ML19261C623

Belatedly Forwards Testimony of Re Henshaw Re Terrestrial Ecology

ML19261C623
Person / Time
Site:	Green County
Issue date:	02/21/1979
From:	Engel D NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	Carson D, Cole R, Goodhope A NEW YORK, STATE OF, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7903260141
Download: ML19261C623 (28)

Text

an.m3 Cgn?~

. . .:.xcg New York State Department of Environmental Conservation --

50 wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 h U

February 21, 1979 Robert F. Flacke Commissioner The Honorable Donald F. Carson NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233

-1 icv The Honorable Edward D. Cohen @

g Administrative Law Judge Public Service Cocmission // 4,xe""

Empire State Plaza 2 , NNy C 4 Albany, New York 12223 gT. g@0 g1 #

Dr. Richard F. Cole 9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board b ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g y Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson Professor of Nuclear Engineering Howard University Washington, D.C. 20001 Andrew C. Goodhope, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:

• Case 80006 and NRC 50-549 in the Matter of Power Authority '

of the State of New York Greene County Nuclear Power Plant

Dear Sirs:

Please find herewith testimony of Robert E. Henshaw on the subject of Terrestrial Ecology in the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant case.

We apologize for submitting this testimony late. However, staff was not able to complete its efforts in this area in time for this testimany to be included with our mailing of February 8.

Sincerely, .

_r -

Y- -

David A. Engel Senior Attorney for Energy Enc.

cc- All Parties 7 9 0 3 2 6 014l

~. .

x a- -

x f..

q BEFORE THE STATE CF NEW YORK 30A?O ON EI.ECTRIC GE:EEATICN 2 SITI: G A'O THE E P/ IRON E:7" In the Matter of Case 8000c s Qj

.g w

AND BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Maeter of the POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Greene County Nuclear Power Plant)

NRC Docket No. 50-549 Prepared Testimony of Robert E. Henshaw Associate Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecologist New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 e

1 Eibernation Society, and others.

2 Q. Please describe your professional experience prior to 3 assu=ing your posicion a: DEC.

c A. Frec 1963-1965, I was Instructor of Physiology a: :he 5 University of Iowa, teaching medical, pharmacy, dental 6 mad nursing students. Subsequently, I became an 7 Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences at Carnegle-a Mellon University (1965-1968) and Pennsylvania State 9 University (1968-1972). During this time, my responsi-10 bilities were equally dividcd between teaching under-11 graduate and gradt. ate courses and engaging in research 12 in environmental physiology.

13 Until ,1968, I conducted environmental studies of 14 the endangered Indiana bat. From 1966 through 1975, I 15 conducted a continuing serias of investigations of the 16 adaptations of at ctic mamma.ts which relate to their 17 survival in arctic climates. These studies considered 13 the physiology, ecology, and behavior of =any species ,

19 including gray volf, wolverine, arctic fox, polar bear, caribou, =ar=ot, lecmings, weasels, and others. Addi-20 21 tionally I was associated with the U.S. Tundra Biome 22 Study of the International Biological Program, studying 23 the ecology of terrestrial consumer species.

2s Q. Have any of these srudies been reported or published?

25 A. Yes. The Results of =any of these studies were reported 1 Q. Please state your name and address.

2 A. Robert E. Henshaw; Office of Environmental Analysis, 3 Depart =ent of Enviren= ental Conservation, 50 Wolf Read, 4 Albany, '.iY 12233.

5 Q. In what capacity are you e= ployed?

6 A. I as an Associate Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecologist 7 with the Bureau of Energy.

8 Q. How long have you held your present position?

9 A. Since 1 July 1974.

10 Q. Please describe your professional training.

11 A. I have earned the following degress:

12 B.A. in zoology and premedicine, Ohio Wesleyan University, 13 1956; M.S. in zoology (emphasis on human ecology and 14 environmental physiology), University of Michigan, 15 1958; and Ph.D. in environmental physiology, University 16 of Iowa, 1965. In addition, I have continued my post-17 graduace training through membership in and participation la in the activities of professional societies, including 19 the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 20 American Society of Mammalogists, American Society of 21 Zoologis ts, National Speleological Society, The Wildlife 2-2 Society (Chapter President, 1977), American Polar 23 Society, Alaska Conservation Society, Hudson River 24 Research Council (Chair:an 1977, 1978), Hudson River 25 Environ = ental Society (3 card of Directors), International 1 and wri :en tes:i=ony.

2 I a= also involved in non-Article VIII energy 3 issues; fc instance, I 22 DEC's cec dina:cr in the I?A 4 Censolidated Hearing on Fcur ?cwer Plants on the Hudsen 5 River. As a member of the Hudson River Research Council, 6 I lead and track research activities on the Hudson.

7 I have also participated in several Article VII 8 cases in which terrestrial issues were of generalized 9 importance, and in the coc=en hearings on health and 10 s.sfety of 765 kV transmission lines (Cases 26529, 11 26559). I was DEC's coordinator on the Tenneco Atlantic 12 Pipeline Company's application to FERC to construct a

=ajor natural gas pipeline through the northeast. In 13 14 1978 I designed and taught a 13 week course " Ecology 15 and Environmental Decision Making" for New York State 16 agency biologists.

17 Q. In evaluating issues relating to terrestrial ecology 13 what laws, rules and regulations did you censider?

19 A. I considered the following:

20 1. Article VIII of the New York State Public 21 Service Law and the Article VIII Rules of Procedure of 22 the Public Service Cet=ission in particular 16 NYCRR, 23 Par: 79, Terrestrial Ecology.

2. Inviren= ental Conserva:icn Law Article 15, 2s 23 Title 27, '4ild, Scenic and Recreational River Syste=s.

1 at national =ee:ings of several scientific societies 2 and I have published a nu=ber of papers frem these 3 studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Addi-4 tionally, o:her scien:ists working in =y labora:ory 5 have co-published our resul:s.

6 Q. Please describe your professional experience related to 7 energy generation and transmission.

8 A. In 1969 and 1970, during hearings on the Trans Alaska 9 011 Pipeline, I authored a part of the Intervenor's 10 case against the U.S. Department of Interior's EIS. My 11 conclusions concerned the likely effects of oil drilling, 12 production, and transport systa=s on large ra--als.

13 During 1972 and 1973 I was the terrestrial ecology 14 consultant for the Boston Edison Cecpany's environ-15 = ental report on the Ply =outh Nuclear Power Station 16 Unit Two. During 1973 and 1974, I was e= ployed as 17 Senior Environ = ental Analyst by Environ = ental Analysis, 18 Inc. As Director of Terrestrial 31 ology, I hired and 19 directed biologists to work on four proposed power 20 plant sites.

21 Since joining DEC, I have had sole responsibility 22 for terrestrial ecological analysis on all Article VIII 23 applications and lead responsibility for acuatic eco-24 logical maalysis on several applica:icns. I have 25 reviewed all applications , developed interrogatories ,

1 biologists representing PASNY and its consultants. On 2 or about 15 April 1977, I visited the segments of the 3 proposec transcission RCW fr:= Ce enton. Cn 30 March 4 1973, I walked the Athens site and drove en and around 5 both sites and along the proposed relocatien route for 6 highway 9W. I have reviewed all =aterial pertinent to 7 Part 79, Terrestrial Ecology, submitted by PASNY.

8 Q. What is the purpose of your testiseny?

9 A. The purpose of my testimony is to compare the overall 10 acceptability of the Cementon and Athens sites frem a f

11 terrestrial ecology viewpoint and address other selected 12 issues. I have collaborated with PSC biologist Jackson 13 for over two years during my review of the terrestrial 14 biological ramifications of the proposed construction.

15 I have reviewed and agree with his draft prefiled 16 testimony prepared for this proceeding.

17 Q. Does this =ean that you agree with Mr. Jackson's 13 conclusion on the probable i= pacts of the preposed 19 construction as presented in the prefiled testimony?

20 A. Yes. While Mr. Jackson's and my methods are different 21 (below), we arrived at sisilar conclusions on general 22 copics of i=pactability of the site and acceptability 23 of the proposed locatiens for structures, access routes, 24 and transmission rights of way.

25 With regard to specific issues , e.g., bird collisions 1 3. Envirec= ental Conservation Law Article 25, 2 Freshwa:er Wetlands.

3 4. Environnental Conservation Law Sectica 9-1503 4 (?rotected Plancs) and the List of Protec:ed Na:ive 5 Plants (6 NYCRR Part 1933).

6 5. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (?ublic 7 Law 93-205; 87 Stat. 884), Endangered and Threatened 8 Wildlife and Plants (United States Departnent of 9 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1977, 42 Fed.

10 Reg.: 36419-36431), and Section 11-0535 of the New 11 York State Environmental Conservation Law and 7 NYCRR 12 Parc 182.

13 6. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Coenission's 14 (NRC) Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 and United States 15 Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Guides 4.2, Revision t

16 1, " Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear 17 Power Plants" (January 1975), and NRC's regulatory la guide 4.7 " Draft General Site Suitability Criteria for 19 Nuclear Power Stations" (S ep tanb er , 1974).

20 Q. Are you fzniliar with the Cementon and Athens sites and 21 the terrestrial ecology studies conducted by PASNY at 22 these sites, and the access routes and the propcsed 23 associated transmission right of way?

24 A. Yes. I visi:ed the Cecenton and Athens si:es on 9 25 Septe=cer 1976, when I walked the sites with terrestrial 1 productivity includes pri=ary p~oduction, either =easured 2 or esti=ated, and secondary production, to the exten:

3 it can be es:L:a:ed or reasured. Given otherwise 4 stailar sites, I would prefer to protect the core 5 productive. Further, higher productivity cay indicate 6 a greater resilience of the ecosystem to impacts.

7 Biological replacement time is the eine necessary if 8 the present ecosystem is destroyed and then must regrow 9 to the same successional stage. This includes time for 10 growth and replacement of developmental seral stages 11 preceeding climax or other later cccmunities. It is 12 possible, although difficult for a forest to be managed 13 to grow directly into a climax stage. Cli=ax ecosystems 14 are not necessarily more important or desirable than 15 earlier stages, but if they are desired, the necessary 16 replacement time must be considered. Biological 17 fitness, as I use it here r 'ncludes estimates of 18 ef fects of any stressful coaditions which =ay be 19 present in an ecosyste=, both natural and anthropogenic, 20 including poor soil, excess or inadequate wa:er, plant 21 diseases, infestations, etc. Generally, I would prefer 22 to protect ecosystems which have the greatest likelihood 23 of perpetuating themselves and are not likely to be 24 damaged or retarded by fac ors other chan the proposec 25 construction. "3icadminstrative" issues. include any 3-

1 with cooling towers, we are in general agree =ent unless 2 noted otherwise. I have therefore elected no: to 3 replica:e =any points in this testirony.

4 Q. Wha: criteria do ycu apply in taking ycur environ = ental 5 Lapact analysis?

6 A. I judge biological inpacts critical to biota prirarily 7 as ones which endanger populations or the spccles. I 8 judge a site with respect to a very wide region, then 9 in relation to the i==ediate surrounding region.

10 Finally I examine biological issues of the site using 11 site specific information.

12 In my estination of the biological value of a site 13 I examine four energent ecological properties of the 14 ecosystem:

15 1. unusualness or uniqueness, 16 2. productivity, 17 3. replacenent ti=e , and 18 4. fitness.

19 Finally, I evaluate administrative issues as they 20 relate to biology.

21 In determining biological unusualness or uniqueness 22 I interpret relative abundance of species, species 23 cc= position, and physical ec=ponen:s of ecosyste=s.

2a Q. 'c==on or unusual ecosysta=s may be core i=portant to protect from disruption :han ecc=on ones. Biological 25 1 support a nu=ber of ma==als and birds . These ecotypes 2 are not unique by any =eans , but are continuous with 3 si=ilar cc== unities and are of sufficient i=portance so 4 that they should not be encreached upcn.

5 At the Ce=enton site re=arkably tall sumac trees 6 and various deciduous traes line Duck Cove. These 7 trees should provide i=portant separation of plant 8 activities fran the Cove so that waterfowl will continue 9 to use the cove. Along the Hudson River deciduous 10 forests provide i=portant continu!.ty of " natural" 11 habitats for transient species. These sections of 12 forest should be retained to the =axt=um extent, if the 13 Ce=enton site is developed. Maps of the site layout 14 ahow a te=porary building encroaching well into the 15 stipulated 50 foot vegetative buffer strip of su=acs 16 along Duck Cove. Clearly, this location is not necessary 17 'and should be moved. I also strongly reco==end retaining la =uch core than a 50 foot strip of vegetation along the 19 Eudson River. If too narrew a strip is retained, 20 facility personnel might be inclined to =ow undergrowth, 21 and =anage the strip as a waterfront park severely 22 reducing its ecological value as a wild forest. Further, 23 the wet forest at the southeast corner of the site 21 surely is ecologically linked with the contiguous 25 =arsh. The partial destruction of this forest =ay 1 legal or sisilar designations, e.g., endangered species, 2 agricultural districts, state or federal parks , etc.

3 In the following ersluation I vill presen: anal /ses 4 and conclusions based on date. proviced by the applican:

5 in its application and on field trips I made to the 6 sites.

7 Q. Please evaluate the biological uniqueness of the two 8 sites.

9 A. The Cementon site contains stressed secondary growth 10 forest.and shrub communities composed of species which 11 are common in the region. The Athens site is comprised 12 primarily of a large wet meadow which appears to be 13 nearly a monoculture of purple loosestrife, a common 14 wetland species. Although the size of this wet meadow 15 is unusually large, I would consider it as merely an 16 ecological dyselimax cecmunity resulting frem restricted 17 drainage from the valley floor. Both sites contain 13 fauna, both transient and per=anent which are coc=on to 19 surrounding areas. Displacement and resultant loss of 20 these individuals , as well as loss of the habitats on 21 either site would not be expected to stress populations 22 in the Hudson Valley. Sene pools of respective species 23 are sufficiently large : hat they should not be endangered.

2s Upland areas a: the periphery of :he Athens site 25 contain late successional forest associations which

_9_

1 reduce the value of the carsh and also =ay endanger the 2 water supply to the =arsh.

3 Jich respect to specific aspects of the Cecenten 4 site, the Applicant has subtiered a plan for development 5 which is both ecologically insensitive and unjustified.

6 (e.g., Fig. 6.2-16). Seeningly desiring level final 7 contours and straight line edges throughout the site 8 for convenience, PASNY proposes thrt fill be added on 9 forest land where no construction or plant operations 10 are to take place; this is unnecessary. For instance 11 the northeast sector between the barge slip and Duck 12 Cove is elevated inexplicably to a uniform 26 feet.

13 Similarly the region east of the plant site north and 14 south of the sedi=entation basin are also leveled, 13 requiring extensive fill and revegetation. This fill 16 would destroy a portion of the =arsh with no apparent 17 gain ce the applicant, save perhaos balancing cut and is fill. It 1: clear that retention of wild forests 19 throughou~ ~~se areas with their greater diversity, 20 resilience, productivity and bioaesthetic appeal, is 21 far superior to destruction for convenience of drafting.

22 In addition, the proposed encroachment into the narsh 23 is wholly unneessary and should be considered totally 24 unacceptable site construction practice.

Q. Do the Cementon and Athens sites contribute significantly 25 1 to a wide-regional biolegically unusual character?

2 A. Yes, they are part of a regional wild feres: and pas:cral 3 character. Few wculd cen:es: :ha: the Hudsen 'Jalley 4 has unusual scenic, cultural, anc recrea:icnal signi-5 ficance to New York S: ate. The Hudsen River slices 6 through some of New York's grandest scenery including 7 ,the forested Catskill Mo:mtains and their foothills ,

8 the forested and pastoral highlands of Colu=bia and 9 Dutchess Counties, and the =ostly forested Hudson 10 Highlands. From Orange and Putnam counties through 11 Greene and Colcabia counties forest and pastoral eco-12 systems predomint e. The New York State Office of 13 Parks and Recreation has long recognized the unusual 14 quality of the Hudson Valley. Many parks, historical 15 sites and other areas are =anaged in the Valley and its 16 vicinity. In addition the River Valley is rich in 17 historic values and folklore.

13 Natural ecosystems and low intensi:y agricultural 19 lands, abandoned land and hedgerews predc=inate :hroughcu:

20 the Hudson Valley. Clearly the " wild" and " natural" 21 charectaristics of the regien significan:ly contribute 22 to i:s unique importance as one of the State's najor 23 na: ural resources.

24 The Cerenton and A: hens sites =us: be jucged in 25 this contex:. The ceren:on s'. e , in easy view frc=

1 Secondary produe:ivity a: the Cecenton site likely 2 is only parcially ccupied to the on-site pr'-ary 3 production. Ani=al species inhabi:ing the site, 4 undoubtedly obtain =uch food off site.

5 At the Athens site, biological production appears 6 to be limited. Here, like at Cementon, it is probable 7 that transient animals obtain food on site to some 8 degree, and resident birds and small mammals cove out 9 of the wet meadow to find a large percentage of their 10 diet.

11 Q. Please estimate replacement times for the vegetative 12 association on the two sites.

13 A. Even the strip of forest bordering the Hudson River on 14 the Cenenton site which the Applicant plans to leave 15 intact appears to be growing under stressful conditions 16 largely due to thin soil and rock outcrops. Destruction 17 of forest areas during construction would be an extremely 18 i=portant loss because they could not be replaced in 19 kind within the life of the plant, especially under the 20 stressed conditions existing at the site. This under-21 scores the need for good planning, conservative design, 22 and extreme care in construction.

23 The entire shrub forest and younger fores: throughout 24 :he Cementon size center will be ecmpletely cestroyec 23 by extensive filling. This loss is less critical since 1 Colu=bia Ccunry and fren :he Hudson River provides 2 nearly one tile of wild fores between two degraded 3 industrial sites of large cecen: cocpanies. Des:ructicn 4 of the forests a: the Ce encon site would leave nearly 5 a three mile s: retch of degrade industrial appearance.

6 The Athens site also contains " 4" ecosystems in full 7 view for cany siles. Loss of these ecosystems and the 8 presence of the facility as proposed would seriously 9 degrade the wild and natural character of the Hudson 10 Valley in this region.

11 In his testi=ony, DEC land cape architect Benas 12 discusses visibility of the proposed structures and 13 their contrast to surrounding scenery.

14 Q. Please discuss biological productivity on the two 15 sites.

16 A. Neither site has a high biolcgical productivity. The 17 thin poor soil a=ong the outcrops of bedrock on the 18 Cecenton site suggests that productivity could only be 19 quite linized throughout the site center. Only along the water fronts is the vegetation more luxurient. It 20 21 would appear that primary production is linited throughout 22 the si:e and possibly also along the water frents .

23 Resilience to inpacts due to construction and cperaticn 2A =ay be e: pected to be reduced due to low pri=ary 25 productivi:7 1 endanger:ent of the forests adj acent to the Athens 2 site.

3 Q. Please characcarize the biological fi: ness of both 4 sites.

5 A. The stressful conditions imposed on the vegetation by 6 poor soil conditions mad extensive disruption at the 7 Cementon Site and the high water table at the Athens 8 site have been described. Clearly the vegetative 9 associations at Cenenton do not display a high degree 10 of overall health and vigor, w;:h the possible exception 11 of the forests along the Hudson River. The purple 12 loosestrife association at Athens represents a dyselimax, 13 which may be considered by definition either as mnx4-n117 14 fit for the prevailing wet conditions or as retarded by 15 the wet conditions frcm a vigorous seral development 16 toward dry =eadow.

17 Q. Please surmnrize all of the above points.

la A. Taking productivity and fitness as indicators of likely 19 replacement eine, and allowing subj ective judge =ent of "value" of dif ferent communities on the two sites, 20 21 overall judgetents may be =ade regarding both sites.

22 Neither site center may be considered a critically 23 L:portant ecological loss and both would be lost fully 24 to construction i pacts . By con:rast, the forests 25 along the Hudson River mad Luck Cove are critically 1 such forest coult'. be replaced in kind within perhaps 10 2 to 15 years depen'.ing on the new edaphic condi:icns 3 es:ablished folicwing construe:icn. Ecwever, as ?SC 4 biologist Jackson pointed cut in his draf: prefiled 5 testimony, destruction of any forests for terporary 6 uses such as construction parking is unacceptable when 7 alternaives are available. It appears that the park 8 and ride option for access to the site would provide 9 sufficient off-site parking, thus obviating the need ,

10 for such extensive land cccmit==nt in site center.

11 Accordingly, the Applicant should be required to 12 implement plans for off-site construction parking.

13 At the Athens site, the purple loosertrife wet 14 =eadow would quickly replace itself if the specific 15 edaphic conditions to which it is adapted prevail after 16 construction. However, this is not the case since the 17 wet meadow is proposed to be cenpletely filled en si:e.

13 The =ature oak decinated fores: pacches above and 19 to the west of the size woulc not be replaced in kind 20 within perhaps two to four lifetimes of the plant.

21 Even with special =anagement to facilitate skipping 22 otherwise integral preceding seral stages, replacement 23 ti=e might only be reduced by 507.. Again, this under-24 scores the need for the Applicant :o furnish very 25 precise size development plans which will preclude 1 Q. '4 hat are the =ost i=portant concerns with respect to 2 terrestrial ecology a: the Ce=enton Site?

3 A. I a =cs: concerned abcu: protection cf the rarsh in 4 the southeast sector of :he size, the =cve=en: of the 5 cement waste pile in the northwest sector, and protection 6 of the vegetative screen along Duck Cove.

7 Q. Please discuss the carsh.

8 A. The Cementon site contains mostly stressed ecological 9 ccmmunities growing on heavily disturbed rocks and on 10 soils influenced by alkaline ce=ent wastes. The o

11 exceptions to this are the plant associations bordering 12 the Hudson River. Among these, the marsh appears to be 13 the most noteworthy. On my visits there appeared to be 14 good growth of vegetation and production of rotting 15 stems and leaves to enrich the =arsh and contribute 16 nutrients to the River. Signs of several =a==als and 17 birds were noted. Althcugh the =arsh was described by la the Applicant as tidal, National Ocean Survey data 19 confirm that the River be expected to reach the elevation 20 of the =arsh only during spring high flow. Groundwater 21 and surface run off frem hills above the =arsh are' 22 probably the pr -ary and only regular source of water.

d 23 I'.. =y opinion this =arsh is the =ost valuable 24 habita: en the Ce=enton size, and the ene =cs: likely to be inadvertently des:royed. It is not enough f6:

25 1 i=portant and fragile. The upland forests a: Athens 2 are relatively i=portant. They are vigorous and fi 3 and should resis nearby construe:icn; however for 4 these reasons they nus: not be encroached upon curing 5 develegnent of the si:e, and must not be endangered by 6 temporary land uses during construction.

7 Q. Are there "bicadministrative" issues at these sites?

8 A. Neither site was reported by the Applicant to contain 9 resident endangered species. PSC biologist Jrckson 10 develope' lists of species of vertebrates which are s

11 reduced to population levels lower than considered 12 optimum. His list is based on others prepared by U.S.

13 Department of Interior, IUCN, N.Y.DEC, mad Audubon 14 Society. These lists in turn were based on a variety of 15 criteria, not necessarily relating to machropogenic 16 causes, and not necessarily nor in each case, indicating 17 true endangerment of the species. The thrust of Jackson's la testimony is that many species are potentially affected 19 adversely by power plant construction and operation.

20 Such specific and nonspecific, direct and indirect, 21 impacts should be minimized when possible, even if at 22 some added cost. I fully support this generalization.

23 The wetland at Athens is of sufficien: size and 24 character to be regulated under provisions of the 25 Environmental Conservation Law (ECL 524-0101).

1 to help replace groundwater which will be restricted 2 due to construction.

3 Stor= wa:er from the entire plan: cceplex : gether 4 with surrounding road surfaces is presently proposed Oc 5 be discharged to the Hudson River near Silver Point.

6 Providing no salt is used on the road surface, and no 7 toxic substances or biocides are placed in or become a 8 contaminant.cf the surface runoff, I would favor routing 9 storm water, af ter appropriate treatment, to the narsh 10 to supplement water supply. It should be incumbent on 11 the Applicant to preclude any contamination of the 12 =arsh frca stars sewer waters , or for that matter, from 13 may source within its control.

14 Finally, the location of the cooling tower is 15 perilously close to che marsh. Applicant must be 16 required to restrict construction activities to an 17 elevation above 30 feet and absolutely preclude cen-13 struction runoff, sile, etc. fran entering the marsh.

19 Inadvertent destruction of valuable habitats is en:irely 20 unacceptable in this era of environmental sensibility; 21 such losses can never be written off as mere accidents 22 mad thereby f-emed acceptable.

23 Q. Please discuss the ceren: waste pile in the northwes:

26 corner of the site.

25 A. It is proposed that about half of the very large : ailing

1 the Applicant to agree not to encroach on the marsh.

2 Major recontouring and paving of the hills above :he 3 =arsh will undoubtedly reduce water available to the 4 =arsh. Loss of that wa:er supply will likely cause the 5 complete demise of this we: land. A year-round water 6 supply must be guaranteed to this marsh. This can be 7 acccmplished, I believe, without precluding plant 8 construction at the site.

9 The wet forest herediately to the south of the 10 marsh 'must be preserved because it is a likely source 11 of water to the marsh and because it probably serves as 12 an important refuge for animals using the marsh.

13 The stream which enters the site from the west and 14 Presently turns northward to Duck Cove should not be 15 retained in its present course. The stream is not in 16 itself an important enough ecological habitat to

. 17 justify its retention. Further it is not necessary to 13 Duck Cove and the cost of conducting the stream under 19 the planned fill material through a =ajor culvert can 20 not be justified.

21 This unnamed stream however can have a life-22 sustaining value for the =arsh discussed above, providing 23 hazardous substances are not transported by it. I 24 recc= mend that, providing eleva: ions are appropriate, 25 the stream should be rerouted to :he head of the carsh

1 appropriate technology to guarantee that no high pH 2 contaminated groundwater will discharge into Duck Cove.

3 Q. Please discuss the vegetative screen.

4 . The vegetative screen shown in Fig. 6.2-16 of the 5 application serves several biological purposes. It 6 provides continuous forest habitat with its food and 7 shelter to many transient species as they migrate along 8 ine important fly way, or as they disperse or =ove 9 along the Hudson River during feeding and other activities.

10 Retention of the wet forest in the southeast corner of 11 the site is important to provide for the continuity of 12 habitats along the Hudson River frontage. Such screen 13 provides cover, concealment, and food for resident species on site. Accidental loss of these species from 14 the area should be considered as unpardonable since 15 16 appropriate forest habitat and adequate area can be 17 available.

18 Of perhaps greatest ecological significance is 19 retention of as much forest strip as possible along the 20 edge of Duck Cove. This will provide soce separation 21 of the Cove from the activities on site, so that migrating 22 waterfowl may be nore inclined to use the cove. Thus I 23 m: enphasizing recention of the unusually large su=ac 24 trees bordering the Ccve. This species is often considerec 25 c " weed", but should be considered otherwise here.

1 pile will be re=oved and used for fill in the center of 2 the si:e. Presently, this pile is eroding down onto 3 the vegeta:ive co== uni:7 below.  :: nay be enpected to 4 con:inue in the future. The eroded =aterial =ay be 5 toxic to =any species, i: causes a very high pH in 6 trapped water, and at the least, inundated vegetation 7 will not deverbp into a viable natural or =anaged -

8 cc== unity. Final contours of this pile cust be stable, 9 1.e., at or less than the angle of repose, =ust be 10 covered with topsoil, and cust be vegetated to help 11 res trict further erosion.

12 During construe: ion, tailing pile material which 13 is transferred to the site center below and piled to an 14 elevation of several feet =ay produce a serious secondary 15 proble= - contamination of Duck Cove. It is probable 16 that cenent tailings trapped subsurface in fill =aterial

/

17 =ay become water-loaded. This groundwater would probably 13 become very alkaline. If this groundwater discharges 19 into Duck Cove, it could cause serious da= age to resident 20 biota. The Applicant, has indicated that sedi=entation 21 canks will be used to take care of this problem.

22 Clearly high pH is not solved by sedinentation tanks 23 per se. However, the applicant should use sedimentation 24 anks to preven: sil: from being discharged in:o Cuck 25 Ccve. Even more inportantly the Applican =ust apply 1 Q. Please secte your overall opinion on the acceptability 2 of the Ce=enten and Athens sites for construction of a 3 large nuclear genera:ing s:atien.

4 A. Neither site is superior Oc the other based en on-site 5 criteria of biological uniqueness, ecclegical replace-6 =ent tLne, ecological productivity, biological fitness, 7 and presence of "bicadministrative" issues. Clearly, 8

Athens would be the easier site on which to protect 9 surrounding ecosystems frem construction impe. cts.

10 Further, inadvertent, negligent, or willful destruction, 11 endangerment, or loss of surrounding ecosystems at Cenenton would have an extremely critical impact on a 12 13 regional basis. Therefore the Cenenton site seems less 14 acceptable than Athens.

15 Athens is a superior site to Cementon when viewed in a regional context. Freemptive commitment of the 16 17 Athens site to power generation would be less of a loss than such cccmitment of the ecosyste= at Cementon.

18 19 Overall, hcwever, I would find loss of either site 20 e power plant construction undesirable given better site alternatives throughout the state. Including all 21 22 terresrrial biological criteria, as well as aesthetic 23 perceptiens of natural ecosyste=s , I would rate the 2s following sizes as far superic: to both Ce=en:on and 25 Athens: Femfree, Sheridan, Sc=erset, Jamesport, off-1 shore siting in :he Atlan:ic Ocean, and Ginna (no order 2 a=eng these i= plied). Two si:es abou: equal er only 3 scrawhat superior :o Ce=enten and A: hens are Lloyc and 4 Sterling. In testi=cny which I have sub=itted in the 5 Lcng Range Research hearings (?SC d27319) regarding 6 alternative site selection and designation, I have 7 developed a generic discussion of the site selection a process.

9 Q. Please ccenent on the Access I= prove =ents to the two 10 sites.

11 A. Applicant has developed four options for " improve =ents" 12 of access to the Ce=enton site. I have cc-mented above 13 that the advantage of a park and ride eption (Alternative 14 III) is the reduction of shrub forest destruction for 15 t e=porary us es . I will also cec =ent on Alternatives "1 16 3" and "6 3 & C".

17

~

Option "I 3" straightens Route 9'4 and bypasses the 13 village of Catskill by crossing the Ca: skill Creek 19 Gorge. This option is unacceptable in the extre=e 20 because of its insensitivity to the value of the ecosysta=

21 associated with one of New York's =ost beautiful riverine 99

-~ s v. s t a = s .

23 The Catskill Creek, the gorge i: penetra:es, and 26

he fores: on ei:her side are a=cng New York's =cs:

beautiful and cos produe:ive. -ven as c_,ose :o :he 25 1 Village of Catskill as the proposed bypass would be, 2 the riparian forest is e:cciting and interes:ing.

3 Destructicn of :he forest and gorge by construe: ice cf 4 a new road, sL= ply for the temporary convenience of 5 coc=uting workers, few of when would be in the area 6 care than two years is, to me, an intolerable proposal.

7 I most vigorously rej ect any contention by the applicant 8 that gains in convenience outweigh the lossas of these 9 important biotic communities. I urge the Examiners to ,

10 recommend no intrusions on these ecosyste=s by construction 11 of an access route to the Cecenten site.

12 Alternatives "6 3" and "6 C" skirt the Great V17 13 Swamp west of the site. The Great V1y is one of the 14 highly inportant ecosystems in eastern New York, both 15 La an individual sense, and in a wide regional context.

16 It is highly productive, providing food and cover to 17 =any transiert and resident species. Water fowl nigrating 18 along the hudson River valley are known to stop at the 19 Great V17 Waterfowl nesting in other areas, e.g.,

20 Duck Cove, have been noted to visit the Great V17 21 daily.

22 In my opinion a road constructed so close to the 23 Great V1y would endanger this significant wetland. EEC 24 'ikely would no: per=i: construction along its borders 25 under ICL 524-0101. I strongly urge that this evacua: ion 1 route be eliminated from the list of alternatives.

2 Q. Are there other issues of cerit?

3 A. There are a variety of lesser issues, including bird 4 collisions with cooling ecwers, noise i= pacts, vegetation 5 spoile, dispersion of contaminants from cooling tower 6 plumes, and general questions e.g. , effects on species 7 of fragmentation of their ranges. All of these are 8 addressed adequately in the prefiled testimony of PSC 9 biologist Jackson and need nc further elaboration. I 10 agree with his conclusions.

11 Q. Please comment on the need for compliance filing procedures.

12 A. As implied by previous answers, I consider the use of a 13 ccepliance filing mechanism to be critical to whether 14 the proposed power plant would have a devastating 15 impact or cause only tolerable losses to the terrestrial 16 ecology. I: proper or over sealous construction practices, 17 insersitive or uni =aginative site layout, ritualized 13 demands for temporary space which places tecporary 19 convenience over long ters ecological wellbeing of the 20 biologically important upper Eudson Valley could result 21 from a poor canpliance filing. Ccmprehensive planning, 22 careful writing and equally comprehensive reviews of 23 the document are absolutely necessary.

24 PASNY has proposed to develcp ene of rwo hig':.ly 25 valuable ecological areas of the Upper Hudson Valley.

1 Siting a nuclear plant preempts alternative uses of 2 :he site perhaps for centuries. Faul:7 cens: rue: ion 3 practices also pree=p: c her cc=pa ible uses of :he 4 remaining biotic syste=s by can and other species. I 5 view the ccmpliance filing as perhaps the cost important 6 stage in the Article VIII prt:ess. The Examiners are 7 urged to explicitly emphasize in their findings, the 8 importance of the ecmpliance filings and the need for 9 adequate detail and sensitive planning. They should 10 also indicate that provision by PAStiY of an adequate 11 document will speed review and acceptance, while sub-12 mission of documents with less thuught can lead to 13 virtually endless review, unwanted by any party.

14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25