FINAL

ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEIiT

HAMLIN BEACH STATE PARK COOPERATIVE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT LAKE ONTARIO, MONROE COUNTY, NEU YORK

Prepared by: " , ' ' r — !- •• EuCCcJo, !’ -iT ” o-k HAMLIN BEACH STATE PARK COOPERATIVE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT

LAKE ONTARIO, MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Impact Statement

Responsible Officer: TJ. S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, New York

1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative

2. Description of Action: Improvement of a portion of the Lake Ontario frontage of Hamlin Beach State Park. The project includes seven groins and placement of sand fill along about A,250 feet of frontage to provide a beach that will adequately accommodate up to 11,600 persons at peak capacity.

3. a. Environmental Impacts: The existing shore will continue to be used as a public bathing beach. Its natural appearance will be _maintained_and even enhanced by the widening of the sand beach.

b. Adverse Environmental Impacts: Temporary effects of con­ struction, such as turbidity, extensive truck traffic, and disfigure- . meat of the park by access roads. Ncne permanent.

A. Alternatives: Alternatives to the proposed project are:

a. No project.

b. Offshore breakwater.

c. Groins arranged normal to the existing shoreline.

d. Obtain sand from lake rather than upland source.

5. Comcnfs Requested:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Environmental Protection Agency, Region V Bureau of Sport Fisheries, Boston, Mass. League of ‘.'omen Voters of the Rochester Metropolitan Area Director, New York State Historic Trust Director. Dent, of Enviropmonrai Cutwcrvefion Geneses State Park Commission Ninth Coast Guard District Monroe County Environmental Management Council Central New York Regional Planning Board Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board Office of Environmental Project Review, Department of the Interior

6. Draft Statement to CEQ 24 May 1972 Final Statement to CEQ 1 P£C \ S / l . HAMLIN BEACH STATE PARK COOPERATIVE BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT LAKE ONTARIO, MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

t. 1. Project Description. The project plan provides for the Improve­ ment of a portion of the Lake Ontario frontage of Hamlin Beach State P^rk in the town of Hamlin, Monroe County, New York, about 20 miles westerly of Rochester, New York. The proposed sand beach will be provided by placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of sand fill along about A,250 feet of the frontage near the middle of the 3-1/2 mile total frontage. It will provide protection against further erosion and a bathing beach that will adequately accommodate up to 11,600 persons at peak capacity. Sand fill will be obtained from upland sources. The lake sand discussed in the 1970 reprint by Sutton et al suggests that the relatively high percentage of fines (average 30%) may limit its economic use. It is considered too fine for this application. The project also includes seven groins, six of which will be new stone groins and the seventh will be a modification of an existing concrete groin. The groins will be constructed perpendicular to the direction of the stabilised beach. The project was authorized by the 195S River and Harbor Act in accordance with the plan described in House Document No. 138, 84th Congress, 1st Session. Minor changes were made in the project plan during the preconstruction planning. A design nenerandun was approved by the Chief of Engineers on 12 October 19/0. Plans and Specifications are being prepared by the State of New York. State funds have teen appropriated for initiating construction and bids will be invited as soon as plans and specifications are completed and approved. Construction should be undertaken during the summer of 1972. The project is estimated to return annual recreational benefits of $220,000 at an average annual cost of $115,800 showing a benefit-cost ratio of about 1.8.

2. Environmental Setting Without the Project.

a. There are very few natural sand beaches along the south shore of Lake Ontario. Those that exist are generally the result of accretion over many years adjacent to major harbor structures. The largest of these in the vicinity of Rochester is the city-owned Ontario Beach just westerly of the U. S. West Pier at the mouth of the Genesee River. However, this public bathing beach and other public beaches Co the east, at DuranJ-ha-stwi* Park and Webster Par!:, have been closed for several years becu.*oe of pollution coning fren the Genesee River and nearby city sewer outfalls. Ilamlin Beach State Park is updrift of and far enough removed from these major sources of pollution to be free from dangerous contamination. A letter report on tests of all beaches in the Rochester area by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, now the Environmental Protection Agency, in January 1970, states that the water quality at Hamlin Beach has met and probably will continue to meet its standards for bathing beaches. , b. The park comprises approximately 1,100 acres vhlch front on about 18,200 feet of lake shoreline. It provides a number of recreational activities including bathing, picnicking, camping and nature study. Preconstruction planning is underway on an authorized federal project for a small boat harbor within the park limits. A list of the indigenous flora and fauna has been provided by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and is attached to this report.

c. Beach erosion has long been a problem at Hamlin. Strong ■ littoral currents are generated predominantly in a west-to-east direction. These, along with frequent storm action, have in the past eroded the beaches and low bluffs at Hamlin Beach, without replacing the lost material. A continuous history of erosion cf the park frontage in its natural state and the absence of an adequate source of suitable beach-building material indicate that the natural supply of sand by littoral movement is inadequate \ o provide beaches within the park limits to the extent desired. As a result, the existing beaches at Hamlin are too narrow to provide full protection to the shore and upland property or to provide sufficient beach area to meet the present demands for public bathing beaches in the Rochester area.

d. The trend of development at Hamlin Beach State Park has been toward anticipation of increased usage. Presently there arc trailer campsites and cabins, picnic and playground areas and quite adequate bathhouse facilities. Parking facilities have been expanded in anticipation of increased park usage and presently exceed current needs.

3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action.

a. The proposed action will not change the environmental aspects of the park frontage. The shore will continue to be used as a public bathing beach. Its natural appearance will be maintained and even enhanced by the widening of the sand beach. The quality of urban life in the area will be improved, and additional bathers attracted, by the additional recreational resources the project will provide. The proposed improvement should have no harmful effects on adjacent shores and any losses of fill from the improvement will provide nourishment of adjacent beaches. The groins are designed to retain, rather than to trap sand. In general, the project should have a minimal environmental impact on an area that is already extensively used for bathing, swimming and other water-oriented activities.

b. The State of New York, as a part of its cooperation, has agreed to control water pollution to the extent necessary to safe­ guard the health of bathers, and to provide suitable access and bathhouse, comfort, parking, and recreational facilities adequate to insure realization of anticipated recreational benefits. 4. Any Adverse Environmental Effects which cannot be Avoided Should the Proposed Project be Implemented.

a. During construction, unavoidable interference with public use of the beach will occur. Depending upon the source and quality of the beach fill, temporary turbidity may occur due to loss of fine material during construction. Extensive truck traffic will interfere with normal park use. Some temporary disfigurement of the park by access roads and the presence of construction equipment will occur. Noise and dust from construction activities are un­ avoidable. These effects have been recognized and special conditions in the plans and specifications will control construction activities to reduce the detrimental effects to minimum levels.

b. The Contractor will be required to obtain his construction materials in a manner so that allowable dust standards are not exceeded, and with a minimum of blemish to the earth.

_ 5 . Alternatives to the Proposed Action.

a. One alternative to the proposed action would be to forego the proposed project, and to continue to use the beach in its present condition. Net recreational benefits of about $100,000 annually would be foregone. Considering, however, that this alternative may lead to a recreational slum due to increased demand and overuse, the $100,000 figure may actually be an overestimate.

b. An offshore breakwater of stone or steel sheet piling to protect the beach would be an acceptable solution in so far as pro­ tecting the beach. However, either type of construction would be aesthetically unacceptable to the State of New York, and would be likely to trap algae during the bathing season. In addition, this scheme would not provide a larger beach.

c. Another alternative considered involved the use of groins arranged normal to the existing shoreline. This would provide an extremely wide beach at the updrift side of each groin. In addition to requiring longer groins and more beach fill, thus increasing the cost, the extreme width of beach at the updrift side of each groin would not be attractive or used except for a narrow strip at the water’s edge.

d. It would have been desirable to exploit other than an upland source of beach sand. Overland hauling can cause noise, dust and disruption of traffic as well as the adverse impacts associated with a borrow operation. Ideally, obtaining beach sand from the lake shore at or near the project site would have been preferred. Unfortunately, the lake sand is unsuitable for such use due to its high percentage of fine material which gives it low resistance to erosion.

6. The Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environ­ ment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.

a. The provision of new facilities for healthful outdoor recrea­ tion must keep pace with the increase in population to maintain the quality of the environment. The proposed project does not envision short-term use. One of the provisions of local cooperation for securing Federal assistance in the project requires; that continued public ownership and administration for public use will be maintained. The obligations assumed by the State of New York, as stated in paragraph 3, will contribute to the project's long-term usefulness.

b. Biological productivity'of the park site should not be appreciably impaired by the project. For the most part, Hamlin Beach State Park has retained much of its natural character and -productivity through the preservation and reestablishment of the native vegetation. Offshore biological productivity will probably be changed to an extent. The direction of change, however, is not predictable because of the opposing effects of increased nutrient .input into the water (from increased beach and park usage) and the inevitable increased disturbance of natural aquatic communities. At any rate, appreciable degradation of man's life support system due to implementation of the project is not anticipated.

7. Any Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment to Resources which would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented. The commitment of labor, fossil fuels, and other resources required to build the project must be considered as "irretrievable." As a practical natter, construction of the project commits the area to increased recreational use. Removal of sand from the borrow area must be considered an "irreversible" action.

8. Coordination.

a. During the course of studies for this project, agencies having an interest in the project were advised of the various plans being considered during the design stage and, where appropriate, their views have been reflected in the recommended plan.

b. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Massachusetts, furnished comments on this project in a final letter report dated 17 March 1971. They, in turn, have cooperated with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife in reviewing the considered plan. During pre­ vious communications the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service favored the offshore breakwater plan or the extension of the groins into deeper water than currently planned. However, their final report stated that the adopted plan with six new groins will have no significant adverse effects upon fish and wildlife resources. They cade several suggestions to improve fishing and hunting opportunities in the park. Potential benefits, in the order of $25,500 annually, were estimated to accrue if the proposed groins are smooth-topped and if 45 to 50 parking spaces are cade available for fishermen's cars. This suggestion to provide fishing facilities was not included in the recommended plan because the Genesee State Park Commission, the o'perating agency, at that time, opposed the proposal.

c. The Regional Director of the Genesee State Park Commission, Castile, Hew York, reviewed the various plans of the project. His comments and recommendations have generally been favorably con­ sidered and incorporated in the adopted plan. His suggestion that an additional short groin be added at the extreme westerly end of the project to insure retention of the beach fill westerly of groin No. 6 has not been included in the recommended plan. However, if experience with the downdrift portions of the project that will be constructed at least one or two years prior to the construction of — the westerly part of the project indicates a need for the other groin, it should be added at that time. It would be similar in design but shorter than the other groins included in the present plan. The Regional Director was requested to review the letter report from -the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He is generally opposed to the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations concerning fishing in the park. Since the groins are in the prime swim teach area, he believes that the suggested improvements will create an "attractive nuisance" for the swimming public and hamper operational control of the thousands of bathers using the beach during June, July and August. Fish and Wildlife Service suggestions would also require additional park maintenance and could create administrative problems.

d. Iu a letter dated 14 June 1972, the Genesee State Park Commission notified this office of a change in their policy toward provisions for public fishing. Their proposal embodied the following provisions:

1. Swimming and intense day use activities will continue to have priority in the use of the beach area.

2. Fishing will be allowed from the groins during the non-bathing season.

3. The top of the groins will be chinked with small stone in an attempt to ease the access tor fishermen and to prevent the possibility of sprained ankles, etc., resulting from stepping in the voids between the large stones. It is considered that this type of surface will be more than adequate for fishermen's access and yet will be of such a nature to discourage use by barefooted swimmers.

A. Fishermen's parking will be in the regular parking areas and they will be required to pay the regular day-use fee when the gates are manned. However, it is also recognized that the best fishing seasons are normally during periods when the gates are not manned.

e. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, now the Environmental Protection Agency, Rochester, Hew York, furnished temperature and bacteriological sampling information for Hamlin Beach plus their interpretation relative to New York State bathing standards. These data demonstrate that Hamlin Beach has in recent years easily met the total coliform standards and indications are that it will continue to do so. The study also indicated that un­ desirable heavy wave conditions associated with extremely turbid water occurred less than 20% of the time at Hamlin Beach. This further verifies the area's suitability as a bathing beach.

f . The Division of Fish and Wildlife, Albany, New York, in response to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed and generally concurred with their report. The State suggested that the project should provide for nearby free parking space for fishermen. They have no major objections to this project if hunting and fishing are allowed, and access to the facilities is provided.

g. The New York Historic Trust advised that, based on informa­ tion available at present, the project will not have an unsatisfactory impact on sites of historical importance.

h. Initially, the draft statement was sent to the following agencies for comment:

Date of Date of Request Comments

Regional Environmental Control Director Environmental Control Administration Public Health Services Region II Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10007 A Dec 1970

Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12201 A Dec 1970 Date of Date of Request Comments

Regional Director Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife D. S. Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Post Office and Courthouse Boston, MA 02109 4 Dec 1970 10 Sept 1971

Region V Director Federal Water Quality Administration Room 410 33 East Congress Parkway Chicago, IL 60605 4 Dec 1970 23 Dec 1970

League of Women Voters of the Rochester Metropolitan Area 75 College Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 4 Dec 1970 29 Nov 1971

Region II Office Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10007 4 Dec 1970 28 Dec 1970

Draft statements were also sent to approximately 50 other agencies and individuals (see attached list).

Summaries of the comments received are as follows:

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. a. Comment: The agency suggested the following addition to the statement: Fish and Wildlife evaluations and recommendations pro­ vided by our Services Planning Aid letter of 29 December 1969 and out conservation and development report of 17 March 1971 have not been incorporated into the preliminary environmental statement. Therefore, we request that the revised environmental statement reflect our findings and recommendations.

Response: The statement has been expanded to include the above information. b. Conment: ihe environmental statement draft indicates that a benefit of $100,000 would be foregone if the project is not built. We feel that a dollar value of benefits foregone should not be Included in the environmental statement.

Response: We do not concur. Federal Water Quality Administration. a. Comment: We consider that the draft statement is adequate, and have no comments to offer.

Response: No response necessary.

League of Women Voters of the Rochester Metropolitan Area. a. Comment: We agree that it would be reasonable to have more sand at Hamlin Beach and that it must be protected from erosion. However, at the moment we have no data on the best way to protect the shore­ line. A study is currently underway by the Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board (Natural Resources Committee) with the cooperation of state geologists. This study will concentrate on erosion and deposition problems along the lakeshore in Wayne, Monroe and Orleans Counties. The authors are considering among other things, the best placement of groins to stop erosion all along that shoreline, and are concerned with the conditions existing now, where indiscriminate erection of groins to force the deposition of sand on one beach increases the erosion of other parts of the lake. It seems to us that there should he no groin construction until the study is completed. The first phase should appear in nid-1972.

Response: We do not fully concur. We certainly accept the desir­ ability of obtaining any additional information on this project. However, we understand that the thrust of the aforementioned study is towards groins which trap sand. The groins we propose are designed not to trap sand, but to retain sand which is placed into them, therefore we doubt the applicability of this study. b. Comment: Just a note on the source of sand which you say you will take from "upland". Have you seen the inclosed 1970 reprint by Sutton et al? On page 317 it describes a sand deposit about a mile offshore at Hamlin Beach and suggests that it may be of commercial value. Would this be useful to replace lost sand on the Beach?

Response: See Paragraph 1. Project Description for a statement on the Sutton et al report.

Region II Office, Environmental Protection Agency, a. Comment: This office has no comments at tils tine.

Response: No response necessary. i. Due to the time elapsed since publication of the original draft statement, and changing format requirements, an updated draft was published and coordinated. This updated draft (10 May 1972) was sent to the following:

Date of Date of Request Comments

Mark Lawton, Director New York State Historic Trust State Office Campus Albany, NY 12226 18 May 1972 24 May 1972

Region II Director Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10007 18 May 1972 5 June 1972

Region V Director Environmental Protection Agency 33 East Congress Parkway Chicago, IL 60605 18 May 1972 23 May 1972

Regional Director Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife D. S. Post Office and Courthouse Boston, MA 02109 18 hay 1972 13 June 1972

A. G. Hall, Director Division of Fish and Wildlife State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, NY 12201 18 May 1972 25 May 1172

League of Women Voters of the Rochester Metropolitan Area 75 College Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 18 May 1972 31 May 1972

Regional Director of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Genesee State Park Commission Let.chwcrth Crate Park Castile, NY 1442*/ 22 May 1972 14 June 1972

Commander Ninth Coast Guard District Main Post Office Building West 3rd and Prospect Streets Cleveland, OH 44113 23 May 1972 6 June 1972 Date of Date of Request Comments

Monroe County Environmental Management Council 301 County Office Building Rochester, NY 14614 22 May 1972 19 June 1972

Mr. Stewart Denslow Executive Director Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board 65 Broad Street, West Rochester, NY 14614 22 May 1972 19 June 1972

Executive Director Central New York Regional Planning Board 321 East M a t e r Street Syracuse, NY 13202 22 May 1972 29 June 1971

First Deputy Commissioner Environmental Conservation State of New York Albany, NY 12207 22 May 1972

Office of Environmental Project Review Assistant Secretary Program Policy Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 23 May 1972

Department of the Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Federal Building 1421 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 23 May 1972 22 June 1972

Summaries of the comments received are as follows:

New York State Historic Trust.

a. Comment: This project will not have an unsatisfactory impact on any known sites of historical or architectural significance.

Response: No response necessary.

Region II, Environmental Protection Agencv.

a. Comment: We have no additional comments to supplement our December 1970 review.

Response: No response necessary. Region V, Environmental Protection Agency.

8. Comment; Your comments were referred by us to our Region V Office. This office (Region II) has nothing to add to our letter of 23 December 1970 on the first draft of the Impact Statement for this project.

Response: No response necessary.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Comment: The project area offers significant opportunities for shore- based fishermen seeking snallmouth bass, yellow perch, rock bass, eunfish, and brown bullhead, and for waterfowl hunting during the fall season for diving ducks. These values should be mentioned.

Response: The statement was expanded to include these thoughts. b. Comment: Showing the $100,000 net annual recreational benefits as a benefit lost (foregone) if the project is not constructed, is not an alternative to the proposed action. It is an argument for action.

Response: Regulations specify that we indicate why a given alter­ native is or is not recommended. We feel that a $100,000 net annual benefit foregone is a substantial argument against the "do nothing" alternative. " c. Comment: Development of a single-purpose beach while foregoing significant fishing and hunting opportunities is still unresolved. The fall hunting season occurs after the swimming season when few people would be expected to be using the beach; therefore, hunting should be permitted. We are concerned when Federal funds are used for a project with multi-benefit capabilities and all but one activity is excluded because of minor administrative and maintenance questions.

Response: The Genesee State Park Commission, in a letter dated 14 June 1972 (see attachment) has agreed to provide for public fishing as explained in Section 8d of this report. The Commission made no mention of public hunting; however, we consider this issue to be a natter of resource allocation rather than one of environ­ mental degradation.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and ’.jixdxlfe. a. Comment: Your updated draft Environmental Statement on the Hamlin Beach Project was referred to our Office of Environmental Analysis.

Response: No comments by the Office of Environmental Analysis have been received to date. League of Women Voters of the Rochester Metropolitan Area.

a. Comment: We think that it is reasonable to add more sand to Hamlin Beach and favor its addition.

Response: Ho response necessary. b. Comment: Our (earlier) comments were concerned with the place­ ment of groins as described in your environmental impact statement. We still think that a geologist's report should have been included on long-shore drift and water action, which would show the effects of your proposed groins on the shores to the east and west of the beach. Your statement says in Section 3a that "the proposed improve­ ment can have no harmful effects on adjacent shores" but gives no data to back up the words.

Response: We affirm the position of the League of Women Voters that the effects of groin placement on adjacent beaches warrants careful consideration; however, this will be an artificial beach, thus, we do not consider this to be a geological question. Therefore, our response reflects the thinking of the beach erosion section of our Planning Branch.

The probable effects of the proposed groins on the adjacent beaches have been carefully considered in planning the proposed project. In general, where groins are constructed to retain an existing natural beach or to build a beach by arresting the natural movement of sand along the shore, there is potential damage from starvation of downdrift beaches. However, the proposed plan for Hamlin Beach provides for artificial placement of sandfill that will add to the total amount of the material in the littoral zone. ’While an exact analysis is not possible, it is our engineering judgment, based on experience with similar projects, that losses from the project will provide downdrift beaches with a supply of sand at least equal to that occurring under pre-project conditions. c. Comment: There are not even any data to show that the groins will work.

Response: We feel that technical data of this nature are not appropriate in an environmental statement. To fulfill the wishes of the League of Women Voters, however, we sent the Engineering Design Memorandum, a report containing engineering design details and specifications, for the proposed H a n U n Beach Project to them on 8 June for examination and comment. To assist then with ihe technical aspects of the document, we provided the name of the project engineer and invited then to enlist his aid if necessary. To date the League has not commented on the design memorandum. d. Comment: There is disagreement on the colifom count at Hamlin Beach between the Environmental Protection Agency and Delta Labs (one has counts below the legal limit, one above).

Response: We concur. Attached are letters from Delta Labs and Region II EPA (30 June 1972) in explanation of this alleged in­ consistency. e. Comment: The State of New York may control local water pollution to safeguard health, but the alewives and algae washed out on the beach are thoroughly disagreeable, and there must be excess sewage inflow into the lake to induce that degree of algal growth.

Response: We concur. f. Comment: Finally, a word on the conflict between fishing and no fishing. If we are not mistaken, the beach is opened to swimmers for only three months of the year and only when lifeguards are on duty. Fishing is pleasant for at least six months and does not require lifeguards. If there are to be groins, why can't fishing off the groins be permitted during those periods when swimming is prohibited?

Response: This conflict has been resolved (see Section 8d and attached letter from the Cenesee State Park Commission).

Genesee State Park Commission. a. Comment: This office is in total agreement with the project and fully supports the earliest possible implementation.

Response: No response necessary.

Ninth Coast Guard District. a. Comment: Subject EIS has been received and found satisfactory.

Response: Ho response necessary.

Monroe County Environmental Management Council. a. Comment: The closing of Rochester beaches should not and need not be used to justify the project. These beaches are scheduled to be opened again, possibly before the Harll.; leach project would be completed. Expansion of Hamlin Beach facilities would remain highly desirable, however.

Response: The closing of Rochester beaches, as a justification of the project, has been deleted from the statement. b. Comment: Item 3a. "The proposed improvement can have no harm­ ful effects on adjacent shores." Does the Corps have actual in­ formation on the predicted effect on current and shift of sand both to the East and to the Vest? Similarly, evidence that "any losses will nourish adjacent beaches?" If these statements are not based on information, they may still be made properly as professional judgments, but the distinction should be made in an Impact Statement.

Response: See our response to the Rochester League of Women Voters' comments to the updated draft Environmental Statement.

c. Comment: Items 4, 6, and 7. If sand is to be obtained from upland sources, excavation of land is required. Such excavations have been conducted in a ruinous manner to regional land use. Impact of excavations can be reduced by an ecological assessment of sites, operations monitoring, erosion control, and reclamation at the end of an operation.

Response: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 instructs all Federal agencies to demonstrate leadership in matters of environ- mental quality. In line with this philosophy, the Contractor will be directed to conform with existing standards set forth by the appropriate regulatory agencies. See next comment and response.

Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board.

a. Comment: While the Environmental Impact Statement adequately addresses the major impact questions regarding the proposed project, it does not suggest a full range of specific problems which might occur during construction, or ways Ly which possible on-site and off-site adverse environmental effects can be avoided. Past experience with projects of this type have sometimes shown that wall intended controls often break down under actual construction conditions. For this reason, it is recommended that appropriate regulations which spell out in detail the nature of such controls be included as an integral part of the project specifications, together with assurances that they will be carried out.

Response: All contracts for civil works construction contain a detailed and explicit section on environmental protection during construction. The protection of the environment is a major responsib!3.ity of the Contractor throughout all of his operations. He is bound by contract to (1) consider all potential forms of environmental degradation resulting from his activities, (2) deter­ mine which of these are applicable and (3) outline measures which he will take in effort to effectively mitigate these effects. b. Comment: Even though the unresolved conflict between the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Genesee State Park Commission concerning the provision of fishing facilities has reportedly been resolved, the Natural Resources Committee of the Regional Planning Board would like to sec the written agreement between these two agencies that such uses would be scheduled or permitted.

Response: Vie are not aware of any such written agreement between these two agencies. However, a letter from the Genesee State Park Commission to this office, dated 14 June 1972, which reports on the details of such an agreement, has been inclosed in this report.

Monroe County Planning Council, 301 County Office Building, Rochester, NY 14614.

a. Comment: Item 2a of the statement justifies the project on the basis of the fact that public beaches elsewhere on the Lake Ontario Shoreline of Monroe County have been closed to swimming during recent years. The county, however, has invested heavily ~-in-a-pure-waters program which is designed to upgrade the water quality of the ehoreline such that the closed beaches may be opened for swimming. This factor should have been taken into account in the determination of the long-term benefits of the - proposed project.

Response: The statement Justifying the-, project on the basis of beach closure In the Rochester area has been deleted from the final statement.

b. Comment: In Item 3a it is stated that the proposed improvement can have no harmful effects on adjacent shores and any losses of fill from the improvement will provide nourishment of adjacent beaches. We recommend that the basis of this statement be specified, whether it be professional judgment, a quantitative analysis of data, or whatever. To our knowledge, it is most difficult to deter­ mine the prospective effects of modification of the shoreline on the deposition of sand. Because of the potential environmental significance of these effects, it is most important that the impact statement contain a clear exposition of how they have been determined.

Response: See our response to comment "b" of the League of Women Voters of the Rochester Metropolitan Area.

c. Comment: In Item 4b it is stated that "the Contractor will be required to obtain his construction materials in a manner so that allowable dust standards are not exceeded, and with a minimum of blemish to the earth." We urge that this statement be rigorously enforced if the project is implemented, particularly as the state­ ment pertains to the acquisition of sand for the beach fill. The Contractor should be specifically directed to obtain high-quality sand from municipalities which have adequate excavation controls to safeguard public and environmental interests, or alternatively the specifications of the contract should be designed to achieve such safeguards.

Response: The environmental considerations placed on the Contractor are summarized in the response to comment "a" of the Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board.

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.

Comment: While the statement references the major impacts associated with this proposal, it lacks the detailed discussion of those points required to adequately assess the probable qualitative or quantitative effect of the project. Page 2, Section 4, Adverse Environmental Effects, paragraph a, illustrates this point in its mention of turbidity, truck traffic interfering with recreational use, temporary disfigurement of the park and noise and dust as anticipated effects. In order to fully comply with the letter and spirit of F.L. 91-190, the special conditions •alluded to as part of the project plans and specifications to minimize these effects should be described. This would allow readers the oppor­ tunity to assess the merit and efficacy of these controls.

Response: Ue feel that the additions to the statement made in response to agency comments and our own review have provided the detail necessary for the reader to accurately assess the merits and efficacy of the proposed project as well as the controls placed upon the Contractor. In addition see our response to comment "c" of the Monroe County Environmental Management Council.

Comment: We generally concur with the impact statement's reference to the direct effects of the proposal on recreation use of the State beach facility. This proposal complements a Land and Water Conservation Fund project finalized 9 July 1968, utilizing $54,425.75 of Federal funds matched by State contribution. The proposed project includes features (groins) which were included in the park concept design of the project when approved in September 1966. While this proposal will not directly effect the conpieced project, the combination may create higher user attractiveness of the total recreation area.

Response: No response necessary.

Draft environmental Impact statements were sent to the following addresses:

HQDA (DAEN-PAI) WASH DC 20314 Division Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer Division, North Central, ATTN: NCDPA, 536 S. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60605 Mrs. George J. Ames, Pres., LWV of New York State, Seville Ave., Rye, NY 10580 Mrs. Farrell Jones, State Water Resources Chairman, League of Women Voters, 22 Driftwood Drive, Port Washington, NY 11050 Mr. John B. Johnson, Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army, Editor & Publisher, Watertown Daily Times, Watertown, NY 13601 Mrs. Leo Trinka, Chairman, NYS Federation Women's Club, Conservation Dept., 340 N. Main Street, Arcade, NY 14009 Maynard Glor, Fish & Wildlife Management, 46 Exchange St., Attica, NY 14011 Mr. Allen Gillard, NYS Conservation Cncl., Inc., Box 45, 11 Cedar St., Batavia, NY 14020 Mr. James Hume, Jr., Fish & Wildlife Management Board, RFD, ------9778 Creek Road, Batavia, NY 14020 Mr. Joseph L. Mancuso, Alexander Road, Batavia, NY 14020 Edward Walker, Co-Chairman, Erie-Genesee Citizens Assoc., 516 Summer Rd., Corfu, NY 14036 --Mr. Charles A. Synder, Izaak Walton League of America, 843 Lawrence Avenue, East Aurora, NY 14052 Martin Turner, President, NYS Conservation Cncl., Inc., 4624 Fckhard Rd., Eden, NY 14057 Mrs. Mary Cullen, Society of the Concerned, 167 Pierce Ave., Hamburg, NY 14072 Marsh Boat & Gun Club, c/o Richard E. Maurer, 398 Ellicott Creek Park, Tonawanda, NY 14150 Mr. James R. Jennings, 510 Beach Dr., Medina, NY 14103 Gene Ogilvie, Chairman, Citizens Committee on Pollution, 1272 Fairfax Avenue, North Tonawanda, NY 14120 William Dougherty, Assoc. Director, Genesee County Soil and Water Conservation District, Main Road, Stafford, NY 14143 Mr. Lyle Bindley, Conservation Council of NYS, 27 Ivy Lea, Town of Tonawanda, NY 14150 Dr. Robert A. Sweeney, Director, Great Lakes Laboratory, Buffalo State University College, 5 Porter Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14201 Paul A. Fernbach, M.D., Pres., Izaak Walton League of America, Niagara Frontier Chapter, 50 High Street, Buffalo, NY 14203 Mrs. Daniel Sierra Club, 797 Lira Avenue. Buffalo, NY 14209 Charles Joudry. President, Conservation Forum of NYS, 101 Englewood Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14214 Dr. Daniel F. Starr, Society for an Unpolluted Environment (Canislus College). Department of History, Canisius College, Main & Jefferson Ave., Buffalo, NY 14203 Dr. John Howell, Ecology Action (SUNY-BUFFALO),-Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14214 Mrs. Henry W. Osborne, NYS Federation of Women's Club, 36 Capen Blvd., Buffalo, NY 14214 Dr. R. Blake Reeves, Acting President, Sierra Club, 73 Danbury Lane, Buffalo, NY 14217 Mis. Mary Ryan, Housewives to End Pollution, 64 Tristan Lane, Buffalo, NY 14221 Mrs. Richard Vesley, Steering Committee, League of Women Voters, Lake Erie Basin Comm., 306 N. Youngs Road, Buffalo, NY 14221 Carl M. Kalwasser, President, Coalition for Action, Unity and Social Equality (CAUSE), 699 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14222 George H. Walper, President, Erie County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc., 579 W. Delavan Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14222 Dr. Theodore Hullar, Co-Chairman, Sierra Club, 73 Berryman Drive, Buffalo, NY 14226 N. Robert Wilson, President, Nature Conservancy W.N.Y., 4574 Harlem Rd., Buffalo, NY 14226 Mr. Robert D. Bannister, Rochester Committee for Scientific Information, (RCSI) and Student Council on Pollution and Environment (SCOPE), Department of Bio. Sciences, SUNY Brockport, Brockport, NY 14420 Mr. Robert E. lleath, Heath and Heath, Attorneys at Law, Holley, NY 14470 "William Hutchinson, President, Monroe County Conservation Council, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Sibley Tower Bldg., Rochester, NY 14604 Mr. Gary E. Konieczny, 2472 Edgemere Drive, Rochester, NY 14612 Honorable William Steinfeldt, 217 Weston Road, Rochester, NY 14612 John Sorensen, President, Monroe County District, Federation of Conservation Clubs, 240 Arlidge Drive, Rochester, NY 14614 Mrs. Basil Bibby, President LWV of Rochester, 94 Shoreham Drive, Rochester, NY 14618 Dr. Herman Forest, Rochester Committee for Scientific Information (RCSI) P. 0. Eox 5236, River Canpus Station, Rochester, NY 14627 George Gotcsik, Treasurer, Sierra Club, Rochester Group, 235 Ouinby Rd., Rochester, NY 14623 Assemblyman John Beckman, Chairman, Four State Legislative Comm., 98 So. Portage Street, Westfield, NY 14787 Dr. Leonard B. Dworsky, Cornell University, Water Resources Center, 468 Hollister Hall, Ithaca, NY 14S50 Central Regional Engineer, NYS Dept, of Environmental Cons., 101 Eabcock Hall, Terrace Hill, Ithaca, NY 14850 Mrs. Weston Stroup, NYS Grange, 22 Middlesex Road, Hamburg, NY 14075 Mrs. Je.«u» Jaiici.en, AAUW Lewiston, 5050 Callan Drive, Lewiston, NY 14092 City Editor, Democrat & Chronicle, 55 Evchar.ge Street, Rochester, Hi 14614 City Editor, Times Union, 55 Exchange Street, Rochester, NY 14614 State Editor, Buffalo Courier-Express, 785 Main Street, Buffalo, i n 14240 Mr. Paul MacClennan, Editorial Room, Buffalo Evening News, 218 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14240 Honorable Frank J. Horton - Irondequoit Bay Harbor, New York

Red Creek, Monroe County, New York

Honorable Barber B. Conable, Jr. - Hamlin Beach State Park Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario, New York UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Division of River Easln Studies 55 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301

June 21, 1972

District Engineer Buffalo District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street B u ffalo, New York 1U207

A ttn: Eugene Richards

Dear S ir :

Attached is a list of indigeneous .flora and fauna

in the Hamlin Beach State Park area as you requested.

S incerely,

Fred C. Benson, J r . Acting Supervisor Concord Area Office Flora of BaalIn Beach State Park Vicinity, Monroe Co., N.Y.'

Trees

Eastern white pine ♦Pinus strobus Red pine P. reslnosa Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis Horthern white cedar Thuia occidentalls Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana Black willow Sallx nigra Sandbar willow S. interior Peachleaf willow S. amygdaloides Bebb willow S. bebbiana Pussy willow S. discolor Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides Quaking aspen P. tremuloides Butternut Juglans cinerea Sugar aaple Acer saccharum Red aaple A. rubrum Mountain maple A. spicatum Striped aaple A. penr.sylvanicum Box elder A. negundo Shagbark hickory Carya ovata Bitternut hickory ' C. cordiformis - American beech Fagus grandifolia White oak Ouercos alba Bur oak Q. macrocarpa Chestnut oak Q. prinus Red oak p. rubra Black oak p. velutina American elm Ulraus americana Slippery elm U. rubra Sassafras Sassafras albidua Sycamore Platanus occidentalls Black cherry Prunus serotina Pin cherry P. pennsvlvanica Choke cherry P. virginiana Basswood Tilia americana Black ash Fraxinus nigra Green ash F. pennsvlvanica White ash F. americana Hawthorne Crataegus sp.

♦Scientific naaes added by Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers. Shrubs

Hophorubearn Ostrya virglniana American hornbeam Carplnus carollnlana Witch-hazel Hamamells virglnlana Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis Staghorn sumac Rhus typhlna Smooth sumac R. glabra Dogwoods Cornus sp. Alders Alnus sp. Buckthorn Rhamnus sp. Hazel Corylus sp. Viburnum Viburnum sp. Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Currant Rlbes americanum

Herbaceous plants

Bellwort Uvularia perfoliata Adder's tongue Erythronium araericanura Solomon's seal Polypanatum biflorum False Solomon's seal Smilancina racenosa Pondweed Potamogeton sp. Pickerelweed Pontederia cordata Rushes Juncus sp. Sedges — Carex sp. Joe-Pye-weed Eupatorium dubium Goldenrod Solldago sp. Bunchberry Cornus canadensis Flag iris Iris prismatica Watercress Nasturtium officinale Cattails Typha latifolia Water lily Nymphaea odorata Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris Hawkweeds Hieraciura sp. Touch-me-not Impatiens capensis May apple Podophylluia peltatum Jack-in-the-pulpit Arlsaema sp. Lily of the Valley Maianthemum canadense Trillium Trillium sp. Skunk cabbage Synyslocarpus foetidus Sheep's purse Capsell3 bursa-pastoris Plantain Plantago sp. Fauna of the Hamlin Beach State Park Vicinity, Monroe Co., N. Y.

Fish

Minnows Pincphales sp. Dace Chrosomus sp. Darters Percina sp. Shiners Notropis sp. Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Smallmouth bass M. dolomieui Northern pike Esox lucius Grass pickerel E. nicer American smelt Osmerus mordax Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus Yellow perch Perea flavescens Walleye Stizostedion vitreum Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Yellow bullhead I. natalis Carp Cyprinus carpio .Sucker — Catostomidae Sunfish Lepomis sp.

Amphibians

Spring peepers Hyla crucifer Leopard frog Rana pipiens Toads Bufo sp.

Reptiles

Pond sliders (turtle) Pseudemys scripts Garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis Water snake Natrix sinedon Black snake Elaphe obsoleta Lizards Sceloporus sp.

Birds

Cardinal Pyrrhuloxia cardinalis Robin Turdus nigratorius Red-winged blackbird Agclaius phoeniceus Bluejay Cyanocitta cristata Barn owl Tyto alba Catbird Dumtella carolinensis Chickadee Parus atricapillus Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufun Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Starling Sturnus vulgaris Sparrows Splzella sp. Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea American goldfinch Spinus tristis Common tern Sterna hirundo Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Woodcock Philohela minor Ducks Anas sp. Geese Branta sp. Swans Cygnus sp. Grackle Qulscalus qulscula Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura Hawks Accipitridae Owls Strigidae Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Mammals

Field mouse Peromyscus polionotus Deer mouse £. maniculatus House mouse . . Mus nusculus Norway rat Rattus norvegicus White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Cottontail rabbit Sylvllagus floridanus Raccoon Procyon lotor Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Red fox Vulpes fulva Gray fox Procyon cinereoargenteus Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Woodchuck Marmota monax Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Gray squirrel Sclurus carolinensis Chipmunk Tamais striatus Bats Chiroptera

A Delta Laboratories, Inc. 18 WEST MAIN STREET • WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 • PHONE: (7 16) 872-1140

June 7, 1972

District Engineer U.S. Army Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207

Att: Mr. Eugene Richards

Dear Mr. Richards: As stated in our telephone conversation, I do not know the reference cited in Dr. Olga Berg’s letter. Delta Laboratories has -not issued a report on Hamlin Beach. I must, therefore, assume that Dr. Berg is referring to a publication issued by the Monroe County Conservation Council in 1970.

The coliform values given in that report are as follows:

May 24, 1970 5,000/100 ml. June 14, 1970 27,000/100 ml. June 18, 1970 23,000/100 ml. June 21, 1970 100,000/100 ml.

Delta Laboratories did test Hamlin Beach on a weekly basis during July 16 through Augu.-t 30, 1971. The coli­ form tests were performed under laboratory conditions. The results obtained by Delta Labs are as follows (Note: Each result is the average of six samples):

July 16, 1971 1150/100 ml. July 26, 1971 750/100 ml. August 2, 1971 200/100 ml. August 9, 1971 Less than 1000/100 ml. August 16, 1971 200/100 ml. August 23, 1971 450/100 ml. August 30, 1971 300/100 ml.

None of the averages exceeded the Mow York State limit of 2400/.'00 ml. However, irv,Jv .I^^jlI counts on July 16, 1971 did exceed this limit. In addition, a stream flowing into Hamlin Eeach Park and then into the lake was found to contain 3 0 ,000/100 ml. which far exceeds’ the state limit. Delta Laboratories, Inc.

I would appreciate your acknowledgement of this letter. If at all possible, I would also appreciate receiving a copy of the EPA data to which you have made reference. Very truly yours,

E. Grant Pike, Vice President yDelta Laboratories, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region II Rochester Field Office p. 0. Box 5036 River Station Rochester, New York 14627

June 30, 1972

Mr. Eugene S. Richards, P.E. U. S. Army Engineer District Buffalo Corps of Engineers Foot of Bridge Street Buffalo, N. Y. 14207

Dear S ir :

Enclosed and lis te d below are eight items re la tiv e to Hamlin Beach. From the data enclosed, we would say Hamlin Beach has good water quality and is acceptable for swimming. There are no indica­ tions things have changed since 1970.

In reference to our phone.conversation, I contacted the League of Women Voters, and they never called back.

I also contacted Mrs. Berg relative to Delta Labs' results and EPA re su lts. She did not know where she received the EPA results, and 1 suggested it might be New York State data. She was not sure. She also indicated i should contact Delta Labs direct for their data. I called ihe lab an-i. i:i resoonso to a recording, le ft a message for Mr. H arris, Mr. Pike, c r Sir. Hunther to call or send the information. Mr. Pike called and indicated he had sent you Delta's information. He will send me a copy of your letter. Rather than wait for his reply, J forward the enclosed so you can make a comparison and conclusion.

We w ill be doing survey work la te r on th is sum er at Hamlin Beach, arid, when the data is compiled, I will send you a copy.

If you have ary questions, do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely yours,

L . R. Mori arty C h ief, Operations Branch * UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 5' ’ * U. S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE - i BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02J09

SEP 10 1971

District Engineer Buffalo District ■ 0. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 1*1207

Dear Sir:

Major Barrett’s letter of December 4, 1970 requested our comments on the preliminary draft of the environmental statement for the Hamlin Beach State Park beach erosion control project, Monroe County, New York.

Ve offer the following comments on the environmental statement:

Fish and ‘Wildlife evaluations and recommendations provided bv our Services Planning Aid letter of December 29, I960 and our conserva­ tion and development report of March 17, 1971 have not been in­ corporated into the preliminary environmental statement. Therefore, ve request that the revised environmental statement reflect our find­ ings and recommendations.

This Service can make no meaningful comment concerning the state­ ment until our recommendations and evaluation of fish, wildlife and related resources have been incorporated. However, the environ- mental statement draft indicates that a benefit of $100,000 would be foregone if the project is not built. Ve feel that a dollar value of benefits foregone should not be included in the environ­ mental statement.

When the final form of your Statement reaches the Secretary of the InTerror ■we probably will be called upon to respond. Experience has shown that -ve often have as little as three or four days to prepare comments. Ve would’ appreciate receiving a copy of the Statement in the form it will be sent through channels. It would be helpful in providing lead time in which to prepare more meaningful comments.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft of the environ­ mental statement.

Sincerely yours,

ACTING Regional Director UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION R EG IO N V

as CAST CONGRESS PARKWAY. ROOM 410 CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60605

December 23. 1970

Your Reference: NCBED-PB

Col. Ray L. Hansen, D istrict Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District,. Buffalo 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207

Dear Col. Hansen:

A review has been made of the draft of the environmental impact statement for improvements at Hamlin Beach State Park on Lake Ontario in the town of Hamlin, Monroe County, New York.

We consider that the draft statement is adequate, and have no comments to offer.

Sincerely yours,

Merr i i l B. Garnet Chief, Federal Activities Coordination Branch EA 6 UE of WOMEN VOTERS of the . * A ROCHESTER METROPOLITAN AREA 75 College Avenue Rochester, N.Y. 14607

November 29, 1971

Hr. Roger D. Repp Chief, Public Affairs Office Department'of the Airy Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 11*207

Dear Mr. Repps

Ve would like to thank you for remembering to send us your preliminary Environment allmpact Statements for proposed changes in Ironaequoit Harbor, Red Creek and the Hamlin Beach State Park Erosion Control Project. Yfe have read them carefully and with great interest and find that they de­ scribe generally both what you are going to do and what the values will be, but we wish that they were more detailed. Each of the statements con­ siders only the single project and not the entire problem. Let me take them one by one. .

V.Jilin Beach Erosion Control Project

We agree that it would be reasonable to have more sand at Hamlin Beach and that it must be protected from erosion. However, at the moment we have no ' data on the best way to protect the shoreline. A study is currently under­ way by the Genesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning Board (Natural Resources Committee) with the co-operation of State Geologists. This study will con­ centrate on erosion and deposition problems along the lake shore in Whyne, Monroe and Orleans Counties. The authors are considering among other things the best placement of groins to stop erosion all along that shore line, and are concerned with the conditions existing now, where indiscriminate erec­ tion of groins to force the deposition of sand on one beach increases the erosion of other parts of the lake. It seems to us that there should be no groin-construction until the study is completed. The first phase should appear in mid 1972.

Just a note on the source of sand which you say you will take from "upland". Have you seen the c-clo^ed 1970 reprint by Sutton et al? On page 317 it describes a sand deposit about a mile off shore at Hamlin Beach and sug­ gests that it nay be of commercial value. Vfould this be useful to replace lost sand on the Beach?

Red Creek

f' agree with you that Brighton and Henrietta have "developed rapidly dur- ^— *g the past 15 or 20 years as suburban residential and commercial centers". However, the most rapid growth was in Henrietta and Henrietta has ample land for expansion; it did not have to build within the flood plain of either Red Creek or the Genesee River - a practice which you admit is bad for the water (silting) the land (erosion) and people (flooding).

The Henrietta Master Plan Report, Phase I, Existing Conditions, prepared by Metcalf and Eddy and dated December 15, 1967 recognizes this. I quote page U2: flood plain zoning "is also needed in the flood plain of the Red Creek watershed until the time when the flood protection measures suggested in the Corps of Engineers Report become actual". Henrietta has responded by encouraging building on land obviously better fit for other uses* Flood plain zoning was not used because the Corps of Engineers was expected to come in and control flooding. The Red Creek project had an enrironmental impact even before it started. It should have been spelled out in the Environmental Impact Statement.

At present Red Creek meanders almost at the level of the land, with the gently sloping landscape providing a valuable amenity for the canoeists and the public on shore. If you carry out your plans even this recre- -ational value will be in large part destroyed. You describe the creek banks as "debris littered". They are actually"root-:littered"and " l a m littered" where the creek wanders through a public park and through well- kept private lawns. You offer to replace this with "clean cut channel slopes” -..they would be detrimental to the viewiboth from the creek and ( the crecki Ary such plans should be discussed in detail and not pro­ moted as an "engineering improvement".

The flood plain has served as a natural green belt separating Rochester • from the suburbs to the South and preventing to some extent complete suburban sprawl. As you so correctly point out if you build your dikes "all areas not subjected to severe flooding will be completely developed within tho next 25 years". You fail to say that the green belt will then be gone. This sacrifice is not necessary, or even useful. The new town of Riverton, is being developed primarily in Henrietta. It will house ap­ proximately 20,000 without building houses in the flood plain of either tho Genesee or Oatka Creek. Your statement about the relation of your project to the need for development is consequently not complete. It dees . not say what equivalent space is available outside the flood plain.

• We examined aerial photographs of the area of the Red Creek flood plain which was labeled least suitable for housing development in the Henrietta Master Pain. Some of this is in the Bailey road area on the Map labeled "Figure We found tnat the number of houses there has more than doubled between 196l and 1971 (from approximately 200 to approximately 500). Some flood protection work may be unavoidable to protect the people who bought homes in such areas. We ask you, however, to spell out the resulting detriment to the best use of stream and flood plain, and to reconsider your statement that "restrictions on the use of the flood plain are also con­ sidered less desirable than an economically feasible plan for flood protection". Finally, we are concerned about the inpact of your proposed Red Creek undertaking on the future of the nearby flood plain of Black Creek in the town of Chili. There the local master plan provides for a park on the 100 year flood plain, but the plan may fail if ycu offer to repeat vhat you promise for Red Creek. The Environmental Impact Statement should consequently show that the Corps is taking a new and stronger stand in backing the best use of flood plains.

Irondequoit Bay

The Bay is now polluted two ways, with sewage' and with salt. The former is being corrected by the Monroe County Pure Waters Agency plan which we hope will give the bay a chance to recover. The latter, according to the University of Rochester study which is now underway is getting worse each ye

If all goes well, the bay will be opened and clean and ready either for land speculation or for well thought-out development. Only careful, co­ ordinated zoning can preserve the shores, keep the water clean, end bring enjoyment to people. If the Corps opens the Bay, it should accept the responsibility of pointing out the need for such zotiing in its Enviroi.- mental Inpact Statement. The statement should, at least, name the agencies responsible for planning the development of the Bay and indicate the scope of their plans.

The requirement for Environmental Impact Statements is new. We have been ’ so critical because nobody really knows, as yet, how to write them, and they will be a powerful force for good only if they are very carefully thought out. We ask you to use your statements to help towns to plan for the best use of their land, and not to use them to make up for mistakes of the past. Sincerely yours,

Mrs. Beatrice B. Bibby, President

,1 | Mrs. Olga Berg, Chatman Environmental Quality Committee Region II Office 26 Federal Plaza ’ Hew York, N.Y. 10007

December 28, 1970

Major Richard J. Barrett Deputy D istrict Engineer Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street B u ffalo, New York 1^207 .

Dear Major Barrett:

In accordance with your letter of U December 1970 and the environmental 'statement fo r improvements at Hamlin Beach State Park on Lake Ontario in the town o f Hamlin, Monroe County, New York, th is o ff ic e has no comments at th is tim e.

There are no known public water intakes in the area which could be affected by the improvements and there are no foreseeable adverse recreational aspects since the improvements are to be made to an existing beach area.

This office appreciates the chance for input to the Corps projects* and if there are any further changes in the above plan, ve would like to be kept informed.

Sincerely yours,

James A. DiCarlo Assistant Sanitary Engineer Bureau o f Water Hygiene * HEW YORK STATE HISTORIC TRUST Partes * Recreation • State Campos • Mbany.

Louis C. Jones CM lrm an Conrad L Wlrth VIe*-Ch«irman Ewald B. Nyquist Seymour H. Knox John H. Q. Pell Laurence S. Rockefeller Mildred F. Taylor C . Marie Lawton D ire c to r

May 24, 1972

Re: NCB50-PB

Lt. Col. Richard J. Barrett Deputy District Engineer . Buffalo District-Corps of Engineers •1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207

Dear Col. BaTrett:

The New York State Historic Trust is pleased to have had an opportunity to review the updated ' - Environmental Impact Statement Park Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Project, C o u n t y . I am writing to inform you that: this project will not have an unsatisfactory impact on any known sites of historical or architectural significance.

Very .-truly yours,

Mark Lawton D i r e c t o r ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region II Office 26 Federal Plaza New. York, New York 10007 JUN 5 1972

LTC Richard J. Barrett Deputy District Engineer Department of the Army Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo’, New York 14207

Dear Colonel Barrett:

We have reviewed the updated draft environmental impact statement for the, "Hamlin Beach State Park

Cooperative Beach Erosin Control Project" on Lake

Ontario, Monroe County, New York. At this time, we have no additional comments to supplement our December

1970 review.

Sincerely yours,

Alvin R/ Morris Director Management Division «* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R EG IO N V 1 NORTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILUNOIS 60606

May 23, 1572

LTC. Richard J. Barrett Deputy District Engineer U. S. A m y Engineer District, Buffalo ' 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York U£07

Dear LTC. Barrett:

Reference is made to your letter of Kay 18, 1972, concerning the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hamlin Reach State Park Co­ operative Beach Erosion Control Project. Our Region II Office in New Tork will be providing the official agency reply to your request fer comments on the revised statement. This office has nothing to add to our letter of December 23, 1970 on the first Draft of the Impact State­ ment for this pi*oject.

Sincerely yours,

Donald A. Wallgren Acting Chief, Federal Activities Coordination Branch UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE - U. S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109

JUN 13 1972

District Engineer Buffalo District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207

Dear Sir;

As requested by your letter of May 18, 1972, our comments on the Updated Draft of May 10, 1972, concerning Hamlin Beach State Park Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario, Monroe County, New York, are as follows;

1. Project Description

No comment.

2. Environmental Setting 'Without the Project

The project area offers significant opportunities for shore- based fishermen seeking smallmouth bass, yellow perch, rock bass, sunfish, and brown bullhead, and for waterfowl hunting during the fall season for diving ducks. These values should be mentioned.

3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

No comment.

4. Any Adverse Environmental E ’."'■ich Cannot be Avoided Should the Proposed project be Implemented______

No comment. 5. Alternatives to the Proposed Action

a. Shewing the $100,000 net annual recreation benefit as a ' benefit lost (foregone) if the project is not constructed is not an alternative to the proposed action. It is an argument for action,

6. The Relationship between Local Short Term Uses of Man's Environ- ment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term productivity

No comment.

7. Any- Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment to Resources )/hich Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented

No comment.

8. Coordination

g. The first sentence should be expanded to include hunting. Development of a single purpose beach while foregoing sig- _ nificant fishing and hunting opportunities is still unre­ solved, although we feel that you have fairly explained the * „ problem and the coordination involved. We would, however, appreciate having the following points considered.

1. The Bureau’s estimated 17,000 fisherman-days ($25,500) use of the groins is 2 0 ~ o below their estimated full fishing potential because of expected interference from .swimmers. We believe that the statement should show that,^ if the project is constructed and fishing is not pei-mit- ted, a substantial potential fishing benefit will be __ foregone.

2. Referring to pages B1 and D2 of the General Design Memo dated January 1970, we note that the period of beach use is 24 peak weekend days and holidays and 54 week days^ at 1/5 the estimated park potential for a total pei^v-d of 78 days. (Assuming t«at tliis period falls burin* June, July and August). The peak use is estimated at 11,600 people and 1/5 of that is 2,320 people. The fishing season runs generally from May 1 through October 1. We agree that fishing could be an attractive nuisance during the 24 peak days during good* weather. ‘However, we believe that fishing would be possible on bad weather days during the 24 peak use days, during the week days when only 2,320 people are expected, during the May, June, August, September and October days when the water is too cold for swimming, and in the early morning and evening hours.

The fall hunting season occurs after the swimming season ^ when few people would be expected to be using the beach; -therefore, hunting should be permitted.

Ve believe that an operational procedure can be achieved without undue interference between fishing and hunting and other uses. One obvious possibility is closing the jetties to fishermen during peak swimming periods. During early morning and evening hours, during cold water, bad weather, and during the early spring and fall fishing could be permitted. Waterfowl hunting in the fall obviously won’t interfere with swimming.

3.' We arc concerned when Federal fluids are used for a project.with multi-benefit capabilities and all hut one activity is excluded because of minor administra­ tive and maintenance questions. In order to obtain fall use of our limited resources and to provide a wholesome variety of resource-based public use, wo ■believe that administrative, maintenance, and cost prob­ lems should be resolved. Vo, therefore, believe that the project plan should include recommended facilities for fishing and provisions to allow fishing and hunting when swimming is not at the peak capacities. T.e believe that projects in the public interests with multi-use potential should be developed to benefit as many people as possible.

Ve appreciate the opportunity to comment on the updated draft of Lho cr.vir^u- mental statement.

Sincerely yours,

Regional Director fork State Department of Environmental Conservation NY. 12201

M a y 25, 1972

Colonel Richard J. Barrett LTC, Corps o f Engineers • Deputy D istrict Engineer Department of the Army Buffalo D istrict, Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street B u ffa lo , N. Y. 14207

Dear Colonel Barrett:

We have not previously reviewed a draft environmental impact statement for the Hamlin Beach State Park_ Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Project on Lake Ontario, Monroe County. The copy of our correspondence enclosed in your letter of May 18, 1972 concerned our comments on the draft Fish and W ildlife Coordination Act report prepared by the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service.

Our Department has established an Office of Environmental ' Analysis under the Direction of Mr. Terence Curran. This Office is responsible for coordinating review of environmenta] impact statements by all units within the Department. I am referring your draft statement to*Mr. Curran’ s office where I am sure it w ill be given prompt attention.

S in c e r e ly ,

A. G. Hall, Director Division of Fish and W ildlife l e a g u e of WOMEN VOTERS of the * ROCHESTER METROPOLITAN AREA Telephone 473-1697 75 College Avenue Rochester, N.Y. 14607

Key 31, 1972

Mr. Richard J. Barrett, Deputy District Engineer Buffalo D istrict, Corps of Engineers Department of the Army 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 1U207

Dear Nr. Barrett:

This letter is being written in response to your request for comments on the^ second draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Hamlin Beach Erosion Control P roject NCEED-P3.

As we said in our original comment we think that it is reasonable to add more sand to Hamlin Beach arid favor i t s addition. Cur comments were concerned with the placement of groins as described in your environmental impact statement. Y;e stiil think that a geologist's report should have been included on long shore drift and water action, which would show the effects of your propesed groins on the shores to the east and west of the beach. Your statement says in Section oa that "the proposed improvement can have no harmful effects cn adjacent shores" but gives no data to back up the words. There are not even any data to show that the groins will work.

The expanded d ra ft h fs a couple o f other statements that need comment:

1,. There is disagreement on the colifom count at Hamlin Be->ch between the Environmental Protection Agency and Delta. Labs (one has counts below cne le g .l lim it, one above). Both shovrbias in ways of computing means and one .should not be considered without the other. 2. The State of Lev: York may control lc c d water po]luticn to safeguard health, but the alewlves and algae washed out on the beach are tnorougnly dis­ agreeable, and there must be excess sewage inflow in to the lake to indue* that degree of algal growth.

Finally, a word on the conflict between fishing and no fishing. If we are not mistrken, the >>ach is opened to swimmers for only three months of the year^and only when lifeguards are cn duty. Fishing is pleasant for at lease siorja'ntT and does not rsquire lifeguards. If ther« are to be groins, thy can'torching o ff the groins be permitted during those periods when swimming is prohibited.

Sincerely yours,

Mrs. George Eerg, Chaimsn Environncntal Cu-'lity Ccr^nittee IIS^'ONERS. GENESEE STATE PARKS STATE OF NEW YORK Afc BABCOCK, CAamnoa Braddorlc Bay S u ir Park jb th a ux E x e c u t iv e D e p a r t m e n t Darien Lakn Stair Park W . BROWN, Viee Chairman PARKS AND RECREATION Hamlin Beach State Park Lakeside Beach State Park ScoturiUe Lelchsrorlh State Park IN F. BIRMINGHAM. RothetUr Silver Lake State Park •i R. Dr WITT, Pavilion Oak Orchard Marine Park OTT J. HUMPHREY, JR„ Wariau Lake Ontario State Parkway RT B. JONES, Caledonia JOHN M. COMEREORD N F, SHERMAN, Areode RT E. WATERS, Medina Acting Regional Pnerior o / pert* GG ENESEE STATE PARK COMMISSIONN and Outdoor Recreation MINISTRATION HEADQUARTERS Lrlchworth Stale Park Castile, New York 14427 Telephone: (716) 493-2GII June 14, 1972.

Richard J. Barrett, Lt. Colonel Corps of Engineers Acting District Engineer Buffalo District, Dept, of the Amy 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207

Re: Your NCBED-PB Hamlin Beach State Park Erosion Control Project Dear Colonel B arrett:

.ink you for the copy of the Environmental Impact Statement which v/as forwarded with your letter of May 22.

This office of course is in total agreement with the project and fully supports the earliest possible implementation. The plans are being prepared by our tech­ nical staff and are nearly complete. We will continue to work close!!y with your staff in the hope of being in a position to advertise by about August I 04

This w ill a!!so advise that on Monday, June 12, 1972, a meeting was held with Mr. Elmer Wagner and Dr. Stone of the Division of Fish and Game concerning the area of minor disagreement which had existed between their office and this office.

At that meeting we reached a mutually satisfactory result which is essentially as fo llo w s :

1. Swimming and intense day use a c t iv it ie s w ill continue to have p r io r ity in the use of the beach area.

2. Fishing will be allowed from the groins d1w!”g non-bathing season-

3. The top of the groins will be chinked with no. 3 and/or No. 4 stone in an at­ tempt to ease the access for fishermen and to prevent the possibility of sprained ankles, etc., resulting from stepping in the voids between the large stones. It is considered that this type of surface will be more than adequate for fishermen 1 ^ess and yet will be of such a nature to discourage use by barefooted swimmers. STATE OF NEW YORK - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT PARKS AND RECREATION

G e n e s e e S t a t e P a r k C o m m i s s i o n

P. O. C a s t i l e , N. Y. 14427 P h o n e ; (716) 493-2611

Lt. Col. R. J. Barrett June 14, 1972 Page 2

4. Fishermen parking will be in the regular parking areas and they will be re­ quired to pay the regular day use fee when the gates are manned. However, it is also recognized that the best fishing seasons are normally during periods when our gates are not manned.

I hope that with these comments and the others that you will receive we will be able to receive an early approval to advertise the project for construction.

Yours very truly

G|2iESEE STATE PARK COMMISSAR

Jpnn M. Com erford/ .Acting Regional Director DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Address reply to: COMMANDER UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Ninth Coast Guard District 1240 East 9th St. Cleveland, Ohio 44199 Tel. 216-522-3993

5922 Ser B-293* 6 June 1972

From.: Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District To: District Engineer, Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York 14207

Subj: Hamlin Beach Erosion Control Project; review of E.I.S.

Ref: (a) Your ltr NCBED-PB of 23 May 1972

1. Subject environmental impact statement has been reviewed and found satisfactory.

__ 2. The opportunity to review this statement is appreciated.

3. Please note our correct mailing address above.

E. P. BAUMANlT^''' By direction MQIMRDE CCL!;\rrY ENVIR a MIV1EIMTAL MANAGEMENT • c o u n c i l

June 19, 1972

LTC Richard J. Barrett Corps' of Engineers Acting District Engineer

Subject: Review - Updated Draft, May 10, 1972 Environmental Impact Statement Hamlin Beach State Park Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Project Lake~Oritario,“ Monroe County N.Y.

Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, N.Y.

( ar LTC Barrett:

The review by this Council finds only minor questions which require •comment.

Item 2b. The closing of the Rochester beaches should not, and need -- - not be used to justify the project. These beaches are scheduled to be opened again, possibly before the Hamlin Beach project would be completed.-" Expansion of Hamlin Beach facilities would remain highly desirable, however Item 3a. "The proposed improvement can have no harmful effects on adjacent shores." Dees the Corps have actual information on the predicted effect on current and shift oZ sand both to the East and to the Vest? Similarly, evidence that "any losses will nourish adjacent beaches?" If these state- . rnents are not based on information, they may still be made*properly as professional judgments, but the distinction should be made in an Impact Statement.

Items 4, 6, and 7. If sand is to be obtained from upland sources, excavation of laud is required. Such excavations have been conducted in a ruinous manner co racxunal land use. Impact cf excavations can be reduced by an ecological assessment of sites, operations monitering, erosion control, and reclamation at the end of an operation. It is recognized that the Corps nay have no mechanism for regulating excavation. Nevertheless, we must insist that the possibility of long-range .or irretrievable resource loss is*increased without such regulation. We ask whether there does exist any mechanism for reducing such loss.

Sincerely,

Herman S. Forest Environmental Impact Analyst GENESEE /FINGER LAKES REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD Suite 500, Ebenezer Watts Budding, 47 Fitzhu^i S trertjo u th , Rochester, New York 14614 _ — ^ 716-232-1060

CHAKUS W BUCK. Cha-Tman ROBERT McOXU-AN. Fnt V et Chwinafl A m L/fctKX Second W e Chairman FETlft BARRY. T rtiiu a Jun.e 21, 1972 VTRQMA X OUBCXX Secretary

STUART O IXh5tO.X Iwcutiw Di-ector

Mr. Richard Barrett Acting District Engineer Corps of Engineers _1776 Uiagara..Street-----_ Buffalo, New York 14207

Dear Mr. Barrett:

irou v;ill be pleased to kr.ovr that your project, as referenced below, has now been reviewed by the Regional Flanr.ing Board in accordance with responsibilities and procedures established by 0MB Circular No. A-95 for assuring consistency among planning and development projects in the Region.

-The enclosed comments are furnished for attachment to the application when forwarded to appropriate State and Federal agencies, and for your guidance in the event ar.y modifications appear necessary. Comments from the Monrce County Planning Council have not yet been received cue to a chr.Tige in their meeting schedule. Upon receipt, about June 27, of their comments they will be forwarded to you and should also be attached tc your application.

Sincerely,

Stuart 0. Densl-'v Executive,.D.i ^ectwr

Olaf^Asgeirsson Division Chief, Planning Assistance

Project: GFL-72-38 V' V; Army Corps of Engineers GENESEE/FINGER LAKES REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD Suite 500, Ebeneza WVts o*-~~ <&, 47 fitzbugh Street South, Rochester, New York l-io H 715-232-1060

CHARLtS W BLOC, C K m n ECBECT McCUliAN. frit Vice Cfinrjn ATM L A U t Second Vice O a :m «i print BARRY. TreJstrer VTRQMA X DtiBOLX Secretary PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS STUMCT Q tXNStO.V luxubve tVecscr

Project Number: CFlr-72-38

Date: June 19, 1972

Planning Review Agency

Name: Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Flanning Board v*-"dress: Suite 500, Ebenezer Watts Building, 47 South Fitzbugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614

Source of Authority for Articles 5-G and 12-B General Municipal. I.aw Establishment of Agency: of the State of New York

Grant .Applicant

N cae: Department of the Army, Buffalo District Corps of Engineers

Address: '• 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York 14707

Project Description: Hamlin F.tacb State Park Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario, Monroe County (Draft Environmental Impact Statement)

Comments

While the Environmental Impact Statement adequately addresses the major impact questions regarding the proposed project, it does not suggest a full range of specific problems vhich might occur during construction, or ways by vhich possible on-site and off-sice adverse environmental effects C3n be avoided. Past v'*'xpericnce with projects of this type have sometimes show;, that well intended y jntrols often break. dc’~n undrr actual construction conditions. For this reason, it is recommended chat appicoriate regulations vhich spell out in detail the nature of such controls be included r.s an integral part of the project specifi­ cations, together with assurances that they will be serried out. Even fhough the unresolved conflict between the State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Genesee State Park Co-Amission concerning the provision of fishing facilities lias reportedly been resolved, the Natural Resources Committe of the Regional Planning Board would like to see the written agreement between these two agencies that such uses would be scheduled or permitted.

" Stuart 0. Denslow Executive Director MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL

ROBERT J. GUSTAFSON CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E.UPTEGROVE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

June 30, 1972

District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New YOrk 14207

Dear Sir:

t The Executive Committee of the Monroe County Planning Council has re­ viewed project GFL-72-38, an environmental impact statement by the Army Corps of Engineer*? on its proposal tr widen and improve the tench *r Hamlin Beach State Park. Ue wish to make th“ following comments:

1. Item 2a of the statement justifies the project o.*. ike-. na;-.U of the fact chat public beaches elsewhere on t'n= I.?V? ">< ra * i c S**or#.: «r,^ <-r Monroe Ccunty have b*.»pn closed to swimming during recent years. Tne county, however, has invested heavily in a pure waters program vhi*:h is designed to upgrade the water quality of the shoreline such that the closed beaches may bo opened for swimming. This factor should nave cr.er. taken into account in the dsterr,duration of the long-term benefits of the proposed project.

2. In Ite". 3a it. is stated that the "proposed improvement c.fn nave no harmful efforts cn adjacent shores and any losses of fill i'rc-m. the im­ provement will provide nourishment of adjacent beaches." Va reccmo.cnd that the basis of this, statement be specified, whether it be professional judgement, t quantitative analysis of data, or whatever. To our knowledge, it is most difficult to determine the prospective effects of redifJcation of the shoreline on the deposition of sand. Because of the potential en­ vironmental significance of these effects, it io most important that the impact statement contain a clear exposition of how they have bean deter­ mined.

3. In Item 4b it is stated that "the crr.tractor will be required ic obtain his construction materials in a manner so that allowable dust stand­ ards are not exceeded, and with a minimum of blemish to the earth-" Me urge that this statement be rigorously enforced if the project is imple­ mented, particularly as the statement pertains to the acquisit’or. ot sand for the beach fill. The contractor should be specifically directed to obtain high-quality sand from municipalities which have adequate excavation controls to sateguard public and environmental interests, or alternatively the specifications ot the contract should be designed to achieve such safe­ guards.

Sincerely yours,

Robert J. Gustafson Chairman Monroe County Planning Council

cc: Dr. Stuart 0. Denslow UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE U . S. POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02109

JUN 3 0 1372

District Engineer Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers 177-’ Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 1A207

Dear Sir:

With reference tc our ccrments concerning Hamlin Beach State J*arK, N*rw York (ER~72/63^) we are enclosing additional comments recently received from the BureFu of Outdoor Recreation.

Sincerely yours,

Regional Director DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION FEDERAL BUILDING 1421 CHERRY STREET PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19102

JUN 2 21972

Memorandum

To: Regional Director, Rational Park Service, Northeast Region

From: Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Northeast Region

Subject: Environmental Impact Statement,Hamlin Reach State Park Cooperative Reach Erosion Control Project, Lake Ontario, Monroe County, New Yo:k (2R-72/C3!+)

This will provide comment on the subject ctui.us.ent in accordance with instructions contained in a May 26, 197? memorandum from the Office of Environmental Ireject Roviev. Telephone discussion of the statement beta-sea L^ve Taliaferro of this office end Mr. Dave Kimball on Juno ^ provided notification of our r.eed. for additional tine to resp.»;:d.

VJhiio the statement references the major impacts associated with this proposal, it the ietailed di.-cussiom. cf tnrse points required. to adequately assess the probable qualitative or quantitative otfuct of the project. Page >' • S ection l , ; Adverse Ravii cri-cU i Effects, paragraph a, olivetrotas this point in its t.nr.t 5 r\ of turbidity, truck traffic inter:cr:tg vith recrcai ic-nal nit, i-cr.corny aisfi r.wru.tunt of the park and noise and duet as anticipates effects. In order to fully comply with the letter ana spirit cf P.L. the special conditions alluded to rs part of tna project tJar.s and speci­ fied, ions to riM rhe these effects should re described. Inis would fliov readme too ccpcrtnniiy to csr.esc the merit and efficacy of fnese controls. We Generally concur with the inpact statement's reference to the direct effects of the proposal on recreation use of the State beach facility. This proposal compliments a Land and Water Conservation Fund project finalised July 9 , 1963 utilizir $5^^25.75 of Federal funds matched by State contribution. The prepaced project includes features (eroins) which were • iacluued in the park concept cesign of the project when approved in September 1966. While this proposal will not directly affect the completed project, the combination may create higher user attractiveness of the total recreation area.

Rolland B. Handjey