springville(scoby) dam fish passage project

Transcription

SPRINGVILLE(SCOBY) DAM FISH PASSAGE PROJECT
Section 506 Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
P2#332955
DRAFT Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment
Buffalo District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
22 May 2014
DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
(FONSI)
SPRINGVILLE DAM
SECTION 506 GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FISH PASSAGE PROJECT
CATTARAUGUS CREEK NEAR VILLAGE OF SPRINGVILLE
ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has assessed the environmental impacts of the
subject project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and
has determined a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The attached Detailed Project
Report (DPR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) presents the results of the environmental
analysis.
Springville Dam is located on Cattaraugus Creek, a tributary to Lake Erie, near the Village of
Springville, Erie County, New York. The approximately 34 mile reach of Cattaraugus Creek
between Springville Dam and Lake Erie has limited spawning habitat in the main stem.
However, there are approximately 27 miles of suitable fish spawning habitat in the tributaries to
this reach of Cattaraugus Creek that currently provide important spawning habitat for a number
of Lake Erie fish species, including a number of native and high value naturalized fish species.
Due to the presence of the 40 foot high, 338 foot long Springville Dam, these species are blocked
from gaining access to an additional approximately 70 miles of high quality spawning habitat
upstream of the dam. Populations of native and high value naturalized fish species are
anticipated to develop and/or improve in areas upstream of the dam if connectivity is restored
with the downstream reach. Other negative effects of this existing impoundment include altered
sediment transport dynamics and loss of riverine hydraulics. These disturbances have resulted in
a decline of fish, mussel, and macroinvertebrate species richness and abundance as inferred from
a comparison of above versus below dam ecological conditions.
In addition to serving as a barrier to fish movement and migration, Springville Dam also acts as a
barrier to invasive species, particularly the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) which migrates
into Cattaraugus Creek to spawn. This parasitic species has been responsible for significant
declines of native fish species in the Great Lakes. This project presents an opportunity to create
fish passage for native fish species at Springville Dam and allow access to high quality spawning
habitat in the upper portions of Cattaraugus Creek while also improving hydraulic sediment
transport and maintaining a restriction on the range of the invasive sea lamprey.
The selected plan to restore fish passage to Cattaraugus Creek consists of removing a portion of
the existing 182 foot long concrete dam spillway and replacing it with a lamprey barrier and
constructing a rock riffle fish passage channel. At its upstream end, the fish passage channel has
a stoplog weir, a jump pool and a lamprey trap. During the lamprey spawning season, the
stoplogs would be installed at the upstream end of the fish passage channel. The top elevation of
the lamprey barrier is set at 18 inches above the 10-year tailwater elevation per USFWS
US Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
i
Springville Dam GLFER
Detailed Project Report
recommendations. Jumping fish species such would use the jump pool to jump over the stoplog
weir while non-jumping fish species and other aquatic life would enter the lamprey trap where
they would be trapped and sorted by fisheries personnel. Desirable species would be released
upstream of the barrier while lamprey would be removed and disposed. During the non-lamprey
spawning season, the stoplogs would be removed allowing unrestricted open stream flow
through the fish passage channel. At this time, all fish species and aquatic life would be able to
freely pass up and downstream through the fish passage channel. All reasonable alternatives to
the Selected Plan, including the No-Action alternative, were considered, however, the Selected
Plan was determined to most meet the planning objectives and comply with the constraints of the
project.
Following interagency coordination and collaboration on this study, environmental protection
considerations have been implemented into the project. Any equipment access and in-water
work at the site to construct coffer dams or dredge sediment will be done during low-flow
conditions. Temporary coffer dams will be installed immediately upstream and downstream of
the dam to enable work to proceed in the dry. Culverts will be installed to divert water through
the upper power intake channel and around the project area to maintain downstream flows. This
will avoid any adverse impacts to fisheries and other aquatic organisms in the downstream reach
of the creek. In compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a State Water Quality
Certification (WQC) has been requested from the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) for the Selected Plan. The following additional measures will be
required of the eventual contractor: implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
control measures to reduce any construction impacts (such as biodegradable netting, soil binders,
conservation seedings, and coir or jute mats during construction to prevent erosion and
sedimentation) and disturbed work areas will be seeded within one week and maintained with
mulch/hay until natural/native vegetation is established. In accordance with Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, stormwater discharges from construction activities associated with this project
would be authorized under the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit 0101. The eventual construction contractor would be required to obtain coverage under this permit
by submitting a Notice of Intent to the NYSDEC Regional Permit Administrator. The eventual
contractor would also be required to obtain any additional federal, State, and local permits or
permissions.
Analysis has shown that the proposed project is not a major federal action which would result in
significant adverse impacts on the quality of the human or natural environment. Public
coordination, to date, has uncovered no areas of significant environmental controversy that have
not been resolved. Based on these factors, it has been determined that an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required. Those who may have information that may alter this assessment
and lead to a reversal of this decision should notify me within 30 days. If no comments that alter
this finding are received within the 30-day review period, or, after such comments have been
addressed, this FONSI will be signed and filed with the project documentation.
Date: _______________
Buffalo District
Owen J. Beaudoin
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Detailed Project Report/Environmental Assessment (DPR/EA) presents the findings of the
Springville Dam Great Lakes Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) Project, and has
been prepared to document the plan formulation process and potential environmental effects
associated with implementation of restoration alternatives at the dam. The geographic scope of
this Springville Dam study area consists of the entire Cattaraugus Creek watershed. The
alternatives considered involve construction at Springville dam located in the village of
Springville, Erie County, in western New York. The Springville Dam restricts fish passage
between the upper and lower Cattaraugus Creek watersheds. For this reason, the project would
have benefits to those areas upstream and downstream of the dam.
The overall goal of the Springville Dam GLFER Project is to restore ecological connectivity of
the upper Cattaraugus Creek watershed to the downstream areas of the creek and Lake Erie.
Currently, the existing dam blocks connectivity between the upper and lower sections of the
watershed. As a result, many fish and aquatic species are limited to lower quality habitat areas
found downstream of the dam and are isolated from high quality habitat upstream of the dam.
This DPR/EA summarizes existing conditions in the study area. It also provides a description
and discussion of the array of alternative plans, including their benefits, costs, and environmental
effects and outputs. This report identifies, evaluates, and recommends a solution (the Preferred
Action Alternative) that is cost effective, does not violate project constraints, and best meets the
planning objectives of comprehensive habitat restoration through the study area. Additional
analysis was also conducted to ensure the Preferred Action Alternative will have no impacts to
downstream areas from flooding or sedimentation.
The Preferred Action Alternative consists of breaching Springville Dam, constructing a new sea
lamprey barrier within the breach, and constructing a fish passage system to allow fish species to
access approximately 70 miles of high quality habitat located upstream of the dam. The preferred
plan is anticipated to have large benefits to aquatic life of Cattaraugus Creek by restoring
connectivity between the upper and lower watershed. Native and highly valued naturalized fish
species not present above the dam are expected to expand their range and gain access to the high
quality habitat above the dam increasing species richness. The fish communities above and
below the dam are expected to increase in richness and abundance and thus benefit from the
restored connectivity. In addition the preferred plan will restore approximately two-thirds of the
existing dam pool to riverine habitat. Benefits will accrue to both native and high value
naturalized fish species. The total first cost for implementation of the recommended plan is
$6,471,000. The period of analysis used to compute costs is 50 years with a FY14 Federal
interest rate of 3.5%.
Buffalo District
iii
Contents
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Study Authority............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Background and Sponsorship........................................................................................................ 1
1.3
Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.4
Pertinent Reports and Studies ....................................................................................................... 6
1.5
Existing Projects ........................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 7
2.1
Study Area Description ................................................................................................................. 7
2.2
Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3
Topography and Land Cover ...................................................................................................... 10
2.4
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.5
Hydrology, Hydraulics & Fluvial Geomorphology .................................................................... 11
2.6
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) .................................................................. 12
2.7
Structural Assessment of Springville Dam ................................................................................. 13
2.8
Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 14
2.9
Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 15
2.10
Floodplains and Flooding Issues ................................................................................................. 15
2.11
Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2.12
Seneca Nation Cattaraugus Reservation ..................................................................................... 17
2.13
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 18
2.14
Social Properties ......................................................................................................................... 19
2.15
Preserves, Protected Areas, and Parks ........................................................................................ 19
2.16
Fisheries ...................................................................................................................................... 22
2.17
Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 26
2.18
Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 28
2.19
Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 29
2.20
Invasive Species .......................................................................................................................... 29
2.21
Threatened and Endangered Species........................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 3 - PLAN FORMULATION.................................................................................................... 36
3.1
Formulation Process.................................................................................................................... 36
3.2
Future Without Project Conditions ............................................................................................. 36
3.3
Problems and Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 37
3.4
Specific Planning Objectives ...................................................................................................... 38
Buffalo District
iv
3.5
Planning Constraints ................................................................................................................... 38
3.6
Potential Restoration Measures................................................................................................... 39
3.6.1
Dam Removal Measures ..................................................................................................... 39
3.6.2
Fish Passage Measures ........................................................................................................ 40
3.6.3
Lamprey Control Measures ................................................................................................. 40
3.7
Preliminary Screening of Restoration Measures ......................................................................... 41
3.8
Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 43
3.9
Habitat Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 61
3.10
Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis ........................................................................... 64
3.11
Significance of Outputs............................................................................................................... 67
3.11.1
Significance of Ecosystem Outputs .................................................................................... 67
3.11.2
Acceptability, Completeness, Effectiveness and Efficiency ............................................... 71
3.11.3
Risk and Uncertainty........................................................................................................... 73
3.12
Selection of the NER Plan/Preferred Alternative........................................................................ 73
CHAPTER 4 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED PLAN ................................................................ 74
4.1
Plan Components ........................................................................................................................ 74
4.2
Division of Responsibilities ........................................................................................................ 77
CHAPTER 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 81
5.1
Need & Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 81
5.2
Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................................. 81
5.3
The Affected Environment.......................................................................................................... 81
5.4
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Preferred Plan ....................................................................... 81
5.4.1
Physical Resources.............................................................................................................. 81
5.4.2
Ecological Resources .......................................................................................................... 82
5.4.3
Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 85
5.4.4
17 Points of Environmental Quality.................................................................................... 87
5.5
Cumulative Effects...................................................................................................................... 89
5.5.1
Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis................................................................................ 89
5.5.2
Cumulative Effects on Resources ....................................................................................... 90
5.5.3
Cumulative Effects Summary ............................................................................................. 92
5.6
Compliance With Environmental Statutes .................................................................................. 92
5.6.1
Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................... 92
5.6.2
Clean Air Act ...................................................................................................................... 92
5.6.3
Section 401 & 404 of the Clean Water Act......................................................................... 92
5.6.4
USFWS Coordination ......................................................................................................... 93
5.6.5
SHPO .................................................................................................................................. 93
Buffalo District
v
5.6.6
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ........................................................................ 93
CHAPTER 6 - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................. 93
6.1
Design Phase ............................................................................................................................... 94
6.2
Monitoring & Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................................. 94
6.3
Real Estate .................................................................................................................................. 95
6.4
Operation & Maintenance (O&M) .............................................................................................. 95
CHAPTER 7 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, REVIEW, AND COORDINATION .................................... 95
7.1
Preparation and Review .............................................................................................................. 95
7.2
Coordination and Consultation with the Sponsor and other Agencies........................................ 96
7.3
Public Review and Comment...................................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 8 - RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................................... 97
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 98
Buffalo District
vi
FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Springville Dam Location Map (USGS Ashford Hollow, NY Quadrangle).............................. 3
Figure 1-2: Springville Dam looking upstream (March 13 2012). ............................................................... 5
Figure 1-3: Location of Cattaraugus Creek Watershed within Erie, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Wyoming,
and Allegany Counties. ................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2-1: Villages and Towns in Cattaraugus Watershed.......................................................................... 9
Figure 2-2: Cattaraugus Creek Watershed Land Cover Percentages .......................................................... 10
Figure 2-3: Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map for Cattaraugus Creek, Erie County.................................. 16
Figure 2-4: Flood Insurance Rate Map for Cattaraugus Creek, Cattaraugus County. ................................ 17
Figure 2-5: Seneca Nation of Indians Cattaraugus Territory ...................................................................... 18
Figure 2-6: Cattaraugus Creek Nationwide Rivers Inventory..................................................................... 20
Figure 2-7: Cattaraugus Creek Recreation Areas........................................................................................ 21
Figure 2-8: Cattaraugus Creek Springville (Scoby) Dam Park ................................................................... 22
Figure 2-9: Upper Cattaraugus Creek Naturally Reproducing Trout Populations ...................................... 26
Figure 2-10: Lower Cattaraugus Creek Public Fishing Access .................................................................. 27
Figure 2-11: Upper Cattaraugus Creek Public Fishing Access ................................................................... 28
Figure 2-12: Sea Lamprey parasitizing salmonid. (Photo Credit USFWS) ................................................ 32
Figure 2-13: Sea Lamprey Life Cycle......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3-1: Alternative No. 2A Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Plan and Elevation .............. 46
Figure 3-2: Alternative No. 2A Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Cross Sections .................... 47
Figure 3-3: Alternative No. 2A Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Sediment Removal Plan and
Profile.......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 3-4: Alternative No. 2B Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Plan and Elevation .............. 51
Figure 3-5: Alternative No. 2B Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Cross Sections..................... 52
Figure 3-6: Alternative No. 2B Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Sediment Removal Plan and
Profile.......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3-7: Alternative No. 3 & 4 Dam Lowered 8’ Elevation & Section ................................................. 56
Figure 3-8: Alternative No. 3 Dam Lowered 8’ With Denil Fishway ........................................................ 57
Figure 3-9: Alternative No. 4 Dam Lowered 8’ With Bypass Channel ...................................................... 60
Figure 3-10: IWR Plan Output – Average Annual Cost vs. Habitat Units ................................................. 66
4-1: Springville Dam before (upper) and after proposed implementation of the preferred plan (bottom) . 75
TABLES
Table 1: Fish Species Found Downstream of Springville Dam .................................................................. 24
Table 2: Fish Species Found Upstream of Springville Dam ....................................................................... 25
Table 3: Non-native Plant Species Found in Cattaraugus Creek ................................................................ 30
Table 4: Non-native Animal Species Found in Cattaraugus Creek ............................................................ 31
Table 5: State Listed Species Found within the Cattaraugus Creek Watershed ......................................... 35
Table 6: Screening of Measures .................................................................................................................. 42
Table 7: Riverine Fish Species Commonly Found Upstream of Springville Dam ..................................... 62
Table 8: Riverine Fish Species Commonly Found Downstream of Springville Dam ................................ 63
Table 9: Habitat Outputs for Each Alternative. .......................................................................................... 64
Table 10: IWR Plan Results ........................................................................................................................ 66
Table 11: Best Buy Plans ............................................................................................................................ 67
Table 12: Total Project Costs ...................................................................................................................... 78
Table 13: Determination of Non-Federal Cost Share ................................................................................. 78
Table 14: Springville Dam Implementation Schedule ................................................................................ 94
Buffalo District
vii
Table 15: Project Delivery Team ................................................................................................................ 96
Buffalo District
viii
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Engineering
Appendix 2: Real Estate
Appendix 3: Cost Engineering
Appendix 4: Environmental
Appendix 5: Cost Efficiency/Incremental Cost Analysis
Appendix 6: Letter of Intent
Appendix 7: Supplemental Reports
Buffalo District
ix
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The report documents the feasibility and environmental impacts of alternative plans associated
with implementation of ecosystem restoration and fish passage at Springville Dam. The dam,
which is also known as Scoby Dam or Scoby Hill Dam, is located on Cattaraugus Creek in the
Town of Concord in Erie County, New York. This report will use Springville Dam to reference
the site.
1.1
Study Authority
This Feasibility Study / Detailed Project Report is being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), in coordination with New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) and Erie County, under the Authority of Section 506 of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 (Public Law 106-541, 114 STAT. 2645; 42
U.S.C. 1962d-22), as amended by Section 5011, Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration
(GLFER) of WRDA 2007. Section 506, as amended, provides authority to plan, design, and
construct projects to support the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the
Great Lakes in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies.
1.2
Background and Sponsorship
The GLFER program enables USACE to utilize its planning, design, and construction expertise
for projects to restore the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. A wide range of environmental
projects can be executed under this program, including riparian habitat and wetland restoration,
dam removal to reestablish free flowing tributaries, construction of fish passage over existing
structures, improving spawning and nursery habitat, erosion and sedimentation control, and
construction of facilities to preserve historic fish stocks. Basin-wide, fishery and natural resource
interests have a strong interest in this program to help eliminate and control non-indigenous
species introductions, a major threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem. The May 2010 revised
GLFER programmatic support plan indicates that an objective for the GLFER program is to
“promote the restoration of ecosystems to promote naturally reproducing fish communities based
on native or high value naturalized fish populations.”
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also participates in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (USEPA) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). The GLRI is a multi-year, multiagency administration budget initiative for the restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
USEPA is leading this initiative and has developed (with input from USACE and other Federal
agencies) a five year Action Plan. This Action Plan identifies five focus areas for GLRI funding,
with near-term and long-term objectives for each focus area and metrics for measuring progress:
•
•
•
•
•
Toxic Substance and Areas of Concern
Invasive Species
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration
Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication, and Partnerships
Buffalo District
1
The goal of this project is consistent with the a long term goal of the Action Plan under the
Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration Focus Area to restore access of migratory fish
species at fish passage barriers. Springville Dam is located on Cattaraugus Creek, a tributary to
Lake Erie, near the Village of Springville, Erie County, New York (Figure 1-1). The dam was
built in 1921 for hydropower production and produced electricity until 1997. When electrical
production ceased, the dam was purchased by Erie County and is now used as a small riverside
park. The approximately 34 mile reach of Cattaraugus Creek between Springville Dam and Lake
Erie has limited spawning habitat in the main stem of the creek. There is however,
approximately 27 miles of suitable fish spawning habitat in the tributaries to this section of
Cattaraugus Creek that currently provides important spawning habitat for a number of Lake Erie
fish species, including a number of native and high value naturalized fish species. Due to the
presence of the 40 foot high, 338 foot long Springville Dam, these fish species are blocked from
gaining access to an additional approximately 70 miles of high quality spawning waters upstream
of the dam. Populations of native and high value naturalized fish species are anticipated to
develop and/or improve in areas upstream of the dam if connectivity is restored. Other negative
effects of this impoundment include altered sediment transport dynamics and loss of riverine
hydraulics. These disturbances have resulted in a decline of fish, mussel, and macroinvertebrate
species richness and abundance as inferred from a comparison of above vs. below dam
conditions.
In addition to serving as a barrier to fish movement and migration, the Springville Dam also acts
as a barrier to invasive species, particularly the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) which
migrates into Cattaraugus Creek to spawn. This parasitic species has been responsible for
significant declines of native fish species in the Great Lakes. This project presents an opportunity
for USACE to create fish passage for native fish species at Springville Dam and allowing access
to high quality spawning waters in the upper portions of Cattaraugus Creek while also improving
hydraulic sediment transport and restricting the range of the invasive sea lamprey.
The New York State Department of Environmental Concern has requested assistance under
Section 506 of WRDA of 2000 from USACE for improving environmental quality and fisheries
restoration in Cattaraugus Creek and Lake Erie. A letter of Intent from the NYSDEC dated
March 17, 2011 is provided in Appendix 6. In this letter, the NYSDEC indicates that it supports
USACE in proceeding with additional planning and design studies as well as indicating that it
would serve as the non-Federal sponsor to provide fish passage at Springville Dam. The
NYSDEC provided background data on the fish species and other information in assisting in the
generation of this report and are a collaborative partner with USACE. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, in coordination with NYSDEC and Erie County, will study and evaluate a variety of
measures that will provide fish passage upstream of the dam while prohibiting the upstream
migration of sea lampreys.
Buffalo District
2
Figure 1-1: Springville Dam Location Map (USGS Ashford Hollow, NY Quadrangle)
Buffalo District
3
1.3
Purpose and Need
The purpose of this Section 506 study at Springville Dam is to evaluate an array of measures to
restore aquatic connectivity for native fish species and other aquatic life between the upper and
lower reaches of Cattaraugus Creek. A number of high value naturalized fish species will likely
also benefit from restored connectivity. In this report, high value naturalized fish populations are
those species considered important to local stakeholders, including brown trout, rainbow trout,
steelhead (migratory rainbow trout), chinook salmon, and coho salmon.
Specifically, the measures aim to provide native fish species and other aquatic life with a means
to bypass the Springville Dam and access the high quality spawning habitat located in the upper
portions of Cattaraugus Creek, while restricting the range of the invasive sea lamprey to those
areas below the dam. The upper 35 miles of the Cattaraugus and its tributaries, notably Clear
Creek, Elton Creek, Hosmer Brook, and Lime Lake Outlet are all of higher quality than any of
the tributaries located downstream of Springville Dam with regards to water quality and
spawning habitat. Implementation of a fish passage project that bypasses the dam contributes to
the goals developed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), and greatly increases
spawning habitat available to native fish species in Cattaraugus Creek. Additionally, not
allowing the spawning range of sea lamprey to increase will help to avoid further adverse
impacts to the Great Lakes fishery in accordance with the long term lamprey control goals of
both the GLFC and NYSDEC. Sea lamprey control is key to maintaining this fishery as
evidenced by the continuing bi-national effort supported by the GLFC. Springville Dam is shown
in Figure 1-2.
Buffalo District
4
Figure 1-2: Springville Dam looking upstream (March 13 2012).
Buffalo District
5
Figure 1-3: Location of Cattaraugus Creek Watershed within Erie, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua,
Wyoming, and Allegany Counties.
1.4
Pertinent Reports and Studies
A sediment sampling report was completed by SOMAT Engineering, Inc. for USACE at
Springville Dam and Cattaraugus Creek on February 7, 2012. The report characterizes sediment
transport mechanisms and potential risk from contaminated sediments to support considerations
for possible removal or modification of the dam to allow for continuous fish passage along
Cattaraugus Creek (Appendix 4).
A Phase I Cultural Resources Report completed on February 2012 by Tetra Tech for USACE in
the vicinity of Springville Dam to investigate potential cultural resources that may exist in the
area (Appendix 4).
A report titled Fish Passage at Springville Dam – A Review of Fisheries Issues produced by
NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries dated 2006 reviews issues related to fish passage over Springville
Buffalo District
6
Dam and in particular, those associated with passage of lake-run steelhead trout to the upper
Cattaraugus Creek System.
In September 2011, USACE produced an initial watershed assessment of Cattaraugus Creek to
identify watershed problems, needs, and opportunities within the Cattaraugus Creek watershed
titled Section 729 Watershed Study, Cattaraugus Creek Watershed, NY – Initial Watershed
Assessment (P2#129342).
A report titled Potential Ice Impacts; Removal of Springville Dam, Cattaraugus Creek, NY dated
September 29, 2010 was produced by USACE to determine the effect removing the Springville
Dam would have on the ice regime of upper Cattaraugus Creek (Appendix 4).
The URS Corporation produced a report for USACE dated November 2010 titled Final Report,
Periodic Inspection Report, Springville Dam, Cattaraugus Creek, Gowanda, Erie County, NY
which identified deficiencies with current design safety practices.
Bergman Associates prepared a report on August 17, 2012 for the Erie County Department of
Public Works, Dam Safety Program that examined the structural integrity of the dam and
identified potential remedial measures for bringing the dam into compliance with NYSDEC Dam
Safety requirements.
The New York Natural Heritage Program, a partnership between the Nature Conservancy and the
NYSDEC wrote a report titled “Lake Erie Gorges Biodiversity Inventory & Landscape Integrity
Analysis” in 2002. The report surveys and documents significant natural communities and rare
species in several forested gorges surrounding rivers flowing into Lake Erie, including
Cattaraugus Creek.
1.5
Existing Projects
Due to the highly erosive nature of much of Cattaraugus Creek many bank protection projects
have been undertaken both privately and by USACE. Some of these projects are emergency bank
stabilization projects completed by USACE. Other projects completed in the watershed relating
to Cattaraugus Creek include mitigation and habitat restoration projects implemented by local
and state interest. No existing Federal projects are present in the vicinity of the dam.
One project adjacent to the Springville Dam project site is the Route 219 bridges that were
constructed in 2010. These twin steel arch bridges are located approximately 0.70 miles
upstream of Springville Dam and span Cattaraugus Creek.
CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1
Study Area Description
Cattaraugus Creek has a total of 1,435 miles of stream with a total watershed drainage area of
approximately 550 square miles or 360,000 acres (Figure 1-3). This watershed is located in Erie,
Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Wyoming, and Allegheny Counties, encompassing all or part of thirtyUS Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
7
two towns and villages (Figure 2-1). The rest is primarily agricultural land with scattered
residences and small villages. It is New York State's largest tributary to Lake Erie, and about 60
percent of the watershed is comprised of forest, wetlands, and open water. Springville Dam is
located approximately 34 miles upstream of the Lake Erie confluence.
The main stem of Cattaraugus Creek extends approximately 70 miles from its origin at Java Lake
to the Lake Erie confluence, and forms the boundary for the southern border of Erie County and
the northern borders of Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Counties. Cattaraugus Creek is a large
perennial riverine system that continuously flows through a broad valley surrounded by steep
slopes. Principle tributaries to Cattaraugus Creek below Springville Dam include the South
Branch of Cattaraugus Creek, Connoisarauley Creek, Clear Creek, Spooner Brook, Derby Brook,
Coon Brook, Thatcher Brook, Big Indian Creek, and Little Indian Creek. Principle tributaries to
Cattaraugus Creek above the dam include Hosmer Brook, Mckinstry Creek, Lime Lake Outlet,
Elton Creek, Clear Creek, Stony Creek and Spring Brook. Wetlands and forested floodplains
bordering the streams are seasonally flooded.
Cattaraugus Creek is identified as a navigable waterway by USACE under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act from the Lake Erie confluence to the CSX Railroad Bridge about ¾ mile
upstream. The Corps has identified Cattaraugus Creek as a traditionally navigable waterway that
is navigable-in-fact and regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from west of the
village of Springville to its confluence with Lake Erie. The creek is deep enough along this
section to support rafting and other small craft such as canoes throughout much of the year.
Buffalo District
8
Figure 2-1: Villages and Towns in Cattaraugus Watershed
2.2
Climate
Situated in Western New York, the climate classification for the Cattaraugus watershed is humid
continental with annual precipitation rates typically ranging between 40 and 50 inches per year.
The climate of this area includes winters which are generally cloudy, cold, and abundant in
snowfall. The lake snow effect coming from Lake Erie can start as early as mid-November and
typically average over 100 inches per year. The winter average temperature is about 24 degrees
Fahrenheit with a daily average minimum of 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The average date of the last
frost is anywhere from the middle of March to the end of April. Spring comes slowly to the area
with the ice pack on Lake Erie not disappearing until April. Summers in the area tend to be
pleasant, with plentiful sunshine, and warm temperatures that average 64 degrees Fahrenheit.
The fall season is pleasant, but brief with the first frost expected in late September to midOctober.
In the Great Lakes region of New York, temperatures are projected to increase 7-14 degrees Fahrenheit
by the end of the 21st century and extreme heat events will become more frequent (Kling, 2003).
Precipitation is projected to increase in the winter and decrease in the summer, potentially increasing
occurrence of summer droughts. Extreme weather events will also increase while the extent of Great
Lakes ice cover may decrease, impacting winter lake effect precipitation. Climate change is predicted to
Buffalo District
9
lead to decreased winter ice cover resulting in increased evaporation and lower lake levels. Lofgren et al.
(2002) suggests that lake level could decrease as much as 0.53 m by 2050 under dry scenarios. More
recent research has indicated that estimates such as this may have overestimated lake level decreases
(Lofgren, 2011). It is anticipated that climate change will result in increased storm frequency and rainfall
intensity.
2.3
Topography and Land Cover
The Cattaraugus Creek watershed is characterized topographically by its steep valleys along the
creek and rolling landscape. The elevation throughout the watershed ranges from approximately
2,297 feet to approximately 574 feet at the Cattaraugus Creek outlet. The highest elevations are
located in the south of the watershed.
The Cattaraugus Creek watershed land cover is mainly dominated by natural cover with
approximately 54 percent of the watershed having natural cover characteristics primarily
consisting of deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest cover. Over 35 percent is either pasture or
cultivated cropland with scattered rural residential sites and small villages. Developed areas
account for approximately 5 percent of the watershed. Figure 2-2 illustrates the percentage
breakdown of land cover in the watershed (based on 2006 land cover data).
Figure 2-2: Cattaraugus Creek Watershed Land Cover Percentages
2.4
Geology and Soils
The stratigraphy in southern Erie County consists of relatively undeformed flat-lying
sedimentary rocks of Upper Devonian Age (375-345 million years ago). The bedrock formations
are interbedded shales and limestones of the Canadaway Group, Gowanda Shale Member. The
bedrock is an interbedded gray to black silty shale, and thin to thick bedded light gray siltstone
forming a homocline which dips southward to southwestward approximately 40 feet per mile.
Small terraces and low folds locally modify this dip to be essentially flat-lying over short
distances. Only minor folding and faulting are found in the region with no major or active faults
Buffalo District
10
known to exist in the area. The village of Springville and the Springville Dam are in the region
classified as Zone 1 seismicity, where ground acceleration is rated as 0.075g.
Glaciation of the area was extensive. During the glacial period (Pleistocene Epoch) spanning
about 1.5 million years, the area was over-ridden many times by a thick continental ice sheet
moving southward over the region, from Quebec and Ontario, eroding the rock by streams
flowing from the former ice sheets. Coarse alluvium is deposited in coalescent aprons near the
ice sheet, and/or as valley trains, where streams drain freely from the glacier margin. In recent
times, theses glacial deposits are infiltrating the valleys with alluvial material eroded from the
uplands.
Bedrock at the site consists of a mixture of siltstones and silty shales. The rock is medium hard,
thinly to very thinly bedded, fine grained, medium gray to gray-green, highly fissile
shale/siltstone mixture with abundant zones of argillaceous rock. At the powerhouse, there is a
horizontal seam approximately three feet above the water surface. The seam is open and
moderately weathered with rust precipitation staining the rock. Minor weeps exit the seam in
isolated areas.
According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Surveys, the majority of the
Cattaraugus Creek watershed lies within the former glaciated Allegheny Plateau with a portion
of the watershed located in the Erie-Ontario Plain Province. The characterization of the glaciated
Allegheny Plateau consists of steep valley walls, wide ridge tops, and flat-topped hills between
drainage ways. The Erie-Ontario characterization is devoid of significant relief and typifies the
topography of a remnant lakebed with a series of narrow ravines cut across by a number of
streams. The entire area is underlain by sedimentary bedrock covered with unconsolidated
deposits, with the majority of the watershed underlain by shale with some small sandstone
deposits located in the northwest portion.
In the Allegheny Plateau, rock and soil debris consist of glacial till, lacustrine deposits, and sand
and gravel deposits. After the glacial ice retreated about 10,000 years ago erosion and
sedimentation have been taking place continually throughout the watershed. Soil erosion presents
a threat throughout the watershed especially along streambanks. The erosion hazard is related to
slope, erodibility of the soils, amount and intensity of rainfall, and the type of plant cover. The
USDA identified major soil resource concerns in the Cattaraugus Creek watershed are sheet and
rill erosion, water erosion, soil wetness, soil moisture management, sedimentation caused by
storm water runoff, sedimentation from nonpoint sources such as agriculture and urban runoff,
maintenance of organic matter content, and soil productivity.
2.5
Hydrology, Hydraulics & Fluvial Geomorphology
Although over half the watershed is occupied by natural land cover, the large portion of
agricultural land within watershed (~35%) has altered the flow dynamics of Cattaraugus Creek.
This, coupled with the high erodibility of soils in the watershed, contributes to a high degree of
erosion and sedimentation that can cause problems in the developed parts of the watershed.
Buffalo District
11
While likely intensified by agricultural land, Cattaraugus Creek naturally carries a high sediment
load and has a channel that frequently and naturally reorients itself.
The 40 foot high and 338 foot long Springville Dam alters the natural sediment dynamics of
Cattaraugus Creek by blocking and trapping sediment flow at its dam pool. The presence of the
dam has resulted in conversion of the lotic riverine system upstream of the dam into a lentic dam
pool by significantly reducing flow for some distance upstream. This has resulted in the
accumulation of bedload material in the stream channel and the dam pool. As a result, the creek
immediately downstream of the dam is sediment starved, a factor that may contribute to bank
erosion and scour downstream of the dam. Until the mid 1980’s, dam operators opened sluice
gates periodically to allow accumulated sediments to pass downstream. This has not been done
since 1995 and it appears that the dam pool may be reaching capacity, causing sediment to pass
over the dam as it overtops.
During PED, the sediment transport model developed during the feasibility study will be used to
further analyze the selected plan to assess potential downstream impacts resulting from the
release of dam pool sediments.
2.6
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW)
The Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC) at West Valley, NY is located 5.9
miles upstream of the Springville Dam, in the Buttermilk Creek tributary watershed. West Valley
was originally used as a facility for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and was active from 19661972. Full operations ceased in 1975 and left behind legacy radioactive contamination in many
buildings, lagoons, disposal areas, and soil. From 1982 through the present, approximately
600,000 gallons of high level radioactive waste (supernatant) was processed into solid forms for
transportation and disposal. In 2010, a subsurface permeable treatment wall was installed to
mitigate the off-site transport of a large-scale groundwater plume of strontium-90. Current site
activities include solid waste shipments and facility decontamination and decommissioning. The
U.S. Department of Energy conducts annual environmental monitoring at several locations
downstream of the WNYNSC and upstream of the Springville Dam to ensure that the WNYNSC
is not having an adverse impact on the environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) at the Springville Dam (Appendix 4), which included analysis of sediments accumulated
in the dam pool. Surface water sampling, sediment sampling, and biological sampling have all
shown no evidence of contamination at levels that would prohibit construction of any
alternatives at this site, including fish ladders, rock ramps, and dam modifications (e.g., crest
lowering). The results from the screening level risk evaluation indicate that there is not a
potential for adverse health effects to aquatic life or construction workers exposed to sediments
around the dam. Available data, interviews with various Springville Dam employees and
officials, coupled with a thorough background search has revealed no evidence of recognized
environmental contamination in connection with this property. Based on the available evidence,
a Phase II ESA for Springville Dam is not required.
It should be noted that, during the USACE Phase I environmental site assessment sampling
event, site conditions did not allow sample collection below 18 inches of sediment surface in the
dam pool due to refusal. The sediment below 18 inches could not be sampled and therefore
Buffalo District
12
creates a data gap regarding the potential for contamination in dam pool sediments below the top
18 inches. However, the deeper sediments are coarse grained and not conducive to contaminant
absorption. In addition, the sediments upstream of the dam are also more recently deposited as a
result of the yearly opening of the dam sluices that occurred until the mid 1980’s (and once in
1996), allowing accumulated sediments to pass downstream. As the dam is in a rural
(unindustrialized) watershed, the risk of hazardous contamination below 18 inches is considered
to be negligible and does not warrant further investigation.
As part of PED, the Phase I document will be reviewed and updated if necessary to ensure
compliance with the USEPA Final Rule on CERCLA All Appropriate Inquiry. USACE will also
comply with any NYDEC requirements for a sediment sampling plan necessary for obtaining a
401 water quality certification.
2.7
Structural Assessment of Springville Dam
Springville Dam was originally designed for hydropower generation for the Village of
Springville. The dam's overall dimensions are approximately 338 feet long and 40 feet high. The
dam consists of earth embankments with concrete core walls and a concrete ogee spillway
section. There is an intake flume, forebay, power house, and tail race located at the east end of
the spillway near the center of the dam. The dam is currently owned and operated by Erie
County. Springville Dam is designated a class “C” High Hazard dam by NYSDEC because its
failure would pose hazards to human life, property, environment, and/or critical lifelines.
In November 2010, URS Corporation was retained by USACE to inspect the dam as part of the
feasibility study. Their work resulted in a report: Periodic Inspection Report for the Springville
Dam (Appendix 7). The report identified deficiencies with current design safety practices
Specifically, the report assessed the general condition of the dam, based on available data and
visual inspections. On April 21, 2010 a site inspection of the Springville Dam found the east and
west embankments to be in fair to good condition, and the concrete structures to be in fair
condition. A preliminary structural stability analysis analyzed four loading conditions: 1) usual,
2) unusual, 3) extreme (Probable Maximum Flood), and 4) extreme (Maximum Credible
Earthquake). The analysis revealed the maximum stresses in the concrete spillway to be less than
the allowable strength of the concrete for all assumed loading conditions. The analysis also
found that the dam would have the recommended factor of safety for the usual, unusual, and
maximum credible earthquake events, but that it would not have the recommended safety factor
for the probable maximum flood event (PMF). Stability analyses also indicated that the dam does
not satisfy stability criteria for the 50 percent PMF which is the required Spillway Design Flood
(SDF) by the NYSDEC.
In addition, the spillway does not have sufficient capacity to safely pass the peak of the 50
percent PMF storm event, required by the NYSDEC without overtopping the dam, and is
therefore inadequate. The current spillway capacity is only 15 percent of the PMF. Furthermore,
the three low-level outlet sluice gates located in the spillway are currently inoperable and the
reservoir water surface cannot be lowered in case of an emergency.
Buffalo District
13
URS reported that the overall condition of the dam is considered to be fair to good; therefore no
emergency repairs were needed at the time of the April 2010 site inspection. A 2012 engineering
assessment report (Appendix 7), completed by Erie County consultant, Bergman Associates,
also concluded that the dam has been well maintained and failure is not imminent. The report
recommended that deteriorated concrete be removed and repaired on the upstream face of the
east embankment, vegetation should be removed on the embankments, and areas should be
reseeded to protect against erosion. The report noted a deficiency of highest concern: that the
spillway hydraulic capacity does not meet the current NYSDEC design safety requirements or
satisfy stability requirements for the 50 percent PMF or probable maximal flood. Based on
hydraulic analysis by Bergman Associates, a request was made to the NYSDEC Dam Safety
Section (DSS) which resulted in the reduction of the SDF requirement from a 50 percent PMF to
a 30 percent PMF. Preliminary hydraulic analyses by USACE Hydrology and Hydraulics
Engineering Team and Bergman Associates indicated that a reduction of the spillway crest by 8
feet would meet the minimum NYSDEC spillway capacity requirements for the SDF. The
engineering assessment by Bergman Associates found that the dam, when lowered 8 feet, would
require post-tensioned rock anchors installed near its upstream face in order to meet NYS dam
safety stability requirements. The engineering assessment also recommended concrete repairs to
the end of the dam apron and the permanent filling of the three existing conduits with concrete.
The Corps will continue to coordinate closely with NYSDEC, DSS and Erie County to ensure
that any alternative for fish passage and maintenance of a lamprey barrier at the current dam
location will maintain compliance with all current stability and safety requirements.
2.8
Water Quality
Water quality in the Cattaraugus Creek is mainly affected by non-point sources of pollution.
Agricultural activities are the main source of non-point source pollution in the form of excess
nutrients and sediments. However, streambank erosion is also a large contributor to the elevated
sediment loads carried by Cattaraugus Creek especially after flash floods. Failing septic systems
are also sources of poor water quality in certain places such as Java Lake. Although the overall
watershed has a high integrity in comparison to other watersheds in western New York, these
non-point sources result in minor impacts to water quality in the mainstem of the creek.
The NYSDEC provides periodic assessments of the quality of water resources throughout the
state in order to fulfill requirements of the Clean Water Act. According to the Niagara
River/Lake Erie Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List, the majority of
waters in the Cattaraugus Creek watershed have no known impacts (NYSDEC, 2010). Java Lake
is the only waterbody within the Cattaraugus watershed classified as impaired, indicating water
quality problems have been well documented. Five waterbody segments are classified as having
minor impacts. These include the lower main stem of Cattaraugus Creek, a portion of the middle
main stem of Cattaraugus Creek, Clear Lake, Rainbow and Timber Lakes, and Spring Brook and
its associated tributaries. Biological assessments of Cattaraugus Creek conducted in 2000
indicated conditions to be slightly impaired upstream of the project site near the village of
Springville. Although water quality in this segment ranged from good to very good, nutrient
enrichment and siltation were present. Despite these conditions, aquatic life is considered to be
fully supported in the stream.
Buffalo District
14
The majority of the waters within the Cattaraugus Creek watershed are designated by NYSDEC
as class “C”, suitable for fish and other wildlife propagation and survival, and primary and
secondary contact recreation. With the exception of one tributary, all other waters are of higher
quality, classified as “A” or “B” and are suitable for drinking water (Class A) or recreation and
fishing (Class A and B). Cattaraugus Creek in the vicinity of Springville Dam is designated as
class “B”. The exception is a minor tributary to Derby Brook that is designates as class “D”
which due to such natural conditions as intermittency of flow.
Cattaraugus Creek and its tributaries contain popular fishing areas and are regularly stocked with
sport fish species. There are numerous waters within the watershed that are classified as “T”
(trout) or “TS” (Trout Stocking). A detailed description of the classification system can be found
in the NYSDEC Water Quality Regulations – Parts 700-705.
2.9
Groundwater
The Cattaraugus Creek Aquifer is about 35 miles in length and underlies approximately 325
square miles of the watershed. The width of the designated area is approximately 25 miles at its
eastern edge and thins to two miles at its western edge. In 1987, USEPA designated the Aquifer
as a “sole source aquifer” meaning that it is an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking
water source for the area and, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health.
Due to this designation, Federal agencies are prohibited from committing funds toward projects
which may contaminate these ground water supplies. The Cattaraugus Creek aquifer is
vulnerable to threats such as contamination from transportation routes and facilities, landfills, onsite septic systems, stormwater runoff, commercial and industrial facilities, and future
development.
As part of the requirements under the Clean Water Act, New York State has designated certain
aquifers as Primary Aquifers and Principal Aquifers. The groundwater underlying the
Cattaraugus watershed is entirely categorized as a Principal Aquifer. These aquifers are generally
capable of providing 10 to 100 or more gallons per minute. Principal Aquifers are either known
to be highly productive or their geology suggests abundant potential water supply, but they are
not intensively used as sources of water supply by major municipal systems. New York State
designations of Primary or Principal Aquifers are not directly related to USEPA designation for
Sole Source Aquifer.
2.10 Floodplains and Flooding Issues
Portions of Cattaraugus Creek are prone to flooding. Flooding can occur within the Cattaraugus
watershed during any time during the year. However, most flood events occur in late winter and
early spring when melting snow combines with intense rainfall to produce increased runoff. Ice
jams and debris buildups have often increased flood heights by impeding water flow at bridges
and culverts. A preliminary updated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) digital
Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) for the vicinity of Springville Dam is provided in Figure
2-3 and Figure 2-4. The maps illustrate the approximate floodplain for Cattaraugus Creek. The
floodplain is marked as a Zone A as now detailed studies have been performed.
Buffalo District
15
Figure 2-3: Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map for Cattaraugus Creek, Erie County.
Recent large flood events occurred in March of 2003 and August of 2009. The March 2003 flood
event primarily was a result of ice jams and led to flooding at the confluence with Lake Erie. The
August 2009 flash flood resulted in damages greater than 90 million dollars to areas of Gowanda
and Silver Creek. A Federal Disaster Declaration was issued as a result of the 2009 flood. The
village and town of Arcade have also experienced several flooding events in the past, resulting in
damage to residential, commercial, and public property.
Potential impacts related to the ice regime of Cattaraugus Creek due to potential removal of
Springville Dam was studied by the U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center's
(ERDC) Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). A 2010 report, Potential
Ice Impacts; Removal of Springville Dam, Cattaraugus Creek, NY (Appendix 7) found no major
ice events or records of floods or hazards due to ice from upstream of the Springville Dam to
Zoar Valley (an area 15 miles downstream of the dam), suggesting that ice conditions do not
pose a significant problem for land-owners or recreational users. No historical information was
Buffalo District
16
found regarding ice conditions at the site prior to construction of the dam.
Figure 2-4: Flood Insurance Rate Map for Cattaraugus Creek, Cattaraugus County.
2.11
Wetlands
The USFWS Nationwide Wetland Inventory does not currently have any data for the project
location. The NYSDEC wetland program does not show any wetlands delineated within the
project area. A review of the Erie County and Cattaraugus County Soil Surveys does not indicate
any wetlands nor does it delineate any soils that are hydric or may develop hydric inclusions.
Thus, although hydrophytic vegetation is found in areas along the creek, it is highly unlikely that
any wetlands are found within the project area due to the lack of hydric soils or soils that may
develop hydric inclusions.
2.12
Seneca Nation Cattaraugus Reservation
The Cattaraugus Territory of the Seneca Nation of Indians is located along the lower 16 miles of
Cattaraugus Creek, beginning just downstream from the Village of Gowanda to the Lake Erie
confluence (Figure 2-5). The 21,618 acre territory is bounded by Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, and
Erie Counties.
Buffalo District
17
Figure 2-5: Seneca Nation of Indians Cattaraugus Territory
Within the territory, the creek is very dynamic and migrates across the broad valley floor as
unconsolidated glacial sediments are eroded and deposited. Old stream meanders are frequently
cutoff from the main channel, thereby creating new riparian habitat. These diverse habitats
include small, shallow, permanent or intermittent water bodies containing vegetated wetlands
and diverse forested habitats. The Seneca Nation utilizes the Cattaraugus Creek fishery as
primary sustenance in the traditional diet of its members as well as a source of revenue via
fishing permits and fishing access points.
2.13 Cultural Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, requires USACE to
take into account the effect of its undertakings on properties that are listed in or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In February 2012, a Phase I Cultural
Resources Investigation Report was completed for the Springville Dam Project (Appendix 4).
This investigation included a reconnaissance survey (e.g., visual assessment, site walkover, and
photo documentation); background research; archaeological site file searches at the New York
Buffalo District
18
State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation’s (NYSOPRHP) Field Services
Bureau, and systematic subsurface test excavations in the vicinity of Springville Dam.
Archaeological site file searches confirmed that the dam, powerhouse, and surrounding 90 acres
were listed on the NRHP on September 20, 1996 (Scoby Power Plant and Dam, NRHP No.
96NR00942). Construction of the current dam began in 1921, replacing earlier structures built in
1896 and 1899, elements of which still exist. The complex is a rare and intact example of a small
hydroelectric generating facility in western New York. The rarity is due to the large fluctuations
in flow and seasonal freeze and thaw of area waterways. The power plant building is utilitarian
in design and retains all of its historic machinery, including two General Electric 250 kilowatt
AC generators and regulator/distribution equipment. The dam is an ogee concrete gravity dam
with 24 foot head with three concrete drainage gates used to release water from the reservoir.
Historically, the complex played an important role in bringing electricity to the Village of
Springville, thereby stimulating local growth and development.
As part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Report, four shovel tests were excavated
approximately 20 inches in diameter along a single transect in areas exhibiting the least amount
of disturbance at intervals of no greater than 50 feet. No cultural material was recovered. Based
on the results of this survey, no significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are
anticipated within the project area.
2.14 Social Properties
The project area is located in the town of Concord on the border of Erie and Cattaraugus
Counties. Concord has a population of approximately 8,494 persons (2010) with a median
household income of $47,539 and a median house value of $134,900.
2.15 Preserves, Protected Areas, and Parks
Segments of Cattaraugus Creek from the New York State Thruway bridge to the town of
Yorkshire are listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), a register of river segments
maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic,
or recreational river area under Section 5(d) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16
U.S.C. 1271-1287). A segment of the South Branch of Cattaraugus Creek from the confluence
with Cattaraugus Creek to Skinner Hollow Road Bridge is also listed on the NRI. These
segments are depicted in Figure 2-6. These designations primarily arise from outstandingly
remarkable recreation, geology, fishery, scenery, unique habitat values and endangered species
contained within these river segments. Due to this designation, consultation with National Park
Service will be conducted to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects on these sections of
Cattaraugus Creek.
Buffalo District
19
Figure 2-6: Cattaraugus Creek Nationwide Rivers Inventory
Cattaraugus Creek flows through numerous preserves and protected areas between Gowanda and
Springville in an area locally referred to as Zoar Valley (Figure 2-7). Zoar Valley is a series of
valleys and deep gorge canyons carved out by Cattaraugus Creek and the South Branch of
Cattaraugus Creek. This area has high biodiversity and supports several rare and threatened
native species. It also contains impressive stands of old-growth forest. Zoar Valley is a popular
spot among outdoor recreationalists and is known aesthetically for the scenery created by its
deep gorge, sheer 400 foot cliffs with flowing waterfalls, and dense surrounding forest. The
NYSDEC owns nearly 3,000 acres bordering Cattaraugus Creek and the South Branch of
Cattaraugus Creek, referred to as the “Zoar Valley Multiple Use Area”. The NYSDEC manages
this land with a balanced approach for public recreational use, preservation, and restoration of
the natural resources of the area. Approximately half of the Multiple Use Area has been
designated as the “Zoar Valley Unique Area” which has been afforded legal long-term protection
of the irreplaceable natural and scenic resources of the area.
Buffalo District
20
Figure 2-7: Cattaraugus Creek Recreation Areas
Two other notable, but smaller parks along Cattaraugus Creek are Scoby Hill Dam Park in
Springville and Creekside Park in Gowanda. Erie County owns and operates Scoby Hill Dam
Park, a linear strip of land along the north side of Cattaraugus Creek at the Springville Dam
(Figure 2-8). Visitors to the park use the area for fishing, canoe access, hiking, and scenic views
of the creek and dam. A similar linear park along Cattaraugus Creek providing similar
recreational opportunities is Riverside Park (a.k.a. Creekside Park) located approximately 600
feet downstream of the Route 62 Bridge over Cattaraugus Creek in the heart of Gowanda. This
park was revitalized as a historic park area that includes a paved trailway and outdoor gazebo.
The park allows public access to the creek for fishing, scenic views, and the launching of nonmotorized boats. Creekside Park is owned and maintained by the village of Gowanda.
Buffalo District
21
Figure 2-8: Cattaraugus Creek Springville (Scoby) Dam Park
2.16 Fisheries
Cattaraugus Creek is one of New York’s largest and most important tributaries to Lake Erie.
Many of the creek’s tributaries are from coldwater sources, helping to provide excellent fish
spawning habitat. Native fish that are commonly found in the Cattaraugus Creek watershed
include various daces, shiners, minnows, brook trout, northern pike, sunfish smallmouth bass,
largemouth bass, yellow perch, and walleye. Steelhead trout were introduced to Cattaraugus
Creek and now successfully spawn in tributaries along with naturalized populations of brown
and rainbow trout.
A study conducted in 2006 by the NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries titled Fish Passage at
Springville Dam: A Review of Fisheries Issues discusses the fish community above and below
the Springville Dam and the potential benefits of fish passage at the Dam. The study also
included a list of fish species found in Cattaraugus Creek from the mouth to Springville Dam
(hereafter referred to as lower Cattaraugus Creek). This species list was updated based on more
recent collection information provided by the NYSDEC (Table 1). Due to heavy siltation and
high summer water temperatures, little successful spawning occurs in the mainstem.
Approximately 27 miles of tributary below Springville Dam provide spawning and nursery
Buffalo District
22
habitat for native and high value naturalized fish species. Tributaries where spawning and
nursery habitat have been documented include Clear Creek and its north branch, a short section
of the South Branch of Cattaraugus Creek, Derby Brook, Coon Brook, and Spooner Creek.
The 2006 NYSDEC study also documents stream conditions from Springville Dam upstream
(hereafter referred to as upper Cattaraugus Creek). Much of this area provides ideal fish habitat
conditions, specifically from the mouth of Elton Creek upstream to Java Lake. Included in that
study is a list of fish species found in the upper Cattaraugus Creek system. This species list was
also updated based on more recent collection information provided by the NYSDEC (Table 2).
In the first fifteen miles above Springville Dam the predominant fish species are white sucker,
northern hog sucker, river chub, common shiner, creek chub, longnose dace, blacknose dace,
central stoneroller, and stonecat. This study also reported the NYSDEC annually stocks 18.2
miles along the main branch of upper Cattaraugus Creek and 6.2 miles of Elton Creek with
yearling and two year old brown trout. Additionally, approximately 17 miles of the main stream
and an additional 27 miles of several tributaries support abundant populations of naturalized
brown and rainbow trout populations. Relict populations of native brook trout occur in 15
headwater stream sections. Figure 2-9 shows locations of wild brook trout, naturalized brown
trout, and rainbow trout in upper Cattaraugus Creek. At least 30 additional miles of smaller
tributaries provide spawning and nursery habitat for native fish populations.
Buffalo District
23
Table 1: Fish Species Found Downstream of Springville Dam
Common Name
Scientific Name
Sea lamprey
Lake Sturgeon (?)
Longnose gar
Gizzard shad
Rainbow trout*
Brown trout
Pink salmon
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Northern pike
Common carp
Goldfish
Golden shiner
River chub
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
Creek chub
Redside dace
Emerald shiner
Spottail shiner
Rosyface shiner
Spotfin shiner
Sand shiner
Common shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Central stoneroller
Silver redhorse
Black redhorse
Golden redhorse
White sucker
Northern hogsucker
Channel catfish
Brown bullhead
Stonecat
White perch
Black crappie
Rock bass
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Walleye
Yellow perch
Logperch
Rainbow darter
Fantail darter
Johnny darter
Round Goby
Mottled sculpin
Petromyzon marinus
Acipenser fulvescens
Lepisosteus osseus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Oncorhynchus myk iss
Salmo trutta
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus k isutch
Esox lucius
Cyprinus carpio
Carassius auratus
Notemigonus crysoleucus
Nocomis micropogon
Rhinichthys atratulus
Rhinichthys cataractae
Semotilus atromaculatus
Clinostomus elongatus
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis rubellus
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis stramineus
Luxilus cornutus
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Campostoma anomalum
Moxostoma anisurm
Moxostoma duquesni
Moxostoma erythrurum
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Ictalurus punctatus
Ameiurus nebulosus
Noturus flavus
Morone americana
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Ambloplites rupestris
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis machrochirus
Sander vitreus
Perca flavescens
Percina caprodes
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Neogobius melanostomus
Cottus bairdii
Species Richness
Native to watershed
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
50
*Includes steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Buffalo District
24
Table 2: Fish Species Found Upstream of Springville Dam
Common Name
Scientific Name
American brook lamprey
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Brook trout
Goldfish**
Golden shiner
River chub
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
Creek chub
Redside dace
Rosyface shiner
Sand shiner
Common shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Central stoneroller
Silver redhorse
Golden redhorse
White sucker
Northern hogsucker
Brown bullhead**
Stonecat
Largemouth bass**
Green sunfish
Bluegill**
Yellow perch**
Rainbow darter
Fantail darter
Johnny darter
Mottled sculpin
Lampetra appendix
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Carassius auratus
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis rubellus
Notropis stramineus
Luxilus cornutus
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Campostoma anomalum
Moxostoma anisurm
Ameiurus nebulosus
Noturus flavus
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis machrochirus
Perca flavescens
Etheostoma nigrum
Cottus bairdii
Species Richness
Native to watershed
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
31
*Does not include steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
**These fish species are not normal resident of the stream and likely move downstream from Java Lake
or local ponds.
Buffalo District
25
Figure 2-9: Upper Cattaraugus Creek Naturally Reproducing Trout Populations
2.17 Recreation
According to the report Fish Passage at Springville Dam: A Review of Fisheries Issues,
Cattaraugus Creek and its tributaries below Springville Dam are popular sportfisheries. It is
approximately 34 stream miles from the Springville Dam to Lake Erie and there are about 70
stream miles upstream of the dam (approximately 35 of the 70 miles are in tributaries). Steelhead
trout support the most popular tributary sport fishery and are recognized as a major attraction for
the region’s recreation and tourism industry. In addition to extensive stocking in the watershed,
significant natural reproduction of sportfish occurs. Steelhead trout from Lake Erie enter the
creek from August through May providing angling opportunities downstream of the dam. The
peak of the fishery occurs in October and November. NYSDEC public access for angling on the
lower 34 miles of Cattaraugus Creek is limited because the Seneca Nation has rights to
approximately 15 miles of stream in this area where fishing by non-Native Americans requires a
$30 Seneca Nation fishing license. Approximately four miles of formal public fishing rights
easements exist along lower Cattaraugus Creek (Figure 2-10). In addition, eight miles of public
fishing access exist on state lands along the main stem and the south branch (Zoar Valley
Multiple Use Area). According to a recent Lake Erie tributary creel survey conducted with 2004US Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
26
2005 data (Markham, 2006), Cattaraugus Creek received the most angling effort for salmonids of
any Lake Erie tributary in New York. Catch rates of salmonids were also very high at 0.41
fish/hour in 2003-04 and 0.56 fish/hour in 2004-05. Total estimated total catch ranged from
30,303 to 55,112 trout and salmon.
Figure 2-10: Lower Cattaraugus Creek Public Fishing Access
The NYSDEC also maintains 34 miles of public fishing rights easements along upper
Cattaraugus Creek (Figure 2-11). Ideal trout angling conditions are found from the mouth of
Elton Creek upstream to Java Lake where NYSDEC annually stocks yearling and two year old
brown trout. The main stream and tributaries support abundant, fishable populations of wild,
resident brown and rainbow trout as well as relict populations of native brook trout. Spring
angling for naturalized rainbow and stocked brown trout is popular upstream of the dam.
Buffalo District
27
Figure 2-11: Upper Cattaraugus Creek Public Fishing Access
In addition to fishing, the Zoar Valley area upstream of Gowanda is also a popular destination
for other types of outdoor activities. The gorges of Zoar Valley are thought to be outstanding
with impressive natural features. Cattaraugus Creek is used extensively for white water rafting,
canoeing, kayaking, bird watching, and photography. Several whitewater rafting outfitters offer
guided trips through Zoar Valley. Zoar Valley offers Class II/III rapids during spring and fall
months when water levels are high enough to permit rafts to float down the creek. There are
trails throughout the Zoar Valley on both public and private lands that are available for hiking,
cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing.
2.18 Wildlife
The riparian corridor along Cattaraugus Creek contains a diversity of wildlife habitat which
includes open fields, forests, shale slopes, wetlands, cropland, and pastureland. Wildlife within
the project area is typical of what is found in these habitats and include whitetail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), woodchuck
Buffalo District
28
(Marmota monax), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) , North American beaver (Castor
canadensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Eastern grey
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and red squirrel (Scirius vulgaris), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), American mink (Neovision vison), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), and black bear (Ursus americanus). A wide diversity of amphibians,
reptiles, songbirds are also prevalent in the area along with waterfowl, gulls, terns, shorebirds,
raptors. Game birds common in the area include wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), ruffed
grouse (Bonassa umbellus), woodcock (Scolopax minor), and pheasant (Phasianus colchicus).
There have been an increasing number of bald eagle sightings, indicating that there may be
active nests along the gorges found in the watershed. Information on the type and location of
aquatic species found within in the watershed has already been discussed in Section 2.13.
2.19 Vegetation
Cattaraugus Creek flows through a gorge characterized by steep valley walls. Patches of
infrequently flooded riparian communities include riverside sand/gravel bar, cobble shore, and
calcareous shoreline outcrop. The gorge consists of small terraces of mature rich mesophytic
forest, maple-basswood rich mesic forest, and steep slopes with mature/old growth hemlocknorthern hardwood forest.
Vegetation in the vicinity of the project area is characterized as a narrow band of riparian
vegetation that rapidly transitions to upland mixed forest as distance from the creek increases and
elevation increases with movement up the steep gorge slopes. The riparian vegetation consists of
young to mature eastern cottonwood (Populous deltoides), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and willow (Salix sp.) that create a patchy overstory that overhang the margins of
the creek in some areas. Other species present in riparian and transition zones including white
oak (Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), and hickory (Carya spp.). The understory of the
riparian zone is composed primarily of weedy forbs, grasses, shrubs and some vines. Understory
vegetation includes Cornus spp, Solidaga spp., Vitis spp,. Some stands of Phragmites sp. are
present on sediment bars that have formed along the margins of the dam pool. Young and mature
Quaking aspen (Populous tremuloides) are present on gravel bars that have formed on the
downstream side of the dam. Stands of white pine (Pinus alba) are also found growing along
portions of Cattaraugus Creek in the Springville Dam Park.
2.20 Invasive Species
Aquatic nuisance species (sometimes called exotic, invasive, non-indigenous or non-native) are
organisms that invade ecosystems beyond their natural, historic range. Their presence may harm
native ecosystems or commercial, agricultural, or recreational activities dependent on these
ecosystems. Often times, invasive species can thrive unchecked in native habitats due to a lack of
natural predators normally found in their native ecosystems. Non-indigenous species are ranked
second only to habitat loss in the causes that threaten native biodiversity.
Buffalo District
29
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains information on non-indigenous aquatic species
by watershed in a database called the “Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Program.” Through this
program USGS originally identified 21 non-native plant species that are found within the
Cattaraugus Creek watershed (Table 3). Attempts were made to update this list however USGS
no longer maintains a database for non-indigenous aquatic plants due to budgetary cuts.
Table 3: Non-native Plant Species Found in Cattaraugus Creek
Common Name
Scientific Name
Smooth field sow thistle
Field sow thistle
True forget-me-not
Water-cress
Creeping yellow cress
Birdsfoot trefoil
Eurasian water-milfoil
Watermint
Spearmint
Purple loosestrife
Great hairy willow herb
Redtop
Black bent
Water bentgrass
Barnyard grass
Rough-stalked meadow grass
Lady's thumb
Smartweed
Spotted knotweed
Bitter dock
Curly pondweed
Moneywort
Creeping Jenny
Crack willow
Purple willow
Bittersweet nightshade
Native Habitat
Origin
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater - Brackish
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Agrostis gigantea
Freshwater
Exotic
Echinochloa crusgalli
Poa trivalis
Freshwater
Freshwater
Exotic
Exotic
Polygonum persicaria
Freshwater
Exotic
Rumex obtusifolius
Potamogeton crispus
Freshwater
Freshwater
Exotic
Exotic
Lysimachia nummularia
Freshwater
Exotic
Salix fragilis
Salix purpurea
Solanum dulcamara
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Total
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
21
Sonchus arevensis uliginosus
Sonchus arevensi
Myosotis scorpioides
Nasturtium officinale
Rorippa sylvestris
Lotus corniculatus
Myriphyllum spicatum
Mentha aquatica
Mentha spicata
Lythrum salicaria
Epilobium hirsutum
Most of the non-native plant species in the above table were introduced into the United States
from Europe, Asia, or Africa. Invasive plants, like most of those listed above, out compete native
species and form monocultures by competing aggressively to displace and reduce the diversity of
native aquatic plants. Invasive plants can dominate landscapes due to a loss of natural controls
which may have been in place in their original home ecosystem. Some of the above listed species
have become known as noxious weeds that restrict native plant species growth and reduce habitat
for other animal species including waterfowl.
The USGS currently identifies only two non-indigenous aquatic species within the Cattaraugus
Creek watershed. These are the sea lamprey and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). This list
was expanded and updated through coordination with state and local organizations including
NYSDEC (Table 4).
Buffalo District
30
Table 4: Non-native Animal Species Found in Cattaraugus Creek
Group Common Name Scientific Name
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Mollusk
Mollusk
Sea lamprey
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Pink salmon
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Common carp
Goldfish
White perch
Green sunfish
Round goby
Zebra mussel
Quagga mussel
Petromyzon marinus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Cyprinus carpio
Carassius auratus
Morone americana
Lepomis cyanellus
Neogobius melanostomus
Dreissena polymorpha
Dreissena rostriformis bugensis
Native Habitat
Origin
Freshwater - Marine
Freshwater - Marine
Freshwater - Marine
Freshwater - Marine
Freshwater - Marine
Freshwater - Marine
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater
Freshwater-Brackish
Freshwater
Freshwater
Total
Native Transplant
Native Transplant
Exotic
Native Transplant
Native Transplant
Native Transplant
Exotic
Exotic
Native Transplant
Native Transplant
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
13
The common carp and goldfish have been introduced and are predominantly found in the lower
reaches of the creek near Lake Erie or move down from Java Lake at the headwaters of the creek
or from adjacent ponds. These are not normal residents of the stream near the study area. The
round goby, white perch, zebra mussel and quagga mussel are all found in the lowest reaches of
the creek where it enters Lake Erie. These are not found in the proximity of the study area which
is approximately 34 miles upstream. The green sunfish is listed in the 2006 NYSDEC study as
non-native to the Cattaraugus Creek watershed but it is native to the Great Lakes drainage
(USGS, 2004). This was most likely introduced from pond stockings and escaped and
established in sections of the creek. Several collections occur upstream of the dam but not within
the project area. It is unlikely to expand greatly as a result of the project and if it were to travel
downstream it would be entering its native range. The trout and salmon, although nonindigenous to this watershed, are not considered invasive species. Trout and salmon are
considered to be high value naturalized species. While initial introductions of trout and salmon
may have had an impact on the native fish community of Cattaraugus Creek, the biologic
community has already adjusted. Naturally reproducing populations of many of these species are
already present in the upper watershed. Historically Cattaraugus Creek consisted of both cold
and warm water system with species including lake sturgeon, walleye, brook trout, muskellunge,
smallmouth bass, darters, sculpins, chubs, shiners, and other minnows. Also, these are desirable
species that were or are actively managed for sportfishing opportunities. The sea lamprey on the
other hand is a prevalent aquatic invasive species that has become problematic in the lower
Cattaraugus Creek watershed (Figure 2-12). In its native habitat, sea lamprey generally marine
but ascends freshwater rivers to spawn. Adult sea lamprey use their suction mouth filled with
small sharp, rasping teeth and a file-like tongue to feed off other fish. The sea lamprey attaches
to a fish, punctures its skin, and drains its body fluids. Attack and parasitic feeding on other
fishes by adult lampreys often results in the death of the prey, either directly from the loss of
fluids and tissues or indirectly from secondary infection of the wound. Sea lamprey entered Lake
Buffalo District
31
Erie in the 1920s with the opening of the Welland Canal but was not considered a major fisheries
concern until restoration of native lake trout began in the late 1970s. The introduction of this
species to Lake Erie, combined with water pollution and overfishing, resulted in the decline of
several large native species, including several ciscoes (Coregonus spp.), lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush), and walleye (Sander vitreus), among others. Sea lampreys are also known to attack
white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), redhorse
(Moxostoma spp.), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
burbot (Lota lota), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), northern pike (Esox lucius), and
common carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Scott and Crossman 1973). Sea lampreys also took a toll on the
introduced salmon in the Great Lakes, much to the dismay of anglers and state fish agencies.
Although the number of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes has been reduced, they still kill
substantial numbers of lake trout in some areas and thus are impeding the rebuilding of
established populations (Schneider et al. 1996, and references therein).
Figure 2-12: Sea Lamprey parasitizing salmonid. (Photo Credit USFWS)
Cattaraugus Creek is one of the largest producers of sea lamprey on Lake Erie. The creeks
downstream of Springville Dam are treated via chemical controls on a three-year basis with
lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM), a chemical agent that kills larval lampreys
before they can transform into their parasitic adult form. No treatments occur upstream of the
Springville Dam because the dam stops the migration of lamprey from entering the upper
watershed. The treatments require almost a week to complete due to the creek’s large drainage
area. According to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, expenditures exceed $200,000 per
treatment for the Cattaraugus Creek watershed. Treatment with TFM greatly reduces the sea
lamprey population, thereby reducing the sea lamprey’s impact on native fishes. However, the
continued use of TFM is required to keep sea lamprey populations under control and TFM has
harmful effects on other fish such as walleye, as well as to the larvae of non-parasitic lamprey
species (Becker 1983).
Buffalo District
32
During their parasitic phase, sea lamprey are generally confined to the Lake and are not sexually
mature. They only migrate up tributaries during their spawning phase. During the spawning
phase (April-June), mature adult sea lamprey are not parasitic and thus are not attached to fish,
they are freely swimming up tributaries looking for suitable spawning sites. Shortly after
spawning, adults die (~July). This life cycle illustrates why it is only necessary to restrict the
range of sea lamprey during their spawning phase (Figure 2-13).
Figure 2-13: Sea Lamprey Life Cycle.
2.21 Threatened and Endangered Species
Federally listed threatened and endangered species lists are maintained by the USFWS. Species
that are given Federal threatened or endangered species statuses are protected under the
Endangered Species Act. Coordination under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
was performed through the USFWS New York Field Office website and then on February 7,
2013 with the NEPA scoping period. The website indicated that the northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) a proposed endangered species occur in Erie, Wyoming, Allegany,
Chautauqua, and Cattaraugus Counties. No tree removal is proposed for this project, thus no
impacts are anticipated for this species. The website also listed the rayed bean (Villosa fabalis)
and clubshell (Pleurobema clava) as endangered species known to exist within Chautauqua and
Cattaraugus Counties. The rayed bean generally lives in smaller, headwater creeks, but it is
sometimes found in large rivers and wave-washed areas of glacial lakes. It prefers gravel or sand
substrates, and is often found in and around roots of aquatic vegetation. The clubshell also
prefers clean, loose sand and gravel in medium to small rivers and streams. Known records of
these species are confined to the Chautauqua Lake and Allegany River drainage basins located in
the southern portion of these counties. While suitable habitat exists within the Cattaraugus Creek
watershed for these species, there are no known records of these species existing in the
Buffalo District
33
Cattaraugus Creek watershed. Therefore, it is unlikely that any Federally-listed threatened,
endangered, or candidate species of mussels exist within the Cattaraugus Creek watershed.
Thus, the preferred plan as proposed will have no effect on any Federally-listed, threatened, or
candidate species. The Service concurred with this finding in a letter dated March 7, 2014. No
further consultation is required
A response letter from USFWS, dated February 21, 2013, stated that the bald eagle was removed
from the Federal Endangered Species list on August 8, 2007 and is no longer protected under
Section 7 of the ESA; however they remain on the New York State list as a State-listed
threatened species and are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. They are found within the watershed however, no reports of bald
eagles have been found within the project area and no nests were observed during several site
visits conducted during 2011 and 2012.
New York State listed species are protected under the state Environmental Conservation law and
under state regulations. Animals and plants listed under New York State regulations as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern are given special protection within the state. The
New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) is a partnership between the NYSDEC and The
Nature Conservancy and maintains a database of rare species and significant natural
communities. The information provided is broken down by watershed and many listed species
are known to occur within the Cattaraugus watershed. Unlisted species, while not under the same
level of regulatory protection as listed species, are ranked by the NYNHP as rare in New York
State, and therefore are a vulnerable natural resource of conservation concern. On May 14, 2012
the NYNHP database for the Cattaraugus Creek watershed contained the following species listed
in Table 5. A majority of these species that are listed in the database are plant species.
The Zoar Valley area of the Cattaraugus Creek watershed is an area of known high biodiversity
within the watershed and a potential habitat for many threatened and endangered species.
Specifically, the New York Natural Heritage Program conducted surveys while undertaking its
“Lake Erie Gorges Integrity Analysis” and identified numerous endangered and threatened plant
species within the gorges of Zoar Valley. Fourteen occurrences of rare plant species were
identified within the Cattaraugus Creek watershed, with most of the occurrences immediately
adjacent to the Cattaraugus Creek or in the forested communities along the creek. The unique
habitat conditions and remoteness of the gorges in the watershed provide habitat and natural
protection for these species. A number of rare animal species were also documented in the same
survey effort from 2002. Ten rare animal species were documented throughout the Cattaraugus
Creek watershed with three species being identified in the Zoar Valley portion of the watershed.
At least five rare fish species were also identified throughout the watershed.
Buffalo District
34
Table 5: State Listed Species Found within the Cattaraugus Creek Watershed
Group Common Name
Scie ntific Name
State Status
Insect
Insect
Insect
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Appalachian tiger beetle
Cobblestone tiger beetle
Gray petaltail
Bald Eagle
Henslow's sparrow
Northern harrier
Upland sandpiper
Black redhorse
Blackchin shiner
Channel darter
Eastern sand darter
Freshwater drum
Mooneye
Basil-balm
Bear's-foot
Blunt-lobe grape fern
Creeping sedge
Downy lettuce
Elk sedge
Fairy wand
Fernald's sedge
Giant pine-drops
Golden-seal
Hooker's orchid
Lake-cress
Lowland fragile fern
Mountain watercress
Nodding pogonia
Northern bog aster
Northern wild comfrey
Pawpaw
Prarie wedgegrass
Rough avens
Rough-leaf dogwood
Scarlet indian-paintbrush
Schweinitz's sedge
Shrubby St. John's-wort
Smooth bur-marigold
Southern twayblade
Sweet coltsfoot
Wafer-ash
Woodland agrimony
Woodland bluegrass
Buffalo District
Cicindela ancocisconensis
Cicindela marginipennis
Tachopteryx thoreyi
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Ammodramus henslowii
Circus cyaneus
Bartramia longicauda
Maxostoma duquesnei
Notropis heterodon
Percina copelandi
Ammocrypta pellucida
Aplodinotus grunniens
Hiodon tergisus
Monarda clinopodia
Smallanthus uvedalius
Botrychium oneidense
Carex chordorrhiza
Lactuca hirsuta
Carex garberi
Chamaelirium luteum
Carex merritt-fernaldii
Pterospora andromodea
Hydrastis canadensis
Platanthera hook eri
Rorippa aquatica
Cystopteris protrusa
Cardamine rotundifolia
Triphora trianthophora
Symphotrichum boreale
Cynoglossum virginianum
Asimina triloba
Sphenopholis obtusata
Geum virginianum
Cornus drummondii
Castilleja coccinea
Carex schweinitzii
Hypericum prolificum
Bidens laevis
Listera australis
Petasites frigidus
Ptelea trifoliata
Agrimonia rostellata
Poa sylvestris
35
Imperiled
Imperiled
Special Concern
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Special Concern
Imperiled
Imperiled
Threatened
Imperiled
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
CHAPTER 3 - PLAN FORMULATION
3.1
Formulation Process
The planning process utilized in this study relies upon the process described in the Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies (U.S Water Resources Council 1983) referred to as the P&G, as well as Engineer
Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100 Planning Guidance Notebook. This process consists of a series of
steps that provide an orderly and systematic approach to selecting a recommended plan. Plan
formulation and evaluation is a dynamic process, whereby the steps may be iterated one or more
times as new information or new alternatives are developed or as planning objectives are
reevaluated. The P&G planning process consists of the following major steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Identify Problems and Opportunities;
Inventory and Forecast Without Project Conditions;
Formulate Alternative Plans;
Evaluate Effects of Alternative Plans;
Compare Alternative Plans; and
Plan Selection
Each step of the planning process provides information needed for the steps that follow. When
planning for the restoration of environmental resources, cost effectiveness and incremental cost
analyses (CE/ICA) may be used as tools for the comparison of alternative plans (step 5). Cost
effectiveness and incremental cost analyses are comparisons of the effects of alternative plans;
more specifically, they involve comparisons between the outputs and costs of different solutions.
Prior to using CE/ICA at least preliminary information about alternative plans (step 3) and their
effects (step 4) must be developed in order to conduct the cost effectiveness and incremental cost
comparisons (step 5).
3.2
Future Without Project Conditions
The Future Without-Project condition, also called the No Action Alternative, must be evaluated
along with other alternative plans. The forecast of the Future Without-Project condition reflects
the anticipated conditions during the period of analysis if no alternative is implemented, and
provides the basis from which alternative plans are formulated and impacts assessed.
Although the dam is not currently in compliance with NYSDEC standards, the 2012 Engineering
Assessment Report of Springville Dam completed by Bergman Associates concluded that the
dam has been well maintained and failure is not imminent. Although the county has no set plan
for improvements to the dam at the time of this report, it will be necessary for the County to
bring the dam into compliance with NYSDEC standards in the future. For this reason, the Future
Without-Project condition assumes that the County will likely make the minimum necessary
modifications to the dam to bring it into compliance with NYSDEC. Based on preliminary
hydraulic and structural analyses, an 8 foot reduction in the spillway crest height and the
installation of rock anchors are assumed to be the minimum necessary modification to bring the
Buffalo District
36
dam into compliance. It is assumed that this modification will not include any measures for fish
passage at the dam, as these are not requirements of dam safety. Construction costs associated
with lowering the spillway 8 feet, installing rock anchors and other necessary work to bring the
dam into compliance with NYSDEC requirements will be considered to be the responsibility of
the sponsor, and will not be Federally cost shared.
It is expected that current treatment of the river by USFWS with TFM to control the sea lamprey
will continue. In general, it is assumed that the existing hydrology and hydraulics,
geomorphology and habitat structure of Cattaraugus Creek in the vicinity of Springville Dam
will remain largely unchanged over the next 50 years. The size of the dam pool will decrease
approximately 1/3 of its present length or 800 linear feet if the County lowers the spillway by 8
feet for the purpose of NYSDEC compliance, however, fish passage, flow regime, and sediment
transport will remain in its current disrupted state. Approximately 70 miles of Cattaraugus Creek
and its tributaries located above the dam will remain isolated from the lower 35 miles of
Cattaraugus Creek and Lake Erie. No other significant Federal or local efforts are anticipated.
Accordingly, it is expected that leaving Springville Dam in place would continue to restrict
movement of all fish species including sea lamprey – as a result aquatic community biodiversity
and habitat structure will remain largely unchanged. Due to the presence of the dam, the issues of
riverine habitat and flow regime modification, fish passage and recolonization, and sediment
transport disruption will continue into the future.
3.3
Problems and Opportunities
Many reports and studies have described the existing problems of the Great Lakes in terms of
ecological disruption. There is concern by state agencies and environmental groups that past and
continued uses of the Great Lakes will lead to continued water quality problems, as well as
significant losses in both globally rare habitats and biological diversity. The GLRI Actions Plan
states that progress toward restoring the Great Lakes has been significantly undermined by the
effects of non-native aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial invasive species. The plan goes on to say
that “a multitude of threats affect the health of Great Lakes habitats and wildlife. Habitat
destruction and degradation due to development, competition from invasive species, the
alteration of natural lake level fluctuations due to artificial lake level management and flow
regimes from dams, drain tiles, ditches, and other control structures…and habitat fragmentation
have impacted habitat and wildlife. This has led to an altered food web, a loss of biodiversity,
and poorly functioning ecosystems.”
The primary loss of natural habitat within the Great Lakes, and the confluent streams and rivers
in particular, is attributed to the impoundments and alteration of stream channels and riparian
zones. Within the Cattaraugus Creek watershed, Springville Dam disrupts aquatic connectivity
and restricts the movement of aquatic organisms, including native fish species. Yet it also
currently serves as an effective barrier to the upstream migration of the invasive sea lamprey,
protecting more than 70 miles of high quality habitat upstream. Other negative effects of this
impoundment include altered sediment transport dynamics and loss of riverine hydraulics. These
disturbances have caused fish, mussel, and macroinvertebrate species richness and abundance to
decline as inferred from a comparison of above vs. below dam conditions.
Buffalo District
37
Problems
• Springville Dam restricts ecological connectivity of Cattaraugus Creek
• Fish species are restricted from accessing high quality habitats upstream of the
Springville Dam.
• Natural sediment dynamics are disrupted by the presence of Springville Dam.
Opportunities
• Restore ecological connectivity of Cattaraugus Creek
• Allow fish species to access high quality habitats upstream of the Springville Dam.
• Improve sediment dynamics and transport of Cattaraugus Creek.
3.4
Specific Planning Objectives
Projects under USACE Section 506 authority must support the restoration of the fishery,
ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineer’s objective
in ecosystem restoration planning is to contribute to the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER)
account by restoring degraded ecosystem structure, function, and dynamic processes to a less
degraded, more natural condition. Contributions to NER are increases in ecosystem value and
productivity and are measured in non-monetary units such as acres or linear feet of habitat,
average annual habitat units, or increased species number or diversity.
The planning objectives of this study are to:
-
-
3.5
Create fish passage for native fish species and other aquatic life at Springville Dam
and allow access to high quality spawning waters located in the upper portions of
Cattaraugus Creek and its tributaries during the planning period of 2015 – 2065.
Restore the natural hydraulic sediment transport flow of Cattaraugus Creek over the
planning period 2015 – 2065.
Planning Constraints
Constraints are restrictions that limit the planning process and are unique to each planning study.
Some general types of constraints that need to be considered are resource constraints and legal
and policy constraints (USACE 2000). As required by USACE guidance, the following
constraints have been identified for the project.
-
Minimize regional and local economic disruption.
Restrict invasive sea lampreys to areas downstream of Springville Dam.
Avoid excessive siltation of viable habitats downstream of the dam.
Avoid inducing headcutting/excessive erosion upstream of the dam.
Do not adversely impact threatened or endangered (T&E) species.
Avoid increases to flood stage profiles both upstream and downstream of Springville
Dam.
Buffalo District
38
-
3.6
Project alternatives need to be in compliance with NYSDEC stability and safety
requirements.
The dam is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Avoid negative impacts from down stream sediment transport during and after
construction to the ecologic or human uses of the aquatic resource.
Potential Restoration Measures
A management measure is a feature or activity that can be implemented at a specific geographic
site to address one or more planning objectives. Management measures are the building blocks of
alternative plans and are categorized as structural and non-structural. As the primary objective of
this study is to provide fish passage while maintaining a lamprey barrier only structural measures
were considered. Various types of fish passage systems have been implemented in the Great
Lakes and across the nation in attempt to restore native fish species. In addition to the measures
described in the following sections, USACE policy requires that a No Action alternative be
considered. Under the No Action plan, it is assumed that Springville Dam will continue to
remain as is with no measures implemented to allow for fish passage. The dam would continue
to serve as a sea lamprey barrier, with lampricide treatments to continue into the future. The
following sections describe the fish passage and lamprey control measures considered in this
study:
3.6.1
Dam Removal Measures
Full removal of Springville Dam – Under this measure, the Springville Dam would be
completely removed. While this measure would allow full fish passage for all species, it would
also allow lamprey full access to the upstream watershed. As a result, this measure would only
be implemented in conjunction with one of the lamprey control measures described in Section
3.6.3. This measure was screened out because it would have high costs, would likely cause
concerns with SHPO.
Lowering of the Spillway to Allow 30% Probability Maximum Flood – Under this measure the
existing spillway would be lowered approximately 8 feet. This would allow passage of the 30%
probably maximum flood (pmf) a requirement for compliance with New York dam safety
standards. The dam would remain a barrier to sea lamprey and, as a result, would implemented in
conjunction with either a fish ladder or natural fishway to allow fish passage.
Lowering of the Spillway to Desired Lamprey Barrier Height – Under this measure, the dam
spillway would be lowered to a height of approximately 8-10 feet to serve as a sea lamprey
barrier. While some fish species could potentially pass a barrier of this height, it is highly
unlikely that all species would be allowed passage. As a result, it is likely that this measure
would be implemented in conjunction with a fish ladder or natural fishway. This measure was
screened out because it was considered to likely be cheaper to remove the spillway completely
and rebuild a lamprey barrier.
Buffalo District
39
Removal of Spillway – Under this measure, the full spillway would be removed. This measure
would allow some part of the dam structure and powerhouse to remain in place. Implementation
of this measure would require construction of a lamprey barrier and likely some fish passage
measure.
3.6.2
Fish Passage Measures
Denil Fishway – A denil fishway uses a series of symmetrical close-spaced baffles in a channel
to redirect the flow of water, allowing fish to swim around the barrier. Baffle fishways need not
have resting areas, although pools can be included to provide a resting area or to reduce the
velocity of the flow.
Pool and Weir Fishway - This measure uses a series of small dams and pools of regular length to
create a long, sloping channel for fish to travel around the obstruction. The channel acts as a
fixed lock to gradually step down the water level; to head upstream, fish must jump over from
box to box in the ladder. This measure was screened out because very few species are expected
to be able to pass this feature.
Fish Elevator – A fish elevator is system where fish swim into a collection area at the base of the
dam and are nudged into a hopper that carries them into a flume that empties into the river above
the barrier. It is generally well suited for high barriers. This measure was screened out because it
was considered to be very costly.
Bypass Channel – This measure is a man-made channel designed to circumvent the dam. It is
highly effective in passing a large number of species, but does not pass as many individuals since
its flow is significantly less than the main flow at the dam, resulting in fewer fish being attracted
to the bypass channel.
Rock Riffle Ramp – A rock riffle ramp uses large rocks and timbers to create pools and small
falls that mimic natural structures. Because of the length of the channel needed for the ladder,
such structures are most appropriate for relatively short barriers. This measure was screened out
because it was not compatible with the trap and sort measure required for lamprey control.
3.6.3
Lamprey Control Measures
New Barrier at Dam – This measure would be implemented in conjunction with either the full
dam removal or full removal of the spillway. Under this measure, a new lamprey barrier would
be constructed at the dam site in order to restrict access. One of the fish ladder or fishway
measures would be required to allow fish passage over this new barrier.
New Barrier Downstream from Dam – This measure would also be implemented in conjunction
with the full breach and removal of the spillway measures. This measure would require
identifying a downstream site and acquiring the associated real estate. A fish passage measure
would be required to allow fish to pass this new barrier. This measure was screened out because
of real estate concerns and the need for a fish passage measure at the new barrier.
Buffalo District
40
Trap and Sort – If any of the fishway measures are selected for implementation, the USFWS will
require inclusion of a trap and sort operation. This trap and sort operation will require on site
personnel to sort through the trapped species and ensure that no sea lamprey are passed through
to the upper watershed.
Lampricide – Lampricide treatment would be necessary with any measure that would fully
remove the spillway, and does not include installation of a lamprey barrier. Although
Cattaraugus Creek is currently treated with lampricide, these treatments would be required to
expand to the upper watershed if one of the full breach alternatives were considered without any
construction of a new lamprey barrier. As lampricide treatment is both costly and not 100%
effective, both the NYSDEC and USFWS have indicated that they do not support full removal
without a barrier. As a result, this measure will not be considered further.
3.7
Preliminary Screening of Restoration Measures
All of the measures under consideration were initially screened based on a number of factors
including cost, effectiveness in passing native fish species and serving as a sea lamprey control,
real estate requirements, and public acceptability. Public acceptability was gauged through
public meetings, discussions with sponsors and other interested parties, and through project
scoping. Based on these factors, determinations were made regarding which measures to proceed
forward with. This screening process is summarized in Table 6.
Buffalo District
41
Table 6: Screening of Measures
Measure
Cost
Effectiveness in
Passing Fish
Effectiveness as a
Lamprey Control
Measure
Public
Acceptability
Carry
Forward?
Comment
1/ No Action
None
None
None
N/A
Yes
2/ Full Removal of
Springville Dam
High
High
Low
Medium
No
3/ Lowering of
Spillway to 30%
PMF
High
Low
High
Medium
Yes
4/Lowering of
Spillway to 8 to 10
feet
High
Medium
High
Medium
No
Engineering judgment
suggests cheaper to
remove spillway and
build new barrier
5/Removal of
Spillway
High
High
High
Medium
Yes
6/ Denil Fishway
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Yes
Would require
implementation of a
lamprey control measure
and a fish passage
measure.
Less efficient than other
fish passage systems but
allows a greater diversity
of fish to pass
7/ Pool Weir
Fishway
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
No
Very limited species able
to pass.
8/ Fish Elevator
High
High
High
Medium
No
While effective in passing
fish, this measure is
extremely costly.
9/ Bypass Channel
Medium
High
Low
Medium
Yes
Passes large diversity of
fish but lower quantity.
10/ Rock Riffle
Ramp
Medium
Medium-High
Low
Low
No
Not compatible with a
trap and sort operation.
11/ New Lamprey
Barrier at Dam Site
Medium
N/A
High
High
Yes
12/ New Barrier
Downstream from
the Dam
High
N/A
High
Low
No
13/Trap and Sort
Medium
High
High
High
Yes
Would be implemented
with the breach measures.
Would require
implementation of a fish
passage system.
Would need to identify
downstream location.
Significant real estate
concerns. Would require
fish passage measure at
new location.
Would be implemented
with a fishway/bypass
channel measure.
14/ Lampricide
High
N/A
Medium
Low
No
Buffalo District
42
Included per USACE
Policy
High cost and potential
SHPO concerns. Would
require implementation of
a lamprey control
measure
Would require
implementation of a fish
passage measure.
If dam fully removed,
could apply lampricide to
the entire watershed. Not
acceptable to DEC and
USFWS
Based on this initial screening, the measures that will be carried forward include no-action,
lowering of the spillway to 30 percent PMF, removal of the spillway, denil fishway, bypass
channel, new lamprey barrier at dam site, and trap and sort. The following sections discuss the
formulation of alternatives based on these measures.
3.8
Alternatives
Based on the screening of measures described in Section 3.7, those measures that were not
eliminated from further consideration were advanced to the development of alternative plans.
Any plan that was developed was required to maintain a lamprey barrier at the project site. Four
structural plans and the no-action plan were carried through to detailed analysis. These
alternative plans are as follows:
Alternative #1: No Action
Alternative #2A: Dam Breached with New Lamprey Barrier (with Adjustable Gates)
Alternative #2B: Dam Breached with New Lamprey Barrier
Alternative #3: Dam Lowered 8’ with Denil Fishway
Alternative #4: Dam Lowered 8’ with Bypass Channel
Alternative #1: No Action - The Corps is required to consider the option of “No Action” as one
of the alternatives in order to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and ER 200-2-2. No Action assumes that no project would be implemented
by the Federal government or by local interests to achieve the planning objectives. No Action,
which is synonymous with the Without Project Condition, forms the basis from which all other
alternative plans are measured. Under the No Action plan, the Corps would not implement a fish
passage measure at Springville Dam and the dam would remain in place and would continue to
serve as a barrier to sea lamprey.
Alternative #2A: Dam Breached with New Lamprey Barrier (with Adjustable Gates) –
This alternative includes removal of the spillway (measure 5), construction of a new lamprey
barrier at the dam site (measure 11), construction of a rock riffle ramp (measure 10) and seasonal
trapping and sorting (measure 13). This alternative consists of removing a portion of the existing
182 foot long concrete dam spillway, replacing it with a lamprey barrier, and constructing a rock
riffle ramp fish passage channel. At the east and west existing dam abutment walls, a 30-foot
length of the existing dam spillway would remain in place to provide structural support for the
remaining existing abutment walls and prevent any disturbance to these walls. The middle
section of the existing dam spillway would be removed to the existing streambed elevation.
The lamprey barrier would be constructed between the two remaining sections of the existing
dam spillway. The overall length of the lamprey barrier is 121 feet and consists of three different
sections. The first section is a 65-foot long fixed crest concrete barrier with a 25-foot long
concrete apron. The second section is a 30-foot long adjustable height steel gate with a 25-foot
long concrete apron. For the feasibility study, the steel gates are assumed to be a pneumatically
operated type as manufactured by Obermeyer Hydro, Inc. or equal. The air bladders for the steel
Buffalo District
43
gates would be filled using a computer and manually controlled dual air compressor system.
During the detailed design phase, other types of adjustable steel gates will be considered.
Maintenance stoplogs and intermediate metal posts would be provided just upstream of the steel
gates. The third section consists of a 15-foot wide fish passage channel.
The rock riffle fish passage channel would consist of a 15-foot wide concrete U-structure with
stone and gravel embedded into its base slab to create a natural stream bottom. The bottom of the
fish passage channel would have a maximum five percent slope to allow the greatest percentage
of fish species to pass. At its upstream end, the fish passage channel has a stoplog weir, a jump
pool and a lamprey trap. During the lamprey spawning season, the top of the adjustable steel
gates would be raised level with the top of the fixed crest barrier and the stoplogs installed at the
upstream end of the fish passage channel. Responsibility for this activity will be determined in
the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA). The top elevation of the lamprey barrier is set at 18
inches above the 10-year tailwater elevation per USFWS recommendations. Jumping fish species
would use the jump pool to jump over the stoplog weir while non-jumping fish species and other
aquatic life would enter the lamprey trap where they would be trapped and sorted by fisheries
personnel from NYSDEC, this would also be determined as part of the PPA. Desirable species
would be released upstream of the barrier while lamprey would be removed and disposed.
During the non-lamprey spawning season, the adjustable steel gate would be fully lowered
allowing unrestricted open stream flow through the barrier. When the steel gates are fully
lowered there would not be a retained pool behind the barrier during normal low flow periods. At
this time, all fish species and aquatic life would be able to freely pass up and downstream of the
barrier. Silt carried by creek waters would also be freely able to pass downstream.
Implementation of Alternative 2A would include removal of approximately 20,400 cubic yards
of sediment located upstream of the dam, an old timber crib dam and various debris. For the first
50 feet upstream of the barrier, all sediment would be removed between the existing dam
abutment walls. Between 50 to 500 feet upstream of the barrier, sediment removal would be in
the shape of a trapezoidal channel having a 30-foot bottom width and 1 vertical on 2 horizontal
side slopes. The lower limit of sediment removal would be at the base of the new barrier and
slope up at approximately five percent slope in the upstream direction. The actual limits of
sediment removal during construction will be based on preconstruction surveys and may vary
from that shown in this report due to on-going changes in the creek bottom geometry. In
addition, flushing of upstream sediments prior to construction may be attempted if the existing
outlet valves are functional. Flushing of sediments would change the sediment removal limits
shown in this report as significantly less material would be removed. The preliminary cost of
Alternative 2A, including planning engineering, and design (PED), construction management,
and contingencies, is estimated as $3,474,322. This estimate which assumes that pre-construction
sediment flushing does not occur. Plans, elevation, profile, sections and details of Alternative 2A
are shown on Figure 3-1, Figure 3-2, and Figure 3-3. Full size plans are included in Appendix 1.
Detailed cost breakdowns are provided in Appendix 3.
A portion of the construction costs for this alternative are considered to be solely the
responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor because they are alterations required for the existing
dam to meet New York State Dam Safety regulations. For this alternative the non-Federal
Buffalo District
44
sponsor will be responsible for the cost associated with lowering the first 8 feet of the existing
spillway. This cost is estimated at $223,000 (a 28% contingency).
Buffalo District
45
Figure 3-1: Alternative No. 2A Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Plan and Elevation
Buffalo District
46
Figure 3-2: Alternative No. 2A Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Cross Sections
Buffalo District
47
Figure 3-3: Alternative No. 2A Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Sediment Removal Plan and Profile
Buffalo District
48
Alternative #2B: Dam Breached with New Lamprey Barrier – This alternative includes
removal of the spillway (measure 5), construction of a new lamprey barrier at the dam site
(measure 11) , construction of a rock riffle ramp (measure 10), and seasonal trapping and sorting
(measure 13). Alternative 2B is similar to Alternative 2A except this alternative will maintain the
fixed barrier across the entire dam year round. It will not include the Obermeyer gate and as a
result, is expected to be less costly and would eliminate some risk that sediment buildup behind
the Obermeyer in Alternative 2A would be impassible to fish at some times.
Alternative 2B would consist of removing a portion of the existing 182 foot long concrete dam
spillway and replacing it with a lamprey barrier and constructing a rock riffle fish passage
channel. At the east and west existing dam abutment walls, a 30-foot length of the existing dam
spillway would remain in place to provide structural support for the remaining existing abutment
walls and prevent any disturbance to these walls. The middle section of the existing dam
spillway would be removed to the existing streambed elevation.
The lamprey barrier would be constructed between the two remaining sections of the existing
dam spillway. The overall length of the new lamprey barrier is 121 feet and consists of two
different sections. The first section is a 101-foot long fixed crest concrete barrier with a 25-foot
long concrete apron. The second section consists of a 15-foot wide fish passage channel.
The rock riffle ramp fish passage channel would consist of a 15-foot wide concrete U-structure
with stone and gravel embedded into its base slab to create a natural stream bottom. The bottom
of the fish passage channel would have a maximum five percent slope to allow the greatest
percentage of fish species to pass. At its upstream end, the fish passage channel has a stoplog
weir, a jump pool and a lamprey trap. During the lamprey spawning season, the stoplogs would
be installed at the upstream end of the fish passage channel. The top elevation of the lamprey
barrier is set at 18 inches above the 10-year tailwater elevation per USFWS recommendations.
Jumping fish species such would use the jump pool to jump over the stoplog weir while nonjumping fish species and other aquatic life would enter the lamprey trap where they would be
trapped and sorted by fisheries personnel. Desirable species would be released upstream of the
barrier while lamprey would be removed and disposed. During the non-lamprey spawning
season, the stoplogs would be removed allowing unrestricted open stream flow through the fish
passage channel. At this time, all fish species and aquatic life would be able to freely pass up and
downstream through the fish passage channel.
Implementation of Alternative 2B would include removal of approximately 20,400 cubic yards
Buffalo District
49
shown in this report as significantly less material would be removed. The preliminary cost of
Alternative 2B, including planning engineering, and design (PED), construction management,
and contingencies, is estimated as $2,862,890. This assumes that pre-construction sediment
flushing does not occur. Plans, elevation, profile, sections and details of Alternative 2B are
shown on Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5, and Figure 3-6. Full size plans are included in Appendix 1.
Detailed cost breakdowns are provided in Appendix 3.
A portion of the construction costs would be considered solely the responsibility of the nonFederal sponsor because they are alterations required for the existing dam to meet New York
State dam safety regulations. For this alternative the non-Federal sponsor will be responsible for
the cost associated with lowering the first 8 feet of the existing spillway. This cost is estimated
at $223,000 (includes a 28% contingency).
Buffalo District
50
Figure 3-4: Alternative No. 2B Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Plan and Elevation
Buffalo District
51
Figure 3-5: Alternative No. 2B Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Cross Sections
Buffalo District
52
Figure 3-6: Alternative No. 2B Dam Breached With New Lamprey Barrier Sediment Removal Plan and Profile
Buffalo District
53
Alternative #3: Dam Lowered 8’ with Denil Fishway – This alternative includes lowering of
the spillway to 30% PMF (measure 3), installation of a Denil fishway (measure 6), and seasonal
trapping and sorting (measure 13). The Denil fishway would be installed along with dam safety
modification work performed by Erie County. The dam safety modification work consists of
lowering the middle 162 feet of the existing concrete dam spillway by eight feet, stabilizing the
remaining spillway with rock anchors and performing various concrete repairs. The dam safety
modifications would allow the dam to pass the 30 percent PMF but still allow the remaining dam
spillway to function as a lamprey barrier. At the east and west existing dam abutment walls, a
10-foot length of the existing dam spillway would remain in place to provide structural support
for the existing remaining abutment walls and prevent any disturbance to these walls.
A new 220 foot long reinforced concrete Denil fishway would be constructed on the left bank
side of the lowered spillway. This fishway would be an elevated, pier-supported four foot wide
concrete U-structure with a 1 vertical on 6 horizontal bottom slope and angled V-shaped baffles
spaced 2’-6” on center. At its upstream end, the fishway would have a stoplog weir, a jump pool
and a lamprey trap. During the lamprey spawning season, the stoplogs would be installed at the
upstream end of the fishway. Jumping fish species would use the jump pool to jump over the
stoplog weir. Non-jumping fish species and other aquatic life would enter the lamprey trap where
they would be trapped and sorted by fisheries personnel. Desirable species would be released
upstream of the dam while lamprey would be removed and disposed. During the non-lamprey
spawning season, the stoplogs could be removed to allow all fish species and aquatic life to pass
freely up and downstream.
The dam safety modifications are included in Alternative 3 based on recommendations contained
in an engineering assessment report for Springville Dam dated August 17, 2012 prepared for the
Erie County D.P.W. Dam Safety Program by Bergmann Associates of Buffalo, NY. The
Engineering Assessment Report recommends lowering the dam eight feet and other
modifications to the dam as necessary for it to comply with New York State Dam Safety
regulations. Since any alternative considered must result in a project that complies with the
required regulations, these modifications have been included in Alternative 3 and are listed
below and illustrated in Figure 3-7:
•
•
•
•
Lower spillway by eight feet.
Install post-tensioned rock anchors near upstream face of dam to improve stability of
dam.
Place concrete doweled into rock at eroded downstream end of existing apron.
Remove existing valves from low level conduits and fill conduits with concrete.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would require removal of approximately 2500 cubic yards of
sediment from upstream of the dam. The preliminary cost of Alternative 3, including planning
engineering, and design (PED), construction management, and contingencies is estimated as
$3,592,706. Elevation, section, plan and profile of Alternative 3 are shown on Figure 3-7 and
Figure 3-8. Full size plans are included in Appendix 1. Detailed cost breakdowns are provided in
Appendix 3.
A portion of the construction costs are considered to be solely the responsibility of the nonFederal sponsor because they are alterations required for the existing dam to meet New York
Buffalo District
54
State dam safety regulations. For this alternative, the non-Federal sponsor will be responsible for
the costs of lowering the existing spillway 8 feet, installing rock anchors, placing concrete
doweled into rock, and removing existing valves as discussed above . The cost of these dam
safety modifications is $991,656 (includes a 28% contingency).
Buffalo District
55
Figure 3-7: Alternative No. 3 & 4 Dam Lowered 8’ Elevation & Section
Buffalo District
56
Figure 3-8: Alternative No. 3 Dam Lowered 8’ With Denil Fishway
Buffalo District
57
Alternative #4: Dam Lowered 8’ with Bypass Channel – This alternative includes lowering of
the spillway to 30% PMF (measure 3), construction of a bypass channel (measure 9), and
seasonal trapping and sorting (measure 13).The bypass channel would be installed along with
dam safety modification work performed by Erie County. The dam safety modification work
would consist of lowering the middle 162 feet of the existing concrete dam spillway by eight
feet, stabilizing the remaining spillway with rock anchors and performing various concrete
repairs. The dam safety modifications would allow the dam to pass the 30 percent PMF but still
allow the remaining dam spillway to function as a lamprey barrier. At the east and west existing
dam abutment walls, a 10-foot length of the existing dam spillway would remain in place to
provide structural support for the existing remaining abutment walls and prevent any disturbance
to these walls.
A new 500-foot long reinforced concrete bypass channel would be constructed around the dam
through the right bank. The bypass channel is a 15-foot wide concrete U-structure with stone and
gravel embedded into its base slab to create a natural stream bottom. The bottom of the bypass
channel would have a maximum five percent slope in order to allow the greatest diversity of fish
species to pass. At its upstream end, the bypass channel would have a stoplog weir, a jump pool
upstream end of the bypass channel. Jumping fish species would use the jump pool to jump over
the stoplog weir while non-jumping fish species and other aquatic life would enter the lamprey
trap where they would be trapped and sorted by fisheries personnel. Desirable species would be
released upstream of the dam while lamprey would be removed and disposed. During the nonlamprey spawning season, the stoplogs could be removed to allow all fish species and aquatic
life in the bypass channel to freely pass up and downstream.
The dam safety modifications are included in Alternative 4 based on recommendations contained
in an Engineering Assessment Report for Springville Dam dated August 17, 2012 prepared for
the Erie County D.P.W. Dam Safety Program by Bergmann Associates of Buffalo, NY. The
Engineering Assessment Report recommends lowering the dam eight feet and other
modifications to the dam as necessary for it to comply with New York State Dam Safety
regulations. Since any alternative considered must result in a project that complies with the
required regulations, these modifications have been included in Alternative 4 and are listed
below and illustrated in Figure 3-7:
•
•
•
•
Lower spillway by eight feet.
Install post-tensioned rock anchors near upstream face of dam to improve stability of
dam.
Place concrete doweled into rock at eroded downstream end of existing apron.
Remove existing valves from low level conduits and fill conduits with concrete.
Implementation of Alternative 4 would require removal of approximately 2500 cubic yards of
sediment from upstream of the dam. The preliminary cost of Alternative 4 is estimated at
$3,907,387. Elevation, section, plan and profile of Alternative 4 are shown on Figure 3-7 and
Figure 3-9. Full size plans are included in Appendix 1. Detailed cost breakdowns are provided
in Appendix 3.
Buffalo District
58
A portion of the construction costs are considered to be solely the responsibility of the nonFederal sponsor because they are alterations required for the existing dam to meet New York
State dam safety regulations. For this alternative the non-Federal sponsor will be responsible for
the costs of lowering the existing spillway 8 feet, installing rock anchors, placing concrete
doweled into rock, and removing existing valves as discussed above. The cost of this dam safety
modification is $991,656 (includes a 28% contingency).
Buffalo District
59
Figure 3-9: Alternative No. 4 Dam Lowered 8’ With Bypass Channel
Buffalo District
60
3.9
Habitat Benefits
There are many methods and models available to measure ecosystem function and structure for
the purpose of predicting future conditions for different scenarios. Habitat models developed for
individual species may have limitations when used to assess ecosystem level problems and
restoration objectives because they do not consider communities of organisms, nor do they view
the habitat in the context of the larger ecosystem. The assessment methodology selected for the
project is a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), which is a community based model and focuses on
riverine physical conditions and species richness of fish communities within the creek. This HSI
was developed to assess the ecological value of the preferred plan future without-project
condition and any proposed management measures for the Springville Dam Fish Passage Study.
This index is based on how riverine geomorphology and fish species would respond to a given
condition. This response will be quantified by considering two variables: 1) species richness (R)
of the native and high value naturalized fish species, and 2) the percentage of the dam pool that
is restored to natural riverine conditions.
Species richness of native and high value naturalized fish was determined by using previous
studies and collection information provided by NYSDEC coupled with a field collection at
Springville Dam conducted on October 26, 2012. These lists were presented previously in
Section 2.15 (Table 1 and Table 2). Fifty species of fish are found downstream of Springville
Dam while only 31 species are found above the dam. The adfluvial form of rainbow trout (O.
mykiss), commonly referred to as steelhead, is included with the rainbow trout species
downstream but is absent above the dam. The upstream list was modified to remove the fish
species not commonly found in the streams which reduced the species richness to 26 species
(Table 7). The number of species found below the dam was also reduced to account for the
number of lake and larger river species that are not likely to be found as far upstream as the dam.
It was determined that approximately 31 species would be found downstream of the dam, which
includes the invasive sea lamprey (Table 8). Although sea lamprey would be prevented from
passing the dam, all other native and high value naturalized species would be able to pass the
dam under the preferred plan.
Buffalo District
61
Table 7: Riverine Fish Species Commonly Found Upstream of Springville Dam
Common Name
Scientific Name
Native to watershed
American brook lamprey
Rainbow trout (stocked and naturalized)*
Brown trout (naturalized)
Brook trout (wild)
Golden shiner
River chub
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
Creek chub
Redside dace
Rosyface shiner
Sand shiner
Common shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Central stoneroller
Silver redhorse
Golden redhorse
White sucker
Northern hogsucker
Stonecat
Green sunfish
Rainbow darter
Fantail darter
Johnny darter
Mottled sculpin
Lampetra appendix
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus fontinalis
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis rubellus
Notropis stramineus
Luxilus cornutus
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Campostoma anomalum
Moxostoma anisurm
Noturus flavus
Lepomis cyanellus
Etheostoma nigrum
Cottus bairdii
Species Richness
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
26*
*Does not include steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Buffalo District
62
Table 8: Riverine Fish Species Commonly Found Downstream of Springville Dam
Common Name
Scientific Name
Native to watershed
Sea lamprey
Lake Sturgeon (?)
Rainbow trout (stocked and naturalized)*
Brown trout (stocked and naturalized)
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Common carp
Golden shiner
River chub
Blacknose dace
Longnose dace
Creek chub
Redside dace
Rosyface shiner
Spotfin shiner
Sand shiner
Common shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Central stoneroller
Silver redhorse
Golden redhorse
White sucker
Northern hogsucker
Stonecat
Smallmouth bass
Rainbow darter
Fantail darter
Johnny darter
Mottled sculpin
Petromyzon marinus
Acipenser fulvescens
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Cyprinus carpio
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis rubellus
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis stramineus
Luxilus cornutus
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Campostoma anomalum
Moxostoma anisurm
Noturus flavus
Micropterus dolomieui
Etheostoma nigrum
Cottus bairdii
Species Richness
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
?
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
31**
*Includes steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
**Steelhead treated as an additional species
Habitat outputs for the future with and without project condition were estimated over the entire
50 year period of analysis. In order to restore connectivity at the study site, both ecosystem
function and structure were addressed through the two methods mentioned above. The following
equation was used to calculate the HSI:
 HSI = {R/52 +[(LF of stream restored/2400)*P]}/2
Where:
R = species richness. Richness is divided by 52 since that is the likely maximum species richness
for Cattaraugus Creek considering fish populations and habitat both upstream and downstream.
Buffalo District
63
R is expected to slightly increase over time depending on the type of fish passage structure and
the species swimming ability;
LF = linear feet. The amount of stream restored is divided by the total length of the existing dam
pool which is approximately 2,400 LF;
P = probability that the channel immediately upstream of dam is passable. This has a value of 1.0
for all alternatives except Alternative 2a, which was determined to be 0.75. Under Alternative
2a, it is assumed that the sediment that has accumulated during the lamprey migration season
would be flushed out of the newly restored channel about 75 percent of the time, once the gate is
opened in the late summer through midwinter non-lamprey migration period. .
The sum is divided by 2 so as not to inflate the benefits incurred by the project. Total habitat
outputs, in terms of habitat units (HUs) were calculated by multiplying the affected area times
the habitat suitability index:
HUs = A(HSI )
where A is the total stream miles available to fish species that are currently confined to areas
downstream of Springville Dam after implementation of each alternative. The total number of
stream miles -downstream of Springville Dam is 69 miles, with approximately 30 of these miles
identified as suitable trout spawning habitat. The total number of stream miles upstream of
Springville Dam is approximately 103 miles, with approximately 65 of these miles identified as
suitable trout spawning habitat.
The environmental outputs associated with the various alternatives were determined based on
available stream miles and HSI scores. The projected habitat units are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Habitat Outputs for Each Alternative.
Total Habitat Units
Alternative
Without Project
Alternative 2A
Alternative 2B
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
3.10
TY0
TY1
TY10
TY25
TY50
Average Annual
Habitat Units
(AAHUs)
18.75
24.5
30.25
30.25
30.25
29.56
46.84
93.70
118.43
118.43
118.43
115.24
46.84
93.70
113.68
115.56
115.56
112.23
46.84
63.09
79.33
79.33
79.33
77.38
46.84
63.09
84.95
86.82
86.82
83.60
Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis
Traditional cost benefit analysis can be difficult for ecosystem restoration projects because costs
and benefits are expressed in different units. Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses
(CE/ICA) are alternative approaches to plan evaluation that are consistent with the P&G
Buffalo District
64
evaluation framework. The Institute for Water Resources (IWR) Planning Suite Software is used
to assist in performing the CE/ICA. Alternative plans are evaluated and compared in terms of
cost (e.g., construction, operation and maintenance) and environmental outputs. IWR Planning
Suite is a tool used to determine if the environmental benefits (i.e., outputs) generated for a
project are a best buy, or cost effective compared to other alternatives.
Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis are two distinct analyses that must be conducted
to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative plans. First, it must be shown through cost
effectiveness analysis that an alternative restoration plan’s output cannot be produced more cost
effectively by another alternative. “Cost effective” means that, for a given level of non-monetary
output, no other plan costs less and no other plan yields more output for less money.
Subsequently, through incremental cost analysis, a variety of implementable alternatives and
various sized alternatives are evaluated to arrive at a “best” level of output within the limits of
both the sponsor’s and Corps capabilities. The subset of cost effective plans are examined
sequentially (by increasing the scale and increment of output) to ascertain which plans are most
efficient in the production of environmental benefits. The most efficient plans are “Best Buys.”
They provide the greatest increase in output for the least increases in cost, and they have the
lowest incremental costs per unit of output.
Cost Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analysis techniques were used to assist in determining the
most cost-effective restoration alternatives or plans and to help determine whether obtaining
additional environmental benefits are worth the additional costs. The alternatives considered in
this study were evaluated in terms of incremental average annual cost per annual habitat unit
using a 50-year period of analysis and an interest rate of 3.5 percent. Construction costs and
average annual costs (AAC) are shown in Table 10. Details of the construction cost estimate are
shown in Appendix 3. The target year (TY) 0, the year following construction, is scheduled for
fiscal year 2015. This is the year benefits would begin. The “benefit stream” for the various
alternatives, including the no action is shown in Table 9, ending in 2065, the end of the 50-year
period of analysis.
The best-buy alternatives or plans resulting from the CE/ICA are then further evaluated to
consider costs and benefits not otherwise accounted for in the CE/ICA to determine the National
Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan.
The environmental benefits of plan alternatives were input into IWR Planning Suite along with
the average annual costs for each alternative (Figure 3-10). Average annual costs were calculated
from the project costs and 3.5 percent discount rate are presented in Appendix 3. The IWR Plan
results are shown in Table 10. Alternatives 2A, 2B and the No Action Plan were identified as
being both cost effective and best buy plans.
Buffalo District
65
2A
2B
Figure 3-10: IWR Plan Output – Average Annual Cost vs. Habitat Units
Table 10: IWR Plan Results
Measure
First
Cost
IDC
Investment
cost
AA
Investment
Cost
No action
-
-
-
-
Alt. 2A
$3,474,322
$55,400
$3,529,722
$151,600
$35,000 $186,600
Alt. 2B
$2,862,890
$45,600
$2,908,490
$125,200
$28,900 $154,100
Alt. 3
$3,592,706
$57,300
$3,650,006
$156,800
$35,927 $193,300
Alt. 4
$3,907,387
$62,300
$3,969,687
$170,400
$39,074 $209,700
O&M
Total
AAC
-
-
Table 11 details the incremental benefit of the best buy plans. Further discussion of the CE/ICA
Analysis is provided in Appendix 5.
Buffalo District
66
Table 11: Best Buy Plans
Measure
AAC
AAHU
AAC
AAHU
Incremental
AAC per
AAHU
No Action Plan
$0
0
$0
0
-
Alternative 2B
$154,100
82.67
$154,100
82.67
$1,864.04
Alternative 2A
$186,600
85.68
$32,500
3.01
$10,797.34
Incremental
Incremental
3.11 Significance of Outputs
Alternative plans that qualified for further consideration are compared against each other in order
to identify the selected sites and their associated alternatives to be recommended for
implementation. A comparison of the effects of various plans must be made and tradeoffs among
the differences observed and documented to support the final recommendation. The effects
include a measure of how well the plans do with respect to planning objectives including NER
benefits and costs. Effects required by law or policy and those important to the stakeholders and
public are to be considered. Previously in the evaluation process, the effects of each plan were
considered individually and compared to the without-project condition. In this step, plans are
compared against each other, with emphasis on the important effects or those that influence the
decision-making process. The comparison step concludes with a ranking of plans.
3.11.1
Significance of Ecosystem Outputs
Because of the challenge of dealing with non-monetized benefits, the concept of output
significance plays an important role in ecosystem restoration evaluation. Along with information
from cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses, information on the significance of
ecosystem outputs will help determine whether the proposed environmental investment is worth
its cost and whether a particular alternative should be recommended. Statements of significance
provide qualitative information to help decision makers evaluate whether the value of the
resources of any given restoration alternative are worth the costs incurred to produce them. The
significance of the Springville Dam fish passage outputs are herein recognized in terms of
institutional, public, and/or technical importance.
Institutional Recognition
Significance based on institutional recognition means that the importance of an environmental
resource is acknowledged in the laws, adopted plans, and other policy statements of public
agencies, tribes, or private groups. Sources of institutional recognition include public laws,
executive orders, rules and regulations, treaties, and other policy statements of the Federal
Government; plans, laws, resolutions, and other policy statements of states with jurisdiction in
the planning area; laws, plans, codes, ordinances, and other policy statements of regional and
Buffalo District
67
local public entities with jurisdiction in the planning area; and charters, bylaws, and other policy
statements of private groups.
Clean Water Act – Restore the chemical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Removal
of Springville Dam would improve water quality through reestablishing riverine hydraulics,
which provides the physical means for biogeochemical processes important in the filtering of
stream waters. Breaching the dam (Alternatives 2A and 2B) would increase dissolved oxygen
and reduce nutrients by providing water filtering bacteria and algae with proper substrates and
hydraulic forces required to perform their functions. Also, Alternatives 2A and 2B would remove
foreign debris (the dam) from the river.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 – All Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve
endangered species and threatened species. The purpose of the act is to provide a means whereby
the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved and to
provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species. Although no
Federally endangered species have been identified within the immediate study area, breaching of
the dam (Alternatives 2A and 2B) will restore Cattaraugus Creek to a more natural free flowing
condition. This will allow for sediment starved locations downstream from the dam to be renourished via upstream sediments. Currently, the state threatened eastern sand darter
(Ammocryta pellucid) formerly found in Cattaraugus Creek is found in nearshore areas of Lake
Erie in the vicinity of the creek mouth. It anticipated that restoring the natural sediment budget to
lower Cattaraugus Creek will attract this species back into the stream.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 – All Federal departments and agencies to the extent
practicable and consistent with the agencies authorities should conserve and promote
conservation of non-game fish and wildlife and their habitats. Alternatives 2A and 2B will
contribute to this goal by restoring the connectivity of the river and returning in-stream habitat
and associated hydraulics. This will decrease impediments to native fish migration as well as
increase habitat structure and availability. Removal of unnatural habitats would reduce the
abundance ratio of exotic to native species. All habitat improvements would benefit plants,
invertebrates, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife within the immediate riparian
corridor of the dam.
EO 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality – The Federal Government
shall provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation’s environment to
sustain and enrich human life. All alternatives would help to recolonize healthy sections of the
river and those areas that are being restored with native fishes and mussels.
EO 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds – Federal agencies
shall restore or enhance the habitat of migratory birds and prevent or abate pollution or
detrimental alteration of the environment for migratory birds. All alternatives would increase
species richness and abundance of native riverine communities and fish assemblages, thus
providing an increased forage base for piscivorous migratory bird species above Springville
Dam.
Buffalo District
68
Executive Order 13340 - Identified the Great Lakes as a national treasure and defined a Federal
policy to support local and regional efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem
through the establishment of regional collaboration. A number of activities have been
accomplished by Federal agencies working in partnership with state, tribal and local
governments in response to the Executive Order. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has been a
major participant in these activities. The Executive Order established the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force. The Task Force worked with the governors of the eight Great Lakes
states, mayors, and tribal leaders to establish the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. The initial
goal of the Collaboration was to develop a “strategy for the protection and restoration of the
Great Lakes” within 1 year. The Collaboration developed the strategy by using teams consisting
of 1,500 stakeholders for the following eight priority issues:
1. Toxic contaminants
2. Non-point source pollution
3. Coastal health
4. Habitat/species
5. Contaminated sediments/AOCs
6. Indicators/information
7. Sustainable development
8. Invasive species
All of the project alternatives will address the bolded priority issues.
Public Recognition
Public recognition means that some segment of the general public recognizes the importance of
an environmental resource, as evidenced by people engaged in activities that reflect an interest or
concern for that particular resource. Such activities may involve membership in an organization,
financial contributions to resource-related efforts, and providing volunteer labor and
correspondence regarding the importance of the resource.
The Cattaraugus Creek watershed is rich with areas that offer fishing, paddling, boating, and
other recreational opportunities. Angler effort compiled from recent creel surveys (2003-2005)
showed that Cattaraugus Creek received the most angling effort for salmonids in both sampling
years (27,649 and 56,574 angler trips, respectively) of any New York, Lake Erie tributary. In
addition, fishing pressure on the stocked portion of upper Cattaraugus Creek (18.2 miles) is
considered high with an estimated 880 hours/acre of angling (15,488 angler trips) (Evans 1998).
The strong public involvement in outdoor recreation within the study area directly relates to the
importance of an environmental resource for a growing population involved in protecting their
natural areas. All project alternatives will result in outputs that will have significant public
recognition.
Technical Recognition
Technical recognition means that the resource qualifies as significant based on its “technical”
merits, which are based on scientific knowledge or judgment of critical resource characteristics.
Whether a resource is determined to be significant may of course vary based on differences
across geographical areas and spatial scale. While technical significance of a resource may
depend on whether a local, regional, or national perspective is undertaken, typically a watershed
or larger (e.g., ecosystem, landscape, or ecoregion) context should be considered. Technical
Buffalo District
69
significance should be described in terms of one or more of the following criteria or concepts:
scarcity, representation, status and trends, connectivity, limiting habitat, and biodiversity.
Scarcity is a measure of a resource’s relative abundance within a specified geographic range.
Generally, scientists consider a habitat or ecosystem to be rare if it occupies a narrow geographic
range (i.e., limited to a few locations) or occurs in small groupings. Unique resources, unlike any
others found within a specified range, may also be considered significant, as well as resources
that are threatened by interference from both human and natural causes.
Long stretches of free-flowing, naturally functioning streams are rare within the Lake Erie
watershed. All alternatives will provide fish passage at Springville Dam allowing fish species
with access to an additional 70 miles of Cattaraugus Creek and its tributaries currently located
upstream of the dam. Allowing fish passage will allow Cattaraugus Creek to become the largest
unblocked system in the Lake Erie watershed.
Representation is a measure of a resource’s ability to exemplify the natural habitat or ecosystems
within a specified range. The presence of a large number and percentage of native species, and
the absence of exotic species, implies representation as does the presence of undisturbed habitat.
Due to the presence of Springville Dam, Cattaraugus Creek does not currently represent an
undisturbed, free flowing stream as there is no connectivity for fish species between the portions
of the stream upstream and downstream of the dam. Each of the structural alternatives
considered will significantly restore this connectivity. In particular, Alternatives 2A and 2B will
significantly restore the hydrology and natural, fluvial processes and will provide improved
water quality representative of an undisturbed stream.
Status and Trends of biogeochemical processes are functional within the Cattaraugus Creek
watershed; however, they have been degraded through alteration of hydrogeomorphic conditions.
Function of the riverine systems (erosion, transportation, deposition) has been altered through the
construction of Springville Dam and the creek’s restricted use of its natural floodplains. All
project alternatives would aid in returning biogeochemical functions that a river should possess.
Connectivity of the Cattaraugus Creek watershed and Lake Erie has been impaired due to the
construction and presence of Springville Dam which has effectively cut off the lower and upper
parts of the watershed. This has made it impossible for any species to reach high quality habitat
and spawning areas located upstream of Springville Dam. Aquatic life will benefit greatly
through the restoration of connectivity within the system and Lake Erie. Providing fish passage
will aid in reducing impediments to movements of fish and marcroinvertebrates and help to
restore the full connection between upper and lower Cattaraugus Creek. While all of the
alternatives considered will help to restore this connectivity to some extent, Alternative 2A and
2B will provide the greatest connectivity by allowing passage for the greatest quantity and
diversity of species.
Limiting Habitat exists within Cattaraugus Creek watershed. For many species, high quality
habitat is limited downstream of Springville Dam. All of the alternatives will allow fish species
with access to the quality habitat areas located upstream of the dam. In addition, the release of
Buffalo District
70
sediments and restoration of natural geomorphic features may improve downstream habitat for
state listed species such as the sand darter.
Budget Guidance
The purpose of the Springville Dam fish passage project is to reconnect habitat areas throughout
the Cattaraugus Creek watershed and Lake Erie for a variety of native fish species. The U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers has criteria for selecting projects for implementation with the following
criteria and numerical scores being assigned to a project based upon the site meeting the
requirements identified in the Corps Budget guidance (EC 11-2-194). The following applies to
all project alternatives:
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
Habitat Scarcity – Score of 18/25
Connectivity – Score of 25/25
Special Status Species – Score of 5/10
Hydrologic Character – Score of 20/20
Geomorphic Condition – Score of 20/20
Plan Recognition – Score of 5/10
Self Sustaining – Score of 20/20
Nationally Significant – Yes
Regionally Significant - Yes
3.11.2
Acceptability, Completeness, Effectiveness and Efficiency
Acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency are the four evaluation criteria
specified USACE uses in the screening of alternative plans. Alternatives considered in any
planning study, not just ecosystem restoration studies, should meet minimum subjective
standards of these criteria in order to qualify for further consideration and comparison with other
plans.
Acceptability
An ecosystem restoration plan should be acceptable to state and Federal resource agencies and
local governments. There should be evidence of broad-based public consensus and support for
the plan. A recommended plan must be acceptable to the non-Federal cost-sharing partner.
However, this does not mean that the recommended plan must be the locally preferred plan.
Alternative 2B calls for the simplest methods to restore the riverine connectivity and hydraulics
that has the least amount of operations and maintenance associated. This plan is most congruent
with the desired future conditions of the Cattaraugus Creek watershed, in which local, state and
Federal agencies are working together to return free-flowing riverine conditions while continuing
to limit sea lamprey access to upstream spawning areas. The implementation of this plan is
acceptable to those local, state and Federal agencies, as well as local groups that have missions to
restore ecosystem integrity to the Cattaraugus Creek watershed.
Completeness
Buffalo District
71
A plan must provide and account for all necessary investments or other actions needed to ensure
the realization of the planned restoration outputs. This may require relating the plan to other
types of public or private plans if these plans are crucial to the outcome of the restoration
objective. Real estate, operations and maintenance, monitoring, and sponsorship factors must be
considered. Where there is uncertainty concerning the functioning of certain restoration features
and an adaptive management plan has been proposed it must be accounted for in the plan.
Alternatives 2A and 2B are the most complete in that they would most naturalize the localized
hydraulic regime of Cattaraugus Creek. These plans would provide for all riverine organisms and
not just a select few and would meet objectives for a sustainable fish and macroinvertebrate
assemblage.
Effectiveness
An ecosystem restoration plan must make a significant contribution to addressing the specified
restoration problems or opportunities (i.e. restore important ecosystem structure or function to
some meaningful degree). The problems identified that may be addressed under this ecosystem
restoration authority are the fragmented and low quality habitats, impaired aquatic communities,
and un-natural sediment transport associated with the dam. The following opportunities for this
project are presented:
ϕ Restore ecological connectivity of Cattaraugus Creek
ϕ Allow fish species to access high quality habitats upstream of the Springville Dam.
ϕ Improve sediment dynamics and transport of Cattaraugus Creek.
All project alternatives will address these opportunities and thus meet the effectiveness criteria.
Alternatives 2A and 2B are most effective at meeting this criteria.
Efficiency
An ecosystem restoration plan must represent a cost-effective means of addressing the
restoration problem or opportunity. It must be determined that the plan’s restoration outputs
cannot be produced more cost effectively by another agency or institution.
Based on the diminutive nature of the dam, their vestigial functions, and the amount of
operations and maintenance associated with other measures to restore connectivity, simply
breaching a portion of the dam and constructing a new lamprey barrier in its place is the most
efficient use of funding to meet the project goal and objectives. Of these alternatives, Alternative
2A would typically provide the most efficient means of fish passage while the barrier is not in
place. However, during times when the Obermeyer gate is up, it is likely that significant amounts
of sediment could build up behind the gate. If flows are not adequate to remove this sediment,
the built up sediment could form an additional barrier that would not be passable to many species
of fish. As a result, Alternative 2B may provide equal or more efficient passage of fish species.
Buffalo District
72
3.11.3
Risk and Uncertainty
When the costs and outputs of alternative restoration plans are uncertain and/or there are
substantive risks that outcomes will not be achieved, which may often be the case, the selection
of a recommended alternative becomes more complex. It is essential to document the
assumptions made and uncertainties encountered during the course of planning analyses.
Restoration of some types of ecosystems may have relatively low risk. For example, removal of
a dam to restore hydrologic function to a stream since the absence of a manmade structure in a
river removes more risk as opposed to adding risk. When identifying the NER plan the
associated risk and uncertainty of achieving the proposed level of outputs must be considered.
For example, if two plans have similar outputs but one plan costs slightly more, according to cost
effectiveness guidelines, the more expensive plan would be dropped from further consideration.
However, it might be possible that, due to uncertainties beyond the control or knowledge of the
planning team, the slightly more expensive plan will actually produce greater ecological output
than originally estimated, in effect qualifying it as a cost effective plan. But without taking into
account the uncertainty inherent in the estimate of outputs, that plan would have been excluded
from further consideration.
The primary areas of risk and uncertainty associated with this project center around the quantity
of fish that utilize and pass through the fish passage system. In determining the expected outputs
of the various alternatives, assumptions were made regarding the types and quantities of fish
expected to be passed through the system. While significant uncertainty exists in these
assumptions, the designs will be refined during the detailed design phase to ensure that the
greatest quantity and diversity of fish will be passed through the system.
In addition, this is some uncertainty regarding the impacts that could occur to existing fish
populations found upstream for the dam. In particular, concern has been expressed that
competition for habitat and food could lead to adverse impacts to resident (non-native) brown
and rainbow trout found in upper Cattaraugus Creek and its tributaries.
Between Alternatives 2A and 2B, there is a significant amount of uncertainty regarding whether
flows would be strong enough to remove sediment that could build up behind the Obermeyer
gate. If flows are not sufficient to move this sediment, it is likely that the built up sediment
would act as additional barrier to fish passage. As a result, Alternative 2B is likely to provide
somewhat less uncertainty in the types and quantity of fish species passed.
3.12 Selection of the NER Plan/Preferred Alternative
Alternatives 1 through 4 were evaluated using incremental cost analysis and the system of
accounts. Although Alternatives 2A and 2B were identified as best buy plans, Alternative 2B
provides the greatest amount of habitat benefits at the lowest cost per habitat unit. As a result,
Alternative 2B was identified as the NER plan. Based on the system of accounts evaluation and
the fact that it is a best buy plan, it was also identified as the Preferred Action Alternative.
Buffalo District
73
CHAPTER 4 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED PLAN
4.1
Plan Components
The preferred plan (Alternative 2B) would consist of removing a portion of the existing 182 foot
long concrete dam spillway and replacing it with a new lamprey barrier and constructing a fish
passage channel. At the east and west existing dam abutment walls, a 10-foot length of the
existing dam spillway would remain in place to provide structural support for the remaining
existing abutment walls and prevent any disturbance to these walls. The middle section of the
existing dam spillway would be removed to the existing streambed elevation (Figure 4-1).
The new lamprey barrier would be constructed between the two remaining sections of the
existing dam spillway. The overall length of the new lamprey barrier is 121 feet and consists of
two different sections. The first section is a 101-foot long fixed crest concrete barrier with a 25foot long concrete apron. The second section consists of a 15-foot wide fish passage channel.
The fish passage channel would consist of a 15-foot wide concrete U-structure with stone and
gravel embedded into its base slab to create a natural stream bottom. The bottom of the fish
passage channel would have a maximum five percent slope to allow the greatest percentage of
fish species to pass. At its upstream end, the fish passage channel has a stoplog weir, a jump pool
upstream end of the fish passage channel. The top elevation of the lamprey barrier is set at 18
inches above the 10-year tailwater elevation per USFWS recommendations. Jumping fish species
would use the jump pool to jump over the stoplog weir while non-jumping fish species and other
aquatic life would enter the lamprey trap where they would be trapped and sorted by fisheries
personnel. Desirable species would be released upstream of the barrier while lamprey would be
removed and disposed. During the non-lamprey spawning season, the stoplogs would be
removed allowing unrestricted open stream flow through the fish passage channel. At this time,
all fish species and aquatic life would be able to freely pass up and downstream through the fish
passage channel.
The removal of a portion of the dam spillway will result in a lowering in the dam pool elevation
and thus a reduction in risk to life safety concerns, if the dam were to fail. In a letter dated June
6, 2013, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has indicated that the
preferred plan “will most likely be assigned a Low Hazard Classification at the conclusion of the
project.” Also, the sea lamprey barrier will be designed in accordance with all required Federal
and State dam safety requirements so that a Low Hazard Classification can be achieved. As a
result, it is anticipated that the residual risk remaining after implementation of Alternative 2B is
low. The remaining residual risk will be further considered in PED phase.
Buffalo District
74
4-1: Springville Dam before (upper) and after proposed implementation of the preferred plan
(bottom)
Buffalo District
75
Implementation of Alternative 2B would include removal of approximately 20,400 cubic yards
shown in this report as significantly less material would be removed. The total construction cost
of Alternative 2B is estimated as $4,771,000 which assumes that pre-construction sediment
flushing does not occur. This cost estimate has been refined from the preliminary cost estimate
used during plan comparison and selection, in accordance with comments received from the
Cost-DX during ATR (Appendix 3). The total project cost is $6,471,000. Plans, elevation,
profile, sections and details of Alternative 2B are shown on Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure
3-5.
Costs for lowering the existing spillway 8 feet would be a 100% non-Federal cost since it is part
of Erie County’s Engineering Assessment dam safety modification that would be required in
order for the existing dam to meet NYS dam safety regulations. The cost of this dam safety
modification is estimated at $223,000.
The modifications made to refine the costs of Alternative 2b, applied during ATR, would result
in comparable increases in costs if applied to all other project Alternatives. This is a reasonable
assumption based on the similarity of all project alternatives. All project alternatives are
proposed for the same location, consist of similar activities, and have similar construction
schedules. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Alternative 2b would remain the
recommended plan even if the additional cost engineering revisions, resulting from the ATR,
were applied to the other alternatives.
Considerations for Design Phase
The proposed construction methods, procedures, and sequencing is provided in Appendix 1-B.
In addition several factors will be considered during the pre-construction and design phase.
•
Dewatering and temporary water control structures will be required to allow construction
within Cattaraugus Creek. It is expected that minimum flows in Cattaraugus Creek will
be required for environmental purposes at all times during construction of the lamprey
barrier and fish passage system. Water control structures, such as coffer dams, may limit
flow, impound water, and create a temporary risk to life downstream, and must be
designed to withstand minimum flows as well as flood flows during construction.
Contract documents should address this risk.
Buffalo District
76
4.2
•
The timing of construction and time-of-year restrictions may affect construction
sequencing.
•
Changes to upstream geomorphology resulting from flooding.
•
Other impacts of lower of upstream water surface (i.e. turbine intakes).
•
Subsurface conditions for the existing dam embankments and rock foundation.
•
Additional H&H analysis will include: determination of potential of submerged hydraulic
jump and its risks; analysis of dam break and inundation mapping; analysis of stability
and seepage, assessment of downstream sediment impacts.
•
Analysis of potential head cutting to occur including the probable vertical drop across the
cut, and the associated potential risk.
•
Stability analysis of lamprey barrier using H&H and subsurface data.
•
Potential impacts of climate change on preferred plan.
•
Consider re-use of the bottom portion of the existing spillway as the lamprey barrier.
Division of Responsibilities
As established in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (PL99-662), as amended,
project costs are shared with the non-Federal sponsor in accordance with project outputs. Project
elements providing aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits are cost shared based on the cost
sharing provisions in Section 506 of the 2000 WRDA (as amended in 2007). Section 506
requires the non-Federal interests to pay 35 percent of the cost of the project assigned to aquatic
ecosystem restoration during construction and to provide all land, easements, rights-of-way,
relocations, and disposal areas (LERRD) and operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate and replace
the completed project.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Erie County have agreed to
serve as non-Federal sponsors for this ecosystem restoration project. NYSDEC is expected to
provide all required funds for the project while Erie County will provide the real estate in the
immediate area of the dam. NYSDEC will provide all other LERRDS. The non-federal sponsor
will be responsible for O&M. Responsibilities will be determined in the PPA. The cost-sharing
requirements and provisions will be formalized with the signing of the PPA between the
NYSDEC, Erie County, and the Corps prior to initiation of Planning, Engineering, and Design
phase. In this agreement, the non-Federal sponsors will agree to pay 35 percent of the total
project costs. Based on the cost-sharing requirements, the total project cost and pertinent costsharing information are summarized in Table 12 and Table 13.
Buffalo District
77
Table 12: Total Project Costs
Account
01 Lands and Damages
04 Dams
Sub-total
22 Feasibility Study
30 Planning, Engineering &
Design
31 Construction Management
Total Project Cost
Contract
Cost
Contingency Project Cost
$28,000
$7,000
$35,000
$2,972,000
$832,000
$3,804,000
$3,000,000
$839,000
$3,839,000
$1,389,000
$52,000
$1,442,000
$551,000
$444,000
$5,384,000
$108,000
$87,000
$1,086,000
$659,000
$532,000
$6,471,000
Table 13: Determination of Non-Federal Cost Share
Phase or Feature
Cost Shared (65%/35%)
Feasibility
LERRD
Construction
Cost Shared Total
Federal Cost Share (65%)
Non-Federal Share (35%)
Non-Federal LERRDS
Non-Federal Cash
Phase or Feature
Not Cost Shared
Feasibility1,2 (100% Federal)
3
Construction (100% Non-Fed)
Total Project Cost
Total Federal Cost
Total Non-Federal Cost
Non-Federal LERRDS
Non-Federal Cash
Average Annual Opps and Maintenance4
Cost
$1,142,000
$35,000
$4,771,000
$5,948,000
$3,866,200
$2,081,800
$35,000
$2,046,800
Cost
$300,000
$223,000
$6,471,000
$4,166,200
$2,304,800
$35,000
$2,269,800
$47,382
1. The first 100K of the Feasibility Study is 100% Federally funded.
2. The Independent External Peer Review is 100% Federally funded.
3. The dam safety portion of the construction costs is 100% funded by local sponsor.
4. Average Annual Opps and Maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately 1% of Construction.
Buffalo District
78
Federal Responsibilities – The estimated Federal cost share of the project is $4,166,200 which
includes the initial $100,000 of the study which is 100% Federally funded, and the Independent
External Peer Review which is 100% Federally funded. The Corps would be responsible for
contracting for construction, overall supervision during construction, preparation of an operation
and maintenance manual, and perform post-construction monitoring.
Non-Federal Responsibilities – The non-Federal share is $2,304,800 of which $35,000 is covered
by land values. The additional $2,269,800 would be provided as a cash contribution which would
be negotiated in the PPA.
Prior to initiation of the design phase, the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor will
execute a PPA. The LERRDs and OMRR&R of the project will be the responsibility of the nonFederal sponsors for the proposed project. The estimated non-Federal share of the total first cost
of the project is about $2,304,800 and will be covered by LERRDs credit of $35,000 and a cash
contribution of $2,269,800. This includes 35% of the post construction monitoring costs
($30,000) that the NYSDEC will also be responsible for. In addition to the total first cost, the
feasibility level operations and maintenance costs of the project are estimated to total an annual
cost of $47,382. Non-federal sponsors shall, prior to implementation, agree to perform the
following items of local cooperation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Provide 35 percent of the separable project costs allocated to environmental restoration as further specified
below
a) Provide the non-Federal share of all complete planning and design work upon execution of the PPA
b) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and dredged or excavated
material disposal areas, and perform or ensure the performance of all relocations determined by the
government to be necessary for the construction and O&M of the project
c) Provide or pay to the government the cost of providing all features required for the construction of the
project
d) Provide, during construction, any additional costs as necessary to make its total contribution equal to
35 percent of the separable project costs allocated to environmental restoration
Contribute all project costs in excess of the USACE implementation guidance limitation of $10,000,000
For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the
completed project or the functional portion of the project at no cost to the government in accordance with
applicable Federal and state laws and any specific directions prescribed by the government
Give the government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon land that the
local sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of inspection and, if necessary, for
the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the project
Assume responsibility for operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of
the project or completed functional portions of the project, including mitigation features, without cost to the
government in a manner compatible with the project’s authorized purpose and in accordance with
applicable Federal and state laws and specific directions prescribed by the government in the OMRR&R
manual and any subsequent amendments thereto
Comply with Section 221 of Public Law (P.L.) 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and
Section 103 of the WRDA of 1986, as amended, which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall not
commence the construction of any water resource project or separable element thereof until the non-Federal
sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable
element
Hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction of or subsequent maintenance of the
project except those damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors
Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses
incurred pursuant to the project to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs
Buffalo District
79
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Perform or cause to be performed such investigations for hazardous substances that are determined
necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S. Code 9601
through 9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way necessary for the
construction, and O&M of the project, except that the non-Federal sponsor shall not perform investigations
of lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the government determines to be subject to navigation servitude
without prior written direction by the government
Assume complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs for CERCLAregulated material located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the government
determines necessary for the construction and O&M of the project
To the maximum extent practicable, conduct OMRR&R of the project in a manner that will not cause
liability to arise under CERCLA
Prevent future encroachment or modifications that might interfere with proper functioning of the project
Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P.L. 91-646, as amended in Title IV of the Surface Transportation and
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, P.L. 100-17, and the uniform regulation contained in Part 24
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way for
construction and subsequent O&M of the project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits,
policies, and procedures in connection with said acts
Comply with all applicable Federal and state laws and regulations, including Section 601 of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352, and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant
thereto and published in 32 CFR, Part 300, as well as Army Regulation 600-7 entitled “Non-Discrimination
on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the
Army”
Provide 35 percent of that portion of the total cultural resource preservation, mitigation, and data recovery
costs attributable to environmental restoration that are in excess of
1 percent of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for environmental restoration
Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Federal sponsor’s share of total project costs unless the Federal
granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute
Financial Capability of Sponsor
In accordance with regulation ER1105-2-100, Appendix D, where the non-Federal sponsor's
capability is clear, as in the instances where the sponsor has sufficient funds currently available
or has a large revenue base and a good bond rating, the statement of financial capability need
only provide evidence of such. The NYSDEC is committed to its specific cost share of the
Design & Implementation (D&I) Phase.
Buffalo District
80
CHAPTER 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
5.1
Need & Purpose
The need and purpose is described in detail in Section 1.3.
5.2
Alternatives Considered
Four (4) alternative plans, including the No Action Plan were considered for study
implementation, as discussed in section 3.8. Alternative 2B is the Preferred plan since it restores
greatest amount of habitat benefits at the lowest cost per habitat unit.
Alternative #1: No Action
Alternative #2A and 2B: Dam Breached with New Lamprey Barrier
Alternative #3: Dam Lowered 8’ with Denil Fishway
Alternative #4: Dam Lowered 8’ with Bypass Channel
5.3
The Affected Environment
The affected environment is described in detail in Chapter 2 – Inventory & Forecasting.
5.4
Direct and Indirect Effects of the Preferred Plan
5.4.1
Physical Resources
Climate
The minor scale of the preferred plan would not be able to affect the regional climate. The minor
decrease in acreage of open water may reduce evaporation locally, but these changes would not
great enough to impact weather patterns or rainfall within the region.
Land Use
No adverse effects to the land use are expected from implementing the preferred plan since
removing a section of the existing dams would not change surrounding land use. All work
performed would be in the stream channel. Additionally, this project is not intended to reconnect
the river with its former floodplain areas, so flooding would not be induced on riparian lands.
Geology
No adverse effects to local geology are anticipated from implementing the preferred project. The
minor construction need to implement the preferred plan would not disturb any geologic features
or deposits.
Buffalo District
81
Hydrology, Hydraulics & Fluvial Geomorphology
The hydrology of the river in the project site would benefit from partial removal of the
Springville Dam as the water would be returned to more natural flowing system. This preferred
plan is not anticipated to result in significant changes to hydrology that could potentially induce
flooding downstream.
Removal of sections of the Springville Dam would reverse current adverse fluvial geomorphic
trends. Reservoir conditions that have developed upstream due to the presence of the dam would
return to a hydraulically diverse free flowing river. In addition, bedload materials would no
longer be sequestered upstream of the dam and would be naturally distributed upstream and
downstream.
Overall, it is expected that no significant adverse affects to hydrology, hydraulics or fluvial
geomorphology would result from implementing the preferred plan.
Water Quality
There may be temporary increases in turbidity as a result of suspended sediment during
construction; however, the benefits of the preferred plan far outweigh any temporary increase in
turbidity. Any turbidity caused by dam removal would be nothing different than what occurs
during a typical storm event. Water quality may be improved by minor increases in dissolved
oxygen that would result from conversion of portions of the dam pool to riffle-pool habitat.
Overall water quality, currently considered sufficient to support a diverse and healthy aquatic
community and would not be significantly adversely affected due to implementation of the
preferred plan. During construction, measures will be taken to minimize impacts to water quality
including stem-washing construction equipment prior and limiting in-water work to periods of
low flow.
Sediment Quality
Implementation of the preferred plan will result in the restoration of the natural sediment
dynamics of the reach of Cattaraugus Creek in the vicinity of the project. As much as 20,400
cubic yards of sediment will be removed upstream of the dam and moved off site. It is
anticipated that additional sediment from the dam pool area will naturally move down stream
following implementation of the project. Based on the Phase I ESA conducted at the dam
(Appendix 4), there is no evidence that sediment behind the dam is contaminated. Therefore, it is
not anticipated that project activities or the downstream movement of sediments currently above
the dam will negatively affect the sediment quality of Cattaraugus Creek. As a result, sediment
quality will not be adversely affected due to implementation of the preferred plan.
5.4.2
Ecological Resources
Vegetation
Buffalo District
82
Breaching the Springville Dam would benefit native riparian plant communities by restoring
channel geomorphology along the bank, toe and bar areas of Cattaraugus Creek in the vicinity of
the project. In addition, breaching the dam would reduce the elevation of the artificial pool
upstream, which would allow for the recolonization of the newly exposed riparian area by native
vegetation. Downstream, toe and bar vegetation is expected to increase as a result of the fresh
supply of fluvial substrates that will be able to pass the dam. No significant adverse effects are
expected to result from implementation of the preferred plan.
Fisheries
The fish community may be temporarily affected by project activities that would cause them to
avoid the project area during construction due to dewatering and increased turbidity. These
temporary impacts are only expected to persist during the construction phase. Implementation of
the preferred plan will restore fish passage past Springville Dam. The preferred plan is
anticipated to have large benefits to fish communities by increasing species richness by restoring
connectivity between the upper and lower watershed and allowing downstream species to access
the high quality habit upstream of the dam. In addition the preferred plan will restore
approximately two-thirds of the dam pool to riverine habitat. This is anticipated to benefit native
and high value naturalized fish species.
Resident naturally reproducing rainbow trout and brown trout are already supported by the
fishery above Springville Dam. Predicting the impacts of introducing steelhead to the upper
watershed is difficult. According to NYSDEC, development of a naturally reproducing steelhead
population in the upper Cattaraugus Creek system would likely cause some reduction in
abundance of resident rainbow and brown trout. Relict populations of native brook trout occur in
15 small streams, one of which has a barrier impassable to fish. After a review of literature,
NYSDEC concluded that it is difficult to predict whether steelhead would be an additional
competitor to brook trout or if the predicted displacement of some resident brown and rainbow
trout would result in no net increase in competition (NYSDEC, 2006).
Plankton and Benthos
The preferred plan will result in converting approximately two-thirds of the existing dam pool
back into a natural stream system. This will restore natural lotic conditions and improve habitat
for native benthic communities, but will likely reduce habitat for lentic plankton communities. It
is expected that construction activities that include diversion and dewatering of the area around
the dam will result in temporary negative impacts to plankton and benthos in the immediate area.
Minor increases in turbidity may also indirectly impact benthos downstream. These temporary
impacts are only expected to persist during the construction phase. Implementation of the
preferred plan will restore a dam pool to riverine habitat; thus, it is expected that aquatic life will
benefit from the project and recolonize the newly created habitat. This in turn will increase the
quantity and quality of habitat for other aquatic wildlife. It is anticipated that restoration of
connectivity will benefit native freshwater mussels as host fish species will be able to move
upstream past the dam.
Wildlife
Buffalo District
83
Aquatic life may be temporarily affected by project activities. It is expected that construction
activities would cause mobile forms of aquatic life including amphibians, reptiles, and benthic
organisms to avoid the project area during construction. These temporary impacts are only
expected to persist during the construction phase. Implementation of the preferred plan will
restore approximately two-thirds of the dam pool to riverine habitat; thus, it is expected that
aquatic life will benefit from the project and recolonize the newly created habitat. This in turn
will increase the quantity and quality of foraging habitat for other terrestrial wildlife.
Terrestrial wildlife may temporarily avoid the project area during construction phase, however,
no long term impacts to wildlife are anticipated. As a standard practice, the contractor would be
required to keep their activities under surveillance, management and control to minimize
interference with, disturbance to damage local fish and wildlife.
Riverine Communities
The preferred plan would reconnect 70 miles of stream habitat in the upper Cattaraugus Creek
watershed with the main branch. The upper 70 miles of the Cattaraugus and its tributaries,
notably Clear Creek, Elton Creek, Hosmer Brook, and Lime Lake Outlet, are all of higher quality
than any of the tributaries located downstream of Springville Dam with regards to water quality
and spawning habitat. For this reason, it is anticipated that implementation of a fish passage
project that bypasses the dam will greatly increase spawning habitat for native species and high
value naturalized fish species in Cattaraugus Creek.
Additionally, the preferred plan will restrict the range of sea lamprey to those areas of
Cattaraugus Creek below the Springville Dam. As a result, sea lamprey will remain separate
from potential spawning habitat in the upper Cattaraugus Creek.
Overall biotic integrity is expected to increase as a result of implementation of the preferred plan.
A restored fluvial system with proper hydraulics and channel morphology would increase
spawning, nursery, and feeding areas. Since the preferred plan would be implemented in a
fashion as to increase quantity and quality of riverine communities, no significant adverse effects
resultant from implementing the preferred plan are expected.
Wetlands
The preferred plan will result in the conversion of the dam pool to a riverine channel, and a
reduction of the extent of inundation. This is likely to alter the hydrologic regime of the
floodplain areas that are present along the fringe of the dam pool. These areas, are dominated by
invasive Phragmites and Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) however, do not contain hydric
soils according to the Cattaraugus and Erie County soil surveys. The current floodplain areas
may experience drier conditions as a result of the project. However, it is anticipated that the bed
of the dam pool will be exposed in several areas, and would likely support the development of
wetland vegetation. For this reason it is anticipated that the project will result in a net gain in
wetland area.
Buffalo District
84
Threatened and Endangered Species
State and Federally threatened and endangered species have been previously discussed in section
2.21 of this report. The preferred plan as proposed will have no effect on any Federally-listed
endangered, threatened, or candidate species. The Service concurred with this finding in a letter
dated 7 March 2014.
State endangered species found in Cattaraugus Creek include black redhorse, blackchin shiner,
channel darter, eastern sand darter, freshwater drum, and mooneye. None of the species will be
negatively impacted by the preferred plan. The preferred plan may benefit the black redhorse by
providing access to high quality habitat in the upper watershed. . Black redhorse and sand darter
may benefit from the release of sediment to downstream system that may improve habitat
conditions.
Although currently delisted, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are also known to occur in
these counties and are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Act. No tree removal is proposed for this project, thus direct impacts are not anticipated. In
addition, the temporary increase in sedimentation caused by removal of the dam and release of
the dam pool sediments is not anticipated to negatively impact fish of Cattaraugus Creek that act
as a food source for the bald eagle. For these reasons, the proposed project activities will have no
effect on bald eagle. The Service concurred with this finding in a letter dated 7 March 2014.
5.4.3
Cultural Resources
As stated previously in Section 2.12, on February 2012, a Phase I Cultural Resources
Investigation Report was completed for the Springville Dam Project (Appendix 4). This
investigation included a reconnaissance survey (e.g., visual assessment, site walkover, and photo
documentation); background research; archaeological site file searches at the New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation’s (NYSOPRHP) Field Services Bureau;
and systematic subsurface test excavations in the vicinity of Springville Dam. Archaeological
site file searches confirmed that the dam, powerhouse, and surrounding 90 acres were listed on
the NRHP on September 20, 1996 (Scoby Power Plant and Dam, NRHP No. 96NR00942). The
listed property consists of the following contributing elements: the foundation of the original
power plant which includes two water chutes and three concrete abutments; wooden cribbing
from a previous wooden dam within the reservoir to the south of the present dam; the current
ogee concrete gravity dam producing twenty-four feet of head; concrete drainage gates; tailrace;
trash racks; an internal chain hoist; and internal machinery. Construction of the current dam
began in 1921, replacing earlier structures built in 1896 and 1899, elements of which still exist.
The complex is a rare and intact example of a small hydroelectric power-generating facility in
western New York. The rarity is due to the large fluctuations in flow and seasonal freeze and
thaw of area waterways. The power plant building is utilitarian in design and retains all of its
historic machinery, including two General Electric 250-kilowatt AC generators and
regulator/distribution equipment. The dam is an ogee concrete gravity dam with 24-foot head
with three concrete drainage gates used to release water from the reservoir. Historically, the
complex played an important role in bringing electricity to the Village of Springville, thereby
stimulating local growth and development. All of the alternatives would have an effect on this
NHRP property. Although, the preferred plan would directly alter one aspect of the original
Buffalo District
85
design of the property (i.e., its spillway); it would retain the historic earthen dam, power house
and a portion of the spillway and wing-walls. It would not result in any significant permanent
disturbance to the surrounding land. Thus, it was determined that the preferred plan will have no
adverse effect on the NHRP. SHPO concurred in a letter dated December 13, 2013.
Consultation is on going with the Seneca Nation of Indians and Tonawanda Seneca requesting
concurrence with this finding.
As part of the Phase I cultural resources investigation, four shovel tests were excavated
approximately 20 inches in diameter along a single transect in areas exhibiting the least amount
of disturbance at intervals of no greater than 50 feet. No cultural material was recovered. Based
on the results of this survey, no adverse effects on prehistoric or historic archaeological resources
are anticipated within the project area. SHPO concurred with this determiniation in a letter dated
December 13, 2013. Consultation is on going with the Seneca Nation of Indians and Tonawanda
Seneca Nation requesting concurrence with regards to this determination of effects.
Socioeconomics
During construction, increased traffic congestion would be localized and intermittent.
Employment could increase slightly during construction, and the region’s labor force should
provide the necessary workers. Noise levels would be increased during the construction period
from passing trucks and construction activity. Any aesthetic impacts would be negligible and
temporary. The preferred plan would not have any significant impacts to the area’s social
properties.
Recreational Activities
There will likely be temporary adverse impacts to recreational fishing during construction due to
the release of sediment and construction activities in the stream. After construction, recreational
fishing opportunities are expected to improve significantly as the fishery itself improves from the
restored ecologic connectivity.
Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Analysis (HTRW)
As discussed in Section 2.6, USACE has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the
scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E 1527-05 and USACE Engineering Regulation 11652-132 (Appendix 4). Surface water sampling, sediment sampling, and biological sampling have
all shown no evidence of contamination at levels that would prohibit construction of any
alternatives at this site, including fish ladders, rock ramps, and dam modifications (e.g., crest
lowering). The results from the screening level risk evaluation indicate that there is not a
potential for adverse health effects to occur to aquatic life or construction workers exposed to
sediments around Springville Dam on Cattaraugus Creek. Available data, interviews with
various site employees and officials, coupled with a thorough background search has revealed no
evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with this property. Based on the
available evidence, USACE at this time does not recommend a Phase II ESA for the Springville
Dam.
Buffalo District
86
As a result, the sediment sequestered in the dam pool of Springville Dam is not anticipated to be
impaired with contaminants.
5.4.4
17 Points of Environmental Quality
The 17 points are defined by Section 122 of Rivers, Harbors & Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L.
91-611) from (ER 1105-2-240 of 13 July 1978). Effects to these points are discussed as follows:
Noise
Any of the alternative plans would cause minor and temporary increases in noise levels beyond
the current conditions. The minor noise effects would stem from machinery utilized for removing
the dams and placing materials. Long term significant effects in terms of noise are not expected.
Aesthetic Values
None of the alternative plans would reduce the aesthetic values of Cattaraugus Creek. Aesthetic
values are actually expected to improve with the removal the dam and the return of more natural
free-flowing reaches with less impairment to downstream banks.
Displacement of People
None of the alternative plans would displace local residents since this is an isolated public parcel.
Community Growth
None of the alternative plans would adversely affect community growth. Improved recreational
fishing opportunities may attract people to the area both for increased recreational opportunities
as well as increased employment opportunities afforded by the recreational sport fishery.
Community Cohesion
None of the alternative plans would disrupt community cohesion. The improved recreational
sport fishery may improve community cohesion.
Regional Growth
None of the alternative plans would have adverse effects on regional growth. Increased
recreational fishing opportunities may result in increased regional growth.
Tax Revenues
None of the alternative plans would adversely or beneficially affect tax revenues.
Property Values
Buffalo District
87
None of the alternative plans would have adverse effects on property values, but instead would
have the potential to increase surrounding land values due to a proximity to a higher quality
recreational sport fishery.
Public Facilities
The preferred plan would have no effect on public facilities except during construction when
Scoby Dam Park may be utilized as a staging area for construction equipment. Alternative 4,
would require a significant portion of Scoby Dam Park be used for the bypass channel, greatly
limiting its use as a park for public use.
Public Services
None of the alternative plans would adversely or beneficially affect public services.
Employment
None of the alternative plans would adversely affect employment. Instead, implementation of the
preferred plan would temporarily increase employment during construction activities. In
addition, the improved recreational fishery may increase employment opportunities in the area as
increased numbers of anglers would be expected to travel to the area, resulting in greater demand
for lodging, dining, bait and tackle shops, etc.
Business and Industrial Activity
None of the alternative plans would adversely or beneficially affect local commerce. An
improved recreational sport fishery could result in increased tourism that would benefit local
businesses.
Displacement of Farms
None of the alternative plans would adversely affect farmland since restoration areas do not
occur on agricultural fields.
Man-made Resources
The preferred plan includes modification to the structure of the Springville Dam. No other
manmade resources will be adversely or beneficially affected by the preferred plan.
Natural Resources
The No Action alternative allows for the continued degradation of native species and significant
habitats. The preferred plan would not adversely affect natural resources; rather, it would
improve them.
Buffalo District
88
Air Quality
The preferred plan would cause only minor temporary increases in exhaust emission from
machinery and equipment during construction.
5.5
Cumulative Effects
Consideration of cumulative effects requires a broader perspective than examining just the direct
and indirect effects of a proposed action. It requires that reasonably foreseeable future impacts be
assessed in the context of past and present effects to important resources. Often it requires
consideration of a larger geographic area than just the immediate “project” area. One of the most
important aspects of cumulative effects assessment is that it requires consideration of how
actions by others (including those actions completely unrelated to the proposed action) have and
will affect the same resources. In assessing cumulative effects, the key determinant of
importance or significance is whether the incremental effect of the proposed action will alter the
sustainability of resources when added to other present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions.
Cumulative environmental effects for the proposed ecosystem restoration project were assessed
in accordance with guidance proved by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 315-R-99-002). This guidance provides and elevenstep process for identifying and evaluating cumulative effect in NEPA analyses.
5.5.1
Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis
Through this environmental assessment, the cumulative effects issues and assessment goals are
established, the spatial and temporal boundaries are determined, and the reasonably foreseeable
future actions are identified. Cumulative effects are assessed to determine if the sustainability of
any of the resources are adversely affected, with the goal of determining the incremental impact
to key resources that would occur should the proposal be permitted.
Three temporal boundaries were considered:
•
•
•
Past - 1830’s because this is the approximate time that the landscape was in its natural
state.
Present – 2013 when the decision is being made on the most beneficial ecological
restoration
Future – 2063, the year used for determining project life end, although the ecological
restoration should last until a geologic even disturbs the area.
Projecting the reasonably foreseeable future actions is difficult. The proposed action (ecosystem
restoration) is reasonably clear. Projected cumulative impacts of those actions must rely on
judgment as to what are reasonable based on existing trends and where available, from qualified
sources. Reasonably foreseeable does not include unfounded or speculative projects.
Buffalo District
89
5.5.2
Cumulative Effects on Resources
Physical Resources
The physical resources of Cattaraugus Creek have been altered from their natural state by human
activities. While population densities in the watershed are less than other places in the regions,
changes to hydrology, topography, water quality, and other resources have resulted from
agricultural and urban development. The Springville Dam in particular has had a significant
direct effect on Cattaraugus Creek, in changing its hydrology, geomorphology, and sediment
transport. With the exception of the structure at the mouth of Java Lake, no other large dams are
present in the watershed. Therefore, other dam removals are not necessary on Cattaraugus Creek,
and repetition of similar actions as completed in this project will not occur in the watershed. As
discussed previously in this report, implementation of the preferred plan will reverse some of the
negative impacts that construction of Springville Dam had on the physical resources of
Cattaraugus Creek. Specifically, partial breaching of the dam will restore a degree of the natural
hydrology to the system, and in turn improve sediment dynamics by allowing it to pass
downstream. It is anticipated that this sediment will feed the sediment starved conditions in
Cattaraugus Creek below the dam and reduce problematic erosion.
Other activities occurring in the watershed include bank stabilization, maintenance and
replacement of road crossings, and other activities associated with urban and agricultural
development. It isn’t anticipated that effects of implementation of the preferred plan will be
compounded by interaction with other activities in the watershed. However, the project may
result in the reduction in the need for bank stabilization downstream, as sediment dynamics will
be improved from implementation of the preferred plan.
There are no irrecoverable losses of resources identified in terms of geology, topography,
hydrology, water quality and other physical resources due to implementation of the preferred
alternative. Cumulative beneficial effects to Cattaraugus Creek are anticipated in terms of
geology, topography, hydrology, water quality and other physical resources.
Ecological Resources
The ecological resources of Cattaraugus Creek have been altered from their natural state by
human activities. Modifications to hydrology, impairments of water quality, and decreases in
habitat availability, quality, and connectivity have resulted in negative impacts to aquatic
communities of the Cattaraugus Creek watershed. The introduction of non-native species has
also negatively impacted aquatic communities in the watershed, especially areas below the
Springville Dam that have been invaded by the sea lamprey. The Springville Dam in particular
has had a significant direct effect on ecological resources of Cattaraugus Creek, by disrupting
aquatic connectivity. Due to its size, no aquatic species are able to bypass the dam and access
high quality habitat in the upper watershed. This has resulted in direct negative impacts to native
Buffalo District
90
and high value naturalized fish species, mussels, amphibians, macro-invertebrates, and other
aquatic life. A positive feature of the constructing of the dam is that it has excluded non-native
invasive species, such as the sea lamprey, from potential spawning areas in the upper watershed.
As discussed previously in this report, implementation of the preferred plan will be beneficial to
aquatic communities by restoring connectivity between areas above and below the dam. This will
allow some species only present below the dam, to expand their range to the upper watershed,
increasing species richness. As many of the watershed’s high quality tributaries are suitable for
spawning, restoring aquatic connectivity is anticipated to greatly improve productivity of aquatic
communities. Implementation of the proposed alternative includes a measure to exclude the sea
lamprey from the upper watershed.
With the exception of the structure at the mouth of Java Lake, no other large dams are present in
the watershed. Therefore, other dam removals are not necessary on Cattaraugus Creek, and
repetition of similar actions as completed in this project will not occur in the watershed.
Other activities that may be undertaken in the watershed for aquatic habitat enhancement and
restoration are anticipated to positively interact with the proposed work and result in
compounded positive benefits to the aquatic communities of Cattaraugus Creek.
There are no irrecoverable losses of resources identified in terms of geology, topography,
hydrology, water quality and other physical resources due to implementation of the preferred
alternative. Cumulative beneficial effects to Cattaraugus Creek are anticipated in terms of
aquatic communities and their habitats.
Cultural & Historic Resources
The current cultural and historic resources at the Springville Dam will not be adversely affected
by the preferred plan. Implementation of the project is not expected to result in additional
cumulative impacts to the project site or to the surrounding area.
Aesthetic Values
The current aesthetic value of the area at Springville Dam could be considered by some people to
be reduced because of the presence of Springville Dam. The dam creates degraded habitat by
disrupting the natural flow of the riverine systems. The preferred plan will restore riverine
connectivity which will in turn enhance the aesthetic value of the two systems by restoring
riparian and riverine heterogeneity.
Public Facilities
Restoring the connectivity of Cattaraugus Creek will provide an enhanced outdoor experience for
the surrounding community and will provide no adverse effects to public facilities except during
construction when Scoby Dam Park may be unavailable for use as a recreation facility. The
NYSDEC has acquired approximately 35 miles of public fishing rights on Cattaraugus Creek and
its tributaries upstream of Springville Dam. These facilities will likely experience increased
usage following restoration resulting from the improved fishery.
Buffalo District
91
5.5.3
Cumulative Effects Summary
The overall cumulative effects of the Springville Dam project are considered to be beneficial
environmentally, socially and economically. The breaching of the dam will greatly benefit the
local environment and increase ecological integrity. Habitat connectivity, hydrology, and natural
sediment dynamics would be restored. As a result, native and high value naturalized fish species,
mussels, amphibians, other aquatic life will benefit.
5.6
Compliance with Environmental Statutes
The plans presented in this integrated Environmental Assessment are in compliance with
appropriate statutes, executive orders and memoranda including the Natural Historic
Preservation Act of 1966; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act; Executive Order 11988 (floodplain management); and the River and Harbors
Act of 1899. The potential project is incompliance with the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act;
and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
5.6.1
Environmental Justice
The preferred plan would not have adverse effect on any low-income populations or minority
populations. Any change in area use resulting from the project would not disproportionately
affect one group of the local population more than another. Therefore, the residents of the
Village of Springville, Erie County, or Cattaraugus County would not be adversely affected
(with regard to health, income, recreational opportunities, or overall quality of life) by the
proposed project. Since the overall project and the preferred plan are considered ecosystem
restoration and will only benefit the surrounding environment and communities, no adverse
effects to any minority population and/or low income populations are expected.
5.6.2
Clean Air Act
Due to the small scale, short duration and relatively unpolluted nature of the restoration project,
it is assumed that the project is below the de minimis level of PM 100 tons per year. No
significant adverse impacts to air quality would be expected due to project implementation.
5.6.3
Section 401 & 404 of the Clean Water Act
A section 404(b)(1) analysis was completed for the preferred plan and is located in Appendix 4.
Features addressed include partial breaching of the dam with lamprey barrier installation,
lowering the dam eight feet with a Denil fish ladder, and lowering the dam eight feet with a
bypass channel. No adverse effects were determined.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the preferred plan are currently being applied for. It
is anticipated that this permit will be granted by the NYSDEC for the preferred plan.
Buffalo District
92
5.6.4
USFWS Coordination
Coordination with USFWS commenced with the transmittal of the scoping information packet on
7 February 2013. A response letter was received from USFWS on 21 February 2013 (Appendix
4) in which USFWS states that they do not support Alternative 1 (No Action) as it does not meet
the goals of passing fish over the dam or dam safety issues. The USFWS stated their preference
for alternatives 3 and 4 over alternative 2a because they involve the removal of less sediment. An
update was sent to the USFWS on 27 February 2014 outlining changes in the preferred
alternative and potential impacts to threatened and endangered species. The service concurred
with the selection of Alternative 2b in a letter dated 7 March 2014. They also concurred with the
finding that the project will have no effect on any currently listed threatened and endangered
species. Thus no further consulation is required und the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or
the Endangered Species Act unless project plans change.
5.6.5
SHPO
Consultation with SHPO and Federally recognized tribes commenced with the publication of the
NEPA scoping document on February 7, 2013. As discussed in Section 5.4.3, the preferred plan
was found to have no adverse effect on the Scoby Power Plant and Dam. SHPO concurred with
this finding on December 13, 2013. Consultation is currently on-going with the Seneca Nation
of Indians and Tonawanda Seneca Nation and their concurrence with the determination of no
effect on archaeological resources has been requested.
5.6.6
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
An Environmental Assessment was completed for the proposed measures at the Springville Dam
project which found that these measures would result in no significant adverse effects to the
quality of the natural or human environment, and an environmental impact statement is therefore
not required. A 30-day Public Review period was held from DAY MONTH YEAR to DAY
MONTH YEAR for the Environmental Assessment. The proposed project is expected to be in
full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act,
Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Corps of Engineer’s regulations. The
FONSI for the project was signed DAY MONTH YEAR.
CHAPTER 6 - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Erie County are the nonFederal sponsors for this project. After the detailed project report is approved, the Corps will ask
the sponsors to sign a PPA which defines the Federal and non-Federal responsibilities for
designing, implementing, operating, and maintaining the project. The costs of the feasibility
phase will be included in the total project costs in the PPA and will be shared on a 65 percent
Federal, 35 percent non-Federal basis. An implementation schedule is included as Table 14.
Buffalo District
93
Table 14: Springville Dam Implementation Schedule
ITEM
PPA Signed, Feasibility Phase Completed
Detailed Design, Plans and Specifications Complete
Approval of New Construction Start
Real Estate Acquisitions Completed
Advertise Construction Contract
Completion of Construction
6.1
Completion
Date
Sep-14
Mar-16
Jun-16
Oct-16
Nov-16
Dec-17
Design Phase
During the design phase, the final engineering design of the preferred plan will be completed and
documented in a Design Documentation Report (DDR). A detailed set of plans and specifications
will be prepared based on the DDR in order to solicit and award a construction contract. Also,
prior to finalization of the plans and specifications, assurance will be made that all areas to be
prepared by the non-Federal sponsor shall be in compliance with ER 1165-2-132, Federal, State,
and local regulations. A schedule, quality control plan, and labor estimate was fashioned along
with the DPR Quality Control Plan (QCP) for the plans and specifications phase; if approval is
granted to this project, the QCP would continue to be followed.
6.2 Implementation Phase
Once the Design Phase has been completed, the non-Federal sponsor may proceed to acquire the
necessary real estate interests required for the project. Once sufficient real estate interests have
been certified by the Corps and funding is available, the construction contract may be advertised
and awarded. Upon physical completion of the project, the Corps will notify the non-Federal
sponsor in writing that construction of the project is complete and provide the non-Federal
sponsor with the OMRR&R Manual.
6.2
Monitoring & Adaptive Management Plan
Section 2039 of WRDA 2007 directs the Secretary to ensure that when conducting a feasibility
study for a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration that the recommended
project includes a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration. Although
monitoring can be conducted for a period of up to ten years after implementation, this particular
project will be monitored for the first five years after completion of construction. A five year
monitoring plan following completion of construction will be implemented for this project. This
plan is detailed in Appendix 4.
Buffalo District
94
6.3
Real Estate
The Real Estate Plan for the project site was developed by the Detroit District’s Real Estate
Division. The Real Estate Plan is included as Appendix 2, which was reviewed and approved
through a formal ATR. The current non-Federal LERRDs credit is estimated at $27,000.
6.4
Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
Upon receipt of the notice of completion of the project, the non-Federal sponsor will be
responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, and replacing the project in
accordance with the OMRR&R Manual. The O&M costs of the project are estimated to total an
annual cost of $47,382 with a 3.5% interest rate over 50-years. O&M efforts would likely consist
of maintaining the trap and sort operation during lamprey spawning season, maintaining removal
of debris from the lamprey barrier/fish passage channel, removal of sediment from behind the
barrier, and possible structural maintenance of the fish passage channel or lamprey barrier. A
detailed O&M Manual containing all the duties will be provided to NYSDEC after construction
is closed out.
CHAPTER 7 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, REVIEW, AND
COORDINATION
7.1
Preparation and Review
This report was prepared by the Corps Buffalo District. The project study team is presented in
Table 15.
Buffalo District
95
Table 15: Project Delivery Team
Name
Role
SPRINGVILLE DAM PDT
Office
Telephone
Symbol
Email
Hintz, Geoffrey
Project Manager
CELRB-PMPM
716.879.4155
[email protected]
Unghire, Joshua
Plan Formulator
CELRB-PMPA
716.879.4345
[email protected]
Greer, Lynn
Outreach Coordinator
CELRB-TDOT
716.879.4260
[email protected]
Lewandowski,
Frank
Project Civil\Structural
Engineer
CELRB-TDDS
716.879.4242
[email protected]
Vetovitz, Reed
Geotechnical Engineer
CELRB-TDDC
716.879.4103
[email protected]
Polanski, Paul
Cost Engineering
CELRB-TDDE
716.879.4236
[email protected]
Ruby, Rich
Environmental
Analysis/NEPA
CELRB-TDEA
716.879.4109
[email protected]
Ernest, Jeffrey
Contracting Officer
CELRB-PMCT
716.879.4250
[email protected]
Frederick, Bill
Geologist
CELRB-TDHD
716.879.43243
[email protected]
Rebmann,
Michele
Program Analyst
CELRB-PMPO
716.978.4408
[email protected]
Balzano,
Josephine
Project Local
Configuration Manager
CELRB-PMPO
716.879.4291
[email protected]
Pioli, Bill
Safety & Occupation
Health
CELRB-PMSO
716.879.4212
[email protected]
Butler, Bill
Indian Nations Liason
CELRB-TDEA
716.879.4268
[email protected]
Koralewski, Keith Hydraulics Engineering
CELRB-TDHD
716.879.4358
[email protected]
Echevarria,
Waleska
Hydraulics Engineer
CELRB-TDHD
716.879.4234
[email protected]
Janik, Jennifer
Real Estate
CELRB-RE-B 716.879.4113
[email protected]
Barczak, Michelle District Counsel
CELRB-OC
716.879.4183
[email protected]
Sanders, Bruce
CELRB-PA
716.879.4210
[email protected]
7.2
Public Affairs
Coordination and Consultation with the Sponsor and other Agencies
Coordination throughout the feasibility study process has occurred between the Corps Buffalo
District, NYSDEC, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Erie County, Cattaraugus County,
USFWS, the Seneca Nation of Indians and the State Historic Preservation Office.
Buffalo District
96
7.3
Public Review and Comment
A public meeting was held March 5, 2013 to present the various alternatives and solicit public
comment. Approximately 60 people attended and comments from those attending the meeting
were accepted the night of the meeting of by mail/email until March 15, 2013. Many verbal
comments were made at the meeting, with the large majority supporting the Preferred Action
Alternative. Seven written comments were received after the public meeting. These concerns
were considered in the development of the study and further consideration was not justified by
the available information. Therefore, the Preferred Action Alternative, which the majority of
commenter’s supported, it to breach a portion of Springville Dam, construct a sea lamprey
barrier at the dam site and construct a fish passage channel to allow fish to pass the new barrier.
CHAPTER 8 - RECOMMENDATION
I have considered all significant aspects of the problems and opportunities as they relate to fish
passage at the Springville Dam. Those aspects include environmental, social, and economic
effects, as well as engineering feasibility.
I recommend Alternative 2B, which consists of breaching Springville Dam, creating a new
lamprey barrier, and constructing a fish passage channel to allow fish passage over new barrier.
The recommended plan has a total project cost of approximately $6,471,000 (2013 price levels).
This plan provides 82.67 net average annual habitat units and will reconnect approximately 70
miles of stream located upstream of the dam with the lower watershed and Lake Erie.
The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at this time and current
departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program
and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works construction
program nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch.
_________________________________
Owen J. Beaudoin
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
District Commander
Buffalo District
97
REFERENCES
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Enchanted Mountains of Cattaraugus County: Official Site for Tourism & Visitor Information
for Cattaraugus County, New York. Visited May 7, 2012.
<http://enchantedmountains.com/>
Fuller, P.L. Nico, E. Maynard, J. Larson, and A. Fusaro. 2012. Petromyzon marinus. USGS
Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainseville, FL. May 8, 2012.
<http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=836>
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. Upper Cattaraugus Creek
Demonstration Project. April 26, 2012. <http://www.glc.org/basin/project.html?id=227>
Goehle, M. A. 1998. Assessment of Natural Recruitment in the Mixed Rainbow/Steelhead
Fishery of Cattaraugus Creek and Tributaries. MS Thesis. SUNY at Buffalo. 45pp.
Hunt, David M., Edinger, Gregory J., Schmid, John J., Evans, D.J., Novak, Paul G., Olivero,
Adele JM. and Young, Stephen M. 2002. Lake Erie Gorges Biodiversity Inventory and
Landscape Integrity Analysis. A final report prepared for the Central/Western New York
Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. October 15, 2002. New York Natural Heritage
Program. Albany, NY.
Kling, G. W. "Coauthors, 2003: Confronting climate change in the Great Lakes region: Impacts
on our communities and ecosystems." The Union of Concerned Scientists and the
Ecological Society of America.
Lofgren, B. M., Quinn, F. H., Clites, A. H., Assel, R. A., Eberhardt, A. J., & Luukkonen, C. L.
(2002). Evaluation of potential impacts on Great Lakes water resources based on climate
scenarios of two GCMs. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 28(4), 537-554.
Lofgren, B. M., Hunter, T. S., & Wilbarger, J. (2011). Effects of using air temperature as a proxy
for potential evapotranspiration in climate change scenarios of Great Lakes basin
hydrology. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 37(4), 744-752.
Markham, J.L. 2006. Lake Erie Tributary Creel Survey: fall 2003 – spring 2004, fall 2004 –
spring 2005. NYSDEC publication. Albany, NY. 44 pp.
Miller, R. R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American Fishes
During the Past Century. Fisheries 14(6): 22-38.
The National Atlas. April 18, 2012. <http://www.nationalatlas.gov>
National Weather Service, Weather Forecast Office Buffalo, NY. April 25, 2012.
<http://www.erh.noaa.gov/buf/svrwx/web_090810_Flashflood/indexflood.html>
Buffalo District
98
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Bureau of Watershed Assessment
and Research, Division of Water. The Niagara River/Lake Erie Basin Waterbody
Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List. September 2010.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York Natural Heritage
Program Nature Explorer. May 14, 2012. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/natureexplorer/app/>
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Public Fishing Rights Maps:
Cattaraugus Creek – Steelhead Section. Revised December 2009.
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/cattcreeksteelhead.pdf>
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Regulations: Chapter X: Division
of Water. April 17, 2012. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2485.html>
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Division of Lands and Forests.
Zoar Valley Multiple Use Area Unit Management Plan. December 2006.
Schneider, C.P., R.W. Owens, R.A. Bergstedt, and R. O’Gorman. 1996. Predation by Sea
Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) on Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in Southern Lake
Ontario, 1982-1992. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(9): 19211932.
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fish Research Board of
Canada, Bulletin 184. Ottawa, ON.
Szabo, C.O., Coon, W.F., and Niziol, T.A., 2010, Flash Floods of August 10, 2009, in the
Villages of Gowanda and Silver Creek, New York: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2010-5259, 23 p.
URS Corporation. Periodic Inspection Report, Springville Dam, Cattaraugus Creek, Gowanda,
Erie County, NY. November 2010.
U.S. Department of Energy. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term
Stewardship at the West Valley Demonstration Project and Western New York Nuclear
Service Center. January 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 2 Superfund. Peter Cooper, Gowanda NY. April
26, 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/peter_cooper/>
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. Final Feasibility Report: Cattaraugus Creek
New York. December 1987.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of
Cattaraugus County, New York. 2007.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Erie County, New
York. 1986.
Buffalo District
99
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Seneca Nation of
Indians, New York. 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 2 Water. Cattaraugus Creek Basin Aquifer.
April 17, 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/region2/water/aquifer/catt/cattargs.htm>
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. New York Field Office Endangered Species Section 7 Project
Reviews. May 11, 2012. <http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm>
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.
<http://nas.er.usgs.gov> May 8, 2012.
Buffalo District
100

springville(scoby) dam fish passage project

Transcription

Similar documents

0859 SKY 11 BB H - Sky Lake Sions Loft

Chesaning

Dam water Intake

aswan dam case study

Water Recycling Late Primary

From: Lee Sexsmith [mailto:hecubuspg@telus

Num. 23, December 2010 (pdf 3.6 MB)

Controlled sinking of a caisson in a weak rock The Peruća dam in

Milltown Dam Removal - Association of Conservation Engineers

Módulo 5 4: Deslizamientos, flujos de escombro (huaycos), aluviones