Cayuga Creek WatershedAssessment
Summary Report
Niagara Power Project
(FERC No. 2216)
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
New York Power Authority and
Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
June 2006
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................... iv
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.5
Introduction.................................................................................................................................1-1
Background.................................................................................................................................1-1
Objectives ...................................................................................................................................1-2
Geographic Scope.......................................................................................................................1-3
Methods........................................................................................................................................2-1
Literature Review .......................................................................................................................2-1
Outreach......................................................................................................................................2-4
GIS Compilation and Updating ..................................................................................................2-4
Site Visit .....................................................................................................................................2-5
Watershed Description Summary .............................................................................................3-1
Physical Features of the Watershed ............................................................................................3-1
Watershed Boundaries............................................................................................................3-2
Topography ............................................................................................................................3-3
Soils........................................................................................................................................3-4
Climate ...................................................................................................................................3-4
Land Use and Population Characteristics ...................................................................................3-5
Land Use and Land Cover Data .............................................................................................3-5
Land Management Practices ..................................................................................................3-6
Demographics.........................................................................................................................3-8
Public Access and Recreation.....................................................................................................3-9
Access Points and Facilities ...................................................................................................3-9
Outreach and Public Involvement ........................................................................................3-10
Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................3-11
Heritage Sites .......................................................................................................................3-12
Physical Condition of Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek......................................................3-12
Surface and Groundwater Hydrology...................................................................................3-12
Flooding ...............................................................................................................................3-15
Geomorphology....................................................................................................................3-17
Erosion and Sedimentation...................................................................................................3-18
Water Quality............................................................................................................................3-20
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
i
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.5.1
Water Quality Classification and Impairments ....................................................................3-20
3.5.2
Monitoring Programs and Data Inventories .........................................................................3-20
3.5.3
Surface Water Quality ..........................................................................................................3-21
3.5.4
Pollutant Sources..................................................................................................................3-25
3.5.5
Groundwater Quality............................................................................................................3-31
3.5.6
Water Supply and Wastewater .............................................................................................3-31
3.5.7
Benthic Sediment Quality ....................................................................................................3-32
3.6
Biological Resources ................................................................................................................3-33
3.6.1
Instream Habitat ...................................................................................................................3-33
3.6.2
Wetlands...............................................................................................................................3-36
3.6.3
Fish and Wildlife Communities ...........................................................................................3-37
3.6.4
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species ..........................................................................3-40
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
Summary of Significant Issues and Areas of Concern ............................................................4-1
Historical Recommendations and Areas of Improvement ..........................................................4-1
Current Problems and Recommendations for Potential Restoration Measures ..........................4-4
Next Steps...................................................................................................................................4-6
TABLES
Table 2.3-1 ................................................................................................................................................2-6
GIS Data Layers for Cayuga Creek .........................................................................................................2-6
Table 3.5.2-1 ...........................................................................................................................................3-42
Environmental Monitoring Programs in the Cayuga Creek Watershed ................................................3-42
FIGURES
Figure 1.3-1...............................................................................................................................................1-4
Cayuga Creek Watershed.........................................................................................................................1-4
Figure 3.2.1-1..........................................................................................................................................3-44
Land Use in the Cayuga Creek Watershed ............................................................................................3-44
Figure 3.2.1-2..........................................................................................................................................3-45
Habitat in the Cayuga Creek Watershed................................................................................................3-45
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
ii
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................. 1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Cayuga Creek Watershed Contacts................................................................................... 1
Appendix B: Data Inventory..................................................................................................................... 1
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
iii
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
ABBREVIATIONS
Agencies
ENCRPB
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
IJC
International Joint Commission
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSOPRHP
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
OMOE
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
United States Geological Survey
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
NCSWCD
Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District
NRCS
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
iv
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
NCDPDT
Niagara County Department of Planning, Development & Tourism, now called Niagara
County Department of Economic Development
Units of Measure
C
Celsius, Centigrade
cfs
cubic feet per second
cm
centimeter
El.
elevation
F
Fahrenheit
gpm
gallons per minute
JTU
Jackson Turbidity Unit
L
liter
μ
prefix for micro
mg
milligram
mgd
million gallons per day
ml
milliliter
msl
mean sea level
NTU
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
v
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
ppb
parts per billion
Environmental
AEM
Agricultural Environmental Management
BOD
biochemical oxygen demand
CSO
combined sewer overflow
DO
dissolved oxygen
EPT
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (insect orders)
PAH
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PEC
probable effects concentration
SAV
submerged aquatic vegetation
SPDES
State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
SSO
sanitary sewer overflow
TEC
threshold effects concentration
Miscellaneous
AOC
Area of Concern
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
vi
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
BMP
Best Management Practice
CSP
Conservation Security Program
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
LUNR
Land Use Natural Resource
LWD
Large Woody Debris
MS4
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
NFARS
Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station
NPP
Niagara Power Project
NYPA
New York Power Authority
OPG
Ontario Power Generation
PISCES
passive in-situ concentration/extraction samplers
RAP
Remedial Action Plan
RIBS
Rotating Intensive Basin Study
RTE
Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
vii
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The New York Power Authority (NYPA) is engaged in the relicensing of the Niagara Power
Project (NPP) in Lewiston, Niagara County, New York. The present operating license of the plant
expires in August 2007. NYPA filed an application for a new license on August 18, 2005 with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The relicensing process, which began in December
2002 with organizational meetings, involved the participation of a wide range of interested groups and
individuals, including state and federal regulatory entities, local municipalities, area businesses and labor
unions, environmental groups and academic institutions.
As part of the relicensing settlement process, NYPA agreed to provide in-kind services to the
Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers, now called Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper. From this agreement,
Riverkeeper requested the services be used for the creation and development of a watershed assessment or
“report card” summarizing the current environmental condition of the Cayuga Creek watershed.
Riverkeeper plans to use this report card to develop an implementation plan or restoration road map in
conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
1.1
Background
Cayuga Creek in Niagara County, NY is a tributary to the upper Niagara River. The Niagara
River has been designated as one of the 41 Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes Basin because of
impaired beneficial uses. The Niagara River AOC is located in Erie and Niagara Counties in western
New York and extends from the southern end of the Buffalo Harbor, north to the mouth of the Niagara
River at Lake Ontario.
Environmental problems in the Niagara River AOC include: inactive hazardous waste sites,
contaminated sediment, combined sewer overflows, habitat degradation, and nonpoint source pollution,
including urban and rural runoff (NYSDEC 2000). Many of these problems are also prevalent in the
Cayuga Creek watershed. In 1987, state and federal governments from the United States and Canada
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
1-1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
initiated a commitment to develop and implement a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Niagara River
AOC. The goal of RAP is to restore and protect beneficial uses in the AOC.
The RAP identified five use impairments: 1) Restrictions on Fish & Wildlife Consumption; 2)
Fish Tumors or Other Deformities; 3) Degradation of Benthos; 4) Restrictions on Dredging Activities;
and 5) Loss of Fish & Wildlife Habitat. Two other use impairments were listed that will require further
investigation to determine the extent of their existence: Degradation of Fish & Wildlife Populations, and
Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems.
While many of the problems identified with the Niagara River AOC are applicable to the Cayuga
Creek, this summary focuses on conditions specific to the Cayuga Creek watershed. The RAP has
established a comprehensive and focused corrective action strategy to: remediate contaminated sediments
and hazardous waste sites; continue and enhance monitoring activities; continue point and nonpoint
source control programs; and, improve fish and wildlife habitat. To the extent that Cayuga Creek and its
tributaries are contributing to the identified use impairments in the Niagara River AOC, there may be
opportunities to include potential restoration activities in the Cayuga Creek watershed with the Niagara
River RAP process.
1.2
Objectives
The goal of this effort is to synthesize existing relevant natural resource and planning information
related to the Cayuga Creek watershed in order to develop an assessment of its current environmental
condition. The work performed and material collected will provide a basis for future research activities
and potential watershed restoration measures.
The specific objective of this report is to develop a watershed assessment describing the current
environmental condition of the Cayuga Creek watershed based on existing information. This report will
be used to assess the resources in the Cayuga Creek watershed in order to create a report card, the purpose
of which will be to provide an overview of the current conditions, health, and potential improvements in
Cayuga Creek and its watershed.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
1-2
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
1.3
Geographic Scope
The investigation area includes the watershed of Cayuga Creek in Niagara County, which
includes land in the Towns of Cambria, Lewiston, Wheatfield, and Niagara; the City of Niagara Falls; and
the Tuscarora Nation. The original focus of this study was the watershed area associated with the
mainstem Cayuga Creek, excluding its tributaries. NYPA participated in a meeting with the Cayuga
Creek Restoration Steering Committee on March 23, 2006 in which the scope of work for this study was
presented. The Cayuga Creek Restoration Steering Committee includes representatives from Buffalo
Niagara Riverkeeper, Niagara County Department of Economic Development, Niagara County Soil and
Water Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Tuscarora Nation, Niagara University, LaSalle Pride
and the City of Niagara Falls. Attendees were in agreement with the level of effort; however there was a
concern that the watershed boundary did not include Bergholtz Creek. Bergholtz Creek and its tributaries
(portions of Sawyer Creek and Black Creek) have since been added to the watershed boundary.
There is some discrepancy regarding the drainage patterns of the tributaries to Cayuga Creek,
thus making an accurate description of the watershed area difficult. However, for this study, existing
watershed delineations from various sources were used in order to define the watershed study area (Figure
1.3-1). A further description of the watershed boundaries is discussed in Section 3.1.1.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
1-3
Y:\GISmaps\cayuga\figure_1_3_1.mxd
Legend
Cayuga Creek Mainstem Watershed. Source: NCSWCD
Bergholtz Creek Watershed. Source: USACE 2002
Lewiston
Cambria
Tuscarora Nation
as
E
ek
West
Lewiston
Reservoir
t
Branch
ch
B r an
ga C r eek
zC
olt
re
B er
C a yu
gh
Niagara
Pendleton
Wheatfield
Niagara Falls
Bl
Sa
a c k C re e k
wy
er
Cr
e
ek
Niagara River
Grand Island
North Tonawanda
F
0
3,500
7,000
14,000
Amherst
Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek Watersheds
Feet
Note: This map was created with information copyrighted by the New York State
Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination © 2005
Figure 1.3-1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
2.0 METHODS
In order to adequately characterize the Cayuga Creek watershed, existing relevant literature was
compiled and reviewed. The literature review consisted of gathering existing information related to the
Cayuga Creek watershed which will include, but not be limited to, studies, plans, and reports relative to
environmental planning, water quality and quantity, land use, recreation, aquatic and terrestrial habitat,
pollution, and stormwater runoff.
In addition to the literature review, geographic information systems (GIS) data for the watershed
was compiled and reviewed, as appropriate. Studies and GIS data created or otherwise obtained by
NYPA during the NPP relicensing process are a key component of the literature review. A bibliography
was developed and is included in the References and Bibliography section.
To expand the literature review beyond NYPA’s existing information gathered throughout the
relicensing process, various entities were contacted to obtain additional relevant information. Finally, a
field visit was conducted to verify land use and habitat GIS data and to examine suspected areas of
concern within the watershed. The methods are detailed further below.
During the literature compilation and review process, informational data gaps were identified.
Data gaps included geographical areas, where data is lacking (e.g., the eastern portion of the watershed)
as well as categorical information deficiencies (e.g., groundwater flow patterns).
2.1
Literature Review
Most of the existing information related to the Cayuga Creek watershed was compiled during the
relicensing effort for the Niagara Power Project. Many of the relicensing studies included Cayuga Creek
due to its proximity to the Niagara River. The studies that examined environmental conditions (e.g.,
water quality, habitat, erosion, etc.) in Cayuga Creek and its watershed were the focus of this literature
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
2-1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
review. Information and data relevant to Bergholtz Creek was added to this assessment based upon the
existing list of information sources.
In addition to the relicensing studies, their bibliographies and cited references were examined to
locate additional relevant information. Through this search, four primary pieces of literature were found
that provided both historical and current accounts of the conditions in the watershed. The following
reports were especially important due to their data specific to Cayuga Creek (in addition to the relicensing
studies):
1. 1975 Water Quality Study of Cayuga Creek. Erie and Niagara Counties
Regional Planning Board (ENCRPB).
2. 1997 Cayuga Creek Management Study – Research Report. Niagara County
Department of Planning, Development and Tourism.
3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Cayuga Creek, Niagara
County, New York Flooding and Related Water Resources. Section 905(b)
(WRDA 86) Analysis. Reconnaissance Report, March 2002.
4. Cayuga Creek Watershed Stream Assessment, February 2005. Prepared for
the Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers by Kelly M. Frothingham and
Natalie Brown of Buffalo State College.
The studies from 1975 and 1997 provided excellent baseline information for comparison to
current conditions in the watershed.
The 1975 report was especially noteworthy because a list of
problems in the watershed was documented and potential solutions were suggested. The 2002 report from
the USACE elaborated on the flooding problems along Cayuga Creek and also provided extensive
documentation of the fish and wildlife species in the watershed through USFWS surveys.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
2-2
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
The 1975 Report comprised a photographic survey of the creek environment to describe its
condition and pinpoint inflows, a hydrologic survey to determine its flow characteristics, a sampling
program to assess its water quality, and a complete review of current pollution abatement programs.
Based upon these considerations, specific water quality problems were identified and remedial measures
developed. From these, alternative programs were formulated and a plan of action recommended based
upon the criteria of cost, impact, and engineering practicality. Baseline data included: 1) topography,
geology, and soils; 2) hydrology, including stream channel conditions; 3) water supply and wastewater
treatment; 4) land use; 5) discharges into the creek; and 6) ecology and water quality.
In August 1997 the Niagara County Department of Planning, Development & Tourism
(NCDPDT), now called the Niagara County Department of Economic Development, in cooperation with
the City of Niagara Falls and the Cayuga Creek Management Committee, published the research report
Cayuga Creek Management Study. The study area was Cayuga Creek from its mouth on the Little River
north to the Niagara Falls City line, as well as riparian properties along this portion of the creek. The
report is a compilation of information intended to assist in the development of a program to improve
conditions currently associated with Cayuga Creek in the City of Niagara Falls.
The Cayuga Creek Reconnaissance Study, conducted by the USACE, examined flooding,
drainage, and other related problems in the Cayuga Creek watershed. The purpose of the study was to
determine Federal interest in developing a plan for flood damage reduction in the Town of Niagara in the
vicinity of the Cayuga Village Trailer Park, which experienced severe flooding damage in 1998.
In addition to the baseline studies and information, several of NYPA’s relicensing study reports
relative to Cayuga Creek were reviewed. These studies were useful in determining current conditions of
the creek and the watershed. A complete list of literature reviewed for this study is presented in the
References and Bibliography section.
An inventory of the corresponding environmental data contained in the studies and reports was
also inventoried. Tabular data sets were obtained for water quality data; and fish, wildlife, and vegetation
species; and known or suspected rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species in the watershed. The
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
2-3
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
tabular datasets are contained in an appendix to this report. Data related to contaminant monitoring in
sediment, groundwater and biota are not included in the data inventory. Readers are referred to the
specific studies if there is interest in the analytical aspects of these investigations.
In addition to the Niagara Power Project Reference Library, the University of Buffalo’s on-line
library was searched for articles relevant to the Cayuga Creek watershed.
2.2
Outreach
To ensure that a comprehensive review of all the information relevant to the watershed was
conducted, the following entities were contacted: local environmental organizations, municipal and
county governments and their relevant departments, local universities, and local, state and federal
resource agencies. A complete list of the people and entities contacted is shown in Appendix A.
In addition to inquires for existing information such as reports and data, specific questions were
asked related to perceived problems in the watershed, and future plans for the watershed (e.g.,
information on zoning, development guidelines and restrictions, master planning, wastewater plans,
transportation plans, future land use plans). This information will not only support the characterization of
the watershed but also identify any major changes expected to occur in the watershed.
The Tuscarora Oral History Project conducted as part of the relicensing effort may be reviewed in
the future in cooperation with Tuscarora Nation in the context of Cayuga Creek and its watershed. As of
this writing, the oral history was not included.
2.3
GIS Compilation and Updating
During the Niagara Power Project relicensing process, several GIS data layers were created.
These have been reviewed for this study.
There are, however, some restrictions regarding the
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
2-4
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
dissemination of these data due to confidentiality and security concerns. The GIS layers available from
NYPA are listed in Table 2.3-1.
GIS data related to land use and habitat was developed from photogrammetry data collected in
2002. Approximately 15% of the current land use coverage of the Cayuga Creek main stem watershed
was not delineated at that time. During this study, the missing portion of the land use coverage was
developed and updated. Land use classification was based on the Land Use Natural Resource (LUNR)
inventory codes created by Cornell University in 1969. Habitat type classifications were based upon the
first edition of Ecological Communities of New York State (Reschke 1990), and subsequently the second
edition (2002) edited by Edinger et al. The task was completed on March 24, 2006 and field verification
occurred on April 27-28, 2006. Subsequent to the completion of the updating of these two layers, the
Riverkeeper asked that the geographic scope of the watershed be expanded to include the drainage of
Bergholtz Creek. Due to scheduling and budgetary reasons, the two layers showing habitat and land use
have not been expanded. However, during the literature review it was found that the Town of Wheatfield
has a land use layer in GIS in their comprehensive plan (Wendel Duchscherer 2004); however their GIS
data was not obtained for this assessment.
2.4
Site Visit
A 2-day field reconnaissance was conducted on April 27-28, 2006 in an attempt to verify findings
from the literature review. Additionally, the GIS layers created for this study (land use and habitat) were
field verified.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
2-5
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE 2.3-1
GIS DATA LAYERS FOR CAYUGA CREEK
Title
Description
Resource Area(s)
Land Use
Land Use classifications, e.g., agricultural,
residential, industrial, within the watershed
Land use and management,
Recreation, Public Access
Habitat
Aquatic and terrestrial habitat classifications
Habitat
Habitat Transects
Aquatic habitat assessments, 3 transects across
lower Cayuga Creek
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
SPDES
Points showings locations of permitted water
discharges into Cayuga Creek
Water Quality
CSOs
Points showings locations of combined sewer
outfalls into Cayuga Creek in the City of Niagara
Falls (older layer)
Water Use and Quality
Water Withdrawals
Points showings locations of water withdrawals
from Cayuga Creek
Water Use
Basemap
Waterbodies, political boundaries, roads
Land Management
Basemap
Orthophotos and topographical maps
Land Management
Flood Zones
FEMA flood mapping and hazard zones
Land Management
Wetlands
NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands and National
Wetland Inventory
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Soils
NRCS soil type mapping and classification
Land Use
Recreation
Land ownership and recreation areas
Recreation and Public access
Hydrology
Stream and other surface waters
Water
Heritage
Heritage sites – locally significant and national
registry sites
Recreation and Public access
Field photos
Digital photos from entire length of Cayuga Creek
(except on Tuscarora Nation)
Habitat, land use, erosion
Erosion
Erosion sites identified in by field inspections
Erosion
Fish Barriers
Locations preventing fish passage in Cayuga
Creek
Habitat
Remediation Sites
Inactive hazardous waste sites
Land management, water
quality
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
2-6
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Existing information was used to develop this summary of the current environmental conditions
within the Cayuga Creek watershed. In developing the scope of work for this study, the following
resource areas were targeted.
•
Water Quantity and Quality;
•
Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat;
•
Erosion and Sedimentation;
•
Public Access and Recreation; and
•
Land Use and Management.
This section provides a summary of the conditions in the Cayuga Creek watershed and is broken
down by resource category. The categories above are refined further to allow for a more comprehensive
assessment. Some of the categories will be useful if a comprehensive watershed management plan or
restoration road map is developed in the future.
This assessment will identify significant issues or areas of concern (e.g., streambank erosion,
contamination, barriers) within the Cayuga Creek watershed for each resource area. Buffalo Niagara
Riverkeeper will continue the assessment effort and investigate additional resource areas of concern. In
order to identify data gaps, the resource areas were refined further as described in the following sections.
A data inventory is included in Appendix B, as noted.
3.1
Physical Features of the Watershed
Cayuga Creek is a tributary to the Niagara River and lies within the Erie-Niagara drainage basin
of western New York State in Niagara County, New York. The headwaters of the 10-mile long Cayuga
Creek main-stem originate in the Town of Lewiston. From this point the creek flows southward through
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
the Tuscarora Nation and Town of Wheatfield. The creek crosses under Walmore Road onto the Niagara
Falls International Airport-Air National Guard Base complex and continues southward through the Town
of Niagara, and the City of Niagara Falls where it joins its major tributary Bergholtz Creek before
continuing south to join the Little River opposite Cayuga Island.
In several of the reports that were reviewed, the creeks are separated into reaches based upon
their location and features. For example in the Cayuga Creek Water Quality Study (ENCRPB 1975),
Cayuga Creek was separated into three 3 reaches: upper, middle (airport), and lower.
The report
Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish and Cayuga Creeks (URS et al. 2005b) and the Buffalo State study
(Frothingham and Brown 2005) segmented Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks into many more reaches.
3.1.1
Watershed Boundaries
The original focus of this study was the watershed associated with the mainstem Cayuga Creek,
excluding its tributaries. Bergholtz Creek and its tributaries (Sawyer and Black Creeks) have since been
added to the watershed boundary.
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and NYSDEC include Cayuga and
Bergholtz Creek in the Niagara River-Tonawanda Creek Watershed, which is described as being located
at the western end of New York State covering an area of approximately 514,810 acres over parts of five
counties: Erie, Niagara, Genesee, Wyoming and a small part of Orleans. For this study, we have used two
sources to define the Cayuga / Bergholtz watershed boundary: 1) mainstem Cayuga Creek boundary from
Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) and 2) Bergholtz Creek watershed
boundary from USACE 2002 (see Figure 1.3-1). Using these two sources, the watershed area equals
approximately 31 square miles.
The drainage patterns of Sawyer Creek have been documented to flow both to the west into
Bergholtz Creek and to the east into Bull Creek, which is a tributary to Tonawanda Creek. Historical
values related to the area of the watershed and subwatersheds also vary.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-2
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
ENCRPB 1975 lists the following drainage areas:
Sub-watershed
Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
Cayuga Creek Main Stem
16.4
Bergholtz Creek
13.5
Black Creek
2.6
Sawyer Creek
1.6
TOTAL
34.1
The USACE 2002 report is consistent with this approximate 34 sq. mi. drainage basin.
According to the City of Niagara Falls Flood Insurance Study, the main stem Cayuga Creek drainage area
equals 28.2 sq. mi, and the Bergholtz Creek drainage area equals 16.4 sq. mi. (FEMA 1990).
A significant observation regarding Sawyer Creek drainage pattern was noted in NCDPDT 1997:
“Sawyer Creek appears to change its flow of direction in the vicinity of Oppenheim Park and Route 429.
This is further evidenced by a topographical map of the area prepared by the United States Department of
the Interior Geological Survey, and is dated 1980.”
3.1.2
Topography
Most of the drainage basin is quite flat; the average gradient along Cayuga Creek is 8.6 ft/mi.
Much of this relief is traversed in the upper two miles of the watershed, so that lengthy stretches in the
lower basin exhibit gradients of less than 4 ft/mi. This low relief is attributable to the geologic history of
the basin. The creek headwaters flow off the Niagara Escarpment across the Huron Plain, which has at
various times been inundated by glacial lakes.
Massive deposits of dense, extremely fine-grained
lacustrine (lake-derived) clays blanket the area, leveling irregularities in the bedrock (ENCRPB 1975).
The Cayuga Creek basin is of limited topographic complexity and variation. Cayuga Creek is a
slightly meandering system originating in flat topography at an elevation near 625 feet mean sea level
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-3
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
(msl).
Progressing southward the creek continues into relatively level topography and it takes on
characteristic flows as it meanders through a relatively defined main channel and a mosaic of lowland
floodplain landscapes. The creek courses through this level landscape where it eventually converges with
the Little River approximately 10 miles from its source. Elevations range from approximately 625 feet at
the headwaters to approximately 560 feet at the Niagara River confluence in the City of Niagara Falls
(USACE 2002).
The topography has resulted in local municipalities historically altering the stream course to
facilitate drainage of agricultural areas in the basin. Digital maps showing topography (USGS quadrangle
maps) are available in GIS as part of the NYPA data listed. In the airport-air base complex, Cayuga
Creek flows through a shallow (10-30 foot) manmade gorge excavated through the bedrock units during
runway construction in 1944.
3.1.3
Soils
The characteristic bedrock units underlying the basin are the Lockport Dolomitic Limestone and
the Queenston and Rochester Shales. These are buried along much of Cayuga Creek, with the stream
flowing through a clay-lined channel. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service has
mapped these soils and classified them as to permeability (drainage) (Higgins et al. 1972). Most of the
soils in the Cayuga Creek basin are derived from glacial lake sediments and are characterized by high
density, poor tilth (tillability), and very poor drainage. Soils and geological information are available in
GIS layers.
3.1.4
Climate
There is a first-order weather station located at the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport
approximately 16 miles southeast of the watershed. At this station, the average annual precipitation is
36.19 inches. The maximum monthly average is 3.28 inches in December. The average annual snowfall
as recorded at this station is 91.1 inches. The highest average monthly snowfall is 24.2 inches in January.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-4
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
The average temperature at the Buffalo Weather station is 47.4 degrees F. July is the warmest month and
February the coldest, with average monthly temperatures of 70.5 and 24.8, respectively (USACE 2002).
3.2
3.2.1
Land Use and Population Characteristics
Land Use and Land Cover Data
In 1975, the land use along Cayuga Creek was classified as follows: Above the Niagara Falls Air
Base, much of the land was cleared for agriculture, with scattered wooded stands throughout. Private
residences were situated primarily along Lockport, Saunders Settlement, and Walmore Roads. The air
base complex occupies approximately 2,000 acres of flat grassland virtually cleared of trees and brush.
South of Pine Avenue, the creek basin is urbanized. Development was primarily residential in nature,
although commercial development could be found along major thoroughfares. The Bell Aerospace
Company and the Carborundum Corporation [now defunct industries in the watershed] were both located
within a mile of the airport (ENCRPB 1975).
In 2002, land use in the Cayuga/Bergholtz basin was described as varying widely from rural
residential and agricultural to commercial/industrial. North of the Niagara Falls Airport-Air Force Base
complex in the Town of Lewiston, the Tuscarora Nation, and the Towns of Wheatfield and Cambria, land
uses consisted of mixed residential and agriculture and open lands, although this was changing as
infrastructure increased and improved and residential and commercial development progressed outward
from the Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Southward in the watershed much of the lands in the Town of
Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls were predominantly suburban residential and commercial
development. Industrial activities were concentrated mostly in the City of Niagara Falls.
Land use changes in the Cayuga Creek corridor incrementally converted much of the floodplain,
wetlands and riparian systems to other uses including residential, commercial and industrial development.
This occurred most significantly within the Town of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls (USACE
2002).
Similar land use changes are apparent at agricultural operations in the upper areas of the
watershed.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-5
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
GIS data layers related to land use and habitat were developed from photogrammetry data
collected in 2002 in support of the Niagara Power Project relicensing studies. Approximately 15% of the
current land use coverage of the Cayuga Creek mainstem watershed was not delineated at that time.
During this study, the missing portion of the land use coverage for the Cayuga Creek mainstem watershed
was developed and updated.
Figure 3.2.1-1 displays the extent of the land use coverage for this
assessment, which accounts for approximately 60% of the Cayuga/Bergholtz watershed. This assessment
shows the dominant land use categories in the basin are agricultural (35%), transportation, including the
airport-airbase complex (16%) followed by residential (15%). Fifteen percent of the land in the assessed
portion of the watershed is classified as vacant and commercial and industrial land use accounts for a
combined 9%. Figure 3.2.1-2 shows the habitat coverage for the watershed.
The Town of Wheatfield conducted a Greenspace Master Plan in 1995 that provides extensive
information on important environmental features in the Town. Wheatfield’s Comprehensive Plan also
includes land use GIS coverage for the entire town.
3.2.2
Land Management Practices
The management and alteration of Cayuga Creek for various purposes is apparent. The creek has
been diverted for flood control, creation of runways and residential development and around hazardous
waste sites. Ditching for flood control is prevalent in the Towns of Lewiston, Wheatfield and Niagara.
The administrator of the Town of Lewiston, recognizing the importance of proper flood plain
management and of reducing the possibility of flood damage to properties, adopted in 1973 a drainage
control law which intended to provide for improved drainage conditions in the Town and also to restrict
construction of buildings in the flood hazard area (FEMA 1979).
There are several land conservation programs associated with agricultural areas in the watershed.
In terms of streamside buffers, the NCSWD recommends a 50 foot setback. The NRCS’ Conservation
Security Program (CSP) is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to
promote the conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other
conservation purposes on Tribal and private working lands. Working lands include cropland, grassland,
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-6
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
prairie land, improved pasture, and range land, as well as forested land that is an incidental part of an
agriculture operation. The extent that this program is utilized in the Cayuga Creek watershed is not
known.
The Niagara County Soil and Water District has implemented New York State’s Agricultural
Environmental Management (AEM) Program, which is designed to document and prioritize water quality
impairments in an agricultural setting and to identify specific farms that are contributing to these
impairments.
Over 150 preliminary surveys were completed with farmers in the Eighteenmile,
Twelvemile, Tonawanda, and Mud Creek watersheds. No surveys have been conducted in the Cayuga
Creek watershed as of yet. Over 75 farmers also participated in a comprehensive survey that documented
current land stewardship and identified sources of water quality impairments. Under the New York State
Agricultural and Non-Point Source Pollution Abatement Program, two of these participating farms were
able to receive grants funds to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) to specifically address water
quality concerns identified through the AEM program. Examples include a silage leachate management
system, heifer manure storage system and a bunk silo leachate containment system were constructed for a
replacement heifer/beef operation in the Mud Creek watershed and a dairy operation in the Twelvemile
Creek watershed. All three Best Management Practices are intended to mitigate obvious water quality
and environmental problems present on both farms. Thus far, all three systems have been very successful
in extinguishing the sources that once threatened water quality in the county (NCSWCD 2004).
Local ordinances related to Cayuga Creek and its tributaries were not found in a literature review
of the municipalities’ comprehensive plans. However, the updated plans generally seem to have a
stronger environmental focus.
While the agricultural programs related to conservation and environmental protection are
important to watershed health, there appears to be a general lacking of local plans for land acquisition or
land protection within the watershed. The above mentioned agricultural initiatives (AEM and CSP) could
be promoted further within the watershed.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-7
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.2.3
Demographics
Municipalities included in the Cayuga Creek watershed include the Towns of Lewiston,
Wheatfield, Niagara, and Cambria, the City of Niagara Falls, and the Tuscarora Nation. Rural and
suburban populations are growing in Wheatfield and Lewiston, while the City of Niagara Falls continues
to see population declines. The trend towards migration of the regional population away from the
metropolitan area outward into the suburban and rural areas is likely to continue. The Cayuga Creek
basin is an attractive place to live and has the ability to support further residential, commercial and
industrial uses with infrastructure expansion. These factors will likely support future population growth
and land use changes. Urban and suburban growth in the basin will result in significant potential for
increased drainage issues and point and non-point water quality impacts.
In addition, increased
development of floodplain lands and tributary watersheds, although completed in accordance with
floodplain regulations, will place more infrastructure at risk from flooding and more than likely increase
peak flows and volume of runoff to the main-stem creek and remaining floodplains. Accordingly, as the
basin develops, unless there is proactive unified watershed planning and management, flooding and the
need for protection will remain a primary need as land uses change (USACE 2002).
The 2000 population numbers are presented below as compared to 1990 population numbers.
Municipality
2000 Population
1990 Population
Town of Lewiston
16,257
15,453
Town of Niagara
8,978
9,880
Town of Wheatfield
14,086
11,125
Town of Cambria
5,393
4,779
City of Niagara Falls
55,593
61,840
Niagara County
219,846
220,756
Tuscarora Nation
1,138
772
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 1990 Census.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-8
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.3
Public Access and Recreation
Fishing, boating, bird watching and hiking are popular natural resource-based recreational
activities in the watershed. There will be future increased demands for public access, recreation uses, and
other demands affecting water quality and habitat integrity. At the same time, it is likely that community
interest to protect and restore indigenous wildlife habitat, and to be able to enjoy high-quality native
landscapes from an aesthetic and recreational viewpoint, will grow (USACE 2002).
3.3.1
Access Points and Facilities
GIS layers obtained from New York State depict the recreational areas in the watershed including
public parks and wetlands. For specific recreational access points to Cayuga Creek, Riverkeeper recently
published a brochure entitled LaSalle Canoe Trail Map and Guide which details a canoe route around
Cayuga Island and up Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks. The access points on Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks
are listed as future potential canoe launch sites (Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper Undated).
Griffon Park in Niagara Falls provides access to Cayuga Creek and Jayne Park on Cayuga Island
also provides recreational opportunities. Creek-side recreational opportunities and access points are
severely limited in the upper reaches of the watershed as most of the abutting land is private.
There is a Farm Museum in Lewiston at the upper limits of the Cayuga Creek watershed, which is
now open according to Niagara County SWCD. In the Town of Cambria, there are plans for a proposed
park development along Bergholtz Creek. The trail system designed for this park will travel through
wetland areas allowing for bird watching, hiking opportunities, nature observation, cross-country skiing,
etc.
The potential for enhanced recreational opportunities in the upper watershed areas could be
investigated further.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-9
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.3.2
Outreach and Public Involvement
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper has initiated many public outreach and education projects associated
with the Cayuga Creek watershed. These programs include ongoing education of creekside homeowners
and businesses on the need to improve creek health; successful semiannual shoreline clean ups involving
hundreds of volunteers; completion of the Cayuga Creek Canoe Trail design and brochure together with a
detailed construction design for a first launch facility at Jayne Park; and development of the Cayuga
Creek Watershed Report Card.
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper has also established a reliable and active volunteer team of citizen
“captains” on Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks through the Riverwatch volunteer waterway monitoring
program. The goals of the program are to: improve water quality, wildlife habitat and public access in
the watershed through increased monitoring of spills, discharges, runoff and land use; improve the
response to acute and chronic problems in the watershed; improve public awareness in the community
concerning pollution prevention (especially in regards to stormwater); promote education of shoreline
landowners on best management practices; and expand the current shoreline cleanup program.
Four distinct action campaigns will be launched in 2006-2007 under the Riverwatch volunteer
waterway monitoring program, and are described further below.
Water Quality Monitoring Campaign
Captains will participate in a water quality monitoring campaign designed to track basic measures
of water quality in each waterway, including coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved
oxygen, nitrate, phosphate, pH, turbidity, temperature, and benthic macroinvertebrates. In conjunction
with other monitoring efforts in the Cayuga Creek watershed, these monthly measurements will help to
establish baseline data as well as identify potential problems for further investigation. Captains will be
trained to use test kits correctly in the field, and an online reporting mechanism for water test results will
be developed.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-10
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Stormwater Campaign
A monitoring effort to identify and report violations of the EPA Phase II stormwater regulations
will be launched in partnership with the NYS Attorney General’s office. The development of stormwater
pollution education campaigns will then be undertaken in each captain team area, utilizing brochures
developed by the WNY Stormwater Coalition as well as stenciling kits for identifying storm drains to the
public. Captains will attend training sessions with the NYS Attorney General’s office, WNY Stormwater
Coalition and NYSDEC.
Pipewatch / Spills Monitoring Campaign
This classic watchdog campaign will empower captains to not only recognize and report spill
events, but also identify and monitor permitted pipes entering Cayuga Creek and its tributaries. In
partnership with local agencies and universities, Riverkeeper will assist captains in researching the
identity and permit specifications for pipes entering each waterway.
Habitat Campaign
This campaign will involve the ongoing development of the captains’ understanding of the
aquatic and terrestrial habitats they encounter when monitoring their waterways, improving their ability to
recognize problems and changes in the condition of the creek. A series of training sessions will be
dedicated to identifying both native and invasive species, as well as recognizing habitat types.
A
restoration training will be conducted, including a half-day restoration effort in which captains will have
an opportunity to remove invasive plant species and replant natives.
3.3.3
Aesthetics
In 1975, Cayuga Creek was described as, “In its present state, the creek is at best an eyesore and
at worst a public health hazard” (ENCRPB 1975). Recent studies have documented that aesthetic
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-11
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
conditions are still poor. Natural and manmade debris commonly occurs along the banks of Cayuga
Creek and degrades many aspects of the creek including water quality, habitat, and aesthetics (USACE
2002, visual observation).
Volunteer clean-up efforts are instrumental in improving this situation.
Further public education efforts planned by Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper will also enhance awareness of
the creek.
3.3.4
Heritage Sites
Numerous archaeological sites and historic structures are located within the Cayuga Creek basin.
In addition, there are likely many more historic/cultural properties that have not been reported. Further
consultation with New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP)
will be necessary (USACE 2002).
3.4
3.4.1
Physical Condition of Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek
Surface and Groundwater Hydrology
The Cayuga Creek basin does not have a stream flow gaging station. In order to estimate flows in
Cayuga Creek, a comparison with similar creeks in a hydrologically similar basin was performed in
ENCRPB 1975. Prorated flow estimates were made using the Cayuga Creek drainage basin of 34.1
square miles compared to the Little Tonawanda Creek flow statistics. Specifics are provided in ENCRPB
1975. More recent flow exceedences for Cayuga Creek are provided in Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish
and Cayuga Creeks (URS et al. 2005b). Cayuga Creek has an estimated annual median flow of 10.7 cfs
upstream of the Bergholtz Creek confluence (URS et al. 2005c). A detailed watershed model for Cayuga
Creek to Porter Road was developed in 1999 by USACE which presents modeled frequency discharges
from 2-year to 500-year flood (USACE 2002).
Flow measurements were collected in 1975 as follows (ENCRPB 1975). The Cayuga Creek
channel was cross-sectioned at selected locations including 10 of the 11 water quality sampling points and
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-12
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
three significant areas of constriction. Flow velocities were measured in the field at various locations;
flow discharges were estimated from the measured velocities and calculated cross-sectional areas. The
flow in Cayuga Creek was estimated to be about 8 cfs at the Porter Road bridge; the flow in Bergholtz
Creek was estimated to be about 14 cfs just upstream of the confluence (at the 91st Street bridge). These
two flows together with additional downstream drainage yielded an estimated flow of 25 cfs at the mouth
on the day of sampling. Stream velocities and flow are currently being measured at one location each in
Cayuga and Bergholtz watershed as part of the Niagara County SWCD sampling program (V.
DiGiacomo, personal communication).
Daily fluctuations in the water levels of Cayuga Creek are affected by water levels in the Niagara
River, which are influenced by NYPA and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) operations and other factors
such as wind, natural flow variations and ice conditions, water levels of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and
control of Niagara Falls flow for scenic purposes (URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005). Since March
1973, the maximum daily fluctuation for the Niagara River at the control structure is limited to 1.5 feet
except during abnormal flows or ice conditions. During periods of maximum drawdown, velocities in the
lower reach of Cayuga Creek are increased slightly due to the drop in the backwater level, resulting in a
slight increase in the hydraulic gradient and a decrease in the channel cross-sectional area. The velocity
increase is estimated to be about 0.03 feet per second for a 1.5 foot drawdown and a flow of 25 cfs, which
is not likely to either cause erosion or reduce stagnation in the lower creek (ENCRPB 1975).
The average daily water level fluctuations were obtained at three locations in Cayuga Creek as
part of NPP relicensing studies: The upstream temporary water level gauge (CC-03) was located just
upstream of Porter Road and the difference in elevation between this site and CC-02 downstream was
approximately 5 feet. Water level fluctuations similar to those seen downstream at CC-01 and CC-02 and
in the upper Niagara River were not observed at CC-03. The Upper Niagara River Tributary Backwater
Study (URS et al. 2005c) reports that at the median annual flow rate in Cayuga Creek, the hydraulic
analysis found the annual maximum upper Niagara River water level influenced up to 10,100 feet of
Cayuga Creek. This length would extend to a point approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Porter
Road bridge crossing. There were daily water level fluctuations of a much smaller magnitude (0.2
feet/day) observed at CC-03; however these fluctuations don’t show the same daily patterns as observed
downstream. The fluctuations at CC-03 were likely the result of a State Pollution Discharge Elimination
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-13
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
System (SPDES) permitted discharge upstream (Redland Quarry). The median water level fluctuations
for the 2003 sampling period in Cayuga Creek at both CC-01 and CC-02 were 0.94 feet/day. For
comparison, the median water level fluctuation at the upstream site at CC-03 was 0.25 feet/day (URS and
Gomez and Sullivan 2005). There were no water level gauges installed in Bergholtz Creek during the
relicensing studies. URS et al. 2005c also reports that Niagara River water levels could potentially have
an influence on Bergholtz Creek water levels for approximately 10,900 feet upstream of its confluence
with Cayuga Creek.
Cayuga Creek in the Town of Lewiston and Wheatfield has been altered historically for drainage
control. Active dredging is performed as needed in Lewiston and Wheatfield to improve drainage in the
watershed. In addition, the Town of Lewiston controls a pumphouse along Cayuga Creek to alleviate
flooding in agricultural areas. The operation of this pumphouse upstream of the Tuscarora Nation can
cause intermittent high flow conditions.
A fish survey conducted in 1987-1988 by NYSDEC in Cayuga Creek (NYSDEC 1988) reported
the observation of groundwater springs in Cayuga Creek above Lockport Road. The 2003 field survey
corroborated this observation (URS et al. 2005b). Based on its classification as a groundwater drain in
the model developed by Yager in 1996, Cayuga Creek is assumed to be a hydraulic boundary for the
upper 45 feet of the Lockport Group (URS et al. 2005a). Depth of water table has been reported as less
than 3 feet at times in areas of Lewiston (URS 2000).
Point discharges can have a noticeable effect on flow in Cayuga Creek. An example is the
LaFarge Redland Quarry, an operating limestone mine in the Cayuga Creek watershed with a reported
maximum depth of 140 feet below ground surface (approximately El. 484 feet).
It is located
approximately 7,500 feet southeast of the Lewiston Reservoir. Groundwater is extracted from sumps in
the mine and discharged to a tributary of Cayuga Creek. The extraction and discharge of groundwater at
the mine is regulated by SPDES permit #NY0025267. The mine is permitted to discharge a maximum of
432,000 gallons of water per day (300 gallons per minute or 0.67 cfs) to Cayuga Creek (URS and Gomez
and Sullivan 2005).
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-14
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.4.2
Flooding
The USACE has been studying the flooding issue in the Cayuga Creek watershed since the
1960’s. In 1962, an engineering design for flood control project was approved, but delayed in 1968. The
project was subsequently de-authorized by the Corps in 1971. Flooding in the lower watershed associated
with ice jams in the upper Niagara River was a problem prior to the annual installation of the ice boom at
the head of the river (USACE 2002). According to USACE 2002, NYSDEC records indicate Cayuga
Creek was diverted from its natural channel in 1969 and sent through a man-made channel in the vicinity
of the “farmer’s field” (north of Cayuga Village Trailer Park on Niagara Falls Boulevard).
The
combination of increased discharges due to the redirected flow of the West Branch Tributary and human
alterations to the Cayuga Creek channel have created hydrologic and hydraulic conditions that do not
work efficiently during storm events. These modifications in the vicinity of the farmer’s field are two
possible major factors in the Cayuga Village Trailer Park flooding (USACE 2002).
Flooding occurred in the Cayuga Village Trailer Park in January and March of 1998. Existing
flood control facilities consist of a private earthen berm built along Cayuga Creek to control flood waters
and protect structures in and around the Cayuga Village Trailer Park in the Town of Niagara. Melting
snow, coincident with moderate amounts of precipitation is the characteristic cause of floods in the region
and on Cayuga Creek. Although flood events can occur at all times of the year, almost all damaging
floods in the region have occurred in the late winter or early spring (January - April). Relatively few
damaging floods have been produced by precipitation alone. A summary of the 1998 floods is presented
in USACE 2002.
The hydraulic analysis completed in USACE 2002 determined that the channelized reach near the
Cayuga Village Trailer Park only had enough capacity to pass the 2-year flood. For higher flood events,
berms were constructed to contain the flow, which also resulted in higher velocities. These higher
velocities likely caused the berm near the farmer’s field to breach, which then overloaded the trailer
park’s storm sewer system, causing the localized flooding. The USACE concluded that the flooding
problem was one of internal drainage and a restricted storm sewer network in the immediate area.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-15
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Floodplain management regulations have been instituted in the communities located along the
creek as a result of inclusion into the National Flood Insurance Program. These regulations provide a set
of standards to define development within the floodplain, and limit damage due to flooding (USACE
2002).
In 2003, the Niagara County Legislature requested assistance from the USACE to address
accumulating woody debris jams along the banks and in Cayuga Creek. It was noted that this is causing
bank instability, erosion, and flow restrictions, which were leading to the aggravated flooding problems.
The City of Niagara Falls is in the process of contracting to remove debris from Cayuga Creek, targeting
the sites identified in the Buffalo State Report (T. DeSantis, personal communication). In the City of
Niagara Falls, low-lying areas are subject to flooding caused by overflow of Cayuga and Bergholtz
Creeks. In the past, flooding of Cayuga Island has been caused by the backwater effect created by ice
jams in the upper Niagara River and long duration storms over Lake Erie which can cause abnormally
high river stages (FEMA 1990).
The Town of Wheatfield has had a very active and successful drainage program since the mid1990’s led by the Town Drainage Committee and the Highway Superintendent. The Town Highway
Department has been in the process of systematically clearing and snagging all the main drainage ways in
the Town of Wheatfield, including their tributaries. Main drainage ways that have been cleared to date
include Bergholtz Creek, Sawyer Creek, portions of Black Creek, portions of Bull Creek, and Cayuga
Creek. The Town of Wheatfield performs annual maintenance review of previously cleared waterways
and ensures continued unrestricted drainage flow through these areas (USACE 2002).
To address flooding at Walmore Road after major storms or snow melt events, Cayuga Creek was
cleared during the latter part of 2001. Although the Town of Wheatfield is not aware of any significant
property damage associated with this drainage problem, there is a traffic safety concern when the road
becomes flooded. It was believed that this flooding was caused by Cayuga Creek having significant
blockages in many areas as it meandered through the town. The Town of Wheatfield hopes that clearing
and maintaining the creek will reduce or eliminate this problem (USACE 2002).
Flooding may occur in Wheatfield during peak storm flows in areas adjacent to streams due to
inadequate grades, low stream banks, undersized culverts and debris and sediment deposits. Flood
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-16
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
damage has not been severe however, due to lack of development in most areas. Eighty-nine percent of
the land area in Wheatfield is agricultural or vacant land (FEMA 1992). This is changing, however as
evidenced by the increased residential development in Wheatfield.
3.4.3
Geomorphology
As mentioned, the primary function of Cayuga Creek historically has been one of drainage and
flood control, as evidenced by the prevalent channel alterations along the creek. Essentially all areas of
the creek have been manipulated. There may be a few natural sections left. Cayuga Creek throughout the
airbase is “naturalized” and generally in good physical condition due to the restricted access. The general
lack of a riparian zone in this section, however, is noteworthy.
In the Cayuga Creek headwaters, several tributaries have been “ditched” or realigned to facilitate
drainage from agricultural fields.
The reach from Tuscarora Drive to the Niagara River has been
straightened and armored in an effort to reduce shoreline erosion. A significant portion of the forested
section below Porter Road has been straightened to increase water conveyance and reduce the potential
for flooding within a residential area. Along the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station (NFARS), Cayuga
Creek has been realigned and conveyed through culverts to allow for the construction of the airport
runways and related facilities (URS et al. 2005b).
In 2005, a study was conducted by Buffalo State College at the request of Buffalo Niagara
Riverkeeper; the purpose of which was to collect qualitative baseline data on a number of physical,
chemical, and biological elements in the Cayuga Creek watershed (Frothingham and Brown 2005). The
field investigation took place between August 2004 and January 2005 and included an assessment of
Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks. Results from this study are intended to help guide watershed management
activities, such as debris removal and bank stabilization. The NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol
was used to assess seven geomorphological/biological elements in Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks. The
elements included, bank stability, channel condition, riparian zone, nutrient enrichment, water
appearance, instream fish cover, and barriers to fish movement.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-17
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
A total of 90 reaches were assessed from Bridgeman Rd. to the confluence of Cayuga Creek and
the Little Niagara River except Tuscarora Nation lands and the Niagara Falls International Airport and
Air Force Base complex.
Documented problems along Cayuga Creek include:
mowed yards and
agricultural crops planted adjacent to the stream banks, exposed soil on stream banks, lack of habitat
structure, turbid water, eroding banks and large woody debris (LWD) accumulations that restrict stream
flow in the upper portions of the creek. Impairments in the lower watershed include bank erosion, LWD
jams restricting flow, and a lack of a natural riparian corridor (Frothingham and Brown 2005).
A total of 62 reaches on Bergholtz Creek were assessed from Shawnee Rd. to the confluence with
Cayuga Creek. Access problems and weather conditions prevented assessment from being done for the
section of the creek between Ward Rd. to Niagara Rd. and from Thornwood Rd. to Walmore Rd.
Documented problems in the upper portion of the watershed along the creek in agricultural and residential
areas includes: large woody debris jams, trash present on the stream banks, lack of riparian zone, and
turbid water appearance. In the lower urban residential portions of the watershed, the documented
problems include: poor bank stability, lack of a riparian zone, trash present on the stream banks and
human altered channel conditions (stairways and small boat slips constructed along the stream banks)
(Frothingham and Brown 2005).
3.4.4
Erosion and Sedimentation
Stream bank and channel erosion and the resulting suspension of sediment are significant and
recognized problems throughout the watershed, particularly within the City of Niagara Falls.
The
constriction and concentration of creek flows, channel modification, concentrated point source discharges,
loss of woody riparian vegetation, altered hydrologic characteristics, and fluctuations in water levels
associated with management of the Niagara River are contributing causes to this problem. Stream erosion
continues to reduce the quantity and quality of the shoreline, the water column, vegetated shallows and
the riparian corridor and overhanging trees and shrubs, which is subject to undercutting and deadfall
(USACE 2002). The need for stream bank erosion protection, restoration and management has been
emphasized.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-18
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
NCDPDT 1997 described Bergholtz Creek at Williams Road to be “overloaded” with sediment.
Spoils from the creek bed cleaning were observed upland from the banks of the creek. The report
indicated that dredging was being performed.
NYPA conducted an assessment of erosion along lower portions of several of the tributaries to
the Niagara River as part of the NPP relicensing (Baird 2005). This report states that the bank erosion in
Cayuga Creek is found predominantly at significant bends or turns in the creek morphology, which
suggests the erosion is predominantly associated with high velocity flows during the spring freshet and
large rain storms. Habitat mapping conducted of Cayuga Creek (also performed during NPP relicensing)
revealed portions of Cayuga Creek from Porter Road to Niagara Falls Boulevard that were severely
eroded and having unstable banks (URS et al. 2005b). Most of the severe erosion seemed to be due to
debris jams in the creeks, which caused the attempted re-routing of the creek during high flow and runoff
events.
Additionally, Baird (2005) reports that approximately 17% of the shoreline of Cayuga Creek is
protected, with the majority of the structures existing downstream of the confluence of Cayuga and
Bergholtz Creeks and that there are no erosion sites in the lower reach of Cayuga Creek downstream of
Bergholtz Creek. Also, Baird notes that 10% of the shoreline of Bergholtz Creek is protected within their
Study Area.
There is some bank instability throughout the creeks; however, bank erosion does not appear to
be a significant problem in Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks (Frothingham and Brown 2005). Several log
jams and other debris/garbage were noted, and were thought to artificially raise the level of flooding in
Cayuga Creek during the spring freshet and large rainfall events. As part of the habitat mapping
conducted for NYPA, minor erosion sites, sedimentation, and debris jams in Cayuga Creek were
identified and located in the field using GPS coordinates (URS et al. 2005b).
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-19
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.5
Water Quality
3.5.1
Water Quality Classification and Impairments
Cayuga Creek is classified as a Class C waterbody by the NYSDEC. According to NYSDEC
standards, the best usage for Class C waters is fishing. In addition, the standards state “the water quality
shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and
secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes” (NYSDEC
2004). Cayuga Creek and minor tributaries and Bergholtz Creek and tributaries are listed as impaired on
the NYSDEC’s Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List (NYSDEC 2004). Bergholtz Creek (and
its tributaries) are new additions in 2004 to the “Part 1 – Individual Waterbody Segments with
Impairment Requiring TMDL Development” list, due to pathogens and phosphorus from urban runoff.
Bergholtz and its tributaries are also listed as impaired for fish consumption due to PCB contaminated
sediment. Cayuga Creek is listed as impaired for fish consumption due to dioxin contaminated sediment.
Cayuga Creek is under a fish consumption advisory from the NYSDOH to “eat none” due to
dioxin contaminated sediment (NYSDOH 2005).
This advisory is based largely on the results of
NYSDEC 2002, in which fish tissue sampling was conducted in Cayuga Creek in 1997. This study
implicates industrial and landfill sites along Cayuga Creek and Bergholtz Creek as sources of PCB and
DDT contamination in fish in the Little River. Also, data collected as part of the NYSDEC study
indicates that a significant source of mirex, dieldrin, and chlordane is located upstream from Porter Road,
as young-of-year fish contained levels of these contaminants. NYSDEC 2002 also suggests that sediment
contamination associated with the Love Canal is a suspected contributor to dioxin levels in fish in Cayuga
Creek.
3.5.2
Monitoring Programs and Data Inventories
A list of ongoing environmental monitoring programs in the watershed is presented in Table
3.5.2-1. Data from some programs are inventoried and contained in Appendix B. Although it is not listed
in Table 3.5.2-1, the surface water quality data collected from Cayuga Creek during the NPP relicensing
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-20
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
studies is contained in the data inventory. The results from the various monitoring programs will be
discussed further in the appropriate resource area sections of this report. The programs are mentioned
here to gain perspective on the activities within the watershed. As mentioned, data related to contaminant
monitoring in sediment, groundwater and biota are not included in the data inventory. Readers are
referred to the specific studies if there is interest in the analytical aspects of these investigations.
3.5.3
Surface Water Quality
Water quality has been an issue in the Erie-Niagara Basin including Cayuga Creek for many
decades dating as far back as the early 1900’s especially in the industrialized lower half of the watershed
(USACE 2002). It was noted that relatively few watershed based organized studies have been conducted
on Cayuga Creek that comprehensively quantify the water quality conditions (USACE 2002). The most
recent watershed-wide evaluation of water quality was the 1975 Cayuga Creek Water Quality Study. The
report for this study set forth the qualitative and quantitative results of water quality conditions on the
creek during that time period (ENCRPB 1975).
Eleven samples for water quality analyses were taken along Cayuga Creek (including one in
Bergholtz Creek at 91st Street) on June 17, 1975. The results, presented in Appendix B, indicated:
a. Temperatures along the creek were at or near ambient air levels except at the mouth, where
cooler water from the Little River entered the creek.
b. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels were quite high down to Porter Road. Between Porter Road
and Pine Avenue the DO dropped almost 50 percent and remained essentially at this level thereafter. This
drop was attributed to the inflow of oxygen-poor water from Bergholtz Creek carried upstream of Pine
Avenue by backwater effects.
Downstream of the Cayuga-Bergholtz confluence, Cayuga Creek is
virtually stagnant.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-21
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
c. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels were quite low throughout the creek system. This
parameter is a measure of the organic matter present in water usable by stream microorganisms for
growth. Because this process requires oxygen, high BOD’s usually depress the DO level. The BOD
determination is subject to large errors in industrially polluted waters because it may be difficult to culture
a population of microorganisms sufficiently hardy to grow in waters receiving toxic inflows. This may be
a factor downstream of Bergholtz Creek, explaining the slightly lower BOD’s noted here. Alternatively,
these lower BOD’s may be explained as simple dilution effects due to the Bergholtz inflow. Note the
sharp increase between Samples 1 and 2, attributed to the sanitary outfalls of the Niagara-Wheatfield
School. The high DO levels exhibited here indicate that the creek has “recovered” (by aeration) from the
harmful effects of organic inflows.
d. Turbidity, a direct measure of the opacity and an indirect measure of the suspended particulate
load of creek water, along with the actual suspended solids values, indicate that Cayuga Creek carries a
relatively heavy particulate load in suspension. For comparison, most streams exhibit turbidities below
5.0. The opacity of Cayuga Creek is due to fine clay and silt particles eroding from streambanks and bed.
e. Dissolved Solids levels were quite high throughout the creek system. This determination is a
measure of mineral content and inorganic pollution. Baseline conditions along the creek are quite high
due to the local geology and soils. Downstream, dilution effects steadily reduce the dissolved solids
concentration.
f. Total and Fecal Coliform counts per 100 ml of water, measures of sanitary quality, were
alarmingly high along the entire creek. Coliforms are bacteria often (but not necessarily) associated with
sewage. Fecal coliforms specifically are associated with the excrement of warm-blooded animals. Their
presence in water often signals the presence of pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria. For this reason no
coliforms are tolerated in drinking water, while total and fecal counts above 2,200 and 200 respectively
are considered undesirable in recreational waters. These figures were greatly exceeded throughout much
of Cayuga Creek. Apparent major sources in the upper creek are the Niagara Wheatfield Schools (note
the increase between Samples 1 and 2) and runoff from inadequate private septic systems. In the lower
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-22
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
creek, major sources are the Bergholtz inflow and stormwater drainage contaminated by illegal or
improper sanitary sewer connections.
g. pH values, which express relative acidity, reveal the alkaline nature of creek waters (pH
greater than 7). This is expected; the soils and bedrock throughout western New York are ample sources
of alkaline materials, so that most streams in the region are alkaline.
h. Organic Nitrogen and Phosphate concentrations indicate that Cayuga Creek is biologically
enriched. These substances are important nutrients supporting the growth of aquatic plant life. Organic
nitrogen concentration above 0.2 mg/l and phosphate concentrations above 0.01 mg/l can promote algal
blooms, nuisance growths of microscopic plants which degrade water quality. Furthermore, nitrogen
compounds are oxidized by creek microorganisms, further depressing the creek DO levels. Nutrient
sources along Cayuga Creek include septic system runoff, contaminated storm drainage, the Niagara
Wheatfield Schools, Bergholtz Creek, and agricultural runoff in the upper basin (ENCRPB 1975).
Presently, the NYSDEC monitors water quality on Cayuga Creek and maintains records of
conditions. The NYSDEC Rotating Intensive Basin Survey (RIBS) program collected data from Cayuga
and Bergholtz Creeks in 2001 (NYSDEC 2005b). Sampling is scheduled for 2006. The intensive site at
Cayuga Creek was sampled four times in 2001 to collect surface water samples, macroinvertebrates and
sediment. The water column parameters of concern were listed as iron, zinc and total dissolved solids.
This site was listed as moderately impacted based upon information gathered. The toxicity tests reported
no significant mortality or reproductive impairment was detected at the site. Bacteriological parameters
were fairly high – see data inventory in Appendix B. However, compared to the results from 1975, the
RIBS data indicate that bacterial contamination in Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks has improved
substantially.
The sampling at the Bergholtz Creek screening site showed high specific conductance outside the
range of the programs assessment criteria. pH was measured at 7.7 and DO was 5.3 mg/L. The water
quality was assessed as moderately impacted at this site due to the macroinvertebrate community
assessment.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-23
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
In addition, the NYSDEC RIBS Program also collects and analyzes macroinvertebrate
communities as indicators of water quality. Cayuga Creek site was listed as moderately impacted and
indicated that toxic inputs were the primary sources of impact.
dominated by pollution tolerant sowbugs and riffle beetles.
The macroinvertebrate fauna was
Tissue analysis on crayfish collected
contained concentrations of zinc and mirex that were above levels of concern (NYSDEC 2005b). See
data inventory in Appendix B.
Bergholtz Creek was also listed as moderately impacted. The likely source of impact was listed
as organic wastes. The fauna was dominated by sewage tolerant sowbugs (NYSDEC 2005b). See data
inventory in Appendix B. The USFWS collected macroinvertebrates from Cayuga Creek on the airbase
in 2004. Data indicated that the reach was impacted and follow-up sampling was initiated (C. EwellHodkin, personal communication).
Water quality data was also collected from three sites on Cayuga Creek by NYPA in 2003 as part
of NPP relicensing. The results show that turbidity is almost always the highest at site CC-02, which is
located just downstream of the confluence with Bergholtz Creek.
Turbidity was not measured in
Bergholtz Creek, however based upon the relatively large amount of flow it provides to Cayuga Creek
and visual observations; Bergholtz Creek contributes to the sediment load and turbidity levels in Cayuga
Creek downstream. Data collected upstream of the influence of Niagara River water level fluctuations at
site CC-03 shows that Cayuga Creek in this location is also relatively turbid, even during dry weather
events (the average turbidity during all weather types was 16.7 NTUs) (URS and Gomez and Sullivan
2005).
Discrete dissolved oxygen and temperature measurements were also collected in the same
locations in Cayuga Creek by NYPA in 2003. Dissolved oxygen levels were generally the highest
upstream at CC-03 with the lowest measurement of 6.57 mg/L taken on July 11, 2003. Dissolved oxygen
levels downstream at CC-02 were consistently lower, ranging from 3.77 to 7.19 mg/L throughout the
study. Improvements were seen at the downstream site at CC-01 where dissolved oxygen levels ranged
from 5.00 to 9.43 mg/L. As with turbidity, Bergholtz Creek located just upstream likely has an effect on
dissolved oxygen levels measured at CC-02. This was evident on June 26, 2003, when dissolved oxygen
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-24
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
at CC-02 was 3.84 mg/L, while upstream at CC-03 dissolved oxygen was 8.82 mg/L and downstream at
CC-01, dissolved oxygen was 9.17 mg/L. The NYSDEC dissolved oxygen data collected from Cayuga
Creek in 2001 ranged from 4.9 mg/L (August 1, 2001) to 8.6 mg/L (May 15, 2001) (NYSDEC 2005b).
The water temperatures in the Niagara River and its tributaries were also investigated during NPP
relicensing. Location CC-01 is demonstrably affected by water level fluctuations in the Chippawa-Grass
Island Pool. Annual patterns and frequency distribution patterns in water temperature values strongly
indicate a temperature effect at this location, and the timing of these fluctuations is consistent with water
level changes in the Chippawa-Grass Island Pool. At all locations where temperature effects were
identified, the effects were of insufficient magnitude to affect the behavior and survival of any life history
stage of any focus fish species likely to be present (URS 2005).
3.5.4
Pollutant Sources
Agricultural activities and urban runoff were cited in NYSDEC 2004 as having significant
impacts to creeks in the Niagara River watershed. Specifically, poor agricultural management practices
such as improper manure application, little riparian buffer and lack of leachate control were cited as
impacting water quality. Also, pollutants from urban areas were cited as contributing to water quality
impairments in the area.
Generally, Cayuga Creek remains impaired by pollutants originating from SPDES outfall points,
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), industrial discharges, and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). Nonpoint source contribution of pollutants and suspended sediment are also contributing factors to water
quality problems. Several inactive hazardous waste sites are located within the watershed. In addition,
dense residential development and the presence of the Niagara Falls Air Force Base to the north have
depleted much of the creek’s buffer and created substandard water quality conditions (USACE 2002).
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-25
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
The Niagara River area has a long history of environmental pollution. Some of these problems
remain under active remediation in the Cayuga Creek watershed today. Several hazardous waste sites
within the watershed are summarized in this section. The pollution associated with Love Canal is the
most well known. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced its intent to delete
the Love Canal Superfund site from the National Priorities List.
The Love Canal Site is bordered on the north by Black Creek and Bergholtz Creek and on the
west by Cayuga Creek. Black Creek is a tributary to Bergholtz Creek, which flows into Cayuga Creek.
Cayuga Creek flows to the Little River which joins the Niagara River. This site was used to dispose
industrial hazardous wastes as well as municipal wastes from 1942 to 1953 during its 11 year period of
operation. In 1979, a clay cap was installed and a permanent leachate collection system was constructed.
An activated carbon treatment plant treats the leachate prior to discharge to the Niagara Falls Waste
Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). In 1984 the installation of an extended cap which includes a synthetic
membrane covering the area of concern was completed. Also starting from 1983, investigations were
conducted to determine the extent of contamination in Black, Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks, as well as the
102nd Street delta into the Niagara River. Due to these investigations, the following remedial actions were
completed: cleaning of off-site sewers, installation of perimeter wells to assess the effectiveness of Love
Canal remedial actions, construction of an administration building for the treatment plant and cleaning of
the Black and Bergholtz Creeks (NYSDEC 2003) To remediate the contamination, 18” of sediment were
dredged from both creeks -from the confluence of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks, upstream to just beyond
the confluence of Black and Bergholtz creeks. Clean fill was placed in the stream bed to re-establish
“prior to dredging” conditions.
Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks were all contaminated as a result of releases from the Love
Canal Site. The chemical 2,3,7,8-TCDD was considered characteristic of Love Canal contamination and
high concentrations (up to 46 ppb) were found in sediment of Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks.
2,3,7,8-TCDD was also detected in crayfish from Bergholtz Creek and spottail shiners from Bergholtz
Creek, Cayuga Creek, and the Niagara River near the 102nd Street storm sewer. Contaminants and
remedial activities associated with the Love Canal Site injured migratory birds and warmwater fish along
the Niagara River, Bergholtz Creek, Black Creek, and Cayuga Creek. In addition to the above ecological
service losses, recreational use of the fisheries in the Niagara River and Cayuga Creek have been
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-26
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
impaired due to fish consumption advisories. Physical and chemical habitat degradation associated with
these sites has also affected human use services such as bird watching, hiking, and water-based recreation
(USFWS 2005b).
The 102nd Street Landfill Site is a 22.1 acre property owned by Occidental Chemical and Olin
Corporation. A 42-inch storm sewer crosses the property from its origin near the Love Canal Site to its
discharge point into the Niagara River. The Site was operated as separate landfills by Occidental, Olin,
and their predecessors from approximately 1943 through 1970. The landfills have been closed since
1970. While operational, at least 159,000 tons of liquid and solid waste were deposited into the landfill.
These deposits included at least 4,600 tons of benzene, chlorobenzene, chlorophenols, and
hexachlorocyclohexanes.
Chemicals have migrated from the site into the Niagara River both in
groundwater and transported by surface water. While the effects of this contamination were generally
limited to the Niagara River, the site is in close proximity to the Cayuga Creek watershed.
The Dibacco Site No. 1 - Old Creek Site (DEC #932056A) is located behind 9115 Porter Road in
the Town of Niagara. The fill of concern is located partially within the former creek channel of Cayuga
Creek. The following chronology, which was taken from USACE 2002, was gathered from documents
contained in the NYSDEC files and obtained by the USACE through the Freedom of Information Act.
The subject portion of Cayuga Creek was re-routed circa 1969 in association with the construction of a
flood control berm adjacent to the farmer’s field. This local flood control effort left behind a 1500-footlong section of former creek channel. In 1977, when the property was owned by Michigan Mayne Realty,
dumping was allowed to take place within and adjacent to the former creek channel. This landfilling was
short-lived due to a 1978 resolution by the Town of Niagara, which banned further dumping at the site.
The area was then graded and capped with clay. During the landfills short life span, it appears that the
vast majority of the waste consisted of demolition debris and damaged silica and aluminum products
manufactured by Carborundum Company which were damaged in a warehouse fire. Additional wastes
included
construction
rubble,
abrasive
grains,
alumina
and
organic
wastes
(spent
hexachlorocyclopentadiene catalyst) of unknown quantities were dumped at the site. In all, it is estimated
that 3,300 cubic yards of material was dumped. Subsequent water samples of Cayuga Creek taken in the
early 1980’s showed low levels of lead, mercury and organic chemicals. During the 1990’s, further
sediment and groundwater sampling was performed under the direction of the NYSDEC to determine the
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-27
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
need for remediation of the site. Soil borings taken during the installation of several monitoring wells
indicated that there is between 0-4 feet of industrial and soil fill and fly ash over the original soil material.
Soil analysis of all four borings contained some polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination.
Low concentrations of cyanide were found in one sample. Groundwater samples collected from the
monitoring wells indicated the presence of lead, chromium, iron, magnesium, sodium, manganese and
zinc above NYSDEC groundwater standards. The NYSDEC de-listed the site in 1998.
The Charles Gibson site (NYSDEC #932063) is located southwest of Cayuga Village Trailer Park
near Tuscarora Road. This site is still active. Remediation was performed in the late 1980’s and included
the re-alignment of 500’ of Cayuga Creek and the containment of the waste. It is owned by Owen
Corporation.
There is a long-term Operation and Maintenance plan in place.
403 drums of
hexachlorobenzene plus 101 truckloads of hexachlorocyclohexane were reported by the Olin Corporation
to have been buried here. The property is in a densely populated area and is bounded on the east by
Cayuga Creek which flows directly into the Niagara River. Long term groundwater monitoring, operation
and maintenance plans are in place for remainder of this site (NYSDEC 2003).
The Gibson Site
Remediation was completed in 1990 and continues to be monitored.
The Bell Aerospace Textron plant is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the Niagara River,
adjacent to the Niagara Falls International Airport. Between 1950 and 1980, the company used an
unlined 60’ X 100’ surface impoundment to collect wash water from rocket engine test firings, storm runoff, and solvent drippings from cleaning, degreasing, and anodizing operations. Hazardous waste and
constituents of concern include trichloroethylene and dichloroethylene. The wastes were discharged to a
sanitary sewer after pH adjustment. Beneath the site lies one overburden and two bedrock aquifers.
Groundwater flow through the overburden aquifer is primarily to the south-southeast. There is a potential
vertical flow between the overburden and the upper bedrock aquifer, and at least some of the groundwater
from the overburden discharges to Bergholtz Creek.
The overall remedial program is designed to
intercept the bedrock groundwater that is migrating off-site toward the Niagara River. It consists of the
installation of 11 groundwater extraction wells. Monitoring data of 2002-2003 indicates a complete
capture zone has been obtained along the southern boundary. The on-site system is designed to recover
four pounds of volatile compounds daily (USEPA and NYSDEC 2004).
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-28
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Other sources of contaminants, known and unknown, are located within the watershed, including
at least one PCB source within the Bergholtz Creek watershed. Contaminants have been found in Cayuga
Creek at Lindbergh Avenue and are suspected to be associated with Love Canal. Contaminants were also
found during recent fish studies at sampling points to the north of Porter Road in the vicinity of the
Niagara Falls Air Force Base (USACE 2002).
Young-of-year fish and mussel contaminant data reflect the effectiveness of remedial activities at
hazardous waste sites. While the data for most locations indicated decreasing trends, there were some
locations (e.g., Cayuga Creek) where the data suggested the new or continuing presence of contaminants.
Young-of-year fish were collected in 1997 for contaminant analysis. The fish are used as indicators of
fairly recent or localized contamination. There were a total of 6 sampling locations in Cayuga Creek (3),
Bergholtz Creek (1) and the Little River (2) (NYSDEC 2002). Fish collected from Cayuga Creek at the
upstream site at Porter Road displayed the highest concentrations of mirex, dieldrin and chlordane. The
fungicide HCB and HCH was detected from fish in Cayuga Creek. Dioxins were detected in fish from
Cayuga Creek, Bergholtz Creek and the Little River. This study implicated Cayuga Creek as a source of
PCBs, and a significant source upstream of Williams Road on Bergholtz Creek. Data also strongly
suggest that a significant source of mirex is present upstream of Porter Road in Cayuga Creek at Porter
Road. Bergholtz Creek fish displayed high levels of PCB compounds. Dioxin levels, however, did
decline at all sites since 1992. PCBs in Bergholtz Creek are suspected from Bell Aerospace site. PCBs in
Cayuga Creek and the Little River are suspected to be from Love Canal and 102nd Street sites and from an
unknown source upstream on Porter Road. Further monitoring is underway to evaluate these locations
(NYSDEC 2002).
Stormwater
The NYSDEC, in accordance with Federal Clean Water Act legislation, has issued regulations
regarding municipal stormwater management. These regulations, referred to as the Phase II Stormwater
regulations, establish significant new requirements for municipalities that own and manage separate storm
sewer systems. Each of the identified regulated municipalities must file a Notice of Intent under the New
York SPDES General Permit. One of the requirements associated with the General Permit is to develop
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-29
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
an inventory and to map all storm sewer outfalls. A storm sewer outfall is defined as any point in a storm
sewer system where stormwater enters a water body or enters another municipality’s storm sewer system.
There are 10 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in Niagara County that are subject to the
regulations due to their location within a designated U.S. Census-defined Urbanized Area.
These
municipalities are part of the Western New York Stormwater Coalition and are working cooperatively to
meet the Stormwater Phase II requirements (M. Rossi, personal communication). The Erie County
Department of Environment and Planning has retained a consultant for Storm Sewer Outfall Identification
and GIS Mapping services. Mapping should be completed in 2006. Niagara Falls was completed in
2005. Dry weather discharges will also be noted to assist in tracking down of illicit discharges.
There are seven stormwater outfalls from NFARS into Cayuga Creek. Stormwater discharges
from aircraft deicing operations have been a concern because of the potential to contaminate stormwater
and Cayuga Creek. Site specific BMPs have been used to reduce the potential for contamination. The
BMPs have included a diversion system to drain aircraft deicing materials to the sanitary sewer system.
However, problems with “rancid, sour odor” and “chalky substance” at outfall 6 were observed during
annual storm water inspections. This outfall is the storm water drainage point for the aircraft deicing
location, indicating deicing material may be entering stormwater outfall 6 even with the BMPs in place.
Glycol has been measured at outfall 6, but its impact on the aquatic community is unknown (USFWS
2005a).
The impacts of these discharges on the biological health of the creek were assessed by USFWS
through analysis of the macroinvertebrate community at various collection sites. The results showed that
a moderate to severe impact, reflecting poor water quality, was found upstream, between and downstream
of all NFARS outfalls. The potential sources of the impact likely included agricultural runoff from
upstream, stormwater outfall discharges at sites 1 through 5, a landfill located upstream of site 2, an
aircraft fuel spill that occurred in outfall 2 drainage, a fire training area located adjacent to outfall 4 and
the creek, runoff from the runway at site 5, and municipal and industrial runoff upstream of site 6.
However, the macroinvertebrate community analysis did not show additional water quality impact from
outfall 6 (USFWS 2005a).
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-30
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.5.5
Groundwater Quality
There are various reports related to mitigation of contaminated groundwater resulting from
industrial pollution. The extent of groundwater contamination in the Cayuga Creek watershed is not
known precisely. A summary of information follows.
A Corrective Action Report pertaining to the Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under
Control at the Niagara Falls Air Base was completed in 1999. This report was based upon sampling
conducted by Ecology and Environment, Inc. of Lancaster, NY. The report determined that groundwater
was known or reasonably suspected to be contaminated above appropriately protective levels from
releases subject to RCRA Corrective Action, anywhere at, or from, the facility. However, no impacts to
Cayuga Creek were suspected (NYSDEC 1999).
At the Charles Gibson site, the only known potential exposure route is to shallow groundwater
seepage into Cayuga Creek. This potential route has been minimized by a slurry wall barrier, a cap and
drain system, and rerouting of the creek (NYSDEC 2003).
At the Love Canal and 102nd Street Sites, the groundwater standards are exceeded but monitoring
indicates that the wastes are contained by the leachate collection system and no significant chemical
contamination is migrating off-site.
3.5.6
Water Supply and Wastewater
In 1975, it was reported that most basin residents obtained water from municipal systems. Two
water treatment plants serve the [Cayuga Creek proper] watershed, the 64 million gallons per day (mgd)
City of Niagara Falls facility and the 12 mgd Niagara County Water District plant. In the upper basin
(Town of Lewiston), deep wells drilled into the Lockport Limestone yields up to 100 gallons per minute
(gpm) although the water must be softened for household use. Shallow wells and springs provide less
water and often are contaminated by septic system runoff and native sulfur compounds. Wells drilled
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-31
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
near the Niagara River may yield an average of 950 gpm as river water is drawn through bedrock fissures
(ENCRPB 1975). Currently, the source of water supplying the City of Niagara Falls is the Niagara River.
The Towns of Lewiston and Wheatfield are also on municipal supply.
In 1975, municipal wastewater treatment was available only in the City of Niagara Falls, served
by a 48 mgd treatment plant discharging outside the Cayuga Creek basin. Beyond the city, homes were
served by private septic systems, although soil characteristics did not favor such treatment. The ENCRPB
Report (1975) detailed the recommendation concerning transferring wastewater connections from septic
to sewer. Currently, most watershed residents utilize sewer connections, with the exception of the
Tuscarora Nation. The Town of Lewiston owns and operates a water pollution control center located on
Pletcher Road outside of the Cayuga Creek watershed. The Town of Wheatfield has public sewer
throughout the Town. The City of Niagara Falls WWTP is also located outside of the Cayuga Creek
watershed to the west.
3.5.7
Benthic Sediment Quality
Historical sediment contamination has occurred related to the various hazardous waste sites as
mentioned above. Dioxin contaminated sediment was dredged from Cayuga Creek in 1989. Sediment
has also been dredged from Bergholtz Creek as well. In the late 1980’s, dioxin tainted sediment was
removed from an area of Bergholtz Creek beginning at its mouth and extending upstream approximately
1.5 miles (NCDPDT 1997). The dredged material was disposed of at an offsite commercial disposal
facility. In addition, EPA conducted sediment sampling in Cayuga Creek and the Little River in May
1999. The data suggested possible upstream sources of contamination (USEPA 1999).
Cayuga Creek was sampled for sediment quality during the 2000-2001 RIBS assessment period.
The results found that zinc and 6 PAHs were at levels exceeding probable effects concentrations (PEC) in
sediments. Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and four PAHs were found at levels above the threshold
effects concentrations (TEC) (NYSDEC 2005b).
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-32
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Niagara University (NU) is conducting a sediment sampling program at sites throughout the
Niagara River Area of Concern including at sites from Cayuga and Bergholtz Creek. Sampling was
conducted in 2005 and the results are not yet available (W. Edwards, personal communication). This
project seeks to identify the remaining hot spots of contamination utilizing a stratified sampling scheme in
seven tributaries of the Niagara River including Cayuga Creek, Bergholtz Creek, and the Little Niagara
River. Specifically, the NU program sampled the water, sediment, and aquatic organisms in these
tributaries. In addition to possibly identifying previously unknown hot spots, this project will provide
important data to assess the current status of the RAP and provide the first efforts to remediate the
tributaries of the River (http://www.niagara.edu/eli/projects.htm).
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) has conducted biomonitoring in the Niagara
River since 1980 to assess long-term trends in contaminant loadings to the Niagara River. Sampling in
1997 revealed that dioxins and furans detected in mussels deployed near the 102nd Street Landfill were
low and reflect the success of the site remediation and removal of contaminated sediment. Dioxins and
furans were not detected in the sediment sample collected from this site (Richman 1999).
Trace
concentrations of organic contaminants were detected in mussels deployed in Cayuga Creek in 1997
(Richman 1999).
3.6
3.6.1
Biological Resources
Instream Habitat
ENCRPB 1975 provides a comprehensive description of instream habitat of Cayuga Creek. It is
presented here for comparison with current observations. Similar descriptions are contained in USACE
2002, which may indicate that conditions have not changed much since the inventory in 1975.
In many areas of Cayuga Creek, the creek bottom was covered with filamentous algae; elsewhere,
emergent vegetation virtually concealed the channel. Between Saunders Settlement Road and the first
Walmore Road bridge, the creek channel was often choked with grasses and aquatic plants. In this reach,
sediment deposits occur at many of the crossing constrictions. Dense growths of small trees and bushes
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-33
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
border the creek. Numerous flow blockages occur, chiefly due to fallen trees and accumulations of
woody debris. Crossing the airport, the creek flows through a manmade diversion channel bordering the
southern perimeter of the Niagara Falls Air Force Base. This channel, excavated in 1944 to allow runway
construction, is characterized by steep rocky slopes, mucky sediment deposits, and scattered vegetation.
After crossing under the main runway, Cayuga Creek flows south through a shallow ditch-like channel
with muddy banks and bottom. Leaving the airport, Cayuga Creek flows south between the U.S. Army
Military Reservation and LaSalle Sportsmen’s Club, to Porter Road. The creek here is shallow, running
over sections of exposed bedrock. The banks support heavy plant growth, with overhanging vegetation
often forming a low canopy over the creek (ENCRPB 1975).
The creek changes character markedly between Porter and Pine Roads. Here it broadens and
velocities drop due to backwater effects of the Niagara River.
A 2,000 foot stretch immediately
downstream of Porter Road has been channelized to reduce overbank flooding. Downstream of this
section, the creek follows a meandering course roughly paralleling Tuscarora Road. The east bank is
heavily wooded; the west bank is partially cleared by property holders along the creek. In this reach, the
creek channel is strewn with refuse and natural debris. Approximately 1,000 feet above Pine Avenue, the
creek becomes wide and sluggish, with thick sediment deposits along its bed. The downstream reach
from Pine Avenue to the mouth is strewn with partially submerged shopping carts, tires, fallen tree limbs,
and other debris, including a sunken craft near the confluence with Bergholtz Creek. Changes in the
thalweg elevation at many of the bridges indicate sediment deposition has taken place due to the lower
velocities in the backwater region (ENCRPB 1975).
The NYSDEC RIBS Program has an “intensive monitoring site” located on Cayuga Creek at
Niagara Falls Blvd. At this site, 1.2 miles above the mouth, the width of the creek ranges from 6-10
meters with a depth of approximately 1 meter. The stream was described further as very murky and slow
moving, with no riffle areas at that location. The stream bank was described as moderately stable with
only small areas of erosion and the riparian zone is narrow due to the developed suburban setting. The
stream bank is covered with grass, shrubs and trees to provide overhanging cover at this location
(NYSDEC 2005b).
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-34
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
In 2000-2001, a screening site was established to gather information in Bergholtz Creek, 10
meters above the Williams Road Bridge in Niagara Falls.
This site was visited once to collect
macroinvertebrates, describe the habitat conditions, and to collect field water quality parameters. The
habitat was described as being composed of sand, boulders and gravel or bedrock, with little cobble
present, and provides less than optimal habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. Embeddedness was
high and litter was noted as fairly common. The riparian zone was vegetated but the impact of human
modification was evident (NYSDEC 2005b).
In addition to the extensive dredging and channelization of Cayuga Creek mentioned above, the
dredging of Black and Bergholtz Creeks to remediate contamination (associated with Love Canal site)
adversely affected natural resources in virtually eliminating all vegetation within and along those creeks
(USFWS 2005b).
The habitat of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks was also described in detail in two NYPA
relicensing studies: 1) “Effect of Water Level and Flow Fluctuations on Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat
(Stantec et al. 2005)” and 2) “Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish, and Cayuga Creeks (URS et al.
2005b)”. The former examined the lower sections of Cayuga Creek where habitats were characterized
using a thalweg survey (traversing the deepest portion of the creek) and by establishing three crosssectional transects between the creek mouth and the upstream extent of backwater effects from the
Niagara River (6,800 feet upstream of the confluence with the Little River). Cayuga Creek in this section
is described as a relatively shallow water body with uniform depth, substrate, and channel width. Silt and
sand were found to be the dominant substrates at each transect, although patches of coarser substrate were
also present. Beds of submergent aquatic vegetation (SAV) were intermittent, with none found along the
middle transect. Along the upper transect, wild-celery dominated. Along the lower transect the SAV
beds were sparse to moderate, with coontail and Eurasian water milfoil (an invasive species) present.
Thalweg depths gradually decreased from 12 feet in the downstream sections to 4 feet at the upstream end
without any abrupt changes. The average thalweg depth was 6 feet (Stantec et al. 2005).
In addition, a reconnaissance level habitat mapping effort was conducted for the entire length of
Cayuga Creek (URS et al. 2005b). For Bergholtz Creek, road crossings only were visited. Habitat types
were designated as riffle, run, pool, dry streambed, and wetland habitats, based on visual flow, turbulence,
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-35
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
depth, gradient, and vegetation. A photograph was taken at every habitat type change or every 200
meters. Stream section length, average wetted width, average depth, gradient, substrate, bank slope
(mean for both sides of the creek in percent slope), turbidity, water odor, average riparian buffer width
(mean for both sides of the creek), dominant riparian vegetation type and species, and species of emergent
and submergent aquatic vegetation were measured or estimated for each section. Hanging culverts and
fish barriers were identified along Cayuga Creek.
Fish barriers were also identified in the field and translated to a GIS data layer for this study. In
Cayuga Creek, hanging culverts are a problem in reach C6 - Western Tributary of Cayuga Creek to the
Eastern Tributary of Cayuga Creek, reach C8 - Headwaters of Cayuga Creek, and reach CET1 - Cayuga
Creek – Unnamed Eastern Tributary.
Additionally, woody debris jams and a bedrock ledge
approximately one foot high in reach C5 - Eastern Tributary of Cayuga Creek to Walmore Road inhibit
fish movement (URS et al. 2005b).
Additional details regarding instream habitat are provided in Frothingham and Brown 2005, as
previously described. The elements included, bank stability, channel condition, riparian zone, nutrient
enrichment, water appearance, instream fish cover, and barriers to fish movement.
3.6.2
Wetlands
It is evident from the physical appearance of Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks that significant
channel alterations have occurred historically. These alterations have no doubt resulted in the loss of
wetlands throughout the watershed. The extent of such loss can only be speculative.
Federal and NYSDEC jurisdictional depressional and riverine freshwater wetlands are located
throughout the watershed and range in vegetative succession from emergent to forested cover types.
Riverine and shoreline (littoral zone) vegetated shallows also occur sporadically along and within Cayuga
Creek and its tributaries as emergent and aquatic bed communities occupying shoals, side channels and
backwater areas. The most notable NYSDEC and Federal wetlands on Cayuga Creek are located at the
creek headwaters point west of Bridgeman Road and north of Saunders Settlement Road in the Town of
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-36
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Lewiston. These wetlands provide some wetland functions and benefits but were ditched and drained in
the past for agriculture and consequently exist in a functionally degraded state. Other notable areas of
NYSDEC and Federal freshwater wetlands are located along and adjacent to Bergholtz, Black, and
Sawyer Creeks and elsewhere throughout the watershed (USACE 2002).
Wetlands within the watershed are also depicted in GIS layers. Two types are shown; those
identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
those identified and regulated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station coordinates its natural resource management projects with
the USFWS. One of the first projects between the USFWS and NFARS was to map wetlands on the
installation in 1997. The project demonstrated the harmful effect (i.e., competition with native desirable
species) of the spread of the invasive plant purple loosestrife. Subsequently, NFARS and the USFWS
developed and initiated another project to biologically control purple loosestrife by introducing and
monitoring Galerucella beetles (USACE 2002).
3.6.3
Fish and Wildlife Communities
Black, Bergholtz, and Cayuga Creeks support a warmwater fishery that includes species such as
largemouth bass, rock bass, sunfish, minnows, stickleback, and shiners. Brown bullhead, yellow perch,
northern pike, smallmouth bass, carp, white sucker, and redhorse sucker also inhabit Cayuga Creek
(USFWS 2005b).
An inventory of the fish species documented in Cayuga Creek is contained in
Appendix B. Fish habitat is in most respects fair, however warm water temperatures and low flows
during hot, dry summers may limit the fishery especially within the upper reaches of Cayuga Creek
(USACE 2002).
The habitat adjacent to these creeks can be expected to support a variety of passerine bird species,
such as red-winged blackbirds, as well as water birds such as great blue herons and black-crowned night
herons. Waterfowl, particularly dabbling ducks like the mallard and black duck, use these creek habitats
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-37
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
for feeding. Waterfowl known to occur on Cayuga Creek include the mallard, scaup, common goldeneye,
bufflehead, Canada goose, and red breasted merganser (USFWS 2005b).
Extensive clearing for agriculture has severely reduced wildlife habitats in the upper Cayuga
Creek basin. The scattered brush and open fields remaining can support population of rabbits, pheasant,
skunk, small rodents, and a variety of common songbirds. A survey conducted in 1975 noted evidence of
muskrats and raccoons along the banks. Downstream of Pine Avenue, urban development has severely
reduced available wildlife habitats. The upper reaches of Cayuga Creek are fairly productive despite the
stream’s small size. Field survey personnel noted numerous frogs, caddisfly larvae, and crayfish near the
Saunders Settlement Road bridge. In many areas, the creek bottom was covered with filamentous algae;
elsewhere, emergent vegetation virtually concealed the channel (ENCRPB 1975).
According to USACE 2002, Cayuga Creek supports typical fish and wildlife species endemic to
the region and ecology of the watershed. Great blue heron, green heron, wood ducks, black ducks,
mallard ducks and Canada geese are seasonal regulars all along the creek. Muskrat, mink, beaver; whitetail deer, raccoon, opossum, and gray squirrel are among the more common terrestrial fauna. Painted and
snapping turtles, green frog, leopard frog and bullfrogs and salamanders live in and along the creek and
associated wetlands.
The lower half of the watershed is highly developed and habitat is fragmented, and in places,
limited to the immediate narrow riparian corridor. Very little organized data exists that quantifies the loss
of habitats on Cayuga Creek. Generally, the northern third of the basin retains the most continuous
wildlife habitat due mostly to the relative lack of development and lack of significant fragmentation. In
this portion of the watershed the main-stem corridor contains a mosaic of upland, wetland and mesic
vegetative covertypes and community associations. Much of the land in the watershed was at one time
farmed so areas range from successional herbaceous communities and shrub-land to subclimax and
climax forest types (USACE 2002).
Although measures are being taken to improve conditions in the watershed, historically there has
been loss and diminishment of the quantity and quality of the fish and wildlife habitat. This is due to
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-38
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
changes in land use, industrial development and the effects of point and non-point source discharges on
water quality. This is most true west of Walmore Road through the airport-airbase complex southward
through the Town of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls. In these segments upland, wetland, riparian,
and aquatic habitats have been variably degraded, fragmented or removed for roads, buildings,
channelization, and bank stabilization. Although, conservation programs and regulations, local initiatives
and ordinances, and state and federal wetlands regulations have reduced the rate of loss and degradation
of habitats, and are attempting to restore some habitats, the effects of the previous land uses and activities
are still evident and degradation continues.
Also, non-native plant infestations including purple
loosestrife and common reed disrupt native communities and diminish populations of many at risk species
(USACE 2002).
USACE 2002 also references several biological inventories conducted on the NFARS. The
inventory was conducted within the Niagara Falls Air Force Base by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
between 1997 and 1999 which included bird, mammal, fish, reptiles and amphibian species. Dominant
vegetation was also documented. Species found are listed in Appendix B and are generally endemic to
the region and watershed conditions.
As mentioned in Section 3.5, Cayuga Creek is under a fish consumption advisory from the
NYSDOH to “eat none” due to dioxin contaminated sediment (NYSDOH 2005). This advisory is based
largely on the results of NYSDEC 2002, in which fish tissue sampling was conducted in Cayuga Creek in
1997. As a follow-up to the NYSDEC 2002 fish contaminant investigation, USFWS and NYSDEC staff
set passive in-situ concentration/extraction samplers (PISCES) in 10 locations in Cayuga Creek on, and
upstream of, the NFARS to track potential sources of contaminants. PCBs and organochlorine pesticides
have been detected in fish in Cayuga Creek downstream of the NFARS in 2005. The samplers remained
in the creek for two weeks. In addition, young-of-the-year fish were collected from the most upstream
and downstream locations monitored. The results are not yet available.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-39
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
3.6.4
Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
As part of the survey conducted by USFWS on NFARS, a Rare, Threatened and Endangered
(RTE) Species Study was conducted between 1997 and 1999. The investigation identified six (6) avian
species that are threatened, endangered or special concern. Of these species, the upland sandpiper and
grasshopper sparrow are believed to use the watershed as breeding habitat. In addition to the avian
species, the USFWS recorded a possible siting of box turtle. Appendix B summarizes the known or
suspected species within the Cayuga Creek watershed.
The NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries conducted an investigation to confirm the potential for pirate
perch habitat in Cayuga Creek. Although no occurrences were noted during 2000-2001, the historic
presence of this species is considered significant by the NYSDEC. Pirate perch is not listed as a protected
species, but has been recommended for inclusion on the special concern list. The presence of pirate perch
has not been confirmed in Cayuga Creek for approximately 70 years. The Draft Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy for New York (NYSDEC 2005a) stated that the Cayuga/Bergholtz Creek watershed
has historically served as a refugium for some Midwestern species that have not been found elsewhere in
the Niagara River drainage basin. One of the specific recommendations of the Wildlife Conservation
Strategy is to determine if habitat for pirate perch in Cayuga/Bergholtz Creeks is suitable.
During relicensing, NYPA conducted two RTE studies. In the study Occurrences of Rare,
Threatened, and Endangered Mussel Species in the Vicinity of the Niagara Power Project (Riveredge
2005b), twenty-two sites in or adjacent to the Niagara River were selected for field surveys. It was
reported that Cayuga Creek had no suitable habitat for mussels.
In addition, NYPA published the report Assessment of the Potential Effects of Water Level and
Flow Fluctuations and Land Management Practices on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species and
Significant Occurrences of Natural Communities at the Niagara River Project (Riveredge 2005a). This
report stated that the plant Southern blue flag (Iris virginica var. shrevei) was found at Jayne Park on
Cayuga Island.
This showy perennial herb (NYSDEC Endangered, USFWS Unlisted) is widely
distributed and can grow up to six feet tall. It often forms extensive colonies by means of rhizomes. The
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-40
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
inland shrevei variety is characterized by greater branching and also by longer (to four inches) seed
capsules. Its usually purple flowers are two to three inches across. In New York these flowers have been
observed from mid- May to mid-June, and its capsules through July. This iris grows in full sun in wet
areas such as shorelines, wetlands, marshes, ditches, and shallow water. It ranges from southwestern
Quebec to Minnesota, south to the Carolina uplands and west to Texas.
Flora of a Marsh on Cayuga Island, Niagara County, New York (Eckel 1991) was also reviewed.
This brief report provides an inventory of the vegetation species including rare and invasive plants,
observed on Cayuga Island in 1991.
The New York Natural Heritage Program was consulted during the development of the scope of
work for the RTE relicensing studies. This program enables and enhances conservation of New York’s
rare animals, rare plants, and significant ecosystems. The information obtained for relicensing should be
updated specific to the Cayuga Creek watershed.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-41
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE 3.5.2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMS IN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED
Program
Entity
Resource Areas
Details
Rotating Intensive Basin Survey
(RIBS)
NYSDEC
Surface Water Quality,
Macroinvertebrates, Toxicity
Sampling scheduled for 20052006 in Niagara basin. One site in
Cayuga Creek, one site in
Bergholtz Creek. Previous results
from 2000-2001 in data inventory.
Niagara County Water
Quality/Nutrient Loading
Niagara County SWCD in
conjunction with Brockport State
College
Surface Water Quality
Initiated in 2006. Parameters
include nutrients, DO,
conductivity and stream flow.
One site in Cayuga Creek, One
Site in Bergholtz Creek.
Riverwatch Volunteer Monitoring
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper
Surface Water Quality,
Proposed to start in summer 2006.
Volunteer recruitment underway.
Stations to include Cayuga and
Bergholtz Creeks.
Invasive Species
Contaminants in Y-O-Y Fish
NYSDEC – T. Preddice &
USFWS - Amherst
Contaminants
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-42
Sampling of juvenile fish from
Cayuga and Bergholtz Creek in
1997. Sampled again in 2005.
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE 3.5.2-1 (CONT.)
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMS IN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED
Program
Entity
Resource Areas
Details
Analysis of Organic Contaminants
Niagara University funded
through USEPA
Contaminants, Water Quality
Sediment samples from several
sites on Bergholtz and Cayuga.
Dioxin, PCBs, and pesticides.
Rare, Threatened and Endangered
Species Surveys
USFWS - Amherst
Wildlife
Survey performed in 1999 on the
NFARS. Next survey scheduled
for summer 2006.
Stormwater Outfall Mapping
Western NY Stormwater
Discharge Coalition
Water Quality
GIS mapping of outfalls in 20052006 to satisfy USEPA’s Phase 2
Stormwater Discharge rules.
Groundwater Remediation at
Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
NYSDEC & Responsible Parties
Groundwater monitoring
Long term groundwater
monitoring for contaminants.
Mussel Biomonitoring
Ontario Ministry of the
Environment
Water Quality, Contaminants
Biomonitoring for contaminant
remediation using caged mussels
at various sites in the Niagara
River (including a site near 102nd
Street Landfill). Monitoring
scheduled for 2006.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
3-43
Y:\GISmaps\cayuga\figure_3_2_1_1.mxd
Legend
Lewiston
AGRICULTURE
PUBLIC FACILITY
COMMERCIAL
PUBLIC RECREATION
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
LANDFILL
SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITY
MINING
TRANSPORTATION
MIXED-USE
UNKNOWN TUSCARORA LANDS
OPEN SPACE
UTILITIES
OPEN WATER
VACANT
PRIVATE RECREATION
Cambria
Tuscarora Nation
Lewiston
Reservoir
No Land Use Data Available
Cayuga Creek
Watershed
Wheatfield
Pendleton
Niagara Falls
Niagara River
Grand Island
North Tonawanda
Amherst
F
0
3,500
7,000
14,000
Land Use in the Cayuga Creek Watershed
Feet
Note: This map was created with information copyrighted by the New York State
Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination © 2005
Figure 3.2.1-1
Y:\GISmaps\cayuga\figure_3_2_1_2.mxd
Legend
Lewiston
ACTIVE AGRICULTURE-HAY FIELD
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
ACTIVE AGRICULTURE-ROW CROP
MAIN CHANNEL STREAM
SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
ACTIVE VINEYARD
MIDREACH STREAM
SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITY
ARTIFICIAL POND
MOWED GRASS
SUCCESSIONAL NORTHERN
HARDWOOD FOREST
COMMERCIAL
OUTDOOR RECREATION
SUCCESSIONAL OLD FIELD
CONIFER PLANTATION
PUBLIC FACILITY
SUCCESSIONAL SHRUBLAND
EMERGENT WETLAND
QUARRY
TRANSPORTATION
FORESTED WETLAND
QUARRY POND
VACANT
Cambria
Tuscarora Nation
Lewiston
Reservoir
No Habitat Data Available
Cayuga Creek
Watershed
Niagara
Pendleton
Wheatfield
Niagara River
Grand Island
North Tonawanda
Amherst
F
0
3,500
7,000
14,000
Habitat Types in the Cayuga Creek Watershed
Feet
Note: This map was created with information copyrighted by the New York State
Office of Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Coordination © 2005
Figure 3.2.1-2
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
4.0 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONCERN
In reviewing the available information related to the Cayuga Creek watershed, the following
issues and areas of concern were identified. These issues will be presented in a “Report Card”. For each
category, potential actions that could be implemented to address each issue/area of concern will also be
described.
To determine improvements made in the watershed (both long and short-term),
recommendations from the previous reports focusing on Cayuga Creek watershed are presented first.
4.1
Historical Recommendations and Areas of Improvement
It is worth noting that the 1975 ENCRPB Report presented several important conclusions that
should be reiterated here so that comparisons with current conditions can be made. The report states,
“Cayuga Creek could become a valuable recreational resource if its overall environmental quality were
significantly improved. In its present state, the creek is at best an eyesore and at worst a public health
hazard. Despite Federal and State pollution abatement programs now underway, Cayuga Creek will
remain an unattractive, underutilized water resource unless watershed communities cooperatively
promote its environmental quality.” The study conclusions were:
1. Degradation of the Cayuga Creek system is caused chiefly by sewage infiltration from
inadequate or improperly maintained septic systems.
Agricultural runoff, creekside construction
activities, industrial discharges, and airport runoff aggravate the situation.
2.
This degradation is manifested by low dissolved oxygen concentrations, high nutrient
concentrations, and extremely high coliform bacteria counts. In the summertime, the creek is a health
hazard; contact with its waters should be avoided.
3. Private dumping of refuse in and alongside Cayuga Creek has endangered navigation and
converted many of its most attractive vistas into eyesores. This problem is compounded in the lower
creek by flood control and bank protective works conceived without apparent regard for aesthetic impact.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
4. Currently planned pollution abatement programs will greatly benefit the creek system, but a
cooperative effort by local communities is needed to safeguard water quality and allow full development
as a public resource. Communities must require abandonment of septic systems as soon as possible.
5. The establishment of a body with authority to make rules and regulations and implement
program (i.e., pay the cost) appears to be the best method available to implement recommendations.
Some of these problems are still prevalent throughout the watershed. There have been substantial
improvements since 1975, including: 1) abandonment of septic systems in favor of community sewer
systems leading to improved water quality; 2) remediation of hazardous waste sites and implementation
associated contaminant track-down studies (note that the severity of industrial contamination was not
well-known in 1975); 3) implementation of volunteer clean-up activities in the watershed that has
improved environmental stewardship and the aesthetic appearance of the creeks; 4) coordination of
resource agencies and implementation of recommendations in terms of water quality improvements (e.g.,
use impairments, debris removal); and 5) stronger environmental rules and regulations in place to protect
surface waters.
A list of problems and needs in the Cayuga Creek watershed was also presented in USACE 2002
and are reiterated here. The areas of concern presented in that report are:
A.
B.
C.
D.
B.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Drainage and Infrastructure (maintenance and coordination).
Flood Protection.
Shoreline Stability, Erosion and Sedimentation.
Woody Debris and Refuse Accumulation.
Water Quality.
Contaminated Sediments.
Loss of Fish & Wildlife Habitat.
Loss & Degradation of Riparian Corridors.
Floodplain and Riparian Restoration and Protection.
Lack of Coordinated Watershed-Level Planning and Management.
These problems are consistent with the watershed assessment presented here. These issues, with
the exception of the last two, are discussed in the previous sections of this watershed assessment. The
USACE Study (2002) recommended to “Develop an integrated comprehensive framework plan for
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-2
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Cayuga Creek management and restoration that assists in achieving the goals and objectives of state,
county, other Federal agencies and the local watershed communities and stakeholders. The lack of a
coordinated, basin-wide strategy for watershed drainage and management is presently a major constraint
to implementation of cost-effective solutions to the identified watershed problems. A need exists for an
agency or entity…to take the lead role in development of a comprehensive, long-term framework plan for
restoration of the Cayuga Creek watershed that integrates missions, authorities’ programs, plans and
projects of Federal and State agencies, local authorities, watershed councils, and other stakeholders.”
USACE also recommended that as site specific project opportunities emerge to address problems
and needs such as local shoreline stabilization, clearing and snagging, and ecosystem restoration, projects
should be separately initiated under authorities such as the Corps’ Section 14 and 206 programs (as well
as those of other agencies and entities).
Recommendations from NCDPDT 1997 include a suggestion that the City of Niagara Falls
address tree and debris removal along both banks of Cayuga Creek from S. Military Road north to the
Niagara Falls City line as the initial step to be undertaken in addressing the management of Cayuga
Creek. It was also suggested that the City enter into cooperative agreements with riparian property
owners to accomplish this clean-up; and further suggested the City obtain easements along Cayuga Creek
to perpetuate maintenance management. Steps have been taken to initiate the removal of debris from
Cayuga Creek by the City of Niagara Falls.
The recent Buffalo State Report (Frothingham and Brown 2005) also contains recommendations
to implement bank stabilization demonstration project sites, remove debris jams and fallen trees in the
creek, and to encourage landowners throughout the Cayuga Creek watershed to refrain from mowing or
planting crops immediately adjacent to the stream banks. Trash appears to be more of an issue in
Bergholtz Creek than Cayuga Creek; a community clean-up may yield good results.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-3
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
4.2
Current Problems and Recommendations for Potential Restoration Measures
This assessment is one of the steps leading up to a coordinated effort for watershed management
and restoration. The assessment, data compilation, and stakeholder initiation will serve as an important
first step. Additional areas of concerns may be identified and examined further in the future with input
from the Steering Committee and interested parties. This will be somewhat dependent on feedback that is
received after the publication and distribution of the Report Card.
Through the watershed assessment effort, the following problems and areas for potential
restoration are summarized here. These ideas should be developed further through discussions with the
Steering Committee and interested parties and may serve as a useful starting point for the Restoration
Road Map that is planned for the future.
•
Historic channel alterations resulted in the loss of wetlands throughout the
watershed and other problems such as low flow and loss of aquatic habitat in
areas of the upper watershed. Fish habitat is limited within the upper reaches
of Cayuga Creek due to warm water temperatures and low flows during hot,
dry summers. Opportunities for restoring historical drainage and wetland
storage should be investigated. This may not be feasible due the extensive
maintenance of the drainage network in the upper watershed.
Land
acquisition or conservation may facilitate this effort.
•
Accumulating woody debris jams along Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks is
causing bank instability, erosion, and flow restrictions, which may lead to
localized flooding problems. The City of Niagara Falls is in the process of
getting a contractor to remove debris from Cayuga Creek, targeting the sites
identified in the Buffalo State Report. A long-term maintenance plan to this
end will ensure the problems do not redevelop. Frothingham and Brown
2005, which examined bank stability, channel condition, riparian zone,
nutrient enrichment, water appearance, instream fish cover, and barriers to
fish movement, should be used to help guide watershed management
activities, such as debris removal and bank stabilization.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-4
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
•
Along with the removal of debris jams along the creeks, the need for stream
bank erosion protection, restoration and management should be emphasized.
There are several localized areas along the creeks that could be targeted for
specific restoration measures, using the previous studies for guidance.
•
There are various water quality monitoring efforts underway by the
NYSDEC, NCSWCD, and volunteers groups that should be coordinated to
maximize location and frequency of monitoring.
Data analysis and
interpretation should also be coordinated so actions can be taken to improve
water quality conditions. Additional funding mechanisms may be sought for
water quality improvements from the NYSDEC Nonpoint Source Program,
for example.
•
Major improvements in water quality conditions in the watershed have been
attributed to implementation of sewer systems, hazardous waste site
remediation and illicit discharge elimination. Further improvements should
be investigated after review of the Western New York Stormwater
Coalition’s mapping effort.
•
Physical barriers to fish movement have been documented along Cayuga
Creek in the form of hanging culverts, woody debris jams and bedrock ledges
within the creek. These areas are documented in GIS and may be a potential
restoration measure of interest.
•
Non-native plant infestations including purple loosestrife, common reed,
Japanese knotweed and Eurasian milfoil disrupt native communities and
diminish populations of many at risk species. These areas could be targeted
for specific restoration measures.
•
The NYSDEC and TN have expressed interest in the potential for pirate
perch habitat in and along Cayuga Creek. If it is determined that habitat for
pirate perch in Cayuga/Bergholtz Creeks is suitable, this may be a potential
habitat restoration project to pursue in the watershed.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-5
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
•
The lack of local plans for land protection or land acquisition within the
watershed are evident. There are, however, agricultural programs related to
conservation and environmental protection which are important to watershed
health. These initiatives (AEM and CSP) should be promoted further within
the watershed. Land acquisition and protection measures, if successful, can
be essential stepping stones in improving the characteristics of the watershed
including: recreation and conservation areas, and habitat protection and
restoration. This applies to the upper watershed where extensive clearing for
agriculture has severely reduced wildlife habitats. As well as the lower
watershed where upland, wetland, riparian, and aquatic habitats have been
variably
degraded,
fragmented
or
removed
for
roads,
buildings,
channelization, and bank stabilization.
•
Aesthetic conditions and environmental stewardship within the watershed
has improved greatly over the past 30 years. Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper
has been very active initiating several public outreach projects associated
with the Cayuga Creek watershed. These efforts are growing to include
volunteer water quality monitoring and should be further encouraged.
•
It is apparent that a coordinated effort is needed: 1) to prioritize the problems
in the watershed, 2) to concurrently develop a method to evaluate the benefits
of potential restoration measures, and 3) to implement and track the
effectiveness of these measures.
The inclusion of the NFARS in this
coordinated effort would benefit the overall goals for restoration in the
watershed.
4.3
Next Steps
The next steps in this project are to create and publish a Report Card for use in development of an
Implementation Plan. The report card will be modeled after the Buffalo River Report Card and other
similar efforts. The list of problems and potential steps for resolution were presented as a draft Report
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-6
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Card to the Steering Committee for discussion and input. The Report Card will ideally be used to
formulate a specific restoration road map for the watershed and will be distributed to the public.
After the Report Card is distributed, Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper should: 1) Coordinate with the
USACE to obtain resources for the Restoration Road Map; and 2) Coordinate with the USFWS and the
Steering Committee to develop a habitat restoration plan that proposes the precise nature of the
restoration projects that can be implemented from the natural resource damage settlements that were
achieved for the Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites.
Ten percent of the funds may be leveraged with other funds to develop the plan, with the remainder going
towards the actual restoration project(s).
The Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for ecological injuries and service losses to
address restoration for the Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision
Superfund Sites was prepared in 2005. During the period of March 1996 through December 2000, natural
resource damage settlements were achieved for the Love Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile
Home Subdivision Superfund Sites (Sites), all located within the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County,
New York. All settlements were sought as compensation for impacts to natural resources as a result of
contamination or subsequent remedial activities at the sites. Such monies recovered by Trustees must be
used to restore, replace, or acquire natural resources or services equivalent to those lost. The goal of the
Trustees is to select restoration projects that best serve to restore resources and/or services that were
impacted by contamination or remedial activities associated with the sites. One Project selected was
Cayuga Creek Restoration, submitted by City of Niagara Falls. The estimated cost for this project is
$220,000.
The City of Niagara Falls has been considering restoration options and is proposing to work with
Niagara County, area residents, and Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper to develop a stewardship program for
this creek.
Specific projects, such as debris removal, an urban canoe trail, and public
information/stewardship program are being proposed.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-7
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Cayuga Creek, Black Creek, Bergholtz Creek, and the Little River were directly and significantly
impacted by releases from the Love Canal site, as well as remedial activities. The Love Canal Consent
Decree specifically promoted the consideration of stream restoration projects. Some of the projects
proposed by the City of Niagara Falls were not consistent with the USFWS restoration objectives (e.g.,
corridor beautification), while others are consistent with those objectives, but additional planning is
needed to fully develop the project (habitat restoration). In light of the significant impacts sustained by
Cayuga Creek, Bergholtz Creek, Black Creek, and the Little River as a result of contamination and
remedial activities associated with the Love Canal Site, the Trustees propose to allocate $220,000 to be
used for habitat restoration activities in these waterways that may include physical habitat improvement,
recreational enhancements, and development of an environmental stewardship program.
USFWS
proposed that the precise nature of these projects be determined after the City develops a habitat
restoration plan in coordination with the Trustees and partners such as Niagara County and Buffalo
Niagara Riverkeeper (USFWS 2005b).
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
4-8
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper. Undated. LaSalle Canoe Trail Map & Guide.
City of Niagara Falls. 2004. Strategic Master Plan. Prep. by Urban Strategies, Inc.
Eckel, P.M. 1991. Flora of a Marsh on Cayuga Island, Niagara County, New York. Clintonia,
Magazine of the Niagara Frontier Botanical Society, Inc. 6(4):7-10.
Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board. 1975. Cayuga Creek Water Quality Study (Niagara
County). August 1975.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1979. Flood Insurance Study: Town of Lewiston, New York.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1983. Flood Insurance Study: Town of Niagara, New York.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1990. Flood Insurance Study: City of Niagara Falls, New
York.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1992. Flood Insurance Study: Town of Wheatfield, New
York.
Frothingham, Kelly M. and Natalie Brown.
2005.
Cayuga Creek Watershed Stream Assessment.
Department of Geology and Planning, Buffalo State College, Buffalo, New York.
Higgins, Bradford A., P.S. Puglia, R. P. Leonard, T.D. Yokum, and W.A. Wirtz, eds. 1972. Soil Survey
of Niagara County, New York. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
References - 1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
International Joint Commission.
2002.
Niagara River Area of Concern: Status Assessment.
International Joint Commission.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1988. Fish Collection or Small Stream
Survey (Gill and Cayuga Creeks).
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Documentation of Environmental
Indicator Determination. RCRA Corrective Action. Migration of Contaminated Groundwater
Under Control. Interim Final 2/5/99.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2000. Niagara River Remedial Action
Plan Status Report.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2002. Contaminants in Young-of-Year
Fish from Near-shore Areas of New York's Great Lakes Basin, 1997.
Bureau of Habitat,
Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. Registry of Inactive Hazardous
Waste Disposal Sites in New York State.
Volume 9 - List of Sites in: Allegany County
Cattaraugus County, Chautauqua County, Erie County, Niagara County Wyoming County.
Division of Environmental Remediation. April 2003.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2004. New York State Water Quality
2004. Submitted Pursuant to Section 305 (b) of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of
1977 (PL95-217). Division of Water. March 2004.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005a. Draft Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy for New York.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
References - 2
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005b. The Niagara River-Lake Erie
Drainage Basin. Sampling Years 2000-2001. February 2005. Division of Water.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005c. The 2002 Niagara River/Lake Erie
Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List. Division of Water. September 2005.
New York State Department of Health. 2005. Chemicals in Sportfish and Game: 2005-2006 Health
Advisories.
Niagara County Department of Planning, Development, and Tourism.
1997.
Cayuga Creek
Management Study, Niagara County, New York: Research Report.
Niagara County Soil and Water Conservation District. 2004. Niagara County Water Quality Coordinating
Committee 2004 Annual Report.
Niagara River Secretariat. 2004. Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP), Interim Progress
Report and Work Plan.
Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. Latham, NY: New York Natural
Heritage Program, NYSDEC.
Richman, Lisa A. 1999. Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring Program, 1997. Ontario Ministry of the
Environment.
Richman, L.A. 2003. Niagara River Mussel Biomonitoring Program, 2000. Ontario Ministry of the
Environment. Water Monitoring Section, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
References - 3
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Riveredge Associates, LLC. 2005a. Assessment of the Potential Effects of Water Level and Flow
Fluctuations and NYPA Land Management Practices on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
Species of the Upper Niagara River Tributaries. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.
Riveredge Associates, LLC. 2005b. Occurrences of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Mussel Species
in the Vicinity of the Niagara Power Project. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO
Engineering & Environmental Consulting, LLC.
2005.
Effect of Water Level and Flow
Fluctuations on Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat. prep. for the New York Power Authority.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Buffalo District. 2002. Cayuga Creek, Niagara County, New York,
Flooding and Related Water Resources. Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis Reconnaissance
Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Field Sampling Report Data Presentation, Sediment
Sampling Survey, Little Niagara River & Cayuga Creek, Niagara River at Bloody Run Creek,
May 1999.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
2004. Reduction in Toxics Loadings to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste Sites in the
United States.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Impacts of Storm Water Discharge from Niagara Falls Air
Reserve Station on Cayuga Creek. Prepared for: Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, Niagara Falls,
NY. January 2005.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
References - 4
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Love
Canal, 102nd Street, and Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Superfund Sites. Cortland, NY.
July 2005.
URS Corporation and Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C. 2005. Surface Water Quality of the Niagara
River and its U.S. Tributaries. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.
URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO Engineering & Environmental
Consulting, LLC. 2005a. Groundwater Flow Investigations in the Vicinity of the Niagara Power
Project. Prep. for the New York Power Authority.
URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO Engineering & Environmental
Consulting, LLC. 2005b. Ecological Condition of Gill, Fish, and Cayuga Creeks. Prep. for the
New York Power Authority.
URS Corporation, Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C., and E/PRO Engineering & Environmental
Consulting, LLC. 2005c. Upper Niagara River Tributary Backwater Study. Prep. for the New
York Power Authority.
URS Corporation. 2005. Water Temperatures of the Niagara River and its U.S. Tributaries. Prep. for the
New York Power Authority.
URS Greiner Consultants, Inc.
2000.
Town of Lewiston Comprehensive Plan, Draft Generic
Environmental Impact Statement.
Wendel Duchscherer Architects & Engineers. 2004. Town of Wheatfield Comprehensive Plan.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
References - 5
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
W. F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd.
2005. Shoreline Erosion and Sedimentation
Assessment Study Upstream and Downstream of the Power Project. Prep. for the New York
Power Authority.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
References - 6
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
APPENDICES
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX A: CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED CONTACTS
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix A-1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Entity
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper
Niagara County
NYSDEC
University of Buffalo
Contact
Resource Area(s)
Robbyn Drake
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper
617 Main St., Ste. M108
Buffalo, NY 14203
(716) 852-7483
[email protected]
Amy Fisk, Environmental Planner
Department of Economic Development
6311 Inducon Corporate Drive
Sanborn, New York 14132
(716) 278-8754
[email protected]
Tim Spierto
270 Michigan Avenue
Buffalo, N.Y. 14203-2999
(716) 851-7200 (851-7010)
[email protected]
Recreation, Access, Public Outreach
Environmental Planning
Fisheries, Water Quality
Contacted
4/17/06
4/20/06
4/20/06
Mike Wilkinson, Fish Biologist
NYSDEC Buffalo
4/25/06
Don Zelazny, Coordinator of Great Lakes Programs
NYSDEC Buffalo
5/1/06
Bob Townsend, RAP Coordinator
NYSDEC Albany
5/1/06
Joseph F. Atkinson, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor, and Director of Great Lakes Programs
Office: 202 Jarvis Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
Phone: (716) 645-2114 ext.2325
[email protected]
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix A-2
Message
4/21/06
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Entity
Contact
Resource Area(s)
Buffalo State University
Kelly M. Frothingham, Assistant Professor
(716) 878-6736
[email protected]
Erosion Study
Niagara University
Dr. Sheen Rajmaira
Environmental Leadership Inst. Executive Director 716-286-8295
[email protected]
Sediment and Water Quality Monitoring
City of Niagara Falls
USFWS – Cortland
USFWS - Amherst
US Army Corps. of Engineers
Dr. Bill Edwards 716-286-8251
[email protected]
Tom DeSantis, Senior Planner
716-286-4477
[email protected]
Anne Secord
(607) 753-9334
[email protected]
Betsy Trometer
Cara Ewell-Hodkin, Biological Technician
Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office
405 North French Road, Suite 120A
Amherst, NY 14228
(716) 691-5456
Tony Friona
US Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
716-879-4215
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, New York 14207
[email protected]
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix A-3
Land Use, Access, Planning
Fish and Wildlife, Site remediation
Fish and Wildlife
Contaminant Trackdowns
Erosion, Flooding
Contacted
4/24/06
4/24/06
4/20/06
5/4/06
4/20/06
5/4/06
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Entity
Town of Lewiston
Town of Niagara
Town of Wheatfield
Town of Cambria
Tuscarora Nation
Contact
Resource Area(s)
Steven Reiter, Highway Superintendent
Fred Newlin, Supervisor
Town Hall
1375 Ridge Road
PO Box 330
Lewiston, New York 14092
[email protected]
Telephone: (716) 754-8213
Steve Richards, Supervisor
7105 Lockport Road
Niagara Falls, NY 14305
Telephone (716) 297-2150 Ext. 136
[email protected]
Supervisor: Hon. Timothy Demler
Town of Wheatfield
Niagara County
2800 Church Road
North Tonawanda, NY
Phone: (716) 694-6440
[email protected]
Wright H. Ellis, Town Supervisor
716-433-8523
4160 Upper Mountain Road
Sanborn, New York 14132
[email protected]
Neil Patterson, Jr. (716) 609-3810
Tuscarora Environment Program
[email protected]
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix A-4
Land Use, Access, Planning
Water Use (pumphouse)
Contacted
4/21/06
6/6/06
Land Use, Access, Planning
Land Use, Access, Planning
Land Use, Access, Planning
Land Use, Access, Planning
Message
6/6/06
Message
6/7/06
6/6/06
4/21/06
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Entity
Erie Co. Dept. of Planning
WNY Stormwater Discharge
Coalition
Niagara County SWCD
Niagara Falls Air Reserve
Station
LaSalle Pride
EPA Public Information Office
Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Contact
Resource Area(s)
Mary C. Rossi
Erie County
Department of Environment & Planning
95 Franklin Street
Buffalo, New York 14202
(716) 858-7583
[email protected]
Victor DiGiacomo
Niagara County SWCD
4487 Lake Avenue
Lockport, NY 14094-1139
716-434-4949
[email protected]
Jim Matthews – 716-236-3122
Peter Borys
914th AW
Office of Public Affairs
2720 Kirkbridge Drive
Niagara Falls ARS, NY 14304-5001
Patsy Mackenna
716-283-7394
[email protected]
Mary Storrs (716) 551-4410
Paul Fuhrmann
368 Pleasant View Drive
Lancaster, NY 14086
716 - 684-8060
[email protected]
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix A-5
Stormwater Discharges
18 Mile Creek RAP Coordinator
Cayuga Creek monitoring
Contacted
4/19/06
4/20/06
4/24/06
Stewardship
1999 Sediment Study
Received 4/25/06
4/18/06
Invasive plant species
Stream Restoration
5/11/06
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX B: DATA INVENTORY
Table B-1...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Fish Species Collected From Cayuga Creek in 1987 - 1988 ...................................................................... 3
Table B-2...................................................................................................................................................... 4
Fish Species Collected From Cayuga Creek in 2001.................................................................................. 4
Table B-3...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Other Fish Species Collected From Cayuga Creek (1928 and 1970s-1980s)............................................. 5
Table B-4...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Mammal Species Inventoried by the USFWS at the Niagara Falls Air Force Base. .................................. 6
Table B-5...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Avian Wildlife Species Inventoried by the USFWS at the Niagara Falls Air Force Base. ........................ 7
Table B-6...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Reptiles and Amphibian Species Inventoried by the USFWS at the Niagara Falls Air Force Base........... 9
Table B-7.................................................................................................................................................... 10
Known or Suspected Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern Animal Species within the Cayuga
Creek Watershed....................................................................................................................................... 10
Table B-8: .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Macroinvertebrate Species Collected in Cayuga Creek, 9/12/2000 ......................................................... 11
Table B-9: .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Macroinvertebrate Species Collected in Cayuga Creek, 7/3/2001 ........................................................... 12
Table B-10: ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Macroinvertebrate Species Collected in Bergholtz Creek, 9/12/2000 ...................................................... 13
Table B-11.................................................................................................................................................. 14
Summary of Dominant Vegetation Species in the Cayuga Creek Watershed .......................................... 14
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-1
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Table B-12.................................................................................................................................................. 16
Cayuga Creek Water Quality Sampling Results (1975) ........................................................................... 16
Table B-13.................................................................................................................................................. 17
Cayuga Creek Dissolved Oxygen and Water Temperature Data, 2003.................................................... 17
Table B-14.................................................................................................................................................. 18
Cayuga Creek Turbidity Data 2003 .......................................................................................................... 18
Table B-15.................................................................................................................................................. 19
NYSDEC RIBS Water Quality Data for Cayuga Creek (2001) ............................................................... 19
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-2
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-1
FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM CAYUGA CREEK IN 1987 - 1988
Scientific Name
Amieurus nebulosus
Ampbloplites rupestris
Carassius spp.
Catostomus commersoni
Cualea inconstans
Cyprinus carpio carpio
Esox lucius
Etheostoma nigrum
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Moxostoma sp.
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis antherinoides
Notropis cornutus
Notropis hudsonius
Perca flavescens
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Umbra limi
Common Name
Brown bullhead
Rock bass
Goldfish
White sucker
Brook stickleback
Common carp
Northern pike
Johnny darter
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass
Redhorse sp.
Golden shiner
Emerald shiner
Common shiner
Spottail shiner
Yellow perch
Bluntnose minnow
Creek chub
Central mudminnow
Source: NYSDEC 1988.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-3
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-2
FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM CAYUGA CREEK IN 2001
Scientific Name
Amieurus nebulosus
Ampbloplites rupestris
Carassius spp.
Catostomus commersoni
Cualea inconstans
Etheostoma nigrum
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Nocomis micropogon
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis antherinoides
Notropis cornutus
Notropis hudsonius
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Semotilus atromaculatus
Umbra limi
Common Name
Brown bullhead
Rock bass
Goldfish
White sucker
Brook stickleback
Johnny darter
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
River chub
Golden shiner
Emerald shiner
Common shiner
Spottail shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Creek chub
Central mudminnow
Source: Collections in 2001 by NYSDEC as cited in USACE 2002.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-4
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-3
OTHER FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM CAYUGA CREEK (1928 and 1970s-1980s)
Scientific Name
Aphredoderus sayanus
Cyprinus carpio carpio
Dorsoma cepedianum
Esox americanus
Esox lucius
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Nocomis biguttatus
Common Name
Pirate perch
Common carp
Gizzard shad
Grass pickerel
Northern pike
Striped shiner
Hornyhead chub
Source: As cited in USACE 2002.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-5
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-4
MAMMAL SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA FALLS AIR
FORCE BASE
Scientific Name
Canus lutrans
Castor canadensis
Cryptotis parva
Marmota monax
Mephitis mephitis
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Odocoileus virginianus
Ondatra zibethica
Peromyscus maniculatus
Procyon lotor
Sorex dispar
Sylvilagus floridanus
Vulpes vulpes
Mustek vision
Sciurus carolinensis
Tamias striatus
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Common Name
Coyote
Beaver
Least shrew
Woodchuck
Striped skunk
Meadow vole
Whitetail deer
Muskrat
Deer mouse
Raccoon
Long-tailed shrew
Eastern cottontail rabbit
Red fox
Mink
Gray squirrel
Chipmunk
Red squirrel
Source: USFWS Survey from 1997 to 1999 as cited in USACE 2002.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-6
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-5
AVIAN WILDLIFE SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA FALLS
AIR FORCE BASE
Scientific Name
Actitis macularia
Agelaius phoeniceus
Ammodramus savannarum***
Amphispiza bilineata
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas rubripes
Ardea alba
Ardea herodias
Asio flammeus*
Bartramia longicauda**
Botaurus lentiginosus***
Branta canadensis
Buteo jamaicensis
Carduelis tristis
Carpodacus purpureus
Circus cyaneus**
Charadrius vociferus
Columbia livia
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Dumetella carolinensis
Eremophila alpestris***
Fulica americana
Hylocichia mustelina
Larus spp.
Melospiza melodia
Molothrus ater
Nyctea scandiaca
Nycticorax nycticorax
Passer domesticus
Passerculus sandwichensis
Phasianus colchicus
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Poecile atricapilla
Quiscalus quiscula
Riparia riparia
Sayornis phoebe
Common Name
Spotted sandpiper
Red-wing blackbird
Grasshopper sparrow
Black-throated sparrow
Mallard
American black duck
Great egret
Great blue heron
Short-eared owl
Upland sandpiper
American bittern
Canada goose
Red-tailed hawk
American goldfinch
Purple finch
Northern harrier
Killdeer
Rock dove
American crow
Bobolink
Gray catbird
Horned lark
American coot
Wood thrush
Gulls
Song sparrow
Brown-headed cowbird
Snowy owl
Black-crowned night heron
House sparrow
Savanna sparrow
Ring-neck pheasant
Eastern towhee
Black-capped chickadee
Common grackle
Bank swallow
Eastern phoebe
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-7
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-5 (CONT.)
AVIAN WILDLIFE SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA FALLS
AIR FORCE BASE
Scientific Name
Scolopax minor
Spizella arborea
Spizella passerina
Spizella pusilla
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Sturnella magna
Sturnus vulgaris
Tachycineta bicolor
Turdus migratorius
Tyrannus tyrannus
Zenaida macroura
Zonotrichia albicollis
Common Name
American woodcock
American tree sparrow
Chipping sparrow
Field sparrow
Northern rough-winged swallow
Eastern meadowlark
European starling
Tree swallow
American robin
Eastern kingbird
Mourning dove
White-throated sparrow
Domestic goose
Flycatcher spp.
Woodpecker spp.
Notes: * State endangered status; ** State threatened status; *** State special concern status.
Source: USFWS Survey from 1997 to 1999 as cited in USACE 2002.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-8
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-6
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES INVENTORIED BY THE USFWS AT THE NIAGARA
FALLS AIR FORCE BASE.
Scientific Name
Chelydra serpentina
Chrysemys picta
Rana pipiens
Rana slyvatica
Thamnophis sirtalis
Common Name
Snapping turtle
Painted turtle
Northern leopard frog
Wood frog
Garter snake
Source: USFWS Survey from 1997 to 1999 as cited in USACE 2002.
Note: In addition to these species, the USFWS reported a possible sighting of eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina carolina), a New York State Special Concern species.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-9
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-7
KNOWN OR SUSPECTED THREATENED, ENDANGERED OR SPECIAL CONCERN
ANIMAL SPECIES WITHIN THE CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED
Scientific Name
Aphredoderus sayanus
Ammodramus savannarum
Asio flammeus
Bartramia longicauda
Botaurus lentiginosus
Circus cyanus
Eremphila alpestris
Terrapene carolina carolina
Common Name
Pirate perch
Grasshopper sparrow
Short-eared owl
Upland sandpiper
American bittern
Northern harrier
Horned lark
Eastern box turtle
Source: As cited in USACE 2002.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-10
NY State Status
Proposed Special Concern
Special Concern
Endangered
Threatened
Special Concern
Threatened
Special Concern
Special Concern
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-8:
MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED IN CAYUGA CREEK, 9/12/2000
Family
Tubificidae
Asellidea
Gammaridae
Elmidae
Hydropsychidae
Simuliidae
Chironomidae
Genus
Count
Undetermined w/o cap. setae
Caecidotea sp.
Gammarus sp.
Stenelmis crenata
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Hydropsyche betteni
Simulium vittatum
Cricotopus bicinctus
Thienemanniella xena
Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr.
Tanytarsus glabrescens gr.
1
25
2
40
22
3
1
2
1
2
1
Note: Samples collected with a kick net from Cayuga Creek in Niagara Falls at State Route 62.
NYSDEC RIBS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR THE ABOVE SAMPLE SITE
Parameter
Result
Species Richness
Biotic Index
EPT Richness
Model Affinity
Assessment
11
5.95
2
37
Moderately Impacted
Source: NYSDEC 2005b.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-11
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-9:
MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED IN CAYUGA CREEK, 7/3/2001
Family
Tubificidae
Asellidea
Gammaridae
Elmidae
Hydropsychidae
Simuliidae
Chironomidae
Genus
Count
Potamothrix sp.
Undetermined w/ cap. setae
Undetermined w/o cap. setae
Caecidotea racovitzai
Gammarus sp.
Stenelmis crenata
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Hydropsyche betteni
Simulium vittatum
Chironomus sp.
1
1
3
40
3
40
4
3
4
1
Note: Samples collected with a kick net from Cayuga Creek in Niagara Falls at State Route 62.
NYSDEC RIBS ASSESSMENT SUMMARYFOR THE ABOVE SAMPLE SITE
Parameter
Result
Species Richness
Biotic Index
EPT Richness
Model Affinity
Assessment
10
6.65
2
33
Moderately Impacted
Source: NYSDEC 2005b.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-12
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-10:
MACROINVERTEBRATE SPECIES COLLECTED IN BERGHOLTZ CREEK, 9/12/2000
Family
Tubificidae
Hydrobiidae
Sphaeriidae
Asellidea
Gammaridae
Cambaridae
Elmidae
Hydropsychidae
Chironomidae
Genus
Count
Undetermined w/o cap. setae
Undetermined Hydrobiidae
Sphaerium sp.
Caecidotea sp.
Gammarus sp.
Undetermined Cambaridae
Stenelmis sp.
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Hydropsyche betteni
Thienemannimyia gr. spp.
Corynoneura sp.
Cricotopus bicinctus
Nanocladius rectinervis
Phaenopsectra flavipes
Polypedilum flavum
Polypedilum illinoense
Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr.
4
1
5
39
8
1
3
15
1
5
1
5
2
1
1
4
4
Note: Samples collected with a kick net from Bergholtz Creek in Niagara Falls 10 meters above Williams
Road bridge.
NYSDEC RIBS ASSESSMENT SUMMARYFOR THE ABOVE SAMPLE SITE
Parameter
Result
Species Richness
Biotic Index
EPT Richness
Model Affinity
Assessment
17
6.84
2
47
Moderately Impacted
Source: NYSDEC 2005b.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-13
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-11
SUMMARY OF DOMINANT VEGETATION SPECIES IN THE CAYUGA CREEK
WATERSHED
Scientific Name
Acer negundo
Acer rubrum
Agrostis alba
Allaria officinalis
Aster lateriflorus
Aster novae-angliae
Aster pilosus
Carex crinita
Carex tribuloides
Carya ovata
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Cornus amomum
Cornus foemina ssp. Racemosa
Crataegus sp.
Dactylis glomerata
Dipsacus sylvestris
Elymus virginicus
Epilobium coloraturn
Euthamia graminifolia
Fragaria virginiana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Geum canadense
Glyceria striata
Impatiens capensis
Juglans nigra
Juncus effusus
Leersia oryzoides
Lotus corniculatus
Lysimachia nummularia
Lythrum salicaria
Onoclea sensibilis
Phleum pratense
Phragmites australis
Poa pratensis
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Papulus tremula
Quercus bicolor
Common Name
Box elder
Red maple
Redtop grass
Garlic mustard
Calico aster
New England aster
White heath aster
Fringed sedge
Blunt broom sedge
Shag-bark hickory
Button-bush
Silky dogwood
Gray-stemmed dogwood
Hawthorn
Orchard grass
Teasel
Virginia wild rye
Purple-leaved willow-herb
Flat-top golden-rod
Strawberry
Green ash
White avens
Fowl manna grass
Spotted touch-me-not
Black walnut
Soft rush
Rice cutgrass
Birds-foot trefoil
Creeping jennie
Purple loosestrife
Sensitive fern
Timothy
Common reed
Canada bluegrass
Smartweed
Quaking aspen
Swamp white oak
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-14
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-11 (CONT.)
SUMMARY OF DOMINANT VEGETATION SPECIES IN THE CAYUGA CREEK
WATERSHED
Scientific Name
Quercus macrocarpa
Quercus palustrus
Quercus rubra
Rhus typhina
Rubus occidentalis
Sambucus canadensis
Solidago canadensis
Solidago rugosa
Tilia americana
Toxicodendron radicans
Ulmus americana
Viburnum recognitum
Vitis aestivalis
Common Name
Bur oak
Pin oak
Red oak
Staghorn sumac
Black raspberry
Elderberry
Canada golden-rod
Rough-stemmed golden-rod
American basswood
Poison ivy
American elm
Northern arrow-wood
Summer grape
Source: As cited in USACE 2002.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-15
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-12
CAYUGA CREEK WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS (1975)
Sample #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Location
Saunders
Settlement
Road
Powerline
ROW
RR near
Cory Rd.
Walmore
Road
Airport
Taxiway
Porter
Road
Pine
Avenue
12:45 PM
31.0
7.2
3.4
224
160
536
>11
million
12:05 PM
29.0
8.2
3.7
99
71
449
11:50 AM
29.0
10.8
4.1
NA
21
NA
11:30 AM
28.5
8.4
3.6
42
36
1437
11:00 AM
28.5
9.3
4.4
6
33
1363
46,000
21,000
110,000
46,000
10:30 AM
28.0
4.8
2.0
18
29
879
>11
million
70
350
550
130
260
400
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.2
8.2
8.2
Time
Temperature (°C)
DO (mg/L)
BOD-5 (mg/L)
Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Turbidity (JTU)
Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
Total Coliforms
(MPN/100 mL)
Fecal Coliforms
(MPN/100 mL)
pH
Total Organic Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Total Phosphate (mg/L)
1:15 PM
31.0
6.7
1.2
44
15
498
110,000
8
9
10
11
Pedestrian
Bridge
Buffalo
Avenue
Mouth
10:05 AM
26.0
4.0
1.5
6
16
439
9:45 AM
28.0
5.8
2.3
13
30
444
>11 million
>11 million
9:15 AM
24.0
5.0
2.8
11
24
364
>11
million
9:00 AM
20.5
4.1
3.7
10
20
360
>11
million
200
620
220
430
450
7.8
7.4
7.7
7.4
7.6
Bergholtz
Creek
(91st St.)
0.60
0.90
0.80
>0.16
0.32
0.32
Note: Date of Sampling 6/17/1975. Source: ENCRPB 1975.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-16
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-13
CAYUGA CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND WATER TEMPERATURE DATA, 2003
CC-01 (mouth)
Date
5/7/2003
5/30/2003
6/2/2003
6/26/2003
7/11/2003
7/24/2003
8/19/2003
8/28/2003
9/11/2003
9/16/2003
9/24/2003
10/2/2003
10/10/2003
10/16/2003
10/23/2003
10/28/2003
11/4/2003
Precipitation
Wet
Wet
Wet
Dry
Wet
Wet
Dry
Variable
Dry
Wet
Wet
Wet
Dry
Wet
Variable
Wet
Wet
Minimum
Maximum
Average
DO
(mg/L)
DO
(% sat)
5.9
5.26
7.9
9.17
7.34
5.79
7.65
5.00
7.67
9.43
6.73
7.34
7.81
6.85
8.85
7.93
8.27
5.00
9.43
7.35
57.2
55.7
80.1
105.2
84.5
66.4
93.8
59.1
81.3
105.3
71.4
70.0
79.7
64.7
75.6
75.7
75.0
55.7
105.3
76.5
CC-02
(Bergholtz confluence)
Temp
(°C)
13.9
17.6
15.5
21.6
22.4
22.1
25.4
23.6
18.3
20.8
18.0
13.0
16.4
12.8
10.2
11.0
11.0
10.2
25.4
17.27
DO
(mg/L)
DO
(% sat)
6.83
6.01
6.85
3.84
5.44
4.39
5.86
5.43
7.19
3.77
5.34
6.71
5.72
6.07
5.52
5.29
5.39
3.77
7.19
5.63
66.3
62.6
67.9
45.7
60.8
48.2
67.3
61.1
79.5
41.1
55.9
60.4
58.5
56.1
46.8
45.3
48.3
41.1
79.5
57.2
Temp
(°C)
Note: Source, URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005. NA = sample not collected on this occasion.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-17
14
17.1
13.6
24.0
20.8
20.2
22.1
21.3
20.1
19.2
17.4
10.2
16.2
11.7
8.2
9.8
10.3
8.2
24
16.25
CC-03 (upstream)
DO
(mg/L)
DO
(% sat)
10.9
9.62
10.43
8.82
6.57
8.45
8.3
9.3
9.4
10.77
8.57
8.99
9.83
10.31
11.37
11.06
9.63
6.57
11.37
9.55
106.7
99.6
103.6
105.4
73.2
92.6
95.6
104.2
108.3
119.0
87.3
76.5
103.2
93.7
94.6
97.6
85.5
73.2
119.0
96.9
Temp
(°C)
14.4
17.1
15
24.9
20.4
19.8
22.4
20.7
22.4
20.2
16.1
8.3
16.6
11.0
7.3
9.7
10.1
7.3
24.9
16.26
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-14
CAYUGA CREEK TURBIDITY DATA 2003
Date
5/7/2003
5/30/2003
6/2/2003
7/11/2003
7/24/2003
9/16/2003
9/24/2003
10/2/2003
10/16/2003
10/28/2003
11/4/2003
6/26/2003
8/19/2003
9/11/2003
10/10/2003
8/28/2003
10/23/2003
Precipitation
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Wet
Average Wet Weather
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Average Dry Weather
Variable
Variable
CC-01 (mouth)
67.5
33.1
67
5.23
6.53
2.23
4.77
4.81
7.67
10.5
22.4
21.07
7.14
5.16
7.03
2.76
5.52
17.3
2.78
Turbidity (NTUs)
CC-02 (confluence
with Bergholtz Cr.)
113
43.7
113
35.4
18.7
11.5
17.8
25.1
30.7
17.7
86.4
46.64
37.3
22.8
10
11.9
20.50
17.3
6.93
Note: Source, URS and Gomez and Sullivan 2005. NA = sample not collected on this occasion.
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-18
CC-03 (upstream)
25.4
24.1
24.8
16.9
7.79
7.96
13.2
13.4
14
15.7
35.3
18.05
29.9
18.4
10.9
11.7
17.73
1.14
13.9
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-15
NYSDEC RIBS WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CAYUGA CREEK (2001)
Field Parameters
Date
5/15/2001
8/1/2001
9/6/2001
10/30/2001
Conductivity,
Field
Conductivity,
Lab
Dissolved
Oxygen
Ph, Field
Ph, Lab
Turbidity
Water
Temperature
µohms/cm
1164
1630
1487
1484
µohms/cm
140
1900
1800
1700
mg/L
8.6
4.9
6.4
8.0
S.U.
7.7
7.5
7.1
7.0
S.U.
7.98
7.89
7.76
7.78
NTU
19
8.54
11.8
7.78
Deg C
15.1
21.5
16.2
8.3
Nutrient Parameters
Date
5/15/2001
8/1/2001
9/6/2001
10/30/2001
NH4
NO3
NO3+NO2
(Calculated)
NO2
Dissolved
Solids
TKN
PO4
Total
Solids
Suspended
Solids
Volatile
Solids
mg/L
0.0847
0.0706
0.0605
<0.01
mg/L
0.367
0.362
0.595
1.3
mg/L
0.383
0.362
0.595
1.33
mg/L
0.0161
<0.01
<0.01
0.0258
mg/L
1030
1370
1310
1230
mg/L
0.424
0.216
0.263
0.44
mg/L
0.0536
0.0899
0.0535
0.029
mg/L
1130
1410
1360
1290
mg/L
8.9
7.8
11.3
7.34
mg/L
209
208
188
196
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-19
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-15 (CONT.)
NYSDEC RIBS WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CAYUGA CREEK (2001)
Mineral Parameters
Date
5/15/2001
8/1/2001
9/6/2001
10/30/2001
Ca
Cl
F
Mg
K
Na
SO4
Alkalinity
Hardness
mg/L
163 J
218
37
196
mg/L
163
212
193
201
mg/L
1.0
1.21
1.12
0.784
mg/L
42.9
50.8
46
43.4
mg/L
5.33
7.26
8.59
6.92
mg/L
92
111
109
101
mg/L
379
634
582
506
mg/L
220
175
161
205
mg/L
614
800
760
750
Metals Parameters
Date
Al,
total
µg/L
Al,
sol.
µg/L
Cd,
total
µg/L
Cd,
sol.
µg/L
Cu,
total
µg/L
Cu,
sol.
µg/L
Fe,
total
µg/L
Pb,
total
µg/L
Pb,
sol.
µg/L
Mn,
total
µg/L
Hg,
total
µg/L
Ni,
total
µg/L
Ni,
sol.
µg/L
Zn,
total
µg/L
5/15/2001
8/1/2001
9/6/2001
10/30/2001
455
261 V
361
275
<2.2
16.9
13.3
26.0
<0.04
<0.2
0.06
0.09
<0.04
<0.2
<0.02
<0.04
4.1
2.6
2.2
1.8
4.1
2.0
1.7
2.7
530V
318
440
260
1.3
2.1
1.7
0.96
<0.74
<1.1
0.16
0.27
95.3
77.8
65.3
26.4
<0.02
<0.04
<0.02
<0.02
3.8
2.4
2.4
2.8
2.4
1.9
2.1
2.7
96.3
28.4
30.7 J
71.9 V
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-20
NIAGARA POWER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2216)
CAYUGA CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TABLE B-15 (CONT.)
NYSDEC RIBS WATER QUALITY DATA FOR CAYUGA CREEK (2001)
Bacteriological Parameters
Total Coliform
colonies/100mL
Fecal Coliform
colonies/100mL
5/15/2001
8/1/2001
7,900
6,400
230
890
9/6/2001
10/30/2001
>10,000
6,800
>10,000
210
Date
Notes: Sampling station was located in Cayuga Creek at the Pine Avenue bridge, approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the mouth. Source,
NYSDEC 2005b.
J = estimated value
V = QA/QC problem
Copyright © 2006 New York Power Authority
Appendix B-21