Bayonne Energy Center Project Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment

PREPARED FOR Bayonne Energy Center, LLC c/o Pure Energy Resources, LLC 25 Mall Road, Suite 404 Burlington, MA 01803

PREPARED BY ESS Group, Inc. 888 Worcester Street, Suite 240 Wellesley, Massachusetts 02482

Project No. P273-003

September 30, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 METHODS ...... 1 2.1 Field Collection...... 1 2.2 Laboratory Analysis ...... 2

3.0 RESULTS ...... 4 3.1 Taxonomic Richness ...... 4 3.2 Faunal Density ...... 4 3.3 Percent Dominant Taxa...... 5

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 6

TABLES

Table 1 Macroinvertebrate sampling data for Bayonne Energy Center Project Submarine Cable Area, May 2008

Table 2 Macroinvertebrate dominance within the Bayonne Energy Center Submarine Cable Area, May 2008

Table 3 Overall relative abundance of macroinvertebrates sampled within the Bayonne Energy Center Submarine Cable Area, May 2008

FIGURES

Figure 1 Benthic Grab Locations from 2008 Marine Survey

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ESS Group, Inc. (ESS) conducted an assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the vicinity of the proposed Bayonne Energy Center Project submarine cable route (Submarine Cable Area) in May 2008. The submarine portion of the proposed cable will enter the Kill Van Kull at the Bayonne Energy Center and make landfall in Brooklyn near the Con Edison Gowanus Substation. The Submarine Cable Area includes portions of Kill Van Kull, Upper New York Bay and Gowanus Bay.

For the purposes of this assessment, benthic macroinvertebrates are defined as those organisms greater than 500 microns (μm) in length that either live on or beneath the substrate, including segmented worms, mollusks and crustaceans, among others. The information presented in this section is derived from field investigations conducted in support of the Bayonne Energy Center Project and placed in the context of previous studies of the macrobenthic community within the region.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Field Collection

A single surface grab benthic sample was obtained from 19 locations along the proposed submarine cable route (Table 1 and Table 2). The benthic sample locations correspond to 19 of the 29 vibracore sediment sampling locations that were sampled as part of the Project (Figure 1). Sample locations are anticipated to adequately characterize the benthic community in the Submarine Cable Area since the full range of benthic habitats encountered along the route was included in sampling. The survey vessel was anchored at each sample location, and sample positions were recorded using a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) unit.

The benthic samples were taken with a portable gravity dredge (or grab) sampler deployed over the side of the survey vessel. A modified Van Veen grab sampler was used throughout the study and provided adequate sample recovery across sediment types and water depths encountered in the study area.

The modified Van Veen sampler (measuring 14.25 inches x 14.25 inches at the sampling interface) was lowered through the water column with the sampler open and locked. The grab sampler was lowered steadily and decisively into the sediment to minimize disturbance to the sample. Upon reaching the sea floor the sampler was set and returned to the deck for field logging, sub-sampling and preservation.

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008

Upon retrieval of the sampler, field descriptions of the sample were made including: sample identification, sampling date, nature of the substrate material, depth of water at the sample site, and the depth and area of sediment removed from the dredge. Knowing the effective bottom area sampled allowed benthic data to be presented as individuals per square meter of bottom area, which enabled quantitative comparisons among the samples.

In all instances, a gloved hand was used to remove a sub-sample of the collected material, measuring 6 inches by 14.25 inches wide and including the top two inches (5 centimeters) of sediment from the grab. Samples were placed in a 500 µm bucket sieve for onboard sieving. Each sample was washed by gently dipping the bucket sieve in and out of a rinse water bucket. The sieving process removes silts and clays while retaining the target benthic organisms in good condition for subsequent laboratory analysis. Samples (bottom material and benthos) were then placed in a pre-labeled one-quart sample jar. Immediately thereafter, each sample was preserved by adding sufficient formalin solution to yield a concentration of approximately 10% buffered formalin and 90% sample/seawater. The formalin solution was gently mixed throughout the sample so that benthic organisms were adequately preserved but not damaged. The preserved samples were returned to ESS for laboratory analysis.

2.2 Laboratory Analysis

Upon receipt at the laboratory, each sample was logged in and the liquid portion of each sample (formalin and seawater) was decanted through a 500 µm sieve. The sieve retained any animals or sediment present in the sample. The solid portion of each sample (sand, stones, shells, plant matter, etc.) was then emptied into the same 500 µm sieve and gently washed with tap water to remove extraneous fine sediments. 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 from the tap. The rinsed material retained in the sieve was then rinsed into a grid-lined tray. Subsequently, the sieve was checked to ensure that all organisms had been removed. Any organisms found on the sieve were carefully transferred with forceps and added to the tray. The sample material was then spread evenly throughout the tray and a random number sheet was used to select one section of the grid for sorting. The contents of this grid section were examined using a dissecting microscope (7X to 45X magnification) and high-intensity fiber optic lamp. Grid sections were randomly selected and sorted until either at least 100 organisms had been picked out or half the sample had been sorted. Organisms found during the sorting process were removed with forceps, sorted into four broad taxonomic groups (worms, mollusks, crustaceans and others) and placed in separate vials of 75% ethanol. Each vial was labeled with the collection date, sample identification number and taxonomic group. All residue from the sorted portion of each sample was preserved in a separate jar in 75% ethanol and labeled with collection date, sample identification number and the words “sorted residue.” The unsorted portion of each sample was returned to the original sample jar and preserved in 75% ethanol.

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Page 2 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008

All sorted organisms were subsequently identified by a qualified taxonomist to the lowest taxonomic level possible using a dissecting microscope and readily available taxonomic keys. The primary taxonomic references used for this task included:

• Smith, R.I. 1964. Keys to the Marine Invertebrates of the Woods Hole Region. Marine Biological Laboratory. • Martinez, A.J. 1999. Marine Life of the North Atlantic, Canada to New England. Down East Books. • Gosner, K.L. 1978. The Peterson Field Guide Series. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras. Houghton Mifflin Company. • 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.

Voucher specimens of each taxon identified from within the study area were labeled and compiled into a project reference collection.

For quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) purposes, a second appropriately trained staff member performed a quality check on 10% of the samples analyzed. The quality check included the sorting phase of the analysis to ensure that no organisms or groups of organisms were being inadvertently excluded in the sorting process.

In the sorting phase, the QA/QC reviewer checked the sample material for any remaining organisms. If the QA/QC reviewer found that more than 10% of the total number of organisms found by the sorter still remained, then four (4) additional samples would be subject to quality assurance checks. If the percent error in these additional samples was also found to be more than 10%, all samples sorted by the original processor would need to be reprocessed. In this study, quality control checks found no samples where more than 10% of the organisms were missed during the sorting phase.

In the identification phase, a second ESS staff member trained in benthic macroinvertebrate identification reviewed organisms that presented difficulty in identification and checked the reference collection for taxonomic accuracy.

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Page 3 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008

3.0 RESULTS

The benthic community sampled within the Submarine Cable Area was found to be composed mainly of worms, snails, bivalves and crustaceans. A total of 50 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa were recorded in the samples analyzed from the 19 sampled sites in the Submarine Cable Area (Table 1). The three most abundant taxa contributed approximately 57% of all individuals identified (Table 3).

3.1 Taxonomic Richness Taxonomic richness is the number of different taxa that are found within a given area or community and is generally accepted as a good assessment measure of diversity (Magurran, 2003). Additionally, taxonomic richness can provide information about the relative quality of water and habitat since taxonomic richness generally decreases with reduced water and/or habitat quality (Blanchard and Feder, 2003; Rapport et al., 1985; Resh and Grodhaus, 1983).

Taxonomic richness for the study area ranged from six at BG0818 to 18 at BGNJ03 with the average taxonomic richness being 12. These numbers are typical of the benthic habitats common to this system in this region (EEA, 1988; Simpson et al., 1984).

In general, the taxa found in this study are common in the nearshore habitats of the northeastern U.S. coast (Weiss, 1995; Theroux and Wigley, 1998). No rare species were identified from the processed samples.

3.2 Faunal Density

Faunal density is an estimate of the number of individuals per unit area. It is an important indication of stress on at a site because the density of benthic organisms may increase or decrease according to the type of stress (e.g., thermal or chemical pollution, water velocities, sediment deposition rates, etc.) and the tolerance of the study species to that stress (Resh and Grodhaus, 1983). Additionally, density of organisms can be reflective of the productivity of marine habitats (Williams et al., 2001).

The average faunal density for the sites sampled in this study was 7,941 individuals/m2 (Table 1). The highest faunal density (20,562 individuals/m2) was found at Site BG0815, while faunal density was lowest (996 individuals/m2) at Site BGNY02.

The data from this study (Tables 1 and 2) indicate that faunal density does not appear to be directly associated with taxonomic richness. Rather, the patchy distribution of taxa, especially colonial species, appears to produce varying combinations of density and taxonomic richness. The disturbed conditions within the Submarine Cable Area may enhance the patchiness of the distribution of observed taxa. However, in general, environmental stressors and natural habitats present in the study area appear to favor polychaete worms, the dominant taxonomic group observed.

The average faunal density observed across the Project area is similar to those reported by previous studies conducted in the region. For instance, Iocco et al. (2000) found an average density of 7,250

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Page 4 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008

individuals/m2 in Upper New York Bay. EEA (1988) found a range in mean faunal density of 1,700 to over 76,000 individuals/m2 in a similar study area. Data synthesized by Theroux and Wigley (1998) for the region estimated regional benthic densities for all taxa exceeding 5,000 individuals/m2.

A natural annual and seasonal variability is typical in most marine benthic communities as the combination of physical and biological factors results in a high degree of environmental variability (Zajac, 1998). Estuarine microhabitats may influence local benthic conditions via a wide range of parameters such as sediment size, salinity, depth, temperature, light penetration, tidal velocity, food availability, and predation. Furthermore, biogenic structures, such as those constructed by the polychaete tube worm, Asabellides oculata may create local patches of complex habitat on otherwise smooth benthic substrates (Kinney and Flood, 2006). Habitat patchiness and environmental variability typically translate into a high sample-to-sample variability in macroinvertebrate density and community structure. However, no systematic relationship between invertebrate abundance and depth, substrate or other habitat parameters was identified in the results of this study. 3.3 Percent Dominant Taxa

Percent dominant taxa is defined as the ratio of individuals in numerically dominant taxa to the total number of individuals within the study area. In this study, dominant taxa are defined as those taxa that make up more than 50% of the total number of individuals in a sample. Percent dominant taxa is an important indication of external impacts on a site, as a community dominated by relatively few species could indicate environmental stress (Blanchard and Feder, 2003; Plafkin et al., 1989) and a high percent contribution by a single taxon generally indicates community imbalance (Bode, 1988).

Four of the 19 sites surveyed were found to be dominated by one taxon. BG0809, BG0818 and BG0820 were dominated by the Asabellides oculata, while BGNJ03 was dominated by the bivalve Modiolus modiolus (horse mussel) (Table 2). Both of these taxa tend to form patchy beds on the seafloor where they are locally dominant (Kinney and Flood, 2008; Tyler-Walters, 2007).

The benthic community in the vicinity of the Submarine Cable Area consisted mainly of pollution- tolerant taxa. This is consistent with results reported by others for this area (Iocco et al, 2000; EEA, 1988). In this study, polychaete worms constituted 73% of the total benthic abundance. Crustaceans and mollusks accounted for 4% and 10% of sampled organisms, respectively. The remainder of benthic organisms consisted of nematodes and oligochaete worms. The most common groups are discussed in more detail below.

Polychaeta Polychaete worms made up at least 50% of the total abundance at 16 of the 19 benthic sample sites (Table 2). Of these, four sites (BG0809, BG0813, BG0818, and BG0820) consisted almost entirely of polychaetes (i.e. greater than 90%). The most numerous polychaete taxa were capitellid thread worms (Capitellidae), the colonial tube dwelling worm Asabellides oculata and the mud worm Streblospio benedicti, in descending order of abundance. Orbiniid polychaetes (Leitoscoloplos sp.), although less abundant, were found at 16 of the 19 sample sites.

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Page 5 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008

Capitellid thread worms are particularly tolerant of disturbance and thrive in stressed harbors and bays, preferring sandy mud substrates (Weiss, 1995). Asabellides oculata tends to occupy muddy substrates in the nearshore environment (Kinney and Flood, 2006) while Streblospio benedicti prefers to build mud tubes on soft substrates and is notably tolerant of pollution (Weiss, 1995). Orbiniid polychaetes also prefer soft substrates, such as sand and mud, but are mobile and may play an important ecological role through bioturbation (Weiss, 1995).

Crustacea Crustaceans were not as abundant or widespread as polychaetes but locally common within the Submarine Cable Area (Table 1). Of note, ampeliscids (four-eyed amphipods) were present at several sites along the western portions of the proposed route. A second amphipod taxon, Unicola sp. (a tube-dwelling amphipod) was also found in low to moderate abundances at multiple sites within the Submarine Cable Area. Ampeliscids and Unicola sp., although common in shallow sandy waters and eelgrass beds, are generally sensitive to pollution (especially organic compounds) and are often used as indicator species for this reason (NOAA, 2008; Kennish, 1998; Weiss, 1995).

Mollusca Mollusks were found throughout the Submarine Cable Area and were represented by at least one taxon at each of the sample sites (Table 2). Modiolus modiolus was locally abundant and the most widespread bivalve at the sites sampled during this study while Acteocina canaliculata (the channeled barrel-bubble) was the most widespread gastropod. Additionally, Tellina agilis (northern dwarf tellin) was found in low to moderate abundance at eight sites. Although considered common in sand and mud habitats across the region, T. agilis is generally considered to be intolerant of pollution (Billheimer et al., 1998).

Although not enumerated in any of the subsamples, Mytilus edulis (blue mussel) and Crepidula fornicata (American slipper limpet) were noted at one site (BG0804) during sample processing.

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The benthic macroinvertebrate taxa collected during this study generally represent a disturbed community, although certain pollution-sensitive taxa were noted locally and in limited numbers. The diversity and density of benthic macroinvertebrates were within the previously reported ranges for the region. Polychaete worms were the dominant macrofaunal group, contributing 73% of the organisms sampled. No rare species of benthic macroinvertebrates were observed during this survey.

Given the relatively disturbed benthic conditions of the Submarine Cable Area, impacts to the existing benthic community from installation of the proposed submarine cable are likely to be minimal and temporary. Because urbanized estuaries are naturally subject to shifting gradients in salinity, temperature, turbidity and nutrients and are also affected by human-induced events, such as heavy vessel traffic and increased pollutant loading, the benthic organisms that inhabit urbanized estuaries are

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Page 6 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008 generally fairly tolerant of changes in these parameters. Furthermore, the types of organisms that are common to disturbed environments are usually those organisms that can quickly repopulate a habitat following a disturbance through either migration or reproduction (Watling and Norse, 1998) and are commonly referred to as pioneer species for this reason. These factors make it likely that the recovery of the benthic community in the Submarine Cable Area will be rapid, as has generally been observed following temporary disturbances (Howes et al., 1997; Rhoads et al., 1978). Benthic invertebrate diversity and density after similar disturbances are typically achieved within one to three years (Byrnes et al., 2004).

Due to the limited width of direct impact anticipated during the cable installation, mobile invertebrates (such as polychaetes, oligochaetes and most crustaceans) living in adjacent less-disturbed areas are expected to quickly recolonize the area disturbed by construction. Bivalves and other benthos with dispersive reproductive cycles will generally recolonize once their veligers or larvae settle into the area from nearby populations. For these reasons, the limited area of direct disturbance is unlikely to have more than a very localized and temporary impact to the benthic community.

REFERENCE LITERATURE Billheimer, D., T. Cardoso, E. Freeman, P. Guttorp, H. Ko and M. Silkey. Natural Variability of Benthic Species Composition in the Delaware Bay. National Research Center for Statistics and the Environment Technical Report Series, NRCSE-TRS No. 001. 1998.

Blanchard, A.L. and H.M. Feder. “Adjustment of benthic fauna following sediment disposal at a site with multiple stressors in Port Valdez, Alaska.” Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46.12(2003): 1590-1599.

Bode, R.W. Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York State. Albany, NY: Stream Biomonitoring Unit, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division of Water, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1988.

Byrnes, M.R., R.M. Hammer, T.D. Thibaut, and D.B. Snyder. “Physical and Biological Effects of Sand Mining Offshore Alabama, USA.” Journal of Coastal Research, 20.1 (2004): 6-24..

EEA, Inc. Report on Aquatic Studies - Hudson River Center Site. Prepared for the New York City Public Development Corporation, New York, NY. Garden City, NY: EEA, Inc., 1988.

Gosner, K.L. The Peterson Field Guide Series. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1978.

Howes, B.L., D.R. Schlezinger, J.A. Blake, and D.C. Rhoads. “Infaunal ‘Recovery’ as a Control of Sediment Organic Matter Remineralization and the Fate of Regenerated Nutrients in Boston Harbor.” Abstracts from the 14th Biennial Estuarine Research Federation (ERF) International Conference - The State of Our Estuaries. Oct. 12-16, Providence, RI. 1997.

Iocco, L.E., Wilber, P., Diaz, R.J., Clarke, D.G., Will, R.J. Benthic Habitats of New York/New Jersey Harbor: 1995 Survey of Jamaica, Upper, Newark, Bowery, and Flushing Bays, Final Report. 2000.

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Page 7 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008

Kennish, M.J. Pollution Impacts on Marine Biotic Communities. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1998.

Kinney, J. and R.D. Flood. “Seabed Morphology off Southern Long Island: Studies of Artificial Reefs and Implications for Wind Farms.” Thirteenth Conference on Geology of Long Island and Metropolitan New York. 2006. Accessed online on 24 Jun. 2008

Magurran, A.E. Measuring Biological Diversity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003.

Martinez, A.J. Marine Life of the North Atlantic, Canada to New England. Rockport, ME: Down East Books, 1999.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). “Benthic Habitat Mapping Touch Tank: Four- eyed Amphipod (Family Ampeliscidae).” 2008. NOAA. Accessed online on 24 Jun. 2008

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross and R.M. Hughes. Rapid Bioassessment protocols for use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89/001. Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989.

Rapport, D.J., H.A. Regier and T.C. Hutchinson. “Ecosystem Behavior under Stress.” The American Naturalist, 125.5 (1985): 617-640.

Resh V.H. and G. Grodhaus. “Aquatic Insects in Urban Environments.” Urban Entomology: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Eds. G.W. Frankie and C.S. Koehler. New York: Praeger Pubs, 1983. 247-276

Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. “The Ecology of Seafloor Disturbance.” American Scientist. 66 (1978): 577-586. Simpson, K. W., R. W. Bode, J. P. Fagani, and D. M. DeNicola. The Freshwater Macrobenthos of the Main Channel, Hudson River. Part B. Biology, Taxonomy and Distribution of Resident Macrobenthic Species. New York: Hudson River Foundation, 1984. Smith. R.I. 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, 1964

Theroux, R.B., and Wigley, R.L. Quantitative Composition and Distribution of the Microbenthic Invertebrate Fauna of the Continental Shelf Ecosystems of the Northeastern United States, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report NMFS 140. 1998.

Tyler-Walters, H. “Modiolus modiolus. Horse mussel.” Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. 2007. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Accessed online on 07 Jul. 2008 .

Copyright ©ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Page 8 j:\p273 bec project\regulatory\article vii\draft appendices\app 4.7a benthics\bayonne benthic report 093008.doc Bayonne Energy Center Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment September 30, 2008

Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. “Disturbance of the Seabed by Mobile Fishing Gear: a Comparison to Forest Clearcutting.” Conservation Biology. 12.6(1998):1180-1197. 1998.

Weiss. H.M. 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. 1995.

Williams, A., A.J. Koslow and P.R. Last. “Diversity, Density and Community Structure of the Demersal Fish Fauna of the Continental Slope off Western Australia.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 212 (2001): 247-263.

Zajac, R.N. “A Review of Research on Benthic Communities Conducted in Long Island Sound and an Assessment of Structure and Dynamics.” Long Island Sound Environmental Studies, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-502. 1998.

Tables

18 18 72 91 18 18 54 91 18 18 18 18 109 109 326 996 BGNY02 18 18 36 18 36 36 36 36 18 54 18 15 18 833 109 1502 BGNJ03 7 48 48 97 193 772 241 2799 4199 BG0820 8 72 724 869 145 3910 2100 7964 BG0819 6 48 48 48 1351 3041 4585 BG0818 290 579 290 290 869 579 7530 1738 1448 2896 18245 BG0817 J:\P273 BEC Project\Regulatory\Article VII\Draft Appendices\App 4.7A Benthics\Bayonne Draft matt Benthic Tables 7-08.xls 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 193 193 386 290 2606 1448 1158 7143 BG0816

290

193

72 36 91 18 48 72 72 1158

290 290 290 290 579 869 290 290 4634 4054 2606 1158 2317 2896 20562 BG0815 2 145 145 434 290 145 145 145 290 2027 3910 2462 10136 BG0814 72 72 72 72 72 72 362 507 217 2679 1882 6082 BG0813 18 18 91 18 18 18 18 36 18 18 18 54 91 489 163 959 308 2353 Number of Individuals per m BG0812 97 97 97 97 97 386 579 193 290 290 965 3475 2703 9364 BG0810 2008 y 97 97 97 97 193 386 193 193 1158 5213 1448 9171 BG0809 97 97 97 97 386 483 290 386 483 579 2993 1738 7723 BG0808 97 97 97 97 290 193 483 193 290 579 386 965 5406 1062 1351 11681 BG0807 ect Submarine Cable Area, Ma j 58 58 58 58 58 13 15 13 11 11 17 13 11 12 16 11 348 116 405 985 174 3939 BG0804

97 1622

9 Center Pro 145 145 145 290 145 145 4344 1738 4344 11439 gy BG0803

41 41 41 124 290 1324 2937 onne Ener BG0802 y

455 41

124 41 83 207 124

13 12 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 1303 1448 1593 5358 10860 BG0801 data for Ba g lin p ) )

s e = 12 er m2 g

s s p a s i ari ri s g a s a a a s a s a i a yp yi Avera p. . s a thalm ari ( a p . p g licat . re uine ecios a p terus oculatu ouldii p p p g . p e= 7941 . ella c . p alin s los s g . . g unctostriatu p . p eus sa . p y . p pp . p ili . p e p p p p io benedict p p p g p tus cornutu s eus herbsti ano y y oda ira s roceridae oda p atra cu eliscidae itellidae

p llodoce s p y idonotus s p p dora s noida Avera

rellidae ht p oda p p anassa obsolet anassa trivittat s cera s cera american y iochaeto sonia h p y y (

p p

p y y y y y y p hi oda chaeta ochaeta p p y g m Cumacea Bivalvia Total Pol Acteocina canaliculata Ostracoda Nematoda Table 1. Macroinvertebrate sam A Deca Iso Oli Crustacea Number of Taxa Taxa Gastro Melitidae Rissoidae Crenella s Turbonilla s Isch Unicola s Ca Pectinaria Am Ca Ph Eus Il Il Neverita du Rictaxis L Modiolus modiolu Mulinia laterali Nucula s Tellina a Yoldia s Parameto Leucon americanu D Palaemonetes vul Pano Edotea trilob Asabellides oculat Autol Cirratulidae Dio Eteone s Eumida san Gl Gl Leitoscolo Le Maldane sarsi Ne Nereis s Paranaitis s Pol Pol Sabella micro Sabellaria vul S Streblos Copyright © ESS Group, Inc., 2008 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 7 1 6 1 22 19 15 10 79 73 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1 <1 100 ll Sites A 2 9 2 2 5 11 33 11 29 69 69 100 BGNY02 2 6 1 7 9 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 1 75 19 19 100 BGNJ03 5 6 7 9 1 2 1 1 55 9 18 67 91 91 100 BG0820 1 9 49 11 26 15 85 85 100 BG0819 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 6 2 4 29 66 97 97 100 BG0818 3 8 41 16 10 10 10 65 60 J:\P273 BEC Project\Regulatory\Article VII\Draft Appendices\App 4.7A Benthics\Bayonne Draft matt Benthic Tables 7-08.xls 100 BG0817

2 1

2 <1 1 < 2 < 2 <1 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 3 1 6 1 2 <1

2 <

3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 3 36 16 20 28 68 62 100 BG0816 1 3 5 4 6 1 23 20 11 14 13 15 76 73 100 BG0815 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 20 39 24 93 54 osition 100 p BG0814 8 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 0 1 3 4 31 44 98 98 100 BG0813 Percent com 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 3 2 21 13 41 13 85 82 100 BG0812 4 6 1 1 1 1 1 10 29 37 11 87 76 100 BG0810 2008 y 1 1 2 13 16 57 96 94 100 BG0809 5 1 3 1 1 1 8 5 1 5 6 2 7 39 23 88 81 100 BG0808 2 2 1 1 3 9 6 2 2 1 8 1 8 2 6 12 88 79 100 BG0807 Center Submarine Cable Area, Ma

2 5 1 2 9 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 12 10 25 41 47 47 gy 100 BG0804

1 41 1 1 3 1 1 38 15 38 96 81 onne Ener 100 y BG0803

7 1 45 14 79 79 100 BG0802

4 1 3 7 3 4

3 1 1 10 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 12 13 15 49 47 47 100 BG0801

s s a a s i ari ri s a a a s g a a s a s yi i a i yp p. a . s thalm ari ochaetes a p .

p g g licat . a re uine ecios p terus oculatu

p p p g . p ouldi . . los s . p . alin s ella c . g .

p eus sa p p p p unctostriatu . p y . pp . p ili p e s pp io benedict

p p

s p p g s p s

a s s eus herbsti tus cornutu ano y oda ira roceridae oda p y atra cu eliscidae rellidae itellidae

p llodoce s y

p idonotus s noida p p ht dora s p chaetes oda p p p anassa obsolet anassa trivittat s cera s cera american y iochaeto sonia h p y y

p y

p y y y y y y p hi oda ochaeta

Unicol chaetes + Oli p p g y m ll Pol ll Crustaceans ll Mollusk Bivalvia Cumacea Crustacea Table 2. Macroinvertebrate dominance within the Ba Taxa A Deca Iso Oli Ostracoda Nematoda Gastro Total Cirratulidae Melitidae Rissoidae Crenella s Pol Turbonilla s Isch Ca Ph Pol Am A A A Acteocina canaliculat Eus Il Il Neverita du Rictaxis L Modiolus modiolu Mulinia laterali Nucula Tellina a Yoldia Ca Parameto Leucon americanu D Palaemonetes vul Pano Edotea trilob Asabellides oculat Autol Dio Eteone s Eumida san Gl Gl Leitoscolo Le Maldane sarsi Ne Nereis s Paranaitis s Pectinaria Pol Sabella micro Sabellaria vul S Streblos Copyright © ESS Group, Inc., 2008 Table 3. Overall relative abundance of macroinvertebrates sampled within the Bayonne Energy Center Submarine Cable Area, May 2008

Overall Relative Abundance Scientific Name Common Name (Percent) Capitellidae Capitellid thread worm 22 Asabellides oculata Ampharetid tube worm 19 Streblospio benedicti Mud worm 15 Leitoscoloplos sp. Orbiniid worm 9 Oligochaeta Aquatic earthworm 7 Nematoda Nematode 7 Modiolus modiolus Horse mussel 6 Unicola sp. Tube-dwelling amphipod 2 Acteocina canaliculata Channeled barrel-bubble 1 Pectinaria gouldii Cone worm 1 Eteone sp. Paddle worm 1 Ampeliscidae Four-eyed amphipod 1 Rissoidae Rissoid snail 1 Sabella micropthalma Feather-duster worm 1 Tellina agilis Northern dwarf tellin 1 Polydora sp. Mud worm 1 Polynoidae Scale worm 1 Autolytus cornutus Syllid worm <1 Caprellidae Skeleton shrimp <1 Cirratulidae Fringed worm <1 Crenella sp. Crenella <1 Diopatra cuprea Junk worm <1 Dyspanopeus sayi Say mud crab <1 Edotea triloba Valviferan isopod <1 Eumida sanguinea Paddle worm <1 Euspira sp. Moonsnail <1 Glycera americana Tufted gilled blood worm <1 Glycera spp. Blood worm <1 Ilyanassa obsoleta Eastern mudsnail <1 Ilyanassa trivittata Threeline mudsnail <1 Ischyroceridae Fouling amphipod <1 Lepidonotus sp. Twelve-scaled worm <1 Leucon americanus Hooded shrimp <1 Lysonia hyalina Lysonia <1 Maldane sarsi Oval-tailed bamboo worm <1 Melitidae Melitid amphipod <1 Mulinia lateralis Dwarf surfclam <1 Nephtys spp. Painted worm <1 Nereis sp. Clam worm <1 Neverita duplicata Shark eye <1 Nucula sp. Nutclam <1 Ostracoda Seed shrimp <1 Palaemonetes vulgaris Marsh grass shrimp <1 Panopeus herbstii Atlantic mud crab <1 Parametopella cypris Seed-shrimp amphipod <1 Paranaitis speciosa Paddle worm <1 Phyllodoce sp. Paddle worm <1 Rictaxis punctostriatus Pitted baby-bubble <1 Sabellaria vulgaris Cement-tube worm <1 Spiochaetopterus oculatus Glassy tube worm <1 Turbonilla sp. Turbonille <1 Yoldia sp. Yoldia <1 Total 100

Figures