**RESTORATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE LOVE CANAL,
102^ND^ STREET, AND FOREST GLEN MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION SUPERFUND
SITES**

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.9159722222222224in"
height="3.2215277777777778in"}

July 2005

Lead Agency:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3817 Luker Road

Cortland, New York 13045

Contact: Anne L. Secord

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Page No]{.underline}.

Section 1. Introduction [1](#__RefHeading___Toc77491426)

1.1 Compliance with NEPA and CERCLA [1](#__RefHeading___Toc77491427)

1.2 Purpose and Need [1](#__RefHeading___Toc77491428)

1.3 Public Notification and Review [2](#__RefHeading___Toc77491429)

Section 2. Review of Natural Resource Damage Settlements
[2](#__RefHeading___Toc77491430)

2.1 Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Site
[2](#__RefHeading___Toc77491431)

2.1.1 Background [2](#__RefHeading___Toc77491432)

2.1.2 Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Resources
[3](#__RefHeading___Toc77491433)

2.1.3 Natural Resource Damage Settlement
[4](#__RefHeading___Toc77491434)

2.2 102^nd^ Street Landfill Superfund Site
[5](#__RefHeading___Toc77491435)

2.2.1 Background [5](#__RefHeading___Toc77491436)

2.2.2 Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Resources
[5](#__RefHeading___Toc77491437)

2.2.3 Natural Resource Damage Settlement
[7](#__RefHeading___Toc77491438)

2.3 Love Canal Superfund Site [7](#__RefHeading___Toc77491439)

2.3.1 Background [7](#__RefHeading___Toc77491440)

2.3.2 Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Resources
[8](#__RefHeading___Toc77491441)

2.3.3 Natural Resource Damage Settlement
[8](#__RefHeading___Toc77491442)

2.4 Natural Resource Restoration Planning
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc77491443)

Section 3. Proposed Restoration Actions and Alternatives
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc77491444)

3.1 General Restoration Alternatives Considered for Each Injury
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc77491445)

3.2 Criteria for Evaluating the Proposed Restoration Actions and
Evaluation Process [10](#__RefHeading___Toc77491446)

3.3 Description of Proposed Projects [16](#__RefHeading___Toc77491447)

3.4 Projects Considered but Not Selected
[22](#__RefHeading___Toc77491448)

3.5 Projects Not Consistent with Restoration Objectives
[24](#__RefHeading___Toc77491450)

3.6 Summary of Preferred Alternative [26](#__RefHeading___Toc77491451)

3.7 No-Action Alternative [26](#__RefHeading___Toc77491452)

Section 4. Analysis of Environmental Consequences
[27](#__RefHeading___Toc77491453)

4.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
[27](#__RefHeading___Toc77491454)

4.2 Environmental Effects of Proposed Projects
[27](#__RefHeading___Toc77491455)

4.3 Compliance with Other Regulations [27](#__RefHeading___Toc77491456)

4.4 Effects of No Action Alternative [27](#__RefHeading___Toc77491457)

Section 5. Monitoring and Site Protection
[28](#__RefHeading___Toc77491458)

Section 6. List of Preparers [28](#__RefHeading___Toc77491459)

Section 7. Literature Cited [28](#__RefHeading___Toc77491460)

**LIST OF TABLES**

Table 1. Injured Resources and General Restoration Alternatives.

Table 2. Restoration Projects Evaluated.

**LIST OF FIGURES**

Figure 1. Superfund Sites Addressed by Restoration Plan.

Figure 2. Restoration Projects Under Preferred Alternative (locations of
grassland restoration projects to be determined).

**LIST OF APPENDICES**

Appendix A. Draft List of Restoration Projects Evaluated as Part of
Relicensing of Niagara Power Project.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491426 .anchor}**Section 1. Introduction**

This Restoration Plan (RP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for
ecological injuries and service losses has been prepared by State and
Federal natural resource Trustees to address restoration for the Love
Canal, 102^nd^ Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund
Sites. The Department of the Interior (DOI), including the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), along with State, Tribal, and other Federal
partners, act as Trustees for natural resources. The Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the
Clean Water Act (CWA) provide that natural resource trustees may assess
damages to natural resources resulting from a release of a hazardous
substance covered under CERCLA or the CWA and may seek to recover
damages from the parties responsible for the releases.

During the period of March 1996 through December 2000, natural resource
damage settlements were achieved for the Love Canal, 102^nd^ Street, and
Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites (Sites), all located
within the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York. All
settlements were sought as compensation for impacts to natural resources
as a result of contamination or subsequent remedial activities at the
sites. Such monies recovered by Trustees must be used to restore,
replace, or acquire natural resources or services equivalent to those
lost (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491427 .anchor}**1.1 Compliance with NEPA and
CERCLA**

The CERCLA requires that before settlement funds can be used to
compensate for impacts to natural resources, the Trustees must develop
and adopt a RP. The Draft RP must be made publicly available, with
adequate public notice and opportunity for hearing and consideration of
all public comments. The Draft RP was published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline} on December 29, 2004 and comments were accepted
through February 15, 2005. This constitutes the Final RP for restoration
to be accomplished with the damage settlements for the Love Canal,
102^nd^ Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites.

Any restoration of natural resources under CERCLA must comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et
seq.). Under NEPA, the Federal Trustees must also assess the potential
environmental impacts associated with each of the proposed restoration
actions. This Final RP/EA integrates NEPA requirements by describing the
affected environment, describing the purpose and need for action,
identifying alternative actions and assessing their applicability and
environmental consequences, and summarizing opportunities for public
participation. This document constitutes the environmental assessment
for the proposed restoration of natural resources as defined under the
NEPA (40 CFR Part 1502.10). This Final RP/EA presents the selected
restoration actions. The EA integrated in this plan supports a
determination that the identified restoration actions do not meet the
threshold requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. The NEPA process
for these restoration actions concludes with a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) by NOAA and DOI, the Federal agencies participating in
restoration of these Sites.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491428 .anchor}**1.2 Purpose and Need**

The purpose of the proposed action is to restore, replace, or acquire
the equivalent of natural resources injured as a result of contaminant
releases from the three Sites. The underlying need for the action is to
ensure recovery of natural resources injured as a result of contaminant
releases from the three Sites. The primary injuries resulting from Site
contamination are associated with chemical and physical impairment of
stream, wetland, upland, riverine, and other aquatic habitats used by
Trust resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491429 .anchor}**1.3 Public Notification and
Review**

Under CERCLA and NEPA, the Trustees must notify the public and any
Federal, State, or local agencies with special expertise relating to the
RP/EA. In soliciting restoration projects, the Trustees sent a letter to
a large number of Federal, State, City, and County agencies, private
groups, the Tuscarora Nation, and the Tonawanda Band of the Seneca
Nation. We published a request for proposals on the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, New York Field Office website. We considered
restoration projects brought to our attention through other USFWS
programs. We have also considered restoration projects being proposed as
part of the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project (Appendix A).

The Draft RP/EA was also published in the Buffalo News, 1 News Plaza,
Buffalo, New York 14203 and the Niagara Gazette, 310 Niagara Street,
Tonawanda, New York 14150, with copies sent to all previously identified
interested parties and copies available at the Niagara Falls Public
Library, 1425 Main Street, Niagara Falls, New York 14305. A copy was
made available at the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website:

Copies of the Draft RP/EA were also available from:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3817 Luker Road

Cortland, NY 13045

Attention: Anne Secord

Anne_Secord@fws.gov

\(607\) 753-9334

During the public comment period, 61 comment letters were received, 60
of which expressed support for the Buffalo River Walleye Management
Proposal. The remaining commentor generally supported the RP/EA, but
recommended that funds be diverted to the Cayuga Creek Project from the
Beluga Whale and Common Tern Restoration Projects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491430 .anchor}**Section 2. Review of Natural
Resource Damage Settlements**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491431 .anchor}**2.1 Forest Glen** **Mobile Home
Subdivision Site**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491432 .anchor}[2.1.1 Background]{.underline}

The Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Site consists of 39 acres
located in the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York (Figure
1). The Site includes a currently vacant residential subdivision of
about 8.5 acres in size with 51 mobile and two permanent residences, 2.2
acres of undeveloped upland, and 28.3 acres of forested, shrub-scrub,
and emergent wetland. East Gill Creek flows across the Site, dividing it
into a northern portion (18 acres) and a southern portion (21 acres).
East Gill Creek flows into Gill Creek, which in turn, flows into Hyde
Park Lake. The outlet of Hyde Park Lake flows to the Niagara River. The
Niagara River is located approximately 4 miles downstream of the Site
(USEPA 1999).

In 1958, the Site was a forested wetland divided by East Gill Creek.
During the early 1960s, the area was partially cleared and East Gill
Creek was relocated about 400 feet to the north to form the northern
boundary of the future subdivision. Industrial wastes were disposed at
the Site from the early 1950s through the early 1970s, with the northern
portion of the Site used as a landfill for these waste materials. In
1973, the Site was purchased by Niagara Falls USA Campsites Corporation
for subsequent development into a mobile home subdivision known as the
Forest Glen Subdivision. Evidence of waste disposal activities was
discovered in 1973 during the installation of utility lines. At that
time, workers discovered resinous and powder-like wastes, drums, and
battery casing parts. It is believed that regrading of the Site into
mobile home lots re‑distributed waste materials that were originally
placed in low-lying areas of the Site (USEPA 1999).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted an initial
investigation of the Site in 1987, at the request of the Niagara County
Health Department and New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC). Sampling indicated the presence of volatile
organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and metals in
on-site soils. Additional site investigation was performed in 1988 and
1989. Contaminants detected in on-site soils and sediments and sediments
from East Gill Creek included high concentrations of organic compounds
such as benzothiazole, 2(3H)benzothiazole, 2(3H)benzothiazolethione,
aniline, phenothiazine, perylene, diphenylamine, 2-mercaptan-zothiazole,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, benzo(a)anthracene, phenol,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Inorganic
substances, including aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper,
iron, lead, zinc, and mercury, were also found in surface soil and
sediment (USEPA 1999).

East Gill Creek receives stormwater from the site and surface soil
contaminants have reached the creek. Groundwater flow is generally
toward the west. Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds and inorganic substances. The extent of downstream
contamination in East Gill Creek, Hyde Park Lake, Gill Creek, and the
Niagara River have not been fully assessed, although sampling in East
Gill Creek indicated that off-site transport of contaminants had
occurred.

The 1989 Record of Decision (ROD) called for permanent relocation of all
residents as the action for Operable Unit #1 (OU1). A ROD for Operable
Unit #2 (OU2) was issued in 1998 and was designed to contain the source
area and prevent further migration of contaminants into the groundwater.
The major components of the OU2 remedy are excavation of about 190,200
cubic yards of contaminated soils from the southern portion of the Site,
and dredging of about 190 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from East
Gill Creek. Excavated and dredged materials would be consolidated at the
northern portion of the Site and capped. The cap would encompass
approximately 8.5 acres of the Site. Also, 1.5 acres of forested wetland
would be capped with 6 inches of clean sediment (USEPA 1999).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491433 .anchor}[2.1.2 Impacts to Fish and
Wildlife Resources]{.underline}

East Gill Creek and Gill Creek support warmwater fish species such as
minnows (*Pimephales* spp.), shiners (*Notropis* spp.), chubs
(*Semotilus* spp.), and suckers (*Catastomus* spp.). Birds observed at
the site include the American robin (*Turdus migratorius*), black-capped
chickadee (*Parus atricapillus*), blue jay (*Cyanocitta cristata*),
eastern meadowlark (*Sturnella magna*), European starling (*Sturnus
vulgaris*), gray catbird (*Dumetella carolinensis*), hairy woodpecker
(*Picoides villosus*), herring gull (*Larus argentatus*), killdeer
(*Charadrius vociferous*), northern cardinal (*Cardinalis cardinalus*),
red‑tailed hawk (*Buteo jamaicensis*), red-winged blackbird (*Agelaius
phoeniceus*), and tufted titmouse (*Parus bicolor*). Bird species and
aquatic species have been exposed to contaminants from the Site. Severe
effects levels of substances such as chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, and zinc were exceeded in sediments from on-site wetlands and
East Gill Creek. Severe effects levels are concentrations above which
pronounced disturbance of the sediment‑dwelling community can be
expected (NYSDEC 1999).

The downstream Niagara River supports a wide range of species including
muskellunge (*Esox masquinongy*), northern pike (*Esox lucius*),
smallmouth bass (*Micropterus dolomieui),* largemouth bass (*Micropterus
salmoides),* American eel *(Anguilla* *rostrata*), coho salmon
(*Oncorhynchus kisutch*), steelhead (*Salmo gairdneri*), and lake
sturgeon (*Acipenser fulvescens*). The lake sturgeon is a New York State
listed threatened species. A variety of fish consumption advisories
exists for the Niagara River due to high levels of PCBs, mirex, and
dioxin (NYSDOH 2000-2001). Niagara River fish and wildlife resources may
have been adversely impacted by site‑related contaminants.

In addition to impacts to fish and wildlife resources described above,
the remediation of the Forest Glen Site resulted in the loss of about
8.5 acres of wetland. This wetland provided a number of services to fish
and wildlife resources including habitat for a variety of migratory
birds and filtration of contaminants and nutrients from source waters.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491434 .anchor}[2.1.3 Natural Resource Damage
Settlement]{.underline}

The settling defendants (The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and other
defendants) paid \$445,000 to the Trustees, per the 2001 Consent Decree
(CD). The DOI was provided with \$20,370 of this settlement to reimburse
the agency for costs of assessing injury to natural resources. The U.S.
Department of Justice retained 3% (\$13,350) of the \$445,000. The
remaining funds (\$411,280) have been held in a DOI interest‑bearing
account to be spent for "restoration, including restoration planning,
and other allowable expenditures associated with the site, consistent
with the natural resource damages provisions of CERCLA." Approximately
\$428,000 is currently available for restoration. The DOI proposes to
use slightly less than 5% of these funds or \$21,000 for restoration
oversight and monitoring. **Approximately \$407,000 is available for
restoration projects.**

The Trustee's claim for the Forest Glen Site included compensation for
injuries to migratory birds associated with impacted uplands and
wetlands on-site and habitats along East Gill Creek. Certain restoration
projects or concepts were proposed as part of settlement negotiations
and in a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) developed among the
DOI, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and State
of New York. The Trustees determined that one restoration focus should
be on creation/restoration and maintenance of grassland habitat.
According to the MOA, a minimum of 15 acres of grassland habitat should
be restored or created in the Niagara River corridor to enhance/create
habitat for grassland nesting and foraging passerines such as the
eastern meadowlark, bobolink (*Dolichonyx oryzivorus*), red‑tailed hawk,
and harrier (*Circus cyaneus*). A preference was stated for projects(s)
on land already publicly owned or owned by a conservation group where
the owner is amenable to a project being done on its property and
protected through a conservation easement or other binding agreement and
where the owner is willing to accept responsibility for future
maintenance of the project. The Trustees are proposing that funds not
committed to the Klydel wetland acquisition and additional sampling
(described below) will be used to restore grasslands.

A second restoration focus was the acquisition and protection of
forested wetland habitat in the site vicinity. Priority was to be given
to acquisition and protection of the Klydel wetland or a similar wetland
in North Tonawanda, New York. Approximately \$60,000 was identified for
wetland acquisition and protection. The third component of the
settlement was further characterization of contamination in and
emanating from East Gill Creek, at a cost of up to \$150,000.

A range of projects is being proposed in this RP/EA that are consistent
with the above recommendations. The Trustees have made determinations
about what types of projects should be implemented to be consistent with
settlement negotiations and the Trustee MOA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491435 .anchor}**2.2 102^nd^ Street Landfill
Superfund Site**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491436 .anchor}[2.2.1 Background]{.underline}

The 102^nd^ Street Landfill Site is a 22.1‑acre property owned by
Occidental Chemical (OCC) and Olin Corporation (Figure 1). A 42-inch
storm sewer crosses the property from its origin near the Love Canal
Site to its discharge point into the Niagara River. The Site was
operated as separate landfills by OCC, Olin Corporation, and their
predecessors (Companies) from approximately 1943 through 1970. The
landfills have been closed since 1970. While operational, at least
159,000 tons of liquid and solid waste were deposited into the landfill.
These deposits included at least 4,600 tons of benzene, chlorobenzene,
chlorophenols, and hexachlorocyclohexanes (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates
and Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1990).

Chemicals of concern detected in on-site soil, groundwater, and adjacent
sediment in the Niagara River include arsenic, cadmium, mercury,
benzene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chlorobenzene,
chloronaphthalene, chlorophenols, chlorotoluenes, dichloroanilines,
dichlorobenzenes, dichlorophenols, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorocyclohexanes, lindane, mirex, PCBs, PCDDs (including
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), pentachlorophenol, phenol,
tetrachlorobenzenes, toluene, trichlorobenzenes, trichloroethylene, and
trichlorophenols.

Chemicals have migrated from the site into the Niagara River both in
groundwater and transported by surface water. A ROD was signed by the
USEPA on September 26, 1990. The major components of the remedy were
capping the site, construction of a slurry wall to contain the plume of
non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), recovery and treatment of groundwater
and NAPL, and dredging and off-site incineration of contaminated Niagara
River sediments. The USEPA later determined to consolidate dredged
sediments on the landfill site rather than incinerate them off-site
(USEPA 1990; USEPA 1995).

As mitigation for impacts from remedial activities, the Companies
provided funding for habitat restoration projects on the Niagara River.
These projects included the creation of 0.9 acre of vegetated shallow
water riverine habitat at the Cherry Farm site and enhancement of 2
acres of marsh habitat at Buckhorn Island State Park.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491437 .anchor}[2.2.2 Impacts to Fish and
Wildlife Resources]{.underline}

The Upper Niagara River, in the vicinity of the 102^nd^ Street Site, is
one of the most important waterfowl wintering habitats in the
northeastern United States, especially for diving ducks. The Niagara
River corridor has been designated a "Globally Significant Important
Bird Area" by cooperating groups in the United States and Canada,
including the National Audubon Society, the Canadian Nature Federation,
American Bird Conservancy, and Bird Studies Canada. On average, more
than 14,000 waterfowl are found on the Upper Niagara River in mid-winter
(Audubon Society 2001).

Winter NYSDEC surveys along the Niagara River have shown a 22-year
average of 2,808 canvasbacks (*Aythya valisneria*) {31.5% of State
wintering population}, 7,527 common mergansers (*Mergus merganser*) {31%
of state wintering population}, 2,015 common goldeneyes (*Bucephala
clangula*) {29% of state wintering population}, and 2369 scaup *(Athya
affinis, marila*) {6% of state wintering population}. The Niagara River
supports significant concentrations of migrating and wintering gulls.
Nineteen gull species have been recorded, including one‑day counts of
Bonaparte's gulls (*Larus philadelphia*) as high as 10,000-50,000
individuals (2-10% of world population). The river supports breeding
colonies of common terns (*Sterna hirundo*), herring gulls (*Larus
argentatus*), ring-billed gulls (*Larus delawarensis*), black‑crowned
night herons (*Nycticorax nycticorax*), great blue herons (*Ardea
herodias*), common egrets (*Casmerodius albus*), and double-crested
cormorants (*Phalacrocorax auritus*) (Audubon Society 2001).

The river edge habitat supports migratory songbirds during migration, as
well as some nesting. Remaining emergent wetlands support breeding by
species such as least bittern *(Ixobrychus exilis*), northern harrier,
and sedge wren (*Cistothorus platensis*). State‑listed breeding species
include the least bittern, northern harrier, upland sandpiper
*(Bartramia longicauda*), common tern, sedge wren, and grasshopper
sparrow (*Ammodramus savannarum*). State‑listed migrants include the
bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), pied-billed grebe (*Podilymbus
podiceps*), least bittern, northern harrier, common tern, sedge wren,
common loon (*Gavia immer*), and osprey (*Pandion haliaeetus*) (Audubon
Society 2001). Other bird species documented to use habitat along the
Upper Niagara River include the mallard *(Aix sponsa*), gadwall (*Anas
strepera*), American black duck (*Anas rubripes*), bufflehead
*(Bucephala albeola*), ring-necked duck (*Aythya collaris*), American
wigeon (*Anas americana*), and great black-backed gull (*Larus
marinus*). The embayment adjacent to the 102^nd^ Street Site has been
known to provide habitat for large numbers of waterfowl, including
canvasbacks *(Aythya valisineria*).

The Upper Niagara River also provides important fish habitat for species
such as muskellunge, northern pike, walleye (*Sander vitreus*),
largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, carp (*Cyprinus carpio*), brown
bullhead (*Ameirus nebulosus*), yellow perch (*Perca flavescens*), white
sucker (*Catostomus commersonii*), and various warmwater forage species.
The Niagara River is considered by many to be one of the top three
muskellunge fisheries in New York State. The embayment adjacent to the
102^nd^ Street Site provides important shallow water nursery habitat for
muskellunge as well as smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, northern pike,
redhorse sucker (*Moxostoma* spp.), white sucker, rock bass
(*Ambloplites rupestris*), banded killifish (*Fundulus diaphanous*),
carp, bluntnose minnow (*Pimephales notatus*), and black crappie
(*Pomoxis nigromaculatus*) (Roblee and Wilkinson 1993).

The Trustees determined that mercury was present in sediments of the
embayment in excess of the NYSDEC severe effects level, indicating that
a significant impairment of sediment‑dwelling organisms can be expected
(NYSDEC 1999). These high concentrations of mercury may also pose a risk
of harm to birds and fish that use the embayment as a food source.
Concentrations of lindane and hexachlorobenzene in sediments were also
determined to be at levels toxic to a number of benthic organisms, as
well as higher trophic level organisms. PCB concentrations in fish in
the embayment may adversely affect sensitive fish species and pose a
risk to piscivorous wildlife that use them as a food source. Measured
2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in fish from the embayment exceeded
reproductive effect levels for piscivorous mammalian and avian wildlife.
Histopathological lesions found on brown bullhead and carp from the
embayment may be related to high concentrations of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in embayment sediments (Hickey et al. 1990).

Studies at the site have also demonstrated that contaminants from the
embayment bioaccumulate readily. American eels (Anguilla rostrata) have
been found to accumulate high contaminant body burdens during their
adult life in Lake Ontario and the Great Lakes system (Hodson et al.
1994). Migrating eels from the Niagara River and Lake Ontario carry
their high contaminant body burdens to the St. Lawrence estuary, where
they serve as prey for beluga whales (*Delphinapterus leucas*).

Organochlorine contamination from the site is believed to be
contributing to the reproductive impairment and suppressed immune
function in the St. Lawrence beluga population. The occurrence of
healthy beluga whales in U.S. Atlantic coast waters is likely contingent
upon the health and reproductive success of the St. Lawrence beluga
population.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491438 .anchor}[2.2.3 Natural Resource Damage
Settlement]{.underline}

Our settlement pertaining to natural resource injuries at this site
focused on lost ecological services in the 102^nd^ Street embayment of
the Niagara River and in the emergent wetland at the Site. As discussed
above, concentrations of some contaminants in the embayment,
particularly mercury, lindane, hexachlorobenzene, PCBs, 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
and PAHs, exceeded concentrations associated with adverse ecological
effects in aquatic plants, benthic invertebrates, fish, and piscivorous
wildlife.

The 1999 CD was between the United States of America, the State of New
York, and OCC and Olin Corporation. Olin and OCC provided funding for
two habitat restoration projects on the Upper Niagara River in close
proximity to the Site  Cherry Farm and Buckhorn Island. The companies
also agreed to plant shallow-rooted grasses and other wildlife food and
cover plants on the landfill cap. Olin and OCC provided \$10,962.95 as
reimbursement for New York's past assessment costs, \$39,643 as
reimbursement for DOI's past assessment costs, and \$468,258.71 for
Trustee natural resource damages. The Trustee MOA between NOAA, DOI, and
the NYSDEC was developed in 2000. All monies are joint Federal/State
funds and are to be spent in accordance with an MOA between DOI, NOAA,
and the State. The settlement funds are to be used for habitat
restoration, enhancement, and creation projects that, according to the
CD, "may include preferential review of projects for restoration or
enhancement of Niagara River habitat or habitat in Niagara or Erie
County." The Trustees have further determined that it is appropriate to
use the restoration funds for creation of emergent wetland in the
Niagara River watershed. As the settlement included approximately
\$55,000 in damages for potential injuries to beluga whales occurring in
U.S. Atlantic coast waters, these funds are to be used to complement the
"St. Lawrence Beluga Recovery Plan" for beluga whale restoration. With
interest accruals, the balance in this account is currently
approximately \$531,000. Slightly less than 5% or \$28,000 will be used
by DOI for restoration oversight and monitoring. **Approximately
\$503,000 is available for restoration projects.**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491439 .anchor}**2.3 Love Canal** **Superfund
Site**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491440 .anchor}[2.3.1 Background]{.underline}

The Love Canal Site is a 16‑acre landfill located in an abandoned power
canal originally excavated in about 1894 by William T. Love (Figure 1).
From 1942 until 1953, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation (now
OCC) disposed of over 21,000 tons of various chemicals in the canal.
These chemicals included acids, chlorides, mercaptans, phenols,
toluenes, pesticides (including lindane), chlorophenols (including
dioxin-tainted trichlorophenol), chlorobenzenes, and sulfides. The area
was then covered and deeded to the Niagara Falls Board of Education in
1953. From the mid-1950s through the early 1970s, the area was
extensively developed for residences and a public school. Development
included construction of sanitary and storm sewer lines across the
waste-laden canal. These storm sewer lines would later be implicated as
a primary pathway of contaminant transport from the Site to streams
adjacent to the site and the Niagara River (Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 1983;
USEPA 1988).

As a result of unusually high precipitation in 1975 and 1976, a very
high groundwater level apparently developed in the Love Canal area,
causing drums to surface and contaminated water to appear in backyards
and basements of homes. In August of 1978, the Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) declared a health emergency at
Love Canal and about 950 families were evacuated from their homes.
Remedial activities at the Love Canal Site have included construction of
a perimeter drainage system to collect contaminated leachate, capping of
40 acres of the landfill and adjacent area, cleaning 65,000 linear feet
of storm and sanitary sewers, and dredging 3,000 meters of Black and
Bergholtz Creeks to remove about 14,000 cubic yards of sediment
contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD (USEPA 1997).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491441 .anchor}[2.3.2 Impacts to Fish and
Wildlife Resources]{.underline}

The Love Canal Site is bordered on the north by Black Creek and
Bergholtz Creek and on the west by Cayuga Creek. Black Creek is a
tributary to Bergholtz Creek, which flows into Cayuga Creek. Cayuga
Creek flows to the Little River which joins the Niagara River.

Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks support a warmwater fishery that
includes species such as largemouth bass, rock bass, sunfish (*Lepomis*
sp.), minnows, stickleback (*Gasterostreus* sp.), and shiners. Brown
bullhead, yellow perch, northern pike, smallmouth bass, carp, white
sucker, and redhorse sucker also inhabit Cayuga Creek. Various fish
consumption advisories exist for Cayuga Creek and the Niagara River,
including an "eat no fish species" in Cayuga Creek due to dioxin
contamination (NYSDOH 2000-2001).

The habitat adjacent to these creeks can be expected to support a
variety of passerine bird species, such as red-winged blackbirds, as
well as water birds such as great blue herons and black-crowned night
herons. Waterfowl, particularly dabbling ducks like the mallard and
black duck, use these creek habitats for feeding. Waterfowl known to
occur on Cayuga Creek include the mallard, scaup, common goldeneye,
bufflehead, Canada goose (*Branta canadensis*), and red‑breasted
merganser (*Mergus serrator*).

Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks were all contaminated as a result of
releases from the Love Canal Site. The chemical 2,3,7,8-TCDD was
considered characteristic of Love Canal contamination and high
concentrations (up to 46 ppb) were found in sediment of Black,
Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was also detected in crayfish
(*Euastacus* sp.) from Bergholtz Creek and spottail shiners (*Notropis
hudsonius*) from Bergholtz Creek, Cayuga Creek, and the Niagara River
near the 102^nd^ Street storm sewer (Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 1983; CH2M Hill
and Ecology and Environment Inc. 1985; NYSDOH 1981; Kuzia 1985).
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD may have caused mortality of embryos and
young fish of certain species that are sensitive to planar chlorinated
hydrocarbons, such as 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
sediments and forage fish may also have adversely impacted reproduction
in birds and mammals at higher trophic levels within the ecosystem. The
dredging of Black and Bergholtz Creeks to remediate contamination also
adversely affected natural resources. Remediation eliminated all
vegetation within and along the creeks and caused downstream turbidity.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491442 .anchor}

[2.3.3 Natural Resource Damage Settlement]{.underline}

The 1996 CD between the United States of America and OCC determined that
OCC would pay \$375,000 for natural resource damages. A subsequent MOA
was developed between the DOI and NOAA, in accordance with the CD, which
provides for DOI to undertake activities authorized by the CD upon the
advice and consent of NOAA. Funds paid pursuant to the CD shall be
utilized for restoration and assessment of trust resources at or
affected by the Site as determined by the Supervisor, USFWS, New York
Field Office. DOI will undertake a restoration project or projects with
preference given to a creek restoration or enhancement project in
Niagara County. The natural resource damage assessment and restoration
settlement for this site was negotiated by the Service and NOAA. The DOI
used \$22,200 of these settlement funds for the development of this
RP/EA; we do not anticipate that additional funds will be used for
restoration oversight and monitoring. Interest has accrued on the
balance of these funds and **approximately \$430,000 is available for
restoration projects.**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491443 .anchor}**2.4 Natural Resource
Restoration Planning**

The three Trustee MOAs developed for the Forest Glen, 102^nd^ Street,
and Love Canal Sites establish a framework for developing restoration
projects that restore, replace, and/or acquire the equivalent natural
resources that were injured by releases of hazardous substances from
these three Sites. The Trustees developed a list of potential
restoration projects that compensate for injured natural resources and
comply with specific restoration provisions in the MOAs or CDs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491444 .anchor}**Section 3. Proposed Restoration
Actions and Alternatives**

In developing the RP/EA, the Trustees are required to consider a
reasonable number of possible restoration alternatives (43 CFR, Section
11.81, DOI Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations). This section
of the RP/EA describes the alternatives and explains the considerations
and criteria for identifying and evaluating alternatives.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491445 .anchor}**3.1 General Restoration
Alternatives Considered for Each Injury**

The goal of the Trustees is to select restoration projects that best
serve to restore resources and/or services that were impacted by
contamination or remedial activities associated with the sites. At the
Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Site, injured resources included
migratory birds dependent on grassland, forested wetland, and stream
corridor habitat, and warmwater fish and other aquatic resources of East
Gill Creek, Gill Creek, Hyde Park Lake, and the Niagara River. The
102^nd^ Street Site contributed to injuries to migratory birds and
warmwater fish of the Niagara River. Contaminants and remedial
activities associated with the Love Canal Site injured migratory birds
and warmwater fish along the Niagara River, Bergholtz Creek, Black
Creek, and Cayuga Creek. In addition to the above ecological service
losses, recreational use of the fisheries in the Niagara River and
Cayuga Creek have been impaired due to fish consumption advisories.
Physical and chemical habitat degradation associated with these sites
has also affected human use services such as bird watching, hiking, and
water-based recreation.

The following matrix describes the general categories of restoration
considered by the Trustees for each injured resource or service. The
injured resources and services are described in Sections 2.1.2, 2.2.2,
and 2.3.2 of this document. Restoration alternatives were developed
based on the Trustees' views of appropriate restoration options
including options that were presented in CDs or MOAs developed for these
three sites.

**Table 1. Injured Resources and General Restoration Alternatives.**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Injured Resource/Service**        **Restoration Alternative**

  Forested wetland habitat ^1^        Acquire/protect forested wetland

  Grassland habitat ^1^               Restore/protect grassland

  Warmwater stream habitat ^1,3^      Restore warmwater stream and
                                      riparian habitat

                                      Enhance recreational use of fish
                                      and wildlife

                                      Restore trust resources affected by
                                      Site

                                      Contaminant characterization of
                                      East Gill Creek

  Niagara River habitat ^1,2,3^       Restore Niagara River and riparian
                                      habitat

                                      Enhance recreational use of Niagara
                                      River fish and wildlife

                                      Restore habitat in Niagara or Erie
                                      Counties

                                      Create emergent wetland in Niagara
                                      River watershed

                                      Restore trust resources affected by
                                      Site

  Beluga Whales ^2^                   Complement the "St. Lawrence Beluga
                                      Recovery Plan"
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

^1^ Forest Glen: According to the MOA, a minimum of 15 acres of
grassland habitat should be restored or created in the Niagara River
corridor to enhance/create habitat for grassland nesting and foraging
passerines such as the eastern meadowlark, bobolink, red-tailed hawk,
and harrier. A second restoration focus is acquisition and protection of
forested wetland habitat in the site vicinity. Priority will be given to
acquisition and protection of the Klydel wetland or a similar wetland in
North Tonawanda, New York.

^2^ 102^nd^ Street: The agreed­‑upon settlement funds are intended to be
used for habitat restoration, enhancement, and creation projects that,
according to the 1999 CD, "may include preferential review of projects
for restoration or enhancement of Niagara River habitat or habitat in
Niagara or Erie County." The Trustees have further determined that it is
appropriate to use the restoration funds for creation of emergent
wetland in the Niagara River watershed. Settlement funds are also to be
used to complement the "St. Lawrence Beluga Recovery Plan".

^3^ Love Canal: Funds paid pursuant to the CD shall be utilized for
restoration and assessment of trust resources at or affected by the Site
as determined by the Supervisor, USFWS, New York Field Office. DOI will
undertake a restoration project or projects with preference given to a
creek restoration or enhancement project in Niagara County.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491446 .anchor}**3.2 Criteria for Evaluating the
Proposed Restoration Actions and Evaluation Process**

[Criteria for Evaluating the Proposed Restoration Actions]{.underline}

As noted above, in developing the RP/EA, the Trustees are required to
consider a reasonable number of possible restoration alternatives. We
are required to evaluate each restoration alternative according to all
relevant considerations, including the following factors (listed in 43
CFR, Section 11.82, DOI NRDA Regulations): technical feasibility; the
relationship of the expected costs of the proposed actions to the
expected benefits; cost-effectiveness; the results of any actual or
planned response actions; the potential for additional injury resulting
from the proposed actions, including long-term and indirect impacts; the
natural recovery period of the injured resources; the ability of the
resources to recover with or without alternative actions; the potential
effects of the action on human health and safety; consistency with
relevant Federal, State, and Tribal policies; and compliance with
applicable Federal, State, and Tribal laws.

We have established the following selection criteria to help us evaluate
proposals and ensure that they meet our objective to replace, restore,
and/or acquire the equivalent natural resources of those that were
injured by releases of contaminants from the three sites:

-   Link to injured resources. The extent to which the alternative
    restores, replaces, or acquires the equivalent natural resources
    that were injured. Priority will be given to projects that most
    closely restore, replace, enhance, or protect resources identified
    in the above restoration categories.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proximity to injured resources. Priority will be given to projects
    in Niagara County or Erie County, with the exception of the beluga
    whale project.

-   Cost effectiveness. Priority will be given to projects that provide
    the greatest environmental benefit for the least cost in comparison
    to other proposed projects.

-   Extent to which the restoration project will enhance the public's
    ability to use, enjoy, or benefit from the natural resources.

-   Extent to which the project is expected to be successful. Priority
    will be given to projects with identified objectives and
    methodologies, with sponsors that have experience in the restoration
    methodology, and assurances to provide long-term support and
    maintenance of the project once completed.

-   Compliance with applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local laws
    and policies.

-   Extent to which the proposed project may be affected by actual or
    planned remedial or response actions. Proposed projects that are
    likely to be enhanced or augmented by remedial/response actions may
    be preferred for selection, whereas proposed projects that are
    likely to be adversely impacted by response/remedial actions may not
    be preferred.

-   The natural recovery period. Projects to restore natural resources
    that will experience natural restoration within a reasonable period
    of time in the absence of active restoration efforts may not be
    preferred as part of this restoration planning effort.

-   Ability of resources to recover with or without restoration project.

-   Potential effects of the project on human health and safety.

-   Potential for additional injury resulting from the proposed
    restoration activities.

The first five of these -- link to injured resources, proximity to
injured resources, cost effectiveness, public value, and likelihood of
success -- were determined by the Trustees to be primary selection
criteria.

[Evaluation Process]{.underline}

Projects were initially reviewed for compliance with the general
restoration alternatives of Table 1. A number of projects or portions of
projects were screened out in this initial review because they did not
comply with the general restoration alternatives of Table 1 and were,
therefore, determined to be unlikely to result in the restoration,
replacement, enhancement, or protection of resources that were injured
by contaminant releases from the three Sites. For the most part, these
projects consisted of the development of management plans or models,
biological inventories or monitoring, or they were not sufficiently
developed for further consideration. These projects which were not
considered further are described in Section 3.5 of this RP/EA.

All projects which remained after the initial screening were evaluated
with regard to the five primary selection criteria noted above - link to
injured resources, proximity to injured resources, cost-effectiveness,
public value, and likelihood of success. Projects were scored on each
criterion as follows:

1.  [Link to injured resources]{.underline} -- Restoration projects that
    are likely to restore resources or services known to be injured
    received a score of 3. If the proposed restoration project would
    restore resources that may have been injured, it was given a score
    of 2 and if there was uncertainty regarding the relationship between
    the proposed project and injuries, a score of 1 was assigned.

2.  [Proximity to injured resources]{.underline}  Proposed restoration
    projects within Niagara and Erie Counties received scores of 2 or 3
    because of their proximity to injured resources, with a 2 assigned
    to those projects for which their greater distance from the location
    of injured resources may reduce their likelihood of more direct
    restoration of injured resources. A score of 1 indicates that the
    project is located at a greater distance from the injuries,
    generally outside Niagara and Erie Counties.

3.  [Cost effectiveness]{.underline}  Proposed projects that supplied
    adequate cost documentation to support a conclusion that the project
    will restore injured resources at a reasonable cost were assigned a
    score of 3. Projects that, in our judgment, may have a somewhat
    higher cost/benefit relationship were assigned a score of 2.

4.  [Public value]{.underline}  Projects that are likely to provide
    significant value to the public in terms of enhanced resources or
    improved natural resource services were assigned a score of 3. If
    the public values were not deemed as great or were unclear, a score
    of 2 was assigned.

5.  [Likelihood of success]{.underline} -- If the project has a high
    likelihood of successfully achieving its objectives, a score of 3
    was assigned. A score of 2 was assigned if there is less certainty
    about project success.

Based on the results of this evaluation, taking into consideration the
available funds, projects were divided into two groups:

-   Selected: these are projects which are proposed, pursuant to this
    RP/EA, to be funded and implemented; these projects are discussed
    further in section 3.3 of this RP/EA; together these projects
    comprise the Preferred Alternative; and,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Not Selected: these are projects which are not proposed to be funded
    nor implemented pursuant to this RP/EA; these projects are discussed
    further in section 3.4 of this RP/EA.

**Table 2. Restoration Projects Evaluated (See Figure 2).**

+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Restoration | Project     | L   | Pro | Cost | Pu | Li | S   | C   |
| Category    |             | ink | xim | E    | bl | ke | umm | ost |
|             |             | to  | ity | ffec | ic | ly | ary |     |
|             |             | In  |     | tive | V  | S  | Sc  |     |
|             |             | jur |     | ness | al | uc | ore |     |
|             |             | ies |     |      | ue | ce |     |     |
|             |             |     |     |      |    | ss |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| **Forested  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Wetland**   |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| [^1]        |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Audubon     | 3   | 3   | 3    | 3  | 3  | 15  | **\ |
|             | Wetland     |     |     |      |    |    |     | $60 |
|             | Acquisition |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             | (Klydel)    |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| **Grassland |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Restoration |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| ^1^**       |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Niagara     | 3   | 3   | 3    | 3  | 3  | 15  | *   |
|             | County      |     |     |      |    |    |     | *\$ |
|             | Grassland   |     |     |      |    |    |     | 103 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Tuscarora   | 3   | 3   | 3    | 3  | 3  | 15  | **\ |
|             | Grassland   |     |     |      |    |    |     | $94 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| **Further   |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Contaminant |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Characteri  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| zation^1^** |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | East Gill   | 3   | 3   | 2    | 2  | 3  | 13  | *   |
|             | Creek       |     |     |      |    |    |     | *\$ |
|             | Contaminant |     |     |      |    |    |     | 150 |
|             | Chara       |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             | cterization |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| **General   |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Restoration |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| with        |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Preference  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| for         |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Restoration |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| of Niagara  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| River       |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Habitat or  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Habitat in  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Niagara or  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Erie County |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| (including  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| emergent    |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| wet         |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| land)**[^2] |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Common Tern | 3   | 3   | 3    | 3  | 2  | 14  | **\ |
|             | Restoration |     |     |      |    |    |     | $14 |
|             | #1          |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Common Tern | 3   | 3   | 3    | 3  | 2  | 14  | **\ |
|             | Restoration |     |     |      |    |    |     | $60 |
|             | #2          |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Buffalo     | 2   | 3   | 2    | 3  | 3  | 13  | **\ |
|             | River       |     |     |      |    |    |     | $35 |
|             | Walleye     |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             | Management  |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
|             | Project     |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | (+8 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0,0 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 00: |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | see |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | bel |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | ow) |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Niagara     | 3   | 2   | 3    | 3  | 3  | 14  | *   |
|             | Escarpment  |     |     |      |    |    |     | *\$ |
|             | Grassland   |     |     |      |    |    |     | 119 |
|             | and Oak     |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             | Savannah    |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Joseph      | 3   | 3   | 3    | 3  | 3  | 15  | *   |
|             | Davis State |     |     |      |    |    |     | *\$ |
|             | Park        |     |     |      |    |    |     | 220 |
|             | Habitat     |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             | Restoration |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| **Beluga    |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Whale       |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Resto       |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| ration**^2^ |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Beluga      | 2   | 2   | 3    | 3  | 2  | 12  | **\ |
|             | Whale       |     |     |      |    |    |     | $55 |
|             | In          |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             | vestigation |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| **General   |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Restoration |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| with        |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Preference  |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| for Creek   |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Restoration |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| or          |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| Enhanc      |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
| ement**[^3] |             |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Fish Creek  | 3   | 3   | 3    | 3  | 3  | 15  | *   |
|             | Restoration |     |     |      |    |    |     | *\$ |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 130 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Cayuga      | 3   | 3   | 2    | 3  | 2  | 13  | *   |
|             | Creek       |     |     |      |    |    |     | *\$ |
|             | Restoration |     |     |      |    |    |     | 220 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Selected    | Buffalo     | 2   | 3   | 2    | 3  | 3  | 13  | **\ |
|             | River       |     |     |      |    |    |     | $80 |
|             | Walleye     |     |     |      |    |    |     | ,00 |
|             | Restoration |     |     |      |    |    |     | 0** |
|             | Project     |     |     |      |    |    |     |     |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Not         | Elton Creek | 2   | 1   | 2    | 3  | 3  | 11  | \$2 |
| Selected    | Restoration |     |     |      |    |    |     | 50, |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 000 |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Not         | Scajaquada  | 1   | 2   | 2    | 2  | 2  | 9   | \$  |
| Selected    | Creek       |     |     |      |    |    |     | 39, |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 060 |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Not         | Springville | 2   | 1   | 2    | 2  | 2  | 9   | No  |
| Selected    | Dam         |     |     |      |    |    |     | C   |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | ost |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+
| Not         | Cattaraugus | 2   | 1   | 2    | 2  | 2  | 9   | \$  |
| Selected    | Creek       |     |     |      |    |    |     | 60, |
|             |             |     |     |      |    |    |     | 360 |
+-------------+-------------+-----+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491447 .anchor}**3.3 Description of Proposed
Projects**

Based upon the evaluation process described in Section 3.2 of this
RP/EA, a number of projects have been selected for implementation. These
are identified on Table 2 as "Selected" and, in total, comprise the
Trustees' Preferred Alternative. The locations of these projects are
shown on Figure 2. Specific information on each project follows.

**Wetland Acquisition and Enhancement (Klydel or Similar Acreage).
Submitted by Buffalo Audubon Society. Estimated Total Cost: \$60,000.**

The North Tonawanda Audubon Nature Preserve (Klydel Wetland) project
focuses on protecting a unique 70‑acre remnant forest block. The
forested wetland/upland complex provides important ecological functions
and social values. The Klydel Wetland provides habitat for as many as
100 species of migratory birds including possible, probable, or
confirmed breeding by the American woodcock (*Scolopax minor*), hooded
warbler (*Wilsonia citrina*), wood thrush (*Hylocichla mustelina*),
veery (*Catharus fuscescens*), black-billed cuckoo (*Coccyzus
erythropthalmus*), and yellow-billed cuckoo (*Coccyzus americanus*).
Many developments have been proposed in this wetland complex and
piecemeal development has occurred. The objective of the Buffalo Audubon
Society is to establish an urban nature preserve that will ensure
protection in perpetuity of this pristine forested wetland. All land
acquired at this nature preserve will be owned by the Buffalo Audubon
Society, with conservation easements held by the Western New York Land
Conservancy. In the event that proposed land acquisition occurs prior to
the availability of this funding, Buffalo Audubon may purchase a similar
acreage/type of wetland for protection. Urban wetlands are on the
NYSDEC, Region 9 Priority "A" List of the Open Space Plan because they
provide valuable wildlife habitat, wildlife viewing, and teaching
opportunities.

This specific project was identified in the Trustee MOA for the Forest
Glen Mobile Home Subdivision settlement. Acquisition and protection of
forested wetland habitat will compensate for injuries to this type of
habitat as a result of chemical contamination and remedial activities
associated with the Forest Glen Site.

**Grassland Habitat Restoration in Niagara County**. **Submitted by
Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). Estimated
Total Cost for 800 Acres: \$340,000. \$103,000 to be Funded (240
acres).**

The Niagara County SWCD, in conjunction with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), proposes to create 800 acres of grassland
habitat. The Trustees propose to partially fund this project, with 240
acres of grassland restored for a total of \$103,000. Over the course of
four years, Niagara SWCD will work with the Tuscarora Nation, Pheasants
Forever of Western New York, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
NRCS in site identification and coordination with other habitat
projects. In accordance with the Forest Glen Site MOA, higher priority
will be given to projects that can be protected through a conservation
easement or other binding agreement and where the owner is willing to
accept responsibility for future maintenance of the project.

Approximately half of the acreage of cool and warm season grasses would
be planted in Year One with the remaining acreage planted in Year Two.
Mowing and maintenance would occur over two to three years to establish
warm season grasses.

The main species of grasses to be planted are switchgrass, big bluestem,
little bluestem, side oats grama grass, and Indian grass. In the
interest of creating varied habitat in some wet locations, cold season
grass, such as reed canary grass, may be planted (NRCS and Ducks
Unlimited Canada 1997). To prepare the sites for planting, they may need
to be plowed and disked, and herbicide may be used.

The Trustees are proposing to fund \$103,000 of the grassland
restoration work, with the understanding that Niagara County SWCD may
also be involved in other grassland restoration activities with the
Tuscarora Nation and the Western New York Land Conservancy at the
Niagara Escarpment Project. This grassland restoration and the Tuscarora
Nation grassland restoration (below) will directly benefit avian
resources injured as a result of chemical contamination or remedial
activities associated with the Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Site.

**Tuscarora Nation Grassland Restoration. Submitted by the Tuscarora
Nation. Estimated Total Cost for 200 Acres: \$94,000.**

The Tuscarora Environment Program has been promoting the restoration of
warm season grasslands as a way to maintain open space, restore soil
quality, and provide wildlife habitat in existing cropland, shrub-scrub
field complexes, and fallow land at the Tuscarora Nation. This project
is proposed in conjunction with the above Niagara County SWCD grassland
restoration project. The Niagara County SWCD can provide technical
expertise, staff, and equipment to establish these grassland sites.

The Tuscarora Habitat Coordinator will work with the Niagara County SWCD
to initiate and manage habitat restoration projects on Nation lands in
consideration of cultural and traditional needs and best management
practices. The efforts of the Habitat Coordinator will be directly
overseen by the Tuscarora Environment Program through consultation with
the Tuscarora Nation Council of Chiefs and Clanmothers. Other technical
support may come from the Haudenosaunee Task Force, NYSDEC, USFWS, and
other Tribal and environmental organizations.

Two hundred acres of land on the Nation will be identified for grassland
restoration. The Council of Chiefs and Clanmothers, as well as any
affected property owners, will approve each available parcel for
restoration activities. The requested funds will be used to plant the
200 acres over a 2‑year period and mow and maintain the grasslands for
2-3 subsequent years.

This grassland restoration and the Niagara County SWCD grassland
restoration project (above) will directly benefit avian resources
injured as a result of chemical contamination or remedial activities
associated with the Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Site.

**East Gill and Gill Creek Contaminant Characterization, Estimated Cost:
\$150,000.**

NOAA is currently in the planning stages of this project. Work should be
completed in 2005. The contaminant characterization will involve the
collection of sediment samples from East Gill Creek and Hyde Park Lake
for sediment chemistry analysis and sediment toxicity testing and the
collection of fish from these areas for tissue chemistry analysis. NOAA
anticipates that sampling and analysis will cost up to \$150,000, with
any residual funds available for additional restoration planning and
restoration projects.

**Common Tern Restoration #1: Common Tern Recolonization at a
Traditional Nesting Site in the Niagara River. Submitted by Ralph Morris
of Fenwick, Ontario.** **Estimated Total Cost: \$14,000.**

The common tern population on the lower Great Lakes has undergone a
decline since the early 1970s (Morris and Hunter 1976; Courtney and
Blokpoel 1983). Two possible reasons for this decline are loss of
suitable nesting sites to ring-billed gulls and vegetative changes at
nesting sites. This project proposes to utilize methods employed near
Port Colborne, Lake Erie, and Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario, to
preserve nesting sites for common terns.

Work would be performed at a 2.5‑acre site about one mile upstream of
Niagara Falls in the Niagara River. Various reports indicate that
hundreds of pairs of common terns may have nested there as recently as
the 1970s. The site has supported nesting ring-billed gulls since the
early 1980s. The proposed project includes a combination of vegetation
removal, raptor placement to discourage ring-billed gulls, and removal
of ring-billed gull eggs.

This project will serve to address injuries to migratory birds of the
Niagara River as a result of chemical contamination from the Forest Glen
Mobile Home Subdivision Site, Love Canal Site, and 102^nd^ Street Site.

**Common Tern Restoration #2: Niagara Frontier Common Tern Habitat
Enhancement (Black Rock Canal and Niagara River). Submitted by Riveredge
Associates, LLC. Estimated Total Cost: \$60,000.**

Similar to the above project, the objective of this project is to
provide high quality breeding habitat for the common tern, a New York
State threatened species. This proposal indicates that the decline in
New York's inland tern population can be attributed to the loss of
nesting habitat and low reproductive rates due to predation, low quality
nesting substrate, and human disturbance. The project proponents
indicate that on the Niagara River, the number of terns has dropped from
518 nesting pairs in 1977 to 92 pairs in 2003. Nesting sites may have
low productivity because coarse rock or cement nesting substrate cause
egg breakage during incubation.

The proposed project would provide high quality breeding habitat for
terns on the Niagara River by (1) adding pea gravel nesting substrate to
two existing nesting sites, and (2) providing additional nesting habitat
for breeding terns through the installation of a floating tern nesting
raft.

This project will serve to address injuries to migratory birds of the
Niagara River as a result of chemical contamination from the Forest Glen
Mobile Home Subdivision Site, Love Canal Site and 102^nd^ Street Site.

**Niagara Escarpment Legacy Project. Submitted by Western New York Land
Conservancy. Estimated Total Cost: \$995,350. \$119,000 to be Funded.**

The objective of the Legacy Project is to maintain the Niagara
Escarpment landscape and its vicinity as a contiguous natural
environment. Specifically, the project is designed to restore and
protect ecologically‑ and geologically‑significant landscapes,
create/enhance public access to natural resources, and provide
opportunities to teach young people about escarpment geology and
ecosystems. The Western New York Land Conservancy will work
cooperatively with the City and Town of Lockport, the State University
of New York at Buffalo, the NYSDEC, Pheasants Forever, Niagara County
SWCD, Niagara County, Friends of the Buffalo-Niagara Rivers, and other
community groups. The Niagara Escarpment is considered a unique area and
significant ecological area by the NYSDEC and is listed on the NYSDEC
Region 9 "B" List of the Open Space Conservation Plan.

Project components consistent with restoration plan objectives are as
follows:

-   Approximately 110 acres of project area would be restored to native
    grassland. Approximately 30 acres of the 49 acres of the City of
    Lockport sanitary landfill would be restored to grassland to attract
    a more diverse variety of insects, birds, and mammals. An additional
    four acres of roadside bordering Eighteenmile Creek and the
    Escarpment along Stone Road would also be restored with native
    wildflowers and grasses. Sutliff Rotary Park supports two to three
    acres of existing grassland that would be restored to native
    grassland as part of park renovation by the Lockport Rotary Club.
    Some portion of the 80‑acre composting facility owned by the City of
    Lockport would be restored to native grassland. The City has
    indicated a willingness to allow the Western New York Land
    Conservancy to restore some part of the 80-acre site. The exact
    acreage has not yet been determined. Additional grassland habitat
    would be restored on the Escarpment plateau adjacent to the City of
    Lockport composting facility. This aspect of the project involves
    four parcels of private land totaling 40 acres. Acquisition funds
    would be used to acquire fee title in all or some of these
    properties or a combination of fee title and conservation easements.
    Total costs for this portion of the project are \$47,000 for
    restoration of 110 acres of grassland habitat (70 acres publicly
    owned) and up to \$52,000 for the fee title acquisition or
    establishment of conservation easements at 40 acres of privately
    owned land.

-   Oak savannah was once more abundant along the sandy shorelines of
    the Great Lakes. This proposal would restore an oak savannah
    ecosystem on top of the Escarpment at the City of Lockport
    composting facility. A ten‑acre oak savannah ecosystem on top of the
    Escarpment would be created in which grasses and trees will be
    planted to mimic a savannah-like landscape. The cost of this
    proposed project is \$20,000.

The Trustees believe that the grassland and oak savannah development
portions of this proposed project will restore avian habitat and
services injured by chemical releases and remedial activities associated
with all three sites.

**Joseph Davis State Park Habitat Restoration. Submitted by Buffalo
Audubon Society. Estimated Total Cost: \$220,000.**

Joseph Davis State Park lies on the northern border of the Town of
Lewiston, adjacent to the Niagara River and Niagara River Important Bird
Area. The majority of the undeveloped area within the 360‑acre park has
been designated a New York State Bird Conservation Area and the New York
State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Master Plan
has designated much of the park as a natural area. Two wetland
restoration/enhancement projects are proposed. The Western Pond project
involves the expansion of an existing wetland to create a mixed wetland
of emergent marsh, mudflat, potholes, and a scalloped edge. Native
wetland herbs and shrubs will be planted along sections of the
shoreline. Turtle sunning logs, bird perches, and nest boxes will be
placed in and adjacent to the wetland. This project will be constructed
by the Audubon Society at a cost of \$102,000.

The Eastern Pond Project consists of restoring and enhancing
approximately ten acres of wetland. Ditches will be plugged to restore
hydrology, areas adjacent to existing ponded areas will be excavated,
potholes will be excavated, and wetland areas will be planted. In
addition, 20 acres of native grassland areas will be restored. This
project will be constructed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in
consultation with the Buffalo Audubon Society, at a cost of \$118,000.

These projects will restore wetland and grassland habitat, benefiting
birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and other resources injured by
chemical contamination from all three sites.

**Beluga Whale Investigations. Estimated Cost: \$55,000.**

The Trustees have agreed that approximately \$55,000 for beluga whale
restoration will be transferred to NOAA and used to complement the "St.
Lawrence Beluga Recovery Plan."

**Buffalo River Walleye Management Project. Submitted by Erie County, in
cooperation with NYSDEC, the Erie County Fisheries Advisory Board,
Southtown's Walleye Association of WNY, Inc., and the Town of
Cheektowaga. Estimated Total Cost: \$357,416. \$115,000 to be Funded.**

This project proposes to restore a naturally reproducing,
self-sustaining, stream spawning walleye population in the Buffalo River
system by rearing walleye fingerlings in artificial ponds constructed in
proximity to Cayuga Creek (Town of Cheektowaga, Erie County). The
project hopes to expand the stream spawning walleye population in the
Buffalo River system to 5,000 adults by 2012 by stocking approximately
25,000‑50,000 walleye fingerlings annually from a local genetic source
into the Buffalo River system at the Cayuga Creek project site.

The restoration of walleye is an appropriate project to compensate for
injuries to warmwater fish as a result of chemical contamination and
remedial activities at all three Sites. This project will also restore
recreational fishing opportunities in the Buffalo and Niagara Rivers.

**Fish Creek Restoration, Submitted by Tuscarora Nation and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Cortland, NY. Estimated Cost: \$130,000.**

Fish Creek, on the Tuscarora Nation, has been channelized, filled for
roads, culverted, and redirected around the Lewiston Reservoir. In
addition, adjacent wetlands have been filled or drained and the
connection between the stream and its floodplain has been disrupted by
this manipulation. A restoration project that utilizes natural channel
design principles could restore approximately 1,000 feet of Fish Creek
into the pattern, profile, and dimensions that would form a stable
stream. Costs of such projects can range from \$50 to \$250 per linear
foot, with this project expected to cost about \$120 per linear foot.
The design work would entail calculating flows, pattern, and dimensions
of stream width, depth, and slope. The development of pools, riffles,
and habitat features involving woody debris would be part of the
project. The pattern would be changed from the present straight,
channelized form.

A wetland will also be created adjacent to the Tuscarora School to
provide educational benefits, as well as serve to re-attach the stream
to its floodplain. When the stream/floodplain configuration is
stabilized, the energy of the stream will be dissipated into the
floodplain. The combination of wetland and stream improvements will
enhance nutrient cycling and biotic flow while creating a more stable
and naturally functioning environment.

The wetland component of this project will consist primarily of
excavation and will cost approximately \$1,200 per acre. Additional
costs would be incurred for planting disturbed soils along the new
stream corridor. The Tuscarora Nation will provide technical assistance
in the design and construction of these projects at a cost of \$5,000.

The restoration of stream habitat and creation of wetland habitat will
compensate for injuries to these types of habitats associated with all
three sites. The Love Canal CD specifically promoted consideration of
stream restoration projects and pursuant to the 102^nd^ Street
settlement, the Trustees agreed to consider the use of funds for
creation of emergent wetland in the Niagara River watershed.

**Cayuga Creek Restoration. Submitted by City of Niagara Falls.
Estimated Cost: \$220,000.**

Cayuga Creek is a low gradient, warm water stream located in an urban,
residential area. With proper care, the stream and riparian corridor
should support a warmwater fishery and riparian wildlife species.
Components of the proposed project submitted in 1998 were: (1) testing
of sediments to determine levels of contaminants (\$22,300); (2) a site
survey to determine streambank stabilization needed (riprap, concrete
mattresses, gabions, bio-engineering) (\$193,800); (3) habitat
restoration (in-stream cover, plantings, timber cribs, riparian
vegetation, nest boxes) (\$56,400); and (4) neighborhood recreation and
corridor beautification (small park) (\$52,500). The City has also
expressed an interest in habitat restoration of Black and Bergholtz
Creeks, tributaries to Cayuga Creek, and the Little River.

The City of Niagara Falls has more recently been reconsidering
additional restoration options and is proposing to work with Niagara
County, area residents, and the Friends of the Buffalo‑Niagara Rivers to
develop a stewardship program for this creek. Specific projects, such as
debris removal (\$32,500), an urban canoe trail (\$5,000), and public
information/stewardship program (\$12,500), are being proposed.

Cayuga Creek, Black Creek, Bergholtz Creek, and the Little River were
directly and significantly impacted by releases from the Love Canal
site, as well as remedial activities. The Love Canal CD specifically
promoted the consideration of stream restoration projects. Some of the
projects proposed by the City of Niagara Falls are not consistent with
our restoration objectives (e.g. corridor beautification), while others
are consistent with those objectives, but additional planning is needed
to fully develop the project (habitat restoration). In light of the
significant impacts sustained by Cayuga Creek, Bergholtz Creek, Black
Creek, and the Little River as a result of contamination and remedial
activities associated with the Love Canal Site, the Trustees propose to
allocate \$220,000 to be used for habitat restoration activities in
these waterways that may include physical habitat improvement,
recreational enhancements, and development of an environmental
stewardship program. We propose that the precise nature of these
projects be determined after the City develops a habitat restoration
plan in coordination with the Trustees and partners such as Niagara
County and Friends of the Buffalo‑Niagara Rivers. Ten percent of these
funds may be leveraged with other funds to develop this plan.

4.  []{#__RefHeading___Toc77491448 .anchor}**Projects Considered but Not
    Selected**

    As noted in Section 3.2 of this RP/EA, some projects were considered
    but not selected for funding and implementation pursuant to this
    RP/EA. Specific information regarding each such project follows.

**Cattaraugus Creek Streambank Stabilization and Habitat Restoration**.
**Submitted by Erie County SWCD.** **Estimated Cost: \$60,360.**

The Cattaraugus Creek watershed drains about 147,000 acres of Erie
County. The watershed is primarily agricultural and forested. The creek
flows through the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation. Cattaraugus Creek and
most of its tributaries are classified by NYSDEC as C(T) or higher.
Cattaraugus Creek is stocked annually with trout and supports
significant migratory runs. These streams also support natural
populations of rainbow trout (*Oncorhynchus mykiss*) and native brook
trout (*Salvelinus fontinalis*).

The 1996 NYSDEC Priority Waterbodies List designates Cattaraugus Creek
as a stressed watercourse, with the primary pollutants listed as
sediments, pesticides, pathogens, and nutrients from streambank erosion
and agricultural runoff. The Great Lakes Management Plan cites
contaminated sediments and agricultural runoff as a source of pollution
contributing to the degradation of fish and wildlife populations. The
Local Working Group and Water Quality Coordinating Committee have
identified Cattaraugus Creek as the second highest priority waterbody
within the county.

Erie County SWCD received grant money from the Great Lakes Coastal
Watershed Restoration Program to complete a streambank inspection of the
upper Cattaraugus Creek and its tributaries during the summer of 2003.
This project was intended to identify and map areas of high
silt/sediment loading and thermal stress as a result of streambank
erosion and lack of riparian vegetation. The SWCD is proposing to design
and implement two additional streambank restoration projects in areas
yet to be determined. Approximately 250-350 linear feet of stream would
be re-shaped to a stable slope and the bank would be covered with
erosion control fabric and biotechnical plantings to include, but not be
limited to, willow wattles, live stakes, and bare root seedlings. The
SWCD also proposes to design and install LUNKER structures to enhance
aquatic habitat. Work would be performed in conjunction with Trout
Unlimited. Cattaraugus Creek and its tributaries are on the NYSDEC,
Region 9 Priority "A" List of the Open Space Plan due to recreational
opportunities and significant ecological areas.

Although the Trustees regard this as a project that could serve to
restore resources injured as a result of chemicals or remedial
activities associated with the three Sites, the Trustees did not rank it
as highly as some other projects, largely because of distance from
injured resources.

**Elton Creek In-Stream Restoration Project. Submitted by the NRCS.
Estimated Cost: \$250,000.**

This project is located in Cattaraugus County and consists of restoring
5,000 feet of Elton Creek, a wild trout stream. Project components
include streambank stabilization, old bridge removal, stream channel
improvements, and placement of instream structures. Although the
Trustees regard this as a project that could serve to restore resources
injured as a result of chemicals or remedial activities associated with
the three Sites, the Trustees did not rank it as highly as some other
projects, largely because of distance from injured resources.

**Scajaquada Creek Streambank Restoration for Water Quality and Aquatic
Habitat Enhancement. Submitted by Erie County SWCD. Estimated Cost:
\$39,060.**

Increased development in the Scajaquada watershed (29 square miles) has
led to decreased baseflow and increased peak storm flow discharge, and
subsequently, higher streambank erosion and downstream sedimentation.
The lower portion of this creek flows underground and may receive
discharges of raw sewage. In the 1970s and 1980s, the creek was
channelized and managed for flood control for nearly four miles.

The creek is a class B stream. Pollutants include sediment, nutrients,
salts, pathogens, thermal changes, organics, oxygen demand, and water
level/flow. Sources of pollutants are contaminated sediments, combined
sewer overflows, storm sewers, streambank erosion, hydromodification,
land disposal, construction, chemical leaks, and spills. It is
considered a major contributor of pollution to the Niagara River.

The SWCD received funding from the Erie County legislature to develop a
watershed management plan. They identified impairments such as sewer
overflows and sediment erosion, leading to poor water quality and
aquatic habitat. The SWCD has received funding to install biotechnical
erosion controls at four priority sites.

This proposed project is an extension of the above erosion control
projects. The SWCD proposes to use traditional rock riprap and
biotechnical techniques including, but not limited to, willow wattles
and rooted cuttings of a variety of shrubs and trees to stabilize
approximately 250 feet of severely eroding streambank east of Warner
Road in the Village of Depew. The SWCD will use the assistance of Earth
Team volunteers for plantings. They will also strategically place
cobbles and boulders and excavate silt from silt-choked areas to enhance
riffle-run-pool-glide patterns. The SWCD will subcontract the
installation of environmentally sensitive rock riprap.

The Trustees did not select this project because, upon inspection, it
did not appear that the proposed restoration activities would serve to
restore resources or services injured by chemical contamination or
remedial activities associated with the three sites.

**Cattaraugus Creek Fish Passage at Springville Dam. No Estimated
Cost.**

The Springville Dam was built in 1922 for production of electrical
energy. It was never subject to licensing by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission probably due to its construction date. The project
operated up until three or four years ago. The dam was subsequently
purchased by Erie County and is now used as a small riverside park.

In the late 1920s, Cattaraugus Creek was polluted by wastes from tannery
and glue factories. The assimilation of these wastes severely depleted
the water's dissolved oxygen, thus limiting its fishery resources. Water
quality has greatly improved since that time and a viable fishery has
developed. Steelhead trout from Lake Erie enter the creek from August
through May providing angling opportunities downstream of the dam. The
Seneca Indian Tribe has rights to approximately 20 miles of stream in
this area. It is approximately 34 stream miles from the Springville Dam
to Lake Erie and there are about 55 stream miles upstream of the dam
(approximately 25 of the 55 miles are in tributaries). Spring angling
for naturalized rainbow and stocked brown trout is popular upstream of
the dam with a significant amount of water open for public access.

The NYSDEC wishes to evaluate the options for providing passage for
lake-run steelhead trout at the Springville Dam. Successful upstream
spawning and reproduction could reduce the need for annual stocking.
Passage for other riverine species could also be considered. Upstream
movement of parasitic sea lampreys (*Petromyzon marinus*) should be
precluded.

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) treats Cattaraugus Creek with
lampricides and is interested in providing a focused flow from the dam
(as opposed to a large veil of water over the spillway) in order to
conduct lamprey trapping for monitoring purposes. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is in the early planning stages for this project and is open
to expanding discussions to include fish passage. Cattaraugus Creek and
its tributaries are on the NYSDEC, Region 9 Priority "A" List of the
Open Space Plan due to recreational opportunities and significant
ecological areas.

The Trustees did not rank this proposal as high as some others because
of its distance from injured resources and services and limited
available information on design specifications and project cost.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491450 .anchor}**3.5 Projects Not Consistent
with Restoration Objectives**

**Niagara Escarpment Legacy Project.**

Components of the Niagara Escarpment Legacy Project not meeting the
Trustee requirements include stream restoration, wetland restoration,
woodlands restoration, trail development, land acquisition, outreach,
and plan development. These project components were either not
sufficiently developed or adequately linked with natural resource
injuries.

**Tonawanda Creek Watershed Management for Habitat Protection and
Restoration on Tonawanda Creek. Submitted by Friends of the
Buffalo‑Niagara Rivers.**

Tonawanda Creek is one of the Niagara River's largest sub-basins with
major tributaries -- Ellicott Creek, Ransom Creek, Mud Creek, and Murder
Creek. This creek supports a variety of freshwater mussels, the NYS
threatened longear sunfish (*Lepomis megalotis*) and NYS species of
special concern, the brindled madtom (*Noturus miurus*). Significant
fish species include walleye, northern pike, and pickerel (*Esox* sp.).
Tonawanda Creek is threatened by historic pollutants, loss of habitat,
invasive species, and nonpoint source pollution. Water quality
impairments include sediment from streambank erosion, iron, and coliform
bacteria. In 1999, the NYSDOH issued a fish consumption advisory for
carp due to the presence of PCBs. Tonawanda Creek tributaries have also
experienced fish kills due to silage leachate discharges from farms.

The proposed project is to develop a Watershed Management Plan to
identify impairments and strategies to protect resources, set resource
priorities, educate stakeholders, and create a coalition of community
members committed to creek restoration. Funding is requested to collect
data, conduct stream surveys, outreach, prepare a watershed management
plan, and prepare grant applications for implementation of the Tonawanda
Creek Management Plan. The Tonawanda Creek Corridor is on the NYSDEC,
Region 9 Priority "B" Open Space Plan with the objective of water
resource protection.

This project was not considered because development of plans, without a
solid framework for implementation that would result in restoration, is
not consistent with the objective to replace, restore, and/or acquire
the equivalent natural resources of those that were injured by releases
of contaminants.

**USFWS Fish Habitat Projects. Submitted by USFWS, Amherst, New York.
Estimated Cost: \$560,000.**

Project components are as follows:

-   Survey several suspected lake sturgeon spawning locations in the
    Lower Niagara River (Red Cliffs, Coast Guard Station, bar at
    confluence to Lake Ontario) to find eggs and larvae and determine
    whether New York Power Authority (NYPA) operations can mitigate any
    adverse impacts associated with dewatering.

    -   Model effects of Niagara River flow fluctuations on persistence
        of lake sturgeon.

-   Create lake sturgeon habitat in Upper and Lower Niagara River, in
    partnership with NYSDEC, U.S. Geological Survey, and NYPA (no
    specific plans currently available).

-   Develop method for non-invasive sampling of lake sturgeon for
    contaminants or train people in existing method.

-   Assess shoreline for spawning potential for lake sturgeon. Assess
    current use, habitat suitability, and possibilities for
    restoration/rehabilitation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Conduct a long-term study to determine the age at which lake
    sturgeon imprint to habitat and the rate of return to natal water.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Satellite tracking of adult lake sturgeon to determine range, timing
    of migration.

-   Adopt-a-sturgeon education and outreach program.

The majority of these proposals focus on studies, monitoring, modeling,
or sampling. As such, they are not consistent with the objective to
replace, restore, and/or acquire the equivalent natural resources of
those that were injured by releases of contaminants, and thus were not
considered by the Trustees. The one project which may entail restoration
-- the creation of lake sturgeon habitat in the Upper and Lower Niagara
River  had no specific plans currently available, and thus was not
sufficiently developed to be able to be considered further by the
Trustees at this time.

**Ellicott Creek Riparian Corridor Improvement. Submitted by Erie County
NRCS. No Estimated Cost.**

The Upper Ellicott Creek Riparian Corridor Improvement Project would
focus on streambank protection and restoration in the upper reaches of
Ellicott Creek and its major tributaries within Erie County, New York.
Funds would be used for construction of fences for livestock exclusion,
planting of appropriate bioengineering and habitat improvement
vegetation, and restoration of riparian wetlands. Funds will also be
used to construct or develop alternate water supplies in order to
eliminate the perceived need for livestock access to streams for
drinking water. The project would provide protection treatment on a
minimum of 3,000 feet with priority to projects that minimize earth
moving requirements. The Ellicott Creek Corridor is on the NYSDEC,
Region 9 Priority "B" List of the Open Space Plan with an objective of
water resource protection.

The Trustees did not consider this proposal because it lacked
specificity and a link to restoration of injured resources or services.

**Habitat Improvement Projects Submitted for Niagara Power Project
Relicensing Process.**

A large number of projects were submitted as part of the relicensing
process for NYPA's Niagara Power Project (Appendix A). We made inquiries
of several of the project proponents to determine whether any detailed
project plans are available. For the most part, we found that the
projects are in the very early stages of planning with insufficient
detail regarding technical specifications, project cost, or sponsors to
allow us to evaluate them as part of this process.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491451 .anchor}**3.6 Summary of Preferred
Alternative**

The following restoration projects are proposed in the Preferred
Alternative:

  ------------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------
  **Project**                     **County**             **Cost**

  Audubon Wetland Acquisition     Niagara County         \$60,000

  Niagara Co. Grassland           Niagara County         \$103,000
  Restoration                                            

  Tuscarora Nation Grassland      Niagara County         \$94,000
  Restoration                                            

  Common Tern Restoration #1      Niagara County         \$14,000

  Common Tern Restoration #2      Niagara/Erie County    \$60,000

  Buffalo River Walleye           Erie County            \$115,000
  Restoration                                            

  Niagara Escarpment Grassland &  Niagara County         \$119,000
  Oak Savannah Restoration                               

  Joseph Davis State Park Habitat Niagara County         \$220,000
  Restoration                                            

  Fish Creek Restoration          Niagara County         \$130,000

  Cayuga Creek Restoration        Niagara County         \$220,000

  Beluga Whale Restoration                               \$55,000

  East Gill Creek Chemical        Niagara County         \$150,000
  Characterization                                       

                                  **TOTAL**              **\$1,340,000**
  ------------------------------- ---------------------- -----------------

Upon release of this Final Restoration Plan, project proponents will be
required to submit detailed plans identifying project specifications
including project location(s), acreage, project designs, entities
responsible for restoration activities, timetable for restoration,
monitoring plan, and relevant conservation easements, deed restrictions,
or other protective land covenants. These plans shall be submitted to
the Trustees and any additional NEPA review, including public review and
comment, will be conducted, as appropriate. Prior to fund allocation,
the Trustees will approve the plans and enter into agreements with the
project proponents for the protection, maintenance and monitoring of the
project sites. All approved plans will be publicly available.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491452 .anchor}**3.7 No-Action Alternative**

Federal regulations require us to consider this option. The Trustees
considered the no action alternative under which no action would be
taken to restore resources injured due to contamination or remedial
activities associated with the Sites. We would rely entirely on the
natural recovery of the resources from the sustained injuries.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491453 .anchor}**Section 4. Analysis of
Environmental Consequences**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491454 .anchor}**4.1 Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered Species**

The Preferred Alternative was examined for its probable impact on
biological resources, including effects on water quality, fish and
wildlife and their habitat, including Federally and State listed
threatened or endangered species. Except for occasional transient
individuals, no Federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened
species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact
area. In addition, no habitat in the project area is currently
designated or proposed "critical habitat" in accordance with provisions
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491455 .anchor}**4.2** **Environmental Effects
of Proposed Projects**

The Preferred Alternative is anticipated to have a positive impact on
biological resources. The acquisition and protection of forested wetland
at or near Klydel will provide habitat for a variety of birds including
potentially the American woodcock, hooded warbler, wood thrush, veery,
black-billed cuckoo, and yellow-billed cuckoo. Restoration and
protection of grasslands and oak savannah will benefit grassland nesting
birds such as the State listed as threatened northern harrier, upland
sandpiper, and Henslow's sparrow (*Ammodramus henslowii*), and State
listed as Special Concern vesper sparrow (*Pooecetes gramineus*), and
grasshopper sparrow. The common tern is a State listed as threatened
species that is intended to benefit from the common tern restoration
projects. In the case of Fish Creek and Cayuga Creek, habitat will be
enhanced for warmwater fish and riparian corridor birds. Water quality
will be improved and recreational opportunities enhanced. Wetlands
restored or created at the Joseph Davis State Park or as part of the
Fish Creek project will provide habitat for migratory birds, amphibians,
and reptiles. The stocking of walleye will restore angling opportunities
in the assessment area. Further contaminant characterization in East
Gill Creek will identify any ecological risks to resources in this
ecosystem.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491456 .anchor}**4.3 Compliance with Other
Regulations**

Projects that do not involve ground disturbance, such as grassland
restoration, oak savannah restoration, common tern restoration, and land
acquisition, are not likely to affect historic, cultural, and aesthetic
resources. The Erie County Department of Environment and Planning has
agreed to ensure that the proposed walleye stocking project will not
affect historic, cultural, or aesthetic resources. The Erie County Sewer
District Number 1 had extensive archaeological work done in the project
area in 1994 that may facilitate this evaluation. The City of Niagara
Falls and partners would assume responsibility for ensuring that
activities occurring along Cayuga Creek, Black Creek, Bergholtz Creek,
or the Little River are consistent with historic, cultural, and
aesthetic guidelines. If land is disturbed for creation of a wetland
adjacent to Fish Creek, the Tuscarora Nation would be responsible for
ensuring consistency with any applicable Tribal and other regulations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491457 .anchor}**4.4 Effects of No Action
Alternative**

Under the no action alternative, injuries to wetlands, streams, rivers,
migratory birds, and fish would be uncompensated. Given sufficient time
and without additional injury, natural processes may enable some natural
resources to recover to pre-injury levels. However, the time frame for
such natural recovery has been estimated to be in terms of decades. This
alternative was determined to be unacceptable because it fails to
restore injured resources in a timely manner and does not comply with
the obligations set forth in consent decrees for these Sites.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491458 .anchor}**Section 5. Monitoring and Site
Protection**

Each project proponent is responsible for developing monitoring plans
and performing monitoring to record the status of their project. The
specific performance criteria, monitoring period, frequency of
monitoring, and associated reports will vary depending on the type of
project, and will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Draft
monitoring plans will be submitted to the USFWS, as Lead Administrative
Trustee, for review and approval prior to the transfer of funding.
Monitoring reports will be submitted to the USFWS, as Lead
Administrative Trustee, upon completion of the project or various
components of the project.

Prior to receiving funding, each project proponent must ensure that the
restoration project will be maintained and protected for a length of
time commensurate with the funding and project purpose. For example, the
Trustees anticipate that wetland acquisition and restoration projects,
as well, as all other land acquisition projects, will be placed under a
protective land covenant (e.g., conservation easement, deed restriction)
in perpetuity. Lesser terms of maintenance and protection may be
appropriate for other projects and will be determined on a case by case
basis.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491459 .anchor}**Section 6. List of Preparers**

This RP/EA was prepared by the USFWS, New York Field Office (Anne
Secord, Kathryn Jahn, David Stilwell), NOAA (Lisa Rosman, Todd Goeks),
and the NYSDEC (Sharon Brooks, Steven Sanford).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc77491460 .anchor}**Section 7. Literature Cited**

Audubon Society. 2001. Niagara River Corridor Important Bird Area.
\[online\].

CH2M Hill and Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1985. Love Canal Sewers and
Creeks. Remedial Alternatives. Evaluation and Risk Assessment. EPA
138.2105.0. Volume II, USEPA Contract No. 68-01-6692.

Conestoga-Rovers & Associates and Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990.
Remedial Investigation. Final Report. Volume I - Text. 102^nd^ Street
Landfill, Niagara Falls, New York Prepared for Occidental Chemical
Corporation and Olin Corporation.

Cook, PM, JA Robbins, DD Endicott, KB Lodge, PD Guiney, MR Walker, EW
Zabel, and RE Peterson. 2003. Effects of Aryl Hydrocarbon
Receptor-Mediated Early Life Stage Toxicity on Lake Trout Populations in
Lake Ontario During the Twentieth Century. Environ. Sci. Technol.
37(17): 3864-3877.

Courtney, PA and H Blokpoel. 1983. Distribution and Numbers of Common
Terns on the Lower Great Lakes During 1900-1980: A Review. Colonial
Waterbirds 6:107-120.

Hickey, JT, RO Bennett, R Reimschuessel and C Merckel. 1990. Biological
Indicators of Environmental Contaminants in the Niagara River:
Histological Evaluation of Tissues from Brown Bullheads at the Love
Canal - 102^nd^ Street Dump Site Compared to the Black Creek Reference
Site. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, NY 13045. 124 pp.

Hodson, PV, M Castonguay, CM Couillard, C Desjardins, E Pelletier and R
McLeod. 1994. Spatial and Temporal Variations in Chemical Contamination
of American Eels Captured in the Estuary of the St. Lawrence River. Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51:464-478.

Kuzia, E. 1985. Cayuga Creek Dioxin Sampling of Fish and Sediment. NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 8pp.

Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 1983. Site Investigations and Remedial Action
Alternatives. Prepared for the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.

Morris, RD and RA Hunter. 1976. Factors Influencing Desertion of Colony
Sites by Common Terns (*Sterna hirundo*). Can. Field Naturalist
90:137-143.

NYSDEC. 1999. Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments.
Albany, New York: NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources. 39 pp.

NYSDOH. 1981. Love Canal. A Special Report to the Governor and
Legislature. New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY. 70 pp.

NYSDOH. 2000-2001. Chemicals in Sportfish and Game - Health Advisories.
\[online\].

Natural Resources Conservation Service and Ducks Unlimited Canada. 1997.
Vegetating with Native Grasses in Northeastern North America. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.

Roblee, K and M Wilkinson. 1993. Description of 102^nd^ Street Embayment
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values. Memorandum to Mr. Richard Koeppicus,
dated November 15, 1993. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Buffalo, New York.

USEPA. 1988. Record of Decision for Love Canal, dated September 26,
1988. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York,
NY.

USEPA. 1990. Record of Decision for 102^nd^ Street Landfill, Niagara
Falls, New York. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New
York, NY. September 26, 1990.

USEPA. 1995. Record of Decision Amendment - 102^nd^ Street Landfill,
Niagara Falls, New York. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
II, New York, New York, June 9, 1995.

USEPA. 1997. Love Canal Site Fact Sheet. \[online\].

USEPA. 1999. Forest Glen Subdivision Superfund Site - Proposed Plan,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York, NY.

**FIGURES**

**APPENDIX A**

**DRAFT LIST OF RESTORATION PROJECTS EVALUATED AS PART OF RELICENSING OF
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT**

**Draft List of Habitat Improvement Projects Submitted as Part of
Niagara Power Project Relicensing**

1.  Tifft Nature Preserve -- replace culvert connecting Lake Erie and
    Lake Kristy.

2.  Tifft Nature Preserve -- nesting platforms for raptors

3.  Bell slip -- muskellunge nursery habitat

4.  Shoreline between Bell Slip and Seaway Piers -- scallop edges to
    create diverse habitat and break wave action

5.  NYPA ice boom land access

6.  Outer harbor breakwall "islands"

7.  Times Beach wetland/upland

8.  Outer harbor sturgeon spawning areas enhancements

9.  South Park/Lake Erie connection through wetland restoration

10. Altiff property improvements -- removal of lime pile

11. LTV Site -- restoration of riverine shoreline

12. Concrete central peninsula habitat protection and enhancement

13. Katherine Street peninsula habitat protection

14. Donnolly wall protection for common terns

15. Bird Island submerged vegetation protection

16. North end Squaw Island habitat enhancements

17. Strawberry Island -- east arm wetland cell

18. Motor Island shoreline enhancement

19. Shallows between Strawberry and Motor Island

20. North of Riverside Park shallows area

21. Beaver Island State Park boat wake reduction

22. Beaver Island State Park coastal wetland

23. Beaver Island State Park Sled Hill meadow mitigation

24. Spicer Creek culvert repair

25. Ferry Landing public access

26. Gun Creek protection/improvement

27. South Grand Island Bridge -- access

28. Grass Island protection zone

29. Buckhorn Island State Park spawning areas

30. Buckhorn Island State Park management and weir maintenance

31. West River Parkway riparian habitat

32. Big Sixmile Creek invert lowering

33. Big Sixmile Creek nature trail

34. Eco-island connection

35. North of South Grand Island Access Point in Tonawanda

36. Klydell wetland

37. Ellicott Creek diversion channel

38. Ellicott Creek Park island enhancements

39. Flood conversion cross-over, Tonawanda to Ellicott Creek, Ellicott
    Park

40. Ellicott Creek -- Convert Cannel to wetland

41. Nine Mile Island, Tonawanda Creek protection

42. Mudd Creek Former Channel Enhancement and Protection (40 acres)

43. Mudd Creek / Tonawanda Creek Peninsula protection

**Draft List of Habitat Improvement Projects Submitted as Part of
Niagara Power Project Relicensing**

44. Upper Reaches of Mudd Creek Protection

45. Tonawanda Creek riffles

46. Tonawanda and Ellicott Creek Canoe Trail/Launch Site

47. Northern tip of Tonawanda Island access and restoration

48. 102 Street Landfill Shoreline Restoration

49. 102 Street Landfill Grassland Management

50. Cayuga/Bergholtz Creek confluence enhancement

51. Southern Robert Moses Parkway Shoreline Improvements

52. Southern Moses Parkway Intakes enhancement

53. Adams Beck Intake "current break" enhancements

54. Gill Creek

55. Hyde Park Shoreline Restoration and Management

56. Spoils Pile Habitat Protection

57. Aqueduct Linear Habitat Improvements

58. Goat Island Habitat Restoration

59. Niagara Escarpment Protection Project

60. Niagara Gorge Protection: buffer along rim

61. Niagara Gorge and Escarpment Invasive Species Eradication

62. Niagara Gorge Native Plant enhancement

63. Niagara River Plant Erosion Tolerant Species Experimentation

64. Lower Niagara Gorge Trail Improvements

65. DeVeaux Campus Old Growth Forest Protection

66. Fish Creek Channelization

67. Reservoir-Fish Preservation

68. Identification/Preservation of Sturgeon spawning habitat

69. NYPA Intakes

70. Art Park Escarpment Restoration and Enhancement

71. Art Park Fishing Access near Lewiston

72. HoJack RR Line Protection

73. Stella Niagara Waterfront Property and Lewiston Pumping Station

74. Joseph Davis State Park River Improvement

75. Joseph Davis State Park Wetland Connection Project

76. Bond's Lake Protection -- Shoreline Restoration

77. Ponds along RMP, Porter

78. Spotted Turtle Habitat Preservation

79. O'Connor Farm grassland

[^1]: Forest Glen

[^2]: 102^nd^ Street

    3 Love Canal

[^3]: 1 Forest Glen

    2 102^nd^ Street

    3 Love Canal