RAP CHAPTER I-INTRODUCTION June 7, 1993

A. GOAL, PURPOSE AND APPROACH OF THE REMEDIAL ACI10N PLAN1. The Rochester Embayment and its Remedial Action Plan:

(a) The Rochester Embayment: The Rochester Embayment designationrefers to a portion of Lake Ontario and a portion of the Genesee Rivernear Rochester, New York. For a description of the embayment, and amap of the embayment, see page 2-1 and Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2.

(b) The Remedial Action Plan: The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) willidentify water quality problems and specific actions that need to betaken by various parties to address the problems. The Remedial ActionPlan effort has been undertaken due to an international agreement toimprove the water quality of the Great Lakes water system. TheInternational Agreement, known as the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement, is described in more detail in other sections of this chapter.The preparation of the RAP is being coordinated by the Monroe CountyDepartment of Planning and Development through a contract with theNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC).(1) The Stage I RAP: The RAP is being written in two parts. This

document, which is referred to as the Stage I Rochester EmbaymentRemedial Action Plan outlines what is and is not known aboutRochester Embayment water quality conditions. It describes thewater quality conditions in the context of the total environment.Therefore, information on geography, population, land use ~ndcommunity organization and goals is also included. This Stage IRAP provides th~ information needed for decision-making toimplement actions necessary to: 1. Remediate identified useimpairments; 2. Prevent future water quality problems; and 3.Protect human health.

(2) The Stage n RAP: The Stage n RAP is expected to be complete inmid-I993. Information contained in the Stage I RAP will providethe basis for the Stage n RAP. The Stage II RAP will consist of ananalysis of possible remedial measures, including who shouldconduct the remedial actions and possible sources of funding. Inthe Rochester Embayment, work has already begun on the Stage IIRAP through analysis of several possible actions to achieve thegoals outlined in Chapter 3 of this Stage I RAP. The Stage IT RAPwill also include a schedule for implementation of chosen actions,including monitoring actions, along with any commitments madeby governments and private organizations to implement theactions. Upon completion of the Stage n RAP, a reportingmechanism will keep the public informed on progress inimplementing the RAP and subsequent plan revisions. The exact

1-1

mechanism to inform the public will be developed as part of StageII efforts.

(3) The Stage III RAP: ·The Stage III RAP is implementation. Stage mis deemed to be complete when all identified remedial measures torestore all beneficial uses have been implemented and surveillanceand monitoring data confirm restoration of beneficial uses.

'.2. Intended Goal and Use of the Remedial Action Plan: The comprehensive

goals of this Remedial Action Plan (RAP) are three~fold: 1. The first is toidentify existing use impairments in the Rochester Embayment Area ofConcern (AOC) and to identify actions that will be implemented toremediate the impairments. Fourteen possible use impairments havebeen identified by the International Joint Commission. The list ofimpairments, and those that are deemed to exist in the RochesterEmbayment are explained in detail in Chapter 4 (Page ~1). (Restrictedhuman consumption of fish and wildlife due to elevated contaminationlevels is an example of a use impairment.) 2. The second overall goal isprevention of further pollution of our waters. 3. The third goal isprotection of human health. A set of detailed goals of this RAP and relatedefforts are outlined in detail in Chapter 3.

3. Rochester Embayment Remedial Action Plan: The InternationalPerspective: The International Joint Commission was created by theBoundary Waters Treaty in 1909 (Hartig cSt Zaru1l1992). ''This independentbody,· composed equally of United States and Canadian appointees,provides a quasi~judicial and investigative mechanism to cooperativelyresolve problems (including water and air pollution, fluctuating lakelevels and other issues) along the two countries' common border." (HartigcSt Zarull 1992).

Ca) The Great Lakes Water Quality AlI'eement (GLWOA): The UnitedStates and Canada initially signed the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement on November 22, 1978, with a supplement on phosphorusload reduction signed on October 7, 1983. The purpose of theagreement is to "...restore and maintain· the chemical, physical andbiological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem."

$) Areas of Concern: The GLWQA established both a Water QualityBoard (WQB) and a Science Advisory Board (SAB) of the InternationalJoint Commission. The SAB advises the I]C on scientific knowledgeand disputes. The role of the WQB, among other things, is to makerecommendations on the development and implementation ofprograms to achieve the purpose of the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement. Since 1973, the WQB has annually reported specific areas

1-2

with serious water pollution problems. From a history given in the1985 WQB reportl it appears that each WQB report since 1973 indicatedthat the Rochester Embayment had pollution problems. In its 1981Report the WQB summarized their work t~ initiate a process to .establish formal "Areas of Concernll based on environmental quahtydata and on GLWQA and of the involved government objectives. Atthat timel the AOC/s had two kinds of designations: Class A AOC/sexhibited significant environmental degradation where theimpairment of beneficial uses was deemed to be severel and Class Bdesignations where environmental degradation exists and uses may beimpaired. In the 1981 documentl 39 total AOC/s were identified andthe Rochester Embayment of Lake Ontario was identified as a Class BAOC with 1I •••moderate violations of water quality objectives and someindications of fish contamination in Rochester Harbor and IrondequoitBay. Surveys of the harbor from 1967 to 1973 found some of thesediments to be heavily polluted with metals and phosphorus/I(GLWQB 1981)

In its 1985 Reportl the WQB I with the assistance of the jurisdictionalgovernmentsl identified 42 areas of concernl and the A/B classificationsystem was dropped in favor of a new categorization scheme to identifythe status of the information basel programs under way to fillinformation gapsl and the status of remedial measures. Using the 1985categorization procedurel the Rochester Embayment was deemed to bea Category 4 AOC. Category 4 means "Causative factors knownl butRemedial Action Plan not developed and remedial measures not fullyimplemented/I That report identified Rochester Embaymentproblems as being conventional pollutants, heavy metals, toxic organicsubstances, contaminated sediments and fish consumption advisories.The report also identified pollutant sources as municipal andindustrial point sources, combined sewer overflows, and in-placepollutants.

As of January of 1993, there are now 43 Areas of Concern. Figure 1-1shows the locations of the 43 AOC/s.

Cd Remedial Action Plans: In the 1985 report, the WQB explained thatthe Great Lakes jurisdictions had agreed to prepare Remedial ActionPlans for each AOC to "... describe programs and measures which,when implementedl should solve the identified problems'l andindicated that the WQB would review and assess the adequacy of eachRemedial Action Plan to address the identified problems. The 1985WQB Report also made a formal recommendation that l'Thejurisdictions complete and submit Remedial Action Plans for the areas

1-3

· .

FIGURE 1-1

FORTY-THREE AREAS OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

Lake Superior

1 Penulsula Harbour2 J ...cklish Bay3 Nipigon Bay4 Thunder Bay5 SI. Louis Bay I River6 Torch Lake7 Deer Lake·

Carp Creek I River

Lake "'Ichlgan

8 "'anlstlque River9 "'enomlnee River10 FOil River I Southern Green Bay11 Sheboygan River12 Milwaukee Estuary13 Waukegan Harbor14 Grand Calumet River I

Indiana Harbor Canal :15 Kalamazoo River16 Muskegon Lake17 White Lake

Lake Huron

18 Saginaw River I Saginaw Bay19 Collingwood Harbour20 Severn Sound21 Spanish River "'outh

Lake Erie

22 Clinton River23 Rouge Riv.r24 River Ailsin25 ....umee Rlv.r26 Black Rlv.r27 Cuy.hoga River28 Ashtabula Riv.r29 Prelque lsi. Bay30 Wheatley Harbour

LaUOnurlo

31 Bunalo Rlv.r32 Eighteen ...". C,"k33 Rochelt.r Embayment34 Olwego Rlv.r35 Bay o. QuInt.36 ponHope37 Metro Toronto38 Hamilton Harbour

Connecting Channels

39 St. "'arys Rlv.r40 St. Clair Riv.r41 Detroit Rlv.r42 NIagara River43 SI. Lawr.nc. Rlv.r

(Cornwall I "'assena)

Source: Revie~1 and Evaluation of the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan Program 1991. International JointCo~nission. June 1991

of concern. The contents of each RAP would "describe environ:mentalconditions, identify sources, detail what needs to be done to correct theproblems, who will carry out the programs, how they will beimplemented, the schedule for implementing the needed programs...{and} also describe surveillance and monitoring to be carried out totrack the effectiveness of the program." (GLWQB 1985) The WQB alsorecognized that if iUs not feasible to restore all uses, the Plan shouldidentify the quality and uses which can be achieved.

(d) RAP Stages: The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was revised in

1987 to include remedial action plans. RAPs are to be submitted to theIJC for review and comment at three stages: problem definition (Stage1), selection of remedial actions (Stage II), and confirmation of userestoration (Stage III) (Hartig & zarull 1992). More information onhow the different stages of the RAP will be used is included at the endof this chapter.

4. Rochester Embayment Area of Concern-U.S. Government Perspective:(a) The International Joint Commission: The President of the United

States appoints the three U. S. Representatives to the InternationalJoint Commission.

(b) The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency: The U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency is the U.S. administrative agency that is mostdirectly involved in the development of Remedial Action Plans. In1985, an original"Guidance" document for the preparation of RAPswas prepared by a USEPA/Great Lakes National Program Officecontractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAlC). In1987 the guidance document was revised by SAlC as an aid to the GreatLakes states who were charged with the preparation of RemedialAction Plans for th~ Areas of Concern. The 1987 document, Guidancefor Preparing an Area .of CQncern Remedial ActiQn Plan was used inestablishing the initial outline fQr the RQchester Embayment RAP.

In NQvember Qf 1987, SAlC, under contract with the USEPA, alsosubmitted an initial draft Qfa RAP fQr the RQchester Embayment. Thisinitial draft summarized a great deal Qf infQrmatiQn, and was Qne Qfmany references used in the develQpment Qf the Stage I RAP presentedherein. The SAlC dQcument was written after conducting research inthe RQchester area which included interviews with many peQple whowere active in conducting research and/Qr remedial actions. The SAlCrepQrt, hQwever, did nQt include an extensive publicinvQlvement!stakehQlder cQmpQnent.

(c) The Great Lakes Critical PrQgrams Act and the Great Lakes Water

1-5

Quality Initiative: In 1990, the U. S. Congress passed the CriticalPrograms Act as an amendment to the Clean Water Act. Among otherthings, this Act sets timetables for RAP completion. The part of theCritical Programs Act which affects the Great Lakes is known as theGreat Lakes Water QualitY Initiative. This initiative describes "...theapproach to be followed by EPA and the Great Lakes States forcoordinating their activities under the Clean Water Act (CWA) inorder to achieve the objectives of the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement (GLWQA) and to provide a basis for negotiating GreatLakes water quality objectives and'programs with Canada." (NYSDEC1992). The U.S. EPA has made several commitments to achieve thepurpose of the initiative.

5. Rochester Embayment Area of Concern-Statewide Perspective:(a) New York Areas of Concern: There are six AOC's in New York State.

They are the Rochester Embayment, the Buffalo River, the NiagaraRiver, Eighteen Mile Creek, the Oswego River, and the St. LawrenceRiver at Massena. The New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation has completed RAPs for the Buffalo River, the OswegoRiver, and the St. Lawrence River at Massena. A RAP for the NiagaraRiver will be presented to the public in April 1993, and a RAP effort isexpected to begin in 1993 at Eighteen Mile Creek (from R. Draper12/92). See Figure 1-1 for the locations of these New York State RAPs.

(b) Contract with Monroe CQunty for Development of Rochester·Embayment RAP: In the Rochester Embayment AOC, the New YorkState Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)contracted with Monroe County to develop the Rochester EmbaymentRAP. This arrangement occurred after NYSOEC officials met with .Monroe County staff to identify existing conditions, programs andpotential stakeholders; As a result of this communication, and thefinding that a substantial watershed planning, stakeholderorganization, and water quality action effort had already begun, theState contracted with Monroe County to prepare the RAP. The contractwas funded by a grant under section 205(j) of the federal Clean WaterAct. As part of this effort, Monroe County has contributed 25% of thetotal cost through in-kind services and some water quality monitoring.

6. Rochester Embayment Area of Concern: Regional Perspective:

(a) Remedial and Preventative Actions Already Taken: Prior to theinitiation of the formal Remedial Action Plan in 1988, several actionshad already occurred to improve and protect water quality in theRochester Embayment Area of Concern and its watershed. Soil andWater Conservation Districts in Allegany, Wyoming, Livingston,

1-6

Genesee, Ontario, Wayne, Orleans, Steuben, and Monroe Counties hadall worked with farmers to develop and implement conservation plans

to prevent and/or reduce erosion, sedimentation and nutrient runoff.Agricultural runoff has been of special concern in the large GeneseeRiver basin where farmland is plentiful. About the same time that theRAP was starting, most of these counties had already begun, or wereabout to embark on an effort to form County Water QualityCoordinating Committees to identify remaining water quality problemsand develop actions. Efforts had also been taken in thesecounties to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities.

In Monroe County several actions had been taken to consolidate andupgrade municipal wastewater treatment facilities. An IndustrialPretreatment Program had also been developed and approved by thefederal government for large municipal wastewater treatment systems.Eastman Kodak Company's Kodak Park facility, the largest industrialdischarger in Monroe County, had significantly upgraded itswastewater treatment plant and the problem of combined seweroverflows in the City of Rochester was also well on its way to beingremediated by means of a system of tunnels to store combined sewageuntil it could be conveyed to a wastewater treatment plant. Further, awatershed plan had been developed for the Irondequoit Bay watershedand implementation had already started. An outline of this watershedplan is below.

(b) Watershed/Ecosystem Approach to the Remedial Action Plan:(1) Irondequoit Bay Watershed Plan: At the time that the need for the

RAP was brought to the attention of Monroe County staff, theIrondequoit Bay watershed plan had recently been completed andimplementation was under way. This was done after a great deal ofresearch on the significance of non-point sources of pollution,primarily that which comes with stormwater runoff. In theIrondequoit Bay watershed, tributary to the Rochester Embayment,it was found that non-point sources of pollution, particularly fromurban stormwater runoff, were the greatest remaining pollutantsources. The nature of non-point source pollution requires that theproblem be addressed on a watershed basis.

(2) Ecosystem Approach: As part of the development of theIrondequoit Bay Watershed Plan, research conducted as part of theNationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) indicated thatatmospheric deposition (deposition of pollutants from the air ontothe ground) plays a significant part in the amount of pollutantswhich are washed off of urban areas into waterways. This findingled local officials to recognize the need to manage its resources using

1-7

using an ecosystem approach. The ecosystem approach recognizesthat all of our systems (air, water, land) are connected, and calls forconsideration of all possible pollutant sources and transportmethods in any plans to protect and/or improve water resources.

(3) The Four-Plan Approach: Because of the pollutant sourceknowledge gained from the NURP program and the watershedapproach taken ·in the Irondequoit Bay watershed, Monroe Countyproposed that the Remedial Action Plan be developed with awatershed and ecosystem approach. The ecosystem approach andthe watershed approach are both consistent with IJC, USEPA, andState ideals for water quality management. The specific methodselected to achieve a watershed and ecosystem approach is to write aRemedial Action Plan for the Area of Concern and, in addition,write three Basin Plans-one for each of the three basins that flow tothe Rochester Embayment. The key portions of the three basinplans that affect the embayment are incorporated into the RAP.The three basins that flow to the embayment are the Genesee RiverBasin, portions of the Lake Ontario West Basin (LOWB), andportions of the Lake Ontario Central Basin (LOCB).. TheIrondequoit Bay Watershed is part of the Lake Ontario CentralBasin. For a map of the three basins, see Figure 2-1 in the nextchapter.

B. THE ROCHESTER EMBAYMENT RAP PROCESS:1. RAP and Basin Plan Writing:

(a) RAP Technical Group: A Technical Group was established in 1988to guide the writing of the Rochester Embayment RAP. TheTechnical Group comprised of individuals with interest andknowledge in water quality issues, and included representatives ofthe advisory (stakeholder) groups. It was chaired by the RAPProject Manager~Ms. Margy Peet, in the Monroe County PlanningDepartment. For a list of the people and agencies represented in theTechnical Group, see Table 1-1. The Technical Group has metthroughout the Stage I RAP preparation to guide the writing of theRAP and manage all technical i.ssues. From time to time, shortterm task groups within the technical group have been formed todeal with specific subjects. These task groups are referenced inmore detail in Chapter 5. Members of the RAP Technical Groupworked extensively on three chapters of the RAP. Chapter 1 waswritten by RAP Technical Group members from the MonroeCounty Department of Planning and Development. The finalversion of RAP Chapter 4 was written primarily by the MonroeCounty Environmental Health Laboratory staff. Health Lab staffand Planning &: Development Department staff also worked on

1-8

Table 1-1Individuals Serving at one time or throughout on the

Remedial Action Plan Technical Group 1989 through 1992

Monroe Co. Dept. of Planning & Development, ChairMonroe Co. Dept. of HealthOty of Rochester Planning DepartmentMonroe-Co. Dept. of Planning & DevelopmentChair, Genesee Basin Subcommittee

. Monroe Co. Environmental Health LabN.Y.S. Dept. of Env. Conservation, AvonMonroe Co. Dept. of PlanningN.Y.S. Dept. of Env. Conservation, AlbanyN.YS. Dept. of Env. Conservation, AlbanyN.Y.s. Dept. of Env. Conservation, AlbanyMonroe Co. Dept. of HealthMonroe Co. Environmental Management CouncilEnvironmental Design & ResearchN.Y.S. Dept. of Env. Conservation, AvonMonroe Co. Dept. of Planning & DevelopmentLarsen EngineersMonroe Co. Dept. of Env. Services, Pure WatersCity of Rochester Dept. of Environmental ServicesSoil Conservation ServiceChainnan, Water Quality Management Advisory Comm.Environmental Design & Research, Inc.Chairman, Lake Ontario Central Basin/Irondequoit Basin

SubcommitteeMonroe Co. Dept. of ParksMonroe Co. Dept. of EngineeringAgricultural Stabilization and Conservation ServiceState University of New York at Brockport, Biology Dept.Monroe Co. Environmental Management CouncilN.YS. Dept. of Env. Conservation, AlbanyLake Ontario West Basin Subcxmunittee, Town of GreeceMonroe County Cornell Cooperative ExtensionMonroe Co. Dept. of PlanningMonroe County Water AuthorityN.Y.S. Dept. of TransportationN.YS. Sea Grant ExtensionMonroe Co. Dept. of ParksCenter for Governmental ResearchN.Y.S. Dept. of TransportationMonroe County Environmental Services, Pure WatersN.Y. S. Dept. of Env. Conservation, AvonU.S. Geological Survey, IthacaCenter for Governmental ResearchChair, Lake Ontario West Basin SubcommitteeMonroe Co. Environmental Health Lab.Monroe Co. Dept. of EngineeringOty of Rochester Planning Department.Monroe Co. Dept. of PlanningN.Y.S. Soil and Water Conservation CommitteeSoil Conservation Service

Margy PeetJoe AlbertRobert BarrowsMargit BrazdaBetty Lou Brett, Ph.D.Richard BurtonBruce Butler, P.E.Cara CampbellTom Cullen, P.E.Robert CollinRichard Draper, P.E.Richard Elliott, P.E.Michael FlaniganRobert Gallucci, P.E.Doug GilletteTom GoodwinI<enGordonJohn Graham, P.E.Mark GregorRobert HartrickJames Haynes, Ph.D.John Heck1auRobert Jonas

TomKippScott .LeathersichTed McKayJoseph Makarewicz, Ph.D.Patrick McGeeGerald MikolMartin MinchellaTom NallyJane NaylonJim NugentEd OlingerCharles O'NeillDavid RinaldoChristine RobbinsRobin SalisburyMike SchifanoPaul Schmied, P.E.Don SherwoodScott SherwoodGary SkoogLisa SpittalPhil Steinfeldt, P.E.Larry StidAndy WheatcraftJohn WildemanFrank Winkler

-_._-~---------------------

sections of the final version of RAP Chapter 5.(b) RAP Consultant Selection & Role: By February of 1989, the RAP

Technical Group had prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) tosolicit proposals for the writing of the RAP and the three BasinPlans. After interviews and deliberation, a consulting teamconsisting of the Center for Governmental Research (CGR) andEnvironmental Design and Research (EDR), and Larsen Engineerswas chosen. The primary responsibility for the Stage I RAP residedwith CGR. A workplan for the consultant team was drafted byJune of 1989.

The RAP consultant team prepared draft and final or near finalchapters of the RAP chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6. The consultant teamalso prepared draft Chapters 4 and 7. Chapter 7, which deals withremedial measure analysis, will be included in the Stage II RAP.The RAP consultant team also prepared comparable chapters forthe three Basin Plans.

Throughout the development of the Stage I RAP and Basin Plan,quarterly reports were prepared for the NYSDEC to document theprogress of the RAP. Periodic project management meetingsbetween County, consultant, and/or NYSDEC staff were also held.

(d Stakeholders -Group Involvement in Writing: While the bulk ofthe writing of the Stage I RAP and Basin Plans was done by theconsultant team and the RAP Technical Group, the Water QualityManagement Advisory Committee and its basin subcommittees(the stakeholders groups) played a major role in developing twoportions of the Stage I RAP. In order to determine what useimpairments existed, the WQMAC sponsored severalworkshop/educational sessions to insure a full understanding ofthe 14 use impairments listed by the I}C. Members of the basinsubcommittees (described in more detail in the next section) alsoconducted volunteer stream surveys to identify water qualityproblems. Volunteers from the Lake Ontario West and LakeOntario Central basins conducted stream surveys during thesummer and fall of 1990 to identify water quality problems. Streamsurveys were conducted in the Genesee Basin during the summerand fall of 1991. The educational effort conducted by the WQMACand the information obtained through the stream surveysconducted by the basin subcommittees resulted in the stakeholdergroups determining which of the 14 use impairments existed inthe AOC and its three basins. The impairments, as determined bythe stakeholders' groups, are outlined in Chapter 4.

1-10

The other area in which the stakeholders' groups played a majorrole was in the development of goals for the AOC and the basins.These goals were developed by the committees after lengthydeliberations that considered use impairments and other problems.The goals as developed by the committees can be seen in Chapter 3.

The stakeholders groups also reviewed and commented on all ofthe chapters written by the consultant and RAP Technical groups.

2. Advisory <Stakeholder> Group Structure: A total of six stakeholdergroups were initially formed to advise and participate in thedevelopment of the RAP and the three Basin Plans. A chart showingthe five groups is shown as Figure 1-2. The sixth group is theGovernment Policy Group. Each of the groups are described in thissection.

(a) Water Ouality Management Advisory Committee (WOMAC): Theprimary advisory group is the Water Quality ManagementAdvisory Committee (WQMAC). Monroe County has had such acommittee in place for many years prior to the beginning of theRAP (at least since 1979). The committee was reorganized in 1989for purposes of the RAP to consist of 27 voting members. TheCommittee was chaired from 1989 through 1992 by Dr. JamesHaynes, Professor of Biology at the State University of New York atBrockport. The 27 voting members changed somewhat during thattime period due to resignations, but the voting members consistedof equal numbers of representatives from economic interests,elected officials, citizens, and public interest groups from the 3basins. In order to insure coordination between the Basin Plansand the RAP, the basin subcommittees have representatives on theWQMAC. Several ex-officio non-voting members also serve onthe WQMAC to provide expertise in special areas. A list of groupsrepresented and individuals serving as voting members on theWQMAC during the development of the Stage I RAP are includedin Table 1-2. The committee has met nearly every month since itsreorganization in 1989.

!b) Lake Ontario Central! Irondequoit Basin Subcommittee: Thissubcommittee was reorganized out of the original IrondequoitBasin Subcommittee which had existed since 1980 when work onIrondequoit Bay watershed research began in earnest. Thissubcommittee reorganized to help develop the Lake OntarioCentral Basin Plan in May of 1989. Mr. Robert Jonas, a retired Soil

1-11

-- - ---------------- -------

Flgure1- 2

MONROE COUNTY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENTORGANIZATION

County Executive(County Water Quality Management Agency)"

Water QUalityManagement Advisory Committee

(WQMAC)

lake Ontario central Basin lake Ontario West Basin Genesee River Basin·· Public Outreachlrondequoh Basin Subcommittee Subcommhtee SUbcommIltee

Subcommittee (lOWBS) (GRBS)(lOCBIBS)

N....•....

4 WOMAC Reps 4 WOMAC Reps 4 WOMAC Repa

Monroe County Department of Planning & Development

• For purposes of the Remedial Action. Plan (RAP), the WOUAC will also i1(jyise the N.V.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation··Reorganized in late 1992 into 2 subcommittees: The Uonroe County Genesee Basin Subcommittee and the Genesee Basin Coordinating Committee

December. 1992

Table 1·2Voting Members of the Water Quality Management Advisory Committee

during the time period 1989 through 1992*

CITIZENS:James Haynes, Ph.D., chairBetty Lou Brett, Ph.D.John ErnstMike MosehauerRobert JonasCassandra JacksonBess MarinoJanet MoffettRoy HedmanMatthew PerryJohn Colgan, M.D.Kenneth GoodeGerald Wahl, Esq.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS:Irene GossinWillliam RichardsenRoger BoilyDon MackMartin MinchellaMargaret FreemanEdward WatsonDavid WoodsEllen Schnurr

ECONOMIC INTERESTS:Carl AyersDan MillerCharles ColbyBmce Boncke, P.E.Charles Costich, P.E.Dewayne Day, P.E.Paul Sawyk.oChristopher RauGrace Wever, Ph.D.Robert BrownDavid Stockmeister

PUBLIC INTERESTS:Carole BeaIJohn FerraroChristine FredetteRay NelsonMary MernerErnest MohrElmer WagnerIan Wellers

CitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizenCitizen

Monroe County LegislatureTown Supervisors AssociationTown Supervisors AssociationTown Supervisors AssociationTown of GreeceTown of PittsfordCity of RochesterGenesee Finger Lakes Regional Planning CouncilCity of Rochester Paries Department

Monroe Co. Charter Boat AssociationMarine Operators &. DealersMonroe County Farm BureauRochester Homebuilders AssociationRochester Homebuilders AssociationRochester Engineering SocietyRochester Gas &. Electric Corp.Industrial Management CouncilIndustrial Management CouncilLaborers International Union of North AmericaPlumbers Union

Center for Environmental InformationCharlotte Community AssociationRochester Committee for Scientific InformationSiena ClubSiena ClubAd Hoc Odor CommitteeMonroe Co. Conservation CouncilMonroe Co. League of Women Voters

*There were never more than 27 voting members at one time on the WQMAC.

1·13

Conservation Service employee has served as chairman of thissubcommittee and as a member of the WQMAC throughout thedevelopment of the Stage I RAP. Membership on this committee isnot limited. Anyone who has shown an jnterest in participatinghas been welcomed.

Cd Lake Ontario West Basin Subcommittee: This subcommittee wasestablished in November of 1989 and has been chaired since itsinception by a citizen member, Mr. Gary Skoog. Membership onthis subcorrlm.ittee is not limited. Anyone who has shown aninterest in participating has been welcomed.

Cd) Genesee Basin Subcommittees: The Genesee Basin Subcommitteewas initially established in September of 1990 with citizen co-chairs,Dr. Betty Lou Brett, and Ronald Pretzer, who lives in Geneseo,Livingston County. This subcommittee covered a large geographicarea (major portions of five counties) and was open to anyone whoshowed an interest in participating. Meetings were held in Avon,Livingston County. The attendance at this subcommittee wassparse with most regular attendance from representatives of theCounty Soil and Water Conservation Districts outside of MonroeCounty who were also involved in the development of CountyWater Quality Strategies. This group met regularly from September1990 to May 1992 at which time it was reorganized. The

. reorganization resulted in the establishment of two committees,the Monroe County Genesee Basin Subcommittee chaired by Dr.Brett, and a Genesee Basin Coordinating Committee convened byMargit Brazda of the Monroe County Department of Planning cStDevelopment. The Monroe County Genesee Basin Subcommitteereactivated interested members, recruited some new members fromwithin Monroe County, and began meeting in September 1991.

The Genesee Basin Coordinating Committee membership consistsof one person from each county in the Genesee Basin. The size issmall because each of these counties has its own Water QualityCoordinating Committee, each of which is preparing its own waterquality strategy. Because County Water Quality CoordinatingCommittees developed at the same time that the RAP effort wasunder way, and because of the multi-county make-up of theGenesee River Basin, coordination was critially needed for efficientoperation. The first meeting of the Coordinating Committee willbe early in 1993. There has, however, been communication withthe members of this group on the progress of the RAP during theStage I RAP.

1-14

ee) Government Policy Group: The purpose of the Government .PolicyGroup (GPG) is to provide information to policy makers, and toprovide the RAP writers with local government feedback. Fromprior experience with water quality advisory groups, RAP staff hadlearned that public officials want to be involved in policy makingbut do not have· time for frequent meetings where technical issuesare discussed in detail. The WQMAC and its subcommitteesincluded elected officials as representatives, but an additionalforum was needed to meet on an ad hoc basis, which could includemore elected officials who are likely to be affected by the RAP.This is important because the remaining significant water qualityproblems in the AOC are likely from non-point sources, and willrequire involvement of local governments and their land usedecision making powers. The first meeting of the GPG was held inNovember 1988, at which time elected officials were asked todescribe the water quality problems that exist in their jurisdictions.That information was used by the RAP Technical Group and theWQMAC to identify use impairments. The second meeting of theGPG was held in June 1992. At that meeting, the GPG learned aboutthe use impairments, goals, and objectives as developed by theadvisory groups. A list of the municipalities represented on theGovernment Policy Group are li!ited on Table 1-3.

CD The Public Outreach Subcommittee of the WOMAC was formed inJanuary of 1990 and has been chaired from its inception by Ms. MaryMerner. This Subcommittee was established to fulfill three roles:the first is to identify appropriate mechanisms to inform andinvolve county and regional residents of the RAP and basin plans;the second role is to develop, advise on, and implement ideas for

.general water quality education; the third role is to advise theWQMAC regarding appropriate long-term educationalmechanisms that should be included in the RAP and Basin Plans.A list of the individuals who have served on this subcommitteesince its inception is iilciuded ip Table 1-4.

This subcommittee chose as its major project during the Stage Iefforts development of a pamphlet about the New York StateDepartment of Health (NYSOOH) fish consumption advisory. Itwas decided to focus the pamphlet on those socia-economic groupswhich eat locally caught fish for sustenance. The need for suchinformation came from the concerns of Mr. Kenneth Goode, amember of the WQMAC in 1990. After some unsuccessfulattempts to get funding from the Great Lakes Protection Fund for

1-15

Table 1-3Government Representation on Government Policy Group

COUNTY REPRESENTATIVESAllegany County Board of Legislators ,Genesee County LegislatureLivingston County Board of SupervisorsMonroe County LegislatureOntario County Board of SupervisorsSteuben County LegislatureWyoming County Board of Supervisors

MONROE COUNTY TOWN REPRESENTATIVESTown of Brighton SupervisorTown of Chili SupervisorTown of Clarkson SupervisorTown of Gates SupervisorTown of Greece SupervisorTown of Hamlin SupervisorTown of Henrietta SupervisorTown of Irondequoit SupervisorTown of Mendon SupervisorTown of Ogden Supervisor .Town of Parma SupervisorTown of Penfield SupervisorTown of Perinton SupervisorTown of Pittsford SupervisorTown of Riga SupervisorTown of Rush SupervisorTown of Sweden SupervisorTown of Webster SupervisorTown of Wheatland Supervisor

MONROE COUNTY VILLAGE REPRESENTATIVES:Village of Brockport MayorVillage of Churchville MayorVillage of East Rochester MayorVillage of Fairport MayorVillage of Hilton MayorVillage of Honeoye Falls MayorVillage of Pittsford MayorVillage of Scottsville MayorVillage of Spencerport MayorVillage of Webster MayorCITY REPRESENTATIVECity of Rochester

1-16

Table 1-4Members of the Public Outreach Subcommittee of the Monroe County WaterQuality

Management Advisory committeeduring the period 1990 through 1992'"

Mary Merner, ChairCarole BealTom BouchardMargit BrazdaBetty Lou Brett, Ph.D.Cara CampbellTony CapellaPatricia DejoyChris FredetteKenneth GoodeJames Haynes, Ph.D.Roy HedmanWayne HowardMeg KeefeDan MillerJanet MoffettJane NaylonJim NugentCam OwensMargyPeetSusan PetersonJan Wellers

Sierra ClubCenter for Environmental InformationCitizenMonroe County Dept. of Planning & DevelopmentNazareth College, Biology Dept.Monroe County Dept. of PlanningCitizenCitizenEnvironmental Management CouncilCitizenState Univ. of New York at Brockport, BiologyMonroe County Dept. of Planning & DevelopmentCitizenMonroe County Cornell Cooperative ExtensionFishery Advisory BoardCitizenMonroe County Dept. of PlanningMonroe County Water AuthorityCitizenMonroe County Dept. of Planning & DevelopmentCitizenLeague of Women Voters

Some of the people on this list were active on this subcommittee for a relativelyshort period of time.

1-17

development of the pamphlet, writing began by volunteers. Adraft was distributed for review to local and New York State levelgroups and individuals in early 1991. In July 1991, the draftpamphlet was reviewed by the Monroe County Fishery AdvisoryBoard which voiced strong objections to the development anddistribution of such a pamphlet. Their concerns were echoed bysome other fishery interests. As a result, a major effort wasundertaken to modify the pamphlet to meet the variety of concernsraised. This effort culminated in a meeting in December 1991 withDr. Andrew Doniger, the Monroe County Director of Health, andrepresentatives of fishing interests and the Public Outreachsubcommittee; Dr. Doniger heard the concerns of all parties and hetook responsibility for choosing the final language of the pamphlet.A responsiveness summary which reflected all of the concernsraised and changes made in the draft was sent to all interestedparties in April 1992. From April through December 1992, effortshave been under way, as staff time allows, to complete thepamphlet lay-out, and to test it in a sample of the target population.Publication is planned in 1993.

3. Public Outreach Activities:Ca) RAP Workshops: The Rochester EmbaYment RAP was first

announced to the public at a meeting in November of 1988. Ideaswere solicited from those in attendance about their perceptions oflocal water pollution problems. During the development of theStage I RAP, several forums were held for stakeholder groups andfor the public on subjects related to the RAP. The most widelyattended meeting occurred on the issue of toxics in February of 1990when 170 people from throughout the community attended aSaturday forum to hear experts from throughout New York State.Other special workshops have covered zebra mussels, atmosphericdeposition, and work done at other AOCs in the Basin. Anotherworkshop was held for all stakeholders to learn about the effects ofvarious pollutants on aquatic systems.

(b) RAP Handouts and Displays: A RAP fact sheet was prepared anddistributed to interested citizens and at public places. A separate'Written document which describes the RAP and the various groupsinvolved in the RAP was prepared and made available to thosewho showed interest in learning more about the RAP. A RAPdisplay board was developed and shown at many public eventsover the course of the Stage I RAP development, including anEnvironmental Summit in 1990, at environmental fairs, malls,boat shows, and other public events.

1-18

(c) Speakin&/EducationalOpportunities: Throughout thedevelopment of the Stage I RAP, staff members spoke with adultsand children about the RAP and about water quality. Schoolchildren learned about the RAP at annual environmental dayssponsored by the Preserving the Earth Through Education (PETE)program, Conservation Field Days sponsored by the CooperativeExtension and Soil and Water Conservation District, and visits bythe EPA research ship. Many classroom invitations were alsoaccepted. Adult groups learned about the RAP at meetings whereRAP staff were invited to speak including the Monroe Countyand New York State Environmental Management Council, theMonroe County Planning Board, a Coastal Erosion Conference, theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, Fishery Advisory Board, SeaGrant Extension Conference, International Association of GreatLakes Researchers, University of Rochester, Water PollutionControl Federation, conference of the Upstate Chapter of theAmerican Planning Association.

(d) Articles: The Rochester Embayment RAP also was publicized inwriting. Two newsletters were published and widely distributed atthe beginning of the RAP. Since then, articles about the RAP havebeen published in local newspapers including the Times Union andDemocrat and Chronicle, in newsletters of the Monroe CountyDepartment of Planning, the Center for Environmental .Information, the International Joint Commission, and the NewYork Water Pollution Control Association. Local RAP staff alsowrote a chapter on the Rochester Embayment RAP for inclusion ina book edited by John Hartig and Mike Zarull entitled "UnderRAPs". The title of the chapter is ''Rochester Embayment's WaterQuality Management Process and Progress, 1887-1990."

llU Public Meetinp: Four public meetings were held during the weekofJanuary 25,1993 to inform and get feedback on the Draft Stage IRAP which was published in early January. Over 100 peopleattended the meetings. A responsiveness summary has beenprepared to address all of the comments that were made byindividuals at the public meetings, or subsequent to the publicmeetings. The responsiveness summary is included in this FinalStage I RAP as Appendix A.

1-19

Bibliography:

Hartig, John H. and zarull, Michael A., Under RAPs, Toward Grassroots EcologicalDemocracy in the Great Lakes Basin. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.1992.

Great Lakes Water Quality Board (1985). 1985 Report on Great Lakes Water Ouality.June 1985, Kingston, Ontario.

Great Lakes Water Quality Board (1982). 1982 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.November 1982, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

NYSDEC 1992, New York State 25-Year Plan for the Great Lakes. June 1992. AlbanyNew York.

Great Lakes Water Quality Board (1981). 1981 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.November 1981, Cleveland, Ohio.

International Joint Commission. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of1978. January 1988