Cayuga Creek Watershed Assessment and Summary Report

Cayuga Creek Watershed Assessment Summary Report

Niagara Power Project (FERC No. 2216)

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

New York Power Authority and Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.

June 2006 NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216) CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS...... iv

1.0 Introduction...... 1-1 1.1 Background...... 1-1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1-2 1.3 Geographic Scope...... 1-3

2.0 Methods...... 2-1 2.1 Literature Review ...... 2-1 2.2 Outreach...... 2-4 2.3 GIS Compilation and Updating ...... 2-4 2.4 Site Visit ...... 2-5

3.0 Watershed Description Summary ...... 3-1 3.1 Physical Features of the Watershed...... 3-1 3.1.1 Watershed Boundaries...... 3-2 3.1.2 Topography ...... 3-3 3.1.3 Soils...... 3-4 3.1.4 Climate ...... 3-4 3.2 Land Use and Population Characteristics ...... 3-5 3.2.1 Land Use and Land Cover Data ...... 3-5 3.2.2 Land Management Practices ...... 3-6 3.2.3 Demographics...... 3-8 3.3 Public Access and Recreation...... 3-9 3.3.1 Access Points and Facilities ...... 3-9 3.3.2 Outreach and Public Involvement ...... 3-10 3.3.3 Aesthetics ...... 3-11 3.3.4 Heritage Sites ...... 3-12 3.4 Physical Condition of Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek...... 3-12 3.4.1 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology...... 3-12 3.4.2 Flooding ...... 3-15 3.4.3 Geomorphology...... 3-17 3.4.4 Erosion and Sedimentation...... 3-18 3.5 Water Quality...... 3-20

3.5.1 Water Quality Classification and Impairments ...... 3-20 3.5.2 Monitoring Programs and Data Inventories ...... 3-20 3.5.3 Surface Water Quality...... 3-21 3.5.4 Pollutant Sources...... 3-25 3.5.5 Groundwater Quality...... 3-31 3.5.6 Water Supply and Wastewater ...... 3-31 3.5.7 Benthic Sediment Quality ...... 3-32 3.6 Biological Resources ...... 3-33 3.6.1 Instream Habitat ...... 3-33 3.6.2 Wetlands...... 3-36 3.6.3 Fish and Wildlife Communities ...... 3-37 3.6.4 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 3-40

4.0 Summary of Significant Issues and Areas of Concern ...... 4-1 4.1 Historical Recommendations and Areas of Improvement...... 4-1 4.2 Current Problems and Recommendations for Potential Restoration Measures ...... 4-4 4.3 Next Steps...... 4-6

TABLES

Table 2.3-1 ...... 2-6 GIS Data Layers for Cayuga Creek ...... 2-6

Table 3.5.2-1 ...... 3-42 Environmental Monitoring Programs in the Cayuga Creek Watershed ...... 3-42

FIGURES

Figure 1.3-1...... 1-4 Cayuga Creek Watershed...... 1-4

Figure 3.2.1-1...... 3-44 Land Use in the Cayuga Creek Watershed ...... 3-44

Figure 3.2.1-2...... 3-45 Habitat in the Cayuga Creek Watershed...... 3-45

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 1

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Cayuga Creek Watershed Contacts...... 1

Appendix B: Data Inventory...... 1

ABBREVIATIONS

Agencies

ENCRPB Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

IJC International Joint Commission

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSOPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation

OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

NCSWCD Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NCDPDT Niagara County Department of Planning, Development & Tourism, now called Niagara County Department of Economic Development

Units of Measure

C Celsius, Centigrade cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeter

El. elevation

F Fahrenheit gpm gallons per minute

JTU Jackson Turbidity Unit

L liter

μ prefix for micro mg milligram mgd million gallons per day ml milliliter msl mean sea level

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

ppb parts per billion

Environmental

AEM Agricultural Environmental Management

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

CSO combined sewer overflow

DO dissolved oxygen

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (insect orders)

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PEC probable effects concentration

SAV submerged aquatic vegetation

SPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System

SSO sanitary sewer overflow

TEC threshold effects concentration

Miscellaneous

AOC Area of Concern

BMP Best Management Practice

CSP Conservation Security Program

GIS Geographic Information Systems

LUNR Land Use Natural Resource

LWD Large Woody Debris

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

NFARS Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station

NPP Niagara Power Project

NYPA New York Power Authority

OPG Ontario Power Generation

PISCES passive in-situ concentration/extraction samplers

RAP Remedial Action Plan

RIBS Rotating Intensive Basin Study

RTE Rare, Threatened, and Endangered

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The New York Power Authority (NYPA) is engaged in the relicensing of the Niagara Power Project (NPP) in Lewiston, Niagara County, New York. The present operating license of the plant expires in August 2007. NYPA filed an application for a new license on August 18, 2005 with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The relicensing process, which began in December 2002 with organizational meetings, involved the participation of a wide range of interested groups and individuals, including state and federal regulatory entities, local municipalities, area businesses and labor unions, environmental groups and academic institutions.

As part of the relicensing settlement process, NYPA agreed to provide in-kind services to the Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers, now called Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper. From this agreement, Riverkeeper requested the services be used for the creation and development of a watershed assessment or “report card” summarizing the current environmental condition of the Cayuga Creek watershed. Riverkeeper plans to use this report card to develop an implementation plan or restoration road map in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

1.1 Background

Cayuga Creek in Niagara County, NY is a tributary to the upper Niagara River. The Niagara River has been designated as one of the 41 Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes Basin because of impaired beneficial uses. The Niagara River AOC is located in Erie and Niagara Counties in western New York and extends from the southern end of the Buffalo Harbor, north to the mouth of the Niagara River at Lake Ontario.

Environmental problems in the Niagara River AOC include: inactive hazardous waste sites, contaminated sediment, combined sewer overflows, habitat degradation, and nonpoint source pollution, including urban and rural runoff (NYSDEC 2000). Many of these problems are also prevalent in the Cayuga Creek watershed. In 1987, state and federal governments from the United States and Canada

initiated a commitment to develop and implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Niagara River AOC. The goal of RAP is to restore and protect beneficial uses in the AOC.

The RAP identified five use impairments: 1) Restrictions on Fish & Wildlife Consumption; 2) Fish Tumors or Other Deformities; 3) Degradation of Benthos; 4) Restrictions on Dredging Activities; and 5) Loss of Fish & Wildlife Habitat. Two other use impairments were listed that will require further investigation to determine the extent of their existence: Degradation of Fish & Wildlife Populations, and Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems.

While many of the problems identified with the Niagara River AOC are applicable to the Cayuga Creek, this summary focuses on conditions specific to the Cayuga Creek watershed. The RAP has established a comprehensive and focused corrective action strategy to: remediate contaminated sediments and hazardous waste sites; continue and enhance monitoring activities; continue point and nonpoint source control programs; and, improve fish and wildlife habitat. To the extent that Cayuga Creek and its tributaries are contributing to the identified use impairments in the Niagara River AOC, there may be opportunities to include potential restoration activities in the Cayuga Creek watershed with the Niagara River RAP process.

1.2 Objectives

The goal of this effort is to synthesize existing relevant natural resource and planning information related to the Cayuga Creek watershed in order to develop an assessment of its current environmental condition. The work performed and material collected will provide a basis for future research activities and potential watershed restoration measures.

The specific objective of this report is to develop a watershed assessment describing the current environmental condition of the Cayuga Creek watershed based on existing information. This report will be used to assess the resources in the Cayuga Creek watershed in order to create a report card, the purpose of which will be to provide an overview of the current conditions, health, and potential improvements in Cayuga Creek and its watershed.

1.3 Geographic Scope

The investigation area includes the watershed of Cayuga Creek in Niagara County, which includes land in the Towns of Cambria, Lewiston, Wheatfield, and Niagara; the City of Niagara Falls; and the Tuscarora Nation. The original focus of this study was the watershed area associated with the mainstem Cayuga Creek, excluding its tributaries. NYPA participated in a meeting with the Cayuga Creek Restoration Steering Committee on March 23, 2006 in which the scope of work for this study was presented. The Cayuga Creek Restoration Steering Committee includes representatives from Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Niagara County Department of Economic Development, Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Tuscarora Nation, Niagara University, LaSalle Pride and the City of Niagara Falls. Attendees were in agreement with the level of effort; however there was a concern that the watershed boundary did not include Bergholtz Creek. Bergholtz Creek and its tributaries (portions of Sawyer Creek and Black Creek) have since been added to the watershed boundary.

There is some discrepancy regarding the drainage patterns of the tributaries to Cayuga Creek, thus making an accurate description of the watershed area difficult. However, for this study, existing watershed delineations from various sources were used in order to define the watershed study area (Figure 1.3-1). A further description of the watershed boundaries is discussed in Section 3.1.1.

Cayuga Creek Mainstem Watershed. Source: NCSWCD

Bergholtz Creek Watershed. Source: USACE 2002

Lewiston

Cambria Y:\GISmaps\cayuga\figure_1_3_1.mxd

Tuscarora Nation

ranch

h B

c Lewiston

a Reservoir t r s

B a

ek re C Niagara tz ol h g r uga C e C a y reek B

Pendleton

Wheatfield

Sa Niagara Falls B w l yer ack Creek C re ek

Niagara River

Grand Island

North Tonawanda Amherst

03,500 7,000 14,000 Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek Watersheds F Feet Note: This map was created with information copyrighted by the New York State Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination © 2005 Figure 1.3-1 NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216) CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

2.0 METHODS

In order to adequately characterize the Cayuga Creek watershed, existing relevant literature was compiled and reviewed. The literature review consisted of gathering existing information related to the Cayuga Creek watershed which will include, but not be limited to, studies, plans, and reports relative to environmental planning, water quality and quantity, land use, recreation, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, pollution, and stormwater runoff.

In addition to the literature review, geographic information systems (GIS) data for the watershed was compiled and reviewed, as appropriate. Studies and GIS data created or otherwise obtained by NYPA during the NPP relicensing process are a key component of the literature review. A bibliography was developed and is included in the References and Bibliography section.

To expand the literature review beyond NYPA’s existing information gathered throughout the relicensing process, various entities were contacted to obtain additional relevant information. Finally, a field visit was conducted to verify land use and habitat GIS data and to examine suspected areas of concern within the watershed. The methods are detailed further below.

During the literature compilation and review process, informational data gaps were identified. Data gaps included geographical areas, where data is lacking (e.g., the eastern portion of the watershed) as well as categorical information deficiencies (e.g., groundwater flow patterns).

2.1 Literature Review

Most of the existing information related to the Cayuga Creek watershed was compiled during the relicensing effort for the Niagara Power Project. Many of the relicensing studies included Cayuga Creek due to its proximity to the Niagara River. The studies that examined environmental conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat, erosion, etc.) in Cayuga Creek and its watershed were the focus of this literature

review. Information and data relevant to Bergholtz Creek was added to this assessment based upon the existing list of information sources.

In addition to the relicensing studies, their bibliographies and cited references were examined to locate additional relevant information. Through this search, four primary pieces of literature were found that provided both historical and current accounts of the conditions in the watershed. The following reports were especially important due to their data specific to Cayuga Creek (in addition to the relicensing studies):

1. 1975 Water Quality Study of Cayuga Creek. Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board (ENCRPB).

2. 1997 Cayuga Creek Management Study – Research Report. Niagara County Department of Planning, Development and Tourism.

3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Cayuga Creek, Niagara County, New York Flooding and Related Water Resources. Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis. Reconnaissance Report, March 2002.

4. Cayuga Creek Watershed Stream Assessment, February 2005. Prepared for the Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers by Kelly M. Frothingham and Natalie Brown of Buffalo State College.

The studies from 1975 and 1997 provided excellent baseline information for comparison to current conditions in the watershed. The 1975 report was especially noteworthy because a list of problems in the watershed was documented and potential solutions were suggested. The 2002 report from the USACE elaborated on the flooding problems along Cayuga Creek and also provided extensive documentation of the fish and wildlife species in the watershed through USFWS surveys.

The 1975 Report comprised a photographic survey of the creek environment to describe its condition and pinpoint inflows, a hydrologic survey to determine its flow characteristics, a sampling program to assess its water quality, and a complete review of current pollution abatement programs. Based upon these considerations, specific water quality problems were identified and remedial measures developed. From these, alternative programs were formulated and a plan of action recommended based upon the criteria of cost, impact, and engineering practicality. Baseline data included: 1) topography, geology, and soils; 2) hydrology, including stream channel conditions; 3) water supply and wastewater treatment; 4) land use; 5) discharges into the creek; and 6) ecology and water quality.

In August 1997 the Niagara County Department of Planning, Development & Tourism (NCDPDT), now called the Niagara County Department of Economic Development, in cooperation with the City of Niagara Falls and the Cayuga Creek Management Committee, published the research report Cayuga Creek Management Study. The study area was Cayuga Creek from its mouth on the Little River north to the Niagara Falls City line, as well as riparian properties along this portion of the creek. The report is a compilation of information intended to assist in the development of a program to improve conditions currently associated with Cayuga Creek in the City of Niagara Falls.

The Cayuga Creek Reconnaissance Study, conducted by the USACE, examined flooding, drainage, and other related problems in the Cayuga Creek watershed. The purpose of the study was to determine Federal interest in developing a plan for flood damage reduction in the Town of Niagara in the vicinity of the Cayuga Village Trailer Park, which experienced severe flooding damage in 1998.

In addition to the baseline studies and information, several of NYPA’s relicensing study reports relative to Cayuga Creek were reviewed. These studies were useful in determining current conditions of the creek and the watershed. A complete list of literature reviewed for this study is presented in the References and Bibliography section.

An inventory of the corresponding environmental data contained in the studies and reports was also inventoried. Tabular data sets were obtained for water quality data; and fish, wildlife, and vegetation species; and known or suspected rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species in the watershed. The

tabular datasets are contained in an appendix to this report. Data related to contaminant monitoring in sediment, groundwater and biota are not included in the data inventory. Readers are referred to the specific studies if there is interest in the analytical aspects of these investigations.

In addition to the Niagara Power Project Reference Library, the University of Buffalo’s on-line library was searched for articles relevant to the Cayuga Creek watershed.

2.2 Outreach

To ensure that a comprehensive review of all the information relevant to the watershed was conducted, the following entities were contacted: local environmental organizations, municipal and county governments and their relevant departments, local universities, and local, state and federal resource agencies. A complete list of the people and entities contacted is shown in Appendix A.

In addition to inquires for existing information such as reports and data, specific questions were asked related to perceived problems in the watershed, and future plans for the watershed (e.g., information on zoning, development guidelines and restrictions, master planning, wastewater plans, transportation plans, future land use plans). This information will not only support the characterization of the watershed but also identify any major changes expected to occur in the watershed.

The Tuscarora Oral History Project conducted as part of the relicensing effort may be reviewed in the future in cooperation with Tuscarora Nation in the context of Cayuga Creek and its watershed. As of this writing, the oral history was not included.

2.3 GIS Compilation and Updating

During the Niagara Power Project relicensing process, several GIS data layers were created. These have been reviewed for this study. There are, however, some restrictions regarding the

dissemination of these data due to confidentiality and security concerns. The GIS layers available from NYPA are listed in Table 2.3-1.

GIS data related to land use and habitat was developed from photogrammetry data collected in 2002. Approximately 15% of the current land use coverage of the Cayuga Creek main stem watershed was not delineated at that time. During this study, the missing portion of the land use coverage was developed and updated. Land use classification was based on the Land Use Natural Resource (LUNR) inventory codes created by Cornell University in 1969. Habitat type classifications were based upon the first edition of Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke 1990), and subsequently the second edition (2002) edited by Edinger et al. The task was completed on March 24, 2006 and field verification occurred on April 27-28, 2006. Subsequent to the completion of the updating of these two layers, the Riverkeeper asked that the geographic scope of the watershed be expanded to include the drainage of Bergholtz Creek. Due to scheduling and budgetary reasons, the two layers showing habitat and land use have not been expanded. However, during the literature review it was found that the Town of Wheatfield has a land use layer in GIS in their comprehensive plan (Wendel Duchscherer 2004); however their GIS data was not obtained for this assessment.

2.4 Site Visit

A 2-day field reconnaissance was conducted on April 27-28, 2006 in an attempt to verify findings from the literature review. Additionally, the GIS layers created for this study (land use and habitat) were field verified.

TABLE 2.3-1 GIS DATA LAYERS FOR CAYUGA CREEK

Title Description Resource Area(s)

Land Use Land Use classifications, e.g., agricultural, Land use and management, residential, industrial, within the watershed Recreation, Public Access

Habitat Aquatic and terrestrial habitat classifications Habitat Habitat Transects Aquatic habitat assessments, 3 transects across Fish and Wildlife Habitat lower Cayuga Creek SPDES Points showings locations of permitted water Water Quality discharges into Cayuga Creek CSOs Points showings locations of combined sewer Water Use and Quality outfalls into Cayuga Creek in the City of Niagara Falls (older layer) Water Withdrawals Points showings locations of water withdrawals Water Use from Cayuga Creek Basemap Waterbodies, political boundaries, roads Land Management Basemap Orthophotos and topographical maps Land Management Flood Zones FEMA flood mapping and hazard zones Land Management Wetlands NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands and National Fish and Wildlife Habitat Wetland Inventory Soils NRCS soil type mapping and classification Land Use Recreation Land ownership and recreation areas Recreation and Public access Hydrology Stream and other surface waters Water Heritage Heritage sites – locally significant and national Recreation and Public access registry sites Field photos Digital photos from entire length of Cayuga Creek Habitat, land use, erosion (except on Tuscarora Nation) Erosion Erosion sites identified in by field inspections Erosion Fish Barriers Locations preventing fish passage in Cayuga Habitat Creek Remediation Sites Inactive hazardous waste sites Land management, water quality

3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

Existing information was used to develop this summary of the current environmental conditions within the Cayuga Creek watershed. In developing the scope of work for this study, the following resource areas were targeted.

• Water Quantity and Quality;

• Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat;

• Erosion and Sedimentation;

• Public Access and Recreation; and

• Land Use and Management.

This section provides a summary of the conditions in the Cayuga Creek watershed and is broken down by resource category. The categories above are refined further to allow for a more comprehensive assessment. Some of the categories will be useful if a comprehensive watershed management plan or restoration road map is developed in the future.

This assessment will identify significant issues or areas of concern (e.g., streambank erosion, contamination, barriers) within the Cayuga Creek watershed for each resource area. Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper will continue the assessment effort and investigate additional resource areas of concern. In order to identify data gaps, the resource areas were refined further as described in the following sections. A data inventory is included in Appendix B, as noted.

3.1 Physical Features of the Watershed

Cayuga Creek is a tributary to the Niagara River and lies within the Erie-Niagara drainage basin of western New York State in Niagara County, New York. The headwaters of the 10-mile long Cayuga Creek main-stem originate in the Town of Lewiston. From this point the creek flows southward through

the Tuscarora Nation and Town of Wheatfield. The creek crosses under Walmore Road onto the Niagara Falls International Airport-Air National Guard Base complex and continues southward through the Town of Niagara, and the City of Niagara Falls where it joins its major tributary Bergholtz Creek before continuing south to join the Little River opposite Cayuga Island.

In several of the reports that were reviewed, the creeks are separated into reaches based upon their location and features. For example in the Cayuga Creek Water Quality Study (ENCRPB 1975), Cayuga Creek was separated into three 3 reaches: upper, middle (airport), and lower. The report Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish and Cayuga Creeks (URS et al. 2005b) and the Buffalo State study (Frothingham and Brown 2005) segmented Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks into many more reaches.

3.1.1 Watershed Boundaries

The original focus of this study was the watershed associated with the mainstem Cayuga Creek, excluding its tributaries. Bergholtz Creek and its tributaries (Sawyer and Black Creeks) have since been added to the watershed boundary.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and NYSDEC include Cayuga and Bergholtz Creek in the Niagara River-Tonawanda Creek Watershed, which is described as being located at the western end of New York State covering an area of approximately 514,810 acres over parts of five counties: Erie, Niagara, Genesee, Wyoming and a small part of Orleans. For this study, we have used two sources to define the Cayuga / Bergholtz watershed boundary: 1) mainstem Cayuga Creek boundary from Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and 2) Bergholtz Creek watershed boundary from USACE 2002 (see Figure 1.3-1). Using these two sources, the watershed area equals approximately 31 square miles.

The drainage patterns of Sawyer Creek have been documented to flow both to the west into Bergholtz Creek and to the east into Bull Creek, which is a tributary to Tonawanda Creek. Historical values related to the area of the watershed and subwatersheds also vary.

ENCRPB 1975 lists the following drainage areas:

Sub-watershed Drainage Area (sq. mi.)

Cayuga Creek Main Stem 16.4

Bergholtz Creek 13.5

Black Creek 2.6

Sawyer Creek 1.6

TOTAL 34.1

The USACE 2002 report is consistent with this approximate 34 sq. mi. drainage basin. According to the City of Niagara Falls Flood Insurance Study, the main stem Cayuga Creek drainage area equals 28.2 sq. mi, and the Bergholtz Creek drainage area equals 16.4 sq. mi. (FEMA 1990).

A significant observation regarding Sawyer Creek drainage pattern was noted in NCDPDT 1997: “Sawyer Creek appears to change its flow of direction in the vicinity of Oppenheim Park and Route 429. This is further evidenced by a topographical map of the area prepared by the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, and is dated 1980.”

3.1.2 Topography

Most of the drainage basin is quite flat; the average gradient along Cayuga Creek is 8.6 ft/mi. Much of this relief is traversed in the upper two miles of the watershed, so that lengthy stretches in the lower basin exhibit gradients of less than 4 ft/mi. This low relief is attributable to the geologic history of the basin. The creek headwaters flow off the Niagara Escarpment across the Huron Plain, which has at various times been inundated by glacial lakes. Massive deposits of dense, extremely fine-grained lacustrine (lake-derived) clays blanket the area, leveling irregularities in the bedrock (ENCRPB 1975).

The Cayuga Creek basin is of limited topographic complexity and variation. Cayuga Creek is a slightly meandering system originating in flat topography at an elevation near 625 feet mean sea level

(msl). Progressing southward the creek continues into relatively level topography and it takes on characteristic flows as it meanders through a relatively defined main channel and a mosaic of lowland floodplain landscapes. The creek courses through this level landscape where it eventually converges with the Little River approximately 10 miles from its source. Elevations range from approximately 625 feet at the headwaters to approximately 560 feet at the Niagara River confluence in the City of Niagara Falls (USACE 2002).

The topography has resulted in local municipalities historically altering the stream course to facilitate drainage of agricultural areas in the basin. Digital maps showing topography (USGS quadrangle maps) are available in GIS as part of the NYPA data listed. In the airport-air base complex, Cayuga Creek flows through a shallow (10-30 foot) manmade gorge excavated through the bedrock units during runway construction in 1944.

3.1.3 Soils

The characteristic bedrock units underlying the basin are the Lockport Dolomitic Limestone and the Queenston and Rochester Shales. These are buried along much of Cayuga Creek, with the stream flowing through a clay-lined channel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service has mapped these soils and classified them as to permeability (drainage) (Higgins et al. 1972). Most of the soils in the Cayuga Creek basin are derived from glacial lake sediments and are characterized by high density, poor tilth (tillability), and very poor drainage. Soils and geological information are available in GIS layers.

3.1.4 Climate

There is a first-order weather station located at the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport approximately 16 miles southeast of the watershed. At this station, the average annual precipitation is 36.19 inches. The maximum monthly average is 3.28 inches in December. The average annual snowfall as recorded at this station is 91.1 inches. The highest average monthly snowfall is 24.2 inches in January.

The average temperature at the Buffalo Weather station is 47.4 degrees F. July is the warmest month and February the coldest, with average monthly temperatures of 70.5 and 24.8, respectively (USACE 2002).

3.2 Land Use and Population Characteristics

3.2.1 Land Use and Land Cover Data

In 1975, the land use along Cayuga Creek was classified as follows: Above the Niagara Falls Air Base, much of the land was cleared for agriculture, with scattered wooded stands throughout. Private residences were situated primarily along Lockport, Saunders Settlement, and Walmore Roads. The air base complex occupies approximately 2,000 acres of flat grassland virtually cleared of trees and brush. South of Pine Avenue, the creek basin is urbanized. Development was primarily residential in nature, although commercial development could be found along major thoroughfares. The Bell Aerospace Company and the Carborundum Corporation [now defunct industries in the watershed] were both located within a mile of the airport (ENCRPB 1975).

In 2002, land use in the Cayuga/Bergholtz basin was described as varying widely from rural residential and agricultural to commercial/industrial. North of the Niagara Falls Airport-Air Force Base complex in the Town of Lewiston, the Tuscarora Nation, and the Towns of Wheatfield and Cambria, land uses consisted of mixed residential and agriculture and open lands, although this was changing as infrastructure increased and improved and residential and commercial development progressed outward from the Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Southward in the watershed much of the lands in the Town of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls were predominantly suburban residential and commercial development. Industrial activities were concentrated mostly in the City of Niagara Falls.

Land use changes in the Cayuga Creek corridor incrementally converted much of the floodplain, wetlands and riparian systems to other uses including residential, commercial and industrial development. This occurred most significantly within the Town of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls (USACE 2002). Similar land use changes are apparent at agricultural operations in the upper areas of the watershed.

GIS data layers related to land use and habitat were developed from photogrammetry data collected in 2002 in support of the Niagara Power Project relicensing studies. Approximately 15% of the current land use coverage of the Cayuga Creek mainstem watershed was not delineated at that time. During this study, the missing portion of the land use coverage for the Cayuga Creek mainstem watershed was developed and updated. Figure 3.2.1-1 displays the extent of the land use coverage for this assessment, which accounts for approximately 60% of the Cayuga/Bergholtz watershed. This assessment shows the dominant land use categories in the basin are agricultural (35%), transportation, including the airport-airbase complex (16%) followed by residential (15%). Fifteen percent of the land in the assessed portion of the watershed is classified as vacant and commercial and industrial land use accounts for a combined 9%. Figure 3.2.1-2 shows the habitat coverage for the watershed.

The Town of Wheatfield conducted a Greenspace Master Plan in 1995 that provides extensive information on important environmental features in the Town. Wheatfield’s Comprehensive Plan also includes land use GIS coverage for the entire town.

3.2.2 Land Management Practices

The management and alteration of Cayuga Creek for various purposes is apparent. The creek has been diverted for flood control, creation of runways and residential development and around hazardous waste sites. Ditching for flood control is prevalent in the Towns of Lewiston, Wheatfield and Niagara. The administrator of the Town of Lewiston, recognizing the importance of proper flood plain management and of reducing the possibility of flood damage to properties, adopted in 1973 a drainage control law which intended to provide for improved drainage conditions in the Town and also to restrict construction of buildings in the flood hazard area (FEMA 1979).

There are several land conservation programs associated with agricultural areas in the watershed. In terms of streamside buffers, the NCSWD recommends a 50 foot setback. The NRCS’ Conservation Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to promote the conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation purposes on Tribal and private working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland,

prairie land, improved pasture, and range land, as well as forested land that is an incidental part of an agriculture operation. The extent that this program is utilized in the Cayuga Creek watershed is not known.

The Niagara County Soil and Water District has implemented New York State’s Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program, which is designed to document and prioritize water quality impairments in an agricultural setting and to identify specific farms that are contributing to these impairments. Over 150 preliminary surveys were completed with farmers in the Eighteenmile, Twelvemile, Tonawanda, and Mud Creek watersheds. No surveys have been conducted in the Cayuga Creek watershed as of yet. Over 75 farmers also participated in a comprehensive survey that documented current land stewardship and identified sources of water quality impairments. Under the New York State Agricultural and Non-Point Source Pollution Abatement Program, two of these participating farms were able to receive grants funds to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) to specifically address water quality concerns identified through the AEM program. Examples include a silage leachate management system, heifer manure storage system and a bunk silo leachate containment system were constructed for a replacement heifer/beef operation in the Mud Creek watershed and a dairy operation in the Twelvemile Creek watershed. All three Best Management Practices are intended to mitigate obvious water quality and environmental problems present on both farms. Thus far, all three systems have been very successful in extinguishing the sources that once threatened water quality in the county (NCSWCD 2004).

Local ordinances related to Cayuga Creek and its tributaries were not found in a literature review of the municipalities’ comprehensive plans. However, the updated plans generally seem to have a stronger environmental focus.

While the agricultural programs related to conservation and environmental protection are important to watershed health, there appears to be a general lacking of local plans for land acquisition or land protection within the watershed. The above mentioned agricultural initiatives (AEM and CSP) could be promoted further within the watershed.

3.2.3 Demographics

Municipalities included in the Cayuga Creek watershed include the Towns of Lewiston, Wheatfield, Niagara, and Cambria, the City of Niagara Falls, and the Tuscarora Nation. Rural and suburban populations are growing in Wheatfield and Lewiston, while the City of Niagara Falls continues to see population declines. The trend towards migration of the regional population away from the metropolitan area outward into the suburban and rural areas is likely to continue. The Cayuga Creek basin is an attractive place to live and has the ability to support further residential, commercial and industrial uses with infrastructure expansion. These factors will likely support future population growth and land use changes. Urban and suburban growth in the basin will result in significant potential for increased drainage issues and point and non-point water quality impacts. In addition, increased development of floodplain lands and tributary watersheds, although completed in accordance with floodplain regulations, will place more infrastructure at risk from flooding and more than likely increase peak flows and volume of runoff to the main-stem creek and remaining floodplains. Accordingly, as the basin develops, unless there is proactive unified watershed planning and management, flooding and the need for protection will remain a primary need as land uses change (USACE 2002).

The 2000 population numbers are presented below as compared to 1990 population numbers.

Municipality 2000 Population 1990 Population

Town of Lewiston 16,257 15,453

Town of Niagara 8,978 9,880

Town of Wheatfield 14,086 11,125

Town of Cambria 5,393 4,779

City of Niagara Falls 55,593 61,840

Niagara County 219,846 220,756

Tuscarora Nation 1,138 772

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 1990 Census.

3.3 Public Access and Recreation

Fishing, boating, bird watching and hiking are popular natural resource-based recreational activities in the watershed. There will be future increased demands for public access, recreation uses, and other demands affecting water quality and habitat integrity. At the same time, it is likely that community interest to protect and restore indigenous wildlife habitat, and to be able to enjoy high-quality native landscapes from an aesthetic and recreational viewpoint, will grow (USACE 2002).

3.3.1 Access Points and Facilities

GIS layers obtained from New York State depict the recreational areas in the watershed including public parks and wetlands. For specific recreational access points to Cayuga Creek, Riverkeeper recently published a brochure entitled LaSalle Canoe Trail Map and Guide which details a canoe route around Cayuga Island and up Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks. The access points on Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks are listed as future potential canoe launch sites (Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper Undated).

Griffon Park in Niagara Falls provides access to Cayuga Creek and Jayne Park on Cayuga Island also provides recreational opportunities. Creek-side recreational opportunities and access points are severely limited in the upper reaches of the watershed as most of the abutting land is private.

There is a Farm Museum in Lewiston at the upper limits of the Cayuga Creek watershed, which is now open according to Niagara County SWCD. In the Town of Cambria, there are plans for a proposed park development along Bergholtz Creek. The trail system designed for this park will travel through wetland areas allowing for bird watching, hiking opportunities, nature observation, cross-country skiing, etc. The potential for enhanced recreational opportunities in the upper watershed areas could be investigated further.

3.3.2 Outreach and Public Involvement

Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper has initiated many public outreach and education projects associated with the Cayuga Creek watershed. These programs include ongoing education of creekside homeowners and businesses on the need to improve creek health; successful semiannual shoreline clean ups involving hundreds of volunteers; completion of the Cayuga Creek Canoe Trail design and brochure together with a detailed construction design for a first launch facility at Jayne Park; and development of the Cayuga Creek Watershed Report Card.

Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper has also established a reliable and active volunteer team of citizen “captains” on Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks through the Riverwatch volunteer waterway monitoring program. The goals of the program are to: improve water quality, wildlife habitat and public access in the watershed through increased monitoring of spills, discharges, runoff and land use; improve the response to acute and chronic problems in the watershed; improve public awareness in the community concerning pollution prevention (especially in regards to stormwater); promote education of shoreline landowners on best management practices; and expand the current shoreline cleanup program.

Four distinct action campaigns will be launched in 2006-2007 under the Riverwatch volunteer waterway monitoring program, and are described further below.

Water Quality Monitoring Campaign

Captains will participate in a water quality monitoring campaign designed to track basic measures of water quality in each waterway, including coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphate, pH, turbidity, temperature, and benthic macroinvertebrates. In conjunction with other monitoring efforts in the Cayuga Creek watershed, these monthly measurements will help to establish baseline data as well as identify potential problems for further investigation. Captains will be trained to use test kits correctly in the field, and an online reporting mechanism for water test results will be developed.

Stormwater Campaign

A monitoring effort to identify and report violations of the EPA Phase II stormwater regulations will be launched in partnership with the NYS Attorney General’s office. The development of stormwater pollution education campaigns will then be undertaken in each captain team area, utilizing brochures developed by the WNY Stormwater Coalition as well as stenciling kits for identifying storm drains to the public. Captains will attend training sessions with the NYS Attorney General’s office, WNY Stormwater Coalition and NYSDEC.

Pipewatch / Spills Monitoring Campaign

This classic watchdog campaign will empower captains to not only recognize and report spill events, but also identify and monitor permitted pipes entering Cayuga Creek and its tributaries. In partnership with local agencies and universities, Riverkeeper will assist captains in researching the identity and permit specifications for pipes entering each waterway.

Habitat Campaign

This campaign will involve the ongoing development of the captains’ understanding of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats they encounter when monitoring their waterways, improving their ability to recognize problems and changes in the condition of the creek. A series of training sessions will be dedicated to identifying both native and invasive species, as well as recognizing habitat types. A restoration training will be conducted, including a half-day restoration effort in which captains will have an opportunity to remove invasive plant species and replant natives.

3.3.3 Aesthetics

In 1975, Cayuga Creek was described as, “In its present state, the creek is at best an eyesore and at worst a public health hazard” (ENCRPB 1975). Recent studies have documented that aesthetic

conditions are still poor. Natural and manmade debris commonly occurs along the banks of Cayuga Creek and degrades many aspects of the creek including water quality, habitat, and aesthetics (USACE 2002, visual observation). Volunteer clean-up efforts are instrumental in improving this situation. Further public education efforts planned by Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper will also enhance awareness of the creek.

3.3.4 Heritage Sites

Numerous archaeological sites and historic structures are located within the Cayuga Creek basin. In addition, there are likely many more historic/cultural properties that have not been reported. Further consultation with New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) will be necessary (USACE 2002).

3.4 Physical Condition of Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek

3.4.1 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology

The Cayuga Creek basin does not have a stream flow gaging station. In order to estimate flows in Cayuga Creek, a comparison with similar creeks in a hydrologically similar basin was performed in ENCRPB 1975. Prorated flow estimates were made using the Cayuga Creek drainage basin of 34.1 square miles compared to the Little Tonawanda Creek flow statistics. Specifics are provided in ENCRPB 1975. More recent flow exceedences for Cayuga Creek are provided in Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish and Cayuga Creeks (URS et al. 2005b). Cayuga Creek has an estimated annual median flow of 10.7 cfs upstream of the Bergholtz Creek confluence (URS et al. 2005c). A detailed watershed model for Cayuga Creek to Porter Road was developed in 1999 by USACE which presents modeled frequency discharges from 2-year to 500-year flood (USACE 2002).

Flow measurements were collected in 1975 as follows (ENCRPB 1975). The Cayuga Creek channel was cross-sectioned at selected locations including 10 of the 11 water quality sampling points and

three significant areas of constriction. Flow velocities were measured in the field at various locations; flow discharges were estimated from the measured velocities and calculated cross-sectional areas. The flow in Cayuga Creek was estimated to be about 8 cfs at the Porter Road bridge; the flow in Bergholtz Creek was estimated to be about 14 cfs just upstream of the confluence (at the 91st Street bridge). These two flows together with additional downstream drainage yielded an estimated flow of 25 cfs at the mouth on the day of sampling. Stream velocities and flow are currently being measured at one location each in Cayuga and Bergholtz watershed as part of the Niagara County SWCD sampling program (V. DiGiacomo, personal communication).

Daily fluctuations in the water levels of Cayuga Creek are affected by water levels in the Niagara River, which are influenced by NYPA and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) operations and other factors such as wind, natural flow variations and ice conditions, water levels of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and control of Niagara Falls flow for scenic purposes (URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005). Since March 1973, the maximum daily fluctuation for the Niagara River at the control structure is limited to 1.5 feet except during abnormal flows or ice conditions. During periods of maximum drawdown, velocities in the lower reach of Cayuga Creek are increased slightly due to the drop in the backwater level, resulting in a slight increase in the hydraulic gradient and a decrease in the channel cross-sectional area. The velocity increase is estimated to be about 0.03 feet per second for a 1.5 foot drawdown and a flow of 25 cfs, which is not likely to either cause erosion or reduce stagnation in the lower creek (ENCRPB 1975).

The average daily water level fluctuations were obtained at three locations in Cayuga Creek as part of NPP relicensing studies: The upstream temporary water level gauge (CC-03) was located just upstream of Porter Road and the difference in elevation between this site and CC-02 downstream was approximately 5 feet. Water level fluctuations similar to those seen downstream at CC-01 and CC-02 and in the upper Niagara River were not observed at CC-03. The Upper Niagara River Tributary Backwater Study (URS et al. 2005c) reports that at the median annual flow rate in Cayuga Creek, the hydraulic analysis found the annual maximum upper Niagara River water level influenced up to 10,100 feet of Cayuga Creek. This length would extend to a point approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Porter Road bridge crossing. There were daily water level fluctuations of a much smaller magnitude (0.2 feet/day) observed at CC-03; however these fluctuations don’t show the same daily patterns as observed downstream. The fluctuations at CC-03 were likely the result of a State Pollution Discharge Elimination

System (SPDES) permitted discharge upstream (Redland Quarry). The median water level fluctuations for the 2003 sampling period in Cayuga Creek at both CC-01 and CC-02 were 0.94 feet/day. For comparison, the median water level fluctuation at the upstream site at CC-03 was 0.25 feet/day (URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005). There were no water level gauges installed in Bergholtz Creek during the relicensing studies. URS et al. 2005c also reports that Niagara River water levels could potentially have an influence on Bergholtz Creek water levels for approximately 10,900 feet upstream of its confluence with Cayuga Creek.

Cayuga Creek in the Town of Lewiston and Wheatfield has been altered historically for drainage control. Active dredging is performed as needed in Lewiston and Wheatfield to improve drainage in the watershed. In addition, the Town of Lewiston controls a pumphouse along Cayuga Creek to alleviate flooding in agricultural areas. The operation of this pumphouse upstream of the Tuscarora Nation can cause intermittent high flow conditions.

A fish survey conducted in 1987-1988 by NYSDEC in Cayuga Creek (NYSDEC 1988) reported the observation of groundwater springs in Cayuga Creek above Lockport Road. The 2003 field survey corroborated this observation (URS et al. 2005b). Based on its classification as a groundwater drain in the model developed by Yager in 1996, Cayuga Creek is assumed to be a hydraulic boundary for the upper 45 feet of the Lockport Group (URS et al. 2005a). Depth of water table has been reported as less than 3 feet at times in areas of Lewiston (URS 2000).

Point discharges can have a noticeable effect on flow in Cayuga Creek. An example is the LaFarge Redland Quarry, an operating limestone mine in the Cayuga Creek watershed with a reported maximum depth of 140 feet below ground surface (approximately El. 484 feet). It is located approximately 7,500 feet southeast of the Lewiston Reservoir. Groundwater is extracted from sumps in the mine and discharged to a tributary of Cayuga Creek. The extraction and discharge of groundwater at the mine is regulated by SPDES permit #NY0025267. The mine is permitted to discharge a maximum of 432,000 gallons of water per day (300 gallons per minute or 0.67 cfs) to Cayuga Creek (URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005).

3.4.2 Flooding

The USACE has been studying the flooding issue in the Cayuga Creek watershed since the 1960’s. In 1962, an engineering design for flood control project was approved, but delayed in 1968. The project was subsequently de-authorized by the Corps in 1971. Flooding in the lower watershed associated with ice jams in the upper Niagara River was a problem prior to the annual installation of the ice boom at the head of the river (USACE 2002). According to USACE 2002, NYSDEC records indicate Cayuga Creek was diverted from its natural channel in 1969 and sent through a man-made channel in the vicinity of the “farmer’s field” (north of Cayuga Village Trailer Park on Niagara Falls Boulevard). The combination of increased discharges due to the redirected flow of the West Branch Tributary and human alterations to the Cayuga Creek channel have created hydrologic and hydraulic conditions that do not work efficiently during storm events. These modifications in the vicinity of the farmer’s field are two possible major factors in the Cayuga Village Trailer Park flooding (USACE 2002).

Flooding occurred in the Cayuga Village Trailer Park in January and March of 1998. Existing flood control facilities consist of a private earthen berm built along Cayuga Creek to control flood waters and protect structures in and around the Cayuga Village Trailer Park in the Town of Niagara. Melting snow, coincident with moderate amounts of precipitation is the characteristic cause of floods in the region and on Cayuga Creek. Although flood events can occur at all times of the year, almost all damaging floods in the region have occurred in the late winter or early spring (January - April). Relatively few damaging floods have been produced by precipitation alone. A summary of the 1998 floods is presented in USACE 2002.

The hydraulic analysis completed in USACE 2002 determined that the channelized reach near the Cayuga Village Trailer Park only had enough capacity to pass the 2-year flood. For higher flood events, berms were constructed to contain the flow, which also resulted in higher velocities. These higher velocities likely caused the berm near the farmer’s field to breach, which then overloaded the trailer park’s storm sewer system, causing the localized flooding. The USACE concluded that the flooding problem was one of internal drainage and a restricted storm sewer network in the immediate area.

Floodplain management regulations have been instituted in the communities located along the creek as a result of inclusion into the National Flood Insurance Program. These regulations provide a set of standards to define development within the floodplain, and limit damage due to flooding (USACE 2002). In 2003, the Niagara County Legislature requested assistance from the USACE to address accumulating woody debris jams along the banks and in Cayuga Creek. It was noted that this is causing bank instability, erosion, and flow restrictions, which were leading to the aggravated flooding problems. The City of Niagara Falls is in the process of contracting to remove debris from Cayuga Creek, targeting the sites identified in the Buffalo State Report (T. DeSantis, personal communication). In the City of Niagara Falls, low-lying areas are subject to flooding caused by overflow of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks. In the past, flooding of Cayuga Island has been caused by the backwater effect created by ice jams in the upper Niagara River and long duration storms over Lake Erie which can cause abnormally high river stages (FEMA 1990).

The Town of Wheatfield has had a very active and successful drainage program since the mid- 1990’s led by the Town Drainage Committee and the Highway Superintendent. The Town Highway Department has been in the process of systematically clearing and snagging all the main drainage ways in the Town of Wheatfield, including their tributaries. Main drainage ways that have been cleared to date include Bergholtz Creek, Sawyer Creek, portions of Black Creek, portions of Bull Creek, and Cayuga Creek. The Town of Wheatfield performs annual maintenance review of previously cleared waterways and ensures continued unrestricted drainage flow through these areas (USACE 2002).

To address flooding at Walmore Road after major storms or snow melt events, Cayuga Creek was cleared during the latter part of 2001. Although the Town of Wheatfield is not aware of any significant property damage associated with this drainage problem, there is a traffic safety concern when the road becomes flooded. It was believed that this flooding was caused by Cayuga Creek having significant blockages in many areas as it meandered through the town. The Town of Wheatfield hopes that clearing and maintaining the creek will reduce or eliminate this problem (USACE 2002).

Flooding may occur in Wheatfield during peak storm flows in areas adjacent to streams due to inadequate grades, low stream banks, undersized culverts and debris and sediment deposits. Flood

damage has not been severe however, due to lack of development in most areas. Eighty-nine percent of the land area in Wheatfield is agricultural or vacant land (FEMA 1992). This is changing, however as evidenced by the increased residential development in Wheatfield.

3.4.3 Geomorphology

As mentioned, the primary function of Cayuga Creek historically has been one of drainage and flood control, as evidenced by the prevalent channel alterations along the creek. Essentially all areas of the creek have been manipulated. There may be a few natural sections left. Cayuga Creek throughout the airbase is “naturalized” and generally in good physical condition due to the restricted access. The general lack of a riparian zone in this section, however, is noteworthy.

In the Cayuga Creek headwaters, several tributaries have been “ditched” or realigned to facilitate drainage from agricultural fields. The reach from Tuscarora Drive to the Niagara River has been straightened and armored in an effort to reduce shoreline erosion. A significant portion of the forested section below Porter Road has been straightened to increase water conveyance and reduce the potential for flooding within a residential area. Along the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station (NFARS), Cayuga Creek has been realigned and conveyed through culverts to allow for the construction of the airport runways and related facilities (URS et al. 2005b).

In 2005, a study was conducted by Buffalo State College at the request of Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper; the purpose of which was to collect qualitative baseline data on a number of physical, chemical, and biological elements in the Cayuga Creek watershed (Frothingham and Brown 2005). The field investigation took place between August 2004 and January 2005 and included an assessment of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks. Results from this study are intended to help guide watershed management activities, such as debris removal and bank stabilization. The NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol was used to assess seven geomorphological/biological elements in Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks. The elements included, bank stability, channel condition, riparian zone, nutrient enrichment, water appearance, instream fish cover, and barriers to fish movement.

A total of 90 reaches were assessed from Bridgeman Rd. to the confluence of Cayuga Creek and the Little Niagara River except Tuscarora Nation lands and the Niagara Falls International Airport and Air Force Base complex. Documented problems along Cayuga Creek include: mowed yards and agricultural crops planted adjacent to the stream banks, exposed soil on stream banks, lack of habitat structure, turbid water, eroding banks and large woody debris (LWD) accumulations that restrict stream flow in the upper portions of the creek. Impairments in the lower watershed include bank erosion, LWD jams restricting flow, and a lack of a natural riparian corridor (Frothingham and Brown 2005).

A total of 62 reaches on Bergholtz Creek were assessed from Shawnee Rd. to the confluence with Cayuga Creek. Access problems and weather conditions prevented assessment from being done for the section of the creek between Ward Rd. to Niagara Rd. and from Thornwood Rd. to Walmore Rd. Documented problems in the upper portion of the watershed along the creek in agricultural and residential areas includes: large woody debris jams, trash present on the stream banks, lack of riparian zone, and turbid water appearance. In the lower urban residential portions of the watershed, the documented problems include: poor bank stability, lack of a riparian zone, trash present on the stream banks and human altered channel conditions (stairways and small boat slips constructed along the stream banks) (Frothingham and Brown 2005).

3.4.4 Erosion and Sedimentation

Stream bank and channel erosion and the resulting suspension of sediment are significant and recognized problems throughout the watershed, particularly within the City of Niagara Falls. The constriction and concentration of creek flows, channel modification, concentrated point source discharges, loss of woody riparian vegetation, altered hydrologic characteristics, and fluctuations in water levels associated with management of the Niagara River are contributing causes to this problem. Stream erosion continues to reduce the quantity and quality of the shoreline, the water column, vegetated shallows and the riparian corridor and overhanging trees and shrubs, which is subject to undercutting and deadfall (USACE 2002). The need for stream bank erosion protection, restoration and management has been emphasized.

NCDPDT 1997 described Bergholtz Creek at Williams Road to be “overloaded” with sediment. Spoils from the creek bed cleaning were observed upland from the banks of the creek. The report indicated that dredging was being performed.

NYPA conducted an assessment of erosion along lower portions of several of the tributaries to the Niagara River as part of the NPP relicensing (Baird 2005). This report states that the bank erosion in Cayuga Creek is found predominantly at significant bends or turns in the creek morphology, which suggests the erosion is predominantly associated with high velocity flows during the spring freshet and large rain storms. Habitat mapping conducted of Cayuga Creek (also performed during NPP relicensing) revealed portions of Cayuga Creek from Porter Road to Niagara Falls Boulevard that were severely eroded and having unstable banks (URS et al. 2005b). Most of the severe erosion seemed to be due to debris jams in the creeks, which caused the attempted re-routing of the creek during high flow and runoff events.

Additionally, Baird (2005) reports that approximately 17% of the shoreline of Cayuga Creek is protected, with the majority of the structures existing downstream of the confluence of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks and that there are no erosion sites in the lower reach of Cayuga Creek downstream of Bergholtz Creek. Also, Baird notes that 10% of the shoreline of Bergholtz Creek is protected within their Study Area.

There is some bank instability throughout the creeks; however, bank erosion does not appear to be a significant problem in Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks (Frothingham and Brown 2005). Several log jams and other debris/garbage were noted, and were thought to artificially raise the level of flooding in Cayuga Creek during the spring freshet and large rainfall events. As part of the habitat mapping conducted for NYPA, minor erosion sites, sedimentation, and debris jams in Cayuga Creek were identified and located in the field using GPS coordinates (URS et al. 2005b).

3.5 Water Quality

3.5.1 Water Quality Classification and Impairments

Cayuga Creek is classified as a Class C waterbody by the NYSDEC. According to NYSDEC standards, the best usage for Class C waters is fishing. In addition, the standards state “the water quality shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes” (NYSDEC 2004). Cayuga Creek and minor tributaries and Bergholtz Creek and tributaries are listed as impaired on the NYSDEC’s Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List (NYSDEC 2004). Bergholtz Creek (and its tributaries) are new additions in 2004 to the “Part 1 – Individual Waterbody Segments with Impairment Requiring TMDL Development” list, due to pathogens and phosphorus from urban runoff. Bergholtz and its tributaries are also listed as impaired for fish consumption due to PCB contaminated sediment. Cayuga Creek is listed as impaired for fish consumption due to dioxin contaminated sediment.

Cayuga Creek is under a fish consumption advisory from the NYSDOH to “eat none” due to dioxin contaminated sediment (NYSDOH 2005). This advisory is based largely on the results of NYSDEC 2002, in which fish tissue sampling was conducted in Cayuga Creek in 1997. This study implicates industrial and landfill sites along Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek as sources of PCB and DDT contamination in fish in the Little River. Also, data collected as part of the NYSDEC study indicates that a significant source of mirex, dieldrin, and chlordane is located upstream from Porter Road, as young-of-year fish contained levels of these contaminants. NYSDEC 2002 also suggests that sediment contamination associated with the Love Canal is a suspected contributor to dioxin levels in fish in Cayuga Creek.

3.5.2 Monitoring Programs and Data Inventories

A list of ongoing environmental monitoring programs in the watershed is presented in Table 3.5.2-1. Data from some programs are inventoried and contained in Appendix B. Although it is not listed in Table 3.5.2-1, the surface water quality data collected from Cayuga Creek during the NPP relicensing

studies is contained in the data inventory. The results from the various monitoring programs will be discussed further in the appropriate resource area sections of this report. The programs are mentioned here to gain perspective on the activities within the watershed. As mentioned, data related to contaminant monitoring in sediment, groundwater and biota are not included in the data inventory. Readers are referred to the specific studies if there is interest in the analytical aspects of these investigations.

3.5.3 Surface Water Quality

Water quality has been an issue in the Erie-Niagara Basin including Cayuga Creek for many decades dating as far back as the early 1900’s especially in the industrialized lower half of the watershed (USACE 2002). It was noted that relatively few watershed based organized studies have been conducted on Cayuga Creek that comprehensively quantify the water quality conditions (USACE 2002). The most recent watershed-wide evaluation of water quality was the 1975 Cayuga Creek Water Quality Study. The report for this study set forth the qualitative and quantitative results of water quality conditions on the creek during that time period (ENCRPB 1975).

Eleven samples for water quality analyses were taken along Cayuga Creek (including one in Bergholtz Creek at 91st Street) on June 17, 1975. The results, presented in Appendix B, indicated:

a. Temperatures along the creek were at or near ambient air levels except at the mouth, where cooler water from the Little River entered the creek.

b. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels were quite high down to Porter Road. Between Porter Road and Pine Avenue the DO dropped almost 50 percent and remained essentially at this level thereafter. This drop was attributed to the inflow of oxygen-poor water from Bergholtz Creek carried upstream of Pine Avenue by backwater effects. Downstream of the Cayuga-Bergholtz confluence, Cayuga Creek is virtually stagnant.

c. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels were quite low throughout the creek system. This parameter is a measure of the organic matter present in water usable by stream microorganisms for growth. Because this process requires oxygen, high BOD’s usually depress the DO level. The BOD determination is subject to large errors in industrially polluted waters because it may be difficult to culture a population of microorganisms sufficiently hardy to grow in waters receiving toxic inflows. This may be a factor downstream of Bergholtz Creek, explaining the slightly lower BOD’s noted here. Alternatively, these lower BOD’s may be explained as simple dilution effects due to the Bergholtz inflow. Note the sharp increase between Samples 1 and 2, attributed to the sanitary outfalls of the Niagara-Wheatfield School. The high DO levels exhibited here indicate that the creek has “recovered” (by aeration) from the harmful effects of organic inflows.

d. Turbidity, a direct measure of the opacity and an indirect measure of the suspended particulate load of creek water, along with the actual suspended solids values, indicate that Cayuga Creek carries a relatively heavy particulate load in suspension. For comparison, most streams exhibit turbidities below 5.0. The opacity of Cayuga Creek is due to fine clay and silt particles eroding from streambanks and bed.

e. Dissolved Solids levels were quite high throughout the creek system. This determination is a measure of mineral content and inorganic pollution. Baseline conditions along the creek are quite high due to the local geology and soils. Downstream, dilution effects steadily reduce the dissolved solids concentration.

f. Total and Fecal Coliform counts per 100 ml of water, measures of sanitary quality, were alarmingly high along the entire creek. Coliforms are bacteria often (but not necessarily) associated with sewage. Fecal coliforms specifically are associated with the excrement of warm-blooded animals. Their presence in water often signals the presence of pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria. For this reason no coliforms are tolerated in drinking water, while total and fecal counts above 2,200 and 200 respectively are considered undesirable in recreational waters. These figures were greatly exceeded throughout much of Cayuga Creek. Apparent major sources in the upper creek are the Niagara Wheatfield Schools (note the increase between Samples 1 and 2) and runoff from inadequate private septic systems. In the lower

creek, major sources are the Bergholtz inflow and stormwater drainage contaminated by illegal or improper sanitary sewer connections.

g. pH values, which express relative acidity, reveal the alkaline nature of creek waters (pH greater than 7). This is expected; the soils and bedrock throughout western New York are ample sources of alkaline materials, so that most streams in the region are alkaline.

h. Organic Nitrogen and Phosphate concentrations indicate that Cayuga Creek is biologically enriched. These substances are important nutrients supporting the growth of aquatic plant life. Organic nitrogen concentration above 0.2 mg/l and phosphate concentrations above 0.01 mg/l can promote algal blooms, nuisance growths of microscopic plants which degrade water quality. Furthermore, nitrogen compounds are oxidized by creek microorganisms, further depressing the creek DO levels. Nutrient sources along Cayuga Creek include septic system runoff, contaminated storm drainage, the Niagara Wheatfield Schools, Bergholtz Creek, and agricultural runoff in the upper basin (ENCRPB 1975).

Presently, the NYSDEC monitors water quality on Cayuga Creek and maintains records of conditions. The NYSDEC Rotating Intensive Basin Survey (RIBS) program collected data from Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks in 2001 (NYSDEC 2005b). Sampling is scheduled for 2006. The intensive site at Cayuga Creek was sampled four times in 2001 to collect surface water samples, macroinvertebrates and sediment. The water column parameters of concern were listed as iron, zinc and total dissolved solids. This site was listed as moderately impacted based upon information gathered. The toxicity tests reported no significant mortality or reproductive impairment was detected at the site. Bacteriological parameters were fairly high – see data inventory in Appendix B. However, compared to the results from 1975, the RIBS data indicate that bacterial contamination in Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks has improved substantially.

The sampling at the Bergholtz Creek screening site showed high specific conductance outside the range of the programs assessment criteria. pH was measured at 7.7 and DO was 5.3 mg/L. The water quality was assessed as moderately impacted at this site due to the macroinvertebrate community assessment.

In addition, the NYSDEC RIBS Program also collects and analyzes macroinvertebrate communities as indicators of water quality. Cayuga Creek site was listed as moderately impacted and indicated that toxic inputs were the primary sources of impact. The macroinvertebrate fauna was dominated by pollution tolerant sowbugs and riffle beetles. Tissue analysis on crayfish collected contained concentrations of zinc and mirex that were above levels of concern (NYSDEC 2005b). See data inventory in Appendix B.

Bergholtz Creek was also listed as moderately impacted. The likely source of impact was listed as organic wastes. The fauna was dominated by sewage tolerant sowbugs (NYSDEC 2005b). See data inventory in Appendix B. The USFWS collected macroinvertebrates from Cayuga Creek on the airbase in 2004. Data indicated that the reach was impacted and follow-up sampling was initiated (C. Ewell- Hodkin, personal communication).

Water quality data was also collected from three sites on Cayuga Creek by NYPA in 2003 as part of NPP relicensing. The results show that turbidity is almost always the highest at site CC-02, which is located just downstream of the confluence with Bergholtz Creek. Turbidity was not measured in Bergholtz Creek, however based upon the relatively large amount of flow it provides to Cayuga Creek and visual observations; Bergholtz Creek contributes to the sediment load and turbidity levels in Cayuga Creek downstream. Data collected upstream of the influence of Niagara River water level fluctuations at site CC-03 shows that Cayuga Creek in this location is also relatively turbid, even during dry weather events (the average turbidity during all weather types was 16.7 NTUs) (URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005).

Discrete dissolved oxygen and temperature measurements were also collected in the same locations in Cayuga Creek by NYPA in 2003. Dissolved oxygen levels were generally the highest upstream at CC-03 with the lowest measurement of 6.57 mg/L taken on July 11, 2003. Dissolved oxygen levels downstream at CC-02 were consistently lower, ranging from 3.77 to 7.19 mg/L throughout the study. Improvements were seen at the downstream site at CC-01 where dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 5.00 to 9.43 mg/L. As with turbidity, Bergholtz Creek located just upstream likely has an effect on dissolved oxygen levels measured at CC-02. This was evident on June 26, 2003, when dissolved oxygen

at CC-02 was 3.84 mg/L, while upstream at CC-03 dissolved oxygen was 8.82 mg/L and downstream at CC-01, dissolved oxygen was 9.17 mg/L. The NYSDEC dissolved oxygen data collected from Cayuga Creek in 2001 ranged from 4.9 mg/L (August 1, 2001) to 8.6 mg/L (May 15, 2001) (NYSDEC 2005b).

The water temperatures in the Niagara River and its tributaries were also investigated during NPP relicensing. Location CC-01 is demonstrably affected by water level fluctuations in the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool. Annual patterns and frequency distribution patterns in water temperature values strongly indicate a temperature effect at this location, and the timing of these fluctuations is consistent with water level changes in the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool. At all locations where temperature effects were identified, the effects were of insufficient magnitude to affect the behavior and survival of any life history stage of any focus fish species likely to be present (URS 2005).

3.5.4 Pollutant Sources

Agricultural activities and urban runoff were cited in NYSDEC 2004 as having significant impacts to creeks in the Niagara River watershed. Specifically, poor agricultural management practices such as improper manure application, little riparian buffer and lack of leachate control were cited as impacting water quality. Also, pollutants from urban areas were cited as contributing to water quality impairments in the area.

Generally, Cayuga Creek remains impaired by pollutants originating from SPDES outfall points, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), industrial discharges, and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). Non- point source contribution of pollutants and suspended sediment are also contributing factors to water quality problems. Several inactive hazardous waste sites are located within the watershed. In addition, dense residential development and the presence of the Niagara Falls Air Force Base to the north have depleted much of the creek’s buffer and created substandard water quality conditions (USACE 2002).

Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites

The Niagara River area has a long history of environmental pollution. Some of these problems remain under active remediation in the Cayuga Creek watershed today. Several hazardous waste sites within the watershed are summarized in this section. The pollution associated with Love Canal is the most well known. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced its intent to delete the Love Canal Superfund site from the National Priorities List.

The Love Canal Site is bordered on the north by Black Creek and Bergholtz Creek and on the west by Cayuga Creek. Black Creek is a tributary to Bergholtz Creek, which flows into Cayuga Creek. Cayuga Creek flows to the Little River which joins the Niagara River. This site was used to dispose industrial hazardous wastes as well as municipal wastes from 1942 to 1953 during its 11 year period of operation. In 1979, a clay cap was installed and a permanent leachate collection system was constructed. An activated carbon treatment plant treats the leachate prior to discharge to the Niagara Falls Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). In 1984 the installation of an extended cap which includes a synthetic membrane covering the area of concern was completed. Also starting from 1983, investigations were conducted to determine the extent of contamination in Black, Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks, as well as the 102nd Street delta into the Niagara River. Due to these investigations, the following remedial actions were completed: cleaning of off-site sewers, installation of perimeter wells to assess the effectiveness of Love Canal remedial actions, construction of an administration building for the treatment plant and cleaning of the Black and Bergholtz Creeks (NYSDEC 2003) To remediate the contamination, 18” of sediment were dredged from both creeks -from the confluence of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks, upstream to just beyond the confluence of Black and Bergholtz creeks. Clean fill was placed in the stream bed to re-establish “prior to dredging” conditions.

Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks were all contaminated as a result of releases from the Love Canal Site. The chemical 2,3,7,8-TCDD was considered characteristic of Love Canal contamination and high concentrations (up to 46 ppb) were found in sediment of Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was also detected in crayfish from Bergholtz Creek and spottail shiners from Bergholtz Creek, Cayuga Creek, and the Niagara River near the 102nd Street storm sewer. Contaminants and remedial activities associated with the Love Canal Site injured migratory birds and warmwater fish along the Niagara River, Bergholtz Creek, Black Creek, and Cayuga Creek. In addition to the above ecological service losses, recreational use of the fisheries in the Niagara River and Cayuga Creek have been

impaired due to fish consumption advisories. Physical and chemical habitat degradation associated with these sites has also affected human use services such as bird watching, hiking, and water-based recreation (USFWS 2005b).

The 102nd Street Landfill Site is a 22.1 acre property owned by Occidental Chemical and Olin Corporation. A 42-inch storm sewer crosses the property from its origin near the Love Canal Site to its discharge point into the Niagara River. The Site was operated as separate landfills by Occidental, Olin, and their predecessors from approximately 1943 through 1970. The landfills have been closed since 1970. While operational, at least 159,000 tons of liquid and solid waste were deposited into the landfill. These deposits included at least 4,600 tons of benzene, chlorobenzene, chlorophenols, and hexachlorocyclohexanes. Chemicals have migrated from the site into the Niagara River both in groundwater and transported by surface water. While the effects of this contamination were generally limited to the Niagara River, the site is in close proximity to the Cayuga Creek watershed.

The Dibacco Site No. 1 - Old Creek Site (DEC #932056A) is located behind 9115 Porter Road in the Town of Niagara. The fill of concern is located partially within the former creek channel of Cayuga Creek. The following chronology, which was taken from USACE 2002, was gathered from documents contained in the NYSDEC files and obtained by the USACE through the Freedom of Information Act. The subject portion of Cayuga Creek was re-routed circa 1969 in association with the construction of a flood control berm adjacent to the farmer’s field. This local flood control effort left behind a 1500-foot- long section of former creek channel. In 1977, when the property was owned by Michigan Mayne Realty, dumping was allowed to take place within and adjacent to the former creek channel. This landfilling was short-lived due to a 1978 resolution by the Town of Niagara, which banned further dumping at the site. The area was then graded and capped with clay. During the landfills short life span, it appears that the vast majority of the waste consisted of demolition debris and damaged silica and aluminum products manufactured by Carborundum Company which were damaged in a warehouse fire. Additional wastes included construction rubble, abrasive grains, alumina and organic wastes (spent hexachlorocyclopentadiene catalyst) of unknown quantities were dumped at the site. In all, it is estimated that 3,300 cubic yards of material was dumped. Subsequent water samples of Cayuga Creek taken in the early 1980’s showed low levels of lead, mercury and organic chemicals. During the 1990’s, further sediment and groundwater sampling was performed under the direction of the NYSDEC to determine the

need for remediation of the site. Soil borings taken during the installation of several monitoring wells indicated that there is between 0-4 feet of industrial and soil fill and fly ash over the original soil material. Soil analysis of all four borings contained some polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination. Low concentrations of cyanide were found in one sample. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells indicated the presence of lead, chromium, iron, magnesium, sodium, manganese and zinc above NYSDEC groundwater standards. The NYSDEC de-listed the site in 1998.

The Charles Gibson site (NYSDEC #932063) is located southwest of Cayuga Village Trailer Park near Tuscarora Road. This site is still active. Remediation was performed in the late 1980’s and included the re-alignment of 500’ of Cayuga Creek and the containment of the waste. It is owned by Owen Corporation. There is a long-term Operation and Maintenance plan in place. 403 drums of hexachlorobenzene plus 101 truckloads of hexachlorocyclohexane were reported by the Olin Corporation to have been buried here. The property is in a densely populated area and is bounded on the east by Cayuga Creek which flows directly into the Niagara River. Long term groundwater monitoring, operation and maintenance plans are in place for remainder of this site (NYSDEC 2003). The Gibson Site Remediation was completed in 1990 and continues to be monitored.

The Bell Aerospace Textron plant is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the Niagara River, adjacent to the Niagara Falls International Airport. Between 1950 and 1980, the company used an unlined 60’ X 100’ surface impoundment to collect wash water from rocket engine test firings, storm runoff, and solvent drippings from cleaning, degreasing, and anodizing operations. Hazardous waste and constituents of concern include trichloroethylene and dichloroethylene. The wastes were discharged to a sanitary sewer after pH adjustment. Beneath the site lies one overburden and two bedrock aquifers. Groundwater flow through the overburden aquifer is primarily to the south-southeast. There is a potential vertical flow between the overburden and the upper bedrock aquifer, and at least some of the groundwater from the overburden discharges to Bergholtz Creek. The overall remedial program is designed to intercept the bedrock groundwater that is migrating off-site toward the Niagara River. It consists of the installation of 11 groundwater extraction wells. Monitoring data of 2002-2003 indicates a complete capture zone has been obtained along the southern boundary. The on-site system is designed to recover four pounds of volatile compounds daily (USEPA and NYSDEC 2004).

Other sources of contaminants, known and unknown, are located within the watershed, including at least one PCB source within the Bergholtz Creek watershed. Contaminants have been found in Cayuga Creek at Lindbergh Avenue and are suspected to be associated with Love Canal. Contaminants were also found during recent fish studies at sampling points to the north of Porter Road in the vicinity of the Niagara Falls Air Force Base (USACE 2002).

Young-of-year fish and mussel contaminant data reflect the effectiveness of remedial activities at hazardous waste sites. While the data for most locations indicated decreasing trends, there were some locations (e.g., Cayuga Creek) where the data suggested the new or continuing presence of contaminants. Young-of-year fish were collected in 1997 for contaminant analysis. The fish are used as indicators of fairly recent or localized contamination. There were a total of 6 sampling locations in Cayuga Creek (3), Bergholtz Creek (1) and the Little River (2) (NYSDEC 2002). Fish collected from Cayuga Creek at the upstream site at Porter Road displayed the highest concentrations of mirex, dieldrin and chlordane. The fungicide HCB and HCH was detected from fish in Cayuga Creek. Dioxins were detected in fish from Cayuga Creek, Bergholtz Creek and the Little River. This study implicated Cayuga Creek as a source of PCBs, and a significant source upstream of Williams Road on Bergholtz Creek. Data also strongly suggest that a significant source of mirex is present upstream of Porter Road in Cayuga Creek at Porter Road. Bergholtz Creek fish displayed high levels of PCB compounds. Dioxin levels, however, did decline at all sites since 1992. PCBs in Bergholtz Creek are suspected from Bell Aerospace site. PCBs in Cayuga Creek and the Little River are suspected to be from Love Canal and 102nd Street sites and from an unknown source upstream on Porter Road. Further monitoring is underway to evaluate these locations (NYSDEC 2002).

Stormwater

The NYSDEC, in accordance with Federal Clean Water Act legislation, has issued regulations regarding municipal stormwater management. These regulations, referred to as the Phase II Stormwater regulations, establish significant new requirements for municipalities that own and manage separate storm sewer systems. Each of the identified regulated municipalities must file a Notice of Intent under the New York SPDES General Permit. One of the requirements associated with the General Permit is to develop

an inventory and to map all storm sewer outfalls. A storm sewer outfall is defined as any point in a storm sewer system where stormwater enters a water body or enters another municipality’s storm sewer system. There are 10 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in Niagara County that are subject to the regulations due to their location within a designated U.S. Census-defined Urbanized Area. These municipalities are part of the Western New York Stormwater Coalition and are working cooperatively to meet the Stormwater Phase II requirements (M. Rossi, personal communication). The Erie County Department of Environment and Planning has retained a consultant for Storm Sewer Outfall Identification and GIS Mapping services. Mapping should be completed in 2006. Niagara Falls was completed in 2005. Dry weather discharges will also be noted to assist in tracking down of illicit discharges.

There are seven stormwater outfalls from NFARS into Cayuga Creek. Stormwater discharges from aircraft deicing operations have been a concern because of the potential to contaminate stormwater and Cayuga Creek. Site specific BMPs have been used to reduce the potential for contamination. The BMPs have included a diversion system to drain aircraft deicing materials to the sanitary sewer system. However, problems with “rancid, sour odor” and “chalky substance” at outfall 6 were observed during annual storm water inspections. This outfall is the storm water drainage point for the aircraft deicing location, indicating deicing material may be entering stormwater outfall 6 even with the BMPs in place. Glycol has been measured at outfall 6, but its impact on the aquatic community is unknown (USFWS 2005a).

The impacts of these discharges on the biological health of the creek were assessed by USFWS through analysis of the macroinvertebrate community at various collection sites. The results showed that a moderate to severe impact, reflecting poor water quality, was found upstream, between and downstream of all NFARS outfalls. The potential sources of the impact likely included agricultural runoff from upstream, stormwater outfall discharges at sites 1 through 5, a landfill located upstream of site 2, an aircraft fuel spill that occurred in outfall 2 drainage, a fire training area located adjacent to outfall 4 and the creek, runoff from the runway at site 5, and municipal and industrial runoff upstream of site 6. However, the macroinvertebrate community analysis did not show additional water quality impact from outfall 6 (USFWS 2005a).

3.5.5 Groundwater Quality

There are various reports related to mitigation of contaminated groundwater resulting from industrial pollution. The extent of groundwater contamination in the Cayuga Creek watershed is not known precisely. A summary of information follows.

A Corrective Action Report pertaining to the Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control at the Niagara Falls Air Base was completed in 1999. This report was based upon sampling conducted by Ecology and Environment, Inc. of Lancaster, NY. The report determined that groundwater was known or reasonably suspected to be contaminated above appropriately protective levels from releases subject to RCRA Corrective Action, anywhere at, or from, the facility. However, no impacts to Cayuga Creek were suspected (NYSDEC 1999).

At the Charles Gibson site, the only known potential exposure route is to shallow groundwater seepage into Cayuga Creek. This potential route has been minimized by a slurry wall barrier, a cap and drain system, and rerouting of the creek (NYSDEC 2003).

At the Love Canal and 102nd Street Sites, the groundwater standards are exceeded but monitoring indicates that the wastes are contained by the leachate collection system and no significant chemical contamination is migrating off-site.

3.5.6 Water Supply and Wastewater

In 1975, it was reported that most basin residents obtained water from municipal systems. Two water treatment plants serve the [Cayuga Creek proper] watershed, the 64 million gallons per day (mgd) City of Niagara Falls facility and the 12 mgd Niagara County Water District plant. In the upper basin (Town of Lewiston), deep wells drilled into the Lockport Limestone yields up to 100 gallons per minute (gpm) although the water must be softened for household use. Shallow wells and springs provide less water and often are contaminated by septic system runoff and native sulfur compounds. Wells drilled

near the Niagara River may yield an average of 950 gpm as river water is drawn through bedrock fissures (ENCRPB 1975). Currently, the source of water supplying the City of Niagara Falls is the Niagara River. The Towns of Lewiston and Wheatfield are also on municipal supply.

In 1975, municipal wastewater treatment was available only in the City of Niagara Falls, served by a 48 mgd treatment plant discharging outside the Cayuga Creek basin. Beyond the city, homes were served by private septic systems, although soil characteristics did not favor such treatment. The ENCRPB Report (1975) detailed the recommendation concerning transferring wastewater connections from septic to sewer. Currently, most watershed residents utilize sewer connections, with the exception of the Tuscarora Nation. The Town of Lewiston owns and operates a water pollution control center located on Pletcher Road outside of the Cayuga Creek watershed. The Town of Wheatfield has public sewer throughout the Town. The City of Niagara Falls WWTP is also located outside of the Cayuga Creek watershed to the west.

3.5.7 Benthic Sediment Quality

Historical sediment contamination has occurred related to the various hazardous waste sites as mentioned above. Dioxin contaminated sediment was dredged from Cayuga Creek in 1989. Sediment has also been dredged from Bergholtz Creek as well. In the late 1980’s, dioxin tainted sediment was removed from an area of Bergholtz Creek beginning at its mouth and extending upstream approximately 1.5 miles (NCDPDT 1997). The dredged material was disposed of at an offsite commercial disposal facility. In addition, EPA conducted sediment sampling in Cayuga Creek and the Little River in May 1999. The data suggested possible upstream sources of contamination (USEPA 1999).

Cayuga Creek was sampled for sediment quality during the 2000-2001 RIBS assessment period. The results found that zinc and 6 PAHs were at levels exceeding probable effects concentrations (PEC) in sediments. Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and four PAHs were found at levels above the threshold effects concentrations (TEC) (NYSDEC 2005b).

Niagara University (NU) is conducting a sediment sampling program at sites throughout the Niagara River Area of Concern including at sites from Cayuga and Bergholtz Creek. Sampling was conducted in 2005 and the results are not yet available (W. Edwards, personal communication). This project seeks to identify the remaining hot spots of contamination utilizing a stratified sampling scheme in seven tributaries of the Niagara River including Cayuga Creek, Bergholtz Creek, and the Little Niagara River. Specifically, the NU program sampled the water, sediment, and aquatic organisms in these tributaries. In addition to possibly identifying previously unknown hot spots, this project will provide important data to assess the current status of the RAP and provide the first efforts to remediate the tributaries of the River (http://www.niagara.edu/eli/projects.htm).

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) has conducted biomonitoring in the Niagara River since 1980 to assess long-term trends in contaminant loadings to the Niagara River. Sampling in 1997 revealed that dioxins and furans detected in mussels deployed near the 102nd Street Landfill were low and reflect the success of the site remediation and removal of contaminated sediment. Dioxins and furans were not detected in the sediment sample collected from this site (Richman 1999). Trace concentrations of organic contaminants were detected in mussels deployed in Cayuga Creek in 1997 (Richman 1999).

3.6 Biological Resources

3.6.1 Instream Habitat

ENCRPB 1975 provides a comprehensive description of instream habitat of Cayuga Creek. It is presented here for comparison with current observations. Similar descriptions are contained in USACE 2002, which may indicate that conditions have not changed much since the inventory in 1975.

In many areas of Cayuga Creek, the creek bottom was covered with filamentous algae; elsewhere, emergent vegetation virtually concealed the channel. Between Saunders Settlement Road and the first Walmore Road bridge, the creek channel was often choked with grasses and aquatic plants. In this reach, sediment deposits occur at many of the crossing constrictions. Dense growths of small trees and bushes

border the creek. Numerous flow blockages occur, chiefly due to fallen trees and accumulations of woody debris. Crossing the airport, the creek flows through a manmade diversion channel bordering the southern perimeter of the Niagara Falls Air Force Base. This channel, excavated in 1944 to allow runway construction, is characterized by steep rocky slopes, mucky sediment deposits, and scattered vegetation. After crossing under the main runway, Cayuga Creek flows south through a shallow ditch-like channel with muddy banks and bottom. Leaving the airport, Cayuga Creek flows south between the U.S. Army Military Reservation and LaSalle Sportsmen’s Club, to Porter Road. The creek here is shallow, running over sections of exposed bedrock. The banks support heavy plant growth, with overhanging vegetation often forming a low canopy over the creek (ENCRPB 1975).

The creek changes character markedly between Porter and Pine Roads. Here it broadens and velocities drop due to backwater effects of the Niagara River. A 2,000 foot stretch immediately downstream of Porter Road has been channelized to reduce overbank flooding. Downstream of this section, the creek follows a meandering course roughly paralleling Tuscarora Road. The east bank is heavily wooded; the west bank is partially cleared by property holders along the creek. In this reach, the creek channel is strewn with refuse and natural debris. Approximately 1,000 feet above Pine Avenue, the creek becomes wide and sluggish, with thick sediment deposits along its bed. The downstream reach from Pine Avenue to the mouth is strewn with partially submerged shopping carts, tires, fallen tree limbs, and other debris, including a sunken craft near the confluence with Bergholtz Creek. Changes in the thalweg elevation at many of the bridges indicate sediment deposition has taken place due to the lower velocities in the backwater region (ENCRPB 1975).

The NYSDEC RIBS Program has an “intensive monitoring site” located on Cayuga Creek at Niagara Falls Blvd. At this site, 1.2 miles above the mouth, the width of the creek ranges from 6-10 meters with a depth of approximately 1 meter. The stream was described further as very murky and slow moving, with no riffle areas at that location. The stream bank was described as moderately stable with only small areas of erosion and the riparian zone is narrow due to the developed suburban setting. The stream bank is covered with grass, shrubs and trees to provide overhanging cover at this location (NYSDEC 2005b).

In 2000-2001, a screening site was established to gather information in Bergholtz Creek, 10 meters above the Williams Road Bridge in Niagara Falls. This site was visited once to collect macroinvertebrates, describe the habitat conditions, and to collect field water quality parameters. The habitat was described as being composed of sand, boulders and gravel or bedrock, with little cobble present, and provides less than optimal habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. Embeddedness was high and litter was noted as fairly common. The riparian zone was vegetated but the impact of human modification was evident (NYSDEC 2005b).

In addition to the extensive dredging and channelization of Cayuga Creek mentioned above, the dredging of Black and Bergholtz Creeks to remediate contamination (associated with Love Canal site) adversely affected natural resources in virtually eliminating all vegetation within and along those creeks (USFWS 2005b).

The habitat of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks was also described in detail in two NYPA relicensing studies: 1) “Effect of Water Level and Flow Fluctuations on Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat (Stantec et al. 2005)” and 2) “Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish, and Cayuga Creeks (URS et al. 2005b)”. The former examined the lower sections of Cayuga Creek where habitats were characterized using a thalweg survey (traversing the deepest portion of the creek) and by establishing three cross- sectional transects between the creek mouth and the upstream extent of backwater effects from the Niagara River (6,800 feet upstream of the confluence with the Little River). Cayuga Creek in this section is described as a relatively shallow water body with uniform depth, substrate, and channel width. Silt and sand were found to be the dominant substrates at each transect, although patches of coarser substrate were also present. Beds of submergent aquatic vegetation (SAV) were intermittent, with none found along the middle transect. Along the upper transect, wild-celery dominated. Along the lower transect the SAV beds were sparse to moderate, with coontail and Eurasian water milfoil (an invasive species) present. Thalweg depths gradually decreased from 12 feet in the downstream sections to 4 feet at the upstream end without any abrupt changes. The average thalweg depth was 6 feet (Stantec et al. 2005).

In addition, a reconnaissance level habitat mapping effort was conducted for the entire length of Cayuga Creek (URS et al. 2005b). For Bergholtz Creek, road crossings only were visited. Habitat types were designated as riffle, run, pool, dry streambed, and wetland habitats, based on visual flow, turbulence,

depth, gradient, and vegetation. A photograph was taken at every habitat type change or every 200 meters. Stream section length, average wetted width, average depth, gradient, substrate, bank slope (mean for both sides of the creek in percent slope), turbidity, water odor, average riparian buffer width (mean for both sides of the creek), dominant riparian vegetation type and species, and species of emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation were measured or estimated for each section. Hanging culverts and fish barriers were identified along Cayuga Creek.

Fish barriers were also identified in the field and translated to a GIS data layer for this study. In Cayuga Creek, hanging culverts are a problem in reach C6 - Western Tributary of Cayuga Creek to the Eastern Tributary of Cayuga Creek, reach C8 - Headwaters of Cayuga Creek, and reach CET1 - Cayuga Creek – Unnamed Eastern Tributary. Additionally, woody debris jams and a bedrock ledge approximately one foot high in reach C5 - Eastern Tributary of Cayuga Creek to Walmore Road inhibit fish movement (URS et al. 2005b).

Additional details regarding instream habitat are provided in Frothingham and Brown 2005, as previously described. The elements included, bank stability, channel condition, riparian zone, nutrient enrichment, water appearance, instream fish cover, and barriers to fish movement.

3.6.2 Wetlands

It is evident from the physical appearance of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks that significant channel alterations have occurred historically. These alterations have no doubt resulted in the loss of wetlands throughout the watershed. The extent of such loss can only be speculative.

Federal and NYSDEC jurisdictional depressional and riverine freshwater wetlands are located throughout the watershed and range in vegetative succession from emergent to forested cover types. Riverine and shoreline (littoral zone) vegetated shallows also occur sporadically along and within Cayuga Creek and its tributaries as emergent and aquatic bed communities occupying shoals, side channels and backwater areas. The most notable NYSDEC and Federal wetlands on Cayuga Creek are located at the creek headwaters point west of Bridgeman Road and north of Saunders Settlement Road in the Town of

Lewiston. These wetlands provide some wetland functions and benefits but were ditched and drained in the past for agriculture and consequently exist in a functionally degraded state. Other notable areas of NYSDEC and Federal freshwater wetlands are located along and adjacent to Bergholtz, Black, and Sawyer Creeks and elsewhere throughout the watershed (USACE 2002).

Wetlands within the watershed are also depicted in GIS layers. Two types are shown; those identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and those identified and regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

The Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station coordinates its natural resource management projects with the USFWS. One of the first projects between the USFWS and NFARS was to map wetlands on the installation in 1997. The project demonstrated the harmful effect (i.e., competition with native desirable species) of the spread of the invasive plant purple loosestrife. Subsequently, NFARS and the USFWS developed and initiated another project to biologically control purple loosestrife by introducing and monitoring Galerucella beetles (USACE 2002).

3.6.3 Fish and Wildlife Communities

Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks support a warmwater fishery that includes species such as largemouth bass, rock bass, sunfish, minnows, stickleback, and shiners. Brown bullhead, yellow perch, northern pike, smallmouth bass, carp, white sucker, and redhorse sucker also inhabit Cayuga Creek (USFWS 2005b). An inventory of the fish species documented in Cayuga Creek is contained in Appendix B. Fish habitat is in most respects fair, however warm water temperatures and low flows during hot, dry summers may limit the fishery especially within the upper reaches of Cayuga Creek (USACE 2002).

The habitat adjacent to these creeks can be expected to support a variety of passerine bird species, such as red-winged blackbirds, as well as water birds such as great blue herons and black-crowned night herons. Waterfowl, particularly dabbling ducks like the mallard and black duck, use these creek habitats

for feeding. Waterfowl known to occur on Cayuga Creek include the mallard, scaup, common goldeneye, bufflehead, Canada goose, and red breasted merganser (USFWS 2005b).

Extensive clearing for agriculture has severely reduced wildlife habitats in the upper Cayuga Creek basin. The scattered brush and open fields remaining can support population of rabbits, pheasant, skunk, small rodents, and a variety of common songbirds. A survey conducted in 1975 noted evidence of muskrats and raccoons along the banks. Downstream of Pine Avenue, urban development has severely reduced available wildlife habitats. The upper reaches of Cayuga Creek are fairly productive despite the stream’s small size. Field survey personnel noted numerous frogs, caddisfly larvae, and crayfish near the Saunders Settlement Road bridge. In many areas, the creek bottom was covered with filamentous algae; elsewhere, emergent vegetation virtually concealed the channel (ENCRPB 1975).

According to USACE 2002, Cayuga Creek supports typical fish and wildlife species endemic to the region and ecology of the watershed. Great blue heron, green heron, wood ducks, black ducks, mallard ducks and Canada geese are seasonal regulars all along the creek. Muskrat, mink, beaver; whitetail deer, raccoon, opossum, and gray squirrel are among the more common terrestrial fauna. Painted and snapping turtles, green frog, leopard frog and bullfrogs and salamanders live in and along the creek and associated wetlands.

The lower half of the watershed is highly developed and habitat is fragmented, and in places, limited to the immediate narrow riparian corridor. Very little organized data exists that quantifies the loss of habitats on Cayuga Creek. Generally, the northern third of the basin retains the most continuous wildlife habitat due mostly to the relative lack of development and lack of significant fragmentation. In this portion of the watershed the main-stem corridor contains a mosaic of upland, wetland and mesic vegetative covertypes and community associations. Much of the land in the watershed was at one time farmed so areas range from successional herbaceous communities and shrub-land to subclimax and climax forest types (USACE 2002).

Although measures are being taken to improve conditions in the watershed, historically there has been loss and diminishment of the quantity and quality of the fish and wildlife habitat. This is due to

changes in land use, industrial development and the effects of point and non-point source discharges on water quality. This is most true west of Walmore Road through the airport-airbase complex southward through the Town of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls. In these segments upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats have been variably degraded, fragmented or removed for roads, buildings, channelization, and bank stabilization. Although, conservation programs and regulations, local initiatives and ordinances, and state and federal wetlands regulations have reduced the rate of loss and degradation of habitats, and are attempting to restore some habitats, the effects of the previous land uses and activities are still evident and degradation continues. Also, non-native plant infestations including purple loosestrife and common reed disrupt native communities and diminish populations of many at risk species (USACE 2002).

USACE 2002 also references several biological inventories conducted on the NFARS. The inventory was conducted within the Niagara Falls Air Force Base by the US Fish and Wildlife Service between 1997 and 1999 which included bird, mammal, fish, reptiles and amphibian species. Dominant vegetation was also documented. Species found are listed in Appendix B and are generally endemic to the region and watershed conditions.

As mentioned in Section 3.5, Cayuga Creek is under a fish consumption advisory from the NYSDOH to “eat none” due to dioxin contaminated sediment (NYSDOH 2005). This advisory is based largely on the results of NYSDEC 2002, in which fish tissue sampling was conducted in Cayuga Creek in 1997. As a follow-up to the NYSDEC 2002 fish contaminant investigation, USFWS and NYSDEC staff set passive in-situ concentration/extraction samplers (PISCES) in 10 locations in Cayuga Creek on, and upstream of, the NFARS to track potential sources of contaminants. PCBs and organochlorine pesticides have been detected in fish in Cayuga Creek downstream of the NFARS in 2005. The samplers remained in the creek for two weeks. In addition, young-of-the-year fish were collected from the most upstream and downstream locations monitored. The results are not yet available.

3.6.4 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

As part of the survey conducted by USFWS on NFARS, a Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) Species Study was conducted between 1997 and 1999. The investigation identified six (6) avian species that are threatened, endangered or special concern. Of these species, the upland sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow are believed to use the watershed as breeding habitat. In addition to the avian species, the USFWS recorded a possible siting of box turtle. Appendix B summarizes the known or suspected species within the Cayuga Creek watershed.

The NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries conducted an investigation to confirm the potential for pirate perch habitat in Cayuga Creek. Although no occurrences were noted during 2000-2001, the historic presence of this species is considered significant by the NYSDEC. Pirate perch is not listed as a protected species, but has been recommended for inclusion on the special concern list. The presence of pirate perch has not been confirmed in Cayuga Creek for approximately 70 years. The Draft Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New York (NYSDEC 2005a) stated that the Cayuga/Bergholtz Creek watershed has historically served as a refugium for some Midwestern species that have not been found elsewhere in the Niagara River drainage basin. One of the specific recommendations of the Wildlife Conservation Strategy is to determine if habitat for pirate perch in Cayuga/Bergholtz Creeks is suitable.

During relicensing, NYPA conducted two RTE studies. In the study Occurrences of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Mussel Species in the Vicinity of the Niagara Power Project (Riveredge 2005b), twenty-two sites in or adjacent to the Niagara River were selected for field surveys. It was reported that Cayuga Creek had no suitable habitat for mussels.

In addition, NYPA published the report Assessment of the Potential Effects of Water Level and Flow Fluctuations and Land Management Practices on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and Significant Occurrences of Natural Communities at the Niagara River Project (Riveredge 2005a). This report stated that the plant Southern blue flag (Iris virginica var. shrevei) was found at Jayne Park on Cayuga Island. This showy perennial herb (NYSDEC Endangered, USFWS Unlisted) is widely distributed and can grow up to six feet tall. It often forms extensive colonies by means of rhizomes. The

inland shrevei variety is characterized by greater branching and also by longer (to four inches) seed capsules. Its usually purple flowers are two to three inches across. In New York these flowers have been observed from mid- May to mid-June, and its capsules through July. This iris grows in full sun in wet areas such as shorelines, wetlands, marshes, ditches, and shallow water. It ranges from southwestern Quebec to Minnesota, south to the Carolina uplands and west to Texas.

Flora of a Marsh on Cayuga Island, Niagara County, New York (Eckel 1991) was also reviewed. This brief report provides an inventory of the vegetation species including rare and invasive plants, observed on Cayuga Island in 1991.

The New York Natural Heritage Program was consulted during the development of the scope of work for the RTE relicensing studies. This program enables and enhances conservation of New York’s rare animals, rare plants, and significant ecosystems. The information obtained for relicensing should be updated specific to the Cayuga Creek watershed.

TABLE 3.5.2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMS IN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED

Program Entity Resource Areas Details

Rotating Intensive Basin Survey NYSDEC Surface Water Quality, Sampling scheduled for 2005- (RIBS) Macroinvertebrates, Toxicity 2006 in Niagara basin. One site in Cayuga Creek, one site in Bergholtz Creek. Previous results from 2000-2001 in data inventory.

Niagara County Water Niagara County SWCD in Surface Water Quality Initiated in 2006. Parameters Quality/Nutrient Loading conjunction with Brockport State include nutrients, DO, College conductivity and stream flow. One site in Cayuga Creek, One Site in Bergholtz Creek.

Riverwatch Volunteer Monitoring Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper Surface Water Quality, Proposed to start in summer 2006. Volunteer recruitment underway. Stations to include Cayuga and Invasive Species Bergholtz Creeks.

Contaminants in Y-O-Y Fish NYSDEC – T. Preddice & Contaminants Sampling of juvenile fish from USFWS - Amherst Cayuga and Bergholtz Creek in 1997. Sampled again in 2005.

TABLE 3.5.2-1 (CONT.) ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMS IN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED

Program Entity Resource Areas Details

Analysis of Organic Contaminants Niagara University funded Contaminants, Water Quality Sediment samples from several through USEPA sites on Bergholtz and Cayuga. Dioxin, PCBs, and pesticides.

Rare, Threatened and Endangered USFWS - Amherst Wildlife Survey performed in 1999 on the Species Surveys NFARS. Next survey scheduled for summer 2006.

Stormwater Outfall Mapping Western NY Stormwater Water Quality GIS mapping of outfalls in 2005- Discharge Coalition 2006 to satisfy USEPA’s Phase 2 Stormwater Discharge rules.

Groundwater Remediation at NYSDEC & Responsible Parties Groundwater monitoring Long term groundwater Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites monitoring for contaminants.

Mussel Biomonitoring Ontario Ministry of the Water Quality, Contaminants Biomonitoring for contaminant Environment remediation using caged mussels at various sites in the Niagara River (including a site near 102nd Street Landfill). Monitoring scheduled for 2006.

1 Legend

_ AGRICULTURE PUBLIC FACILITY

r u COMMERCIAL PUBLIC RECREATION

a g INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL

c \ LANDFILL SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITY

a m MINING TRANSPORTATION

\ : MIXED-USE UNKNOWN TUSCARORA LANDS

Y Lewiston OPEN SPACE UTILITIES OPEN WATER VACANT PRIVATE RECREATION

Cambria

Tuscarora Nation

Lewiston Reservoir No Land Use Data Available

Cayuga Creek Watershed

Wheatfield Pendleton

Niagara Falls

Niagara River

Grand Island North Tonawanda

Amherst

03,500 7,000 14,000 Land Use in the Cayuga Creek Watershed F Feet Note: This map was created with information copyrighted by the New York State Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination © 2005 Figure 3.2.1-1 d

2 Legend

_ ACTIVE AGRICULTURE-HAY FIELD INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL

r u ACTIVE AGRICULTURE-ROW CROP MAIN CHANNEL STREAM SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND

a g SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITY

u ACTIVE VINEYARD MIDREACH STREAM

\ SUCCESSIONAL NORTHERN s ARTIFICIAL POND MOWED GRASS p HARDWOOD FOREST

S COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR RECREATION I SUCCESSIONAL OLD FIELD

: Y CONIFER PLANTATION PUBLIC FACILITY SUCCESSIONAL SHRUBLAND Lewiston EMERGENT WETLAND QUARRY TRANSPORTATION FORESTED WETLAND QUARRY POND VACANT

Cambria

Tuscarora Nation

Lewiston Reservoir No Habitat Data Available

Cayuga Creek

Niagara Watershed

Pendleton Wheatfield

Niagara River

Grand Island North Tonawanda

Amherst

03,500 7,000 14,000 Habitat Types in the Cayuga Creek Watershed F Feet Note: This map was created with information copyrighted by the New York State Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination © 2005 Figure 3.2.1-2 NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216) CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

4.0 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONCERN

In reviewing the available information related to the Cayuga Creek watershed, the following issues and areas of concern were identified. These issues will be presented in a “Report Card”. For each category, potential actions that could be implemented to address each issue/area of concern will also be described. To determine improvements made in the watershed (both long and short-term), recommendations from the previous reports focusing on Cayuga Creek watershed are presented first.

4.1 Historical Recommendations and Areas of Improvement

It is worth noting that the 1975 ENCRPB Report presented several important conclusions that should be reiterated here so that comparisons with current conditions can be made. The report states, “Cayuga Creek could become a valuable recreational resource if its overall environmental quality were significantly improved. In its present state, the creek is at best an eyesore and at worst a public health hazard. Despite Federal and State pollution abatement programs now underway, Cayuga Creek will remain an unattractive, underutilized water resource unless watershed communities cooperatively promote its environmental quality.” The study conclusions were:

1. Degradation of the Cayuga Creek system is caused chiefly by sewage infiltration from inadequate or improperly maintained septic systems. Agricultural runoff, creekside construction activities, industrial discharges, and airport runoff aggravate the situation.

2. This degradation is manifested by low dissolved oxygen concentrations, high nutrient concentrations, and extremely high coliform bacteria counts. In the summertime, the creek is a health hazard; contact with its waters should be avoided.

3. Private dumping of refuse in and alongside Cayuga Creek has endangered navigation and converted many of its most attractive vistas into eyesores. This problem is compounded in the lower creek by flood control and bank protective works conceived without apparent regard for aesthetic impact.

4. Currently planned pollution abatement programs will greatly benefit the creek system, but a cooperative effort by local communities is needed to safeguard water quality and allow full development as a public resource. Communities must require abandonment of septic systems as soon as possible.

5. The establishment of a body with authority to make rules and regulations and implement program (i.e., pay the cost) appears to be the best method available to implement recommendations.

Some of these problems are still prevalent throughout the watershed. There have been substantial improvements since 1975, including: 1) abandonment of septic systems in favor of community sewer systems leading to improved water quality; 2) remediation of hazardous waste sites and implementation associated contaminant track-down studies (note that the severity of industrial contamination was not well-known in 1975); 3) implementation of volunteer clean-up activities in the watershed that has improved environmental stewardship and the aesthetic appearance of the creeks; 4) coordination of resource agencies and implementation of recommendations in terms of water quality improvements (e.g., use impairments, debris removal); and 5) stronger environmental rules and regulations in place to protect surface waters.

A list of problems and needs in the Cayuga Creek watershed was also presented in USACE 2002 and are reiterated here. The areas of concern presented in that report are:

A. Drainage and Infrastructure (maintenance and coordination). B. Flood Protection. C. Shoreline Stability, Erosion and Sedimentation. D. Woody Debris and Refuse Accumulation. B. Water Quality. F. Contaminated Sediments. G. Loss of Fish & Wildlife Habitat. H. Loss & Degradation of Riparian Corridors. I. Floodplain and Riparian Restoration and Protection. J. Lack of Coordinated Watershed-Level Planning and Management.

These problems are consistent with the watershed assessment presented here. These issues, with the exception of the last two, are discussed in the previous sections of this watershed assessment. The USACE Study (2002) recommended to “Develop an integrated comprehensive framework plan for

Cayuga Creek management and restoration that assists in achieving the goals and objectives of state, county, other Federal agencies and the local watershed communities and stakeholders. The lack of a coordinated, basin-wide strategy for watershed drainage and management is presently a major constraint to implementation of cost-effective solutions to the identified watershed problems. A need exists for an agency or entity…to take the lead role in development of a comprehensive, long-term framework plan for restoration of the Cayuga Creek watershed that integrates missions, authorities’ programs, plans and projects of Federal and State agencies, local authorities, watershed councils, and other stakeholders.”

USACE also recommended that as site specific project opportunities emerge to address problems and needs such as local shoreline stabilization, clearing and snagging, and ecosystem restoration, projects should be separately initiated under authorities such as the Corps’ Section 14 and 206 programs (as well as those of other agencies and entities).

Recommendations from NCDPDT 1997 include a suggestion that the City of Niagara Falls address tree and debris removal along both banks of Cayuga Creek from S. Military Road north to the Niagara Falls City line as the initial step to be undertaken in addressing the management of Cayuga Creek. It was also suggested that the City enter into cooperative agreements with riparian property owners to accomplish this clean-up; and further suggested the City obtain easements along Cayuga Creek to perpetuate maintenance management. Steps have been taken to initiate the removal of debris from Cayuga Creek by the City of Niagara Falls.

The recent Buffalo State Report (Frothingham and Brown 2005) also contains recommendations to implement bank stabilization demonstration project sites, remove debris jams and fallen trees in the creek, and to encourage landowners throughout the Cayuga Creek watershed to refrain from mowing or planting crops immediately adjacent to the stream banks. Trash appears to be more of an issue in Bergholtz Creek than Cayuga Creek; a community clean-up may yield good results.

4.2 Current Problems and Recommendations for Potential Restoration Measures

This assessment is one of the steps leading up to a coordinated effort for watershed management and restoration. The assessment, data compilation, and stakeholder initiation will serve as an important first step. Additional areas of concerns may be identified and examined further in the future with input from the Steering Committee and interested parties. This will be somewhat dependent on feedback that is received after the publication and distribution of the Report Card.

Through the watershed assessment effort, the following problems and areas for potential restoration are summarized here. These ideas should be developed further through discussions with the Steering Committee and interested parties and may serve as a useful starting point for the Restoration Road Map that is planned for the future.

• Historic channel alterations resulted in the loss of wetlands throughout the watershed and other problems such as low flow and loss of aquatic habitat in areas of the upper watershed. Fish habitat is limited within the upper reaches of Cayuga Creek due to warm water temperatures and low flows during hot, dry summers. Opportunities for restoring historical drainage and wetland storage should be investigated. This may not be feasible due the extensive maintenance of the drainage network in the upper watershed. Land acquisition or conservation may facilitate this effort.

• Accumulating woody debris jams along Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks is causing bank instability, erosion, and flow restrictions, which may lead to localized flooding problems. The City of Niagara Falls is in the process of getting a contractor to remove debris from Cayuga Creek, targeting the sites identified in the Buffalo State Report. A long-term maintenance plan to this end will ensure the problems do not redevelop. Frothingham and Brown 2005, which examined bank stability, channel condition, riparian zone, nutrient enrichment, water appearance, instream fish cover, and barriers to fish movement, should be used to help guide watershed management activities, such as debris removal and bank stabilization.

• Along with the removal of debris jams along the creeks, the need for stream bank erosion protection, restoration and management should be emphasized. There are several localized areas along the creeks that could be targeted for specific restoration measures, using the previous studies for guidance.

• There are various water quality monitoring efforts underway by the NYSDEC, NCSWCD, and volunteers groups that should be coordinated to maximize location and frequency of monitoring. Data analysis and interpretation should also be coordinated so actions can be taken to improve water quality conditions. Additional funding mechanisms may be sought for water quality improvements from the NYSDEC Nonpoint Source Program, for example.

• Major improvements in water quality conditions in the watershed have been attributed to implementation of sewer systems, hazardous waste site remediation and illicit discharge elimination. Further improvements should be investigated after review of the Western New York Stormwater Coalition’s mapping effort.

• Physical barriers to fish movement have been documented along Cayuga Creek in the form of hanging culverts, woody debris jams and bedrock ledges within the creek. These areas are documented in GIS and may be a potential restoration measure of interest.

• Non-native plant infestations including purple loosestrife, common reed, Japanese knotweed and Eurasian milfoil disrupt native communities and diminish populations of many at risk species. These areas could be targeted for specific restoration measures.

• The NYSDEC and TN have expressed interest in the potential for pirate perch habitat in and along Cayuga Creek. If it is determined that habitat for pirate perch in Cayuga/Bergholtz Creeks is suitable, this may be a potential habitat restoration project to pursue in the watershed.

• The lack of local plans for land protection or land acquisition within the watershed are evident. There are, however, agricultural programs related to conservation and environmental protection which are important to watershed health. These initiatives (AEM and CSP) should be promoted further within the watershed. Land acquisition and protection measures, if successful, can be essential stepping stones in improving the characteristics of the watershed including: recreation and conservation areas, and habitat protection and restoration. This applies to the upper watershed where extensive clearing for agriculture has severely reduced wildlife habitats. As well as the lower watershed where upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats have been variably degraded, fragmented or removed for roads, buildings, channelization, and bank stabilization.

• Aesthetic conditions and environmental stewardship within the watershed has improved greatly over the past 30 years. Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper has been very active initiating several public outreach projects associated with the Cayuga Creek watershed. These efforts are growing to include volunteer water quality monitoring and should be further encouraged.

• It is apparent that a coordinated effort is needed: 1) to prioritize the problems in the watershed, 2) to concurrently develop a method to evaluate the benefits of potential restoration measures, and 3) to implement and track the effectiveness of these measures. The inclusion of the NFARS in this coordinated effort would benefit the overall goals for restoration in the watershed.

4.3 Next Steps

The next steps in this project are to create and publish a Report Card for use in development of an Implementation Plan. The report card will be modeled after the Buffalo River Report Card and other similar efforts. The list of problems and potential steps for resolution were presented as a draft Report

Card to the Steering Committee for discussion and input. The Report Card will ideally be used to formulate a specific restoration road map for the watershed and will be distributed to the public.

After the Report Card is distributed, Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper should: 1) Coordinate with the USACE to obtain resources for the Restoration Road Map; and 2) Coordinate with the USFWS and the Steering Committee to develop a habitat restoration plan that proposes the precise nature of the restoration projects that can be implemented from the natural resource damage settlements that were achieved for the Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites. Ten percent of the funds may be leveraged with other funds to develop the plan, with the remainder going towards the actual restoration project(s).

The Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for ecological injuries and service losses to address restoration for the Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites was prepared in 2005. During the period of March 1996 through December 2000, natural resource damage settlements were achieved for the Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites (Sites), all located within the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York. All settlements were sought as compensation for impacts to natural resources as a result of contamination or subsequent remedial activities at the sites. Such monies recovered by Trustees must be used to restore, replace, or acquire natural resources or services equivalent to those lost. The goal of the Trustees is to select restoration projects that best serve to restore resources and/or services that were impacted by contamination or remedial activities associated with the sites. One Project selected was Cayuga Creek Restoration, submitted by City of Niagara Falls. The estimated cost for this project is $220,000.

The City of Niagara Falls has been considering restoration options and is proposing to work with Niagara County, area residents, and Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper to develop a stewardship program for this creek. Specific projects, such as debris removal, an urban canoe trail, and public information/stewardship program are being proposed.

Cayuga Creek, Black Creek, Bergholtz Creek, and the Little River were directly and significantly impacted by releases from the Love Canal site, as well as remedial activities. The Love Canal Consent Decree specifically promoted the consideration of stream restoration projects. Some of the projects proposed by the City of Niagara Falls were not consistent with the USFWS restoration objectives (e.g., corridor beautification), while others are consistent with those objectives, but additional planning is needed to fully develop the project (habitat restoration). In light of the significant impacts sustained by Cayuga Creek, Bergholtz Creek, Black Creek, and the Little River as a result of contamination and remedial activities associated with the Love Canal Site, the Trustees propose to allocate $220,000 to be used for habitat restoration activities in these waterways that may include physical habitat improvement, recreational enhancements, and development of an environmental stewardship program. USFWS proposed that the precise nature of these projects be determined after the City develops a habitat restoration plan in coordination with the Trustees and partners such as Niagara County and Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper (USFWS 2005b).

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper. Undated. LaSalle Canoe Trail Map & Guide.

City of Niagara Falls. 2004. Strategic Master Plan. Prep. by Urban Strategies, Inc.

Eckel, P.M. 1991. Flora of a Marsh on Cayuga Island, Niagara County, New York. Clintonia, Magazine of the Niagara Frontier Botanical Society, Inc. 6(4):7-10.

Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board. 1975. Cayuga Creek Water Quality Study (Niagara County). August 1975.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1979. Flood Insurance Study: Town of Lewiston, New York.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1983. Flood Insurance Study: Town of Niagara, New York.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1990. Flood Insurance Study: City of Niagara Falls, New York.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1992. Flood Insurance Study: Town of Wheatfield, New York.

Frothingham, Kelly M. and Natalie Brown. 2005. Cayuga Creek Watershed Stream Assessment. Department of Geology and Planning, Buffalo State College, Buffalo, New York.

Higgins, Bradford A., P.S. Puglia, R. P. Leonard, T.D. Yokum, and W.A. Wirtz, eds. 1972. Soil Survey of Niagara County, New York. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

International Joint Commission. 2002. Niagara River Area of Concern: Status Assessment. International Joint Commission.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1988. Fish Collection or Small Stream Survey (Gill and Cayuga Creeks).

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination. RCRA Corrective Action. Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control. Interim Final 2/5/99.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2000. Niagara River Remedial Action Plan Status Report.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2002. Contaminants in Young-of-Year Fish from Near-shore Areas of New York's Great Lakes Basin, 1997. Bureau of Habitat, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State. Volume 9 - List of Sites in: Allegany County Cattaraugus County, Chautauqua County, Erie County, Niagara County Wyoming County. Division of Environmental Remediation. April 2003.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2004. New York State Water Quality 2004. Submitted Pursuant to Section 305 (b) of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 (PL95-217). Division of Water. March 2004.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005a. Draft Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005b. The Niagara River-Lake Erie Drainage Basin. Sampling Years 2000-2001. February 2005. Division of Water.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005c. The 2002 Niagara River/Lake Erie Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List. Division of Water. September 2005.

New York State Department of Health. 2005. Chemicals in Sportfish and Game: 2005-2006 Health Advisories.

Niagara County Department of Planning, Development, and Tourism. 1997. Cayuga Creek Management Study, Niagara County, New York: Research Report.

Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District. 2004. Niagara County Water Quality Coordinating Committee 2004 Annual Report.

Niagara River Secretariat. 2004. Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP), Interim Progress Report and Work Plan.

Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. Latham, NY: New York Natural Heritage Program, NYSDEC.

Richman, Lisa A. 1999. Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring Program, 1997. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Richman, L.A. 2003. Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring Program, 2000. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Water Monitoring Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch.

Riveredge Associates, LLC. 2005a. Assessment of the Potential Effects of Water Level and Flow Fluctuations and NYPA Land Management Practices on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of the Upper Niagara River Tributaries. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

Riveredge Associates, LLC. 2005b. Occurrences of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Mussel Species in the Vicinity of the Niagara Power Project. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO Engineering & Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2005. Effect of Water Level and Flow Fluctuations on Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat. prep. for the New York Power Authority.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Buffalo District. 2002. Cayuga Creek, Niagara County, New York, Flooding and Related Water Resources. Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis Reconnaissance Report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Field Sampling Report Data Presentation, Sediment Sampling Survey, Little Niagara River & Cayuga Creek, Niagara River at Bloody Run Creek, May 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2004. Reduction in Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Impacts of Storm Water Discharge from Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station on Cayuga Creek. Prepared for: Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, Niagara Falls, NY. January 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites. Cortland, NY. July 2005.

URS Corporation and Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. 2005. Surface Water Quality of the Niagara River and its U.S. Tributaries. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO Engineering & Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2005a. Groundwater Flow Investigations in the Vicinity of the Niagara Power Project. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO Engineering & Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2005b. Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish, and Cayuga Creeks. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO Engineering & Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2005c. Upper Niagara River Tributary Backwater Study. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

URS Corporation. 2005. Water Temperatures of the Niagara River and its U.S. Tributaries. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

URS Greiner Consultants, Inc. 2000. Town of Lewiston Comprehensive Plan, Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement.

Wendel Duchscherer Architects & Engineers. 2004. Town of Wheatfield Comprehensive Plan.

W. F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. 2005. Shoreline Erosion and Sedimentation Assessment Study Upstream and Downstream of the Power Project. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.

APPENDICES

NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216) CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A: CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED CONTACTS

Entity Contact Resource Area(s) Contacted Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper Robbyn Drake Recreation, Access, Public Outreach Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper 4/17/06 617 Main St., Ste. M108 Buffalo, NY 14203 (716) 852-7483 [email protected] Niagara County Amy Fisk, Environmental Planner Environmental Planning Department of Economic Development 4/20/06 6311 Inducon Corporate Drive Sanborn, New York 14132 (716) 278-8754 [email protected] NYSDEC Tim Spierto Fisheries, Water Quality 270 Michigan Avenue 4/20/06 Buffalo, N.Y. 14203-2999 (716) 851-7200 (851-7010) [email protected]

Mike Wilkinson, Fish Biologist NYSDEC Buffalo 4/25/06

Don Zelazny, Coordinator of Great Lakes Programs NYSDEC Buffalo 5/1/06

Bob Townsend, RAP Coordinator 5/1/06 NYSDEC Albany University of Buffalo Joseph F. Atkinson, Ph.D., P.E. Professor, and Director of Great Lakes Programs Message Office: 202 Jarvis Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 4/21/06 Phone: (716) 645-2114 ext.2325 [email protected]

Entity Contact Resource Area(s) Contacted Buffalo State University Kelly M. Frothingham, Assistant Professor Erosion Study (716) 878-6736 4/24/06 [email protected]

Niagara University Dr. Sheen Rajmaira Sediment and Water Quality Monitoring Environmental Leadership Inst. Executive Director - 4/24/06 716-286-8295 [email protected]

Dr. Bill Edwards 716-286-8251 [email protected] City of Niagara Falls Tom DeSantis, Senior Planner Land Use, Access, Planning 716-286-4477 4/20/06 [email protected] USFWS – Cortland Anne Secord Fish and Wildlife, Site remediation (607) 753-9334 5/4/06 [email protected] USFWS - Amherst Betsy Trometer Fish and Wildlife Cara Ewell-Hodkin, Biological Technician Contaminant Trackdowns 4/20/06

Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office 405 North French Road, Suite 120A Amherst, NY 14228 (716) 691-5456 US Army Corps. of Engineers Tony Friona Erosion, Flooding US Army Corps of Engineers 5/4/06 Buffalo District 716-879-4215 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 [email protected]

Entity Contact Resource Area(s) Contacted Town of Lewiston Steven Reiter, Highway Superintendent Land Use, Access, Planning Water Use (pumphouse) 4/21/06 Fred Newlin, Supervisor Town Hall 1375 Ridge Road PO Box 330 Lewiston, New York 14092 [email protected] 6/6/06 Telephone: (716) 754-8213 Town of Niagara Steve Richards, Supervisor Land Use, Access, Planning 7105 Lockport Road Message Niagara Falls, NY 14305 6/6/06 Telephone (716) 297-2150 Ext. 136 [email protected] Town of Wheatfield Supervisor: Hon. Timothy Demler Land Use, Access, Planning Town of Wheatfield Message Niagara County 6/7/06 2800 Church Road North Tonawanda, NY Phone: (716) 694-6440 [email protected] Town of Cambria Wright H. Ellis, Town Supervisor Land Use, Access, Planning 716-433-8523 6/6/06 4160 Upper Mountain Road Sanborn, New York 14132 [email protected] Tuscarora Nation Neil Patterson, Jr. (716) 609-3810 Land Use, Access, Planning Tuscarora Environment Program 4/21/06 [email protected]

Entity Contact Resource Area(s) Contacted Erie Co. Dept. of Planning Mary C. Rossi Stormwater Discharges WNY Stormwater Discharge Erie County 4/19/06 Coalition Department of Environment & Planning 95 Franklin Street Buffalo, New York 14202 (716) 858-7583 [email protected] Niagara County SWCD Victor DiGiacomo 18 Mile Creek RAP Coordinator Niagara County SWCD 4/20/06 4487 Lake Avenue Lockport, NY 14094-1139 716-434-4949 [email protected] Niagara Falls Air Reserve Jim Matthews – 716-236-3122 Cayuga Creek monitoring Station 4/24/06 Peter Borys 914th AW Office of Public Affairs 2720 Kirkbridge Drive Niagara Falls ARS, NY 14304-5001 LaSalle Pride Patsy Mackenna Stewardship 716-283-7394 [email protected] EPA Public Information Office Mary Storrs (716) 551-4410 1999 Sediment Study Received 4/25/06 4/18/06

Ecology and Environment, Inc. Paul Fuhrmann Invasive plant species 368 Pleasant View Drive Stream Restoration 5/11/06 Lancaster, NY 14086 716 - 684-8060 [email protected]

APPENDIX B: DATA INVENTORY

Table B-1...... 3 Fish Species Collected From Cayuga Creek in 1987 - 1988 ...... 3

Table B-2...... 4 Fish Species Collected From Cayuga Creek in 2001...... 4

Table B-3...... 5 Other Fish Species Collected From Cayuga Creek (1928 and 1970s-1980s)...... 5

Table B-4...... 6 Mammal Species Inventoried by the USFWS at the Niagara Falls Air Force Base...... 6

Table B-5...... 7 Avian Wildlife Species Inventoried by the USFWS at the Niagara Falls Air Force Base...... 7

Table B-6...... 9 Reptiles and Amphibian Species Inventoried by the USFWS at the Niagara Falls Air Force Base...... 9

Table B-7...... 10 Known or Suspected Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern Animal Species within the Cayuga Creek Watershed...... 10

Table B-8: ...... 11 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected in Cayuga Creek, 9/12/2000 ...... 11

Table B-9: ...... 12 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected in Cayuga Creek, 7/3/2001 ...... 12

Table B-10: ...... 13 Macroinvertebrate Species Collected in Bergholtz Creek, 9/12/2000...... 13

Table B-11...... 14 Summary of Dominant Vegetation Species in the Cayuga Creek Watershed ...... 14

Table B-12...... 16 Cayuga Creek Water Quality Sampling Results (1975) ...... 16

Table B-13...... 17 Cayuga Creek Dissolved Oxygen and Water Temperature Data, 2003...... 17

Table B-14...... 18 Cayuga Creek Turbidity Data 2003...... 18

Table B-15...... 19 NYSDEC RIBS Water Quality Data for Cayuga Creek (2001) ...... 19

TABLE B-1 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM CAYUGA CREEK IN 1987 - 1988

Scientific Name Common Name Amieurus nebulosus Brown bullhead Ampbloplites rupestris Rock bass Carassius spp. Goldfish Catostomus commersoni White sucker Cualea inconstans Brook stickleback Cyprinus carpio carpio Common carp Esox lucius Northern pike Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Micropterus dolomieui Smallmouth bass Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Moxostoma sp. Redhorse sp. Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner Notropis antherinoides Emerald shiner Notropis cornutus Common shiner Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner Perca flavescens Yellow perch Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub Umbra limi Central mudminnow

Source: NYSDEC 1988.

TABLE B-2 FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM CAYUGA CREEK IN 2001

Scientific Name Common Name Amieurus nebulosus Brown bullhead Ampbloplites rupestris Rock bass Carassius spp. Goldfish Catostomus commersoni White sucker Cualea inconstans Brook stickleback Etheostoma nigrum Johnny darter Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill sunfish Nocomis micropogon River chub Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner Notropis antherinoides Emerald shiner Notropis cornutus Common shiner Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub Umbra limi Central mudminnow

Source: Collections in 2001 by NYSDEC as cited in USACE 2002.

TABLE B-3 OTHER FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM CAYUGA CREEK (1928 and 1970s-1980s)

Scientific Name Common Name Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch Cyprinus carpio carpio Common carp Dorsoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Esox americanus Grass pickerel Esox lucius Northern pike Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped shiner Nocomis biguttatus Hornyhead chub

Source: As cited in USACE 2002.

TABLE B-4 MAMMAL SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA FALLS AIR FORCE BASE

Scientific Name Common Name Canus lutrans Coyote Castor canadensis Beaver Cryptotis parva Least shrew Marmota monax Woodchuck Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole Odocoileus virginianus Whitetail deer Ondatra zibethica Muskrat Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse Procyon lotor Raccoon Sorex dispar Long-tailed shrew Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail rabbit Vulpes vulpes Red fox Mustek vision Mink Sciurus carolinensis Gray squirrel Tamias striatus Chipmunk Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel

Source: USFWS Survey from 1997 to 1999 as cited in USACE 2002.

TABLE B-5 AVIAN WILDLIFE SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA FALLS AIR FORCE BASE

Scientific Name Common Name Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper Agelaius phoeniceus Red-wing blackbird Ammodramus savannarum*** Grasshopper sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Black-throated sparrow Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Anas rubripes American black duck Ardea alba Great egret Ardea herodias Great blue heron Asio flammeus* Short-eared owl Bartramia longicauda** Upland sandpiper Botaurus lentiginosus*** American bittern Branta canadensis Canada goose Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Carduelis tristis American goldfinch Carpodacus purpureus Purple finch Circus cyaneus** Northern harrier Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Columbia livia Rock dove Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird Eremophila alpestris*** Horned lark Fulica americana American coot Hylocichia mustelina Wood thrush Larus spp. Gulls Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird Nyctea scandiaca Snowy owl Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron Passer domesticus House sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Savanna sparrow Phasianus colchicus Ring-neck pheasant Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern towhee Poecile atricapilla Black-capped chickadee Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle Riparia riparia Bank swallow Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe

TABLE B-5 (CONT.) AVIAN WILDLIFE SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA FALLS AIR FORCE BASE

Scientific Name Common Name Scolopax minor American woodcock Spizella arborea American tree sparrow Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow Spizella pusilla Field sparrow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark Sturnus vulgaris European starling Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow Turdus migratorius American robin Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated sparrow Domestic goose Flycatcher spp. Woodpecker spp.

Notes: * State endangered status; ** State threatened status; *** State special concern status.

Source: USFWS Survey from 1997 to 1999 as cited in USACE 2002.

TABLE B-6 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA FALLS AIR FORCE BASE.

Scientific Name Common Name Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle Chrysemys picta Painted turtle Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog Rana slyvatica Wood frog Thamnophis sirtalis Garter snake

Source: USFWS Survey from 1997 to 1999 as cited in USACE 2002.

Note: In addition to these species, the USFWS reported a possible sighting of eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), a New York State Special Concern species.

TABLE B-7 KNOWN OR SUSPECTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED OR SPECIAL CONCERN ANIMAL SPECIES WITHIN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED

Scientific Name Common Name NY State Status Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch Proposed Special Concern Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow Special Concern Asio flammeus Short-eared owl Endangered Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper Threatened Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern Special Concern Circus cyanus Northern harrier Threatened Eremphila alpestris Horned lark Special Concern Terrapene carolina carolina Eastern box turtle Special Concern

Source: As cited in USACE 2002.

TABLE B-8: MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED IN CAYUGA CREEK, 9/12/2000

Family Genus Count Tubificidae Undetermined w/o cap. setae 1 Asellidea Caecidotea sp. 25 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 2 Elmidae Stenelmis crenata 40 Cheumatopsyche sp. 22 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni 3 Simuliidae Simulium vittatum 1 Cricotopus bicinctus 2 Thienemanniella xena 1 Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 2 Tanytarsus glabrescens gr. 1

Note: Samples collected with a kick net from Cayuga Creek in Niagara Falls at State Route 62.

NYSDEC RIBS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE ABOVE SAMPLE SITE

Parameter Result Species Richness 11 Biotic Index 5.95 EPT Richness 2 Model Affinity 37 Assessment Moderately Impacted

Source: NYSDEC 2005b.

TABLE B-9: MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED IN CAYUGA CREEK, 7/3/2001

Family Genus Count Potamothrix sp. 1 Tubificidae Undetermined w/ cap. setae 1 Undetermined w/o cap. setae 3 Asellidea Caecidotea racovitzai 40 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 3 Elmidae Stenelmis crenata 40 Cheumatopsyche sp. 4 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni 3 Simuliidae Simulium vittatum 4 Chironomidae Chironomus sp. 1

Note: Samples collected with a kick net from Cayuga Creek in Niagara Falls at State Route 62.

NYSDEC RIBS ASSESSMENT SUMMARYFOR THE ABOVE SAMPLE SITE

Parameter Result Species Richness 10 Biotic Index 6.65 EPT Richness 2 Model Affinity 33 Assessment Moderately Impacted

Source: NYSDEC 2005b.

TABLE B-10: MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED IN BERGHOLTZ CREEK, 9/12/2000

Family Genus Count Tubificidae Undetermined w/o cap. setae 4 Hydrobiidae Undetermined Hydrobiidae 1 Sphaeriidae Sphaerium sp. 5 Asellidea Caecidotea sp. 39 Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 8 Cambaridae Undetermined Cambaridae 1 Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 3 Cheumatopsyche sp. 15 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni 1 Thienemannimyia gr. spp. 5 Corynoneura sp. 1 Cricotopus bicinctus 5 Nanocladius rectinervis 2 Chironomidae Phaenopsectra flavipes 1 Polypedilum flavum 1 Polypedilum illinoense 4 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 4

Note: Samples collected with a kick net from Bergholtz Creek in Niagara Falls 10 meters above Williams Road bridge.

NYSDEC RIBS ASSESSMENT SUMMARYFOR THE ABOVE SAMPLE SITE

Parameter Result Species Richness 17 Biotic Index 6.84 EPT Richness 2 Model Affinity 47 Assessment Moderately Impacted

Source: NYSDEC 2005b.

TABLE B-11 SUMMARY OF DOMINANT VEGETATION SPECIES IN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED

Scientific Name Common Name Acer negundo Box elder Acer rubrum Red maple Agrostis alba Redtop grass Allaria officinalis Garlic mustard Aster lateriflorus Calico aster Aster novae-angliae New England aster Aster pilosus White heath aster Carex crinita Fringed sedge Carex tribuloides Blunt broom sedge Carya ovata Shag-bark hickory Cephalanthus occidentalis Button-bush Cornus amomum Silky dogwood Cornus foemina ssp. Racemosa Gray-stemmed dogwood Crataegus sp. Hawthorn Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass Dipsacus sylvestris Teasel Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Epilobium coloraturn Purple-leaved willow-herb Euthamia graminifolia Flat-top golden-rod Fragaria virginiana Strawberry Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Geum canadense White avens Glyceria striata Fowl manna grass Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Juglans nigra Black walnut Juncus effusus Soft rush Leersia oryzoides Rice cutgrass Lotus corniculatus Birds-foot trefoil Lysimachia nummularia Creeping jennie Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern Phleum pratense Timothy Phragmites australis Common reed Poa pratensis Canada bluegrass Polygonum hydropiperoides Smartweed Papulus tremula Quaking aspen Quercus bicolor Swamp white oak

TABLE B-11 (CONT.) SUMMARY OF DOMINANT VEGETATION SPECIES IN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED

Scientific Name Common Name Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Quercus palustrus Pin oak Quercus rubra Red oak Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac Rubus occidentalis Black raspberry Sambucus canadensis Elderberry Solidago canadensis Canada golden-rod Solidago rugosa Rough-stemmed golden-rod Tilia americana American basswood Toxicodendron radicans Poison ivy Ulmus americana American elm Viburnum recognitum Northern arrow-wood Vitis aestivalis Summer grape

Source: As cited in USACE 2002.

TABLE B-12 CAYUGA CREEK WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS (1975)

Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bergholtz Saunders Powerline RR near Walmore Airport Porter Pine Creek Pedestrian Buffalo Settlement Mouth ROW Cory Rd. Road Taxiway Road Avenue Bridge Avenue Location Road (91st St.)

Time 1:15 PM 12:45 PM 12:05 PM 11:50 AM 11:30 AM 11:00 AM 10:30 AM 10:05 AM 9:45 AM 9:15 AM 9:00 AM Temperature (°C) 31.0 31.0 29.0 29.0 28.5 28.5 28.0 26.0 28.0 24.0 20.5 DO (mg/L) 6.7 7.2 8.2 10.8 8.4 9.3 4.8 4.0 5.8 5.0 4.1 BOD-5 (mg/L) 1.2 3.4 3.7 4.1 3.6 4.4 2.0 1.5 2.3 2.8 3.7 Suspended Solids (mg/L) 44 224 99 NA 42 6 18 6 13 11 10 Turbidity (JTU) 15 160 71 21 36 33 29 16 30 24 20 Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 498 536 449 NA 1437 1363 879 439 444 364 360 Total Coliforms >11 >11 >11 >11 110,000 46,000 21,000 110,000 46,000 >11 million >11 million (MPN/100 mL) million million million million Fecal Coliforms 70 350 550 130 260 400 200 620 220 430 450 (MPN/100 mL) pH 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.8 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.6 Total Organic Nitrogen 0.60 0.90 0.80 (mg/L) Total Phosphate (mg/L) >0.16 0.32 0.32

Note: Date of Sampling 6/17/1975. Source: ENCRPB 1975.

TABLE B-13 CAYUGA CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND WATER TEMPERATURE DATA, 2003 CC-01 (mouth) CC-02 CC-03 (upstream) (Bergholtz confluence) Date Precipitation DO DO Temp DO DO Temp DO DO Temp (mg/L) (% sat) (°C) (mg/L) (% sat) (°C) (mg/L) (% sat) (°C) 5/7/2003 Wet 5.9 57.2 13.9 6.83 66.3 14 10.9 106.7 14.4 5/30/2003 Wet 5.26 55.7 17.6 6.01 62.6 17.1 9.62 99.6 17.1 6/2/2003 Wet 7.9 80.1 15.5 6.85 67.9 13.6 10.43 103.6 15 6/26/2003 Dry 9.17 105.2 21.6 3.84 45.7 24.0 8.82 105.4 24.9 7/11/2003 Wet 7.34 84.5 22.4 5.44 60.8 20.8 6.57 73.2 20.4 7/24/2003 Wet 5.79 66.4 22.1 4.39 48.2 20.2 8.45 92.6 19.8 8/19/2003 Dry 7.65 93.8 25.4 5.86 67.3 22.1 8.3 95.6 22.4 8/28/2003 Variable 5.00 59.1 23.6 5.43 61.1 21.3 9.3 104.2 20.7 9/11/2003 Dry 7.67 81.3 18.3 7.19 79.5 20.1 9.4 108.3 22.4 9/16/2003 Wet 9.43 105.3 20.8 3.77 41.1 19.2 10.77 119.0 20.2 9/24/2003 Wet 6.73 71.4 18.0 5.34 55.9 17.4 8.57 87.3 16.1 10/2/2003 Wet 7.34 70.0 13.0 6.71 60.4 10.2 8.99 76.5 8.3 10/10/2003 Dry 7.81 79.7 16.4 5.72 58.5 16.2 9.83 103.2 16.6 10/16/2003 Wet 6.85 64.7 12.8 6.07 56.1 11.7 10.31 93.7 11.0 10/23/2003 Variable 8.85 75.6 10.2 5.52 46.8 8.2 11.37 94.6 7.3 10/28/2003 Wet 7.93 75.7 11.0 5.29 45.3 9.8 11.06 97.6 9.7 11/4/2003 Wet 8.27 75.0 11.0 5.39 48.3 10.3 9.63 85.5 10.1 Minimum 5.00 55.7 10.2 3.77 41.1 8.2 6.57 73.2 7.3 Maximum 9.43 105.3 25.4 7.19 79.5 24 11.37 119.0 24.9 Average 7.35 76.5 17.27 5.63 57.2 16.25 9.55 96.9 16.26

Note: Source, URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005. NA = sample not collected on this occasion.

TABLE B-14 CAYUGA CREEK TURBIDITY DATA 2003 Turbidity (NTUs) Date Precipitation CC-01 (mouth) CC-02 (confluence CC-03 (upstream) with Bergholtz Cr.) 5/7/2003 Wet 67.5 113 25.4 5/30/2003 Wet 33.1 43.7 24.1 6/2/2003 Wet 67 113 24.8 7/11/2003 Wet 5.23 35.4 16.9 7/24/2003 Wet 6.53 18.7 7.79 9/16/2003 Wet 2.23 11.5 7.96 9/24/2003 Wet 4.77 17.8 13.2 10/2/2003 Wet 4.81 25.1 13.4 10/16/2003 Wet 7.67 30.7 14 10/28/2003 Wet 10.5 17.7 15.7 11/4/2003 Wet 22.4 86.4 35.3 Average Wet Weather 21.07 46.64 18.05 6/26/2003 Dry 7.14 37.3 29.9 8/19/2003 Dry 5.16 22.8 18.4 9/11/2003 Dry 7.03 10 10.9 10/10/2003 Dry 2.76 11.9 11.7 Average Dry Weather 5.52 20.50 17.73 8/28/2003 Variable 17.3 17.3 1.14 10/23/2003 Variable 2.78 6.93 13.9

Note: Source, URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005. NA = sample not collected on this occasion.

TABLE B-15 NYSDEC RIBS WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CAYUGA CREEK (2001)

Field Parameters

Date Conductivity, Conductivity, Dissolved Ph, Field Ph, Lab Turbidity Water Field Lab Oxygen Temperature µohms/cm µohms/cm mg/L S.U. S.U. NTU Deg C 5/15/2001 1164 140 8.6 7.7 7.98 19 15.1 8/1/2001 1630 1900 4.9 7.5 7.89 8.54 21.5 9/6/2001 1487 1800 6.4 7.1 7.76 11.8 16.2 10/30/2001 1484 1700 8.0 7.0 7.78 7.78 8.3

Nutrient Parameters

Date NH4 NO3 NO3+NO2 NO2 Dissolved TKN PO4 Total Suspended Volatile (Calculated) Solids Solids Solids Solids mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 5/15/2001 0.0847 0.367 0.383 0.0161 1030 0.424 0.0536 1130 8.9 209 8/1/2001 0.0706 0.362 0.362 <0.01 1370 0.216 0.0899 1410 7.8 208 9/6/2001 0.0605 0.595 0.595 <0.01 1310 0.263 0.0535 1360 11.3 188 10/30/2001 <0.01 1.3 1.33 0.0258 1230 0.44 0.029 1290 7.34 196

TABLE B-15 (CONT.) NYSDEC RIBS WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CAYUGA CREEK (2001)

Mineral Parameters

Date Ca Cl F Mg K Na SO4 Alkalinity Hardness mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 5/15/2001 163 J 163 1.0 42.9 5.33 92 379 220 614 8/1/2001 218 212 1.21 50.8 7.26 111 634 175 800 9/6/2001 37 193 1.12 46 8.59 109 582 161 760 10/30/2001 196 201 0.784 43.4 6.92 101 506 205 750

Metals Parameters

Date Al, Al, Cd, Cd, Cu, Cu, Fe, Pb, Pb, Mn, Hg, Ni, Ni, Zn, total sol. total sol. total sol. total total sol. total total total sol. total µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L 5/15/2001 455 <2.2 <0.04 <0.04 4.1 4.1 530V 1.3 <0.74 95.3 <0.02 3.8 2.4 96.3 8/1/2001 261 V 16.9 <0.2 <0.2 2.6 2.0 318 2.1 <1.1 77.8 <0.04 2.4 1.9 28.4 9/6/2001 361 13.3 0.06 <0.02 2.2 1.7 440 1.7 0.16 65.3 <0.02 2.4 2.1 30.7 J 10/30/2001 275 26.0 0.09 <0.04 1.8 2.7 260 0.96 0.27 26.4 <0.02 2.8 2.7 71.9 V

TABLE B-15 (CONT.) NYSDEC RIBS WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CAYUGA CREEK (2001)

Bacteriological Parameters

Total Coliform Fecal Coliform Date colonies/100mL colonies/100mL 5/15/2001 7,900 230 8/1/2001 6,400 890 9/6/2001 >10,000 >10,000 10/30/2001 6,800 210

Notes: Sampling station was located in Cayuga Creek at the Pine Avenue bridge, approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the mouth. Source, NYSDEC 2005b.

J = estimated value

V = QA/QC problem