CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECTS

AQUATIC SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

Prepared for: Transmission Developers Inc

Prepared by: HDR | DTA Portland, Maine March 2010

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 2.1 Submarine Transmission Cable Installation ...... 3 2.2 Disposal of Dredged Material ...... 5 3.0 EXISTING SEDIMENT DATA ...... 7 3.1 Lake Champlain ...... 8 3.1.1 Sediment Type ...... 8 3.1.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality ...... 9 3.2 Champlain Canal ...... 9 3.2.1 Sediment Type ...... 9 3.2.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality ...... 10 3.3 Hudson River ...... 11 3.3.1 Sediment Type ...... 11 3.3.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality ...... 12 3.4 Harlem and East Rivers ...... 14 3.4.1 Sediment Type ...... 14 3.4.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality ...... 14 3.5 Long Island Sound ...... 16 3.5.1 Sediment Type ...... 16 3.5.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality ...... 17 4.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS ...... 19 4.1 Historic Sediment Data Gaps ...... 19 4.2 Frequency of Sediment Samples ...... 19 5.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ...... 22 5.1 Sediment Sampling Methodology ...... 22 6.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLE HANDLING ...... 23 7.0 ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES ...... 24 7.1 Physical Analysis of Sediment Samples ...... 24 7.2 Chemical Analysis of Sediment Samples ...... 24 8.0 REPORTING ...... 25 9.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 26

i

List of Tables 3-1 Historical Sediment Data along Proposed Route 3-2 Samples Collected by NYSDEC, Excluding CARP or EMAP/R-EMAP 3-3 ER-L and ER-M Concentrations for Common Analytes 4-1 Marine Route Survey Sediment Sample Collection 7-1 Proposed Chemical Analysis for Sediment Samples Collected for the Champlain Hudson Power Express Project

Appendices Appendix 1: Historic Sediment Sampling Locations Appendix 2: Proposed Sediment Sampling Locations

ii

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

1.0 INTRODUCTION Champlain Hudson Power Express Inc (CHPEI), a subsidiary of Transmission Developers Incorporated (TDI) is proposing to develop an underwater high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line project located in New York and Connecticut—the Champlain Hudson Power Express (Project). The goal of CHPEI is to develop a transmission project that relieves highly congested areas in an environmentally responsible manner. Using HVDC cables, CHPEI’s project will link trapped generation such as wind and other renewables with markets that are experiencing acute power shortages. The use of HVDC cable technology avoids the visual and electromagnetic field (EMF) impacts of overhead transmission projects by installing cables out of sight either underwater or underground.

On behalf of CHPEI, HDR |DTA conducted a Prefeasibility Study that established a proposed transmission cable route corridor, within which a specific transmission cable route was developed to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts and along the most favorable conditions for the installation of the cable. The selection of the proposed cable corridor and route took into consideration water depths, sea floor geology, contaminated sediments, fishing activities, restricted areas, environmentally sensitive areas, cultural resources and physical obstacles. In order to further refine the submarine transmission cable route, a Marine Route Survey will be conducted during 2010. The Marine Route Survey will include hydrographic, geophysical, sediment, and benthic invertebrate surveys. This document describes the existing available aquatic sediment data (Section 3.0) as well as a proposed aquatic sediment sampling and analyses plan (Section 4.0).

The following Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan has been revised to incorporate comments from the New York Public Service Commission, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project is a 2,000-megawatt (MW) HVDC Voltage Source Converter (VSC) controllable transmission system, comprising two 1,000-MW HVDC “modified monopoles.”

1

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

Each of these two monopoles includes two submarine or underground cables connected as a modified monopole. In total, four cables will be laid between the United States and Canadian Border and the converter stations. Two cables (one monopole) will terminate 376 miles south of TransÉnergie’s substation at an HVDC converter station near Wells Avenue in Yonkers, New York. The remaining two HVDC cables will continue along the Hudson River to the entrance of Spuyten Duyvil Creek. The cables will then follow a 63-mile-long route through Spuyten Duyvil Creek, the Harlem River, and the East River into Long Island Sound before terminating at a converter station near Bridgeport, Connecticut (Appendix 1).

Submarine or underground alternating current (AC) cables will transmit electricity from the converter stations to substations connected to the electrical grid. From the Yonkers converter station, AC cables will re-enter the Hudson River and travel south in the same corridor as the two HVDC cables through the Harlem River. The AC cables will terminate at the existing Consolidated Edison (ConEd) Sherman Creek/Academy substation, near the intersection of West 201st Street and 9th Street, in the Borough of Manhattan. From the Bridgeport converter station, AC cables will carry electricity a distance of approximately 150 feet to the existing Singer substation, owned and operated by the United Illuminating Company (UI).

The Project begins in Canada where the submarine transmission cables will follow the Richelieu River nearly 22 miles south to the international border between the United States and Canada. South of the international boundary, the submarine transmission cables will continue through Lake Champlain and travel south to the northern entrance of the Champlain Canal, near Whitehall, New York. To the extent practicable, the submerged cables will continue through the Champlain Canal to Fort Edward, where the canal joins the Hudson River. CHPEI expects that overland bypasses will be necessary to circumvent Locks C12 near Whitehall and C11 near Fort Ann. For both upland bypasses the cables will be buried along an existing railroad right-of-way (ROW). Between Locks C12 and C11, the cables will be buried within the canal. The cables will also bypass Lock C9 through an overland route. In addition, an overland bypass will also be necessary south of the Champlain Canal/Hudson River confluence to avoid activities associated with the Hudson River Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Dredging Project, which occupies the Upper Hudson River. Accordingly, the transmission cables will exit the Champlain Canal near

2

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

Lock C8 and the cables will be buried within an existing railroad ROW for a distance of approximately 69 miles. The cables will re-enter the Hudson River near the Town of Coeymans, south of Albany. South of Coeymans, the proposed alignment follows the Hudson River to the New York City metropolitan area.

The Project will utilize HVDC Light™ technology. The HVDC Light™ power cable is a polymer insulated, extruded cable, specifically adapted for direct current. The power cable contains no insulating or cooling fluids and its strength and flexibility make it well suited as a submarine cable. The outside diameter of the cable is approximately 5.12 inches (130 mm).

2.1 SUBMARINE TRANSMISSION CABLE INSTALLATION

Cables will be installed using a barge or cable laying vessel. The cables will be laid from the vessel onto the waterbody substrate and subsequently will be buried for protection primarily water-jetting or hydro plow techniques. Water-jetting techniques may be utilized wherever feasible (i.e., mud or sand), otherwise hydro plow techniques may be required.

It is anticipated that the majority of the cable will be buried using water-jetting or hydro-plow techniques. Burial via water-jetting is accomplished by fluidizing the sediment and does not rely on the removal of sediments in the trench. The sediment is fluidized by low-pressure water released from jets directed backwards and parallel to the bottom of the trench. The jetting machine is propelled forward by the reaction forces of the jetting nozzles, and the rate of progress is governed by the sediment consistency and depth of burial; the process is slower in clay than sand. There is no near seabed propulsion by traction or similar means. As the sediment is fluidized, the cable sinks into the trench via its own weight. The water-jetting machine continues to move forward allowing the fluidized material to settle. Depending on the sediment particle-size composition, the majority (approximately 70-80%) of the disturbed sediment is expected to remain in the trench.

In the event that water-jetting techniques cannot be utilized, the cables will be installed via a hydro plow. Similar to water-jetting, a hydro plow displaces seafloor sediment within a narrow

3

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

trench, the cable sinks via its own weight, and the displaced sediment naturally settles, backfilling the trench within a short-time period following cable installation.

Dredging may be required for cable installation in certain circumstances (i.e., to achieve burial depth requirements when crossing a Federal navigation channel). In instances where the presence of surficial bedrock, existing infrastructure, or other bottom conditions does not permit burial (such as in the majority of the East River), the cables will be laid on the bed and protected by material placed over the cables. Protective materials may include concrete (i.e., rip rap, grout mattress) or other proven low impact protective armoring.

Where the cable makes landfall, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) will likely be used to minimize impacts to the nearshore area, to avoid upland disturbance and to avoid existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the landfall. For HDD, a small pit will be conventionally dredged in the substrate in which to create the transition from the buried cable to the drilled conduit which will carry the cable on shore. After the cables are joined the pit will be filled and the substrate re-contoured to its original depth.

For the majority of the proposed transmission cable route, the submarine cables will be buried approximately four feet beneath the seafloor for protection against mechanical damage from, but not limited to, fishing gear and ship anchors. However, burial depths may vary along the cable route based on conditions or existing infrastructure that are identified. Within or crossing Federal navigation channels and anchorages or within the canal system, the cable will be buried according to the specifications of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and New York State Canal Corporation (NYSCC), respectively.

In areas where the cable may cross Federal navigation channels or anchorage areas, the cable will be buried according to the specifications of the USACE. Current USACE guidelines provide a minimum burial depth of 15 feet below the authorized project depth (i.e. authorized depth of navigation channel). The USACE District Engineer, on a case-by-case basis, may modify this depth requirement where circumstances are deemed appropriate. In the Champlain Canal, cable burial depth will be buried according to the NYSCC specifications. Based on

4

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

coordination with NYSCC, the minimum cable burial depth would be 10 feet below the controlling depth which is 12 feet [+ 2ft overdredge]. In addition, burial depth may also vary at existing cable or pipeline crossings, at significant transitions in substrate type, or approach to landfall locations. In areas where the submarine cables cross existing infrastructure (i.e., cables, pipelines), cables may be laid over the existing infrastructure and covered for protection. Cable manufacturing specifications provided at this time indicate that the submerged HVDC cables will be installed approximately six (6) feet apart along the majority of the Project’s route with a separation of 30 feet between poles. Therefore, the ROW required for installation and operation of the submarine transmission cables will be approximately 42 feet for the majority of the route. However, the cable manufacture has indicated that this distance may be minimized through cable engineering. In addition, the distance between cables may be expanded in water depths over 100 feet when appropriate to allow for ease of installation and maintenance.

2.2 DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL

It is anticipated that the majority of the submarine cable will be installed via water-jetting or hydro plow techniques. No additional mechanical means will be used to aide in the backfilling of the trench subsequent to cable installation via water-jetting or hydro plowing methods. It is anticipated that the majority of the material displaced during cable installation via water-jetting or hydro plowing methods will resettle within the confines of the trench.

Dredging may be required for cable installation in certain circumstances (i.e., to achieve burial depth requirements when crossing a Federal navigation channel) and at potential landfall and HDD locations. If dredging is required along the proposed transmission cable route, a dredging sediment sampling plan will be coordinated with Federal and state agencies.

Federal The USEPA/USACE guidance document entitled "Ecological Evaluation for Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal in the Marine Environment will be used to develop the sediment sampling and dredging plan with the Federal agencies. Each region has also developed a regional implementation manual (RIM). The following RIMs will be used to further define

5

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

sediment testing guidelines, contaminants of concern, quality assurance/quality control and reporting requirements: • Regional Implementation Manual New York/New Jersey Harbor “Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal." • The Regional Implementation Manual for the “Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters”

In addition, the sediment sampling and dredging plan will follow the guidelines found in the “Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual” (Inland Testing Manual) for proposed dredging within Lake Champlain and Long Island Sound. The Inland Testing Manual establishes procedures applicable to the evaluation of potential contaminant-related environmental impacts associated with the discharge of dredged material in inland waters, near coastal waters, and surrounding environs.

Prior to dredging, a copy of the Sediment Sampling Plan will be provided to the New York District and New England District for review and comment. Results of the sediment testing will be provided to both districts prior to dredging operations to confirm approval of the dredging plan and final disposal site.

New York The dredged material will be tested to determine its physical and chemical properties in accordance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) (2004) publication “Technical and Operational Guidance Series, In-Water and Riparian Management of Sediment and Dredged Material”. Sediment testing results will determine the material’s suitability for disposal at various upland locations. An exception to the testing requirement is made for dredged sediment that is greater than 90% sand or projects involving less than 1,500 cubic yards of dredged material. In accordance with the protocols established by the NYSDEC, these sediments will be considered to be clean fill and will only be analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC), % moisture and grain size. Prior to dredging, a copy of the Sediment Sampling Plan will be provided to the Bureau of Water Assessment and Management, NYSDEC, for review and comment. Results of the sediment testing will be provided to

6

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

NYSDEC prior to dredging operations to confirm approval of the dredging plan, final disposal site, and the beneficial use determination (BUD). Dredging within the Champlain Canal will be coordinated with NYSCC.

Connecticut The material to be dredged will be tested to the sediment project depth to determine its physical and chemical properties in accordance with and the Interim Plan for the Disposal of Dredged Material in Long Island Sound. Cores will be reviewed for any visually apparent stratification and the core material will either be homogenized for a single sample or divided into individual strata to allow for multiple samples. The samples will be tested for physical characteristics, a suite of metals, and organic compounds. Prior to dredging, the sampling plan will be submitted and coordinated with Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection’s (CTDEP) whose Office of Long Island Sound Programs (OLISP) will review and approve the sediment testing requirements for each project. The OLISP will inform the applicant if additional sampling or other requirements will be necessary.

3.0 EXISTING SEDIMENT DATA HDR|DTA completed a review of existing information regarding sediment type, sediment quality, and sediment contaminant sources in the vicinity of the proposed submarine transmission cable route for the Champlain Hudson Power Express project. Table 3-1 summarizes the historic sediment data sets reviewed. Table 3-2 goes into additional detail for data provided by NYSDEC. For known station locations, maps were created to demonstrate the spatial coverage of historical sediment samples along the proposed route (Appendix 1).

Most historic sampling programs analyzed chemical constituents covering a broad spatial and temporal scale using cores and/or sediment grabs. Concentrations of contaminants found in the sediment can be compared against the effects range-median (ER-M) concentration, which corresponds to the median (50th percentile) concentrations associated with adverse biological effects. Alternatively, effects range-low (ER-L) concentrations have a 10% probability (10th

7

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

percentile) of inducing adverse biological effects. Generally speaking, ER-M concentrations cause observable adverse effects in organisms and biological communities, while ER-L concentrations are those where biological effects begin to be observed. The ER-L and ER-M concentrations for common analytes are shown in Table 3-3.

3.1 LAKE CHAMPLAIN

3.1.1 Sediment Type Lake Champlain’s sediment composition has been studied and documented by the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP), a partnership with multiple federal and state agencies within New York and Vermont. In general, Lake Champlain sediment types vary from dark gray mud (i.e., silt, clay, and organic material) to diatomaceous muds and clays (LCRC 2004). Due to changes in bathymetry, shifts in sediment type (i.e., sand to rock) are common, especially in near-shore zones and around islands. In near-shore zone, bottom sediments may consist of mud and a higher content of debris and organic matter.

Recent bottom surveys have identified sedimentary slumps near Diamond Island and Whallon’s Bay in Lake Champlain. Slumps are a form of mass wasting event that occurs when loosely consolidated materials or rock layers move a short distance down a slope. These slumps vary in size from 55 yards wide by 110 yards long by 20 yards thick, to 440 yards wide by 600 yards long by 20 yards thick, respectively. They are found in depths of approximately 130 feet (Manley and Manley 2009). Although the proposed transmission cable corridor avoids these slumps, there may be other slumps within Lake Champlain that have not yet been identified.

In the northern portion of the lake, as part of the NYSDEC Rotating Intensive Basin Studies (RIBS), sampling at a Richelieu River station found the sediment to be predominantly silt and clays, with 96% less than 0.0625 mm diameter (Dataset summarized in Table 3-2) (LCBP 2009a). As the proposed transmission cable corridor travels through South Lake (Crown Point Bridge to Benson Landing) to the beginning of the Champlain Canal, surficial sediments typically range from muds to silt and clay with patches of sand and gravel.

8

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

3.1.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality The Lake Champlain Sediment Toxics Assessment Program has documented contaminant levels within sediments on the lake bottom (LCBP 2009). Initial surveys in 1991 collected samples from 30 sites throughout the lake and analyzed them for common contaminants such as trace elements, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (DDT, etc.), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The surveys identified the presence of contaminants in sediment, water, and biota at elevated levels as a resource issue for the waterbody (LCBP 1994). The program prioritized PCBs and mercury as persistent contaminants found lake wide and arsenic, cadmium, chromium dioxins/furans, lead nickel, PAHs, silver zinc, copper and persistent chlorinated pesticides as persistent contaminants in localized areas. The program also identified three locations for more intensive surveys and clean-up actions: Outer Malletts Bay, Inner Burlington Harbor, and Cumberland Bay.

Contaminants of concern identified within Cumberland Bay were PCBs, PAHs, copper, and zinc (LCBP 2009). Since remediation of Wilcox Dock in Cumberland Bay by the NYSDEC in 2001, subsequent monitoring has indicated a significant decline in PCBs in both sediment and water (LCBP 2008). Restoration activities included the removal of contaminated sediment and the restoration of affected wetlands and shoreline areas.

An assessment of mercury sources to Lake Champlain was conducted by the Ecosystems Research Group of Norwich, VT, Dartmouth College, U.S. Geological Service and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources in 2006. This study found that 59% of mercury enters the Lake from the surrounding watershed, with atmospheric deposition accounting for 40%, and 1% from wastewater treatment effluent discharged directly to the Lake (LCBP 2008).

3.2 CHAMPLAIN CANAL

3.2.1 Sediment Type The Champlain Canal contains both areas of bedrock, through which portions of the canal were cut, and areas where glacial silts and clays are exposed (USEPA 2000). Coarse-grained sediments such as sand, gravel/cobble, and transitional areas are found in the channel, with finer- grained silt and clay sediments found almost wholly outside of the channel in the shallow,

9

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

slower-moving waters immediately adjacent to shore (USEPA 2004). To the north of Fort Edward is shallow, fast moving water with coarse-grained sediments that have low potential for sediment contamination (USEPA 2000).

Along the in-water sections of the proposed cable route, NYSCC conducted grain size analysis on two stations. One station located mid-way between Lock C11 and C9, was predominantly very fine sand and silt (80% passing 0.075 mm). A second station located immediately south of Lock C9 was characterized as fine sand (26.6% medium sand, 51.7% fine sand, 21.6% silts/clays).

3.2.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality No published studies of sediment quality in the Champlain Canal were identified during an extensive literature review. However, chemical analysis data from 39 samples collected at 26 stations sampled in the Champlain Canal were obtained from the NYSCC (Dataset described in Table 3-1). Samples were analyzed for total metals, PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides, with two samples collected at the Whitehall stations near Lock 12 being analyzed for dioxin/furan congeners. Along the in-water segment of the proposed route, • Two samples were collected during 1997 between Lock C12 and C11, • Three samples were collected during 1991, 1994, and 1995 between Lock C11 and C9, and • Three samples were collected during 1998 immediately south of C9.

The sediment samples were analyzed for total metals, PCBs, pesticides, and total organic carbon. Generally, analyte concentrations reported were either below detection limits or were well below ER-L concentrations. The only exception was a sample taken south of C9 during 1998, in which mercury was detected marginally greater than the ER-L concentration (0.23 ppm) after dredging. Other samples taken at this C9 station recovered mercury below ER-L concentrations.

10

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

3.3 HUDSON RIVER

3.3.1 Sediment Type The Hudson River Benthic Mapping Project, funded by the NYSDEC, produced a comprehensive data set consisting of high-resolution multi-beam bathymetry, side-scan sonar, and sub-bottom data, as well as over 400 sediment cores and 600 grab samples. In general, the Hudson River is composed of five major surficial sediment types: 1) mud (clay, silt, fine sands); 2) sands which have a smooth to mottled bottom; 3) coarse gravel and sand mixtures with irregular bottoms that are composed of compact gravel and cobble deposits intermixed with sand; 4) mix of mud, sand, and gravel; and 5) bedrock, cobbles, and boulders that are often overlain by a variable thickness of unconsolidated sediments (QEA 2004). Overall, the benthic mapping project identified regional sediment distributions within the Hudson River, although within each region there are small-scale variations in sediment distribution which can actually determine the sediment type encountered (Bell et al. 2006 and Nitsche et al. 2007).

Lower Hudson River The proposed transmission cable corridor traverses the mud-dominated central section and fluvial sand-dominated sediments in the freshwater section of the Hudson River Estuary. As the proposed transmission cable corridor travels south of Coeymans, New York, the dominant sediment type in the Hudson River is gravel and glacial sand within the channel, which shifts to silt and sand as the corridor approaches Coxsackie, New York (Bell et al. 2006 and Nitsche et al. 2007).

From Coxsackie south toward Newburgh, New York, the river is characterized by shoals, sandbars, sediment waves, and scoured areas where tributaries enter the Hudson River. The dominant sediment type within this portion of the proposed transmission cable corridor is mud and sand (Bell et al. 2006). The corridor will avoid depositional areas near tributary mouths, as debris could impact cable installation. From Newburgh, New York to the Harlem River, the predominant sediment types are mud and sand.

Sediment cores were taken in the lower Hudson River as part of the Contamination and Assessment Reduction Project (CARP), which was a collaborative effort between state, Federal,

11

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT and non-government organizations to develop sediment fate and transport models within the New York/New Jersey Harbor (HydroQual 2007). During 1999 and 2001, 15 surficial sediment grabs of the top 10 cm were taken at the following stations (from north to south) in this section of the Hudson River and analyzed for contaminants: • Alsen, New York (just south of the Rip Van Winkle Bridge) • Ossining, New York • Piermont, New York • New York City, north of the George Washington Bridge at the mouth of the Harlem River (11 samples taken)

The sediment in the Hudson River appears to become progressively dominated by silts and clays from Alsen to New York City. In Alsen, New York , 72% of the sediment sample was sand and the rest clay and gravel. Near Ossining, New York , sediment shifts towards being clay/silt dominated (clay 40%, silt 37%, sand 20%, gravel 3%). Near Piermont, New York , over 90% of the sediment sample was comprised of clay (40%) and silt (53%). North of the George Washington Bridge, fines represented 97% of the sediment sample.

3.3.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality South of the Champlain Canal, the Hudson River PCBs Site (USEPA Identification Number NYD980763841) includes a 200 river-mile stretch of the Hudson River from the Village of Hudson Falls to the Battery in New York City. The site is divided into the Upper Hudson River (the length of the river between Hudson Falls and the Federal Dam at Troy) and the Lower Hudson River (the length of the river between the Federal Dam at Troy and the Battery). The Upper Hudson River region includes areas that have been and may continue to be sources of PCB contamination to the river, including General Electric Company’s Hudson Falls and Fort Edward plants, which discharged PCB contaminated liquids, used as an insulating fluid in the manufacture of electrical capacitors, into the Hudson River. This material accumulated behind the dam in Fort Edwards until the dam was demolished in 1973, resulting in the material settling in river sediments up to 200 miles away. In addition, five remnant deposits of PCB-contaminated soils were exposed after the river water level dropped following removal of the Fort Edward Dam.

12

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

A Record of Decision (ROD) by the USEPA in 1984 presented a remedy that included in-place containment of the remnant deposits and an interim “No Action” with regard to the PCB- contaminated river sediment. In 1989, the USEPA announced its decision to reassess this strategy, and a ROD issued in 2002 selected the dredging of approximately 2.65 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment from the Upper Hudson River, including approximately 341,000 cubic yards from the Champlain Canal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) concluded that the contaminated sediments in the upper river are a major source of PCBs to the entire river environment. Much of the area directly affected by the PCB contamination and that is currently undergoing a dredging cleanup operation will be avoided through an overland bypass.

In Alsen, New York, the CARP sampling data detected concentrations of dioxin and furans at concentrations of less than 0.2 ppb. A few metals were detected at levels that did not exceed the ER-L. Pesticides were identified, including DDE, DDD, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin, with some levels exceeding the ER-L but none exceeding the ER-M. Seventeen (17) PAHs were detected, all of which were below 100 ppb and none exceeding their ER-L values. For PCBs, 165 of the 209 congeners were recovered, and total PCB concentration was 626 ppb.

In Ossining, New York, dioxin and furan compounds were detected, but all at levels less than 1 ppb. Metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc, were detected. No metals reported concentrations above the ER-M, and only copper, lead, mercury, and zinc were above the ER-L values. Pesticides were reported, including DDE, DDD, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin, with most exceeding the ER-L but none exceeding the ER- M. PAHs results were similar to those reported at the Alsen Station, although with slightly higher concentrations. For PCBs, 165 of the 209 congeners were recovered, and total PCB concentration was 836 ppb.

In Piermont, New York, dioxin and furan compounds were detected at levels less than 1 ppb in most cases. Metals were also detected, with mercury nearing the ER-M and arsenic, copper, lead, nickel and zinc exceeding the ER-L. Pesticides including DDE, DDD, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin,

13

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT and endrin were reported at higher concentrations than the upstream stations, all of which exceeded the ER-L but not the ER-M. Twenty-one (21) PAHs were detected, many with concentrations between 100-300 ppb, and only fluorine exceeded the ER-L values. The total concentration of all 165 PCB congeners reported was 1,069 ppb.

At the site in the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge, dioxins and furans were recovered at concentrations greater than 1 ppb. Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were recovered at concentrations greater than the ER-L and in most samples, mercury and silver exceeded the ER-M value. Most of the pesticides detected consistently exceeded the ER-L, but only total DDT exceeded the ER-M values. Many of the PAHs detected had concentrations between 100-400 ppb and several exceeded the ER-L values. Total PCBs had a concentration of 4,577 ppb, significantly higher than the other stations sampled in the Hudson River as part of the CARP.

3.4 HARLEM AND EAST RIVERS

3.4.1 Sediment Type The Harlem River is scoured daily by tidal action, and sediments tend to be a mixture of sand, gravel, and cobble. Near the confluence with the East River, the Harlem River has soft bottom substrate, with frequent shoals along the banks. Due to swift currents and blasting to create the navigation channel, areas of the East River have exposed bedrock and coarser substrates. Cable installation in the East River may require use of alternate burial techniques, such as the use of laying concrete or other protective armoring over the cables.

3.4.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality Existing sediment quality information for the Harlem and East rivers was obtained from the USACE study area reports, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and from the CARP dataset. Within New York City, there are four primary contaminants of concern: mercury, PCBs, dioxin, and DDT (pesticide). In and around New York City, the major sources of contaminated sediments include industrial discharges, wastewater treatment plant discharges, CSOs, stormwater runoff, non-point source discharges, atmospheric deposition, and chemical and oil spills (USFWS 1997). The

14

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

Harlem and East rivers are urban mixed with residential, commercial, and industrial development, and have degraded sediment quality due to the point sources located along the shorelines, particularly the many combined sewer outfalls (CSOs).

Sediment samples were collected from the East River by the USEPA Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) sampling during 1993-1994 and 1998 (as cited in Steinberg et al. 2004), and from the Harlem and East rivers through the CARP during 2000. In the East River, concentrations of mercury were above the ER-M during 1993-1994 and remained above this level during the 1998 sampling. Similarly, concentrations of lead at some stations were also found to be higher than the ER-M. Concentrations of cadmium, nickel, and dioxin never exceeded the ER-M during the 1993-1994 or the 1998 REMAP sampling.

Through the CARP program, 14 sediment samples were collected and analyzed from the Harlem River and 14 samples were collected from the East River (Appendix 1). In the Harlem River, dioxin and furan compounds were detected, in most cases at levels less than 1 ppb. At most sample locations, metals were also detected, with arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc exceeding the ER-L but not the ER-M. However, in two samples collected at Spuyten Duyvil and Willis Ave. Bridge, lead exceeded the ER-M. All of the samples collected exceeded the mercury ER-M. Five samples exceeded the ER-M for silver, four at Spuyten Duyvil and one at the Willis Ave Bridge, and all samples exceeded the ER-L. Pesticides were reported at levels that generally exceeded the corresponding ER-L values, but chlordane (2 samples), dieldrin (1 sample) and Total DDT (9 samples) exceeded established ER-M concentrations. PAHs were found in concentrations mostly between 100-2,400 ppb, with one station exceeded the ER-L values. The total concentration of PCB congeners detected ranged from 455 ppb near the 207th Street Bridge to 5,408 ppb at Sputen Duyvil.

In the East River, dioxin and furan compounds were found at levels below 1 ppb. Metals were also detected, with levels that exceeded the ER-L in the majority of samples. Cadmium levels for four samples collected near Riker’s Island had concentrations that exceeded the ER-M. Copper concentrations exceeded the ER-M in four samples at Riker’s Island and one near Ward’s Island, with levels in the remaining samples exceeding the ER-L. Lead concentrations

15

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

exceeded the ER-M at nine samples near Riker’s and Ward’s islands. For all samples, mercury and silver levels exceeded their respective ER-M levels. Five samples exceeded the nickel ER- M and five samples exceeded zinc ER-M value, with the remaining samples all exceeding the ER-L concentrations for these two metals. Pesticides were generally reported at levels about the established ER-L values, with a higher occurrence of exceedences of ER-M concentrations than was reported in the Harlem River. PAHs were detected at concentrations of 100-6,400 ppb, often exceeding ER-M values. The total concentration of PCB congeners detected ranged from 726 ppb near the Bronx River to 5,107 ppb near Riker’s Island.

3.5 LONG ISLAND SOUND

3.5.1 Sediment Type The geological literature related to the surficial sediment distribution within Long Island Sound relies on bottom samples, photography, and sidescan sonar (Poppe et al. 2000). The distributions of sediment type and TOC reveal several broad trends that are largely related to sea-floor geology, bathymetry, and the effects of modern tidal- and wind-driven currents (Poppe et al. 2000). Lag deposits of gravel and gravelly sand dominate the surficial sediment texture in areas where bottom currents are the strongest and where glacial till crops out at the sea floor. Sand is the dominant sediment type in areas characterized by active sediment transport and in shallow areas affected by fine-grained winnowing. Silty sand and sand-silt-clay mark transitions within the basin from higher- to lower-energy environments, suggesting a diminished hydraulic ability to sort and transport sediment. Clayey silt and silty clay are the dominant sediment types accumulating in the central and western basins (as shown in Appendix 2; Poppe et al. 2000).

Sediment types within Bridgeport Harbor range from very fine silt, primarily found in inner harbor areas to coarse sand and pebbles found in the outer harbor and Long Island Sound (Titus 2003). A geomorphological survey conducted within Bridgeport in 2002 revealed that natural sediments and historical dredged material deposits at the Bridgeport site consist primarily of fine-grained deposits (USACE and USEPA 2004).

16

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

3.5.2 Contaminant Sources and Sediment Quality Major cities and rivers have introduced contaminants into Long Island Sound from multiple sources, including sewage effluent, disposal of dredged material, industrial discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, and atmospheric deposition (USGS 2009). Many contaminants adsorb to organic sediment particles and are deposited on the seafloor. Historic sediment data were obtained from the Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in Central and Western Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York (USEPA and USACE 2004). The primary contaminants of concern are heavy metals, PCBs, and oil by- products (USACE 2004).

The distribution of metal contaminants in surface sediments has been measured and mapped as part of a USGS study of the sediment quality and dynamics of Long Island Sound (Mecray et al. 2000). Surface samples from 219 stations were analyzed and mapped for trace (Ag, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, V, Zn and Zr) and major (Al, Fe, Mn, Ca, and Ti) elements, grain size, and Clostridium perfringens spores (a species of bacteria that serves as a conservative indicator of sewage-derived pollution in marine systems). This study supplements the USGS’ regional analysis of Long Island Sound that was initially presented in Poppe et al (1998) as well as subsequent reports (Buchholtz ten Brink et al. 2000; Mecray and Buchholtz ten Brink 2000; Varekamp et al. 2000).

Concentrations of metals generally increase from eastern Long Island Sound to western Long Island Sound, due to the muddy sediments of the central and western basins, increased proximity to pollutant sources and the natural movement of sediments and contaminants within the Sound, although higher than average levels are found in some urbanized harbors and tributaries (Brownawell et al. 1992; Mecray and Buchholtz ten Brink 2000). Overall, concentrations of lead, copper, zinc, and mercury in Long Island Sound have been found to be higher in the upper approximate 30 centimeters (12 inches) of sediment, reflecting the effects of industrialization (Cochran et al. 1991; Varekamp et al. 2000). Mercury concentrations decline in the upper 10 to 15 centimeters (4 to 6 inches) of sediment, apparently the result of a reduction in mercury sources in recent decades (Varekamp et al. 2000). Similar to the mercury findings, the USGS

17

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

study conducted during 1996-1997 found that in most depositional areas metal concentrations in sediment cores decrease near the surface (Buchholtz ten Brink et al. 1998).

Within the western Long Island Sound, the average concentrations of six metals (copper, mercury, nickel, lead, silver and zinc) exceeded their ER-L. The average mercury concentration in samples from western Long Island Sound also slightly exceeded the ER-M. Average concentrations of six metals (silver, cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc) exceeded the average background concentration for the depositional environments of Long Island Sound (USEPA and USACE 2004).

In the Central Long Island Sound, average concentrations of four metals (copper, nickel, silver, and mercury) exceeded the ER-L. None exceeded the ER-M. Average concentrations of silver, cadmium, copper, and mercury exceeded the average background concentration for depositional environments of Long Island Sound (USEPA and USACE 2004).

Bridgeport Harbor has been historically characterized by industrial development and urbanization. The quality of Bridgeport’s coastal waters and tidal rivers is impacted by both point and non point pollutant sources which may include combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sewer outfalls from the East Side and West Side Treatment Plants, industrial discharges, contaminated sediments in Black Rock Harbor, Cedar Creek, and Yellow Mill Creek, and urban highway runoff. In 1991, the CTDEP coordinated a toxic contaminant reduction study in Black Rock Harbor. The study identified sediments as a primary source of toxicity to the Cedar Creek area and found some active toxic contributions associated with CSOs and urban runoff.

Within Bridgeport, surface (0-6cm) sediment samples were collected from 13 stations during 2001 – 2003 to define a spatial distribution of iron, copper, lead, zinc and nickel contamination (Titus 2003). Sediment metal contents in Bridgeport Harbor ranged from 29.1 to 492 mg/kg for copper, 7.56 to 179 mg/kg for nickel, 22.2 to 337 mg/kg for lead, 44.6 to 514 mg/kg for zinc and 0.759 to 8.44% for iron. Highest sediment concentrations were measured at the inner harbor stations and were associated with fine grained sediments (Titus 2003). At Bridgeport, the

18

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

samples exceed copper ER-L concentrations and some exceeded ER-M. Some nickel, lead, zinc, and iron exceeded both the ER-L and ER-M concentrations.

4.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS 4.1 HISTORIC SEDIMENT DATA GAPS

Sediment sampling will provide two basic types of information, the physical characteristics of the sediments and chemical characteristics of the sediments, in order to fully assess the potential environmental impacts associated with cable installation. A review of the existing data as described above indicates the following: • A large amount of sediment type and sediment quality data has historically been collected from the Hudson River, East River, and Long Island Sound within the vicinity of the proposed transmission cable corridor area. These study programs appear to be well- coordinated, with standard sampling and data analysis methods, adequate spatial coverage, and multiple year collection periods. • Lake Champlain is well-studied by the LCBP. Areas and contaminants of concern have been identified, such as Cumberland Bay, Mallets Bay, and Burlington Harbor, and in many cases regulators have enacted mitigation or restorative measures to improve sediment quality. However, additional sediment type and quality data is needed for the southern portion of Lake Champlain. Sediment quality testing can be targeted where the route intersects these known areas of concern. • There is little existing sediment type and sediment quality data available for the Champlain Canal and Harlem River. • Potential contaminants of concern are as follows: o Metals (particularly lead and mercury) for entire route; o PCBs in the Hudson River, Harlem River, and East River; and o Dioxin/furan congeners in the lower Hudson River, Harlem River, and East River

4.2 FREQUENCY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES

In general, sediment samples will be collected at systematically determined intervals along the proposed transmission cable route for either physical analysis or physical and chemical analyses

19

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

(Appendix 2). Table 4-1 details the proposed number of sediment samples collected in the specific segments of the proposed submarine transmission cable route. The number of samples collected within each segment of the transmission cable route varies based on the above review of existing sediment type data, existence of recent historic sediment quality data, and proximity of proposed route to historic sampling locations.

Lake Champlain CHPEI proposes to conduct sediment sampling at approximately two mile intervals along the length of the cable route in Lake Champlain, so that forty-six (46) cores will be collected for physical analysis. Of those samples, twenty- three (23) cores will be collected for chemical analysis (Table 4-1). This frequency is warranted due to the frequent sediment type changes throughout the lake, especially in near-shore zones and around islands, the historic contamination data and potential for sedimentary slumps. Known sedimentary slumps have been avoided, but the route may encounter previously unidentified slumps.

Champlain Canal As there is little existing data on sediment type and quality within the Champlain Canal, CHPEI proposes to collect sediment samples for physical and chemical analysis at approximately one- mile intervals along the proposed submarine transmission cable route including landfalls from a total of eighteen (18) sampling locations (Table 4-1).

Hudson River The proposed submarine transmission cable route will enter the Hudson River near the Town of Coeymans, New York after bypassing the Hudson River PCB dredging project. CHPEI proposes to collect core samples at a total of fifty-eight (58) sampling locations from Coeymans to Spuyten Duyvil, including landfall locations (Table 4-1). At each of those sampling locations one core will be collected for physical analysis. In addition one core will be collected for chemical analysis. The type of chemical analysis varies along the route. A total of twenty-one (21) cores will be analyzed for only PCBs, thirty-two (32) samples will be analyzed for a suite of chemicals (i.e. PCBs, PAHs and metals) and 5 cores will be analyzed for a suite of chemicals

20

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

including dioxin (Table 4-1). Dioxin/furan sampling locations in the Hudson River were chosen based on existing sediment types with the highest clay/silt content.

This sampling interval is conservative because the sediment type and quality has been well documented along the lower Hudson River and the cable has been sited in sandy sediments where possible that would be less prone to contamination. Additionally, several well- coordinated studies of sediment quality have been conducted in the river (USEPA, USGS, CARP), which generally characterize sediment quality every 1-4 miles from Coeymans to Nyack.

Although the route is located within an area where contamination is likely due to the intensity and longevity of human activity in the region, recent sediment type and quality data is adequate for characterizing the river. Extensive data collection efforts of several well-coordinated studies conducted in the New York /New Jersey Harbor area (R-EMAP, CARP, USGS) have historical sampling locations generally located between 0.5-2 miles apart, with multiple samples typically collected at each location.

Harlem River and East River CHPEI proposes to collect sediment cores for both physical and chemical analysis at a total of ten (10) sampling locations within the Harlem River and East River, including the Sherman Creek landfall location. At 6 of those sampling locations, chemical analysis will include dioxin/furan. Dioxin/furan sampling locations in the Harlem and East Rivers were chosen based on existing sediment types with the highest clay/silt content (Table 4-1). There have been several well-coordinated studies conducted along this portion of the proposed submarine transmission cable route and within the New York /New Jersey Harbor area (R-EMAP, CARP, USGS). Historical sampling locations are generally located between 0.5-1 miles distance in these rivers, with multiple samples typically collected at each location. Due to the narrow, channelized nature of these rivers, the historic samples were collected very near to the proposed cable route, allowing for reasonable predictions as to conditions within the corridor. Moreover, due to the amount of exposed bedrock and coarse substrate in the East River, cable installation will likely require use of alternate burial techniques that would not disrupt surficial sediments.

21

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

Long Island Sound The cable route will continue in Long Island Sound, before making landfall in Bridgeport, CT. CHPEI proposes to collect sediment samples at two mile intervals within this reach, for a total of twenty-three (23) sample locations. At each sample location 1 core will be collected for physical analysis for a total of twenty-three (23) cores. At thirteen (13) sampling locations a core for chemical analysis will be collected (Table 4-1).

This frequency is warranted due to the extensive sampling and monitoring efforts of the USGS in Long Island Sound. Previous studies have generally characterized sediment quality every 0.5- 1 miles, very similar to a grid pattern, and historic samples have been collected immediately adjacent to the proposed route. In addition, the cable was sited in predominantly sandy sediments that would be less prone to contamination and so the proposed sampling schedule is a conservative approach for supplementing historical data..

Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) samples will be taken at a frequency of one (1) QA/QC sample per twenty (20) physical or chemical samples. A total of nine (9) physical and eight (8) chemical QA/QC samples will be collected over the length of the proposed route.

5.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

5.1 SEDIMENT SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Sediment samples will be collected using a vessel-mounted vibracoring system, capable of collecting cores up to 20 feet in depth. Sediment core depth at each sampling site will vary depending on the proposed cable burial depth in that area and the available sediment characteristic and sediment quality information and will represent the proposed installation depth plus one foot. Duplicate cores may be needed at some locations, depending on sediment type and recovery efficiency.

Each core will be documented in the field or laboratory and processed in accordance with TOGS and within holding times. The following information will be documented: sample depth,

22

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT sediment color, presence of sediment stratification, visual observation of grain size, general observation of cohesiveness and odor. Each core will be handled and processed separately for both physical analysis and chemical analysis (sediment samples may not be composited). Sample documentation will include a chain-of-custody record for each sample.

6.0 SEDIMENT SAMPLE HANDLING Cores will be capped, stored upright and chilled Sample handling and processing will be coordinated with NYSDEC and CTDEP and in accordance with the Technical and Operational Guidance Series, in-Water and Riparian Management of Sediment and Dredged Material (TOGS 5.1.9). Where necessary, cores will be cut into 5-foot lengths and then capped and stored upright. Sediment core samples will be split and visually analyzed (either in the field or lab) using the descriptive method based on the Burmister grain-size classification. This method provides for the identification of the dominant and accessory grain sizes present in terms of a percentage of the total sample by volume. Sediment color, consistency, structure if any, density (qualitative description), odor and sediment plasticity (qualitative description if clay is present in a sufficient percentage) will be described. Differences in sediment composition in core-length (i.e., stratification) will be noted and the depth of each distinct sediment layer, measured from the top of the sediment core, will be recorded. Each sediment core will be photographed.

Following splitting, logging and visual analysis (including photographs), sediment cores will be sampled for physical and/or chemical analysis, depending on the sample location, sediment type and stratification. If, no stratification is observed throughout the length of the core (based on the visual analysis described above), one (1) composite sample of the core will be selected for analysis.

Composite sediment samples will be mixed to a uniform color and consistency in a clean mixing tub using a clean spatula made of the appropriate material. Core samples will be placed in sample containers and transferred to a state-certified laboratory under chain-of-custody protocol and procedures complying with all preservation and analytical holding times.

23

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

7.0 ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES 7.1 PHYSICAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Sediment sampling locations are distributed along the proposed transmission cable route in order to provide representative data for segments of the route. Sediment samples collected for both physical (i.e. grain size) and chemical analyses proposed for the same location will be collected at the same time (i.e. two cores will be collected). Core depths will be taken at 1 foot below proposed cable burial depth. Cores will be reviewed for any visually apparent stratification, and described. At all sampling locations, the following physical parameters will be analyzed in the field or in the laboratory:

• Visual description; • Pocket Torvane test (cohesive sediments); • Penetrometer test (cohesive sediments); • Measurement of soil shear strength kPa (ASTM D2850); • ASTM classification (ASTM 2487); • Gradation analysis (ASTM D422); • Grain Size Distribution (Plumb, 1981; ASTM, 1998a) • Moisture content % (ASTM D2216; Plumb, 1981; APHA, 1995); • Total organic content % (ASTM D2974; Plumb, 1981; EPA, 1992; PSEP, 1986); • Liquid limit (ASTM D4318); • Plastic limit (ASTM D4318); and • Plasticity index (ASTM D4318).

The aforementioned parameters represent the characteristics needed to evaluate the suitability of the substrate for cable design, engineering and installation. In addition, the grain size analysis, moisture content and organic content will provide a basis for evaluating the potential for the presence of chemical contaminants.

7.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES

24

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

The sediment samples collected for chemical analysis will not be composited among sample locations. Where cores do not show stratification, the entire contents of a core will be composited for chemical analysis. If a core shows distinctive strata, the contents of each stratum may be analyzed separately. Sediment cores collected will be analyzed for the chemical parameters listed in Table 7-1, all reporting limits listed are lower than those which are listed in the TOGS (5.1.9) PCB analysis will be conducted at each sampling location within the Hudson River. Only cores collected in the Hudson River, south of the George Washington Bridge, the Harlem River and East River to the Throgs Neck Bridge will be analyzed for dioxin and furan congeners.

8.0 REPORTING

The results of physical and chemical sediment sampling and analyses will be reported by station along the cable route. The report will present all documentation related to field sampling, laboratory analysis and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. The field methodology will be reported in detail and laboratory methods for each constituent will be reported along with percent recoveries and blanks. Chain-of-custody documentation for the sampling and analysis will be provided.

25

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

9.0 LITERATURE CITED

Adams, D., and S. Benyi. 2003. Final Report: Sediment Quality of the NJ/NJ Harbor System: A 5-Year Revisit 1993/4 – 1998. An investigation under the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP). EPA/902-R-03-002. USEPA-Region 2, Division of Environmental Science and Assessment. Edison, NJ.

Bell, R.E., R.D. Flood, S. Carbotte, W.B.F. Ryan, C. McHugh, M. Cormier, R. Versteeg, H. Bokuniewicz, V.L. Ferrini, J. Thissen, J.W. Ladd, and E.A. Blair. 2006. Benthic habitat mapping in the Hudson River Estuary, in J. Levinton and J. Waldman(editors). The Hudson River Estuary. Cambridge Univ Press. pp 51-64.

Brownawell, B., N. Fisher, and L. Naeher,1992. Characterization of Data Base on Toxic Chemical Contamination in Long Island Sound. Report to Environmental Protection Agency; Marine Science Research Center, SUNY-Stony Brook. 114 pp.

Buchholtz ten Brink, M.R., E.L. Mecray, E.L. Galvin. 2000. Clostridium perfringens in Long Island Sound sediments: An urban sedimentary record. Journal of Coastal Research 16(3): 591- 612.

Cochran, K. et al 1991. Long Island Sound Study Sediment Geochemistry and Biology Final Report.

Hydroqual. 2007. A model for the evaluation and management of contaminants of concern in water, sediment, and biota in the NY/NJ Estuary: Contaminant Fate and Transport and Bioaccumulation Sub-models. Contamination Assessment and Reduction Program (CARP).

Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). 1994. Lake Champlain Sediment Toxics Assessment Program: An Assessment of Sediment Associated Contaminants in Lake Champlain – Phase I.

26

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). 2008. State of the Lake and Ecosystem Indicators Report. [Online] URL: http://www.lcbp.org/PDFs/SOL2008-web.pdf (Accessed August 12, 2009).

Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). 2009 http://www.lcbp.org/atlas/HTML/is_tseds.htm

Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). 2009a http://www.lcbp.org/monitor.htm

Manley, P., and T.O. Manley. 2009. “In A Slump.” Professional Surveyor Magazine. January 2009: Vol. 29, Issue 1.

Mecray, E.L., and M.R. Buchholtz ten Brink. 2000. Contaminant distribution and accumulation in the surface sediments of Long Island Sound. Journal of Coastal Research 16(3): 575-590.

Nitsche,F.O., W.B.F.Ryan, S.M.Carbotte ,R.E.Bell ,A.Slagle ,C.Bertinado ,R.Flood,T.Kenna,C.McHugh. (2007). Regional patterns and local variations of sediment distribution in the Hudson River Estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 71 (2007) 259- 277.

Poppe, L.J., Hastings, M.E., DiGiacomo-Cohen, M.L., Manheim, F.T., and Mlodzinska, Z.J., 1998. Surficial sediment database. Chapter 3. In: L.J. Poppe and C. Polloni (eds.). Long Island Sound Environmental Studies: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-502CD-ROM. URL:

Poppe, L.J., H.J. Knebel, B.A. seekins, and M.E. Hastings. 2000. Map showing the distribution of surficial sediments in Long Island Sound. Chapter 4 In Georeferenced Sea Floor mapping and Bottom Photography in Long Island Sound. Edited by V.F. Paskevich and L.J. Poppe. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-304. URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00- 304/htmldocs/chap04/index.htm

27

DRAFT SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN: CHAMPLAIN – HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECT

Quantitative Environmental Analysis, LLC (QEA). 2004. Data Summary Report for Candidate Phase 1 Areas. Prepared for General Electric Company, Albany, NY. September 30, 2004.

Steinberg, N., D. J. Suszkowski, L. Clark, and J. Way. 2004. Health of the Harbor: the First Comprehensive Look at the State of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. A report to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program. Hudson River Foundation, New York, NY. 82 pp.

Titus, T.M. 2003. High Spatial Resolution Sampling of Metals in the Sediment of Bridgeport Harbor, CT and New Haven Harbor, CT. Research Report. Southern Connecticut State University.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site, New York: Superfund Proposed Plan. USEPA Region 2. 30 pages.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004. Hudson-Raritan Estuary Environmental Restoration Feasibility Study. Study Area Reports. US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Designation of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in Central and Western Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS). 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. Coastal Ecosystem Program. CD-ROM.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2009) http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project- pages/longislandsound/Research_Topics/Contaminants.htm

Varekamp, J.C., M.R. Buchholtz ten Brink, E.L. Mercray, and B. Kreulen. 2000. Mercury in Long Island Sound Sediments. Journal of Coastal Research. 16(3): 613-626.

28

TABLE 3-1 HISTORICAL SEDIMENT DATA ALONG PROPOSED ROUTE

Core Sediment (C) or Studies included in Parameters Sample Size & Chemical Sampling Sample Locations Surface Program Sampled Constituents Program and Date Grab (SG) Lake Champlain Burlington Harbor Sections of Lake Major and Trace elements, Burlington Harbor (24 stations) – C, SG Basin Program Surface Sample Location Champlain PCBs, PAHs, grain size. Trace metals and organics 1991 – 1992 (1994) Burlington Bay (36 stations) Malletts Bay Survey Outer Mallets Bay (27 stations) – Trace metals Cumberland Bay Survey Cumberland Bay (5 stations) – PCBs NY Canal Champlain Canal PCBs, metals, grain size, 23 stations – PCBs and metals unknown Corporation PAH, Pesticides, 1991-2002 Dioxin/Furans, TOC Contamination Harbor Ambient Hudson River, Upper Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 499 analytes at 84 stations. Not C Assessment and Sediment Sampling Bay, East River, Harlem (PAHs), PCBs, pesticides, all analytes sampled at all stations. Reduction Project Project (1998-1999) River Major and Trace Elements, (CARP) dioxin/furan, total organic Harbor Sediment 1998 – 2001 carbon (TOC), percent Trackdown Sampling solids/volatile solids, grain Project (2000-2001) size. New York State Division of Water Lake Champlain/ PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, 713 analytes at 28 stations. Not C, SG Historic Sediment Corps of Engineers Richelieu River, Hudson Major and Trace Elements, all analytes sampled at all stations. Inventory (Batelle) River, East River, dioxin/furan, grain size (3 1988 – 2007 Water Quality Network Western Long Island stations). (RIBS) Sound (LIS) Regional 1993 – 1994 New York/New Jersey Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons 92 analytes at 56 sites. SG Environmental Harbor, Bight Apex. (PAHs), pesticides, Major Monitoring and Includes Hudson and and Trace Elements, PCBs, Assessment program 1998 Upper East Rivers and dioxin/furan, grain size. 91 analytes at 28 sites. (R-EMAP) Western LIS 1993 – 1998 TABLE 3-1 HISTORICAL SEDIMENT DATA ALONG PROPOSED ROUTE

Core Sediment (C) or Studies included in Parameters Sample Size & Chemical Sampling Sample Locations Surface Program Sampled Constituents Program and Date Grab (SG) U.S. Geological Hudson River Major and Trace Elements, Hudson River (11 stations), SG Survey DDT and other pesticides, 218 analytes (not all analytes 1983 – 2005 PCBs (not all analytes were sampled at all stations) sampled at all stations.)

USEPA National Hudson River PCBs, metals, grain size, Various PCB aroclors; percent C, SG Sediment Quality Watershed, Hudson- PAH, pesticides, TOC, total sand, clay, silt, and gravel. Survey Database Raritan Estuary, and inorganic carbon 1980 – 1999 Long Island Sound USGS and CTDEP Buchholtz ten Brink and Long Island Sound Metals, grain size 219 stations – Trace metals C, SG Studies in Long Mecray 1998 Island Sound Mecray et al. 2000 265 stations (46 new stations) – SG Trace metals Note: The exact number of core samples and surface grabs are not available for the majority of the surveys above.

TABLE 3-2 SAMPLES COLLECTED BY NYSDEC, EXCLUDING CARP OR EMAP/R-EMAP

Number Number Description Sampling Dates Analytes County, State Waterbody Location of of of Source Equipment Sampled Sampled Stations Samples Richelieu R. in Metals, PAHs, Water Quality Rouses Point @ ~30 PCBs, Pesticides, Network Richelieu Clinton, NY ft south of end of 1 1 Petit Ponar 11/1/1999 grain size, (RIBS) after River Lighthouse Marina volatiles, nutrients 12/98 Pier Rouses Pt., Metals, PAHs, Water Quality upstream of Rt. 2, PCBs, Pesticides, Network Richelieu Clinton, NY approx. 30 ft. from 1 1 Petit Ponar 8/10/2004 Dioxin/Furans (RIBS) after River Barcomb's Marina 12/98 dock Div. Of Water, PCBs, Pesticides, Bureau of Lake Champlain, Dioxin/Furans, Lake Watershed Clinton, NY Cumberland Bay 7 87 Core Tube 3/17/1994 volatiles, nutrients Champlain Assessment Core Sample and Research Div. Of Water, Metals, PAHs, Bureau of PCBs, Pesticides, Hudson River near Watershed Greene, NY Hudson River 1 5 Vibrocore 10/26/1998 Dioxin/Furans Athens Assessment and Research Div. Of Water, Metals, PAHs, Bureau of PCBs, Pesticides, Hudson River, Watershed Greene, NY Hudson River 1 5 Vibrocore 10/29/1998 Dioxin/Furans Inbocht Bay Assessment and Research Div. Of Water, Metals, PAHs, Bureau of PCBs, Pesticides, Hudson River, Watershed Putnam, NY Hudson River 1 8 Vibrocore 10/30/1998 Dioxin/Furans Foundry Cove Assessment and Research Central Office, Hudson River,MP Dioxin/Furans Rensselaer, NY Hudson River 1 1 8/15/1995 Div. Of Water 152.6; Troy TABLE 3-2 SAMPLES COLLECTED BY NYSDEC, EXCLUDING CARP OR EMAP/R-EMAP

Number Number Description Sampling Dates Analytes County, State Waterbody Location of of of Source Equipment Sampled Sampled Stations Samples Div. Of Water, Metals, PAHs, Bureau of Hudson River, PCBs, Pesticides, Watershed Rensselaer, NY Hudson River Turning Basin at 1 7 Vibrocore 10/21/1998 Dioxin/Furans Assessment Rensselaer and Research Div. Of Water, Metals, PAHs, Bureau of PCBs, Pesticides, Hudson River at Watershed Rockland, NY Hudson River 1 5 Vibrocore 10/30/1998 Dioxin/Furans Iona Island Assessment and Research Water Quality Metals, PAHs, Network PCBs, Pesticides, Saratoga, NY Hudson River Waterford at SR 4 1 1 Teflon Scoop 9/7/2007 (RIBS) after grain size, 12/98 volatiles, nutrients Water Quality U.HUDSON R. IN Metals, PCBs, Network Saratoga, NY Hudson River SCHUYLERVILLE 1 1 8/15/1988 Pesticides, grain (RIBS) @ RT.29 BR. size Div. Of Water, Metals, PAHs, Bureau of PCBs, Pesticides, Watershed Ulster, NY Hudson River N/A 1 10 Vibrocorer 4/22/1998 Dioxin/Furans, Assessment grain size, and Research volatiles, nutrients Central Office, Hudson River,MP 5/8/1991 & Metals, Washington, NY Hudson River 1 17 Div. Of Water 188.6; Fort Edward 5/15/1991 Dioxin/furans Div. Of Water, Metals, PCBs, Bureau of Pesticides Hudson River at Watershed Washington, NY Hudson River 1 2 Core tube 11/20/1998 Easton Assessment and Research TABLE 3-2 SAMPLES COLLECTED BY NYSDEC, EXCLUDING CARP OR EMAP/R-EMAP

Number Number Description Sampling Dates Analytes County, State Waterbody Location of of of Source Equipment Sampled Sampled Stations Samples Div. Of Water, Metals, PAHs, Bureau of PCBs, Pesticides, Hudson River, Watershed Westchester, NY Hudson River 1 4 Vibrocore 10/30/1998 Dioxin/Furans Lent's Cove Assessment and Research IT Database, Metals, PAHs, Corps of PCBs, Pesticides Bronx, NY East River N/A 3 4 Unknown Engineers, 3/12/1990 & Battelle 5/12/1995 IT Database, Metals, PAHs, Corps of PCBs, Pesticides Queens, NY East River N/A 1 1 Unknown 3/12/1990 Engineers, Battelle IT Database, Metals, Inorganics Long Island Landfill Bronx, NY 1 3 Unknown 8/6/1992 Sound Sources TABLE 3-3 ER-L AND ER-M CONCENTRATIONS FOR COMMON ANALYTES*

Chemical Analyte ER-L Concentration ER-M Concentration Trace Elements (ppm) Antimony 2 25 Arsenic 8.2 70 Cadmium 1.2 9.6 Chromium 81 370 Copper 34 270 Lead 43.7 218 Mercury 0.15 0.71 Nickel 20.9 51.6 Silver 1 3.7 Zinc 150 410

DDT and Metabolites (pbb) DDT 1 7 DDD 2 20 DDE 2 15 Total DDT 1.58 46.1

Other Pesticides (ppb) Chlordane 0.5 6 Dieldrin 0.02 8 Endrin 0.02 45

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (ppb) Acenaphthene 16 500 Acenaphthylene 44 640 Anthracene 85.3 1100 Benzo(a)anthracene 261 1600 Benzo(a)pyrene 430 1600 Chrysene 384 2800 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 63.4 260 Fluoranthene 600 5100 Fluorene 19 540 2-Methylnaphthalene 70 670 Naphthalene 160 2100 Phenanthrene 240 1500 Pyrene 665 2600 Total PAH 4022 44792 *Adapted from Adams and Benyi (2003).

TABLE 3-4

AN EXAMPLE OF ESTIMATING TECS IN FISH EGGS FROM AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF PCDD, PCDF, AND PCB CONGENERS*

*Source: USEPA (2008) Note: All data (with the exception of TEFs) in this table are for illustrative purposes only. They are not recommended default values for all risk assessments. TABLE 4-1 MARINE ROUTE SURVEY SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTION

PROJECT SEGMENT Total # of # Cores # Cores # Cores # Cores Plus SEGMENT LENGTH Sampling Physical Chemical Suite PCB Dioxin/Furan3 (MILES)1 Locations Analysis Analysis only Lake Champlain 111 46 46 23 NA NA Champlain Canal 18 18 18 18 NA NA Hudson River 2 122 58 58 32 21 5 Harlem River 8 5 5 2 NA 3 East River 11 5 5 2 NA 3 Long Island Sound 15 8 8 8 NA NA (NY) Long Island Sound 29 15 15 9 NA NA (CT)4 Quality N/A 9 8 Assurance/Quality Control Samples4 Total Number of 164 98 21 11 Samples 1In-water portions of route and landfall locations only 2All sampling locations within the Hudson River will be analyzed for PCB contamination. However, not all samples will be analyzed for full suite of Chemicals 3 Within the Hudson, Harlem and East Rivers: dioxin/furan sampling locations were selected based on sediment type. 4MS/MSD samples are to be taken one (1) for every 20 physical or chemical samples.

TABLE 7-1 PROPOSED CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED FOR THE CHAMPLAIN HUDSON POWER EXPRESS PROJECTS 1 2 ANALYTICAL PARAMETER ANALYTICAL METHOD REPORTING LIMIT USACE/EPA Analytical Requirements3 Metals Arsenic 6010B, 6020, 7060, 7061 0.4 ppm Cadmium 6010B, 6020, 7130, 7131 0.07 ppm Chromium 6010B, 6020, 7190, 7191 0.5 ppm Copper 6010B, 6020, 7210 0.5 ppm Lead 6010B, 6020, 7420, 7421 0.5 ppm Mercury 7471 0.02 ppm Nickel 6010B, 6020, 7520 0.5 ppm Zinc 6010B, 6020, 7950 1.0 ppm Iron 6010B,6020 Cyanide(total) 9012B Petroleum Aromatic Hydrocarbons 8270C-SIM 10 ppb (PAHs) Acenaphthene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Acenaphthylene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Anthracene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Benzo(a)anthracene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Benzo(a)pyrene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Chrysene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Fluoranthene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Fluorene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb 1 2 ANALYTICAL PARAMETER ANALYTICAL METHOD REPORTING LIMIT Indeno(1,2,3-d,d)pyrene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Naphthalene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Phenanthrene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Pyrene 8270C-SIM 10 ppb Pesticides NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Aldrin NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Cis-and trans-Chlordane NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Cis-and trans-Nonachlor NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Oxychlordane NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb 4,4’-DDT, DDE, DDD NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Dieldrin NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Alph-and beta-Endosulfan NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Endrin NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Heptachlor NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Heptachlor epoxide NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Hexachlorobenzene NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Lindane NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Methoxychlor NOAA, 1993; 8081B 1 ppb Toxaphene NOAA, 1993; 8081B 25 ppb Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) NOAA, 1993; 8082A 1 ppb Dioxins/Furans NOAA, 1993; 1613B Variable 1The applicant shall use the results of the due diligence review to determine whether additional parameters should also be analyzed. 2The specified methods are recommendations, based on the USACE Green Book, ITM, and the QA/QC Manual (EPA/USACE 1995). Other acceptable methodologies capable of meeting the Reporting Limits may be used. 3The USACE/EPA Analytical Requirements are based on the Regional Implementation Manual for the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters (EPA/USACE 2004).

Appendix 1

Historic Sediment Sampling Locations (! (! (! (!

(! (! (!(!(! (! (!

(! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! ! ! ( ( (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (!

(! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! (! ! (! ( (! (! (!

General Location Map Legend CHAMPLAIN-HUDSON EXPRESS ROUTE (! Burlington Harbor Surface Sample Location (1994) New York State Border HVdc SUBMARINE CABLE PROJECT (! Malletts Bay Survey Surface Sample Locations Vermont (! Cumberland Bay Survey Surface Sample Locations New York (! New York State Historic Sediment Site Historic Sediment Massachusetts ") Converter/Substations ¯ Sampling Locations Connecticut -Lake Champlain Area- Pennsylvania Proposed Transmission Centerline 0 2 4 6 8 Miles New Jersey Proposed Route Corridor (42-Ft Width) Sheet 1 of 10 DATA SOURCES: Lake Champlain Basin Program(LCBP);Sediment Toxics Assessment Program;1994; MarylandDelaware New York State Department of Environmental Conservation HistoricSediment Site Sample Locations; !(

!(

PROPOSED ROUTE ALONG RR ROW R u tt ll a n d C o u n tt y Vermont *#C12 !( !( !(!( !( !( *#!( !( !(

New York !(

!(!(

!( !( !( !( !(

!( !( 1 inch = 800 feet

*#

W a s h ii n!(g tt o n C o u n tt y New York !(!( W a rr rr e n C o u n tt y

*#!( 1 inch = 1,150 feet

!( !(!(!(!( New York !( !(!( !( *# !(

S a rr a tt o g a C o u n tt y !(C7 !(*# !( !( 1 inch = 1,150 feet *#!(!( PROPOSED ROUTE ALONG RR ROW

General Location Map CHAMPLAIN-HUDSON Legend EXPRESS ROUTE MUD/SILT !( Canal Corporation Samples HVdc SUBMARINE CABLE PROJECT Vermont SAND Proposed Transmission Centerline New Hampshire MUD,SILT,GRAVEL Proposed Route within Champlain Canal New York ¯ BEDROCK.COBBLE,SAND NYS Canal System Historic Sediment Massachusetts Sampling Locations BOULDER,BEDROCK,COBBLE Proposed Route Corridor (42-Ft Width) -Champlain Canal Area- Connecticut *# NYS Canal System Locks New York State Border Pennsylvania 0 1 2 3 4 Sheet 2 of 10 New Jersey Miles DATA SOURCES: ESRI World Map 2009;New York State Department of Environmental Conservation HistoricSediment Site Sample Locations; NYS Canal Corporation;2009 New York

!(

!( !(

!(

General Location Map Index Map Legend CHAMPLAIN-HUDSON EXPRESS ROUTE ") Converter/Substations Proposed Transmission Centerline HVdc SUBMARINE !( CARP(1998-2001) Proposed Route Corridor(42-Ft Width) CABLE PROJECT !( Vermont USEPA;National Sediment Quality Survey 1990 - 1993 MUD/SILT !( NYS Historic Sediment Sites SAND New York !( EPA;REMAP 1998 MUD,SILT,GRAVEL Historic Sediment Massachusetts !( EPA;REMAP 1994 BEDROCK.COBBLE,SAND Sampling Locations -Hudson River Area- Connecticut New York State Border BOULDER,BEDROCK,COBBLE Pennsylvania DATA SOURCES: US Environmental Protection Agency, National Sediment Quality ¯ Survey 1990-1993; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New Jersey Historic Sediment Site Sample Locations; Contamination Assessment and Sheet 3 of 10 Reduction Project(CARP)1998-2001; Regional and Environmental Monitoring 0 0.5 1 1.5 MarylandDelaware and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) 1993-1994, 1998 Miles !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( New York

!( (!

!(

!( !(

General Location Map Index Map Legend CHAMPLAIN-HUDSON EXPRESS ROUTE ") Converter/Substations Proposed Transmission Centerline HVdc SUBMARINE !( CARP(1998-2001) Proposed Route Corridor(42-Ft Width) CABLE PROJECT !( Vermont USEPA;National Sediment Quality Survey 1990 - 1993 MUD/SILT !( NYS Historic Sediment Sites SAND New York !( EPA;REMAP 1998 MUD,SILT,GRAVEL Historic Sediment Massachusetts !( EPA;REMAP 1994 BEDROCK.COBBLE,SAND Sampling Locations -Hudson River Area- Connecticut New York State Border BOULDER,BEDROCK,COBBLE Pennsylvania DATA SOURCES: US Environmental Protection Agency, National Sediment Quality ¯ Survey 1990-1993; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New Jersey Historic Sediment Site Sample Locations; Contamination Assessment and Sheet 4 of 10 Reduction Project(CARP)1998-2001; Regional and Environmental Monitoring 0 0.5 1 1.5 MarylandDelaware and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) 1993-1994, 1998 Miles !( !(

!(!(

!( !(

New York

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( General Location Map Index Map Legend CHAMPLAIN-HUDSON EXPRESS ROUTE ") Converter/Substations Proposed Transmission Centerline HVdc SUBMARINE !( CARP(1998-2001) Proposed Route Corridor(42-Ft Width) CABLE PROJECT !( Vermont USEPA;National Sediment Quality Survey 1990 - 1993 MUD/SILT !( NYS Historic Sediment Sites SAND New York !( EPA;REMAP 1998 MUD,SILT,GRAVEL Historic Sediment Massachusetts !( EPA;REMAP 1994 BEDROCK.COBBLE,SAND Sampling Locations -Hudson River Area- Connecticut New York State Border BOULDER,BEDROCK,COBBLE Pennsylvania DATA SOURCES: US Environmental Protection Agency, National Sediment Quality ¯ Survey 1990-1993; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New Jersey Historic Sediment Site Sample Locations; Contamination Assessment and Sheet 5 of 10 Reduction Project(CARP)1998-2001; Regional and Environmental Monitoring 0 0.5 1 1.5 MarylandDelaware and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) 1993-1994, 1998 Miles !(

!(

!( !(

New York

!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

General Location Map Index Map Legend CHAMPLAIN-HUDSON EXPRESS ROUTE ") Converter/Substations Proposed Transmission Centerline HVdc SUBMARINE !( CARP(1998-2001) Proposed Route Corridor(42-Ft Width) CABLE PROJECT !( Vermont USEPA;National Sediment Quality Survey 1990 - 1993 MUD/SILT !( NYS Historic Sediment Sites SAND New York !( EPA;REMAP 1998 MUD,SILT,GRAVEL Historic Sediment Massachusetts !( EPA;REMAP 1994 BEDROCK.COBBLE,SAND Sampling Locations -Hudson River Area- Connecticut New York State Border BOULDER,BEDROCK,COBBLE Pennsylvania DATA SOURCES: US Environmental Protection Agency, National Sediment Quality ¯ Survey 1990-1993; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New Jersey Historic Sediment Site Sample Locations; Contamination Assessment and Sheet 6 of 10 Reduction Project(CARP)1998-2001; Regional and Environmental Monitoring 0 0.5 1 1.5 MarylandDelaware and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) 1993-1994, 1998 Miles