Braddock Bay 'Restoration' Final Design ~ US Army Corps

Braddock Bay is located on the shore of Lake Ontario in the town of Greece, NY and is part of the Rochester Embayment Great Lakes Area of Concern (AoC).  Over the last one hundred years, due to wave driven erosion, there has been a gradual loss of the protective barrier beach  as well as a loss of approximately 106 acres of wetlands. Also, since Lake Ontario water level regulation began in  1954, decreased fluctuations in water levels have resulted in the growth of a cattail monoculture and the loss of diverse habitat that once existed.

Study Overview: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District has completed a feasibility study to identifying a plan for ecosystem restoration at Braddock Bay, Monroe County, NY. The goal of restoration is to improve habitat diversity of the existing emergent marsh currently dominated by cattail, and to reduce erosion of the existing emergent marsh. The black tern was chosen as a target species for habitat restoration, because it represents a historic habitat no longer present in the bay. This habitat, characterized by diverse aquatic vegetation zones, sedge grass meadows, and open water areas interspersed within a matrix of emergent marsh, will be significantly more ecologically diverse than the existing cattail dominated emergent wetland and would provide high quality habitat for many species of fish and wildlife including American mink and northern pike. The proposed project supports delisting of the Rochester Embayment Area of Concern (AOC) Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) for  loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

Contact Information

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207
Telephone: 1-800-833-6390 (option 3)
Fax: 716-879-4434
Email: braddock.bay@usace.army.mil

Written comments should reference Braddock Bay Application # 2015-00095 and can be mailed to:

US Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District

(Attn:) Kathleen Buckler

1776 Niagara Street

Buffalo, NY 14207

braddock.bay@usace.army.mil

2015 had the lowest abundance of yearling alewife in the 39 years it has been recorded

Biologists, anglers talk state of Lake Ontario fishing

By GORDON BLOCK
MARCH 14, 2016 AT 12:30 AM

PREV

Item 1 of 2

NEXT

Order Prints

GORDON BLOCK / WATERTOWN DAILY TIMES

Anglers listen to a presentation on Tuesday night in Pulaski about the status of fishing in Lake Ontario. The DEC said the 2015 had historically low fishing quality rates for sport fish like Chinook salmon, brown trout, rainbow trout and coho salmon.

PULASKI NY — The anglers knew it, and the biologists had the charts to confirm it: last season’s fishing on Lake Ontario was officially lousy.

With few answers about the cause of the dip, beyond colder-than-average water, there was little hope the state Department of Environmental Conservation could offer for fishing this year.

“I wish we had the answers, but we don’t have all the reasons why,” said David K. Lemon, the DEC’s Region 7 fisheries manager.

Among the DEC’s statistics presented during a meeting at Pulaski High School on Tuesday night was that the 2015 combined fishing quality, representing fish caught per hour on a charter boat, of chinook salmon, brown trout, rainbow trout and coho salmon were at the lowest levels recorded since 2002, and about 16 percent below long-term averages.

Individually, chinook salmon fishing quality was down 26 percent from the 2003-2015 average, coho salmon were down 57 percent from average, while the brown trout was down 27 percent from average. Rainbow trout was down 39 percent from the average. Rates of lake trout and Atlantic salmon were the main fish listed that did not see major drops, according to the DEC .

Anglers told the Times last fall that the bass fishing season was the worst they’d seen in years. 

DEC aquatic biologist Jana R. Lantry said water temperatures this past year were about 15 to 20 degrees below averages recorded from 2004 to 2013.

The wide-ranging meeting also covered preseason catch-and-release fishing, stocking plans and regulation proposals for the new year.

The statistics presented on Tuesday formalized what many local guides already knew. At least 100 people attended the meeting, many with business ties to the lake area. Anthony J. Gulisano, a Pulaski-based fishing guide on the Salmon River for about 25 years, said the last two years have been “nothing but crap.”

“We’ve seen the highs and lows, but this is extreme,” he said.

That dip in activity had a direct impact on the bottom line of guides like William and Rebel Gravelle.

“A lot of the guides lost business,” Mrs. Gravelle said.

Mr. Gravelle said his and other guides’ businesses were boosted by people flying in from out of state to fish.

The guides “were telling them don’t come,” he said. Among the biggest items of interest for biologists is the count of alewife, an important prey fish in the lake. The DEC said 2015 had the lowest abundance of yearling alewife in the 39 years it has been recorded.

Maureen Walsh, a research fishery biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said that though there is a small buffer from past years, the size of the new class was very important to the lake. She and other researchers will be conducting their annual review of the fish’s population in April.

“That will be very telling, how they survived,” she said.

A final DEC analysis of last year’s fishing is expected to be finished this spring. The preliminary DEC summary of 2015 fishing can be found at http://wdt.me/dec-fish.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/biologists-anglers-talk-state-of-lake-ontario-fishing-20160314&?utm_source=Lake+Ontario+Waterkeeper&utm_campaign=6554be84f3-Lake_Ontario_Waterkeeper_Alert_world_water_day&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0114e8b68b-6554be84f3-354539937

EPA is funding Braddock Bay 'construction' and 'channeling/potholing' to delist Rochester Embayment AOC

EPA Region 5 Project Title: COORDINATION OF THE DELISTING PROCESS FOR THE ROCHESTER EMBAYMENT AREA OF CONCERN

Grant Information

Grant ID Number:	GL - 00E01373-0
EPA Region:	EPA R5	AAShip:	R05 - Region 5
Division/Office:	Great Lakes National Program Office	Lab/Office:
CFDA:	66.469	Media:	Water
Grant Program:
Authority:
Recipient Name:	County of Monroe
City:		Recipient Type:	County
State:	NY	Cong District:	25
		DUNS:	079678249
Competition Status:
Award Date:	09/22/2014	Cum Award:	$100,000
Project Start:	10/01/2014	Project End:	09/30/2016

Project Title & Description

COORDINATION OF THE DELISTING PROCESS FOR THE ROCHESTER EMBAYMENT AREA OF CONCERN

https://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/52f35d81cc937e5e85256fb6006df28e/982234d9ed2cedd985257d6f007160e1!OpenDocument#_Section4

This project supports the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, pursuant to Public Law 113-76. Monroe County will continue to coordinate the implementation of the Rochester Embayment Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Key components of this project include (1) tracking and documenting remedial activities and progress towards delisting by means of update and annual reports and delisting documents; (2) coordinating RAP public participation, especially invigoration of the RAP Oversight Committee to reach consensus on progress towards endpoints for Beneficial Use Impairments, and informing the public on the delisting processes and successes while soliciting feedback on attitude toward the process, (3) coordination and integration of the RAP process with other Lake Groups such as the Lake Ontario Lakewide Action and Management Plan Committee and the International Joint Commission, (4) participation in drafting Beneficial Use Impairment delisting documents, culminating in a completed Stage III RAP except for incorporation of post management action monitoring, with at minimum a designation of the Rochester Embayment as an Area in Recovery and potentially the complete delisting of the Embayment, (5) participation in the review and monitoring of proposed management actions and subsequent monitoring efforts conducted by the agencies responsible for the management action.

Contact Information

Role	Name	Phone
Project Officer	Frederick Luckey	212-637-3853
Grant Specialist	Francisca Ramos	312-886-5945

Ever wonder what's behind decision-making? Look at this can of worms

Department of Environmental Conservation

Home » Lands and Waters » Lakes and Rivers » Great Lakes » Areas of Concern » Rochester 

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation: Rochester NY Embayment Area of Concern

The Rochester Embayment Area of Concern (AOC) is formed by the indentation of the Monroe County NY shoreline between Bogus Point in the town of Parma and Nine Mile Point in the town of Webster. The northern boundary of the AOC is the line between Bogus Point and Nine Mile Point. The AOC includes about 6 miles of the Genesee River from the mouth of the river to the Lower Falls.

Restoring the Rochester Embayment Area of Concern

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement outlines the process for restoring all Great Lakes Areas of Concern. The process involves developing a Remedial Action Plan to address Beneficial Use Impairments in each AOC. A Remedial Advisory Committee was established for each AOC to assist the restoration process.

Remedial Action Plan for the Rochester Embayment AOC

All Areas of Concern have a Remedial Action Plan that identifies specific problems and outlines the work needed to restore, or delist, the AOC. The Monroe County Department of Health takes the lead in developing and implementing the Rochester Embayment AOC Remedial Action Plan.

Remedial Action Plans are developed in three stages:

•    Stage I identifies specific problems, called Beneficial Use Impairments, and sources of pollution. The Rochester Embayment Stage I RAP was completed in August 1993. Because the complete Stage I RAP is a large file, it is separated below for easier downloading.

◦                     Cover, Acknowledgements, Table of Contents, Acronyms & Abbreviations, Glossary (PDF, 364 KB)

◦                     Chapter 1: Introduction (PDF, 1.4 MB)

◦                     Chapter 2: Environmental Setting (PDF, 4.3 MB)

◦                     Chapter 3: Water Use and Quality Goals and Objectives (PDF, 1.4 MB)

◦                     Chapter 4: Water Quality Conditions/Problems (PDF, 2.6 MB)

◦                     Chapter 5: Identification of Pollutant Sources (PDF, 2.3 MB)

◦                     Chapter 6: Summary of Linkages Between Impaired Uses, Pollutants Causing Impaired Uses, and Sources of Pollutants -- Remaining Questions (PDF, 292 KB)

◦                     Appendices (PDF, 4.6 MB)

•    Stage II lays out proposed restoration actions and a plan for implementing those actions. The Rochester Embayment Stage II RAP was completed in September 1997. Because the complete Stage II RAP is a large file, it is separated below for easier downloading. A 2012 Stage II RAP Addendum is also available below.

◦                     Cover, Table of Contents, List of Tables, List of Figures, Acknowledgments (PDF, 1.4 MB)

◦                     Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations (PDF, 285 KB)

◦                     Chapter 1: Introduction (PDF, 329 KB)

◦                     Chapter 2: Description of the Area of Concern (PDF, 182 KB)

◦                     Chapter 3: Use Impairments, Causes and Sources (PDF, 2.4 MB)

◦                     Chapter 4: Studies Required to Complete Identification of Use Impairments and Describe Pollutant Sources (PDF, 582 KB)

◦                     Chapter 5: Specific Goals and Objectives for Restoration of Beneficial Uses (PDF, 133 KB)

◦                     Chapter 6: Completed and Ongoing Water Quality Programs

▪                                       Sections 6.1-6.19 (PDF, 2.9 MB)

▪                                       Sections 6.20-6.52 (PDF, 2.9 MB)

◦                     Chapter 7: Possible New Remedial Measures

▪                                       Urban (PDF, 3.4 MB)

▪                                       Rural (PDF, 1.6 MB)

◦                     Chapter 8: Evaluation / Overview of Financing Mechanisms (PDF, 612 KB)

◦                     Chapter 9: Surveillance and Monitoring Program (PDF, 1.7 MB)

◦                     Chapter 10: Selected Actions, Studies and Monitoring Methods (PDF, 878 KB)

◦                     Chapter 11: Management of RAP Implementation (PDF, 694 KB)

◦                     Appendices A-E (PDF, 1.9 MB)

◦                     Appendices F-I (PDF, 2.2 MB)

◦                     Appendices J-L (PDF, 2.9 MB)

◦                     Stage II RAP Addendum, 2011 (PDF, 64KB)

Stage III provides documentation that all Beneficial Use Impairments in an AOC have been addressed and that the AOC is ready to be delisted.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/92771.html

EPA in bed with Army Corps since 2008: 'Compensatory Mitigation' - Section 404 permits through Clean Water Act

Compensatory Mitigation - An EPA/Army Corps thing

This page provides updates and background information regarding Clean Water Act Section 404 Compensatory Mitigation Requirements.

https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/compensatory-mitigation

In 2008, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly promulgated regulations revising and clarifying requirements regarding compensatory mitigation.  According to these regulations, compensatory mitigation means the restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or in certain circumstances preservation of wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources for the purposes of offsetting unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.

Under the regulations, there are three mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation (listed in order of preference as established by the regulations): mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation.

On this page:

• Compensatory Mitigation Regulations
• Compensatory Mitigation Guidance
• RIBITS (Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System)
• Compensatory Mitigation Factsheets
• Compensatory Mitigation Training Resources
• Technical Resources for Stream Mitigation
• Recent Compensatory Mitigation Evaluations and Reports
• National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan

---

Compensatory Mitigation Regulations

• Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines In 1980, EPA finalized regulations that constitute the substantive environmental criteria used in evaluating activities regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
• Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. In 2008, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through a joint rulemaking, expanded the 404(b)(1) Guidelines to include more comprehensive standards for compensatory mitigation.
  • Background on 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rulemaking

---

Compensatory Mitigation Guidance

• 1990 Memorandum of Agreement - Contains the policy and procedures to be used in determining the type and level of mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. (Portions of this MOA that concern the type and location of compensatory mitigation are superseded by the 2008 compensatory mitigation rulemaking.)
• Historic (no longer applicable) Guidance Documents
• 2003 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Guidance (Federal Highway Administration) (PDF) (8 pp, 1.45MB)
• 2003 Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum of Agreement to Address Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes (PDF) (28 pp, 323K)
• 2003 Model Mitigation Plan Checklist (PDF) (8 pp, 2MB)
• 2003 Memorandum to the Field on Adaptation of National Research Council Compensatory Mitigation Guidelines (PDF) (10 pp, 227K)

---

RIBITS (Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System)

RIBITS was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with support from EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide better information on mitigation and conservation banking and in-lieu fee programs across the country. RIBITS allows users to access information on the types and numbers of mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program sites, associated documents, mitigation credit availability, service areas, as well information on national and local policies and procedures that affect mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program development and operation.

---

Compensatory Mitigation Factsheets

• Compensatory Mitigation Factsheet (PDF) (2 pp, 432K)
• Mitigation Banking Factsheet

  ---

  Compensatory Mitigation Training Resources

• Training Course for mitigation banking and In-lieu fee program Interagency Review Teams (IRTs) Exit
• 2015 - 2016 Training Series on In-Lieu Fee Programs Exit
• 2013 - 2014 Training Series on In-Lieu Fee Programs Exit
• Association of State Wetland Managers - Stream Identiification/Delineation/Mitigation Project Exit
• Compensatory Mitigation Rule Training Materials

  ---

  Technical Resources for Stream Mitigation

• 2014 Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM). From 2012 through 2014 ASWM conducted a series of webinars and interviews with States to document and discuss the various ways States address stream jurisdiction, identification, protection and compensation.
  • Report on State Definitions, Jurisdiction and Mitigation Requirements in State Programs for Ephemeral, Intermittent and Perennial Streams in the United States Exit
  • Webinar series discussing report topics Fall of 2012 – Summer 2014 Exit

• 2012 A Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment & Restoration Projects, EPA 843-K-12-006 (PDF) (344 pp, 8MB) – This report lays out a framework for approaching stream assessment and restoration projects that focuses on understanding the suite of stream functions at a site in the context of what is happening in the watershed.  It has been developed to:
  1. Help the restoration community understand that stream functions are interrelated and generally build on each other in a specific order, a functional hierarchy, and understand that parameters can be used to assess those functions even if some parameters are functions and others are structural measures.
  2. Place reach scale restoration projects into watershed context and recognize that site selection is as important as the reach scale activities themselves.
  3. Provide informal guidance and ideas on how regional stream assessment procedures might incorporate stream functions into debit/credit determination methods, function-based assessments and performance standards.

• 2012 UPDATED Natural Channel Design Review Checklist, EPA 843-B-12-005 (96 pp, 32MB) – This checklist and supporting document has been updated with supplementary materials and has been reformatted. It provides guidance on important items to consider when reviewing natural channel designs. It is intended to provide the reviewer with a rapid method for determining whether a project design contains an appropriate level of information for review and evaluation. Updated Excel spreadsheet version of Checklist 
• 2011 Appalachian Stream Mitigation Workshop – The workshop included presentations designed to inform state and federal regulatory and resource agencies, who review, comment on and/or approve compensatory mitigation plans for surface coal mining projects in Appalachia. Additional information on the workshop, the presentation materials, and additional resources are provided.
• 2010 Stream Mitigation Protocol Compendium, EPA 843-S-12-003 (155 pp, 1MB) - This report provides a review of 32 stream assessment protocols and mitigation guidance documents in use by various federal and state government agencies nationwide. It identifies stream functions or conditions assessed, parameters or attributes measured, assessment results obtained, intensity of effort and training needed, use and source of reference condition information, and other factors potentially instructive to parties seeking to review, initiate, or modify stream assessment programs.
  • APPENDIX A (10 pp, 81K) Hydraulic Regional Curves for Selected Areas of the United States
  • PART II (79 pp, 532K) Reviews of Representative Stream Assessment and Mitigation Protocols

• 2004 Stream Mitigation Protocol Compendium, EPA 843-S-12-002 (212 pp, 1.2MB) - This document is intended as a reference that can be consulted by regulatory agencies, resource managers, and restoration ecologists in order to select, adapt, or devise stream assessment methods appropriate for impact assessment and mitigation of fluvial resources in the CWA Section 404 Program. Memorandum to the Field (2 pp, 714K) 

  ---

  Recent Compensatory Mitigation Evaluations and Reports

• The Mitigation Rule Retrospective: A Review of the 2008 Regulations Governing Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.  In November 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA released a report summarizing the progress made in implementing the 2008 Mitigation Rule, including analysis of trends in aquatic resource impacts and compensation from 2010 through 2014 and trends in mitigation banking and in-lieu-fee programs from the mid-1990s through 2014. Report Factsheet
• Watershed Approach Handbook: Improving Outcomes and Increasing Benefits Associated with Wetland and Stream Restoration Projects. Exit In September 2014, the Environmental Law Institute and The Nature Conservancy released a new handbook to advance the use of a watershed approach in the selection, design, and siting of wetland and stream restoration and protection projects, including projects required as compensatory mitigation for permitted activities.
• A Handbook for Prioritizing Wetland and Stream Restoration and Protection Using Landscape Analysis Tools. Exit In September 2013, the Environmental Law Institute released a new handbook that describes the range of tools used by wetland programs across the country to prioritize wetlands and streams for restoration and protection.
• National Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Study Design. Exit In 2013, the Environmental Law Institute in partnership with a team of wetland scientists published a study design developed to help guide future evaluations of wetland compensatory mitigation project performance.
• Wetlands and Stream Mitigation: A Handbook for Land Trusts.  In September 2012, the Environmental Law Institute and the Land Trust Alliance released a handbook designed to provide land trusts with the tools they need to navigate the federal wetland and stream compensatory mitigation program and evaluate their engagement in the program.
• Additional Compensatory Mitigation Evaluations and Reports since 2000

  ---

  National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan

  On December 26, 2002, EPA and the Corps of Engineers announced the release of a comprehensive, interagency National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan to further achievement of the goal of no net loss of wetlands. The goals and objectives of the National Mitigation Action Plan were incorporated into the 2008 Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
• National Mitigation Action Plan (PDF)
• National Mitigation Action Plan Factsheet (PDF)
• Stakeholder Coordination - In 1999, the Federal agencies began hosting a series of stakeholder forums to gather information and opinions on the concerns and challenges of compensatory mitigation. These forums have brought together a diverse group of individuals representing the regulated community, environmental organizations, academia, non-governmental organizations, and mitigation providers. The first forum was held in Washington, DC, in 1999, to discuss draft guidance on in-lieu-fee mitigation. The second forum was held in Baltimore, Maryland, in October 2001. This meeting helped lead to the formulation of the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan. The third and fourth forums were held in Portland, Oregon (July 2003) and Tampa, Florida (September 2004) to discuss progress on Action Plan tasks and solicit input on future Action Plan tasks. The fifth forum was held in Washington, DC (May, 2006) to discuss the proposed compensatory mitigation regulations.

Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.