DOCSLIB.ORG

Comprehensive Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comprehensive Plan Chenango County Board of Supervisors Chairman, Lawrence N. Wilcox – Oxford John H. Lawrence – Afton David C. Law – Norwich (town) Dolores Nabinger – Bainbridge James J. McNeil – Norwich (city) Thomas P. Grace – Columbus Robert M. Jeffrey – Norwich (city) Marion L. Ireland – Coventry Evan T. Williams – Otselic Daniel S. Jack – German Dennis O. Brown – Pharsalia George G. Raymond, III – Greene Jeffrey B. Blanchard – Pitcher George J. Seneck – Guilford Grace A. Nucero-Alger – Plymouth Wayne C. Outwater – Lincklaen Peter C. Flanagan – Preston Arrington J. Canor – McDonough Charles A. Mastro – Sherburne Robert Starr – New Berlin Fred J. Heisler, Jr. – Smithville Robert E. Wansor – North Norwich Michael R. Khoury – Smyrna Former Supervisors In Office During Adoption Process George L. Westcott – Coventry Richard C. Schlag – German Jack T. Cook – Greene Jerry L Kreiner – Plymouth 2 | P a g e Chenango County Planning and Economic Development Committee David C. Law, Chairperson Dolores Nabinger Peter C. Flanagan Thomas P. Grace James J. McNeil Fred J. Heisler, Jr. Chenango County Department of Planning and Development Donna M. Jones, M.U.R.P. & M.L.Arch., County Planning Director Rena M. Doing, Planner Shane H. Butler, Planner Chenango County Planning and Development Board C. Paul Thomsen, Chair George J. Seneck, Supervisor Paul Romahn, Vice-Chair Thomas P. Grace, Supervisor Perry Owen, Secretary Alex Larsen Theodore Guinn, 239 Review Committee Chair Robert Davis Bruce O. Beadle, 239 Review Committee Vice-Chair Christopher Lyons Sally C. Chirlin Michael Flanagan Mission: To improve the quality of life of all residents of Chenango County in harmony with the rural character of its environs through a constancy of purpose. “Land of the Bullthistle” 3 | P a g e The Chenango County Department of Planning and Development prepared this plan with the assistance of various agencies and organizations: Chenango County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board Chenango County Agriculture Development Council Chenango County Area Agency on Aging Chenango County Clerk – Mary C. Weidman Chenango County Department of Information Technology Chenango County Department of Public Health Chenango County Department of Public Works Chenango County Emergency Management – Matthew Beckwith Chenango County Fire & Building Code Enforcement Chenango County Historian – Patricia Evans Chenango County Natural Gas Advisor – Steven Palmatier Chenango County Planning and Development Board Chenango County Real Property Tax Services City of Norwich Emergency Management – A. Wesley Jones City of Norwich Planning and Community Development – Todd Dreyer Commerce Chenango Cornell Cooperative Extension of Chenango County Opportunities for Chenango – Wayne Viera For information, including copies of this Plan, contact: Chenango County Department of Planning and Development 5 Court Street, Norwich, New York 13815 (607) 337-1640 / (607) 336-6551 (fax) [email protected] A downloadable copy of this Plan is available at; www.co.chenango.ny.us/Planning 4 | P a g e GUIDING CHENANGO A County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements Chapter 1 – Introduction……………………………………………………..…………. Page 7 Chapter 2 – Historical and Cultural Resources…………………………………….…. Page 11 Chapter 3 – Chenango County Overview…………………………………………….... Page 20 Chapter 4 – Land Use…………………………………………………………………… Page 51 Chapter 5 – Demographic Profile……………………………………………………… Page 60 Chapter 6 – Economic Base…………………………………………………………….. Page 67 Chapter 7 – Energy Resources…………………………………………………………. Page 69 Chapter 8 – Infrastructure……………………………………………………………... Page 88 Chapter 9 – Community Facilities…………………………………………………….. Page 106 Chapter 10 – Arts and Recreation…………………………………………………….. Page 145 Chapter 11 – Goals and Strategies for the Future….……………………………….... Page 150 Maps: Archeological Sensitivity……………………………………….…..…………...………… Page 19 Topography….……………………………………………………..………...…………… Page 24 Interpretation of Slopes……………………………………………..………...…………… Page 25 General Soil Map………………………………………………………………………….. Page 27 Soils…………..……………………………………………………..………...…………… Page 28 Susquehanna River Basin………………………………………………………………….. Page 33 Water Resources...…………………………………………………..………...…………… Page 36 Primary and Principal Aquifers……………………………………..………...…………… Page 39 NYSDEC Fresh Water Wetlands.…………………………………..………...…………… Page 42 FEMA Flood Zones..………………………………………………..………...…………… Page 46 Chenango County Trout Stocking…………………………………………………………. Page 49 Land Use…………………………………………………………………………………… Page 52 Marcellus Shale Fairway..………………………………………………………………….. Page 72 Utica Shale Fairway.……………………………………………………………………...... Page 73 5 | P a g e Geological Layers………………………………………………………………………….. Page 74 Marcellus Shale Thermal Maturity…..…………………………………………………...... Page 75 Total Organic Carbon of Marcellus Shale…………………………………………………. Page 76 Marcellus Shale Thickness...……………………………………………………….……..... Page 77 Thickness of High Organic Utica Shale...………………………………………….………. Page 78 Gas Transportation Information System..………………………………………….……..... Page 82 Annual Solar Insolation…..………………………………………………………………... Page 86 Annual Average Wind Speed.……………………………………………………………... Page 87 Existing Highway System………………………………………………………………….. Page 90 2000 Rural Functional Classification (Roads)……………………………………………... Page 91 Public Use Airports.…………………………………………………………………….….. Page 96 Railroads in New York State.………………………………………………………….…… Page 98 School Districts………………………………………………………………………….... Page 137 Snowmobile Trails………………………………………………………………………... Page 149 Photo 1: Sunset over Cook Pond 6 | P a g e GUIDING CHENANGO A County Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan (also known as a “Master Plan”) A comprehensive plan consists of the materials, written and/or graphic, including but not limited to maps, charts, studies, resolutions, reports, and other descriptive material that identify the goals, objectives, principles, guidelines, policies, standards, devices and instruments for the immediate and long-range protection, enhancement, growth and development of the municipality. New York State Chapter 418 of the Laws of the 1995 amending Town Law §272-a Purpose and Value of the Plan Chenango County prepared its first and only comprehensive plan in 1976, titled The Chenango County Comprehensive Plan – A Summary Report.1 In 2001, it became obvious the County needed to take a broad look at all of the issues affecting the County and to devise a plan to respond to the rapidly changing global and regional economy. A comprehensive view of the County was necessary; it was time to evaluate the County’s assets and trends and prepare a collective vision for the future of the County’s economy, facilities, and services. As a basis for this vision, the County wanted a plan that identified current needs and values of residents, businesses, and institutions as well as an evaluation of its heritage and cultural background. Comprehensive planning provides a community with the opportunity to guide future growth and development through the identification of key policies and goals of its residents with respect to public health, safety and general welfare. The purpose of a comprehensive plan is to provide a guide for all major decisions in pursuit of what the County wants to become in the future. The implementation of this plan, starting with its adoption and proceeding with recommendations, will provide the legal authority to direct development in a prescribed manner. The Chenango County Comprehensive Plan should be viewed as a guidance document. It is not meant to be rigid, dictating how and when actions are to be taken. Because it has been so long since the County has had a comprehensive plan to guide its future, it is important to view this plan as a starting point to modern day planning. One of the primary goals in preparing this particular plan was to be as comprehensive as possible. 1 Chenango County Planning and Development Board, and The Bailey Association. The Chenango County Comprehensive Plan, 1976. 7 | P a g e In other words, capture as many of the issues the community feels is important as possible. Consequently, the depth of discussion of specific topics is limited. Many issues and recommendations are going to warrant further study and more input from the public to provide the necessary detail to move forward. This plan provides the framework for the County to make reasonable, informed decisions on how to address the issues and concerns that presently face public officials. Like many communities, Chenango County does not have the necessary resources, financial, or otherwise, to accomplish all of the recommended actions to address every problem. However, with a plan in place, a proactive mindset, and community consensus on the issues and actions, the County can begin to realize beneficial change and progress towards the future in a well thought out and orderly fashion. The purpose of the Chenango County Comprehensive Plan is: . To be a statement of policy and a guide to future development patterns for Chenango County. To serve each municipality in its individual planning process. To guide growth to prevent haphazard and costly sprawl and protect valuable farmland. To encourage development of a sustainable economic base. To aid in obtaining state and federal assistance by establishing the prerequisites for such aid. To report key issues facing county residents. To promote political and technical coordination in community development. To inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pearly Mussels in NY State Susquehanna Watershed Paul H
    Pearly mussels in NY State Susquehanna Watershed Paul H. Lord, Willard N. Harman & Timothy N. Pokorny Introduction Preliminary Results Discussion Pearly mussels (unionids) New unionid SGCN identified • Mobile substrates appear exacerbated endangered native mollusks in Susquehanna River Watershed by surge stormwater inputs • Life cycle complex • Eastern Pearlshell (Margaritifera margaritifera) - made worse by impervious surfaces - includes fish parasitism -- in Otselic River headwaters • Unionids impacted - involves watershed quality parameters Historical SGCN found in many locations by ↓O2, siltation, endocrine disrupting chemicals • 4 Species of Greatest Conservation Need • Regularly downstream of extended riffle - from human watershed use (SGCN) historically found • Require minimally mobile substrates • River location consistency with old maps in NY State Susquehanna Watershed • No observed wastewater treatment plant impact associated with ↑ unionids - Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) -adult unionids more easily observed - Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) Table 1. NYSDEC freshwater pearly mussel “species of greatest conservation need” (SGCN) observed in the Upper Susquehanna from kayaks - Yellow Lamp Mussel (Lampsilis cariosa) Watershed while mapping and searching rivers in the summers of 2008 Elktoe -Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata) and 2009. Brook Floater = Alasmidonta varicosa; elktoe = Alasmidonta • Prior sampling done where convenient marginata; green floater = Lasmigona subviridis; yellow lamp mussel = - normally at intersection
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Action Plan 2019
    Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Communities Program Annual Action Plan Program Year 2019 Prepared by the City of Watertown Planning and Community Development Department 245 Washington Street Watertown, NY 13601 Adopted- May 20, 2019 Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction This document represents the City of Watertown’s Annual Action Plan for Program Year 2019 for the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The City became an Entitlement Community under the CDBG Program for the first time in 2014 and developed a two-year Consolidated Plan to start the program. In 2016, the City developed its first five-year Consolidated Plan, which was written in conjunction with the North Country Home Consortium’s (NCHC) Consolidated Plan. The NCHC represents a three county area consisting of Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence counties and receives annual funding from the HOME Investment Partnership program. This plan is the fourth Annual Action Plan that has been developed using the five-year Consolidated Plan that covers Program Years 2016- 2020. The City’s 2016-2020 Consolidated Plan goals include neighborhood stabilization and revitalization, affordable housing rehabilitation, homeownership assistance, fair housing education, homeless assistance, support of public services and job support and creation. The plan was developed through extensive public outreach and citizen participation that included two public meetings, a public hearing and individual outreach to numerous partner agencies identified in our Citizen Participation Plan. The City’s 2016 Annual Action Plan emphasized the City’s three primary goals of neighborhood stabilization and revitalization, affordable housing rehabilitation and homeownership assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Use Trails
    Multi-Use Trails Trail Name Terrain Length Surface Access Erwin Park, Route 12, Boonville; Dutch Hill Black River Feeder Canal Trail Flat 10 miles Stone Dust Road, Forestport New Hartford Street, New Hartford; Clinton Street, New Y ork Mills; Herkimer- Madison- Philip A. Rayhill Memorial T rail Flat 4 miles Asphalt Oneida BOCES, Middlesettlement Road, New Hartford; Clark Mills Road, Whitestown. Intersection of Routes 12B & 233; Kirkland; Chenango Canal Towpath Trail Flat 4 miles Stone Dust Dugway Road, Kirkland; Route 315, Boonville Blac k River Canal Intersection of Routes 12 & 12D, Boonville; Rolling 7 miles Grass Trail Pixley Falls State Park, Route 46, Boonville Adirondack Railroad Station, Thendara; Asphalt, Visitor Information Center, Old Forge; Big T OBIE T rail Flat & Rolling 12 miles Stone Dust Moose Road, Eagle Bay; Route 28, Inlet & Dirt (Hamilton County) Erie Canalway T rail Route 49, northeast of State Bridge; Erie Syracuse (Onondaga County) Flat 36 miles Stone Dust Canal Lock 21, Verona; Erie Canal Village, to Rome Rout e 49, Rome Intersection of Routes 69/365, Stanwix; Asphalt & River Street, Oriskany; Route 291, Marcy; Stanwix to Utic a Flat 13 miles Stone Dust Mohawk Street, Marcy; Barnes Ave, Utica; North Genesee Street, Utica MOVAC, Intersection of Routes 28 & 5S, Mohawk to German Flatts Flat 2 miles Asphalt Mohawk; Fort Herkimer Churc h, German Flatts Erie Canal Lock 17, Little Falls; Finks Basin Little Falls to Minden Flat 9 miles Stone Dust Road, Little Falls; Herkimer Home Historic (Montgomery County) Site, Route 169, Little Falls Erie Canalway Trail photos courtesy of HOCTS staff 6 Black River Feeder Canal Trail See Maps E and E-1 The approximately 10-mile Black River Feeder Canal trail is part of a New York State Canal Cor- poration improvement project to rehabilitate the towpath that follows the Black River Feeder Ca- nal.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 4/5/1941 - 4/7/1941
    Flood Event of 4/5/1941 - 4/7/1941 Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chemung 16.00 4/6/1941 16.92 55,300 Minor Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 4/6/1941 30.09 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Main Stem Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Monroeton 14.00 4/5/1941 14.20 8,640 Minor Upper Main Stem Towanda Creek Bradford Bradford Susquehanna Towanda 16.00 4/6/1941 18.47 122,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Bradford Bradford Susquehanna Wilkes-Barre 22.00 4/7/1941 23.50 138,000 Minor Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Luzerne Luzerne Susquehanna North Branch Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chenango Forks 10.00 4/7/1941 11.86 29,000 Minor North Branch Chenango River Broome Broome Susquehanna Cincinnatus 9.00 4/6/1941 9.44 4,980 Minor North Branch Otselic River Cortland Cortland Susquehanna Conklin 11.00 4/6/1941 13.40 24,900 Minor North Branch North Branch Broome Broome Susquehanna Susquehanna River Cortland 8.00 4/6/1941 12.49 7,880 Moderate North Branch Tioughnioga River Cortland Cortland Susquehanna Sherburne 8.00 4/6/1941 9.25 4,960 Moderate North Branch Chenango River Chenango Chenango Susquehanna Vestal 18.00 4/7/1941 20.29 53,400 Minor North Branch North Branch Broome Broome Susquehanna Susquehanna River Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 2 Waverly 11.00 4/6/1941 14.75 68,500 Minor North Branch North Branch Bradford Tioga Susquehanna Susquehanna River Weather Summary The weather summary is unavailable at this time.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Final Phase II Report
    REVISED DRAFT FINAL REPORT NNYYSS RROOUUTTEE 1122 CCOORRRRIIDDOORR SSTTUUDDYY PPHHAASSEE IIII Broome, Chenango, Madison & Oneida Counties Prepared For: New York State Department of Transportation October 2008 NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II DRAFT FINAL REPORT NYS ROUTE 12 CORRIDOR STUDY PHASE II October 2008 Prepared For : New York State Department of Transportation Region 2 Region 9 207 Genesee Street 44 Hawley Street Utica, New York 13501 Binghamton, New York 13901 In Conjunction With: Broome County Chenango County 47 Thomas Road 79 Rexford Street Binghamton, New York 13901 Norwich, New York 13815 Madison County Oneida County 139 North Court Street 321 Main Street Wampsville, New York 13163 Utica, NY 13501 And the Route 12 Task Force Prepared By : Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Wilbur Smith Associates 290 Elwood Davis Road 1301 Gervais Street Box 3107 P.O. Box 92 Syracuse, New York 13220 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 October 2008 - i - NYS Route 12 Corridor Study – Phase II TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Phase II Objectives 1.2 Description of Study Area 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 NY-12 Function 2.2 Analysis of Corridor Community Land Use 2.3 Analysis of Corridor – Base Maps 2.4 Traffic Data and Analysis 2.5 Phase I Report 2.6 Endangered and Threatened Species Inquiry 2.7 Origin-Destination Analysis 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 3.1 Public Meeting Schedule & Locations 3.2 Website 3.3 Distributed Materials 3.4 Comments Received 4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4.1 Problem Identification 5. LONG RANGE ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Evaluation Criteria 5.2 Preliminary Alternatives Considered 1. I-88 Connector 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Energy Direct Project Docket No. Pf14-22-000
    NORTHEAST ENERGY DIRECT PROJECT DOCKET NO. PF14-22-000 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT RESOURCE REPORT 10 ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC Submitted by: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 1001 Louisiana Street Houston, Texas 77002 November 2014 Environmental Report NED Project Resource Report 10 Alternatives 10-i RESOURCE REPORT 10 – ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY OF FILING INFORMATION INFORMATION FOUND IN Address the “no action” alternative (§ 380.12 (l)(1)). Section 10.1 For large Projects, address the effect of energy conservation or Section 10.1.1 energy alternatives to the Project Section 10.1.2 (§ 380.12 (l)(1)). Identify system alternatives considered during the identification of the Project and provide the rationale for rejecting each Section 10.2 alternative (§ 380.12 (l)(1)). Identify major and minor route alternatives considered to avoid impact on sensitive environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, parks, Section 10.3 or residences) and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed route (§ 380.12 (l)(2)(ii)). Identify alternative sites considered for the location of major new aboveground facilities and provide sufficient comparative Sections 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6 data to justify the selection of the proposed site (§ 380.12 (l)(2)(ii)). November 2014 Environmental Report NED Project Resource Report 10 Alternatives 10-ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BRIDGE POINT MELROSE PARK Bridgepmp.Com | Melrose Park, IL
    BRIDGE POINT MELROSE PARK bridgepmp.com | Melrose Park, IL AVAILABLE SPACE Up to 1,539,780 SF # OF BUILDINGS 1 - 3 CLEAR HEIGHT 36' - 40' NEW INFILL DEVELOPMENT O'HARE / WEST COOK SUBMARKET LAND SIZE HIGHLIGHTS 86.63 Acres • High profile location for labor and last mile distribution • Class A buildings with state-of-the-art • Unmatched connectivity to local expressways, specifications DELIVERY DATE intermodal centers, and O'Hare International Airport • Only site in O'Hare / West Cook submarket which • Direct access to Interstate 290 and Interstate 294 can accommodate over 500,000 SF building Q2 2023 • Potential for built-to-suit development with flexibility in • Site offers flexibility to accommodate heavy trailer design and layout parking CHARLIE KENNING BRIAN CARROLL Executive Vice President Senior Vice President [email protected] [email protected] +1 773 304 4117 +1 773 632 1102 CONCEPT PLAN #1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY 3 Clear Height: 40' 56'-6" Exterior Docks: 130 (expandable to 148) (89) 5 5 70'-0" TRAILER POSITIONS 1 3 1 5 13 15 Drive-In Doors: 4 (65) EXTERIOR DOCKS (9) FUTURE EXTERIOR DOCKS 2 2 22 707,953 SF 60'-0" D.I.D. D.I.D. 1180'-0" Car Parking: 610 stalls 60'-0" 121'-0" 121'-0" 50'-0" 2 0 2 0 50'-0" 1080'-0" 4 0 20 20 40 (20)BAYS @ 54'-0" 10'-0" Trailer Parking: 178 stalls 16'-4" 10'-0" Truck Court: 130' (10) B A Y S @ 48'-0" PROPOSED 2 0 20 40 20 20 Spec Office: To suit 40 480'-0" 600'-0" FACILITY #3 ±707,953 SQ.FT.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
    'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
    [Show full text]
  • Chenango Canal History Review by Diane Van Slyke
    Chenango Canal Review, by Diane Van Slyke “Chenango” was the Indian word for bull-thistle. When the Chenango Valley was first settled, pioneers came from the east and were not prepared to face the rolling dense forest of hemlock, oak and pine and bull-thistles that covered the Southern Tier of New York State. The local Native Americans showed them how to chop and burn the tree stumps to clear the land and plant corn, beans and squash. Water was a means of transportation and survival. The fastest way to travel south was by raft and pole by Indian guide along the streams to the Susquehanna River. Traveling back east was by a narrow Indian path, which is today’s Rte. 20. The Erie Canal was built by 1825 and provided a super water-highway to the vast west, (Buffalo!). It connected the Great Lakes to the Hudson River to the port of New York City, making New York State known as the great Empire State. This developed New York City as an international trade center, and grew Buffalo from 200 settlers to 18,000 people by 1840. While all this was developing, it took 19 years for 9 leaders of the “Chenango Canal Committee” to get NYS legislature to pass a $1million bill approving construction of the Chenango Canal. This was important to the Chenango Valley, which included all of Madison County, to link the newly discovered coal mines in Pennsylvania to the Erie Canal. Construction started in 1834. Immigrant workers from Ireland and Scotland were lured here by a pay scale that was three times a common laborer’s wages: $11 per month.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: a Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007
    Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducted a water quality and biological survey of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin from June to September 2007. This survey is part of SRBC’s Subbasin Survey Program, which is funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Subbasin Survey Program consists of two- year assessments in each of the six major subbasins (Figure 1) on a rotating schedule. This report details the Year-1 survey, which consists of point-in-time water chemistry, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data collection and assessments of the major tributaries and areas of interest throughout the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin. The Year-2 survey will be conducted in the Tioughnioga River over a one-year time period beginning in summer 2008. The Year-2 survey is part of a larger monitoring effort associated with an environmental restoration effort at Whitney Point Lake. Previous SRBC surveys of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin were conducted in 1998 (Stoe, 1999) and 1984 (McMorran, 1985). Subbasin survey information is used by SRBC staff and others to: • evaluate the chemical, biological, and habitat conditions of streams in the basin; • identify major sources of pollution and lengths of streams impacted; • identify high quality sections of streams that need to be protected; • maintain a database that can be used to document changes in stream quality over time; • review projects affecting water quality in the basin; and • identify areas for more intensive study. Description of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin The Upper Susquehanna Subbasin is an interstate subbasin that drains approximately 4,950 square miles of southcentral New York and a small portion of northeastern Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NFS Form 10-900-b / I^^^^Jj^^D S^firTl OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. 13 New Submission [~l Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing__________________________________________________ The Historic and Engineering Resources of the Chenango Canal B. Associated Historic Contexts______________________________________________________ The History of Engineering and Navigation of the Chenango Canal C. Form Prepared by name/title Anthony Opalka organization New York State Historic Preservation Office date__March 2005 street & number PQ Box 189 telephone 518-237-8643 city or town Waterford state New York .zip code_ 12188 Edited by: Mark Peckham D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4: County Profile
    SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE Broome County profile information is presented in the plan and analyzed to develop an understanding of a study area, including the economic, structural, and population assets at risk and the particular concerns that may be present related to hazards analyzed later in this plan (e.g., low lying areas prone to flooding or a high percentage of vulnerable persons in an area). This profile provides general information for Broome County (physical setting, population and demographics, general building stock, and land use and population trends) and critical facilities located within the County. GENERAL INFORMATION Broome County is a rural community located within the south-central part or “Southern Tier” of New York State. The Southern Tier is a geographical term that refers to the counties of New York State that lie west of the Catskill Mountains, along the northern border of Pennsylvania. Broome County lies directly west of Delaware County, 137 miles southwest of Albany and approximately 177 miles northwest of New York City. Broome County occupies approximately 715 square miles and has a population of approximately 199,031 (U.S. Census, 2011). Broome County is one of the 62 counties in New York State and is comprised of one city, sixteen towns, seven villages and many hamlets. The City of Binghamton is the County seat and is located at the confluence of the Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers. The City of Binghamton is part of the “Triple Cities,” which also includes the Villages of Endicott and Johnson City. With two Interstates and a major state route intersecting in the City of Binghamton, the area is the crossroads of the Southern Tier.
    [Show full text]