users of the proposed
sanctuary.

PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Hudson River - General Description

The Hudson River flows 315 miles through eastern New York State
from the Adirondack Mountains southward to New York City. The Hudson is
a tidal river for 152 miles from Troy to Battery Park at the tip of
Manhattan Island where it empties into New York Harbor, Lower New York
Bay, and the New York Bight. Tidal freshwater extends from Troy south
to Hyde Park (Figure 5). The 0.1 parts-per-thousand salinity "salt front"
shifts through the Hyde Park to Yonkers reach.

The Hudson River is entirely in New York State except for 20 miles
at its mouth where it flows between New York and New Jersey. The Hudson
River watershed lies in New York State except for small areas in New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. In New York, the Hudson Estuary
fl ows 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-on6-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, wfi-ite 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.

Hudson River Estuary

Troy
Hudson River drainage basin Albany
Extent of tidal influence

Stockport Flats
Hudson

Tivoli Bays
r)

Kingston *Rhinebeck
yde Park

Maximum salt intrusion
Hudson River Estuary Poughkeepsie
Newburgh Beacon

N West Point
Iona Island Marsh Peekskill

0 mi 30
Nyack i I I i
@rnont Marsh 0 krn @O

Yonkers

New York City

-Stockport

19 ml 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 well as
the mouths of two tributary streams, Stony Creek and Saw Kill. Parts of
the site are (or have been) known as Tivoli Bay, North Tivoli Bay or Tivoli
North Bay, South Tivoli Bay or Tivoli South Bay, North Cove, South Cove,
DeKoven's Cove or Bay, the Vly or Fly, Goat Island, Slipsteen Island South
Curger Island, White Clay Kill and Stony Kill. North Bay and most oi 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 Preserve has been designated an Experimental Ecological Reserve by the
Institute of Ecology at Butler University. The entire Tivoli Bays site is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is included in the Mid-
Hudson Historic Shorelands State Scenic Area which extends from Clermont to
Hyde Park. Tivoli Bays was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson:
Biological Resources (Smith et al. nd) for rare plants, bird migration
stopover, landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular
Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish &
Wildlife Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b); Hudson River
Valley Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner 1979); Hudson
River East Bank Natural Areas, Clermont to Norrie (Kiviat, 19@8).

Iona Island Marsh. The next site is in the Town of Stony Point,
Rockland County, 6 m7es 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
part of Bear Mountain State Park, an element in the Palisades Interstate
.Park system. The Iona Marsh has been designated a National Natural Landmark

36.
Little Nutten Hook

Fordhom Point
Fig, 6 Stockport Flats Area.
(Adopted from USGS Hudson North, N.Yquadrangie.)

Gays Rt. 91
Point
c Rt. 9

Rt, 9

Stockport Columbiaville
Middle
Ground
Extent of
A-` tidal infivence

Unnam
Island

.........

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

..,Mciin Marsh
one mile

one km

land

tidal wetlands
West
Flats tidal shallows
Priming
Hook
deep water

Tivoli

Magdalen
Island

........ ..... .... ......
.-.North 8 y
0 ... ...
.... ..........
.......... .. ..

-*..@ ..........
. .......
. ... ...
Cruger Island

Rt. 9G

South Bay Bard College

one mile
one km

land

tidal wetlands
SO,
U

tidal shallows

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

Trailside
Museums

Bear Mtn.

4v
-P
0
Doodletown
Bight Iona
Island

ij
i'x
0 Round island

::Xo
Iona I Ian

1
0
D

9 tv

Dunderberg Mtn.

one mile
one km

land

tidal wetlands

tidal shallows

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

Piermont

Erie Pier

Piermont
%:i* Marsh
....... .....

Tallman Mtn.
State Park

Rt. 9W

land Palisades Sned 'n
LanZing

tidal wetlands

tidal shallows Lamont
Doherty
Geological
deep water Observatory

one mile Fig. 9 Piermont Marsh Area.
one km T_ (Adapted from USGS Nyack, N.Y. -N.J. quadrangle.)
(Areas shown as'tidal wetlands'and 'tidal shallows'are
both considered tidal wetlands under the State
Tidni WPtIc2nds Act.)

by the United States National Park Service. Iona Island Marsh was listed in
the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Research (Smith et al. nd) for
rare ecological niches, rare plants, bird migration stopover, and educational
value; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (CZM Study Program, 1977a);
Significant Coastal Related Fish & Wildlife Habitats of New York (CZM Study
Program, 1977b); Hudson River Valley Study Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine
and Weiner, 1979).

Piermont Marsh. The southermost site is in the Town of Orangetown,
Rockland County, 4 miles south of Nyack (Figures 5, and 9). A portion at the
north end of the proposed site is within the jurisdiction of the Village
of Piermont. Piermont Marsh is one-and-one-half miles long, between
Piermont and Sneden's Landing; it includes the mouth of a tributary stream
(Sparkill Creek) and is surrounded by very extensive tidal shallows. Pa rt s
of the site are (or have been) known as Sparkill Marsh, and Taulman Landing
or Point. The Piermont Marsh site is largely a part of Tallman Mountain
State Park, an element of the Palisades Interstate Park system. Piermont Marsh
was listed in the following surveys: The Hudson: Biological Resources (Smith
et al. nd) for rare ecological niches, rare plants, bird migration stopover,
landscape and educational values; Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
(CZM Study Program, 1977a); Significant Coastal Related Fish and Wildlife
Habitats of New York (CZM Study Program, 1977b); Hudson River Valley Study
Site Inventory (Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, 1979).

1. Natural Environment

a. Geology

The Hudson River watershed is one of the most geologically complex
regions in the United States, and the shores of the Estuary show great
variety of bedrock, landforms and soils. After several geologic episodes
of uplift, folding and faulting, alternating with periods of erosion, the
Hudson Valley was overridden by the continental ice sheets. GI ac i ers
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 @isted 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 stones); soils on alluvium (stream-deposited material); and
tidal wetland sediments.

Stockport Flats. The bluff north of the mouth of Stockport Creek
is Cambrian shale with thin layers of interbedded quartzite, and there
are clay deposits farther inland. The bluff south of the creek is clay.
Slate, conglomerate, and limestone are also present near the site. These
steep bluffs rise to an elevation of 100 feet above the river, and then
the land levels off. Small tidal coves are scalloped into the bluffs at
several locations along the shore. There is evidence of a clay slide
in at least one location on the south bank of Stockport Creek.

Tidal influence in Stockport Creek extends inland to the Route 9
highway bridge, almost one mile. The mouth of the creek is dotted with
islands of floodplain and tidal swamp at elevations of about 0-3 feet
above high tide level, and these islands are interspersed with areas of
tidal marsh, subsidiary stream channels, and the main channel of the
creek. The wetlands and islands both inside and outside of the creek
mouth comprise the tidal delta deposits of the creek.

The main marsh (East Flats) lies just south of the mouth of Stock-
port Creek in the river proper, between the unnamed island (north) and
the point of Priming Hook (south). A sandy bar extends southward along
much of the western margin of the main marsh, broken by one large and
one small passage between the marsh and the main river. A few tidal
creeks cut through the marsh. The marsh bottoms vary from fine sand to
shallow or deep soft muck.

A large island, Stockport Middle Ground, and a large peninsula,
Gay's Point - Fordham Point, lie northwest and north of the creek mouth.
Stockport Middle Ground, Gay's Point, Fordham Point, Priming Hook and the
Unnamed Island are sandy and composed partly of old dredged material , and
they have maximum elevations of about 5-20 feet above high tide level.
Extensive shallows lie between Gay's Point - Fordham Point and the mainland,
and there are small channels around Stockport Middle Ground. The dredged
shipping channel west of the Stockport Flats site is 32 feet deep. Terres-
trial soils of the site are derived from clay, sand and till.

Tivoli Bays. Bedrock at this site is Ordovician gray sandstone and
shale. The more resistant sandstone outcrops are on the islands, the
points projecting into the bays, and in the waterfalls of the creeks.
Bluffs east of the bays are composed largely of clay with small areas of
sand; the bluffs rise steeply to an elevation of 100 feet above the river
and then level off inland. The clays were deposited as thin alternating
winter and summer layers of clay and silt in a postglacial lake. Gradual
slumping is common on the clay bluffs. "Clay dogs," small ring-shaped
concretions of limestone and clay that formed around the stems of marsh
plants, occur in the clays.

Cruger Island is one-half mile long, with a maximum elevation of
forty feet above high tide level. Magdalen Island is smaller and lower.
North Bay is predominantly intertidal marsh, with a 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 s-helter of the island, in a side
channel of the Hudson River that was made larger by glacial erosion and
glacial meltwaters. The marsh began to form at least 6,000 years ago
according to radiocarbon dating of the peat, and some of the sediments
uderlying the marsh are 12,500 years old. The marsh surface is peaty, but
the sediments become increasingly silty beneath. Winding tidal creeks lace
the marsh, with greatest depths at low tide about three feet. In Doodletown
Bight, large areas of mud flats are exposed at low tide. The main river
close to Iona Island has a maximum depth of 143 feet, and this is one of
the narrowest reaches of the Hudson Estuary.

Soils on Iona Island and the mainland are derived from glacial till
and tend to be very shallow, acid, and nutrient-poor.

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 shal I ow segment of the Estuary
known as the Haverstraw Bay and Tappan Zee, and very extensive shallows
border the east side of the marsh. While these shallows are only 1-2 feet
deep at low tide, the river channel farther east has 50-foot depths.

Soils on shore near Piermont Marsh are derived from glacial till and
are shallow and acid, with deeper, richer pockets close to the marsh. The
Erie Pier borders the marsh on the north.

b. Hydrology

The Hudson River Estuary drains about 13,400 square miles of land,
mostly in New York State but includes small areas of New Jersey, Massachusetts,
Connecticut and Vermont. The tidal river is 152 miles long from Troy
south to the southern tip of Manhattan Island (Battery Park). Throughout
this distance, the river bed is below sea level, allowing tidal penetration
to Troy. Salt water, however, intrudes only half the length of the
tidal river due to the Hudson's substantial and relatively dependable
freshwater flow.

Average freshwater flow (net discharge) in the tidal Hudson is 13 billion
gallons per day, of which 60% enters from the mainstream of the Hudson-Mohawk
above Troy and 40% comes in from 25 major and numerous minor tributaries
below Troy. Peak freshwater fl ows occur in March or April with snow melt,
and secondary peak flows often occur in November. Minimum flow is in summer
and early fall. The reversing tidal flow moves about 30 times as much voter
as the average freshwater discharge. The average flushing rate for the
tidal Hudson River (turnover-time) is about 5 months.

Salt water from the Atlantic Ocean moves upriver, mixing with the
fresh water, and penetrating farther upriver at times of lower freshwater
flow. Depending on freshwater flow, the 0.1 part s-per-thou sand (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 slightly dilutes sea water well out into the New
York Bight.

The Hudson is a partially stratified estuary. More saline water tends
to move upriver under lighter outfl owing 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 general i zed
contamination of the Hudson by PCB discovered in the early 1970s has declined
during the last 5 years as evidenced by reduced PCB levels in large samples
of fish of several species monitored annually by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation. There are persistent reports by longtime
residents that the Hudson Estuary has become less turbid during the last few
decades.

Wetland hydrology in the Hudson is influenced most by the estuary's
vertical tidal fluctuation, but also by runoff from tributary streams, wind,
and the degree of shelter afforded by adjacent shallows, islands and bars.
Incoming tides churn up sediments in the confines of marsh creeks creating
high turbidity. Outgoing tides and dilution by clear water from tributaries,
reduce turbidity greatly in the landward portions of the marshes. The downriver
marshes are subject to higher salinity than the main river due to evaporation
of water from the marsh surface: at Plermont 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).

of V 9 @ I

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,
Flats etc . sand wild-rice

Tivoli Bays fresh 3.9 sandstone, muck cattail,
shal e purple loose-
strife,
spatterdock

Iona Island fresh to 2.8 gneiss peat, cattail,
6 ppt silt reed

Piermont Marsh fresh to 3.2 diabase, peat, cattail,
12 ppt shale, silt reed, etc.
sandstone

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 mid-estuary.

January average air temperature is 23-290 F, and July average 71-730 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 (TXpha angustifolia), wild-rice
(Zizania aquatica), river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis), spaf-terdock (Nuphar
advena), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica),
E-r-o-adTeaf arrowhead (Sagittari-alatifolia), tall cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides), swamp rose mallow (Hibiscus palustris), tidewater-hemp
(Amaranthui@ cannabinus), bur-marigolds (Bidens spp.T, water-millet
(Echinochloa walteri), jewelweed (Impatiens biflora), rice cutgrass (Leersia
oryzoides) , purple Foosestri fe (Ly_tFr-um-__saTi-ca_rUaT, smartweeds (Poly lonum
spp_.), and common reed (Phragmites communis). Aboveground standing cFTP_S
reported for Hudson River marshes are si-m-iTar 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
Myriophyllum spicatum). Freshwater tidal swamps also occur in other Virginian
Region estuaries but Tave 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
RT 9
species. 1U--Tu7son and upper estuar-y-Te-eper-soil areas as well as moist
ravines down-river, support oaks, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black birch (Betula lenta , beech (Fagus grandifolia),
white pine (Pinus strobus), hemlock (Tsy@gacanade-nsis) and flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida). All four proposed sanctuary sites have very well developed
forested buffeF 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 Lm), ho eysuckle (Lonicera
(Rubus spp.). Vegeta ion of the Erie Pier at Piermont is similar with the
6UMTTon of white mulberry (Morus alba).

Stockport Flats. Water-celery is very abundant in the shallows. The
inter7tidal marshes are dominated by narrowleaf cattail, wild-rice, spatter-
dock and pickerelweed. The wild-rice st 'ands 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 approximates former (1930s-40s) levels.

Tidal swamps and floodplain swamps are dominated by red ash (Fraxinus
eennszlvanica), silver maple (Acer.saccharinum), cottonwood (Po ulus
deltoides), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), willows (Salix ssp. and
silky dogwood. Some of the tidal swamps ha-ve many large trees-Tstems 1-3
feet or more in diameter-at-breast-height).

The bluffs along the south side of Stockport Creek and east of the
main marsh are covered by deciduous forest with oaks and other trees, and
localized areas of white pine. The sandy islands and points have abundant
cottonwood, black-locust (Robinia eseudoacacia), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), oaks, staghorn sumac (Lhus typhina), etc.
Tivoli Bays. Water-celery, watemilfoil, and waterchestnut (Trapna
natans are the most abundant plants in the shallows. The intertidal
mars es are dominated by narrowleaf cattail , spatterdock, and purple
I oosestri fe. The tidal swamps are predominantly red maple (Acer rubrum),
red ash, black ash (Fraxinus nigra), silky dogwood, willows, buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occide-R-571's7aln-d -smooth alder (Alnus serrulata). The Tivoli
tidal swamps coveF-45acres and are very rich T-n-shrub and moss species.

The clay bluffs and rocky islands support well-developed forest with
sugar maple, hemlock, red oak, white oak, chestnut oak, Aite ash (Fraxinus
americana), pignut hickory (Carya 11abra), shagbark hickory (C. 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
i s dominated by crack wil I ow (Sal ix f ragil is).

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 Intert-Idal
marshes are dominFed by narrowleaf cattail and common reed, with lesser
amounts of tall cordgrass, saltwater cordgrass (Seartina alterniflora), salt-
meadow cordgrass (j. patens), saltgrass (Distichl is spicaffF, 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 aquaticum), a
species common in the southeastern United States in in and 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.

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 Proposed Sanctuary Sites Listed in "Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plant Species 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
Scirpus cylindricus Piermont

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 micranthemoides 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
resfr-1-cfed range, endemic; EXT? = Possibly extirpated in New York State;
HAB = Restricted to habitat7s-rare in the State; R = Rare throughout its
range; SNYS = Single New York station; SPOR = Sporadic: scattered popu-
lations--,-TULN = Vulnerable to cornmerciaT-or private exploitation or
imminent T-and 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 creeks 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-wetlands-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
Tentative State List has three categories (in decreasing order of endanger-
ment): 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. The primary wintering
area is in deep water in the vicinity of the Esopus Meadow - Kingston Flats
approximately 2-9 miles south of the Tivoli Bays. Spawning occurs in
spring as the shortnose migrate northward to Troy. Adult shortnose sturgeon
in the St. John River Estuary in New Brunswick (Canada) feed on mollusks
in beds of submerged vegetation. If Hudson River shortnose sturgeon have
similar feeding habits, they may be attracted to shallows near Tivoil and
Stockport as well as in other areas of the upper Estuary.

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 regularly at any of the proposed sites.

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was common on the Hudson
River Estuary, especi_a7Ty`_iT_n winter, in the late 1800s accord-Ing to naturalists
of the period (e.g., Mearns, Burroughs). Bald eagles became rare along
the Hudson in the last few decades when there was a nationwide decline in
populations. However, birdwatchers who spend a lot of time on the Estuary
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

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" (Endangered, Threatened
Special Concern). Additional species have been recorded near the sites and
are discussed in the text.

Species 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, Accipiter cooperli 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, al I Threatened
Circus cyaneus
Osprey, Pandion haliaetus all Endangereda (NY)

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

Common tern, Tivoli, Iona,
Sterna hirundo Piermont Threatened

Black tern, Tivoli, Sped al Concern
Chlidonias niger Pierinont

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. henslowii

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.

dead fish or other carrion for food. Iona Island has the potential to
become a regular winter roosting area.

Ospreys (Pandion hallaetus) are commonly seen in small numbers (1-4
at once) alon@ 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 IYDT contamination of their food, but in
the last few years Long Island Sound ospreys have begun a remarkable
c omebac k. 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 - eregrinus nested along
the Hudson River Estuary on the Palisades and Hudson High 'lands 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 Bear Mountain State Park, but no verification 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 Ce-enfd'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 Valley.

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 (ClemmXs guttata)
are quite rare in tidal wetlands, but nesting has been verified at least

at Tivoli Bays; the species is more common at certain inland locations.
Hognose snakes (Heterodon platyrhinos) have not been reported from the sites
although tound nere and tnere ottriver; 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 propos;7d 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 cooperfl)
is seen occasionally at the proposed sites, and recent inland breeding
records suggest potential breed-Ing in the forests of the proposed sanctuary.
The black tern (Chlidonias.niger) is a rare spring migrant on the Hudson
River Estuary; there are no breeding 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 limiting
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 aFe-a fe-W-r-eg-u7ar 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), Helslow's
sparrow (A. henslowii) and vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus formerly
bred in fields near Tivoli, and there may be breeding potentia- at Tivoli
and Iona.

Blue List Birds. Some other species that are not included in the
TentafiWe New York Ust, but were in the American Birds "Blue List for 1981"
(Tate, 1981 ) and occur at one or more of the proposed sanctuary sites are:
great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax), Amer F-anbittern Botaurus lentiginosus), sharp-shi.nned ha;ik
(Accipiter striatus), king rail @Rallus elegans . screech owl (Otus asio),
ruby-throated hummingbird (Archil-oc-Fu-scolubris), cliff swallow__(Te_t@rochelidon
pyrrhonota), purple martin _(Progne SuFi`s), shortbilled marsh wren (Cistothorus
platensis), golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna , black duck (Ana@-@I@ses), and canvasbaCk tAythaya
vallsineria). These are sped hat 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 phocoena) in the lower estuary
in the 1800s. A single well-documented incurs-ion 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 Mammals. 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 is' 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
canadens'IsT-T@ 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 Piermont 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 (Peromyscus leucopus) mostly in winter; eastern cottontail (Sylvila5us
floridOnu-s7, in E057 -swamps in winter; gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensisT
and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), tidal swamps and shoreline;
meadow vole (Micr@t-u-s------Tv-a-n'i@-c-u-s@-T, -sh6rttail shrew (Blarina brevicauda);
- - - - 2t!j@
yon-lotor ; gray-fo-x-CUrocyon cinereoar __7p
raccoon (Proc -genteus); red fox (VU es
fulva); and opossum (.Didelphis virginiana).
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. Al 1
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 during 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 platXrhyncho@), black duck, green-winged-teal (A. crecca), blue-winged
teal (A. discors), wood duck (Aix sponsa), and canvasbacV_.Hundreds 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
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
P~qiermont Marsh.

Regular residents at or near the proposed sanctuary sites include red-
tailed hawk (Buteo Jama~qicens~qis), American kestrel (Falco sparver~qiu~!~q@~4qJ, great
horned owl ~q(Bu o vi~4qu~qin~qianus~q)~q-and screech owl (Otus as~qio). Rough-legged
hawks (Buteo lagopus) frequent the Iona Island '~8qf~8qle~qlds in winter. (See
discus~qs~"~qlon 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 ~qea~qlustris). Irregular breeders are the American
bitterns (Botaurus lent~qig~qinos~u~qs)~, clapper rail ~qt~qKa~qllus ~qlonqirostris), king rail
(R. el e an~q]~q@ c ommo n
~qy~qi~qrg~q!nia rail (R. limicola), sora (Porzana carol~qina , and
~qg~2q7a~ql~ql~qinu e Ga~ql~ql~qinu~qla chlorop~2qds~-~q). In the Hudson ~0qVa~q-~qI~qley, the least bittern,
long-billed marsh wren, common gall~qinu~qle 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
~4q@~qT~qit~qh-~qs~"~qp~qe-~qc~4qT~4qF~q6 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
~q@Age a~qius ~qphoeniceus , American goldfinch (Carduel~qis tristis), swamp sparrow
~qIMelosp~qiza georg~qiana)~, and song sparrow (M.~q_~q@~2qmeod~q@~8qia ~2q7~q-sonest 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 (Charadr~qius voc~qiferus), common snipe
(Ca~qeella gall~qina~qgo), spotted sandpiper Act~qit~qis macu~qlaria), greater yellow~qlegs
Tr~qi~qnga me~qlano~qleuca), lesser yellowlegs ~q(~.~8q1. f~qlav~qipes), and least sandpiper
~6qMa~ql~qidris minut~qi~qlla). At least eleven other species are seen at times.
The only breeding shorebirds at the proposed sites are American woodcock
(Ph~qilohela 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 arqentatus)
is the most common gull and is a conspicuous feature of -the proposed sanctuary
sites nearly all year round. Ring-billed gull (~0qL. delawaren~-s~8qis) and great
black-backed gull (L. marinus) are common. Laughing gu I L. atr~8qi~8qc~8qi~4ql~8qla~8q)
an~8qd Bonaparte's gu~0qlT ~4q(~8q_~6qL~q.~q_~4q_p~q_h~q_~4q1~64qTadel phi a) are uncommon and usua ~2qly seen only
downriver. A few othe~48q7~4qr s~4q-pe~4q-c~4qies of gulls and terns are seen occasionally,
mostly downriver.

Other Birds. Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) are resident in the
terrestiral forests, and feed in idal swamps in winter. Woodpeckers
are common in the tidal swamps and forest, including the pileated woodpecker
Dryocopus,pileatus). Winter birds of the marshes include downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens , black-capped chickadee (Parus tri illus), winter
wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), tree sparrow (_S_pi-ze_lla
Lrbo ea , wfifte-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) and song sparrow. Very large
flocks of tree swallows (Iridoprocne bicolor), bank swallows (Riparia
riparia), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), red-winged blackbirds, and common
grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) roost in the marshes, especially in late
summer and early fa 1. Bre ing birds of the tidal swamps are many, in-
cluding willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillifl, great crested flycatcher
(Warchus crinitus), blue 'Jay (CyanCc-ir-ttacristata), black-capped
chickadee, veery (Catharus fuscescens), ye)low warb er (Dendroica petechia)
and common yellowthroat F richas).

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.
@T`ring 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 carolin;nsis , yellow warbler, and song sparrow.
Population density of all breeding 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 snappi 66 turtle (Chelydra serpentina) is common in the wetlands
and shallows at all four sites. The map turtle (Graptemys geographica)
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 area@, is rare
in the Hudson River Estuary and has been found at Iona and Piermont.

The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) occurs on land near the Iona
r
Island Marsh, and there ar@ un_`v_erifT'@<i 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 pro 5617 -Stockport. Bullfrogs (E. catesbeiana), pickerel frogs (R.
palustris), American toads (Bufo americanus), spring peepers (Hyla crucifer),
and gray treefrogs (_H. versi-coTo-L) enter the wetlands to some extent,
but are more common in nearby nontidal wetlands where the woodfrog (Rana
sylvatica) also occurs. Few salamanders have been found in Hudson E-s-Mairy
tidal habitats, 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 (M. americana), American shad (Alosa sapidissini"YT,_al@w-ife
herring (A.ps7eud arengus), blueback herrin`g-(@X.- aestivalls-T, torrr-od
(Microgadus tomcod), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhXnchus), American
eel (Anguilla rostrata), and rainbow smelt ( rus mordax).

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 pe 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) troM the mouth ot 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 pr755-posed sanctuary sites is in
Appendix 3.

Invertebrates. Important groups 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 crab (Callinectes sapidus), moves upriver
in summer and fall as salinity increases and may Fecome 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 sna-iTs-occur 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 ovali@);
the waterlily leaf beetle (Pyrrhalta nymphaeae) on spatterdock and other
plants; the cattail moth (@y`m_naecia phragm-itella) on cattails; a caterpillar
of genus Mompha in purple loosestrife stalks; the weevil Smic in dodder
(Cuscuta gronovil); and scale insect (Chaetococcus phragmitis) on common reed.
Ko--narchs TDanaus plexippus) and other butterfile-s, and various bees (including
honeybees (ALis 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-described crayfish (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--e-dges 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 numberg 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 pathways

Primary Secondary Tertiary
Producers (plants) live Consumers Consumers onsurners
(grazers) (sma I I (large pred-
predators) ators)

iDetritus Consumers
Complex (cletritivores)

Sun, Wind, B. Terrestrial pathways
Rain

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

Detritus
Export to estuary Complex Inverte

Sun, Tides .1 C. Estuarine pathways
Waves, Rain

Fish,
Zooplanton, Fish, Spiders,
Vascular Plants, Muskrat, Birds, Rapto;s,
Algae, Mosses Turtles, Mammals, Turtles,
Waterfowl, Insects Carnivores,
Songbirds, Man
ma ry
s
Pr@i
Con umers
p lants
D (grazers)

"' @Deer, Spiders,
Insects,@
ir S,
rB d

Fi sht'
Zo@
oplan on, . ....
ptors,
T
C@
urt les'
arni,or
Man

Worms,
Detritus Insects,
Terrestrial cletritus Complex Mol lusks,
Zooplankton
etc.

The Hudson River Estuary contributes to marine fisheries of striped
bass, shad, bluefish, butterfish, winter flounder, summer fl ounder, 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 blueback 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 between Troy and the
George Washington Bridge (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" wbich 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
f i she men.

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 Atlantic sturgeon is very small. There
is a small commercial seine fishery for baitfish, primarily killifish
and shiners, in the shallows and marshes.

A few commercial shad fishermen operate in the shallows near Pier-
mont Marsh. There is a recreational fishery for blue crab and fin fish
(including toacod in winter) off the 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 commercial 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 the railroad bridges, with some boat fishing. Species fished at
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 shallow$. 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 Trapping

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
Stockport and Tivoli: shooting from blinds, pass shooting on foot on
land, shooting on foot in the wetlands, and shoot-Ing 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 hunters' 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 Pr eserve at Tivoli Bays were selectively logged
in 1980 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
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 located
at the base of the Erie Pier just north of the proposed sanctuary site and
visiblefrom 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.

g. Transportation

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.

RailwaXs. Two ConRall 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 Stockpor-t 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 with-in 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 proposed 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 _othJ guides. Many birdwatchors
regard the proposed il@tes among the five most productive sites along the
Hudson River Estuary for water and wetland birds as well as land birds (the
5th area is Crofton Point).

Most birdwatching takes place in spring and fall, with les.s 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 Iona 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 Appalachian
Water 2: The Hudson Riverand its Tributaries (Burmeister, 1974), a canoeing
guide. Th-ema'inriver is de-scr'iE-ed 'in The Illustrated 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 more than
5,000 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 bi rdwatc hers- -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.

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
flucuations 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-fl ow 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. Army 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
DEIS; the program would emphasize long-term 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 research. A program extending the length
of the estuary and setting priorities 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 sharing 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 mairy 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 trips. 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 Hudson
ff'iver STo-op Ci-earwater have- been pred6m_inant 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 History Research and Education
New York, NY

New York State Museum Research
Albany, NY

Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory Research
of Columbia University, Palisades, 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
Cornwell, 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 Amy 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

John 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 survey 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-tem 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
poi nts. 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 DEIS.
Additional information on endangered species is being collected to assist
in developing the sanctuary management plan.

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. Furthermore, increased research resulting from
sanctuary establishment would very 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 education 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 Exe'cutive Orders 11988 and, 11990, the State Coastal Management plan,
and other Federal and State laws listed in Appendix 2.

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.

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-term 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 managem Ient 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 previously unknown resources (medical, nutritional,
esthetic, recreational) for human use. A public education program would
provide a grassroots foundation for wise public use of estuarine resources.

E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Within the proposed sanctuary, 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. The barn may be renovated and used as a research
and education center for the proposed estuarine sanctuary. 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.

Sanctuary management policies would not interfere with exi-sting
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 Steering 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 entirely within the DEC-designated Mid-
Hudson Historic Shorelands State Scenic Area, which stretches from
Germantown to Hyde Park and is approximately conterminous with the National
Register of Historic Places historic 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 Piermont, 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 holds 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 DEIS included overall
direction, organization, and preparation of the report for publication.
Dr. Podgorny had assistance from Ms. Gloria Thompson, Program Specialist,
Ms. Phylistine Bullock, Program Specialist Trainee, and Ms. Jessie Warren,
Clerk/Typist, Sanctuary Programs Office.

Mr. Edward Radle -- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Mr. Edward Radle oversaw the preparation of Ffi-e -DEIS. 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. Erik Kiviat prepared the Affecte7g-E-n-vironment, 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
- PFr-.James J. Stapleton assisted in the preparation of the entire DEIS.
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.

Mr. Robert E. Schmidt -- Director, Hudsonia Limited
Mr. Robert E. Schmidt edited the hydrology section and compiled the fish
list, as well as assisting with and reviewing the rest of the DEIS. 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 DEIS. 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 Limited
Ms. Nancy Zeising compiled the p ant list and assisted with other portions
of the DEIS. 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 tonservation
Mr. Clarence T. O'Br@ien researched property ownerships at the Tto c p @�r t F - I -a t s-
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 DEIS and reviewed drafts:

J. W. Aldrich (DEC) James Morton (DOS)
Harry Earle (OPRHP) Nancy Pierson (OPRHP)
.Peter D. Gregory (OPRHP) 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) Eugene McCaffre-y (DEC)
Glenn Cole (DEC) John Mead (PIPC)
Salvatore Cozzolino (DEC) Jack Ryan (DEC)
Herbert Doig (DEC) Fred Slater (DEC)
Wayne Elliot (DEC) Ronald Sloan (DEC)
Patrick Festa (DEC) Anthony Taormina (DEC)
Edward Horn (DEC) John Troy (PIPC)
Phillip Hulbert (DEC) Ivan Vamos (OPRHP)
Alan Mapes (DEC)

The following individuals provided information or assistance:

Maurice Brignull (Hudson, NY)
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)
Roland Vosbur'gh (Columbia County Department of Planning)
Lynn Wayand (DEC)
Anne Williams (The Nature Conservancy)

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

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 Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing & Urban Developement
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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.)

Continental Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencies
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 Society
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Fisherman
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 State Geological Survey
New York Department of Public Service
New York State Coastal Coalition
Saratoga Spa State Park
Palisades Interstate Park Commission
New York State Department of Transportation
New York State Governor's Offfice
Department of State Education
State Museum and Science Service
New York State Conservation Council
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 Legislature
Rockland County Environmental Management Council
Stony Point Town Planning Board
Orangetown Planning Board
Sparkill Creek Watershed Protection

State and Local Interest Groups

Red Hook Rotary Club
West Branch Conservation Association

State and Local Interest Groups (Cont'd.)

Piermont Conservation Advisory Commission
West Hudson Environmental Association
Rockland County Planning Department
Rockland County Cooperative Extension
Piermont Civic Association
Hudson River Conservation Society
Hudson River Heritage, Inc.
Manitago 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
Marshland Conservancy
Federated Conservationists of Winchester 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 Fisherman's Association
Trout Unlimited T
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
Dutches County Trapper's Association
Dutchess County Archeological Society
Project L.O.S.T.
The Georgia Conservancy
Tappan Zee Sloop Club
Buccaneer Boat Club, Inc.
Julius Petersen, Inc.

State and Local Interest Groups (Cont'd.)

Chelsa Marina
Norrie Point Marine Corporation
Hudson River Pilots Association
Tappan Zee Marina
Lighthouse Yacht Center
Sailhaven
Poughkeepsie Yacht Club
Beacon Sloop Club

Con gre s s i on a 1

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
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
William Gosivick
Philip J. Rotella
Kevin Alger
Robert L. Bard
Tom Burke
David Chiarelli
Marcella Appell
Robert Bartholomew
Eleanor Bulingham
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
Everette Nack
John Rossi
David Seeley
J. Herbert Dahm, Jr.
Roger Edgley
Robert Greig
Wesley J. Hennessy
Harold Roffman
Lee Labuff
Wade Linden
Robert Main
Bonnie McGiffert
Theodore B. Merrill
Leif Reichelt
Samuel Sage
Mike Selender

In addition, 350 copies of the DEIS were distributed to identified
State and local interest groups and individuals, including property
owners, libraries, newspapers, researchers and educators, conservation
and sportsmen's groups, industries and user groups.

PART VII: APPENDICES

Page

Appendix 1: Bibliography and Literature Cited .................. 99

Appendix 2: Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed
Hudson River Estuarine Sanctuary .................. 109

Appendix 3: List of Fishes Reported from the Proposed
Estuarine Sanctuary Sites on the Hudson
River ............................................. 113

Appendix 4: Birds Reported In or Close to Proposed
Sanctuary Sites ................................... 119

Appendix 5: Selected Data From New York Mid-Winter
Area Water Fowl Survey ............................ 127

Appendix 6: Tidal Vascular Plants of the Proposed
Sanctuary Sites ................................... 129

Appendix 7: Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977 ..... 141

APPENDIX I

Bibliography and Literature Cited

100

Appendix 1. Bibliography and literature cited. The annotations S
(Tt-ockport) , T (Tivoli ) , F(ro-n-a-l-, and P (Piermont) 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 Moun tain Trailside Museums and Nature Trails.
--- Valisades 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
___Uuly: 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.
----Kew York State Office of Parks and Recreation. 26 p. unpubl. rept. I

1981. Tidal marsh saved.. Land Lines (Lower Hudson Chap. Nature
Conservancy), spring:I.P

Arbib, R. S., Jr., O.S. Pettingill, Jr and S. H. Spofford. 1966. Enjoying
bi,rds around New York City. Hought;n Mifflin Co., Boston. 171 po T, I, P

Averill, S. Po, Ro 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 Gull-ae 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. 1900. Aboriginal occupation of New York. New York State
Museum Bulletin 32, 187 po S, T, I

Boyle, R. Ho 1969. The Hudson River; a natural and unnatural history.
W. W. Norton, NY. 304 po S, T, P

101

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, 1, 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, Flushing, 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
---'Fa-bitats 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, 1, 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

1968. Supplement to Birds of Rockland County and the Hudson Highlands.
p. Rockland Audubon Society, West Nyack, NY. I, P

102

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
---9(7-8):l -2. 1 , P

. 1981b. The Piermont Pier and marsh. The Observer 34(2):1-2. P

Drennan, S. R. 1981. Where to find birds in New York State; the top 500
sites. Syracuse University Press, 499 p. S, T, I, 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 Depart-ment 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 Pological 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.

103

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 Dutchess 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. 1, 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,
__T3 p. in Fourth Symposium on Hudson River Ecology. Hudson River Environmental
Societ7y-, Bronx, NY. S, T

1976b. (Notes on Hudson River Tidal Marsh Workshop, 2 June 1976 at Bard
sponsored by Hudson River Environmental Society). Currents (HRES)
6(2): 1, (3): 3-4.

0 1977, Reptiles and amphibians of the Hudson Estuary. North River Navigator
__7Hudson River Sloop Clearwater) 8(9):4-5.

o 1978. Hudson River east bank natural areas, Clermont to Norrie. Nature
Conservancy, Arlington, VA 115 po T

- . 1979a. Hudson Estuary shore zone: ecology and management, Master's
thesis (unpubl.), State University College at New Paltz, NY, 159 po T, I, P

o 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

104

1981a. Hudson River Estuary shore zone annotated natural history
bibliography with index. Scenic Hudson, Poughkeepsie, NY. 76 p. S, T, I, P

1981b. Profile of the Hudson. Hudson Valley 9(9):24-28. T, I, 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 1 (1: 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
(New 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. S, 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 in 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 bepartment, 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, 1, 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

105

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

D. 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, @ort 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 Paltz, NY. 180 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

106

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 bul rush. Bartoni a (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
T-
New York. ournal 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, I, 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
in the Hudson Basin 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.

Tauber, G., ed. 1976? Conference on the enhancement of environmental research

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-
I

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

107

Wilkie, R. W. The illustrated Hudson River Pilot; being a smallcraft sailor's
pictorial guide to the tidewater Hudson Albany to New York. Three City
Press, Albany, NY. 183 p. S, T, I, 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 belief. Iona Island Marsh, Rockland
County, New York. unpubl. rept.

109

APPENDIX 2

Existing Jurisdiction Involving the Proposed Hudson River
Estuarine Sanctuary

110

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 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

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 89
Coast Guard waters, shipping, small
craft, aids to navigation,
search and rescue

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

ill

AGENCY JURISDICTION LEGISLATION

Federal (cont.):

Nuclear Regulatory oversight over operation Energy Reorgani-
Commission Indian Point power plants zation Act

ConRail Corporation right-of-way improvement
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 Revitilization
Sanctuary Program, & Coastal Re-
coastal management sources Act

Department of navigation channel, Transportation
Transportation spoil disposal, roads, Law
bridges

112

AGENCY JURISDICTION LEGISLATION

County (cont.):

Planning Departments review of federal spending (as above)
(A-95), planning recommen-
dations and coordination of
planning activities

Town:
TI-anning, 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 jurisdicition

*Zoning classifications for the four Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary areas:

Piermont - Village of Piermont.- - - Use by special permit 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

113

APPENDIX 3

List of Fishes Reported From the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
on the Hudson River, New York

114

Appendix 3. List of fishes reported from the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
sites on 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 prcsence 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 Petromyzon marinus C 1

ANGUILLIDAE
American eel Anguilla rostrata C 8 1 2 5

CLUPEIDAE
Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis C 1 2 4
Alewife iarengus C 9 1
American shad A. sapidissima C 9 2 7
Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus E 7

ENGRAULIDAE

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli B 7

SALMONIDAE

Rainbow trout Salmo qairdneri A 1
Brown trout S. truita A 9 1
Brook trout @-al-@-e-linus fontinalis A I

OSMERIDAE

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax C 9 1

UMBRIDAE

Central mudminnow Umbra limi A I
Eastern mudminnow U. pygmaea A 5

ESOCIDAE

Redfin pickerel Esox americanus A 3 1 2 6
Northern pike E-.-l U-Cius A 9
E. ---I:-
Chain pickerel niger A I

115

Common Scienti f ic EC S T I P
name name

CYPRINIDAE

Goldfish Carassius auratus A 4 1 2
Carp Cyprinus carpio A 8 1 2
Cutlips minnow Exoglossum maxillingua A I
Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius A 3 1
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas A 3 1 2 7
Satinfin shiner Notropis analostanus A I
Bridle shiner N. bifrenatus A 3 1
Common shiner -ff. cornutus A 3 1
Spottail shiner 'ff. F-udsonius A 1 8 7
Spotfin shiner -ff. `spiMo-pterus A 3
Blacknose dace Thinichthys atratulus A 1 5
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculYt-us A I
Fallfish corpoFalis A 3 1

CATOSTOMIDAE

White sucker Catostomus commersoni A 4 1 2 5
Creek chubsucker 1bl ongus - 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. Te-bulosus A 4 1 2

GADIDAE

Atlantic tomcod Microgadus tomcod B 2 7

FUNDULIDAE

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus A 8 8 1 7
F- ' B 8 1 8 8
Mummichog F. etercolitus

ATHERINIDEA

Tidewater silversides Menidia beryllina E 7
Waxen siversides M. menidia E 7

GASTEROSTEIDAE

Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadrac us B 1 7
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus B 2

SYNGNATHIDEA

Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus D 7

116

Common ScientiTi-c- EC S T I P
name name

PERCICHTHYIDAE

White perch Morone americana B 9 1 8 8
Striped bass M. saxatilis C 4 1 8 7

CENTRARCHIDAE

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris A 1
Bluespotted sunfish hnneacanthus gloriosus A 2
Redbreast sunfish epomis auritus A 3 1 8
Pumpkinseed L gibbosus A 3 1 2 6
Warmouth gulosus A 1
Bluegill macroch rus A 9 1 7
Smallmouth bass icropterus dFlomieui A 9 1
Largemouth bass M- salmoides A 4 1 2 7
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus A I

PERCIDAE

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi A 3 1 2 5
Yellow perch Perca TT`av@-scens A 3 1

POMATOMIDAE

Bluefish Pomotomus saltatrix E 7

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.

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.
Supplement to 26th Annual Report, New York Conservation Department,
Part II.

4. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1971 Stream
Survey.

117

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

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.

119

APPENDIX 4

Birds Reported In or Close to Proposed Sanctuary Sites

120

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 Tod-icepS qrlseqena S T I
Horned grebe P. auritus S T I P
Pied-billed grebe FodMy-m-Fu-s podiceps s T I P
Gannet Morus bassa7us T
Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo P
Double-crested cormorant P. auritus s T I P
Great blue heron Trd-ea--Fe-r-odias S T I P
Green heron Butorides striatus s T I P
Little blue heron Flori5_ca_e_ru7_ea 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 n@c 1corax s T I P
Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea P
Least bittern Ixobrychus Fi-ilis T I P
American bittern Botaurus lentigin-osus S T I P
Glossy ibis Plegadi's falcinellus T P
Mute swan Cygnus ol S I P
Whistling swan Olor FoT-umbianus T
Canada goose ff-ranta canadensis S T I P
Brant B. bernicla s T I P
White-fronted goose Tns_i@-r -albifrons P
Snow goose Chen caerul-escens S T I P
Fulvous whistling duck Den rocygna 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 K. acuta S T I P
Green-winged teal A. crecca crecca S
American green-winged teal T. TF-ecca -c-ar-o-7inensis S T I P
-&17 S-
Blue-winged teal CorS S T I P
European wigeon 'K. pene7ope T
American wigeon A. americana S T I P
Northern shoveler A. clypeata S T
Wood duck Aix sponsa S T I
Redhead t ya americana s T I
Ring-necked duck A. collaris s T I P
Canvasback K. `vJ'isineria S T I P
Greater scaup T. marila s T I P
Lesser scaup K. Tf-finis S T I P
Common goldeneye BucephYl-aclangula S T I P
Bufflehead F. albeola s T I P
Oldsquaw Tla_@`gula hyemalis s T I P
--n -Fe _g
White-winged scoter Mela-itta landi s T 1 P

121

Common Scientific
name name S T I P

Surf scoter M. perspicillata s T I P
Black scoter M. nigra S T I
'Uxyura jamaicensis T I P
Ruddy duck
Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucul a us 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 @_entilis S T I P
Sharp-shinned hawk A. striatus s T I P
Cooper's hawk T. cooperii 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 T. p atypterus s T I P
Rough-legged hawk B. lagopus s T I P
Golden eagle Tqu'iT-achrysaetos T I P
Bald eagle Haliae6-tusleucocephalus 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 T: 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 perdix T
King rail Ta-TI -us le-Fe -ga n s s T I P
Clapper rail R longirostris P
Virginia rail R: limicola s T I P
Sora Porzana carolina s T I P
Common gallinule Gallinu '@ chloropus s T I P
American coot Fulica mericana s T I P
Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus T P
Killdeer C. vociferus S T I P
American golden plover TIuVi-a-lisdominica 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 m acularia S T I P
Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria s T P
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus P
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca S T I P
Lesser yellowlegs T. flavipes S T I P
Red knot Tal'idris canutus P
Pectoral sandpiper C. melanotos S T P
White-rumped sandpiper T. P
Least sandpiper minutilla s T P

122

Common Scientific
name name S T I P

Dunlin C. alpina S T P
Short-billed dowitcher Dmnodromus griseus T P
Long-billed dowitcher L. scolopaceu P
Semiplamated sandpiper Talidris pusiTlus T P
Western sandpiper C. mauri P
Sanderling T. _aTFa_ 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 'argentatus S T I P
Ring-billed gull delawarensis S T I P
Laughing gull atricilla T I P
Bonaparte's gull L. philadelphia s T I P
Black-legged kittiwake ffissa tridactyla T
For,ster's tern Sterna forsteri P
Common tern S. hirundo s T I P
Roseate tern To-u-g a-M i P
Sooty tern fuscata I P
Least tern albifro s P
Royal tern maximus S P
Sandwich tern sandvicensis P
Caspian tern caspia T P
Black tern Chlidonia niqer s T I P
Rock dove Columbia li'via S T I P
Mourning dove fe-naida macrou'ra 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 G-tus 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 otus T P
Short-eared owl A-.-Tlammeus s P
Saw-whet owl AegoT-iusacadicus s T
Whip-poor-will Caprimul4-us vociferus s T I P
Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor s T I P
Chimney swift Chaetura LTa-ica S T I P
Ruby-throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris s T I P
Belted kingfisher Megaceryl;@_a cyon S T I P
Common flicker S T I P
Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus s T I P
Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes caroTinus s T P
Red-headed woodpecker M..erythrocephalus T
Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sehyrapicus varius T I P
Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus s T I P

123

Common Scienti f ic
name name S T I P

Downy woodpecker P. pubescens S T I P
Black-backed three-
toed woodpecker P. arcticus T
Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus S T I P
Western kingbird T. verti .calis T
Great crested flycatcher -ffyiarchus crinitus s T I P
Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe S T I P
Yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax _fT_av`Tventris T I
Acadian flycatcher E. virescens T
Willow flycatcher T. !-raillii s T I P
Alder flycatcher T. alnorum P
Least flycatcher T. minimus s T I P
Eastern wood pewee Contopus virens s T I P
Olive-sided flycatcher Nuttallor_ni-s@orealis T I
Horned lark Eremophila alTe-sTris 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'lUo-n
.Lyrrhonota s T I P
Purple martin Progne subis s T I P
Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata S T I P
Common raven Corvus corax T I
Common crow C. bra T I P
Fish crow T. 'ossifLagus s T I P
Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus S T I P
Boreal chickadee P. hudsonicus T P
Tufted titmouse T. bicolor S T I P
White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S T I P
Red-breasted nuthatch S. canadensis s T I P
Brown creeper Te familiaris S T I P
House wren Troglodytes aedon s T I P
Winter wren T. troglodytes S T I P
Carolina wren Thr-oyothorus ludovicianus s T P
Long-billed marsh wren Cistothorus pa ustris S T I P
Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos s T I P
Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis S T I P
Brown thrasher Toxostom-a rufum s T I P
American robin Turdus m =gratorjus S T I P
Wood thrush Catharus' mustelina s T I P
Hermit thrush C guttata. s T I P
Swainson's thrush T: -u-s-tulat-a s T I P
Gray-cheeked thrush C. minima T I
Veery T. Tu-scescens s T I P
Eastern bluebird '!Tialia sialis T I P
Blue-gray gnatcatcher olioptila caerulea S T I P
Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa s T I P
Ruby-crowned kinglet R. calendula s T I P
Water pipit Tnthus sffolletta s T I P
Cedar waxwinq bvcilla cedrorum s T I P

124

Common Scientific
name name S T I P

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor T P
Loggerhead shrike L. ludovicianus T P
Starling Tturnus vulg ri 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. _9i7v u _s s T P
Black-and-white warbler Fniotilta varia s T I P
Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria 'citrea T P
Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorus T I P
Golden-winged warbler Vermivora-Eh-rysoptera 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 Parula 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-g r -in a s T I
Black-throated blue warbler U-. -ca-e-ruTe-sces s T I P
Yellow-rumped warbler U. coronata s T I P
Black-throated green warbler U. virens s T I P
Cerulean warbler D. c@'F_ulea s T I
Blackburnian warbler 9. Tusca s T I P
Yellow-throated warbler U. domin ca T
Chestnut-sided warbler s T I P
Bay-breasted warbler castanea s T I P
Blackpoll warbler 'st ri ata s T I P
Pine warbler U0 pinus s T I
Prairie warbler D. discolor s T I P
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus s T I P
Northern waterthrush S. noveboracensis s T I P
Louisiana waterthrush motacilla s T I P
Kentucky warbler formosus T P
Connecticut warbler 0. agilis T
Mourning warbler U. @_hiladelphia T
Common yellowthroat GeCthlypis trT-chas S T I P
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens T I P
Hooded warbler Wilsonia ETT-rina T I P
Wilson's warbler W. Pusill'a s T I P
Canada warbler W. canadensis s T I P
American redstart Setophaga ruticilla s T I P
House sparrow Passer domesticus s T I P
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryziviorus s T I P
Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna s T I P
Yellow-headed blackbird XantFo-ceph-al-us xanthocephalus T

125

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 1. galbula S T I P
Rusty blackbird YupFiigus carol i na s T I P
Common grackle Quiscalus7 S T I P
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus aler S T I P
Scarlet tanager Piranga o_1'1vacea s T I P
Summer tanager P. rubra T
Cardinal Tar_dTn__aTis cardinalis S T I P
Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheuctict ludovicianus s T I P
Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea T
Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea s T I P
Evening grosbeak Fo-na- ertina s T I P
Hesperip yes2
Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus S T I P
House finch C. mexicanus S T P
Pine grosbeak -Finicola enu leator T I P
Hoary redpoll Acanthis- hornemanni T
Common redpoll A. flammea s T I P
Pine siskin Ta rTu-e-T _i@_p i U s s T I P
American goldfinch C. tristis S T I P
Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra T
White-winged crossbill L. leucoptera T I
Rofous-sided towhee Tipilo erythrophthalmus S T I P
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwi'5ensis s T I P
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodram us savannarum T P
Henslow's sparrow A. henslowil T
Sharp-tailed sparrow TMmospiza caudacuta T P
Seaside sparrow A. maritima P
Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus T I P
Lark sparrow -Ch-on-(Te-stes grammacus P
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis S T I P
Tree sparrow Spizella arborea S T I P
Chipping sparrow b. passerina s T I P
Field sparrow -�. pusilla s T I P
White-crowned sparrow Ton-o-t-Mic-Fi-a leucophrys s T I P
White-throated sparrow Z. albi-57-1i's s T I P
Fox sparrow Tasserella iTiaca s T I P
Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza 11-n'conii s T I P
Swamp sparrow M qeorqiana S T I P
Song sparrow -ff: melodia S T I P
Lapland longspur -Cal'carius lapponicus T
Chestnut-collard longspur C. ornat-Us - T
Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis S T I P

126

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 n'earby 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.

.11

127

APPENDIX 5

Selected Data From New York Mid-Winter
Aerial Waterfowl Survey

128

Appendix 5. Selected Data from New York Mid-Winter Aerial Waterfowl
Survey (Hudson Estuary only).a

Common Scientific 1978-1982 Counts
name name Average (Range)

Mute swan Cygnus olor 42(0-77)
Canada goose Branta canadensis 251(150-401)
Mallard Anas p atyrhynchos 464(0-896)
Black duck A. rubripes 829(25-2172)
Canvasback Tythya vali ineria 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.

. 129

APPENDIX 6

Tidal Wetlands and Shallows Vascular Plants of the Sites

130

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 A. saccharinum S T

ALISMATACEAE

Water-plantain Alisma sp. T
Water-plantain A. subcordatum I
Arrowhead Sagittaria eatoni S T I
Broadleaf arrowhead S. latifolia S T
Stiff arrowhead S. rigida S T
Arrowhead S. spatulata S
Subulate arrowhead S. subulata S T I

AMARANTHACEAE

Tidewater-hemp Amaranthus cannabinus S T I P

ANACARDICEAE

Smoke tree Continus coggygria T
Poison ivy Rhus radicans T
Poison sumac Rhus vernix I

AQUIFOLIACEAE

Winterberry Ilex veticillata T I

ARACEAE

Sweet flag Acorus calamus S T
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum T
Goldenclub Orontium auaticum S T
Arrow arum Peltandra virginica S T I P
Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus S T I
Swamp milkweed Asclepia incarnata T I

BALSAMINACEAE

Jewelweed Impatiens biflora T I P

131

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I

BETULACEAE

Speckled alder Alnus rugosa
Smooth alder A. serrulata T I
Yellow birch _@etula lutea T
Gray birch @. populi7-oTia T
American hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana T
Hazel Corylus T
'Us-trya virginiana
Hop hornbeam @P T

BORAGINACEAE

Forget-me-not Myosotis sp. I

CAESALPINIACEAE

Wild senna Cassia hebecarpa S

CALLITRICHACEAE

Water starwort Callitriche verna T

CAPRIFOLIACEAE

Bell's honeysuckle Lonicera x. bella S T
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis S T I
Arrow-wood TrFu_rnum 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

132

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

CHENOPODIACEAE

Spearscale Atriplex patula P

COMPOSITAE

Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida T
Aster Aster puniceus T
Aster A. subulatus P
Beggar-ticks Bidens bidenoides S T I
Bur-marigold B. cernua S T
Eaton's bur-marigold B. eatoni T
Beggar-ticks B. laevis T
Estuary beggar-ticks Bidens hyperborea T
Beggar-ticks B. laevis T
Fireweed Erechtites 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
Greenheas coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata T
Groundsel Senecio 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 C. stolonifera T

CRASSULACEAE

Ditch stonecrop Penthorum sedoides T

133

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I _P

CRUCIFERAE

Garlic-mustard Alliaria officinalis T
Wintercress Barbarea T
Bittercress cardamine pensy]7anica T
Cuckoo flower C. pratense T
Dame's rocket -Res'peris matronalis T
Marshcress Rorippa isTia-0-ca T

CUCURBITACEAE

Balsam-apple Echinocystis lobata S
Bur-cucumber Sicyos angulatus S

CUPRESSACEAE

Arborvitae Thuja occidentialis T

CYPERACEAE

Sedge Carex gravii T
C.
Sedge s 1pata T
Tussock sedge T. Tt-ri-c-t-a T
Galingale Cyperus rivularis T
Galingale C. strigosus T
Three-way sedge UU1 um arundinaceum T
Spikerush EleochaFs acicularii-- S
Spikerush E. ovata S T
Spikerush ndra S T I
Spikerush pa ustris S T
Bulrush kirpus acutus S
Threesquare .59 americanus S T I P
Bulrush atrovierens T
Cylindrical bulrush cylindricus I P
River bulrush tiuviatilis S T P
Bulrush maritimus P
Threesquare olneyi I P
Salt marsh bulrush robust s I P
Bluntscale bulrush smithii S T I
Bulrush 'T. _v -a T 1T Tu-s S T I P

DIOSCOREACEAE

Wild yam Dioscorea villosa T

ELATINACEAE

Waterwort Elatine americana S T

134

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T F-P

EQUISETACEAE

Field horsetail Equisetum arvense T
Horsetail Equisefu-m T

ERICACEAE

Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum T

ERIOCAULACEAE

Pipewort Eriocaulon parkeri T

FABACEAE

False-indigo Amorpha fruticosa T
Hog-peanut Amphi-c-arpa bracteata T
Groundnut pios americana T
Wild pea T-Us-fris T

FAGACEAE

Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor T

GENTIANACEAE

Closed gentian Gentiana andrewsii T
Floating heart Nymphoides cordata T

GRAMINEAE

Redtop Agrostis alba f P
Wood-reed Cinna TF-i-n-TiFacea T
Saltgrass Distichlis spicata P
Barnyard grass Tc-Finochloa crusgall! T
Water-millet E. walteri T I P
Wild-rye -ely-Mus virginicus T
Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides T
White grass L. virginica S T
Panic grass Tanicum capillare S
Panic grass P. dichotomiflorum S T
Panic grass T. _@irgatum P
Common reed "Fhr-agmites communis S T I P
Saltwater cordgrass Spartina alterni'Mora P
Tall cordgrass S. cynosuroides
Saltmeadow cordgrass patens P

135

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

Freshwater cordgrass S. pectinata S T P
Wild-rice Tizania aqua ica S T I P

HALORAGACEAE

Watermi 1 f oi 1 Myriophyllum sp. S I
Watermilfoil M. huMile T
Eurasian watermilfoil M. spicatum S T I

HYDROCARYACEAE

Water-chestnut Trapa natans S T I
Waterweed TT6-de-a--ca-n--aUensis S T I
Waterweed E. nuttallii S T I
Water-celery VaIT'isneria 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-grass J gerardi P
Path rush U: Te-n-u-T-s- T

LABIATAE

Stoneroot Collinsonia canadensis T
Bugleweed ycopus americanus T
Bugleweed L. europaeus T
Field nint Rentha arvensis T
Skullcap 'Sc -ut-eTl -a Tia- _g a7e r i c u 1 a t a I
Skullcap -37-f-ateriflora T
Hedge-nettle Ttachys palu ris T
Wood sage Teucrium canadense P

136

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 SpirodelFlolyrhiza S T

LENTIBULARIACEAE

Bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris S I

LILIACEAE

Day-lily Hemerocallis fulva T
Canada lily Lilum caFa_de6`se T
Greenbrier Smilax h@'r_bacea T
Greenbrier @id a T

LOBELIACEAE

Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis T I
Great blue lobelia siphilitica T

LYTHRACEAE

Purple loosestrife Lythru salicaria S T I P

MALVACEAE

Swamp rose mallow Hibiscus palustris S T I P

MORACEAE

Hops Humulus lupulus T

NAJADACEAE

Naiad ajas flexilis S T I
Naiad N gua, a upensis S
Naiad C minor S T
Muenscher's naiad N. muenscheri S T I
Curlyleaf pondweed otamogeton crispus T I
Pondweed P_ ep-Ohydrus S T
Leafy pondweed FT: foliosus S T I

137

Family
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

Long-leaved pondweed P. nodosus S T
Sago pondweed TO Pectina us S I P
Pondweed P perfoliatus S T I P
Pondweed T: pusillus S
Pondweed _ff.richardsonii S T I
Flat-stemmed pondweed P. zosteriformis S T
Horned pondweed 'Tannichellia -p-aTustris S T I

NYMPHAEACEAE

Spatterdock Nuphar advena S T I
White water-lily Nymphaea sp. T

OLEACEAE

Ash Fraxinum sp.
Black ash F nigra S? T
Red ash T: pennsylvanica S T

ONAGRACEAE

Willow herb pilobium g ndulosum P
Water-purslane Ludwi- -a palustris S T
Evening-primrose Oenothera sp._ S

ORCHIDACEAE

Helleborine Epipactis helleborine T

OSMU-NDACEAE

Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea I
Interrupted fern 0 clayt'oniana I
Royal fern 0: regalis T I

PINACEAE
White pine Pinus" strobus T

PLANTAGINACEAE

Heartleaf plantain Plantago cordata S T

PLATANACEAE

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis S

138

Mily
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

POLYGONACEAE

Tearthumb Polygonum arifolium T I P
Smartweed P. caespitosum T
Japanese knotweed T. 'cuspidatum S
Seabeach knotweed P. glaucum P
Water-pepper hydropipe T
Swamp smartweed hydropiperoides I
Dotted smartweed P. punctatum S T I P
T. _!5 g @i S T I
Tearthumb ttatum
Jumpseed virginianu'm T
Dock Tum-ex mexicanus I
Water dock R. verticillaf-us T

POLYPODIACEAE

Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris S
Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis S T I
Marsh fern Thelpteris 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. nummularia T
Water pimpernel @@amolus parviflorus I P

RANUNCULACEAE

Marsh-marigold Caltha palustris S T
Virgin's bower Cl-ematis M@virginiana S T
Crowfoot Ranunculus abortivus T
Cursed crowfoot R. sceleratus T
Buttercup ff. -septentrionalis S T
Tall meadow-rue Thalictrum poTygamum S T

139

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 Ceehalanthus occidentalis T I
Bedstraw Galium tri7l-d-um T
Bedstraw G. palustre T

SALICACEAE

Cottonwood Populus deltoides S I P
Quaking aspen P. tremuTo-ides T
Willow Salix S T I
Crack willow _377 Fa g +1* i s T I
Black willow nIigra I
Basket willow purpurea I
Heart-leaved willow =rig@ia T

SCROPHULARIACEAE

Turtlehead Chelone glabra T
Mudwort LimoseTlT subulata S T
False-pimpernel Lindernia dubia S T
Nuttall's micranthemum Micranthemum micranthemoides T
Monkeyf 1 ower Mimulus ringens T

SOLANACEAE

Climbing nightshade Solanum dulcamara T

SPARGANIACEAE

Burreed Sparganium americanum T
Big burreed S. eurycarpum S T

140

Ta-m iy
Sites
Common name Scientific name S T I P

TILLIACEAE

Narrowleaf cattail Typha angustifolia S T I P
Broadleaf cattail T. latTf`oia S T I p
Hybrid cattail T. x. glauca S T I

TYPHACEAE

.Basswood Tilia americana S T

ULMACEAE

Elm UlMUS SD. I
I-
American elm U. am-ericana S

UMBELLIFERAE

Angelica Angeli ca atropurpurea T
Bulb-beari,ng water-hemlock Ti-cu-ta bulbifera T I
Water-heml ock C. macu T
Lilaeopsis chinensis P
Mock bishop weed Ptil-imnium capillaceum P
Water-pa rsni p Sium suave S T I P

URTICACEAE

False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica T_ I
Wood nettle U-Portea canadensis S T
Clearweed PiFe-afontana I
Clearweed P. pumila_ T

VIOLACEAE

Blue violet Viola sp. T

VITACEAE

Virginia-creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia S T

Sources of information: Buckley & Ristich (1976), Foley & Taber (1951),
Kiviat (1978) and unpublished data, Lehr (1967a, b), McVaugh (1958),
Muenscher (1935, 1937), John C. Orth (unpubliched 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.

141

APPENDIX 7

Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977

PART 921 ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
GUIDELINES

Subpart A -- General

Sec.
921.1 Policy and objectives.
921.2 Definitions.
921.3 Objectives and imlementation of
the program.
921.4 Biogeographical 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 initial acquisition,
developement and operation grants.
921.12 Application for subsequent develop-
ment and ooperation grants.
921.13 Federally owned lands.
921.14 Application time schedule and pro-
cedure.

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 pro-
gram.
921.32 Program review.

Authority: Sec. 312. Pub. L. 92-583, as
amended; 86 Stat. 1280 (16 USC 1461).

Source: 39 FR. 19924. June 4, 1974, unless
otherwise noted.

Chapter IX -- National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm.

Subpart A -- General

921.1 Policy and Objectives.

The estuarine sanctuaries program
will provide grants to States on a
matching basis to acquire, develope, and
operate natural areas as estuarine
sanctuaries in order that scientists and
students may be provided that opportu-
nity to examine over a period of time
the ecological relationships within the
area. The purpose of these guidelines
is to establish the rules and regula-
tions for implementations of the pro-
gram.

921.2 Definitions

(a) In addition to the definitions
found in the Act and in the regula-
tions dealing with Coastal Zone Man-
agement Program Develpment
Grants published November 29, 1973
(Part 920 of this chapter) the term
"estuarine sanctuary" as defined in
the Act, means a research are which
may include any part or all of an estu-
ary, adjoining transitional areas, and
adjacent uplands, constituting to the
extent feasible a natural unit, set aside
to provide scientists and students the
oppurtunity to examine over a period
of time the ecological relationships
within the area.

(b) For the purposes of this section,
"estuary" means that part of a river or
stream or other body of water having
unipaired connection with the open
sea where the seawater derived from
land drainage. The term includes estu-
ary-type areas of the Great Lakes as
well as lagoons in more arid coastal re-
gions.

(c) The term "mulitple use" as used
in this section shall mean the simulta-
neous utilization of an area or re-
source for a variety of compatible pur-
poses 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 inerfere with, diminish or prevent
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 date and make studies
of the natural and human processes
occurring within the estuaries of the
coastal zone. This shall be accom-
plished by the establishment of a
series of estuarine sactuaries which
will be designed so that at least one
representative of each type of estuar-
ine ecosystem will endure into the
future for scientific and educational
purposes. The primary use of estuar-
ine sanctuaries shall be for reasearch
and educational purposes, especially to
provide some of the information essen-
tial to coastal zone management deci-
sion making. Specific examples of such
purposes and uses include but are not
limited to:
(1) To gain a thorough understand-
ing of the ecological relationships
within the estuarine environment.
(2) To make baseline ecological mea-
surements.
(3) To monitor significant or vital
changes in the estuarine environment.
(4) To assess the effects of man's
stresses on the ecosystem and to fore-
cast and mitigate possible deteriora-
tion from human activities.
(5) To provide a vehicle for increas-
ing public knowledge and awareness of
the complex nature of estuarine sys-
tems, their values and benefits to man
and nature, and the problems which
confront them.
(b) The emphasis with the pro-
gram will be on the designation as es-
tuarine sanctuaries of areas which will
serve as natural field laboratories for
studies and investigations over an ex-
tended period. The area chosen as an
estuarine sanctuary shall, to the
extent feasible, include water and land
masses constituting a natural ecologi-
cal unit.
(c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
tuary will be available for future stud-
ies, research involving the destruction
of any portion of an estuarine sanctu-
ary which would permanently alter
the nature of the ecosystem shall not
normally be permitted. In the unusual
circumstances where permitted, ma-

VIIA Title 15-Commorce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-Hatlenal Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm.
n1pulatIve field research shall be care. careous sands. marls and coral reefs; coastal zone management and resource use occasion may establish marine sanctu-
fully controlled. No experiment which marshes and mangroves: tropical blots. &aid may on occasion be necessary. aries to complement the designation
Involves manipulative research shall S. Louistantam Northern Gulf of Mexico. (b) There shall be no effort to bal- by States of estuarine sanctuaries,
be Initiated until the termination date from tedar Key to Mexico. characteristics ance or optimize uses of an estuarine where this may be mutually beneficial.
of 3. with components of 4: strongly Influ- sanctuary on economic or other bases.
In specified and evidence given that enced by terrigenous factors; blots primar.
the environment will be returned to Its ily temperate. All additional uses of the sanctuary Subpart B-Applicallon for Grants
condition which existed prior to the 6. Californian. South Pacific coast from are clearly secondary to the primary
experiment. Mexico to Cape Mendocino; shoreland Influ. purpose and uses. which are long-term #921.10 General.
(d) It Is anticipated that most of Lite enced by coastal mountains; rocky coasti; maintenance of the ecosystem for sci- Section 313 authorizes Federal
areas selected as sanctuaries will be with reduced fresh-water runoff; general ab- entific and educational uses. Non-com- grants to coastal. States so that the
relatively undisturbed by human activ- sence of marshes and swamps; blots temper- patIble uses. Including those uses
Itles at the time of acquisition. There- ate. which would cause significant short or States may establish sanctuaries ac-
fore, most of the areas selected will be 7. Columbian. North Pacific coast from long-term ecological change or would cording to regulations promulgated by
areas with a minimum of development. Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountainous otherwise detract from or restrict the the Secretary. Coastal States may file
Industry or habitation. shoreland; rocky coasts; extensive algal com- use of the sanctuary as a natural field applications for grants with the Direc-
(e) It sufficient permanence and munities: blots Primarily temperate with laboratory, will be prohibited. tor. Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
C011- some boreal. ment. National Oceanic and Atmos-
trol by the State can be assured. the 8. Fiords. South -vast Alaska and Alleu. pheric Administration. U.S. Depart-
acquisition of a sanctuary may Involve tianx: precipitous mountains: deep estuaries. 1921.6 Relationship to other provisions of
less than the acquisition of a fee some with glaciers; shoreline heavily Indent- the act and to marine sanctuaries. ment of Commerce. Rockville. Mary.
land 20852. That agency which has
simple Interest. Such interest may be. ed and subject to winter Icing; blota boreal (a) The estuarine sanctuary program been certified to the Office of Coastal
for example, the acquisition of a con- to sub-Arctic. must Interact with the overall coastal Zone ManagemeAt as the entity re-
servation easement. "development 9. Subarctic. West and north coasts of zone management program In two sponsible for adidinfstratlon of the
Alaska: Ice stressed coasts; blots Arctic and ways: (1) the Intended research use of State coastal zone management pro-
rights", or other partial Interest suffi- sub-Arctic.
cient to assure the protection of the 10. Insular. Larger Islands. sometimes the sanctuary should provide relevant gram may either submit an applica-
natural system. Leasing. which would with precipitous mountains, considerable data and conclusions of assistance to tion directly. or must endorse and ap-
not assure permanent protection of wave action. frequently with endemic spe- coastal zone management decision- prove applications submitted by other
the system, would not be an accept- cies; larger Island groups primarily with making. and (2) when developed, the agencies within the State.
able alternative. tropical blota. State*s coastal zone management pro-
11. Great L4kes. Great Lakes of North grain must recognize and be designed 9 921.11 Application for Initial acquisition.
1921.4 Illogeographle classification. America. bluff-dune or rocky. glaciated to protect the estuarine sanctuary: ap- development and operation grants.
(a) It Is Intended that estuarine shoreline; limited wetlands: freshwater only: propriate land and water use regula- (a) Grants may be awarded on a
blola a mixture of boreal and temperate Lions and planning considerations matching basis to cover the costs of ac-
sanctuaries should not be chosen at species with anadromous species and some must apply to adjacent lands. A]-
random. but should reflect regional marine invaders. quisition. development and operation
differentiation and a variety of ecosys- though estuarine sanctuaries should of estuarine sanctuaries. States may
tems so as to cover all significant vari- (b) Various sub-categorles will be de- be Incorp0rRted Into the State coastal use donations of land or money to sat-
ations. To ensure adequate representa- veloped and utilized as appropriate. zone management program, their des- Isfy all or part of the matching cost re-
J 921.5 lifultiple use. ment and approval of the management (b) In general. lands acquired pursu-
Lion of all estuarine types reflecting Ignation need not await the develop- quirements.
regional differentiation and a variety
of ecosystems, selections will be made (a) While the primary purpose of es- program where operation of the es- ant to this section, Including State
by the Secretary from the following tuarine sanctuaries Is to provide long- tuarine sanctuary would aid In the de- owned lands but not State owned sub-
biogeographic classifications: term protection for natural areas so velopment of a program. merged lands or bay bottoms'. that
that they may be used for scientific (b) The estuarine sanctuaries pro- occur within the proposed sanctuary
1. Arradian. Northeast Atlantic coast and educational purposes. multiple use gram will be conducted In close coop- boundary are legitimate costs and
south to Cape Cod, glaciated shoreline sub-
ject. to winter Icing; well developed alga 2 of estuarine sanctuaries will be en- eration with the marine sanctuaries their fair market value may be Includ-
(]or&; boreal blots. I couraged to the extent that such use Is program (Title III of the Marine Pro- ed as match. However. the Value of
2. Virvinion. Middle Atlantic coast from compatible with this primary sanctu- tection. Research Act of 1972. Pub. -L. lands donated to or by the State for
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland ary purpose. The capacity of a given 92-532. which Is also administered by Inclusion In the sanctuary may only be
streams. coastal marshes and muddy bot- sanctuary to accommodate additional the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- used to match other costs of land ac-
toms; characteristics transitional between I uses. and the kinds and Intensity of ment. NOAA). which recognizes that quisitlon.'In the event that lands al-
and 3: blots primarily temperate with -me such use. will be determined on a case certain areas of the ocean waters. as ready exist In a protected status. their
boreal representatives. by case basis. While It Is anticipated far seaward as the outer edge of the value cannot be used as match for
3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast. from that compatible uses may generally In- Continental Shelf. or other coastal sanctuary development and operation
Cape flatteres to Cape Kennedy: extensive clude activities such as low Intensity waters where the tide ebbs and flows. grants. which will require their own
marshes and swamps; waters turbid and pro-
ductive. blots temperate with seasonal recreation. fishing. hunting. and wild- or of the Great Lakes and their con- matching funds.
tropical elements. life observation, It Is recognized that necting waters. need to be preserved or (c) Development and operation costs
4. West Indian. South Florida coast from the exclusive use of an area for scien- restored for their conservation. recre- may Include the administrative ex-
Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key; and Caribbean tific or educational purposes may pro- ational. ecologic or esthetic values. It penses necessary to minitor the sanc-
islatids: shoreland low-lying limestone. cal- vide the optimum benefit to coastal Is anticipated that the Secretary on tuary, to ensure Its continued viability

� 921.12 Title 15--Commorco and Foreign Trod* Chapter IX-Notional Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. 1921.14
and to protect the Integrity of the eco- gram or within other Federal, State or and to protect Lite Integrity of Lite eco- Lions received between January I arid
system. Research will not normally be private prograrm. which are located In system. Extensive management pro- June 30 of any year will be considered
funded by Section 312 grants. It Is an- the Same regional or biogeographic grams, capital expenses. or research together beginning July I of that year.
ticipated that other sources of Feder- classification. will not normally be runded by section applications received between July I
al. State and private funds will be (1) It Is essential that the opportutil- 312 grants. and December 31 will be considered to-
available for research In estuarine ty be provided for public Involvement .(b) After the creation or an estuar- gether beginning January I of the fol-
sanctuaries. and Input In the development of the Ine sanctuary established under this lowing year.
(d) Initial applications should con- sanctuary proposal and application. program. applications for such devel- (b) All applications received during
tain Lite following Information: Where the application Is controversial opment and operation grants should any application period will be subject
(1) Description of the proposed sanc- or where controversial issues are ad- Include at least the following Informa- to simultaneous review and considera.
tuary Include location. boundaries. size dressed. the State should provide ade- tion: Lion. At the end of each application
arid cost of acquisition. operation and quate means to ensure that all Inter- (1) Identification of the boundary. period. a suitable number of applica-
development. A map should be Includ- ested parties have the opportunity to (2) Specifications of the manage- Lions. based on the level of funding
ed, as well as an aerial photograph. If present their views. This may be In ment program, including managing available. will be selected for further
available. the form of an adequately advertised agency and techniques. review and processing. Unless suffl-
(2) Classification of the proposed public hearing. (3) Detailed budget. clently distinguished as major subcate-
sanctuary according to the biogeo- (11) During the development of an es- (4) Discussion of recent and project- gorles. no more than one application
graphic scheme set forth In 1921.4. tuarine sanctuary application. all land- ed use of the sanctuary. from each biogeofraphic category will
(3) Description of the major physi- owners within the proposed bound- (5) Perceived threats to the integrity be selected for final processing during
cal. geographic arid biological charac- aries should be Informed In writing of of the sanctuary. each review period. Normally. the ap-
terlstles and resources of the proposed Lite proposed grant application. plications selected will be processed
sanctuary. (111) The application should Indicate 921.13 Federally owned lands. and Lite grants awarded within 6
(4) Identification of ownership Pat- the manner In which the State solicit- (a) Where federally owned lands are months from the end of the applica-
terns; proportion of land already In ed the views of all Interested parties is part of or adjacent to the area pro- tion 'period. that Is before the next
the public domain. prior to the actual submission of the posed for designation as an estuarine review period begins. Applications
(5) Description of Intended research application. sanctuary. or where the control of which are not selected for processing
uses. potential research organizations (e) In order to develop a truly repre- land and water uses on such lands Is may be resubmitted for consideration
or agencies and benefits to the overall sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- necessary to protect the natural during the next review period.
coastal zone management program. aries. Lite States should attempt to co- system within the sanctuary, the State (c) At least ninety (90) ditys prior to
(6) DemonstrRtion of necessary au- ordinate their activities. This will help should contact the Federal agency submission of an application under
thority to acquire or control and to minimize the possibility of similar maintaining control of the land to re- this section. an applicant state must
manage the sanctuary. estuarine types being proposed. for quest cooperation In providing coordi- notify In writing the OCZM, Rppropri-
(7) Description of proposed manage- designation In the same region. The nated management policies. Such ate state and regional A-95 clearing-
ment techniques. Including Lite man- application should Indicate (he extent lands and State request, and the Fed- houses. and other states within the
agement agency. principles and pro- to which neighboring States were con- eral agency response, should be identi- same biogeographic category (see
posed budget Including both State and sulted. fied and conveyed to the Office of Table 1) of Its Intention to file an ap-
Federal shares. M Discussion. Including cost and Coastal Zone Management. plication for an estuarine sanctuary
(8) Description of existing and po- feasibility, of alternative methods for (b) Where such proposed use or con- grant. Such notification should fn-
telitiRl USC5 Of and conflicts within the acquisition. control and protection of trol of fedenilly owned lands would clude at least the Identification of Lite
area if It were not declared an estuar- the area to provide similar uses. Use of not conflict with the Federal use of state- agency applying for the grant:
Ine sanctuary; potential use, rise re- the marine sanctuary authority and their lands. such cooperation and co- the geographic location of the pro-
strictions and conflicts If the sanctu. funds from Lite Land and Water Con- ordination Is encouraged to the maxl-
. posed sanctuary and its boundaries;
ary Is established. servation Fund Act should be specifi- mum extent feasible. proposed objectives of the sanctuary.
(1) Assessment of the environmental cally addressed. (c) Section 312 grants may not be Including Intended research uses: esti-
and socio-economic Impacts of declar- awarded to Tederal agencies for ere- mated cost of sanctuary: and estimat-
Ing the area an estuarine sanctuary. 1921.12 Application for subsequent devel-
Including the economic Impact of such opment and operation grants. ation of estuarine sanctuaries In Fed- ed date for submission of application.
erally owned lands; however. a similar Copies of the A-95 notifications to the
R designation on the surrounding com- (a) Although the Initial grant appil- status may be provided on a voluntary state and regional clearinghouse
munity and Its tax base. cation for creation of an estuarine basis for-Federally owned lands under would be considered sufficient and de-
(9) Description of planned or anticl- sanctuary should Include Initial devel- the provisiont of the Federal Commit- sirable notification to OCZM and to
pated )and and water use and controls opment and operation costs. subse- Lee on Ecological Preserves program. Lite other states.
for contiguous lands surrounding the quent applications may be submitted
proposed sanctuary (including It ap- following acquisition and establish- 1921.14 Application time schedule and TABLE I -UST OF STATrs sy BIOGEOGRAPHIC
Propriate an analysis of the desirabll- ment of an estuarine sanctuary for ad- procedure. CtAssiriCATIO"
Ity of creating a marine sanctuary In dItional development and operation (a) Effective January 1. 1975. the 1. Acadlan-MRIne. New Itampstilre. Mas-
,tdJacent areas). funds. As Indicated in 1921.11. these review and selection of estuarine sanc- sachusetts.
(10) List of protected sites. either costs may Include administrative costs LURry applications will be conducted 2. Virginian-MamachuseMs. Rhode
dthin tire estuarine sanctuaries pro- necessary to monitor the sanctuary on a twice yearly basis. All applica- Island. Connecticut. New York. New Jersey.

921.20 Title 15 -Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX- National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm.
Delaware. Maryland. Virginia. North Caroli- ed that in practice the average grant tuary program shall be notified of the (h) Provide adequate authority and
na. will be substantially less thin this. public hearing. The public notice shall intent to enforce management policy
3. Carolina - North Carolina. South (e) Enhancement of non-competitive contain the name, address and phone and use restrions.
Carolina. Georgia. Florida. uses. number of the appropriate Federal
4. West Indian-Florida. Puerto Rico.
Virgin Islands. (f) Proximity and access to existing and State officials to contact for addi- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary bound-
5. Louisianian- Florida. Mississippi. Ala- research facilities. tional information about the proposal. ary, management policy or research
bama. (g) Availability of suitable alterna. program.
6. Californian - California tive sites already protected which
7. Columbian -California. Oregon. Wash- might be capable of providing the Subpart D- Operation (a) The approved sancturary bound-
ington. same use or benefit. Unnecessary du- aries; management policy or research
8. Fjord - Alaska. plication of existing activities tinder 921.30 General. permissible and prohibited uses; and
9. Sub Artic- Alaska. other programs should be avoided. Management of estuarine sanctuar- research program may only be
10. Isular- Elawall, Guam, American However, estuarine sanctuaries might ies shall be the responsibility of the changed after public notice and the
Samoa. oppurtunity of public review and par-
1I. Great Lakes - Minnesota, Wisconsin be established adjacent to existing applicant State or its agent. However, ticipation such as outlined in 921.21.
Michigan. Illinois. Indiana. Ohio. Pennsyl- preserved lands where mutual en- the research uses and management
vani, New York.
hancement or benefit of each might program must be in conformance with (b) Individuals or orginizations
d) The Director of OCZM may, occur. these guidelines and regulations, and which are concerned about possible
upon the finding of extenuating cir- (h) Conflict with existing or poten- others implemented by the provisions improper use or restriction of use of
circumstances relating to applications for tial competing uses. estuarine sanctuaries may petition the
assistance, waive apporriate adminis- of individual grants. It is suggested
trative requirements contained herein. (i) Compatibility with existing or that prior to the grant award, repre- State management agency and the
proposed land and water use in contig. sentatives of the proposed sanctuary Office of Coastal Zone Management
uous areas. management team and the Office of directly for review of the management
[39 FR. 45214, Dec. 31 1974] If the Initial review demonstrates the Coastal Zone Management meet to dis- program.
feasibility of the application, an envi- cuss management policy and stand- 1921.32 Program review
Subpart C -- Selection Criteria ronmental impact statement will be ards. It Is anticipated that the grant
prepared by the Office of Coastal provisions will vary with individual cir- It Is anticipated that reports will be
921.20 Criteria for selection. Zone Management in accordance with cumstances and will be mutually required from the applicant State on a
Applications for grants to establish the National Environmental Policy agreed to by the applicant and the regular basis, no more frequently than
estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed Act of 1969 and Implementing CEQ granting agency. An a minimum, the annually, on the status of each estuar-
and judged on criteria including: guidelines. grant document for each sanctuary ine sanctuary. The estuarine sanctu-
(a) Benefit to the coastal zone man- shall: ary program will be regularly reviewed
agement program. Applications should 1921.21 Public participation. (a) Define the Intended research to ensure that the objectives of the
demonstrate the benefit of the propos- Public participation will be an essen- purposes of the estuarine sanctuary. program are being met and that the
al to the development or operations of tiall factor in the selection of estuarine (b) Define permitted, compatible, re- program itself is scientifically sound.
the overall coastal zone management sanctuaries. In addition to the partici- stricted and prohibited uses of the The key to the success of the estuar-
program. Including how well the pro- pation during the application develop- sanctuary. ine sanctuaries program is to assure
posal fits into the national program of ment process (192.11(e)), public par- (c) Include a provision for monitor- that the results of the studies and re-
representative estuarine types,the na- ticipation will be ensured at the Feder- ing the uses of the sanctuary, to search conducted in these sanctuaries
tional or regional benefits; and the al level by the NEPA process and by ensure compliance with the intended are available in a timely fashion so
usefulness In research. public hearings where desirable subse- uses. that the States can develop and ad-
(b) The ecological characteristics of quent to NEPA. Such public hearings (d) Ensure ready access to land use minister land and water use programs
the ecosystem. Including its biological shall be held by the Office of Coastal of the sanctuary by scientists. stu- for the coastal zone. Accordingly, all
productivity. diversity and representa- Zone Management In the area to be af-
tiveness. Extent of alteration of the fected by the proposed sanctuary no dents and the general public as desir- information and reports, including
natural system. Its ability to remain R sooner than 30 days after it issues a able and permissible for coordinated annual reports, relating to estuarine
viable and healthy system In view of draft environmental impact statement research and education uses, as well as sanctuaries shall be part of the public
the present and possible development on the sanctuary proposal. It will be for other compatible purposes. record and available at all times for In-
of external stresses. the responsibility of the Office of (e) Ensure public availability and spection by the public.
(c) Size and choice of boundaries. To Coastal Zone Management, with the reasonable distribution of research re-
the extent feasible. estuarine sanctu- assistance of the applicant State, to sults for timely use In the develop-
aries should approximate a natural issue adequate public notice of its In- ment of coastal zone management pro-

ecological unit. The minimal accept- tention to hold a public hearing. Such grams.
able size will vary greatly and will public notice shall be distributed (f) Provide a basis for annual review
depend on the nature of the ecosys- widely. especially In the area of the of the status of the sanctuary, its

tem. proposed sanctuary; affected Property value to the coastal zone program.

(d) Cost. Although the Act limits the owners and those agencies, organiza- (g) Specify how the integrity of the
Federal share of the cost for each tions or individuals with an identified system which the sanctuary repre-
sanctuary to $2.000.000. It Is anticipat- interest in the area or estuarine sanc- sents will be maintained.

146

45522 PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs (2) By revising Subpart B-Applica-
Involved. Any State receiving an initial tion for Grants - as follows:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric grant shall be obligated to repay it if Subpart B-Application for Grants
Administration due to any fault of the State, the sanctu-
[ 15 CFR Part 921] ary is not established. 921.10 General.
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES As a result of this new grant procedure, Section 315 authorizes Federal grants
much more information relating to costs, to coastal States so that the States may
Policies and Procedures for Selection values, management procedures, and re- establish sanctuaries according to regu-
Acquisition and Management search programs will be available at the lations promulgated by the Secretary
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- time of the publication of a draft en- Coastal States may file applications for
vironmetal impact statement. Proposals grants with the Associate Administrator
pheric Administration, Department of made public to date in the form of an for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM),
Commerce. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Office of Coastal Zone Management. Page
ACTION: Proposed rule. have been criticized for lack of specificity 1. 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW. Wash-
in these areas. By making a small pre- ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
SUMMARY: This proposed rule will
allow the National Oceanic and Atmos- liminary acquisition grant to a State, has been certified to the Office of Coastal
pheric Administration to make a pre- the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be Zone Management as the entity respon-
liminary acquisition grant to a State to more fully developed and the public can sible for administration of the State
undertake a fair market value appraisal. become more aware of the costs and the coastal zone management program may
and to develop a uniform relocation act exact nature of the long-term manage- either submit an application directly. or
plan, a detailed management plan and a ment. must endorse and approve applications
research framework for a proposed estu- In response to State questions about submitted by other agencies within the
arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- State.
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Managee- posed regulations provide that such re-
ment Act of 1972, as amended. search can be funded if It can be shown 921.11 Application for preliminary
to be related to program administration. acquisition grants.
DATE: Comments must be received on or NOAA has reviewed these proposed (a) A grant may be awarded on a
before October 1, 1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessary
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: determined that promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State
regulations will have no significant im- may use money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist, pact on the environment. services, the value of foregone revenue,
Policy and Programs Development Of - Compliance with Executive Order and/or the value of land either already
fice. Office of Coastal Zone Managee- 11821. The economic and inflationary in its possession or acquired by the State
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page impact of these proposed regulations has specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
One Building. Washington, D.C. 20235 been evaluated in accordance with OMB the land to be used as match already is
(202-634-4241). Circular A-107 and it has been deter- in the State's possession and is in a pro-
SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION: mined that no major inflationary im- tected status, the State may use such
On June 4. 1974, The National Oce- pact will result. land as match only to the extent of any
anic and Atmospheric Administration Dated: August 26, 1977. revenue from the land foregone by the
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en- State in order to include it in the sanc-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" T.P. GLETTER tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
Pursuant to then section 312 of the Assistant Administrator quistion grant shall be made on form
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SF 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended, for the purpose of establish- It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part (non-construction programs).
ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows: (b) A preliminary acquisition grant
tion, acquisition, and management of (1) By revising the table of contents may, be made for the defrayal of the
estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as follows: cost of:
Under new subsection 315(l) of the Subpart A- General (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- Sec. value of any foregone use of the land,
thorized to make available to coastal 921.1 Policy and objectives. to be used in the sanctuary;
States grants of up to 50 per centum of 921.2 Definitions.
the Cost of acquisition, development, and 921.3 Objectives and Implementation Of (2) The development of a Uniform
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. in the program. Relocation JAssistance and Real Property
general, subsection 315(l) provides that 921.4 Biogeographic classification. Acquisition Policies Act plan;
grants may be awarded to States on a 921.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary
921.8 Relationship to other provisions of management plan;
matching basis to acquire, develop, and the Act and to marine sanctuaries.
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc- (4) The development of a research and
tuaries In order that scientists and stu- Subpart B --Application for Grants educational program, and/or,
dents May be provided the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a prelimi-
to examine over a period of time ecologi- 921.11 Application for preliminary acquisition- nary nature as may be approved In writ-
grants.
cal relationships within the area. The 921.12 Application for land acquisition ing by OCZM. Any grant made pursuant
purpose of these guidelines is to imple- grants. to this subsection shall be refunded by
ent this program. 921.13 Application for operational grants, the State to whatever extent It has spent
As a result of two years of program 921.14 Federally-owned lands. In relation to land not acquired for the
implementation, the regulations are pro- Subpart C- Selection Criteria sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
posed to be modified to specifically au- 921.20 Criteria for selection. refund.
thorize the granting of acquisition 921.21 Public Participation (c) The application should contain:
money to States in two stages: Subpart D -- Operation (1) Evidence that the State has con-
(I) An initial grant for such prelimi- ducted a scientific evaluation of its estu-
nary purposes, as surveying and assess- 921.30 General. aries and selected one of those most rep-
ing the land to be acquired, and the de- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary, resentative.
management policy, or research
velopment of management procedures program. (2) Description of the proposed
and research programs; and 921.32 Program review. sanctuary including location. proposed
(II) A second grant for the actual ac- Authority: Sec. 315 (1) Coastal Zone Man- boundaries, and size. A maP(s) should
quisition of the land. The Federal share agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat. be included, as well as an aerial photo-
of the sum of the two grants shall not 1030, (16 U.S.C. 1461) Pub.L. 94-370). graph if available.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175-FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

147

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Cl"- ification of the propos.-d public domain; fair market value ap- conflict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- pralsal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands. such cooperation and coordination
graphic scheme set forth In � 921-4. (3) Description of research programs, is encouraged to the maximum extent
(4) Description of the major physical, potential and committed research or- feasible.
geographic, biological characteristics and ganizations or agencies, and benefits to (c) Section 315 grants may not be
resources of the proposed sanctuary. the overall coastal zone management awarded to Federally-owned lands; how-
(5) Demonstration of the necessary program.. ever, a similar status may be provided on
authority to acquire or control and in=. (4) Description of proposed manage- a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
age the sanctuary. ment techniques, including the manage- lands under the provisions of the Federal
(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and proposed budget-in- Conimittee on Ecological Perserves
tial uses of, and conflicts within. the cluding both State and Federal shares. program.
area if it were not declared an estuarine (5) Description of planned or anti I
cl- � 99-1.20 (Amended]
sanctuary: and potential use restriction pated land and water use and controls
and cotifficts if the sanctuary is estab- for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Subpart C-Selection Criteria-1s;
lished. proposed sanctuary (including, if appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites, either with- priate. an analysis of the desirability of in i 921.20 to read: "Applications for
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary In adjacent preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
within other Federal. State, or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
programs. which are located in the same (6) Assessment of the environmental, tuaries will be reviewed and Judged on
region or biogeographic classification. and socio-economic impacts of declaring criteria including:"
(8) The manner in which the State the area an estuarine sanctuary. Includ- (5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol-
solicited the views of Interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and its tax base.
review procedures. the grant application (7) Discussion, including cost and � 921.21 Public participation.
should be sent to the State Historic Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation In the selec-
ervation OMce for comment to insure quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
compliance with section 106 of the Na- 1921.13 Application for
1 opleration quired. In the selection process, the se-
tional Preservation Act of 966. grant& lecting entity (see � 921.10) shall seek
(d) In order to develop a truly repre- the views of possibly affected landown-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- ers, local governments. and Federal
axies, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
activities. This will help to minimi e the sanctuary should include Initial opera- sibly Interested -other parties and orga-
possibility of rimilar estuarine types be- tion costs, subsequent applications may nizatlons. The latter would include, but
ing proPoced In the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to. private citizens
extent to which neighboring States were establishment of an estuarine sanctuary and business, social, and environmental
consulted should be indicated. for additional operational funds. As in- organizations in the area of the site be-
921.12 Application for land acquisi- dicated In 1921.11. these costs may In- ing considered for selection. This sollci-
tion grants. clude administrative costs necessary to tation of vIews may be accomnlished by
monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatever means the selecting entity
(a) Acquisition grants will be made to integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deems appropriate, but shall include at
acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses, least one public hearing in the area. No-
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly or research will not normnlly be funded tice of such hearing shall include infor-
described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants. mation as to the time, place, and subject
grant applIcation, or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an estuarine matter, and shall be published in the
Information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro-
an acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SP 424) for principal area media. The hearing shall
SP 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistance (non-construction be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
program),- for such operational gn the publication of notice.
ance (construction program). ants ing
In general. lands acquired pursuant to should Include at least the following in- (b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man-
this subsection are legitimate costs and formation, agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
their fair market value, developed ac- (1) Identification of the boundary and final environmental impact state-
cording to Federal appraisal standards. (map) - ments pertainIng to the site finally se-
may be included as match. The value of (2) Specifications of the research and lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol-
lands donated to the State and cash do- management programs, Including man- lowing public participation in the selec-
nations may also be used as match. If aging agency and techniques. tion of that site. and shall distribute
the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget. these as appropriate. OCZ.M may hold a
be used in the sanctuary, the value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected Public hearing In the area of such site at
any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. 'Which both the draft environmental im-
in order to include such land in the (5) Perceived threats to the integrity Pact statement (DEIS) and the merits
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of the sanctuary. of the site selection may be addressed by
those in attendance. OCZN1 shall hold
years. may be used by the State as S 921.14 Federally-owned lands. such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the
match. The value of lands purchased by (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial. or (2) If there ap-
3. State within the boundaries of pro-
posed sanctuaries while an applicatIon a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pears to be a need for further informing
for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as -an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to either the DEIS
land acquisition grant is being consid- tuary, or where the control of land and or one or more aspects of the site se-
ered may also be used as match. water uses on such lands is necessary to lected. or (3) if such a hearing is re-
(b) An acquisition application should protect the natural system within the quested in writing (to either the select-
contain the following information: sanctuary. the State should contact the ing entity or (CZ.M) by an afferted or In-
(1) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested party, or (4) for other good
posed sanctuary from that presented In the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held. such hearing shall be held
the preliminary acquisition grant appll- ing coordinated management policies. no so'oner than 30 -days following the is-
cation. If such an application has not Such lands and State request. and the SUance of the DEIS and no sooner than
been made, then, information equivalent Federal agency response. should be iden-: 15 days after appropriate notice of such
to that required in such a grwat applica- tMed and conveyed to the Office of hearing has been given In the area by
tion should be provided. Coastal Zone Management. OCZM with the assistance of the select-
(2) Identification of ownership Pat- (b) Where such proposed use or con- Ing entity.
terns. proportions of land already in the tml of Federally-owned lands would not EFR Doc.77-9612a Filed 0-&-77; 8: 45 am I

FEDERAL WGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175--FRIDAY, SWUMMI 9, Ir"

4411hL
M1111111 I mill [III
3 666 00001 2163