BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 

NORTHEAST (NE)-07 PROJECT

Millennium Pipeline Project – Phase I 

Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 

Docket No. CP98-150-006, et al. 

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 

Docket No. CP98-151-000, et al. 

Line A-5 Replacement Project 

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 

Docket No. CP05-19-000 

Empire Connector Project 

Empire State Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc. 

Docket No. CP06-5-000, et al. 

Ramapo Expansion Project 

Algonquin Gas Transmission System, LLC 

Docket No. CP06-76-000 

MarketAccess Project 

Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP 

Docket No. CP02-31-000 

 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Energy Projects 

 888 First Street, NE 

 Washington, DC 20426 

 October 2006 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 NE-07 PROJECT 

 Biological Assessment

Page No. 

List of Tables iii 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations iv 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 

2.1 PURPOSE 2-1 

2.2 PROPOSED FACILITIES 2-2 

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 3-1 

3.1 Shortnose sturgeon 3-2 

3.2 Dwarf wedge mussel 3-4 

3.3 Indiana bat 3-6 

3.4 Bald eagle 3-14 

3.5 Bog turtle 3-20 

3.6 Leedy’s roseroot 3-30 

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4-1 

5.0 REFERENCES 5-1 

APPENDIX A INFORMAL CONSULTATION COMMUNICATIONS 
iii

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page No. 

1-1 Federally-Listed Species That Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the NE-07 Project 1-2 

3-1 Potential Effect of the NE-07 Project on Federally-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species

3-1 
iv 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Algonquin Algonquin Gas Transmission System, LLC 

BA Biological Assessment 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

Con Edison Consolidated Edison Company 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Columbia Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CS compressor station 

CTDEP Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

CWA construction work area 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

Dth/d decatherms per day 

ECS Environmental Construction Standards 

Empire Empire State Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc. 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEIS final environmental impact statement 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

hp horsepower 

Iroquois Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP 

M&R measuring and regulating 

Millennium Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 

MP milepost 

NE-07 Northeast 07 Project 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

NYSDOS New York State Department of State 

Plan Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

ROW right-of-way 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

U.S. United States 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

WMA Wildlife Management Area 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On September 19, 2002, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued 

an order approving the Millennium Pipeline Project proposed by Millennium Pipeline Company, LPC. 

(Millennium) in Docket Nos. CP98-150 et al and the related abandonment application proposed by Columbia 

Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) in Docket Nos. CP98-151 et al. The Northeast (NE)-07 Project 

would in effect be a modification of and an alternative to the Millennium Pipeline Project approved in that 

proceeding. It would include construction and operation of certain facilities approved for the Millennium 

Pipeline Project, with some additions and modifications, as well as facilities proposed by Empire State 

Pipeline and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (collectively referred to as Empire), Algonquin Gas Transmission System, 

LLC (Algonquin), and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP (Iroquois) as summarized in section 2.1. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, requires federal agencies to 

ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued 

existence of a federally-listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally-listed or proposed species. Under section 7, the 

Commission is required to consult with the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine whether any federally listed or proposed endangered 

or threatened species, or their designated critical habitats occur in the vicinity of a proposed project that is 

subject to FERC jurisdiction. 

In the event that a federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or its designated 

critical habitat occurs in the vicinity of a “major construction activity,” the FERC must prepare a biological 

assessment (BA) to determine whether the proposed action would affect that species. If the BA determines 

that the proposed action would affect a federally listed or proposed species, then the FERC must enter into 

formal consultation and obtain a Biological Opinion from the FWS or NMFS before taking final agency 

action. 

To fulfill its responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA, the FERC, through informal consultation 

with the FWS and NMFS and state agencies, has determined that six federally listed or proposed species may 

occur in the vicinity of the proposed NE-07 Project. The species are listed in Table 1-1. One species (the 

federally endangered bald eagle) was proposed for delisting on July 4, 1999, but has not been delisted yet. 

Because it has been documented along the proposed route and is a state-listed species, it is included in this 

BA. 

This BA examines the potential impact of construction and operation of the NE-07 Project on the six 

federally listed species. Detailed information concerning the location of the federally listed species was 

obtained based on consultation with federal and state natural resource management agencies, and field 

surveys performed by the applicants (see appendix A for informal communications). In addition, a 

supplemental draft BA for the Indiana bat, and a supplemental draft BA for the Millennium Pipeline Project – 

Phase I was prepared by Millennium and filed with the FERC. 
1−2

TABLE 1-1 

Federally-Listed Species That Potentially Occur in the Vicinity of the 

NE-07 Project

Common Name Scientific Name Status a/ Locations Where Species May Occur b/ 

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum F-E, NY-E, 

NJ-E, CTE 

A – Hudson River Valve Site 

Dwarf wedge mussel Alismodonta heterodon F-E, NY-E M – Neversink River, Orange County 

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis F-E, NY-E, 

NJ-E, CTE 

M – Orange and Rockland Counties 

E – Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, Chemung, 

and Steuben Counties 

A – Stony Point, Southeast, Hanover 

Compressor Stations; Pipeline 

Replacement 

I – Dover Compressor Station 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus F-T, NY-T, 

NJ-E, CTE 

M – Delaware, Sullivan, and Orange 

Counties 

A – Hanover Compressor Station, Hudson 

River Valve Site 

Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii F-T, NY-E, 

NJ-E, CTE 

M – Orange County 

A – Pipeline Replacement, Stony Point, 

Southeast, and Oxford Compressor 

Stations 

I – Dover Compressor Station 

Leedy’s Roseroot Sedum integrifolium spp. 

leedyi

F-T, NY-E E – Schuyler county 

_________________ 

a/ F = Federal Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) Species, NY = New York E or T Species, CT = Connecticut E or T Species, 

 NJ = New Jersey E or T Species 

b/ M = Millennium Pipeline Phase I Facilities, E = Empire Connector Facilities, A = Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Facilities, 

 I = Iroquois MarketAccess Facilities 
2−1 

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

2.1 PURPOSE 

Millennium Pipeline Project – Phase I

Millennium does not presently own any pipeline facilities but would construct and operate pipeline 

and other facilities and acquire pipeline and other facilities from Columbia for continued use and/or 

replacement. Millennium has redesigned and reduced the scale of the system that the Commission previously 

authorized to meet the current needs of the natural gas market. The Phase I Project would provide for the 

delivery of about 525,400 decatherms per day (Dth/d) to Millennium’s customers (as opposed to 714,000 

Dth/d in the original Certificate of public convenience and necessity [Certificate] application). It would 

interconnect with Algonquin’s 26- and 30-inch-diameter pipelines at the existing Ramapo Measuring and 

Regulating (M&R) Station. 

Columbia Line A-5 Replacement Project

In February 2003, Columbia committed to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and New 

York Public Service Commission to implement an Age and Condition Program, an ongoing system upgrade 

program to replace sections of the aging A-5 pipeline to ensure safety and continuity of service. Initially, 

Columbia intended replacing the multi-diameter Line A-5 with 10-inch-diameter pipeline, and some segments 

of Line A-5 were replaced in 2003 and 2004 in compliance with the DOT direction. Similarly, in 2005, 

Columbia had planned to replace the easternmost 8.8 miles of Line A-5 with 10-inch-diameter pipeline. 

However, Columbia re-evaluated its plan and determined that replacement with 30-inch-diameter pipeline 

(instead of 10-inch-diameter pipeline) would be a better choice, due to the anticipated demand for increased 

throughput in its system in this area. 

Columbia stated that replacement with the larger, 30-inch-diameter pipeline would avoid repeated 

disturbance of sensitive areas in the event that, in the near future, Columbia needed to increase capacity and 

construct the proposed larger diameter pipeline to accommodate potential future system expansion and meet 

anticipated market growth. Specifically, this would avoid repeated impacts to resources in Sterling Forest®

State Park, the Ramapo River, Kakiat Park, and Harriman State Park. 

Columbia stated that the Line A-5 Pipeline Replacement was needed to continue and ensure longterm reliability of firm service to Columbia’s existing customers, and also represents a necessary link in 

Millennium’s proposed transmission system between the Phase I Project and the identified downstream 

pipeline projects and markets/customers. 

Empire Connector Project

The Empire Connector Project would provide natural gas transportation capacity for gas supplies 

delivered to Empire State Pipeline at the interconnection of the facilities of TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. and 

Empire State Pipeline at the U.S. – Canada border. The Empire State Pipeline would transport gas to the 

proposed Empire Connector Project in Victor, New York. Gas would then be transported via the Empire 

Connector Project to the proposed Millennium Phase I Project at Corning, New York. The Empire Connector 

Project would add about 250,000 Dth/d of transmission capacity for shippers on its system. It would deliver 

gas to Millennium’s pipeline for shippers in downstream markets in the New York City, New Jersey, and 

New England areas. 
2−2 

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project

The purpose of the Ramapo Expansion Project is to provide additional capacity to facilitate 

transportation of new supply receipts from Millennium’s Phase I Project, and specifically, to provide 125,000 

Dth/d of natural gas transportation capacity to Consolidated Edison Corporation (Con Edison) and 200,000 

Dth/d of transportation capacity to KeySpan. Millennium’s Phase I Project and the Ramapo Expansion 

Project would provide transportation service to customers in the New York natural gas market specifically, 

and the New England market generally, with additional access to natural gas supplies from traditional 

production sources attached to the natural gas pipeline grid in the U.S. and Canada, as well as access to local 

production and storage in New York. 

Iroquois MarketAccess Project 

The purpose of the Iroquois MarketAccess Project is to provide firm natural gas transportation 

services to Con Edison. Of this volume, 100,000 Dth/d would be delivered by Algonquin to Iroquois at 

Brookfield, Connecticut, for Con Edison’s account, beginning November 1, 2007. The gas would then be 

transported by Iroquois and delivered to Con Edison at its existing Hunts Point, New York meter station. 

In order to increase system capacity to receive the natural gas from Algonquin and provide the 

transportation services, Iroquois would also construct gas cooling facilities at its Dover, New York 

compressor station (CS) and install a transfer compressor and gas cooling facilities at its interconnect with 

Algonquin at Brookfield, Connecticut. The transfer compressor would increase the pressure of the gas being 

delivered by Algonquin in order to allow it to enter Iroquois’ system. 

Ultimately, the Commission will determine the need for the NE-07 Project and whether it should 

issue the applicants a Certificate under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act. The Commission will take into 

account all aspects of the proposal including the customers, cost, financing, rates, engineering, economic risk, 

and environmental impact when weighing these factors to make that decision. 

PROPOSED FACILITIES 

Millennium Pipeline Project – Phase I

Millennium would construct and operate certain amendment facilities in Docket No. CP98-150-006 

and CP98-150-007 for the Millennium Pipeline Project – Phase I (Phase I Project). The Phase I Project 

includes: 

• construction of about 181.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline from Corning, New York, to Ramapo, 

New York, (from milepost [MP] 190.6 to MP 376.6), with four proposed route modifications within 

this area; 

• acquisition from Columbia and continued use of about 7.1 miles of 24-inch-diameter Line A-5 

pipeline from MP 340.5 to MP 347.7; 

• construction of 1,278 feet of 24-inch-diameter pipeline from MP 343.8 to MP 344.1; 

• installation of additional compression and M&R facilities at Columbia’s existing Corning CS (MP 

190.6); 

• construction of the Wagoner M&R station in Deer Park, New York; 

• installation of upgrades to the Ramapo M&R station in Ramapo, Rockland County, New York; 

• three route variations/realignments totaling about 19 miles along the existing NYSEG powerline 

ROW: 

a) Chemung Variation (MP 198.0 – 203.6) 

b) Tioga–Broome Variation (MP 232.2 – 245.0) 

c) Delaware Variation (MP 284.4 – 284.9); and 
2−3 

• a 5,600-ft (1.1-mile) route variation/change around Warwick Isle subdivision (MP 350.8 – 

351.6). 

In addition, the Phase I Project would include construction and operation of Columbia’s proposed 

Line A-5 Replacement Project (Docket No. CP05-19-000). (On August 1, 2005, Columbia requested that this 

application be consolidated with Millennium’s amended application.) The Line A-5 Replacement Project 

consists of: 

• replacement of 8.8 miles of 8- and 16-inch-diameter segments of Columbia’s existing Line A-5 

pipeline with larger 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Orange and Rockland Counties, New York; 

• modification of three existing M&R stations (the Tuxedo, Sloatsburg, and Ramapo M&R stations) on 

this segment of Line A-5 to accommodate the larger diameter pipeline; 

• abandonment in place of about 1.0 mile of the existing Line A-5 pipeline; 

• the Sterling Forest – Laurel Ridge Route Variation (MP 367.8 – 368.5); and 

• the Ramapo River HDD Variation (MP 369.5 – 370.3). 

Empire Connector Project

Empire proposes in Docket No. CP06-5-000 to construct the Empire Connector Project. This project 

would consist of: 

• construction of about 78 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline and associated facilities in Ontario, 

Yates, Schuyler, Chemung, and Steuben Counties, New York; and 

• construction of a new CS in Genesee County, New York. 

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project

Algonquin proposes in Docket No. CP06-76-000 to construct the Ramapo Expansion Project. This 

project consists of: 

• replacement about 4.9 miles of existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline with 42-inch-diameter pipeline in 

Rockland County, New York; 

• construction of miscellaneous pipeline modifications and meter station modifications at several 

locations in Rockland County, New York, and Fairfield County, Connecticut; 

• modification of three existing CS’s in Rockland and Putnam Counties, New York, and Morris 

County, New Jersey; and 

• construction of one new natural gas CS in New Haven County, Connecticut. 

Iroquois MarketAccess Project

Iroquois proposes in Docket No. CP02-31-002 to amend the Certificate it received from the 

Commission on October 31, 2002, in Docket No. CP02-31-000 to modify the approved facilities and to 

construct and operate certain additional facilities for the MarketAccess Project. An environmental assessment 

was issued for Iroquois’ Brookfield Expansion Project in the original proceeding. This project would consist 

of: 

• reduction of the proposed size of the compressor to be constructed in the Town of Brookfield, 

Connecticut, from 10,000 horsepower (hp) to 7,700 hp; 

• construction of a new transfer CS and natural gas cooling facilities in the Town of Brookfield, 

Fairfield County, Connecticut; and 

• installation of cooling and compressor facilities at Iroquois’ existing CS in Town of Dover, Dutchess 

County, New York. 
3−1 

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

The FERC has identified six federally listed endangered or threatened species that could potentially 

occur in the vicinity of the NE-07 Project facilities. During the certification process for the original 

Millennium Pipeline Project, the FWS identified an additional three federally listed endangered or threatened 

species not included here: northern wild monkshood, the northern riffleshell, and the clubshell. These species 

are not reported to occur along the Millennium Phase I Project area, and therefore are not discussed in this 

BA. A more detailed discussion of these species as they pertain to the previously certificated Millennium 

Pipeline Project may be found in the Millennium Pipeline Project FEIS, FERC/EIS-0123F Vol. 1 (2001). 

Table 3-1 provides our1/

 determination of the project’s effect on the six federally listed endangered or 

threatened species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the NE-07 Project. 

 

1/ “We”, “us”, and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects, part of the Commission staff. 

TABLE 3-1 

Potential Effect of the NE-07 Project on Federally-Listed 

Endangered or Threatened Species

Common/Scientific Name Status a/ Locations Where Species May Occur b/ Project Effect 

Shortnose sturgeon 

Acipenser brevirostrum

F-E, NY-E, 

NJ-E, CT-E 

A – Hudson River Valve Site A – Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

Dwarf wedge mussel 

Alismodonta heterodon

F-E, NY-E M – Neversink River, Orange County M – Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

Indiana bat 

Myotis sodalis 

F-E, NY-E, 

NJ-E, CT-E 

M – Orange and Rockland Counties 

E – Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, Chemung, 

and Steuben Counties 

Ac/ – Stony Point, Southeast, Hanover CSs, 

Pipeline Replacement 

I – Dover Compressor Station 

M, A – May Affect, 

But Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

E, I – Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

F-T, NY-T, 

NJ-E, CT-E 

M – Delaware, Sullivan, and Orange 

Counties 

A – Hanover Compressor Station, Hudson 

River Valve Site 

M, A – Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect 

Bog turtle 

Clemmys muhlenbergii

F-T, NY-E, 

NJ-E, CT-E 

M – Orange County 

A – Pipeline Replacement, Stony Point, 

Southeast, and Oxford Compressor Stations 

I – Dover Compressor Station 

M, A, I – Not Likely 

to Adversely Affect 

Leedy’s roseroot 

Sedum integrifolium ssp. 

Leedyi

F-T, NY-E E – Schuyler county E – Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect 

a/ F = Federal Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) Species, NY = New York E or T Species, CT = Connecticut E or T Species, 

 NJ = New Jersey E or T Species 

b/ M = Millennium Pipeline Phase I Facilities, E = Empire Connector Facilities, A = Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Facilities, 

 I = Iroquois MarketAccess Facilities 

c/ Surveys required to determine if species is present.
3−2 

Millennium, Columbia, Algonquin, and Iroquois all propose to implement the construction, 

restoration, and maintenance procedures identified in their environmental construction standards (ECS), 

which incorporate our Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) (these documents may be found at 

www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp ). Our Plan and Procedures were developed in response 

to concerns raised by federal, state, and local agencies regarding the potential impact of construction of 

natural gas pipeline projects in general. The Plan was developed to provide methods to minimize erosion and 

sedimentation; the Procedures were developed to provide a minimum level of protection for surface waters 

and wetlands that would be affected by proposed projects. These waters include any stream or river with 

perceptible flow at the time of crossing and other permanent waterbodies, such as ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. 

 Implementation of each pipeline company’s ECS, and our Plan and Procedures would minimize project 

impacts on several federally listed endangered or threatened species that possibly occur in the vicinity of the 

proposed NE-07 Project. 

3.1 Shortnose Sturgeon 

Background 

The shortnose sturgeon was listed as a federally endangered species on March 11, 1967. It is a 

diadromous species that occurs only along the east coast of North America in tributary rivers to the Atlantic 

Ocean and is known to occur in the Hudson River between the George Washington Bridge in Manhattan and 

the Federal Lock and Dam in Troy, New York. The Hudson River provides spawning, seasonal foraging, and 

overwintering habitat for this species, and Haverstraw Bay (the location of the original Millennium Pipeline 

Project proposed crossing) provides seasonal foraging and overwintering habitat (NMFS 1997). Habitat 

alteration, associated with pollution and dam construction in rivers flowing to the Atlantic Ocean, is the 

primary reason for the endangered status of this species. Other threats include incidental taking by 

commercial fishermen, and channel dredging and disposal of materials. The shortnose sturgeon is also a 

state-listed endangered species in New York. 

The shortnose sturgeon is a migratory fish with a complex life history. It is a benthic predator that 

feeds on macroinvertebrates during the summer months and prefers the oligohaline region of rivers, which 

contains the biologically productive saltwater/freshwater interface (Haley, et al. 1996). The shortnose 

sturgeon inhabits estuaries and large coastal rivers, and moves upstream and downstream with the seasons. 

There have been inconsistent descriptions of shortnose sturgeon migratory behavior due to the varying habitat 

distributions used during the species’ four life stages. The four life stages of the shortnose sturgeon are larval, 

juvenile, non-spawning adult, and spawning adult. 

Research from other rivers indicates that an individual adult may spawn once every three years, 

indicating that for any given year, the majority of the adults in the river are not spawning (Bain et al. 1995). 

From late fall until early April, the pre-spawning adults have been well documented to overwinter in a torpid 

state in the deep channel habitats of the Hudson River near Sturgeon Point (about river mile 86) and 

Kingston, New York (river mile 94) (Bain 1997). In mid-April the spawning fish move upstream to the 

spawning grounds between Coxsackie, New York (river mile 120) and the Troy Dam at Troy, New York 

(river mile 153). Spawning occurs from mid-April to late May. Afterwards, the adults disperse downriver 

into the summer range between river miles 24 and 76. From late spring until early fall, the adult fish are 

distributed in this summer range for feeding in the deep channel habitats of the freshwater and brackish parts 

of the estuary. 

 
3−3 

 Spawning reportedly occurs primarily over gravel or cobble in areas of relatively fast water. 

Fertilized eggs adhere to the substrate. Hatching generally occurs within 7 to 10 days depending on water 

temperature. Larvae generally seek cover within the substrate. About 10 days following hatching, the larvae 

have developed mouths, eyes, and precursors to adult fins. During this time period, the larvae have begun to 

disperse downstream in the Hudson River. They occur primarily in fast, deep waters and have been 

associated with the spawning areas between Hudson River miles 120 and 153. 

Less research has been performed for the juveniles and non-spawning adults of the shortnose 

sturgeon, and consequently, this portion of the population has been underestimated in past studies. The 

juvenile shortnose sturgeon prefer to remain above the saltwater/freshwater interface, but by late fall and early 

winter, most older juveniles occupy the same broad region of the Hudson River near Haverstraw Bay that the 

non-spawning adults inhabit (NMFS 1998b). 

The non-spawning adults summer in the same range as the spawning adults. As water temperature 

drops in late fall, the fish move to one of two wintering areas. Dovel et al. (1992) concluded that most adults 

overwinter near Kingston; however, subsequent river monitoring in late fall indicates that the non-spawning 

adults overwinter in the seasonally brackish waters near Haverstraw Bay (river miles 34 to 39) (Bain 1997). 

In the spring, these fish migrate upstream and remain in the tidal portion of the river, primarily downstream of 

Kingston. The population of shortnose sturgeon likely to inhabit portions of Haverstraw Bay during the 

winter would be non-spawning adults and older juveniles. 

Project Components In the Vicinity of the Shortnose Sturgeon 

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

No field surveys for the shortnose sturgeon have been performed by Algonquin. However, 

monitoring data collected for electric utilities suggest that populations have been increasing in the Hudson 

River. To verify these findings, several studies have been conducted (Dovel et al. 1992 and Bain et al. 

1995). These studies indicate that Hudson River populations of the shortnose sturgeon may have increased by 

more than 400 percent from the 1970s to the present (Dovel estimated 13,000 fish in the 1970s and Bain 

estimates a present [1995] population of about 55,000). 

Summary of Impacts 

 Within the region of the Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project, occurrences of and habitat for the 

shortnose sturgeon are restricted to the Hudson River. Construction at Algonquin’s Hudson River Valve Site 

would be located at the river crossing valves, about 150 feet from the river, and would not involve any inwater activities in the Hudson River. In addition, none of the other Algonquin project components would 

result in any temporary or permanent disturbances to the Hudson River. 

Determination of Effect 

 We have concluded that construction and operation of the Algonquin Ramapo Expansion portion of 

the NE-07 Project would not affect the shortnose sturgeon or any suitable habitat of the species, because no 

in-water activities would occur in the Hudson River. On August 18, 2006, the FERC requested that the NMFS 

concur with this determination. Concurrence is pending. 
3−4 

Overall Determination of Effect For the Shortnose Sturgeon 

 We have concluded that construction and operation of the NE-07 Project would not likely adversely 

affect the shortnose sturgeon or any suitable habitat of the species, because no portion of the NE-07 Project 

construction, operation, or maintenance would occur in the Hudson River. 

3.2 Dwarf Wedge Mussel 

Background 

The dwarf wedge mussel is a small freshwater mussel inhabiting large streams and rivers that drain 

into the Atlantic Ocean, and is known to occur in at least 20 streams and rivers along the Atlantic coast from 

New Hampshire to North Carolina (Strayer et al. 1996). However, the surviving populations in many of 

these locations are small. In New York, the dwarf wedge mussel occurs in the Neversink River in Orange 

County, and the National Park Service has documented three populations within the Upper Delaware River in 

Sullivan and Delaware Counties. This section of the Delaware River is thought to contain the fifth largest 

known remaining population of the dwarf wedge mussel (Raddant, 2006). The dwarf wedge mussel was 

listed as a federally endangered species on March 14, 1990. The primary threats to this mussel are associated 

with loss of suitable habitat from dam construction, water pollution, and sedimentation (Lowe et al. 1990). 

The dwarf wedge mussel is also listed as a state-endangered species in New York. 

The dwarf wedge mussel inhabits large streams and rivers, and appears to prefer moderate current 

speeds (about 0.2 to 0.5 feet per second) and possibly locations in which current is spatially uniform (Strayer 

and Ralley 1993). The dwarf wedge mussel is found in association with substrate that includes patches of fine 

sediments, although the species is apparently relatively intolerant of silt deposition. Data indicate that the 

dwarf wedge mussel occurs primarily in softer waters containing lower concentrations of calcium (Strayer 

1993). 

The dwarf wedge mussel is sexually dimorphic; individuals are either male or female, as opposed to 

some mussel species in which all individuals are hermaphroditic. The age of sexual maturity for the dwarf 

wedge mussel is not reported in the literature. However, the dwarf wedge mussel has an unusually short life 

span for a mussel, with a maximum reported age for the species of about 10 years (Michaelson and Neves 

1995). Thus, it is likely that the species becomes sexually mature rather early. Although there is conflicting 

information in the literature concerning the specifics of the reproductive cycle, it is generally believed that 

males release gametes into the water column and the females take up these gametes. The resulting fertilized 

cells are called glochidia, which are retained by the female within a marsupium while they develop. Gravid 

females (containing glochidia) have been reported from early June to late August (Clarke 1981) or from 

February to August (Johnson 1970). Regardless of the actual time period, dwarf wedge mussels appear to 

brood the glochidia for a long period before releasing mature glochidia to the water column. 

Once released to the water column, mature glochidia must attach to a host fish to continue 

development. The host fish species for the dwarf wedge mussel include mottled sculpin, johnny darter, and 

tessellated darter (Michaelson and Neves 1995). The length of the association of the glochidia with fish has 

not been specifically identified, although this period typically lasts for several weeks for other mussel species. 

 Following this period, the individual enters the velliger stage, where the mussel reenters the water column 

and settles to the substrate. The velliger begins to secrete a shell and develops into a juvenile mussel. 

As with other mussel species, the dwarf wedge mussel feeds by filtering large quantities of water. 

Food particles are filtered out of the water and digested. Specific food of the dwarf wedge mussel is not 

reported. However, it is likely to consist of algae and small zooplankters that inhabit the water column. 
3−5 

Project Components In the Vicinity of the Dwarf Wedge Mussel 

Millennium Phase I

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

The original Millennium Pipeline Project included construction of a bored crossing of the Neversink 

River, a small to mid-sized river that is about 100 feet wide at the proposed pipeline crossing. The proposed 

crossing of the Neversink River would have been in the downstream portion of the reported extent of the 

dwarf wedge mussel habitat. The species was assumed to occur at the crossing location, since it had been 

found upstream and downstream of the crossing. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) confirmed that the largest 

population of the dwarf wedge mussel in the state occurs at the proposed crossing location (TNC 1998). In 

2005, Millennium conducted a survey in the Neversink River to determine whether the species was present at 

the crossing location. No evidence of live or dead dwarf wedge mussels was found. A detailed discussion of 

the survey methodology and results can be found in the February 2006 Millennium report, which was sent to 

the FWS and the FERC, titled Final Report: Unionid, Tiger Beetle, and Hellbender Surveys at Seven 

Proposed Stream Crossings of the Millennium Pipeline in New York.

Summary of Impacts 

 If the Neversink River were open cut or if an equipment bridge were installed across the river, 

potential impacts on the dwarf wedge mussel could include both direct (displacement or loss of individuals) 

and indirect impacts (disruption or loss of habitat). 

 

 Other indirect impacts could also occur as a result of sedimentation from construction disturbances. 

Multiple stream crossings in Millennium construction areas during a short period of time could result in 

cumulative impacts to receiving waters such as the Delaware River, with the potential for excess 

sedimentation and turbidity that could adversely affect the dwarf wedge mussel. However, construction 

impacts in the Delaware River basin would be minimized to the greatest extent practicable by Millennium’s 

adherence to the water quality requirements that would be imposed by the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and by implementing its ECS and SPCC Plan, our Plan and 

Procedures, and the requirements of the Commission’s Interim and Final Orders. In addition, not all of the 

Delaware River tributary crossings would occur at the same time within the Delaware River drainage basin, 

thereby minimizing the cumulative impact of sedimentation or turbidity occurring due to multiple concurrent 

stream crossings. Therefore, we have determined that construction and operation by Millennium would not 

likely adversely impact dwarf wedge mussel populations in the Delaware River area. 

Alternatives Considered 

 Alternative crossing locations have been considered for the Neversink River during the course of 

assessing the impact of the original Millennium Pipeline Project and the Phase I Project. During consultation 

for the Phase I Project in 2004 and 2005, Millennium, the FWS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), 

NYSDEC, and TNC again considered alternative crossing locations. TNC argued against alternative crossing 

locations on two grounds. First, periodic monitoring of the dwarf wedge mussel population in the Neversink 

River had indicated that the distribution of the population was expanding both upstream and downstream 

through time. Thus, previously considered alternative crossing locations were not likely to avoid impacts to 

locations supporting the existing population. Second, any alternative crossing location would require that the 

pipeline route follow the course of the river for some extended distance along both banks. TNC argued that 

this would increase the potential impact of unanticipated sedimentation or spills in the existing population of 

mussels in the river. 

 
3−6 

 Alternative construction methods have also been evaluated for the Neversink River crossing. 

Millennium conducted preliminary investigations of a horizontal directional drill (HDD) of the Neversink 

River in 1997 and concluded that a HDD at the proposed crossing location would be infeasible, primarily 

because of cost and topographic considerations. 

 In 2004 and 2005 Millennium reassessed the use of a conventional bore technique to construct the 

Neversink River crossing. The result of this reassessment was that the method was likely to fail based on the 

subsurface conditions at the site. This led to the re-examination of other potential crossing techniques. A 

HDD remained infeasible due primarily to unfavorable geotechnical criteria and to the steep topography 

present on the eastern bank of the river. Discussions with the FWS, COE, NYSDEC, and TNC indicated that 

these agencies remained opposed to any construction method that would result in substrate disturbance. 

Millennium also examined the feasibility of constructing an aerial crossing of the Neversink River. While 

this method was technically feasible, this alternative was dismissed due to considerations of construction and 

maintenance cost, and more importantly, potential security issues. 

 After re-examination of all possible alternatives, Millennium proposed incorporating a segment of 

Columbia’s existing 24-inch-diameter Line A-5 pipeline between MPs 340.5 and 347.7 into the Phase I 

Project to avoid making a new crossing of the Neversink River. An evaluation of the flow modeling data 

indicated that the incorporation of about 7.1 miles of the existing pipeline from the Huguenot M&R facility 

on the west side of the river (MP 340.5) to the Westtown M&R facility in central Orange County (MP 347.7) 

was feasible if a small section of this pipeline located in the vicinity of Interstate 84 (MP 343.8 to MP 344.1) 

were replaced. The continued utilization of this segment of the existing Line A-5 pipeline would result in the 

avoidance of any construction in the Neversink River. 

Determination of Effect 

 We have determined that the proposed Phase I Project would avoid construction in the immediate 

vicinity of the Neversink River, thereby avoiding any impacts to dwarf wedge mussel populations in the 

Neversink River. In addition, adherence to all water quality requirements and best practices while 

constructing stream crossings in the Delaware River basin, would minimize potentially adverse indirect 

effects to dwarf wedge mussel populations in the Upper Delaware River due to excessive sedimentation or 

turbidity. Therefore, we conclude that construction and operation of the Phase I Project would not adversely 

affect the dwarf wedge mussel or any suitable habitat of the species. 

Overall Determination of Effect For the Dwarf Wedge Mussel 

 We have concluded that construction and operation of the NE-07 Project would not adversely affect 

the dwarf wedge mussel or any suitable habitat of the species in the areas of the Upper Delaware River and 

the Neversink River. 

3.3 Indiana Bat 

Background 

 The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is a medium-sized bat known from the northeast region of the U.S., 

including southeastern New York, northern New Jersey, and several other surrounding states. The Indiana bat 

utilizes winter hibernacula and spring/summer roosting locations within this region. The FWS listed the 

Indiana bat as endangered on March 11, 1967. The most current range-wide estimate of the population is 

about 457,000 individuals, which represents about 52 percent of the estimated population of the 1960s. 

Long-term, detailed documentation of population changes are lacking across most of its range, with the 

exception of the state of Indiana (Brack et al. 1983 and 2003, Johnson et al. 2002). It is probable that habitat 

loss during summer (FWS 1999a) and winter disturbances during hibernation (Johnson et al. 1998) both 
3−7 

contributed to the overall decline of the species. 

A recovery plan for the species was completed on October 14, 1983. In October 1996, the Indiana 

Bat Recovery Team released a Technical Draft Indiana Bat Recovery Plan. In October 1997, a preliminary 

version entitled "Agency Draft of the Indiana Bat Recovery Plan,” which incorporated changes from the 1996 

Technical Draft, was released. Subsequently, an agency draft entitled "Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Revised 

Recovery Plan" was distributed for comments in March 1999. A new draft revised recovery plan is being 

prepared. Critical habitat was designated on September 24, 1976, and includes 11 caves and 2 abandoned 

mines in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 

The life history of the Indiana bat is somewhat complex. The species hibernates during winter 

months in caves and abandoned mines. During the species’ active period, individuals migrate, in some cases 

over fairly long distances, from the hibernacula to summer roosting areas. A brief description of the phases of 

the life history follows. 

Large populations of Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and 

Missouri (over 73 percent of the known population). Indiana bats sometimes hibernate in abandoned mines 

and other man-made underground chambers. Smaller populations of hibernating Indiana bats are known from 

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (FWS 1999a). Although the winter range is 

large, the known population of the species hibernates in only 336 hibernacula in an area with tens of 

thousands of caves and mines. 

Autumn swarming and spring staging typically occur in woodlands near the hibernacula, with use of 

the hibernacula increasing as autumn progresses, and decreasing as spring progresses. A variety of telemetry 

studies have shown that lands within five miles of hibernacula are important to Indiana bats during spring and 

autumn (e.g. Brack in submission; Gumbert 2001). 

Little is known about the habitat used by either sex during migration, although it is generally 

presumed to include a variety of wooded habitats. Indiana bats caught in spring or autumn, especially near a 

cave or mine, may be present for one or more of the following reasons: 1) winter hibernation (and 

“preparation” for hibernation), 2) autumn swarming, 3) spring staging, and 4) transient or migratory use. 

However, autumn and spring sampling of hibernacula routinely produce captures of Indiana bats, and the 

absence of such captures is routinely considered sufficient evidence to indicate the cave or mine is not a 

hibernaculum. Failure to catch large numbers of bats of any species is also strong evidence that the cave or 

mine is not suitable as a hibernaculum. 

The seasons of spring and autumn migration/transient period are generally inferred as the time 

between when bats leave the hibernacula and when they are found in maternity areas (spring), and vice versa 

(autumn). In most portions of the range, this is generally considered to be April 15 to May 15 in spring, and 

August 15 to November 15 in autumn, although these dates are sometimes adjusted regionally to 

accommodate latitudinal differences in season. 

There are no data indicating how many individuals are in any given area during the spring and 

autumn migratory/transient period, nor the duration of their stay. Data indicate that some Indiana bats may 

already be at the winter hibernacula while some individuals are still at summer roosts, and that “waves” of 

individuals arrive and depart the hibernacula. 
3−8 

In summer, females form maternity colonies in trees. Maternity colonies may form many miles from 

hibernacula, and females from a single maternity colony may come from more than one hibernaculum. In 

contrast, males often use wooded areas near the hibernacula, occasionally visiting it throughout the summer 

(Brack 1983, Whitaker and Brack 2002). However, some individual males may migrate distances similar to 

females. 

The core summer range of the Indiana bat is southern Iowa, northern Missouri, northern Illinois, 

northern Indiana, southern Michigan, and western Ohio. There are reproductive records from Iowa, Missouri, 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 

Vermont, and New York. 

In order to assist the FERC in preparing a BA for the NE-07 Project and to expedite review of effects 

on the species, Millennium issued a draft BA for the Indiana bat for the Millennium Phase I Project in January 

2006. The report, titled Biological Assessment of the Federally-Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) for 

Phase I of the Millennium Pipeline Project, Orange and Rockland Counties, New York (Phase I Indiana Bat 

BA), contains the results of surveys and studies of Indiana bats in the Phase I Project area, and readers can 

refer to this document for a more detailed description of Indiana bat background and natural history. 

Project Components In the Vicinity of the Indiana Bat 

Millennium Phase I

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

Millennium has issued two separate documents presenting findings with respect to the Indiana bat. 

The report entitled 2005 Summer Mist Net Survey for the Federally-Endangered Indiana Bat for Phase I of 

the Millennium Gas Pipeline Project, Orange and Rockland Counties, New York (Mist Net Report) reports 

results of the sampling program undertaken by Millennium to determine whether Indiana bats occur in the 

vicinity of the Phase I Project. As mentioned above, the Phase I Indiana Bat BA serves as a draft BA for the 

Phase I Project effects on the Indiana bat, and presents a more detailed analysis. The following is a summary 

of the findings of the Phase I Indiana Bat BA. 

 Relatively little is known about the summer distribution of the Indiana bat in New York. For that 

reason, the FWS requested that sampling for the species be conducted within suitable habitat along the Phase 

I Project route in Orange and Rockland Counties. This sampling effort was conducted in summer and early 

fall of 2005. The survey methodology is reported in the Mist Net Report. 

Results of the sampling effort are reported in the Mist Net Report, which should be consulted for a 

detailed description of sampling methodology and results. A total of 56 mist net sites were surveyed along 

the about 45 miles of the proposed Phase I Project route in Orange and Rockland Counties. Five additional 

sites were netted along three proposed access roads that extended outside of the area covered by the route 

survey. 

In total, 798 bats representing seven species were captured while netting the corridor. Thirteen 

Indiana bats were captured, including six males and seven females. Of these captures, four were 

reproductively active females and six were juveniles, indicating the presence of maternity colonies. Radiotransmitters were attached to 11 of these bats; six were tracked to a total of 11 roosts. An additional nine 

Indiana bats (including juveniles and reproductive females) were captured in a mist net as they emerged from 

a maternity roost on the evening of August 18, 2005. Seventeen (17) of the total 22 bats were banded. All 

captures of Indiana bats were in Orange County, New York and were located within an about 12.5-mile long 

portion of the Phase I Project. This portion of the Phase I Project corridor forms the core of the Indiana Bat 

Activity Area identified by the survey. 
3−9 

Two maternity roost colonies were identified among the 11 roosts discovered during the field survey. 

 Three female Indiana bats were tracked to a cluster of seven trees within a 0.25-mile radius in the Town of 

Minisink. These trees were collectively considered one maternity colony (Maternity Colony 1). A fourth 

female Indiana bat was tracked to one roost tree and a nearby house in the Town of Warwick. Multiple 

reproductive Indiana bats were captured as they emerged from the house, verifying the presence of a 

maternity colony. Collectively, the house and nearby tree were considered one maternity colony (Maternity 

Colony 2). 

Males, non-reproductive females, and juveniles were apparently utilizing the remaining roosts 

identified during the survey. 

Summary of Impact 

A detailed evaluation of potential impacts of the Phase I Project on the Indiana bat is presented in the 

Phase I Indiana Bat BA. The following is a brief summary of the findings contained in that document. 

Potential impacts from the Phase I Project to the Indiana bat arise primarily from tree clearing 

performed within the CWA prior to construction. Winter hibernacula do not occur in the vicinity of the Phase 

I Project. Therefore, the Phase I Project would not affect hibernacula, would not affect the Indiana bat during 

hibernation, and would not affect spring staging or autumn swarming activities of the species. 

Indiana bats are not known to occur in the vicinity of the Phase I Project during the 

migratory/transient period, although suitable habitat is available. During transient periods, Indiana bats use a 

wide variety of habitats and roosts and could use all wooded habitats in the vicinity of the Phase I Project. 

Thus, the Phase I Project could potentially affect migratory individuals through the removal of suitable roost 

trees. Since the number of suitable roost trees in the vicinity of the Phase I Project is very large in 

comparison to the number of trees being removed from the CWA, this effect would be minimal. 

The roost trees identified during the field survey all lie outside of the CWA for the Phase I Project. 

Thus, the Phase I Project would not result in direct impacts to roosting bats or result in the removal of known 

roosts. However, the possibility exists that unknown roosts may lie within the CWA. Thus, the Phase I 

Project could potentially affect summer roosting opportunities for the Indiana bat. However, since the 

number of suitable roost trees in the vicinity of the Phase I Project is very large in comparison to the number 

of trees being removed from the CWA, this effect should be minimal. 

The habitat loss resulting from the removal of trees within the CWA would not result in measurable 

impacts to the Indiana bat. The amount of affected habitat is very small in comparison to the amount of 

available habitat. 

Fragmentation of habitat and disruption of connectivity of suitable habitats for the Indiana bat would 

not result in measurable impacts to the species. Most of the tree clearing would take place along an existing 

corridor and would not result in the creation of new corridors through previously undisturbed forest. In 

addition, the Indiana bat tends to utilize corridors and edges as feeding habitat. Thus, the effects of creating 

new edge habitat are not all adverse. 

The tree clearing within the CWA would not measurably affect the suitability of the habitat 

surrounding nearby maternal colonies. The Phase I Project would not affect the maternal colonies identified 

during the field survey. 
3−10 

The effects from construction activity could potentially affect individual Indiana bats. However, 

these effects would not result in measurable impacts to the species. 

Finally, cumulative impacts due to the removal of trees for the Phase I Project and for other likely 

reasons in the vicinity were judged to be negligible. A large amount of protected public land exists in the 

immediate vicinity of the Phase I Project. Thus, although a fairly substantial amount of residential 

development is occurring in the area, suitable habitat would remain abundant. 

In May 2006, Millennium filed an Environmental Supplement with the FERC for modifications to the 

Laurel Ridge Route Variation and the Ramapo River HDD Variation, including changes to proposed storage 

yard locations. These areas were encompassed by the above Indiana bat surveys in 2005. Neither Variation 

is within an area identified as an Activity Area for the Indiana bat. In addition, the Ramapo River HDD 

Variation would affect less forest land during construction than either the Line A-5 Replacement route or the 

originally certificated route. Therefore, we believe that the Ramapo River HDD Variation would have less 

potential impact on the Indiana bat than either of the other previously proposed routes. 

Alternatives Considered 

Alternative routes to avoid the area inhabited by the Indiana bat were not considered by Millennium. 

Little is known about the distribution of the species, except during hibernation. Thus, there is not enough data 

available to make informed decisions concerning the avoidance of areas used by the species. 

Millennium has discussed potential Phase I Project impacts on the Indiana bat with representatives of 

the FWS on a number of occasions, including meetings held on May 16, 2005 and November 30, 2005. In 

addition, a meeting was held in the field with FWS on July 21, 2005 to discuss the results of the on-going 

field survey. During those meetings, Millennium has proposed to modify clearing plans for the Phase I 

Project to minimize impacts to the species. 

Millennium is proposing to remove trees within the Indiana Bat Activity Area during the time when 

the species is in hibernation. This would eliminate the potential for a direct take of individuals and minimize 

the overall impacts of the Phase I Project to the species. In addition, operation and maintenance activities 

with the potential to adversely affect individuals would similarly be scheduled for a time when the species is 

in hibernation. 

The following design features are incorporated into the Phase I Project to avoid and minimize the 

potential for adverse effects on the Indiana bat and suitable habitat from construction, operation, and 

maintenance activities. 

• Millennium would avoid all direct and indirect impacts to all known roosts used by adult male 

Indiana bats, adult female Indiana bats, or juvenile Indiana bats (or any combination thereof), during 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the right-of-way (ROW). 

• The Phase I Project would utilize the existing Columbia Line A-5 ROW for most of its length in 

Orange and Rockland counties. Construction through this area would be by the lift-and-lay method. 

The existing cleared and maintained ROW would be used for much of the CWA to minimize the loss 

of adjacent woodland habitat. 

• During construction, operation, and maintenance, Millennium and its contractors would follow strict 

guidelines dictating the use and handling of hazardous materials and other contaminants, which 

would minimize the potential for downstream impacts to water quality and/or the bat prey base. 

These procedures are identified in Millennium’s ECS prepared specifically for the Phase I Project. 
3−11 

• Millennium would implement comprehensive sediment and erosion control measures in accordance 

with the ECS prepared specifically for the Phase I Project. These efforts would avoid down-stream 

impacts to waterways potentially used by bats. 

• Millennium would promptly restore and revegetate the CWA in accordance with the ECS. 

• The portions of the CWA outside of the permanent maintained ROW would be permitted to 

revegetate, at the discretion of the landowner. Therefore, forest may become re-established within 

areas cleared for the CWA. The CWA is typically 75 feet wide, and the permanent maintained ROW 

is typically 50 feet wide. 

• Full width vegetation maintenance clearing would not be done more frequently than every 

three years. ROWs are generally maintained by mowing or other mechanical means. Herbicides 

would not be used. This would reduce the potential for contaminated runoff and adverse impacts to 

the bat, water quality, or the aquatic prey base. 

• Future maintenance activities that involve tree removal, limbing/pruning, or similar activities, would 

be scheduled between October 1 and March 30 to avoid disturbing roosting bats. 

• Millennium would obtain the services of a qualified bat scientist to investigate trees for the presence 

of Indiana bats if removal of a limited number of trees is required between April 1 and September 30, 

which would avoid a take of bats. 

In addition to these modifications to the Phase I Project construction, operation, and maintenance plans, the 

following identifies conservation features Millennium would use to benefit the Indiana bat and aid its 

recovery in the vicinity of the Phase I Project: 

• Special construction and restoration procedures would be utilized at all stream crossings in 

accordance with the provisions of the 404 Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and Millennium’s 

ECS. The preservation, restoration, and enhancement of streams under these permits may provide 

foraging and roosting habitat, and maintain and improve downstream water quality and the prey base 

of the bat. 

• Special construction and restoration procedures would be utilized at all wetland crossings in 

accordance with the provisions of the 404 Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and Millennium’s 

ECS. The preservation, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands under these permits may provide 

foraging and roosting habitat, and maintain and improve downstream water quality and the prey base 

of the bat. 

Determination of Effect 

A detailed Determination of Effect presentation is contained in the separate Phase I Indiana Bat BA. To 

summarize, the FERC has determined that the Phase I Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 

the Indiana bat. This finding is based on: 

• an avoidance of a direct take of individuals through a seasonal restriction of clearing in the Bat 

Activity Area; 

• an abundance of suitable habitat remaining in the Action Area and Bat Activity Area after 

development; 
3−12 

• complete avoidance of any known Indiana bat roosts during construction, operation, and 

maintenance; 

• an absence of primary maternity roosts within the CWA (proven by an extensive radio-telemetry 

survey); and 

• discountable and insignificant effects to Indiana bats from potential losses of unknown male roosts 

and unknown secondary maternity roosts within the CWA. 

Empire Connector

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

 In correspondence dated January 4, 2005, Empire provided the FWS with detailed information on the 

proposed Empire Connector pipeline route. The FWS, in a letter to Empire dated January 31, 2005, stated 

that the Indiana bat is known to occur at a hibernaculum in Onondaga County about 50 miles from the 

proposed Empire portion of the NE-07 Project, and may disperse from the hibernaculum in the Finger Lakes 

region of New York State. Therefore, there would be a possibility that Empire project construction might 

adversely affect habitat (predominantly trees with exfoliating bark and snags) used as roosts by Indiana bats 

when they disperse each spring from the Onondaga County hibernaculum. 

However, after evaluating the details of the proposed route submitted by Empire, and the most recent 

FWS information on the movements of bats emerging from hibernacula in New York State and across the 

bat's range, the FWS further stated that although the Empire Connector Project may impact Indiana bat 

habitat, those impacts are extremely unlikely to occur, are discountable, and no further consultation with the 

FWS would be necessary for the Indiana bat. Therefore, Empire did not conduct surveys for the species. 

Summary of Impact 

 Based on FWS information on the movements of Indiana bats emerging from the nearest 

hibernaculum to the proposed Empire Connector Project route, we feel that impacts to the species are unlikely 

to occur. 

Determination of Effect 

We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Empire Connector portion of the 

NE-07 Project would be unlikely to adversely affect the Indiana bat or any suitable habitat of the species. 

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

 In a letter dated October 21, 2005, the FWS indicated the potential for the Indiana bat to occur within 

Algonquin’s proposed Ramapo Expansion Project areas. In particular, the FWS stated that known 

hibernacula occur within 47 miles of the proposed 4.7 mile pipeline replacement in the Towns of Ramapo and 

Haverstraw, Rockland County, New York; within 43 miles of the Southeast CS site in Putnam County, New 

York; and within 44 miles of the Stony Point CS site in Rockland County, New York. In addition, a known 

hibernaculum occurs within six miles of the proposed Hanover CS in Morris County, New Jersey. 

 Algonquin conducted Indiana bat field surveys between June 15 and July 14 of 2006 of the project 

locations identified as potential habitat. On July 31, 2006, Algonquin filed with the FERC the preliminary 

results of these surveys. The results indicate that while six other species of bat were found, no Indiana bats 

were captured at any of the Algonquin potential habitat sites. As of September 20, 2006, a complete report 
3−13 

for the Indiana bat survey by Algonquin, including detailed information on project specifics, capture results, 

and habitat assessments, as well as data supporting compliance with FWS guidelines, is pending. Acceptance 

of the report by the FWS is also pending. 

Summary of Impact 

 While complete results of Algonquin’s Indiana bat field surveys are pending, preliminary results 

indicate that no Indiana bats were found in the Algonquin project areas. However, there may still be a 

possibility that Algonquin project construction might adversely affect habitat (predominantly trees with 

exfoliating bark and snags) used as roosts by Indiana bats when they disperse each spring from the known 

hibernacula in the vicinity of certain Algonquin project sites. Therefore, we have recommended that 

Algonquin conduct tree clearing, pruning, and/or maintenance during the period of October 1 to March 30, to 

minimize adverse affects on the Indiana bat. If this is accomplished, we feel that while some habitat may be 

affected, adverse impacts to the species are unlikely to occur. 

Determination of Effect 

We have determined that, given the above timing restrictions, construction and operation of the 

proposed Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana 

bat or any suitable habitat of the species. 

Iroquois MarketAccess

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

 In correspondence dated March 28, 2006, the FWS stated that there was the potential for the Indiana 

bat to occur at the Dover CS site in Dover, New York. As a consequence of its former use, the vegetation of 

the site around the Dover CS is mostly open and consists of successional old field habitat. The eastern extent 

of the project does encroach near a portion of mixed upland hardwood forest between the open field and the 

railroad, however, no clearing of this habitat is proposed. 

Developed land and mowed lawn within the existing station fencing account for about 0.6 acres (22.2 

percent) of the Dover, NY project area. The balance of the project area outside the fence is successional old 

field habitat. The work areas for the proposed cooler facility installation outside of the existing Dover CS 

would occur within successional old field habitat. 

Because Iroquois does not plan to do any tree clearing during construction at the site, Iroquois did not 

conduct any surveys for the Indiana bat. 

Summary of Impact 

 Because no tree clearing would be done at the Dover CS site and construction would occur within 

successional old field habitat, we feel that there would be no impacts to the Indiana bat or its summer roosting 

and migratory habitat. 

Determination of Effect 

We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Iroquois MarketAccess Project 

would not affect the Indiana bat or any suitable habitat of the species because no tree clearing would occur at 

the site where the Indiana bat has the potential to occur. 
3−14 

Overall Determination of Effect For the Indiana Bat 

 We have concluded that construction and operation of the NE-07 Project may affect, but is not likely 

to adversely affect the Indiana bat or any suitable habitat of the species, as long as Millennium and Algonquin 

implement the agreed-to timing restrictions for tree clearing, pruning, and maintenance for the Phase I Project 

and the Ramapo Expansion Project. 

3.4 Bald Eagle 

Background 

The bald eagle was federally listed as endangered within most of the U.S., including New York, on 

March 11, 1967. On July 12, 1995, the status of the bald eagle was changed to threatened within the lower 48 

states. On July 4, 1999, a proposal to delist the bald eagle was announced, but it has not been delisted yet. 

The reasons for the decline of the bald eagle population are varied and include effects of organochlorine 

compounds on reproduction, effects of heavy metals and other toxicants, killing by humans, and general loss 

of habitat. Most of these threats continue to adversely affect bald eagle populations today, although 

organochlorine pesticides have been banned for use within the U.S. and indiscriminate killing of bald eagles 

is a federal crime. The bald eagle is also listed as a state endangered species in New York. 

The range of the endangered bald eagle is restricted to North America. Populations in Alaska and 

western Canada have been relatively stable through time. However, populations elsewhere exhibited gradual 

declines primarily due to loss of habitat until the 1940s. Following the development and widespread use of 

organochlorine pesticides, the populations within the lower 48 states dropped precipitously. Since the 

regulation of the use of organochlorine pesticides in the 1970s, the numbers of bald eagles have gradually 

risen in most of the species’ former range. In New York, a number of bald eagle nesting sites are presently 

known. In addition, bald eagles congregate during the winter at several sites within the state. 

The life history of the bald eagle is well documented. Bald eagles nest in mature trees along oceans, 

lakes, rivers, and swamps. They generally prefer to nest in white pine, sycamore, red oak, or red maple trees. 

 Bald eagle pairs exhibit a high degree of fidelity to nesting sites, often returning to the same nest year after 

year. Nesting in New York generally occurs in April and fledging of the young generally follows in mid-tolate summer. Bald eagles feed primarily on fish. However, bald eagles would also take small mammals and 

birds, and feed opportunistically on carrion. Perching locations are generally located along the waterbodies 

where feeding activity takes place. Roosting locations are often found in the general vicinity of nesting 

locations. Bald eagles follow typical north-south seasonal migration patterns and winter in suitable habitats, 

mainly along wide rivers, from southern Canada southward. 

Nesting activity in New York is presently occurring at the following locations: 

• near the east end of Lake Erie and in other western New York counties; 

• along the Lake Ontario shoreline and in the Finger Lakes region in the central part of the state; 

• along Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River in the northern portion of the state; 

• in the central Hudson River valley; and 

• along the West Branch Delaware River and the Delaware River in the eastern portion of the state. 

Wintering areas include the Lake Ontario shoreline, the St. Lawrence River, the Hudson River 

Valley, the Delaware River valley, and major tributaries to the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. Based on 

information received from the FWS, NYSDEC, and the NYSDEC’s New York Natural Heritage Program 

(NYNHP) in 2004 and 2005, the NE-07 Project facilities would cross four counties with known bald eagle 

nesting or wintering activity: Delaware, Sullivan, and Orange counties in New York; and Morris County in 
3−15 

New Jersey. The NYNHP has identified two nesting locations within Sullivan County that are in the vicinity 

of the Phase I portion of the project: Lebanon Lake and Rio Reservoir. In addition, during fieldwork in the 

spring of 1999, Millennium observed an active bald eagle nest near the West Branch Delaware River. The 

NYNHP has also indicated that wintering activity is known to occur along the East Branch Delaware River in 

Delaware County and the Mongaup River and Neversink River in Orange County. The FWS has requested 

that specific location information be kept confidential. 

Based on information received from the NYSDEC, bald eagle activity in the vicinity of the pipeline at 

the Mongaup/Rio Reservoir location includes nesting, feeding, and overwintering. At the remaining 

locations, bald eagles are potentially present and any bald eagles found at these locations are most likely to be 

engaged in feeding, perching, or roosting activity. 

Project Components In the Vicinity of the Bald Eagle 

Millennium Phase I

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

Because the locations of bald eagle use areas are known, Millennium did not conduct surveys for the 

bald eagle. According to correspondence between Millennium and the NYSDEC, field surveys for the bald 

eagle have not been requested (NYSDEC 1998b and 1998c). 

Summary of Impacts 

Potential effects on bald eagles using activity areas affected by the Phase I portion of the NE-07 

Project could possibly occur from three aspects of project construction and maintenance: 1) ROW tree 

clearing and maintenance within a bald eagle activity area could remove bald eagle perching, roosting, and/or 

nesting habitat, 2) construction of waterbody crossings within the bald eagle activity areas could have indirect 

adverse effects on bald eagle feeding activity due to excess sedimentation and turbidity, or temporary loss of 

prey base, and 3) the presence of construction equipment and personnel, or blasting within a bald eagle 

activity area could disturb and result in the temporary displacement of bald eagles in the immediate area. 

The clearing and removal of trees within any of the bald eagle activity areas may affect perching or 

roosting habitat for the species. However, these effects would be localized and there is ample adjacent forest. 

 Because perching and roosting is not a limiting factor for the bald eagle in these activity areas and most of 

the clearing would take place adjacent to existing ROWs, forest clearing for the Phase I portion of the NE-07 

Project should not adversely affect bald eagle habitat. 

The adverse effects on aquatic resources from open-cut crossings of waterbodies are due primarily to 

direct and indirect impacts from trenching and elevated levels of suspended solids. Generally, these effects 

have been found to be spatially limited to the immediate vicinity of the crossing location and temporally 

limited from days to months following completion of construction activities. Alteration of benthic 

macroinvertebrate and fish distributions would be short term with recovery of the benthic macroinvertebrate 

communities occurring within 2 to 12 months (Reid and Anderson 1998). Fish displaced from the vicinity of 

the waterbody crossing would return to the area within several weeks of restoration of the CWA. The only 

waterbodies proposed for open cut in known eagle habitat are the East Branch Delaware River (dam and 

flume method), and the Mongaup River/Rio Reservoir. These rivers all support large populations of 

biological resources and the impact of open-cut crossings on prey of bald eagles would be temporary and 

localized, with adequate forage opportunities nearby. Additionally, the extent of turbidity created by 

construction in the stream would not significantly affect foraging opportunities because eagles prey on food at 

the water surface, which would still be visible even in highly turbid water. Therefore, the proposed 

construction would not significantly restrict feeding opportunity or limit food availability for bald eagles. 
3−16 

Construction activities may temporarily affect bald eagle distributions within all of the identified 

activity areas. Construction equipment, vehicles, and construction personnel would be present in each of the 

activity areas during construction. Construction equipment noise would be generated and the level of human 

activity in these areas would be significantly increased. Several recent publications have examined the effects 

of various human activities on bald eagles. These studies have been prompted primarily by issues pertaining 

to management of public lands containing both bald eagle populations and recreational opportunities. 

Typically, bald eagles are displaced (flushed) from perches by human activity (Steidl and Anthony 1996, 

Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). The rate of displacement and the distance that birds are displaced appears to be 

related to a large number of variables, including the distance at which the human activity is first visible, how 

near human activity is to the eagle, the type of disturbance, the age of the eagle, the general background rate 

of human activity in the area, the time of day, and the type of activity the eagle is engaged in. 

Bald eagles were generally found to react more strongly to hikers than to vehicles of various sorts 

(motorized boats, non-motorized boats, and airplanes) (Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998). Eagles that were 

disturbed were generally found to be displaced by 300 to 600 feet (Steidl and Anthony 1996). Stalmaster and 

Kaiser found that overwintering eagles perched along a shoreline were generally displaced away from the 

shoreline by human disturbance. They also found some indication that feeding activity may be interrupted by 

repeated human disturbance. At this time, there is no predictive model for estimating bald eagle responses to 

human disturbance. It is expected that construction activities may temporarily displace bald eagles away from 

the project areas during construction; however, this temporary displacement is not expected to have a 

significant adverse effect on eagle activity. 

The potential effects of the Phase I portion of the NE-07 Project on the bald eagle within each of the 

five bald eagle activity areas are discussed below. 

Cannonsville Reservoir - The pipeline would cross the Cannonsville Reservoir bald eagle activity area in the 

vicinity of the West Branch Delaware River. Part of this section of the Phase I Project is within the adjacent 

Delaware River bald eagle activity area, which is discussed below. The pipeline would cross the 

Cannonsville Reservoir bald eagle activity area for a distance of about 1.7 miles. About 6.1 acres of forest 

land would be cleared during construction. Of this, about 2.4 acres of this forest land would be permanently 

cleared and the remaining 3.7 acres would be allowed to revert to forest following construction. This entire 

segment of the pipeline would be constructed adjacent to existing ROW, with the exception of a small section 

at the crossing of the West Branch Delaware River. All of the affected forest land is well away from the river, 

and no significant adverse effects to potential perching or roosting trees are expected. The presence of 

construction personnel and equipment within the activity area could disturb and result in the temporary 

displacement of bald eagles using the area. 

The pipeline would cross two waterbodies (Butler Brook and West Branch Delaware River) within 

the Cannonsville Reservoir bald eagle activity area. Both are perennial streams and both would be crossed 

using dry construction techniques. The NYSDEC stated that no adverse effects are anticipated to occur to the 

bald eagle within this activity area and did not recommend any specific compensation measures. 

Delaware River - The pipeline would parallel the West Branch Delaware River and the Delaware 

River and would be close enough to these rivers to be considered within the activity area associated with these 

rivers at seven locations. The first of these areas was discussed above as part of the Cannonsville Reservoir 

bald eagle activity area. The remaining locations are discussed below. 

The pipeline would cross a total of about 12.8 miles of the Delaware River bald eagle activity area at 

six locations. Within these six locations, about 47.0 acres of forested land would be cleared during 

construction of which 4.6 acres would remain permanently cleared. The remaining 42.4 acres would be 

allowed to revert to forest following construction. The pipeline would be adjacent to or within existing ROW 
3−17 

in all of the bald eagle activity areas, except for one location where the pipeline would deviate from the 

existing ROW to avoid a residence. Some potential perching and roosting habitat could be affected, but this 

impact should not be significant. The presence of construction personnel and equipment within the activity 

area could temporarily disturb and displace bald eagles using the area for perching and roosting. Although 

Millennium observed an eagle nest near the West Branch Delaware River in Spring 1999, the nest was 2,500 

feet from the area that would be disturbed by construction of the Phase I Project. The critical zone of 

protection for acceptable eagle nesting conditions generally extends from the nest to a distance of about 1,500 

feet. The temporary activity from the project would not likely disturb the eagles using this nest. 

The pipeline would cross 29 waterbodies (8 perennial and 21 intermittent streams) within the 

Delaware River bald eagle activity area. Dry crossing methods are proposed for all of these crossings. 

Millennium reported that Callicoon Creek was the only perennial stream in which fish were observed during 

field surveys. The construction of perennial stream crossings may temporarily affect the distribution of fish 

within the immediate vicinity of the Phase I Project, but the project would have no permanent adverse effect 

on fish populations. In addition, most of these streams are not large enough to provide bald eagle foraging 

habitat. Therefore, the Phase I Project is not expected to affect feeding opportunities for the bald eagle within 

the Delaware River activity area. The NYSDEC stated that no adverse effects are anticipated to occur to the 

bald eagle within this activity area and did not recommend any specific compensation measures. 

Lebanon Lake - The pipeline would cross the Lebanon Lake bald eagle activity area for a distance of 

about 0.9 mile. About 7.1 acres of forest land would be cleared for construction, of which about 1.4 acres 

would remain permanently cleared. The other 5.7 acres would be allowed to revert to forest following 

construction. Some potential perching and roosting habitat could be affected, but this impact is not 

considered significant due to the abundance of adjacent similar habitat. The presence of construction 

personnel and equipment within the activity area could disturb and result in the temporary displacement of 

bald eagles using the area. 

The Lebanon Lake bald eagle activity area crossing would be mostly in a lift and lay section of the 

Phase I Project. Therefore, the permanent ROW would coincide with an existing ROW, except at the eastern 

end where the proposed route would deviate from the existing ROW to avoid an active timber rattlesnake den. 

The pipeline would cross one perennial stream within the Lebanon Lake bald eagle activity area. 

This would be a dry crossing although the stream is probably too small to serve as a food source for resident 

bald eagles. Therefore, the project would not likely affect feeding opportunities for the bald eagle within the 

Lebanon Lake activity area. The NYSDEC stated that no adverse effects are anticipated to occur to the bald 

eagle within this activity area and did not recommend any specific compensation measures. 

Mongaup River - The pipeline would cross the Mongaup River bald eagle activity area for a distance 

of about 1.6 miles. About 6.0 acres of forest land would be cleared for construction, but all would be within 

the temporary ROW and allowed to revert to forest after construction. Some potential perching and roosting 

habitat may be impacted temporarily, but the impact should not be significant due to the presence of similar 

adjacent habitat. The presence of construction personnel and equipment within the activity area could disturb 

and result in the temporary displacement of bald eagles using the area. 

The Mongaup River bald eagle activity area crossing would be in a lift and lay section of the Phase I 

Project. Therefore, the permanent ROW would coincide with an existing cleared ROW, except within the 

Mongaup River/Rio Reservoir crossing, which would be offset slightly from the existing pipeline. The 

Mongaup River bald eagle activity area lies within the Mongaup Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and 

contains active bald eagle nests. It is also an important overwintering location because sections of the Rio 

Reservoir remain ice-free during the winter, thereby providing feeding opportunities for the bald eagles. Bald 

eagles congregate in the vicinity of the reservoir beginning in early December. Overwintering bald eagles 

were observed adjacent to the Phase I Project area during field surveys. 
3−18 

Millennium proposes to replace the permanent boat launch at the Mongaup River/Rio Reservoir after 

completing pipeline construction across this waterbody. The FWS stated that the current boat launch is near a 

bald eagle nest and roosting area, and the new launch should be built so that it does not disturb the eagles, or 

the nest and roost areas (FWS 1999b). 

The pipeline would cross two perennial streams within the Mongaup River bald eagle activity area, 

the Mongaup River, and a small tributary to the river. Millennium determined that directional drilling the 

Mongaup River crossing would not be feasible due to subsurface geological conditions. Because of the 

length of the crossing and the adjacent topography, Millennium now proposes to cross the Mongaup River by 

the open-cut method. The tributary to the Mongaup River would be crossed by the dam and pump method. 

Millennium is currently reviewing, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, whether these crossings 

would occur between October 15 and November 30, or within a larger window of August 1 to November 30. 

It would be expected that fish populations may be temporarily displaced from the vicinity of the 

Phase I Project during construction of the open-cut crossing of Mongaup River. However, there is no 

evidence to show that fish mortality would increase in the vicinity of the project. Thus, the effect on bald 

eagle feeding opportunities within the reservoir activity area is not expected to be significant or of long 

duration. 

The Mongaup River crossing would be within the Rio Reservoir, a hydroelectric generating facility. 

Historically, dissolved oxygen depletion has occurred in the hypolimnion of this impoundment during 

summer months. Generally, oxygen depletion in deeper waters follows the onset of thermal stratification 

within the reservoir. This situation prevails until the thermocline dissipates in the fall. At that time, the 

oxygen-depleted waters of the hypolimnion mix with the oxygenated waters of the epilimnion during fall 

turnover. During the thermal stratification of Rio Reservoir, oxygen-depleted, colder waters of the 

hypolimnion may not be capable of supporting a fish population. Fish distribution within the reservoir would 

be restricted to the warmer, better oxygenated surface waters. This would limit the availability of suitable 

habitat for coldwater fish species such as trout. 

The open-cut crossing of the Mongaup River at Rio Reservoir could potentially disturb the 

distribution of oxygen-depleted waters if the crossing was conducted when the reservoir was thermally 

stratified (i.e., summer or winter). The mixing of oxygen-depleted waters with surface waters that offer the 

major suitable habitat for fish in the reservoir could result in reduced oxygen levels in the surface waters. 

However, construction would be scheduled for the fall (October 15 to November 30) when this effect should 

be reduced. In addition, disturbance would be limited to the immediate area of the reservoir crossing, 

affecting only between 1.1 and 1.5 acres of this large reservoir complex (11,967 acres) that extends for 

several miles north and south of the proposed crossing. Construction is not expected to have any significant 

effect on the foraging opportunities of overwintering bald eagles nor on an abandoned wooden structure in the 

Mongaup River, north of the pipeline. This structure consists of a series of timbers and beams extending into 

the Rio Reservoir and serves as an important perching location for bald eagles. It would not be affected by 

construction. 

The NYSDEC requested that there be no construction in areas adjacent to the Mongaup River 

between December 1 and July 31 to avoid the bald eagle nesting and overwintering periods in this activity 

area. Millennium proposes to construct within this activity area from August 1 to November 30. However, 

the FWS requested that Millennium coordinate with the FWS on the construction time schedule (FWS 

1999b). The result of this coordination was an agreement to construct the crossing of the Mongaup River 

between October 15 and November 30. 
3−19 

Determination of Effect 

At the Mongaup River/Rio Reservoir, the FERC recommended conditions to the 2001 Certificate that 

Millennium must file site-specific compensation plans for the Mongaup WMA, and that it consult with the 

FWS regarding the site-specific plan being developed with the NYSDEC for the proposed new permanent 

boat launch facility at the Mongaup River/Rio Reservoir. The FERC also indicated that impact may occur 

where blasting is required in eagle activity areas and recommended a condition to the Certificate that, if 

blasting is required in designated bald eagle activity areas, Millennium must develop a construction plan in 

consultation with the NYSDEC and FWS that includes the potential amount, exact location, and schedule of 

the required blasting. 

Millennium has incorporated the FERC conditions to the Certificate for the Millennium Pipeline 

Project into the construction plan for the Phase I Project where applicable. Millennium continues to 

coordinate with the FWS and NYSDEC to obtain the concurrence of those agencies with the proposed 

construction plans. 

With those conditions in place and agreed to by the agencies, we believe the proposed Phase I Project 

would not adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle. 

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

Nest sites of bald eagles are documented in New York and New Jersey. However, only transient bald 

eagles have been identified by the FWS as potentially occurring at the Hanover CS and Hudson River Valve 

Site. There are no known bald eagle nest sites in close proximity to any component of the Algonquin Ramapo 

Expansion portion of the NE-07 Project. Therefore, Algonquin did not conduct surveys for the bald eagle. 

Summary of Impacts 

Because no known bald eagle nest sites occur in the vicinity of the Algonquin portion of the NE-07 

Project, and only transient bald eagles have been observed, we believe that there would not be any impacts on 

the bald eagle for this portion of the project. 

Determination of Effect 

We have has determined that construction and operation of the proposed Algonquin Ramapo 

Expansion Project would not likely adversely affect the bald eagle or any suitable habitat of the species 

because no nest sites or resident eagles are known to occur at the proposed facilities. 

Overall Determination of Effect For the Bald Eagle

 We haves concluded that construction and operation of the NE-07 Project may affect, but is not likely 

to adversely affect the bald eagle or any suitable habitat of the species, as long as Millennium implements the 

agreed-to construction and mitigation conditions for the Phase I Project. 
3−20 

3.5 Bog Turtle 

Background 

The bog turtle was listed as a federally threatened species on November 4, 1997. The primary reason for the 

listing of this species is its limited distribution due to its restrictive habitat requirements and destruction of 

suitable habitat. The main threats to the species are habitat modification and destruction, and over-collecting 

for the pet trade. The bog turtle is also listed as a state-endangered species in New York. 

The bog turtle occurs in two disjunct populations. The northern population originally occupied 

portions of western Pennsylvania and the Lake Ontario Plain and Finger Lakes region of New York. These 

areas generally no longer contain known populations of the species. The remaining northern population of 

the bog turtle occurs in a narrow band that includes western Massachusetts, western Connecticut, southeastern 

New York, southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, northern Maryland, and northern Delaware. The southern 

population of the bog turtle inhabits the Appalachian Mountain region from southern Virginia to northern 

Georgia. Recent trends indicate that bog turtles are declining at many of the remaining locations within the 

northern population. 

The bog turtle is a small, secretive turtle that spends much of its life in hibernation. Bog turtles 

excavate hibernacula by burrowing into soft mud and they hibernate at depths of 2 to 22 inches (Ernst et al. 

1989). Muskrat burrows and meadow vole burrows may also be enlarged and used (Ernst et al. 1989). In 

New York, the bog turtle generally emerges from hibernation in mid-April, or when both air and water 

temperatures are generally above 50 degrees. Bog turtles typically feed upon insects, larvae of aquatic 

insects, snails, nematodes, millipedes, seeds, and carrion. Bog turtles may live 30 or more years. 

Mating takes place in spring, either within the hibernaculum or shortly after turtles emerge from 

hibernation. Female bog turtles generally become sexually mature at 5 to 8 years of age, although females 

may not mate successfully every year. Eggs are laid within the wetland, but out of the water. In New York, 

eggs are deposited in early June and nests are often found on sedge tussocks in strong sunlight. Eggs hatch in 

42 to 56 days and the young may overwinter near the nest. Adults return to the hibernacula in October. 

Bog turtles are rarely found far from wetlands and appear to require fairly specific habitat 

characteristics. The wetlands generally need a combination of herbaceous vegetation (including sedge 

tussocks), sparse to moderate shrub growth, a reliable source of water providing permanent saturation and 

some inundated areas, a mosaic of wetter and dryer areas, and soft mud and/or stony substrate (Chase et al. 

1989). 

Natural plant succession processes have been cited as having an adverse effect on bog turtles at 

certain sites. The species apparently requires exposure to fairly strong sunlight. Thus, seasonally or 

moderately grazed pastures have been identified as favorable habitat for the species since grazing prevents 

establishment of trees or dense shrubs. In addition, the introduction of exotic plant species into wetlands has 

been identified as having a possible adverse effect on bog turtles. In portions of New York, purple loosestrife 

and common reed (Phragmites australis) are common within wetlands. 

In New York, historical records for bog turtles indicated they occurred in 17 counties, including 

Sullivan, Orange, Rockland, and Westchester Counties where proposed project construction would be built. 

The species is currently known to occur in Orange County, but no bog turtle populations are currently known 

to occur in Sullivan, Rockland, and Westchester Counties. 
3−21 

Project Components In the Vicinity of the Bog Turtle 

Millennium Phase I

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

The bog turtle was identified in correspondence received from the FWS in 1997 through 2000 as 

potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Millennium Pipeline Project. The BA issued by the FERC for the 

Millennium Pipeline Project found that construction and operation of that project would not adversely or 

jeopardize the continued existence of the bog turtle. The FWS conditionally concurred with this finding in 

correspondence dated April 18, 2002. The FWS response was conditioned on the avoidance of construction 

impacts to a portion of one wetland in Orange County. In 2005, the agency also identified the bog turtle as a 

species that potentially occurs in the vicinity of the Phase I Project. 

 Information about the possible occurrences of bog turtles is not consistent. In 1997 through 1999, 

the NYNHP indicated that the Millennium Pipeline Project would be in close proximity to one known bog 

turtle site in Westchester County on the east bank of the Hudson River. However, the FWS indicated that bog 

turtles no longer occur in Westchester County (FWS 1997). Millennium consulted the NYSDEC and 

requested identification of suitable habitat for the bog turtle in the vicinity of the proposed project. The 

NYSDEC indicated that there are no known areas where the pipeline would significantly impact the bog 

turtle, and that no surveys for this species would be required (NYSDEC 1998a). As a result of consultations 

with the FWS in April 1999, Millennium conducted field surveys of 18 wetlands within two segments of the 

ROW in Orange County where the FWS believed populations of bog turtles or their habitat may occur. Both 

segments are within the area where the pipeline would be removed and replaced in the same ditch. If 

potential bog turtle habitat exists in these two areas, the FWS requested that field surveys be conducted to 

determine if bog turtles exist within the proposed CWA. 

Millennium identified and delineated wetlands during the fall of 1997, including the two segments in 

Orange County that the FWS believed may contain bog turtles or suitable habitat. Access was obtained to 

survey the entire CWA in all but one of the 18 wetlands within the two segments. All of these wetlands were 

revisited in May and June 1999 to determine whether the habitat is suitable for bog turtles. The 1999 field 

surveys indicated that the wetlands fell into three categories: wetlands that were too dry to provide suitable 

habitat for bog turtles; wetlands that contained streams or were within agricultural drainage ditches, but that 

were unsuitable for bog turtles due to the absence of appropriate vegetation and cover; and wetlands that were 

outside of the CWA. The NYSDEC commented that it would review the areas surveyed and work with 

Millennium to resolve any concerns with respect to this species (NYSDEC 1999). In a subsequent field 

meeting, held in August 1999 with representatives of Millennium, FWS, and NYSDEC, one suitable bog 

turtle habitat was identified in a portion of one forested wetland. 

Additional correspondence and coordination was conducted with the FWS, NYNHP, and NYSDEC 

in 2004 and 2005 concerning the potential presence of the bog turtle in the vicinity of the Phase I portion of 

the NE-07 Project. The FWS indicated that the species was known to occur in the vicinity of the Phase I 

Project in Orange County and requested that a Phase I habitat survey be conducted in the project-area 

wetlands in Orange County to determine if suitable habitat for the species existed. The NYNHP indicated 

that one known site in Orange County was in the vicinity of the Phase I Project. 

Following additional coordination with the agencies, a Phase I habitat survey was conducted in 

Orange County. This new field survey was conducted using the Guidelines for Bog Turtle Surveys found in 

Appendix A of the Bog Turtle Northern Population Recovery Plan (FWS 2001). It should be noted that this 

standardized methodology was not available at the time that the previous survey was performed in 1999. 
3−22 

In the spring and fall of 2005, the Phase I habitat survey was conducted in all but two of the wetlands 

affected by or immediately adjacent to the Phase I portion of the NE-07 Project. The two wetlands that were 

not surveyed were not accessible due to refusal of the landowner to grant access for the survey. 

The detailed findings of the Phase I habitat survey are contained in the separate Millennium report, 

Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Assessment Report. A summary of the results follows. 

During the performance of the survey, all portions of the Phase I Project route in Orange County that 

had not previously been field viewed at any time since the beginning of the Millennium Pipeline Project in 

1997 were examined in addition to all known wetlands. As a result, 82 locations were examined for potential 

bog turtle habitat, including five new wetlands that were previously not known to exist. Five wetlands 

previously identified remotely through examination of aerial photography were found not to exhibit 

appropriate characteristics and were determined not to be wetlands. 

Of the 77 wetlands examined in Orange County, two were found to contain potential bog turtle 

habitat. These wetlands are Wetland W595 (MP 347.7) and Wetland W611 (MP 359.5). The remaining 

wetlands generally fell into three classes: those that lacked evidence of groundwater input and thereby did not 

exhibit suitable hydrology; those that did not exhibit mucky soils and thereby did not exhibit suitable soils; 

and those that exhibited neither suitable hydrology nor suitable soils. It should be noted that the one wetland 

that was identified in 1999 agency field views as potential bog turtle habitat did not exhibit suitable hydrology 

and was determined in the 2005 survey not to contain potential bog turtle habitat. 

One of the two wetlands that contain potential bog turtle habitat, Wetland 595, exhibits suitable 

habitat within two breached man-made ponds. The hydrologic source is located within the dewatered pond 

substrates. Discussions with the landowner at the time of the survey indicated that the landowner was 

interested in rebuilding the ponds. If this occurs, the wetland would no longer offer suitable habitat for bog 

turtles. This wetland is located in an area of Orange County where no known bog turtle populations occur. 

Thus the likelihood of this wetland containing bog turtles is remote. 

Wetland W611 offers suitable habitat in a portion of the wetland that lies outside of the CWA for the 

Phase I Project. In addition, the suitable habitat is separated from the CWA by a rock wall. Thus, potential 

impacts to the species may be mitigated by appropriate construction conditions. 

The Phase 1 Habitat Survey conducted at all wetlands affected by the Ramapo River HDD Variation, 

the Line A-5 Replacement Project route and the certificated route did not identify suitable habitat for the bog 

turtle. A single wetland identified along the Ramapo River HDD Variation, WKDR-001, was not surveyed 

until May 2006, and is discussed below. 

In May 2006, Millennium filed an Environmental Supplement for modifications to the Laurel Ridge 

Route Variation and the Ramapo River HDD Variation, including changes to proposed storage yard locations. 

 Because the Laurel Ridge Variation does not affect wetlands, potential bog turtle habitat does not exist within 

the area affected by the variation or the proposed modifications. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey conducted at 

wetland W634.1 along the Millennium certificated route reports that this wetland did not contain habitat for 

the bog turtle. 

In April and May of 2006 a supplemental Phase I habitat survey was completed by Millennium for 14 

additional wetlands. The detailed findings of this additional survey are contained in the separate Millennium 

report, Supplemental Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Assessment Report (July 2006). A summary of the results 

follows. 

 Three wetlands were associated with the proposed modifications to the route modification in 

Millennium’s Phase I Project; the remaining 11 were for portions of the Phase I Project located in Rockland 
3−23 

County. Of the 14 wetlands examined, only one was found to contain potential bog turtle habitat. This 

wetland is Wetland W640. Wetland W640 is a small wetland of approximately 0.2 acres located in Rockland 

County. The entire wetland lies within the area that will be affected by the Phase I Project, and is located 

within the existing gas pipeline ROW. 

 The hydrologic source for the wetland appears to consist primarily of a visible seep area at the west 

end of the wetland. Soils within the wetland were saturated, and it is likely that they remain so for the entire 

year. Visible surface water included small puddles/depressions up to three inches deep, rivulets up to two 

inches deep and larger pools/ponds up to six inches deep. Therefore, this wetland meets the hydrology 

criterion for bog turtle habitat. 

 Mucky soils occurred throughout most of Wetland W640. Depths of three to 18 inches were 

commonly found. However, portions of the wetland (30-49%) did contain firm soils. Based on the observed 

soil characteristics, Wetland W640 meets the soils criterion for bog turtle habitat. 

 The predominant plant species within Wetland W640 was the common reed (Phragmites australis). 

Although this species typically reduces the suitability of wetlands as bog turtle habitat, Wetland W640 meets 

the vegetation criterion for bog turtles. 

 Almost all of the remaining wetlands surveyed matched the vegetation criteria, however, they were 

lacking suitable soils, suitable hydrology, or both. At this time, wetland WKDR-001 was surveyed as well. 

This wetland lies over the path of a proposed HDD that will install the pipeline under several highways, a 

railroad ROW, and the Ramapo River. While the wetland met the vegetation criterion for potential bog turtle 

habitat, it did not exhibit suitable soils or hydrology, and therefore is not considered potential bog turtle 

habitat. 

Summary of Impacts 

Impact on the bog turtle could include loss or displacement of individuals, and temporary or 

permanent loss of habitat. Two wetlands were identified within Orange County that offer suitable habitat for 

the species, as well as one in Rockland County. Millennium has communicated the findings of the Phase I 

habitat survey to the FWS and has discussed methods of minimizing the potential impacts of the Phase I 

portion of the NE-07 Project on the species. These are summarized below. 

Wetland W595: Millennium believes that the suitable potential habitat is temporary in nature. 

Further, the CWA does not include the portions of the wetland that presently exhibit appropriate 

characteristics. The wetland is not in proximity to any known bog turtle populations and is not likely to 

contain bog turtles. Therefore, Millennium believes that no additional conditions are required to prevent 

adverse impacts to the species at this location. We concur with this assessment. 

Wetland W611: Millennium has proposed that a herpetologist qualified by the FWS and NYSDEC to 

handle bog turtles be on-site throughout the duration of construction activities within this wetland. This 

herpetologist would serve as a bog turtle monitor. The bog turtle monitor would examine the CWA prior to 

the initiation of any construction activities within the wetland and would remove the bog turtles (or any other 

reptiles) found within the CWA to the adjacent suitable habitat. Silt fence would be installed along borders of 

the wetland prior to the initiation of any other construction activities to exclude access of turtles to the CWA. 

 The bog turtle monitor would re-examine the CWA daily prior to the commencement of construction 

activities and would remove any bog turtles (or other reptiles) found within the CWA to the adjacent suitable 

habitat. All personnel performing construction activities would be trained to identify possible bog turtles and 

would immediately report any turtle within the CWA to the bog turtle monitor or environmental inspector. In 

the event of such a siting, all construction activities within the wetland would cease immediately until the 

turtle is removed to a safe place. In the event that a bog turtle is identified within the CWA or adjacent 
3−24 

suitable habitat, the FWS and NYSDEC would be notified immediately. 

Wetland W640: This wetland presently contains potential bog turtle habitat. However, the wetland is 

dominated by the common reed (Phragmites australis), an invasive plant species. Wetlands dominated by 

this species are often not used by the bog turtle, due to their lack of basking and nesting habitat. Thus, while 

Wetland W640 qualifies as potential bog turtle habitat according to the Guidelines, this wetland may not be 

used by bog turtles due to the vegetation present. In addition, Wetland W640 is located near the summit of 

Pound Mountain, an area that is likely inaccessible to the species due to steep slopes and rough, rocky terrain. 

 Therefore, Millennium believes that no additional conditions are required to prevent adverse impacts to the 

species at this location. We concur with this assessment. 

 Millennium believes that the Phase I portion of the NE-07 Project would not affect suitable bog turtle 

habitat. Further, with the above conditions in force, Millennium believes that the Phase I Project would not 

affect the bog turtle. The FERC environmental staff agrees with these assessments. Millennium would 

continue to coordinate with the FWS and the NYSDEC to ensure that the proposed conditions on construction 

within Wetland W611 are sufficient to protect the bog turtle. 

Determination of Effect 

Based on the results of the Phase I habitat survey, we conclude that construction and operation of the 

Phase I portion of the NE-07 Project would not affect suitable habitat for the bog turtle. Further, we have 

determined that, with FWS and NYSDEC approval of the recommendations for construction in Wetland 

W611, the Phase I Project is unlikely to adversely affect the bog turtle. 

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

 In 2005 correspondence, the FWS indicated to Algonquin that there was the potential for bog turtles 

to exist in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline replacement portion of the Ramapo Expansion Project, the 

Stony Point CS site, the Southeast CS site, and at the Oxford CS potential sites. Consequently, Algonquin 

completed Phase I habitat surveys for bog turtles on the fall, winter, and spring of 2005-2006 along the entire 

4.8 mile ROW of the replacement portion of the proposed project, and at each of the above-listed 

aboveground facility sites. 

 The detailed findings of the Phase I habitat surveys are contained in the separate Algonquin reports: 

Ramapo, New York Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Survey Report; Stony Point, New York Phase I Bog Turtle 

Habitat Survey Report; Southeast, New York Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Survey Report; Hanover, New 

Jersey Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Survey Report; Oxford, Connecticut Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Survey 

Report; and Bog Turtle Habitat Assessment: Phase I Survey Report for Proposed Oxford Compressor Station 

(Site F), New Haven County, Connecticut. A summary of the results follows. 

Ramapo, New York Pipeline Replacement

 The Phase I survey for habitat was conducted on November 21, 2005. Five wetlands were located 

and surveyed along the 4.8-mile proposed pipeline replacement route. Only two wetlands along the project 

corridor, wetlands 1 and 2, met all three criteria for potential bog turtle habitat, although certain factors were 

of marginal quality. Wetlands 3, 4, and 5 were determined not to be potential bog turtle habitat.

Wetland 1: Wetland 1 is located at the southernmost end of the Algonquin project corridor. It 

extends for about 500 feet along the ROW and lies adjacent to the Mahwah River. Portions of this wetland 

that lie outside of the ROW are scrub-shrub and forested. The portion of the wetland within the ROW is 
3−25 

emergent, with over half of the area dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis). Other emergent 

vegetation present includes tussock sedge (Carex stricta), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and skunk cabbage 

(Symplocarpus foetidus). This wetland meets the vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat because it 

is not entirely overgrown with dense Phragmites. Wetland 1 had small pockets of surface water present and 

evidence of groundwater seepage, and therefore meets the hydrology criteria of potential bog turtle habitat. 

However, hydrologic conditions were not ideal (e.g. no subterranean channels in which turtles could hide). 

This wetland also had some mucky spots, and therefore meets the soil criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

Wetland 2: Wetland 2 is located near the southern end of the Algonquin project corridor, just north 

of Wesley Chapel Road. A portion of this wetland is adjacent to the Mahwah River and includes a 

combination of forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent areas just outside the ROW. The portion of the wetland 

within the ROW is an emergent wetland that is traversed by an intermittent stream that channels flow between 

two off-site ponds. It is about 100 feet in length. This wetland is dominated by tussock sedge and woolgrass 

and meets the vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. This wetland had some soft muddy areas, but 

was not substantially mucky. It marginally meets the soil criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. It also had 

small pockets of surface water present and evidence of groundwater seepage, and therefore meets the 

hydrology criteria of potential bog turtle habitat. However, similar to Wetland 1, hydrologic conditions were 

not ideal. 

Stony Point Compressor Station

A Phase I Survey for bog turtle habitat was conducted on February 1, 2006 within the approximate 

16-acre site. The site consists of an existing CS with associated paved roads, parking areas and lawn, an 

existing meter station, and undeveloped land. A stream, an unnamed tributary to Cedar Pond Brook, flows 

through the western portion of the site. Three wetlands were identified from the wetland delineation 

conducted on the project site. These are briefly described below in terms of their vegetative, hydrologic, and 

soils characteristics and to whether or not they meet the criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

Wetland W01-RK-08: This wetland is a palustrine-forested system. Its dominant plant species 

included red maple, slippery elm, pin oak, and silky dogwood. Therefore, it does not meet the vegetation 

criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. This wetland is located within the floodplain of an unnamed tributary 

to Cedar Pond Brook. No springs or groundwater seepage was evident, although there is likely a groundwater 

component. This wetland may or may not meet the hydrology criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. The 

mineral soils underlying this wetland were fairly firm throughout. Therefore, the wetland does not meet the 

soils criteria for potential bog turtle habitat either. 

Wetland W01-RK-09: This wetland has a combination of forested, emergent, and scrub-shrub 

components. A sizable open emergent portion of the wetland included tussock sedge, sphagnum moss, 

tearthumb, monkey flower, and goldenrod. In the palustrine emergent portion, this wetland meets the 

vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. This wetland is also located within the floodplain of a 

tributary to Cedar Pond Brook. Groundwater seepage was observed, as well as a small well house next to a 

man-made pond indicating the presence of a spring or groundwater close to the surface, so this wetland meets 

the hydrology criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. There were a number of substantially mucky areas 

throughout both the palustrine emergent and palustrine forested portions of this wetland. Therefore, the 

wetland meets all three criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

Wetland W01-RK-10: This wetland is a combination of emergent and scrub-shrub components. 

Tussock sedge, rushes, and dogwood are prevalent. This wetland meets the vegetation criteria for potential 

bog turtle habitat. This wetland is also located within the floodplain of a tributary to Cedar Pond Brook. 

Groundwater seepage was observed; therefore, this wetland meets the hydrology criteria for potential bog 

turtle habitat. There were a number of substantially mucky areas within this wetland. Therefore, this wetland 

also meets all three criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 
3−26 

Southeast Compressor Station

A Phase I Survey for bog turtle habitat was conducted on February 1, 2006 within the approximate 15 

acre site identified by Algonquin. The project site is an existing CS and meter station with associated paved 

roads, parking lots, and lawn areas. The site included portions of the surrounding property, which is 

predominantly forested, except for the maintained natural gas pipeline ROW. A stream, an unnamed tributary 

to Haines Pond, flows through the western portion of the area. One wetland (W01-PT-001) was identified 

from the wetland delineation conducted on the project site. The wetland community is briefly described 

below in terms of its vegetative, hydrologic, and soils characteristics and whether or not they meet the criteria 

for potential bog turtle habitat. 

Wetland W01-PT-001 is comprised of three wetland community types. The majority of the wetland 

is palustrine forested, consisting of tree and shrub species such as red maple, yellow birch, ironwood, slippery 

elm, and blueberry. These forested portions do not meet the vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

 A second component of the wetland, which is found along the existing ROW, is palustrine emergent. This 

portion consists of a Phragmites monoculture. Due to the density of this vegetation and lack of diversity, this 

portion of the wetland does not meet the vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. A third, smaller 

component of the wetland includes a palustrine scrub-shrub/emergent wetland just south of the ROW. The 

vegetation is composed of alder, silky dogwood, red maple, sphagnum moss, tussock sedge, skunk cabbage, 

sensitive fern, and cinnamon fern. The woody encroachment is slightly more than is preferable for bog turtle 

habitat, but there are enough breaks in the canopy to make this area marginally meet the vegetation criteria for 

potential bog turtle habitat. This wetland lies within the floodplain of the unnamed tributary to Haines Pond. 

In addition, groundwater seepage was evident in places, although no defined springs or subsurface channels 

(such as those preferred by bog turtles) were observed. Therefore, this wetland may marginally meet the 

hydrology criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. Throughout most of the forested and emergent portions of 

the wetland, the soils were firm. However in the scrub-shrub/emergent portion, there were areas of muck, 

some fairly deep. Therefore, at least in part, this wetland meets the soils criteria for potential bog turtle 

habitat. 

Oxford Compressor Station

A Phase I Survey for bog turtle habitat was conducted on November 22, 2005 on the entire area of 

wetlands within the Oxford CS site A property. The site A property is undeveloped. It is primarily forested, 

with the exception of an existing natural gas pipeline ROW, and areas that had previously been cleared for 

agriculture and have now grown into a scrub-shrub community dominated by autumn olive. A stream called 

Eight Mile Brook traverses the western portion of the property, flowing north to south. A stream called Six 

Foot Wide Stream, which is a tributary to Eight Mile Brook, flows east to west through the northern portion 

of the site. An unnamed tributary to Six Foot Wide Stream is also present near the middle of the site. All of 

these streams support several beaver dams that influence the hydrology of the wetlands on site. The majority 

of the site, and the wetlands, are forested. Those wetlands that are 100% forested are Wetlands A, D, E, and 

F. Dominant vegetation within these wetlands included red, white, and pin oaks, red maple, yellow birch, 

American elm, highbush blueberry, and spicebush. By the nature of the canopy closure and woody 

vegetation, these wetlands do not meet the vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. Wetlands B, C, 

and G are also primarily forested. They have wetter areas along stream corridors that also include winterberry 

and swamp azalea, in addition to the species mentioned above. Those portions that are forested also do not 

meet the vegetation criteria for bog turtle habitat. However, there are small areas of these wetlands that are 

emergent and/or scrub-shrub, which are discussed below. 

Wetland B has an emergent edge along the border of Six Foot Wide Stream, which includes tussock 

sedge and woolgrass. In addition, Wetland B is crossed by the ROW in two places, which are dominated by 

vegetation including tussock sedge, woolgrass, cattail, soft-stem bulrush, tearthumb, and spatterdock. In these 
3−27 

places, wetland B meets the vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. Wetland C is crossed by the 

ROW in one place, which is dominated by tussock sedge and woolgrass. In this place, wetland C meets the 

vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. Wetland G has one open emergent/scrub-shrub area along 

the edge of Eight Mile Brook, near the southwestern portion of the subject property. In this place, wetland G 

meets the vegetation criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

No spring-fed hydrology was observed in any of the wetlands. Some wetlands may have a perched 

water table, indicating a minimal ground-water influence. Many of the wetlands are influenced by the 

presence of beaver dams along Six Foot Wide Stream, which has flooded the surrounding emergent and 

riparian areas. In particular, those emergent portions of Wetland B that are found within the ROW are too 

deeply inundated to support bog turtles. Wetland C had suitably shallow pockets of water, but no 

subterranean channels, seeps, or other evidence of groundwater hydrology. Therefore, based on these factors, 

none of the wetlands on the subject property meet the hydrology criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

The only wetland that had the presence of mucky soils in some places was Wetland B. Therefore, 

portions of Wetland B would meet the soils criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. None of the other 

wetlands on the subject property had suitably soft, deep soils to provide potential bog turtle habitat. None of 

the seven wetlands on the subject property exhibited a combination of all three required criteria in order to be 

considered potential bog turtle habitat. In addition, only a very small percentage of the overall wetland 

complex was emergent or scrub-shrub, with the predominant wetland classification being palustrine forest, 

which in itself makes it unlikely that bog turtles would inhabit the smaller patches of open wetland. 

Therefore, no potential bog turtle habitat was found on the site A property. 

A Phase I survey for bog turtle habitat was conducted on April 12, 2006 within the approximate 29-

acre site F. This site is the preferred site for the Oxford CS. The site is predominantly forest, with the 

exception of an existing, maintained natural gas pipeline ROW. The wetland and stream onsite drains to the 

south/southeast to freshwater wetlands bordering Towantic Pond. The dominant vegetation consists of red 

maple and black gum in the canopy layer, and spicebush, arrowwood, and highbush blueberry in the shrub 

layer. The single wetland onsite is classified as palustrine forested, and does not meet the vegetation criteria 

for potential bog turtle habitat. 

Groundwater likely influences this wetland, however no obvious springs or subterranean channels 

were observed. No rivulets or pockets of surface water were present in the wetland. An intermittent stream 

flows through a portion of the site, with a rocky substrate. Given these observations, the wetland does not 

meet the hydrology criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

The soils found in the wetland are mineral, with an organic layer within the first six inches of the 

surface. No soft mucky soils were present in the wetland or stream. Therefore, the soils on this site do not 

meet the criteria for potential bog turtle habitat. 

The wetland on the Oxford Compressor Station site F did not exhibit any of the three required criteria 

in order to be considered potential bog turtle habitat. The predominant wetland classification was palustrine 

forest, which in itself makes it unlikely that bog turtles would inhabit the wetland. Therefore, no potential 

bog turtle habitat was found on the site F property. 

Other factors to consider in making a determination for sites A and F are geography and geology. In 

New England, the bog turtle is near the northern end of its distribution. Throughout other parts of the bog 

turtle’s distribution, it has been documented as utilizing a wide range of wetland habitat types, which are 

underlain by a variety of bedrock types and associated with many different soils. By contrast, in New 

England and in Connecticut in particular, the habitat requirements for the bog turtle are quite specific. In 

Connecticut, the bog turtle occurs almost exclusively in or near calcareous wet meadows and fens that are 

usually bordered by shrub and red maple swamps (Klemens 1993). An important component of these areas is 
3−28 

a continuous flow of groundwater seeping through the soil. This combination of geology and hydrology 

results in a unique plant community that includes species such as tamarack (Larix laricina), swamp birch 

(Betula pumila), fringed gentian (Gentian crinata) and various sedges (Carex sp.). As a result of these 

requirements, in Connecticut the bog turtle occurs in very limited areas, largely restricted to calcareous 

wetlands located to the west of the Housatonic River, and has been documented in only five towns. These 

towns include Salisbury, Sharon, Roxbury, Danbury, and Ridgefield (Klemens 1993). The Town of Oxford is 

located to the east of the Housatonic River and there are no calcareous wetlands on or adjacent to the site of 

the proposed CS. Based on these factors, along with the results of the habitat assessments, it is Algonquin’s 

determination that bog turtles do not inhabit either site A or site F. We agree with this assessment. 

Summary of Impact 

Ramapo, New York Pipeline Replacement

Based on the marginal quality of the potential bog turtle habitat present in Wetlands 1 and 2, 

combined with the facts that these wetlands are generally surrounded by forest, and that bog turtles are 

considered to be extirpated from Rockland County, we believe that it is unlikely that bog turtles inhabit the 

Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project proposed replacement corridor. 

Stony Point Compressor Station

There is potential habitat for bog turtle located on the Stony Point CS site. However, no bog turtles 

are currently known to inhabit Rockland County, New York. In addition, no direct or indirect impacts to the 

potential habitat would occur as a result of the proposed construction at this site. Due to the presence of 

potential habitat, Algonquin agrees to require a herpetologist qualified by the FWS and NYSDEC to handle 

bog turtles be on-site periodically during construction activities adjacent to the potential habitat. This 

herpetologist would serve as a bog turtle monitor. The bog turtle monitor would examine the CWA prior to 

the initiation of the initial clearing and preparation activities adjacent to the wetland and would remove the 

bog turtles (or any other reptiles) found within the CWA to the adjacent suitable habitat. Silt fence would be 

installed along borders of the wetland prior to the initiation of any other construction activities to exclude 

access of turtles to the CWA. The bog turtle monitor would re-examine the CWA periodically during 

construction activities and would remove any bog turtles (or other reptiles) found within the CWA to the 

adjacent suitable habitat. All personnel performing construction activities would be trained to identify 

possible bog turtles and would immediately report any turtle within the CWA to the bog turtle monitor or 

environmental inspector. In the event of such a siting, all construction activities adjacent to the wetland 

would cease immediately until the turtle is removed to a safe place. In the event that a bog turtle is identified 

within the CWA or adjacent suitable habitat, the FWS and NYSDEC would be notified immediately. 

Given that no direct or indirect impacts to the potential habitat would occur during construction, and 

that no bog turtles are currently known to inhabit Rockland County, and assuming that Algonquin complies 

with the above construction and mitigation procedures, we believe that construction activities at the Stony 

Point CS would not affect the bog turtle. 

Southeast Compressor Station

A small portion of the wetland complex located on the Southeast CS site marginally meets the criteria 

for potential bog turtle habitat. However, when the wetland is taken as a whole and viewed within the 

surrounding landscape, which is predominantly forested, it seems unlikely that bog turtles would inhabit this 

wetland. In addition, no direct or indirect impacts to the potential habitat would occur as a result of the 

proposed project. The construction workspace for the proposed facilities at the Southeast Compressor Station 

site would include 8.2 acres of developed land presently occupied in part by roadways, buildings, and 

maintained grassy areas, and an additional 4.1 acres of upland forest, of which 3.6 acres would be allowed to 
3−29 

revert back to forest. No wetlands would be impacted during construction. Therefore, we believe that the bog 

turtle would not be impacted by Algonquin’s activities at the Stony Point CS site. 

Oxford Compressor Station

Construction of the Oxford Compressor Station at the preferred site F would have no wetland 

impact, but an intermittent watercourse would be crossed with 0.01 acre of temporary and 0.02 acre of 

permanent impact. Construction at site A would affect 0.09 acre of palustrine-forested wetland. This 

wetland is not considered to be suitable bog turtle habitat. Due to the fact that no potential bog turtle 

habitat occurs at the Oxford CS sites A or F, and that the bog turtle is largely restricted to calcareous 

wetlands in Connecticut, we believe that there would not be any impacts to the bog turtle at either of these 

sites. 

Determination of Effect 

We have determined that construction of the pipeline replacement portion of the proposed Algonquin 

Ramapo Expansion Project would not affect the bog turtle, based on the marginal habitat present. In addition, 

we have determined that construction activities at the Southeast and at either of the Oxford CS sites would not 

affect the bog turtle, due to lack of potential habitat. We further believe that with the implementation of the 

construction and mitigation measures proposed for the Stony Point CS site, the bog turtle would not be 

impacted at this site. In conclusion, we have determined that construction and operation of the Algonquin 

Ramapo Expansion portion of the NE-07 Project is unlikely to adversely impact the bog turtle. 

Iroquois MarketAccess Project

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

As part of the consultation for the Eastchester Extension Project, the FWS indicated to Iroquois that 

bog turtle habitat potentially occurs in the area of the Dover CS in Dover, NY. Iroquois surveyed the 

property in October 2001 to evaluate three on-site wetland areas. It was Iroquois’ opinion that portions of one 

wetland (Wetland 1) located in the southeastern corner of the about 45-acre property by a powerline ROW 

may provide bog turtle habitat because it is dominated by herbaceous vegetation, has organic soils, and 

receives direct sunlight beneath the overhead power lines. While it is theoretically possible that bog turtles 

could utilize portions of this wetland, Iroquois concluded that it is not likely because of the habitats’ small 

size and relative isolation from additional suitable habitat east of the Iroquois property along the Swamp 

River. Iroquois submitted a letter dated November 15, 2001 of its findings to the FWS and the Commission. 

The FWS and FERC staff both accepted Iroquois’ findings for the Eastchester Extension Project. The 

FWS responded in a letter dated January 2, 2002 for the ELIE Project that the proposed project would not be 

likely to affect the bog turtle. These conclusions are part of the public record in the FERC Certificate issued 

to Iroquois for the Eastchester Extension Project in Docket Number CP00-232. Iroquois’ proposed 

MarketAccess Project includes construction activities at the Dover CS. These activities would be at least 300 

feet away from the wetland previously identified as potential bog turtle habitat. In correspondence dated 

March 28, 2006 the FWS concurred that bog turtles are unlikely to occur within the proposed project area. 

Therefore, no additional surveys have been done. 

Summary of Impact 

Because of the small size of the potential bog turtle habitat and relative isolation from additional 

suitable habitat, we believe that construction activities at the Dover CS would not impact the bog turtle. In 

addition, construction activities would take place at least 300 feet from any potential bog turtle habitat; 

therefore, we believe that the Dover CS portion of the Iroquois MarketAccess Project is unlikely to affect bog 
3−30 

turtle habitat. 

Determination of Effect 

Because of the marginal geographic characteristics of the potential bog turtle habitat at the Dover CS 

site, as well as the fact that construction would not impact the potential habitat, we have determined that 

construction and operation of the Iroquois MarketAccess portion of the NE-07 Project is unlikely to adversely 

impact the bog turtle. 

Overall Determination of Effect For the Bog Turtle 

 We have concluded that construction and operation of the NE-07 Project would not likely adversely 

affect the bog turtle or any suitable habitat of the species, as long as Millennium and Algonquin implement 

the agreed-to construction and mitigation conditions for the Phase I and Ramapo Expansion portions of the 

NE-07 Project. 

3.6 Leedy’s Roseroot 

Background 

This 

The Leedy’s roseroot (Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi) was first listed on April 22, 1992. This 

perennial plant is endemic to western New York, where it occupies cliffside habitat along the shore of Seneca 

Lake, and also southeastern Minnesota where it occupies cool, maderate3

 cliffs. Sedum integrifolium ssp. 

leedyi is an isolated subspecies of a common western U.S. species. The range of S. integrifolium ssp. leedyi 

does not overlap the ranges of the three western subspecies (S. integrifolium ssp. integrifolium, S. 

integrifolium ssp. neomexicanum, and S. integrifolium ssp. procera). These western subspecies are found 

along the Western Cordillera from Alaska to California and Colorado (Clausen 1975). Leedy’s roseroot has 

two dramatically disjunct centers of population, southeast Minnesota and western New York, a distributional 

pattern which suggests the subspecies is a relict of a Pleistocene flora that may have ranged across the 

continent before the last glaciation (Smith 1988). Seven populations from two states and a total of four 

counties are presently known. 

Leedy’s roseroot is threatened by its disjunct occurrences; its low numbers; off-site influences, such 

as groundwater contamination and hydrologic alterations; and direct on-site disturbances including erosion, 

rockslides, and staircase construction. Individual plants and habitat of the New York populations, which 

occur downhill from a number of lakeside homes, can be affected by clearing of vegetation on the cliffs and 

by pipes and staircases leading to the lakeshore (Sather 1993a). Potential indirect impacts from upslope 

agricultural activities and residential development are not well understood, but groundwater contamination 

can occur after fertilizers and pesticides are applied to nearby fields or lawns or after sinkholes are used as 

dump sites. Household and farm wastes, including pesticide containers, have been discarded in sinkholes near 

Minnesota sites (Refsnider 1988). 

Leedy’s roseroot is found only in very specialized cliffside habitats. The major New York population 

occurs on cliffs along the western shore of Seneca Lake. In Minnesota, populations occur on maderate cliffs, 

which are cooled by air exiting underground passages in the karst topography. Plants at Glenora Cliff, New 

York, are almost continuously distributed along 2 miles of the western shore of Seneca Lake. Plants occur on 

east-facing cliffs at elevations between 446 and 463 feet from near the tops of the cliffs to the talus. These 

lakeside cliffs are thinly bedded shale with intermittent thicker beds of siltstone. Drainage is good to poor, 

 

3 A maderate cliff is a talus slope that has lost the talus layer from erosion to form a cliff face. The small underground cracks that feed cold air 

are then exposed on the surface of the cliff creating a cold moist habitat. 
3−31 

and most of the cliff face is dry. The largest concentration of Leedy’s roseroot occurs in seepage areas, which 

may or may not remain moist throughout the year. In sheltered areas behind boathouses, plants occur on the 

talus itself. 

 Associated species include the state rare Whitlow grass, as well as herb-Robert (Geranium 

robertianum), pellitory (Parietaria pensylvanica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus inserta), Canada 

bluegrass(Poa compressa), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) (Clausen 1975, TNC 1985-1991a). The 

weedy nonnative Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) exhibits abundant growth on talus throughout 

the northern half of the site, obscuring both Leedy’s roseroot and the cliff face (TNC 1985-1991a). Plants at 

Glenora Falls occur on the east and south-facing cliff faces just north of a waterfall. The plants themselves 

occur on a wet, seepy cliff face with a talus slope below. Bulblet fern, Virginia creeper and pale touch-me-not 

are common on the talus slope, with hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis) on the top of the cliff (NYNHP 1996). The 

single Leedy’s roseroot plant still found at Watkins Glen, New York, occurs near the top of a disintegrating 

shale slope in a developed area near the open, sunny mouth of a narrow, shaded gorge. Elevation of the site is 

157 m (515 ft), exposure is southern, and drainage is poor (Clausen 1975). Dominant canopy trees are maple 

and hemlock. 

Empire Connector Project

Field Survey Methodology and Results 

 The Leedy’s roseroot occurs along the face of shale cliffs along Seneca Lake in New York State. 

According to FWS correspondence (October 26, 2004), the plants are located about two miles from Empire’s 

proposed project site. The project site does not contain any cliff faces or other suitable habitat for Leedy’s 

roseroot, and the project would not impact any cliffs or Cliffside vegetation. Therefore, because of the lack of 

suitable habitat at the project site, Empire did not survey for the species. 

Summary of Impact 

Because no cliff areas have been observed at Empire’s project facilities and no disturbance of cliff 

vegetation would occur, we believe that the Empire Connector Project would not impact Leedy’s roseroot. 

Determination of Effect 

Due to the lack of potential habitat along the project facilities, we have determined that Empire’s 

Connector Project is not likely to affect the Leedy’s roseroot. 

Overall Determination of Effect for the Leedy’s Roseroot 

 We have concluded that construction and operation of the NE-07 Project would not affect the 

Leedy’s roseroot or any suitable habitat of the species. 
4−1 

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Six federally listed endangered or threatened species were considered by the FERC as potentially 

occurring in the vicinity of the proposed NE-07 Project facilities. Based on our analysis in this BA, we have 

determined that, with implementation of each pipeline company’s (Millennium, Columbia, Empire, 

Algonquin, and Iroquois) proposed compensation measures, our recommended compensation measures, and 

their ECS (which incorporates our Plan and Procedures), the project would result in no adverse effect on four 

species (shortnose sturgeon, dwarf wedge mussel, bog turtle, and Leedy’s roseroot). We have determined that 

the Millennium Phase I Project and the Algonquin Ramapo Expansion Project may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect, the Indiana bat and the bald eagle. The Empire Connector and Iroquois MarketAccess 

components of the NE-07 Project are unlikely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. We have concluded that 

construction and operation of the NE-07 Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana 

bat or any suitable habitat of the species, as long as Millennium and Algonquin implement the agreed-to 

timing restrictions for tree clearing, pruning, and maintenance for the Phase I Project and the Ramapo 

Expansion Project. We expect a biological opinion to be issued from the FWS and NMFS in response to this 

BA and Algonquin’s completed surveys for the Indiana bat. 
5−1 

5.0 REFERENCES 

Bain, M.B., S. Nack, and J. Knight. 1995. Population Status of the Shortnose Sturgeon in the Hudson River. 

Phase I Progress Report, Sampling Success and Feasibility of Population Estimation. 5 pp. 

Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common and Divergent Life 

History Attributes. In: Environmental Biology of Fishes. 11 pp. 

Brack, V., Jr. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana with emphasis on the endangered Indiana 

bat, Myotis sodalis. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 

Brack, V., Jr., S.A. Johnson, and R.K. Dunlap. 2003. Wintering populations of bats in Indiana, with emphasis 

on the endangered Indiana myotis, Myotis sodalis. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 

112:61-74. 

Brack, V. Jr., and R. J. Reynolds. In Preparation. Temperatures used by bats hibernating in Skydusky Hollow, 

Bland County, Virginia. 

Chase, J.D., K.R. Dixon, J.E. Gates, D. Jacobs, and G.J. Taylor. 1989. Habitat Characteristics, Population 

Size, and Home Range of the Bog Turtle, Clemmys muhlenbergii, in Maryland. Journal of 

Herpetology 23(4): 356-362. 

Clarke, A.H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and

Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326: 1-101. 

Clausen, R.T. 1975. Sedum of North America North of the Mexican Plateau. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 

New York. 742 pp. 

Dovel, W.L., A.W. Pekovitch and T.J. Berggren. 1992. Biology of the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum Leseur. 1818) in the Hudson River estuary. Estuarine Research in the 1980s. State 

Univ. New York Press, Albany. pp 187-216. 

Ernst, C.H., R.T. Zappalorti, and J.E. Lovich. 1989. Overwintering Sites and Thermal Relations of 

Hibernating Bog Turtles, Clemmys muhlenbergii. Copeia 1989(3): 761-764. 

Gumbert, M.W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel 

Boone National Forest, Kentucky. M.S. thesis. Eastern Kentucky University. Richmond, Kentucky. 

Haley, N., J. Boreman, and M. Bain. 1996. Juvenile Sturgeon Habitat Use in the Hudson River. Section VIII: 

36 pp. In: J.R. Waldman, W.C. Nieder, and E.A. Blair (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar 

Fellowship Program, 1995. Hudson River Foundation, NY. 

Johnson, R.I. 1970. The Systematics and Zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the 

Southern Atlantic Slope Region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 140: 263-449. 

Johnson, S. A., V. Brack, Jr., and R. E. Rolley. 1998. Overwinter weight loss of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) 

from hibernacula subjected to human visitation. American Midland Naturalist 139:255-261. 
5−2 

Johnson, S.A., V. Brack, Jr. and R.K. Dunlap. 2002. Management of hibernacula in the state of Indiana. Pp. 

106-115 in The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. 

Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. 

Klemens, M.W. 1993. Amphibians and Reptiles in Connecticut and Adjacent Regions. State Geological and 

Natural History Survey of Connecticut, 1993. Bulletin 112. 318 pp. 

Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and C.J. Moseley, ed. 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to 

Endangered Species of North America. Washington, D.C.: Beacham Publishing, Inc. 

Michaelson, D.L. and R.J. Neves. 1995. Life History and Habitat of the Endangered Dwarf Wedge mussel 

Alasmidonta heterodon (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 

14(2): 324-340. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 1985-1991a. Site survey summaries, TNC trip reports and NI-IP field form 

updates for Glenora Cliff. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Western New York Field 

Office, Rochester.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998a. Telephone communication on June 22, 

between M. Kallaji (Fish and Wildlife Technician, Endangered Species Unit) and LJE (Millennium). 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998b. Telephone communication on July 1, 

between P. Nye (Research Scientist, Endangered Species Unit) and LJE (Millennium). 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998c. Letter dated July 24, between P. Nye 

(Research Scientist, Endangered Species Unit) and L. Shumway (Environmental Project Manager, 

Millennium). 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Letter dated February 17, from K. Seleen 

(Information Services, NYNHP, Wildlife Resources Center) to L. Shumway (Environmental Project 

Manager, Millennium). 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYNHP. 1996. Element occurrence records for 

Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi. Unpublished records. New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, NYNHP, Latham. 

Refsnider, R.L. 1988. Visit to the three Sedum sites in Minnesota. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 2 pp.

Reid, S. and P. Anderson. 1998. Suspended Sediment and Turbidity Conditions Associated with Instream 

Construction Activities in the United States: An Assessment of Biological Relevance. Chicago, 

Illinois: Gas Research Institute. 

Sather, N.P. 1993a. Field notes from a trip to New York sites, June, 1993. Minnesota Natural Heritage 

Program, St. Paul.

Smith, W.R. 1988. Vascular plants: In B. Coffin, and L. Pfannmuller (eds.). 1988. Minnesota’s Endangered 

Flora And Fauna. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 473 pp.

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of Recreational Activity on Wintering Bald Eagles. Wildlife 

Monographs 137: 1-46. 
5−3 

Steidl, R.J. and R.G. Anthony. 1996. Responses of Bald Eagles to Human Activity During the Summer in 

Interior Alaska. Ecological Applications 6(2): 482-491. 

Strayer, D.L. 1993. Macrohabitats of Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionacea) in Streams of the Northern 

Atlantic Slope. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(3): 236-246. 

Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat Use by an Assemblage of Stream-Dwelling Unionaceans 

(Bivalvia), Including Two Rare Species of Alasmidonta. Journal of North American Benthological 

Society 12(3): 247-258. 

 

Strayer, D.L., S.J. Sprague, and S. Claypool. 1996. A Range-Wide Assessment of Populations of 

Alasmidonta heterodon, an Endangered Freshwater Mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of North 

American Benthological Society 15(3): 308-317. 

The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Letter dated December 1, from G. Schuler (Director, Neversink River 

Program) and D. Boergers (Acting Secretary, FERC). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Letter dated December 18, from D. 

Rusanowsky (Fishery Biologist, NMFS) to L. Shumway (Environmental Project Manager, 

Millennium). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998a. Telephone communication on 

April 23, between D. Rusanowsky (Fishery Biologist, NMFS) and L. Shumway (Environmental 

Project Manager, Millennium). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998b. Final Recovery Plan for the 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team 

for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pp. 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Letter dated March 10, from S. 

Gorski (Field Offices Supervisor, NMFS) to K. Madden (Director, FERC). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Letter dated December 12, from S. Morgan 

(Field Supervisor, FWS, Cortland Field Office) to L. Shumway (Environmental Project Manager, 

Millennium). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi (Leedy’s 

roseroot) Recovery Plan. Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. vi + 31 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Indiana bat revised recovery plan (agency 

draft). Ft. Snelling, Minnesota. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Telephone communication on October 29, 

between Diane Mann-Klager (FWS) and J. Shenot and J. Wachholder (FERC). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Letter dated April 21, from D. Stilwell 

(Field Supervisor, FWS) to D. Boergers (Secretary, FERC). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Letter dated April 28, from D. Stilwell 

(Field Supervisor, FWS) to M. Feierstein (District Engineer, COE). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), 

Northern Population, Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 
5−4 

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. and V. Brack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and summer ecology in Indiana. Pp. 48-54 in The 

Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). 

Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. 
Α−1 

APPENDIX A 

INFORMAL CONSULTATION COMMUNICATIONS

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Millennium

December 18, 1997 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from D. Rusanowsky (NMFS). 

April 23, 1998 Telephone conversation between D. Rusanowsky (NMFS) and L. Shumway 

(Millennium). 

February 2, 1999 Letter to D. Rusanowsky (NMFS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

February 5, 1999 Letter to D. Rusanowsky (NMFS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

February 17, 1999 Fax to L. Shumway (Millennium) from D. Rusanowsky (NMFS). 

February 24, 1999 Telephone conversation between D. Rusanowsky and N. Haley (NMFS) and J. 

Goggin, J. Shenot, J. Martin, and J. Wachholder (FERC), and P. Patterson (FERC 

staff third-party environmental contractor). 

August 18, 2006 Letter to M. Colligan (NMFS) from J. Leiss (FERC). 

March 2, 1999 Letter to D. Rusanowsky (NMFS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

September 17, 1999 Telephone conversation between D. Rusanowsky (NMFS) and J. Shenot (FERC). 

September 23, 1999 E-mail from D. Rusanowsky (NMFS) to J. Shenot (FERC) 

December 17, 1999 Letter to D. Rusanowsky (NMFS) from K. Madden (FERC). 

March 10, 2000 Letter to K. Madden (FERC) from S. Gorski (NMFS, Highlands, New Jersey) 

April 20, 2000 Letter to D. Boergers (FERC) from A. Kemmerer (NMFS). 

May 2, 2000 Letter to Lt. Colonel Mark D. Feierstein (COE) from P. Kurkul (NMFS, Gloucester, 

Massachusetts). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Millennium

July 17, 1997 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from S. Morgan (FWS). 

November 12, 1997 Letter to S. Morgan (FWS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

December 12, 1997 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from S. Morgan (FWS). 
APPENDIX A (cont’d) 

Α−2 

March 27, 1998 Letter to D. Boergers (FERC) from S. Morgan (FWS). 

April 22, 1998 Telephone conversation between M. Stoll (FWS) and L. Shumway (Millennium). 

July 16, 1998 FAX to M. Stoll (FWS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

February 3, 1999 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, New York). 

February 5, 1999 Letter to S. Morgan (FWS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

February 19, 1999 Telephone conversation between D. Mann-Klager (FWS) and L. Shumway 

(Millennium). 

February 26, 1999 Letter to D. Stilwell (FWS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

March 4, 1999 Letter to D. Mann-Klager (FWS) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

June 4, 1999 Letter to D. Boergers (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS). 

August 17, 1999 Letter to D. Boergers (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS). 

October 26, 1999 Telephone conversation between D. Mann-Klager (FWS) and J. Shenot and J. 

Wachholder (FERC). 

April 21, 2000 Letter to D. Boergers (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS). 

April 28, 2000 Letter to Lt. Colonel M. Feierstein (COE) from D. Stilwell (FWS). 

 August 10, 2004 Letter to D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY) from J. Wachter (Millennium). 

October 6, 2004 Letter to D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY) from G. Reese (Millennium). 

December 7, 2004 Letter to G. Reese (Millennium) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

January 4, 2005 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

February 23, 2005 Letter to J. Wachter (Millennium) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

March 7, 2005 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

April 7, 2005 Letter to D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY) from J. Wachter (Millennium). 

June 9, 2005 Letter to J. Wachter (Millennium) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

March 9, 2006 Letter to R. Niver (FWS, Cortland, NY) from R. Hall (Millennium). 
APPENDIX A (cont’d)

Α−3 

Empire

October 26, 2004 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

June 16, 2004 Letter to N. Conrad (NYNHP) from S. Compton (Empire). 

June 16, 2004 Email to N. Conrad (NYNHP) from S. Lare (Empire). 

June 30, 2004 Letter to S. Lare (Empire) from N. Conrad (NYNHP). 

June 30, 2004 Email to S. Lare (Empire) from N. Conrad (NYNHP). 

January 31, 2005 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS). 

March 14, 2005 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS). 

April 5, 2005 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from V. Dick (Empire). 

Algonquin

September 16, 2005 Letter to M. Stoll (FWS, Cortland, NY) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

September 19, 2005 Letter to M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

October 20, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH). 

October 21, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

October 26, 2005 Letter to M. Stoll (FWS, Cortland, NY) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

November 30, 2005 Letter to C. Day (FWS, Pleasantville, NJ) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

December 16, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from J. Staples (FWS, Pleasantville, NJ). 

December 19, 2005 Letter to M. Clough (FWS, Cortland, NY) from T. O’Sullivan (Algonquin). 

December 19, 2005 Letter to A. Tur (FWS, Concord, NH) from T. O’Sullivan (Algonquin). 

December 22, 2005 Letter to M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

January 11, 2006 Letter to T. O’Sullivan (Algonquin) from M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH). 

January 26, 2006 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH). 

January 27, 2006 Letter to M. Stoll (FWS, Cortland, NY) from T. O’Sullivan (Algonquin). 

February 14, 2006 Letter to C. Day (FWS, Pleasantville, NJ) from T. O’Sullivan (Algonquin). 
APPENDIX A (cont’d)

Α−4 

Iroquois

June 19, 2001 Letter to S. Von Oettingen (FWS, Concord, NH) from M. Gardella (Iroquois). 

June 19, 2001 Letter to M. Gardella (Iroquois) from M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH). 

August 27, 2001 Letter to S. Sinkeviech (FWS, Islip, NY) from P. London (Iroquois). 

September 27, 2001 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

November 15, 2001 Letter to D. Stillwell (FWS, Cortland, NY) from T. O’Sullivan (Iroquois). 

January 2, 2002 Letter to T. O’Sullivan (Iroquois) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

November 17, 2005 Telephone conversation between A. Secord (FWS, Cortland, NY) and P. London 

(Iroquois). 

December 8, 2005 Letter to M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH) from P. London (Iroquois). 

December 8, 2005 Letter to A. Secord (FWS, Cortland, NY) from P. London (Iroquois). 

January 11, 2006 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH). 

February 3, 2006 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

February 8, 2006 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

February 14, 2006 Letter to M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH) from P. London (Iroquois). 

February 21, 2006 Letter to M. Secord (FWS, Cortland, NY) from P. London (Iroquois). 

March 15, 2006 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from M. Amaral (FWS, Concord, NH). 

March 22, 2006 Telephone conversation between R. Niver (FWS, Cortland, NY) and P. London 

(Iroquois). 

March 28, 2006 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from D. Stilwell (FWS, Cortland, NY). 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Natural Heritage Program 

Millennium

September 8, 1997 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from N. Conrad (NYNHP). 

December 22, 1997 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from N. Conrad (NYNHP). 

June 22, 1998 Telephone conversation between M. Kallaji (NYSDEC) and LJE (GAI, consultants 

to Millennium). 
APPENDIX A (cont’d)

Α−5 

July 1, 1998 Telephone conversation between P. Nye (NYSDEC, Delmar, New York) and LJE 

(GAI, consultants to Millennium). 

July 24, 1998 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from P. Nye (NYSDEC). 

February 2, 1999 Letter to N. Conrad (NYNHP) from L. Shumway (Millennium). 

February 17, 1999 Letter to L. Shumway (Millennium) from K. Seleen (NYNHP). 

September 14, 2004 Letter to J. Wachter (Millennium) from C. Houle (NYNHP). 

March 9, 2006 Letter to R. Niver (FWS, Cortland, NY) from R. Hall (Millennium). 

May 16, 2005 Meeting between Millennium and FWS. 

July 21, 2005 Field meeting between Millennium and FWS. 

November 30, 2005 Meeting between Millennium and FWS. 

March 9, 2006 Letter to J. Gregg (NYSDEC) from R. Hall (Millennium). 

Empire

February 16, 2005 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from (NYSDEC). 

March 16, 2005 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from V. Dick (Empire). 

March 14, 2006 Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from N. Conrad (NYNHP). 

Algonquin

September 16, 2005 Letter to J. Pietrusiak (NYNHP) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

October 26, 2005 Letter to J. Pietrusiak (NYNHP) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

November 2, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from C. Houle (NYNHP). 

December 7, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from C. Houle (NYNHP). 

February 14, 2006 Letter to S. Joule (NYSDEC) from T. O’Sullivan (Algonquin). 

Iroquois

August 27, 2001 Letter to N. Conrad (NYNHP) from P. London (Iroquois). 

October 4, 2001 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from B. Ketcham (NYNHP). 

December 8, 2005 Letter to J. Pietrusiak (NYNHP) from P. London (Iroquois). 
APPENDIX A (cont’d)

Α−6 

January 24, 2006 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from B. Ketcham (NYNHP). 

February 23, 2006 Telephone conversation between P. London (Iroquois) and S. Joule (NYSDEC). 

February 28, 2006 Letter to K. Draghi (Iroquois) from P. London (Iroquois). 

March 3, 2006 Letter to S. Joule (NYSDEC) from K. Draghi (Iroquois). 

March 3, 2006 Letter to P. London (Iroquois) from S. Innes (NYSDEC). 

New York State Department of State 

Millennium

December 20, 1999 Letter to K. Madden (FERC) from S. Resler (NYSDOS). 

April 7, 2000 Letter to D. Boergers (FERC) from G. Stafford (NYSDOS). 

Algonquin

September 19, 2005 Letter to D. McKay (CTDEP) from S. Resler (NYSDOS). 

The Nature Conservancy 

Millennium

December 1, 1998 Letter to D. Boergers (FERC) from G. Shuler (TNC, Cuddebackville, New York). 

February 5, 1999 Letter to G. Schuler (TNC, Cuddebackville, New York) from L. Shumway 

(Millennium). 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Algonquin

September 19, 2005 Letter to D. McKay (CTDEP) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

October 12, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from D. McKay (CTDEP). 

December 22, 2005 Letter to D. McKay (CTDEP) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

December 30, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from N. Murray (CTDEP). 

Iroquois

June 19, 2001 Letter to D. McKay (CTDEP) from M. Gardella (Algonquin). 

July 3, 2001 Letter to M. Gardella (Algonquin) from D. McKay (CTDEP). 
APPENDIX A (cont’d)

Α−7 

December 8, 2005 Letter to D. McKay (CTDEP) from P. London (Algonquin). 

December 29, 2005 Letter to P. London (Algonquin) from K. Metzler (CTDEP). 

February 14, 2006 Letter to D. McKay (CTDEP) from P. London (Algonquin). 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Algonquin

November 30, 2005 Letter to H. Lord (NJDEP) from J. Durand (Algonquin). 

December 7, 2005 Letter to J. Durand (Algonquin) from H. Lord (NJDEP). 

United States Department of the Interior 

July 24, 2006 Letter to Letter to M. Salas (FERC) from A. Raddant (USDI) 
(APPENDIX B 

FERC PLAN AND PROCEDURES)

The FERC Plan and Procedures can be found at the FERC’s website 

(www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp)