Onondaga Lake Remedial Design Elements Remedial Design ...

Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elementsfor Habitat RestorationDecember 2009DRAFT

DRAFTTable of ContentsList of Acronyms...................................................................................6Executive Summary ..............................................................................8Section 1: Introduction to the Habitat Plan.......................................181.1 General Description of Habitat Restoration at the OnondagaLake NPL Site.............................................................................191.2 Habitat Design Background.........................................................201.3 Areas Requiring Remediation or Habitat Enhancement –Establishing a Framework ...........................................................211.4 Consent Decree and Record of Decision (ROD) Requirements..231.5 Goals of the Habitat Plan.............................................................251.6 Organization of the Habitat Plan..................................................26Section 2: Conditions in Onondaga Lake .........................................282.1 Summary of Historical Conditions................................................282.2 Changes from Historical Conditions around Onondaga Lake......302.3 Existing Habitats..........................................................................392.4 Existing Biological Communities..................................................602.5. Summary of Onondaga Lake Conditions....................................73Section 3: Effects of Remediation on Onondaga Lake Habitat.......743.1 Onondaga Lake Bottom Remedy Expected Effects ....................783.2 Interim Remedial Measures.........................................................823.3 Other Remediation Sites..............................................................873.4 Mitigation Requirements..............................................................913.5 Summary of Habitat Areas to be Affected by RemediationActivities.......................................................................................92Section 4: Identification of Habitats for Restoration .......................934.1 General Restoration Goals ..........................................................934.2 Assessing Habitat Conditions......................................................944.3 Habitat Restoration Objectives ....................................................944.4 Identification of Representative Habitats and AssociatedSpecies Requirements.................................................................964.5 Habitat Module Development ....................................................1024.6 Habitat Module Species Use .....................................................1064.7 Existing Conditions Illustrated as Modules ................................110PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 1

DRAFTTable of Contents (cont.)Section 5: Preliminary Designs for Lakewide HabitatRestoration .....................................................................1115.1 Generation of Restoration Approach .........................................1115.2 Habitat Layer Characteristics and Thickness ............................1135.3 Application of Habitat Modules to Remediation Areas...............1165.4 Suitability of Remediation Areas for Representative Species....1275.5 General Specifications for Habitat Restoration..........................1315.6 Summary of Habitat Restoration Design ...................................135Section 6: References.......................................................................136TablesExecutive SummaryTable ES.1: Habitat Module Characteristics – Onondaga LakeRemedial Design ProgramSection 1Table 1.1: ARARs and TBCs that Pertain to Habitat and SpeciesConsiderationsSection 2Table 2.1: Changes to Level of Onondaga LakeTable 2.2: Onondaga Lake Elevations, 1970 - 2009Table 2.3: Delineated Wetlands within the Habitat Plan BoundarySection 3Table 3.1: Preliminary Estimate of Areas Impacted by Onondaga LakeRemedyTable 3.2: Wetland, Open Water, and Upland Acreage Assessmentwithin the Habitat Plan BoundarySection 4Table 4.1: Summary of Physical and Biological Factors in HabitatDesign for FishTable 4.2a: Overview of Physical and Biological Factors in HabitatDesigns for Aquatic PlantsTable 4.2b: Phenology Information for Selected Aquatic PlantsTable 4.3: Summary of Physical and Biological Factors in HabitatDesigns for Benthic MacroinvertebratesPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 2

Table of Contents (cont.)Tables (cont.)DRAFTTable 4.4: Summary of Physical and Biological Factors in HabitatDesigns for MammalsTable 4.5: Summary of Physical and Biological Factors in HabitatDesigns for AmphibiansTable 4.6: Summary of Physical and Biological Factors in HabitatDesigns for ReptilesTable 4.7: Summary of Physical and Biological Factors in HabitatDesigns for BirdsTable 4.8: Onondaga Lake Remedial design Program Habitat ModuleCharacteristicsTable 4.9: Summary of Acreages within the Areas of RemediationSection 5Table 5.1: Summary of Parameters for Onondaga Lake Cap DesignTable 5.2: Summary of Potential Locations for Representative Specieswithin Remedial Areas of Onondaga LakeFiguresExecutive SummaryFigure ES.1: Habitat Module Application (Remediation Area A)Figure ES.2: Habitat Module Application (Remediation Area B)Figure ES.3: Habitat Module Application (Remediation Area C)Figure ES.4: Habitat Module Application (Remediation Area D)Figure ES.5: Habitat Module Application (Remediation Area E)Section 1Figure 1.1: Onondaga Lake Area and NPL SubsitesFigure 1.2: Surface Water Designations and Wave EnergySection 2Figure 2.1: Changes in Lake LevelFigure 2.2: Land Use/Land Cover (2001)Figure 2.3: National Wetlands Inventory Habitats Associated WithOnondaga LakeFigure 2.4: Ninemile Creek WetlandsFigure 2.5: Onondaga Lake WatershedFigure 2.6: 2000 and 2008 Aquatic Plant CoveragePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 3

DRAFTTable of Contents (cont.)Figures (cont.)Section 3Figure 3.1: Remediation Areas A and F – Dredge and Cap AreasFigure 3.2: Remediation Areas B, C, D, and E – Dredge and Cap AreasFigure 3.3: Willis-Semet, East Flume, and Wastebed B/Harbor BrookIRMsFigure 3.4: Wastebeds 1 through 8 AreaFigure 3.5: Dredge Spoils AreaFigure 3.6: Summary of Existing Wetland and Open Water AcreagesFigure 3.7: Summary of Restored Wetland and Open Water AcreagesSection 4Figure 4.1: Existing Habitat Modules within the Habitat Plan BoundaryFigure 4.2: Existing Habitat Modules - Remediation Area AFigure 4.3: Existing Habitat Modules - Remediation Area B & CFigure 4.4: Existing Habitat Modules - Remediation Area DFigure 4.5: Existing Habitat Modules - Remediation Area ESection 5Figure 5.1: Restored Habitat Module Application – Remediation Area AFigure 5.2: Remediation Area A (SMU 4) – Section RAA-1Figure 5.3: Remediation Area A (SMU 4) – Section RAA-2Figure 5.4: Restored Habitat Module Application – Remediation Area BFigure 5.5: Remediation Area B (SMU 3) – Section RAB-1Figure 5.6: Restored Habitat Module Application – Remediation Area CFigure 5.7: Remediation Area C (SMU 2) – Section RAC-1Figure 5.8: Remediation Area C (SMU 2) – Section RAC-2Figure 5.9: Restored Habitat Module Application – Remediation Area DFigure 5.10: Remediation Area D (SMU 1) – Section RAD-1Figure 5.11: Remediation Area D (SMU 1) – Section RAD-2Figure 5.12: Remediation Area D (SMU 1) – Section RAD-3Figure 5.13: Remediation Area D (SMU 1) – Section RAD-4Figure 5.14: Restored Habitat Module Application–Remediation Area EFigure 5.15: Remediation Area E (SMU 6/7) – Section RAE-1PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 4

Table of Contents (cont.)Figures (cont.)DRAFTFigure 5.16: Remediation Area E (SMU 6/7) – Section RAE-2Figure 5.17: Remediation Area E (SMU 6/7) – Section RAE-3Figure 5.18: Conceptual Plan for Lower Harbor Brook and AdjacentWetland AreasFigure 5.19: Conceptual Profile of Harbor Brook and Adjacent WetlandAreaFigure 5.20: Change in Water Depth – Remediation Area AFigure 5.21: Change in Water Depth – Remediation Area BFigure 5.22: Change in Water Depth – Remediation Area CFigure 5.23: Change in Water Depth – Remediation Area DFigure 5.24: Change in Water Depth – Remediation Area EFigure 5.25: Restored Habitat Substrate – Remediation Area AFigure 5.26: Restored Habitat Substrate – Remediation Area BFigure 5.27: Restored Habitat Substrate – Remediation Area CFigure 5.28: Restored Habitat Substrate – Remediation Area DFigure 5.29: Restored Habitat Substrate – Remediation Area EAppendicesAppendix A: Amphibian and Reptiles Recorded in the Vicinity ofOnondaga LakeAppendix B: New York State Breeding Bird Atlas ResultsAppendix C: Macrophyte Coverage Figures from Habitat PreliminaryDesign Investigation ReportAppendix D: Suitability of Restoration in Remediation Areas forRepresentative SpeciesAppendix E: Master List of PlantsPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 5

DRAFTList of AcronymsAMPASLFBAFBSQVCERCLACSODNAPLDSAEE/CAESDFEMAFSHRFSIBAILWDIRMLCPMNRNAPLNPLNWINYSDECNYSDOHOCDWEPOEIOLMCOLPOM&MAmbient Monitoring ProgramAtlantic States Legal Foundationbiological aerated filter systembioaccumulation-based sediment valueComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Actcombined sewer overflowdense non-aqueous phase liquidDredge Spoils AreaEngineering Evaluation/Cost Analysisexplanation of significant differencesFederal Emergency Management Associationfeasibility studyhigh rate flocculated settling systemImportant Bird Areain-lake waste depositInterim Remedial MeasureLinden Chemical and Plasticsmonitored natural recoverynon-aqueous phase liquidNational Priorities ListNational Wetlands InventoryNew York State Department of EnvironmentalConservationNew York State Department of HealthOnondaga County Department of Water EnvironmentalProtectionOnondaga Environmental InstituteOnondaga Lake Management ConferenceOnondaga Lake Partnershipoperations, maintenance & monitoringPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 6

DRAFTList of Acronyms (cont.)RODSMUSOWSUNY ESFTESTWGUSACEUSCSUSSCSUSEPAUSFWSUSGSYOYRecord of Decisionsediment management unitstatement of workState University of New York College of EnvironmentalScience and ForestryTerrestrial Environmental SpecialistsTechnical Work GroupUnited States Army Corps of EngineersUnified Soil Classification SystemUnited States Soil Conservation ServiceUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyUnited States Fish and Wildlife ServiceUnited States Geologic Surveyyoung-of-yearPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 7

DRAFTOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkLargemouth Bass are a popular game fishin Onondaga Lake.Executive SummaryHoneywell continues the progress toward achieving the community’svision of a restored Onondaga Lake with the development of this draftRemedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration (Habitat Plan). Thedevelopment of this plan, which is referenced in the Remedial DesignWork Plan for Onondaga Lake, marks an important milestone in thecontinued revitalization of the lake. Habitat restoration goals andconcepts will serve as a guide for future designs for the lakeremediation.Habitat is the physical and biological surroundings that comprise thenatural environment of an organism. It is the area where plants andanimals normally live, grow, feed, reproduce, and otherwise exist for anyportion of their life cycle. These surroundings provide organisms orcommunities of organisms the necessary elements for life, such asspace, food, water, and shelter. The restoration of habitat is an integralcomponent of the overall remedy for Onondaga Lake and, in fact, is oneof the most significant elements in the design for the dredging and/orcapping activities specified for the lake.Habitat considerations presented in this plan are at the forefront of therestoration designs for Onondaga Lake, and habitat restoration willcontinue to play a key role as the remedial activities are advanced. Asustainable habitat that allows for public access has been, and willcontinue to be, an integral part of the approach for restoring OnondagaLake.This Habitat Plan presents the conceptual habitat restoration andenhancement designs for Onondaga Lake in those portions of the lakewhere remediation activities will be conducted. Wherever possible, thisdesign respects the natural processes and conditions to create suitablehabitat for various species of plants, mammals, fish, benthicmacroinvertebrates (bottom-dwelling organisms such as crayfish), birds,reptiles, and amphibians, while allowing for public access in and aroundthe lake. Creating sustainable habitats while allowing for public accessfor recreation requires balance and this plan was developed withconsideration for the complexities of these relationships in an effort toaddress the many needs of this unique resource.Goals for Habitat Restoration in Onondaga LakeThree overarching goals drive habitat restoration:1) Maintain or improve the quality and diversity of habitat in the lake;2) Discourage the establishment of invasive species; and3) Promote public access and use and minimize future maintenance.These goals focus on those areas, species, or processes (such as thefunction of the shallow water zone) that have been altered over time dueto industrialization along the shoreline, and areas where physicalchanges will occur as a result of the remediation program.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 8

AGENCYREPRESENTATIVESNYSDECTEAMKey benefits that result from this conceptual design include:ooooooooDRAFTintegrating a diverse habitat design with considerations for publicaccess;providing deep water nearshore for improved fishing access;increasing the size, diversity and function of shoreline wetlandsand connectivity with the lake;creating conditions suitable for a variety of native and culturallysignificant species;discouraging the establishment of invasive species;promoting pike spawning in adjacent wetland areas;providing suitable conditions for transient cold water fish (e.g.brown trout) and other game fish (e.g. bass); andestablishing habitats that are currently lacking in the lake (e.g.floating aquatic plants).The Habitat Plan was developed by Honeywell with extensive input frommembers of the Habitat Technical Work Group (TWG) with input frommultiple organizations that use the lake on a regular basis. This groupwas comprised of representatives from the New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Bureau of Remediation;NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources; United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA); United States Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS); and Honeywell and its team from the StateUniversity of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry(SUNY ESF), Mississippi State University, Terrestrial EnvironmentalSpecialists (TES), AnchorQEA, O’Brien & Gere, and Parsons. Thisextensive team of local and national experts encompasses experiencein the areas of wetland ecology, limnology, biology, restoration ecology,fisheries biology and sediment remediation. Input was also provided bythe Onondaga Nation and local interest groups during the preparation ofthis plan.The TWG reviewed information on the historical and current conditionsof Onondaga Lake to identify habitat types and species for whichspecific restoration objectives could be developed to meet the goals.Specifically, the habitats and species identified, such as the northernpike, existed historically within the lake, but are currently lacking, orthose that currently exist within the lake, but are degraded (such aswetlands dominated by Phragmites).To address the overarching goals and more specific objectives of theHabitat Plan, the TWG identified representative species from groups offish, plants, benthic macroinvertebrates (organisms in the sediment),mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds whose habitat requirementscould be used to guide the development of the restoration designs.Local and national expertsprepared this Draft HabitatPlan. Community input willcontinue to be sought fromthe Onondaga Nation andlocal interest groups.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 9

DRAFTSemi-Palmated Sandpiper is arepresentative species for shorebirds.The representative species represent a larger group or guild of speciesthat share similar habitat requirements. For instance, the semipalmatedsandpiper represents shorebirds that would share similarhabitats and needs for survival.Representative SpeciesFishAquatic PlantsBenthicMacro-InvertebratesMammals Amphibians Reptiles BirdsNorthern PikeSubmergedVegetationMayflyMuskratSpottedSalamanderNorthernWaterSnakeMallardLake SturgeonFloatingVegetation/ AquaticBedsCaddisfly Mink MudpuppySnappingTurtleCommonGoldeneyeSmallmouth BassNonpersistentEmergentVegetationTrue Flies Otter Leopard FrogPaintedTurtleSpottedSandpiper andSemi-palmatedSandpiperLargemouthBassPersistentEmergentVegetationDragonfly/Damselfly Beaver Wood Frog Musk Turtle Bank SwallowWalleyeSalt MarshVegetationScudIndianaBatGreen FrogRed-winged BlackBirdPumpkinseedSunfishUnvegetatedShoreline/MudflatsCrayfishRed SpottedNewtCommon TernGolden ShinerWet MeadowWetlandBelted KingfisherEmerald ShinerForested/Scrub-Shrub WetlandsOspreyBrown TroutForested Scrub-Shrub UplandsGreat Blue HeronOpen FieldUplandsGreen HeronPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 10

DRAFTThis wood frog representsother frogs that have the samehabitat.The habitat requirements for each representative species were thencharacterized using available Habitat Suitability Index Models(developed by the USFWS), the current literature, professionalexperience, and judgment gained from field observations. The TWGidentified habitat requirements for various life stages of each species forthe following physical parameters: water depth, substrate type, waveenergy, structure-vegetation cover, structure-woody debris,rooting/burrowing depth, and where appropriate, various water qualityparameters. The list of representative species is presented in the tablebelow.Designing the Habitat PlanThe TWG evaluated current habitat conditions, along with the selectedor anticipated site remedies and interim remedial measures adjacent tothe lake to identify the potential effects of remediation on existinghabitats. Based on this evaluation, the TWG defined the boundaryaround the lake within which the conceptual habitat designs would beapplied. This “red line” boundary was drawn to facilitate a holisticapproach that integrates habitat restoration work within the lake withareas adjacent to the lake to provide habitat connectivity and transitionareas.Once the areas for the habitat designs were identified, the TWGreviewed historic and current conditions to identify representativespecies and habitat considerations. The habitat requirements for therepresentative species were then used to identify important factors suchas current and future land use, topography (land surface), bathymetry(lake bottom surface), hydrology, and soils/substrate needed to supportthe various life cycles of the representative species and habitats.Following the identification of the habitat requirements for eachrepresentative species, the TWG developed a method to combine therepresentative species and their habitat requirements into habitat areas,or “modules,” which could be readily integrated with the remedialactivities. The in-lake habitat modules are defined by three basic habitatparameters that serve as the basis for the habitat restoration design:water depth, substrate type, and energy. As shown in the figure below,a habitat module was developed where these three elements existtogether, such as required for a particular representative species.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 11

DRAFTHABITATMODULEUsing this method of analysis, the TWG developed seven in-lakemodules, each with a specified water depth, energy, and substrate typeto provide suitable habitat for the representative species. The modulesare numbered starting from the deep waters of the lake to the shorelineareas addressed by this plan. Two additional upland modules were alsodeveloped based on elevation and the type of habitat cover in adjacentareas. A summary of each of the modules is included on Table ES-1.Each module has a different color, and those colors correspond to thefigures illustrating the application of modules in the different remediationareas (Figures ES-1 through ES-5).Each module provides suitable habitat for different species, and thecombination of modules, applied throughout the areas of remediation,creates a diverse habitat for the group of representative species. Belowis a diagram showing an example of how one module cross section maylook when integrated with the cap design. In areas of the lake wheredredging and/or capping will be conducted, the habitat goals andobjectives noted above drive many of the design considerations.Included as part of these considerations is the goal of no net loss of lakesurface area as specified in the ROD. Also, the water depth followingrestoration will be an important factor determining the habitat conditionsthat will be present in those areas. In order to achieve the desired waterdepth there are multiple considerations that are integral to the design.Several of those considerations include required thickness of the capPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 12

DRAFTand habitat materials, erosion protection requirements, wind/waveenergy, ice scour, dredging depth, slope stability, and substrate type.These considerations, which can vary depending on the type of remedyand the location in the lake, were then used as guiding assumptions indeveloping the habitat restoration designs based on the habitatmodules.How does this Plan fit within the Lake Remedy?This Habitat Plan is just one of several documents that will be providedto the public for comment as part of the comprehensive remedial designprocess for Onondaga Lake. The Remedial Design Work Plandescribes the four design components, each of which will bedocumented in separate initial design submittals, to address variouselements of the remedy. The design for habitat restoration presented inthis Habitat Plan will be integrated with the remedial design presented inthe forthcoming Sediment Capping and Dredge Area and Depth InitialDesign Submittal. The figure below illustrates how this Habitat Plan fitswithin the various submittals for the Onondaga Lake remedial design.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 13

DRAFTA musk turtle basks on a shoreline log.The Habitat Plan addresses needs forbirds like the Virginia Rail — a culturallysignificant species.Public participation is a critical component of the overall lake remedy,and will continue throughout the entire schedule of design preparationand submittal. Over the past several years, the NYSDEC andHoneywell have solicited opinions and perspectives on this conceptualplan from local habitat conservation and environmental organizationssuch as Salt City Bassmasters, Izaak Walton League of America,Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, and Citizen’s Campaign for theEnvironment.NYSDEC and Honeywell are committed to continuing to work withcommunity leaders, environmental groups, fishing and wildlifeenthusiasts, interested stakeholders and citizens so their input,recommendations, comments, and perspectives can be thoroughlyevaluated by the technical design team. As part of the NYSDEC CitizenParticipation Plan, community members will have the opportunity toparticipate during the design, construction, and post-constructionperiods. Further details on citizen participation activities are outlined inNYSDEC’s Citizens Participation Plan (NYSDEC, 2009).History of Onondaga LakeWhile Onondaga Lake is important to the present-day community, itssignificance began much earlier than the settling of what has becomemodern-day Syracuse.Statement of Onondaga Nation 1Onondaga Lake is the spiritual, cultural and historic center of theHaudenosaunee Confederacy. Over one thousand years ago, thePeacemaker brought the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, andSeneca Nations together on the shores of Onondaga Lake. At thelakeshore, these Nations accepted the message of peace, laid downtheir arms, and formed the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. TheConfederacy was the first representative democracy in the West andinspired the founders of the United States.Onondaga Lake is sacred to the Haudenosaunee. The OnondagaNation has resided on the Lake and throughout its watershed sincetime immemorial, building homes and communities, fishing, hunting,trapping, collecting plants and medicine, planting agricultural crops,performing ceremonies with the natural world dependent on theLake, and burying ancestors - the mothers, fathers and children ofthe Onondaga Nation. The Onondaga Nation views its relationshipto this area as a place where they will forever come from and willreturn to; they will continue to work for the healing of the lake.1 The Onondaga Nation requested that the following oral tradition be included in this Habitat Plan.The inclusion of the Onondaga Nation’s oral tradition in this Habitat Plan is not intended as, andshall not constitute, an admission of any fact or law in any judicial or administrative proceeding.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 14

DRAFTSalt Works on the shores ofOnondaga Lake.10 Million gallon pump erected in 1904at the Onondaga Lake pump station.Jesuit missionaries from Quebec later established a mission on theshores of Onondaga Lake in 1656.(Ste Marie, 2006). Father LeMoynelearned of the salt springs from the Onondaga Nation, and the saltindustry began operations in 1793. The industry thrived for over 100years, and the extraction and processing of salt fostered thedevelopment of an extensive infrastructure in the region, includingrailroads and the Erie Canal system. The region lost its monopoly onsalt production due to changing industrial demands for salt and thediscovery of large sources of salt in other areas of the United States.However, despite the dwindling market for Syracuse salt, many differentindustries took advantage of the naturally occurring salt in this region foruse in the manufacture of various chemicals and in chemical processesnecessary for refining metal (Hohman, 2004).The infrastructure initially developed for the salt industry later supportedthe establishment of a number of additional industries near OnondagaLake, including soda ash and hydrogen peroxide manufacturingfacilities; petroleum-product storage facilities; a fertilizer productionplant; a steel foundry; a manufacturing plant for vehicle accessories; apottery and china manufacturing plant; and industries includingpharmaceuticals, air conditioning, general appliances, and electronicsmanufacturing.By 1920, the region around Onondaga Lake was a national center ofmanufacturing for metal products, automobiles, typewriters, pottery, andother small machinery (de Laubenfels, 1977). By 1950, 139 industriesused Onondaga Lake for waste disposal (Ferrante, 2005), often directlyto the lake.In addition to industrial development, the Onondaga Lake areaexperienced further residential and economic growth during thetwentieth century. Paralleling the rise of development in the area, thepopulation of Onondaga County rose from approximately 160,000 in1900 to 458,336 in 2000 (US Census Bureau, 2002). Much of thepopulation is, and has historically been, located in the Syracusemetropolitan area, which is located on the southeastern end ofOnondaga Lake.Over 150 years of manufacturing, industrialization, and populationgrowth altered the habitat and fisheries in Onondaga Lake and in theregion. These changes also impacted the water level of the lake andhad a significant impact on the diversity of habitat within the lake. Forexample, northern pike was a common fish predator in the region in thelate 1800s and early 1900s; but lowering of the lake level for theconstruction of the Barge Canal system reduced the availability ofwetland spawning habitats for this species, and the number of fishdeclined. The disposal of industrial wastes, including Solvay Waste, inand around the lake also decreased the overall lake surface area andresulted in the loss of historic wetlands. Based on a variety ofresources, it is clearly documented that industrialization and communitydevelopment altered the landscape, impacted lake levels, and degradedthe lake’s habitat. Today, industries and communities recognize theimportance of the lake’s future and are working to restore it.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 15

DRAFTBald eagles have returnedto Onondaga Lake.The Future of Onondaga LakeThe habitat designs described in this Plan were developed using manydifferent criteria, including the integration of habitat needs forrepresentative species with the requirements associated with thedredging and capping design specified in the Onondaga Lake BottomRecord of Decision, the physical conditions of the site, and the habitatgoals and objectives. The holistic approach for integrating multipleremedial considerations from the related lake and shoreline areas willresult in improved conditions for a wide variety of species in theseareas.Onondaga Lake continues to show progress toward becoming thethriving, dynamic, natural resource and community asset that it oncewas and this comprehensive plan for habitat restoration is anotherimportant step toward realizing that vision.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 17

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE ES.1HABITAT MODULE CHARACTERISTICSONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIAL DESIGN PROGRAMREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES/HABITAT(a) (b) (e)HABITAT MODULE AREASFishPlantsBenthicMacroinvertebrates (c) Mammals Reptiles andAmphibiansBirdsMinimumHabitat LayerThickness (d)1. Deep water (20-30 ft) (6-9 m)Sand substrateLow to medium energyNote: This module also generally applies todeeper water (profundal) areas. (f)Transient cold water fish(brown trout), lake sturgeon,emerald shiner, bass, walleyeand pumpkinseedNoneAmphipoda (Pontoporeiaaffinis), Annelida (Oligochaeta,Diptera (Chironomidae),Mollusca, and AnnelidaNoneNoneCommon goldeneye,mallard, osprey andbank swallow1 ft. (30 cm)(Average of1.25 ft.)2A. Mid water depth (7-20 ft) (2-6 m)Sand/fine gravel substrateLow to medium energyLake sturgeon, transient coldwater fish, bass, northern pikeand pumpkinseed; additionally,walleye and bass if structure ispresentSubmergedaquatics in shallowportionDiptera (Chironomidae)Annelida, Ephemeroptera,Odonata, and Mollusca;diptera if structure is presentOtterNone;mudpuppy ifstructure ispresentMallard, common tern,osprey and bankswallow1 ft. (30 cm)(Average of1.25 ft.)2B. Mid water depth (7-20 ft) (2-6 m)Coarse gravel/cobble substrateHigh energyLake sturgeon, transient coldwater fish, bass, smallmouthbass and pumpkinseed;additionally walleye if structureis presentLimited Diptera (Chironomidae) OtterNone;mudpuppy ifstructure ispresentMallard, common tern,osprey and bankswallow1 ft. (30 cm)(Average of1.25 ft.)3A. Shallow water depth (2-7 ft) (0.5-2 m)Sand/fine gravel substrateLow energyLargemouth bass,pumpkinseed, golden shinerand northern pikeMedium to densesubmerged aquaticvegetationEphemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaOtter, mink,beaver;additionallymuskrat ifstructure ispresentSnappingturtle;additionallymudpuppy ifstructure ispresentMallard, beltedkingfisher, osprey,great blue heron andbank swallow1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)3B. Shallow water depth (2-7 ft) (0.5-2 m)Coarse gravel/cobble substrateHigh energyBass, pumpkinseed, goldenshiner and northern pikeSparse to mediumsubmerged aquaticvegetationEphemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaOtter, mink,beaver,muskratLimited/none;mudpuppy andsnapping turtleif structure ispresentMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, common ternand bank swallow1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)Footnotes:a. High, medium, and low energy designations were developed by Anchor-QEA in the Wind/Wave Analysis from the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009).b. Selection of modules for specific areas around the lake will consider the presence/occurrence of invasive species.c. Diversity of species for benthos will be evaluated during the next phase of design.d. See representative species Tables 4.1 to 4.7 for substrate depth and minimum habitat size information for specific organisms.e. Structure can be added to any module. Species that would benefit from structure have been noted on the table.f. A habitat layer will not be required in areas of the Profundal zone that do not have an isolation cap.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table ES.1 12-09.docPage 1 of 4

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE ES.1 (Continued)HABITAT MODULE CHARACTERISTICSONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIAL DESIGN PROGRAM(a) (b) (e)HABITAT MODULE AREAS4A. Floating aquatics wetland (1-3 ft)(0.3-1 m)Organics/fines/sand substrateVery low energy5A. Non-persistent emergent wetland(0.5-2 ft) (0.1-0.6 m)Organics/fines/sand substrateLow energy5B. Shoreline shallows/limited emergentwetland(0.5-2 ft) (0.1-0.6 m)Gravel/cobble substrateHigh energyFishNorthern pike andPumpkinseedNorthern pike andpumpkinseedSmallmouth bass; additionallywalleye if structure is presentPlantsFloating aquatics,some submergedaquatics in deeperportions, somenonpersistentemergents inshallower portionNon-persistentemergentvegetation. Somepersistentemergents inshallows.Limited/noneREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES/HABITATBenthicMacroinvertebrates (c)Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaEphemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaLimited numbers Trichoptera,Ephemeroptera; Trichoptera,Ephemeroptera and Decapodaif structure is presentMammalsOtter, mink,muskrat andbeaverOtter, mink,muskrat andbeaverOtter andminkReptiles andAmphibiansSnappingturtle, paintedturtle, muskturtle and watersnake;additionallymudpuppy ifstructure ispresentSnappingturtle, paintedturtle, muskturtle, watersnake, redspotted newt,green frog andleopard frog;additionallymudpuppy ifstructure ispresentLimited/none;Turtle, watersnake, andmudpuppy ifstructure ispresentBirdsMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, common tern,green heron and bankswallowMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, green heron,common tern and bankswallowMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, green heron andbank swallowMinimumHabitat LayerThickness (d)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)Footnotes:a. High, medium, and low energy designations were developed by Anchor-QEA in the Wind/Wave Analysis from the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009).b. Selection of modules for specific areas around the lake will consider the presence/occurrence of invasive species.c. Diversity of species for benthos will be evaluated during the next phase of design.d. See representative species Tables 4.1 to 4.7 for substrate depth and minimum habitat size information for specific organisms.e. Structure can be added to any module. Species that would benefit from structure have been noted on the table.f. A habitat layer will not be required in areas of the Profundal zone that do not have an isolation cap.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table ES.1 12-09.docPage 2 of 4

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE ES.1 (Continued)HABITAT MODULE CHARACTERISTICSONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIAL DESIGN PROGRAM(a) (b) (e)HABITAT MODULE AREAS8A. Shoreline uplands/riparianTopsoil substrate8B. Shoreline uplands/riparianTopsoil substrateFishPlantsREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES/HABITATBenthicMacroinvertebrates (c)None Successional fields NoneNoneScrub-shrub orforestedNoneMammalsOtter andminkOtter,mink,beaverandIndianabatReptiles andAmphibiansLeopard frogLeopard frogand watersnakeBirdsMallard, great blueheron, green heronand red-wingedblackbirdMallard and greenheronMinimumHabitat LayerThickness (d)1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)9A. Inland wetlands not associated withthe lake(saturated soils to pooled water thatmay be temporary)Topsoil substrateNoneWet meadow andpersistentemergent wetlandspecies, primarilyherbaceousLimited numbers/species,Annelida and MolluscaMuskratand minkLeopard frog,red spottednewt, watersnake andgreen frogRed-winged blackbird,green heron, greatblue heron, spottedsandpiper and bankswallow2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of 2.59B. Inland wetlands not associated withthe lake(saturated soils to pooled water thatmay be temporary)Topsoil substrateNoneForested wetlandand scrub-shrubwetland speciesLimited numbers/species,Annelida and MolluscaMink andbeaverSpottedsalamanderand woodfrogRed-winged black birdand green heron2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of 2.5SPECIAL FEATURES/CONSIDERATIONSEndangered aquatic plants (Potamogeton strictifolius, Najasguadalupensis var. muenscheri, or Najas guadalupensis var. olivacea)Northern Pike Spawning WetlandsPotential for these species where submerged aquatic vegetation is targeted. These would most likely fall under Module 3A.Provide spawning habitat for northern pike.Footnotes:a. High, medium, and low energy designations were developed by Anchor-QEA in the Wind/Wave Analysis from the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009).b. Selection of modules for specific areas around the lake will consider the presence/occurrence of invasive species.c. Diversity of species for benthos will be evaluated during the next phase of design.d. See representative species Tables 4.1 to 4.7 for substrate depth and minimum habitat size information for specific organisms.e. Structure can be added to any module. Species that would benefit from structure have been noted on the table.f. A habitat layer will not be required in areas of the Profundal zone that do not have an isolation cap.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table ES.1 12-09.docPage 4 of 4

SMU 8Remediation Area A(Low Energy)SMU 5SMU 41SMU 4SMU 32A3A§¨¦ 6902A6A8A5A9B6A6A4A9BPhragmites control channel (Module 4A)to be located along shoreline (2' x 20')Wastebeds 1-8(MeNinemile CreekSHORELINESTABILIZATION (8B)Area covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby Honeywell300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE ES.1PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkHabitat Module Application(Remediation Area A)e

SMU 38ASHORELINESTABILIZATION (8B)SMU 82A9B3A1Remediation Area B(Medium Energy)5A6A12A9B5AWastebeds 1-83AArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation Area Boundary(Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby Honeywell300 150 0 300Feet .SMU 3FIGURE (Medium ES.2Energy)PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkHabitat Module Application(Remediation Area B)

W3B5B2A8ADitch A5B3B2ASMU 3SMU 21SMU 8Remediation Area C(Medium Energy)Potential Location of FutureNYSDEC Boat Launch - TBD3B§¨¦ 6908B12A3B5B6B1Tributary 5ASMU 2SMU 12A3B5B6BEast Flume8BArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation Area Boundary(Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellExtent of ILWD in Littoral Zone300 150 0 300Feet .FIGURE ES.3PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkHabitat Module Application(Remediation Area C)

5B3B2A1RemediationArea DAddendumThe bathymetric contour lines in Remediation Area Dare closely spaced and may appear as bold blue lines.Note that they follow standard mapping guidelines anddo not cross one another.Remediation Area D(Medium Energy)SMU 2SMU 1112A6BEast Flume8B9B3B2ASMU 6SMU 7Wastebed B6A2B3BSMU 1SMU 7Phragmites control channel (Module 4A)extends along entire length of wall3B5B5B8B6BHarbor Brook6AArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation Area Boundary(Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallHarbor Brook300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE ES.4.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkWest Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMApproximate Location ofEast Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMExtent of ILWD in Littoral ZoneHabitat Module Application(Remediation Area D)PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

SMU 5SMU 6Ley CreekSMU 8SYW-12Remediation Area E(High Energy)SMU 6SYW-12 Area StillUnder Evaluation.Proposed combinationof wetlands and uplands12A112A2BOnondagaCreekCarouselMallArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSMU 6SMU 73BSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellSMU 7SMU 13B2AMetroWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMApproximate location of East Wall portionof the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMExtent of ILWD in Littoral Zone300 150 0 300Feet .Harbor Brook8B6A6B8B5BFIGURE ES.5PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkHabitat Module Application(Remediation Area E)

Spoils Area. See Section 3.2 of this Plan for more information on theIRMs.DRAFTGreat blue heron is a speciesthat uses Onondaga Lake.1.1 General Description of HabitatRestoration at the Onondaga Lake NPLSiteHabitat is the physical and biological surroundings of an organism. Itcan be broadly defined as an area where plants and animals (includinghumans) normally live, grow, feed, reproduce, and otherwise exist forany portion of their life cycle. Habitat provides organisms orcommunities of organisms the necessary elements of life, such asspace, food, water, and shelter (Federal Interagency Stream RestorationWorking Group, 1998).Habitat re-establishment and enhancement have been defined in theROD (NYSDEC and USEPA, 2005) as noted below:“Habitat re-establishment is the restoration of habitat inareas where remediation substantially alters existingconditions. Re-establishment can be either restoring thesame type of habitat that existed prior to remediation, orestablishing a different type of habitat that has beendeemed appropriate for the ecological conditions of thearea.”“Habitat enhancement is improvement of habitat conditionsin areas where CERCLA contaminants do not occur atlevels that warrant active remediation, but where habitatimpairment due to stressors has been identified as aconcern.”Habitat restoration (re-establishment, enhancement, replacement, andimprovement) is an integral part of the overall cleanup plan forOnondaga Lake and will provide habitat value beyond what is currentlyavailable 2 . More specifically, restoration will be implemented indesignated lake-bottom sediment, upland, and tributary (Tributary 5A,East Flume, Lower Harbor Brook) IRM areas, and GeddesBrook/Ninemile Creek. An overall goal of habitat restoration in theseareas is to achieve ecological systems that function naturally, are selfsustaining,and are integrated with the surrounding habitats.This Habitat Plan describes conceptual habitat restoration designs thatwill be implemented as part of, or following, remedial actions (e.g.dredging and/or capping). These restoration designs are based on the2 All references in this Habitat Plan to habitat enhancement, habitat reestablishment, or restorationare limited to how those terms are defined in the ROD for the Onondaga Lake Superfund site. IfHoneywell elects to claim natural resource damages credit for work described in this report, it shalldo so pursuant to the term and conditions set forth in Paragraph 75 of the Consent Decree betweenHoneywell and the State of New York. Nothing herein shall constitute an agreement by New YorkState that any work described in this report is eligible for natural resource damages credit.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 19

historical and current habitat (or ecological system) conditions withinOnondaga Lake and the adjacent shoreline areas.DRAFTSubmerged aquatic vegetation1.2 Habitat Design BackgroundThis Habitat Plan has been developed through a review and approvalprocess with representatives from NYSDEC Division of EnvironmentalRemediation, NYSDEC Fish and Wildlife, United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA), United States Fish and Wildlife Service,and the Honeywell team from the State University of New York Collegeof Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY ESF), Mississippi StateUniversity, Terrestrial Environmental Services (TES), AnchorQEA,O’Brien & Gere, and Parsons. The extensive team of local and nationalexperts from all parties included wetland ecologists, limnologists,biologists, restoration ecologists and fisheries biologists. Collectively,the combined group was called the TWG as further discussed below.1.2.1 Habitat Technical Work GroupThe TWG was formed shortly after the signing of the Consent Decree toprovide a forum for technical experts to develop an approach forincorporating habitat considerations into the remedial design forOnondaga Lake. The TWG evaluated current habitat conditions, alongwith the selected or anticipated site remedies and IRMs adjacent to thelake to identify the potential effects of remediation on existing habitats.Based on this evaluation, the TWG defined the boundaries within whichthe conceptual habitat designs would be applied. This boundary, shownas a dashed red line on Figure 1.2 was selected to facilitate a holisticapproach that integrates habitat restoration work within the lake withareas adjacent to the lake to provide habitat connectivity and transitionareas.Remediation AreaD and the mouth ofHarbor BrookPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 20

DRAFTScrub-shrub wetlandsOnce the areas where the habitat designs would be applied had beenidentified, the TWG reviewed historic and current conditions to identifyrepresentative species and habitat considerations for each remediationarea. The habitat requirements for the representative species were thenused to identify important factors such as current and future land use,topography (land surface), bathymetry (lake bottom surface), hydrology,and soils/substrate needed to support the various life cycles of therepresentative species and habitats. This information was used as thebasis for developing the conceptual habitat designs and will also beintegrated into the detailed design of the Lake Bottom Remedy. Thedetailed remedial designs will provide the overall plans andspecifications for all of the areas requiring remediation or habitatenhancement.The conceptual designs presented in this document have beenintegrated with upland IRMs and remedies and comply with applicablestate and federal laws and regulations, executive orders and policies forfloodplains, wetlands and surface waters.1.3 Areas Requiring Remediation orHabitat Enhancement – Establishing aFrameworkTo facilitate evaluation and remedy development during the FeasibilityStudy (FS), the lake was divided into eight Sediment Management Units(SMUs) based on water depth, source of water entering the lake, andphysical, ecological and chemical characteristics (NYSDEC andUSEPA, 2005). SMUs 1 through 7 are located in the shallow (littoral)zone (less than 30 feet) of the lake where most aquatic vegetation andaquatic life reside, while SMU 8 consists of sediment in the deeper(profundal) zone (deeper than 30 feet) (see Figure 1.2).Since the submittal of the FS, a significant amount of new data hasbeen collected throughout Onondaga Lake in accordance with therequirements of the ROD and Consent Decree. Based on anunderstanding of these additional data, an updated framework foridentifying littoral (shallow) areas of the lake has been developed called“Remediation Areas.” The SMU designations have been left in thisdocument for reference, but this Habitat Plan and future designdocuments will be organized by remediation area and include SMU 8 asa separate remedy area.The remediation area designations help to identify the specificcharacteristics of each remediation area and focus the habitatrestoration to enhance the entire lake system. The characteristics ofeach remediation area that are important for the habitat restorationdesigns include extent and type of remediation, location within the lake,presence of tributary stream discharge, wind/wave energy, adjacenthabitats in the lake, adjacent habitat on the shoreline and in uplandareas, adjacent land use, and opportunities for recreational access andPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 21

DRAFTuse. Based on a survey of these defining factors, seven remediationareas were established.Figure 1.2 illustrates these seven remediation areas as well as the SMUboundaries as defined in the ROD. Characteristics of each remediationarea are summarized below. Note that a key consideration for all areasis the placement, monitoring, and maintenance of a multi-layered cap.RemediationAreaASedimentManagementUnit (SMU)SMU 4 andportions ofSMUs 3 and 5Key Characteristics andConsiderationsLow wave energy areaConnectivity to Ninemile CreekIntegration with SYW-10 wetlands andWastebeds 1-8 remedyPublic access and recreationconsiderationsB SMU 3CSMU 2 andsmall portionof SMU 3Medium wave energy areaShoreline stabilization requirementsIntegration with Wastebeds 1-8remedy and wetland mitigation areasMedium wave energy areaMinor tributary (Ditch A) presentShoreline IRM Barrier WallsPublic access and recreationconsiderationsDSMU 1 andsmall portionsof SMU 2 andSMU 7Medium wave energy areaShoreline IRM Barrier WallShallow water from in-lake wastedepositsIntegration with shoreline wetlandsalong Wastebed B/Harbor BrookD AddendumSmall portionof SMU 8Very low energyDeep water (Profundal zone)E SMUs 7 and 6 High wave energyPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 22

DRAFTRemediationAreaSedimentManagementUnit (SMU)Key Characteristics andConsiderationsThree major tributary systems(Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook andLey Creek)Navigation into Onondaga Creek3 ft3 ft3 ftOne cubic yard isequivalent to a cube thatis 3x3x3 ft.EFSMUs 7 and 6Small portionsof SMU 5SMU 8IRM Barrier wall along shoreline nearmouth of Harbor BrookWetlands at mouth of Harbor BrookSYW-12 wetlands along shorelineDischarge from Metro wastewatertreatment facilityActive railroad track along shorelineMedium energy areaSmall areas that require dredgingProfundal areaDetails of remedy will be included insubsequent design documents.In addition to the remediation areas described above, the ROD identifiestwo distinct areas within the lake where Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) contaminants donot occur at levels that warrant active remediation, but where habitatimpairment due to stressors has been identified as a concern -- theshoreline of SMU 3 and the calcite and oncolite deposits in SMU 5.Habitat enhancement activities planned to stabilize the RemediationArea B (SMU 3) shoreline are described following the description ofrestoration in Remediation Area B. The habitat enhancement activitiesfor Remediation Area F (SMU 5) are described in Section 5.3.10.1.4 Consent Decree and Record ofDecision (ROD) RequirementsAs a key component of the restoration program specified for OnondagaLake, this Habitat Plan will meet the requirements specified in thedecision documents for the lake. A general overview of the in-lakecomponents of the selected remedy set forth in the Consent Decree issummarized below:• dredging up to an estimated 2,653,000 cubic yards ofcontaminated sediments and wastes;• placement of an isolation cap over an estimated 425 acres inshallow water areas (littoral zone);PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 23

DRAFT• construction of a thin-layer cap over an estimated 154 acres inthe deep water areas (profundal zone);• performance of a pilot study that evaluates methods to preventthe formation of methylmercury in the deeper areas;• re-establishment of habitat affected by implementation of theremedy and enhancement of habitat in certain near-shoreareas in Remediation Areas B and F (SMUs 3 and 5);• monitored natural recovery (MNR) in portions of the deep waterareas (profundal zone);• implementation of institutional controls; and• long-term operation, maintenance and monitoring.Additional details regarding the lake remedy are provided in Section 3 ofthis plan. Specific issues which this Habitat Plan must address arelisted in the ROD, the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), andthe Statement of Work (SOW), all of which are appended documents tothe Consent Decree. Specifically, the issues that must be addressed inthe Habitat Plan are:• thickness and substrate of the habitat layer;• habitat restoration following dredging and/or capping;• habitat enhancement in Remediation Areas B and F (SMUs 3and 5);• the details for construction of the shoreline lakeward of thebarrier wall in portions of Remediation Areas C and D (SMUs 1and 2);• mitigation of aquatic habitat lost as a result of the off-shoreplacement of the shoreline barrier wall in portions of RemediationAreas A and B (SMUs 1 and 2); and• details for placement of the isolation cap in portions of the littoralarea without prior dredging.In addition to the list above, other issues that are addressed in thisplan include the following:• habitat goals for the conceptual design;• representative species and habitats;• water depth and substrate requirements for representativehabitats;• description and thickness of materials for habitat design;• description and thickness of thin-layer capping; and• monitoring and maintenance requirements for habitat restoration;These topics are discussed in Section 5 of this Habitat Plan.Habitat restoration activities for other areas impacted by the remedy orimplementation of the remedy (staging/processing areas, dredgePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 24

DRAFTmaterial pipeline and pump stations, SCA, etc.) will be addressed in therelevant design documents.Scrub-shrub uplands1.5 Goals of the Habitat PlanThe overall purpose of this Habitat Plan is to develop a habitatrestoration and enhancement plan for remedial actions associated withthe Lake Bottom Remedy and with remedies and IRMs for adjacentHoneywell sites that complies with applicable state and federal laws andregulations, executive orders and policies for floodplains, wetlands andsurface waters. In addition, the implementation of the plan is intendedto provide ecological, recreational and aesthetic benefits.Specific objectives to achieve that goal are as follows:• Objective 1 - Provide a comprehensive analysis of the habitatsthat will be affected by the various remedial activities in thelakeshore, floodplains, littoral, profundal, and wetland areaswithin and adjacent to Onondaga Lake.• Objective 2 - Provide conceptual and/or preliminary design plansfor:− Habitat restoration for the ROD in areas of the lakeshore,floodplains, littoral, profundal, and wetland areas that willbe affected by the remedial activities for Onondaga Lake.− Habitat enhancement in Onondaga Lake as defined in theOnondaga Lake Bottom ROD.− Habitat restoration for the remedies and IRMs for adjacentHoneywell sites where remedial activities will affectOnondaga Lake lakeshore, floodplains, littoral, andwetland areas.The “dashed red line” identified in Figure 1.2 indicates the areas of thelake and adjacent shoreline that are addressed by the Habitat Plan.The Habitat Plan will coordinate and describe the habitat restorationdesign requirements for remedial impacts within the “dashed red line”.However, the alignment may be adjusted following approval byHoneywell and NYSDEC based on new information regarding the extentof remediation. While the areas outside (and/or upland of) this line arenot specifically addressed by this plan, the types and values of habitatsin these areas will be considered when evaluating and identifying habitatrestoration requirements within the area of study.The “dashed red line” is generally aligned with the lakeshore andencompasses several lakeshore wetlands. A general description of thealignment adjacent to/within each of the littoral SMUs is provided below:• SMU 1: The line is drawn along the alignment of the Willis IRMand Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRM barrier walls.• SMU 2: The line is drawn along the alignment of the Semet/WillisIRM barrier wall.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 25

DRAFT• SMU 3: The line is drawn along the upland edge of the shorelinearea adjacent to Wastebeds 1-8.• SMU 4: In the area east of Ninemile Creek, the line is drawnalong the upland edge of the shoreline area adjacent toWastebeds 1-8. In the immediate vicinity of Ninemile Creek, theline extends a short distance up Ninemile Creek. In the areawest of Ninemile Creek, the line is drawn along the shoreline.• SMU 5: The line is drawn along the shoreline.• SMU 6: The line is generally drawn along the shoreline.However, in the area of Ley Creek, the line is drawn toencompass wetland SYW-12, which is currently beinginvestigated by Honeywell.• SMU 7: In the area immediately east of Harbor Brook, the line isdrawn along the alignment of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMbarrier wall. Further to the east, the line is drawn along theshoreline.Damselfly is a representativespecies for benthicmacroinvertebrates.1.6 Organization of the Habitat PlanThis Habitat Plan consists of six sections and six appendices. Asummary of the document is presented below:• Section 1: Introduction – provides a general description ofhabitat restoration at the Onondaga Lake site and adjacentwetlands and goals and objectives of this Habitat Plan.• Section 2: Conditions in Onondaga Lake – provides an overviewof historical habitat conditions as well as existing habitatconditions and biological communities related to Onondaga Lakeand adjacent Honeywell sites.• Section 3: Potential Effects of Remediation on Onondaga LakeHabitat – describes the anticipated effects of remedial activitieson lake and adjacent habitats.• Section 4: Identification of Representative Habitats forRestoration – describes how the representative species wereselected and provides a summary of the goals and objectives, aswell as the framework for the restoration modules addressed inSection 5.• Section 5: Preliminary Design for Lakewide Habitat -- furthersthis discussion of modules by describing how they will beimplemented in different parts of the lake. The modularapproach helps create a holistic, sustainable method forrestoring the targeted habitats in and around Onondaga Lake.• Section 6: References• Appendix A: Amphibian and Reptiles Recorded in the Vicinityof Onondaga Lake summarizes the number and types ofamphibians and reptiles recorded in the vicinity of OnondagaLake.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 26

• Appendix B: New York State Breeding Bird Atlas Resultscontains information about birds found near Onondaga LakeDRAFT• Appendix C: Macrophyte Coverage Figures from HabitatPreliminary Data Investigation (PDI) Report contains informationfrom the most recent Onondaga Lake macrophyte survey.• Appendix D: Suitability of Restoration in Remediation Areas forRepresentative Species contains more detailed informationabout how each remediation area is suited for the representativespecies.• Appendix E: Master List of Plants summarizes the plantstargeted for use in the restoration of wetland and upland habitatsin and around Onondaga Lake.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 27

TABLE 1.1ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONARARS AND TBCS THAT PERTAIN TO HABITAT AND SPECIES CONSIDERATIONSMedium/Authority Citation Requirement SynopsisNew York StateEnvironmentalConservation Law (ECL)Article 156 NYCRR Part 608 Note that:Section 608(a) requires development and submission of a sufficiently detailed construction plan with amap):Section 608.9(a) requires that construction or operation of facilities that may result in a discharge tonavigable waters demonstrate compliances with CWA §§ 301 – 303. 306 and 307 and 6 NYCRR §§ 751.2(prohibited discharges) and 754.1 (effluent prohibitions; effluent limitations and water quality-relatedeffluent limitations; pretreatment standards; standards of performance for new sources.)New York State ECLArticle 2440 CFR Part 6,Appendix AExecutive Order No.11988Executive Order No.11990Policy on Floodplainsand WetlandAssessments forCERCLA Actions6 NYCRR Part 663 Defines procedural requirements for undertaking different activities in and adjacent to freshwater wetlands,and establishes standards governing the issuance of permits to alter or fill freshwater wetlands.FloodplainManagementWetlandsProtectionAugust 1985Floodplain Management requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of actions they maytake in a floodplain to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse effects associated with direct and indirectdevelopment of a floodplain. Federal agencies are required to avoid adverse impacts or minimize them ifno practicable alternative exists.Protection of Wetlands requires federal agencies conducting certain activities to avoid, to the extentpossible, the adverse impacts associated with destruction or loss of wetlands if a practicable alternativeexists. Federal agencies are required to avoid adverse impacts or minimize them if no practicablealternative exists.Superfund actions must meet the substantive requirements of the Floodplain Management EmergencyExecutive Order (E.O. 11988) and The Protection of Response 1975 Wetlands Executive Order (E.O.11990). This memorandum discusses situations that require preparation of a floodplain or wetlandsassessment and the factors that should be considered in preparing an assessment for response actionstaken pursuant to Section 104 or 106 of CERCLA. For remedial actions, a floodplain/wetlands assessmentmust be incorporated into the analysis conducted during the planning for the remedial action.Section 10, Rivers andHarbors Act,33 USC § 403 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval is generally required to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter ormodify the course, location, condition, or capacity of the channel of any navigable water of the UnitedStates.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 1.1 12-09.docPage 1 of 2

TABLE 1.1 (Continued)ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONARARS AND TBCS THAT PERTAIN TO HABITAT AND SPECIES CONSIDERATIONSMedium/Authority Citation Requirement SynopsisNational HistoricPreservation Act 16USC § 470 et seq.36 CFR Part 800 Remedial Action must take into account effects on properties in or eligible for inclusion in the Nationalregistry of Historic Places.Endangered Species Act 16 USC 35 The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not only to protect species, but also "the ecosystemsupon which they depend." It encompasses plants and invertebrates as well as vertebrates. It does notexpressly include fungi, which were widely considered to be plants in 1973.The ESA forbids Federal Agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions which may "jeopardizethe continued existence of" endangered or threatened species (Section 7(a) (2)). It forbids any governmentagency, corporation, or citizen from taking (i.e. harming, harassing, or killing) endangered animals withouta permit. Once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the ESA also requires that "critical habitat"be designated for that species, including areas necessary to recover the species (Section 3(5) (A)).Federal agencies are forbidden from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action which "destroys oradversely modifies" critical habitat (Section 7(a) (2)).New York State ECLArticle 11, Title 56 NYCRR Part 182 The taking of any endangered or threatened species is prohibited, except under a permit or license issueby NYSDEC. The destroying or degrading the habitat of a protected animal likely constitutes a “taking” ofthe animal under NY ECL §11-0535.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 1.1 12-09.docPage 2 of 2

Lake OutletSawmill CreekLakelandNinemile Creek /Geddes BrookUnnamed CreekNinemile CreekLiverpoolOnondagaLake!(West FlumeG eddes Brook§¨¦ 690LCPBridgeStreetTributary 5ALake BottomEast Flume§¨¦ 90Bloody BrookGalevilleSemet Residue PondsWillis Ave.Ley CreekWastebed B/Harbor BrookMattydaleTown of Salina LandfillGeneral Motors Ley Creek DredgingsGeneral Motors IFG Facility§¨¦ 695 §¨¦ 81CamillusSolvaySyracuseFairmountWestvaleHarbor BrookOnondaga CreekHoneywell NPL SiteNon-Honeywell NPL Site.FIGURE 1.1Onondaga Lake Areaand NPL SubsitesOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New York0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2MilesPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

Lake OutletSawmillCreekSMU 5(Medium Energy)SYW-1SYW-3SYW-6SYW-4Remediation Area FLiverpoolMarinaBloodyBrookSMU 5(Medium Energy)Remediation Area AClass CSMU 4(Low Energy)Remediation Area BClass BNinemile CreekSYW-10SMU 8Class COnondaga Lake Parkway§¨¦ 690SMU 3(Medium Energy)SMU 5(Medium Energy)SYW-11Remediation Area C£¤ 695NYS FairgroundsSYW-14NYSDOTTurnaround AreaDitch ATributary 5ASMU 2(MediumEnergy)SMU 1(Medium Energy)Remediation Area ESMU 6(High Energy)Ley CreekCarouselMallSYW-15Remediation Area DAddendumEast FlumeSYW-19SMU 7(High Energy)Onondaga CreekMetroRemediation Area DHarbor BrookSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediationArea Boundary(Parsons, 2009)NYSDEC/EPAApproved WetlandBoundariesNYSDEC Wetland(NYSDEC, 2007)NYSDEC WaterQuality ClassificationArea Covered by OnondagaLake Remedial DesignElements for HabitatRestorationSMU 8 Thin-layer Capping(May by revised during design)CulvertTributary to be remediatedby HoneywellExtent of ILWD inthe Littoral ZoneNotes:1. Water depth based on lakesurface elevation of 362.5' NAVD88.2. Bathymetry shown in 5' intervals..New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 20031,500 750 0 1,500FeetFIGURE 1.2PARSONSOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkSurface Water Designationsand Wave Energy301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

DRAFTA great blue heron preys on amudpuppy.Salt marshes were historicallypresent around Onondaga Lake.Section 2: Conditions inOnondaga LakeThis section provides a summary of historic and current habitatconditions in Onondaga Lake and adjacent Honeywell sites based on areview of literature sources. It is important to understand past andpresent habitat conditions because they provide a foundation for thegoals outlined in this plan. The aim of this restoration project is torestore impacted areas of the lake and adjoining areas to reestablishhabitat and function based on these findings.2.1 Summary of Historical Conditions2.1.1 HabitatsOnondaga Lake is a natural marl lake, which by definition containssediments composed primarily of calcium carbonate that precipitatefrom the lake water. Historically, Onondaga Lake was a moderatelyproductive lake with some dissolved nutrients (mesotrophic) with freshto slightly saline water . Water in the lake was greenish, as is typical ofmesotrophic lakes, likely a result from high concentrations of algae. Theshores were covered with foam, possibly from winds concentratingminerals in the surface waters (Rowell, 1996).The presence of salt springs influenced the vegetation found in theVillage of Liverpool, and from this area to the southern end of the lake tothe mouth of Ninemile Creek. These conditions contributed to thepresence of salt marshes in several locations (Wurth, 1934). Saltmarshes apparently extended inland from the lake in three locations: 1)along the western shore of the lake from Long Point south toapproximately the current causeway area, 2) the eastern shore of thelake in the Village of Liverpool, and 3) in the southeastern portion of thelake extending up along the original location of Onondaga Creek andLey Creek (Young, 2000).Inland salt marshes, a globally rare ecological community, existed inthese shore areas. According to Young (2000), only eight inland saltmarshes have been documented in NYS, with only three in existencetoday. These three sites are located in other parts of the state, includingin the Montezuma Wetlands Complex Bird Conservation Area locatedapproximately 28 miles west of Onondaga Lake. No inland salt marshesare currently located near Onondaga Lake; however, freshwaterwetlands have filled in the land surface and have prospered in othershore areas since before the 1820s when higher lake levels existed(Vandruff and Pike, 1992; Ferrante, 2005).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 28

DRAFTMuskrat are currently present inthe Harbor Brook area.2.1.2 Biological CommunitiesVegetationThere are several incidental accounts of vegetation in and aroundOnondaga Lake, however, a thorough historical study of the lake’svegetation was never performed. Historical accounts of the 1800s and1900s written by botanists, European settlers, and garden clubs indicatethe presence of several plant species around Onondaga Lake moretypical of salt marshes and seashores (Beauchamp, 1869; Goodrich,1912; Wurth, 1934; Bye and Oettinger, 1969; Vandruff and Pike, 1992;McMullen, 1993). The lake’s high salinity fostered the growth of salttolerantplants (halophytes) including oak-leaved goosefoot(Chenopodium glaucum) and glasswort (Salicornia europaea).Other records indicate an abundance of tree species as well. Typical tocentral New York during this period were deciduous hardwoods,hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and evergreens (Taylor, 1995). Althoughthe types and distribution of many plant species around the lake havebeen modified considerably over the last 150 years, silverweed(Potentilla anserina or Argentina anserina) (a species found in saltmarshes, shorelines, and open areas) is consistently abundant from asearly as the mid-1800s through today (McMullen, 1993).MammalsAbundant wildlife was also encountered in the area surroundingOnondaga Lake during this period. Henry Hudson and Samuel deChamplain wrote in their travel journals in 1656 about the abundance ofbears in the region. In one account, they describe how members oftheir party killed thirty bears in a single day. Their journal also describestheir finding a drowned animal-- a “wild cow…having horns like thestag’s.” Historians believe that the animal was probably a female elk(Cervus elaphus) or moose (Alces alces). Beaver (Castor canadensis)were also abundant in the region and were the source of pelts for theactive fur trade. Other writings indicate that this area of central NewYork was also home to several species that no longer live in the region,including the gray wolf (Canis lupus), elk, and the Canadian lynx (Lynxcanadensis) (Ste. Marie among the Iroquois, 2006).FishThe earliest known report documenting fish in the lake was written byFrench Jesuit Father Simon LeMoyne in 1654. He observed Atlanticsalmon (Salmo salar) (Beauchamp, 1908). Other early reports suggestthat coldwater species, such American eel (Anguilla rostrata) andOnondaga Lake “whitefish” were once abundant in Onondaga Lake(Nemerow, 1964; Webster, 1982; Tango and Ringler, 1996). A relativelyrecent report suggests that the culturally significant whitefish speciesrecorded in early accounts was likely a cisco (Coregonus spp.) and nota whitefish, based on the historic distribution of the lake herringthroughout the Oswego River watershed (NYSDEC, 2004). Recentinformation indicates this species may have been Coregonus artedi orpossibly C. zenithicus (Arrigo 1996), although Siniscal (2009) providesfurther evidence that it was likely C. artedi.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 29

DRAFTTransient cold waterfish, such as this browntrout, have beenincluded in the habitatdesigns for the Lake.There are general accounts for a few other fish species in the lakebefore 1900. In 1825, yellow perch (Perca flavescens) were recordedby DeKay (Beauchamp, 1908). Nemerow (1964) draws on an accountfrom 1866 where “large numbers of pike, perch, bass, and bullheads”were caught by fishermen. In 1872, “salmon, trout, and bass” were alsostocked in the lake (Nemerow, 1964). Salmon, along with theOnondaga Lake whitefish, supported a commercial fishery that operatedon the lake until 1890, with the whitefish lost by 1897 (Tango andRingler 1996). The Atlantic salmon was forced out of existence(extirpated) from Onondaga Lake by the late 1800s, most likely becauseof mill dam construction and deforestation (Webster, 1982).In 1927, J.R. Greeley performed the first documented scientific study offish in Onondaga Lake (Ringler et al., 1996). He collected twelve fishspecies from Onondaga Lake, including the white sucker (Catostomuscommersonii), shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum),common carp (Cyprinus carpio), golden shiner (Notemigonuscrysoleucas), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque),bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), grass pickerel (Esoxmericanus.vermiculatus), banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus),largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), pumpkinseed sunfish(Lepomis gibbosus), and yellow perch. Compared with other local lakesof similar size and volume, however, the lake’s fish population wasconsidered neither diverse nor plentiful. This lack of diversity was notedwhen a second fish survey conducted in 1946 revealed that 90% of 400fish collected in a three day-period were common carp. The remaining10% accounted for a total of 13 different species (Ringler et al., 1996).Little scientific data are available for the early and mid-1960s except fornotes on trap net catch data from NYSDEC from June 1963 and June1964 (Ringler et al., 1996). The next comprehensive survey occurred in1969 by Noble and Forney, who surveyed the fish community ofOnondaga Lake using trap nets and gill nets (Noble and Forney, 1969;Ringler et al., 1996). This study identified 14 species of fish anddescribed the fishery as a warm-water fish community with similargrowth rates as other warm-water lakes in the northeastern UnitedStates. During surveys in the early 1980s by NYSDEC, 22 species werecollected, dominated by white perch (Morone americana) and alewife(Alosa pseudoharengus) (Chiotti, 1981; Ringler et al., 1996). Inaddition, the overall dominance of common carp in the fish communitydeclined sometime between the 1946 and the 1980 surveys. Therewere low rates of reproduction in the majority of fish species, except inwhite perch.2.2 Changes from Historical Conditionsaround Onondaga LakeSince the late 1700s increased settlement, urbanization and industrialdevelopment have increased pressures on Onondaga Lake and itssurrounding habitats. These shifts have impacted the sustainability,population and diversity of various habitats. A brief outline of the humanPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 30

DRAFTactivity around the lake, along with some of the specific changes theactivities have had on the lake, are discussed in the subsections below.The Phoenix Dam, located inPhoenix, New York, controls thelevel of Onondaga Lake.2.2.1 Water Level and Surface AreaModificationsAn explorer’s report from 1856 (Watson, 1856) indicates that the lakehad a shallow outlet (about 1 foot) with continuous rapids down most ofits length. The natural marl build up that occurred during late summerand early fall when calcium carbonate precipitated from the lake waterresulted in the lake water level being approximately two feet higher thanthe Seneca River (Ferrante, 2005). In 1822, in an effort to improvenavigation between the Seneca River and the lake, officials from NYSdredged and straightened the outlet. The change caused the lake levelto drop 2 feet and reduced the surface area of the lake by 20%(Ferrante, 2005).Around this time, local state officials also drained the wetlands at thesouthern end of the lake to help eliminate the breeding grounds formalarial mosquitoes. The draining of these wetlands on the southernend of the lake opened the area near the salt springs for urbansettlement, and this area continued to grow as railroads wereconstructed throughout the region. In 1840, the construction of theSyracuse Northern Railroad impacted the lake itself, creating changes inthe southeastern shoreline alignment, resulting in the narrow shorelineconditions that we have today in that area (Hohman, 2004).Continued changes to the lake level and surface area occurred as thearea around the lake became more urban and populations continued toincrease. As roads were constructed, cut material was dumped into thelake, altering the shoreline and impacting the surface area. The lakelevel was altered again in early 1915 when the NYS Barge Canal wasconstructed. This new canal, along with the raising of the Phoenix Damby 3.5 feet, raised the elevation of the lake to its pre-1822 elevation.Many of the wetland areas around the lake were also filled in bycontinued development (Ferrante, 2005). Due to various stages ofindustrialization that began in the mid 1800s, other changes includedthe creation of Wastebed B and the East Flume (54 acres), Wastebeds1-8 (397 acres) and the in-lake waste deposit (ILWD) (98.5 acres).Some of these activities resulted in surface area modifications to thelake. Additional changes to the lake surface area occurred in the 1950swith the construction of Interstate 690 (I-690). Fill material fromconstruction activities was placed along the shoreline (area alongRemediation Area C [SMU 2]) in the southern portion of the lake (Efflerand Harnett, 1996). In 1977, the surface area of the lake was againaltered by the installation of a sewage force main, which resulted in thefilling in of almost four acres of the lake in the vicinity of RemediationArea C (SMU 2) (Hohman, 2004). The creation of Wastebed B andWastebeds 1 through 8 also resulted in surface area modifications tothe lake.Some of the most recent developments to the surface area of the lakeare due to the early stages of remediation of Onondaga Lake. In 2007PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 31

DRAFTthe construction of the Willis Semet barrier wall and groundwaterextraction system began along the south side of the lake near I-690 toprevent the flow of upland groundwater from entering the lake. This wallincreased the width of the shoreline in this area by several hundred feetand shifted the alignment of the shoreline, slightly decreasing the lake’swater surface area. Lake levels have not been dramatically impacted;however, since the water level is controlled by the NYS Barge CanalSystem. Changes to the lake level since 1822 are summarized on Table2.1. Figure 2.1 illustrates how the lake footprint has been altered byurbanization and industrialization by depicting the shoreline in 1898,1908, 1938, and today.2.2.2 DevelopmentWhite City ScenicRailway was apopular touristattraction.As the canal and railroads made the lake more accessible in the late1800s, the area around Onondaga Lake became a popular touristdestination, and several lakeside resorts were constructed along thelakeshore. Many of these resorts contained amusement parks with avariety of attractions including roller coasters, carousels, dancepavilions, shooting galleries and bowling alleys. One of the morepopular resort areas was the Iron Pier, which was located near thepresent site of the Carousel Mall. The resorts were popular with touristsuntil the early 1900s when industrial sites started to populate theshoreline areas more commonly.The area near Onondaga Lake has had an industrial presence since thelate 1700s and steadily increased with time as various industries tookadvantage of the naturally occurring salt in this region for use in themanufacture of various chemicals and chemical processes. The earliestdocumented industry was the salt industry which operated from 1793 to1908 (Hohman, 2004). The region lost its monopoly on salt productiondue to changing industrial demands for salt and the discovery of largesources of salt in other areas of the United States. By 1920, the regionaround Onondaga Lake was a national center of manufacturing forPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 32

DRAFTmetal products, automobiles, typewriters, pottery, and other smallmachinery (de Laubenfels, 1977). By 1950, 139 industries usedOnondaga Lake for waste disposal (Ferrante, 2005), with the SolvayProcess Company being a significant contributor.As industry increased around the Onondaga Lake, noticeable changesto the integrity of the lake became noticeable, particularly in itsproductivity rates. For instance, prior to human impacts, OnondagaLake was moderately nutrient rich (mesotrophic) and fresh to slightlysaline (Rowell, 1996). The high levels of productivity prevalent in thelake after the mid-1800s are correlated with cultural activity. The lakebecame highly nutrient rich and very productive (eutrophic) during theearly to mid-1800s and excessively nutrient rich and very highlyproductive (hypereutrophic) shortly after World War II due to increasednutrient inputs. Lake salinity started to increase in the early 1800s whenthe expansion of the local salt industry developed, and a much largerincrease occurred following the establishment of the Honeywell sodaash facility in 1884 (Rowell, 1996)."A century of industrial pollution, urbanization and municipal wasteimpacted the habitat in Onondaga Lake, thus influencing the types andnumber of species as well as the location of where species are able tolive in these altered conditions. Available fish spawning areas, forexample, have been modified due to reduced plant life in both the lakeand its tributaries because of lower levels of dissolved oxygen,increased turbidity, elevated ammonia concentrations, salinity andcontamination. By 1900, both Atlantic salmon and whitefish (or lakeherring [Coregonus artedi]) were absent from Onondaga Lake (Tangoand Ringler, 1996). This was likely due to many factors includingincreased number of dams in the watershed, deforestation, and at leastin part to increased anoxia in the deeper waters of the lake duringsummer when the overlying warmer water does not mix with theunderlying cooler water (i.e., stratification). The continued lower levelsof dissolved oxygen in the lower waters of the lake limit the availability ofsuitable habitat for cold water species, such as salmonids, in the lake.In 1927, surveys identified only 12 different species and in 1946, 14species were recorded. As stated in the above section, in the 1950s,fishery surveys showed that more than 90% of the total fish netted inOnondaga Lake were common carp. No information was collectedregarding smaller size classes. By 1969, a survey described the fisheryas a warm-water fish community with 14 species captured (Noble andForney, 1969).The rarity of some species in Onondaga Lake is linked with regionalimpacts dating back over 100 years (Tango and Ringler, 1996). Mills etal., (1978) indicate that pickerel (Esox niger) and pike (Esox lucius) werecommon predators in the region in the late 1800s and early 1900s.However, draining of area wetlands and the construction of the BargeCanal system also reduced the availability of spawning habitats, andtheir abundances declined (Mills et al., 1987). The eel fishery of theOneida River, into which Onondaga Lake waters flow (Effler andHennigan 1995), was abandoned shortly after 1913 as eels alsodeclined in the region (Mills et al., 1987).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 33

DRAFTIndustrial discharges resulting from the Solvay manufacturing processalso resulted in habitat changes associated with sediment conditionswithin the lake (Effler and Harnett, 1996) and what is referred to as theILWD in Remediation Area D (SMU 1 and portions of SMUs 2 and 7).These conditions are described further in Section 2.3.1.The shoreline ofOnondaga Lake has seenmultiple configurationsover the past century.Since the 1900s, the cumulative effects of human-induced disturbances,such as tree clearing, agriculture, filling, dam construction,industrialization, and urbanization, have reduced terrestrial, floodplain,and aquatic habitats and altered species biodiversity within thewatershed surrounding the lake as well. Some wildlife, such as wolves,bears, and bobcats have long been lost from central New York and theOnondaga Lake area. The loss of large tracts of forest and wetlandsover the last two centuries has resulted in the fragmentation of naturalcommunities (VanDruff and Pike, 1992). Existing land use/land cover isshown on Figure 2.2. This map illustrates how natural areas have beenfragmented due to urban development.In addition to impacting fish and wildlife habitat, manufacturing alsoimpacted how humans used the lake as a community and recreationalresource. The manufacturing activities around Onondaga Lake led tocontinued population growth in Syracuse, but contributed to the demiseof the tourist industry and decreased recreational opportunities on thelake.By 1940, New York State no longer authorized permitted swimmingbeaches or sanctioned swimming areas at Onondaga Lake due to highbacteria and poor visibility. In 1970, the NYSDEC in concert with theDepartments of Health and Agriculture and Markets, closed OnondagaLake to all fishing due to the high levels of mercury contamination.Onondaga Lake was reopened to recreational fishing in 1986 on a“catch and release” basis. The New York State Department of Health(NYSDOH) health advisory for the lake at the time was to eat no fishfrom the lake. In 1999, some additional changes in the health advisoryPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 34

DRAFToccurred. For 2009-2010, NYSDOH advises the public to consume nowalleye, no bass greater than 15 inches in length, and to eat no morethan one meal a month of all other species and smaller bass due tomercury, dioxins, and PCBs.These advisories continue to be updated, and new information can befound on the NYSDOH web site (http://www.health.state.ny.us).2.2.3 Present-day Community BenefitsSalt City Bassmasters fish onOnondaga Lake.MinkDespite the impact of the industrial activities over the past century,Onondaga Lake continues to provide many beneficial aspects to thecommunity. Some of these community benefits are listed below (TAMS2002b):• Boating -The marina located on the eastern shoreline of the lake,and the lake’s connection to the Seneca River, facilitate use ofthe lake by boaters. Onondaga Lake is home to the OnondagaLake Yacht Club, the Syracuse University Crew teams, theSyracuse Chargers Rowing Club, and several local schoolrowing teams. Canoes and kayaks are available to the generalpublic for rental. The lake has also received national attention asit was the recent site of the U.S. Open of Watercross personalwatercraft races in May, 2009.• Fishing – Onondaga Lake contains numerous fish speciessought after by recreational anglers. Onondaga County hoststhe yearly Fishing for Dollars tournament, and local groups suchas the Salt City Bassmasters routinely fish on the lake. In 2007,ESPN hosted the 2007 Bassmasters Memorial FishingTournament on Onondaga Lake. The North American FishingClub lists the Lake as one of the country’s top locales for bass(www.onondagacountyparks.com).• Hunting – Where permission has been granted by theappropriate landowner and when laws permit, the shores ofOnondaga Lake provide hunting and trapping opportunities.Waterfowl and deer populations are abundant enough to supporthunting. In addition, mink, fox, and other mammals can betrapped.• Recreation – More than 75% of the shoreline of Onondaga Lakeis owned by Onondaga County and is classified as parkland.Last year, 1.3 million visitors used the park for picnicking,walking, jogging, roller blading, and bicycling (Geraci, 2009). Inaddition, the recreational-use path along Onondaga Lake Park isbeing expanded along the southern shoreline across NinemileCreek. The remainder of the lakeshore is currently beingevaluated to create a continuous trail around the entire lake.• Swimming – In the past, the lake has been used for recreationalswimming. The northern two-thirds of the lake is classified byNYS for direct recreational contact (i.e., Class B Waters), butswimming from shore is prohibited because of regulationsPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 35

DRAFTOnondaga Lake Parkway is a popularspot for picnics and family fun.Metro’s upgrades have greatly improvedthe water quality in Onondaga Lake.requiring a dedicated bathing beach with supervision, safetyequipment, and protection from boats and jet skis.• Inner Harbor – New development has occurred near thesouthern shore of Onondaga Lake, along Onondaga Creek andthe Barge Canal, as part of the Syracuse Inner Harbor Project.Approximately 42 acres of land, which is currently owned by theNYS Canal Corporation, are being developed for recreationaland commercial uses by the Lakefront Development Corporation(LDC).• Commerce – Onondaga Lake has long served as a backdrop fora number of commercial and industrial sites. Historically, theshores of Onondaga Lake were extensively developed byrestaurants, resorts, and eventually industries. The salt industry,in particular, flourished due to the lake’s central location in thestate, the salt deposits and the presence of water. Otherindustries also developed around the lake, some of which arestill in operation today. Industrial sites have been converted todevelop commercial properties in the vicinity of the lake,including Carousel Mall, the Regional Farmers Market, and theNYS Fairgrounds parking area.• Tourism – The city of Syracuse, Onondaga County, and NewYork State are attempting to increase the tourism industry inSyracuse. The ongoing expansion of Carousel Mall, thedevelopment of the Inner Harbor, and the lakeside trail are allpart of this effort. The lake is central to these efforts as a scenicand recreational area.• Education – The Liverpool school district has developed ascience program focused on Onondaga Lake. Fifth graders takepart in the “Living Lake” program where they learn aboutecosystems and habitats in and around the lake.• Stormwater Retention – The lake and its surrounding wetlandsand tributaries are used by Onondaga County for stormwaterdischarge. Onondaga County plans to implement sustainablemeasures to help decrease stormwater run-off and promotewater retention. The use of green initiatives throughout thecounty, such as living roof tops, rain barrels, and porouspavements, will reduce runoff into the sewers and offersustainable flood control (Knauss, 2009).2.2.3 Metro/CSO Loadings/ImprovementsThe City of Syracuse installed its first centralized sewage treatmentsystem in 1896. The facility was located just south of the Barge Canalbetween Pulaski and Van Rensselaer Streets (G.M. Hopkins, Co.,1938). Primary treatment of sewage began in 1925. In 1950,Onondaga County established the Metropolitan Sewer District, whichencompassed the City of Syracuse and some surrounding suburbanareas. In 1960, the district completed construction of a large primarysewage treatment plant, Metro, along the southern shore of the lakePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 36

DRAFTimmediately south of the mouth of Onondaga Creek. By 1979, the citybegan nutrient removal and secondary treatment (Ferrante, 2005).Effluent wastewater is discharged to the lake via a 94.5 inch (7.875 feet)diameter shoreline outfall. Flows in excess of 150 million gallons perday were historically discharged via the old 59.1 inch (4.925 feet)diameter deep water outfall. The two outfalls are connected, and waterflows through both pipes during rain storms (Effler, 1996).This effluent is a source of domestic point-source compounds such asammonia, phosphorus, and nitrate to the lake. Additionally, duringheavy storm periods, a mixture of untreated sewage and street runoffoverflows from the sewer system through combined sewer overflows(CSOs), which discharge primarily into Onondaga Creek and HarborBrook and ultimately drain into Onondaga Lake (NYSDEC and USEPA,2005).NYSDEC and the Metro Sewage Treatment PlantBased on these water quality issues, Onondaga County entered into anAmended Consent Judgement (ACJ) in January 1998 with the State ofNew York and the Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF). Theconditions of the judgment require that the County upgrade thetreatment plant and develop a CSO program that (1) eliminates orcaptures for treatment at least 85% of the volume of the combinedsewage collected in the system during precipitation events, (2)eliminates or minimizes floating substances in the lake from CSOs, and(3) achieves water quality standards for bacteria in the lake (ODCWEP,2005).Onondaga County designed, tested, and constructed modifications andadditions to the Metro facility that enables year-round nitrification ofammonia and phosphorus removal. The County made the necessaryupgrades ahead of schedule, and based on the modifications andadditions made by the County, the effluent meets or exceeds waterquality standards earlier than originally anticipated.In January 2004, a biological aerated filter system (BAF) was broughtonline to provide year round treatment of ammonia. The plant met theStage 2 ammonia limits on schedule (beginning in March 2004) andbegan meeting the Stage 3 ammonia limits in March 2005, over 7 yearsahead of schedule. More recently, the high rate flocculated settlingsystem (HRFS) for phosphorus removal came online. Throughoperation of the HRFS, the County is working to meet the Stage 2phosphorus limits.Improvements to the county's wastewater collection and treatmentsystem at Metro are responsible for the improved water qualityconditions in the Lake. Significant investment in wastewater treatmenttechnology has achieved far lower discharges of wastewater-relatedpollutants, particularly ammonia and phosphorus (OCDWEP, 2009).Onondaga County is also improving the water quality in Onondaga Lakewith its many CSO projects. Regional treatment facilities remove anyfloating material and disinfect sewer overflow, sewer separation divertscontaminated sewer water away from storm sewers, floatable controlPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 37

DRAFTfacilities remove floating debris from water that may enter the lake, andan increased storage and transport capacity moves a larger volume ofpossibly contaminated water through pipes and into underground tanks.Together, these projects will reduce human health risks associated withthe discharge of untreated sewage into Onondaga Lake and greatlyimprove overall water quality.The barrier wall preventscontaminated groundwater fromentering Onondaga Lake.2.2.4 Remedial Actions/IRMsHoneywell has effectively completed the remediation at the LCP site inthe Town of Geddes and an IRM at the lakeshore—both of which havedirectly reduced the migration of contaminants to Onondaga Lake.Under direction of NYSDEC, the cleanup program at the LCP site (aformer Honeywell property that was once one of two major sources ofmercury contamination to the lake) involved a combination of mercuryremoval from soil on the former plant property, excavation ofcontaminated sediments in surrounding areas, installation of an onsitegroundwater collection system, and the construction of an f undergroundbarrier wall to prevent any future contaminant migration from the siteThe barrier wall extends down to bedrock and ranges from 30 to 70 feetdeep. The LCP remediation was completed in 2007 and the lakeshoreIRM was completed in late 2006. The deep groundwater portion of thelakeshore IRM may be conducted at a later date based on ongoing datacollection and evaluation.The primary habitat-related benefits resulting from this action areassociated with the remediation and habitat restoration of nine acres ofadjacent wetland areas and the West Flume. These wetlands areconnected via culverts to the West Flume, which ultimately drain to thelake via Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek. Before remediation, thesewetlands areas were low-quality wetlands for several reasons:• substrate consisting predominantly of fill material;• dominance of almost uniform stands of invasive Phragmites;• lack of a connection to downstream aquatic systems;• location within the upper end of the drainage system; and• the disturbed nature of adjacent habitats.These wetlands were fully restored and enhanced to a variety of habitattypes including a wet meadow/scrub-shrub fringe, emergent wetland,aquatic bed, open water, and drainage channel.These habitat types were created by the development of various waterdepth zones according to the wetland restoration plan (Parsons, 2004a).In order to limit invasive species, the restoration plan placed anemphasis on the development of aquatic bed and deep emergent marshhabitat types. The majority of wetland characterization at the LCP Siteis ongoing, but to date, the following observations have been maderegarding the restored and enhanced wetlands:• Successful growth from plantings of trees and shrubs andPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 38

seeding efforts;• Emergent and aquatic bed wetland habitats have beenestablished with some open water habitat;DRAFT• Wet meadow and scrub-shrub habitat has been established onthe fringe of wetlands;• Phragmites growth has been limited/controlled within thewetlands;• The hydrologic connection between LCP Site wetlands and theWest Flume has been improved; and• Physical structure in this wetland has been improved with theaddition of trees and rocks along the edges of the wetlands.Honeywell has also made significant progress with installing a hydraulicbarrier wall and groundwater treatment plant, as part of the Willis/SemetBarrier IRM, to prevent contaminated groundwater from entering thelake. Approximately 2,800 feet of an underground barrier wall,constructed of interlocking steel panels, has been installed near thesouthwest shoreline of Onondaga Lake since 2006. Honeywell alsocompleted construction of a groundwater treatment plant in 2006, oneyear ahead of schedule, to collect, process, and treat contaminatedgroundwater behind the underground barrier wall. Due to the lack of riprapshoreline along the lake in this area the IRM has had minimaldisruption on the existing habitat. See Section 3.2.3 for further detailson this IRM.Green frogs are currently presentaround Onondaga Lake.2.3 Existing HabitatsThis section summarizes existing habitat conditions within and adjacentto Onondaga Lake. In sub-sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.5, habitatconditions are described for five general areas: littoral zone (shallowwater sediments), profundal zone (deep water sediments), wetlands,riparian zone (shoreline), and tributaries. Descriptions of existingbiological communities, such as fish, aquatic plants, and wildlife areprovided in Section 2.4. Information on endangered, threatened, andSection 2.4.Onondaga Lake covers approximately 4.6 square miles (3,000 acres), isapproximately 4.5 miles long and 1 mile wide, and has an average waterdepth of 36 feet. The lake has a northern basin and a southern basinthat have maximum water depths of approximately 61 and 65 feet,respectively. The basins are separated by a saddle region at a waterdepth of approximately 56 feet. The lake is characterized by anearshore shelf (less than 12 feet deep) which represents about 25% ofthe surface area of the lake. This nearshore shelf is bordered by asteeper offshore slope in water depths of 12 to 24 feet (TAMS, 2002a).Onondaga Lake is part of a state system of canals maintained by theNYS Canal Corporation, which is part of the NYS Thruway Authority. Adam located approximately 15 miles downstream along the OswegoRiver in Phoenix, New York, maintains the water level in the lake. Thecurrent average surface elevation of Onondaga Lake is 362.8 feetPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 39

DRAFT(NAVD 1988). NAVD 1988 is the most current vertical control datumused for surveying locations in North America and is used for referencedue to its universal application for land and water surveying andmapping.The current average elevation of the lake has been consistent for thepast 30 years, however, the lake level can change seasonally due tospring run-off and dry summers as well as daily due to weather events.The lake is generally at its highest elevation in the early spring due toincreased tributary flows and at its lowest elevation during the summermonths. Additional lake elevation data are provided in Table 2.2The northern two thirds of the lake are classified by the State of NewYork as Class B waters, while the southern third of the lake and the areaat the mouth of Ninemile Creek are classified as Class C waters (seeFigure 1.2). Best usages for these waters are defined as:• Class B – “primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing.These waters shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival”(6 NYCRR Part 701.7).• Class C – “fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fishpropagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable forprimary and secondary contact recreation although other factorsmay limit the use for these purposes” (6 NYCRR Part 701.8).Habitats in the lake are influenced by water temperature, which variesseasonally. Like many inland northern lakes, the water of OnondagaLake does not fully mix during summer. The lake is stratified, meaningthat the upper layer of relatively warm water does not mix with the layerof cooler waters at the bottom of the lake. Summer stratification is mostpronounced from May through mid-October due to temperature effectson water density.During summer, the colder denser water, referred to as the hypolimnion,is unable to mix with the overlying warmer less dense water, referred toas the epilimnion. The boundary between these two layers is called thethermocline or metalimnion and is the region in the water column wherethe temperature changes most rapidly with depth. In Onondaga Lake,the metalimnion is located at approximately 30 feet (9 meters) below thewater surface, although this varies seasonally from approximately 16 to33 feet (5 to 10 meters). The upper, warmer waters continue to bemixed by wind and wave action, while the lower, cooler waters arerelatively isolated beneath the metalimnion.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 40

DRAFTThis stratification of the lake is important because it determines how flowfrom tributaries and from the Metro discharge impact in-water habitats.During summer stratification inflow from the tributaries is incorporatedinto the upper layer (epilimnion) rather than throughout the entire lake,and occasionally into the metalimnion if tributary flows are saline.During periods of weak or no stratification, as typically occur duringwinter months, plunging flows from Ninemile and Onondaga Creeks mayenter the deeper waters of the lake directly.Onondaga Lake is stratified duringthe summer months, meaning thatwarm water lies on top of coolwater.Note that oxygen decreases withwater depth, as illustrated by theline graph in the graphic to theright.In conjunction with these processes, the hypolimnion receives organicand inorganic solids that settle from the epilimnion toward the lakebottom. As the summer progresses, biodegradation of the organicsolids deplete the oxygen in the hypolimnion, creating anoxic conditions.The presence of an anoxic hypolimnion is not uncommon in stratifiedlakes; however, oxygen depletion in the hypolimnion of Onondaga Lakewas historically made worse by loading of phosphorus to the lake fromtributaries and the Metro Plant discharge (Effler and Whitehead, 1996).Phosphorus is the critical nutrient that promotes the growth orproductivity of phytoplankton, which in turn increases the organicloading of settling solids to the hypolimnion. Increased phytoplanktonproductivity also leads to decreased water clarity (due to the high massof phytoplankton in surface water). Recent upgrades to Metro haveresulted in reduced phosphorus loading and are associated withsignificant improvement in the extent and duration of oxygen depletion(OCDWEP, 2009).Another characteristic about Onondaga Lake is that waters within thelake are more saline than in most inland lakes. Solvay Wastebeds 1through 15 as well as Solvay waste that was disposed of directly in thelake and at other locations along and near the lakeshore are known tocontribute calcium, sodium, and chloride to Ninemile Creek and/or thelake. Figure 4.1 illustrates the areas within the lake that contain Solvaywaste as the substrate. The ILWD comprises approximately 98.5 acresin Remediation Area D. There are approximately 45 acres of SolvayPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 41

DRAFTwaste in Remediation Area B and 1 acre is located within RemediationArea A.In addition, naturally occurring salt brine, which was collected andevaporated in the vicinity of Onondaga Lake for many years, affectsboth groundwater and nearby surface water quality. Natural salt springspresent near the lake result in saline discharges. The United StatesGeologic Survey (USGS) documented a saline spring in OnondagaCreek between Kirkpatrick and Spencer Streets (Kappel, 2003);however, the daily load (on the order of 10 tons [9,000 kilograms]) is aminor contribution to the salt budget of the lake. According to theGeddes Brook/Ninemile Creek RI Report the daily total dissolved solidsload from Ninemile Creek to the lake is on the order of 440 tons(400,000 kg) based on two base-flow sampling events in 1998 (TAMS,2003b).For remediation purposes, the sediments in the lake are divided into twomain regions: the littoral zone (shallower area) and profundal zone(deeper area). For purposes of this project, the littoral zone has beendefined as sediments from the shoreline out to 30 feet of water that arein contact with the epilimnion, which is the uppermost warm-water layeras shown in the graphic presented above. The profundal zone includessediments in the deep basins in more than 30 feet of water that are incontact with the hypolimnion, which are the deeper, colder, and denserwaters. The intent of the littoral zone and profundal zone designationsis to distinguish between the different biological, physical, and chemicalprocesses of the epilimnion and hypolimnion.Onondaga LakeThe lake sediments aredivided into two zones at awater depth of 30 ft—littoral(shallow zone shown as lightblue) and profundal (deeperzone shown as dark blue).Other Onondaga Lake reports divide sediments into different areasbased on characteristics of the sediments themselves. Johnson (1989)splits the sediments of Onondaga Lake into three zones: littoral (0 to15 feet [4.5 meters]), profundal (greater than 40 feet [12 meters]), andlittoroprofundal (between 15- and 40 feet [4.5- and 12 meters]).Littoroprofundal sediments are transitional between the two mainregions. Auer et al. (1996) define profundal sediment as located belowPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 42

DRAFT20 feet (6 meters) in lake depth relatively undisturbed, and not subject toresuspension or bioturbation.Ninemile Creek Delta2.3.1 Littoral ZoneThe littoral zone is considered the lake area between the shoreline and30 feet (9 meters) of water. Much of the sediment in water depths ofless than 15 feet (4.5 meters) consists generally of fine silts and clays,sand, and shell fragments (Johnson, 1989). Two major habitat typescomprise the littoral zone: submerged aquatic plants andunconsolidated bottom. The submerged aquatic plants habitat ischaracterized by the presence of plants that grow entirely under wateror have leaves that extend to and float on the water surface.High concentrations of calcite exist within the littoral sedimentsthroughout most of the lake due to past and present input of naturallycalcitic sediments from the tributaries and, while the former Allied (nowHoneywell) Main Plant was operating from 1884 to 1986, calciteprecipitation in the lake. Additionally, erosion from the wastebeds alongthe shoreline contributed calcium carbonate and calcite to the lake.Oncolites are another form of calcite in littoral sediments of OnondagaLake. Oncolites are small, oval or irregularly rounded, calcareousconcretions that resemble elongated pebbles and occur in a variety ofwater environments around the world. Made up of calcium carbonateand a small fraction of organic material, they are found throughout thelittoral sediments of the lake, especially along the northeast, north, andnorthwest shorelines. Oncolites are of relatively low mass and,therefore, are readily moved by waves and currents. Eventually,oncolites become stationary if they amass to a sufficient size (Golubicand Fisher, 1975).While much of the littoral zone is considered non-depositional due towind and wave action, discrete areas at the mouths of the tributaries aredepositional. These areas, traditionally called deltas, are created whenthe tributary enters the lake, the flow rate drops sharply, and suspendedsolids settle to the lake bottom. Sediment in these areas accumulatesand reflects the composition of the suspended solids that weretransported by the tributary into the lake.Another historically depositional area within the littoral zone in thesouthwest corner of Onondaga Lake is an area referred to in the RODas the in-lake waste deposit (ILWD). The ILWD was formed primarilythrough the deposition of calcium carbonate and other wastes from theoverflow of dikes around Wastebed B and through discharges via theEast Flume. These discharges into the lake are believed to haveincluded a combination of cooling water, sanitary waste, Solvay waste,mercury wastes, and organic chemical wastes, which settled out andformed a large delta that is at a higher elevation than surrounding areasof the lake bottom. The approximate extent of the ILWD in the littoralzone, based on sediment core data collected during the RI andsubsequent pre-design investigations (Parsons, 2009a), is shown inFigure 1.2. The area of the ILWD in the littoral zone is approximately98.5 acres.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 43

DRAFTLake sturgeon currently exist in theprofundal zone of Onondaga Lake.2.3.2 Profundal ZoneAs described above, the profundal zone is defined as the deeper basinin more than 30 feet (9 m) of water that is in contact with thehypolimnion, which is the denser, cooler, anoxic water during lakestratification (TAMS, 2002a; Parsons, 2004). Profundal sediment ischaracterized by small particle size and relatively high moisture content,as well as relatively high concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, andorganic carbon (Auer et al., 1996).This sediment is comprised of two units (Effler et al., 1996). The firstunit extends to approximately 35 inches (90 cm) below the sedimentsurface and is composed of black clay with distinct layers or laminations.The laminations are attributed to deposition of calcite, clays, anddiatoms (silica) associated with erosion of the watershed, productivitycycles within the lake, and other annual events (Effler et al., 1996). Thepresence of layers or laminations in the depositional sediment indicatesthat the sediment is relatively undisturbed (i.e., not affected by windwaveresuspension or bioturbation).The second unit is comprised of dark gray clay called gyttja and wasobserved up to 16.4 feet (5 m) deep. Laminations are visible, althoughthey become less distinct over the upper portion of the gyttja unit.Occasional gastropod shells and wood fragments occur throughout theunit. The sediment is progressively darker as the upper unit isapproached (Effler et al., 1996).2.3.3 Shoreline and Wetland HabitatsThe Onondaga Lake shorelinenear Harbor Brook has beenmodified by industrial activityand urbanization.Both inland salt marshes and freshwater emergent and forestedwetlands occurred historically around the lake and along the majortributaries inland from the lakeshore. These wetlands were likelydiverse not only because of their undisturbed nature, but also becauseof the lack of the many invasive plant species that currently degrade thepresent wetlands in the area.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 44

DRAFTScientists use soil samples fromwetlands around Onondaga Laketo help classify wetland types.There is little detailed information in the available literature concerningthe historical wetlands around the lake. While the lowering of the lakesurface in the 1820s likely affected some of these wetlands, filling forwastebed use, transportation, and industrial facilities eliminated much ofthe original wetlands around the lake. Some of the wetlands thatcurrently exist around the lake likely developed on disturbed soil or fillmaterial.Five NYSDEC-regulated wetlands occur along or near OnondagaLake’s shoreline. These wetlands (as shown on Figure 1.2) are locatedas follows: near the mouth of Sawmill Creek (SYW-1), near the mouthsof Harbor Brook (SYW-19), Ley Creek (SYW-12), Ninemile Creek(SYW-10), and along the northwest portion of the lake (SYW-6).State-regulated Wetland SYW-6 is being addressed as part of theNinemile Creek Dredge Spoils Area (DSA), Wetland SYW-10 as part ofthe Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek site, and Wetlands SYW-12 andSYW-19 as part of Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site.A wetland survey was also performed for the Wastebeds 1 through 8Site. Details of this survey can be found in the revised Onondaga LakeWetland/Floodplain Report (O’Brien & Gere and Parsons, 2009).Further delineations of these wetlands were performed during varioussite investigations, and were delineated using the methods presented inwetland delineation manuals authored by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and NYSDEC (1995).These wetlands are illustrated on Figure 1.2.In addition, Honeywell performed a wetlands and floodplain assessmentin 2004 to characterize wetlands and floodplain adjoining OnondagaLake that could potentially be impacted by lake remedial activities. Theassessment was conducted in accordance with a NYSDEC-approvedwork plan (O’Brien & Gere and Parsons, 2004) and consistent withUSEPA’s policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment for CERCLAActions (1985) (O’Brien & Gere, 2009).National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetlands as mapped by the USFWSare shown on Figure 2.3. These wetlands are somewhat different thanthe NYSDEC-regulated areas because of differences in classification.The USFWS used the Cowardin classification scheme (Cowardin et al.,1979) for its NWI mapping project. Based on the NWI map (USFWS,1978) for the study area, the Onondaga Lake shoreline is predominantlyclassified as lacustrine, littoral habitat. Lacustrine systems are habitatsthat are situated in topographic depressions; have less than 30% arealcoverage of trees, shrubs, or persistent emergents; and are typicallygreater than 20 acres in size (Cowardin et al., 1979). The littoralsubsystem is described under this system as habitat that extends fromthe shoreward boundary of a lacustrine system to a depth of 6.6 feetbelow low water or to a maximum extent of nonpersistent emergents(Cowardin et al., 1979). Examples of littoral habitats include aquaticbeds, nonpersistent emergents, and unconsolidated shore.Habitat classes depicted on the NWI map for the Onondaga Lake shoreinclude unconsolidated bottom and unconsolidated shore (USFWSPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 45

DRAFT1978, USFWS, 2009). The water regime modifiers (hydrologiccharacteristics) for the Onondaga Lakeshore include permanentlyflooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, and intermittentlyexposed. Only one subclass, spoil(s), is listed for two of the littoralhabitats present along the eastern lakeshore. The shoreline area isfurther discussed in Section 2.3.4, below.Additional details regarding the wetlands near Onondaga Lake areavailable in the recent floodplain and wetlands report (O’Brien & Gere,2009). Table 2.3 presents a summary of the wetlands contiguous withthe lake and evaluated as part of other recent lake-related studies.Wetland SYW-1Wetland SYW-1 is located along the northeastern portion of OnondagaLake. It is a Class I wetland (NYSDEC Freshwater WetlandsClassification System (6 NYCRR Part 664.5) that is separated from thelake by the lake trails and the Willow Bay picnic area.A wetland is classified as a Class I wetland if any of the following criteriais met:• wetland is kettlehole bog;• wetland is a resident habitat of an endangered orthreatened animal species;• wetland contains an endangered or threatened plantspecies;• wetland supports an animal species in abundance ordiversity unusual for the state or for the major region ofthe state in which it is found;• wetland is a tributary to a body of water which couldsubject a substantially developed area to significantdamage from flooding or from additional flooding shouldthe wetland be modified, filled, or drained;• it is adjacent or contiguous to a reservoir or other body ofwater that is used primarily for public water supply, or it ishydraulically connected to an aquifer which is used forpublic water supply; and• wetland contains four or more of the enumerated Class IIcharacteristics.This wetland falls outside of the Habitat Plan boundary, but it has beenincluded due to its proximity to the lake. Sawmill Creek drains throughWetland SYW-1 and discharges into the lake in this area. SawmillCreek has a NYS water quality classification of B. The portion of SYW-1nearest the lake (south of the Thruway) is primarily a deciduous forestwetland. Dominant trees are green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) andsilver maple (Acer saccharinum).Wetland SYW-19Wetland SYW-19, which is located along Wastebed B on the southwestlakeshore at the mouth of Harbor Brook, is a Class I (NYSDECPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 46

DRAFTFreshwater Wetlands Classification System) freshwater palustrinewetland. A jurisdictional wetland delineation of the SYW-19 area wasconducted in the summer of 2000 and summer of 2003 as part of theHarbor Brook Site Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (O’Brien &Gere, 2004). Wetland delineation findings are reported in JurisdictionalWetland Delineation Report, Harbor Brook Site (O’Brien & Gere, 2003)and summarized below.The SYW-19 area consists of four wetland areas (WL1, WL2, WL3, andWL4) located along the Onondaga Lake shoreline. WL1 and WL2 arelocated near the mouth of Harbor Brook, and WL3 and WL4 are locatednear the mouth of the Lower East Flume. Since these four wetlandareas are contiguous with the lake, the transitional area between thepalustrine and lacustrine habitats consist mostly of gravel-cobbleshoreline and Solvay waste shoreline, as further described below.Wetland 1 (WL1) runs along the southern shoreline of Onondaga Lakenear the eastern end of Wastebed B and borders the eastern bank ofHarbor Brook. WL1 comprises approximately 7.1 acres. OnondagaLake forms the northern border and an abrupt rise in topography (i.e.,berm and railroad bed) defines the southern and eastern borders of thiswetland. WL1 is vegetated primarily with a monoculture stand ofPhragmites. Wetland soils were indicated via the presence of low matrixchroma and high organic content of the soil strata. Wetland hydrologywas indicated by the presence of saturated soils (O’Brien & Gere, 2003).Wetland 2 (WL2) is on the western side of Harbor Brook, opposite WL1.WL2 comprises approximately 2.8 acres. Onondaga Lake forms thenorthern border and a gentle rise in topography toward Wastebed Bdefines the western and southern borders of this wetland. Similar toWL1, the dominant vegetative species present at WL2 is common reed;however, portions of WL2 also contain grapevine (Vitis sp.), buckthorn(Rhamnus cathartica), box elder (Acer negundo), black willow (Salixnigra) and Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Low matrix chromaand organic streaking indicated wetland soils. Significant amounts ofSolvay waste were observed in the soil strata. Wetland hydrology wasindicated by the presence of saturated soils in the upper 1 ft of the soil(O’Brien & Gere, 2003).Wetland 3 (WL3) is just north of Wastebed B on the southern shore ofOnondaga Lake. WL3 comprises approximately 1.7 acres. OnondagaLake forms the northern border and the Lower East Flume forms thewestern border of this wetland. The former bulkhead that wasconstructed to retain the material deposited into Wastebed B primarilydefines its southern border of WL3 (O’Brien & Gere, 2003). WL3 isvegetated primarily with common reed. Other vegetative speciesobserved include purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicara), buckthorn, andbox elder. Significant amounts of Solvay waste were observed withinthe soil strata. Wetland hydrology was indicated by the presence ofsaturated soils within 1 foot of the ground surface (O’Brien & Gere,2003).Wetland 4 (WL4) is an approximately 0.5-acre depression that isbounded to the west and south by the Lower East Flume and to thePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 47

DRAFTLey Creek and adjacent WetlandSYW-12north and east by Onondaga Lake. It exhibits greater vegetativediversity than the other three wetlands. However, the dominantvegetative species observed are similar to those of wetlands WL1, WL2,and WL3 and include, but are not limited to, common reed, purpleloosestrife, buckthorn, and box elder. Significant amounts of Solvaywaste were observed within the soil strata. Wetland hydrology wasindicated by the presence of saturation in 1 foot of the ground surface(O’Brien & Gere, 2003).Soils mapped for these wetlands consist predominantly of bed areas ofSolvay waste that may or may not be covered with vegetation (USSCS,1977). The drainage characteristics of these soils range from somewhatpoorly drained to poorly drained on the wastebed areas located nearlake level (USSCS, 1977). As noted above, the soils observed in WL2through WL4 during the wetland delineation effort were predominantly amixture of weathered Solvay waste material with varying proportions ofbrown silty loam and organic (decomposed plant matter) material. Insome instances, the presence of Solvay waste precluded the finding ofpositive indicators of hydric soils. Therefore, the delineation effortsfocused on the prevalence of positive indicators of hydrophyticvegetation and wetland hydrology.During the summer of 2000, sediment samples were collected in SYW-19 and areas located between SYW19 and the lake for the OnondagaLake RI. During the completion of the Wastebed B / Harbor Brook SiteRI, surface soil samples were collected from the WL1 area at a depth of0 to 6 inches and a depth of 0.5 – 1.0 ft. The surface soils werecollected in conjunction with soil boring locations and selected surfacesoil sampling locations. Also, surface soils and wetland soil sampleswere collected at unique locations during the RI. Additionalinvestigation was conducted in 2008 within SYW-19. Soil andporewater samples were collected for analysis at depths between 0 and20 ft bgs. VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and metals were detected atmultiple sample locations during both the RI (O’Brien & Gere, 2007) andthe 2008 investigation.Wetland SYW-12Wetland SYW-12 is located along the shoreline of Onondaga Lake northof the mouth of Onondaga Creek and northwest of Carousel Mall. Thiswetland consists of several wetland cells, with the two largest cellslocated between Ley Creek and Onondaga Creek and immediatelynorth of Ley Creek. SYW-12 is recognized by the NYSDEC as a Class Iwetland, and it covers approximately 42 acres and has vegetative covercontaining Phragmites and an area of floodplain deciduous forest.Portions of SYW-12 not included in this assessment (north of LeyCreek) have been documented as salt marsh habitat by the New YorkNatural Heritage Program (NYSDEC/TAMS, 2002).O’Brien & Gere conducted a jurisdictional wetland delineation at aportion of wetland SYW-12 as part of wetland/floodplain assessment inSeptember of 2004, and October and November of 2008. The portion ofSYW-12 delineated and identified by O’Brien & Gere in 2004 (WL 1),consists of approximately 17 acres south of Ley Creek and south andPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 48

DRAFTwest of the railroad tracks along the northeastern shoreline ofOnondaga Lake. Onondaga Lake forms the western border of thiswetland. An abrupt rise in topography (i.e., berm and railroad bed)defines the eastern border of the wetland, and Ley Creek defines thenorthern boundary of this wetland area. This portion of SYW-12 is acombination of a monoculture stand of Phragmites and forestedfloodplain that comprise an overstory of predominantly easterncottonwood trees. As this wetland is contiguous with the lake, thetransitional area between the palustrine and lacustrine habitatsconsisted mostly of gravel-cobble shoreline and Solvay waste shoreline.Soils mapped for this wetland cell included made land (Ma) and cut andfill land (CFL) soils (USSCS 1977). According to USSCS (1977), Maconsists predominantly of bed areas of waste material, which may ormay not be covered with vegetation and CFL soils vary widely withinOnondaga County.The portions of SYW-12 identified and delineated by O’Brien & Gere in2008 consist of two sub-wetlands (WL 2 and WL 3) south of Ley Creekand east of the railroad tracks that border WL 1. WL 2 is a 1.1-acretriangular-shaped area bordered on two sides by railroad tracks and bya dirt road on the third side. This delineated wetland is a monoculture ofPhragmites. WL 3 is a 0.26-acre narrow strip of Phragmites bordered byrailroad tracks and a dirt road.Analytical samples for SYW-12 were collected during the summer of2000 as part of the Onondaga Lake RI. Four locations were analyzedfor VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),metals, total organic carbon (TOC), and percent solids. Resultsindicated the presence of each of these analytes at one or more of thefour sample locations (TAMS, 2002a). A wetland subsurfaceinvestigation was performed in May 2000 by C&S Companies (C&S,2001). Thirteen subsurface borings were advanced as part of thisinvestigation. Borings were advanced to characterize subsurface soilsand identify the potential existence of contamination. Soil samples werecollected from the following three intervals:• Interval 1: existing grade to approximately 6 to 12 inchesbelow ground surface (bgs)• Interval 2: from 6 or 12 inches below grade to a depth ofthe proposed finished wetland elevation• Interval 3: from 6 inches immediately above the proposedwetland finished grade elevation to a depth of 18 to 20inches below the proposed wetland finished gradeelevation (C&S, 2001).Samples collected from each of the three sampling intervals wereanalyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, pH, and total organiccarbon (TOC). Samples collected from Interval 3 were analyzed forTarget Compound List (TCL) VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and pesticides.One half of the samples collected from Intervals 1 and 2 were analyzedfor TCL VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and pesticides (C&S, 2001).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 49

DRAFTSYW-10 is forested wetland locatednear the mouth of Ninemile Creek.A black tar-like layer was observed during the completion of eight of theborings. The black tar-like layer was identified 4 to 12-ft bgs dependingon the borings location and exhibited a “heavy oil-like odor”. The layervaried in thickness from 1 inch to 14 inches depending on location.Samples from the black tar-like layer were analyzed for TCL/TALparameters, pH, and TOC (C&S, 2001).VOCs were detected in six of the soil samples. Constituents includedacetone, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. SVOCs at the site consistedmainly of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) compounds and wereconsistently detected at concentrations greater than screening criteria.The majority of soil samples exceeded screening criteria for thefollowing metals: aluminum, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, iron,magnesium, manganese, and zinc (C&S, 2001).Four additional hand augured holes were advanced and sampled formetals as part of additional investigations (O'Brien & Gere 1995).Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury were detected in thesesamples.Wetland SYW-10Wetland SYW-10, located along Ninemile Creek near its confluence withOnondaga Lake, is a 27-acre, Class I wetland (Figure 2.4). Thiswetland is divided by I-690. On the lake side of I-690, the wetland isdominated by emergent vegetation and floodplain forest. The wetlandsection on the west side of I-690 is dominated by emergent vegetation(primarily Phragmites). TES conducted a jurisdictional wetlanddelineation at the portion of wetland SYW-10 on the lake side of I-690as part of the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Feasibility Study (Parsons,2005).The portion of the Wetland SYW-10 north of Ninemile Creek, consists ofan approximate 5-acre area, with Onondaga Lake forming its easternborder. An abrupt rise in topography (the I-690 roadbed) defines thewestern border of the wetland, and a rise in typography along thesouthern edge of the wetland just north of Ninemile Creek defines thesouthern boundary. This portion of SYW-10 is predominantly forestedfloodplain that is comprised of an overstory of silver maple, Americanelm (Ulmus americana), and box elder. A monoculture stand ofPhragmites is located on the southeastern portion of Wetland SYW-10at the mouth of Ninemile Creek.Additionally, at the south side of the mouth of Ninemile Creek exists anapproximate 1.5-acre area also consisting of a monoculture stand ofPhragmites which occurs as a delta that extends into the lake. As thesewetlands are contiguous with the lake, the transitional area between theuplands and in-lake habitats consisted mostly of gravel-cobble shorelineand Solvay waste shoreline.The Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek BERA (TAMS, 2003a) evaluatedsurface soil/sediment samples from SYW-10 collected from 0 to 0.5 feetbelow the surface. Forty-one organic compounds exceeded screeningcriteria in SYW-10 surface soils/sediments. Inorganic constituentsdetected included arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 50

DRAFTPhotograph of SWY-6 taken in earlyspringtime from the trail along thesouthern shoreline of Onondaga Lakemercury, nickel, selenium, thallium, vanadium and zinc.Hexachlorobenzene, total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),total PCBs, 4,4-DDT, and PCDD/PCDFs were also detected.These contaminated areas are being addressed by the Ninemile Creekremedy.Wetland SYW-6Wetland SYW-6, located at the northwest border of Onondaga Lake, isa 100-acre, Class I wetland. This property is owned by OnondagaCounty and the wetland is situated between I-690 and Onondaga Lake.This wetland is divided by a series of elevated berms which are typicallyused as biking and walking paths, but are large enough to supportvehicles. The paths create cells in the wetland that are not connectedby surface flows, though some are hydrologically connected to eachother by culverts. Some portions of this wetland are directly connectedto the lake through culverts under the paths. The cells in the wetlandvary in vegetation type, but are dominated by floodplain forest oremergent wetland species. Two jurisdictional wetland delineations havebeen performed at portions of Wetland SYW-6.Barton and Loguidice (B&L) Consulting Engineers, on behalf of theOnondaga County DOT, performed a jurisdictional wetland boundarydelineation of Wetland SYW-6 in October 2000 (B&L, 2001). Thewetland delineation effort focused on those areas associated with theOnondaga Lake west trail improvement project, including the existingpedestrian trail (Paved Trail), secondary trail (Nature Trail), and culverts.Both forested and emergent wetlands were mapped as part of thiseffort. The forested wetland was dominated by eastern cottonwood andcommon buckthorn with occasional red maple (Acer rubrum) and greenash. The emergent wetlands were vegetated with Phragmites, narrowleavedcattail (Typha angustifolia), and common cattail (Typha latifolia).The berm banks were typically vegetated with common buckthorn andsome staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina). The boundary of the entirewetland system was not delineated beyond the project areas, althoughthe wetland cell boundaries are generally defined by the berms.O’Brien & Gere, on behalf of Honeywell, also performed a jurisdictionalwetland delineation at a portion of Wetland SYW-6 as part of thewetland/floodplain assessment previously discussed. This wetlandsection is located along the northwest lake shoreline between a pavedportion of the Onondaga Lake trail system and the lakeshore.SYW-6 is approximately 5.5-acres, based on the wetland boundarydelineation. Onondaga Lake forms the eastern and southern borders,and an abrupt rise in topography associated with the lake trail definesthe western and northern borders of the wetland. This wetland ispredominantly forested floodplain with some smaller stands ofPhragmites along the immediate lakeshore. The forested floodplainportion is approximately 3 to 4 acres and is composed of an overstory ofpredominantly silver maple, cottonwood, green ash, American elm andswamp white oak (Quercus bicolor). The remainder of this wetlandconsists of a narrow strip of deciduous trees and shrubs (American elm,green ash, cottonwood and buckthorn) along the lakeshore. ThePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 51

DRAFTWastebeds 1-8 site located adjacent toOnondaga Lakeherbaceous species present included Phragmites, false nettle(Boehmeria cylindrica), and jewelweed (Impatiens sp.). As thesewetlands are contiguous with the lake, the transitional area between thepalustrine and lacustrine habitats consisted mostly of gravel-cobbleshoreline and Solvay waste shoreline.According to the Ninemile Creek/Dredge Spoils Area PSA DataSummary (O’Brien & Gere, 2005b), multiple VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides,PCBs, and metals were detected in the top 1 or 2 feet of surfacesoil/sediment samples were collected from the SYW-6 area. The DSA isthe subject of ongoing remediation investigation efforts.Other Wetland (BR4)As part of the wetlands/floodplain assessment, a 0.11-acre wetlandarea, identified by O’Brien & Gere as BR-4, was delineated along thenorthwest lake shoreline near an unpaved portion of the OnondagaLake Park trail system (O’Brien & Gere, 2009). Onondaga Lake formsthe eastern border of this wetland and an abrupt rise in topographyassociated with the lake trail defines the western border. This wetland ispredominantly a narrow strip (ranging from 3 to 10 feet wide) ofPhragmites along the immediate lakeshore.As this wetland is contiguous with the lake, the transitional areabetween the palustrine and lacustrine habitats consisted mostly ofgravel-cobble shoreline and Solvay waste shoreline.Wastebeds 1 through 8O'Brien & Gere performed a wetland boundary delineation andfloodplain assessment at the Wastebeds 1 through 8 site and iscurrently preparing a Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment inaccordance with the Wastebeds 1 through 8 Focused RemedialInvestigation Work Plan (O’Brien & Gere, 2005). Findings from thewetland/floodplain assessment are reported in Wetland Delineation andFloodplain Assessment for the Wastebeds 1 through 8 Site (O’Brien &Gere, 2006, 2009), currently under review by the NYSDEC, aresummarized below.During the July 2008 supplemental field efforts at the Wastebeds 1through 8 site, two wetland habitats (A and B) totaling 0.72 acres wereidentified along the eastern Lakeshore Area site, located adjacent toOnondaga Lake. Wetland A is a 0.32-acre wetland dominated byPhragmites that is located near the northeastern Site boundary.Wetland B is a 0.40-acre wetland located southeast of Wetland A.Wetland B is also dominated by Phragmites with little to no othervegetative species observed.2.3.4 Riparian ZoneThe riparian zone (shoreline) of Onondaga Lake consists of maintained,natural, and disturbed areas. The City of Syracuse is located at thesouthern end of Onondaga Lake, and numerous towns, villages, andmajor roadways surround the lake (see Figure 1.1). The eastern shoreof Onondaga Lake is urban and residential, while the northern shore isdominated by parkland, wooded areas and wetlands. The northernPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 52

DRAFTBelted kingfisher and other birds nestin the riparian zone.upland areas in Liverpool and Lakeland are mainly residential, withinterspersed urban structures and several undeveloped areas. Much ofthe western and southern lakeshore is covered by wastebeds thatreceived wastes generated from Honeywell’s predecessor Allied Signal,Solvay operations. These wastebeds contain a mix of wetland andterrestrial plant communities typical of disturbed areas. Urban centersand industrial zones in Syracuse and Solvay dominate the landscapesurrounding the southern and eastern shores of Onondaga Lake fromapproximately the NYS Fairgrounds south to Ley Creek.As part of the wetlands and floodplain assessment (O’Brien & Gere andParsons, 2009), a boat reconnaissance of the Onondaga Lake shorelinewas performed to evaluate the presence of other potential wetlandareas. The physical characteristics of portions of the lake shoreline,excluding the assessed wetlands described in Section 2.3.3, are broadlydescribed as follows:• Gravel and cobble shoreline that may include areas dominatedby drift deposits including garbage and dead vegetative matter.This habitat type is predominant through much of the lakeshore.• Solvay waste shoreline (e.g., primarily Remediation Areas D(SMU 1), C (SMU 2), B (SMU 3), and the southern portion ofRemediation Area A (SMU 4).• Human-made, concrete causeway (Remediation Area C [SMU2]) which is no longer at the shoreline due to the Willis IRMbarrier wall discussed in Section 3.2.3.• Armored (rip-rap lined) shoreline (e.g., portions of RemediationArea F [SMU 5] at Onondaga Lake Park).Based on the field investigations performed for the wetlands/floodplainassessment for Onondaga Lake (O’Brien & Gere and Parsons, 2004),the natural shoreline areas that were not identified as wetlands would beconsidered lacustrine, littoral, unconsolidated bottom (L2UB) habitat.Some of these shoreline areas, particularly along the eastern shorelinewest of Ley Creek and north of Onondaga Creek, contained nonpersistentemergent vegetation that was predominantly rooted in asubstrate of sand, gravel, Solvay waste, or organic drift material(predominantly vegetative stems and detritus).Floodplains were mapped by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) throughout most of the Onondaga County watershed inthe 1970s and 1980s. According to the FEMA data, floodplains arecurrently most extensive in the area around Onondaga Lake. There aresignificant areas of 100-year floodplain around the northern reaches ofNinemile Creek and the southern reaches of Onondaga Creek. Thehighest, or near highest, stream flows and lake levels on record for thearea occurred in June/July 1972 in response to a storm event stemmingfrom Hurricane Agnes. The maximum lake elevation recorded that yearfrom the USGS site is 369.14 feet (NAVD 88). The current 100-yearfloodplain elevation for the Onondaga Lake area is 370 feet (NAVD 88).Presently, there are no virgin forests near Onondaga Lake or in theremainder of Onondaga County (Harding, 1973). Historical clearing ofPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 53

DRAFTWhite oak foliageforested areas for various land use purposes caused fragmentation ofnatural communities and loss of biodiversity. Invasive species includingPhragmites and purple loosestrife have become some of the mostdominant species on the moist disturbed sites along the southern andwestern edges of the lake and in shallow waters of wetlands (McMullen,1993). Other common species now present near the lake include theeastern cottonwood, red maple, white oak, white ash (Fraxinusamericana), and the American elm (Vandruff and Pike, 1992).As listed in the Lake BERA (TAMS, 2002b), three state and/or federallisted rare, threatened, or endangered plant species exist within 2 miles(3.2 km) of Onondaga Lake. These are Sartwell’s sedge (Carexsartewelli), little-leaf tick-trefoil (Desmodium ciliare), and red pigweed(Chenopodium rubrum). All three plant species are known only fromhistorical records. They have not been sighted in the Onondaga Lakearea recently, but may be rediscovered. The general locations of listedplants near Onondaga Lake are shown in the Onondaga Lake BERA(TAMS, 2002b).One of the submerged aquatic species noted during the recent surveyswas slender naiad (Najas guadalupensis). Two rare natural plantcommunities have been recorded adjacent to the Onondaga Lakeshoreline within 2 miles of the site. These communities are the InlandSalt Marsh and the Inland Salt Pond located southeast of Liverpoolalong the northern shore of Onondaga Lake. The NYNHP did notprovide the exact locations of identified resources; however, theirgeneral location is presented in the Willis Avenue BERA (O’Brien &Gere, 2004c). Plant and animal endangered, threatened, and rarespecies as well as rare natural communities are discussed in greaterdetail in Section 2.4.8. Other endangered plants previously reported inand around the lake are also discussed in Section 2.4.8.2.3.5 TributariesOnondaga Lake receives surface runoff from a drainage basin ofapproximately 285 square miles (Figure 2.5). Surface water flowsprimarily from the south and southeast into the lake through six naturaltributaries; Ninemile Creek, Onondaga Creek, Harbor Brook, Ley Creek,Bloody Brook, and Sawmill Creek. Two engineered tributaries also flowinto the lake; the East Flume and Tributary 5A, which are both currentlyin the remedial design stage. Ninemile Creek and Onondaga Creek arethe two largest tributaries to Onondaga Lake. Each of the tributaries isdescribed below. In addition to the tributaries, the treated effluent fromMetro, located between Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook, provides asignificant portion of the water entering the lake.The outlet of Onondaga Lake flows north to the Seneca River, whichthen combines flow with the Oneida River to form the Oswego River,and ultimately discharges into Lake Ontario approximately 40 milesnorth of the lake outlet. Water also enters the lake through intermittentbi-directional flow from the Seneca River at the outlet of the lake (Efflerand Whitehead, 1996). Analyses to date indicate that inflow from theSeneca River varies significantly seasonally and from year to year, butthat it can be a substantial portion of the total inflow (Effler et al., 2002).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 54

DRAFTAdditional research is being conducted to better understand thisbidirectional flow in the outlet, including collaborative work between theUSGS and Onondaga County.Upstream portion of Ninemile CreekNinemile CreekOtisco Lake serves as the headwaters of Ninemile Creek in the town ofOtisco. Ninemile Creek receives drainage from several tributariesincluding Geddes Brook. Ultimately, Ninemile Creek empties intoOnondaga Lake along its western edge at Lakeland, adjacent to theNYS Fairgrounds. As defined in the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek RI(TAMS, 2003b) the section of Ninemile Creek located upstream of theGeddes Brook confluence to Amboy Dam is referred to as upperNinemile Creek, while the section located downstream of the GeddesBrook confluence is referred to as lower Ninemile Creek. NinemileCreek is the second largest natural tributary, contributing approximately34% of the annual flow to Onondaga Lake (OCDWEP, 2001).Ninemile Creek empties intoOnondaga Lake.The water quality classification for lower Ninemile Creek is Class C(suitable for fish propagation and fish survival). A Class C (T)designation applies to Ninemile Creek from the outlet of Otisco Lake to0.6 miles (0.4 km) downstream of the Route 173 bridge in Amboy(downstream of the Amboy Dam). The C(T) designation indicates that,in addition to protection as Class C waters and uses, these waters aretrout streams where the dissolved oxygen specification for trout watersapplies (Title 6 of the State of New York Code of Rules and Regulations– 6 NYCRR - Part 895). Class C(T) waters are also “protected streams”subject to provisions specified in 6 NYCRR Part 608.The fish assemblages in Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek have beenevaluated in three historical studies and, in a qualitative manner, duringfish sampling performed for the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek RI fieldPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 55

DRAFTinvestigation in 1998 and 2000 by Exponent for Honeywell andsupplemental young-of-year (YOY) sampling in 2002 performed byTAMS for NYSDEC (TAMS, 2003b). An extensive evaluation of habitatsand biological resources for this tributary is presented in the NinemileCreek/Geddes Brook BERA (TAMS, 2003a).The fish community captured in Geddes Brook and Ninemile Creek in1998 comprised a total of 21 species, with 20 captured from NinemileCreek and 10 captured from Geddes Brook. The following species,presented in descending order of abundance, were captured fromNinemile Creek: white sucker, creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), blacknose dace (Rhinichthysatratulus), longnose dace (R. cataractae), common shiner (Luxiluscornutus) , brown trout (Salmo trutta), yellow perch, pumpkinseed,smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), bluegill (Lepomismacrochirus), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), largemouth bass,fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), banded killifish, logperch(Percina caprodes), golden shiner, satinfin shiner (Cyprinellaanalostanus), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebuolosus), and rock bass(Ambloplites rupestris)Exponent also conducted a field evaluation for Honeywell of potentialspawning habitats for fish in Geddes Brook and lower Ninemile Creek inJuly 2000. The species of interest for this study were brown trout,blacknose dace, creek chub, smallmouth bass, tessellated darter, andwhite sucker (TAMS, 2002b). These species of interest prefer coarsesubstrate for spawning, and in general, the larger habitat segments(long pools or runs) of lower Ninemile Creek provide extremely limited orno spawning habitat value , primarily due to the dominance of finegrained sediments (mud/clay). In contrast, Geddes Brook providesabundant spawning habitat for all species of interest, except smallmouthbass.Onondaga CreekOnondaga Creekflows into OnondagaLake near Metro.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 56

DRAFTOnondaga Creek originates in the southeastern portion of the watershed(Tully Valley) and flows north through the town of Tully, the OnondagaNation, the town of Onondaga, and the City of Syracuse beforeemptying into Onondaga Lake (Figure 2.5). The main stem length is27.5 miles (OCDWEP, 2001). The major tributaries to Onondaga Creekare the West Branch of Onondaga Creek, Hemlock Creek, andRattlesnake Gulf. The creek receives runoff from 43 combined seweroverflows and contributes approximately 34% of the annual flow toOnondaga Lake (OCDWEP, 2001). The lower portion of the creek nearthe discharge point to Onondaga Lake is known as the Inner Harbor.This lower reach of Onondaga Creek is classified by the NYSDEC as aClass C waterway which, as designated by the regulations, is bestsuited for fishing and secondary water contact recreation such asboating (6 NYCRR 701).According to the National Inventory of Dams (http://nid.usace.army.mil),there is one dam on Onondaga Creek (Onondaga Dam) located in theTully Valley. No other dams were identified on this creek.At its headwaters, Onondaga Creek historically received significantsediment inputs from the Tully Valley mudboils, located 13 milesupstream from Onondaga Lake. The mudboils discharge sedimentladengroundwater into the headwaters of Onondaga Creek, primarily inthe form of clay minerals. In 1991, the Onondaga Lake ManagementConference (OLMC) identified the Tully Valley mudboils as a source ofturbidity being discharged into Onondaga Lake. Since 1992, theOnondaga Lake Partnership (OLP) has provided financial support to theUSGS to remediate and reduce the sediment loading from the mudboilsto Onondaga Creek. Today, the sediment loading is only a smallfraction of what it once was. (Kappel and McPherson, 1998; and(Kappel, 2004).At its mouth, Onondaga Creek is enriched with nutrients and suspendedsediment. The creek is also enriched with salt from groundwater springsthat continuously discharge brackish (salty) water to the lower reachesof the creek near Onondaga Lake. A sediment loading analysis in theearly 1990s showed that 57% of the sediment load reaching OnondagaLake was delivered by Onondaga Creek, although a more recent study(Prestigiacomoet al., 2006) has shown that this may have actually beenan underestimate. Thus, Onondaga Creek is the largest external sourceof sediment to Onondaga Lake.Despite its water quality problems, there is interest to restore OnondagaCreek for recreational and ecological purposes. Research is underwayto improve the status of Onondaga Creek, including CSO diversion intoengineered wetlands for additional treatment and the rehabilitation ofriparian areas. In addition, the OLP and Onondaga EnvironmentalInstitute (OEI) conducted a visioning program to advance the planningand future use of this area. This document is available on the SUNYESF web site at http://www.esf.edu/onondagacreek/. Throughcontinued improvement, Onondaga Creek will likely become animportant resource to the community and have positive impacts onOnondaga Lake.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 57

DRAFTHarbor Brook flows into Onondaga Lake.Phragmites dominates the Harbor Brookwetland area.Ley Creek discharges to the northeastcorner of Onondaga Lake.Harbor BrookHarbor Brook originates southeast of Syracuse, New York, in the Townof Onondaga and flows through western Syracuse, discharging to thesouthwest corner of Onondaga Lake. The main stem length is 7.5miles, and 18 CSOs discharge to its lower reaches. (OCDWEP, 2001;Blasland & Bouck, 1989). The lower portion of Harbor Brook,considered part of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site, is classified as aClass C stream by NYSDEC, and is routed through the City of Syracusewith most of the brook flowing through underground culverts. HarborBrook contributes approximately 2% of the annual flow to OnondagaLake (OCDWEP, 2001). According to the National Inventory of Dams(http://nid.usace.army.mil), the Velasko Road Basin Dam is the only damlocated on Harbor Brook.The information presented below is taken directly from the Harbor BrookSite Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment, which is currently underreview by the NYSDEC (O’Brien & Gere, 2004b).Harbor Brook is most consistent with the description of confined river(Edinger et al., 2002). Confined river is described as an aquaticcommunity of fast flowing sections of streams with moderate to gentlegradient. Although Harbor Brook is considered a natural water course, ithas been channelized along much of its course through the developedareas of Syracuse. The majority of the lower portion of the brook isculverted through the City of Syracuse underground.Fauna identified in and along the banks of Harbor Brook includedmallard (Anas platyrhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), greenheron (Butorides virescens), common carp, and muskrat (Ondatrazibethicus).Phragmites and other miscellaneous grass and wildflowers are thepredominant vegetative cover, when present, along the banks of HarborBrook. A small section of the brook (approximately 300 feet) in area ofstudy (AOS) #2 contains successional shrubland and successionalnorthern hardwood cover along the banks, which is a more desirablecover for wildlife diversity (see SYW-19 discussion for additionalinformation). However, habitat quality is low and few wildlife are able toutilize the area due to the development surrounding the brook, and thegeneral public cannot easily access Harbor Brook. Due to itscharacteristics and relative location, the brook lacks a vegetative bufferzone.Ley CreekThe Ley Creek watershed drains 29.5 square miles and is located withinthe northeastern portion of the Onondaga Lake watershed. Ley Creekheadwaters originate in the town of Dewitt and flow through the Town ofSalina and the City of Syracuse. Approximately 90% of the landtraversed by the creek is considered urban or commercial, and theremaining 10% is categorized as residential. Several industrial sites,dredge spoils areas, and closed landfills that formerly received bothsanitary and industrial waste are also located in this area (OCDWEP,PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 58

DRAFTThe East Flume is a water conveyancesystem located along the southernshoreline of Onondaga Lake.2001). Ley Creek discharges to the southeast end of Onondaga Lakeand contributes approximately 8% of the annual flow to Onondaga Lake.It is designated as a Class C stream by NYSDEC. According to theNational Inventory of Dams (http://nid.usace.army.mil), there are nodams located on Ley Creek.In the vicinity of the lake, Ley Creek likely supports a fish communitysimilar to the other large tributaries. As presented in O'Brien & Gere(2001), fish sampling has been performed as part of investigativeactivities associated with General Motor's Former IFG Facility locatedapproximately 3.5 miles upstream of the lake. The primary speciesobserved as part of those investigations, conducted in 1985 and 1992,include bluegill, pumpkinseed, shiners, bullhead and carp. Althoughthese observations were made a significant distance from the lake, it islikely that a similar fish assemblage exists in Ley Creek in reachescloser to the mouth of the creek.Bloody BrookBloody Brook drains 3.9 square miles and flows into Onondaga Lakefrom the northeast just south of the village of Liverpool and passesthrough highly urbanized areas. The primary land use in this watershedis urban (approximately 58%). This tributary is designated as a Class Bstream by NYSDEC. The best usage of Class B waters are primary andsecondary contact recreation and fishing. These waters should besuitable for fish propagation and survival. Flow from Bloody Brook tothe lake is a minor contributor (approximately 2% or less) to the lakewater budget.Sawmill CreekSawmill Creek flows into Onondaga Lake from the northeast. This creekflows through mixed forest, commercial and urban land cover. It flowsthrough a large forested wetland complex in the northeastern corner ofthe lake, and is designated as a Class B stream by NYSDEC. Flowfrom Sawmill Creek to the lake is a minor contributor to the lake waterbudget.East FlumeThe East Flume was built as a wastewater conveyance for the coolingwaters from the former Main and Willis Avenue Plants. Today, thisdrainage ditch receives storm water from various industrial facilities andthe Village of Solvay. Water depths within the flume typically rangebetween 2 and 6 feet, and the channel width varies from a minimum of20 feet to a maximum 150 feet (O’Brien & Gere, 2002). Flow from thisconveyance to the lake is an insignificant portion of the water budget(less than 2%). The East Flume is currently being investigated as partof the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site RI/FS. It is anticipated that aportion of the East Flume will be addressed through placement of thebarrier wall associated with the Wastedbed B/Harbor Brook IRM.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 59

DRAFTTributary 5A flows into OnondagaLake and will be restored prior to thelake cleanup activities.Tributary 5ATributary 5A is currently being investigated as part of the Willis Avenuesite RI/FS. The information presented below is taken directly fromSection 2 of the BERA for the Willis Avenue Chlorobenzene Site(O'Brien & Gere, 2004c), currently under review by NYSDEC.Tributary 5A receives discharge from 12 outfalls from Crucible, as wellas surface runoff and shallow ground water discharge. Tributary 5A istherefore classified as an industrial effluent stream. The banks of theupper portion of the tributary, located south of the Willis Plant Area, areheavily vegetated by sumac, goldenrod, and Phragmites along bothbanks. Portions of these banks and the stream substrate consist ofnon-native fill material including railroad ties and other debris.Further downstream, the water depth shallows to approximately fourinches with Phragmites dominant along the banks and within much ofthe channel. The channel parallels the railroad tracks for approximately2000 feet before turning north into a culvert under the Crucible parkinglot. The channel reappears from the culvert on the opposite side of theparking lot where the bank vegetation is again dominated by sumac andPhragmites and surface water is approximately 1 foot deep. Thischannelized portion of the tributary continues north for approximately1,000 feet towards State Fair Boulevard. Tributary 5A flows through asecond culvert for 400 feet underneath State Fair Boulevard and I-690and into Onondaga Lake.Tributary 5A assumes the class of the surface water to which itdischarges, Onondaga Lake, which is a Class "C" surface water in thisportion of the lake. Tributary 5A provides habitat for wildlife includingvarious fish species. Fauna identified along the banks of Tributary 5Aconsisted of house sparrow (Passer domesticus), American kestrel(Falco sparverius), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) and muskrat.Banded killifish, bluegill, creek chub and several aquatic invertebrateswere identified in the channel of Tributary 5A. Three muskrats weresuccessfully trapped and released from the Tributary 5A area duringBERA investigative activities. The use of Tributary 5A by the muskratsuggests potential usage by other terrestrial and/or semi-aquaticmammals. The corridor along Tributary 5A may be used by transientwildlife moving through this developed area.2.4 Existing Biological CommunitiesOnondaga Lake supports a variety of plants and animals that interactwith each other and the surrounding environment. Recentinvestigations have revealed that there are many thriving biologicalcommunities in and around the lake.2.4.1 Submerged/Emergent Aquatic plantsAquatic plants form an important part of lake ecosystems. They serveas food for other aquatic organisms and provide habitat for insects, fish,and other aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms. Most aquatic plants arerooted or attached to the sediment, although some free-floating formsPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 60

DRAFTCoontail is a common aquatic plantspecies in Onondaga Lake.exist. Little quantitative information existed on aquatic plant distributionsin Onondaga Lake prior to 1991, when Madsen et al. (1992) conductedthe first quantitative survey of aquatic plant distributions in the lake.Madsen et al. have examined aquatic plants in Onondaga Lakeperiodically between 1991 and 2006. Between 1991 and 1995, thenearshore zone of Onondaga Lake was characterized as sparselypopulated with aquatic plant beds and only six species of aquatic plantswere identified—coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), commonwaterweed (Elodea canadensis), water star grass (Heteranthera dubia),Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), curly-leaf pondweed(Potamogeton crispus), and sago pondweed (P. pectinatus,subsequently reclassified as Stuckenia pectinata). The typical numberof aquatic plant species for a eutrophic lake in New York is fifteen(Madsen et al., 1996). Results from Madsen’s most recent studiesindicate that the Lake’s aquatic plant community has changedsignificantly in recent years (Madsen, 2006).Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection(OCDWEP) monitors aquatic plant communities within the lake as partof their Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP). This comprehensive,lakewide program uses a combination of digitized aerial photographsevery year and a field survey every five years to monitor aquatic plantspecies composition, percent cover, and biomass. Onondaga Countyinitiated the first aquatic plant survey in 2000 to establish baselineconditions. A second field sampling effort was performed in 2005 andincluded four additional sampling locations at Honeywell’s request. Thesupplementary aquatic plant data provided information to supportHoneywell’s remedial design efforts for the lake bottom as well ascomplemented the County’s monitoring program.OCDWEP’s studies indicate that the aquatic plant community haschanged profoundly in recent years (see Figure 2.6). OCDWEP’s AMP2005 Annual Report documents that aquatic plant species richness hasincreased from 5 species in 1991 to 10 species in 2000 and 17 speciesin 2005 (EcoLogic et al., 2006). The percent cover and biomass ofaquatic plants were, on average, slightly more than three times greaterin 2005 compared to 2000 (EcoLogic et al., 2006). The range andpercent cover in the lake is thought to be within an ideal range forlargemouth bass production, approximately 40 to 50% aquatic plantcoverage (Stuber et al., 1982a). In 2005, the catch rate of largemouthbass YOY was 2.5 times higher than any time in the previous five years(EcoLogic et al. 2006). The depth to which plants are growing in thelake has increased as well. In 2005, plants were documented growingto a water depth of 22 feet, which is about 10 feet deeper than in 2000(EcoLogic et al., 2006). These changes to the aquatic plant communitydirectly benefit species that use littoral habitats for all or a portion of theirlife cycle (e.g., bass, northern pike, yellow perch).In 2008, SUNY ESF conducted a study that was designed to assessmonthly plant composition, distribution, and biomass within the littoralzone of the lake from May to October (Parsons, 2009). Nineteenspecies of aquatic plants were identified. Two additional species weretentatively identified as a broadleaf pondweed and a sedge, but the lackPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 61

DRAFTof flower parts precluded definitive identification. The table belowpresents a list of the observed species. One of the unidentified speciesis an emergent aquatic plant that was observed in Remediation Area B(SMU 3) and Remediation Area E (SMU 6); the other unidentifiedspecies is a broad leaf pondweed that was observed at the mouth ofLey Creek in SMU 6.Based on relative abundance, six species were characterized as“abundant” because they were found at more than 20% of the samplepoints for at least one month during the sampling season. Threespecies were characterized as “common” because they were observedduring most months but in less than 20% of the sample points in anygiven month. Twelve species were characterized as “uncommon”because either they were observed sporadically in the aquatic plantcommunity data or they were observed outside of the sampled area.These included more recently observed aquatic plants in OnondagaLake such as white water lily (Nymphaea odorata), American pondweed(Potamogeton nodosus), stonewort (a plant-like algae species [Chara,spp.] ), and the two unidentified species.Certain subspecies of Najas guadalupensis are state-listed asendangered. It is not known whether the N. guadalupensis found in thelake and listed in the table below is one of those state-listed because itwas not identified down to the subspecies level. The status of thespecies and location of collections are more fully discussed in Section2.4.8.Species Common Name DominanceLevelMyriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water AbundantmilfoilElodea canadensis Common waterweed AbundantCeratophyllumCoontailAbundantdemersumPotamogeton pusillus Small pondweed AbundantPotamogeton crispus Curly-leaf pondweed AbundantNajas flexilis Slender naiad AbundantStuckenia pectinatus Sago pondweed CommonPotamogeton foliosus Leafy pondweed CommonHeteranthera dubia Water star grass CommonLemna minor Duckweed UncommonSagittaria latifolia Common arrowhead UncommonNajas guadalupensis Southern naiad Uncommon(spp?)Spirodela polyrhiza Great duckweed UncommonPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 62

DRAFTSpecies Common Name DominanceLevelTrapa natans Water chestnut UncommonRuppia maritima Widgeon grass UncommonVallinseria americana Wild celery UncommonChara Stonewort UncommonNymphaea odorata Fragrant water lily UncommonPotamogeton nodosus American pondweed UncommonUnidentified broad leafpondweedUnidentified emergentaquatic plantNANAUncommonUncommon2.4.2 Phytoplankton and ZooplanktonPhytoplankton have been collected and identified for several studies inOnondaga Lake. In 1992, 36 phytoplankton taxa were identified in thelake, including flagellated green algae, nonflagellated green algae,diatoms, cryptomonads, and cyanobacteria (PTI, 1993; Stearns andWheler, 1994) as detailed in the BERA (TAMS, 2002a). Between 1986and 1989, 25 zooplankton taxa were collected from Onondaga Lake,with cladocerans, copepods, and rotifers dominating zooplanktoncommunities, as documented in the BERA (TAMS, 2002a).Cladocerans, commonly referredto as water fleas, are found inOnondaga Lake.As part of the AMP, Onondaga County has performed a detailedanalysis of the structure and abundance of the phytoplankton andzooplankton communities in Onondaga Lake. The dominantphytoplankton community consisted of Bacillariophyta (diatoms),Chlorophyta (green algae), Chrysophyta (golden brown algae),Cryptophyta, Cyanophyta (blue-green algae), Euglenophyta,Pyrrhophyta (fire algae), and miscellaneous microflagellates in 2005.Xanthophyta (yellow-green algae) was documented in 2002 for the firsttime since 1996, but not documented in 2003, 2004, or 2005 (EcoLogicet al., 2006).In 2005, there was not a significant blue-green algae bloom asevidenced in 2002 and 2003 (EcoLogic et al., 2006). Data from 2005indicated that the zooplankton was dominated by the small cladoceran,Bosmina, with reduced numbers of Daphnia species and near-absenceof the calanoid copepods. It is hypothesized that this shift inzooplankton populations may be due to increased planktivory in the lakeby plankton eating fish. Cercopagis pengoi (exotic) was also asignificant contributor to the total number of zooplankton in mid-Augustand late September 2005 (EcoLogic et al., 2006).Upstate Freshwater Institute, on behalf of Honeywell, continues toenumerate zooplankton and phytoplankton. The draft BaselinePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 63

DRAFTMonitoring Data Assessment Report describes these findings in moredetail (Parsons, 2009e).This Caddisfly is an adult form of thenymph, a benthic macroinvertebrate.2.4.3 Benthic MacroinvertebratesFew quantitative data existed on benthic macroinvertebrates inOnondaga Lake prior to 1992. Benthic macroinvertebrate communitieswere sampled at 68 locations in 1992 and in an additional 15 locationsin 2000 during the RI for Onondaga Lake (TAMS, 2002a). More than100 benthic taxa were identified in the lake, of which, oligochaetes (likethe common earthworm) and chironomids (a non-biting mosquito-likeinsect) were the numerically dominant benthic communities. Theseorganisms are typical of lower quality sediments with a higher pollutiontolerance than other benthic macroinvertebrates (Voshell, 2002).(Further details are available from the BERA)OCDWEP has conducted the most recent studies of themacroinvertebrate communities in Onondaga Lake as part of their AMP.Significant findings of their monitoring efforts indicate that the combinedinfluences of eutrophication and habitat degradation appear to be majorstructuring elements of the benthic community in Onondaga Lake(EcoLogic et al., 2006). In 2005, the macroinvertebrate community inthe lake’s littoral zone ranged from moderately to severely impacted,based on the NYSDEC Biological Assessment Profile (mean waterquality values ranged from 1.0 to 4.9; EcoLogic et al., 2006), with thenorth end of the lake appearing less impacted than the south end, whichis where the majority of the sediment remediation will occur.Oligochaetes were the numerically dominant benthic community,although the percentage of oligochates (compared to other taxa) haddecreased significantly between 2000 and 2005. Other benthicmacroinvertebrate communities observed in 2005 included chironomids,amphipods, and zebra mussels (EcoLogic et al., 2006).Zebra mussels have helped to improvewater quality and sediment stability inOnondaga Lake.Cornell University, in conjunction with Upstate Freshwater Institute(UFI), has also completed field and laboratory studies of benthicmacroinvertebrate distribution and its effects on bioturbation inOnondaga Lake over the last several years. This work includesplacement of microbeads, which act as sediment tracers, on the surfaceof sediment cores and monitoring transport of the microbeads downwarddue to bioturbation over a five month period. Significant results fromthese studies include the general absence of benthicmacroinvertebrates and lack of bioturbation in sediments collected indeeper waters that are anoxic during stratification. These studies arePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 64

DRAFTWhite perch is a warm water species.being conducted under the leadership of Professor Nelson Hairston atCornell University and have not yet been published.Since the early 1990s, zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) veligershave been entering Onondaga Lake. However, despite the availabilityof appropriate substrate and food, and near-optimal temperature andprimary water chemistry requirements, adult densities remainedextremely low in the lake through 1998 (Effler, 1996; Spada et al.,2002). This may have been related to the negative effects on early lifestages of zebra mussels from high concentrations of total ammonia (T-NH 3 ) and free (unionized) ammonia (NH 3 ) (Spada et al., 2002).Following abrupt decreases in concentrations of T-NH 3 and NH 3coincident with improvements at METRO, high densities of zebramussels were first documented in the lake in 1999 (maximum of65,000 individuals/m 2 ) (Spada et al., 2002). The presence of zebramussels has had a significant impact on water quality and ecologicalconditions within the lake including increased aquatic plant growth dueto increased water clarity and stabilized sediments (EcoLogic et al.,2006).The benthic macroinvertebrate community in Onondaga Lake wasassessed in 2008 during the Honeywell baseline monitoring program(Parsons, 2009e). Surface sediments at 18 locations in the littoral zone(all at 3.2 to 5 feet water depth) around the lake were sampled andbenthic macroinvertebrates were identified from 5 replicates perlocation. Procedures were consistent with the 2002 NYSDEC Divisionof Water’s Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological StreamMonitoring in NYS. Zebra mussels were fairly dominant at mostlocations, along with tubificid worms (Annelida) and scuds (Amphipoda).Aquatic insects were not highly abundant and were dominated bymidges (Diptera: Chirononmidae).2.4.4 FishesSUNY ESF has been studying fishes in Onondaga Lake under thedirection of Dr. Neil Ringler since 1986. Much of their earlier work wasincorporated into the BERA (TAMS, 2002b). More recent work hasincluded trapnet and gillnet fish sampling at up to 30 locations andcharacterization of the several populations. These studies are ongoing,including collection of additional field data in 2007, 2008 and 2009, withthe results recently defended in master’s theses of SUNY ESF students(Johnson, 2009; Kirby, 2009; Siniscal, 2009). Onondaga County’s AMPrepresents one of the most long-term and comprehensive lake wide fishmonitoring program in Onondaga Lake. The 2005 annual report(Ecologic, 2006) is available on the Onondaga County website,(www.ongov.net), and an overview of the fish community presented inthis version of the AMP is presented below.Contrary to the popular perception that Onondaga Lake is a dead lake,recent studies of the fish in Onondaga Lake have documented warmwater, cool water, and coldwater fish species in the lake throughoutmost of the year. Cold water species reproduction in the lake has notbeen documented; until recently they did not reside in the lake yearround.Fish surveys conducted in the late 1980s through today havePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 65

DRAFTSmallmouth Bass is a popular gamefish in Onondaga Lake.identified 60 fish species in Onondaga Lake, with annual averagesaround 35 species (Ringler et al., 1996; Gandino, 1996; Arrigo, 1996;Tango, 1999; and EcoLogic et al., 2006). Results of these studiesindicate that the lake’s fish community continues to be dominated bywarm water species, including both pelagic planktivores/omnivores (e.g.,white perch and gizzard shad) and littoral planktivores/insectivores (e.g.,bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish).The species present include desirable sport fish such as largemouthbass, smallmouth bass, and walleye (Sander vitreus). Brown trout andlake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) have also been documented.Panfish, such as yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish, and bluegillsunfish, are abundant in the nearshore areas and provide good catchand release fishing for area residents. The alewife and gizzard shad(Dorosoma cepedianum) were dominant in 2005, which provide a goodforage base for the fish community; however numbers have recentlydeclined. This annual rise and fall in population numbers is typical forthis species (Kirby, 2009; EcoLogic et al., 2006). A number of fishstudies completed from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s concluded thatreproduction in the lake seemed to be limited for many species(Ferrante, 2005). However, fish reproduction is evident in OnondagaLake as indicated by the catch of several species of larval and YOY fish,including the following (EcoLogic et al., 2006) species: bluegill sunfish,pumpkinseed sunfish, carp, yellow perch, alewife, banded killifish, brownbullhead, gizzard shad, golden shiner, largemouth bass, smallmouthbass, rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), tessellated darter, white perch,brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus) , black crappie, bluntnoseminnow, emerald shiner, log perch, longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus),and northern pike (Kirby, 2009; EcoLogic et al,. 2006).Snapping turtles have beenseen in Onondaga Lake.2.4.5 Amphibians and ReptilesAmphibian and reptile species expected to occur in covertypessurrounding Onondaga Lake are reported in the BERA (TAMS, 2002b).Amphibians and reptiles recorded in the vicinity of Onondaga Lake fromthe New York Herpetological Atlas records are provided in Appendix A.Amphibian and reptile species found by Ducey et al. near OnondagaLake between 1994 and 1997 included five species of anurans (i.e.,frogs and toads) and two species of salamanders (Ducey and Newman,1995; Ducey, 1997; Ducey et al., 1998). In addition, six reptile species,including three species of aquatic snakes and three species of turtles,were identified.According to one report, no amphibian species bred in Onondaga Lakeor wetlands connected to the lake from 1994 through 2000, althoughthis has recently changed. From 2001 through 2004, research showedtwo amphibian species successfully breeding and surviving throughadulthood in a wetland directly connected with the lake and twoadditional species attempting to breed in that same wetland. In addition,they recorded the first instances in ten years of amphibians attemptingto breed in the lake itself (Ducey and West, 2004).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 66

DRAFTNorthern Water SnakeMudpuppies are a representative speciesin this Habitat Plan.Ospreys are representativespecies in this Habitat Plan.Common mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) may be of interest since itinhabits large bodies of water; however, the NYS Herpetological Atlashas no records of the mudpuppy from either the Camillus or SyracuseWest USGS quadrangles. Mudpuppies have been reported from acluster of nearby quadrangles, specifically Manlius, Cleveland, Cicero,Mallory and Panther Lake. Of the toads and frogs listed, any or all ofthem might be found in the emergent wetlands, side sloughs, or smallisolated water bodies surrounding the lake. Of the turtles on the list,eastern snapping turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina) and eastern paintedturtle (Chrysemys p. picta) have been seen in the lake. Red-belliedcooter (Pseudemys rubiventris), a species introduced by release of pets,is a possibility in such an urban setting. Snake species that are possibleinhabitants of the shoreline of Onondaga Lake include the northernwater snake (Nerodia s. sipedon), which feeds in part on small fish.More terrestrial species that could be found in drier areas along theshoreline include common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), easternmilk snake (Lampropeltis t. triangulum), and northern brown snake(Storeria d. dekayi). Eastern milk snakes have been reported by fieldpersonnel on Wastebed B and northern brown snakes were reported onWastebeds 1-8. All of these species are common and are fairly tolerantof urbanization. See Appendix A for a complete list of species from theNYS Herpetological Atlas data for the lake vicinity.2.4.6 BirdsOnondaga Lake is within the Atlantic flyway and provides a variety ofhabitats for bird species. Onondaga Lake is recognized as an ImportantBird Area (IBA) because of its value as a congregation area forwaterfowl. The IBA program is an international bird conservationinitiative with simple goals: to identify the most important places forbirds, and to conserve them. IBAs are identified according tostandardized, scientific criteria through a collaborative effort amongstate, national, and international non-governmental conservationorganizations, state and federal government agencies, localconservation groups, academics, grassroots environmentalists, andbirders. As a result, IBAs link global and continental bird conservationpriorities to local sites that provide critical habitat for native birdpopulations. Currently, IBA programs exist in 130 countries around theworld, including 21 countries in the Americas.The Onondaga Lake BERA (TAMS, 2002b) documents that over 30species of birds and 13 species of waterfowl have been observedaround the lake. Much of the data presented in the BERA was basedon the Breeding Bird Atlas of 2000. This comprehensive, state-widesurvey of birds was updated in 2005, and identified over 80 species ofbirds/waterfowl frequenting the lake area (Appendix B). Some of themore common bird species include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), mourning dove (Zenaidamacroura), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), blue jay (Cyanocittacristata), barn swallow (Hirunda rustica) and ring-billed gull (Larusdelawarenis). Common waterfowl species include Canada goose(Branta canadensis), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mallard, and commonmerganser (Mergus merganser).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 67

DRAFTRed-winged blackbirds live on the shoreof Onondaga LakeNorthern ShovelerAmerican crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), rock pigeon (Columba livia),mourning dove, wild turkey (Mealeagris gallopavo), house sparrow(Passer domesticus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), andnorthern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) are common birds aroundOnondaga Lake. Fish crows (Corvus ossifragus) breed in smallnumbers on the east side of the lake. Black-capped chickadee (Poecileatricapilla), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), downywoodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and northern flicker are found in thewooded areas surrounding the lake. Great blue herons are foundthroughout the year. Black-crowned night herons (Nycticoraxnycticorax) are occasionally recorded on the north end of the lake.Onondaga Lake is a known waterfowl concentration area during spring,fall, and winter. Diving ducks are found in deep water areas of the lakewhile dabbling ducks are found close to the shoreline and the mouth ofthe creeks. Common waterfowl that use the lake include common loon(Gavia immer), horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), redhead (Aythyaamericana), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwall (Anas strepera),American widgeon (Anas americana), greater scaup (Aythya marila),lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), commonmerganser, and red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), mallard,black duck (Anas rubripes), and double-crested cormorant(Phalacrocorax auritus). A large number of common loons(approximately 100) was reported on November 26, 2004 (Purcell,2005). Common mergansers have been sighted at Onondaga Lake,and can reach numbers of up to 5,000 birds at one time (Crumb, 2002).Data collected by the Onondaga Audubon Society as part of the annual“Christmas Count” provides early winter data from Onondaga Lake andsurrounding areas (National Audubon Society, 2007). During the winterwhen much of the lake freezes, open water pockets can be found at theoutlet of Ninemile Creek, Onondaga Creek, and the MetropolitanSewage Treatment plant. Waterfowl will concentrate at these openwater pockets. Herring gulls (Larus argentatus), ring-billed gulls (Larusdelawarensis), and great black-backed gulls (Larus marinus) are themost common wintering gulls on Onondaga Lake. It is not uncommon tofind thousands of gulls on the lake at one time (National AudubonSociety, 2007). Bonaparte’s gulls (Larus philadelphia) have also beenrecorded in smaller numbers.Onondaga Lake provides nesting habitat for killdeer and spottedsandpiper (Actitis macularia). Shorebirds use the lake edges for nestingand refueling during migration. Algae mats that wash up on theshoreline host a variety of invertebrates that provide a feedingopportunity for semi-palmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla), leastsandpiper (Calidris minutilla), semi-palmated plover (Charadriussemipalmatus), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), lesser yellowlegs(Tringa flavipes), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), stiltsandpiper (Calidris himantopus), and black-bellied plover (Pluvialissquatarola). In September 2003, shorebird numbers were quite highwith 50 greater yellowlegs, 20 lesser yellowlegs, and 20 spottedsandpipers recorded (Purcell, 2004).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 68

DRAFTSpotted sandpipers use theedge of the lakeshore that haslittle to no vegetation.OtterBald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are much more widely reportedon Onondaga Lake in recent years. They have been recorded perchedin trees on the wooded west shoreline, near the Carousel Center, and atthe open water pockets during the winter months (Purcell, 2006). Arecent article in the Syracuse Post-Standard notes that a group of 12adult and immature (young) bald eagles wintered along the lake (Kirst,2009).The cliffs on the west shore of the lake provide nesting habitat for bankswallows (Riparia riparia), and belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon). Asurvey of the bank swallow colony in 2000 found over 500 bank swallownests (Crumb, 2002). Additional study of the bank swallow colony isongoing as part of the Wastebed 1-8 site investigation.2.4.7 MammalsOnondaga Lake and surrounding lands provide a variety of habitats formammal species. The Onondaga Lake BERA (TAMS, 2002b) lists 45mammalian species that currently occur near Onondaga Lake. Some ofthe more common species include common opossums (Didelphismarsupialis), various shrew species, various rodent species, easternchipmunks (Tamias striatus), various squirrel species, woodchucks(Marmota monax), muskrats, raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks(Mephitis mephitis), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).The shores of Onondaga Lake provide habitat for several mammalspecies. Recovering populations of otter appear to be moving towardthe lake (NYSDEC, 2002; Stiles, 2001). Woodchuck (Marmota monax),muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and squirrels (e.g., Scirus carolinensis)are regularly observed on the shores of Onondaga Lake. These andother small-mammal species support predators such as mink (Mustelavison), fox (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and coyote(Canis latrans). The less-disturbed shoreline of the northwest section ofthe lake can provide habitat for more reclusive or larger species, suchPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 69

DRAFTas beaver (Castor canandensis) and deer (Odocoileus virginianus)(TAMS, 2002b).SYW-6 and SYW-10, located on the west side of the lake betweenNinemile Creek and the lake outlet, are dominated by floodplain forestand emergent wetlands, which could support insectivorous mammalssuch as the short-tailed shrew and little brown bat. Mink may alsooccupy these wetland habitats and the nearby streams and lake. Theyprefer wetland and riparian habitat with irregular shorelines, good cover,(i.e. woods and shrub), and suitable den sites. These species couldalso occupy upland regions surrounding the lake, such as the dredgespoils areas adjacent to the northwestern lakeshore (TAMS, 2002b).Littoral areas have the potential to support mammalian species thatforage within the inshore zone of the lake and are dependent uponindigenous aquatic organisms as their primary food source, such asmink and river otter. The Onondaga Lake shoreline is consideredadequate to support a small river otter population (TAMS, 2002b).The Danforth Salt Pool was a populartourist attraction during the resortheyday of Onondaga Lake.2.4.8 Endangered, Threatened and RareSpecies/HabitatsSeveral sources of information were used to identify endangered,threatened, and rare plant and animal species. Federally listed speciesknown from Onondaga County were obtained from the USFWS website(http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/ColistCurrent.pdf). State-listedspecies were provided by The New York Natural Heritage Program(NYNHP) provided information on state-listed species in the vicinity ofOnondaga Lake.Rare CommunitiesInland salt marshes were formerly known to be at various locationsaround the southern half of the lake. The NYNHP indicates knownrecords of this rare habitat, but currently only remnants of this habitatremain in this area. Danforth’s pool, an inland salt pond (althoughseverely degraded), still exists along the Onondaga Lake Parkway nearthe southeastern corner of the lake. A few listed plant species are stillknown from this pool and the ditches and other wetlands fromDanforth’s pool north to the railroad bridge.PlantsTable 2.4 lists those species reported by the NYNHP as endangered,threatened, or rare with records for Onondaga County. The original(2002) response from the NYNHP lists three plant species of historicrecord for the area: Sartwell’s sedge, little-leaf tick-trefoil, and redpigweed. Young (2000) reports salt marsh aster (Aster subulatus, nowSymphyotrichum subulatum) and seaside bulrush (Scirpus maritimis,now Bolboschoenus maritimis ssp. paludosus) from the southeasternportion of the lake. Two state-listed aquatic plants were reported by theCounty surveys— southern naiad (Najas guadalupensis) and pondweed(Potamogeton strictifolius). The most recent (2009) response from thePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 70

DRAFTNYNHP also lists troublesome sedge (Carex molesta) along the SenecaRiver just north of the lake outlet.Sartwell’s sedge, a state-listed threatened species, was reported byGoodrich in the 1800s (Bye and Oettinger, 1969). There are no knownvoucher specimens for this plant from Onondaga County (NYFA, 2005),but it is considered a potential occurrence (Young, 2007). This sedge“is an important wetland species in portions of the Midwest, butbecomes increasingly uncommon and local eastward” (NYFA, 2005). Itshabitat in the eastern portion of its range includes marsh fens, rich fens,rich swamps, wet meadows and shallow water (Gleason 1952, NYFA2005, Fernald 1950, Wiegand and Eames 1926).Hairy small-leaved tick-trefoil or little-leaf tick-trefoil was collected in1991 in Onondaga County (NYFA, 2005). This species is consideredthreatened in New York State. Its habitat is “dry or sandy soil, sandywoods, clearings” (Gleason, 1952; Gleason and Cronquist, 1992;Fernald, 1950). There could be potential for this species to occur on thewastebeds that surround the lake.Red pigweed is a threatened species in New York State. It wasreported by Goodrich “among the salt vats” in the Town of Geddes inAugust 1897 (Goodrich, 1912) and was reported more recently in saltareas (Faust and Roberts, 1983). According to NYNHP records, avoucher specimen was collected by Fernald, Wiegand and Eames in1922. This plant of saline soil (also referred to as a “halophyte”) isfound in salt marshes, saline soil, and brackish soil (Gleason, 1950;Gleason and Cronquist, 1993; Fernald, 1950). Potential exists for thisspecies in areas of saline soils around the lake.Salt marsh aster was recorded in the Danforth’s Pool at the southernend of the Onondaga Lake Parkway (Young, 2007). Salt marsh aster isfound on Long Island and the New York City area. Its occurrence inOnondaga County is a disjunctive population. Its habitat is “coastal,primarily saline marshes with irregular inland distribution” (Gleason andCronquist, 1992).Two halophytes, seaside bulrush and eastern annual salt marsh asterwere recorded in the salt pools of Onondaga Lake by the NYNHPbotanist Steve Young (Young, 2007). Seaside bulrush is found in “freshsaline, or alkaline marshes.” This plant was found along OnondagaLake Parkway along the southeastern portion of the lake; it occurred ina roadside ditch in a former salt marsh area and in a salt pond(Danforth’s pool) in a mowed park. See Table 2.4 for more detailedinformation from the NY Natural Heritage Program.Southern naiad is represented by one common subspecies (spp.guadalupensis) and two state-listed rare subspecies (spp. muenscheriand spp. olivacea). Spp. olivacea is known from central New York inCayuga and Seneca Counties. Southern naiad was reported in fivesampling locations in the 2005 aquatic plant sampling for OnondagaLake. It was reported from just north of the Liverpool Yacht Club marinato the Maple Bay area; however, the specimens collected fromOnondaga Lake were not identified to the subspecies level, so it is notknown whether it represents a rare subspecies.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 71

DRAFTBald eagles have become commonvisitors to Onondaga Lake.Straight-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton strictifolius) is an endangeredspecies in New York State. This species was recorded in OnondagaLake by EcoLogic in its 2005 Onondaga Lake Macrophyte Survey. Thisspecies was recorded at thirteen sampling locations spread around thelake. Its habitat is alkaline ponds and streams (Gleason and Cronquist,1991).Troublesome sedge, a state-listed threatened species, is a recentaddition to Onondaga County, although Carex brevior from which thisspecies was separated, is reported from Onondaga County by Bye andOettinger (1969) in Lafayette woods. It is reported as a potentialspecies in several New York counties by Young (2007), but onlyconfirmed in three counties. A few plants were reported from only theSeneca River just north of the Onondaga Lake Outlet. Troublesomesedge is a calciphile (meaning that is thrives in soils with high amountsof calcium carbonate) that grows in various open habitats, such asfields, swales in fields, limestone woodlands and alvars (NYFA, 2005).BirdsTwo state listed bird species are known from the vicinity of OnondagaLake. These species are peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and baldeagle.Peregrine falcons nest in downtown Syracuse. A nest-box was placedon the State Tower Building in 2003. Peregrine falcons havesuccessfully nested since 2004 in Syracuse. They fledged four birds in2004 and 2005 and three birds in 2006 and 2007. Occasionally,peregrine falcons are reported in the vicinity of Onondaga Lake.Bald eagles can be seen throughout the year at Onondaga Lake andhave become common winter visitors to the Lake. During the winters of2006-2008, an adult and immature eagles were frequently observedperched in trees at the southern-most portion of the lake. In 2009, 12eagles were seen wintering in the same locations. Despite this wintertimeuse of the lake, bald eagles are not known to nest here.MammalsOf all the state- and federally-listed endangered species of mammals,the only known listed mammal for the vicinity of Onondaga Lake isIndiana bat (Myotis sodalis), which appears on both lists.Indiana bats have been documented roosting in trees near the outlet ofOnondaga Lake. During the spring of 2007, bats were radio-trackedfrom their winter residence (hibernaculum) at the Jamesville Quarry to aforested area near the confluence of the Seneca River and theOnondaga Lake outlet, as well as other locations along the SenecaRiver (Niver, 2007).Bats use multiple trees for roosting. Spring and summer roostinglocations are typically associated with forested floodplains, often inproximity to rivers or large wetland complexes. Trees selected forroosting include (a) trees with a narrow crack, such as a split trunk, (b)dead or dying trees with exfoliating bark, or (c) living trees with barkcharacteristics that offer shelter. Shagbark hickory is the most commonexample of the latter category.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 72

DRAFTA variety of other factors can influence the selection of roost trees. Forexample, adequate solar exposure of the roosting location is critical tothe development of young bats. Thus, trees located on the edge offorested openings or trees tall enough to gain better exposure tosunlight are preferred. The absence of a dense shrub and understorylayer, as well as the presence of open streams, also enhances thesuitability of roosting areas by providing foraging conditions for adultbats.Indiana bats would be expected to roost around the lake during thesummer months where suitable roost trees exist. Such roost trees aremost likely in the forested wetlands around the northern portion of thelake.ReptilesOne federally listed reptile species, bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii),is of historical record in Onondaga County and one candidate species,eastern massasauga (Sistrurus c. catenatus), is known to occur in thecounty. Both species are state-listed as endangered. One of the bestknown locations in New York for eastern massasauga rattlesnake isCicero Swamp located between Oneida Lake and the city of Syracuse.The bog turtle is a semi-aquatic species, preferring habitat with cool,shallow, slow-moving water, deep soft muck soils, and tussock-formingherbaceous vegetation (NYSDEC, 2009). Neither species is currentlyfound in or adjacent to Onondaga Lake and suitable habitat does notexist in the lake vicinity for either species to occur there.2.5. Summary of Onondaga LakeConditionsThroughout the lake’s history, there have been extensive changes to itswaters and shoreline, often creating conditions in the lake that wereunsuitable for a variety of species. Recent water quality improvementsand remediation and restoration projects have greatly improvedconditions in the lake. Within the last several years, there have beensubstantially increases in the number of fish and plants living in the lake,a key indicator that the lake is starting to recover. Species such as thebald eagle and the lake sturgeon that had been absent from the lakeand its environs for many years are being seen more frequently.Improvements such as these are expected to continue as theremediation and restoration efforts are advanced in and around the lake.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 73

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 2.1CHANGES TO LEVEL OF ONONDAGA LAKEDate Lake Level or Area Modification Resulting Change Source(s)Pre-1822Lake level was +/- 365 ft and wasuncontrolled. Area that is nowCarousel Mall was under water.Not Applicable.Effler and Harnett(1996); Pratt and Pratt(2003)1822 New York State dredged andstraightened outlet channelbetween lake and Seneca River.Reduced lake level byapproximately 2 ft. toapproximately 363 ft.Ferrante (2005);Hohman (2004)1840sConstruction of the SyracuseNorthern Railroad along thesoutheastern shoreline.Construction of the railroad bermmodified the alignment of thelakeshore. Impact to lakeelevation is unknown.Hohman (2004)1907 Solvay Process waste wasdeposited in and adjacent to thelake shoreline in an area known asWastebed B.Waste material was placed onapproximately 54 acres of theWastebed B site within andadjacent to the lake. The EastFlume was constructed on top ofexisting Wastebed B material.Construction of the Wastebedresulted in filling of former lakesurface area (extent has not beendetermined), but the impact tolake level is unknown.Hohman (2004); Lizlovs(2005)Early1900sConstruction of Barge Canal andthe Phoenix Dam.Installation of structurescontrolled river and lake levels.Lake level was +/- 365 ft.Ferrante (2005)1926 -1944Constuction and operation ofWastebeds 1-8Ninemile Creek was moved to thecurrent channel location.Construction of the Wastebedsresulted in filling of former lakesurface area (extent has not beendetermined), but the impact tolake level is unknown. Theapproximate area of wastedisposal is ~400 acres.O’Brien and Gere(2009)P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\TABLES\TABLE 2.1 12-09.DOCPARSONS

TABLE 2.1 (CONTINUED)CHANGES TO LEVEL OF ONONDAGA LAKEONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATION1930sto1960sDeposition of In-Lake WasteDeposit materialOverflow from Wastebed B anddischarges from the East Flume resultedin a delta of Solvay waste material overapproximately 100 acres within the lake.Water depth was modified, but changesto lake level are unknown. Thedischarges which created the ILWD alsofilled in the lake at/near the mouth ofHarbor Brook, creating thewetland/upland areas designated asAOS#1 in the Wastebed B/Harbor BrookRI.NYSDEC andUSEPA (2005),TAMS (2002a)1950sConstruction of Interstate 690 andinterchange.Fill material was placed in the southernend of the lake near the location ofMetro. Impact to lake elevation isunknown.Effler and Harnett(1996)1977 Construction of force mainrequired filling in of lake near theEast Flume.Loss of 3.7 acres of lake surface area. Hohman (2004)2008 Construction of Willis IRM BarrierWall required filling in of lake nearthe Causeway Bridge.2009 Lake level controlled to +/- 363 ft(NAVD 1988) from late spring tofall, with some higher seasonallevels.Loss of 2.3 acres of lake surface area,which will be mitigated at the Wastebed1-8 site.Parsons (2009c)Parsons (2004)P:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\TABLES\TABLE 2.1 12-09.DOCPARSONS

HoneywellTABLE 2.2ONONDAGA LAKE ELEVATIONS, 1970 TO 2009ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONMonth Minimum Water Level (feet) Average Water Level (feet) Maximum Water Level (feet)January 361.63 362.87 366.64February 361.33 362.87 366.74March 361.00 363.39 367.88April 361.83 363.66 369.18May 361.44 362.98 368.33June 361.68 362.61 368.55July 361.70 362.51 368.55August 361.73 362.35 364.58September 361.64 362.38 366.33October 361.65 362.60 366.17November 361.85 362.86 365.78December 361.56 363.07 366.33Total 361.00 362.85 369.18Notes:1. Daily mean water levels from October 1, 1970 through April 1, 2009 obtained fromhttp://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/uv/?site_no=04240495&agency_cd=USGS.2. Water levels referenced to the NAVD 88 vertical datum.3. 100‐year flood elevation is 366.96 ft. NAVD 88 (USGS).4. Shaded areas inidcate duration of growing season.5. Average water level during the growing season is ~362.5 ft.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 2.2 12-09.xlsPARSONSPage 1 of 1

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 2.3DELINEATED WETLANDS WITHIN THE HABITAT PLAN BOUNDARYAreaSYW-10SYW-12Approximate LocationMouth of Ninemile Creekadjacent to SMU 4North corner of lake, south ofLey Creek, adjacent to SMU 6DelineationConductedYes 1Yes 2Delineation Approval StatusUnder review by NYSDECWL1 approved per NYSDECFebruary 28, 2008 letter; WL2and WL3 under review byNYSDECApproved per NYSDECJuly 17, 2006 letterApproved per NYSDECMay 14, 2009 letterSYW-19Southeast corner of lakeadjacent to SMUs 1 and 7Yes 3Wetlands A & BWastebeds 1 through 8 Siteadjacent to SMU 3Yes 4BR-4Adjacent to where SMUs 4 and5 meetYes 2 Under review by NYSDECBR-7/SYW-6Northwest corner of lake,adjacent to SMU 5Yes 2 Under review by NYSDECFloodplain Lakeshore No 5 Not applicableNotes:1 Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Feasibility Study Report (Parsons 2005); boundaries confirmed October 20082 Wetlands/Floodplain Assessment Revised Report (O’Brien & Gere and Parsons 2009)3 Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation Report, Harbor Brook Site (O’Brien & Gere 2003)4 Wetland Delineation and Floodplain Assessment Final Report, Wastebeds 1 through 8 Site (O’Brien & Gere 2009)5 Boundaries presented based on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Study (1981)BR = Boat ReconnaissanceNYSDEC = New York State Department of Environmental ConservationSMU = Sediment Management UnitSYW = Syracuse West USGS QuadrangleP:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat And CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 2.3 12-09.DocPARSONSPage 1 of 1

Original Shoreline of Onondaga Lake andBoundary between Farm Lots andReclaimed LotsU.S. Geological Survey15-Minute Topographic Quadrangle1898G.M. Hopkins Co.Atlas of the City of Syracuse1908Soil Survey of Onondaga County, New YorkBureau of Chemistry and SoilsApril 1938Dark blue areas in each panel represent the approximate currentfootprint of Onondaga Lake.Historical maps were scanned and superimposed with the current lake footprint to help illustrate how the shoreline has changed through time.Small discrepancies in alignment can be attributed to the original scale of the historical maps, the different cartographic techniquesused to develop the original maps, and the "rubber-sheeting" effect that occurs when assigning real-world coordinates to a flat paper map.FIGURE 2.1PARSONSOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkChanges in Lake Level301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

Open WaterSeneca RiverDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityBarren LandDeciduous ForestRemediation Area FEvergreen ForestMixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrasslandRemediation Area APasture/HayCultivated CropsRemediation Area BWoody WetlandsPalustrine Wetland(Scrub/Shrub)07/13/2009Ninemile CreekSMU 8Ley CreekRemediation Area CRemediation Area ERemediation Area DSMU BoundaryRemediationArea Boundary(Parsons, 2009)2001 Land Use/Land Cover dataobtained from the USGS onlineSeamless Data DistributionSystem.-0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000FeetFIGURE 2.2Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New York§¨¦ 690Onondaga CreekLand Use/Land Cover(2001)PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

PUBFxPSS1A PSS1APFO1APFO1EPFO1ER2UBHxLake OutletPFO1EL2UBGPFO1EPSS1E PEM5ESawmillCreekPFO1EPSS1EPFO1EPFO1CPFO1E PUBZhPSS1EPFO1CPFO1EPFO1CPFO1/SS1CPFO1CPFO1EPUBZxPFO1/SS1EPUBZxPFO1Cd PFO1CdPFO1EL2UBHPEM5EPEM5E PFO1EPFO1EL2UBHPEM5ELiverpoolMarinaBloodyBrookL2USCsL2UBGL2UBHL1UBHNinemile CreekL2UBHOnondaga Lake Parkway§¨¦ 690PUBZhPUBZhPEM1EPEM1CsLey CreekL2UBKFhsL2UBKFhsPUBZxL1UBKZhPUBKZh£¤ 695L1UBZxNYS FairgroundsNYSDOTTurnaround AreaPEM1EDitch APUBKFhsPUBKFhsTributary 5APUBKFhsEast FlumePEM1CsL2UBHPUBKZhL2BBAsPEM1CsPEM1CsMetroCarouselMallOnondaga CreekR2UBHxPEM1/UBFxPUBKZhPUBFxPEM5EHarbor BrookFIGURE 2.3.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkNew York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 20032,100 1,050 0 2,100FeetPUBKZhNational Wetlands InventoryHabitats Associated withOnondaga LakePARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

SYW-10AOnondaga Lake§¨¦ 690Wastebeds 1-8BWastebeds 9-10CNew York StateFairgroundsFloodplain wasnot delineatedbeyond this point.SYW-18State FairLandfill§¨¦ 695100-year FloodplainNYSDEC/EPA Approved WetlandBoundary500 2500 500FeetGeddes BrookGeddes BrookCulvertsGeddes BrookFloodplain wasnot delineatedbeyond this point.FIGURE 2.4Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkNinemile Creek WetlandsPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

Remediation Area FLiverpoolMarinaSMU 5Remediation Area ASMU 4SMU3Remediation Area BOnondaga Lake Parkway§¨¦ 690SMU 8Remediation Area CNYS FairgroundsRemediation Area E£¤ 695NYSDOTTurnaround AreaSMU2Remediation Area DSMU 1SMU 6CarouselMallSMU7MetroAquatic Plants - 2000Aquatic Plants - 2008Sediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area Covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elementsfor Habitat RestorationNotes:1. Aquatic Plant data obtained fromOnondaga County Department ofWater Environment Protection(2000 and 2008)..New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 20031,600 800 0 1,600FeetFIGURE 2.6PARSONSOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New York2000 and 2008Aquatic Plant Coverage301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

DRAFTRestored wetland at the LCP site inSolvay, New YorkSection 3: Effects of Remediationon Onondaga Lake HabitatHoneywell has already made progress with the remediation of uplandsites and impacted tributaries adjacent to the lake. The overall lakeremedy relies on the control of contamination in these upland areas andtributaries to help mitigate the movement of contamination into the lake.Cleaning up the areas around the lake is the first step in a restoredOnondaga Lake bottom.Remediation in these upland sites and impacted tributaries isproceeding under schedules and administrative agreements that areseparate from the lake remedy, but their remedies will impact the overalllake habitats in different ways; therefore, a discussion of those remediesis included here.Honeywell has completed the remediation at the former LCP BridgeStreet site, which was once the primary source of mercury to OnondagaLake. Honeywell has also started IRM construction activities, whichinclude the construction and operation of a groundwater treatment plantand the initial underground barrier wall/groundwater collection systemalong the southern shoreline of Onondaga Lake to control ongoingreleases of contaminated groundwater from upland sites/sources.Extensive investigation and remedial alternative evaluation are alsoongoing at many sites adjacent to the lake, such as Wastebeds 1through 8 and Harbor Brook.Littoral Zone Remedial ScopeThe remedy for the littoral zone (from the shoreline to 30 feet waterdepth) includes a combination of sediment removal (dredging) and/orisolation capping to achieve sediment cleanup goals and the restorationof habitats. The selected remedy also includes habitat enhancement,which is an improvement of habitat conditions in areas where levels ofCERCLA contaminants do not warrant active remediation, but wherehabitat impairment, due to stressors, has been identified as a concern.Habitat enhancement will be performed along an estimated 1.5 miles(2.4 km) of shoreline (Remediation Area B [SMU 3]) to reduceresuspension of Solvay Waste material and promote submergedvegetation in accordance with the ROD. Based on data collected sincethe ROD was released in 2005, habitat enhancement activities in SMU 5may not be required due to the extensive growth of submergedvegetation in this area. Surveys conducted in 2008 of macrophytecoverage were provided in the habitat PDI data summary report. Thefour figures indicating overall coverage from July to October areincluded here as Appendix C.The littoral zone remedy from the ROD includes dredging of sediment toremove mass and reduce contaminant concentrations within the ILWD,achieve favorable water depths for restoration of high quality habitatfollowing placement of the isolation cap, and prevention of loss of lakePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 74

DRAFTHydraulic dredging operationsurface area. The remedy also includes placing an isolation cap over aportion of the littoral zone, which will include a minimum 1-foot thickhabitat layer as the upper portion of the cap.The areas of dredging and/or capping have been refined since the RODbased on pre-design investigation data. The updated conceptualremediation areas are shown on Figures 3.1 and 3.2. Each of the areasshown in these figures will be subject to further refinement as the predesigninvestigation and design progresses.Dredging and/or capping in the shallow water adjacent to the shorelineis designed to remove and/or isolate contaminants and to achieve apost-capping water depth which promotes achievement of habitat-basedgoals. The cap thickness (including habitat material) along with thepost-remedy water depth, were the main factors influencing the removaldepth in areas outside the ILWD. Additionally, the representativebiological communities and associated habitats have influenced thesubstrate type and thickness of the habitat layer.Restoration strategies of the littoral and shoreline areas were evaluatedfor habitat suitability as well as their ability to provide stable conditions tolimit resuspension and protect against erosion. The spatial extent of thenearshore areas and the process for determining post-capping habitat isdiscussed in more detail in Section 5 of this plan.Additional dredging goals that were integrated into the habitatrestoration strategy include dredging to cleanup criteria and dredging forremoval of portions of the ILWD. Dredging to cleanup criteria refers tocertain near-shore areas where the contamination will be removed viadredging to meet the ROD requirements without the use of an isolationcap. A habitat layer will be placed in the dredge to cleanup criteriaareas just as it will be in all areas of remediation.As specified in the ROD, an average dredge depth of 6.6 feet (2 m) ofmaterial will be removed from the area of the ILWD. The actual depth ofdredging in the ILWD varies based on factors such as contaminantdistribution and habitat and erosional considerations. An additional 3feet (1 m) of ILWD material will be removed in areas defined as hotspots. The hot spot areas were defined by mapping the concentrationof contaminants exceeding ROD-specified hot-spot criteria. Additionaldredging of the ILWD may be performed to ensure geotechnical stabilityof the isolation cap.Profundal Zone Remedial ScopeIn the profundal zone (that is, in water depths of greater than 30 feet),organic contaminants and shallow mercury concentrations are muchlower than they are in the littoral remediation areas. The remedy for theprofundal sediment involves a combination of monitored naturalrecovery and thin layer capping to achieve the remedial objectives.In addition, oxygenation and nitrate addition are being evaluated aspotential methods for mitigating or reducing the formation ofmethylmercury in the deep water of the lake (hypolimnion) (Parsons2009f). Methylmercury is a form of mercury that is more readilyPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 75

DRAFTA silt curtain reduces turbidity in thewater, as shown in the above phototaken during the installation of theWillis IRM Barrier Wall. A curtainextends to the bottom of the lake tocontain any resuspended material.available to organisms in the water column and sediment, and isproduced by bacteria in the absence of oxygen under sulfate-reducingconditions. These conditions are present in the lake during the summerstratification when the deep waters of the lake become anoxic andnitrate becomes depleted. As discussed in the SOW attached to theConsent Decree, an evaluation will be performed to determine if nitratecan effectively reduce formation of methyl mercury in the water columnwhile preserving the normal cycle of lake stratification. A nitrate additionprogram will be implemented in lieu of oxygenation if NYSDECdetermines from this evaluation that nitrate addition is effective andappropriate. The methods for adding nitrate and/or oxygen to the lakeare still under evaluation and will be addressed in future designsubmittals.These remedy efforts in both the littoral and profundal zones areexpected to cause short-term (temporary) and long-term disturbances tohabitat, but the overall result will be a more robust habitat supporting awide variety of species.Short-term EffectsThe ROD clearly states that the lake remedy will “not pose unacceptableshort-term risks or cross-media impacts that cannot possibly bemitigated” (NYSDEC and USEPA, 2005, p. 82). Therefore, the remedialdesign is being prepared to decrease impacts due to the lake remedy ineither the short- or long-term.Short-term effects such as the complete removal of vegetation,resuspension of lake sediment, and an increased potential for erosionwill most likely result from capping and dredging activities. Commonbest practices will be used to mitigate short-term effects associated withimplementation of the lake remedy and may include silt curtains todecrease soil erosion, in addition to a monitoring program.The installation of in-lake and shoreline structures is expected to causea localized, temporary disturbance to vicinity habitat structures (e.g.,substrate, bathymetry, and aquatic plant beds) and their relatedfunctions (e.g., aquatic invertebrate, fish, and wildlife habitat andsediment retention).It is anticipated that implementation of the IRMs and other remediationactivities may also cause temporary disturbances to vicinity habitat. Forexample, excavation of soil/substrate, which may be required to install agroundwater barrier wall and collection trench, remediate/restorewetlands, or implement other remedial measures, would result intemporary disturbance to habitat structure and functions (e.g., wildlifehabitat, flood attenuation, and sediment retention) during executionactivities. Wetlands impacted by the remediation activities will berestored, reconstructed, or mitigated at another location based onconsultations with the NYSDEC.Other short-term impacts may include the temporary displacement ofexisting animal species at the construction site. Birds and fishes thatmay be temporarily displaced will be able to return to the restoredhabitats after construction. Honeywell will consider the timing ofPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 76

DRAFTparticular construction activities in order to protect the habitatrequirements (such as breeding and/or nesting areas) for endangeredspecies in and around the lake.The hatching of fish spawn is anindicator of a sustainable habitat.Long-term EffectsIn addition to potential short-term impacts, the lake remedy will alsohave some long-term effects on habitats.Long-term effects of the remedy in the remediation areas within thelittoral zone are expected to include significant habitat benefits, includingoptimized water depths in nearshore areas, improved substrates forbiota, and in-lake habitat structure (e.g., large woody debris). Theseaquatic features will promote aquatic plant colonization and fishspawning, as well as increased area for benthic invertebratecolonization, and juvenile fish habitats.Additionally, the integration of lake bottom and uplandremediation/restoration will provide improved connectivity of nearshorelittoral and adjacent shoreline areas, particularly wetlands. Along withimproving the overall structure and functions of in-lake habitat, removingand/or isolating sediment impacted by contamination will greatly reducethe risks to ecological receptors.Another positive long-term effect of the remedy includes the mitigation ofwetlands that are not restored at their original locations, but are restoredat a new location. This practice of creating new wetlands at anotherlocation ensures that no net loss of wetlands or wetland functionsoccurs. Mitigation requirements are addressed in more detail later inSection 3.4.Other long-term effects may include change of substrate type, potentialchange in habitat type, alteration of shoreline bathymetry and alignment,and permanent removal of wetland habitats followed by subsequentrestoration and mitigation of wetland acreage.Best-management PracticesThe lake remedy will contain specific examples of best managementpractices to mitigate risks and impacts to habitat associated withconstruction activities. These practices include the following:• implementing controls to prevent the introduction or spread ofnon-native (exotic) or other undesirable species;• implementing sediment resuspension control measures (e.g., siltcurtains), and monitoring for comparison to performancestandards (to be developed);• properly managing the transportation and disposal ofremediation derived wastes;• restricting sediment removal to specified areas and depths asper contract drawings and specifications;• diffusing pumped water at an effluent discharge point to reducewater velocity and thereby prevent erosion and suspension ofsediments;PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 77

DRAFTCanada geese preen on the shoreof Onondaga Lake.• prohibiting equipment, material lay down, and soil stockpileareas in adjacent wetlands;• prohibiting work-related activities such as anchoring in non-targetwetlands and aquatic plant areas;• covering, minimizing the size of, and expediting the removal ofsoil/sediment stockpiles from the floodplain;• consideration of construction restrictions to avoid spawning,nesting, and breeding populations of endangered species;• implementing erosion and sediment controls throughout theproject;• taking into consideration the size of the remedial work supportarea footprint to avoid excessive temporary habitat loss withinand outside of the lake; and• considering the schedule during the restoration of disturbedhabitat to minimize temporal loss and disturbance.Specific measures to minimize potential adverse effects that cannot beavoided will be evaluated and incorporated into the remedial designactivities for the lake and other sites.3.1 Onondaga Lake Bottom RemedyExpected EffectsMuch of the lake remedy is focused on removing the impacts ofhazardous substances that pose the risk of acute toxicity to thesediment-dwelling (benthic) organisms living on the lake bottom. Someremediation will extend beyond the lake to include the adjacent uplandsites as part of the remedial design of these area, as well as shorelineareas. These areas are either included in the Habitat Plan design orthey will be contiguous to the Habitat Plan boundary and addressed aspart of an upland site design.3.1.1 Shoreline/WetlandsThe substrates that will be placed during remediation will providesuitable near shore and shoreline conditions and moderate the transitionfrom the lake to the adjacent shoreline habitats. As such, the long-termeffects of the lake remedy are anticipated to provide improvedconnectivity of in-lake features with shoreline areas and adjacentwetlands.Over 4 miles of shoreline will be addressed by the remedy, with thelongest continuous areas in Remediation Areas, B (SMU 3) and D (SMU1). In addition, approximately 34 acres of wetlands are locatedimmediately adjacent to areas of the lake within the red line habitatboundary (Table 3.1). However, the full extent of impacts to thesewetlands will be based on the results of ongoing investigations onWastebed B/Harbor Brook (includes wetland SYW-12), Wastebeds 1through 8 and Ninemile Creek (includes Wetland SYW-10).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 78

DRAFTImpacted wetlands will be restored or appropriately mitigated so that nonet loss of wetlands or wetland functions occurs. Other impacts fromstaging areas, support areas, and the hydraulic dredging pipeline mayalso impact the shoreline.3.1.2 FloodplainThe lake remedy is expected to cover the areas within the lake properand do not include the floodplain. However, the floodplain will likely beaffected by IRMs or other remediation sites as described in Sections 3.2and 3.3. Other impacts from staging areas, support areas, and thehydraulic dredging pipeline may also impact the floodplain.3.1.3 Littoral Zone (Remediation Areas A, B,C, D, E and F)Dredging and/or isolation capping in the shallow waters of the lake willremove or cap existing substrates and associated biota (aquatic plantsand benthic invertebrates) within the remediation areas. As previouslydiscussed, the Remedial Design for dredging and/or isolation cappingconsiders established habitat goals for representative biologicalcommunities and associated habitats, which are discussed in Section 4of this Habitat Plan. Based on current information, approximately 408acres of the littoral zone will be dredged and/or capped. Specificvolumes of removal in these areas are discussed in more detail in theCap and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons,2009b).Based on the aquatic plant mapping completed by Onondaga County in2008, approximately 107 acres of aquatic plants were located within theremediation areas. The remaining 296 acres were described asunconsolidated bottom. These values differ from that in the RODbecause these are estimates based on recent Pre-design Investigationdata.Expected Effects by Remediation AreaThe use of SMUs to define areas within the lake has been updated withthe more representative “remediation areas” as the lake remedyprogresses out of the investigation phase into the design phase. Ineach remediation area, a combination of dredging and capping will haveboth short- and long-term impacts on habitat; however, the end resultwill be an improved habitat system. Changes in the lake bottombathymetry will occur as a result of the remedy, and changes in waterdepth (pre- and post- remedy) are discussed in Section 5.1. A summaryof dredge and/or cap areas is presented in the table below.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 79

DRAFTRemediationAreaDredge ToCleanupCriteria(acres)Dredgeand Cap(acres)Cap Only(acres)Total AreaImpactedby Remedy(acres)A 6.5 17.1 59.9 83.5B 0 2.9 13.2 16.1C 2.0 4.9 18.6 25.5D 0 89.2 9.3 98.5D Addendum 0 0 5.6 5.6E 10.8 73.0 100.8 184.6F 0.6 0 0 0.6Remediation Area A (SMU 4 and portions of SMUs 3 and 5)In Remediation Area A, dredging will occur in approximately 24 acresnear the shore. An isolation cap with habitat layer, or habitat layer only,will be placed over approximately 83.5 acres. Following placement ofthese materials, the resulting lake bottom will be deep enough toprevent a loss of lake surface area, protect the isolation cap fromerosion, and to reestablish habitat.Remediation Area B (portions of SMU 3)In Remediation Area B, dredging will occur in approximately 3 acresnear the shore. An isolation cap with habitat layer, or habitat layer only,will be placed over approximately 16 acres. Following placement ofthese materials, the resulting lake bottom will be deep enough toprevent a loss of lake surface area, protect the isolation cap fromerosion, and to reestablish habitat.Remediation Area C (SMU 2 and a small portion of SMU 3)In Remediation Area C, dredging will occur in approximately 7 acresnear the shore. An isolation cap with habitat layer, or habitat layer only,will be placed over approximately 24 acres. Following placement ofthese materials, the resulting lake bottom will be deep enough toprevent a loss of lake surface area, protect the isolation cap fromerosion, and to reestablish habitat.Remediation Area D (SMU 1 and small portions of SMUs 2 and 7)In Remediation Area D, dredging will be performed to an average depthof 6.5 feet (2 m) plus hot spots over approximately 89 acres to preventloss of lake surface area, reduce contaminant mass and averageconcentrations in sediments and/or wastes remaining under the isolationcap, for erosion protection, and to reestablish habitat. An isolation capand habitat layer will be placed over the entire 98.5 acres in this area.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 80

DRAFTRemediation Area D - Addendum (Small portion of SMU 8)In Remediation Area D Addendum area, an isolation cap and habitatlayer will be placed over the entire 5.6 acres in this area.Remediation Area E (SMUs 6 and 7)In Remediation Area E, dredging will occur in approximately 84 acresnear the shore. An isolation cap with habitat layer, or habitat layer only,will be placed over approximately 174 acres. Following placement ofthese materials, the resulting lake bottom will be deep enough toprevent a loss of lake surface area, protect the isolation cap fromerosion, and to reestablish habitat.Remediation Area FRemediation Area F consists of two small areas (less than 1 acrecombined area) where additional data collection is required to determinethe most appropriate remedial approach, and will be addressed in futuredesign submittals.3.1.4 Profundal Zone (SMU 8)A long-term goal of thin layer capping and monitored natural recovery tolake habitat includes reducing mercury concentrations in profundalsediments, thereby reducing mercury concentrations in biota (includingfish). Because of the water depth (i.e., greater than 30 feet {9 meters}),there are no aquatic plants located within the profundal zone.Long-term effects of nitrate addition or oxygenation on the profundalzone are not certain at this time, but will be evaluated during the Pre-Design Investigation program and related design activities. An expectedlong-term effect associated with nitrate addition and oxygenation is thereduction of mercury methylation in the anoxic waters, resulting in areduction in the methylmercury bioaccumulation in fish and otheraquatic organisms. Oxygenation may improve habitat for coo waterand/or coldwater species as well as benthic invertebrates, if provided inhigh enough concentrations (low levels of oxygenation will reducemethylation, but not provide suitable fish habitat). However, the overalleffects of oxygenation on existing fish species and other parts of thefood chain are uncertain given the complexities associated with lakebiological communities.The effects to biota mercury concentrations from colonization of theprofundal zone are also uncertain. One possible effect caused by anincrease in benthic invertebrates in profundal sediments may be areduction in the rate of natural attenuation due to bioturbation andmixing of the surface sediments. Placement of a thin layer cap couldbury the benthic community, if present. Recent sampling, however,indicates the near absence of benthic macroinvertebrates in profundalsediment (Parsons, 2004).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 81

DRAFTHarbor Brook begins at a spring southof Onondaga Hill and meanders until itdischarges into Onondaga Lake on thesouthwest shoreline. Near theshoreline the tributary is surroundedby Phragmites.3.2 Interim Remedial Measures3.2.1 Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMThe Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRM is focused on the shoreline area ofthe Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site, while the remainder of the site willbe addressed as part of the overall site remedy. The WastebedB/Harbor Brook area encompasses approximately 90 acres, whichincludes Harbor Brook, the Lakeshore Area, the Penn-Can Property,and the Railroad Area. For administrative purposes, the SYW-12wetland is also covered under the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site.The Lakeshore Area (which is comprised of Wastebed B, the EastFlume, Dredge Spoils Areas #1 and #2, the I-690 Drainage Ditch; aswell as Wetland SYW-19 and Area of Study (AOS) #1)is shown onFigure 3.3. It is approximately 3,200 feet wide (east to west) and 800feet deep (north to south) and is situated along the southern shore ofOnondaga Lake, near the southwest corner of the lake. The areareferred to as the Penn-Can property is to the south of the LakeshoreArea and south of I-690. This property has historically been utilized forthe production and storage of asphalt products. The Railroad Area issituated to the south of the Penn-Can property and is bounded to thenorth, south, and east by railroad tracks. Habitats and biologicalcommunities for Harbor Brook and the Lakeshore Area are described inthis section, below.The objective of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRM is to addresscontaminated groundwater and non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)discharges to Onondaga Lake and Harbor Brook. To accomplish thisobjective, a barrier wall and groundwater collection system will beconstructed along the lakeshore. Furthermore, the IRM includes theinstallation of a groundwater collection system along the west bank ofHarbor Brook extending approximately 400 feet upstream (south) of I-690. The scope for the IRM also includes the following items:• removal of impacted sediment from the Harbor Brook, the I-690drainage ditch, and other Harbor Brook tributaries;• reconfiguration of the Lower Harbor Brook channel into a systemof braided channels;• upgrades to existing culverts; and• grading and backfill of portions of Wastebed B to facilitate wallstability and site drainage.Remediation of Wastebed B/Harbor Brook is also likely to includeremoval of contaminated soils/sediments in the wetland and uplandareas between the proposed barrier wall and the lake (Figure 3.3). Thiswork currently falls under the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook FS, but mostlikely will be conducted concurrently with the lake remediation adjacentto these areas. The Habitat Plan is intended to cover the restorationdesign for this area.An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for this area is alsocurrently under evaluation to ensure it is addressed in parallel with thePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 82

DRAFTlake activities. The remaining scope of the remediation and restorationare to be outlined in the ROD for the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site.Moisture MattersDifferent Habitat TypesHave Different MoistureRegimes:Aquatic: an area that isunder water the majority ofthe yearWetland: an area that isinundated with shallowwater, or saturated at ornear the ground surface forlong periods during thegrowing seasonTerrestrial: land that is notsaturated at or near thesurfaceHabitatsHabitats associated with the Lakeshore Area of the site include aquatic(Harbor Brook, East Flume), wetland (SYW-19 and other delineatedwetlands), and terrestrial habitats. NYS Wetland SYW-12, located in thenortheast corner of the lake near the mouth of Ley Creek, was recentlyincorporated into the RI/FS scope of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook.The habitats associated with Wetlands SYW-12 and SYW-19, HarborBrook, and the East Flume were detailed previously. Habitatsassociated with the remainder of the site (Penn-Can property andRailroad Area) are not immediately adjacent to the lake, and will beaddressed as part of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site documents.Biological CommunitiesThe biological communities expected to be found in cover typessurrounding Onondaga Lake, including the Wastebed B/Harbor Brookarea, were discussed in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. The wetland habitat andpredominant plant communities associated with Wetlands SYW-12 andSYW-19 were discussed in Section 2.3.3. Biological communitiesobserved in and along the banks of Harbor Brook were discussed inSection 2.4.Expected Effects of Remedial ActivitiesPotential short-term impacts from this IRM scope are likely to includeremoval of soils and associated benthic communities, removal ofPhragmites, and interruption of flow in Harbor Brook. Installation of thebarrier wall and groundwater collection system will result in loss ofwetland area(s) and cutting off wetlands from the lake. However,mitigation for wetlands impacted by the barrier wall will be completedsuch that there is no net loss of wetlands or wetland functions. Otherelements of the IRM that will affect habitat restoration are the filling in ofa portion of SYW-19, the reconfiguration of Harbor Brook into a braidedchannel system, and the removal of groundwater inputs to theremainder of the wetland.A long-term result of the IRM is that the migration of contaminatedgroundwater and NAPL to the lake will be controlled and risks toecological receptors will be significantly reduced. Other long-termeffects of the IRM will include the removal of wetland acreage,restoration of wetland in new locations, alteration of groundwater inputsto the remaining wetland, the alteration of shoreline alignment, potentiallimitations on shoreline use, reconfiguration of Harbor Brook, andpotential changes to the remaining wetland lakeside of the barrier wall.See Figure 3.6 for a summary of wetland impacts in this area.3.2.2 East Flume IRMThe 95% Basis of Design Report for the East Flume IRM (O’Brien &Gere, 2004d) describes the original anticipated scope for the IRM.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 83

DRAFTGeotextiles are permeable fabricsthat have the ability to separate,filter, reinforce, protect, or drainwhen used in association with soils.Since the submittal of this report, the alignment of the Willis/Semet IRMbarrier wall and Wastebed B/Harbor Brook barrier wall have beenmodified to reflect additional information collected as part of OnondagaLake and Wastebed B/Harbor Brook pre-design investigation activities(Figure 3.3). The adjustment of these wall alignments, and theassociated modifications to the IRM scopes (e.g. backfilling andregrading), will address the objectives identified in the Consent Order forthe East Flume IRM.The two primary objectives of the IRM are to (1) eliminate potentialimpacts to fish and wildlife, and (2) eliminate the transport ofcontaminants from the East Flume sediments to Onondaga Lake.Final alignment of the barrier wall near the East Flume is identified onFigure 3.3. Areas inboard of the wall will be filled and outboard areaswill be restored as wetlands.HabitatsIn 1977, the Upper East Flume was reconstructed to serve as a holdingpond for the process cooling waters prior to their entry into a thermaldiffuser and subsequent discharge to the lake. The upper portion waswidened to a maximum width of approximately 150 feet and deepenedto a maximum depth of approximately 6 feet. The bottom (substrate) ofthe Upper East Flume is constructed of crushed stone underlain by ageotextile. At the eastern end of the Upper East Flume are the thermaldiffuser building (now the new groundwater pumping station) and a damoriginally constructed to allow cooling water to flow when the diffuserpumps were turned off. The dam and a berm to the north separate theUpper East Flume from the Lower East Flume (described below) andOnondaga Lake, respectively (O’Brien & Gere, 2002).The Lower East Flume is a narrower channel that is approximately 25feet wide with water depths of 3 to 4 feet. The Lower East Flumemeanders to the south and east and discharges to Onondaga Lake.The Lower East Flume is not specifically classified by NYSDEC,therefore, it receives the classification of the surface water to which itdischarges (Onondaga Lake, Class C). The source of water in theLower East Flume is primarily water from the Upper East Flume and, toa lesser degree, groundwater. The Lower East Flume discharges toOnondaga Lake near the north-central portion of the WastebedB/Harbor Brook Site. The substrate of the Lower East Flume is primarilyunvegetated sediment. Organic sediments, approximately 2 feet deep(2.3 feet measured maximum), are underlain by solidified Solvay waste(O’Brien & Gere, 2002). Sediments in the Lower East Flume will beremediated as part of the Outboard Area portion of the WastebedB/Harbor Brook site.O’Brien & Gere performed a survey of the East Flume for wetlandcharacteristics in September 2003. Wetland habitat totalingapproximately 1 acre, was delineated along the fringe of the Upper EastFlume (O’Brien & Gere, 2004b). The outer boundary of the wetland isdefined by the banks of the flume, and the inner boundary is defined byPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 84

the presence of plants living in the water (hydrophytic vegetation),predominantly Phragmites.DRAFTPhragmites is an invasive species thathas overgrown a large portion of thenative vegetation around Onondaga Lakeand its tributaries.Remediation designs include methods toremove this species and replace withnative species.A portion of the Willis-Semetbarrier wall is installed alongthe lakeshore.Biological CommunitiesThe bottom of the East Flume is primarily unvegetated, while the banksare vegetated predominantly with Phragmites. The existing biologicalcharacteristics of the East Flume were qualitatively assessed as part ofefforts performed for the Harbor Brook Site Ecological Risk AssessmentProblem Formulation Document (O’Brien & Gere 2004). Given theproposed remedial action for this area, additional characterization of thebiological communities is not required.Expected Effects of Remedial ActivitiesAs design activities and restoration strategies for the East Flume are stillunder development, the final scope of the East Flume IRM and theresulting effects on habitat remain undefined at this time. However, it islikely that the existing biological communities of the Upper and LowerEast Flume will be at least temporarily impacted as part of the IRMactivities. However, the result of the mitigation and restored wetlandswill be a more suitable habitat for many of the representative species.3.2.3 Willis/Semet IRMThe site has been, and continues to be, used primarily for access to theWastebed B/Harbor Brook Site and to the various utilities which runthrough the site. The Upper East Flume and wetlands around the EastFlume are also areas affected by this IRM. The objective of theWillis/Semet IRM is to address groundwater and dense non-aqueousphase liquid (DNAPL) discharges from the two sites to Onondaga Lake.To accomplish this objective, a groundwater treatment plant has beenconstructed on the Willis Avenue Site, and a barrier wall and collectionsystem has been constructed along the lakeshore, or up toapproximately 100 feet into the lake down gradient of the two sites, asshown in Figure 3.3. To date, the northern-most quarter-mile stretch ofthe IRM barrier wall (referred to as Semet portion), with theaccompanying groundwater collection trench, has been installed in thenarrow section of land between Onondaga Lake and I-690. This area isa narrow grassy right-of-way area for Onondaga County and otherutilities. The Willis portion of the barrier wall has been installed just offthe shoreline of the lake and lightweight fill has been placed behind thewall. The collection trench for the Willis portion of the wall is scheduledto be completed during the late summer of 2009.Based on an investigation of the extent of NAPL in the nearshore lakesediments, the barrier wall alignment for the Willis portion of the barrierwall has been repositioned into the lake to contain NAPL areas.Approximately 2.3 acres of open water from the lake was filled in withlight-weight fill behind the Willis portion of the barrier wall. Followingcompletion of the groundwater collection trench and DNAPL extractionsystem, the causeway bridge will be removed, leaving the pilingssupporting the existing utilities in place, and the area behind the barrierwall will be graded to an elevation consistent with the upland grade.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 85

DRAFTNewly restored shoreline along the WillisIRM barrier wallThe utility bridge is being dismantled and the rip-rap shoreline is beingplanted and restored as an additional mitigation requirement for theWillis IRM barrier wall. To date, the following vegetation has beenplanted along the shoreline: Pussy willow (salix discolor), burr oak(Quercus macrocarpa), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),common spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and red maple (Acer rubrum).Planned restoration includes both an upland conservation seed mix anda wetland conservation seed mix.The finished slope in this area will be a combination of restored upland,naturalized shoreline and deep water nearshore to enhance publicaccess and fishing opportunities. Completion of the IRM will incorporateother elements such as placement of topsoil, and restoration inaccordance with the restoration mitigation design. Compensatorymitigation for the loss of 2.3 acres of lake surface area resulting from thewall installation will also be required at the Wastebeds 1 through 8 site(Figure 3.4). Based on the current Wastebed B/Harbor Brook barrierwall alignment, the design will provide 4.7 acres of inland wetlandsalong the eastern shoreline of the Wastebeds 1-8 site. Section 5contains a discussion of the preliminary design of the restored shorelinelake ward of the barrier wall and the preliminary design of the mitigation.HabitatsThe Willis/Semet IRM affects the shoreline and near shore area ofOnondaga Lake. The primary habitat associated with this area is thelake area (littoral habitat) to be encompassed by the portion of thebarrier wall that is off-shore and the adjacent shoreline area. OnondagaLake’s littoral habitat is broadly described in Section 2.3. Presently, thepredominant features of the lakeshore in this area are a riprapembankment for erosion protection and a concrete utility bridge (i.e.,causeway). This area does provide habitat for submerged aquaticvegetation, and the area tends to be favored by waterfowl.Biological CommunitiesThe biological communities include species that inhabit the shallowportions of Onondaga Lake and its shoreline. The biologicalcommunities expected to be found within Onondaga Lake and in covertypes surrounding the lake are discussed in Section 2.4.Expected Effects of Remedial ActivitiesA significant long-term effect associated with the Willis portion of theIRM is the conversion of an estimated 2.3 acres of aquatic habitat toterrestrial habitat resulting from placement of the barrier wall off-shore.The details of this design are still being developed, however, Honeywellwill replace aquatic habitat lost as a result of the IRM along theshoreline of the Wastebeds 1 through 8 site. As a result of the completeIRM, mobile NAPLs in Remediation Area D (SMUs 1 and 2) will becontained behind the barrier wall reducing risks to ecological receptors.Other long-term effects known to impact habitat will be the creation ofnew shoreline (lake ward of the wall), temporal loss of shoreline habitat,and cut-off groundwater flow (along the barrier wall) to Onondaga Lake.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 86

DRAFTShort-term effects will include the temporary displacement of open waterand wetland habitats during construction.3.3 Other Remediation Sites3.3.1 Ninemile Creek Dredge Spoils AreaThe Ninemile Creek Dredge Spoils Area Site consists of 19 basinssituated along the northwest shore of Onondaga Lake between NinemileCreek and the lake outlet at the Seneca River, as shown in Figure 3.5.The basins were created between 1966 and 1968 to accommodatematerial dredged from the Ninemile Creek delta and sediment from thenearshore area between Ninemile Creek and the lake outlet, althoughmany of them may not have been used for this purpose. The site iscurrently used by the public as a recreational area for walking, jogging,biking, cross-country skiing, etc. The Onondaga County ParksDepartment maintains paths at the site, which consist of paved andstone surfaces. Some of these paths are located on top of the bermsassociated with the basins.The Ninemile Creek Dredge Spoils Area was investigated in 2000 aspart of the Onondaga Lake RI/FS. A PSA was conducted at the site in2004 and 2005, and a data summary was submitted to NYSDEC inSeptember 2005. Compounds identified in the basins, including thoseoutside of the delineated wetland boundaries, are discussed in the PSAData Summary Report (O’Brien & Gere, 2005). The scope of anyadditional investigation or remedial actions at this site is currentlyundefined.HabitatsThe primary habitats associated with the Ninemile Creek Dredge SpoilsArea are those associated with Wetland SYW-6, including emergent andforested wetlands and adjacent successional old field areas. Thehabitat conditions for Wetland SYW-6 are detailed in Section 2.3.3.Biological CommunitiesThe biological communities expected to be found in the vegetative covertypes surrounding Onondaga Lake are discussed in Section 2.4. Thepredominant plant communities associated with Wetland SYW-6 arediscussed in Section 2.3.3.Expected Effects of Remedial ActivitiesThe scope of any additional investigation or remedial actions at this siteis currently undefined; therefore, the effects of remedial activities (ifnecessary) on habitat is uncertain.3.3.2 Wastebeds 1 through 8The Wastebeds 1 through 8 site is located on the southwestern side ofOnondaga Lake and extends north to the mouth of Ninemile Creek andsouth to approximately Ditch A located near the I-690 off-ramp, asPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 87

DRAFTWastebeds 1 through 8 are locatedalong the southwestern and westernshorelines of Onondaga Lake.shown in Figure 3.4. The irregularly shaped beds extend roughly 1.5miles along the shoreline to a maximum width of 0.5 miles and coverapproximately 315 acres. The surface elevations of the site range from363 to 430 feet (NAVD 88).The wastebeds were constructed over a portion of the former GeddesMarsh, which was reclaimed from Onondaga Lake when the lake levelwas lowered (BBL, 2001). They are composed of perimeter dikes thatwere constructed of piles, sheeting, or earth depending on location.These dikes were used to contain waste materials (primarily Solvaywaste) which consist largely of calcium carbonate, gypsum, sodiumchloride (salt), and calcium chloride (O’Brien & Gere, 2005). Thesewastes were generated at the former Main Plant as part of soda ashproduction using the Solvay Process method.Wastebeds 1 through 6 were in use before 1926 and may have begunuse as early as 1916, although no definitive construction date isavailable. The construction of Wastebeds 5 and 6 required thediversion of Ninemile Creek, which was rerouted to the north around theperimeter of Wastebed 6. Wastebeds 7 and 8 were not utilized untilafter 1939 and remained in use with Wastebeds 1 to 6 until 1943 (BBL,2001). After 1944, Wastebeds 1 through 8 were used for disposalvarious materials from Crucible Specialty Metals, Inc. in a permittedlandfill, disposal of municipal sewage sludge by Onondaga County, andas a parking lot for the New York State Fairgrounds. The site, whichwas deeded to the people of New York in 1953, is currently owned bythe State of New York and Onondaga County (Calocerinos & Spina,1986). Onondaga County is planning to construct two miles of pavedClass 1 trail on the West Shore of Onondaga Lake from the present trailend at Ninemile Creek to the State Fair parking lots near I-690 Exit 7using Wastebeds 1 through 8.A PSA was conducted in 2004 followed by an RI in 2006/2007 for thissite. Supplemental RI activities, including further evaluation of site soilsand the former Ninemile Creek sand-and-gravel unit, are currentlyunderway. In addition, field activities to evaluate groundwater in theMarl unit along the eastern shoreline were conducted in 2008 and 2009in support of Focused Feasibility Study for the site. Future remedialactions at this site have yet to be defined.HabitatsO'Brien & Gere performed a wetland boundary delineation andfloodplain assessment at the Wastebeds 1 through 8 site and iscurrently preparing a BERA in accordance with the Wastebeds 1through 8 Focused Remedial Investigation Work Plan (O’Brien & Gere,2005). Findings from the wetland/floodplain assessment are reported inthe Wetland Delineation and Floodplain Final Report for the Wastebeds1 through 8 Site (O’Brien & Gere, 2009) and are summarized below.A portion of the site is used as a parking lot during NYS Fairgroundactivities, while the rest of the site is currently vegetated (O’Brien &Gere, 2006). The exceptions to this are the Wastebed slopes along theshoreline of Onondaga Lake and east of the mouth of Ninemile CreekPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 88

DRAFTthat contain exposed Solvay waste and minimal vegetation. Dominantterrestrial cover types on the site were identified as successionalnorthern hardwood and successional old field. An aquatic cover typeidentified on the site was ditch/artificial intermittent stream. Confinedriver (Ninemile Creek) and eutrophic dimictic lake (Onondaga Lake) arethe two dominant aquatic cover types that are identified adjacent to thesite. Two small areas of wetland totaling 0.7 acre were delineated onthe low-lying area of Wastebeds 1-8.View of Wastebed B/Harbor Brookadjacent to I-690 and the railroad tracksBiological CommunitiesA large portion of the site is characterized as successional old field andcontains significant stands of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)and goldenrod (O’Brien & Gere, 2006). Phragmites was observed atmany upland locations at the site. Vegetation on the general lakeshorearea is dominated by Phragmites, which is also present on theWastebed slopes (O’Brien & Gere, 2006). The general lakeshore areaalso contained an additional mix of wetland and upland vegetativespecies. Biological communities expected to be found in cover typessurrounding Onondaga Lake are discussed in Section 2.4 of this HabitatPlan.Expected Effects of Remedial ActivitiesAdditional investigation of the low-lying area along the lake is currentlyongoing. The scope of any additional investigation or remedial actionsat this site is undefined; therefore, the effects of remedial activities onhabitat is uncertain. Temporary impacts to the existing biologicalcommunities of Ditch A are likely as a result of the remedial efforts at thesite. However, habitat restoration will be conducted at the site followingcompletion of remedial activities.3.3.3 Wastebed B/Harbor BrookThe RI/FS is currently in progress for Wastebed B/Harbor Brook (Figure3.6). The scope of any additional remedial actions and resulting habitateffects outside the IRM scope at this site are currently undefined.Habitat restoration activities at this location will be integrated with theHabitat Plan as the design efforts progress.HabitatsHabitats associated with Wastebed B/Harbor Brook are discussed inSection 3.2.1.Biological CommunitiesBiological communities associated with Wastebed B/Harbor Brook arediscussed in Section 3.2.1.Expected Effects of Remedial ActivitiesThe scope of remedial actions at this site is currently undefined,therefore the effects of remedial activities on habitat is uncertain.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 89

DRAFTMouth of Ninemile Creek3.3.4 Geddes Brook/Ninemile CreekThe Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Feasibility Study Report (FS)(Parsons, 2005) presents a variety of channel and floodplainalternatives for the site. Since submittal of that FS, the site has beenorganized into two operable units (OUs)—OU-1 and OU-2. In addition,a number of supplemental site investigations and assessments havebeen conducted. Based on these recent investigations andassessments, a Supplemental FS was prepared for both OU-1 inNovember 2008 (Parsons, 2008) and OU-2 in May 2009 (Parsons,2009). NYSDEC and the USEPA also issued a Proposed Plan for OU-1in November 2008 (NYSDEC/USEPA, 2008). The remedyrecommended by both the OU-1 Supplemental FS and the OU-1Proposed Plan is based on a better understanding of site conditions,opportunities for tailoring the remedy to site-specific features, andsynergies between site remediation and habitat enhancementopportunities. A ROD was issued for OU-1 on April 29, 2009(NYSDEC/USEPA, 2009).Remedial alternatives under consideration for the remediation ofNinemile Creek include removal of impacted sediment within thechannel and floodplain and contiguous wetland areas, followed bycapping and/or habitat restoration. There is some overlap of theOnondaga Lake Remedy and the Habitat Plan with this site as Ninemiletransitions into the lake. The remediation of sediments in the mostdownstream portion of Ninemile Creek (approximately 300 feet) is beingaddressed under the lake remedy. The habitat restoration in thisoverlap area may also be determined in part by the design for bothsites. Even though much of this site actually occurs outside of thehabitat restoration boundary, it is likely that the remediation may impactthe lifecycles of various representative species.The remediation of Geddes Brook has been outlined in a separate IRMto address impacted sediment and floodplain soils associated with thelower Geddes Brook. The scope of the IRM will include the removal ofimpacted sediments within the Geddes Brook channel and culverts.Additionally, removal of impacted floodplain soils and wetland sedimentsassociated with Geddes Brook will be conducted in accordance with theROD for Ninemile Creek.HabitatsHabitats associated with the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek site areprimarily associated with Ninemile Creek and the adjacent ripariancorridor, including Wetlands SYW-18 and SYW-10.Biological CommunitiesBiological communities associated with the Geddes Brook/NinemileCreek site are primarily those associated with Ninemile Creek,discussed in Section 2.3.5, and the adjacent Wetland SYW-10,discussed in Section 2.3.3.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 90

DRAFTExpected Effects of Remedial ActivitiesThe removal of soil/sediment would temporarily impact the existingbenthic macroinvertebrate and terrestrial species in the area, andindirect effects may be experienced by fish that forage in the affectedarea due to temporary disruption of the benthic food web. Studies ofbenthic recolonization indicate that recovery occurs within one to threeyears.The benthic zone includes thesediments that often house organismscalled benthic macroinvertebrates.Native plants like this White sprucewere planted along the lakeshore aspart of an event for Earth Day.These short-term impacts will be offset by the positive long-term effectsof a clean cover system or backfill materials for benthic habitat. Inaddition, forested areas in the floodplain and wetland would be impactedby the removal of trees and soil/sediment. Some of the impacts wouldbe temporary, while the re-establishment of mature trees would takelonger. Although it would take many years for the trees to reach maturesize, some wetland functions would be partially restored immediatelyfollowing remediation (e.g., nutrient removal), and the long-term benefitsassociated with the remediation and enhancement of the forestedwetland and other portions of OU 2 are anticipated to offset therelatively shorter term impacts associated with the re-establishment ofmature trees (Niemi et al., 1990). Refer to the Geddes Brook/NinemileCreek ROD for more details regarding the remedial approach for theforested wetland.3.4 Mitigation RequirementsWillis IRM Barrier WallThe two components of the Willis Wall IRM Restoration/Mitigationscheduled to be completed by the fall of 2009 include mitigation of theSemet Shoreline Area and restoration in the Willis Wall IRM DesignSection 4 areas (Figure 3.3). The Design Section 4 portion of the WillisWall includes the in-lake portion in the eastern area of SMU 2 andwestern area of SMU 1. Mitigation of the Semet shoreline area entailsshoreline enhancement including the placement of topsoil over theexisting riprap embankment and the establishment of a native plantcommunity using upland and shoreline plantings and seeding. TheDesign Section 4 restoration includes amending the top 0.5 feet of lightweightfill with organic material (e.g. addition of compost, mulch, orbiosolids), placing 0.5 feet of topsoil, and establishing native upland andshoreline vegetation communities by plantings and seeding. In addition,the barrier wall will be cut down to the final elevation of 365 feet (NAVD1988).Additional mitigation for the loss of 2.3 acres of open water in the lakedue to the construction of the Willis IRM barrier wall will be conducted atthe Wastebeds 1-8 site (Figure 3.6). A conceptual design for thismitigation was submitted to NYSDEC in November 2008 and consistedof the construction of a connected wetland along the shoreline. Futuredesign submittals for this mitigation will be integrated with otherconsiderations for the remedial approach for this part of the Wastebed1-8 site.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 91

DRAFTThe Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMbarrier wall will be installed near theshoreline in this area.Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRM Barrier WallThe placement of the IRM barrier wall along the lake shoreline nearWastebed B and Harbor Brook will have temporary and permanentimpacts to the habitat at the site. The wall alignment bisects the site andcreates two separate areas—the “inboard” area is that portion on thelandward side of the wall, and the “outboard” area lies between the walland the lake. The wall will displace some wetlands areas along theshoreline and alter open water areas. Figure 3.6 illustrates the existingconditions near the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site. Currently, there areapproximately 13.0 acres of wetlands, 2.3 acres of open water (EastFlume and the Harbor Brook channel), and 8.5 acres of upland withinthe habitat plan boundary.The current wall alignment will bisect this area and alter the distributionof the existing habitats (Figure 3.7). Design constraints also require thatthe wall be supported by a certain amount of material outboard of thebarrier wall to maintain its stability. The alignment of the wall and thenecessary engineering requirements will result in a net loss ofapproximately 0.5 acres of wetlands. Wetland mitigation will be requiredin this area at a ratio 2:1 to address filling of approximately 4.2 acres ofexisting wetlands behind the barrier wall. The 2.3 acres of open waterarea from the East Flume and Harbor Brook will be restored outside thewall alignment to ensure no net loss of open water. The remediationand restoration of the area outboard of the barrier wall is expected totake place at the same time as the adjacent remediation in the lake.In the event that the final design of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMbarrier wall design results in a net loss of wetland acreage, mitigation forthose impacts in the form of additional wetland acreage will beconducted in the shoreline area of the Wastebeds 1-8 site. The designfor this mitigation will be integrated with the remedy for the Wastebeds1-8 site and other mitigation proposed in this area.3.5 Summary of Habitat Areas to beAffected by Remediation ActivitiesHabitat areas to be affected by remedial activities associated with thelake bottom, IRMs, and other sites include aquatic, shoreline/wetland,and terrestrial habitats. Aquatic habitats include portions of the littoraland profundal zones within Onondaga Lake, as well as tributaries, suchas Geddes Brook, Ninemile Creek, and Harbor Brook, and industrialconveyances, such as the East Flume. Wetland habitats situated alongOnondaga Lake’s shoreline to be affected by remedial activities includeState regulated Wetlands SYW-10, SYW-12, and SYW-19. Terrestrialhabitats to be affected by remedial activities are associated with thefloodplain and upland portions of the IRMs and other site remedies.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 92

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 3.1Preliminary Estimate of Areas Impacted by Onondaga Lake RemedyTotal Acreageof RemedationArea (5)ShorelineImpacted byRemedy (feet) (4)WetlandAreas withinHabitat PlanBoundary(acres) (6)RemediationArea (2)GeneralLocationVegetated Areas(1, 3)(Acreage)Areas(Acreage)A SMU 4 83.5 850.1 2.1 22.7 60.8B SMU 3 16.1 693.0 0.7 0.4 21.1C SMU 2 25.5 1470.0 0.0 2.9 22.6D SMU 1 98.5 5002.0 5.8 9.9 88.6D Addendum SMU 8 5.6 NA 0.0 0.0 5.6E SMU 6/7 184.6 4773.0 25.5 73.1 111.5F SMU 5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2TOTALS 414.4 12788.1 34.1 109.3 305.1NOTES:NA - Not ApplicableSMU - Sediment Management UnitREFERENCES:1. EcoLogic (2009) Onondaga Lake Ambient Monitoring Program, 2008 Annual Report .Prepared for Onondaga County, New York.2. Final areas of remediation to be determined during future discussions between Honeywell and NYSDEC.3. Conditions are variable and vegetated areas should be considered a snapshot in time4. SMU 3 - ROD identifies 1.5 miles of habitat enhancement.5. SMU 5 - ROD identifies 23 acres of habitat enhancement; but may not be required6. Areas are based on NYSDEC wetlands that are contiguous with the Onondaga Lake shoreline.All of these areas may not require remediation(1, 3)P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 3.1 12-09.xlsParsonsPage 1 of 1

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONAreaTABLE 3.2Wetland, Open Water, and Upland Acreage Assessment Within the Habitat Plan BoundaryAdjacent Shoreline AreasTypeApproximate AreaInboard of the IRMBarrier Wall Within theHabitat Boundary(Acres) (4)Approximate AreaOutboard of the IRMBarrier Wall Within theHabitat Boundary(Acres)Type of Disturbance and RestorationWastebed B/Harbor Brook Area (1) (2) (3)WL1 (east of HB) Wetland 1.0 5.8 Excavation of soil and placement of new substrateWL2 (west of HB) Wetland 2.3 0.7 Regrading (behind wall) and excavation of soil with placement of new substrateWL3 (east of EF) Wetland 0.0 1.7 Regrading (behind wall) and excavation of soil with placement of new substrateWL4 (west of EF) Wetland 0.0 0.5 Regrading (behind wall) and excavation of soil with placement of new substrateWL7 (UEF fringe) Wetland 0.9 0.1 Regrading (behind wall) and excavation of soil with placement of new substrateHarbor Brook Open Water 0.3 0.3 Realignment of Harbor Brook channel though new wetland complexEast Flume Open Water 1.3 0.4 Backfilling of East Flume with placement of new substrateRemaining Upland Upland 1.5 7.0 Limited removal/regrading and placement of new substrateExisting WetlandsExisting Open WaterExisting UplandTotal ExistingProposed WetlandsProposed Open WaterProposed UplandTotal ProposedPermanent Wetland LossPermanent Open Water LossTotal Permanent LossTemporary Loss of WetlandsTemporary Loss of Open WaterTotal Temporary Loss4.2 8.81.6 0.71.5 7.07.3 16.50.0 12.500 0.0 23 2.37.3 1.77.3 16.54.2 0.01.6 0.05.8 0.00.0 8.80.0 0.70.0 9.5Acreage SummaryExisting Wetlands Inboard = 4.2Existing Wetlands Outboard = 8.8Total = 13.0Proposed Wetlands Inboard = 0.0Proposed Wetlands Outboard = 12.5Total = 12.5Mitigation Required at Wastebeds 1-8Existing - Proposed acreage at WBB/HB area = 0.5 AcresAcreage for 2:1 mitigation ratio behind barrier wall = 4.2 AcresTotal Mitigation = 4.7 Acres(1) The eastern end of WL1 is extends beyond the Honeywell property; therefore, this area was not used in these calculations.(2) Other wetlands on the BBB/HB site (WL5, WL6, and wetlands in Penn-Can and Railroad Areas) are not included herein since it is not expected that the barrier wall will impact these areas.(3) 0.4 acres of WL7 is located outside the habitat plan boundary, but has been included here since it will be impacted by the IRM barrier wall.(4) Acreage of permanent wetland loss inside the barrier wall will be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 3.2 12-09.xlsParsonsPage 1 of 2

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 3.2 (Continued)Wetland, Open Water, and Upland Acreage Assessment Within the Habitat Plan BoundaryAdjacent Shoreline AreasArea Type Approximate Area Within the Habitat Boundary (Acres) Type of Disturbance and RestorationWastebeds 1-8 AreaWetlandUpland0.731.10.7 acres of inland wetlands2.3 Acres of Connected Wetlands4.7 Acres of Inland Wetlands24.1 Acres of Vegetative CoverNinemile Creek AreaSYW-12 AreaExisting WetlandsExisting Open WaterExisting UplandTotal ExistingProposed WetlandsProposed Open WaterProposed UplandTotal ProposedPermanent Wetland LossPermanent Open Water LossTotal Permanent LossTemporary Loss of WetlandsTemporary Loss of Open WaterTotal Temporary LossWetland 2.1 Connected WetlandsUpland 0.2 0.2 Acres of UplandOpen Water 0.2 0.16 Acres of Open WaterWetland 18.3 TBD (1)Upland 20.9 TBD (1)21.10.052.273.3TBD (1)0.2TBD (1)TBD (1)TBD (1)0.0TBD (1)TBD (1)0.2TBD (1)(1) Pending resolution of remedial approach in this area.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 3.2 12-09.xlsParsonsPage 2 of 2

Note: These areas will be modifiedas appropriate based on ongoinginvestigation and design activity.RemediationArea Boundary(Parsons, 2009)Cap AreaDredge to AchieveCleanup CriteriaDredge to AchieveTarget ElevationDelineated WetlandBoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryExtent of ILWD inLittoral ZoneWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallSMU 5Remediation Area FLiverpoolMarinaWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMApproximate location of East WallPortion of the WB-B/HB IRMRemediation Area ASMU 4SMU 8.New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 2003900 450 0 900FeetFIGURE 3.1SYW-10Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkSMU 3Remediation Areas A and FDredge and Cap AreasPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350, SYRACUSE, NY 13212

Remediation Area CSMU 8Remediation Area DAddendumSemet ShorelineAreaSMU 2Willis IRM Design(Section 4)Remediation Area DRemediation Area EGroundwaterTreatmentPlantWL7§¨¦ 690DSA 1Upper East FlumeDSA 2DamLower East FlumeWL4WL3SMU 1SMU 7Remediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)NYSDEC/EPA ApprovedWetland BoundariesArea to be Filled toUpland GradeDredge Spoils AreaWillis/Semet IRM BarrierWall AlignmentWastebed BWestern Portion ofWB-B/HB WallWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMProposed Wastebed B /Harbor BrookIRM Wall AlignmentPenn-Can PropertyI-690 Drainage DitchWL2Area of Study 1WL1/425 212.50 425FeetFIGURE 3.3Eastern Portion ofWB-B/HB WallOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRailroad AreaWillis-Semet, East Flume, andWastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMsPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

§¨¦ 690 SMU 5BR-4Remediation Area ASMU 4SMU 8SYW-10SMU 3SYW-10Industrial(Crucible)LandfillRemediation Area BStateFairParkingNinemile CreekStateFairParkingWetlands A & BSYW-18Remediation Area C§¨¦ 695NYSDOT Turnaround AreaSMU 2SYW-14SYW-15Remediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Sediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryWastebeds 1-8 SiteNYSDEC Wetlands(NYSDEC, 2007)FIGURE 3.4Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkBNYSDEC/EPA ApprovedWetland BoundariesWastebeds 1-8 Area1,100 550 0 1,100FeetPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

BR-7SYW-6Remediation Area FRemediation Area A§¨¦ 690BR-4SYW-10Remediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Sediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryDredge Spoils Area (DSA)NYSDEC Wetlands(NYSDEC, 2007)Delineated and Approved Portion ofNYSDEC WetlandFIGURE 3.5Dredge Spoils AreaOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New York1,200 600 0 1,200FeetPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

SMU 2Existing WBB/HB Acreages WithinHabitat Plan BoundaryWetlandsSMU 8InboardOutboardTotals3.9 4.2* 8.8 8.7 13.012.6SYW-12Open Water2.0 1.60.70.32.3Upland7.2 1.5 7.0 2.09.2 8.5SMU 60.3 Ac.SMU 8WL70.4 Ac.SMU 1SMU 6SMU 30.4 Ac.WL70.5 Ac.WL70.1 Ac.East FlumeEast Flume (Open Water)0.4 Ac. Outboard1.3 Ac. InboardWL40.5 Ac.Wastebeds 1-8 AreaWetlands = 0.7 AcresUpland = 29.7 AcresWL31.7 Ac.SMU 7SYW-12Wetlands = 18.3 AcresUpland = 20.9 AcresMeSMU 5SMU 40.5 Ac.WL22.3 Ac.WL20.4 Ac.Harbor BrookWL10.3 Ac.WL20.3 Ac.Harbor Brook (Open Water)0.3 Ac. Outboard0.3 Ac. InboardWL15.8 Ac.Limits of AcreageAssessmentWL10.7 Ac.Willis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMApproximate location of East WallPortion of the WB-B/HB IRMDelineated WetlandBoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat Restoration* Includes 0.4 acres of WL7 outside the red line.510 2550 510Feet1.6 Ac.FIGURE 3.6Ninemile Creek AreaWetlands = 2.1 AcresOpen Water = 0.2 AcresUpland = 0.2 AcresPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkSummary of Existing Wetlandand Open Water Acreages

Proposed WBB/HB Acreages WithinHabitat Plan BoundaryInboardOutboardTotalsWetlands0 12.5 9.4 12.59.4Open Water02.32.3Upland 7.3*8.34.1 1.7 12.4 9.0SYW-12AreaCSMU 6WL7Upland (Inboard)7.3* Ac.WL4Upland (Outboard)1.9 Ac.Open Water(WB-B/HBMitigation)2.3 Ac.WL3SMU 3SMU 8§¨¦ 690Wetlands(Outboard)12.5 Ac.WL2Metro SYW-12Proposed Wetlandsand Uplands TBDWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallLimits for AcreageAssessment0.3 Ac.0.4 Ac.SMU 4Configuration of spit may changebased on removal in adjacent areas. Theacreage of wetland restoration will not change.WL1West Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMApproximate location of East WallPortion of the WB-B/HB IRMDelineated WetlandBoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat Restoration* Includes 0.4 acres of WL7 outside the red line.490 2450 490500 250 0 500FeetFeetFIGURE 3.7Wastebeds 1-8 AreaProposed Open Water / Aquatic Habitat = 2.3 AcresProposed Wetlands = 5.4 AcresProposed Uplands = 24.1Ninemile Creek AreaProposed Wetlands = 2.1 AcresProposed Upland = 0.2 AcresProposed Open Water = 0.2 AcresHarbor BrookPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkSummary of Proposed Wetlandand Open Water Acreages

DRAFTEurasian watermilfoil is an aquaticplant that forms large, dense mats atthe surface of lakes.The mats prevent sunlight frompenetrating through to nativeaquatic plants.Section 4: Identification ofHabitats for RestorationThe overall goal of habitat restoration is to achieve ecological systemsthat function naturally, are self-sustaining, and are integrated with thesurrounding habitats. The Habitat TWG worked through a process todevelop more specific habitat restoration goals and objectives for theOnondaga Lake site, and through extensive discussion, developed thehabitat restoration approach described in this plan.4.1 General Restoration GoalsThere are three general restoration goals that directed the habitatrestoration. These goals focus on those areas (e.g., shoreline), species,or processes (e.g., function of the littoral zone) that (1) have beenaltered over time through urbanization and industrialization, and (2)where physical changes will occur as a result of remediation.Goal #1The first general restoration goal is to maintain or improve• size, diversity, and ecological function of wetlands;• connectivity of the lake habitats with adjacent stream and uplandhabitats;• ecological function of the littoral zone;• ecological function of the shoreline habitat;• habitat conditions of the profundal zone, and• conserve and/or create habitats for threatened and/orendangered or rare species.Goal #2The second general restoration goal is to design conditions thatdiscourage the establishment of invasive species (e.g., avoid creatingconditions conducive for invasive plant species) to the extentpracticable.For example, habitat restoration designs will include physical means toslow or impede the colonization of Phragmites into wetland areas.Diverse and robust native submerged and floating aquatics will beplanted in Modules 4A and 6A to help minimize establishment ofinvasive species such as Eurasian watermilfoil and water chestnut intorestored areas.Goal #3The third general restoration goal is to develop conditions that requireminimal maintenance and promote public use. Habitat restorationdesigns are intended to provide self-sustaining, functioning habitats thatrequire little or no maintenance (such as removal of invasive species)over the long term. Monitoring of the restored areas will be performed toPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 93

DRAFTWetland HabitatTypesFloating aquatic:dominated by plants thatfloat at the water’s surfaceNon-persistent emergent:dominated by plants that arerooted in the bottomsubstrate, emerge above thesurface of the water, but dieback and are not evidentduring the winter monthsPersistent emergent:dominated by plants that arerooted in the bottomsubstrate, emerge above thewater surface and remainstanding at least until thebeginning of the nextgrowing seasonevaluate the physical characteristics and ecological function of therestored habitats. Restored areas should be open and accessible to thepublic to the extent practicable within the constraints of the remedy.The TWG developed more specific restoration objectives as describedin Section 4.3 in order to meet the three general restoration goals.4.2 Assessing Habitat ConditionsThe TWG reviewed existing and historical conditions of Onondaga Laketo identify habitat types and species to help define specific restorationobjectives. Specifically, the identified habitats and species were thosethat either historically existed within the lake, but that are currentlylacking, or those that currently exist within the lake, but are currentlydegraded (e.g., wetlands dominated by Phragmites or limited indistribution).Understanding the existing habitat conditions on a lake-wide basis isimportant in the development of the restoration plan because habitatrestoration for a given remediation area must fit in with the adjacentareas not requiring remediation and contribute to the diversity andabundance of organisms in the overall lake-wide habitat complex.Existing conditions in and around Onondaga Lake were presented inSection 2. Included within that section is information gathered fromliterature sources and contacts with resource agencies, as well asinformation obtained from studies performed as part of the developmentof the remedy for the lake. Habitat types in and surrounding the lakewere mapped using aerial photographs, maps of land use, andpreviously published investigative reports including wetlands andfloodplain assessments.The assessment of existing habitat conditions provides usefulinformation on where different habitat types currently exist and theextent of these habitats in the overall lake system. Also, thisassessment reveals what habitat types are absent. Important wetlandfringe habitats (e.g., floating aquatic wetlands, non-persistent emergentwetlands, and persistent emergent wetlands) are notably lacking in thelake system and, as a result, are targeted in the habitat restorationdesign. Field observations also indicate that in-water physical structureis a missing habitat component in certain areas.Upland habitats and land uses in shoreline areas are important factorsto consider when selecting habitat types for a specific in-lake area. It isimportant that the restored habitats complement and become integratedwith the adjacent shoreline habitats/land uses. For example, in thehabitat restoration design at the mouths of Ninemile Creek, HarborBrook, and Onondaga Creek, it is necessary to maintain a freeinterchangeconnection of aquatic and terrestrial habitats between thelake and these primary tributaries.4.3 Habitat Restoration ObjectivesOnly those species which may be impacted by the remedial activitiesare included on the list of objectives. In particular, those species orPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 94

DRAFTThe American eel is a nativespecies to Onondaga Lake, butdue to blockages in thewaterways such as dams, theyare currently prevented frompopulating the lake.Red-winged blackbird eggshabitats for which the lake remediation will not change the suitability ofthe lake for their occurrence, or does not affect the factors which limittheir occurrence, have not been included in the objectives. Forexample, the American eel, a species that was historically present, iscurrently prevented from reaching Onondaga Lake due to blockages(dams) and other factors in the rivers and lakes between the ocean andOnondaga Lake. Remedial activities will not change the relationshipbetween the lake and the surrounding rivers and lakes, so the Americaneel has not been included as a representative species. If the Americaneel were to return to Onondaga Lake, however, it would not benegatively impacted by remedial activities, and it would be able to usethe restored habitat.The specific habitat and species restoration objectives developed forthis Habitat Plan include the following:• maintain or increase diversity of habitats for fish, benthicmacroinvertebrates, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammalsincluding improvement of wetlands;• maintain or increase diversity of native plant communities;• provide or improve gradual and natural transitions between thelake, its tributaries, and the adjacent shoreline;• minimize or eliminate restrictions to public use and access;• provide deep water (e.g., greater than 7 feet) nearshore toprovide the opportunity for future projects that will allow fishingaccess and fishing piers;• provide or enhance habitats suitable for fish species with limitedpopulations in the lake such as northern pike, lake sturgeon, andwalleye;• create or enhance suitable habitat for transient cold water fishspecies (e.g., brown trout, Atlantic salmon) to access NinemileCreek and/or Onondaga Creek for spawning;• reconstruct wetlands to be compatible with establishing pikespawning habitat;• do not increase the acreage of habitats along the profundal zoneboundary that may be under anoxic conditions during portions ofthe year;• integrate substrate requirements from the remedial design (e.g.,erosion protection) and habitat restoration needs;• include the use of structure to improve habitat value;• evaluate the feasibility of restoring/creating at least one inlandsalt marsh;• evaluate the feasibility of recreating habitat for historically orculturally significant species;• evaluate the feasibility of recreating unvegetated shorebirdhabitat (e.g., mudflats);PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 95

DRAFTGuildsA guild is a collectionof species that use thesame habitatresources in the sameway, but may nototherwise be related.For example, ospreysand kingfishers areboth in the fish eatingguild (piscivores), yetthey are differentspecies with differentnesting requirements.• minimize the need for maintenance following completion of theremedy;• provide suitable habitat for foraging and reproduction of reptilesand amphibians;• provide suitable habitat for foraging for semi-aquatic mammals;and• provide suitable habitat for breeding birds.Section 5 of this Plan details how these goals and objectives will be metthrough implementing the habitat restoration designs.4.4 Identification of RepresentativeHabitats and Associated SpeciesRequirementsIn certain instances, the habitat restoration goals and objectivesdiscussed above are specific to particular habitats or species. In somecases, however, other goals and objectives were less specific—forexample, “re-create shorebird habitat,” and “maintain or improve thefunction of the littoral zone.” For these more general goals, the TWGidentified representative species and habitats that could be used toguide the development of the restoration designs to meet the goal orobjective. For example, to re-create wetland habitat, representativewetland plants were identified and their habitat requirements were usedto guide the habitat design.Representative species from various groups including plants, fish,benthic macroinvertebrates, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birdswere identified after review of the historical and existing ecologicalconditions. Once representative species were identified, the TWGreviewed the scientific literature (including peer reviewed journals,books, and project specific documents) to identify the habitatrequirements of each species. These habitat requirements includedphysical characteristics (e.g., water depth and energy and substratetype) and water quality characteristics (e.g., dissolved oxygen, turbidity,pH, temperature), as well as other factors (e.g., vegetation cover,minimum habitat size) that each species may need for various lifestages.4.4.1 Representative Habitat and SpeciesSelectionThe TWG selected species to be used during the habitat restorationactivities from groups of fish, plants, benthic macroinvertebrates,mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. These “representative”species represent a larger group or guild of species that shares similarhabitat requirements. Individual species within each of these groupswere selected based on various criteria including the following:• represents different guilds;PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 96

DRAFTRepresentative FishSpeciesNorthern PikeLake SturgeonSmallmouth BassLargemouth BassWalleyePumpkinseed SunfishGolden ShinerEmerald ShinerBrown Trout• includes a variety of habitat types;• has important ecological, cultural, recreational, or economicvalue;• is a species with limited populations that could be potentially beincreased;• represents a habitat type not currently found in the lake;• represents a habitat or species historically known from the lakethat is no longer present; or• is a rare, threatened, or endangered species.The selection of representative species was designed to include speciesthat historically were found in the lake, currently reside in or near thelake, or are likely to be found in the vicinity of or transiting the lake (e.g.,shorebirds, coldwater fish). Species within each group were selected torepresent the larger group; that is, the list does not include everyspecies that could potentially use Onondaga Lake. The premise is thatif the habitat requirements are met for the representative species, thenother species with similar habitat requirements will also find favorableconditions in the lake.4.4.2 Requirements of Representative SpeciesThe habitat requirements for each species were developed from HabitatSuitability Index Models (when available), the current literature,professional experience, and judgment gained from field observations.Habitat requirements were identified for various life stages of eachspecies for the following physical parameters: water depth, substratetype, wave energy, structure-vegetation cover, structure-woody debris,and rooting/burrowing depth. In addition, habitat requirements wereidentified for water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen,temperature, nutrient source, turbidity, and pH. These habitatrequirements are summarized in Tables 4.1 to 4.7. Each species hasmultiple physical, chemical, and biological habitat requirements. Whilethose have been included in the tables, it is important to recognize thefew key parameters that can be materially changed by the remediationand restoration activities. Specifically, remediation and restorationactivities will focus on water depth, substrate type and structure (e.g.,vegetation, logs, and boulders). Other factors, such as dissolvedoxygen and water temperature, will not be altered by remediation andrestoration activities. The rationale for the development of each table isdiscussed below.FishHabitat requirements for representative fish species are provided inTable 4.1. Nine species were selected to represent the various types oftemperature requirements (warm water, cool water, and coldwater), aswell as various trophic levels (planktivores [those fish that eat plantmaterial], piscivores [fish that eat other fish], benthivores [fish that eachbenthic macroinvertebrates]). Coldwater species are represented by thebrown trout, which is currently a transient species in the lake. ThePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 97

DRAFTbrown trout is considered representative for other coldwater species,such as Atlantic salmon and cisco (presumed by some experts to be theOnondaga Lake whitefish), which historically were found in the lake.The cool water species are represented by smallmouth bass, northernpike, walleye, and lake sturgeon. Three species were selected torepresent this group due to different reproductive strategies (those fishthat reproduce in river environments versus those that reproduce in lakeenvironments) and feeding preferences (piscivorous versusbenthivorous). Finally, four warm water species were selected:largemouth bass, pumpkinseed, golden shiner, and emerald shiner torepresent various trophic levels and water depths. These speciesrepresent recreational fish species and trophic pathways within the lake.Northern pike, lake sturgeon and walleye were identified as the topthree priority species. Application of modules within each remediationarea considered these three species first, prior to consideration of theother representative fish species. The walleye population in the lakeappears to be limited based on spawning habitat, as juveniles have notbeen collected during recent sampling efforts (OCDWEP AMP, 2003;OCDWEP AMP, 2004; OCDWEP AMP, 2005; OCDWEP AMP, 2006).This species typically spawns in rocky crevices in tributaries or alongshallow shoreline areas (McMahon et al., 1984). Since the lake remedyis not targeted in the tributaries, there is limited opportunity for improvingspawning habitat for walleye in the lake proper, but IRMs for adjacentsites are expected to improve habitat conditions in those areas. Iftributaries became suitable for spawning populations, the lake wouldprovide habitat for these life stages.Northern pike require flooded wetlands within and adjacent to a waterbody for spawning (Inskip, 1982). In Onondaga Lake, northern pike arelikely limited by spawning habitat because there are a limited number offlooded wetlands within and adjacent to the lake.Lake sturgeon adults have been captured in the lake as recently as2009 (Kirby, 2009). These fish have been stocked within the watershed,and adults are likely to occur in Onondaga Lake following remediation.Adult lake sturgeon are typically found in water 20 to 40 feet deep overa sand or cobble substrate with little or no vegetation. They are benthicinvertivores and feed on a variety of organisms including insect larvaeand nymphs, leeches, amphipods, snails, clams, and occasionally smallfish. Substrate type is important for lake sturgeon as they are morecommonly associated with these two substrates which allow for thecolonization of benthic macroinvertebrates (Lemon, 2009).Smallmouth bass and largemouth bass are two of the most abundantpiscivores in the lake. While portions of the lake currently support all lifestages, improvements can be incorporated into the remediation tocreate additional habitat for both species. Substrate type and plantcover are important factors that influence the sustainability of bothspecies. Smallmouth bass prefer slightly cooler rocky areas, whilelargemouth can be found in areas with sufficient cover provided byvegetation and other types of cover (e.g., woody debris). Pumpkinseedrepresents invertivores, and they will use similar habitats as the bassPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 98

DRAFTRepresentative AquaticPlant SpeciesSubmerged VegetationFloating Vegetation/Aquatic BedsNonpersistent EmergentVegetationPersistentEmergent VegetationSalt MarshVegetationUnvegetated Shoreline/MudflatsWet Meadow WetlandForested/Scrub-ShrubWetlandsForested Scrub-Shrub UplandsOpen Field Uplandswith preference for shallow water with adequate cover. Golden shinerand emerald shiner represent planktivorous minnows within the lake.These species have different habitat requirements; the golden shiner istypically located within the littoral zone associated with vegetation, andthe emerald shiner typically inhabits the pelagic or open water zone oflakes moving within the water column with the planktonic food supply(Scott and Crossman, 1979).PlantsFor plants, physical and biological factors were identified forrepresentative aquatic wetland and upland plant habitat types(Table 4.2a). These habitat types are representative of the differentwater regime zones that will be expected in the restoration areas.Several representative plant species are identified in Table 4.2a foreach of these habitat types.Table 4.2b presents phenology (e.g., flowering season) information forsix selected aquatic plants. Four submerged and two floating-leavedaquatic plant species were selected as representative species within thelittoral zone of the lake. In general, these plants require sandy, siltysand, or silt substrates for root development. Details regarding thesubstrate requirements for specific plant species will be provided insubsequent design submittals.Benthic MacrointertebratesSix representative orders (rather than species) of benthicmacroinvertebrates were selected for the lake (Table 4.3). These ordersincluded mayflies, caddisflies, true flies, dragonflies and damselflies,scuds, and crayfish and represent various trophic levels, such asgrazers (herbivores), collector/gatherers (herbivores/detritivores), andpredators (carnivores). They also represent substrate requirements,such as vegetation, rocks, woody debris, and soft organic sediments.Littoral areas of the lake provide most of the suitable habitat for benthicmacroinvertebrates.Benthic macroinvertebrates are represented by several insect orders, aswell as amphipods and decapods (crayfish). Species within thesegroups are fairly diverse in their habitat requirements. Currently,species diversity is limited within the lake and is comprised primarily ofamphipods and dipterans. The majority of the species within each ofthe representative groups is found in the littoral zone of lakes or withinstreams. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) are typically found in lotic (movingwater)environments, however, a few families are found in lentic (stillwater)habitats; most mayfly species are sensitive to water qualitychanges and typically their presence indicates high water quality.Caddisflies (Trichoptera) also are most diverse in coolrunning waters, however, several families are represented in lentichabitats; many caddisfly species are sensitive to water quality changesand typically their presence indicates high water quality. Damselflies(Odonata:Zygoptera) are typically found in association with aquaticplants, while dragonflies (Odonata:Anisoptera) tend to dominate in sand,silt, and detritus. Many species are moderately sensitive to water qualityPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 99

DRAFTRepresentativeBenthic Macro-Invertebrates SpeciesMayflyCaddisflyTrue FliesDragonfly/DamselflyScudCrayfishRepresentative Amphibian andReptile SpeciesSpottedSalamanderMudpuppyLeopardFrogWood FrogGreen FrogNorthern WaterSnakeSnapping TurtlePainted TurtleMusk TurtleRed SpottedNewtchanges, while some species can withstand periods of low dissolvedoxygen. Amphipods (Amphipoda) are currently present in the lakeresiding on the surface sediment within the littoral zone. They arecommonly found in association with aquatic plants, detritus, and graveland cobble. The majority of species in this taxon are tolerant ofmoderate disturbance (including impaired water quality).Crayfish are present within the Onondaga Lake watershed, but may belimited in the lake due to current conditions. These species typically livewithin the substrate among the interstitial spaces or within the woodydebris, plants, and detritus along the littoral zone. The majority ofspecies in this taxon are tolerant of moderate disturbance (includingimpaired water quality). Application of the habitat modules within eachremediation area will improve conditions for these representativespecies and may result in greater diversity within each group. Substratecomposition (type and size), such as sand, gravel, and cobble, whichcontain oxygen within the top several inches, is a critical component forinvertebrate colonization.Amphibians and ReptilesHabitat requirements for six representative amphibian species areprovided in Table 4.5. Three salamander species (red-spotted newt[Notophthalmus v. viridescens], mudpuppy, and spotted salamander[Ambystoma maculatum] and three frog species (green frog [Ranaclamitans melanota], leopard frog [Rana pipiens], and wood frog [Ranasylvatica]) were selected to represent the various habitats and foodsources used by amphibians. Two distinct life stages (egg/juvenile andadult/eft) must be considered for amphibians because species may beaquatic during one phase and terrestrial during the other. Mudpuppyrepresents the only species that is entirely aquatic throughout its lifecycle. For the other five species, adults generally utilize terrestrial andaquatic habitats for foraging and hibernation with reproduction andrearing occurring in permanent or temporary shallow water.The TWG identified four representative reptile species: musk turtle(Sternotherus odoratus), snapping turtle, painted turtle, and northernwater snake (Table 4.6). These species represent the range of habitatrequired for foraging and feeding, basking, and reproduction. The threerepresentative turtles require softer upland substrates near water fornest excavation and egg deposition and use the littoral zone as adultsand/or juveniles. Northern water snake is a live-bearer (meaning that itdoes not lay eggs) and does not require any specific habitat forreproduction. Depending on the species, the representative reptilesforage on both plants and animals (aquatic invertebrates, amphibians,and small fish), in shallow water areas. Other habitat considerationsinclude basking sites, deeper water areas for overwintering for turtles,and structure in terrestrial areas (fissures and crevices) for northernwater snake hibernation.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 100

DRAFTRepresentative Bird SpeciesMallardCommon GoldeneyeSpotted Sandpiper and SemipalmatedSandpiperBank SwallowRed-winged Black BirdCommon TernBelted KingfisherOspreyGreat Blue HeronGreen HeronRepresentative MammalSpeciesMuskratMinkOtterBeaverIndiana BatBirdsEleven bird species were selected to represent the various trophic levels(invertivores, piscivores, omnivores) nesting requirements and feedingstrategies. The list of representative bird species includes diving anddabbling ducks, shorebirds, birds of prey, and wading birds. Habitatneeds vary for each species, so a variety of habitats both in-water andalong the shoreline will provide the most suitable habitat for each.Habitat requirements for the bird species are provided in Table 4.7.Five of the representative bird species represent those birds that nest inavailable vegetation (green heron, great blue heron, osprey [Pandionhaliaetus], common goldeneye [Bucephala clangula], and red-wingedblackbird). These species typically nest in herbaceous wetlands,shrubs, or trees. Red-winged black bird will share the same habitatrequirements as the snipe, which is a culturally significant species.The remaining six species (mallard, common tern [Sterna hirundo],belted kingfisher, bank swallow, spotted sandpiper, and semi-palmatedsandpiper) nest on the ground or in trees. The species with the mostrestrictive nesting requirements is bank swallow, which requires steep,unvegetated banks composed of soft substrate for burrow excavation.Foraging habitats range from grasslands adjacent to the lake (redwingedblackbird) to the profundal regions of the lake proper (commongoldeneye).The most common foraging habitat for the representative bird species isthe littoral zone of the lake. Six of the 11 species (great blue heron,green heron, mallard, belted kingfisher, spotted sandpiper, and semipalmatedsandpiper) feed on aquatic vegetation, invertebrates,amphibians, or small fish in the shallow nearshore areas. The commontern and osprey feed on fish in the top several feet of the open waterarea of the lake proper, while the bank swallows feed on emerginginsects above the open water.MammalsFive species of mammals were identified as representative species,including Indiana bat, mink (Mustela vison), beaver (Castor canadensis),muskrat, and river otter (Lontra canadensis) (Table 4.4). With theexception of the Indiana bat, the mammal species are considered semiaquaticand are found along shorelines of lakes, rivers, and streams. Ingeneral, these species prefer low energy environments with low waterlevel fluctuations. Beaver, muskrat, mink, and otter also prefer habitatwith sufficient cover (provided by woody debris, emergent vegetation ortrees and shrubs) along the shoreline.Indiana bat was included as a representative species because it is onthe state endangered species list and federal threatened species list.Although suitable habitat for the bat does not occur within the lake, thebat may feed on flying insects and roost in large trees with exfoliating orcracked bark during the summer in areas adjacent to the lake.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 101

4.5 Habitat Module DevelopmentDRAFTFollowing the identification of the habitat requirements of eachrepresentative species, the TWG developed a method to combine therepresentative species and their habitat requirements into areas, or“modules,” which could be readily integrated with the remediationactivities. The in-lake habitat modules are defined by three basic habitatparameters: water depth, substrate type, and wave energy (Table 4.8).Two upland modules were also developed. These habitat modulesserve as the basis for the habitat restoration design.Fluctuations in lake water levels occur on a seasonal basis and duringprecipitation events, but levels are primarily controlled by the PhoenixDam on the Oswego River in the Village of Phoenix. Lake levels aregenerally higher during the winter months than during the summermonths. For habitat restoration purposes, the elevation of the lakewater is critical during the late spring through early fall month (April toOctober). Lake level elevations are fairly consistent during this time asindicated by the record of lake water levels presented in Table 2.2. Thewater depths designated for the in-lake modules are assumed to berelative to the normal summer Onondaga Lake water level elevation of362.5 feet (NAVD 88). This water level was based on an evaluation ofthe average water level during the growing season (May 1 to October31) for the period of record from 1970 to 2008.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 102

DRAFTOnondaga Lake Monthly Average Water Levels1970 - 2009364.0The bar chart shown hererepresents the averagewater level in the lake foreach month of the year.During the growing season(green bars) the averagefluctuates very close to362.50 ft (NAVD 1988).According to the UnitedStates Geological Society,the 100-year floodplainelevation for Onondaga Lakeis 371.23 ft (NAVD 88).Onondaga Lake Water Level (feet, NAVD88)363.5363.0362.5362.0361.5362.9362.9363.4363.7363.0362.6362.5362.4 362.4362.6362.9363.1361.0JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberMonthWave energy was identified as another basic parameter for in-lakehabitat modules because it materially affects the type of substrate andstructure that can occur within specific areas. Winds blowing across thesurface of bodies of water transmit energy to the water, and waves areformed. The size of these wind-generated waves depends on the windspeed, the length of time the wind is blowing, and the extent of openwater over which it blows (fetch). The longer the fetch distance or thefaster the wind speed, the higher the waves are that are formed. Tomaximize the chance for success for the various types of habitatmodules, the littoral regions of the lake were divided into “energy zones”based on the size of waves that could impact that area. The goal is tomatch the habitat module best suited for each area. A low energy zoneis an area where there is a limited fetch and the wave heights are small.A high energy zone has longer fetches and higher wave heights. Amedium energy zone lies in between these two zones.Winds are predominately from the west and northwest near OnondagaLake. Based on a review of 68 years of wind data collected fromHancock International Airport, as well as an assessment of windgeneratedwave heights for various wind speeds and directions, theRemediation Areas have been divided into the following energy zone:• Remediation Area A: A low energy zone. This area locatedalong the western shore of the lake is protected from wavesapproaching from the southeast and has only a limited fetch inwhich waves could develop from the north and east. Waveheights, even during extreme events, are relatively low in thisarea.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 103

DRAFT• Remediation Areas B, C, and D: Medium energy zones. Theseareas are also located along the western shore of the lake andare protected from winds from the northwest. While having alimited fetch for winds from the south, these areas have longerfetch distances for waves approaching from the north and east.• Remediation Area E. A high energy zone. This area is locatedat the southern end of the lake is has a long fetch for winds fromthe north and northwest. As a result, higher waves can impactthis area.Habitat ModulesThe in-lake habitat modules presented on Table 4.8 are indicated by anumber from 1 to 7, with each number corresponding to a specific waterdepth range. Limits of the water depth zones for each habitat modulewere established to define a recognized habitat type. Deep water limitsof the habitat modules were established by the remedial activities. Themajority of remedial activities will occur in the littoral zone, which wasdefined to a water depth limit of approximately 30 feet (9 meters) in theROD. As a result, 30 ft was selected as the deep water limit of themodules (Table 4.8). The shallow water limit of Module 1 is 20 feet andrepresents the deep water habitats of the littoral zone. The profundalzone is defined as the area with water greater than 30 feet deep and thedeep water module (Module 1) would also be applicable in this area ifneeded.Generally, submerged aquatic vegetation in the lake is most abundantat a water depth less than 7 feet (approximately 2 meters). With this inmind, the mid-water depth of 7 to 20 feet (Module 2) represents the lakehabitat from the approximate limit of submerged aquatic vegetation outto the limit of the deeper water module (Table 4.8).Because of their water depths, Modules 1 and 2 are habitats that areprimarily important to fish species, deeper water benthicmacroinvertebrates, and some bird species. These two modules aregenerally beyond the limit of significant wave energy influences fromwind/wave activities.As indicated, the deep water limit of abundant submerged aquaticvegetation is approximately 7 feet. There is also a shallow water limit ofabout 2 feet for submerged aquatic vegetation, because wave energy isone of the factors limiting aquatic plant occurrence at shallow depths.As a result, a water depth zone of 2 to 7 feet (Module 3) is used todefine the area for submerged aquatic vegetation (Table 4.8). Thishabitat module area is important for certain nesting fish species, benthicmacroinvertebrates, and waterfowl, particularly dabbling ducks such asmallards.The shallow water fringe areas of the lake were divided into threemodules that are primarily defined by the zones of the dominant wetlandvegetation. Wetland vegetation is known to occur in certain water depthzones and wetland classification systems use this recognized wetlandzonation to define wetland types. As indicated on Table 4.8, the threewater depth zones are: 1 to 3 feet deep – floating aquatic wetlandPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 104

DRAFTvegetation (Module 4); 0.5 to 2 feet deep – non-persistent emergentwetlands (Module 5); and 1 foot above normal summer lake elevation toa water depth of 1 foot deep – persistent emergent wetlands (Module 6).These shallow water wetlands are noticeably lacking around the lakeand are important habitat types for various fish and wildlife species.Module 7 was originally planned as mudflat habitat, but it has not beenincluded in the conceptual designs due to the lack of control overfluctuating water levels required to maintain mudflats along theshoreline. The relatively recent introduction of Phragmites (within thelast 75 years) has also made the creation and long-term effectiveness ofthis type of environment very difficult. Additional details on Module 7can be found in Section 5.3.Two additional habitat modules (8 and 9) were also developed based onelevation and the habitat cover of adjacent areas. Upland areas may bepart of the habitat restored as part of the restoration plan, especially inthe transition zone between the lakeshore and landward habitat areas.These upland habitats (Module 8) would have water more than 1 footbelow the ground surface - that is, having no standing water orsaturation near the surface (Table 4.8).Onshore or inland wetlands are also recognized as a habitat typeidentified as part of this plan. It is assumed that these wetlands are notnecessarily associated with the lake waters, but generally have water atthe surface or near the surface for extended duration during the growingseason. These wetlands are represented by Module 9 (Table 4.8).As is the nature of any biological entity, the water depth limits of thehabitat modules are not discrete boundaries. There will be a transitionor overlap zone from one module to the next at the specified outer limitsof water depth for each module. The lake is a dynamic system that willcause changes to the lake bottom over time and the boundaries notedon the figures in this plan are intended to be a representation of thehabitats that will exist following restoration.For this reason, the wetland habitat modules (Modules 4, 5, and 6) haveoverlapping water depth limits. For example, it is expected, thatsubmerged aquatic vegetation (Module 3) will occur at the deeper limitof the floating aquatic wetland (Module 4), and that non-persistentemergent wetland vegetation (Module 5) will occur at the shallow end ofthis module.Habitat Module ModifiersAn “A” or “B” modifier is used to further define each numbered habitatmodule to reflect substrate and wave energy categories. The modifier Arepresents a finer substrate in an area of low wave energy, and themodifier B represents a coarser substrate in an area of medium to highwave energy (Table 4.8).Modules 8 and 9 are not associated with lake water, so substrate typesrelated to wave energy zones are not necessary. For Modules 8 and 9,the A and B modifiers relate to whether the dominant vegetation isherbaceous or woody, respectively.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 105

DRAFTThe ring-neck duck is a type ofdiving duck that will besupported by Habitat Module 1.Structure is another habitat module modifier. Structure can be treestumps, rock piles, submerged vegetation, logs, or woody debris on thelake bottom or shoreline in any habitat module Certain species aredependent upon or benefit from the provision of physical structure asnoted on Table 4.8. For example, mudpuppy, an aquatic salamander,requires some form of physical structure for many of its life stages.Each habitat modifier can be applied to the appropriate habitat module.Module 3, for example, can have a habitat module subtype of 3A, whichwould represent Habitat Module 3 with a finer substrate in an area oflow wave energy. It could be further defined to add in-water structurewith the (s) modifier. So Habitat Module 3A(s) would represent HabitatModule 3, with a finer substrate in an area of low energy, and added inwaterstructure.Certain modifiers would not be appropriate to apply to certain habitatmodules. For example, Habitat Module 4 represents a floating aquaticwetland habitat type. The floating aquatic vegetation (e.g. water liliessuch as Nymphaea or Nuphar spp.) that dominates this habitat typerequires fine substrates and very low energy. The B habitat modifier,which is coarse substrate in areas of medium to high energy, would notbe appropriate to apply to this habitat module.4.6 Habitat Module Species UseEach habitat module provides suitable habitat for many different plantand animal species. Table 4.8 summarizes how the different habitatmodules can support the representative plant and animal speciesselected to guide the restoration designs. This table was developedusing the physical and biological requirements of the representativespecies groups (Tables 4.1 – 4.7) as they relate to the characteristicsprovided by each individual habitat module. Table 4.8 describes thespecies or species group for which the module provides suitable habitatconditions, or in other words, what species would use that module.A column is provided in Table 4.8 for each of the major species groups,which includes fish, aquatic and wetland plants, benthicmacroinvertebrates, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and birds. Inthe row across from each habitat module, the species, or in certaininstances the life stage of a species, that would use that habitat moduleare provided for each of these species groups. Major benefits providedby each module are discussed in the following text.Habitat Module 1Habitat Module 1 (water depth of 20 to 30 feet) represents the deepwater portion of the littoral zone. This module also generally applies tothe Profundal zone, specifically Remediation Area D – Addendum.Transient cold water fish species and adult warm-water fish species willuse this habitat area. Certain benthic macroinvertebrates, birds (divingducks, osprey and over-water feeders) would use the area.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 106

DRAFTTapegrass (Vallisneria americana) isan aquatic plant that will be supportedby Habitat Module 3.Wood frogs would find suitableconditions in Habitat Module 5.Habitat Module 2Habitat Module 2 (water depth of 7 to 20 feet) will provide habitat forlake sturgeon, transient cold water fish, and adult warm-water species(Table 4.8). This module is beyond the limit of most submerged aquaticvegetation, although some will occur in the shallower water limits of thismodule. Coarse substrate habitats (B modifier) may limit vegetationgrowth. Benthic macroinvertebrates in various groups will occupy thishabitat and some additional groups will benefit from the coarsesubstrates or added structure modifiers of B and (s), respectively.Although not currently known to occur in the lake, river otter would bethe only mammal to use this area. Mudpuppy, an aquatic salamanderthat is also not currently known to be present in the lake, may occur inthe future with the addition of in-water structure, a necessary habitatcomponent for this species. A few birds that use deeper water habitatwould be expected in this area.Habitat Module 3Habitat Module 3 (water depth of 2 to 7 feet) provides importantspawning habitat for bass (Micropterus spp.) and other warm-water fishspecies, and young-of-year cover habitat for various species (Table 4.8).Cover habitat is provided by the abundant submerged aquaticvegetation that occurs within this module’s depth range. Typicalsubmerged plant species include: sago pondweed, tapegrass(Vallisneria americana), coontail, and water star grass (Table 4.2b).Coarse substrates may reduce the abundance of these aquatic plants.Various benthic macroinvertebrates will find this habitat suitable andmay be more abundant where coarse substrates occur. Mammals mayuse the shallow water portion of this habitat module primarily for travelcorridors, although river otters, if present, would feed in this area.Dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and other birds that feed by diving intothe water, and certain wading birds, like great blue heron, would use thishabitat type.Habitat Module 4Habitat Module 4 (water depth of 1 to 3 feet) represents a floatingaquatic vegetation wetland habitat (Table 4.8). It provides habitat forpanfish, like pumpkinseed, and cover for various other fish species.Water lilies will likely populate this area. Use by benthicmacroinvertebrates and mammals would be similar to Habitat Module 3.Snapping turtles and the basking turtles (painted (Chrysemys picta) andmusk turtles will prefer the quiet water in this habitat and would furtherbenefit from structure in the form of logs or other surface features.Dabbling ducks, herons, kingfisher, and other birds will use the area.Habitat Module 5Habitat Module 5 (water depth of ½ to 2 feet) represents non-persistentemergent wetlands (Table 4.8). Non-persistent emergent plants arerooted in the substrate, emerge above the surface of the water, but donot persist during the winter months. Northern pike (Esox lucius) mayspawn in this habitat and cover would be provided for pumpkinseed andPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 107

DRAFTvarious other young-of-year fish species. Added structure wouldenhance the habitat for these species, and coarse substrates wouldprovide better habitat for walleye. Non-persistent emergent wetlandplants, such as pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), are targeted in thishabitat area (Table 4.2b). Coarse substrates can reduce the abundanceof these plant species. Caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayflies(Ephemeroptera), and crayfish (Decapoda) are the representativebenthic macroinvertebrates for this habitat area. The aquatic mammalspreviously mentioned would use this area. Muskrat would feed on someof the plant species. Turtles and frogs would use this habitat, as wouldnorthern water snakes, which would prey on the frogs and small fish inthe area. With the addition of structure, this habitat may be used bymudpuppy. Bird species use of this habitat module area would besimilar to that indicated for Habitat Module 4.Great blue herons would use fringeareas that are unvegetated at certaintimes of the year.Habitat Module 6Habitat Module 6 (ground surface 1 foot above water to a water depth of1 foot) represents a persistent emergent wetland habitat type (Table4.8). Persistent emergent plants are rooted in the bottom substrate,emerge above the surface of the water, and persist during the wintermonths. Cattails are a good example of a persistent emergent species.Persistent emergent wetlands are an important habitat type for manyplants and animals. With the exception of areas around the lake thatare degraded by the invasive Phragmites, an emergent wetland fringe islacking in the lake ecosystem and therefore it is targeted for restorationin many areas. It should also be noted that this habitat module includessalt marshes, which have similar physical requirements to persistentemergent wetlands.Northern pike, an early spring spawner in wetland areas, can usepersistent emergent wetlands for spawning. The deeper water portionsof the persistent emergent wetland will provide cover for various otherfish species. Persistent emergent plants (e.g. cattails, bulrushes(Scirpus spp.), burreed (Sparganium spp.), and sedges (Carex spp.))and salt marsh plants (e.g. salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora),salt marsh hay (Spartina patens), prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata),rose mallow (Hibiscus mocheutos), and black grass (Juncus gerardii))could be abundant in these areas (Table 4.2b). Control of Phragmiteswould be necessary in this habitat module to avoid habitat degradationby this invasive grass species. Various benthic macroinvertebrateswould occur in this habitat module, especially dragonflies (Odonata),mayflies, and crayfish. All representative aquatic mammals would findthis habitat suitable. Persistent emergent marshes, especially cattailmarshes, are the primary habitat for muskrats. Various salamanders,frogs, turtles, and snakes would use the area. Dabbling ducks, heronsand other wading birds, and both native and migratory shorebirds woulduse this habitat module. Emergent marshes provide primary habitat forred-winged blackbird.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 108

DRAFTOpen field uplands is one option forHabitat Module 8.Forested wetland would be a suitablecondition for Habitat Module 9.Habitat Module 7Habitat Module 7 (ground surface 0.6 feet above water to a water depthof 0.6 feet) represents mudflats or exposed shoreline areas (Table 4.8).Mudflats were once present at the mouths of both Ninemile Creek andHarbor Brook, but these areas were overrun with Phragmites. Mudflats,by definition, provide limited to no habitat for fish and plants. Theyprovide travel corridors for aquatic mammals and turtles. Mudflats andexposed shoreline areas are, however, important habitat for residentand migratory shorebirds, such as spotted sandpipers and semipalmatedsandpiper. They are also used by herons.Habitat Module 8Habitat Module 8 is an upland habitat of herbaceous or woody speciescover (Table 4.8). These habitats would likely be transition areasbetween restored lake habitats or fringe wetland habitats and adjacentuplands. In the open field uplands, various grasses, goldenrods, andasters would be common. In restored wooded uplands, common treeswould be eastern cottonwood, trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides),shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), andpaper birch (Betula papyrifera). Representative shrub species areshadbush (Amelanchier sp.), gray-stem dogwood (Cornus foemina ssp.racemosa), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and staghorn sumac.Mammals would forage in these areas, and with suitable trees in woodyareas, food would be provided for beavers. Open fields, especiallythose near wetlands are good foraging areas for leopard frogs () andpossibly nesting habitat for certain turtle species. Red-wingedblackbirds and several other bird species would occupy this habitat.Habitat Module 9Habitat Module 9 (saturated soils to seasonally pooled water)represents a wetland habitat that is not necessarily contiguous with thelake (Table 4.8). No or limited fish habitat would be provided in thismodule. The wetlands in this habitat module could be wet meadow orpersistent emergent wetland types dominated by herbaceous plantspecies or they could be scrub-shrub or forested wetlands dominated bywoody plant species. Plants common in the persistent emergentwetlands would be similar to those listed for Module 6. In the forestedwetlands, silver maple, green ash, swamp white oak, and black willoware expected dominants. Wetland shrub species would include silkydogwood, red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), pussy willow (Salixdiscolor), peach-leaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), and musclewood(Carpinus caroliniana). Muskrat, mink, and beaver would use thishabitat when it is vegetated with herbaceous species and smaller shrubspecies. Mink would use the wooded areas. Frogs, red-spotted newts,and water snakes would utilize these wetland habitats. Leopard frogsare found in emergent wetland and forage extensively in wet meadowareas. Various bird species noted under the Habitat Module 6description would occur in these wetlands. Nesting for green heronwould be provided in the forested wetlands.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 109

4.7 Existing Conditions Illustrated asModulesDRAFTIn order to better characterize the existing conditions in and around thelake, and to quantify the changes in habitat types before and afterremediation, the TWG applied the newly defined habitat modules toillustrate existing conditions.Existing habitat conditions in and around the lake were categorized outto the limits of an area called the habitat plan boundary, which isidentified as a dashed red line on Figure 4.1. This boundary takes intoaccount the need for connected habitats between the lake and uplandareas.The distribution of existing habitats is presented on Figures 4.2 through4.5. The habitat modules described above were applied to the lake andacreages were estimated of the various types of habitat that currentlyexist within and immediately adjacent to the lake.A summary of the existing and restored habitat acreages for in-lake andlakeshore areas is presented on Table 4.9. These tables illustratechanges in habitat modules with the planned restoration.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 110

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORTABLE 4.1HABITAT RESTORATIONSUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR FISHRepresentative Species / Habitat ConsiderationsHabitat Requirements Northern Pike 1** Lake sturgeon 2** Walleye 3**Water Depth - AdultWater Depth -Fry/JuvenileWater Depth -SpawningRarely below thermoclinePrefer depths

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORTABLE 4.1HABITAT RESTORATIONSUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR FISHRepresentative Species / Habitat ConsiderationsHabitat Requirements Northern Pike 1** Lake sturgeon 2** Walleye 3**Macrophyte Cover(Juveniles)Macrophyte Cover(Adults)Large Woody Debris;Boulders (Adults)Large Woody Debris;Boulders (Juveniles)Rooting /Burrowing/Nest DepthFry dense vegetation; juveniles 30-70 % midsummer area30-70 % midsummer area; preferthe interface between vegetationand open waterLittle; generally avoid aquatic vegetation 25 to 45 %Little; generally avoid aquatic vegetation 25 to 45 %NA Shoals 25 to 45 % 9NA Shoals 25 to 45 % 9NA NA NADissolved Oxygen ≥ 5 ppm ≥ 5ppm ≥ 5ppmGrowing SeasonTemperature (Adult)Growing SeasonTemperature(Fry/Juveniles)Food Source20-25 o C 12-19 o C 20-24 o CFry 18-25 o C; juvenile 19-21CoptimumPiscivorous (primarily clupeids,yellow perch, white sucker; alsoinvertebrates)12-19 o C Fry 22-31 o C; juveniles 20-24 o CBenthic invertivore (insect larvae, leeches,snails, small clams, small fish)Piscivorous (primarily yellow perch, clupeids,centrarchids; also invertebrates)Turbidity/ SuspendedSolidsNS NS Secchi depth 3.2-6.5 ft (1-2 m)pH 6.0-9.0 6.5-8.5 6.0-9.0Not specified in Inskip 1982. Farrell Minimum size of spawning habitat is notMinimum habitat area unknown; however,lakes >247 acres (100 ha) are more likely toMinimum Habitat Size(2001) 11 reported spawning inpatches as small as 1205 ft 2 (112specified, but high gradient reaches of largerivers are ideal; rocky, wave-washed lakeprovide suitable conditions for spawning, i.e.,20 percent of area of lake is between 0.9 andm 2 )shores are sometimes used.substrate) 14.9 ft (0.3 and 1.5 m) deep with gravel/cobbleP:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.1 12-09.xlsPARSONSPage 2 of 5

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORTABLE 4.1HABITAT RESTORATIONSUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR FISHRepresentaitve Species / Habitat ConsiderationsHabitat RequirementsSmallmouth Bass 4 Largemouth Bass 5 Pumpkinseed Sunfish 6 Golden Shiner 7 Emerald Shiner 7 Brown Trout 8Water Depth - Adult15 cmWater Depth -Fry/JuvenileWater Depth -SpawningSpawning locationSpawning SubstrateFry/Juvenile SubstrateAdult SubstrateEnergy (Velocity)during spawningEnergy (Velocity)Fry/juvenilesEnergy (Velocity)AdultsFry shallow water; juveniles slightlyshallower than adultsSimilar to adults Littoral zone NS NS

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORTABLE 4.1HABITAT RESTORATIONSUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR FISHRepresentaitve Species / Habitat ConsiderationsHabitat RequirementsMacrophyte Cover(Juveniles)Macrophyte Cover(Adults)Large Woody Debris;Boulders (Adults)Large Woody Debris;Boulders (Juveniles)Smallmouth Bass 4 Largemouth Bass 5 Pumpkinseed Sunfish 6 Golden Shiner 7 Emerald Shiner 7 Brown Trout 825-50 %Fry 40-80 percent of littoralarea; juvenile: 40 to 60 15 to 30 percent some NS NApercent of littoral area 10Prefer rocky cover 40 to 60 % of littoral area 10 15 to 30 percent some NS NA25 to 50 percent; stumps, trees, boulders 40 to 60 % of littoral area 10 20 to 60 percent NS NS >35%Adults: 25 to 50 % 40 to 60 % of littoral area 10 20 to 60 percent NS NS NARooting /Burrowing/Nest DepthNS NS NS NA NA16 cm below watersubstrate interfaceDissolved OxygenGrowing SeasonTemperature (Adult)Growing SeasonTemperature(Fry/Juveniles)Food SourceTurbidity/ SuspendedSolidspH≥ 5 ppm ≥ 5 ppm ≥ 5ppm ≥ 5ppm ≥ 5ppm ≥ 5ppm21-27 o C 24-30 o C 20-27C NS NS 12-19CFry 25-29 o C; juveniles 25-31 o CPiscivorous (species dependent onabundance and availability); crayfishFry: 27-30 o C; juveniles 24-30 o CPiscivorous (fish; crayfish),amphibiansfry 25-32C; juveniles 22-34CInvertivoreNS NS NAPlanktivore(diatoms, greenalgae;zooplankton)Planktivore (algae;zooplankton; midgelarvae)Invertivore/piscivore(alewife)

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.1SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR FISHNOTES:NA - Not applicable to this speciesNS - Information not specified*Species that utilize the tributaries for spawning also contribute an important forage base for the lake (e.g., white sucker)**Walleye, northern pike, and lake sturgeon are considered priority species since viable habitat is limited in the lakeREFERENCES:1. Inskip 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Northern Pike. USFWS.2. Peterson, D.L., P. Vecsei, and C.A. Jennings. 2007. Ecology and biology of the lake sturgeon: a synthesis of current knowledge of a threatenedNorth American Acipenseridae. Abstracts from Update on Lake Sturgeon in NYS Waters January 2000. Data from Cornell UniversityOneida Lake lake sturgeon research program3. McMahon et al. (1984). Habitat Suitability Information: Walleye. USFWS.Note that the total of 25-45 percent cover can be provided by macrophytes and/or large woody debris.4. Edwards et al. (1983). Habitat suitability Information: Smallmouth Bass. USFWS.5. Stuber et al. (1982a). Habitat Suitability Information: Largemouth bass. USFWS. Note that the total of 40-60 percent covercan be provided by macrophytes and/or large woody debris.6. Stuber et al. (1982b). Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bluegill. USFWS.7. Hasse and Stegemann. 1992. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7040.html; http://www.fishbase.org8. Hasse and Stegemann. 1992. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7040.html; http://www.fishbase.org9. Raleigh et al. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: Brown trout, revised. USFWS.Atlantic salmon habitat requirements are covered under this category.10. Note that the total percent cover can be provided by macrophytes and/or large woody debris.11. Casselman, JM and CA Lewis. 1996. Habitat requirements of northern pike (Esox lucius). Can. J. of Fisheries and AquaticSciences 53 (Suppl. 1): 161-174.12. Farrell, J.M. 2001. Reproductive success of sympatric northern pike and muskellunge in an upper St. Lawrence River Bay.Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 130:796-808.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.1 12-09.xlsPARSONSPage 5 of 5

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.2aOVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AQUATIC PLANTSRepresentative Species/Habitat ConsiderationsHabitatRequirementsSubmerged VegetationFloatingVegetation/AquaticBedsNonpersistentEmergent VegetationPersistent EmergentVegetationSalt Marsh VegetationWater DepthDepth of light penetration will determine maximumcolonization depth. The majority of macrophytesare located in water depth of 7 ft (2 m) or less 5 .FromSubmerged vegetation can typically colonize up to8, 10two times the secchi transparency2-4 ft (0.6-1.2 m) forfloating aquatic vegetation 7 .Water depth ranges from 0.5-2 ft (15-60 cm) fornonpersistent emergentvegetation. Water depthshould be 12-18 in (30-45cm) or greater to preventPhragmites colonization.Area from 0.5 ft (15 cm) abovemean summer lake level to awater depth of 1.0 ft (30 cm).Initial eradication and futurecontrol of Phragmites required.Area from 1.0 ft (30 cm) abovemean summer lake level to awater depth of 1.0 ft (15 cm).Initial eradication and futurecontrol of Phragmites required.RepresentativeSpeciesSubstrateExamples of typical species are: Stuckeniapectinata, Elodea canadensis, Vallisneriaamericana, Ceratophyllum demersum andZosterella dubia.Sand and finer grained material to supportcolonization; organic content less than 20% 2 .Examples of typical speciesare: Nuphar, Nymphaeaand Potamogeton nodosus.Silty sand or finer materialwith organic matter contentof 3-8%.Examples of typical speciesare: Pontederia cordata,Peltandra virginica, Sagittarialatifolia, Polygonumamphibium and Alismasubcordatum.Silty sand or finer materialwith organic matter content of3-8%.Examples of typical speciesare: Typha latifolia, Typhaangustifolia, Scirpustabernaemontani, Scirpusamericanus, Scirpus robustus,Sparganium eurycarpum,Justicia americana, Decodonverticillatus and Carexlacustris.Silty sand or finer material withorganic matter content of 3-8%.Examples of typical species are:Spartina alterniflora, Hibiscusmoscheutos, Spartina patens,Spartina pectinata, Juncusgerardii, Distichlis spicata,Solidago sempervirens, Astersubulatus and Panicum virgatum.Silty sand or finer material withorganic matter content of 3-8%.EnergyWave energy may preclude colonization in nearshore areas (1-3 ft deep) (0.3-1 m) (6) .Wave energy may precludeplant establishment.Energy breaks or lowenergy areas required froestablishment (Rea et al.1998).Wave energy may precludeplant establishment. Energybreaks or low energy areasrequired for establishment(Weisner 1991).Wave energy may precludeplant establishment. Energybreaks or low energy areasrequired for establishment.Wave energy may preclude plantestablishment. Energy breaks orlow energy areas required forestablishment.Vegetation Cover NA NA NA NA NALarge Woody Debris NA NA NA NA NARooting/BurrowingDepth7.9-11.8 in (20-30 cm) (3) 5.9-17.7in (15-45 cm) 11.8-23.6 in (30-60 cm) 11.8-23.6 in (30-60 cm) 11.8-23.6 in (30-60 cm)Dissolved Oxygen NA NA NA NA NATemperature NA NA NA NA NAP:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.2a 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 1 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.2aOVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AQUATIC PLANTSHabitatRequirementsNutrient SourceTurbidity/SuspendedSolidsSubmerged VegetationNutrients in sediment, water column; dissolvedinorganic carbon 1 .Influences depth of the photic zone-see waterdepth 1 .Representative Species/Habitat ConsiderationsFloatingVegetation/AquaticBedsNutrients within thesediment.NonpersistentEmergent VegetationPersistent EmergentVegetationSalt Marsh VegetationNutrients within the sediment. Nutrients within the sediment. Nutrients within the sediment.NA NA NA NApH 5.5-9.0 9 . 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5NOTES:NA: Not applicable to this species.NS: Information not specified.7.0-8.5Appropriate salinity in water orsubstrate required for plants topersist. Water salinity range of 20to 35 parts per thousand oraverage soil conductivity of 25-60decisiemans per meter may beappropriate a .REFERENCES:1. Barko, J. W., M. S. Adams, and N. L. Clesceri. 986. Environmental factors and their consideration in the management of submersed aquatic vegetation: A review.Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 24:1-10.2. Barko, J. W. and R. M. Smart. 1986. Sediment-related mechanisms of growth limitation in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 67:1328-1340.3. Bottomley, E. Z. and I. L. Bayley. 1984. A sediment porewater sampler used in root zone studies of the submerged macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum .Limnology and Oceanography29:671-673.4. Chambers, P. A., and J. Kalff. 1985. Depth distribution and biomass of submersed aquatic macrophytes communities in relation to Secchi depth. Canadian Journal of Fishers andAquatic Sciences 42:701-709.5. EcoLogic 2006: Onondaga County Ambient Monitoring Program.6. Madsen, J. D., P.A. Chambers, W. F. James, E. W. Koch, and D. F. Westlake. 2001. The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics, and submersed macrophytes.Hydrobiologia 444:71-84.7. Madsen, J. D., R. M. Stewart, K. D. Getsinger, R. L. Johnson, and R. M. Wersal. 2008. Aquatic plant communities in Waneta Lake and Lamoka Lake, New York. NortheasternNaturalist 15:97-110.8. Middleboe, A. L. and S. Markager. 1997. Depth limits and minimum light requirements of freshwater macrophytes. Freshwater Biology 37:553-568.9. Pagano, A. M. and J. E. Titus. 2004. Submersed macrophyte growth at low pH: Contrasting responses of three species to dissolved inorganic carbon enrichment and sediment type.Aquatic Botany 79:65-74.10. Sheldon, R. B., and Boylen, C. W. 1977. Maximum depth inhabited by aquatic vascular plants. American Midland Naturalist 97, 248- 254.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.2a 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 2 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.2aOVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AQUATIC PLANTSRepresentative Species/Habitat ConsiderationsState Listed Species of ConcernHabitatRequirementsUnvegetatedShoreline/MudflatsWet Meadow WetlandForested/Scrub-ShrubWetlandsForested/Scrub-Shrub UplandsOpen Field UplandsNarrowleaf Pondweed(Potamogetonstrictifolius )Southern Naiad (Najasguadalupensis )(b)Water DepthRepresentativeSpeciesSubstrateEnergyAreas from 0.5 ft (15 cm)above mean summer lakelevel to water depth of 0.5ft (15 cm).NAGravel to silty sand or finermaterial with organicmatter content of 2-8%.Wave energy may precludecolonization in near shoreareas (1-3 ft deep) (0.3-1m) (6) .Seasonally inunundated,water primarily belowground during growingseason.Common species are:Scirpus cyperinus, Scirpusatrovirens, Carexvulpinoidea, Carex stipata,Carex lurida, Juncuseffusus, Glyceriastriata, and Agrostisgigantea.Good quality topsoil, sandor loamy texture, organicmatter content 3-5%.Seasonally inundated,water primarily belowground surface duringgrowing season.Common trees are: Acersaccharinum, Fraxinuspennsylvanica, Ulmusamericana, Salix nigra, andQuercus bicolor. Commonshrubs are: Cornusamomum, Cornus sericea,Salix discolor, Carpinuscaroliniana, and Salixamygdaloides.Good quality topsoil; sandor loamy texture, organicmatter content 3-8+%.No water at or near thesoil surface.Examples of typicalspecies are: Typhalatifolia, Typhaangustifolia, Scirpustabernaemontani, Scirpusamericanus, Scirpusrobustus, Sparganiumeurycarpum, Justiciaamericana, Decodonverticillatus and Carexlacustris.17.7-23.6 in (45-60 cm)Examples of typical species are:Spartina alterniflora, Hibiscusmoscheutos, Spartina patens,Spartina pectinata, Juncusgerardii, Distichlis spicata,Solidago sempervirens, Astersubulatus and Panicum virgatum.Good quality topsoil, sand Good quality topsoil, sand or loamyor loamy textures, organic textures, organic matter content 2-matter content 2-4%.4%.NA NA NA NASubmerged vegetation cantypically colonize to twotimes the secchitransparency. Minimumdepth of colonization may belimited by high wave energy.Narrowleaf pondweed hasthe highest relativeabundance in transects withan average maximum depthof 13.5Sand and finer grainedmaterial to supportcolonization; organic contentless than 20% 1 .Wave energy may precludecolonization in near shoreareas [1-3 ft (0.3-0.9 m)deep].Submerged vegetation cantypically colonize to twotimes the secchitransparency. Minimumdepth of colonization may belimited by high wave energy.Southern naiad has thehighest relative abundancein transects with an averagemaximum depth of 15.9 ft (Sand and finer grainedmaterial to supportcolonization; organic contentless than 20% 1 .Wave energy may precludecolonization in near shoreareas [1-3 ft (0.3-0.9 m)deep].Vegetation Cover NA NA NA NA NA NA NALarge WoodyDebrisNA NA NA NA NA NA NARooting/Burrowing Depth7.9-11.8 in (20-30 cm) (3) 17.7-23.6 in (45-60 cm) 17.7-23.6 in (45-60 cm) 17.7-23.6 in (45-60 cm) 17.7-23.6 in (45-60 cm) 7.9-11.8 in (20-30 cm) ( 2) 7.9-11.8 in (20-30 cm) ( 2)Dissolved Oxygen NA NA NA NA NA NA NATemperature NA NA NA NA NA 25-30 o C 25-30 o CparsonsP:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.2a 12-09.xlsPage 3 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONHabitatRequirementsUnvegetatedShoreline/MudflatsWet Meadow WetlandForested/Scrub-ShrubWetlandsTABLE 4.2aOVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AQUATIC PLANTSRepresentative Species/Habitat ConsiderationsForested/Scrub-Shrub UplandsOpen Field UplandsNutrient Source NA Nutrients from topsoil. Nutrients from topsoil. Nutrients from topsoil. Nutrients from topsoil.Turbidity/Suspended SolidsNA NA NA NA NAState Listed Species of ConcernNarrowleaf Pondweed(Potamogetonstrictifolius )Nutrients in sediment, watercolumn; dissolved inorganiccarbon 1 .Influences depth of thephotic zone-see waterdepth 1 .Southern Naiad (Najasguadalupensis )(b)Nutrients in sediment, watercolumn; dissolved inorganiccarbon 1 .Influences depth of thephotic zone-see waterpH NA 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 5.5-9.0 5.5-9.0depth 1 .NOTES:NA: Not applicable to this species.NS: Information not specified.a. Salinity ranges based on information provided by Tony Eallonardo and Don Leopold of ESF from their work on settling basins and other NY inland salt marshes.b. In New York, there are two state-listed subspecies of N. guadalupensis (ssp. munscheri and spp. olivacea ) and one common subspecies (ssp. guadalupensis ) Although N. guadalupensiswas found in the lake during the 2005 macrophyte surveys, it was not identified to subspecies, so it it not known whether what was found in the lake is rare.c. Appendix 10: 2005 Onondaga Lake Aquatic Macrophyte Survey (Ecologic 2006).REFERENCES:1. Barko, J. W., M. S. Adams, and N. L. Clesceri. 1986. Environmental factors and their consideration in the management of submersed aquatic vegetation: A review.Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 24:1-10.2. Bottomley, E. Z. and I. L. Bayley. 1984. A sediment porewater sampler used in root zone studies of the submerged macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum .Limnology and Oceanography 29:671-673.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.2a 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 4 of 4

HoneywellTABLE 4.2bPHENOLOGY INFORMATION FOR SELECTED AQUATIC PLANTSONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONEventSago pondweed (1) Water celery (2) Coontail (3) Canadian waterweed American pondweed (4,5,6, 7) White water lily (6)(Stuckenia pectinata)Submersed Aquatic Plants(Vallisneria americana)Floating Leaved Aquatic Plants(Ceratophyllumdemersum ) (Elodea canadensis) (Potamogeton nodosus) (Nymphaea odorata)Seed germination April (8) 10-14 o C, April NS NA NS AprilPropagule sprouting April (1,4) 10-14 o C, April (2,4) NA NA April (5) AprilMaximum biomass July 28-32C, August-September NS August-September September (6) SeptemberFlowering July July-August April - September July-August June (6) MayFruiting July June-September, 20 o C June - September August-September July-October (7) JunePropagule formation July-August August - October NA NA NS NSNOTES:Senescence August-September September-October Evergreen perennial September-October October (4) OctoberNA: Not applicable to this speciesNS: Information not specifiedREFERENCES:(1) Madsen, J.D. and M.S. Adams. 1988. The seasonal biomass and productivity of the submerged macrophytes in a polluted Wisconsin stream. Freshwater Biology 20:41-50.(2) McFarland, D. 2006. Reproductive ecology of Vallisneria americana Michaux. SAV Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/TN SAV-06-4). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.(3) Flora of North America Project, www.eFloras.org, Ceratophyllum demersum page, http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200007091, accessed 4/13/2009.(4)(5)(6)David, J.D. and A.J. McDonnell. 1997. Development of a partitioned-biomass model for rooted macrophyte growth. Aquatic Botany 56:265-276.Spencer, D.F., G.G. Ksander, J.D. Madsen, and C.S. Owens. 2000. Emergence of vegetative propagules of Potamgeton nodosus , Potamogeton pectinatus ,Vallisneria americana , and Hydrilla verticillata based on accumulated degree-days. Aquatic Botany 67:237-249.Penfound, W.T., T.F. Hall, and D. Hess. 1945. The spring phenology of plants in and around the reservoirs in north Alabama with particular reference to malaria control.Ecology 26:332-352.(7)(8)Magee, D.W. and H. E. Ahles. Flora of the Northeast. Amherst, MA. University of Massachusetts Press. 1999Yeo, R. R. 1965. Life history of sago pondweed. Weeds 13:314-321.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.2b 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 1 of 1

HoneywellTABLE 4.3SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS INHABITAT DESIGNS FOR BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATESONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONHabitat RequirementsRepresentative Species/Habitat ConsiderationsDragonfly/DamselflyMayfly (Ephemeroptera) Caddisfly (Trichoptera) True Flies (Diptera)(Odonata)Scud (Amphipoda)Crayfish(Decapoda)Water Depth Varilable Variable Variable Variable < 3.2 ft (1 m) 3.2-6.6 ft (1-2 m)SubstrateEnergyCobble, gravel, aquatic plants,coarse detritus, sand and siltFlowing water (lotic-erosional); somelentic littoral speciesVariableLotic and lenticVariableVariableAquatic plants, sand, silt anddetritusStill water (lentic littoral or locticdepositional)Littoral benthos (onespecies Pontoporeiaaffinis occurs in profundalbenthos)Lentic littoralCoarse mineral ororganic substratesMacrophyte Cover 7.9-11.8 in (20-30 cm) (3) NS NS For phytophilous species NA ImportantLarge Woody Debris NS NS NS NS NS NSRooting / BurrowingDepthUp to 3.9 in (10 cm) for Hexagenialimbata 1,2Up to 3.1 in (8 cm) forPolycentropus spp. 1VariableUp to 2.9 in (7.5 cm) forChironomus spp and 2 cmfor Glyptotendipes spp. and5.9 in (15 cm) 5.9 in (15 cm) 5.9 in (15 cm)Procladius spp. 1Dissolved Oxygen > 5 mg/l NS NS NS NS NSTemperature NS NS variable NS NS NSFood SourceDetritus and plant materialDiatoms, algae and decayingplant matterDetritus, plankton andbenthic organismsZooplankton and insectsDetritusPlant material,invertebrates andcarrionTurbidity/SuspendedSolidsNS NS NS NS NS NSpH NS NS NS NS NS NSNOTES:NA: Not applicable to this speciesNS: Information not specified1. Charbonneau, P. and L. Hare. 1998. Burrowing behavior and biogenic structures of mud-dwelling insects. J. N. American Benthological Soc. 17:239-249.2. Charbonneau and Hare (1998) reference Hilsenhoff (1966) observation of Chironomus plumosus larvae burrowing up to 50 cm at 5 o CREFERENCES:Voshell, 2002. A guide to common freshwater invertebrates of North America. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA.Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Second Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Dubuque, IAPeckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin, Jr. 1990. Freshwater macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.3 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 1 of 1

HoneywellTABLE 4.4SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR MAMMALSONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONHabitat RequirementsRepresentative Species/Habitat ConsiderationsOtter 1 Beaver 2 Muskrat 3 Mink 4 Indiana Bat 5Water Depth Variable - ditches to deep lakes Low water fluctuations 1.5-4 ft (0.5-1.2 m) low water fluctuations Variable, hunts along shoreline NASubstrate NA VariableSediments fine w/ some organics; bank material < 90% sand andgravel with slope greater than 30%Energy Low to high velocity Low velocity Low velocity Low velocity NAVegetative Cover 7.9-11.8 in (20-30 cm) (3) NALarge Woody DebrisRooting / Burrowing DepthSubmerged hollow logs providecoverNACreated by beaver activityEntrance to bank dens 2-5 ft(0.6-1.5 m) below watersurfacePersistent emergent herbaceous vegetation within 32.8 ft (10 m)of waters edge; no woody materialDownfall, debris, log jams provide cover along shorelineEntrance to bank dens 1-3 ft (0.3-0.9 m) below surfaceNATrees and shrubs along waters edge forcover; persistent emergent vegetation.Canopy cover comprised of trees andshrubs within 328 ft (100 m) of watersedgeDownfall, debris, exposed roots,undercut banks provide cover alongshorelineWill use abandoned muskrat and beaverdensNALarger trees withexfoliating bark ornarrow cracks requiredfor summer roostingDissolved Oxygen NA NA NA NA NATemperature NA NA NA NA NAFood SourceFish and crayfishWater lily, duck potato,aspen, willow andcottonwoodCattail, sweetflag, water lily, arrowhead, olney 3-square andbulrushFish, crayfish, waterfowl, muskrats,rabbits and rodentsNANAInsects (flies and caddisflies)Turbidity/SuspendedSolidsNA NA Low NA NApH NA NA NA NA NAMinimum Habitat SizeNAMinimum area of 0.5 mi 2 (1.3km 2 ) of lake or marshlandhabitat for colonization 2Any freshwater or estuarine cover type large enough to beclassified assuming adequate food, water stability, and cover areprovided 3Any wetland or wetland associatedhabitat large enough to be identified andevaluated should be large enough forminkNANOTES:NA: Not applicable to this speciesREFERENCES:1. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.127). 23 PP. [First printed as: FWS/OBS-82/10.61, October 1983]2. Allen, A. W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Beaver. US. Fish and Wild. Serv. FWS/OBS-W10.30 Revised. 20 pp.3. Allen, A. W., and R. D. Hoffman. 1984. Habitat suitability index models: Muskrat. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.46. 27 pp.4. Allen, A.W. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: mink, revised.5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 258 pp.USDA Forest Service Species Database; http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/luca/all.htmlP:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.4 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 1 of 1

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.5SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AMPHIBIANSRepresentative Species/Habitat Considerations 1Habitat RequirementsRed-spotted newt Mudpuppy Spotted salamanderWater DepthShallow, permanent water bodies which arewet long enough for development to the eftstage.Completely aquatic. Adults can live in a variety ofwater depths (large deep lakes or shallow, muddystreams), but generally nest in 3 ft (1 m) of water;water must be deep enough not to freeze or goanoxic where larvae overwinter.Adults prefer fishless ponds and vernal pools tobreed in; larvae spend several months in pool beforeemerging.SubstratePrefer mud bottoms, but will use rocky andsandy bottoms. Prefer densely vegetatedshallow waters. Efts require sufficient forestfloor litter for dry periods. 7Require rocks or other debris for shelter and foregg laying.Prefer "muddy" substrate in water. Nests generallyunder rocks on sandy bottoms. Prefer soils with low,but variable moisture (loamy soil). Spottedsalamander egg masses laid on underwaterstructure.Energy Low Low LowStructure/ MacrophyteCoverTerrestrial life stage (juveniles): preferdeciduous or mixed hardwood forest with>80% of the trees with a dbh75% submergent oremergent herbaceous vegetation in thelittoral zone, especially for larval stage. 7Always associated with some form of aquaticcover (logs, rocks, or even bottom vegetation). Instreams, more often found in pools than riffles,likely because of available cover rather thandepth.Terrestrial life stage: prefer deciduous or mixedhardwood forest; aquatic life stage: prefer somesubmergent vegetation, especially for juveniles.Structure/Large WoodyDebrisStumps and other woody debris and litter,herbaceous canopy cover of 20-40%important to red eft (juvenile) stage formoisture retention. 7Submerged shelters of some sort are required(e.g. rocks or sunken logs).Rocks, logs, and floating vegetation are important forshelter and egg laying. Rotting logs and woodydebris on forest floor important for spottedsalamanders.Burrowing DepthAdults and efts may overwinter in terrestrialhibernacula, but efts rarely burrow. 7The mudpuppy is totally aquatic species. A femaledigs a nest cavity under stones or logs, at waterdepths of 4 - 60 in (10 -150 cm). Mudpuppies areactive year round and do not hibernate. 8Some bury themselves in mud underwater; othershibernate under cover of vegetative debris, rocks,and/or soil pockets. On land, adults spend most oftheir time in burrows made by other animals. Mosthide within a few centimeters of the soil surface.Dissolved OxygenSensitive to significant fluctuations.Can survive in water with very low oxygenconcentrations.Sensitive to significant fluctuations.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.5 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 1 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.5 (Continued)SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AMPHIBIANSHabitat RequirementsGreen frog Leopard frog Wood frogWater DepthGreen frogs prefer permanent pools andsmall ponds where water is deepenough not to freeze for larval and adultoverwintering.Hibernate in streams with minimum depth 35in (90 cm), moderate mid-depth watervelocity, minimal sedimentation, and rockswith average diameter of 8 in (20 cm).Wood frogs breed in seasonal pools, shallow ponds, marshy lakeedges, flooded meadows, and quiet stretches of streams. Tadpolesusually live in the shallowest, warmest parts of the wetland. 5SubstratePrefer a soft-muddy substrate in water.Prefer wetlands with gradual slope at edge.Hibernates in surface mud of ponds andstreams.Prefer a "muddy" substrate in water. On land frogs prefer loose soiland/or a vegetated ground layer.Energy Low Low LowStructure/ Macrophyte CoverPrefer vegetated to thickly vegetatedriparian area in and out of the water.Prefer open areas like meadows andgrasslands.Frequents temporary pools in or near woodlands with emergentvegetation such as willows, sedges, or winter-killed cattails; foragesalong forest floor, often near seepage areas; hibernates in leaf litter;prefer forested areas.Structure/Large Woody DebrisNot necessary for green frogs.Prefer rocks, logs, floating vegetation ordams to sun on, with adjacent access towater. Submerged vegetation, logs or rocksto hide in.Wood frogs are largely terrestrial, but are not usually found far fromwater. They inhabit marshes, riparian areas, wet meadows, moistbrush, forested areas and open grassy areas adjacent to suchhabitats. 5Burrowing DepthLarvae can overwinter in unfrozen mudat the bottom of pond along and in watergreater than 6.5 feet (>2m) in depth.Some bury themselves in mud underwater;others hibernate under cover of vegetativedebris, rocks, and/or soil pockets.Wood frogs hibernate in the soil, using root channels and burrowsmade by other animals. The soil and snow pack provide insulationand protection to the frogs. 5Dissolved Oxygen Sensitive to significant fluctuations. Sensitive to significant fluctuations. Sensitive to significant fluctuations.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.5 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 2 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.5 (Continued)SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AMPHIBIANSRepresentative Species/Habitat Considerations 1Habitat RequirementsRed-spotted newt Mudpuppy Spotted salamanderTemperatureActivity rates increase significantly astemperature rises. 7 Adults and larvae requirepermanent lentic waters deep enough not tocompletely freeze in winter.Sensitive to significant fluctuations.Sensitive to significant fluctuations.Food SourceAll life stages are opportunistic predatorseating available invertebrates and/or smalleramphibians and larvae. 7Adults eat mainly invertebrates (e.g. insects,earthworms, and crustaceans) and small fish.Juveniles feed mainly on insects and theirlarvae.Adults eat mainly terrestrial and aquaticinvertebrates (e.g. earthworms, spiders, insects,crustaceans, snails and slugs); larvae aregeneralized predators.Turbidity/ Suspended SolidsSensitive to significant fluctuations.Sensitive to significant fluctuations. Duringwinter mudpuppies are found in waters withslow to moderate current, often near outlets.Sensitive to significant fluctuations.pH Sensitive to significant fluctuations. Sensitive to significant fluctuations.Sensitive to significant fluctuations; breedsuccessfully above pH 5.5 (optimal pH 7-9).Minimum Habitat SizeAverage eft home range 0.07 acres (270 m 2) ,density of 300 efts/ha. Terrestrial eft habitat Individuals can live entire life in small stretch(mixed and deciduous forests) may be up to of one river [likely < 0.6 miles (1 km)].0.5 mile (800 m) from water. 7Spotted salamanders tend to stay in an area of0.002-0.004 acres (8-15 m 2 ) of forest floor. 8 Mostlive within 328 ft (100 m) of their breeding pond,though a few have been found as far as 820 ft(250 m). 8P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.5 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 3 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.5 (Continued)SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR AMPHIBIANSHabitat RequirementsGreen frog Leopard frog Wood frogTemperatureCan survive freezing temperatures. Tadpolefeeding rates increase with temperature. 3Can survive temperatures as low as 21 o F (-6°C). The frogsFeeding rates decrease significantly belowactually freeze solid at these low temperatures, but protect20 o C. 4 their cells from damage by producing their owncryoprotectant or "antifreeze". Juvenile and adult frogshibernate terrestrially to surviFood SourceGreen frogs east insects, worms, snails,millipedes, molluscs, and other smallinvertebrates. Tadpoles are herbivores, andfeed on algae and other plant material. 6Adults are carnivorous and eat beetles, ants,flies, worms, smaller frogs, including their ownspecies, and even birds, and garter snakes. 4Wood frogs east insects, worms, snails, millipedes,molluscs, and other small invertebrates. Tadpoles areherbivores, and feed on algae and other plant material. 5Turbidity/ SuspendedSolidsSensitive to significant fluctuations - moderatemid-depth water velocity, mineralsedimentation.Sensitive to significant fluctuations - moderatemid-depth water velocity, minimalsedimentation.Sensitive to significant fluctuations.pHSensitive to significant fluctuations; acidtolerance increases during development andvaries within and between populations. 2Sensitive to significant fluctuations; acidtolerance increases during development andvaries within and between populations. 2Sensitive to significant fluctuations; acid toleranceincreases during development and varies within andbetween populations. 2Minimum Habitat SizeTerritories are found in shallow water and arereported to be 3 - 20 feet (0.9 to 6.1 m) indiameter. 8 In New York, green frogs migrate upto 0.3 miles (560 m) from breeding ponds tooverwintering sites. 9Leopard frogs do not establish territories,except in the breeding pond, where males willestablish small calling territories. Leopard frogsmigrate to breeding ponds in the spring andmay forage in meadows and grasslands duringthe summer. In the winterWood frogs tend to be territorial and generally occupy anarea of about 0.025 acres (100 m 2 ). 8NOTES:1. Unless otherwise noted, information was collected from: Environment Canada. Habitat Rehabilitation in the Great Lakes Techniques for Enhancing Biodiversity.http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/habitatrehabilitation4-e.html.REFERENCES:2. Mazerolle, M. J., Cormier, M. 2003. Effects of peat mining intensity on green frog (Rana clamitans) occurrence in bog ponds. Wetlands 23:709-716. http://www.theses.ulaval.ca/2004/21842/ch03.html.3. K. M. Warkentin. 1992. Effects of Temperature and Illumination on Feeding Rates of Green Frog Tadpoles (Rana clamitans).http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0045-8511(19920818)3%3A1992%3A3%3C725%3AEOTAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O.4. National Geographic's Northern Leopard Frog Profile. 2007. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/amphibians/northern-leopard-frog.html.5. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Wood frog Factsheet . B.C. Frogwatch Program. Environmental Stewardship Division. Accessed November 27, 2007at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frogwatch/whoswho/factshts/woodfrog.htm.6. British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Green frog Factsheet . B.C. Frogwatch Program. Environmental Stewardship Division.Accessed November 27, 2007 at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frogwatch/whoswho/factshts/greenfrog.htm.7. USFWS. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Red-Spotted Newt. Biological Report 82(10.111).8. University of Michigan Museum of Zoolology. 2006. Animal Diversity Web - Spotted Salamander, Mudpuppy, Northern Leopard Frog, Wood Frog and Green Frog.http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html.9. NatureServe Explorer Database. 2007. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.5 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 4 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.6SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR REPTILESHabitat RequirementsWater DepthMusk turtlePrefers a permanent body of water, like shallow streams, ponds, rivers, or clear waterlakes, and it is rare to find the turtle elsewhere. While in the water, the musk turtle staysmainly in shallow areas.Representative Species/Habitat Considerations 1Snapping turtleLocated anywhere there is slow-moving or permanent impoundments of water.Substrate Inhabits virtually any permanent body of freshwater having a slow current and soft bottom. 5 Prefers water bodies with muddy bottoms; need well-drained soils for egg-laying.Energy Low LowStructure/7.9-11.8 in (20-30 cm) (3) They prefer water bodies with muddy bottoms and abundant vegetation because concealment isPlant Covereasier. 4Structure/Large Muskrat lodges are favorite for nesting. Bask on nearby fallen tree trunks or in theWoody Debrisbranches of trees overhanging the water. 3 Basks on shore, logs and rocks near water. Generally bottom dwellers. 4Burrowing DepthUsually hibernate buried in as much as 12 in (30.48 cm) of mud on the bottoms of ponds orother water areas. 9 Females known to dig shallow nests at the water's edge under rottinglogs or dead leaves, and sometimes will nest two or more times a year.Hibernates on bottom of ponds or in excavations along banks of rivers. Female excavates ahole, normally in sandy soil, to lay eggs. 4Temperature Above freezing, as hibernation requires that ice not reach the bottom. Above freezing, as hibernation requires that ice not reach the bottom.Food SourceActive night feeder, eats small amounts of plants, mollusks, small fish, insects, and evencarrion. Generally forages on the muddy bottom of streams or ponds. 3Snapping turtles will eat nearly anything that they can get their jaws around. They feed oncarrion, invertebrates, fish, birds, small mammals, amphibians, and a surprisingly large amountof aquatic vegetation (leaves and algae). 4Turbidity/ SuspendedSolidsGenerally tolerant of turbidity.Generally tolerant of turbidity.pH Generally tolerant of variability. Generally tolerant of variability.Minimum Habitat SizeHome range is likely confined to one waterbody. Males mean home range 4.32 acres Will live in even the smallest of water bodies; HSI model assumes any permanent or semipermanentbody of water will be suitable. (1.75 ha) and females 2.32 acres (0.94 ha). 8 7Notes:1. Unless otherwise noted, information was collected from: Environment Canada. Habitat Rehabilitation in the Great Lakes Techniques for Enhancing Biodiversity. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/habitat-rehabilitation4-e.html.REFERENCES:2. Shine, R., G.P. Brown & M.J. Elphick. 2004. Field experiments on foraging in free-ranging water snakes Enhydris polylepis (Homalopsinae). http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/Shinelab/publications/reprints/418fieldexps.pdf.3. University of Michgan Museum of Zoology. 2006a. Animal Diversity Web - Common Musk turtle. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Sternotherus_odoratus.html.4. University of Michgan Museum of Zoology. 2006b. Animal Diversity Web - Snapping turtle . http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Chelydra_serpentina.html.5. NatureServe Explorer Database. 2007. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe.6. Gibbs, James P. 2007. The amphibians and reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press. New York, New York.7. Graves, B.M., and S.H. Anderson. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: snapping turtle. USFWS Biol. Rep. 82(10.141).8. Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation; Species Data matrices Version 1.0. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/neparc/Products/riskassessment.htm.9. American Mud and Musk Turtles, Natural History Information . Accessed at: http://members.aol.com/TheWyvernsLair/turtles/MudMusk-1.html. Last updated July 31, 2001.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.6 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 1 of 2

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.6 (Continued)SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR REPTILESHabitat RequirementsWater DepthPainted turtlePrefers a permanent body of water in which ice does not reach to the bottom. Theywill avoid open water, but will cross deep water either just above submergedvegetation or the substrate.Northern water snakeGenerally still, quiet water bodies with 1 inch (2 cm) to 2 ft (0.6 m) depth. Small snakesgenerally use shallow water because these areas contain fish of the appropriate size toconsume. 2SubstrateIn water, fine grain silty soils that allow for burrowing/hibernating and as anchor forplants used for basking and feeding. On land, sandy, loose soil with adequateVarious, including rock, gravel, sand, and mud.drainage required for nesting sites.Energy Low LowStructure/Plant CoverStructure/Large WoodyDebrisBurrowing DepthPrefer porous vegetated mats (e.g., filamentous algae) that allow easy access andescape and surrounding stands of emergent vegetation for cover.Bask in large groups on logs in ponds, rocks, or floating vegetation.Muddy bottom for burrowing to hibernate, and as anchor for plants used for baskingand feeding.Representative Species/Habitat Considerations 1Cattails (Typha latifolia ) and flooded meadow (primarily Phalaris spp. and Carex spp. ) arepreferred. Feed in thick vegetation mats and emergent vegetation.Bask in shrubs, low trees, driftwood, on loose rocks adjacent to water, wharfs, docks, stonewalls, beaver lodges, dried cattail stems, causeways, and most shallow areas.Use fissures and crevices in limestone, brush piles, shoreline ledges, rock piles in abandonedquarries, old cisterns, sink holes, hollow logs, stone causeways, flood walls, levees, antmounds, crayfish burrows, muskrat bank burrows, muskrat and beaver lodges.TemperatureAbove freezing, as hibernation requires that ice not reach the bottom; feedingoccurs when water temperature is above 15 o C; breeding starts in late May to earlyJune, when temperature is 8 o C; nest temperatures generally below 29 o C.Maximum basking temperature is 33 o C.Food SourceOmnivorous, equally divided between plant and animal sources - eats aquaticinvertebrates, frogs, small fish, and aquatic plants (no plant preference).Aquatic invertebrates, frogs, small fish, and aquatic plants.Turbidity/ SuspendedSolidsGenerally tolerant of turbidity.Generally tolerant of turbidity.pH Generally tolerant of variability. Generally tolerant of variability.Minimum Habitat SizeHome range fluctuates depending on available conditions; not territorial.Home range of 13.34 acres (5.4 ha) has been reported with a concentrated core area of 7.7%(0.98 acres or 0.4 ha).Notes:1. Unless otherwise noted, information was collected from: Environment Canada. Habitat Rehabilitation in the Great Lakes Techniques for Enhancing Biodiversity. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/habitat-rehabilitation4-e.html.REFERENCES:2. Shine, R., G.P. Brown & M.J. Elphick. 2004. Field experiments on foraging in free-ranging water snakes Enhydris polylepis (Homalopsinae). http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/Shinelab/publications/reprints/418fieldexps.pdf.3. University of Michgan Museum of Zoology. 2006a. Animal Diversity Web - Common Musk turtle. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Sternotherus_odoratus.html.4. University of Michgan Museum of Zoology. 2006b. Animal Diversity Web - Snapping turtle . http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Chelydra_serpentina.html.5. NatureServe Explorer Database. 2007. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe.6. Gibbs, James P. 2007. The amphibians and reptiles of New York State. Oxford University Press. New York, New York.7. Graves, B.M., and S.H. Anderson. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: snapping turtle. USFWS Biol. Rep. 82(10.141).8. Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation; Species Data matrices Version 1.0. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/neparc/Products/riskassessment.htm.9. American Mud and Musk Turtles, Natural History Information . Accessed at: http://members.aol.com/TheWyvernsLair/turtles/MudMusk-1.html. Last updated July 31, 2001.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.6 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 2 of 2

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.7SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR BIRDSRepresentative Species/Habitat Considerations 1Habitat RequirementsGreat blue heron(Wading Birds)Green heron(Wading Birds)Mallard(Dabbling Ducks)Common goldeneye(Diving Ducks)Water DepthFeed by wading in water generallyless than

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.7SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR BIRDSTarget Species/Habitat Considerations 1Habitat RequirementsGreat blue heron(Wading Birds)Green heron(Wading Birds)Mallard(Dabbling Ducks)Common goldeneye(Diving Ducks)Temperature Above freezing. 9Above freezing. 9Above freezing. 9Enjoys cold water, but must be abovefreezing. 7Food SourcePrimarily fish. Amphibians and a widevariety of vertebrates and invertebratesare also eaten. Generally stabs prey withits bill. 2Small fish, invertebrates, insects,frogs, and other small animals. 5Invertebrates, aquatic and upland seeds,aquatic tubers, vegetation, and somespecies make extensive use of wasteagricultural grain. Additional food sources:insects, minnows, frogs, tadpoles, snails andsmall salamanders. 2Herbivore and invertivore -aquatic insects,crustaceans and aquatic plants in summerand fall, and crustaceans, mollusks, smallfishes and some plant material duringwinter. 6Turbidity/ SuspendedSolidsWater clarity makes foraging easier. Water clarity makes foraging easier. NAWater clarity very important fordiving/foraging. High turbidity may limitdiving abilities and forage base.Minimum Habitat SizeShoreline length 423.2 ft (129 m) andmean area of 1.48 acres (0.6 ha).NS Breeding territory 988 acres (400 ha). 11 Breeding territory 1.98 acres (0.8 ha). 11P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.7 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 2 of 4

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.7SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR BIRDSRepresentative Species/Habitat Considerations 1Habitat RequirementsOsprey(Birds of Prey)Spotted sandpiper andSemi-palmated sandpiper(Shorebirds)Common tern(Gulls/Terns)Belted kingfisher(Kingfishers)Bank swallow(Swifts/Swallows)Red-wingedblackbird(Perching Birds)Water DepthAn osprey is capable of diving up Depth generally less than 4to 3.3 ft (1 m). 8 in (

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.7SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN HABITAT DESIGNS FOR BIRDSRepresentative Species/Habitat Considerations 1Habitat RequirementsOsprey(Birds of Prey)Spotted sandpiper andSemi-palmated sandpiper(Shorebirds)Common tern(Gulls/Terns)Belted kingfisher(Kingfishers)Bank swallow(Swifts/Swallows)Red-wingedblackbird(Perching Birds)TemperatureUsually migrates south byOctober.Migrate south for winter. 6 Above freezing. 9 Above freezing. 9 Migrate south forwinter. 6Migrates south forwinter. 14Food SourcePrimarily fish. Captures fish bydiving into water and using theirtalons. Opportunistic feeder on avariety of other non-fish prey. 8Terrestrial and aquaticinvertebrates.Adults: aquatic and flyinginsects, small fish, andoccasionally, tadpoles, snails,mollusks, worms, crayfish,and can be scavengers ofurban areas.Young: are fed a variety ofinsects and small fish. 1, 7Capture fish by diving intothe water. Sometimes, whenfish are less accessible, aswhen turbidity is high or iceis present, crayfish comprisea large proportion of the diet.Other food: amphibians,reptiles, insects, young birds,and small mammals.Flying insects,emergentinvertebrates, andsome small fruitsand/or berries wheninsects are notavailable. 7Omnivores, eatingseeds, grains, andinsects. 5Turbidity/ SuspendedSolidsWater clarity very important forforaging. High turbidity may limitNA NAfish as a forage base. 8Water clarity very importantfor foraging. High turbiditymay limit fish as a foragebase.NANAMinimum Habitat SizeBreeding ospreys are known totravel as far as 8.7 mi (14 km)from their nest during huntingforays. Non-breeding individualsare known to travel as far as 6.2mi (10 km) between theirdaytime feeding grounds andtheir roosts. 13Spotted Sandpiper-NS; Semipalmatedsandpiper: breedingterritory-0.25 acres (0.1 ha). 11NSThe length of nestingWetland must containbanks in Californiaat least 0.25 acresTerritory averages 3,168 ft ranges(0.10 ha) in emergent(960 m) long. 5 between 42.6 ft (13 mherbaceousand 6,233.6 ft (1,900m). 12vegetation. 14NOTES:NS - Not specified.NA - Requirements are not applicable.1. Unless otherwise noted, information was collected from: Environment Canada. Habitat Rehabilitation in the Great Lakes Techniques for Enhancing Biodiversity: Significant Biological Parameters.http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/habitat-rehabilitation4REFERENCES:2. Terres, John. 1991. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds . Wings Books - Outlet Book Company, Inc. New York, NY.3. Based on professional judgement.4. USFWS. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Great Blue Heron . Biological Report 82 (10.99). US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.5. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2003. All About Birds Bird Guide.http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide.6. NatureServe Explorer Database. 2007. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe.7. Vanner, Michael. 2005. The Complete Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Parragon Publishing. Bath, United Kingdom.8. USFWS. 1987. Habitat Suitability Models: Osprey . U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.9. Open water required for foraging.10. US EPA. Species Profile: Great Blue Heron. http://www.epa.gov/NE/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/final_era/B%20-%20Focus%20Species%20Profiles/EcoRiskProfile_great_blue_heron.pdf.11. Environment Canada. http://wildspace.ec.gc.ca/life.cfm?ID=BCNH&Page=More&Lang=e#BH.12. Garrison, B.A. 1999. Bank swallow (Riparia riparia). No. 414. In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and theAmerican Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.13. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. 2006. Animal Diversity Web - Osprey . http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Pandion_haliaetus.html.14. USFWS. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Red-winged Blackbird . Biological Report 82 (10.95). US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.15. USFWS. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mallard (Winter Habitat, Lower Mississippi Valley) . Biological Report 82 (10.132). US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.16. Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audobon Society The Sibley Guide to Birds . Chanticleer Press , Inc. New York.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.7 12-09.xlsparsonsPage 4 of 4

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.8HABITAT MODULE CHARACTERISTICSONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIAL DESIGN PROGRAMREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES/HABITAT(a) (b) (e)HABITAT MODULE AREASFishPlantsBenthicMacroinvertebrates (c) Mammals Reptiles andAmphibiansBirdsMinimumHabitat LayerThickness (d)1. Deep water (20-30 ft) (6-9 m)Sand substrateLow to medium energyNote: This module also generally applies todeeper water (profundal) areas. (f)Transient cold water fish(brown trout), lake sturgeon,emerald shiner, bass, walleyeand pumpkinseedNoneAmphipoda (Pontoporeiaaffinis), Annelida (Oligochaeta,Diptera (Chironomidae),Mollusca, and AnnelidaNoneNoneCommon goldeneye,mallard, osprey andbank swallow1 ft. (30 cm)(Average of1.25 ft.)2A. Mid water depth (7-20 ft) (2-6 m)Sand/fine gravel substrateLow to medium energyLake sturgeon, transient coldwater fish, bass, northern pikeand pumpkinseed; additionally,walleye and bass if structure ispresentSubmergedaquatics in shallowportionDiptera (Chironomidae)Annelida, Ephemeroptera,Odonata, and Mollusca;diptera if structure is presentOtterNone;mudpuppy ifstructure ispresentMallard, common tern,osprey and bankswallow1 ft. (30 cm)(Average of1.25 ft.)2B. Mid water depth (7-20 ft) (2-6 m)Coarse gravel/cobble substrateHigh energyLake sturgeon, transient coldwater fish, bass, smallmouthbass and pumpkinseed;additionally walleye if structureis presentLimited Diptera (Chironomidae) OtterNone;mudpuppy ifstructure ispresentMallard, common tern,osprey and bankswallow1 ft. (30 cm)(Average of1.25 ft.)3A. Shallow water depth (2-7 ft) (0.5-2 m)Sand/fine gravel substrateLow energyLargemouth bass,pumpkinseed, golden shinerand northern pikeMedium to densesubmerged aquaticvegetationEphemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaOtter, mink,beaver;additionallymuskrat ifstructure ispresentSnappingturtle;additionallymudpuppy ifstructure ispresentMallard, beltedkingfisher, osprey,great blue heron andbank swallow1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)3B. Shallow water depth (2-7 ft) (0.5-2 m)Coarse gravel/cobble substrateHigh energyBass, pumpkinseed, goldenshiner and northern pikeSparse to mediumsubmerged aquaticvegetationEphemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaOtter, mink,beaver,muskratLimited/none;mudpuppy andsnapping turtleif structure ispresentMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, common ternand bank swallow1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)Footnotes:a. High, medium, and low energy designations were developed by Anchor-QEA in the Wind/Wave Analysis from the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009).b. Selection of modules for specific areas around the lake will consider the presence/occurrence of invasive species.c. Diversity of species for benthos will be evaluated during the next phase of design.d. See representative species Tables 4.1 to 4.7 for substrate depth and minimum habitat size information for specific organisms.e. Structure can be added to any module. Species that would benefit from structure have been noted on the table.f. A habitat layer will not be required in areas of the Profundal zone that do not have an isolation cap.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.8 12-09.docPage 1 of 4

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.8 (Continued)HABITAT MODULE CHARACTERISTICSONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIAL DESIGN PROGRAM(a) (b) (e)HABITAT MODULE AREAS4A. Floating aquatics wetland (1-3 ft)(0.3-1 m)Organics/fines/sand substrateVery low energy5A. Non-persistent emergent wetland(0.5-2 ft) (0.1-0.6 m)Organics/fines/sand substrateLow energy5B. Shoreline shallows/limited emergentwetland(0.5-2 ft) (0.1-0.6 m)Gravel/cobble substrateHigh energyFishNorthern pike andPumpkinseedNorthern pike andpumpkinseedSmallmouth bass; additionallywalleye if structure is presentPlantsFloating aquatics,some submergedaquatics in deeperportions, somenonpersistentemergents inshallower portionNon-persistentemergentvegetation. Somepersistentemergents inshallows.Limited/noneREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES/HABITATBenthicMacroinvertebrates (c)Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaEphemeroptera, Trichoptera,Diptera, Odonata, Amphipoda,and DecapodaLimited numbers Trichoptera,Ephemeroptera; Trichoptera,Ephemeroptera and Decapodaif structure is presentMammalsOtter, mink,muskrat andbeaverOtter, mink,muskrat andbeaverOtter andminkReptiles andAmphibiansSnappingturtle, paintedturtle, muskturtle and watersnake;additionallymudpuppy ifstructure ispresentSnappingturtle, paintedturtle, muskturtle, watersnake, redspotted newt,green frog andleopard frog;additionallymudpuppy ifstructure ispresentLimited/none;Turtle, watersnake, andmudpuppy ifstructure ispresentBirdsMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, common tern,green heron and bankswallowMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, green heron,common tern and bankswallowMallard, beltedkingfisher, great blueheron, green heron andbank swallowMinimumHabitat LayerThickness (d)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)Footnotes:a. High, medium, and low energy designations were developed by Anchor-QEA in the Wind/Wave Analysis from the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009).b. Selection of modules for specific areas around the lake will consider the presence/occurrence of invasive species.c. Diversity of species for benthos will be evaluated during the next phase of design.d. See representative species Tables 4.1 to 4.7 for substrate depth and minimum habitat size information for specific organisms.e. Structure can be added to any module. Species that would benefit from structure have been noted on the table.f. A habitat layer will not be required in areas of the Profundal zone that do not have an isolation cap.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.8 12-09.docPage 2 of 4

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.8 (Continued)HABITAT MODULE CHARACTERISTICSONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIAL DESIGN PROGRAM(a) (b) (e)HABITAT MODULE AREAS6A. Persistent emergent wetland or saltmarsh(1 ft above water to 1 ft deep) (0.3 mabove water to 0.3 m deep)Organics/fines/sand substrateLow energy6B. On shore to shallows/limitedemergent wetland or salt marsh(1 ft above water to 1 ft deep) (0.3 mabove water to 0.3 m deep)Cobble/coarse gravel/sandHigh energy7A. Mudflats/unvegetated shoreline (0.7ft above water to 0.7 ft deep) (0.2 mabove water to 0.2 m deep)Fines/sand substrate orcobble/gravelHigh energy or fluctuating waterlevelsFishNorthern pikeLimited usePlantsPersistent emergentvegetation, saltmarsh vegetationLimited/noneREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES/HABITATBenthicMacroinvertebrates (c)Trichoptera, Diptera, Odonataand Decapoda; additionallyAmphipoda if structure ispresentTrichoptera, Ephemeropteraand DecapodaNone Limited/none Limited-AnnelidaMammalsOtter, mink,muskrat andbeaverOtter andminkOtter andminkReptiles andAmphibiansSnappingturtle, paintedturtle, muskturtle, watersnake, redspottednewt,leopard frogand green frog;additionallymudpuppy ifstructure ispresentLimited/none,snapping turtleSnapping turtleBirdsMallard, spottedsandpiper, semipalmatedsandpiper,red-winged blackbird,great blue heron, greenheron, common ternand bank swallowMallard, spottedsandpiper, semipalmatedsandpiper,great blue heron, greenheron and bankswallowMallard, spottedsandpiper, semipalmatedsandpiper,great blue heron andgreen heronMinimumHabitat LayerThickness (d)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)cm)2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of2.5 ft.)Footnotes:a. High, medium, and low energy designations were developed by Anchor-QEA in the Wind/Wave Analysis from the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009).b. Selection of modules for specific areas around the lake will consider the presence/occurrence of invasive species.c. Diversity of species for benthos will be evaluated during the next phase of design.d. See representative species Tables 4.1 to 4.7 for substrate depth and minimum habitat size information for specific organisms.e. Structure can be added to any module. Species that would benefit from structure have been noted on the table.f. A habitat layer will not be required in areas of the Profundal zone that do not have an isolation cap.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.8 12-09.docPage 3 of 4

ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 4.8 (Continued)HABITAT MODULE CHARACTERISTICSONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIAL DESIGN PROGRAM(a) (b) (e)HABITAT MODULE AREAS8A. Shoreline uplands/riparianTopsoil substrate8B. Shoreline uplands/riparianTopsoil substrateFishPlantsREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES/HABITATBenthicMacroinvertebrates (c)None Successional fields NoneNoneScrub-shrub orforestedNoneMammalsOtter andminkOtter,mink,beaverandIndianabatReptiles andAmphibiansLeopard frogLeopard frogand watersnakeBirdsMallard, great blueheron, green heronand red-wingedblackbirdMallard and greenheronMinimumHabitat LayerThickness (d)1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)1.5 ft. (45 cm)(Average of2.0 ft.)9A. Inland wetlands not associated withthe lake(saturated soils to pooled water thatmay be temporary)Topsoil substrateNoneWet meadow andpersistentemergent wetlandspecies, primarilyherbaceousLimited numbers/species,Annelida and MolluscaMuskratand minkLeopard frog,red spottednewt, watersnake andgreen frogRed-winged blackbird,green heron, greatblue heron, spottedsandpiper and bankswallow2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of 2.59B. Inland wetlands not associated withthe lake(saturated soils to pooled water thatmay be temporary)Topsoil substrateNoneForested wetlandand scrub-shrubwetland speciesLimited numbers/species,Annelida and MolluscaMink andbeaverSpottedsalamanderand woodfrogRed-winged black birdand green heron2.0 ft. (60 cm)(Average of 2.5SPECIAL FEATURES/CONSIDERATIONSEndangered aquatic plants (Potamogeton strictifolius, Najasguadalupensis var. muenscheri, or Najas guadalupensis var. olivacea)Northern Pike Spawning WetlandsPotential for these species where submerged aquatic vegetation is targeted. These would most likely fall under Module 3A.Provide spawning habitat for northern pike.Footnotes:a. High, medium, and low energy designations were developed by Anchor-QEA in the Wind/Wave Analysis from the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009).b. Selection of modules for specific areas around the lake will consider the presence/occurrence of invasive species.c. Diversity of species for benthos will be evaluated during the next phase of design.d. See representative species Tables 4.1 to 4.7 for substrate depth and minimum habitat size information for specific organisms.e. Structure can be added to any module. Species that would benefit from structure have been noted on the table.f. A habitat layer will not be required in areas of the Profundal zone that do not have an isolation cap.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.8 12-09.docPage 4 of 4

HoneywellTABLE 4.9SUMMARY OF ACREAGES WITHIN THE AREAS OF REMEDIATIONIN-LAKEONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONRA-ARA-BRA-CRA-D RA-D Addendum RA-ERA-FTOTALHabitat Module Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored1 36.8 35.2 9.5 8.3 14.0 12.8 24.2 26.7 5.6 5.6 41.4 35.0 0.2 0.2 131.6 123.72A 23.5 24.4 4.0 4.7 5.2 6.2 30.9 40.6 69.2 45.3 0.1 0.1 132.9 121.32B 20.4 20.43A 20.8 8.4 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.3 23.7 10.13B 2.9 4.2 38.9 27.3 67.1 70.0 108.9 101.64A 4.8 4.85A 2.5 4.4 1.1 1.7 0.9 4.5 6.15B 1.4 2.3 4.5 2.1 6.9 9.2 12.8 13.66A 6.3 6.36B 0.0 1.8 4.7 6.5TOTAL 83.5 83.5 16.1 16.1 25.5 25.5 98.5 98.5 5.6 5.6 184.6 184.6 0.6 0.6 414.4 414.4Notes:(1) TBD - To Be Determined.(2) Modules with structure have not been broken out separately.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 4.9 12-09.xlsParsonsPage 1 of 2

HoneywellTABLE 4.9 (Continued)SUMMARY OF ACREAGES WITHIN THE AREAS OF REMEDIATIONONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONLAKESHORE AREAWB-B/Harbor Brook WB 1-8 Mouth of Ninemile Creek SYW-12 Semet ShorelineTOTALHabitat Module Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored Existing Restored3A 2.9 2.9 0.03B 0.0 0.04A 0.0 0.05A 0.0 0.05B 0.0 0.06A 12.3 14.4 2.3 2.2 1.6 8.8 TBD 23.3 TBD6B 0.0 0.08A 2.4 31.1 24.1 6.3 TBD 1.3 41.0 TBD8B 6.5 9.9 - 8.5 TBD 1.3 16.3 TBD9A 0.3 0.7 3.1 TBD 4.1 TBD9B 1.0 1.2 5.4 0.3 0.9 12.8 TBD 14.1 TBDTOTAL 25.4 25.4 31.8 31.8 2.5 2.5 39.4 TBD 1.3 1.3 101.6 TBDNotes:(1) TBD - To Be Determined.(2) Modules with structure have not been broken out separately.Table 4.9 12-09.xlsParsonsPage 2 of 2

BRE-22BRE-23CAM-7Lake OutletSMU 5SawmillCreekSYW-1§¨¦ 90SYW-3SYW-65A1SYW-42A3ARemediation Area FLiverpoolMarina5BBloodyBrookRemediation Area A2ASMU 53BSMU 413ARemediation Area BNinemile Creek5ASYW-108ASMU 3SMU 8Onondaga Lake Parkway§¨¦ 690SYW-11Remediation Area C£¤ 695Geddes BrookNYS FairgroundsSYW-14NYSDOTTurnaround AreaDitch ATributary 5ASMU 2Remediation Area ERemediation Area DSMU 6Ley CreekSYW-1217 Ac.CarouselMallOnondaga CreekSMU 1Remediation Area DAddendumEast FlumeSMU 7MetroSYW-15SYW-19Harbor BrookAquatic Plants(From Onondaga CountyDepartment of WaterEnvironment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC/EPA ApprovedWetland BoundariesNYSDEC Wetland(NYSDEC, 2007)Sediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryArea Containing SolvayWaste or ILWDRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area Covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elementsfor Habitat RestorationTributary to be remediatedby HoneywellWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMApproximate Location of theEast Wall Portion of theWB-B/HB IRM.New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 2003980 490 0 980FeetWater depth basedon lake surface elevationof 362.5' NAVD88.FIGURE 4.1PARSONSOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkExisting Habitat Modules WithThe Habitat Plan Boundary301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

SMU 8RAA-1RAA-20.1 Ac.12ARemediation Area A(Low Energy)SMU 43A0.5 Ac.SYW-106A 5A9B1.6 Ac.6A5A13A2ANinemile Creek8A5ASYW-10Wastebeds 1-8Aquatic Plants(From Onondaga CountyDepartment of WaterEnvironment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC/EPA ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryNYSDEC Wetland(NYSDEC, 2007)Area Containing SolvayWaste or ILWDRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Cross-section Locationand IdentificationArea Covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elementsfor Habitat RestorationTributary to be remediatedby Honeywell.New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 2003350 175 0 350FeetWater depth based on lakesurface elevation of 362.5' NAVD88.FIGURE 4.2§¨¦ 690PARSONSOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkExisting Habitat ModulesRemediation Area A301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212WasContour interval = 5'

SMU 313A2A8A5ARemediation Area B(Medium Energy)RAB-1SMU 80.3 Ac.Wastebeds 1-8§¨¦ 6900.4 Ac.5A8A3A2A1RAC-1Remediation Area C(Medium Energy)Ditch ANYSDOT Turnaround AreaSMU 2RAC-2Aquatic Plants(From Onondaga CountyDepartment of WaterEnvironment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC/EPA ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryArea Containing SolvayWaste or ILWDTributary to be remediatedby HoneywellRAB-1Remediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area Covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elementsfor Habitat RestorationWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMCross-section Locationand IdentificationTributary 5A.New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 2003350 175 0 350FeetWater depth based on lakesurface elevation of 362.5' NAVD88.Contour interval = 5'FIGURE 4.3PARSONS§¨¦ 690Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkExisting Habitat ModulesRemediation Areas B & C301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 132122A

Remediation Area C(Medium Energy)SMU 8RAC-2RAE-3SMU 2RAD-1Remediation Area DAddendumRAD-2Remediation Area D(Medium Energy)RAD-31Remediation Area E(High Energy)RAD-4 RAE-1RAE-22A2A§¨¦ 690East Flume5B9A3A8B3BSMU 11 Ac.9BSMU 70.5 Ac.2 Ac.6A3BWastebed B8B5B3 Ac.3A6A7 Ac.8AHarbor BrookAquatic Plants(From Onondaga CountyDepartment of WaterEnvironment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC/EPA ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryArea Containing SolvayWaste Within the LakeRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)RAD-1Cross-section Locationand IdentificationArea Covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elementsfor Habitat RestorationTributary to be remediatedby HoneywellWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMApproximate Location of theEast Wall Portion of theWB-B/HB IRM.New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 2003350 175 0 350FeetWater depth based on lakesurface elevation of 362.5' NAVD88.Contour interval = 5'FIGURE 4.4PARSONSOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkExisting Habitat ModulesRemediation Area D301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

SMU 5SYW-113A8A12A3B9BSMU 88BLey Creek5B9A6A9ASYW-1217 Ac.8ARemediation Area E(High Energy)RAE-39B8BRemediation Area DAddendumRemediation Area D(Medium Energy)12A3B6ARAD-31RAD-4 RAE-1 RAE-2SMU 6CarouselMall2ASMU 1Onondaga Creek9BSMU 72 Ac.6A3BMetroWastebed B8B3 Ac.5B3A7 Ac.6A8B8AAquatic Plants(From Onondaga CountyDepartment of WaterEnvironment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC/EPA ApprovedWetland BoundariesHarbor BrookSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryArea Containing SolvayWaste Within the LakeRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)RAE-1Cross-section Locationand IdentificationArea Covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elementsfor Habitat RestorationTributary to be remediatedby HoneywellWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMApproximate Location of theEast Wall Portion of theWB-B/HB IRM.New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 2003350 175 0 350FeetWater depth basedon lake surface elevationof 362.5' NAVD88.Contour interval = 5'FIGURE 4.5PARSONSOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkExisting Habitat ModulesRemediation Area E301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

DRAFTSection 5: Preliminary Designsfor Lakewide Habitat RestorationOne of the top priorities of the Onondaga Lake remedial program is tomaintain or improve the habitat conditions that will result aftercompletion of the remediation and restoration efforts. Development of avariety of habitats that will diversify and enhance the lake system is atthe forefront of the various design evaluations.This section of the Habitat Plan describes the approach used tocombine the existing and historical information presented in Section 2with the changes that will occur within the lake as part of remediationdescribed in Section 3 to develop habitat restoration designs that meetthe goals and objectives for habitat restoration described in Section 4.The remedial dredging and capping areas fall within two generalcategories, those areas within the ILWD and areas outside of the ILWD.Within the ILWD, the ROD required an average depth of removal of 6.5feet with an additional 3.3 feet of removal in hot spots. As a result, thepost-remediation water depths will largely be determined by the dredgeand cap designs for the ILWD, as well as considerations for habitatrestoration, which are currently in progress. In near shore areas outsideof the ILWD, the post-remediation water depths are primarily directed atcreating specific conditions suitable for the representative species andhabitats. Because the areas outside of the ILWD comprise the majorityof remediation acreage, the habitat module approach described in thissection provides a unique opportunity to conduct large scale habitatimprovements within areas being remediated in Onondaga Lake.5.1 Generation of Restoration ApproachThis Habitat Plan presents the preliminary draft habitat restorationdesign. These designs are the result of many factors, including theintegration of representative species habitat needs with the multipleconsiderations and constraints associated with the cleanup criteria anddesign specified in the ROD, the approach specified in the draft Cappingand Dredge Area and Depth IDS (Parsons, 2009g), the physicalconstraints of the site, and the habitat goals and objectives discussed inSection 4.Specific examples of habitat, dredging, and capping considerations thatwere integrated into the plan include required isolation cap thickness,habitat layer thickness, cap-induced settlement, ice scour, wind/waveenergy, erosion protection requirements, dredging depth, slope stability,and substrate size. These considerations, which can vary depending onthe type of remedy and the location in the lake, were then used asguiding assumptions in developing the habitat restoration designs basedon the habitat modules.Due to the iterative nature of integrating habitat, dredging, and cappingconsiderations into the final design for the lake and adjacent shorelineareas, there may be some modification to the application of thePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 111

DRAFTmodules. Based on public input, future investigations, studies, and/orremedial decisions, changes to the application of these modules mayoccur; however, the overall distribution and variety of modules will beconsistent with this plan.One of the key components of the restoration design is the postremediationwater depth. This water depth is important for determiningthe type and extent of habitat modules, selecting appropriate plantspecies, designing the erosion protection layer, and potentiallycontrolling invasive species. These issues were evaluated during thedevelopment of the habitat modules based on a variety of documentsincluding the Onondaga Lake FS (Parsons, 2004), the ROD (NYSDECand USEPA, 2005), standards for grain size distribution (ASTM D,2007), and the draft Capping and Dredge Area and Depth IDS (Parsons,2009g), which includes the cap induced settlement estimates and thewind/wave analysis prepared by AnchorQEA.A major factor that directly impacts post remediation water depth is thethickness of the habitat material that will be placed after dredging and/orcapping is conducted. Habitat materials will be placed in areas thatrequire isolation capping (habitat layer) as well as areas identified fordredging to cleanup criteria (habitat reestablishment material).The purpose of the habitat layer is to provide a suitable substrate thatrepresentative species can utilize while not impacting the chemicalisolation layer of the cap. The habitat layer will be placed on top of theisolation layer or erosion protection layer and vary from a minimum of1.0 feet (average of 1.25 feet) in the deep water to a minimum of 2.0feet (average of 2.5 feet) in the nearshore areas (Section 5.2 and Table5.1). These thicknesses were developed based on the specific habitatbeing created and the types of organisms that will most likely inhabitthese areas.A habitat layer will be placed in the nearshore areas where dredging tocleanup criteria has been proposed and isolation capping is notrequired. This material will be a minimum of two feet thick and will beconsistent with the grain size and habitat modules identified for thenearshore areas (Table 4.8 and Figures 5.1-5.24).The Habitat TWG evaluated the multiple constraints and establisheddesign assumptions with input from other technical teams (e.g. capping)for each of the remediation areas in the lake (Figures 3.1 and 3.2), whilemeeting each of the habitat goals and objectives. During this process,the group developed a post-remedy surface of the lake bottom thatrepresents the restored lake bottom after the dredging and capping arecomplete.The habitat modules were applied to the new lake bottom surface sothat the restored module is applied to areas with the appropriate waterdepth range. The applied modules are conceptual and the boundariesmay fluctuate since the lake is a dynamic, natural system. The uplandportions adjacent to the lake that fall under the scope of the Habitat Planhave also been included. However, modules for the lower bench of theWastebeds 1 through 8 site and the SYW-12 site have not beenproposed since those sites are still going through the RI/FS process andPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 112

DRAFTremedies have not been established. The status of these areas isfurther described below under Remediation Area B and E, respectively.These new lake bottom surfaces were then used to develop crosssections that depict the current water level, the existing bathymetry(water depth), dredge cut, and the restored final lake bottom surface(after dredging and placement of the cap and habitat materials) (Figures5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17). Alongthe bottom of each cross section, the current and restored habitatmodules are illustrated as color-coded blocks that correspond to thehabitat module table (Table 4.8) introduced in Section 4.Details regarding the development of the cross sections can be found inAppendix F of the Capping and Dredge Area and Depth IDS (CappingIDS) (Parsons, 2009g).The cross sections contained in this Habitat Plan are very similar tothose found in the Capping IDS; however, there are some slightdifferences. The Capping IDS includes cross sections that illustrate theelevation of the cap at the time of placement. The cross sectionscontained in this plan show the thickness of the cap (including thehabitat/erosion protection layer) after the underlying sediment hassettled due to the weight of the cap. These cross sections also illustratepost-remedy bathymetry using the most conservative estimates ofoverplacement in order to meet the more critical nearshore water depthsrequired for habitat modules 3, 4, and 5.The amount of settlement was calculated based on the type of existingsediment, the depth of water, geotechnical conditions, rates ofcompression, etc. These settlement calculations were accounted for inassessing the post-remedy water depths for assigning habitat modules.Details regarding the evaluation and calculation of settlement can befound in the Capping IDS.Settlement was also taken into consideration when calculating thechange in water depth over the areas of remediation between existingconditions and the post-remedy conditions. This change in water depthis shown on Figures 5.20-5.24. Approximately 276 acres will beshallower and 131 acres will be deeper following remediation andrestoration.5.2 Habitat Layer Characteristics andThicknessThe placement of a habitat layer on top of the isolation cap is a keycomponent of the Onondaga Lake remedy. The purpose of the habitatlayer is to provide a suitable substrate that representative species (e.g.,plants, animals, and fish) can use while remaining isolated from theunderlying contaminants. A secondary purpose of the habitat layer is toallow biological activity to occur without affecting the integrity of theunderlying isolation cap. As specified in the ROD for Onondaga Lake,the habitat layer will be a minimum of 1 foot thick and will be the toplayer of the isolation cap.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 113

DRAFTThe uppermost layer of soil/substrate specified in each module isdedicated habitat material and will consist of either finer material (siltsand sands) or coarser material (gravel and cobble) depending upondesired habitat in that area. The specific grain sizes that will be usedare designed to allow movement under the dynamic conditions of thelake and are not intended to be stable during storm events like theerosion protection layer. The grain size of the habitat material can affectthe suitability of the module for plant and animal species. In someinstances, the grain size may be a disadvantage for certain species orspecies groups, but an advantage to others. For example, coarsesubstrates may tend to reduce or limit the suitability of an area for plantsto root, while at the same time it may increase or enhance the area forcertain fish species and groups of benthic macroinvertebrates. Thesesuitability differences are presented in the habitat module table (Table4.8) and discussed in Section 4.6.For the wetland habitat modules and modules specified for onshoreareas, the uppermost portion of the habitat layer will be topsoil with aspecified minimum organic content. The specifications for the differenttypes of soil/substrate are presented in Section 5.5. The grain sizes forthe different types of soil/substrate are presented in Section 5.5.The need for organic content in each of the modules will be determinedas part of subsequent design submittals.The last column on Table 4.8 identifies the habitat layer thicknessconsidered appropriate for each habitat module. These habitat layerthicknesses were developed by a group of technical staff from theUSEPA; USFWS; NYSDEC; NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, andMarine Services; and national and local habitat experts from SUNYESF, Mississippi State University, Parsons, O’Brien and Gere, TES,AnchorQEA, and the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. This processinvolved multiple meetings and extensive discussions to evaluate thebiological factors that dictate the appropriate thickness of the habitatlayer. Specifically, information on plant rooting depth, animal burrowingdepth, depth of fish nests and bioturbation were reviewed from thescientific literature, guidance documents on subaqueous cap design,and site-specific data and observations from Onondaga Lake andadjacent areas.While each of these biological factors was determined to be important,the group’s review and professional experience identified plant rootingdepth and animal burrowing depth as the critical factors. In generalthese factors result in the need for thicker habitat layers in shallowerareas where plants root deeper and along the shoreline where animalsmay burrow. The depth of plant roots in shallow water wetlands andnear shore environments is a function of several factors, but is primarilydetermined by the characteristics of a species and how the hydrologyand substrate in the area affect the duration and depth of anaerobicconditions. Under flooded conditions, plant species have shallower rootsystems. In wetlands dominated by woody species, roots are typicallyconfined to the upper 1 to 1.5 feet of substrates, or generally above thewater table. The roots need oxygen and do not survive in the saturatedzone where water forces out the oxygen. An emergent wetland ofPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 114

DRAFTherbaceous species typically has water levels near the sediment/soilsurface and the majority of the roots in the top 0.5 to 1 feet of material.In deeper waters where submerged and floating aquatic vegetation maybe present, the rooting depth is largely determined by nutrientavailability, since water is readily available. Nutrients do not percolateinto the sediment, but are deposited from the overlying water column.This typically results in the highest nutrient concentrations near thesediment/water interface (0 to 0.5 feet) where the root systems ofsubmerged and floating plants are found (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2003;Service Engineering Group, 2002; Spencer and Ksander, 2005;Thiebaut, 2005; Lehmann et al., 1997; Wigand et al., 1997).In addition to the review of biological factors, there were also extensivediscussions regarding the operational considerations of how the cap andhabitat material will be placed in the lake. The way in which thecontractor will place the material and the requirements stated in thecontract are important factors that ultimately affect the thickness of eachlayer. The contract requirements may specify that the contractor willneed to place a minimum thickness for each layer. The most effectiveand efficient means that contractors have to be certain they have metthe required minimum thickness is to place more material than isneeded for that layer, which is called “over placement.” For eachspecific layer (e.g. chemical isolation, erosion protection, and habitat)the contract documents may specify the minimum thickness and theallowable amount of over placement. The typical end result of thisapproach is that the final thickness of each layer is more than thespecified minimum thickness in each area.Based on the biological and operational considerations noted above, aswell as the 1-foot minimum thickness specified in the Onondaga LakeROD, and the need to keep biota and from contacting the underlyingisolation cap, the technical team has developed habitat layerthicknesses for the littoral zone in Onondaga Lake as summarizedbelow:Water DepthMinimum Habitat Layer Thickness7 ft to 30 ft 1 ft (Estimated 1.25 ft average)3 ft to 7 ft 1.5 ft (Estimated 2 ft average)+1 foot to 3 ft 2 ft (Estimated 2.5 ft average)Based on recommendations of the NYSDEC and discussions with theTWG, it was determined that the materials of the habitat layer should befiner grained and allowed to move, unlike the erosion protection layer.This finer grained material will be placed following completion of theisolation layers in various portions of the lake. Due to the dynamicnature of the physical processes present in the Onondaga Lake system,measurements of the habitat layer will be made once placement of thematerial is completed to ensure the minimum thicknesses noted aboveare met. Some movement of substrate within the habitat layer isPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 115

DRAFTexpected following confirmation of the thicknesses noted above due tothe dynamic nature of the lake system and a new equilibrium beingreached following restoration. The details of the acceptable levels ofmovement and maintenance requirements for the habitat layer will beincluded in subsequent design submittals. Additional details on themonitoring program are noted in Section 5.5.2.Mudflats are covered under HabitatModule 7 and may exist in fringe areasfollowing restoration.5.3 Application of Habitat Modules toRemediation AreasThe most challenging step in the restoration of habitats is selecting whatspecific habitat type (or in this instance, habitat module) should betargeted in each area. Applying these modules provides an opportunityto diversify and improve the terrestrial and aquatic habitat of the lakesystem. Such improvement can occur by creating new habitats that donot currently exist or were historically present (e.g. wetland fringehabitats), or by enhancing existing habitats (e.g. by providing differentwater depth/substrate types or eliminating invasive species).Each of the habitat modules presented on Table 4.8 was applied atsome location within a remediation area. Presently, mudflats (Module 7)have not been included due to the lack of control over fluctuating waterlevels required to keep the mudflat area unvegetated, the presence ofthe canal system that controls water levels in the lake, and the highpotential for colonization by the invasive Phragmites. However,shorelines and shallow water areas that are exposed during periods oflow lake level will provide shorebird habitat similar to that of mudflats.The application of habitat modules is shown in the cross sections andplan views presented on Figures 5.1, 5.4, 5.6, 5.9, and 5.14. Thesefigures depict an approach that accounts for the various physicalconstraints and considerations noted in the ROD and the Capping Areaand Dredge Depth Technical Document (Parsons, 2009b). The deepwater portion of the lake (SMU 8) may require some active remediation(i.e. thin layer capping); however, habitat designs have not yet beendeveloped for these areas as the final location for these areas are stillundefined.Remediation is required in the portions of the lake where contaminantsexceed the criteria specified in the ROD. Remediation efforts arerequired in the portion of the lake from near the mouth of NinemileCreek southeast along the lake to the mouth of Harbor Brook and thesouthern portion of the lake to near the mouth of Ley Creek. With a fewminor exceptions, active remediation will not be required in the eastern,northern, or northwestern portions of the lake. The remedy for each ofthe remediation areas in the lake requires isolation capping, dredging tocleanup criteria or a combination of dredging and isolation capping(Figures 3.1 and 3.2).Although the remediation areas are defined by the lake shoreline, thehabitat modules within the additional shoreline areas covered by theHabitat Plan (dashed red line on figures) are also shown. The restoredPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 116

DRAFTThe mouth of Ninemile Creek and theshoreline wetlands are part of therestoration activities in the Habitat Plan.Maintaining the connectivity betweenNinemile Creek and the lake is animportant part of the habitat designs.habitat for each remediation area is fully discussed in the followingsection.Table 4.9 offers a summary of the changes in area for the existing andrestored habitat modules in the areas of the lake requiring remediationand in the adjacent upland Lakeshore Area.5.3.1 Remediation Area A (SMU 4) and Mouthof Ninemile CreekAs indicated on Figure 1.2, Remediation Area A is the lake area locatedat the mouth of Ninemile Creek. This remediation area includes a caparea in deeper water and a dredge and cap area closer to shore.Habitat restoration in this area includes the remediation area and theon-shore areas up to the red line habitat plan limit.The location, distribution, and extent of the restored habitat modules, aswell as the cap areas are shown on Figure 5.1. Two cross-sections(Sections RAA-1 and RAA-2) each showing existing and restoredhabitats are shown on Figures 5.2 and 5.3, respectively. Thispresentation allows comparison of the restored habitat modules toexisting habitats. The cross section also shows the restored substratetype in each portion of the habitat module.Overview of Habitat Restoration in Area AThe primary consideration in developing a restoration plan forRemediation Area A included the following concepts: recognized area oflow wave energy environment, importance of the Ninemile Creektributary, importance of connection between lake and Ninemile Creek,bird and waterfowl use of the area, and adjacent on-shore habitats.The restoration approach for this area includes a broad, shallow shelf(Module 6A) to help reduce wave energy on the sensitive near shoreenvironments in this remediation area and provides the only shallowwater lower energy environment in the areas specified for remediation.This is significant because low energy is beneficial for the developmentof non-persistent emergent wetlands (Habitat Module 5A) andnecessary for the floating aquatic wetlands (Habitat Module 4A) in thisarea.The nearshore area east of Ninemile Creek will be dredged to create adeeper channel for floating aquatic species in the low energy area alongthe shoreline (Module 4A). The shallow water module offshore of thisarea (Module 6A) will support persistent emergent vegetation. Thedeeper water nearshore also will help reduce the ability of Phragmites tospread out into the floating aquatic vegetation and emergent wetlandsnear the lakeshore. A shallow channel is also planned to further reducethe threat of Phragmites spreading into the restored emergent wetlands.The channel will be 2 to 3 feet deep and 20 to 30 feet wide to limithabitat suitability for Phragmites (USEPA, 2008).The importance of maintaining a significant connection between the lakeand Ninemile Creek is recognized in the habitat restoration plan for thisarea by the provision of a deeper channel (Module 3A, 2 to 7 foot waterPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 117

DRAFTThis Habitat Plan also covers the shorelinearea of Wastebeds 1-8, which is adjacentto Remediation Area B.depths) at the creek mouth to maintain fish passage and recreationalboat access.The approach for Remediation Area A provides for a natural transitionfrom the lake to the forested and emergent wetlands and upland areasimmediately adjacent to this area. These wetland and upland areas arepart of the Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek site. Module 9 (forestedwetlands) will also be present along the shore on either side of NinemileCreek where it joins the lake to help maintain the existing forestedwetland in the area and also to reduce Phragmites along the edges.The shade created by the trees will reduce the suitability of the area forthis invasive species.5.3.2 Remediation Area B (SMU 3)Remediation Area B is located along the base of Wastebeds 1 through 8in a medium energy environment (Figure 5.4). The remedy for this areaconsists of dredging and capping of select areas, and habitatenhancement along the shoreline as specified in the ROD (p. 75). Thetotal acreage for this area is minor compared to the adjacent areas. Across-section through one of the restored remediation areas ispresented on Figure 5.5.Overview of Habitat Restoration in Area BShoreline stabilization will be integrated with the remedy for Wastebeds1 through 8 to reduce resuspension and turbidity along the shoreline ofSMU 3. The shoreline stabilization will use a combination of variousbioengineering techniques to develop a natural shoreline area thatprovides a transition zone from the low-lying area of Wastebeds 1through 8 to SMU 3. Details of the shoreline stabilization enhancementare presented in Section 5.3.3.Other objectives that are addressed by the restored habitat in this areainclude increasing water depth in nearshore areas by dredging andmaintaining a steep offshore shelf to create topographic heterogeneity.The restored habitat modules attempt to maximize the area suitable forsubmerged aquatic plants and maintaining mid-water depth modules(e.g. Module 2A) in areas with sufficient oxygen.Most of the remediation work in this area is in the deeper water depths.As a result, Habitat Modules 1 and 2 have been applied to this area.Areas of remediation work within the submerged aquatic vegetationwater depth will be restored in-kind with Habitat Module 3.The low-lying bench of Wastebeds 1 through 8 has been included withinthe boundary of the Habitat Plan due to the low elevation of this areaand proximity to the lakeshore. The RI/FS is currently ongoing for thissite and a proposed plan for remediation and restoration, if necessary,has not been established. The potential to create wetlands in this areawill be further evaluated as the RI/FS progresses. A portion of the lowlyingbench area has modules assigned for the purposes of wetland andopen water mitigation, and the shoreline stabilization areas for theRemediation Area B shoreline will be integrated with the habitatmodules for this area.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 118

DRAFTThis exposed Solvay Waste along theshoreline of Wastebeds 1-8 will beaddressed as part of the habitatenhancement activities discussed inthis section.5.3.3 Habitat Enhancement (SMU 3 Shoreline)The ROD identified two specific locations where habitat enhancementactivities would be applied-- the areas are along an estimated 1.5 miles(2.4 km) of shoreline (SMU 3) and over approximately 23 acres (SMU 5)to stabilize calcite deposits and oncolites and promote submergedaquatic plant growth. The status of the habitat enhancement activitiesfor SMU 5 is described in Section 5.3.9. The following section describesthe habitat enhancement activities planned to stabilize the SMU 3shoreline.The shoreline stabilization is designed to reduce resuspension andturbidity along the shoreline of SMU 3 and will ultimately be integratedwith the remedy for Wastebeds 1 through 8. It is anticipated that theshoreline stabilization will use a combination of bioengineeringtechniques to provide a natural shoreline area to provide transitionzones from the low lying area or Wastebeds1 through 8 and SMU 3.However, the feasibility study has not been completed and no remedialapproach has been identified for Wastebeds 1 through 8. As such, theshoreline stabilization described in this section is specific to the shallowwater portion of SMU 3 up to an elevation of approximately 365 feet(NAVD 88), which is close to the highest high water mark for OnondagaLake (i.e., 95% of all recorded water surface elevations are at or below365 feet [NAVD 88]). Stabilization measures for the shoreline areasabove the 365 feet (NAVD 88) elevation will be developed once theremedial approach for WB 1 through 8 has been determined.ApproachAs discussed in the Onondaga Lake FS, the shoreline of SMU 3 has thepotential to erode during wind/wave events. Stabilization of theshoreline would minimize the potential for resuspension of nearshoreand shoreline material due to frequent wave events, reducing erosionand potentially improving water quality conditions in the nearshorelittoral zone for submerged aquatic plant growth. The approach forstabilizing the calcite deposits along the SMU 3 shoreline will usebioengineering techniques to the greatest extent possible to minimizehardening of the shoreline and provide a transition between theWastebeds1 through 8 remediation and in-lake remediation in SMU3.These bioengineering techniques may include the use of a live crib wall,live fascines (woody vegetation bundles such as Salix spp.) andvegetative mattresses (brush material buried in trenches). The majorityof bioengineering techniques incorporate larger sized stone near the toeof the slope which corresponds with the surf zone of SMU 3. The largersized stone will be used to stabilize substrate and reduce resuspension.If possible, non-angular graded gravel will be used for habitatenhancement, but in areas where erosion protection is necessary, thepreferred material may be angular. This angular material has morestability than rounded material and may better withstand erosive forces.The results of the wind/wave analysis completed for Onondaga Lakewere used to determine the extent of the surf zone and the size of stoneneeded to stabilize the substrate (Parsons, 2009b). The surf zonePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 119

DRAFTassociated with the 10-year storm event period was selected as thebasis of design for defining the treatment area. This is essentially thearea with a 10% probability of receiving a large storm with 2.5 ft wavesin any year. Based on the wind/wave analysis, the surf zone (andcorresponding wave height) extends to a water depth of approximately2.5 feet for waves associated with the 10-year return period. Thetreatment area for stabilizing the substrate will be set at the 2.5 feetcontour within SMU 3, for a total treatment area of 16.2 acres.The design event for determining the stable particle size should be thesame as the design event used to define the surf zone so that thematerial placed within the surf zone will be stable. However, the designevent should not be so conservative as to require unnecessarily largestone sizes that could limit the habitat suitability of the material. As aresult, the 10-year return period was used as the basis of design fordetermining the stable particle size to balance between stability andparticle size. Based on this analysis, graded gravel with a medianparticle size of 0.08 to 0.1 feet will be placed within the surf zone tostabilize the substrate to reduce resuspension and at the toe of theslope where bioengineering treatments are anticipated. This materialwill be placed along the entire SMU 3 shoreline to a water depth of 2.5feet, coincident with the depth that demarks the shallow edge of Module3 and will extend partially into SMU 4 towards the mouth of NinemileCreek. As such, there is no overlap of the shoreline stabilization areaswith the limited area of Module 3 or deeper water modules planned forRemediation Area B.Substrate typeAs previously stated, the substrate type that will be placed within thesurf zone and along the toe of the slope will be graded gravel with a D 50(median stone size) of 0.08 to 0.1 feet. The gravel will be placed on topof a fabric that will support the gravel and keep the Solvay waste fromworking up through the material. Ongoing work on Wastebeds 12through 15 will be used to determine the types of soil amendments thatmay be needed to support vegetation within the bioengineeringtreatments that will be applied as part of the Wastebeds 1 through 8 siteremediation. The need to place soil amendments in other portions ofWastebeds 1 through 8, including areas adjacent to the shorelinestabilization treatments, will be evaluated once the remedy for that areahas been determined.Substrate thicknessGraded gravel 0.5 feet thick will be placed to a water depth of 2.5 feet tostabilize the substrate along the SMU 3 shoreline, which will reduce theturbidity during wind/wave events in this area.In the area between the average lake elevation (362.5 feet) and thehighest elevation for the habitat enhancement treatment (365 feet), thegravel will be 1 foot thick, mixed with topsoil. In addition, vegetation(including live stakes, shrubs, and riparian seeds for example) will beplanted in the area.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 120

DRAFTThe low-lying portion of the shorelineof Wastebeds 1-8 is addressed by thisHabitat Plan.NYSDOT turnaround area off of I-690and adjacent to Remediation Area C.5.3.4 Low-lying Portion of Wastebeds 1through 8 (adjacent to Remediation Area B[SMU 3])The low-lying portion of Wastebeds 1 through 8 is immediately adjacentto the shoreline stabilization area and Remediation Area B. The area iscurrently under investigation as part of a focused feasibility study andcomprehensive feasibility study. Habitat restoration designs will bedependent on the final remedy for the site and have not been identifiedat this time.There are certain habitat restoration activities that are expected to occurin this area as part of the mitigation to offset impacts associated withremedial activities in other portions of the lake. Impacts associated withthe installation of a portion of the barrier wall along Willis Avenueresulted in the loss of approximately 2.3 acres of lake surface area.Wetland areas near the mouth of Harbor Brook will also be affected bythe installation of a barrier wall and other remediation activities. Theseimpacts will be offset through the creation of a wetland/open watercomplex on the low lying portion of Wastebeds 1-8 along the southernshoreline of Onondaga Lake. The mitigation will consist of creatingaquatic habitat and wetlands adjacent to the lake. The current designprovides for 5.4 acres of inland wetland and 2.3 acres of connectedwetlands (Figure 3.7). The specific size and location of this wetland /open water complex and type of wetland system will be determinedduring intermediate design.5.3.5 Remediation Area C (SMU 2)Remediation Area C (SMU 2 and a small portion of the southern end ofSMU 3) is located in the southwestern portion of the lake just south ofthe State Fair parking lot (Figure 3-4). I-690 is adjacent to RemediationArea C, with an exit from I-690 and a gravel parking lot and a NYSDOTturnaround area just west of the lakeshore. This gravel parking lotprovides a place for viewing wildlife on the lake and there is also anunimproved boat launch for boat access to the lake. Existing and futurerecreational use and access are important aspects of this area. Ditch A,a small tributary that drains from the State Fair parking lot, enters thelake just north of the gravel parking lot.Remediation Area C is a medium energy environment. The remedy forthis area consists of limited removals along the shoreline followed bycapping throughout the majority of the littoral zone. The remedy for thisarea is also directly affected by the Willis/Semet IRM barrier wall, whichstops contaminated groundwater from discharging to Onondaga Lake.Overview of Habitat Restoration in Area CHabitat modules for this area are shown on Figure 5.6, and two crosssectionsthat show existing and future bathymetry and substrates areshown on Figures 5.7 and 5.8. A boat launch may be constructed alongthe shoreline in this area in the future, which could be located along thesouth side of the gravel parking lot.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 121

DRAFTThe habitat modules are designed to maintain deep water nearshore forfishing access and public use (Module 2A), as well as placing coarsegrained material along the shoreline to support fish spawning and limitinvasive species (Modules 3B and 5B). These considerations will helpincrease the recreational use of the Remediation Area C shoreline in thefuture and are consistent with the habitat priorities and goals.Remediation Area D is locatedadjacent to the Wastebed B/HarborBrook site.5.3.6 Remediation Area D (SMU 1)Remediation Area D (SMU 1 and small portions of SMUs 2 and 7) islocated in the southwestern portion of the lake. This remediation area iscurrently characterized by a large area of ILWD, which has createdshallow water and poor quality substrates throughout this remediationarea.Remediation Area D is also characterized by the existing and proposedsegments of the onshore barrier wall, and extensive restoration(primarily wetland habitat modules) will be conducted between thebarrier wall and the current lake shoreline (Figure 5.9). Recreationaluse potential, especially in the northern end of this remediation area,also influences the habitat restoration plans. The Wastebed B areaprovides undeveloped habitat that separates the barrier wall from I-690.The dredging approach required in Remediation Area D to satisfy theROD requirements (i.e. removal depth equal to an average of 6.6 feet [2meters] over the current boundary of the ILWD and the additionalremoval in hot-spot areas) is still being developed. The current remedyfor this area includes dredging and capping with deeper excavation inhot-spot areas.An addendum has been added to Remediation Area D to cover a smallarea within SMU 8 adjacent to Remediation Area D. This area isapproximately 5.6 acres in size and has elevated Mean PECQ levelsand will require an isolation cap and habitat layer (Figure 5.9).Overview of Habitat Restoration in Area DHabitat modules for Restoration Area D and adjacent onshore areas areshown on Figure 5.9. Cross sections through this area are illustrated onFigures 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13. In-lake areas of Remediation Area Dinclude Habitat Modules 1 and 2, with an extensive area of deeper water(Module 2) close to shore in the northern area of this remediation area.The Remediation Area D Addendum area will also consist of additionalModule 1 in this small portion of SMU 8. The design noted abovecreates significant fishing opportunities from the shore for an extensivereach. Water depths in the shallow ILWD areas will be increased by theapplication of Habitat Module 3 and a clean, more suitable substrateprovided, which will support many aquatic plants and animals. Areas ofhot-spot removal will create a diversity of water depths within theModule 3 area, and a deep pocket of Module 2. These features willprovide additional habitat opportunities for aquatic species.Nearshore areas of Remediation Area D will be restored with shallowerdepth modules, which will act as a wave break, reduce the wave energy,and protect the on-shore wetlands, which are described in Section 5.3.8.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 122

DRAFTRemediation Area E (SMU 6 and 7) is locatedbetween Harbor Brook and Ley Creek on theeastern shoreline of the lake.5.3.7 Remediation Area E (SMUs 6 and 7)Remediation Area E is a fairly extensive area located at the verysouthern end of Onondaga Lake. It is an area of high wave energy dueto the long fetch of the lake. Onondaga Creek, the primary tributary tothe lake, and Harbor Brook discharge into the lake in this area.Emergent wetlands, currently degraded by the presence of wastematerial and the prevalence of Phragmites, occur around the lowerreach of Harbor Brook. The barrier wall is also proposed to extend intoportions of this wetland complex.Two other considerations in the restoration of this area are the presenceof the discharge from the Syracuse Metro wastewater facility, and thenavigational concerns at the mouth of Onondaga Creek. Channel depthat the mouth of Onondaga Creek must be sufficient to accommodatecommercial boat traffic that uses Onondaga Creek and the Inner Harbor,and water depth must be sufficient enough to keep Metro dischargefrom collecting at the end of the lake.Overview of Habitat Restoration in Area EHabitat restoration plans for Remediation Area E are shown on Figure5.14. Cross-sections for this area are shown on Figures 5.15, 5.16, and5.17. For the Harbor Brook area, details of restoration efforts are shownon Figures 5.18 and 5.19.The habitat modules in Remediation Area E were designed to accountfor the high energy in this area, consistent with NYSDEC priority 2, andaccommodate the flow of Onondaga Creek and the discharge from theMetro facility into the lake. The restoration approach specificallyincorporates several NYSDEC priorities for this remediation area,including shallow shelves to break high energy waves outboard of theshoreline and Wetland SYW-12; deeper water nearshore by removal ofimpacted material (dredging to cleanup criteria); and creation of a deepwater for boat access to Onondaga Creek and the Inner Harbor.Habitat restoration in the deeper water portions of this area (Modules 1and 2) will provide water depths similar to current conditions, but with aclean sand and fine gravel substrate.A large area of Habitat Module 3B is present across this remediationarea. Water depths vary in this model and it is intended to reduce someof the wave energy that would reach the shore. Restored substrates arecoarse gravel because of the high energy environment. Although thesesubstrates will limit submerged aquatic vegetation establishment, theywill benefit certain fish species and benthic organisms.Near the Harbor Brook area a shallower water area of Habitat Modules5B and 6B has been included. This area is intended to provide a wavebreak to protect the wetland habitats around the lower reach of HarborBrook. Those portions of Habitat Module 6B that are above the lakelevel at times will provide mudflat habitat beneficial to resident andmigratory shorebirds.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 123

DRAFT5.3.8 Harbor Brook Wetland Complex (OnshoreRegion Straddling Remediation Areas Dand E)On shore areas between the barrier wall and existing shoreline will berestored to wetlands that will enhance the habitat function and value inthis area. Most of the area will be persistent emergent wetland (HabitatModule 6), with a small portion of forested wetland (Habitat Module 9).Good quality emergent wetlands are a noticeably missing habitat aroundthe lake and these areas will enhance and diversify the lake system foraquatic and terrestrial organisms.As with other persistent emergent wetlands around the lake, theencroachment of Phragmites is a concern. For this reason, aPhragmites control channel will be constructed along the landward edgeof the emergent wetland. This deeper channel is designed to limit theinvasion of Phragmites, but it will also be good habitat for floatingaquatic (Module 4) and non-persistent wetland species (Module 5). Asa result, it will be part of the overall wetland complex.The area of forested wetland (Habitat Module 9) for the on shore area isdesigned to replace some wooded wetlands, diversify the restoredhabitats, and to provide some shelter for the adjacent emergentwetlands in the area. The shape of this wetland should create aprotected cove in its lee on the southeast side.During periods of high lake water levels (at or over an elevation of 363.5feet [NAVD 88]), the creation of these shoreline wetlands will actuallyprovide more lake water area, while providing for interspersed islandsfor waterfowl nesting. At these lake levels, the lake area will increase asthe shoreline will actually be along the toe-of-slope from the barrier wall.Fringing wetlands are commonly flooded during seasonal high waterevents, increasing lake surface area.Restoration of the upland habitat areas between the landward edge ofthe wetlands and the top of the barrier wall and uplands landward of thebarrier wall will also be conducted. Module 8B is proposed in thoseareas and will allow for the use of shade trees and shrubs in this area.Currently, the lower portion of Harbor Brook is a channelized reachsurrounded by a wetland composed of a monoculture of Phragmites. Itis degraded by the presence of waste material and the prevalence ofPhragmites with limited value to terrestrial and aquatic organisms.Significant habitat restoration efforts are planned for this area within andadjacent to Harbor Brook. These efforts will greatly enhance anddiversify the habitats in this area and provide benefits to a diverse arrayof aquatic and terrestrial species.An overview of the restoration for the Harbor Brook area is shown onFigure 5.9. More detailed plans are presented on Figures 5.18 and5.19.The habitat restoration approach for this area includes thereconfiguration of Harbor Brook into a braided stream wetland complexPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 124

DRAFT(Figures 5.18 and 5.19). The reconfiguration of Harbor Brook wouldallow for increased stream stability, development of improved habitatssuitable for a variety of species, and improvement of the connectivity ofwetlands with the lake habitats. The wetlands restoration will include apersistent emergent wetland complex (Module 6A) that is specificallydesigned with shallow channels to enhance the area for northern pikespawning. Slightly higher mounds have been included to provide areasfor waterfowl nesting.The barrier wall extends into the Harbor Brook area. Upland habitatmodules (Modules 8A and 8B) will be restored to transition from thewetlands up to the wall, and to restore the areas on the landward edgeof the wall. Wetlands and side slopes, open fields, and scrub-shrubhabitat landward of the wall will benefit a variety of wildlife species.SYW-12 AreaThe SYW-12 area is currently under investigation to determine thenature and extent of contamination in this area. Once these data havebeen fully evaluated, an approach for remediation and restoration ofSYW-12 wetland and adjacent area will be addressed through the RI/FSprocess for the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook site.5.3.9 Remediation Area FBased on additional data collected as part of the pre-designinvestigation since the issuance of the ROD, the area requiring activeremediation is Remediation Area F has been updated (Figure 3.1). Intwo small isolated areas (S-95 and S-111) that total less than 1 acre ofarea, 1 foot of sediment will be dredged to cleanup criteria to removethe contamination in these areas.5.3.10 Habitat Enhancement (SMU 5)As described in the ROD, habitat enhancement was planned to occurover approximately 23 acres in Remediation Area F (SMU 5) to stabilizecalcite deposits and oncolites and promote submerged aquatic plantgrowth (NYSDEC and USEPA, 2005). The approach described in theROD was based on stabilizing the oncolitic sediments to allow plantcolonization. The target of 23 acres was based on increasing thepercent cover of the littoral zone to provide optimal habitat for thelargemouth bass (Stuber et al. 1982a). The information used in theROD was based on 2000 plant surveys, which documented a total of17.8 acres in Remediation Area F (SMU5) (EcoLogic, 2001) within theoptimal water depth for plants.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 125

DRAFTSince that time, the area covered by plants has increased significantly,largely due to water quality improvements associated with the upgradesto the Metro facility. Based on the most recent 2008 survey, there wereapproximately 314 acres of plants mapped in the lake andapproximately 160 acres in Remediation Area F within the optimal waterdepth for plants (personal communication, Dave Synder, OnondagaCounty). As such, there is significantly more acreage covered byaquatic plants than would have occurred resulted from implementationof the 23 acres of habitat enhancement. In fact, the majority of thetreatment areas identified in the Onondaga Lake FS for habitatenhancement have been naturally colonized by aquatic plants.Therefore, the habitat enhancement activities, which were designed toincrease aquatic plant cover to provide optimal habitat for thelargemouth bass, may not be necessary to meet the objectives noted inthe ROD.SMU 8 is located in the center of the lakein greater than 30 feet of water.5.3.11 Profundal Zone (thin-layer capping -SMU 8)As specified in the ROD, thin layer capping may be required in areas ofthe profundal zone that exceed the remedial criteria. The profundalzone is defined as the portion of the lake where water depths exceed 30feet (SMU 8). This section describes the thin layer capping that may becompleted in portions of the profundal zone.ApproachThin layer capping is intended to provide an immediate decrease insurface sediment concentrations by adding a layer of clean material thatPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 126

DRAFTwould then be incorporated into the surface sediments through naturalprocesses such as bioturbation and sedimentation. The RemedialAction Objective for SMU 8 is to “eliminate or reduce, to the extentpracticable, releases of mercury from profundal sediments.” The basisof design for selecting the areas to cap and the thickness of the cap wasdetermined based on surface sediment concentrations of mercury andexceedances of the mean PECQ of 1, as well as the bioaccumulationbasedsediment quality value (BSQV) for mercury of 0.8 mg/kg on anarea-weighted basis.Lake sturgeon use deep water habitats.ApplicationA half foot of sand will be placed in areas meeting the requirements forthin layer capping as described above. Since the profundal zone is notexposed to wind or wave action, there is no need for an erosionprotection layer in addition to the 0.5 feet of sand. Since the remedy willnot change oxygen availability in the hypolimnion during summerstratification, use of the profundal zone by organisms, including thereference species, is not likely to change following remediation. Ifoxygenation is used to reduce mercury methylation, oxygenconcentrations, although greater than under nitrate addition, may not besufficient to sustain fish or aerobic benthic macroinvertebrates. If nitrateaddition is used to reduce mercury methylation, there still will be periodsof anoxia during the summer.5.4 Suitability of Remediation Areas forRepresentative SpeciesThe TWG evaluated the suitability of the habitat modules in theremediation areas for the representative species within each majorspecies group to determine how these species may use each areafollowing the restoration. See Table 5.2 for a summary of potentiallocations for the representative species described in this section.5.4.1 FishSuitable habitat for fish will be provided in each remediation area.Northern pike spawning and rearing habitat will be provided inRemediation Area A, Remediation Area B, and in the Harbor Brook areaadjacent Remediation Area E. Specific habitat designs wereincorporated into the Harbor Brook restoration to promote northern pikespawning. Adult northern pike habitat will be provided in RemediationAreas A, B, C, D, and E. Deeper water modules will also provide habitatfor the northern pike in Remediation Area E. Habitat for walleye will alsobe provided primarily by the deeper water modules. Adult walleyehabitat will be provided in Remediation Area A, B, C, D and E. Juvenilewalleye habitat will be provided in Remediation Area C. The habitatsuitability for walleye in these areas would be improved with the additionof structure.The two deepest water modules (i.e., 1 and 2) will provide habitat for thelake sturgeon in Remediation Areas A, B, C, D, and E. Habitat for theemerald shiner and brown trout will also be provided by the deeperPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 127

DRAFTPlants such as cattail will be used toreplace invasive species like Phragmites.water modules in all remediation areas. Golden shiners prefer weedy,quiet, shallow waters, and the best habitat will be provided inRemediation A. The submerged aquatic vegetation in RemediationAreas B and C will also provide habitat for the golden shiner.Largemouth and smallmouth bass habitat will be provided in bothdeeper water modules (for adults) and the shallower water modules (forspawning and juveniles) in each remediation area. The suitability of theshallow water modules (i.e., areas of wetlands and submerged aquaticvegetation) for both the large and smallmouth bass would be improvedwith the addition of structure. Pumpkinseed habitat would be providedin these same areas.The application of the habitat modules also takes into account the factthat there are limited fishing opportunities on the western shore of thelake, particularly areas where fish characteristic of deeper water habitatscan be reached using shore fishing techniques. As such, deeper waterareas have been applied along the shore in Remediation Area D toprovide access for fishing.A more detailed discussion on the suitability of each Remediation Areafor the representative fish species is provided in Appendix D.5.4.2 PlantsThe sandy substrate in the shallow water portions of Remediation AreasA and B will be suitable habitat for representative submerged aquaticvegetation species such as coontail, sago pondweed, tapegrass, andelodea (Elodea canadensis), as well as other pond weeds andsubmerged aquatic plants common in the lake. Submerged aquaticvegetation habitat will also be provided in Remediation Areas C, D, andE. However, because of the wave energy in these locations, the use ofcoarse substrate for the habitat layer will be required and it may takelonger for these areas to support the same level of submerged aquaticplants as in other Remediation Areas.In general, the representative lakeshore wetland plant species preferlower wave energy environment, shallow water depths, and finesubstrates for Remediation Area A, B, D, and the Harbor Brook areaadjacent to Remediation Area E. Remediation Area A is the only area inthe lake that will provide suitable habitat for floating aquatic vegetationwhich includes white water lily, yellow pond lily, American pondweed,and potentially free-floating duckweeds. The planned wetlands inRemediation Areas A, B, D, and the Harbor Brook area adjacent toRemediation Area E will provide habitat for representative nonpersistentand persistent emergent species. Non-persistent emergentspecies include pickerel weed, arrow arum, arrowhead, water plantain,and water smartweed.Persistent emergent wetland species include cattail, soft-stem bulrush,river bulrush, burreed, willow-weed, water-willow, and sedge. A deeperwater trench will also be created along the shoreline in RemediationAreas A and E to limit Phragmites encroachment into the wetland areas.These areas will provide habitat for non-persistent emergent species.Wetlands are also planned for Remediation Area E. However, the wavePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 128

DRAFTRemediation Area A is one of the bestlocations for mammals withinOnondaga Lake.energy in this area will require the use of coarse substrate which couldlimit the density of wetland plants.Forested wetland habitat is planned adjacent to Remediation A andRemediation Area D. Habitat for silver maple, American elm, and blackwillow, which are common in the existing forested wetland nearRemediation Area A, will be provided in these areas.A more detailed discussion on the suitability of each Remediation Areafor the representative plant species is provided in Appendix D.Appendix E includes a master list of plants suitable for the restoredhabitat areas.5.4.3 Benthic MacroinvertebratesHabitat for benthic macroinvertebrates will be provided in eachremediation area, primarily due to the placement of clean substrate.The addition of structure will increase habitat diversity and provideadditional habitat for some species, especially crayfish, in the shallowwaters of each Remediation Area. The shallow waters of eachremediation area will support diverse and suitable habitat for lenticspecies of all the representative invertebrate orders. The deeper watersof each remediation area will provide suitable habitat for amphipods andtrue flies.A more detailed discussion on the suitability of each Remediation Areafor the representative benthic macroinvertebrate species is provided inAppendix D.5.4.4 MammalsThe combination of habitat requirements for the representative species(e.g., low energy areas, emergent vegetation, trees or other cover alongthe shoreline) makes Remediation Area A the best location within thelake for the creation of suitable habitat for beaver, mink, muskrat andotter. The proximity to Ninemile Creek further enhances the suitability ofthese areas for mink and otter which can use the tributary as a travelcorridor. In addition, the current and planned forested areas near themouth of the creek could potentially provide habitat for the Indiana bat.Remediation Areas B, D, and E will also provide habitat for beaver,mink, muskrat and otter. In general, the shallower portion of theseremediation areas will provide habitat for all four species, while deeperwaters would provide habitat for the otter, mink and beaver. The inlandwetland areas located outside the boundaries of the remediation areaand adjacent to Remediation Area D will provide suitable habitat formink and beaver and potentially Indiana bat. The large wetlandcomplex adjacent to Remediation Area D will provide suitable habitat formink, otter, beaver, and in particular, muskrat. The realigned HarborBrook and associated wetland complex adjacent to Remediation Area Ewill provide suitable habitat for mink, otter, beaver, and muskrat.Muskrats should be significantly favored by these habitat changes.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 129

DRAFTA more detailed discussion on the suitability of each Remediation Areafor the representative mammals is provided in Appendix D.Restored wetlands will support avariety of species including thispainted turtle.5.4.5 Reptiles and AmphibiansThe representative reptile species, musk turtle, painted turtle, snappingturtle, and northern water snake prefer lower energy environments withshallow water and access to cover or some type of structure. Habitat forthe reptile species will be provided in the shallow water portions ofRemediation Areas A, B, D, and the Harbor Brook area adjacent toRemediation Area E. Specifically, the shallow water areas wouldprovide suitable habitat for hibernation and feeding for the fourrepresentative reptile species. The wetland, submerged aquatic andfloating aquatic (Remediation Area A only) vegetation would provideareas of cover for escape and feeding for the painted turtle and northernwater snake as well as nesting areas for musk turtle. Musk turtle alsomay find suitable nesting habitat in the wetland areas. Snapping turtlewould use the natural transition from emergent wetlands in the lake toupland areas in Remediation Area A, Remediation Area B, andRemediation Area E. The vegetated cover Remediation Area C wouldprovide cover for species such as the snapping turtle, painted turtle, andnorthern water snake.The representative amphibian species (red spotted newt, mudpuppy,spotted salamander, green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), leopard frog(Rana pipiens-s. utricularius), and wood frog generally prefer shallowwater environments. Mudpuppy will also use deeper areas, but will nestin water less than 3 feet deep. The wetlands planned in RemediationArea A, B, C, D, and the Harbor Brook area adjacent to RemediationArea E will provide suitable habitat for all of the representativeamphibian species, and provide a transition from the lake to terrestrialareas. The fine substrate that will be used in Remediation Area A, B,and Harbor Brook area adjacent to Remediation Area E would alsoprovide suitable foraging and hibernating areas for red-spotted newt,green frog, leopard frog, and wood frog. Mudpuppy habitat would beprovided by the wetlands and by Harbor Brook during the cooler springand fall months. The wetlands would also provide suitable habitat forconcealment and foraging for the red-spotted newt, leopard frog, andwood frog.Sediments composed of finer grain sizes and organic matter wouldprovide vegetation important for concealment and egg deposition, aswell as providing a gradual transition to persistent emergent wetlandsfor cover and foraging. The seasonal temporary pools that will becreated as part of the inland wetland complex located outside theboundaries of the remediation area will provide suitable breeding habitatfor the wood frog and would provide sufficient shallow areas for tadpolesurvival. In addition, the waterfowl nesting mounds included in thiscomplex will provide habitat for the green frog and leopard frog.Red-spotted newt and spotted salamander spend their adult stagesterrestrially and the habitats planned adjacent to Remediation Area Aand E would provide cover and suitable habitat. The deeper waterportions of all Remediation Areas would provide habitat for thePARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 130

DRAFTCommon Goldeneye is a species thatwould be suitable for severalremediation areas.mudpuppy, particularly with the addition of structure. Snapping turtlesmay also use these areas.A more detailed discussion on the suitability of each Remediation Areafor the representative reptiles and amphibians is provided in AppendixD.5.4.6 BirdsThe deeper water portions of the littoral zone will provide suitableforaging and feeding habitat for mallard, common goldeneye, commontern osprey, bank swallow and the belted kingfisher. The vegetatedshoreline areas transitioning from wetlands to submerged aquatic plantswill provide foraging habitat for great blue heron, green heron, andsandpipers in Remediation Area A, Remediation Area B, and the HarborBrook area adjacent to Remediation Area E. These same areas wouldprovide suitable habitat for mallards to forage and provide access toadjacent terrestrial locations for nesting, and also provide aninvertebrate food base for species such as the spotted sandpiper andsemi-palmated sandpiper.Currently, the steep banks adjacent to Remediation Areas A and B willprovide nesting habitat for bank swallows and belted kingfisher. Theforested wetlands in Remediation Area A and D will provide perchingstructures for osprey, red-winged blackbird, and green heron and coverfor nesting in bushes, thickets, and small trees for the green heron, redwingedblackbird, common goldeneye, and mallard.Areas where herbaceous cover is planned in Remediation Areas B, C,and D and the Harbor Brook area adjacent to Remediation Area E, willprovide suitable nesting areas for the common tern and red-wingedblackbird. Habitat for shorebirds, such as the spotted sandpiper andsemi-palmated sandpiper, will be provided from the coarser, rockierareas along the shoreline of Remediation Area C.The shallow water wetland and banks of Harbor Brook in the areaadjacent to Remediation Area E would provide foraging areas for thegreat blue heron, green heron, belted kingfisher, red-winged blackbird,spotted sandpiper, and the semi-palmated sandpiper. The waterfowlnesting mounds would provide ideal habitat for nesting for the mallard,as well as protection of nests from terrestrial predators. Insectproduction of the wetland will provide foraging opportunities for bankswallows.A more detailed discussion on the suitability of each Remediation Areafor the representative birds is provided in Appendix D.5.5 General Specifications for HabitatRestoration5.5.1 Substrate TypesReferences to substrate types in this section are based on the UnifiedSoil Classification System (USCS). Substrate type is usuallyPARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 131

DRAFTcategorized based on grain size, and those sizes are listed below. Soilsseldom exist in nature separately as sand, gravel, or any other singlecomponent. They are usually found as mixtures with varyingproportions of particles of different sizes; each component partcontributes its characteristics to the soil mixture. Soils are primarilyidentified as coarse grained, fine grained, and highly organic. Ifpossible, rounded material will be used in the habitat layer design.Likewise, angular material may be more suitable for the erosionprotection layer. Detailed specifications for substrate (including grainsize distribution, appropriate source material, and organic content)will beprovided in subsequent design submittals.Many types of substrate will be used in thehabitat restoration design.ComponentSizeCobblesGravelCoarseFineSandCoarseMediumFineFines (silt or clay)Above 3 inches0.167 inch to 3 inches0.75 inch to 3 inches0.167 inch to 0.75 inch0.003 inch to 0.167 inch0.167 inch to 0.0787 inch0.0787 inch to 0.0167 inch0.0167 inch to 0.003 inchLess than 0.003 inches (no minimum)In the text of Section 5, coarse substrates are those shown in theprevious table as coarse gravel and cobble, and fine substrates haveparticle sizes of fine gravel and smaller. Figures 5.25 – 5.29 illustratethe substrate material associated with the restored habitat in each of theremediation areas.5.5.2 Monitoring RequirementsComparisons to baseline conditions, threshold values, or referenceconditions are methods that can be used to complete an assessment ofthe overall performance of the habitat restoration. There are currentlynumerous programs on the lake and tributaries being conducted byOnondaga County, Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI), SUNY-ESF, andHoneywell. These studies include data collection on water quality,sediment characterization, macrophytes, fish populations andcommunity structure, benthic community, and wetland delineations.As a part of the Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) plan,a monitoring program will be developed to assess the performance ofthe habitat restoration/enhancement actions and evaluate whether theobjectives outlined in this plan are being met by comparing to baselineconditions, threshold values or reference conditions. Monitoring will alsoprovide information that can improve the implementation andperformance of any maintenance activities (e.g., corrective actions).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 132

DRAFTThe monitoring program will begin immediately after completion of thehabitat restoration/enhancement activities. Specifically, the monitoringprogram will be used to:• assess the performance of the restoration/enhancementactivities relative to the project goals;• provide information that can be used to improve the performanceof the project through the adaptive management protocols; and• provide information to interested parties.The specific elements and the duration of the monitoring program will bedictated by the final habitat restoration/enhancement designs.Monitoring will occur annually and include:• assessment of the areal extent of each habitat module;• assessment of substrate suitability and placement;• list of plant species and percent cover of dominant plants in eachplanted habitat module;• assessment of percent survival of installed plant material(submerged aquatic plants, emergent vegetation, shrubs, trees);• percent cover of invasive species; and• assessment of the use of restored/enhanced habitats bybiological organisms.Additional monitoring metrics may be warranted based on the finalhabitat restoration designs. Collected data will be compared to successcriteria that will also be established as part of the final designs. Thesuccess criteria will include specific measures that must be met for theproject to be considered successful. For example, for wetlandrestoration areas, one criterion would be to achieve a specific percentcover (e.g., 85%) after a specific period of time (e.g., 5 years). Thesuccess criteria will also take into consideration that the water depthlimits of the habitat modules are not discrete boundaries. There will bea transition or overlap zone from one module to the next and one habitattype to the next. For example, submerged aquatic vegetation (primarilyassociated with Module 3) will occur at the deeper limit of the floatingaquatic wetland (Module 4), and non-persistent emergent wetlandvegetation (associated with Module 5) can occur at the shallow end ofthe floating aquatic wetland module. In addition, the success criteria willbe focused on providing suitable habitat for the representative species(i.e., the successful implementation of the habitat modules) rather thanthe occurrence of the representative species. The status of certainspecies which are rare (e.g., lake sturgeon) or are not currently present(e.g. mudpuppy) in the lake may be related to factors other than habitatsuitability. As such, the successful implementation of the habitatmodules may not change their status.The site-specific monitoring program will be developed based on thefinal habitat restoration designs. This information will be provided in anOperations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan to be submitted as part ofthe final designs.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 133

5.5.3 Maintenance RequirementsDRAFTThe monitoring program will be designed to provide data necessary toidentify and correct potential concerns within an adaptive maintenanceprogram. For example, if the vegetative cover has not met the desiredpercent cover, bare areas may be reseeded or replanted. Additionalmeasures to control invasive species (e.g., Phragmites, Eurasianwatermilfoil) or herbivory within the restored areas may also bewarranted, if indicated by the monitoring data.Maintenance actions to correct deficiencies identified during monitoringwould be undertaken at the time the condition is observed or within theappropriate seasonal (e.g., planting) window and may potentially includethe following.• Control of invasive species in restored areas by physical,mechanical or chemical methods. Any use of chemical controlwould require further evaluation for compliance with ARARs.• Targeted plantings to increase percent cover and/or replacemissing or dead plant material. This maintenance activity wouldnot include complete replanting of an area unless the cause(s)for the initial failure of the plantings has been identified andcorrected/controlled.• Maintenance of structures included in the habitat restorationdesigns, consistent with design specifications.The site-specific monitoring and maintenance program will bedeveloped based on the final habitat restoration designs. Thisinformation will be provided in an Operations, Maintenance andMonitoring Plan to be submitted as part of the final designs.5.5.4 Design Details for Habitat RestorationThis conceptual level document is intended to convey the approach forhabitat restoration in the remedial areas within the lake and selectshoreline areas adjacent to the lake. In accordance with standarddesigns procedures, additional details for each of the conceptspresented in this plan (e.g. types and size of structure or materialspecifications) will be further developed and documented in subsequentdesign submittals. Additional details will be provided in those designsubmittals for items such as the following:• thin layer cap details;• habitat layer material specifications, performance andmaintenance;• design details for mitigation areas;• microtopography, structure, other habitat features (e.g., turtlenesting) within wetland complexes;• placement and types of structure;PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 134

DRAFTOnondaga Lake• substrate composition, grain-size distribution, organiccontent, source;• plants considered for seeding or planting;• techniques for establishment of microtopography withinhabitat modules;• tolerances for placement of habitat layer;• success criteria;• monitoring program; and• maintenance requirements.5.6 Summary of Habitat RestorationDesignHoneywell has placed habitat considerations at the forefront of therestoration designs for Onondaga Lake, and habitat restoration willcontinue to play a key role as the remedial activities are advanced. Asustainable habitat that allows for public access has been, and willcontinue to be, an integral part of the approach for restoring OnondagaLake and returning this key resource to the people of central New York.The Habitat Restoration Plan is the result of almost two years of effortby the TWG, which consisted of local and national experts from theHoneywell team and several state and federal agencies. During thepreparation of this plan the Onondaga Nation and local interest groupsprovided several suggestions for specific habitat considerations forOnondaga Lake.Many different considerations were involved in the design of the HabitatRestoration Plan. Critical among these considerations were historicaland current habitat conditions in the lake; established goals, objectives,and priorities of the habitat restoration; numerous remedial designelements; location of adjacent tributary systems; and adjacent shorelineland uses and habitats.Establishing existing and historical habitat conditions and the collectionof information available for the lake was important in the development ofthis plan. Representative plant and animal species were selected fromdifferent groups of organisms and their habitat requirements wereassessed to help direct the habitat restoration efforts. Habitat moduleswere established to represent habitat areas defined by the basicelements of water depth, substrate type, and wave energy. Theapplication of these modules was used to define the restored habitat ineach area specified for remediation.The habitat designs described in this plan were developed using manydifferent criteria, including the integration of habitat needs forrepresentative species with the requirements associated with thedredging and capping design specified in the Onondaga Lake BottomRecord of Decision, the physical conditions of the site, and the habitatgoals and objectives. The holistic approach for integrating multipleremedial considerations from the related lake and shoreline areas willresult in improved conditions for a wide variety of species in theseareas.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 135

HoneywellWater Depth(ft)TABLE 5.1SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS FOR ONONDAGA LAKE CAP DESIGNMinimum Mixingand ChemicalIsolation Thickness(ft)Total ErosionProtection/Habitat LayerThickness(ft)Minimum CapThickness(ft)ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FORHABITAT RESTORATIONAssumed Maximum CapThickness with Over Placements(ft)Calculated AverageSettlement at2 years(ft)Remediation AreaHabitat Grainsize0 ‐ 3 2 medium sand 3.25 5.0 1.4RA‐A3 ‐ 7 1.251.5 fine gravel 2.75 4.25 1.3(Cap Model Areas A‐1 and A‐2) 7 ‐ 20 1 2.25 2.75 1.1medium sand20 ‐ 30 0.75 1 1.75 2.25 1.00 ‐ 3 2 3.5 5.7 1.9fine gravel3 ‐ 7 1.5 3.0 5.2 1.9RA‐B1.57 ‐ 10 1 coarse sand 2.5 4.0 1.810 ‐ 30 1 medium sand 2.5 3.5 1.60 ‐ 3 2 3.75 5.5 1.1RA‐C3 ‐ 7 1.5 fine gravel3.25 5.0 1.21.757 ‐ 10 1 2.75 3.75 1.110 ‐ 30 1 medium sand 2.75 3.25 1.10 ‐ 3 2 3.5 5.7 NA 5RA‐D3 ‐ 7 1.5 3.0 5.2 NA 51.5medium sand7 ‐ 10 1 2.5 4.0 NA 510 ‐ 30 1 2.5 3.5 NA 5RA‐D Addendum 30+ 1.5 1 medium sand 2.5 3.5 n/a0 ‐ 3 2 3.25 5.25 1.5RA‐E(Cap Model Areas E‐1 and E‐2)3 ‐ 7 1.5 coarse gravel 2.75 4.75 1.71.257 ‐ 10 1 2.25 4.75 1.710 ‐ 20 1 fine gravel 2.25 3.25 2.020 ‐ 30 0.75 1 coarse sand 1.75 2.25 1.6Notes:1. See Capping and Dredge Area and Depth IDS (Parsons, 2009) for details and assumptions.2. Both cap model areas in Remediation Area A and E have the same cap‐design thickness.3. Minimum combined erosion protection/habitat and additional habitat layer material. Average total habitat thickness will be greater due to estimated overplacements allowed for operational considerations of cap placement.4. 50% safety buffer is included in the chemical isolation thickness for RA‐C. Cap modeling has shown that it can be included in the habitat layer for all other model areas.5. Due to the complexities associated with the ILWD removal approach (average 2 meters plus hot spots), settlement calculations have not been estimated in Remediation Area D for this conceptual design.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.1 12-09.xlsPARSONSPage 1 of 1

HoneywellTABLE 5.2ONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONSUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKEREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESRemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsRemediationArea A(SMU 4)• Brown trout• Lake sturgeon• Emerald shiner• Large andsmallmouth bass• Walleye• Pumpkinseed• Northern pike• Golden shiner• Submergedaquaticvegetation• Floating aquaticvegetation• Non-persistentemergentvegetation• PersistentemergentvegetationBenthicMacroinvertebrates• Scud• True Flies• Mayfly• Dragonfly/Damselfly• Caddisfly• CrayfishMammals• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• BeaverReptiles /Amphibians• Snapping turtle• Painted turtle• Musk turtle• Northern watersnake• Red spottednewt• Green frog• Leopard frog• Mudpuppy• Spottedsalamander• Wood frogBirds• Commongoldeneye• Mallard• Osprey• Bank swallow• Common tern• BeltedKingfisher• Great blueheron• Green heron• Spottedsandpiper• Semi-palmatedsandpiper• Red-wingedblackbirdNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 1 of 8

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 5.2 (continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKEREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESRemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsRemediationArea B(SMU 3)• Brown trout• Lake sturgeon• Emerald shiner• Large andsmallmouth bass• Adult walleye• Pumpkinseed• Northern pike• Golden shiner• Submergedaquaticvegetation• Non-persistentemergentvegetationBenthicMacroinvertebrates• Scud• True Flies• Mayfly• Dragonfly/Damselfly• Caddisfly• CrayfishMammals• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• BeaverReptiles /Amphibians• Snapping turtle• Painted turtle• Musk turtle• Northern watersnake• Red-spottednewt• Green frog• MudpuppyBirds• Commongoldeneye• Mallard• Osprey• Bank swallow• Common tern• BeltedKingfisher• Great blueheron• Green heron• Sandpipers• Red-wingedBlackbirdNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 2 of 8

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 5.2 (continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKEREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESRemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsBenthicMacroinvertebratesMammalsReptiles /AmphibiansBirdsRemediationArea C(SMU 2)• Brown trout• Lake sturgeon• Emerald shiner• Large & smallmouthbass• Walleye• Pumpkinseed• Lake sturgeon• Northern pike• Golden shiner• Submergedaquaticvegetation• Scud• True Flies• Mayfly• Dragonfly/Damselfly• Caddisfly• Crayfish• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• Beaver• Snapping turtle• Northern watersnake• Mudpuppy• Commongoldeneye• Mallard• Osprey• Common tern• BeltedKingfisher• Great blueheron• Green heronNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 3 of 8

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 5.2 (continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKEREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESRemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsRemediationArea D(SMU 1)• Brown trout• Lake sturgeon• Emerald shiner• Large andsmallmouth bass• Pumpkinseed• Walleye• Northern pike• Golden shiner• SubmergedaquaticvegetationBenthicMacroinvertebrates• Scud• True Flies• Mayfly• Dragonfly/Damselfly• CaddisflyMammals• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• BeaverReptiles /Amphibians• Snapping turtle• Northern watersnake• MudpuppyBirds• Commongoldeneye• Osprey• Mallard• Common tern• BeltedKingfisher• Great blueheron• Green heron• Spottedsandpiper• Semi-palmatedsandpiperNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 4 of 8

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 5.2 (continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKEREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESRemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsRemediationArea E(SMU 6/7)SMU 8• Brown trout• Lake sturgeon• Emerald shiner• Large andsmallmouth bass• Walleye• Pumpkinseed• Northern pike• Golden shiner• Brown trout• Lake sturgeon• Emerald shiner• Large andsmallmouth bass• Walleye• Pumpkinseed• SubmergedaquaticvegetationNot ApplicableBenthicMacroinvertebrates• Scud• True Flies• Mayfly• Dragonfly/Damselfly• Caddisfly• Crayfish• Scud• True FliesMammals• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• Beaver• IndianaBat• NotApplicableReptiles /Amphibians• Snapping turtle• Northern watersnake• Mudpuppy• Not ApplicableBirds• Commongoldeneye• Mallard• Osprey• Common tern• BeltedKingfisher• Great blueheron• Green heron• Spottedsandpiper• Semi-palmatedsandpiper• Commongoldeneye• Mallard• OspreyNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 5 of 8

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 5.2 (continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKEREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESRemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsWetlands atMouth ofNinemileCreek• Northern Pikespawning• Young of yearfor variousspecies• Persistentemergentvegetation• Forestedwetland andscrub-shrubwetlandspeciesBenthicMacroinvertebrates• Caddisfly• True Flies• Dragonfly/Damselfly• CrayfishMammals• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• Beaver• IndianaBatReptiles /Amphibians• Snapping turtle• Painted turtle• Musk turtle• Northern watersnake• Red-spottednewt• Leopard frog• Green frog• Spottedsalamander• Wood frogBirds• Mallard• Spottedsandpiper• Semi-palmatedsandpiper• Red-wingedblackbird• Great blueheron• Green heron• Common ternNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 6 of 8

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 5.2 (continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKEREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESRemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsLow LyingArea ofWastebeds1-8• Northern Pikespawning• Young of Year forvarious species• Persistentemergentvegetation• Scrub-shrubvegetation• FloatingAquaticvegetation• Nonpersistentemergentvegetation• Open FieldsBenthicMacroinvertebrates• True Flies• Mayfly• Dragonfly/Damselfly• Caddisfly• CrayfishMammals• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• Beaver• IndianaBatReptiles /Amphibians• Snappingturtle• Painted turtle• Musk turtle• Water snake• Red-spottednewt• Leopard frog• Green frog• Spottedsalamander• Wood frog• MudpuppyBirds• Osprey• CommonGoldeneye• BeltedKingfisher• Bank Swallow• Mallard• Spottedsandpiper• Semipalmatedsandpiper• Red-wingedblackbird• Great blueheron• Green heron• Common ternNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 7 of 8

HoneywellONONDAGA LAKEREMEDIAL DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR HABITAT RESTORATIONTABLE 5.2 (continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FORREPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITHIN REMEDIATION AREAS OF ONONDAGA LAKERemediationArea (1)(2) Fish PlantsWastebed B /Harbor BrookWetland AreaWetlandSYW-12• Northern Pikespawning• Young of Year forvarious species• Persistentemergentvegetation• Scrub-shrubvegetation• Forestedwetland• FloatingAquaticvegetation• NonpersistentemergentvegetationREPRESENTATIVE SPECIESBenthicMacroinvertebrates• True Flies• Mayfly• Dragonfly/Damselfly• Caddisfly• CrayfishMammals• Otter• Mink• Muskrat• Beaver• IndianaBatReptiles /Amphibians• Snappingturtle• Painted turtle• Musk turtle• Water snake• Red-spottednewt• Leopard frog• Green frog• Spottedsalamander• Wood frog• MudpuppyBirds• Osprey• CommonGoldeneye• BeltedKingfisher• Bank Swallow• Mallard• Spottedsandpiper• Semipalmatedsandpiper• Red-wingedblackbird• Great blueheron• Green heron• Common ternTBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDNOTES:TBD – To Be Determined1) Representative species noted for each area indicates that habitat conditions will be suitable for these species following remedial activities.Every species may not populate all specified locations in the future.2) Remediation Area F has not been included since it is less than one acre. Species would be similar to the deep water portion of Remediation Area A.P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Tables\Table 5.2 12-09.docPage 8 of 8

SMU 8Remediation Area A(Low Energy)SMU 5SMU 4RAA-1RAA-11SMU 4SMU 32A3A§¨¦ 6902A6A8A5A9B6A6A4A9BPhragmites control channel (Module 4A)to be located along shoreline (2' x 20')Wastebeds 1-8(MeSHORELINESTABILIZATION (8B)Ninemile CreekRAA-1Cross-section Location and IdentifierArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland Boundaries300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE 5.1.eSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat Module ApplicationRemediation Area A

SMU 38ASHORELINESTABILIZATION (8B)2ASMU 89B3A1Remediation Area B(Medium Energy)5A6A12ARAB-19B5AWastebeds 1-83ARAB-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)300 150 0 300Feet .SMU 3FIGURE (Medium 5.4Energy)PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat Module ApplicationRemediation Area B

W3B5B2A8ADitch A5B3B2ASMU 3SMU 21RAC-1SMU 8Remediation Area C(Medium Energy)Potential Location of FutureNYSDEC Boat Launch - TBD3BRAC-2§¨¦ 6902A13B5B6BSMU 2SMU 1RAD-11Tributary 5A2A3B5B6BEast Flume8BRAC-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation Area Boundary(Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellExtent of ILWD in Littoral Zone300 150 0 300Feet .FIGURE 5.6PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat Module ApplicationRemediation Area C

5B3B2A1RAC-2SMU 2SMU 1RAD-1RemediationArea DAddendumThe bathymetric contour lines in Remediation Area Dare closely spaced and may appear as bold blue lines.Note that they follow standard mapping guidelines anddo not cross one another.RAD-2Remediation Area D(Medium Energy)RAD-3RAD-4 RAE-1 RAE-2 RAE-3112A6BEast Flume8B9B3B2ASMU 6SMU 7Wastebed B6A2B3BSMU 1SMU 7Phragmites control channel (Module 4A)extends along entire length of wall3B5B5B8B6BHarbor Brook6ARAD-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) Boundary.300 150 0 300Remediation Area Boundary(Parsons, 2009) FeetTributary to be remediatedby HoneywellWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMApproximate Location ofEast Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMExtent of ILWD in Littoral ZoneHarbor BrookFIGURE 5.9PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat Module ApplicationRemediation Area D

SMU 5SMU 6Ley CreekSMU 8SYW-12Remediation Area E(High Energy)RAE-3SMU 6SYW-12 Area StillUnder Evaluation.Proposed combinationof wetlands and uplands2A1RAE-2RAE-1RAD-4112A2BOnondagaCreekCarouselMallRAE-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)SMU 6SMU 7NYSDEC ApprovedWetland Boundaries3BSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)SMU 7SMU 1Tributary to be remediatedby Honeywell2AWillis/Semet IRM Barrier Wall3B8B6B5BMetroWest Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMExtent of ILWD in Littoral Zone.300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE 5.146A8BOnondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat Module ApplicationRemediation Area EHarbor BrookPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

2BRemediation Area D(SMU 1)Remediation Area E(SMU 7)2A3B6A3BPhragmitesControl Channel(Module 4A)Extends Length ofBarrier Wall5B3B8BFormerHarbor BrookChannel6BDeeper (1-2')Wetland Areas forFishery Enhancement6A8B6A8B8B4AMounds forWaterfowlNesting(Q:\GIS\GIS_Lake\HAB_PA\HB_graphic.mxd) 9/11/2008 -- 9:04:32 AMNYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationWest Wall Portion ofthe WB-B/HB IRMApproximate location of East WallPortion of the WB-B/HB IRM.New York State DigitalOrthoimagery from 200390 45 0 90FeetPARSONSFIGURE 5.18301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkConceptual Plan for Lower HarborBrook and Adjacent Wetland Areas

Mound for WaterfowlNestingBraided Channel forFishery EnhancementBraided Channel forFishery EnhancementHarbor Brook ChannelExtent ofRemovalHabitat Layer(Wetland Substrate)Woody DebrisIsolation Cap(Sand)Figure 5.19Onondaga LakeSyracuse, NYConceptual Profile of Harbor Brookand Adjacent Wetland AreaPARSONSNot to Scale301 Plainfield Road * Suite 350 * Syracuse, NY * 315-451-9560P:\Honeywell -SYR\445112 - Habitat and CPP III\09 Reports\9.2 Revised Habitat Plan\Figures/Figure 5.19 12-09.ppt

(MeSMU 8SMU 5SMU 4Remediation Area A0-1' ShallowerSMU 4SMU 31-3' Deeper§¨¦ 690 Wastebeds 1-83-5' Shallower3-5' Deeper1-3' Shallower3-5' ShallowerNinemile CreekRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationPost-Remedy Change in Water Depth1-3' Deeper3-5' Deeper1-3' Shallower3-5' Shallower300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE 5.20PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkChange in Water DepthRemediation Area Ae

owerSMU 8Remediation Area B1-3' Shallower0-1' ShallowerWastebeds 1-83-5' Shallower1-3' ShallowerRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationPost-Remedy Change in Water Depth1-3' Deeper3-5' Deeper1-3' Shallower3-5' Shallower300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE 5.21SMU 3(MediumEnergy)PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkChange in Water DepthRemediation Area B

East F3-5' Shallower1-3' ShallowerSMU 8SMU 3SMU 23-5' ShallowerRemediationArea C1-3' Shallower1-3' Deeper0-1' Shallower§¨¦ 6901-3' ShallowerSMU 2SMU 1Remediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationPost-Remedy Change in Water Depth1-3' Deeper3-5' Deeper1-3' Shallower3-5' Shallower300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE 5.22PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkChange in Water DepthRemediation Area CW

8RemediationArea CSMU 8Remediation Area DRemediation Area DAddendum3-5' ShallowerSMU 2SMU 13-5' Deeper1-3' Deeper3-5' Shallower3-5' Deeper1-3' Deeper3-5' DeeperWastebed BSMU 7SMU 1Remediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationPost-Remedy Change in Water Depth1-3' Deeper3-5' Deeper1-3' Shallower3-5' Shallower300 150 0 300FeetHarbor BrookFIGURE 5.23PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkChange in Water DepthRemediation Area D

SMU 5SMU 6Ley CreekSYW-12SMU 81-3' Shallower0-1' Shallower3-5' DeeperRemediationArea E1-3' Deeper1-3' DeeperCarouselMaller3-5' DeeperRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Area covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationPost-Remedy Change in Water DepthSMU 6SMU 71-3' Deeper1-3' Deeper3-5' Deeper1-3' Shallower3-5' ShallowerSMU 7SMU 1Metro300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE 5.24.1-3' Shallower3-5' ShallowerPARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkChange in Water DepthRemediation Area E8A

SMU 8Remediation Area A(Low Energy)SMU 5SMU 4RAA-1RAA-1Medium SandSMU 4SMU 3Fine GravelMediumSand§¨¦ 690 Wastebeds 1-8FinesMedium SandFinesPhragmites control channel (Module 4A)to be located along shoreline (2' x 20')(MeSHORELINESTABILIZATION (8B)Graded GravelTopsoilNinemile CreekRAA-1Cross-section Location and IdentifierArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellSubstrate TypeFinesMedium SandFine GravelCoarse GravelTopsoilWetland300 150 0 300FeetFIGURE 5.25PARSONS.Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat SubstrateRemediation Area Ae301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212

SMU 3TopsoilSHORELINESTABILIZATION (8B)Graded GravelMediumSandSMU 8Remediation Area B(Medium Energy)Fine GravelWetlandFine GravelRAB-1MediumSandWastebeds 1-8CoarseSandRAB-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)Substrate TypeFinesMedium SandFine GravelCoarse GravelTopsoilWetland300 150 0 300Feet .SMU 3FIGURE (Medium 5.26Energy)PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat SubstrateRemediation Area B

WFineGravelTopsoilDitch ASMU 3SMU 2MediumSandRAC-1SMU 8Remediation Area C(Medium Energy)Potential Location of FutureNYSDEC Boat Launch - TBDFineGravelTopsoilMediumSandRAC-2§¨¦ 690FineGravelSMU 2SMU 1RAD-1Tributary 5AMediumSandEast FlumeRAC-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation Area Boundary(Parsons, 2009)Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellExtent of ILWD in Littoral ZoneSubstrate TypeFinesMedium SandFine GravelCoarse GravelTopsoilWetland300 150 0 300Feet .FIGURE 5.27PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat SubstratRemediation Area C

RAC-2SMU 2SMU 1RAD-1RemediationArea DAddendumRAD-2The bathymetric contour lines in Remediation Area Dare closely spaced and may appear as bold blue lines.Note that they follow standard mapping guidelines anddo not cross one another.Remediation Area D(Medium Energy)RAD-3RAD-4 RAE-1 RAE-2 RAE-3Coarse SandMedium SandEast FlumeTopsoilWetlandSMU 6SMU 7Fine GravelWastebed B3BSMU 1SMU 7Phragmites control channel (Module 4A)extends along entire length of wallCoarseGravelTopsoilHarbor BrookWetlandRAD-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation Area Boundary(Parsons, 2009)Harbor Brook300 150 0 300Feet.Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallWest Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMApproximate Location ofEast Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMExtent of ILWD in Littoral ZoneSubstrate TypeFinesMedium SandFine GravelCoarse GravelTopsoilWetlandFIGURE 5.28PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat SubstrateRemediation Area D

SMU 5SMU 6Ley CreekSMU 8SYW-12Remediation Area E(High Energy)RAE-3SMU 6SYW-12 Area StillUnder Evaluation.Proposed combinationof wetlands and uplandsCoarseSandRAE-2RAE-1RAD-4FineGravelCarouselMallRAE-1Cross-section Location and IdentificationArea covered by Onondaga LakeRemedial Design Elements forHabitat RestorationMedium SandCoarseGravelOnondagaCreekAquatic Plants(From Onondaga County Departmentof Water Environment Protection, 2008)NYSDEC ApprovedWetland BoundariesSMU 6SMU 7Sediment ManagementUnit (SMU) BoundaryRemediation AreaBoundary (Parsons, 2009)SMU 7SMU 1Tributary to be remediatedby HoneywellWillis/Semet IRM Barrier WallMetroWest Wall Portion of the Wastebed B/Harbor Brook IRMExtent of ILWD in Littoral Zone300 150 0 300Feet.Harbor BrookTopsoilWetland6BSubstrate TypeFinesMedium SandFine GravelCoarse GravelTopsoilWetlandFIGURE 5.29PARSONS301 PLAINFIELD RD, SUITE 350; SYRACUSE, NY 13212Onondaga LakeSyracuse, New YorkRestored Habitat SubstrateRemediation Area E

DRAFTSection 6: ReferencesAllen, A. W. (1983) Habitat suitability index models: Beaver. U.S. FishWildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.30 Revised 20 pp.Allen, A. W. (1986) Habitat suitability index models: mallard (winterhabitat, Lower Mississippi Valley). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol.Rep. 82 (10.132). 37 pp.Allen, A. W. (1986) Habitat suitability index models: Mink, revised. U.S.Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.61 Revised 19 pp.Allen, A. W., and R. D. Hoffman. (1984) Habitat suitability indexmodels: Muskrat. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.46. 27pp.American Mud and Musk Turtles, Natural History Information. Accessedat: http://members.aol.com/TheWyvernsLair/turtles/MudMusk-1.html. Last updated July 31, 2001.Arrigo, M.A. (1996) Reproduction and recruitment of fishes in ahypereutrophic system (Onondaga Lake, New York). Master’sthesis. SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.Syracuse, NY.ASTM D 2487-06 (2007) Practice for Classification of Soils forEngineering Purposes. Annual Book of ASTM Standards,Philadelphia, PAAuer, Martin T; Steven W. Effler, Michelle L. Storey, Susan D. Connors,and others (1996). Biology. In Limnological and EngineeringAnalysis of a Polluted Urban Lake. Edited by Steven W. Effler.Springer-Verlag: New York. p. 384-534.B&L [Barton and Loguidice] (2001) Wetland Delineation Report for theOnondaga Lake West Shore Trail. Prepared for OnondagaCounty Department of Transportation.Barko, J. W. and R. M. Smart. (1986) Sediment-related mechanisms ofgrowth limitation in submersed macrophytes. Ecology 67:1328-1340.Barko, J. W., M. S. Adams, and N. L. Clesceri. (1986) Environmentalfactors and their consideration in the management of submersedaquatic vegetation: A review. Journal of Aquatic PlantManagement 24:1-10.BBL [Blasland, Bouck, & Lee] (2001) Ninemile Creek/Geddes Brooksediment IRM investigation report. Prepared on the behalf ofHoneywell.Beauchamp, W. M. 1869 (ed.) Journal of a Botanical Excursion in theNortheastern Part of the State of Pennsylvania and New Yorkduring the year 1807 by Federick Pursh. Ira Friedman, Inc., PortWashington, NY.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 136

DRAFTBeauchamp, W.W. (1908) Past and Present of Syracuse and OnondagaCounty, New York. S.J. Clarke Publishing Company: New York.Blasland & Bouck (1989) Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Allied WasteBeds in the Syracuse Area. Prepared for AlliedSignal.Bottomley, E. Z. and I. L. Bayley. (1984) A sediment porewatersampler used in root zone studies of the submerged macrophyte,Myriophyllum spicatum. Limnology and Oceanography 29:671-673.British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Green frog Factsheet. B.C.Frogwatch Program. Environmental Stewardship Division.Accessed November 27, 2007 athttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frogwatch/whoswho/factshts/greenfrog.htm.British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Wood frog Factsheet. B.C.Frogwatch Program. Environmental Stewardship Division.Accessed November 27, 2007 athttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frogwatch/whoswho/factshts/woodfrog.htm.Bye, R.A. and F.W. Oettinger (1969) Vascular flora of OnondagaCounty, New York. State University of New York, College ofEnvironmental Science and Forestry. Department of ForestBotany and Pathology. Syracuse, NY.C&S (1986) Revised Landfill Closure Plan, Volumes 1 and 2.C&SCompanies (2001) Transmittal to Ms. Susan Benjamin of theNYSDEC with copies of an August 3, 2000 memorandum titled"Summary of Wetland Subsurface Investigation Analytical Data"Prepared by C&S. C&S, Syracuse, New York.Casselman, J. M. and C. A. Lewis. (1996) Habitat requirements ofnorthern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Journal of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 53 (Suppl. 1):161-174.Chambers, P. A., and J. Kalff. (1985) Depth distribution and biomass ofsubmersed aquatic macrophytes communities in relation toSecchi depth. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and AquaticSciences 42:701-709.Charbonneau, P. and L. Hare. (1998) Burrowing behavior and biogenicstructures of mud-dwelling insects. Journal of the NorthAmerican Benthological Society 17:239-249.Chiotti, T.L. (1981)Onondaga Lake Survey Report, 1980 and 1981.NYSDEC: Albany, NY.Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2003) All About Birds Bird Guide.Retrieved fromhttp://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide.Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe (1979)Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the UnitedStates. Office of Biological Services, USFWS, U.S. Departmentof the Interior. Washington, D.C.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 137

DRAFTCrumb, D. et al. (2002) City Cemeteries to Boreal Bogs Where to goBirding in Central New York Second Edition. OnondagaAudubon Society, Syracuse, NY.David, J.D. and A.J. McDonnell (1997) Development of a partitionedbiomassmodel for rooted macrophyte growth. Aquatic Botany56:265-276.de Laubenfels, David (1977) Syracuse. In Geography of New YorkState, ed. John H. Thompson. Syracuse University Press:Syracuse, New York. p. 469-479.Ducey, P. K. (1997) Final Report for 1996: Wetland-lake Connectionsand Amphibian Communities of the Onondaga Lake Ecosystem.State University of New York at Cortland. Department ofBiological Sciences, Cortland, NY.Ducey, P.K., W. Newman, K. Cameron, and M. Messere (1998)Herpetofauna of the highly-polluted Onondaga Lake ecosystem,Onondaga County, New York. Herpetological Review 29:118-119.Ducey, P.K and L. West. (2004) Populations of Amphibians and Reptileswithin the Onondaga Lake Ecosystem. Poster presentation atthe Upstate Freshwater Institute Sixth Annual Onondaga LakeScientific Forum. Liverpool, NY.EcoLogic (2001) Onondaga Lake Ambient Monitoring Program, 2000Annual Report. Prepared for Onondaga County, New York.EcoLogic (2006) Onondaga Lake Ambient Monitoring Program, 2005Annual Report. Prepared for Onondaga County, New York.Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt andA.M. Olivero (2002) Ecological Communities of New York State.Draft Second Edition. New York Natural Heritage Program.NYSDEC, Albany, NY.Edwards, E. A., G. Gebhart, and O. E. Maughan. (1983) Habitatsuitability information: Smallmouth bass. U.S. Dept. Int., FishWildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.26. 47 pp.Effler, Steven W. and Gena Harnett (1996) Background. In Limnologicaland Engineering Analysis of a Polluted Urban Lake. Edited bySteven W. Effler. Springer-Verlag: New York. p. 1-31.Effler, Steven W. and Keith A. Whitehead (1996) Tributaries andDischarges. In Limnological and Engineering Analysis of aPolluted Urban Lake. Edited by Steven W. Effler. Springer-Verlag: New York. p. 97-199.Effler, Steven W., Martin T. Auer, Ned Johnson, Michael Penn, and H.Chandler Rowell (1996) Sediments. In Limnological andEngineering Analysis of a Polluted Urban Lake. Edited by StevenW. Effler. Springer-Verlag: New York. p. 600-666.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 138

DRAFTEffler, Steven W., S.M O’Donnell, D.A. Matthews, C.M. Matthews, D.M.O’Donnell, M.T. Auer, and E.M. Owens (2002) Limnological andloading information and a phosphorus total maximum daily loadanalysis for Onondaga Lake. Lake and Reservoir Management18:87-108.Environment Canada. Habitat Rehabilitation in the Great LakesTechniques for Enhancing Biodiversity. Retrieved fromhttp://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/habitat-rehabilitation4-e.html.Environment Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://wildspace.ec.gc.ca/life.cfm?ID=BCNH&Page=More&Lang=e#BH.Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers WetlandsDelineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. ArmyEngineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.Farrell, J. M. (2001) Reproductive success of sympatric northern pikeand muskellunge in an upper St. Lawrence River bay.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:796-808.Fernald, M. L. (1950) Gray’s Manual of Botany, 8 th Edition. AmericanBook Company, New York, NYFerrante, John G. (2005) Onondaga Lake: A Changing Ecosystem.Clearwaters. 35(2):10-16.Finger, T.R (1982) Fish Community—Habitat Relations in a Central NewYork Stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 1(4):343-352.Flora of North America Editorial Committee. (2002) Flora of NorthAmerica North of Mexico Volume 23 Magnoliophyta:Commelinidge (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press,New York, NY.G.M. Hopkins, Co. (1938) Atlas of the City of Syracuse, NY andSuburbs. Philadelphia, PA.Gandino, C. J. (1996) Community structure and populationcharacteristics of fishes in a recovering New York lake. Master’sthesis. SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.Syracuse, NY.Garrison, B. A. (1999) Bank swallow (Riparia riparia). No. 414. In A.Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. TheAcademy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania andthe American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.Geraci, Robert (2009) Personal communication with representative fromthe Habitat Technical Work Group.Gibbs, J. P. (2007) The amphibians and reptiles of New York State.Oxford University Press. New York, New York.Gleason, H. A. (1952) The New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora ofthe United States and Adjacent Canada. Hafner Press, NewYork, NY (3 vols).PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 139

DRAFTGleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist (1998) Manual of Vascular Plants ofNortheastern United States and Adjacent Canada. The NewYork Botanical Garden, Bronx NY.Golubic, S. and A.G. Fischer (1975) Ecology of calcareous nodulesforming in Little Connestoga Creek near Lancaster,Pennsylvania. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 19:2315-2323.Goodrich, L. L. (1912) Flora of Onondaga County as collected by theMembers of the Syracuse Botanical Club. McDonnell Co.,Syracuse, NY.Graves, B. M., and S. H. Anderson. (1987) Habitat suitability indexmodels: snapping turtle. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.141). 18 pp.Harding, A. (1973) An Annotated Key to the Woody Plants of OnondagaCounty, New York. Master’s Thesis. State University of NewYork, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse,NY.Hasse, J. J. and E. C. Stegemann (1992) Retrieved fromhttp://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7040.htmlhttp://www.fishbase.org.Hennigan, Robert D. (1991) America’s Dirtiest Lake. Clearwaters 19:8-13.Hilsenhoff, W. (1966) The biology of Chironomus plumosus (Diptera:Chironomidae) in Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin. Annals of theEntomological Society of America 59: 465-473.Hohman, Christopher D. (2004) Cultural Resource Management Report:Phase 1A Cultural Resource Assessment. Public ArchaeologyFacility, Binghamton University: Binghamton, New York.Prepared for Parsons (and Honeywell). Draft.Inskip, P. D. (1982) Habitat suitability index models: northern pike. U.S.Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.17. 40 pp.Johnson, N.A. (1989) Surficial Sediment Characteristics and SedimentPhosphorus Release Rates in Onondaga Lake, NY. Master’sThesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Michigan TechnologicalUniversity, Houghton, MI.Johnson, S.L. (2009) The littoral zone macroinvertebrates in OnondagaLake and the influence of invertebrate drift. MS thesis. StateUniversity of New York, College of Environmental Science andForestry. Syracuse, NY.Kappel, W.M. (2003) Hydrogeology of the Onondaga Aquifer -- TheGood, the Bad, and the Brine: Proceedings of the Fifth annualOnondaga Lake Scientific Forum, November 21, 2003, LeMoyneManor Inn & Banquet Center, Liverpool, New York, p. 11Kappel, W.M. (2004) Personal communication with member of theHabitat Technical Work Group.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 140

DRAFTKappel, W.M. and W.S. McPherson (1998) Remediation of MudboilDischarges in the Tully Valley of Central New York. USGS FactSheet.Kirby, L. (2009) Nesting and recruitment of centrardid fishes and theoligotrophication of Onondaga Lake, New York. MS thesis. StateUniversity of New York, College of Environmental Science andForestry. Syracuse, NY.Kirst, Sean (2009) Eagles in all their glory on Onondaga Lake. InSyracuse Post-Standard p.A1, p.A4.Knauss, Tim (2009) Data from the Upstate Freshwater Institute helpedsolve tough pollution problem. Post –Standard. February 9.Retrieved fromhttp://www.syracuse.com/progress/index.ssf/2009/02/data_from_the_upstate_freshwat.htmlLehmann, A., E. Castella, J.-B. Lachavanne (1997) Morphological traitsand spatial heterogeneity of aquatic plants along sediment anddepth gradients, Lake Geneva, Switzerland. Aquatic Botany55:281-299.Lemmon, Dave (2009) Personal communication with Dr. MargaretMurphy, AnchorQEA.Lizlovs, Sandra. (2005). Industrial Waste Contamination: Past, Present,and Future. Clearwaters. 35(2):25-29.Madsen, John D. (2006) Changes in the Littoral Aquatic PlantCommunity of Onondaga Lake from 1991 to 2006. Presented atthe Eighth Annual Onondaga Lake Scientific Forum, September26.Madsen, J.D. and M.S. Adams. (1988) The seasonal biomass andproductivity of the submerged macrophytes in a pollutedWisconsin stream. Freshwater Biology 20:41-50.Madsen, John D., Jay A. Bloomfield, James W. Sutherland, LawrenceW. Eichler, and Charles W. Boylen (1996) The AquaticMacrophyte Community of Onondaga Lake: Field Survey andPlant Growth Bioassays of Lake Sediments. Lake and ReservoirManagement 12(1):73-79.Madsen, J. D., P. A. Chambers, W. F. James, E. W. Koch, and D. F.Westlake. (2001) The interaction between water movement,sediment dynamics, and submersed macrophytes. Hydrobiologia444:71-84.Madsen, John D., L.W. Eichler, J.W. Sutherland, J.A. Bloomfield, R.M.Smart, and C.W. Boylen (1992) Submersed Littoral VegetationDistribution: Field Quantification and Experimental Analysis ofSediment Types from Onondaga Lake, New York. Reportsubmitted to Onondaga Lake Management Conference. U.S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, LewisvilleAquatic Ecosystem Research Facility, Lewisville, TX.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 141

DRAFTMadsen, J. D., R. M. Stewart, K. D. Getsinger, R. L. Johnson, and R. M.Wersal. (2008) Aquatic plant communities in Waneta Lake andLamoka Lake, New York. Northeastern Naturalist 15:97-110.Mazerolle, M. J., and M. Cormier. (2003) Effects of peat miningintensity on green frog (Rana clamitans) occurrence in bogponds. Wetlands 23:709-716. Retrieved fromhttp://www.theses.ulaval.ca/2004/21842/ch03.html.McFarland, D. (2006) Reproductive ecology of Vallisneria americanaMichaux. SAV Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/TN SAV-06-4).Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and DevelopmentCenter.McMahon, T. E., J. W. Terrell, and P. C. Nelson. (1984) Habitatsuitability information: Walleye. USFWS FWS/OBS-82/10.56. 43pp.McMullen, J.M. (1993) Plant Species Recorded in the BotanicalLiterature From in or near Onondaga Lake, Onondaga County,New York. Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. Phoenix,NY.Merritt, R. W., and K. W. Cummins. (1984) An introduction to theaquatic insects of North America. Second Edition. Kendall/HuntPublishing Co. Dubuque, IA.Middleboe, A. L and S. Markager. (1997) Depth limits and minimumlight requirements of freshwater macrophytes. FreshwaterBiology 37:553-568.Mills, E.L. and J.L. Forney, M.D. Clady, and W.R. Schaffner (1978)Oneida Lake. In Lakes of New York State. Vol. 2. J.A. Bloomfield(ed.) Academic Press: New York.Mitsch and Gosselink (2003) WetlandsNational Audubon Society. (2007) The Christmas Bird CountsHistorical Results. Retrieved fromhttp://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/July 16National Geographic’s Northern Leopard Frog Profile (2007) Retrievedfromhttp://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/amphibians/northern-leopard-frog.html.National Inventory of Dams (2009) nid.usace.army.mil (accessed11/20/09)NatureServe Explorer Database. (2007) Retrieved fromhttp://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe.Nemerow, N.L. (1964) Onondaga Lake- a lake that was. In D.F. Jackson(ed.). Some aquatic resources of Onondaga County. OnondagaCo. Dept. Publ. Works, Div. Parks and Conserv., OnondagaCounty, NY.Niver, R. (2007) Personal Communication. Endangered SpeciesBiologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. New York Field Office.Cortland, NY.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 142

DRAFTNYFA. (2005) New York Flora Association Online Database. Retrievedfrom http:\\atlas.nyflora.org\main.New York State Breeding Bird Atlas 2000. (2007) Release 1.0. Albany(New York): New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation. [updated 2007 Jun 11; cited 2008 Oct 20].Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html.New York State Breeding Bird Atlas 2000 [Internet]. 2000 - 2005.Release 1.0. Albany (New York): New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation. [updated 2007 Jun 11; cited 2008Oct 20]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7312.html.NYSDEC (1995)Freshwater Wetland Delineation Manual.NYSDEC (2004)Coldwater Fisheries Rehabilitation and Management in theOnondaga Lake Watershed. Region 7 Fisheries Office draftposition statement to EPA.NYSDEC (2002) New York State River Otter Project, Records of riverotter sightings around Onondaga Lake from 1984 to 2002. NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation.NYSDEC (2007) Freshwater wetlands, Onondaga County. Retrievedfrom http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu/.NYSDEC. 2009. Bog Turtle Fact Sheet. Accessed on the NYSDECwebsite: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7164.html.NYSDEC (2009) Citizens Participation Plan, Onondaga Lake BottomSubsite of the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site.NYSDEC and USEPA (2005) Record of Decision. Onondaga LakeBottom Subsite of the Onondaga Lake Superfund Site.NYSDEC and USEPA (2008). Proposed Plan. Operable Unit 1 of theGeddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Site, Onondaga County, NewYork. November 19, 2008.NYSDEC and USEPA (2009) Record of Decision. Operable Unit 1 ofthe Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Site, Onondaga County, NewYork. April 29, 2009.NYSDOH (2007) Chemicals in Sportfish and Game: 2007-2008 HealthAdvisories. Retrieved fromhttp://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/outdoors/fish/fish.htm, June 1, 2007.Noble, R.L. and J.L Forney (1969) Fishery Survey of Onondaga Lake—Summer, 1969. Department of Conservation and CornellUniversity: Ithaca, NY.Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation; SpeciesData matrices Version 1.0. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/neparc/Products/riskassessment.htm.O'Brien & Gere (1995). Letter to Mr. Charles Branagh of the NYSDECregarding wetlands mitigation sampling in SYW-12 datedOctober 20, 1995. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell,Syracuse, New York.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 143

DRAFTO’Brien & Gere (2001) BERA Work Plan: Former IFG Facility and LeyCreek Deferred Media. Syracuse, New York. Prepared on behalfof General Motors Corporation. June.O’Brien & Gere (2002) East Flume Interim Remedial Measure,Syracuse, New York. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.O’Brien & Gere (2003) Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation, Harbor BrookSite, Geddes, New York. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.O’Brien & Gere (2004a) Harbor Brook Site RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study. Prepared on the behalfHoneywell.O’Brien & Gere (2004b) Harbor Brook Site Baseline Ecological RiskAssessment (draft report). Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.O’Brien & Gere (2004c) Willis Avenue Chlorobenzene Site BaselineEcological Risk Assessment (draft report) Prepared on the behalfof Honeywell.O’Brien & Gere (2004d) 95% Basis of Design Report for the East FlumeIRM. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.O’Brien & Gere (2005a) Wastebeds 1 through 8 Focused RemedialInvestigation Work Plan. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.O’Brien & Gere (2005b) Preliminary Site Assessment-Data SummaryReport, Ninemile Creek Dredge Spoils Area. Geddes, NewYork. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell International,Syracuse, New York.O’Brien & Gere (2006) Wetland Delineation and Floodplain Assessmentfor the Wastebeds 1 through 8 Site. Prepared on the behalf ofHoneywell.O’Brien & Gere (2009). Wetland Delineation and Floodplain FinalReport for the Wastebeds 1 through 8 Site. Syracuse, NewYork.O’Brien & Gere and Parsons (2004) Final Work Plan forWetlands/Floodplain Assessment Report, Onondaga Lake.Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.O’Brien & Gere and Parsons (2004b) Wetlands/Floodplain Assessmentfor Onondaga Lake (draft report). Prepared on the behalf ofHoneywell.O’Brien & Gere and Parsons (2009) Wetlands / Floodplain Assessment,Onondaga Lake, Revised Report. Geddes and Syracuse, NewYork. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.OCDWEP (Onondaga County Department of Water EnvironmentProtection) (2001) Ambient Monitoring Program Report.Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection.Syracuse, NY.OCDWEP (2003) Ambient Monitoring Program Report. OnondagaCounty Department of Water Environment Protection. Syracuse,NY.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 144

DRAFTOCDWEP (2004) Ambient Monitoring Program Report. OnondagaCounty Department of Water Environment Protection. Syracuse,NY.OCDWEP (2005) Ambient Monitoring Program Report. OnondagaCounty Department of Water Environment Protection. Syracuse,NY.OCDWEP (2006) Ambient Monitoring Program Report. OnondagaCounty Department of Water Environment Protection. Syracuse,NY.OCDWEP (2009) http://www.ongov.net/lake/ol32.htmOurlake.org (2007) System Description: Onondaga Creek. Retrievedfrom http://www.ourlake.org/html/onondaga_creek1.html, June11, 2007.Pagano, A. M. and J. E. Titus. (2004) Submersed macrophyte growthat low pH: Contrasting responses of three species to dissolvedinorganic carbon enrichment and sediment type. Aquatic Botany79:65-74.Parsons (2004). Onondaga Lake Feasibility Study Report, OnondagaCounty, New York. Prepared for Honeywell, in association withAnchor Environmental and Exponent. May 2004.Parsons (2004a). Final (100%) Design Report for the LCP Bridge StreetSite (OU-1). Solvay, New York. Prepared on the behalf ofHoneywell, March 2004. Revised September 2004.Parsons (2005) Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Feasibility Study Report,Onondaga County, New York. Draft Final. Prepared on thebehalf of Honeywell.Parsons (2006) Onondaga Lake Pre-Design Investigation: Phase IIWork Plan. Prepared for Honeywell.Parsons (2008). Draft Final Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek OperableUnit 1, Supplemental Feasibility Study Report. Prepared on thebehalf of Honeywell, Inc. November 2008.Parsons (2009). Draft Final Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek OperableUnit 2, Supplemental Feasibility Study Report. Prepared on thebehalf of Honeywell, Inc. May 2009.Parsons (2009a) Onondaga Lake Phase IV PDI Preliminary Draft DataSummary Report. Appendix K: Habitat Investigation DataSummary Report. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell. (Inreview)Parsons (2009b) Draft Capping and Dredge Area and Depth TechnicalDocument (in progress).Parsons (2009c) Willis Avenue Lakeshore Barrier Wall RIM (SiteNo.:734026 Restoration/Mitigation Design.Parsons (2009d) Draft Remedial Action Report and Certification, LCPBridge Street Site. Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 145

DRAFTParsons (2009e) Draft Onondaga Lake Baseline Monitoring Report for2008, Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell, June 2009.Parsons (2009g) Capping and Dredge Area and Depth Initial DesignSubmittal, December 2009.Parsons (2009f) Draft Work Plan for Onondaga Lake Nitrate ApplicationField Trial, Prepared on the behalf of Honeywell, June 2009.Peckarsky, B. L., P. R. Fraissinet, M. A. Penton, and D .J. Conklin, Jr.(1990) Freshwater macroinvertebrates of Northeastern NorthAmerica. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Penfound, W.T., T.F. Hall, and D. Hess (1945) The spring phenology ofplants in and around the reservoirs in north Alabama withparticular reference to malaria control. Ecology 26:332-352.Peterson, D. L., P. Vecsei, and C. A. Jennings. (2007) Ecology andbiology of the lake sturgeon: a synthesis of current knowledge ofa threatened North American Acipenseridae. Abstracts fromUpdate on Lake Sturgeon in NYS Waters, January 2000.Prestigiacomo, A. R., S. W. Effler, J. M. Hassett and E. M. Michelanko.(2006) Remote Robotic Monitoring of Suspensoid Water Qualityin Onondaga Creek, NY. Journal of the American WaterResources Association (in review).PTI (1993) Onondaga Lake RI/FS Ecological Effects Investigation DataReport. Prepared for AlliedSignal, Inc.Purcell, B. (2004) Region 5 – Oneida Lake Basin Kingbird 54: 71-77.Purcell, B. (2005) Region 5 – Oneida Lake Basin Kingbird 55: 68-73.Purcell, B. (2006) Region 5 – Oneida Lake Basin Kingbird 56: 162-166.Raleigh, R. F., L. D. Zuckerman, and P. C. Nelson. (1986) Habitatsuitability index models and instream flow suitability curves:Brown trout, revised. USFWS Biol. Rep. 82(10.124). 65 pp. [Firstprinted as: FWS/OBS 82-10.71, September 1984].Rea, T. E., D. J. Karapatakis, K. K. Guy, J. E. Pinder III, and H. E.Mackey, Jr. (1998) The relative effects of water depth, fetchand other physical factors on the development of macrophytes ina small southeastern US pond. Aquatic Botany 61:289-299.Rhodes, C.A. and M.M Alexander (1980) Wetlands of OnondagaCounty, 1976-1978.Ringler, N.H., C. Gandino, P. Hirethota, R. Hanahey, P. Tango, M.Arrigo, C. Morgan, C. Millard, M. Murphy, R.J. Sloan, and S.W.Effler (1996) Fish Communities and Habitats in Onondaga Lake,Adjoining Portions of the Seneca River, and Lake Tributaries. InLimnological and Engineering Analysis of a Polluted Urban Lake.Edited by Steven W. Effler. Springer-Verlag: New York. p.453-493.Rowell, H. Chandler (1996) Paleolimnology of Onondaga Lake: theHistory of Anthropogenic Impacts on Water Quality. Lake andReservoir Management. 12(1):35-45.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 146

DRAFTScott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. (1979) Freshwater Fishes of Canada.Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa. 966 pp.Service Engineering Group (2002) Data Gap Report. St. LouisRiver/Interlake/Duluth Tar Site, Duluth Minnesota. AppendixGT2.Sheldon, R. B., and Boylen, C. W. (1977). Maximum depthinhabited by aquatic vascular plants. American MidlandNaturalist 97, 248-254.Shine, R., G. P. Brown, and M. J. Elphick. (2004) Field experiments onforaging in free-ranging water snakes Enhydris polylepis(Homalopsinae). Retrieved fromhttp://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/Shinelab/publications/reprints/418fieldexps.pdf.Short, H. L. (1985) Habitat suitability index models: Red-wingedblackbird. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82 (10.95). 20 pp.Short, H. L. and R. J. Cooper. (1985) Habitat suitability index models:Great blue heron. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82 (10.99). 23pp.Sibley, D.A. (2000) National Audubon Society The Sibley Guide toBirds. Chanticleer Press, Inc. New YorkSiniscal, A.C. (2009) Characterization of the fish community of arecovering ecosystem, Onondaga Lake, New York. MS thesis.State University of New York, College of Environmental Scienceand Forestry. Syracuse, NY. 108 pp.Sousa, P. J. (1985) Habitat suitability index models: Red-spotted newt.U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82 (10.111). 18 pp.Spada, M.E., N.H. Ringler, S.W. Effler and D.A. Matthews (2002)Invasion of Onondaga Lake, New York, by the Zebra Mussel(Dreissena polymorpha) Following Reductions in N Pollution.Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21(4):634-650.Spencer, D.F. and G.G. Ksander. (2005) Root size and depthdistribution for three species of submersed aquatic plants grownalone or in mixtures: Evidence for nutrient competition. Journalof Freshwater Ecology 20(1):109-116.Spencer, D.F., G.G. Ksander, J.D. Madsen, and C.S. Owens (2000)Emergence of vegetative propagules of Potamgeton nodosus,Potamogeton pectinatus, Vallisneria americana, and Hydrillaverticillata based on accumulated degree-days. Aquatic Botany67:237-249Ste Marie among the Iroquois (2006) Into the Unknown. The PhoenixPress: Phoenix, New York.Stearns and Wheler (1994) Onondaga Lake Cooperative MonitoringProgram, 1992 Annual Report.Stiles, W. (2001) Personalcommunication via telephone conversation with Rebecca Quail,NYSDEC, regarding species of mammals and birds confirmed tobe around Onondaga Lake. NYSDEC, Albany, NY.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 147

DRAFTStuber, R. J., G. Gebhart, and O. E. Maughan. (1982a) Habitatsuitability index models: Largemouth bass. U.S. Dept. Int. FishWildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.16. 32 pp.Stuber, R. J., G. Gebhart, and O. E. Maughan. (1982b) Habitatsuitability index models: Bluegill. U.S.D.I. Fish and WildlifeService. FWS/OBS-82/10.8. 26 pp.TAMS (2002a) Onondaga Lake Remedial Investigation Report.Onondaga Lake Project. Prepared for NYSDEC.TAMS (2002b) Onondaga Lake, Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment.Onondaga Lake Project. Volumes 1 and 2. Prepared forNYSDEC.TAMS (2003a) Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Baseline Ecological RiskAssessment. Prepared for NYSDEC.TAMS (2003b) Geddes Brook/Ninemile Creek Remedial InvestigationReport. Prepared for NYSDEC.Tango, Peter J. and Neil H. Ringler (1996) The Role of Pollution andExternal Refugia in Structuring the Onondaga Lake FishCommunity. Lake and Reservoir Management 12(1):81-90.Tango, P.J. (1999) Fish community ecology of a hypereutrophic urbanlake. Ph.D. dissertation. SUNY College of EnvironmentalScience and Forestry. Syracuse, NY.Taylor, Alan (1995) The Great Change Begins: Settling the Forest ofCentral New York. New York History. LXXV (3). Pp. 265-290.Terres, J. (1991) The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of NorthAmerican Birds. Wings Books - Outlet Book Company, Inc. NewYork, New York.TES (2003) Wetland Delineation Report: Lower Reach of NinemileCreek and Geddes Brook at the West Flume. Town of Geddes,Onondaga County, New York. Prepared for Parsons.Thiebaut, G. 2005. Does competition for phosphate supply explain theinvasion pattern of Elodea species? Water Research 39:3385-3393.Thom, R.M. and K.F. Wellman (1996) Planning aquatic ecosystemrestoration monitoring programs, IWR Report 96-R-23. Preparedfor Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Alexandria, Virginia and Waterways Experimental Station, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.USACE (1987) Field Guide for Wetland Delineation. Prepared byWetland Training Institute, Inc. Glenwood, NM.USSCS (1977) Soil Survey of Onondaga County, New York. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture.USEPA (1977) Clean Water Act.USEPA (1985) Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment forCERCLA Actions.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 148

DRAFTUSEPA (2008) Wetland Restoration and Creation Completes RemedyConstruction Near Buzzards Bay. Technology News and Trends.Issue 39, December.USEPA (n.d.) Species Profile: Great Blue Heron. Retrieved fromhttp://www.epa.gov/NE/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/final_era/B%20-%20Focus%20Species%20Profiles/EcoRiskProfile_great_blue_heron.pdf.USFWS (1978) National Wetland Inventory Map.USFWS (1983) Biology Report 82 (10.127) Page 23. October 1983.USFWS (2009) National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper.USFWS (2007) Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: FirstRevision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling,Minnesota. 258 pp.University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. (2006) Animal DiversityWeb - Osprey. Retrieved fromhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Pandion_haliaetus.htmlUniversity of Michigan Museum of Zoology. (2006) Animal DiversityWeb - Spotted Salamander, Mudpuppy, Northern Leopard Frog,Wood Frog and Green Frog. Retrieved fromhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html.University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. (2006) Animal DiversityWeb - Common Musk turtle. Retrieved fromhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Sternotherus_odoratus.html.University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. (2006) Animal DiversityWeb - Snapping turtle. Retrieved fromhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Chelydra_serpentina.html.USDA Forest Service Species Database; retrieved fromhttp://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/luca/all.html.Vana-Miller, S. L. (1987) Habitat suitability index models: osprey. U.S.Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82 (10.154). 46 pp.Vandruff, L.W., and M.A. Pike (1992) Wildlife and Habitats of theOnondaga Lake Area. State University of New York,Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse, NY.Vanner, M. (2005) The Complete Encyclopedia of North AmericanBirds. Parragon Publishing. Bath, United Kingdom.Voshell, J. Reese, Jr. (2002) A Guide to Common FreshwaterInvertebrates of North America. McDonald & WoodwardPublishing Company, Blacksburg, VA.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 149

DRAFTWarkentin, K. M. (1992) Effects of Temperature and Illumination onFeeding Rates of Green Frog Tadpoles (Rana clamitans).Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0045-8511(19920818)3%3A1992%3A3%3C725%3AEOTAIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O.Watson, W.C., Editor (1856) Memoirs of Elkanah Watson. Dana andCompany: New York.Webster, D.A. (1982) Early History of the Atlantic Salmon in New York.New York Fish Game Journal 29:26-44.Weisner, S. E. B. (1991) Within-lake patterns in depth penetration ofemergent vegetation. Freshwater Biology 26:133-142.Wiegand, K. M. and A. J. Eames. (1926) The Flora of the Cayuga LakeBasin, New York. Cornell University, Agricultural ExperimentStation, Memoranda No. 92, Ithaca, NY.Wigand, C., J.C. Stevenson, and J.D. Cornwell. (1997) Effects ofdifferent submersed macrophytes on sediment biogeochemistry.Aquatic. Boonyt. 56:233-244.Wiley, M.J., P.D. Tazik, S.T. Sobaski (1987) Controlling aquaticvegetation with tiploid grass carp. Circular 57, Illinois NaturalHistory Survey, Champaign, IL.Wurth, G. C. (1934) Studies on the Vegetation of the Syracuse SaltFlats. Master Thesis. Graduate School of Syracuse University;Syracuse, New York.Young, S. M. and T. W. Weldy. (eds). (2007) New York Rare PlantStatus List: June 2007. New York Natural Heritage Program.Albany, New York.Young, Steve. (2007). Personal communication between Steve Youngand Joe McMullen, TES.Young, Stephen M. (2000) The Loss of the Onondaga Lake SaltMarshes. Poster presented at the New York Natural HistoryConference, Albany, New York. New York Natural HeritageProgram, Albany, NY 12233-4757.PARSONS | Remedial Design Elements for Habitat Restoration 150

DRAFTAppendix AAmphibians and Reptiles Recorded inthe Vicinity of Onondaga Lake,Onondaga County, New YorkPARSONS | Appendix A

DRAFTAPPENDIX AAMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES RECORDEDIN THE VICINITY OF ONONDAGA LAKE,ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORKSALAMANDERSStandard English Name (a) Scientific Name ATLAS (b) STATUS (c)Common Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus ADJJefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum ADJ SPECBlue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale ADJ SPECSpotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum INRed-spotted Newt Notophthalmus v. viridescens INNorthern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus fuscus INAllegheny Mountain DuskySalamanderDesmognathus ochrophaeusINNorthernRed-backed Plethodon cinereusINSalamanderNorthern Slimy Salamander Plethodon glutinosus INFour-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum ADJNorthern Spring Salamander Gyrinophilus p. porphyriticus ADJNorthern Two-lined Salamander Eurycea bislineata INTOADS AND FROGSStandard English Name (a) Scientific Name ATLAS (b) STATUS (c)Eastern American Toad Bufo a. americanus INGray Treefrog Hyla versicolor INNorthern Spring Peeper Pseudacris c. crucifer INAmerican Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana INNorthern Green Frog Rana clamitans melanota INWood Frog Rana sylvatica INNorthern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens INPickerel Frog Rana palustris ADJ(a)Common and scientific names according to Crother (2000), and updates through 2003.Crother, B. I. (2000) Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with commentsregarding confidence in our understanding. Soc. Stud. Amph. Rept: St. Louis. Circular 29.(b)NY Herpetological Atlas records (1990-1999). IN = Recorded in Camillus or Syracuse West Quadrangles, ADJ = Recordedin one or more of 10 adjacent quadrangles. (http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7140.html accessed 11-01-09)(c)NY State Listed: END = Endangered, THR = Threatened, SPEC = Special Concern.(d) The status column is left blank if a species is not listed.PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX A\APPENDIX A 12-09.DOCA-1

DRAFTTURTLESStandard English Name (a) Scientific Name ATLAS (b) STATUS (c)Eastern Snapping Turtle Chelydra s. serpentina INStinkpot Sternotherus odoratus INSpotted Turtle Clemmys guttata ADJ SPECWood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta IN SPECRedbellied Cooter Pseudemys rubiventris INEastern Painted Turtle Chrysemys p. picta ADJMidland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata INSNAKESStandard English Name (a) Scientific Name ATLAS (b) STATUS (c)Northern Watersnake Nerodia s. sipedon INNorthern Brownsnake Storeria d. dekayi INNorthern Red-bellied Snake Storeria o. occipitomaculata INCommon Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis INEastern Hog-nosed Snake Heterodon platirhinos ADJ SPECNorthern Ring-necked Snake Diadophis punctatus edwardsii INSmooth Greensnake Opheodrys vernalis ADJEastern Ratsnake Elaphe spiloides INEastern Milksnake Lampropeltis t. triangulum INEastern Massasauga Sistrurus c. catenatus ADJ ENDPARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX A\APPENDIX A 12-09.DOCA-2

DRAFTAppendix BNew York State Breeding Birds AtlasResultsMapList of Species Breeding in Atlas Block 3977CList of Species Breeding in Atlas Block 39770List of Species Breeding in Atlas Block 3976BPARSONS | Appendix B

PATH: I:\Honeywell.1163\43776.Habitat-Twg\Docs\DWG\MXD\On_Lk_Wtlds_Fldpln_Rpt\BreedingBirds.mxd3977C3977DFIGURE 1¥LEGENDATLAS BLOCKNOTES:1. BLOCKS HIGHLIGHTEDIN YELLOW HAVE DATAREFERENCED IN THIS REPORT.2. ATLAS BLOCKS APPROXIMATEDFROM "NEW YORK STATE BREEDINGBIRD ATLAS 2000 [INTERNET]."HONEYWELLONONDAGA LAKESYRACUSE, NEW YORKNEW YORK STATEBREEDING BIRDATLASNAME: ReidLS3976A3976B2000-20050 2,250 4,500FeetDATE: 5/6/2009 10:25:36 AMThis document was developed in color. Reproduction in B/W may not represent the data as intended.MAY 20091163.43776

DRAFTAppendix CMacrophyte Coverage Figures from theHabitat Preliminary DesignInvestigation ReportPARSONS | Appendix C

OutletLOCATOR90690616160BloodyBrookSCALE0 0.5MilesLEGENDTotal Macrophyte DistributionSMU 5 2-7 ftAll areasNine MileCreek6465SMU BoundariesLake Contours (ft)RailroadRoadHighway/InterstateTributariesZ:\PARhtw\GIS\Macrophyte_maps\July_Macrophyte_Areas_20090422.mxd N. Kelsall 7/14/2009Tributary5A65OnondagaCreek81Ley CreekNote: The macrophyte sample grid was clippedto the 7-m depth contour. Macrophytes weresampled at the center of the grid cell.Figure 16.Macrophyte distributionin Onondaga Lake:July 2008.Honeywell Inc./PARhtw:141July 14, 2009PARhtw:141 July 2009

OutletLOCATOR90690616160BloodyBrookSCALE0 0.5MilesLEGENDTotal Macrophyte DistributionSMU 5 2-7 ftAll areasSMU BoundariesLake Contours (ft)RailroadNine MileCreek6465RoadHighway/InterstateTributariesZ:\PARhtw\GIS\Macrophyte_maps\August_Macrophyte_Areas_20090422.mxd N. Kelsall 7/14/2009Tributary5A65OnondagaCreek81Ley CreekNote: The macrophyte sample grid was clippedto the 7-m depth contour. Macrophytes weresampled at the center of the grid cell.Figure 17.Macrophyte distributionin Onondaga Lake:August 2008.Honeywell Inc./PARhtw:141July 14, 2009PARhtw:141 July 2009

LOCATOROutlet906905616160BloodyBrookSCALE0 0.5MilesLEGENDTotal Macrophyte DistributionSMU 5 2-7 ftAll areasSMU Boundaries48Lake Contours (ft)RailroadNine MileCreek36465RoadHighway/InterstateTributariesZ:\PARhtw\GIS\Macrophyte_maps\Sept_Macrophyte_Areas_20090422.mxd N. Kelsall 7/14/2009Tributary5A652176OnondagaCreek81Ley CreekNote: The macrophyte sample grid was clippedto the 7-m depth contour. Macrophytes weresampled at the center of the grid cell.Figure 18.Macrophyte distributionin Onondaga Lake:September 2008Honeywell Inc./PARhtw:141July 14, 2009

LOCATOROutlet90690SCALE0 0.5Miles6161605BloodyBrookLEGENDTotal Macrophyte DistributionSMU 5 2-7 ftAll areas48SMU BoundariesLake Contours (ft)RailroadNine MileCreek36465RoadHighway/InterstateTributariesZ:\PARhtw\GIS\Macrophyte_maps\Sept_Macrophyte_Areas_20090422.mxd N. Kelsall 7/14/2009Tributary5A65217681OnondagaCreekLey CreekNote: The macrophyte sample grid was clippedto the 7-m depth contour. Macrophytes weresampled at the center of the grid cell.Figure 19.Macrophyte distributionin Onondaga Lakefor October 2008Honeywell Inc./PARhtw:141July 14, 2009

DRAFTAppendix DSuitability of Restoration inRemediation Areas for RepresentativeSpeciesPARSONS | Appendix D

DRAFTSuitability of Restoration in Area A for RepresentativeSpeciesThe technical work group evaluated the suitability of the habitat modulesproposed in Remediation Area A for the representative species withineach major species group to provide insight into how these species mayuse each area following the proposed restoration.Remediation Area A - Habitat Modules:• 1• 2A• 3A• 4A• 5A• 6A• 9BFish - In Remediation Area A, the lower energy and variety ofsubmerged, emergent, and floating vegetation proposed for this areawill provide suitable habitat for different life stages of all of therepresentative fish species. Habitat Modules 4A, 5A, and 6A willprovide suitable habitat for northern pike spawning and rearing,largemouth bass adults and juveniles, pumpkinseed adults andjuveniles, and golden shiner. Remediation Area A is likely to be themost suitable area for golden shiners since they prefer weedy, quiet,shallow sections of lakes. The deeper modules (3A, 2A, and 1) willprovide suitable habitat for walleye, smallmouth bass, lake sturgeon,emerald shiner, and brown trout. The addition of structure to Modules3A and 2A will improve suitability for walleye and smallmouth bass.Plants - The lower wave energy environment, shallow water depths,and fine substrates proposed for Remediation Area A will provide a widevariety of habitats for submerged aquatic vegetation, persistent andnon-persistent emergent wetland species, and floating aquaticvegetation. This area provides the best opportunity for restoration oflower energy environments within the remediation areas of the lake.The shallow water limits of Module 2A (approximately 7 to 9 ft) willprovide habitat for submerged aquatic vegetation. A large area ofModule 3A is proposed in Remediation Area A; this habitat includesrepresentative submerged aquatic vegetation for species such ascoontail, sago pondweed, tapegrass, and elodea (Elodea canadensis),as well as other pond weeds and submerged aquatics common in thelake. The sandy substrate proposed in this area will be suitable for eachof these species. The shallower water depths in Modules 5A and 6A willprovide habitat for non-persistent and persistent emergent wetlandspecies, respectively. Representative non-persistent emergents thatshould be found in Module 5A are pickerel weed, arrow arum (Peltandravirginica), arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), water plantain (AlismaPARSONS | Appendix D 1

DRAFTsubcordatum), and water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium). Theshallower water depth zone in the large area of Module 6A proposed offshorein Remediation Area A will not only provide habitat for persistentemergent vegetation, but will also reduce wave energy for the areas offloating aquatic wetland vegetation (Module 4A) proposed in theadjacent near shore area. Representative plant species that may befound in the persistent emergent wetland area (Module 6A) includecattail (Typha latifolia and T. angustifolia), soft-stem bulrush (Scirpustabernaemontani), river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis), burreed(Sparganium eurycarpum), willow-weed (Justicia americana), waterwillow(Decodon verticillatus), and sedge.Nearshore of Module 6A, areas of slightly deeper Module 4A (floatingaquatic zone) are proposed. With the lower wave energy ofRemediation Area A, protection afforded by the off-shore Module 6Aarea, and proposed fine substrates, this is the best location to providehabitat for floating aquatic species. This is a habitat currently lacking inthe lake environment. The deeper water in Module 4A would alsoprotect the proposed off shore Module 6A area from being invaded byPhragmites. A deeper water trench is also proposed along the shorelineto further limit Phragmites encroachment. Although some of the freefloatingduckweeds (Lemna minor, Lemna trisulca, and Spirodelapolyrhiza) may occur in the floating aquatic zone (Module 4A), therepresentative rooted floating aquatics targeted for this area are whitewater lily, yellow pond lily (Nuphar lutea), and American pondweed.Submerged aquatic species will likely occur in this zone as well.The wetlands at the mouth of Ninemile Creek have been included withinthe boundary of the Habitat Plan due to their location directly adjacent tothe lake shoreline and the mouth of the Ninemile Creek. Removal ofPhragmites in the two spits adjoining the mouth of Ninemile Creek wouldbe necessary to establish a productive area of emergent wetland(Module 6A). Forested wetlands (Module 9B) are proposed along theshore to increase the amount of existing forested wetland and to helpreduce the threat of Phragmites extending into the Module 6A area.Silver maple American elm, and black willow, which are common in theexisting forested wetland, are targeted for this area.Benthic Macroinvertebrates - The lower energy habitats proposed forRemediation Area A will create diverse and suitable habitat for lenticspecies of all the representative invertebrate orders. Suitable habitat formost of these species will be located within the shallower habitatmodules (3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A), although Module 2A may be suitable forsome dragonfly, caddisfly, true fly (Diptera), and mayfly species. Theaddition of structure (plants, logs, etc.) to any of these modules willincrease the habitat diversity and provide additional habitat for somespecies, especially crayfish. Habitat Module 1 will provide suitablehabitat for amphipods and true flies.Mammals- In Remediation Area A, the combination of habitatrequirements for the representative species (e.g., low energy areas,emergent vegetation, trees or other cover along the shoreline) makesfor the best location within the lake for the creation of suitable habitat forPARSONS | Appendix D 2

DRAFTthe representative mammal species. Suitable habitat for beaver, mink,muskrat and otter will be created by application of habitat module 4A,5A, and 6A. The addition of structures to any of these modules wouldimprove the habitat suitability for mink. The proximity to Ninemile Creekfurther enhances the suitability of these areas for mink and otter whichcan use the tributary as a travel corridor. The deeper offshore moduleswill provide suitable habitat for otter (Modules 2A and 3A) as well asmink and beaver (Module 3A). The addition of structure to Module 3Awill provide suitable habitat for muskrat.Habitat Module 9B along the shoreline at the mouth of the creek couldpotentially provide habitat for Indiana bat.Reptiles and Amphibians - The representative reptile species, muskturtle, painted turtle, snapping turtle, and northern water snake preferlower energy environments with shallow water and access to cover orsome type of structure. Shallow water modules (3A, 4A, 5A, 6A) inRemediation Area A will provide suitable habitat conditions for each ofthese representative species. Module 4A (floating aquatics) inRemediation Area A would provide areas of cover for escape andfeeding for the painted turtle and northern water snake as well asnesting areas for musk turtle. Musk turtle also may find suitable nestinghabitat in Modules 6A and 5A. Snapping turtle would benefit most fromthe natural transition from lake to emergent (Modules 5A and 6A) andupland wetland (Module 9B) areas within and adjacent to RemediationArea A. Habitat would be most suitable for egg deposition in theseareas, and the species would be well concealed within the wetlandvegetation. The three shallowest modules (4A, 5A, and 6A) also wouldprovide suitable habitat for hibernation and feeding for the fourrepresentative reptile species.The representative amphibian species (red spotted newt, mudpuppy,spotted salamander, green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), leopard frog(Rana pipiens-s. utricularius), and wood frog (Rana sylvatica), generallyprefer shallow water environments. Mudpuppy will also use deeperareas (Modules 2A and 3A), but will nest in water less than 3 ft deep.The shallow areas (Modules 4A, 5A, and 6A) will provide suitablehabitat for all of the representative species, and provide a smoothtransition from the lake to terrestrial areas. In addition, the calm watersand soft substrate of these modules (4A, 5A and 6A) would also providesuitable foraging and hibernating areas for red-spotted newt, green frog,leopard frog, and wood frog. Red-spotted newt and spotted salamanderspend their adult stages terrestrially, and Module 9B in the adjacentarea will provide cover and suitable habitat.Birds - Remediation Area A will provide breeding and/or foraging areasfor each of the representative bird species.The deeper water areas (Modules 1 and 2A) of this area will providesuitable foraging and feeding habitat for mallard, common goldeneye,common tern (Sterna hirundo), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and bankswallow. Species such as spotted sandpiper, semi-palmated sandpiper,mallard, great blue heron, green heron, red-winged blackbird, and bankswallow would benefit from the foraging opportunities provided by thePARSONS | Appendix D 3

DRAFTsoft substrate (Module 6A), while a natural transition to the forestedwetland areas adjacent to Remediation Area A (Module 9B) providesperching structures for osprey, red-winged blackbird, and green heron.Wetlands (Modules 5A, 6A) in the near shore areas provide suitablenesting habitat for the common tern, mallard, common goldeneye, andred-winged blackbird. Species such as common goldeneye, mallard,kingfisher, great blue heron, and osprey would benefit from the middepthopen water areas (Module 3A) for foraging.Suitability of Restoration in Area B for RepresentativeSpeciesPlant and animal species that will benefit from the habitat restorationproposed in Remediation Area B are discussed below. Additionalbenefits are provided by the proposed shoreline stabilization, which arealso discussed below and in the following section.Remediation Area B Habitat Modules:• 1• 2A• 3A• 5AFish - The design of the remedy in Remediation Area B limits theshallow water habitats available for representative fish species. Therelatively steep slope to the deeper water habitats (Modules 2A and 1)may provide suitable habitat for adult walleye, emerald shiner, lakesturgeon, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and brown trout. HabitatModule 5A has been applied at two locations along the shoreline whichwill provide suitable habitat for golden shiner and juvenile pumpkinseed,largemouth bass, and northern pike. Module 3A will provide suitablehabitat for golden shiner, pumpkinseed, largemouth bass, smallmouthbass, and northern pike adults and juveniles. Addition of structure willincrease suitability of Module 3A for bass and pumpkinseed.Plants - Limited remediation work is proposed in Remediation Area B inareas that would support vegetation. These targeted dredge areas,although slightly deeper after remediation, will provide better habitat forsubmerged aquatic vegetation (Module 3A) than what currently exists,because of the more suitable substrate. A narrow strip along the shoremay provide habitat for non-persistent emergent wetland vegetation(Module 5A), although wave energy may limit its abundance. Commonplant species targeted for these modules are detailed under theRemediation Area A plant discussion.Stabilization efforts proposed along the shore of Remediation Area B(see below) will reduce the resuspension of Solvay waste material andwould benefit many plant species. Shrub species, such as the willows(Salix spp.) and dogwood (Cornus spp.), will potentially be targeted forPARSONS | Appendix D 4

DRAFTthose shoreline stabilization areas. The rooting ability of these speciesand other herbaceous plants will greatly enhance this shoreline reach.Benthic Macroinvertebrates - The narrow areas of Module 5A and 3Aalong the shoreline and shallow water areas will provide suitable habitatfor each representative order due to the placement of more suitablesubstrate. The addition of structure to Module 5A would improve thehabitat suitability for crayfish.Mammals – Remediation Area B has a relatively steep littoral zone andonly a narrow area where habitat modules can be applied that providesuitable habitat for the representative mammal species. Habitat Module5A applied at two locations along the shoreline will provide suitablehabitat for mink, otter, beaver, and muskrat. The addition of structure tothis module will improve the habitat suitability for mink. The deeper offshoremodules will provide suitable habitat for otter (Modules 2A and3A), mink, and beaver (Module 3A). The addition of structure toModule 3A will provide suitable habitat for muskrat.Reptiles and Amphibians- The shallow water modules (3A and 5A) inRemediation Area B will provide suitable habitat conditions for therepresentative species. Modules 3A and 5A will provide suitable habitatfor musk turtle due to the cover and vegetation for foraging. Musk turtlemay also find suitable nesting habitat in Module 5A. Suitable habitat forsnapping turtle can be found at the natural transition from lake(Module 3A) to emergent wetlands (Module 5A) and adjacent uplandhabitat on WB 1-8, which is currently undergoing a remedialinvestigation. The species would be well concealed within the wetlandvegetation. The shallow 5A Module would also provide suitable habitatfor hibernation and feeding for the four representative species.The shoreline areas of the restored Remediation Area B contain nonpersistentwetlands (Module 5A) that will provide habitat for snappingturtle and other species of reptiles. The substrate is suitable for egglaying and provides cover for concealment. The abundance ofvegetation within such areas also provides a sufficient food base. Manyreptilian species feed on both aquatic and terrestrial resources, and theconnectivity of the different habitats within Remediation Area B allowsfor the development of multiple food bases. The shallow waters(Module 3A), for example, will support fish, a prey of northern watersnake. The area where the shoreline stabilization is currently proposedwill support more terrestrial food sources for the representative reptilespecies.The open water areas (Modules 2A and 3A) of Remediation Area Bwould provide habitat for a completely aquatic species, such asmudpuppy. The shallow water areas with a fine sand substrate(Module 5A) will support non-persistent vegetation and therepresentative species of amphibians. The wetlands, although theycover a relatively small area, will provide vegetation to serve as coverfor breeding and tadpole development for green frog. The shorelinestabilization area of Remediation Area B and areas where Module 5Awill be applied will provide beneficial cover and foraging for suchspecies within both terrestrial and wetland areas.PARSONS | Appendix D 5

DRAFTBirds - Suitable habitat conditions for representative bird species inRemediation Area A are provided by Module 5A (nearshore) andModules 2A and 3A (off-shore). Specifically, the open water habitatscreated by Modules 2A and 3A provide deep, mid-depth, and shallowwater areas suitable for diving birds, such as osprey, common tern,common goldeneye, and kingfisher. The vegetated shoreline areastransitioning from wetland (Module 5A) to submerged macrophytes(Module 3A) provide foraging habitat for great blue heron, green heron,and sandpipers. Module 3A also would provide suitable habitat formallards to forage and provide access to adjacent terrestrial locationsfor nesting.The soft substrate in nearshore areas of Remediation Area B associatedwith Module 5A will provide an invertebrate food base for species suchas the spotted sandpiper and semi-palmated sandpiper. The commontern and belted kingfisher could find suitable nesting areas in theherbaceous plant cover in the adjacent shoreline stabilization area oradjacent portions of WB 1-8. The steep banks at the RemediationAreas A/B border will provide nesting habitat for bank swallows andbelted kingfisher.Suitability of Shoreline Stabilization in Area B forRepresentative SpeciesThe shoreline stabilization will occur along the entire length of the SMU3 shoreline. However, in areas where there is capping up to the shore,the in-lake portion of the stabilization will not be required since anerosion protection layer will be required for the cap design in those nearshoreareas. The shoreline stabilization approach being used inRemediation Area B will largely equate to the application of Modules 5Band 6B. Due to the coarse substrate in these modules, no wetlandvegetation would be expected. However, as previously mentioned, thepurpose of the shoreline stabilization is to reduce resuspension andimprove water quality conditions for submerged macrophytes (Module 3)that would be expected farther offshore. In addition, otherrepresentative species that would use this area are discussed below.Fish – The shoreline stabilization areas will provide suitable habitat forsmallmouth bass spawning and juvenile walleye (with the addition ofstructure).Plants - As mentioned, due to the coarse substrate, vegetation is notanticipated in this area.Benthic Macroinvertebrates - The coarse substrate will create suitablehabitat for crayfish. There will be limited suitability for mayflies andcaddisflies.Mammals – The shoreline stabilization area could provide suitablehabitat for mink and otter foraging. The coarse substrate and lack ofvegetation will limit the suitability of this module for muskrat and beaver.PARSONS | Appendix D 6

DRAFTReptiles and Amphibians- The shoreline stabilization areas wouldprovide habitat for the snapping turtle, which is the reptilian speciesmost tolerant of moderate energy expected in this area and may usesome of the adjacent low lying areas.Birds – Habitat for shorebirds, such as the spotted sandpiper and semipalmatedsandpiper, will be provided by the coarse substrates proposedin the stabilization areas, which will limit vegetation and allow foroptimum foraging along the shoreline.Suitability of Restoration in Area C for RepresentativeSpeciesAn evaluation was made of the suitability of the habitat modulesproposed in Remediation Area C for the representative species withineach major species group as described below.Remediation Area C Habitat Modules:• 1• 2A• 3B• 5B• 6BFish – Proposed habitat restoration in Remediation Area C maintainsdeep water habitats close to shore to allow for shoreline angling. Withappropriate structure added along the transition from Module 3 toModule 2, suitable habitat can be provided for bass, pumpkinseed, adultnorthern pike, golden shiner and adult walleye in these areas. Module 1will provide suitable habitat for brown trout, emerald shiner, walleye,bass and lake sturgeon. Habitat Module 5B, located along theshoreline, will provide suitable habitat for smallmouth bass spawningand juvenile walleye (with the addition of structure).Plants - Wave energy, coarse substrate, and deeper water areasproposed nearshore for boat access will limit the establishment ofvegetation in portions of Remediation Area C. However, the somewhatprotected cove at the mouth of Ditch A and the area southeast of theDepartment of Transportation turn-around will be suitable areas forsubmerged aquatic vegetation in Module 3B areas. The rooting abilityof submerged aquatics in the shallower portions of Module 3B where acobble substrate is proposed will limit such vegetation in these areas.As mentioned in the Remediation Area A discussion, submergedaquatic vegetation will occur in the shallower end of Module 2A.Characteristic submerged aquatic species expected in these areas arepresented under the Remediation Area A plant discussion.Benthic Macroinvertebrates - The slightly higher energy inRemediation Area C allows for application of Habitat Module 5B, which,PARSONS | Appendix D 7

DRAFTwith slightly larger substrate, will create suitable habitat for crayfish.There will be limited suitability of this module for mayflies andcaddisflies. The deeper off-shore modules (2A and 3B) will providesuitable habitat for each of the representative invertebrate orders.Mammals - Due to the slightly higher energy in Remediation Area C,Module 5B has been applied to the shallow nearshore areas. Thismodule could provide suitable habitat for mink and otter foraging. Thelarger substrate material of Module 5B compared to 5A limits thesuitability of this module for muskrat and beaver. However, the use ofthis area by aquatic mammals will be somewhat limited because of therecreational activities, adjacent Route 690, and developed land uses,which reduces the on-shore habitat for these species.Reptiles and Amphibians- Modules 5B and 3B would provide habitatfor the snapping turtle, which is the reptilian species most tolerant ofmoderate energy systems and may utilize some of the terrestrialresources provided along the lakeshore in this area. Other reptilianspecies, such as musk turtle, painted turtle, and northern water snake,would use the semi-protected areas of Remediation Area C that mayallow for species colonization.Modules 3B, 5B, and 8A in shallow water portions and shoreline areasof Remediation Area C, will provide both aquatic and terrestrial foodsources for each of the representative reptilian species. Module 3Balong the shoreline area of SMU 2 will provide some vegetated cover forspecies such as the snapping turtle, painted turtle, and northern watersnake.Areas where Module 3B is applied in the open water areas will providehabitat for mudpuppy and snapping turtle, particularly with the additionof structure. Similarly, the deeper water areas within Module 2A willprovide habitat for mudpuppy. In the transitional areas nearshore,Module 5B could potentially support snapping turtles, mudpuppy, andwater snake with the addition of structure.Birds – Remediation Area C will provide breeding and foraging areasfor some of the representative bird species. Deeper water off-shoreareas where Module 1 will be applied will provide foraging habitat forcommon goldeneye, mallard, and osprey. Modules 2A and 3B willsupport foraging by great blue heron, green heron, and belted kingfisher(Module 3B). The open water areas of Module 2B can provide habitatfor plunge-diving birds, such as the osprey and common tern, and otherdiving species including the common goldeneye.Herbaceous areas created by Module 8A in the near shore areas alongthe barrier wall will provide suitable nesting habitat for red-wingedblackbird. The vegetative cover provides protection while maintaining aproximity to feeding areas and perching posts.Habitat for shorebirds, such as the spotted sandpiper and semipalmatedsandpiper, will be provided from the coarser, rockier areasalong the shoreline of Remediation Area C created by Module 5B whichhas limited vegetation and allows for optimum foraging along theshoreline.PARSONS | Appendix D 8

DRAFTSuitability of Restoration in Area D for RepresentativeSpeciesAn evaluation was made of the suitability of the habitat modulesproposed in Remediation Area D for the representative species withineach major species group as described below.Remediation Area D Habitat Modules:• 1• 2A• 3B• 5B• 6A• 6B• 8A• 9BFish - The diversity of habitat modules in Remediation Area D providessuitable habitat for several representative fish species. Module 5B willprovide suitable habitat for smallmouth bass spawning. The deeperoffshore modules will provide suitable habitat for lake sturgeon, browntrout, emerald shiner, and bass (Module 2A) and smallmouth bassspawning, pumpkinseed spawning, northern pike, and walleye (Module3B). The extensive area of Module 3 and clean substrates will greatlyimprove the area for these species. With the addition of structure toModule 2A, suitable habitat will be provided for walleye.Fishing opportunities provided by the deep water areas along the shoreare an important aspect of Remediation Area D. There are limitedfishing opportunities on the western shore of the lake, particularly areaswhere fish characteristic of deeper water habitats may be reached usingshore fishing techniques.The emergent wetlands proposed along the shore of RemediationArea D will provide habitat for some fish species during the early springhigh water levels. Northern pike spawning habitat will be provided inthis area.Plants- Wave energy and required coarse substrate will affect theabundance of macrophyte growth in Remediation Area D. The shallowwater portions of Module 2A and those portions of Module 3B wheresand and fine gravel substrates are proposed will be suitable forsubmerged aquatic species, as discussed under the RemediationArea A plant section. Coarse gravel substrates in Modules 5B and 6Bareas will limit rooting potential for species. However, it is likely that astime passes finer grained material will occur and provide a morefavorable rooting substrate for submerged aquatic vegetation. Thediverse bottom elevations in Module 3 and pockets of deeper areas willPARSONS | Appendix D 9

DRAFTlikely create places for finer substrates to occur and increasesubmerged aquatic vegetation.Proposed persistent emergent wetlands (Module 6A) and forestedwetlands (Module 9B) will provide tremendous opportunities for wetlandplant species discussed for these modules in previous sections of thisreport. These wetland fringe habitats will greatly enhance the lakehabitat system.Benthic Macroinvertebrates - The diversity of habitat modules inRemediation Area D provides suitable habitat for all representativeinvertebrate species. The addition to structure to Modules 6B and 5Bwill improve the habitat suitability for crayfish.Mammals - The diversity of habitat modules in Remediation Area Dprovides suitable habitat for several representative mammal species.Modules 5B and 6B will provide suitable habitat for mink and otter. Thedeeper offshore modules will provide suitable habitat for otter(Module 2A) and mink, otter, beaver, and muskrat (Module 3B). Thehabitat suitability will be enhanced once vegetation has becomeestablished in Module 3B.The inland wetland areas (Module 9B) adjacent to Remediation Area Dwill provide suitable habitat for mink and beaver and potentially Indianabat. The associated larger wetland complex (Module 6A) adjacent toRemediation Area D will provide suitable habitat for mink, otter, beaver,and muskrat. Muskrat, in particular, will use this habitat. Module 8Aprovides a transition from wetland to upland and will provide habitat formink and otter (Module 8A).Reptiles and Amphibians- Remediation Area D is a medium energyarea with a shoreline shelf proposed to reduce energy within thewetlands proposed along the shoreline area. Habitat modules 3B, 5B,and 6B with coarser substrates and more wave action will limit suitablehabitat for reptiles that would use the shallow areas of the lake.Northern water snakes could find suitable prey in the shoreline areaadjacent to Remediation Area D, as the fish in shoreline shallows wouldbe the optimal size for consumption. The area along the shoreline wouldalso provide adequate cover for the northern water snake and snappingturtle while supporting a food base of benthic macroinvertebrates,plants, and frogs.Suitable habitat for all representative reptiles will be provided by thelarge on-shore area of Module 6A. The persistent emergent wetlands ofModule 6A will provide habitat for musk turtles, snapping turtles, paintedturtles, and northern water snake. Turtles would have access to aquaticand adjacent terrestrial food sources (Modules 8A and 8B) and thewetlands (Module 6A) would provide sufficient cover for concealment.Northern water snakes would find suitable prey (small fish) within thewetland shallows. The vegetative area would also provide adequatecover for the northern water snake, while supporting a food base ofaquatic invertebrates, plants, and frogs for all the reptiles listed.Habitat Modules 3B, 5B, and 6B with coarser substrates and more waveaction will limit suitable habitat for amphibians that would use thePARSONS | Appendix D 10

DRAFTshallow areas of the lake. The mid-depth and deep open water areas ofModule 2A would support mudpuppy, particularly with the addition ofstructure.Modules 6A, 8A, and 9B will provide habitat for many of therepresentative amphibian species. The wetlands would provide suitablehabitat for concealment and foraging for red-spotted newt, leopard frog,and wood frog. Sediments composed of finer grain sizes and organicmatter would provide vegetation important for concealment and eggdeposition, as well as providing a gradual transition to persistentemergent wetlands for cover and foraging. The seasonal temporarypools that will be created as part of the inland wetland complex willprovide suitable breeding habitat for spotted salamander and wood frogand would provide sufficient shallow areas for tadpole survival.Birds – Remediation Area D will provide breeding and foraging areasfor most of the representative bird species. Shorebirds such as thespotted sandpiper and the semi-palmated sandpiper would benefit mostfrom the unvegetated shallow water areas of Remediation Area Dprovided by Module 6B which will support a benthic macroinvertebratefood source. The shallow shoreline would allow wading birds access toopen shorelines and food without compromising access to moreenclosed, sheltered locations.Osprey, an obligate piscivore, would benefit from the open water habitatareas provided by Modules 1A and 2A. Other birds that often forage inopen water habitats include common tern and common goldeneye.These species also would benefit from the mid-depth open water areasfor foraging (Modules 1A and 2A).The variability of habitats and the connectivity of wetlands adjacent toRemediation Area D would be beneficial to common tern and ducks,such as mallard, by providing foraging habitat within shoreline watersand wetland areas. The presence of aquatic invertebrates and smallfish would support the forage base for the common tern and beltedkingfisher, as well as allow perching and nesting areas among thevegetation on the fringes of wetter areas along the shoreline.The shallow water wetland of Module 6A would provide foraging areasfor great blue heron, green heron, belted kingfisher, red wingedblackbird, spotted sandpiper, and the semi-palmated sandpiper.Adjacent areas of Module 9B would provide cover for nesting in bushes,thickets, and small trees for the green heron, red-winged blackbird,common goldeneye, and mallard. The common tern, and red-wingedblackbird could find suitable nesting areas in the herbaceous plant coverprovided by Module 8A in the near shore areas. The waterfowl nestingmounds would provide ideal habitat for nesting for the mallard, as wellas protection of nests from terrestrial predators. Insect production of thewetland will provide foraging opportunities for bank swallows.PARSONS | Appendix D 11

DRAFTSuitability of Restoration in Area E for RepresentativeSpeciesAn evaluation was made of the suitability of the habitat modulesproposed in Remediation Area E for the representative species withineach major species group.Remediation Area E Habitat Modules:• 1• 2A• 2B• 3B• 5B• 6A• 6B• 8BFish – Remediation Area E is a high energy area. The deeper offshoremodules will provide suitable habitat for the lake sturgeon, brown trout,emerald shiner, pumpkinseed, northern pike, and bass (Modules 1, 2A,2B, and 3B). Habitat Modules 2A and 2B will be most suitable forwalleye with the addition of structure. The habitat suitability will beenhanced if vegetation becomes established in Module 3B. The area ofModule 5B along the shoreline of this area will provide suitable habitatfor smallmouth bass spawning and with added structure suitable habitatfor walleye.Plants - Due to the wave energy expected in this area, coarsersubstrate modules are proposed, which may initially slow theestablishment of vegetation in portions of Remediation Area E.However, within the deeper water limits of Module 3B and in thesomewhat protected areas between Module 6B and the lake shore, finersubstrates are expected to accumulate over time and provide moresuitable habitat for submerged aquatic vegetation over a substantialarea. Characteristic submerged aquatic species expected in theseareas are presented under the Remediation Area A plant discussion.Benthic Macroinvertebrates- The proposed application of the habitatmodules in Remediation Area E should result in suitable habitats tosupport benthic organisms. Current substrate conditions limitcolonization; substrate composed of more native materials (e.g., sandand gravel) should improve habitat suitability for invertebratecolonization. Habitat Module 5B, with the addition of structure, willprovide some habitat for crayfish; however, the area where this modulecan be applied is limited. The deeper off-shore modules will providesuitable habitat for each of the representative orders. The habitatPARSONS | Appendix D 12

DRAFTsuitability will be enhanced if vegetation becomes established inModule 3B.Mammals - Habitat Module 5B will provide some habitat for mink andotter; however, the area where this module can be applied is limited.The deeper off-shore modules will provide suitable habitat for the otter(Modules 2B and 3B) and mink, otter, beaver, and muskrat (Module 3B).The habitat suitability will be enhanced if vegetation becomesestablished in Module 3B. However, use of this area by aquaticmammals will likely be more closely related to the on-shore habitats atthe mouth of Harbor Brook and the SYW-12 area. Waters near theseextensive shore habitat areas will be more suitable for such species.Reptiles and Amphibians - Habitat for several representative reptilianspecies will be provided by Modules 2A, 2B, 3B and 5B. Specifically,the addition of structure would provide suitable habitat for mudpuppy(Modules 2A and 2B), snapping turtle (Modules 3B and 5B) andnorthern water snake (Module 5B). As with mammals, reptile andamphibian use of this remediation area will be higher near the HarborBrook and SYW-12 wetland complexes.Birds - The deep water of Remediation Area E provided by Module 2Bwould support an aquatic food base for birds such as the commongoldeneye and osprey. Module 3B would help break high energywaves, creating foraging habitat for ducks, such as mallards, as well ascommon terns, where an invertebrate community becomes established.Habitat for wading birds, such as great blue heron and green heron,would be provided in shallow areas by Modules 3B and 5B. Thecommon tern, belted kingfisher, and red-winged blackbird could findsuitable nesting areas in the herbaceous plant cover in the near shorearea of SYW-12.The warm water discharge from the Metro facility keeps the southernportion of Onondaga Lake ice-free during the winter months. As aresult, this is an important wintering area for waterfowl and foraging areafor bald eagles. The habitat restoration proposed will not diminish theuse of the area for these species.Suitability of Restoration in the Harbor Brook WetlandComplex (On-shore region straddling RemediationAreas D and E)Fish - Based on current conditions and the preliminary remediationapproaches being considered, it was determined that the area nearHarbor Brook, adjacent to Remediation Area E, provides the mostsuitable area to create spawning habitat for northern pike. The habitatmodules were applied to create a large area of emergent wetland(Module 6A) that is preferred by spawning northern pike. HabitatModule 6A will also provide suitable habitat for juvenile stages of manyspecies including bass and pumpkinseed. The transitional areas(Modules 8A and 8B) will not provide suitable habitat for any of thePARSONS | Appendix D 13

DRAFTrepresentative fish species, since these habitats do not have standingwater.Plants - Nearly all the Harbor Brook area outboard of the proposedbarrier wall is currently proposed to be restored to wetlands. Largeexpanses of persistent emergent wetlands (Module 6A) are proposed.All the emergent wetland species noted under the Remediation Area Aplant discussion will be expected in this area. These areas are madesuitable for emergent wetlands because of the shallow wave breakareas (Module 6B) proposed off-shore.In addition, a Phragmites control channel is proposed along the entireshore of the Wastebed B area to help limit the intrusion of Phragmitesinto the emergent wetland areas. This channel will be part of thewetland complex and is expected to provide suitable habitat for floatingaquatic vegetation, intermixed with non-persistent emergent species(Module 5A).The brook will be rerouted along a more sinuous path through an areaof persistent emergent wetland (Module 6A). Deeper wetland areas areproposed for fish spawning enhancement and will diversify the wetlandcomplex with non-persistent emergent and floating aquatic wetlandzones. All the plant species discussed under Remediation Area A forthese habitats will benefit from these changes.Benthic Macroinvertebrates - The realigned Harbor Brook andassociated wetland complex (Module 6A) will provide suitable habitat foreach of the representative invertebrate groups. The transitional habitats(8A and 8B) will not provide suitable habitat for any of the invertebratespecies since these habitats do not have standing water.Mammals - The realigned Harbor Brook and associated wetlandcomplex adjacent to Remediation Area E will provide suitable habitat formink, otter, beaver, and muskrat. Muskrats should be significantlyfavored by these habitat changes. Modules 8A and 8B provide atransition from wetland to upland and will provide habitat for mink, otter,and beaver (Module 8B).Reptiles and Amphibians- Suitable habitat for all representativereptiles will be provided by Module 6A in the low energy regime at theHarbor Brook wetland area. The wetland shallows (fisheryenhancement areas) and persistent emergent wetlands of Module 6Awill provide habitat for musk turtles, snapping turtles, painted turtles, andnorthern water snake. Turtles would have access to aquatic andadjacent terrestrial food sources (Modules 8A and 8B) and the wetlands(Module 6A) would provide sufficient cover for concealment. Northernwater snakes would find suitable prey (small fish) within the wetlandshallows. The vegetative area would also provide adequate cover forthe northern water snake, while supporting a food base of benthicmacroinvertebrates, plants, and frogs for all the reptiles listed.Modules 6A, 8A, and 9B in the Harbor Brook wetland area will providehabitat for each of the representative amphibian species. Mudpuppyhabitat would be provided by the wetland shallows (Module 6A) and byHarbor Brook during the cooler spring and fall months. The wetlandsPARSONS | Appendix D 14

DRAFTwould also provide suitable habitat for concealment and foraging for thered-spotted newt, leopard frog, and wood frog. Sediments composedof finer grain sizes and organic matter would provide vegetationimportant for concealment and egg deposition, as well as providing agradual transition to persistent emergent wetlands for cover andforaging. The seasonal temporary pools that will be created as part ofthe inland wetland complex will provide suitable breeding habitat for thewood frog and would provide sufficient shallow areas for tadpolesurvival. In addition, the waterfowl nesting mounds included in thiscomplex will provide habitat for the green frog and leopard frog.Birds - The shallow water wetland of Module 6A and banks of therealigned Harbor Brook would provide foraging areas for the great blueheron, green heron, belted kingfisher, red winged blackbird, spottedsandpiper, and the semi-palmated sandpiper. The common tern andred-winged blackbird could find suitable nesting areas in the herbaceousplant cover provided by Module 8A in the near shore areas. Thewaterfowl nesting mounds would provide ideal habitat for nesting for themallard, as well as protection of nests from terrestrial predators. Insectproduction of the wetland will provide foraging opportunities for bankswallows.PARSONS | Appendix D 15

DRAFTAppendix EMaster List of PlantsIntroductionThe following is a master list of plants that are targeted for use inthe restoration of wetland and upland habitats in and aroundOnondaga Lake. There are separate lists for different vegetationtypes/habitat modules. As indicated, these habitat types aregenerally defined by hydrological conditions. Nearly all the plantsare native species. The plants are listed alphabetically byscientific name, with nomenclature according to Mitchell andTucker (1997).PARSONS | Appendix E

DRAFTWetland Woody Vegetation(Module 9B, Water at Surface to 1 Foot Below Surface)Common NameTREESBox elderRed mapleSilver mapleBlack gumAmerican sycamoreEastern cottonwoodTrembling aspenSwamp white oakBur oakPin oakBlack willowNorthern white cedarAmerican elmSHRUBSSpeckled alderCanada serviceberryBlack chokeberryMusclewoodButtonbushSilky dogwoodGray dogwoodRed-osier dogwoodWitch-hazelWinterberryCommon spicebushNorthern bayberryMountain hollyPeach-leaf willowPussy willowShining willowBasket willowBlack elderberryMeadowsweetScientific NameAcer negundoAcer rubrumAcer saccharinumNyssa sylvaticaPlatanus occidentalisPopulus deltoidesPopulus tremuloidesQuercus bicolorQuercus macrocarpaQuercus palustrisSalix nigraThuja occidentalisUlmus americanaAlnus rugosaAmelanchier canadensisAronia melanocarpaCarpinus carolinianaCephalanthus occidentalisCornus amomumCornus foeminaCornus sericeaHamamelis virginianaIlex verticillataLindera benzoinMyrica pensylvanicaNemopanthus mucronatusSalix amygdaloidesSalix discolorSalix lucidaSalix purpureaSambucus canadensisSpiraea alba/latifoliaPARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐1

DRAFTWetland Woody Vegetation(Module 9B, Water at Surface to 1 Foot Below Surface)(Continued)Common NameHighbush blueberrySouthern arrowwoodNannyberryWithe-rodScientific NameVaccinium corymbosumViburnum dentatumViburnum lentagoViburnum nuduma. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐2

DRAFTNortheast Wetland Seed Mix(Modules 6A and 9A, Wetland Edges, Saturated Soils)Common NameRedtopAutumn bentSwamp milkweedNew England asterBeggar-ticksNodding beggar-ticksCosmos sedgeLake sedgeBlunt broom sedgeFox sedgeCreeping spikerushVirginia wild ryeJoe-pye-weedBonesetGrass-leaf goldenrodFowl mannagrassBlue flagSoft rushPath rushCommon monkeyflowerSmooth panic grassFowl bluegrassMarsh smartweedPennsylvania smartweedGreen bulrushWoolgrassLeafy bulrushScientific NameAgrostis giganteaAgrostis perennansAsclepias incarnataAster novae-angliaeBidens cernuaBidens cernuaCarex comosaCarex lacustrisCarex scopariaCarex vulpinoideaEleocharis obtusaElymus virginicusEupatorium maculatumEupatorium perfoliatumEuthamia graminifoliaGlyceria striataIris versicolorJuncus effususJuncus tenuisMimulus ringensPanicum dichotomiflorumPoa pratensisPolygonum hydropiperoidesPolygonum pensylvanicumScirpus atrovirensScirpus cyperinusScirpus polyphyllusPARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐3

DRAFTNortheast Wetland Seed Mix(Modules 6A and 9A, Wetland Edges, Saturated Soils)(Continued)Common NameAnnual ryeWrinkled goldenrodEastern burreedBroad-leaf cattailBlue vervainScientific NameSecale cerealeSolidago rugosaSparganium americanumTypha latifoliaVerbena hastataa. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐4

DRAFTShallow Emergent (Persistent) Wetland Plantings(Module 6, Water 1 foot below surface to 1 foot deep)Common NameSweetflagSwamp milkweedLake sedgeFox sedgeWater willowCreeping spikerushSpikerushJoe-pye-weedSoft rushWillow weedRice cutgrassSensitive fernMarsh smartweedArrowheadHard-stem bulrushThree-squareGreen bulrushWoolgrassSaltmarsh bulrushSoft-stem bulrushEastern burreedGiant burreedFreshwater cordgrassNarrow-leaf cattailBroad-leaf cattailBlue vervainScientific NameAcorus americanusAsclepias incarnataCarex lacustrisCarex vulpinoideaDecodon verticillatusEleocharis obtusaEleocharis obtusaEupatorium maculatumJuncus effususJusticia americanaLeersia oryzoidesOnoclea sensibilisPolygonum hydropiperoidesSagittaria latifoliaScirpus acutusScirpus americanusScirpus atrovirensScirpus cyperinusScirpus robustusScirpus tabernaemontaniSparganium americanumSparganium eurycarpumSpartina pectinataTypha angustifoliaTypha latifoliaVerbena hastataa. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐5

DRAFTDeep Emergent (Nonpersistent) Wetland Plantings(Module 5, Water 1 to 2 feet deep)Common NameWater plantainArrow arumWater smartweedPickerel-weedArrowheadFreshwater cordgrassNarrow-leaf cattailBladderwortWild riceScientific NameAlisma subcordatumPeltandra virginicaPolygonum amphibiumPontederia cordataSagittaria latifoliaSpartina pectinataTypha angustifoliaUtricularia vulgarisZizania aquaticaa. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐6

DRAFTAquatic Bed(Modules 3 and 4A, Water 1 to 4 feet deep)Common NameCoontailSago pondweedWater weedYellow water lilyWhite water lilyPondweedWild celeryWater stargrassScientific NameCeratophyllum demersumColeogeton pectinatumElodea canadensisNuphar luteaNymphaea odorataPotamogeton nodosusVallisneria americanaZosterella dubiaa. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐7

DRAFTSalt Marsh(Module 6A, Water 1 foot below surface to 1 foot deep)Common NameSaltmarsh asterAlkali grassRose mallowBlack grassSwitchgrassSaltmarsh bulrushSeaside goldenrodSaltgrassSalt-meadowgrassFreshwater cordgrassScientific NameAster subulatusDistichlis spicataHibiscus moscheutosJuncus gerardiiPanicum virgatumScirpus robustusSolidago sempervirensSpartina alternifoliaSpartina patensSpartina pectinataa. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐8

DRAFTCommon NameTREESRed mapleSugar mapleYellow birchWhite birchShagbark hickoryAmerican hackberryWhite ashWhite spruceRed pineWhite pineTrembling aspenBlack cherryWhite oakRed oakEastern hemlockSHRUBSShadbushBlack chokeberryAlternate-leaf dogwoodSilky dogwoodGray dogwoodBeaked hazelnutWitch-hazelSmooth sumacStaghorn sumacBladdernutSouthern arrowwoodNannyberryUpland Woody Vegetation(Module 8B, Water at more than 1 foot below surface)Scientific NameAcer rubrumAcer saccharumBetula alleghaniensisBetula papyriferaCarya ovataCeltis occidentalisFraxinus americanaPicea glaucaPinus resinosaPinus strobusPopulus tremuloidesPrunus serotinaQuercus albaQuercus rubraTsuga canadensisAmelanchier canadensisAronia melanocarpaCornus alternifoliaCornus amomumCornus foeminaCorylus cornutaHamamelis virginianaRhus glabraRhus hirtaStaphylea trifoliaViburnum dentatumViburnum lentagoHighbush cranberryViburnum opulusa. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐9

DRAFTCommon NameBig bluestemPartridge peaShowy tick-trefoilCanada wild ryeOx-eye sunflowerSwitchgrassBlack eyed SusanLittle bluestemPartridge peaIndian grassConservation Seed Mix(Module 8A, Uplands and Side Slopes)Scientific NameAndropogon gerardiiChamaecrista fosciculataDesmodium canadenseElymus CanadensisHeliopsis helianthoidesPanicum virgatumRudbeckia hirtaSchizachyrium scopariumSenna hebecarpa (Mitchell and Tucker)Sorghastrum nutansa. Scientific names according to Mitchell and Tucker (1997) “Revised Checklist of New York State Plants.”PARSONSP:\HONEYWELL -SYR\445112 - HABITAT AND CPP III\09 REPORTS\9.2 REVISED HABITAT PLAN\APPENDICES\APPENDIX E\APPENDIX E 12-09.DOCE‐10

PARSONS301 Plainfield RoadSuite 350Syracuse, NY 13212315-451-9560www.parsons.com

Onondaga Lake Remedial Design Elements Remedial Design ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?