Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment

Poseidon Project Union Bay, New Jersey to Jones Beach, New York Part I, New York Bight

PREPARED FOR: Poseidon Transmission 1, LLC 401 Edgewater Place, Suite 650 Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880

PREPARED BY: ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400 East Providence, Rhode Island 02915

Project No. P298-001

September 16, 2013

www.essgroup.com

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Poseidon Project Union Bay, New Jersey to Jones Beach, New York Part I, New York Bight

Prepared For:

Poseidon Transmission 1, LLC 401 Edgewater Place, Suite 650 Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880

Prepared By:

ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400 East Providence, Rhode Island 02915

Project No. P298-001

September 16, 2013

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. – This document or any part may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording without the express written consent of ESS Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 METHODS ...... 1 2.1 Field Program ...... 1 2.2 Laboratory Analysis ...... 1 2.3 Data Analysis ...... 2 3.0 RESULTS ...... 3 3.1 Taxa Richness ...... 3 3.2 Macrofaunal Density ...... 3 3.3 Macrofaunal Community Composition ...... 4 3.3.1 Crustaceans ...... 5 3.3.2 Polychaetes ...... 5 3.3.3 Mollusks ...... 5 3.3.4 Oligochaetes ...... 6 3.3.5 Others ...... 6 3.4 Summary and Conclusions ...... 6 4.0 REFERENCES ...... 7

TABLES

Table A Summary of Key Statistics from the Benthic Macrofauna Survey Table B Relative Abundance of Taxa Encountered along the Submarine Cable Route Table C Most Widespread Taxa Encountered along the Submarine Cable Route

FIGURES

Figure 1 Location of Benthic Grab Samples Collected from New York Waters Figure 2 Taxa Richness by Station Figure 3 Density by Station

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A Results of the Benthic Macrofaunal Community Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION Poseidon Transmission 1, LLC (Poseidon) proposes to develop an electric interconnection between New Jersey and New York to deliver power from PJM’s bulk power grid to Long Island. This connection is aimed at reducing congestion within Nassau and Suffolk counties and the downstate region, and enhancing the diversity of generation sources supplying Long Island. The Poseidon Project is a 200 kV high voltage direct current (HVDC) 500 MW electric transmission cable connecting the existing PSEG Deans Substation in South Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey, with the existing Ruland Road Substation in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, New York. ESS Group, Inc. (ESS) conducted an assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate community along the Submarine Cable Route portion of the Poseidon Project. Benthic macroinvertebrates are defined for the purpose of this study as organisms greater than 500 microns (μm) in length that either live on or in sediments, including primitive (unsegmented) worms, annelids (segmented worms), mollusks, and crustaceans, among others. This report focuses on the benthic macroinvertebrate community along the New York portion of Submarine Cable Route. The Poseidon Submarine Cable Route enters New York waters just south of Rockaway Point and makes landfall at Jones Beach. 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Field Program To obtain route-specific information on the benthic community in New York waters of the Project Area, 29 benthic samples were collected along the Submarine Cable Route from Jones Beach State Park, New York to the state line just south of Rockaway Point (Figure 1) in August 2013. Benthic samples were collected using a 0.1-m2 Young-modified Van Veen grab, deployed from the survey vessel prior to vibracore activities at each site to minimize disturbance to the benthic community being sampled. After collection, contents of each grab sample were sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh in the field, and the retained material and organisms were fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin. 2.2 Laboratory Analysis Upon receipt at the laboratory, benthic samples were logged and checked for adequate preservation. Prior to sorting, sample material from each sample was emptied in its entirety into a sieve with 0.5 millimeter or finer mesh. Tap water was gently run over the sieve to rinse away any additional fine sediment that was not removed during the field sieving process as well as to remove the formalin solution prior to the microscope work. The material in the sieve was gently washed to one side, minimizing the opportunity for organisms to become damaged from the direct flow of water. The sieve was visually inspected to ensure that all organisms had been removed. Rinsed samples were preserved in 70% ethanol. Preserved benthic samples were processed to sort benthic organisms from residual debris. Due to the high volume of debris in some samples, the material was first split into as many as 16 equal fractions using a gridded tray. Randomly selected fractions were sub-sampled and sorted until a target of 100 organisms was retained or a sufficient sub-sample had been examined, as determined by best professional judgment of a senior taxonomist. The unsorted and sorted fractions of each sample were retained separately, preserved in 70% ethanol. Samples with little debris and very few organisms were sorted in their entirety. For quality assurance and control (QA/QC) purposes, a second qualified staff member (quality assurance officer) resorted 10% of the samples analyzed by each sorter to ensure organisms were being adequately retained. The quality assurance officer checked the sorted sample material for any remaining organisms and calculated an efficiency rating ( E ) using the following formula:

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. \\epdata\data\jobs\p298-001 poseidon permitting\regulatory\ny\article vii\sections\appendices\app f_benthic assessment.doc Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 16, 2013

n E  100 a na  nb

Where na is the number of individuals originally sorted and verified as identifiable organisms by the QC checker and nb is the number of organisms recovered by the QC checker. If the original sorter achieved E < 90% (i.e., less than 90% of the organisms in the sample removed), an additional sample sorted by that analyst was re-examined by the quality assurance officer. In samples where organisms were very sparse (i.e., fewer than 25 organisms in the sorted fraction), the QA/QC criteria were adjusted to no more than 20 organisms remaining in the sorted residue. None of the samples analyzed failed to meet QA/QC sorting efficiency criteria. All sorted organisms were subsequently identified by a qualified taxonomist to the lowest taxonomic level possible using a dissecting microscope with magnification up to 45X and readily available taxonomic keys. Selected polychaetes (e.g., capitellid worms) and unsegmented worms were mounted in CMC-10 mounting media using methods consistent with those outlined in Epler (2001). Identification of slide- mounted organisms was conducted under a compound microscope with magnification to 1,000X. The primary taxonomic references used for macroinvertebrate identification include Pettibone (1963), Smith (1964), Gosner (1971), Bousfield (1973), Cook and Brinkhurst (1973), Abbott and Morris (1995), Weiss (1995), and Bartholomew (2001). Enumerations of macroinvertebrates identified from each sample were tracked on bench sheets and transcribed into an electronic spreadsheet. Prior to data summary, species abundances for each sample were converted to number of individuals per square meter, taking into account the sampling equipment dimensions and any sub-sampling. 2.3 Data Analysis Measures of benthic macrofaunal diversity, density, and community composition were selected to describe existing conditions along the Submarine Cable Route. The rationale behind selection of each measure follows. Taxa richness is the number of different taxa that are found within a given area or community and is widely accepted as a good assessment measure of diversity (Magurran, 2003). Taxa richness may also provide information about the relative quality of habitat. However, taxa richness may be insensitive to acute changes in pollutant loading or other disturbance (Grassle and Grassle 1974). Additionally, high taxa richness does not necessarily imply high quality habitat (nor does low taxa richness always indicate habitat degradation). For this study, taxa richness is defined as the total number of unique taxa found in a sample. Macrofaunal density is an estimate of the number of individuals per unit area. The density of benthic organisms responds to disturbance as mitigated by the tolerance (or preference) of a given organism to the particular source of disturbance. Density may vary substantially over small areas or short periods of time and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. For this study, macrofaunal density is expressed as the number of organisms per square meter. Community composition describes which taxa are present within the macrofaunal community and at what abundances. This descriptive measure uses information regarding the taxa present, providing detail to complement and help interpret summary metrics like taxa richness and density.

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. Page 2 \\epdata\data\jobs\p298-001 poseidon permitting\regulatory\ny\article vii\sections\appendices\app f_benthic assessment.doc Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 16, 2013

3.0 RESULTS Macrofaunal taxa richness, density, and composition of the taxonomic assemblage are presented in the following sections. One sample (BG-38) did not contain any benthic macrofauna and was omitted from all analyses, unless otherwise noted. 3.1 Taxa Richness

The total number of taxa identified from the samples examined was 88 (Table A). Taxa richness per sample ranged from 3 taxa at BG-28 to 26 taxa at BG-35 (Attachment A and Figure 2) with a mean taxa richness of 12 taxa per site (Table A). These taxa richness values are typical of the benthic habitats in this area, which have been documented to range from less than 20 to 30 taxa per 0.1 m2 sample (Reid et al. 1991). Table A. Summary of Key Statistics from the Benthic Macrofauna Survey Statistic Value Number of Stations 27 Mean Density per Square Meter (±1 SD) 531 ± 499 Mean Taxa Richness (±1 SD) 12 ± 6 Total Number of Taxa 88 Number of Taxa Observed by Taxonomic Group Mollusks 14 Oligochaetes 2 Polychaetes 35 Crustaceans 32 Other 5 Percent of Total Abundance by Taxonomic Group Mollusks 17% Oligochaetes 1% Polychaetes 36% Crustaceans 41% Other 5%

Taxa richness was highly variable from station to station across the study area (Figure 2). No consistent patterns of higher or lower taxa richness were observed from the New York state line to the Submarine Cable landfall. 3.2 Macrofaunal Density The average macrofaunal density for the stations sampled in this study was 552 individuals/m2 (Table A). The highest macrofaunal density (1,790 individuals/m2) was found at BG-45, while macrofaunal density was lowest (30 individuals/m2) at BG-28 (Attachment A and Figure 3). Macrofaunal density was also variable from station to station across the study area (Figure 3). However, the highest densities were observed on the eastern end of the Submarine Cable Route. The macrofaunal densities found in the study area are similar to those documented by previous studies. Caracciolo and Steimle (1983) observed densities ranging from less than 1,000 individuals/m2 to between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals/m2. Theroux and Wigley (1998) reported densities between 1,000 and 4,999 individuals/m2 for benthic habitats in this region.

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. Page 3 \\epdata\data\jobs\p298-001 poseidon permitting\regulatory\ny\article vii\sections\appendices\app f_benthic assessment.doc Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 16, 2013

3.3 Macrofaunal Community Composition The benthic assemblage documented in this study consisted of mollusks, crustaceans, annelid worms (both polychaetes and oligochaetes), and low abundances of other organisms (Attachment A). In this study, crustaceans constituted the largest portion (41%) of the total benthic macrofaunal abundance (Table A). Polychaete worms accounted for 36% with mollusks making up 17% of total abundance. Oligochaete worms and other macrofauna, including echinoderms (sand dollars), nemertean ribbon worms, nematode worms, and cephalochordates (lancelets) accounted for the remaining 5%. Five taxa together contributed more than 50% of all individuals identified in this study (Table B). These include the blind tube-builder amphipod (Pseudunciola obliquua) with 23%, a capitellid threadworm (Amastigos sp.) with 9%, false quahog (Pitar morrhuana) also with 9%, a spaghetti-mouth tubeworm (Asabellides oculata) with 5%, and Polygordius sp. with 4%. Table B. Relative Abundance of Taxa Encountered along the Submarine Cable Route* Relative Abundance Scientific Name Common Name (%) Pseudunciola obliquua Tube builder amphipod 23 Amastigos sp. Thread worm 9 Pitar morrhuanus False quahog 9 Asabellides oculata Spaghetti-mouth tubeworm 5 Polygordius sp. Primitive polychaete worm 4 Protohaustorius deichmannae Sand burrower amphipod 4 Nematoda Round worm 4 Haustoriidae Sand burrower amphipod 4 Cirratulidae Fringed worm 4 Polydora cornuta Whip mudworm 3 Mediomastus ambiseta Thread worm 3 Tellina agilis Northern dwarf-tellin 3 Abra sp. Abra clam 2 Spiophanes bombyx Bee spionid 2 Acanthohaustorius millsi Sand burrower amphipod 1 Nephtys picta Painted worm 1 *Includes taxa contributing at least 1% of abundance in samples examined

The most widespread taxa (i.e., observed in the most samples) include the fringeworm (Cirratulidae) observed in 15 samples, painted worm (Nephtys picta) observed in 14 samples, northern dwarf-tellin (Tellina agilis) also observed in 14 samples, Asabellides oculata observed in 13 samples, and Pitar morrhuana observed in 13 samples (Table C).

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. Page 4 \\epdata\data\jobs\p298-001 poseidon permitting\regulatory\ny\article vii\sections\appendices\app f_benthic assessment.doc Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 16, 2013

Table C. Most Widespread Taxa Encountered along the Submarine Cable Route* Number of Samples Scientific Name Common Name Containing this Taxon Cirratulidae Fringed worm 15 Nephtys picta Painted worm 14 Tellina agilis Northern dwarf-tellin 14 Asabellides oculata Spaghetti-mouth worm 13 Pitar morrhuanus False quahog 13 Polygordius sp. Primitive polychaete worm 12 Nematoda Round worm 12 Spiophanes bombyx Bee spionid 11 Amastigos sp. Thread worm 10 Nassarius trivitattus Three-lined Mudsnail 9 Mediomastus ambiseta Thread worm 8 Pseudunciola obliquua Tube builder 8 Protohaustorius deichmannae Sand burrower amphipod 8 Cancer irroratus Rock crab 8 *Includes taxa observed in at least 25% of samples examined

Additional detail on selected taxonomic groups in the study area are presented in order of abundance. 3.3.1 Crustaceans Crustaceans were observed in 88.9% of samples examined. Of the 32 taxa observed, Pseudunciola obliquua, rock crab (Cancer irroratus), and the sand burrowing amphipod Protohaustorius deichmannae were the most widespread. Pseudunciola obliquua was by far the most abundant crustacean, although haustoriid amphipods were also abundant as a group (Attachment A). 3.3.2 Polychaetes Polychaete worms were found in 96.3% of the samples examined, making them the most widespread macrofaunal organisms observed. Polychaetes were also the most speciose group observed, with 35 taxa recorded from samples along the Submarine Cable Route. The most widespread polychaetes were Cirratulidae, Nephtys picta, and Asabellides oculata. Amastigos sp., Asabellides oculata, and Polygordius sp. were the most abundant taxa in the samples examined (Attachment A). 3.3.3 Mollusks Mollusks were found in 88.9% of the samples examined and were represented by 24 taxa (Attachment A). The most numerous and widespread mollusk taxa were Tellina agilis, Pitar morrhaunus, and threeline mudsnail (Nassarius trivittatus). Molluscan shellfish, such as surf clam (Spisula solidissima) and Atlantic razor (Siliqua costata) were present but neither abundant nor widespread.

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. Page 5 \\epdata\data\jobs\p298-001 poseidon permitting\regulatory\ny\article vii\sections\appendices\app f_benthic assessment.doc Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 16, 2013

3.3.4 Oligochaetes Oligochaete worms were represented by two species, including Grania sp. and a tubificid species. Neither of these species was particularly widespread or abundant and oligochaetes as a group were only present in 14.8% of the samples examined (Attachment A). 3.3.5 Others Most other macrofaunal taxa were relatively uncommon and observed at low abundances. Nematode roundworms and nemertean ribbon worms were observed in multiple samples. Common sand dollar (Echinarachnius parma) and lancelet (Branchiostoma sp.) were observed in a handful of samples (Attachment A). 3.4 Summary and Conclusions Eighty-eight macrofaunal taxa were observed from twenty-seven benthic samples collected from New York waters along the Submarine Cable Route in August 2013. Taxa richness was highly variable and did not demonstrate a clear spatial trend along the Submarine Cable Route. Macrofaunal density was also quite variable, although densities were typically higher toward the eastern (landward) end of the New York portion of the Submarine Cable Route than on the western end. Environmental variables including salinity and water depth are likely to vary modestly over the study area but whether these differences are associated with changes in macrofaunal density is not apparent from the current dataset. Within the dataset, the number of taxa represented by only one occurrence was relatively high (45 of the 98 observed taxa were singletons). This is suggestive of benthic habitats that are highly variable with rapid changes occurring over short distances. According to the route-specific geophysical survey (OSI 2013) substrates in the area consist primarily of sand, which has formed low-amplitude sandwaves over much of the New York portion of the Submarine Cable Route. These habitats are characteristic of high- energy environments that are frequently disturbed by waves and currents. In shipping lanes, the passage of marine vessels may also contribute to disturbance of these habitats. These factors may play a role in the spatial variability observed in the benthic macrofaunal community. Samples collected along the Submarine Cable Route consist largely of motile invertebrate species (e.g., most free-living polychaetes and crustaceans). These taxa would be expected to be among the first to recolonize the area following installation of the Submarine Cable because they are able to freely move or drift into new habitats. Less motile species (bivalves, some gastropods and other surface suspension feeders) were also present along the Submarine Cable Route. Among these species, a dispersive reproductive cycle will assist in their recolonization of benthic habitats following cable installation. The larvae or juvenile stage of these species could settle into the area from adjacent or nearby spawning populations. Although the time necessary for recovery of macrofaunal communities in disturbed sediments varies by habitat and the nature and specific type of disturbance (abrasion, impingement, direct displacement, burial, etc.), marine macrofaunal communities are relatively resilient and recovery time from temporary disturbance is often relatively short (Elliott et al. 2007).

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. Page 6 \\epdata\data\jobs\p298-001 poseidon permitting\regulatory\ny\article vii\sections\appendices\app f_benthic assessment.doc Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 16, 2013

4.0 REFERENCES Abbot, R.T. and P.A. Morris. 1995. Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the West Indies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Bartholomew, A. 2001. Polychaete Key for Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 2001. Bousfield, E.L. 1973. Shallow-Water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates. Caracciolo, J. V. and F. W. Steimle. 1983. An Atlas of the Distribution and Abundance of Dominant Benthic Invertebrates in the New York Bight Apex with Reviews of their Life Histories. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-766. Cook, D.G. and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1973. Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States. Annelida: Oligochaeta. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. NOAA Technical Report NMFS CIRC-374. Elliott, M., D. Burdon, K.L. Hemingway, and S.E. Apitz. 2007. Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Restoration: Confusing Management and Science – A Revision of Concepts. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 74: 349-366. Epler, J.H. 2001. Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. Version 1.0. Gosner, K.L. 1971. Guide to Identification of Marine and Estuarine Invertebrates: Cape Hatteras to the Bay of Fundy. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Grassle, J. F. and J. P. Grassle. 1974. Opportunistic life histories and genetic systems in marine benthic polychaetes. Journal of Marine Research, 32: 253-284. Magurran, A.E. 2003. Measuring Biological Diversity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. [OSI] Ocean Surveys, Inc. 2013. Field Summary Report: Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigations. The Poseidon Project, Union Beach, NJ – Jones Beach Island, Long Island, NY. Raritan Bay, Lower NY Bay and Atlantic Ocean. OSI Report No. 13ES040. Prepared for ESS Group, Inc. Pettibone, M.H. 1963. Marine Polychaete Worms of the New England Region. Volume 1. Families Aphroditidae through Trochochaetidae. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History. Reid, R. N. and Radosh, D. J. and Frame, A. B. and Fromm, S. A. 1991. Benthic Macrofauna of the New York Bight, 1979-89. NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Report 103. Smith. R.I. 1964. Keys to the Marine Invertebrates of the Woods Hole Region: a manual for the identification of the more common marine invertebrates. Woods Hole, MA: Marine Biological Laboratory. Weiss, H.M. 1995. Marine Animals of Southern New England and New York. Identification Keys to Common Nearshore and Shallow Water Macrofauna. Bulletin 115 of the State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut. Department of Environmental Protection.

Figures

www.essgroup.com

BG-31

BG-30

Rockaway BG-29 Reef BG-28

BG-27

BG-26

BG-25

BG-24

BG-23

3 2 1

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Poseidon Transmission 1, LLC Legend Benthic Grab Sample Locations The Poseidon Project Benthic Grab Sample Location Middlesex County, New Jersey to Suffolk County, New York Artificial Reef Area Submarine Cable Route 1 inch = 5,000 feet HVDC Land Cable Route Source: 1) NOAA Chart 12327 Neptune Regional Transmission System Figure 1

2) Neptune Cable, As Reported in EMCP Segment 3, 2003 ! !

! ! 3) Poseidon Routing, BG Locations, ESS Group, 2013 ! New York State Boundary Sheet 1 of 3 Path: \\epdata\CADD\GIS-Projects\P298-000 Poseidon NJ-NY 2013\MXD\Article_VII_Figures\P298_Appendix4E_BG_Sampling_Locations.mxd Drawing Date: 2013/09/26 © 2013 ESS Group, Inc. °

BG-35 BG-36 BG-37 BG-34 BG-38 BG-39 BG-40 BG-33

BG-32

BG-31

Fishing Line (McAllister Grounds) Atlantic Beach Reef 3 2 1

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

2) Neptune Cable, As Reported in EMCP Segment 3, 2003 ! !

! ! 3) Poseidon Routing, BG Locations, ESS Group, 2013 ! New York State Boundary Sheet 2 of 3 Path: \\epdata\CADD\GIS-Projects\P298-000 Poseidon NJ-NY 2013\MXD\Article_VII_Figures\P298_Appendix4E_BG_Sampling_Locations.mxd Drawing Date: 2013/09/26 © 2013 ESS Group, Inc. °

BG-E2

BG-59

BG-58 BG-45

BG-44 BG-40 BG-41 BG-42 BG-43

3 2 1

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

2) Neptune Cable, As Reported in EMCP Segment 3, 2003 ! !

! ! 3) Poseidon Routing, BG Locations, ESS Group, 2013 ! New York State Boundary Sheet 3 of 3

15 Taxa Richness Taxa

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 3 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -6 -E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Station/Sample Figure 2. Taxa Richness by Station

2000

1800

1600

1400 ) 2

1200

1000

800 Density (organisms/m Density 600

400

200

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 3 2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -6 -E G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B Station/Sample

Figure 3. Density by Station

Attachment A

Results of the Benthic Macrofaunal Community Assessment

www.essgroup.com

Attachment A Benthic Macrofaunal Community Assessment September 16, 2013

Benthic Macrofaunal Sample Results Phylum Class Order Family Species BG-23 BG-24 BG-25 BG-26 BG-27 BG-28 BG-29 BG-30 BG-31 BG-32 BG-33 BG-34 BG-35 BG-36 BG-37 BG-38 BG-39 BG-40 BG-41 BG-42 BG-43 BG-44 BG-45 BG-58 BG-59 BG-63 BG-E2 Annelida Clitellata Enchytraeida Enchytraeidae Grania sp. 32 Haplotaxida Tubificidae 1 113 Polychaeta 1 1 Canalipalpata Polygordiidae Polygordius sp. 11 20 7 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 6 Eunicida Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris fragilis 1 Oenonidae Arabella iricolor 1 Onuphidae Diopatra cuprea 1 Onuphis sp. 2111 Phyllodocida Glyceridae Glycera sp. 12 Goniadidae Glycinde solitaria 1 Nephtyidae Nephtys picta 11111 1 1 1 11111 1 Pholoidae Pholoe minuta 1 Phyllodocidae 1 Eteone heteropoda 12 Eteone sp. 1 1 Paranaitis speciosa 16 1 Polynoidae Lepidametria commensalis 1 Sigalionidae 1 Neoleanira tetragona 1 Syllidae 213 Sabellida Oweniidae Owenia fusiformis 1 Sabellariidae Sabellaria vulgaris 1 Scolecida (subclass) Capitellidae 1 Amastigos sp. 19 11 2 1 7 1 1 32 1 55 Mediomastus ambiseta 11 1136 6 23 Maldanidae Clymenella torquata 1 Orbiniidae 1 1 1 Leitoscoloplos fragilis 11 1 Paraonidae Paraonis fulgens 1 Scalibregmatidae Scalibregma inflatum 1 Spionida Chaetopteridae 1 Spionidae Apoprionospio pygmaea 211 Dispio uncinata 1 Polydora cornuta 18 3 22 1 2 Polydora sp. 11 3 Scolelepis bousfieldi Spiophanes bombyx 143 21 2 3 13 2 3 Streblospio benedicti 1 21 Terebellida Ampharetidae 7 2 11 Ampharete arctica 1 Asabellides oculata 1511213133311 11

Page 1 of 3 \\epdata\data\JOBS\P298-001 Poseidon Permitting\Regulatory\NY\Article VII\Sections\Appendices\Appendix F - Benthic\Attachment A_0926-2013.xls Attachment A Benthic Macrofaunal Community Assessment September 16, 2013

Benthic Macrofaunal Sample Results Phylum Class Order Family Species BG-23 BG-24 BG-25 BG-26 BG-27 BG-28 BG-29 BG-30 BG-31 BG-32 BG-33 BG-34 BG-35 BG-36 BG-37 BG-38 BG-39 BG-40 BG-41 BG-42 BG-43 BG-44 BG-45 BG-58 BG-59 BG-63 BG-E2 Cirratulidae 2 3 2 2 3 1 4 6 5 1 2 5 1 5 4 Tharyx sp. 111 Flabelligeridae Pherusa affinis 9 Pherusa plumosa 1 Pectinariidae Pectinaria gouldi 1 Arthropoda Arachnida Acarina 1 Malacostraca Amphipoda 1 Ampeliscidae Ampelisca verrilli 37 2 Aoridae 1 Pseudunciola obliquua 7 1 35 6 70 113 68 2 Unciola irrorata 112 Unciola sp. 11 Corophiidae Corophium sp. 1 Gammaridae Gammarus mucronatus 1 Haustoriidae 1136214 Acanthohaustorius millsi 1 Acanthohaustorius 116 shoemakeri Acanthohaustorius sp. 1 Protohaustorius 1611 81 1 37 deichmannae Protohaustorius wigleyi 11 Lysianassidae Psammonyx nobilis 1 Oeticerotidae 1 Synchelidium americanum 1 Photidae 11 Phoxacephalidae 1 33 Rhepoxynious hudsoni 22 Pontoporeiidae Bathyporeia sp. Cumacea Bodotriidae Leptocuma minor 1 11 Diastylidae Oxyurostylis smithi 1 Decapoda Cancridae Cancer irroratus 1 12111 13 Paguridae Pagurus longicarpus 11 Pinnotheridae Pinnixa sp. 11 Pisidae Libinia sp. 1 Isopoda Chaetiliidae Chiridotea tuftsii 1 Idoteidae Edotia montosa 1 Mysida Mysidae Americamysis bigelowi 3 1 Tanaidacea Leptognathiidae Leptognathia caeca 5 Maxillopoda Harpacticoida 111 Ostracoda 2

Page 2 of 3 \\epdata\data\JOBS\P298-001 Poseidon Permitting\Regulatory\NY\Article VII\Sections\Appendices\Appendix F - Benthic\Attachment A_0926-2013.xls Attachment A Benthic Macrofaunal Community Assessment September 16, 2013

Benthic Macrofaunal Sample Results Phylum Class Order Family Species BG-23 BG-24 BG-25 BG-26 BG-27 BG-28 BG-29 BG-30 BG-31 BG-32 BG-33 BG-34 BG-35 BG-36 BG-37 BG-38 BG-39 BG-40 BG-41 BG-42 BG-43 BG-44 BG-45 BG-58 BG-59 BG-63 BG-E2 Echinodermata Echinoidea Clypeasteroida Echinarachniidae Echinarachnius parma 233 Mollusca Bivalvia 2 1 Nuculanoida Yoldiidae Yoldia limatula 12 Nuculida Nuculidae Nucula proxima 1 Heterodonta (subclass) Pharidae Ensis directus 1 Siliqua costata 11 1 Veneroida Mactridae Spisula solidissima 2 Semelidae Abra sp. 7 12 Tellinidae Tellina agilis 111 31 111 1222621 Tellina sp. 6 Veneridae Pitar morrhuanus 1 2 5 1 2 1 2 4 15 2 19 29 16 Gastropoda Neogastropoda Nassariidae Nassarius trivitattus 211111 1 1 1 Littorinimorpha Calyptraeidae Crepidula fornicata 1 1 Nacticidae Lunatia heros 1 Neverita duplicata 1 Nematoda 1 43116 1 331 2 17 1 Nemertea 111 21 Anopla Heteronemertea (subclass) Lineidae Micrura sp. 1 Chordata Cephalochordata (subphylum)

Branchiostomatidae Branchiostoma sp. 1 Sample Total 8 51 61 44 5 3 12 27 8 13 45 15 116 78 14 0 16 15 74 62 44 160 179 127 97 11 96 Taxa Richness 6 15 16 13 4 3 7 16 6 8 20 7 26 12 8 0 7 10 19 18 11 12 16 10 18 8 12 Density (#/sq. 80 510 610 440 50 30 120 270 80 130 450 150 1160 780 140 0 160 150 740 620 440 1600 1790 1265 970 110 960 meter) Taxa Group Mollusks 0.1250 0.0588 0.1311 0.0682 0.4000 0.3333 0.0000 0.1852 0.0000 0.0769 0.1111 0.1333 0.0259 0.5128 0.0714 0.0000 0.1875 0.3333 0.2703 0.0806 0.0682 0.1750 0.1955 0.0230 0.1856 0.0909 0.1875 Oligochaetes 0.0000 0.0196 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0645 0.0000 0.0000 0.0056 0.0000 0.0515 0.0000 0.0000 Proportion per Sample Polychaetes 0.1250 0.7647 0.8197 0.8636 0.6000 0.6667 0.6667 0.5185 0.6250 0.4615 0.7333 0.7333 0.7586 0.3846 0.2857 0.0000 0.1250 0.4667 0.6351 0.0968 0.7500 0.0250 0.0559 0.1149 0.0928 0.8182 0.6354 Crustaceans 0.7500 0.1569 0.0328 0.0455 0.0000 0.0000 0.3333 0.2593 0.3750 0.0769 0.0889 0.0667 0.0603 0.1026 0.5714 0.0000 0.5625 0.2000 0.0541 0.7097 0.1364 0.7583 0.7095 0.8621 0.4845 0.0909 0.1667 Other 0.0000 0.0000 0.0164 0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0370 0.0000 0.3846 0.0667 0.0667 0.1552 0.0000 0.0714 0.0000 0.1250 0.0000 0.0405 0.0484 0.0455 0.0417 0.0335 0.0000 0.1856 0.0000 0.0104

Page 3 of 3 \\epdata\data\JOBS\P298-001 Poseidon Permitting\Regulatory\NY\Article VII\Sections\Appendices\Appendix F - Benthic\Attachment A_0926-2013.xls